Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am speaking on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 in support of the amendment moved by the member for Perth. Australian people deserve to know where their food comes from. They deserve clear and concise food labels to ensure that they can make informed decisions regarding the food that they and their families are consuming. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Australian Consumer Law to simplify the test that is used to justify a claim that certain foods were made in Australia in a specified manner. The bill achieves this by amending one of the safe harbour provisions in the Australian Consumer Law.

The Trade Practices Act was the first Commonwealth statute to contain consumer protection provisions. In its earliest form, the consumer protection provisions contained in the TPA were: a general prohibition against misleading or deceptive conduct in trade and commerce, a broad prohibition against making a false representation about the country of origin of goods, and a prohibition against engaging in conduct which was liable to mislead the public as to the nature, including any country of origin, the manufacturing process, the characteristics, the suitability for their purpose or the quantity of any goods. Australia's country-of-origin laws have continued to develop in line with domestic judicial determinations and consistent with Australia's emerging international obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization. The Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Act 1998 inserted what were colloquially known as 'safe harbour' provisions into the trade practices laws, establishing the regime for determining when goods would and would not be regarded as made in, produced in or substantially grown in Australia.

The TPA was renamed the Competition and Consumer Act with effect from 1 January 2011, codifying the safe harbour provisions as defences. Under the current law as it sits before the introduction of this bill, if businesses are to rely on the general country-of-origin safe harbour defence, they must satisfy two separate criteria: the goods must be substantially transformed in the country of origin being claim—this is known as the substantial transformation test—and 50 per cent or more of the total costs to produce or manufacture the goods must have occurred in that country. This is known as the cost of production/manufacture test. If a business makes a country-of-origin claim for a product and it is alleged to be misleading, deceptive or false, that business has an automatic defence to the allegation if it can show that the product meets the safe harbour defence for that claim. This amendment bill simplifies 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 safe harbour provisions under Australian Consumer Law.

This legislation 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. That is the great benefit of what is proposed in this bill. Australians will now be able to get a clear indicator on labels on the backs of products of the percentage of Australian based ingredients that make up that product. This will end some of the confusion that has historically existed with this issue not only in our domestic produce market but also internationally with our exports. It is important that a delicate balance is achieved that provides Australians with a thorough and accurate understanding of where their food comes from, while not overburdening Australia's food processors, which could lead to their relocation offshore.

In February 2015, the Labor Party committed to finding a bipartisan solution to food labelling. We saw what an important issue it was for the Australian public, and we committed to working with the government on achieving a sustainable and indicative program that provided reliable data and information for Australia's consumers. It also highlighted the importance of bringing relevant ministers and industry leaders together to develop a consistent approach to the food industry. This bill sets out that new regime. The elements of it are that goods can be represented as being grown in Australia, if each significant ingredient or component has been grown in Australia and all processes involved in the production or manufacture of the goods happened right here on domestic soil. This is much the same as the previous regime but, in terms of the legislation, there is a much greater clarification.

The rules around goods having a 'Produce of Australia' label are not changing. Importantly, the ingredients of goods with a 'Made in' or `Manufactured in' or 'Originating from' Australia label are changing, and they are as follows: the goods must have been substantially transformed in Australia, and 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 the green triangle, which has been the symbol of Australian produce and Australian-produced products for many decades now. It is something that is well-known to the Australian public—although I did meet a Chinese businessperson who recently expressed to me his view that the label was confusing on food products for many people in China, who, when they saw it, believed that the package contained kangaroo, because of the gold kangaroo in the triangle. Maybe that is something for future governments to consider in respect of the Chinese market and the growing middle class in China and their food-consuming habits.

Nonetheless, this bill also defines the area of goods being substantially transformed, makes it clear that packaging materials are not treated as ingredients or components for goods with 'Product of' or 'Grown in' labels and mandates that water used to reconstitute dehydrated or concentrated ingredients is deemed to have the country of origin of the dehydrated ingredient, irrespective of the actual origin of the water.

While these indicators and this new regime are not perfect—they do not indicate country of origin for imported ingredients, for instance—the new country-of-origin labelling ingredients have been described by CHOICE as:

… a big step towards ending the confusion around country of origin labelling, especially for consumers who want to know how much of a product was manufactured or grown locally.

The Australian Food and Grocery Council have also been supportive of these reforms, stating that it is:

… a recognition of the importance of Australian jobs in the food production and processing sector

In government, Labor worked to ensure Australians conducted a comprehensive review of labelling laws and worked closely with the states, through COAG, to improve guidance for both consumers and industry. As I mentioned earlier, Labor has demonstrated a constructive approach to working with the government on this issue—a very important issue for Australian consumers. I am pleased to say that we now have a much clearer regime with better information for Australian consumers about the origins of the food they consume, and that is a positive step for our nation. I am happy to commend this bill to the House with the amendment moved by the member for Perth.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. Country-of-origin labelling is an issue that has vexed successive governments for many years. Country-of-origin labelling has been compulsory in Australia for many years, but consumers have often found the information unclear, confusing or, in some cases, misleading. Australians want clearer, more meaningful and easier to find country-of-origin information so they can make more informed choices when purchasing food and other products.

