Senator WOODLEY (4:03 PM) —I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This Private Senator's Food Labelling Bill is introduced with two very simple aims: (1) to enable consumer choice to be informed choice; and (2) to ensure competition and trade is conducted in a transparent and fair manner.

The Bill ensures that all food which is being sold in Australia is labelled to indicate the extent to which Australia benefits from the sale of the product. It also includes countries involved in the supply of raw materials. By ensuring truthful labelling, Australian businesses, consumers and unemployed people will all benefit.

I would like to acknowledge the work of Senator Lees in her conduct of successful supermarket trials and the subsequent preparation of a Food Labelling Bill in 1993. Unfortunately, the 1993 elections came soon after the second reading and the issue was swept under the carpet.

It should be noted that, in the past, special meetings between farmer organisations, government and processors resulted in agreement for labelling legislation.

Even though both the Labor and Coalition governments have promised food labelling legislation, neither have delivered on their promises. Now is the time for both the Coalition and the Labor Party to make good their fallen promises.

It is in the interests of consumers, rural people, business people and unemployed people of Australia that this very important issue is now addressed.

In the Government's Background Information Sheet on Country of Origin Labelling it states that "The Government believes that ANZFA, a joint Commonwealth/ State/ New Zealand body, is the appropriate organisation to determine any extra labelling requirements for food."

A letter from the Minister Truss' office states that the World Trade Organisation is working towards the development of rules of origin. It is being assisted by a Technical Committee which has been established by the World Customs Organisation. The strongest assurance from the Minister about the impact on Australian food labelling by the international standards which may be several years away, is that "Domestic labelling will be kept firmly in mind as we move closer to the adoption of internationally harmonised rules of origin."

I was under the impression that the Australian Parliament was elected to make food labelling legislation for Australia, and not ANZFA or the WTO. Of course submissions from ANZFA and the WTO would be well received, "to keep firmly in mind" their viewpoints. I was also under the impression that we were here to represent the interests of Australian consumers, Australian companies and businesses, and most importantly, Australia's unemployed.

I thoroughly endorse the Minister's intention to get around to amending existing legislation to better address food labelling concerns. It was disappointing to note that the Minister neglected this task until our Democrat announcement about this Food Labelling Bill, however at least he's now thinking about the problem.

Unfortunately, the Government endorsed approach is still about getting the unsuccessful model of an "either/ or" labelling system in place.

Either the product is made in Australia or it isn't.

Either the product is a Product of Australia or it isn't (even with the proposed Cost of Production test).

The reality of the situation is that because of our geography and our varying ability to grow, synthesise, process or package the multitude of food additives and raw materials, the situation is:

"to varying degrees the product:

- includes ingredients from Australia,

- was value added by processing conducted in Australia,

- was packaged using Australian raw materials;

- and was actually packaged in Australia".

We, in the Democrats, advocate for Australian consumers, Australian business and the unemployed people of Australia. As their representatives, we can no longer just wait, hoping the Government of the day will gain enough knowledge about the food industry to develop a system which reflects the reality of industry practices.

The Australian Democrats have developed a graded system, so that the amount of benefit to Australia is what is placed on the label. Each and every food supplier whose sale to some extent benefits Australia is, in return, able to benefit from the marketing advantage of using a standard symbol which simply varies in colour.

We are not about punishing use of imports, but rewarding effort and focus on Australian business and Australian employment opportunities.

We are not about blocking imports, but about fair and truthful trade and business practices.

If it truly is the intention of the government and the opposition to ensure fair practices for the benefit of Australian consumers, businesses and unemployed people, then they will have no problem endorsing this legislation.

I don't believe all of the big players in the food industry would want food labelling legislation which is as fair as ours. This could be because their maximum profits depend on high usage of imports, or it could even be because the corporations have significant levels of foreign ownership.

However, the Australian owned and controlled small to medium sized businesses and companies do want it. They want to provide benefits to their Australian shareholders, owners, employees, and consumers.

The unemployed people of Australia want this truthful labelling because they know fair trade and competition converts to more jobs for Australians. The final result, of course, is a healthier economy, something to benefit both current and future generations.

