Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion seeks to contribute to the growing success, usability and uptake of one of Australia's emerging sustainable industries—the industry for compost, soil conditioners and mulches. The motion extends to all fertiliser products sold for private or domestic use, including the use of compost, soil conditioners and mulches as forms of fertiliser products. The motion calls on the government to work with state authorities towards standardising the labelling of compost products and prescribing the acceptable range of ingredient levels to be included in compost made available for sale for private or domestic use.

This is an important matter that was brought to my attention by Desmond Kerr in my electorate. Mr Kerr has experienced firsthand the consequences of not having proper industry standardisation and labelling in place. When we think about the benefits that compost can have in gardens for private and domestic use, Mr Kerr's story is particularly relevant to understanding the risks dedicated gardeners face in purchasing compost without proper labelling and standards. Mr Kerr purchased compost from a local distributer that had a pH level that was dramatically higher than the neutral level of seven, where I am advised compost pH should roughly sit. Rather than aiding Mr Kerr's plants to grow, by having the incorrect ingredient mix this compost was not fit for purpose and began suffocating his plants by preventing them from receiving the nutrients they required.

Purchasing plants and maintaining a garden can be a very expensive pastime. Australians who understand the benefits of compost should be able to purchase it knowing that what they are buying will in fact help their plants and not kill them. Like Mr Kerr, all gardeners should know what is in the compost we are buying, what the pH level of the compost is and what other ingredients it may contain. I understand there are a range of factors influencing the optimal growing potential of compost. Some compost may be more appropriate in certain conditions than others. Some compost products currently being sold, such as the one purchased by Mr Kerr with a pH that was drastically inappropriate for the growing conditions of the area and without proper labelling or standards, create a confidence crisis among gardeners who understand the benefits of purchasing compost and has an impact on the industry.

According to key findings published by Nursery and Garden Industry Australia, 86 per cent of Australians have a lawn, implying some form of garden where compost could have an affect either on the growth potential or on the amount of water consumed to maintain their garden. Data reveals that over 57 per cent of Australians and over 62 per cent of married couples grow their own vegetables, herbs and fruit plants. Noting the increasing cost-of-living pressures that face families under this Labor government and the benefits gained by growing vegetables, herbs and fruit plants at home, these statistics reinforce the importance of supporting a viable compost industry.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am staggered that you can make a political point out of this.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member from the Labor Party thinks this is tremendously amusing. It is far too practical, common sense and man-on-the-Clapham-bus for the Labor Party to take any interest in these matters these days. What happened to the old Labor Party, who actually cared? What happened to the old Labor Party who used to care about people in their electorates?

With over 72 per cent of Australians intending to purchase plants for their garden during spring, this motion seeks to ensure that these Australians are provided with information on the quality of the compost they intend to buy, creating greater consumer confidence that increases demand for compost across the country. The compost industry in Australia has a turnover of more than $600 million per annum, employs more than 1,900 full-time employees and has an investment in capital of over half a billion dollars. It is growing increasingly larger and developing intellectual property with huge environmental potential. This motion, which seeks to encourage the uptake of compost for private and domestic use, would contribute to the future growth of this important Australian industry. The initiative would contribute to better nourishment of plants and gardens and would have a real impact on the environment by diverting landfill to create quality compost.

The compost industry recycles more than 5.8 million tonnes of organic material each year and has the potential to recycle an additional 13 million tonnes from landfill. Given this extra potential, if the industry's long-run supply curve could shift rightward, reducing landfill, methane and CO2 emissions, then we as policy makers must consider what factors would need to change to increase the demand for compost. This motion recognises the good work that the industry is already doing to rewrite AS 4454, and calls on the government to bring their political will to fast-track this work to ensure the future of this important Australian industry.

Concepts of compost quality and labelling were essentially unknown worldwide as recently as 1985 when governments began understanding the importance of establishing an acceptable framework for the industry to operate in. In 1992 the compost quality seal was established by the German Compost Quality Association. It is suggested that this quality seal provided a good starting point for recognition of quality in the industry and has now been adopted by the European Commission in developing the European Ecolabel seal for soil improvers. Globally, countries are recognising the significant developments that are occurring in the compost industry and are implementing processes for quality control and labelling, including by statutory means, to ensure this emerging sustainable industry is able to flourish.

