Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to rise and speak in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. The bill, as we have heard, will simplify and improve our country-of-origin labelling to assist consumers to identify—as they should be able to know and ascertain—where their groceries have come from. The new regime is also supported by the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016, which I note has been tabled in this House and the other place and which may yet be subject to a disallowance motion.

This new system of labelling for the country of origin in relation to foodstuffs has been a long time coming. Parliamentarians have been talking for literally decades about improving labelling systems, pointing to example after example of anomalous outcomes where non-Australian food has somehow been described as having been made in Australia. It is my hope and my expectation that this legislation will go some way to addressing the bulk of the concerns raised about the existing system.

In relation to the current regime, Australia's laws require all imported and domestically produced food to be labelled with the country of origin and preclude the making of country-of-origin representations that are false or misleading. The current system governing country-of-origin labelling is in the Australian Consumer Law, schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The ACL's provisions for Australian labelling are as follows. 'Made in Australia' requires goods to have been substantially transformed in Australia and requires that at least half of the cost of production or manufacture occur in Australia. 'Product of Australia' is used to label goods where all significant ingredients or components have Australia as the country of origin and all, or virtually all, of the manufacture or production of the good happened in Australia. 'Grown in Australia' requires every significant ingredient or component in a good to have been grown here in Australia and virtually all processes involved in production or manufacture also to have happened in Australia.

In many cases, this regime led to strange outcomes that may have fitted the letter of the legal requirement despite actually being against the substance or the spirit of the law. Because 'proportion of production cost' was the topic or issue defining the Australian-made products, producers could include the costs of packaging and labelling of products and even the cost of water involved in reconstituting dried products. So it could lead to somewhat perverse outcomes: fruit juice made with foreign fruit but Australian sugar, and bottles and labels could have been labelled as 'Made in Australia' despite the obvious. The same goes for cured meats. So bacon or ham cured in Australia but made from foreign pork also could have been, perversely, labelled as 'Made in Australia'.

Obviously, with Australian consumers deserving to know where their products have come from, something had to change. So what happened? Let us go back to a time in which the Labor Party was in government. We took this issue—

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No! Please, no!

Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

very seriously. It never got any better, Mr Deputy Speaker. And it is certainly no better now, I can tell you right now, under this divided, conservative, weak, lily-livered government as opposed to when Labor was in government. Labor took the issue for consumers and consumer rights much more seriously than those opposite ever did and probably ever will. We started the review in relation to the country-of-origin laws. In government, we conducted a comprehensive review of labelling laws and worked closely with the states through COAG to improve guidance for both consumers and industry. It is critical that consumers are protected without putting an undue burden on Australia's food processors which would simply have the perverse effect of sending more manufacturing offshore and costing jobs.

So what is it that we did? I am very happy to outline the number of steps taken by the Labor Party whilst in government. Labor actually committed to finding a bipartisan solution on food labelling in February 2015, calling on the government to consult with consumer groups and food industry representatives. We highlighted the need to get all relevant ministers together to develop a comprehensive and consistent approach to supporting Australia's food industry. We also said that the government should start by addressing the recommendations of the bipartisan House of Representatives report on food labelling and that we stood ready to constructively consider any positive policy proposals that might actually result from this process. So that is why we joined with this government in supporting this new legislation.

In going to the new regime, what new arrangements for food labelling does this bill create and what does that do to help consumers make decisions at the supermarket? The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, altering country-of-origin labelling safe harbour provisions under the Australian Consumer Law. Safe harbour provisions are designed to provide businesses with certainty about the types of claims they can make regarding country of origin without breaching Australia Consumer Law. Changes to country-of-origin labelling requirements for food sold in Australia were announced in July 2015 and came into effect in July 2016 with a two-year transition period for industry.

The main change in relation to this new regime, giving consumers greater rights and a greater level of awareness in relation to what is contained within the products that they buy off grocery shelves, is that labels for most food that is grown, produced or made in Australia includes a logo—which is a kangaroo in a triangle symbol—as well as a bar chart and a text statement to show the proportion of Australian ingredients in any particular product that a consumer will purchase.

This amendment bill complements those changes, simplifying the tests used to justify a country-of-origin 'made in' claim by clarifying what 'substantial transformation' means and altering the definition of 'substantial transformation' as it applies to the safe harbour provisions under the Australian Consumer Law. It also removes the current 50 per cent production cost test, which becomes redundant for food products with the introduction of labels showing the percentage of Australian ingredients.

The bill sets out a new regime as follows: goods can be represented as being grown in Australia, if each significant ingredient or component has been actually grown in Australia and all processes involved in the production or manufacture of the good also happened here. This is much the same as the previous regime, but the terms in the legislation have been significantly clarified. The rules around goods having a produce of Australia are not changing. Importantly, the requirements of goods with a 'made in', 'manufactured in' or 'originating from' Australia label are as follows: the good must have been last substantially transformed in Australia and, more importantly, no representation must be made that the goods were grown or produced in that country. Further, the bill also governs the use of country-of-origin marks such as the 'Made in Australia' gold kangaroo in a green triangle. It also defines the idea of a good being substantially transformed. The bill makes it clear that packaging materials are not treated as ingredients or components—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.