Mr PYNE (1:20 PM) —The member for Oxley has already made a number of contributions on the subject of food labelling in this House. Indeed, I followed the member for Oxley in a grievance debate recently when he spoke and waxed lyrical on the subject of jam—a micropolicy if ever there was one. However, it is certainly pleasing to see that the current member for Oxley is concerned more with issues of substance than his predecessor, who brought great embarrassment to this House.

Food labelling crosses two broad and important policy areas: health and consumer rights. The member for Oxley has raised some interesting points covering both these areas in his motion, but it is disappointing that in it he has also chosen to make cheap, false and contradictory attacks on the federal government's position. For example, in his own speech, he talked about the moving of ANZFA out of the health area. That is certainly not the intention of the government. ANZFA remains firmly in the health department, because food labelling is as much a health issue today as it was when the Labor Party was in office.

On the one hand, the member for Oxley claims that consumers want explicit details on the foodstuffs that they purchase. In the grievance debate on 29 March, he observed that `the Australian consumer today is hungry for information on food'. The implication is that most consumers will favour purchasing foodstuffs that provide these details and information, but the member for Oxley contradicts himself by protesting that the government should establish what would be a complex, inefficient framework of rules, regulations and legislation to compel food producers to provide these details. In other words, the government should force producers to meet market demands. The member for Oxley clearly does not understand the concept of market forces. But I am not going to give him a small lecture on economics because his colleague the member for Werriwa does so on a regular basis and I am sure that he can be left to do that task.

In the time remaining to me in this debate, I will outline the coalition government's reforms to date in the area of food labelling in addition to potential policy directions. The old adage `you are what you eat' is very sage advice. Like the member for Oxley, I would like to see all Australians taking an active interest in the nutritional value and exact content of the foods they eat. It is a practice that would lend itself to the prevention of avoidable illnesses and promote better health, both physical and mental. A healthier population is not just a responsible social policy outcome in terms of better quality of life, it is also a positive economic policy. A healthier population will result in greater national productivity due to the taking of less sick leave, as well as reducing demand and cost to the public and private health systems.

A food labelling policy which enforces antiquated and inefficient regulatory frameworks on food producers will not make people healthier. It will not make people who do not read the content labels of foodstuffs any more informed or aware. The government cannot force people to read labels and be product aware. A better and more productive strategy is to educate the public about nutritional standards through education and consumer awareness programs. If consumers are familiar with the benefits of better eating and the importance of purchasing foodstuffs which clearly detail their nutritional standards, then the market will respond accordingly—and that is exactly what the government has set out to achieve.

Enhanced consumer awareness is best achieved through education and marketing. Education programs that target a specific issue or initiative are an important responsibility of government. The coalition government has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to public education and awareness programs. Whether it be informing people about the 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance, a new tax system or the debate about a national head of state, making the public more aware of nutritional standards and food labelling is another responsibility of government.

Creating consumer awareness about nutritional standards will develop genuine consumer demand for food labelling. If people are aware of the many benefits of eating nutritious foods and if people know what to look for when evaluating the nutritional value of food product, then it only stands to reason that people will favour purchasing foodstuffs that make this information available. Food producers will know that, if they do not meet this demand, their sales revenue will plummet and their market share will be lost to the producer who has met the standards of food labelling which consumers demand.

To meet consumption patterns, the market for reduced fat or less sugar products has significantly increased in recent years. Food producers know that, if they want to capture a share of the market, they need to meet that market's food labelling and identification requirements. This phenomenon has also resulted in substantial product development and innovation. Other niche markets are also developing. The Organic Federation of Australia believes that the organic produce market is an industry worth $100 million a year. In fact, in my own electorate an organic supermarket recently opened on Magill Road and its business is thriving. This indicates that, in fact, on the ground, what I am saying is true.

The member for Oxley fails to recognise the significance of the coalition government's contributions to reforms in the area of food labelling. This includes amendments which were passed through the Senate in the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998. The passing of this legislation was a great win for consumers as well as many local industries, particularly the citrus industry. The citrus industry was suffering as a result of legislation which the former Labor government presided over. That legislation included a regulatory framework that was putting many important jobs at risk.

Under the coalition government's reforms, producers have a superior competitive edge in marketing their product by clearly identifying whether the goods for sale are produced and/or manufactured in Australia. Under the government's reforms, to be labelled `Made in Australia', products must be substantially transformed in Australia and the majority of the costs incurred in Australia. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a person from rural Australia, you would know exactly what I am talking about; the National Party played a crucial role in that legislation and in ensuring that Australian producers were not disadvantaged vis-a-vis overseas producers.

To qualify for a `Produce of Australia' label, the premium label, the product must be 100 per cent Australian or as near to it as possible. The coalition government has committed itself to assist in the promotion of labels in conjunction with an education program and marketing campaign which will identify products as being above the 50 per cent Australian content threshold.

Although these reforms have been successful, the coalition government is prepared to consider further reforms to food standards practice. The Australian New Zealand Food Authority has made great contributions to the development of food labelling policies. I understand that the authority is currently undertaking a review of food standards—and I am sure that the parliamentary secretary at the table would be aware of some of these issues, having been the parliamentary secretary for health in the last parliament and having some responsibility in the area of food labelling.

The member for Oxley may be interested to learn that the underlying principles of the review currently being conducted by the authority were first agreed to under the Keating government and are now being progressed by all state and territory health ministers. At present, Australia has 93 food standards in operation to ensure that our food is safe and meets strict compositional requirements. However, many of these food standards were developed over 20 years ago and no longer hold any contemporary currency in terms of meeting consumers' demands and the commercial practicalities of producers. Most of these standards are highly prescriptive, unnecessarily technical and a barrier to product development and innovation. Unnecessary regulatory demands not only add to the costs to the manufacturer, they also result in financial burdens on consumers. Streamlining the food standards process whilst simultaneously maintaining its integrity will have the twofold effect of protecting consumers and reducing production costs.

The priority of the food standards review is to ensure that there are effective food composition and labelling standards in place to ensure that food is safe for people. It is essential that the standards are clear and easy for consumers to understand. Contrary to the member for Oxley's hyperbole, Australian food standards will never be compromised where there is a demonstrated risk to public safety and health. There can be little doubt that many of the current food standards that concentrate on the rigid composition of food are best managed by industry in response to consumer demand. The removal of many prescriptive food standards will see a greater range of food products as manufacturers are freed from unnecessary technical barriers.

But the member for Oxley appears to be supporting a complicated web of bureaucratic red tape to regulate the labelling of food. If that is not the case, I would ask him to clear that matter up for us, perhaps in the adjournment or 90-second statement debate. I am very sceptical of the idea that this is an efficient and productive use of government and industry resources.

The government already regulates deceptive conduct and misleading advertising through trade practice and fair trading legislation. I can see little reason to reinvent the wheel by creating a complicated web of bureaucratic rules that make industry inefficient and products more expensive. A public policy which actively promotes the benefits of better nutrition and educates the public about how to determine the nutritional value of food represents a superior strategy. I will leave the other coalition speakers to cover some of those issues to do with health and the benefits to Australians of a good nutritional policy.