This motion seeks to support the good work already occurring at an industry level and to maintain Australia's high standards and commitment to composting. I am aware that AS 4454, the Australian Standard on composts, soil conditioners and mulches, is currently being reviewed by industry and that industry are taking steps to ensure labelling and product consistency between jurisdictions in Australia. The industry, and in particular industry bodies such as Compost Australia, should be commended for their significant contribution to the standardisation of procedures in this area, particularly with respect to required markings and health and hazard warning labels, which I am advised are some of the most robust hazard warning labels in the world.

Notwithstanding the good work of the industry to date, it appears that one of the factors that is recognised as presenting a barrier to broader market acceptance of compost has been uncertainty about the consistency of compost. I am aware that this has been recognised in the discussion paper Does AS 4454 adequately benchmark compost quality?required reading for anybody interested in this subject. I am sure the member for Chifley has read this paper. This discussion paper went on to report that:

Analysis of 52 different garden organics end-products showed that the Victorian limit for copper was exceeded on 46% of occasions, 63% of occasions for zinc and 50% of occasions for chromium. These data support the need for a revision of the heavy metal limits used in the Australian Standard for composts, soil conditioners and mulches …

Further, and as members of this House may recall, the first recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on Agricultural and Related Industries in their report on Pricing and supply arrangements in the Australian and global fertiliser market, a catchy title, was that:

… the states and territories should consider, as a matter of priority, adopting uniform description and labelling of fertiliser products to ensure consistency between jurisdictions.

While the compost industry should be applauded for taking steps to standardise the labelling and ingredient requirements of compost products in Australia, the government must also take responsibility. To drive investment in this industry and to support the uptake of compost technologies with lasting environmental benefits, the government must be prepared to roll up its sleeves, to adopt the recommendations of the senate committee's report and to work with the states in developing these compost standards that will see lasting environmental and productivity benefits for Australia. The government must be prepared to stand up for recreational gardeners like my constituent Des Kerr and to ensure that the quality of compost made available for private and domestic use is fit for purpose, with the appropriate ingredient mix and compost labelling. I thank my colleagues who intend to take part in this debate for their support on this motion—the member for Longman and the member for Riverina, and also the Labor members of parliament, who will make inadequate contributions but will do their best. I commend the motion to the House.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this motion. I also welcome it on the basis that it presents a diversity of issues that need to be considered by us all. I think it is timely, particularly given that there is a lot of interest in these issues within households. You only need to turn on a TV to see the different lifestyle programs that talk about what people can do in their homes and about installing and maintaining gardens. Also people's interest in sustainability issues is something that is continuing to grow. People are wanting to grow their own vegetables and herbs—and, as the member for Sturt indicated, between 67 and 52 per cent of people, depending on what demographic you pick, are doing so.

As much as I was supportive of the member for Sturt raising this matter today, I could not help a wry smile when he managed to insert political points in a debate that I think is worthy of having in this place. He gave me cause for reflection on some of the issues he sought to have a go at on the way through his speech. Nonetheless the matter is worthy of consideration. The member for Sturt referred to his constituent, Des Kerr, who has serious concerns about what he perceived to be a misrepresentation about pH levels in the fertiliser that he had purchased and was using on his property, that the PH levels were much higher than stated on the product packaging.

It is worth reminding all consumers to make inquiries of merchants about whether a product is fit for purpose, and that certainly includes fertiliser products. If consumers are not sure about a product, obviously the golden rule is to ask and to test the representations that are made. Fortunately, consumers have protections under Australian Consumer Law—ACL. This government has taken steps to strengthen the ACL and those took effect in January this year. Consumer guarantees under the ACL cover any type of goods or services costing up to $40,000 sold in trade or commerce. The big message here is that for people concerned about representations made about what is in fertilisers or composted products—though more often than not it is fertilisers; a lot of people are taking up the opportunity to compost on their own property using waste products—the ACL provides a range of protections for any product under $40,000. People should definitely avail themselves of those protections. Consumer guarantees also allow consumers to seek redress if the goods they buy are not fit for the purpose specified by the people selling the product.

