Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1)

notes significant community concern regarding the clarity, simplicity and accuracy of food labelling, including labelling identifying the:

(a)

origin of the food;

(b)

nutritional value of the food; and

(c)

food production methods used, including the use of food technologies;

(2)

recognises that:

(a)

adequate food labelling laws should aim foremost to protect the health and safety of consumers and eliminate deceitful or misleading labelling information;

(b)

having clear, simple and accurate labelling on food empowers consumers and enables them to make informed food choices; and

(c)

for food labelling laws to be effective, they need to be rigorously and consistently enforced;

(3)

supports the Australian and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council’s establishment of an independent review into food labelling; and

(4)

encourages the Government and State and Territory governments to examine the results of this review, and work together to ensure that our food labelling laws deliver the outcomes our community desires.

I am very pleased to move and speak to this motion about the inadequacy of food labelling. We are spoiled for choice when it comes to food. When you walk through your local supermarket you will see many types of food packaged in so many ways from all over the world. While this variety is something that we can all enjoy, without simple, accurate and clear labelling it is extremely difficult for consumers to make informed choices about what they are eating and where it comes from. Australians are entitled to know what is in their food and how and where their food is made. While I recognise that there is limited space on labels, the limited space that is available should display information that allows consumers to have the confidence to make an informed choice.

There can be no question that there is a wide-ranging number of issues relating to food labelling; however, today I propose to highlight just a few of the key issues. Country of origin is one area that there is significant consumer interest in. While country of origin information is available on a number of food products it is not consistently applied on all processed and unprocessed food or for all key ingredients. Many consumers tell me that they want to buy Australian grown and manufactured food. Consumers want to buy Australian food not only to support Australian farmers, although this is often a big motivation, but for health and safety reasons. Consumers have confidence in Australian farming practices, including things such as the chemicals used and the type of environment the food is grown in. But they are not equally confident about the standards and environment for growing food in other countries.

Therefore, it is no wonder that there is significant frustration in the community when labels that read ‘made in Australia from local and imported ingredients’ are often seen on the shelves. If a claim is qualified by adding the ‘and imported ingredients’ tag there seem to be no criteria to measure it against. As a result, a consumer buying this product has no idea how much or what part of the food is processed in Australia or, indeed, what part is processed overseas. I have been contacted by many constituents who have looked into this and after investigation have found that food that claims to be made from Australian and important ingredients contains up to 95 per cent imported ingredients.

Furthermore, consumers who read a label that states ‘from imported ingredients’ have no idea where the imported ingredients come from, making it very hard for them to make informed choices. Providing a geographic origin of all food and major ingredients will go a significant way in helping consumers make informed choices about what they are buying. In addition, there are many labelling slogans that are used to market how Australian these products are. Statements such as ‘manufactured in Australia’, ‘Australian owned’ and ‘product of Australia’ are all often seen on labels. These claims are confusing to consumers when they are trying to determine how much of the food product actually comes from Australia.

Even when there are criteria for labels such as ‘made in Australia’, many consumers do not realise that those criteria mean that the product must have been substantially transformed in Australia and that 50 per cent or more of the cost of producing or manufacturing the product occurred in Australia. Many consumers, even if they knew about the criteria, would find it hard to determine what this actually means when it comes to food. The reason for this is that the criteria for the label ‘made in Australia’ does not apply just to food; it also applies to whitegoods and clothing.

Food is different from other goods and this was recently recognised though the Australian Made, Australian Grown campaign which provides the ‘Australian grown’ certification. Products that display an ‘Australian made’ logo or an ‘Australian grown’ logo must meet the compliance test set out in the Trade Practices Act and the campaign’s own code of practice. The code of practice clearly defines what is meant by ‘made in Australia’ but also what is meant by ‘grown in Australia’. The development of this logo is very important and encouraging. It will be very important to encourage food producers to use the logo and for consumers to be educated to look for this logo.

In addition to the claims about the origin of food, there are many other claims made on food labels that are confusing for consumers. Often these claims are used as a marketing tool—slogans such as ‘natural’, ‘pure’, ‘fresh’ or ‘free range’, just to name a few. For many of these descriptors there is no definition or guidelines for use within the Food Standards Code, effectively making these terms meaningless to the consumer. It is therefore not surprising that a Choice investigation demonstrated that claims such as these on labels did not come close to meeting consumer expectations. And while the ACCC has established industry guidelines for these terms, ensuring that there is a shared definition that both industry and consumers understand could significantly help consumers make an informed decision. Some progress has been made—for example, an Australian standard has been decided on organic and biodynamic products, which can guide the ACCC. However, this standard does not contain mandatory criteria in relation to such claims.