These sound like simple goals, but implementing a system that meets those objectives is complex and challenging. But the coalition is determined to make progress on this issue and, in July last year, we announced a new country-of-origin labelling scheme. Under the new system, food labels will carry a statement about where the food was produced, grown, made or packaged. Most Australian food will carry the familiar kangaroo symbol and an indication of the proportion of Australian ingredients by weight through a statement and a bar graph. This is a key piece of information that consumers want. Many consumers find it very frustrating when they are confronted with labels like 'Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients'. That does not say which ingredients are imported, which ingredients are Australian and in what proportion. The new system will also have clearer rules around claims that a product was 'Made in' or 'Packed in' Australia.

It has been a long road to get to this point. We want a system that gives consumers more information without imposing a whole new set of regulations and red tape on our food producers. We believe we have the balance about right, and the bill before the House today is another step to fine-tuning the system to ensure that it is easy to understand for consumers and businesses.

The bill before the House today amends the Australian Consumer Law to clarify the test used to justify a claim that a particular product is made in Australia or another country. In effect, this bill makes it easier for producers and consumers to determine whether a product may legitimately be labelled as 'Grown in Australia', 'Produced in Australia' or 'Made in Australia'. The bill also clarifies the definition of 'substantially transformed'. This is important because it clarifies that minor processing activities like packaging should not be considered substantial transformation. A producer can claim that goods are made or manufactured in a particular country, if they were substantially transformed in that country. As an example, a producer will not be able to import all the ingredients for a product in bulk, chop them up and put them into individual packages in Australia, and then market the product as 'Made in Australia'.

The bill also removes the 50 per cent production-cost test, which was the source of considerable concern for many industry stakeholders. It was seen as an unnecessary burden on businesses and provided very little information to consumers. Removing the 50 per cent production-cost test is expected to save Australian businesses around $48.5 million per year in reduced red tape. As you would expect, the bill has received support from industry. The Australian Food and Grocery Council said it 'supports the urgent passage of the bill to provide certainty for industry'.

In conclusion, the new country-of-origin labelling scheme will be fully implemented over the coming years. It will provide Australian consumers with clearer, more meaningful, easier-to-find information on the origin of products sold in Australia. My electorate is home to a growing horticulture industry with a high range of quality produce, including blueberries, bananas, tomatoes, cucumbers and avocados. Of course, we are also home to excellent milk and dairy products, quality beef and goat meat, and excellent seafood. I have no doubt that produce from the New South Wales mid-North Coast is as good as any produce around the world.

I know that Australian consumers want to buy clean, green, Australian produce and like that it is produced in their local electorate. But consumers need clear, easily accessed information to know that they are buying Australian produce and not some vague mix of local and imported ingredients. I strongly support the new country-of-origin labelling system, and I commend the bill to the House.

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

I too rise in support of this Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. I welcome efforts to simplify our labelling laws and improve Australia's country-of-origin labelling. Consumers have every right to know where a particular product comes from—where it originated, where it was grown and where it was packaged. As consumers, when you have as much information as possible in front of you, you can make an informed choice when purchasing a particular product. Therefore I support any efforts to not only simplify but also improve product labelling.

I have raised this issue on many occasions, both in this place and in the media, because constituents continually raise it with me and have a keen interest in it. People want to know what they are buying and where it was grown, and the label has to identify those things. It is a very important step in helping our consumers better identify where their groceries come from and make those informed decisions regarding what they wish to purchase.

Most importantly, this legislation will address consumer concerns while also supporting food manufacturers in Australia. When I think of food manufacturers in Australia the first one that comes to mind is Arnott's Biscuits, which is in my electorate of Hindmarsh—I am very proud to have my electorate as the home of the Tim Tam. I have visited Arnott's many times over the years, and we have discussed labelling and how it affects them.

In some cases, it is not that simple to just label products with where the products have come from. For example, with chocolate biscuits you can only source cocoa from overseas. So it does make it difficult, in some cases. I am very proud that Arnott's manufactures and produces biscuits right there in the middle of the western suburbs. It employs over 200 people and exports its products all over the world.

We know that the best way to secure quality local food is for people to buy Australian-made products. I know many other places that support Australian-made products, such as Drake Foodland and the Romeo's Foodland group in my electorate. Drake has major supermarkets at West Lakes, West Beach and Torrensville, which is my local supermarket. Romeo has supermarkets in my electorate at Glenelg and Brooklyn Park. I shop there as well occasionally. They love to have local products on their shelves. They do all they can to try and sell Australian produce and I commend them both for that. This, in turn, supports local manufacturing—our food manufacturers and our reputation for very high quality food and produce.

This legislation does so by ensuring clarity of definition and supporting consumer choice based on informed decisions. Australian laws require all imported and domestically produced food to be labelled with their country of origin. This is designed to minimise the potential for false or misleading claims about a product's country of origin. You can see that in many instances over the years of particular products claiming to be Australian products but, when you scratch the surface a bit, you discover that the country of origin is thousands of kilometres away from these shores.

Before these changes came into effect, provisions in the Australian Consumer Law stipulated three classifications of label. One is that any product label made in Australia had to have been substantially transformed in Australia, with at least half of the cost of production or manufacture occurring in Australia. That may sound pretty simple and straight forward but consider the packaging, the wrapping, and a whole range of other things. If you have a very small product and the majority of it is packaging and wrapping, can you claim that as an Australian product? Products labelled 'Product of Australia' had to have all significant ingredients or proponents originating in Australia and virtually all of the manufacture or production of the goods happening here in Australia.