It is worth noting that the ACL consolidates up to 20 Commonwealth, state and territory laws into one single harmonised law. The member for Sturt said that we need to take a national approach on this issue and the government are seeking to do just that in terms of Consumer Law. For consumers seeking to purchase fertilisers for home or business use there is some sort of protection regardless of where they live. Consumers will also be interested to know, especially businesses that operate in more than one state or territory, that the benefit of having a single consumer law generates commercial and consumer benefit. The Productivity Commission believe that about $4.5 billion of benefit to the Australian economy flows as a result of having a unified Consumer Law. As I mentioned earlier, there are about nine guarantees for products. These include suppliers and manufacturers guaranteeing that goods are of acceptable quality; secondly suppliers and manufacturers guaranteeing that the goods will be reasonably fit for any purpose the consumer or supplier specifies, especially in terms of the matters that are brought here before the Main Committee; suppliers and manufacturers guaranteeing that the description of goods is accurate; suppliers guaranteeing that goods will match any sample or demonstration model; suppliers and manufacturers guaranteeing that goods will satisfy any extra promises made about them in the form of express warranties; suppliers guaranteeing that they have the right to sell the goods being supplied or that no-one will try to repossess or take back those goods; suppliers guaranteeing that the goods being supplied are free from hidden securities or charges; and, finally, manufacturers or importers guaranteeing that they will take reasonable steps to provide spare parts or repair facilities for a reasonable time after purchase. Not all of those guarantees, obviously, relate to the matters at hand, but the guarantee regarding the accuracy of the description of the goods and the guarantee that the goods themselves be reasonably fit are certainly important protections, particularly in reference to the matter that the member for Sturt raised about whether or not pH levels were matching the representations made to the consumer on the packaging.

As the member for Sturt referred to, there has also been a voluntary product safety standard in place since 2003, AS 4454, covering compost, soil conditioners and mulches, which includes guidance on required pH levels. Any products that purport to meet the voluntary standard but which are found not to, in fact, meet that standard, risk breaching the misleading representation provisions of ACL, some of which I mentioned earlier, and they could face significant penalties. While we would acknowledge that individual members of the public have, from time to time, expressed concern about labelling requirements for fertiliser products, the government is not aware of a wider community concern about excessive pH levels in these products.

Coming back to the point I made at the start of my contribution today, the raising, particularly within parliament, of these types of issues gives us an opportunity to take note of the fact that there is a concern out there. While the member for Sturt has raised this issue on behalf of his constituent, it is obviously incumbent upon us all to take steps to monitor whether there is a wider concern—and to act accordingly if there is. However, at this point calls for a mandatory standard would definitely increase the regulatory burden and on-costs for business, and any additional cost would ultimately be passed on to consumers. We have to be certain that there is widespread concern to justify consumers paying more.

We have undertaken significant regulatory reform to lift those burdens on businesses. One critical step we have taken has been the bringing in of harmonised consumer laws, but we have also brought in reforms in a range of other important areas, such as standard business reporting, trade licensing, consumer credit and national construction codes. While not related to this matter, these reforms demonstrate that we are trying to take steps on a number of fronts to reduce those burdens on businesses, especially small businesses.

While there are concerns, as have been expressed so far in the debate, we need to be balanced in deciding at what point we take action and whether or not that action would be disproportionate to the issue raised. If there is evidence of a widespread problem, the government will certainly consult further with states and territories. I would certainly encourage them to do that and I think that is part of the call being made here today.