Health experts are becoming more and more alarmed about the impact that obesity is having on our health, especially with chronic diseases. There is an increase in the incidence of diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and reducing our intake of fats, salt and sugar does help prevent such diseases. However, with so much choice in packaged and pre-prepared food it can difficult for consumers to determine how much fat, salt and sugar they are eating. While packaged food does display nutritional tables on the back of packets, the tables are often difficult to read, are in very small print and, if you have been able to read them, are difficult to understand.

Competing with these nutritional tables on food labels are the many marketing claims proclaiming health benefits. These are much more prominent—they are usually on the front of the package—but they rarely provide an overall rating of how healthy a product is. I, like many others in this chamber I am sure, have been caught out by this. For example, I once opted for a yoghurt that was labelled ‘96 per cent fat free’ only to realise some time later, and after a little weight gain, that while the manufacturers had reduced the fat they had also increased the sugar content.

Clear and consistent food labelling against objective criteria, providing an overall nutritional value, is really important. Not only is it important for the consumer; it also has huge potential in supporting preventative health strategies and improving the overall health of our community. There have been a number of submissions made to the food labelling review that have argued that simple front-of-package labelling such as traffic light labelling would significantly assist consumers in making healthier choices. In particular, it would help consumers who might not have as much knowledge or be as literate as others. While traffic light labelling on the front of the packet is just one example of how we can better provide nutritional information, I do believe that we need to seriously consider how better to present nutritional information on food to help consumers make healthy choices. Ensuring consumers have accurate and consistent simple information on labels is an issue that many in our community are concerned about. It is an area which many in our community believe can be improved.

In part of this motion I have specified the importance of enforcement. Enforcing the presentation of clear and accurate information is really important. I have often used, in this place, olive oil as an example. Many people have come to see me with a belief that some of the imported olive oils, labelled extra virgin olive oil, are not accurately labelled. After investigation, the ACCC has indeed found that some of the imported olive oils that proclaim to be extra virgin olive oil actually contain canola oil and are not the purest form of olive oil. So enforcement is very critical. There is some division on the issue of enforcement between the states and territories and the ACCC. I hope that better coordination arises on the issue of enforcement so that we can make sure that what is on the label is actually what people are eating.

I would like to take this opportunity to note that there is a formal review into the issue of food labelling currently being undertaken, headed by Dr Neal Blewett. This is a very important review and I am very pleased that it is happening. I look forward to examining the review’s recommendations when it is released early next year. Australian consumers want to be confident in the food choices they make and the information needs to be easily accessible. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I was only given the option to speak on this motion on food labelling a couple of hours ago, I do welcome the opportunity because, whether it is in the supermarkets in my electorate of Cowan or in shops across the whole country, members would be aware that people picking up products from the shelves now tend to read the labels. It is something that people are doing more and more. The question, though—and it has been properly brought out as well—is: how accurate is that information?

One of the first things I always look for is where a product was made but, as we have heard, the accuracy of that information is questionable; the information given on production locations is unreliable. Wherever Australians are shopping—whether in IGA supermarkets, or at Coles, Woolworths or Action—people want certainty. More and more people are taking that sense of personal responsibility for their diets to heart. That is not meant to be a pun, but we must think about what we are putting into our bodies and what effect it has on us. It is true to say that we do not ultimately control our physical health by just what we eat. We must make efforts on the streets or in the gyms. The idea of everything in moderation and more exercise is always a good thing. Nevertheless, the idea of personal responsibility is being more and more embraced by people looking at the labels of products on the supermarket shelves.

The IGAs are importers of food, and in my area I see food, such as prawns, that has come from the Bay of Bengal or China and such places. There are stories about the somewhat questionable way in which that food might have been grown. So we look to food labelling for assurance that it is good and safe. It is the expectation of the majority of people in this country that what you see on the label is actually accurate. If the figures look okay, and if the label mentions Australia, there is a great sense of confidence. Unfortunately, though, such confidence has to be questioned. That is why I am very happy to see that the independent review will report just a couple of months down the track. Following its presentation to government, that report will be made available, in February 2011, to the Council of Australian Governments. We certainly look forward to seeing some good recommendations out of that independent review.