Products labelled 'grown in Australia' had to have every significant ingredient grown in Australia, and virtually all processes involved in production or manufacturing had to have happened here in Australia. So, it has been very confusing. It is not the labelling itself that is confusing, but the way things are labelled and when and why they can be labelled. It is the fact that it has left heaps of room for interpretation, meaning that, while the interpretation may have fitted the letter of the law in the legal requirements, at times it went against the spirit of the law and also against the will of the Australian consumer.

As I said, Australian consumers want to know where a particular product came from, where it was sourced and what is in it and then make informed choices about whether to purchase that particular product or not. For example, fruit juice made with foreign fruit but Australian sugar, bottles and labels could have been labelled as 'made in Australia', yet the fruit juice might have been from foreign fruit. This is very important for South Australia with all our Riverland orange growers and fruit growers. It has been an contentious issue for a long time that sometimes concentrate from Brazil may get mixed with in our orange juice and then it is called 'Australian made'. The situation as it was before the changes to the country-of-origin legislation came into effect in July 2016 meant that consumers could be misled as to where their product came from. I just gave the example of orange juice, which was raised with me many times over the years.

The new requirements make it a great deal easier for consumers to navigate and understand the labelling. The new labels are consistent, clear and simplified.    They include an easily identifiable kangaroo triangle symbol, a bar chart and a text statement to show the proportion of Australian ingredients, ranging from zero per cent to 100 per cent Australian ingredients. What we want to aim for is to see 100 per cent Australian ingredients on as many products as possible that we buy here in Australia. Food that is only packed in Australia will have the text and bar chart showing the percentage of Australian ingredients. Imported food will clearly show the country of origin. This is very important. For example, I heard the member for Kingston speaking about her electorate earlier. I know a few years ago there was an issue where lots of olive growers in her electorate were rightly complaining about foreign olive oil coming in with claims it was 100 per cent virgin olive oil. There were also claims it was Australian because it was mixed with a small part of Australian olive oil. These are some of the complex scenarios that have existed.

Under these amendments, the last substantial transformation of a product carrying the label 'made in', 'manufactured in' or 'originating from' Australia must have happened here in Australia. This means that an imported product cannot claim it was made in Australia if it has only undergone minor processing such as slicing, canning, crumbing, reconstituting or repackaging in Australia. The amendments also remove 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. In addition, the amendments make it clear that packaging materials are not treated as ingredients or components for goods with 'product of' or 'grown in' labels. The amendments also stipulate that water, when used to reconstitute dehydrated or concentrated ingredients, is deemed to have the country of origin of the dehydrated ingredient, irrespective of the actual origin of the water.

It is a very complex area and it is very important for consumers to have faith in the products they buy. Consumers need to have as much information as possible to make those informed choices, so that, when they are making a choice, they know what they are purchasing and they know if they want to support an Australian-made product or if they want to buy something from overseas. It is also very important when you are buying specific types of ingredients. Sometimes, you may wish to purchase something from overseas because it is the best you can get in that area and it may something that we do not grow or do here. You also want to make sure that you are purchasing the correct product, even if it is from outside of Australia.

Consumers cannot be expected to read the fine print. Currently, it is so complicated. All of us have been to the supermarket, picked up a product and tried to work out where it was made or where it originated from. The print is so fine on every product that you have to have an in-depth knowledge of the labelling system in order to work out whether a product is right for you, your family or the consumer who is buying it. Everyone is so busy, and we understand that people want to make good and informed decisions quickly and easily. If you are anything like me, you want to run into the supermarket, grab what you need and do it as quickly as possible. The last thing I and the Australian public need is to look at very complicated labelling and not be able to understand it. But this should not undermine people's ability to make informed decisions. It is so important.

Australians are entitled to know exactly where their food comes from, and Australians have told us—me in my electorate office; others in hearings and different inquiries that have taken place—how important this is to them. This is why I welcome these changes, and it is great to note that these changes have also been welcomed by the majority of producers and manufacturers, as well as industry and consumer groups. In fact, the consumer group Choice has described these changes as:

…a big step towards ending the confusion around country of origin labelling, especially for consumers who want to know how much of a product was manufactured or grown locally.

However, I understand that consumer choice and information should not come with associated excessive cost to producers. This would be counterproductive, of course. It is also critical that consumers are protected without putting an undue burden on Australian food processors, which would simply have the effect of sending more manufacturing offshore. On this side of the House, we are committed to supporting consumers and businesses. As I said, this is a very topical issue. It is constantly raised with me at shopping centres and everywhere I go because people want to know what they are purchasing.

Labor supports this amendment because it provides certainty for businesses, particularly Australian food manufacturers, that the safe harbour provisions under Australian Consumer Law are aligned with the new requirements. This is why I welcome the fact that these new rules will make it clearer for businesses to know when certain claims can and cannot be used. It is also why we welcome the two-year transition period, to enable industry to move to these new labelling regulations.