One of the other points raised by the member for Sturt was the fact that, while at the moment 5.8 million tonnes of compost are being recycled, by extracting out of landfill there is the potential for another 13 million. At that point, depending on whether or not the concerns are as widespread as may be suggested, then, given the size of that potential, we need to look at what the standards need to be. But at this point, while the issue is definitely one that needs to be taken on board, there is a matter of whether or not the response needs to be as widespread or as definite as what has been outlined so far. But I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and to learn more about an issue that has obviously sparked some concern in the member for Sturt's electorate.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support and second the member for Sturt's motion, which calls for uniform guidelines for the labelling and regulation of fertiliser products for private and domestic use in Australia. This motion rightly recognises that the information currently available to individuals purchasing fertiliser products is limited and that, in many cases, consumers are not being provided with information sufficient to determine whether a product is appropriate for the purpose they require it, including if a product might be damaging to some plants or hazardous to health. The current system of voluntary regulation for labelling and composition of fertilisers varies across all states and territories and ultimately impacts consumers' ability to make an informed purchase decision.

The Senate Select Committee on Agriculture and Related Industries reported in its report Pricing and supply arrangements in the Australian and global fertiliser market that the fertiliser product industry has been largely left without any regulation in the area of product labelling. The report highlighted that the industry itself has been calling for uniformity in compost standards to ensure that fertiliser products are of a high standard. The report's first recommendation was that the states and territories should consider, as a matter of priority, adopting uniform description and labelling of fertiliser products to ensure consistency between jurisdictions. It is clear that there is an urgent need for regulation of labelling of this industry in the form of a national standard for labelling of fertiliser products, which is actually what this motion proposes.

As it currently stands, the industry is without accountability to consumers, most obviously with residential consumers, who rely completely on information available on the packaging of the product and on anecdotal evidence available to them. The percentages of the three active ingredients in fertiliser products—phosphorous, potassium and nitrogen—are not currently required to be defined on labelling. However, the percentages of these ingredients, when combined with the factors of soil pH and the type of plant, require varying amounts of these active ingredients to prosper. Without detailed labelling consumers are simply not in a position to effectively determine what is appropriate for their specific requirements. These choices often turn into a trial and error process in determining what products will be effective for their prize roses, backyard lawns or veggie gardens.

Consumers should not have to risk using a fertiliser product that is so completely unsuited to their needs and risk damaging their plants in the process. Information about the composition of the fertiliser, the pH levels and the types of plants it is suited to should all be provided to the consumer through detailed labelling on the product itself. As a country, we have a national regulation requirement for products in many categories. Why should fertiliser products be different or have any less uniform labelling than these?

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

Order! The honourable member's time has expired, as I understand it. In fact, I do apologise to the member for Longman. There has been a malfunction in the clock. The honourable member for Longman continues to have the call.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would always respect your ruling, but I will continue.

I freely admit that I do not have a strong personal understanding of the complex and varied nuances of soil balances and fertiliser composition. However, coming from a farming family, I do understand the importance of maintaining excellent soil quality and using all means necessary to achieve and maintain high soil quality. I also understand that, unlike residential consumers, farmers have access to extensive advice from government departments, agricultural consultants and professional soil testing, all of which guide farmers on their choice of fertilisers according to the specific needs of their local environment.

Residential gardeners, local small business landscapers and gardeners themselves do not have access to any of this detailed information. Rather, their advice comes from the hardware sales assistant or perhaps a neighbour or a friend. Detailed labelling for these products is then, for obvious reasons, very significant. The call for a national standard and more detailed labelling on these products goes beyond providing consumers with adequate information. These products are purchased by and large by individuals who are recreational gardeners with little understanding and experience of using hazardous chemicals and composting materials. Detailed and consistent information is essential to ensure the personal health and safety of these consumers when using fertiliser products.

As a community, we are striving for sustainable and healthy living and we endeavour to make positive changes in our lives to achieve these qualities. Organic fertilisers are considered to be environmentally and ecologically safe, and their use should be encouraged. All fertilisers need to be handled with caution. All individuals who handle these products need to be made aware of the possible risks and hazards involved with these products in order to make appropriate decisions and take appropriate precautions—for instance, using masks and gloves. These conditions may be particularly dangerous for the health of those individuals with pre-existing lung conditions or immunodeficiencies as they are particularly susceptible to contracting bacterial infections from strains of nocardia or similar bacteria.