It is a complicated business. There is no doubt about it. I have read some of the submissions so far. There have been around 6,000 submissions, as I understand it. When you look at some of the very practical suggestions that have been made or even questions raised by various organisations you realise that this is a complicated business. It would be nice to have full disclosure and full information on nutritional value, country of origin, method of growing and everything else like that, but we cannot have a book attached to the food either. I think when you get down to it a lot of the submissions are going to come from people who really know what they are talking about and who are going to be able to provide practical solutions. You need to have a label on food that people understand is standardised so that everybody knows that we are all singing off the same sheet of music and people can pick a product off the shelf and look at it and know exactly what they are getting.

Of course, that is always complicated. There are variances between the processing and manufacturing in different places and there is the need for continual testing. It is an expensive process and a complicated one. But that is why we have these independent reviews. They give people with real knowledge and experience in these matters the opportunity to really make a difference. The reality is—and there is no doubt about this—that what the Australian people want is confidence. They want the labelling of food to be standardised. They do not want states to get in the way either. When people pick up a bottle of Vegemite—not that I would ever pick up a bottle of Vegemite—or any other sort of food, whether they are in New South Wales, Western Australia, Victoria or South Australia, they want to be able to see that there is a standard and that they can have confidence in what they are reading and looking at. This is important to the Australian people.

We do not want the states getting in the way, as I said before. So when this report is tabled we obviously will expect the government and the Council of Australian Governments—all the state and territory governments—to come to the party and make sure that we get something in place which is going to have a real benefit for people. As I said, whether it is in the IGAs in Cowan or in the Woolworths of Sydney or Melbourne, the system should be standardised so that people know exactly what they are getting. It is going to be difficult, of course. There is no doubt about that. But that is what is expected. Food labelling is what provides people with information. It provides them with information at the moment when they make a choice: ‘Do I want to go for something that is made in Indonesia or do I want to go for something that is made in Australia, and was it actually made in Australia?’ These things are important. This is what people look for.

The reality is that this should never be looked upon as some sort of opportunity to reduce free trade and to reimpose trade restrictions, because that is not the way the world has gone with the global economy and the many free trade agreements and bilateral agreements that we are entering into. This needs to be kept open. Food labelling should not get in the way of that. But, in any case, there is still a necessity to protect consumers. Australians want to know that what they are eating is safe and they want to know what they are actually eating. Clearly I am no expert on these matters, but we look to the independent review to provide the mechanism for this issue to be moved forward so we can get that standardisation. I certainly welcome that and look forward to that being produced.

What is also required is enforcement. Ultimately you can have every rule and law that there is to control everything but until there is someone there on the ground who is actually going to enforce them and stop people from doing the wrong thing it is pointless having them. So as part of this independent review it would be good to see consideration of whether the ACCC has enough powers to act and look after this issue or whether we need another organisation to look at this and be the watchdog out there on the ground, whether it is on the borders or generally testing across this country, to make sure that the laws are maintained, upheld and enforced. I look forward to the final submission from the independent review. I look forward to hearing what the government has to say about it and how each of the governments across the country react. There must be standardisation. The people of Australia expect it. People want confidence when they are buying and eating their food.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise and speak in support of the motion from the member for Kingston, and I congratulate her on raising this important issue here in the House. I also congratulate her on her stunning election result, as I do you, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, and my other colleagues in the House, and to new members I extend a welcome as well. My region of Tasmania has been prominent in raising the issue of farm and food labelling in particular for some time, with many Braddon farmers and their supporters bringing their tractors to parliament, as you might remember, in 2005. This was an attempt to highlight the plight of farmers who felt they were getting the raw end of the deal through unclear, confusing and, dare I say, even deceptive food labelling. I do not think that would be disagreed with by just about any member of this House.

Unfortunately, despite such a well-publicised and visual campaign, the case for better labelling still exists and another, independent, review—which has been mentioned by my colleagues—is now underway. I might be able to comment on that in a moment. While my colleague the member for Kingston has outlined the broader case, let me concentrate on the need for better labelling of vegetables. It is my contention that many people would buy more Australian food products if they could quickly and easily see that they were ‘Made in Australia’. By that I do not mean food products whose packaging was made here and then filled with an imported or partly imported product; I am talking about food products that were grown, harvested, processed and packed here. That should be ‘Made in Australia’. At present, it is difficult for even the experts to differentiate between the two, so how much more of a problem would it be for the average shopper?