The opposition, the Labor Party, has long been committed to these reforms. I have been long-time committed to reforms to better labelling, which, as I said, have been raised many times with me. In fact on many occasions I have mentioned it on local radio's 5AA in South Australia on the Leon Byner show because it is a topical issue and it comes up regularly. When we were 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.

Labor was very clear that we were committed to finding a bipartisan solution on food labelling. At the time, we called on the government to consult with consumer groups and food industry representatives. We understood then the need to work across government and with industry and consumer groups to develop a comprehensive and consistent approach to supporting Australia's food industry. This will make it much clearer for consumers and it will support local produce. We heard earlier others speak about their local markets and local farmer's markets. This is a good thing. For these reasons, I support this bill and I commend this bill to the House.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 because it is a great example of the Turnbull-Joyce government delivering. This is a government that keeps delivering on election promises and commitments. I note the previous speaker's contribution to this. I am glad he is a supporter. It is a pity we had to wait for our government to deliver it, and deliver it we will.

I was just noting to myself how this bill will improve or do good for my electorate. I just wrote down in about 30 or 60 seconds what food my electorate contributes to this economy. It contributes fish, beef, macadamias, dairy, blueberries, sugar, avocados, many other stone fruits, bananas, coffee and I could go on. They are just some of the examples of the food that my electorate produces and contributes to this economy. What we have always said and what the previous speaker noted was that the previous country-of-origin labelling was inadequate. It was something that since we have been in government in the last three years we have been committed to delivering—clear, simple country-of-origin labelling. Simple, you would think, but it has been quite an exhaustive process. What we have delivered are reforms that are going to provide consumers with very clear and easy to find country-of-origin labelling information so that they can make informed choices.

As many speakers before me commented, you could walk in and look at some labels on some processed food and it might have had no food that originated in this country but just have had some processing component that completed it in Australia and it could have an Australian label on it. This new labelling is going to show very clearly where the food is from, how much of the food content is from Australia and how much of it was processed here or elsewhere. This will give consumers great choice. It is good for our farmers and good for our food producers because we know that Australian consumers will buy Australian food even if it costs a little bit more than overseas food because they trust it. They trust our food, they trust our farmers and they trust our food producers. There was an example of frozen berries a couple of years ago, where people were made quite ill from eating food that had been processed elsewhere.

The substantial transformation test currently is inadequate. 'Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients' is when food is only minimally processed in Australia. Research has shown that the current framework is ineffective, particularly for food. Some origin labels and rules are still confusing and unhelpful. The proposed changes are aimed at providing businesses with increased certainty about what activities constitute or do not constitute substantial transformation. It will make clear that importing ingredients and undertaking minor processes that merely change the form or appearance of imported goods such as dicing or canning are not sufficient to justify a 'made in' claim. On top of the confusion to consumers, it is clear that the '50 per cent production cost' test that is currently used is an unnecessary burden on business and means little to consumers. I know that people across my electorate and indeed across the whole country have been calling for these changes on food labels.

The changes in this bill will make food labelling clearer, more meaningful and more accurate. This bill will help consumers identify the difference between descriptions like 'made in' and 'product of'. It is the aim of the new labels to be easier to understand. We are all time poor. When a consumer is walking down the aisle of a supermarket and they have a choice of different products, the labelling and the diagrammatic labels will be easy for the consumer to very quickly make an informed decision.

The changes will also assist with the reduction of red tape by removing the '50 per cent production cost' test. The regulatory burden for all businesses, not just food businesses will decrease. The regulation impact statement estimated the total savings from that will be close to $50 million per year and will increase for however many years it goes on. I know, Deputy Speaker Irons, you are very aware; you are a very informed member of parliament. I note you are very aware that there was an exhaustive, extensive consultation process with these country-of-origin label changes. There were discussions with businesses and community representatives. State and territory governments were involved. Our trading partners were involved. It is particularly important to note that, through this process, the government secured broad state and territory support for this.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the thousands of people who took the time and trouble to contribute their views and to work with us during the development of these reforms. Their participation helped us to achieve our goal of providing consumers with the information that they want. The government is also going to provide the ACCC with additional funding to help undertake compliance and enforcement activities in relation to the new requirements. The government has also agreed to fund a $15.2 million information campaign so that consumers understand the changes and are able to work with them. Australian Consumer Law will also be involved, obviously, with people who try to not do the right thing with this.

It is lovely to have three of my Nationals colleagues in the chamber with me—the Minister for Small Business is sitting over on the other side; I am sure temporarily—because within our party room we were very passionate about the issue that the law on country-of-origin labelling change. It was not a simple process. As I said, exhaustive consultation happened, and it was a very laborious process to get state and territory governments, business and our trading partners on board. But it was something that our communities, our food-producing communities, were passionate about. We wanted the good-quality, clean food that we process to be very identifiable to the Australian consumer, because the Australian consumer wants to support the Australian farmer. It is great for us in the Nationals, together with our coalition partner, to be able to do this. The other side had been talking about it and said they agreed with it, but we, like on many things, are delivering it. It has been a pleasure to talk to this bill.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As those in this place know, food labelling is an issue that I take very seriously. The Minister for Small Business just popped over to have a quick chat to me about food labelling. It is something we have debated quite a lot, particularly in relation to Chiko Roll food labelling! I have stood in this place before and said that the National Party and members of the cabinet should read the label for the Chiko Roll and learn firsthand—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Truth in labelling!