The sale of foods which have been partially or wholly produced, processed or packaged overseas is on the increase.

Australia imports many foods which are being produced in Australia: beef, rice, vegetables, fruit, jam, fish, biscuits, beer, wine, mineral water, dairy products, breakfast cereals.

The philosophy of this Bill is in line with that of the "Buy Australian" program.

According to the Australian Owned Companies Association, if just 10% less goods and services were imported out of consumer choice for Australian goods (which were at least 75% Australian value-added) then:

. approximately 225,000 full time Australian jobs would have been created;

. the 1995/6 Current Account deficit would have been $12.8 billion instead of $20.3 billion;

. foreign debt would have been $7.6 billion less; and

. the Federal and State Governments would have earned an extra $2 billion in income, payroll and other taxes. (ABS derived figures)

The Australian Democrats do not support the "unfair, non-level playing field" trade in foodstuffs with overseas countries. However, we do acknowledge that it is occurring. We know that without adequate checks such as this responsible and fair legislation, it will increase rapidly over the next few years.

All we want,

all Australians want,

is to ensure the labelling is truthful and fair.

We just want to give Australians a fair go.

The aim of the Private Senator's Bill which I am proposing is to make it quick and easy for consumers to identify the extent to which their buying decision benefits Australia. It proposes simple labelling to ensure truth in labelling by producers, processors, wholesalers and retailers.

The Bill also makes compulsory a table of product contents, detailing each ingredient, its percentage by volume in the product and its country of origin, in letters at least 4 mm high (example below).

The Bill ensures food products will be identified as one of six different colour coded food categories:

category A food is a food all of the steps in the production of which (including any packaging) are done in Australia by a business that is, or by 2 or more businesses each of which is, a wholly Australian business.

(Coded using a Gold symbol, probably a map of Australia)

category B food is a food all of the steps in the production of which (including any packaging) are done in Australia by a business that is, or by 2 or more businesses each of which is, a majority Australian business.

(Coded using a Silver symbol)

category C food is a food all of the steps in the production of which (except packaging) are done in Australia by a business that is, or by 2 or more businesses each of which is, a majority Australian business.

(Coded using a Bronze symbol)

category D food is a food all of the natural ingredients of which are grown in Australia by a business that is, or by 2 or more businesses each of which is, a majority Australian business

(Coded using a Black and White symbol)

category E food is a food where at least one of the steps in the production of which (including growing of ingredients and packaging) is done in Australia by a business that is, or by 2 or more businesses each of which is, a minority Australian business.

(Coded using a Grey and White symbol)

category F food means a food that has no Australian content or input.

(Coded using a Black and White symbol with a red cross through it)

Surveys show that where there is a choice and prices are similar, people will buy Australian. Eighty eight percent of respondents to a Morgan Gallup poll indicated they thought people should buy Australian when prices were similar to non-Australian products. The problem is in the provision of the information so informed choices can be made.

Both Coles and Woolworths have implemented their own costly Australian product identification schemes. This clearly indicates the public demand for such information and the poor state of our labelling laws.

This legislation gives consumers the opportunity to reward Australian businesses, to support the Australian economy, and even to "Buy Australian and buy Australians jobs".

If the Liberal government says let the market decide, then let's let the consumer decide what it wants on the basis of truthful information. I believe "consumer driven" is a founding principle of market economists.

There are a number of issues surrounding the dramatic increases in imported foods to Australia—tariff levels, dumping, foreign subsidies, and price competition. Genuine fair competition on price is rare. More usually it is based on exploitation of labour providers and the environment.

The question we need to answer is how much of the increase in imports is because consumers are denied the right to know what they are buying and who benefits by their purchase.

A study by the Printing and Allied Trades Employer's Federation of Australia suggests the Australian printing, packaging and labelling industry is losing some $50 million every year as a result of poor, misleading, or non-existent country of origin information. They consider the wider Australian economy is losing some $500 million from the problem, including 500 jobs in the printing, labelling and packaging industry.

This Bill is not a protectionist device.

Its an honesty device.

The economic rationalists should love it because it helps fulfil one of the conditions of a perfectly functioning free market—perfect information.

Debate (on motion by Senator Calvert) adjourned.