Under the Trade Practices Act and food standards code, ‘Made in Australia’ can be used in the labelling of processed vegetables if more than 50 per cent of the value of the product is added in Australia, regardless of where the vegetables come from. The cost of the container or labelling can amount to up to 50 per cent of the product’s value, while the vegetables inside can come from almost anywhere. My own region has recently felt the impact of the vagaries in the international processed vegetable market with McCain Foods shutting down its vegetable factory in Smithton with the loss of 200 jobs and cutting the crops for about 100 growers. This, by the way, came out of the blue and without notice. It is a tough business, but Australians have a right to know exactly what they are buying.

I know the growers in my region are amongst the best in the world, and often they are required to meet numerous standards and regulations at home, while imported vegetables can fly under the radar; so real, accurate labelling would make the choice easier for people. Opponents argue that this is a disguised form of protectionism designed to impose a trade barrier on imported products. Obviously I would prefer people to be eating peas from Penguin and beans from Beulah—it supports the local economy and jobs—but I also believe that people should not have to try to work out which ‘Aussie’ vegetables are really grown, and not just packed, here. Current labelling standards are just not up to scratch. If people are given the chance to buy real Australian products, then the quality will win them over—I am confident of that.

Vegetable growing and processing is vital to my region and a number of other regions in this country. This was demonstrated at the recent election, when I was happy to stand alongside the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Carr, at the Simplot vegetable plant in Ulverstone. The Labor government pledged $3 million to help Simplot upgrade the Ulverstone plant to enable it to use natural gas, so securing 600 jobs and the future of this industry. Providing accurate labelling will also help to sustain this industry, and I note that it is in an area where Simplot has been taking a leadership role in the promotion of its own locally produced vegetables.

We should not be forcing people to buy Australian, but we should be giving them accurate and easy-to-read information which will allow them to make the choice. True labelling will be a vital part of helping farmers and the community to make healthy and informed choices, and I commend the motion to the House. I judge that all those opposite and on this side want something done, and we will have the opportunity to do something when that independent report is handed down. Perhaps then this House will do something of substance on this matter.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kingston for bringing this important motion on food labelling before the House. Anyone who watched the story Fight of Their Lives on Channel 7’s Sunday Night program would be in no doubt of the need for clarity in food labelling. The program graphically detailed the destruction of pygmy elephant and orangutan habitats in Borneo for the production of palm oil, which under current Australian laws needs only to be labelled as vegetable oil. Following the program many constituents contacted my office worried that they have no way of determining whether the products they are purchasing in their supermarkets contain the oil originating from these destructive plantations. One constituent even said that they would no longer purchase any product they suspected of having ingredients—which could include vegetable oil, margarine, emulsifiers, coca butter substitute or palm stearine—from such plantations.

The palm oil controversy reinforces my long-held belief that consumers should be empowered with clear information so that they can make an informed choice about both the content of their food and its production origins. In recent years we have seen the Chinese milk melamine scare, which hospitalised 53,000 children and tragically caused four deaths in China. Then there was the worry that vegetables imported from China to Australia were also contaminated with melamine and a separate episode involving an E. coli scare. In fact, E. coli bacteria were found in salad leaves being imported to Australia. Consumers would be rightly horrified to learn that such tainted overseas products could make their way to Australian shelves, in some cases bearing the mark ‘Made in Australia’. As long as more than 50 per cent of the cost of production or manufacture of a product is incurred in Australia, the current laws allow the use of the ‘Made in Australia’ or ‘Produced in Australia’ label.

As I pointed out to this House in 2008 and 2009, gherkins, for example, could be grown overseas and only bottled in Australia but still bear the tag ‘Made in Australia’. In bringing the issue to the attention of the House on 10 February 2009 I called on the government to act immediately to implement not only truth in labelling but also a trace forward-trace back system, similar to the system in force in the United States, on food products. It is important that we be able to trace the origin of food and that the government move quickly to ensure that all food products be correctly labelled and retailers comply with the rules. Today I reiterate that call. Increasing concern not only about sustainable practices but also and even more importantly about the health and viability of the food industry and Australia’s food security makes addressing food labelling an extremely important issue. It goes to the health of our nation’s children as well as to all who consume food. So it is a critical issue.

As part of its terms of reference, outlined in the consultation paper released in March this year, the review to be undertaken by the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council speaks of investigating what role government should play in food labelling policy. With rising rates of obesity, diabetes, allergies and disorders related to food—not to mention the five million Australians who get a food related illness every year—the government should foremost promote healthy food options, and that means supporting locally grown, fresh produce, governed by Australia’s high health and hygiene standards.