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

truth in labelling—that on the back of the Chiko Roll it says, 'Born in Bendigo'. Bendigo is the home of the Chiko Roll. We have a bit of a laugh about it, but it is actually a very serious issue. It is the serious issue we are talking about here today, which is country-of-origin and region-of-origin labelling. We will leave the debate about the origins of the Chiko Roll to one side. It is not the only food that is produced in our region.

This issue about food labelling does come up a lot. A lot of people have laughed for a long time about the label 'Made from local and imported products'. What does that label tell us? What is the point of putting 'Made from local and imported products' on the label of the produce that people consume? The extensive research that was done in the field to find out what would be best has produced a new set of labelling. The new labelling, whilst it will inform consumers more about the amount of 'made in Australia' or local product and content in what they are buying, raises a number of other questions. This is the area where I believe that the government has a bit of work to do in enforcing truth in food labelling. I know that the back of the Chiko Roll is true, that the Chiko Roll was born in Bendigo. It is not just folklore. And I know that the member for Riverina, who covers Wagga Wagga, cannot produce his own Chiko Roll labelling and say that the Chiko Roll is from Wagga Wagga, because it is just not true. How do we enforce that, though? That is where we come back to making sure that, for any labelling of food, we have the necessary resources and requirements to ensure that what is on the label is what people are getting.

I can understand why people in our community might be a bit sceptical when it comes to the government's track record, because it was on this government's watch that we had berries enter this country that had not been tested properly, and a number of people became quite ill. A number of people contracted hepatitis. The country of origin was not clearly listed on some of the products as China. The berries were contaminated, and a number of people became quite ill. Why this is relevant to this debate is that it speaks to this government's capacity to enforce its current regulations around food and the importation of food.

If these labels are to mean anything, I want to see the resources invested to make sure that the products that people are buying are in fact 100 per cent or 75 per cent or 50 per cent Australian made. I think about product that is produced in Victoria where this labelling will help, and I think of canned tomatoes. Whilst there are not a lot of tomatoes grown in my part of the world, just to the north of the Bendigo electorate there are. When you meet with Kagome—who not only manufacture tomato products; they also grow tomatoes—they talk about how MasterFoods, who are just next door, will quite often have some of their own crushed tomatoes in their MasterFoods food products but the bulk of the product comes from overseas. Therefore Kagome and the other growers in that part of the world feel a little bit like they have been cheated, in that, just by having a small amount of local Australian-produced tomatoes, MasterFoods are able to claim the catch-all title, 'Made from local and imported goods'. The labelling that has been put forward will help us to understand that.

Australians are entitled to know exactly where their food comes from. Australian law requiring all imported and domestic products to be labelled with the country of origin is important to ensure that people know what they are eating. We know, through consumer surveys, that, when people are in the deli and they see fish which is imported and the country of origin is on the label, they are less likely to buy it, because people know the clean, green image of Tasmanian salmon versus fish that might be from Thailand or Vietnam. People want to make an informed choice. Whilst people know that the price may be a little bit more expensive, Australians, like the rest of the world, are willing to pay for the quality and the peace of mind that they are eating food which is healthy and is meeting Australian standards.

It is critical that consumers are protected, without putting undue burden on the food processors. This is another important point. Today I met with Australian Pork. Pork is an industry that we have in the Bendigo region. On this issue, they said that they are waiting to see what happens. They have invested a lot in their Australian Pork logo, which is easily identified in our supermarkets—not just on our basketball teams. Australian Pork sponsored the Bendigo Spirit for a while, and you could not miss them with their bright pink square logo that they have developed. You cannot miss that logo when you are in the shopping centre. Australian Pork themselves invested in their own branding.

Pork is one of those industries which has, in the past, struggled with this issue of Australian made and local food and ensuring that we have the labelling right. There have been breaches in the past that have been followed up. The kind of pork product you buy can dictate whether or not it is Australian pork. In the Bendigo electorate, we have one of the biggest producers of bacon, at Don KR, and we are also one of the biggest producers of ham on the bone. It is coming up to Christmas, and I know that lots of people will be standing in the deli and making a choice. What most Australians do not realise is that, unless they read the label closely, the bacon product that they buy could actually be Canadian pork or pork from Europe. But the ham on the bone that they buy and bake themselves is actually Australian pork.

Truth in food labelling will also allow us to start educating consumers and encouraging consumers to buy Australian made and Australian grown. With that growth, we can hope to see more investment in these industries to help them expand. If we know that people are willing to pay for more when it comes to Australian made, those brands as well as those products have a good future. We can help to educate consumers about why buying Australian made is not only good for the grower but also good for local jobs. Food labelling is one area where we talk about 'Ag is the new black' and 'Ag is where the future jobs will come from,' but what is critical within that is making sure that everything that underpins it is focused on that 'Made in Australia' logo.

I recently met with the VFF Chicken Meat Group. They are concerned about some rumours that were flying around about looking at chicken coming into our country. Whilst fresh meat must be Australian chicken, because of our strict rules, they are concerned about products that might contain chicken that are processed overseas coming into our country and the impact that that might have on their market. They support these regulations because, whether it is chicken that you crumb yourself or chicken that is crumbed overseas, people want to know that what they are eating is Australian made and Australian grown.