Consumers need to be informed about the risk of these products, which is only possible through the employment of consistent and detailed labelling—labelling which identifies what safety precautions need to be taken before, during and after the handling of these products. It is interesting to note that Australians on average spend over 20 minutes each day caring for their pets and gardens. Clearly this is a significant Australian recreational activity, and every effort should be made to provide clarity and consistency of information. This is why I support this motion, a motion that is calling for a uniform national standard for the labelling of fertiliser products and prescribing the appropriate composition of active ingredients in fertiliser products.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to speak on this motion concerning a national standard for fertiliser products. It is interesting that the opposition, who always argue against mandatory standards, are bringing a motion before this parliament requesting that mandatory standards be put in place. The opposition are supposed to be friends of business, but if they were the friends of business they should be aware that by putting this regulatory burden on business they would be increasing the cost of doing business and making it harder for business. I question whether they are really the friends of business. This motion shows that the people who really listen to the needs of business are on this side of the parliament.

I am fresh from being back in my electorate. My husband did gardening at the weekend and part of that gardening involved fertilising plants. I was not in the garden with him as the lifestyle of a member of parliament means that we do not get too much time to enjoy being outdoors looking after our plants. The reason I am talking about his contribution to our garden is that he approaches it in the way that I think all people approach gardening. He knew that he needed to put some fertiliser on the lawn so he went to the local store to purchase the required fertiliser. He talked about what he needed to fertilise with the shop assistant working there. He was given a breakdown of the types of fertiliser that were included and he took the advice of a well-trained sales assistant who knew the right kind of fertiliser to use on the lawn, the plants and the vegetables. He walked away with a few bags of fertiliser and was ready to work in the garden. I know that in a couple of months we will see the reward of his finding out about the right kind of fertiliser to use. The member for Longman talked about using masks and gloves. I think any sensible gardener uses masks and gloves. My husband was in the garden wearing a mask and his gloves. So I would encourage all consumers to do what Lindsay did: make inquiries of the merchant about whether a product is fit for the purpose for which it is to be used.

This does not apply only to fertiliser products. We use many commodities in our daily lives. If you have a doubt about anything, check to see whether it will be appropriate for the intended use. I am very careful about what I eat. A number of people have allergies to food—for example, to peanuts. We, as consumers, go out of our way to work out what is in those products. If a person is not sure about the product—this goes to every product we use, not only fertilisers—then the golden rule is to ask. If you cannot find out, do not use it. If you are not comfortable with it, do not use it.

Under the Australian Consumer Law, the ACL, consumers have protection. Under the ACL, consumer guarantees cover any types of goods and services costing up to $40,000 sold in trade and commerce. As members of parliament, it is our role to ensure that consumers are aware of this guarantee. This provides a safety net to all consumers. Consumer guarantees allow consumers to seek redress if the goods they are provided with are not fit for the purpose specified by the consumer. There is also a voluntary product safety standard in place; that is AS4454-2003—the Australian standard for composts, soil conditioners and mulches—which includes guidance on a required PH level. This motion calls for us to move away from voluntary standards—the voluntary standards that those on the other side of this parliament always argue in favour of—to mandatory standards. Any product that purports to meet the voluntary standard but is found not to meet the standard risks breaching the misleading representation provision of the Australian Consumer Law and people could face significant penalties.

