Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I table the explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIAN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN FOOD LABELLING) BILL 2013

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Competition and Consumer Act to create specific provisions for country of origin labelling requirements for food.

In doing so it responds to key recommendations from the Independent Blewett Review of food labelling in Australia in his report "Labelling Logic".

At the heart of these recommendations is the contention that that country of origin labelling for food should be treated differently from other goods because, as Blewett noted "food is ingested unlike other consumer goods that are just used". However, it should be addressed through consumer law rather than food safety standards, as ultimately it is a matter of truth and accuracy in labelling.

This bill responds to these recommendations by creating a specific provision in the Competition and Consumer Act for the treatment of country of origin claims for food with some proportion of Australian content, separate from other goods.

To assist with the well-documented confusion arising from current country of origin labelling practises, this bill sets out to create a simple three-tier standard of labelling for food with any form of Australian origin or processing.

In the first instance, it retains the well-established premium of 'Product of Australia', where all the significant ingredients and processing must have occurred in Australia to make this claim.

For fresh unpackaged food, it also allows the use of 'Grown in Australia' as this is a clear and now well-established and understood claim.

Secondly, for food that has been manufactured in Australia, that is substantially transformed, it requires such packaged food to be labelled 'Manufactured in Australia'. This term is specified to replace 'Made in Australia' because consumer research has shown that people confuse the term 'Made in', thinking it denotes the origin of the food, not just where it was processed.

This amendment will achieve two important improvements: it will clarify for consumers that the label is about where the food has been processed, not where the ingredients are from; provide a strong label identifying local manufacture to help Australians support local jobs in food processing; and it will help prevent imported food from masquerading as Australian content by making it clear that this label only speaks to the processing, not the ingredients.

A further reform in this bill is that it provides for the creation of a regulation to provide clear guidance on the meaning of 'substantial transformation' in relation to food processing. It is clear from the evidence that understanding what qualifies as food manufacturing – that is substantial transformation – is a grey area, and some companies push the envelope in their claims.

It must be remembered that the purpose of the substantial transformation test is to reward significant investment and jobs in local food manufacturing. The system breaks down if manufacturing claims are made for much lesser and often more transient investments.

Therefore this bill recommends that a regulation on the definition of substantial transformation provide a list of processes that do not qualify. This would significantly increase the clarity and transparency of 'Manufactured in Australia' claims, and support local food processing jobs.

It is worth noting too, that historically the companies investing in genuine food manufacturing in Australia are the most likely to also be sourcing local food for their products. To further encourage clear labelling of Australian ingredients, this bill allows for the voluntary highlighting of local content that comprise significant ingredients – for example a chocolate might therefore be labelled "Manufactured in Australia from Australian milk".

This allows for the fact that there are some foods manufactured in Australia that don't use all local ingredients for the simple reason that Australia does not produce it in sufficient quantity for it to be possible – cocoa beans for making chocolate being a good example. But it does allow for local significant ingredients to be differentiated, which in turn means that consumers can reward local content and greater transparency at the cash register.

Finally the bill establishes a third tier of labelling to deal with packaged food that does not have sufficient Australian content or processing to qualify for the other claims. At the moment these products use the least understood – by as little as 3% of Australians in fact – and most frustrating current country of origin claims, those known as 'qualified claims' – terms such as 'Made from imported and local ingredients'.

These vague catch-all statements at best confuse and frustrate consumers, and they certainly don't support informed decisions. This bill prohibits them, and instead requires any packaged food that has some level of Australian processing or content, but that does not meet 'Product of' or 'Manufactured in' claims to simply say "Packaged in Australia".

By providing three tiers of country of origin claims, this bill offers an opportunity to greatly simplify a complex and frustrating area of food labelling. It responds specifically to years of consumer research, showing that Australians equally want to know where their food is from, and where it was processed.

I want to now briefly describe the process of how this bill has come about. Fifteen months ago I introduced the Competition and Consumer Act (Australian Food Labelling) Bill 2012 to the parliament, a bill which I have now withdrawn.

The Competition and Consumer Act (Australian Food Labelling) Bill sought to implement the key recommendations of the Blewett Review as I have outlined before, and also those in which he recommended that country of origin labelling of food be based solely on the origin of the ingredients.

My previous bill allowed these key recommendations to be tested, which is a necessity given that food labelling is frequently acknowledged to be an area of great complexity fraught with unintended consequences.

For this reason I encouraged all interested parties with expertise in the area of country of origin food labelling to make a submission to the Senate inquiry, and urged them to not just focus on critiquing the bill, but if possible provide viable alternatives.

As a result the senate inquiry was a demonstration of just how effective this core process can be to help focus attention and find solutions in a complex area of law. In addition to submissions from the public expressing support for clearer labelling, I am especially grateful to AUSVEG, the Australian Manufacturers Workers Union, Australian Made Australian Grown, the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance and CHOICE for their investment of time and goodwill in providing constructive input to the bill. CHOICE deserve special acknowledgement for their work in putting forward viable alternatives to the current labelling system, and my bill reflects the core of their recommendations.

As a result of this constructive work, we were able to identify which of Blewett's recommendations would be effective, which would not, and clear common ground for reform in an area of great interest to many Australians.

The Competition and Consumer (Australian Country of Origin Food Labelling) Bill that I introduce today is the product of that process.

I want to once more put on record why this issue is so important. This is a topic on which there is a clear and united public view. Whenever the question is asked, overwhelmingly Australians tell us that they want to be able to easily identify and buy Australian-grown food, and overwhelmingly they are frustrated in that desire by current country of origin labelling.

CHOICE provided updated comprehensive research to this effect as part of their submission to the senate inquiry into the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Food Labelling) Bill this year, once again confirming Australia's desire to have clear country of origin labelling that allows them to easily identify and choose to purchase food grown and processed in Australia.

I believe this bill offers a tangible step forward to improving country of origin labelling for food, one that has support from organisations representing Australian growers, local jobs in food manufacturing and information transparency for consumers.

There are no doubt further reforms we could and should consider over time. It is still difficult for example, for some forms of local processing that supports local jobs to get recognition under these proposed labelling claims - and the existing one.

But the ability to pursue further improvements should not be used as a reason to oppose the reforms this bill offers. We must remember that over half of Australians are very clear that they do make food purchasing decisions based on whether the food is local.

For Australian farmers and food manufacturers, this bill is urgent. As the news continues to be filled with stories of Australian food manufactures going into administration or slashing their intake of local content, and as Australian farmers struggle to keep market share at home against a rising tide of cheap imports, it has never been more timely to help Australians identify and buy local food. It is time to act.

I commend this bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.