Whilst Labor support these amendments because they provide certainty for business, particularly Australian food manufacturers, it is important to note that the government needs to do more to ensure that there is proper education around food labelling in our community and that there is also proper compliance to make sure that product coming in and product on our shelves has truth in labelling. We need to make sure that the product that consumers are eating and consuming does in fact live up to the label. I also hope that the 25 to 50 and 55 to 75 and then 100 per cent will encourage our food manufacturers to use more Australian grown, locally produced produce in their products. We know that Australians, if educated and engaged, will choose Australian over alternate brands.

This has been a long time coming. It is something that the community has talked about for a long time. It is something that Australians expect their government to keep an eye on. Australians want to know that the produce that they are buying in the shopping centres or at their local markets are safe. They want to know that it is what is on the label.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Chiko Roll.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member again interrupts with talk of the Chiko Roll. Let's just put it on the record again. If we are serious about truth in labelling and making sure that we have country-of-origin labelling, I suggest the minister and his colleagues read the back of the label of the Chiko Roll. Perhaps we can say that they helped set the benchmark for country-of-origin labelling, in that they printed on the back, 'Born in Bendigo'. Let's just relive a bit of the history of the Chiko Roll, why it was born in Bendigo and why we claim to be the home of the Chiko Roll.

Three brothers, Frank, Leo and Gerard McEncroe, who were dairy farmers, decided that they wanted to go into the catering business. Frank was the entrepreneur. He was a boilermaker who invented the equipment for, and who first designed, the Chiko Roll. Anybody who knows how to cook a Chiko Roll knows it could fall apart quite quickly in hot oil if it is not made effectively. What these brothers did—and I am putting this in the Hansard so that our friend, Mr McCormack, can respond if he wishes to—was that Frank, the boilermaker, invented a machine that basically created the Chiko Roll, they froze the Chiko Roll and then it was fried so that it would not fall apart. So it was invented in Bendigo by the McEncroe brothers. The McEncroe brothers first called the Chiko Roll the 'snack roll'. The 'snack roll' was sold at local sporting clubs, at the QEO and at agricultural shows. They travelled with the Chiko Roll. Through their catering business, the McEncroe brothers did take the Chiko Roll to the Wagga Wagga show. The ingredients were slightly different, because it depended upon what they had growing in their vegie patch at the time. They had run out of cabbage, so they replaced the cabbage with lucerne. Those were the Chiko Rolls that were at the Wagga Wagga show.

The origin of the Chiko Roll is clearly based in Bendigo with the three McEncroe brothers who had the catering business. Perhaps this is too much detail for food labelling—perhaps people do not need to know the full history of the Chiko Roll—but I will state very clearly and loudly again for the benefit of members and the minister that labelling is important. Even if it is just to dispel myths about the home of the Chiko Roll, food labelling is important. While we may make humour about the Chiko Roll, and I claim that the back of the Chiko Roll helps dispel the terrible myths being put forward by some of those opposite about the Chiko Roll, it does go to an underlying issue, which is that people do read the label. They do care about what is on the label. Knowing what percentage of the produce you are eating is locally made and produced is important to Australians. I encourage the government to ensure that there is investment in making sure that people live up to what the label says.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope the member for Bendigo is not planning on leaving the chamber. When she first entered parliament in 2013, I reached over the great divide, I reached over to the other side of the chamber, to bring her into a conversation about the origin of the Chiko Roll. Colin Bettles from Farm Weekly was wanting to do a story as a promotion out the front of the chamber to talk up this wonderful product. I am glad the member for Calare is not in the chamber, because he would be claiming it. The fact is, in talking about the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016, we can all talk about the Chiko Roll, because it is currently manufactured by Simplot in Bathurst in the Calare electorate. It has been since Simplot took ownership of the Chiko Roll brand in 1995. As the member for Bendigo quite correctly pointed out just a moment ago, it first saw the light of day at the Wagga Wagga agricultural show in 1951. I agree with her, the McEncroe's originally came up with the idea—they invented it—in Bendigo. However, as I have always said, it is not where you were thought of, it is not where you end up, it is where you were born that makes such a difference. It saw the first light of day in Wagga Wagga.

The Chiko Roll's filling, even though the name might suggest it is chicken—and I am sure you have enjoyed a Chiko Roll from time to time, Deputy Speaker Kelly—is primarily cabbage and barley, as well as carrots, green beans, beef, beef tallow, wheat cereal, celery and, indeed, onion. This legislation is important for all of those items because they all need proper labelling. They are all items which need truth in labelling, irrespective of where we might think that the Chiko Roll was invented. I know Wagga Wagga has a claim, I know Bathurst has a claim and I appreciate that Bendigo has a claim. When the member for Bendigo came to that little bit of social media interaction out the front of Parliament House, I just wish that she had handed me a Chiko Roll that was cooked. She handed me a frozen one, and I took a great bite out of it and nearly broke my teeth.