I have been involved in the voluntary standards that relate to breastfeeding, which is quite a different area. Members on the other side of this parliament argued very strongly against mandatory standards in that area. Members on the other side of this parliament also argued very strongly against mandatory standards in relation to food labelling. They argued that the best way to achieve it is by a voluntary industry standard. But in relation to the motion before us today, the opposition is arguing that the government should move away from voluntary standards in the area of fertilisers whilst keeping in place voluntary standards in those other areas—areas which are very important to the health and safety of our community. So there are double standards involved in today's motion. The reason for the member moving this motion in parliament is not apparent to me. I have heard him argue against mandatory standards in other areas. His colleagues on the other side of this parliament argue against mandatory standards. As I said in the beginning, a call for mandatory standards would increase the regulatory burden and the cost for business, something that those on the other side of the House obviously have no qualms about doing. Again, they would have to go out and explain to their business constituency how they can justify this increased cost to and regulatory burden on them. Any additional increase in cost ultimately increases the cost to consumers. We need to be certain that there is widespread concern that would justify making consumers pay more. This motion is really about increasing the cost to business, increasing the cost to consumers and therefore increasing daily living expenses—something that those on the other side of this parliament do not mind doing. If there is evidence that there is a widespread problem then I urge the members on the other side to consult with the government and, further, with the states and territories and the fair trading regulators to determine whether or not further regulation is needed.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An urgent need exists to address inconsistencies between all compost standards and the government regulations which override them. A review completed by Robyn Neesen of Yanco in the Riverina highlights anomalies between compost standards in federal and state regulations. The report refers particularly to contaminant levels and the need for action to ensure a high-standard product which will improve soil health and productivity. There are currently no compulsory guidelines prescribing the quality of compost sold to recreational gardeners for private and domestic use. Many gardeners, be gardening their livelihood or just a hobby, have no way of knowing if the fertiliser they are purchasing will do more damage than good to their plants.

In the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries winter edition newsletter, the main article was headed 'When compost ain't compost'. It was a telling heading and an interesting piece. When it comes to compost, things are not always as they ought to be.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Really?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, really, Member for Solomon, and I will continue, because this is an absolutely interesting subject and one that is very important. While this might not seem important in the overall scheme of issues on the national agenda at present, it is something which, if passed, will ensure consistency and uniformity in an area in which many people participate.

Gardening is one of Australia's most popular pastimes. I am sure the member for Solomon probably spent the weekend in the garden when she was not busy taking care of her constituents—as she does, because she is a very good local member. A nice garden shows that people take pride in their most important investment: their home. I am sure the member for Bendigo probably spent his weekend in the garden, too. A working garden produces fresh fruit and vegetables—so crucial to healthy living.

Australians love gardening. From the very enthusiastic gardener who spends every waking moment either thinking about or actually mulching and tilling their back yard, to the very casual fellow who phoned in his thoughts about rugby league to Sydney radio station 2GB's continuous call team yesterday while enjoying a quiet drink and pulling out a weed or two to make out he was working hard in the garden, Aussies love working with plants in the great outdoors. You also only have to look at the number of gardening shows and 'do-it-yourself' programs that are so popular on television and radio to realise the emphasis Australians put on gardening.

On average, Australians spend 22 minutes per day on grounds and animal care, which includes the work of many conscientious gardeners. That equates to about 134 hours per year that the average Australian may be spending tending to their garden, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Those are 2006 figures, I might add; the statistics, I feel, would actually be increased in 2011 and will increase beyond that. Gardening is enjoyed greatly by Australia's seniors, and so it becomes even more important given that we have an ageing population. With no standard or requirement to prescribe the ingredient levels of fertilisers made available for private or domestic sale, residential gardeners cannot possibly know if the fertiliser they are purchasing will do more harm than good to their precious plants. Fertiliser is not cheap, so people should know what they are getting. Those who work in gardening stores and compost supply companies are not always aware nor do they have the time on all occasions to explain all the details about the products. Plants are not inexpensive either and gardeners need to know that what they are growing them in or sustaining them with is what will be best for the plants. Robyn Neeson's recent review entitled Compost comparison: organic standards AS 4454: the need for consistent, high quality compost standards and regulations, reported that regulations of consistency are paramount for organic and conventional agriculture. She emphasised what anyone who knows anything about improving soil quality has known all along—that is, that farmers are encouraged to use organic compost to improve soil health and to sequester carbon. However, the inconsistencies make it difficult for users to assess the quality of the product and ensure its suitability for use.

Earlier this year, Ms Neeson exhibited a poster and submitted a paper to an international symposium on compost use in horticulture. She has reviewed the three Australian organic standards for their compost requirements: Organic and Biodynamic Products, AS 6000-2009; Australian Certified Organic Australian Organic Standard 2006; and National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia Organic Standard 2008.

