Mr FORREST (1:31 PM) —It is my intention to talk about country of origin labelling rather than to focus on what the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Crean), has just irrelevantly contributed. I have sat here patiently while parliament's time has been wasted to the tune of 30 minutes whilst there are people out there who have waited a decade for the parliament to get to agree on this legislation.

This matter has been an issue for me for the whole five years that I have been here. My very first question on notice in this very place was on this issue—to the then Minister for Consumer Affairs and then member for Grayndler. The consequence was that she came to my electorate and spoke to the same citrus growers and the same dried fruit growers that the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss), the honourable member for Wide Bay, who now sits at the table, spoke to again this year during a visit. They had almost given up on whether this parliament had the capacity to bring the community together to pass this legislation. So my opening remarks are to congratulate the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs for having the courage to force it through.

It is with a great deal of relief that I stand here finally as the government speaker in this debate. I appreciate the honour that has been given to me to speak on the coalition's behalf, particularly by those backbenchers who have worked extremely hard on this legislation. One is the member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), who represents similar citrus growers, dried vine fruit growers and dried tree fruit growers. Another is the member for Riverina (Mr Hicks). There are many other rural members who represent the food producers of our nation and, indeed, there are other members of this place who have interests in regard to whitegoods and all of the other consumables that are produced. So, what a relief it is to finally have the legislation here. It is also some relief to have some level of bipartisanship from the opposition.

I was present last Thursday, only a week ago, at a public meeting attended by well over 200 pork producers from not only my part of the world but from South Australia and other parts of Victoria. The shadow minister for primary industry, the member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), was present at that meeting. He gave a commitment to those who urge for this legislation to be urgently supported and finally enacted so that they can get truth in labelling to meet their needs that he would ensure this bill had a speedy passage here. I am just appalled that the opposition have now sought to support the reference of this bill to another committee in the other chamber. There has been such a long history of this issue going to committees for referral. Why another inquiry? The debate is over. The consumers out there are demanding truth.

There is an enormous amount of goodwill amongst Australians to support Australian growers. The dilemma they have when they approach the supermarket shelf is: which one is clearly identifiable as the Australian product? We have had this nonsense that has been allowed to happen in the last decade about the term `Made in Australia'. Court case after court case finally not only reduced the confidence that consumers have in a product but also the confidence that manufacturers have in putting that label on their product, given that many of their components come from overseas whereas the essential character and manufacturing of the item has used Australian labour.

I noted the comments from the member for Hotham in the early part of his remarks indicating some responsibility by the government for not supporting the Australian Made logo and organisation. The reason was that that was a private enterprise, and it was the lack of confidence by manufacturers and everybody else that saw their demise. If anything should highlight the point about the confusion that exists in the minds of consumers and manufacturers, it is that very point, because, with court case after court case, the rules have never been distinct about what is the essential character of an item, how much its components are manufactured, and how much input of labour is by Australians.

I hope that if there is an inquiry in the Senate—I would certainly prefer there not to be one and that the Senate just give their speedy assent to the legislation—it is swift, because pork producers are suffering tremendously out there; they have waited patiently for the parliament they elected to resolve this issue. I think the minister is to be congratulated for finally establishing a formula to get around this thorny issue of essential character. The implementation of a substantial transformation test is the way to indicate that.

I note that the member for Burke has now entered the chamber, and I would remind him and other members present of the level of demand of those pork producers at that meeting in my electorate last Thursday. The substantial transformation test that this legislation provides is that, if 50 per cent of the cost of production of the goods is borne in Australia, that is the level that will determine the application of the term Made in Australia.

But the real strength is the enshrinement of the terms Product of Australia and Produce of Australia. I think the debate we need to win in terms of public understanding, especially in relation to food, is that Product of Australia and Produce of Australia are the labels to look for on supermarket shelves. If one goes to a supermarket with a commitment to support Australian growers of food—that is in the interests of my electorate; the interests of others will be different, but mine is essentially to deliver to those citrus and pork producers of my electorate—Product and Produce of Australia are the two terms which are 100 per cent guaranteed to represent what is truly an Australian product. That is the public debate we need to win.

In addition to that, to embrace the amount of manufacture and value adding that often goes on, many products made into a final item for consumption confusingly do include ingredients that are not made in Australia or not produced here, and we should have the term Made in Australia to describe the item as essentially, although not entirely, Australian.

Mr Rocher —Fifty per cent.

Mr FORREST —Fifty per cent is enough to accommodate everybody. If we want to revisit some higher percentage than that—70 or 75 per cent—this legislation will get buried again, as so many other manufacturers will re-enter the argument. We have been arguing about this for 10 years. It is virtually impossible to make the term mean all things to all men. If the essential character of the item and the substantial transformation test are in here, then let us make a decision on that and determine that that is sufficient for the item to be called Made in Australia. The real strength of the legislation that the minister has put before us in supporting Australian food producers are the two items Product of Australia and Produce of Australia. I just hope that we go on from here and win that debate from the public's perception.

In conclusion, I would like to respond to the contribution that has been made by the member for Hotham. He has drawn an enormous and incredibly long bow between items 3, 4 and 5 in schedule 2 of the legislation to make any connection with what has occurred in the last month or so on the wharves. He is just looking for an excuse to divert the real issue here. I did not hear him speak once about the pain that citrus, dried fruit and pig producers have been going through. I did not hear him indicate once his concern for those people out there who carry the back of this nation. If he wants to indicate some level of bipartisanship on this, it is an irrelevancy to my pork producers at the moment to hear a 30-minute contribution about some alleged conspiracy in connection with recent activities on the waterfront. I was looking forward to a positive contribution from the member from Hotham, having heard the member for Burke publicly advocate his support for a speedy resolution of this legislation through both chambers of this parliament. This is a matter of urgency. The sooner this legislation is enacted the better. I am pleased to offer my support for it and commend it to the House. I look forward to its speedy transition.