Getting on to the important matters before the House today, this bill has a simple proposition: consumers should have the best possible information to rely on when they go to the supermarket to shop. In rising to speak on this very important bill, I do so noting that this bill presents something of an article of faith for country people, and especially for the Nationals. I am so glad that the member for Mallee and the member for Hinkler, the assistant minister, are beside me to support the passage of this important legislation through the House. For decades, the idea that consumers should be able to have an easy-to-use reference of whether the produce on supermarket shelves is Australian has dominated conferences, branch meetings and, indeed, discussions of the Nationals right across the country. So, too, the more than 5,000 farmers, many of whom are small businesses—in fact, I would say almost all of whom are small businesses—whom I represent in this place, have made the case that Australian producers want Australian consumers to buy Australian food and fibre. It almost goes without saying. This is exactly what this bill proposes and delivers upon. I am so glad that the minister, Mr Hunt, is here, because he also knows just how important this legislation is.

As a country member of parliament, I can say this is a matter which has dominated the conversations and interactions I have had with people right across the Riverina and the Central West for years. Many constituents of mine have written and called over the years. I know they are pleased that the government is listening to their feedback and enacting sensible and meaningful change through this particular legislation. Country-of-origin labelling should provide Australians with access to reliable information about where their food comes from so that they can make informed choices about the product they purchase. That is exactly, precisely and deliberately what this legislation does.

When this legislation was first proposed, the Nationals, as part of the coalition government, indicated we would reform the system for country-of-origin labelling. My electorate had the Snowy Mountains and the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, so this is a matter of vital importance to many of my constituents and, indeed, many of my former constituents. A survey that I conducted of my electorate midway through last year demonstrated not only the widespread support for these changes but the opportunity they create for our primary producers.

As the minister responsible for consumer affairs—and I appreciate my shadow is opposite—I hear stories every day, and I am sure the member for Perth does, too, about how consumers want better access to information on supermarket shelves at a glance to make more informed decisions about purchases. It is why these changes have been top of mind since parliament resumed. State and territory and Commonwealth consumer affairs ministers agreed on 31 March this year to reform the country-of-origin labelling system for food to give consumers clearer and more meaningful information about the food they buy. They should expect nothing less. This is a critical reform. It is something on which the government has focused following extensive consultation with consumers and industry. And that word—'consultation'—keeps cropping up whenever we talk about legislation before this House, because that is what a responsible government does. That is what the Liberals and Nationals do. With every piece of legislation that comes before the House, we consult key stakeholders, industry groups, the various sectors affected and ordinary, everyday Australians—'Mr and Mrs Average', my mother-in-law often calls them. And she is right—as always.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No—she is! I love my mother-in-law. She is—she is so right. She always talks about 'Mr and Mrs Average'. When it all boils down—and we can talk about all of the important things in this House—it does boil down to what the average man and woman, the average family, the average boy or girl need, want and expect from government. This is something which is so critical. For the mums and dads who are going shopping, and for the single people who are going shopping, they need to be able to go into those wonderful IGA supermarkets—I will give them a plug—and look at the labels on the shelves and know that what they are getting inside that can or bottle is in fact what they are paying for. This legislation is just another example of how the government is delivering on its promise to put small business at the forefront of decision-making and listening to consumers and producer demands—listening to what, as my mother-in-law says, 'Mr and Mrs Average' would want.

I just want to talk quickly about some of the aspects of this bill. These reforms give Australian consumers, as I have said before, clear and more meaningful information about the food they buy. It does not impose excessive burden on business. That is so important. I have heard you, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, a number of times in this House—almost on a daily basis—talk about lifting the load from business, particularly small business. You understand, we on this side of the House understand, that it is important to not overload small businesses, in particular, with burdensome regulation. Cutting through the red tape! We just heard an earlier speaker—the member for Page—talk about ensuring that we did not overload small business with more regulatory burden. This is the most significant change in this contentious area—and it has been a very controversial area for decades.

Many foods found on Australian retail shelves will be required to include a kangaroo in a triangle logo if they have been made, produced or grown in Australia, and a bar chart to indicate the percentage of Australian ingredients in the food. This reform will also make it clearer that 'made in' means more than just packaging or performing minor processes on imported food. That is so important.

I know a farmer at Rankins Springs, Ian Munro—better known as 'Jock'—who is often texting me very early in the morning—

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Go Jock!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mallee says, 'Go Jock!' Don't give him your mobile number; he will text you every morning at 5 o'clock. But we has got it, member for Mallee, because he is always talking about making these changes not just because they sound good or because they are funky but to make sure that we make them so that they are meaningful.

The country-of-origin labelling reforms will be implemented by the new country-of-origin food labelling information standard under Australian consumer law—an area that I am responsible for as the Minister for Small Business. This legislation amends the existing safe harbour defences for country-of-origin claims. The amended legislation will apply to country-of-origin claims on all products, not just food. The reforms started on 1 July. The first labels are expected to appear in stores—and some already have. Businesses have two years to transition to the new labels. All stock in trade at the end of the period can see out its shelf life. To complement the reforms the government is also working with industry to digitise food product information to better position business and consumers for the future. That is so important. As I said, there has been stakeholder consultation. That is something that we as a coalition government always does.