All organic standards reviewed concurred that organic certification standards should restrict compost inputs to natural materials such as animal and plant wastes, and naturally mined minerals and trace elements. Both the Australian Certified Organic standard and the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia standard prohibit the use of biosolids on food crops, but AS 6000-2009 made no reference to biosolids.

It is a requirement of all organic standards that they also comply with relevant government regulations. Ms Neeson found that the levels of contaminants acceptable in organic farming standards varied between standards. She reported compost is a primary source of nutrients in organic farming systems and the higher levels permitted by some organic standards for elements such as zinc presumably aim to reflect this requirement. In some instances, ambiguous terms such as 'none or low level', AS 6000-2009, and 'not containing synthetic chemicals', ACO, are used in preference to precise limits. This is not about the information on the back of compost packs not being right and not giving quite all the information, and thus being an impost on businesses; this is about giving the correct information to consumers—information that they need and rightly should expect given the fact that they are spending so much money on fertilisers and composts.

Australian Standard Composts, soil conditioners and mulches, AS 4454-2003, specifies physical, chemical, biological and labelling requirements for composts. In addition, all products and their application must comply with federal and state regulations. The standard also details the best-practice guidelines for composting. The AS 4454-2003 permits the use of organic materials, including biosolids as feedstock ingredients. Mixtures of organic waste which contain non-organic materials are permitted—for example, plastic, glass and metal from household waste—but restrictions are placed on the proportion and size of these contaminants.

All compost standards, organic and AS, defer to federal or state regulations with regard to minimum standards in feedstock material, application techniques and contaminant levels—heavy metals, organic contaminants and pathogens. The review also found that these regulations varied across state jurisdictions. It is time to get this sorted. We need a national standard for fertiliser products. This motion will enable that.

We heard only last week in parliament of the importance of precious petals. The Prime Minister must be a keen gardener for she is obviously aware of the need to take care of our precious petals because she raised it during Tuesday's proceedings. This motion will take care of precious petals as well as all other plants which benefit from compost and fertiliser. Moreover, it will put in place safeguards for gardeners and heighten their knowledge of the product they are buying and using, something which should be stated consumer information. I implore the government to help pass this legislation.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pride that I stand to talk about this important matter before the chamber which has been put forward by the member for Sturt. This motion comes in good time as spring is almost upon us, when it is a nice warm day here in Canberra and when it was certainly a warm weekend in Brisbane. This is the time when we should be applying 'Weed and Feed' to our lawns and fertilising our gardens in preparation for the growing seasons. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of this job is that my garden does not always get the attention it deserves. But this motion has, at the very least, prompted me to turn some attention to my garden in the coming weeks. The member for Sturt is right. Like most products, fertilisers can be used in the wrong way and occasionally with damaging results. I once heard a story of a bloke—I am pretty sure he was a constituent—who was gifted a square of grass from the Gabba cricket ground, because now they drop in ovals and the like and they do resurfacing. And so precious was this grass, especially in Queensland, that he took it home, planted it in his backyard, nurtured it, watered it and, for those cricket and Aussie Rules fans, developed his own piece of the Gabba or his own slice of history.

When he moved house years later, he dug up a sample of the grass so that he could take it to his new property so that he had a little slice of the Gabba at his new home. However, the next year he went to fertilise his precious lawn that he had taken with him as he moved house but, instead of applying fertiliser, he poisoned it with something like Roundup. Therefore, he ended up killing his own backyard piece of the Gabba forever. It just goes to show that you can make mistakes in applying simple fertilisers. It makes me wonder what has prompted this motion from the member for Sturt. Has he had a strange or a bad experience in his garden? Has he been exposed to too much manure?

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or is he a precious petal?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take that interjection, but I am talking garden wise not policy wise, member for Bendigo. Has he applied the wrong fertiliser and inadvertently killed his hydrangeas? Who knows? I hope not, for his sake. Nevertheless, Australia certainly uses a lot of fertiliser. Each year Australians apply between five and six million tonnes, obviously, mostly in farming but a lot is still applied to domestic gardens. We export up to 400,000 tonnes of fertiliser a year. Any fertilisers imported into Australia must meet strict quarantine requirements for maximum permissible concentrations of certain impurities.