The terms of reference also note—almost cautioning against giving too much assistance to Australian producers—that one policy reason for labelling is to ‘provide a fair playing field to competitors in the food industry’. I think we ought to be fair to our local producers and give them an even chance. As the member for Braddon said, if consumers have an option in the supermarket and at the markets, they will choose fresh over imports. We can see this through the proliferation of local growers markets all over Australia. I think it is high time that the government took note of the public enthusiasm in this regard. It is now up to the government to show leadership and political will and to make good on this very significant issue to implement truth in labelling on all food products imported into this country.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak in support of the motion on food labelling and to congratulate the member for Kingston for bringing the motion before the House. I know how passionate she is about this subject, being the member for a region where growers produce some of the best extra virgin olive oil in the world and knowing how important it is to safeguard the good name of the olive oil and other produce which comes from the region south of the metropolitan area.

Few topics arouse as much passion within my electorate of Hindmarsh and beyond as the subject of food, be it the jobs that food production provides or, in this case, the nature—for lack of a better term—of the food which we eat. Few topics incubate fear like a food scare, substantiated or otherwise, and the sickness and even death that are feared to be knocking on the inside of the refrigerator door. The nature of what we consume, the food we ingest, should be our choice.

We have heard all the speakers on this motion say how important it is that we have that choice, that we know where a particular product is produced and what ingredients it contains and that that information is easily accessible. In a society based on political equality, a market economy and the freedoms that these features give, the consumer’s right to choose what he or she eats is important. This right is common sense. It is self-evident. This is at the heart of the community’s passion for food labelling and at the heart of its interest in the current independent review of labelling laws.

The review’s first round of public consultation commenced on 26 October 2009 and was open for about one month, in which time interested stakeholders were invited to make brief written submissions on food labelling issues. Over 6,600 submissions were received. In excess of 6,000 of these were from consumers and more than 5,000 were from coordinated campaigns focused on GM, nanotechnology, additives and allergens. The submissions were used to prepare an issues paper, which received further submissions and which will be used to prepare a report to COAG in December this year. The review is important for re-establishing what people want in our nation’s laws, what we as a people need in our laws and how all of this can be done effectively and fairly. The greatest consideration is, I believe, public confidence in the laws and the labels that industry prepares for the consumer’s benefit as a result of the laws. It is this public confidence in food labelling that all of us hope the overall review process will be able to increase.

Naturally, people want numerous things from any one label—information on health safety; health benefits; and details of ingredients, their composition, their origin and their path to the table—all in a succinct and easy to digest spread. There is clear demand for what could, in total, amount to potentially vast amounts of information on labels. I am sure we are all frustrated by the ‘Made in Australia’ and ‘Product of Australia’ tags and the ability to dilute the true meaning of these labels. If no other matter were constructively resolved by this review and the resultant legislation, I would hope that this would be.

I would like to draw your attention to some of the submissions to the review. Each is interesting in its own way. One person, Pamela Williams, who has been fighting chronic kidney disease, wrote of the difficulty in finding information on potassium and especially the phosphorus content of food products—elements best avoided to maintain what health kidney disease sufferers are able to maintain. She submits that there is no phosphorus information on labels. While some products’ contents can be researched online, others are not even that transparent. This is one area where a current omission in labelling laws may well have a very real impact on a person’s health. While fat and salt content can be labelled, perhaps phosphorous and other elements can be also. How many other chemicals or compounds could be a very real issue to people with any one of myriad chronic diseases in our society? Can we realistically demand that industry list them all? (Time expired)

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join with the House in commending the member for Kingston for raising this issue, which is of significant concern not only to consumers but to industry groups and, of course, governments. The concern is widespread and I freely acknowledge that there are no easy solutions to the problem of food labelling. I think the labels themselves are confusing at best and deceptive at worst. As the member for Kingston rightly pointed out in her presentation, there is strong emotional support within our community for a ‘buy Australian’ promotion. Consumers are keen to support Australian made products and Australian grown products, but it is difficult to do that under the current food labelling arrangements. Even with the best will in the world it is almost impossible to track down with great confidence the country of origin of many of our food products.

What our constituents are looking for is a simple, accurate and clear labelling system. When you go to the supermarket on a daily basis you are looking for clear labelling to provide you with confidence in the products you are purchasing. I think today’s debate is something that most Australians can relate to. Unlike some of the debates we have in this chamber, this is certainly not an abstract debate; this is something that affects people on a day-to-day basis. I commend the member for Kingston on that. As I think both sides of the House have acknowledged in today’s debate, the current system is broken and we simply need to do better. The Australian public are expecting us to do better in the future. It is in the interests of consumers and it is also in the interests of our local agricultural industry.