The government understands that this bill needs to get through. It needs to get through because it is so important. It is important for farmers, it is so important for 'Mr and Mrs Average', it is so important for consumers going to supermarkets to know what they are buying is in fact what it says on the label. Truth in labelling is so important.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to sum up the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. Let me begin by acknowledging all of those who have contributed on the side of the opposition and those who are in the House. We have the member for Mallee, the member for Hinkler, the member for Riverina. I want to acknowledge the work of people, such as the member for Bowman, who have campaigned over many years, and the member from Reid, the assistant minister who has held carriage of this bill since the election. He has done a sterling job in working with the states, the opposition and all of the different industry groups that have interest in this space.

As the assistant minister said during the second reading speech, this bill forms part of the country-of-origin labelling reforms championed by the government. It is about truth in advertising. It is about allowing Australians to know Australian and to buy Australian. It is nothing more than a measure for full accountability so as those who make choices at the supermarket and at other retail venues are able to do so with full knowledge. It is about making sure that the kangaroo and the triangle, and the bar chart showing the percentage of produce from Australia, are clear, relevant and easily accessible.

Country-of-origin labelling reforms therefore represent a policy response to the growing demand by Australian consumers to know the origin of their food and to assist them in making informed choices about the product they purchase. This could be for reasons of health, confidence, economic consideration or national patriotic duty. The reforms, therefore, provide consumers with clear, meaningful and easier to find country-of-origin information so that they can make informed purchasing decisions. It is about personal preference informed by genuine, reliable information. The country-of-origin labelling reforms have bipartisan support. They have been worked through carefully with the opposition on a consultative basis and, until this moment, have been done entirely in collaboration. I hope—notwithstanding the late news of a second reading amendment—they will continue to have full bipartisan support. I also note that the Senate Economics Legislation Committee considered the bill and recommended that it be passed. We all thank them for that.

As Australians, what we want to know is whether or not the food we buy is from the country we live in or, if it is from elsewhere, where it is from, in what percentage and whether it was made here or packaged here. We also want to know how much of it was grown by our Australian farmers—clearly, unequivocally, the best in the world. The country-of-origin labelling reforms—fondly known as the 'cool reforms' by my assistant minister—are not only about labelling but also about removing regulatory impost on industry. Importantly, this bill, for instance, when passed by the parliament, presuming it does find favour in both houses, will allow for some significant changes to the Australian Consumer Law country-of-origin safe-harbour defences. These defence provisions provide certainty for business. If specific criteria are met, a business will have certainty that its approach to country-of-origin labelling is not misleading or deceptive. The proposed changes to Australian Consumer Law will simplify these defences and ensure they better reflect consumer expectations and international practice. They will make it clearer that minor processes such as packaging, slicing, diluting, crumbing or canning are not sufficient to justify origin claims such as 'made in', consistent with consumer expectations and international reforms. They will remove unnecessary burdensome or redundant revisions and amend and align remaining provisions with the new country-of-origin labelling standard made on 13 April this year.

The last issue I want to deal with which has been raised in passing by some government members and senators such as Senator Back and the member for Leichhardt, in consultation with some members of the fisheries industry, as well as, I acknowledge, by the member for Perth, is in relation to the origin labelling for seafood sold in the food services sector. It is what my assistant minister has described 'as dealing with the seafood basket question'—how you deal with an ever-changing product that has a multiplicity of sources without imposing an unnecessary burden on the restaurant and catering sector; something that none of us would want to do. That question has been raised through a second reading amendment.

I would note that the ministers of the Legislative and Governance Forum on Consumer Affairs decided in March 2016—this was from all states and territories and from people of both persuasions—not to extend mandatory country-of-origin labelling to the food services sector at this time, essentially for the reason of cost and complexity. That was a decision taken in consultation with the jurisdictions in March of this year, where the state and territory jurisdictions themselves—irrespective of their political leanings or their party—were concerned about an unnecessary burden on the sector. However, in good faith, recognising that there are views in both directions, I propose, in order to take forward the work of the parliament, whilst we cannot support this amendment without the work and cooperation of the states and territories—that would be a breach of the COAG commitment—I will undertake to include consideration of improved origin labelling for seafood sold in the food services sector through a working group on food services within the fisheries and seafood sector.

We would invite not just the states and territories but both the seafood sector and the restaurant, catering, hospitality and small business sectors to be involved. I will ask the assistant minister to lead the process, to report within 12 months and to invite the opposition to be part of the process. It is a genuine, good faith recognition of an issue that has been raised both by the sector and by some on our backbench as well as by the opposition. I think that is the way not to create a process of bad faith that accepting this amendment now would represent, and would be in breach of our COAG process and commitment. Having won the support of the states and territories, I would not want to do anything that lost the support of the states and territories. I hope that step forward is a constructive one and it acknowledges that parliamentary debate can advance an issue. I think that is the way this parliament should work at its best.

Having said that, I particularly want to thank my predecessor, the Leader of the House, and I want to acknowledge the commitment of the Prime Minister and the leader of the National Party, both of whom have been staunch advocates of this bill and these reforms. I would like to thank all of those people who have contributed, particularly those in the chamber at the moment: the member for Hinkler, the member for Mallee and my assistant minister, the member for Reid who have advanced this cause. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 is a genuine national reform. It is about truth in labelling, information for consumers and a better shot for Australian farmers to compete equally and on merit. With those comments, I thoroughly commend this bill to the House.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Perth has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.