All states already have rules regarding the labelling of fertilisers and that is obviously appropriate. These labels concern appropriate use and application guidelines. Fertiliser labels generally must include the name of the fertiliser, the quantity by weight or by volume, the name and full business address of the wholesaler and all the relevant warnings, particularly about safe handling and all those other occupational health and safety requirements that we need to be aware of.

The gentleman I mentioned earlier, who perhaps could have saved his Gabba turf had he simply read the label or asked for advice from the staff at his local hardware store, particularly if it is a small hardware store rather than one of those big megastores. If in doubt, consumers need to make inquires at the place of purchase about the best product for their desired purpose. If a customer is given the wrong advice, then obviously they are protected under normal consumer law protections. All consumers are able to seek redress if the goods they buy are not suitable for the purpose that was advertised. In Queensland, this would be as per the Sale of Goods Act, and there is similar legislation throughout Australia.

I understand that these consumer guarantees cover goods and services up to the value of $40,000. It would be hard, though, to compensate or replace the original Gabba turf—it is not the sort of thing that you would go to court to receive recompense for—or, if you are a Victorian, a piece of the MCG or whatever your particular piece of special grass.

I do appreciate the concerns of the member for Sturt. However, I think there is a little bit of hypocrisy here. He does not come in here and talk about a national curriculum to drive improvement to our children's education. He does not believe in national education standards for our children but, through this motion that he has introduced, he has shown that he is very passionate about establishing a national standard for fertiliser and compost products. I guess that, sometimes in politics, you just have to follow your heart. Australia already has a voluntary safety standard in place: AS4454. The Australian standards for compost, soil conditioners and mulches include guidance on the required pH levels so that you can guide even a novice gardener like me through to what is required. Significant penalties can apply where a product that claims to meet Australian Standard 4454 yet does not. This may breach the misleading representations provisions of the Australian consumer law. Obviously it is difficult to enforce these things, especially if you are just a normal suburban gardener—it is not the sort of thing you would probably rush off to the courts to enforce but there still are those protections there.

The member for Sturt may have more people going through his electorate door who are keen to talk about compost. However, I have only been in parliament for about four years and I think I could say that I have not had anyone come to my office, write to me, email me or make contact in any way to talk about fertiliser labelling or excessive pH levels in these products. Lots of people have come to talk to me about carbon levels, but never about the pH levels in the products. They are concerned about the impact if the opposition votes against the Carbon Farming Initiative—a lot of people have spoken to me about that but never about pH levels, but I live and wait. I do understand that when government increases regulation the compliance costs will in turn increase for business, and obviously consumers will lose out in the end through increased product costs.

As there is currently no widespread community concern, we simply cannot justify making consumers foot the bill for what, on the surface, would appear to be quite an unnecessary government regulation. However, if the member for Sturt does have evidence of a widespread problem in the fertiliser and compost industry, the government will talk to the state and territory fair trading regulators. That would be the more appropriate body to regulate this because, as I said, there is already an established process.

We have paid a lot of attention to fertiliser over the years after we saw the amazing situation a few years back in the United States where a building was blown up by people inappropriately using fertiliser so now it is much more controlled. There is a much healthier approach to what fertiliser should be sold and where it should be sold. I would suggest to the member for Sturt—and I am not sure if he is the best gardener in the world or not, if he has time for that—that he turn instead to the state and territory fair trading regulators and the approaches they have to controlling the fertiliser industry.

As I said earlier, now is the time—with September upon us and the equinox this week—when people will be turning to their gardens in the school holidays or in their spare time and they will be able to decide how best to use their fertiliser to improve their gardens. Obviously it would be much more appropriate to do that by consultation with the person who sells them the fertiliser rather than by being concerned with the motion put forward by the member for Sturt. I have a lot more faith in our state and territory fair trading regulators and I am sure that they will be able to work out what is needed to be done in this area, and they are best placed to assess any need for further labelling regulations. (Time expired)

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

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.