In my seat of Gippsland, where we have a strong reputation for clean and green food products, there is a great deal of angst among the farming sector. They are frustrated by the current labelling laws. They believe that if Australian consumers knew more about where their food was being produced they would be more likely to support Australian farmers and the farmers would be more likely to be able to command a premium price for their goods in the future. People want to buy Australian products and support our farmers because they quite rightly believe that they can be more confident about the quality of the product, the production techniques and how the product is being brought to the marketplace. So I believe it is very important from that particular perspective.

I want to touch on the comments made by the member for Pearce in relation to truth in labelling. The motion refers to having clear labelling to protect the health and safety of consumers and eliminate deceitful or misleading labelling information. I want to briefly broaden the debate to cover the seafood industry in Lakes Entrance. I have received correspondence from the Lakes Entrance Fishermen’s Cooperative in relation to the food labelling and country of origin laws as they relate to cooked seafood. This is a major concern for the fishing industry. I want to quote from a letter from the general manager of the cooperative, Mr Dale Sumner. He said:

Of continued major concern to our members is that of cheap imported seafood, as a net importer of seafood the concern is not about the imports themselves but how they have an unfair advantage on the market as a result of the Country of Origin labeling laws failing to inform the Australian consumer on all occasions.

               …            …            …

The major failure of the laws is in regard to cooked seafood, the Australian consumer is being mislead on an increasing basis, even in a town like Lakes Entrance which is built on and depends upon a thriving fishing industry we find many of the Restaurants, Clubs, Pubs & Fish & Chip shops using cheap imports and selling them to the consumer under local names …

This practice must be stopped, If a venue which is to use imported product good luck to them but the consumer purchasing it should not be mislead and tricked into thinking its local or Australian, the consumer must be informed and be given the choice which is the case in a fresh Seafood shop, Country of Origin Labeling Laws must be extended to include cooked seafood.

I mention this because I believe consumers in Australia are being ripped off when they go to a restaurant, a club or a fish and chip shop which does not declare country of origin. I think it is only fair to Australian consumers that, if they purchase a product they believe to have been harvested from Australian waters, the product has been harvested from Australian waters in the sustainable way in which Australian fisheries are managed. I share the fear of the Lakes Entrance fishing industry that Australian consumers are being deliberately misled by the many operators who do not declare where the product has come from.

I encourage the new minister to take a closer look at this issue as part of the broader review which is underway in relation to food labelling laws. I have written to the minister and also to the state minister in Victoria on this issue. I have made representations on behalf of the fishing sector and the broader community asking them provide greater clarity for the Australian public when it comes to food labelling.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kingston for bringing this motion before the House. We have been trying to come to grips with this very important issue for many, many years. For some time I have been keeping an eye on food labels to give me some idea of where processed foods originate. There seems to be a whole series of codes. If you are a simple shopper trying to work out the nutritional value of the food, and where it comes from, it is a very difficult task indeed. The codes relate to food values. But if the product says ‘made in Australia’, there is also a code for the country of origin—because often the original ingredients are actually sourced from overseas and brought together to be made into a product here in Australia. Some things we just do not grow, so I can understand that there is a need to source some things from overseas. But, by the same token, there are sometimes things that are grown here, and we need to know that. We need to know who is putting home-grown product into processed goods.

There is also the problem of a product’s nutritional value. If you go to the doctor and he gives you a list of food types you should avoid—and, as a person with type 2 diabetes, I have looked at this myself—you will struggle to find the details. The information that is given by doctors and dietitians to their patients and clients has no relationship to the food labels that an individual consumer sees when they walk into a supermarket. There is very little relation between the information on those labels and the medical system and medical processes we use to try and help people with these issues. There is a great deal of need to do that, especially when, as the member for Kingston has identified in her motion, we are talking about preventive health issues in our great country. There is a great issue there that we need to deal with and come to grips with. It is all about the labelling of food.

I asked one of my staff how I could help consumers choose the right stuff. It has been an interesting exercise. There is so much information, but not very much in simple form, and it is not very easy for consumers. New Zealanders always seem to be well ahead of us in understanding consumers’ needs with regard to food. New Zealand has put out a guide which shows where you can find information on a product, such as date marking, a list of ingredients et cetera.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 12 noon, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.