PRIME MINISTER:
As you know, everything this Government does is designed to strengthen our economy. At the moment, we are particularly keen to strengthen Australia's great agricultural sector. We’ve had a Northern Australia White Paper, we’ve had an Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper. Australian agriculture needs to be at least as much a part of our economic future as it’s been a part of our economic history. Part of building on the strengths of Australian agriculture is allowing people in this country and elsewhere to know exactly how much of the product is Australian.
So, today, with my distinguished colleagues – the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Industry – I’m very pleased and proud to announce this important initiative on country of origin labelling.
You can see before you exactly what we have in mind. If a product has got the green and gold kangaroo triangle, it is made or processed in Australia. If the product has the gold bar, the product is Australian. So it’s really a very simple and straightforward initiative which is designed to ensure that people right around the world know that what they are buying is Australian.
I want to thank both Ministers for the work they’ve done on this. This really is important and this is something that the Australian public have wanted for a long time and I am pleased that this Government is determined to give it to them.
AGRICULTURE MINISTER:
Thank you very much, Prime Minister, and also thank you to my good friend and colleague, Macca, for all the work you’ve done. Obviously, what this is about is being truthful to the Australian people about what they buy with their money.
The Australian people overwhelmingly wanted greater clarification and greater honesty in the description of where their product comes from. This was most seen in its most pronounced form when it came to Australian produce and especially the closer you got to fresh produce. What this has allowed us to do is say to people, well, you have a free choice – we are not being parochial, you can buy whatever product you want from wherever you wish – but if you choose to say I want to buy something that is underpinned by Australian phytosanitary requirements, underpinned by my desire to see our dollars go back to the Australian farm, then I have a right to do that and I have a right to use my money that I have earned to buy that product.
In the past, it was always a case of frustration where you would pick up a can and it would say something like ‘made in Australia’. The overwhelming sentiment of that statement was that, obviously, this product is Australian. Then on greater investigation, it became quite apparent it was anything but Australian. It might have been put into a can in Australia but that’s about as far as it went. What this does is it gives you a clear understanding, number one, if it’s been manufactured or substantially changed, it’s Australian. If it has Australian produce, it will be registered by a gold mark on this bar graph. That’s simple, as we said it would be, it’s diagrammatic as we said it would be, it’s proportional as we said it would be and it’s compulsory as we said it would be.
I thank everybody for this process. I think this sits on the back of a white paper that we have delivered – substantial increase in the outcomes for agriculture in our white paper. On a new live cattle deal to China – substantial increase in what we are doing for the Australian market in beef; that will be our seventh new live animal destination. On three new free trade agreements – a substantial increase in what we are doing for agriculture. This really does show that a difference in government makes a difference and it makes a difference to the lives of the people who elect us.
INDUSTRY MINISTER:
When I was a farmer up in Boondooma over 30 years ago, I began a campaign in the grain growers association to satisfy consumers' desire to know that the soybeans, sun flowers, peanuts etc. that I and other farmers grew were actually Australian when they bought them in the supermarket. My produce was being marketed as ‘made in Australia from local or imported peanuts’. That told the consumers nothing. That began the journey which has culminated today with a simple straightforward solution to labelling which, as you can see, the consumers don't even have to reach into their pockets and pull out their glasses for. They don't have to read the text unless they want to because the symbol will tell them exactly that it’s made in Australia or processed in Australia; the gold bar will tell them how much is Australian produce.
The manufacturers in Australia will be able to reap a benefit as we have seen from SPC who are clearly branding their products with that triangle to identify them as Australian processed Australian fruit. Other manufacturers are doing the same. The supermarkets, Woolies and Coles are saying to us, ‘We want this branding so we that can tell our consumers where the produce has come from and who’s processed it’.
So, today is a major milestone that will not only support farmers who produce quality produce but will support Australian food manufacturers who have the highest standards in processing.
PRIME MINISTER:
Ok, do we have any questions?
QUESTION:
How quickly will this roll out, Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well James, I believe that we’ll start seeing this on a voluntary basis before the end of the year and provided all goes well with the states who are a part of this process because we are doing it under consumer law,
provided all goes well with the States, we’ll have the scheme in place well and truly by the middle of next year.
QUESTION:
How much is this going to cost businesses and will it also cost the Government anything?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, there is a cost, I can't deny that. We estimate that the additional costs to Australian businesses of this labelling are $37 million a year. I should point out that there are already significant labelling costs on Australian businesses. Australian businesses are already required to have the nutritional information, they are often required to have refund information on the packaging, so it’s not as if this is unheard of. What we’re on about today is not substantially adding to business costs; what we’re on about today is substantially adding to consumer information.
AGRICULTURE MINISTER:
May I add to that, it is one cent in five dollars. It’s one cent in five dollars and when we did the analysis of the consumers’ sentiment, we could see that it was about 80 per cent were prepared to accept that. We actually went through that and over 50 per cent were prepared to accept up to a five per cent increase. So this goes to show that the consumer is willing to pay for better information. Might I also say that across all products and also other manufactured goods, there’s actually a saving.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister [inaudible] same system? I am assuming Australians would be happy to buy New Zealand products and some Australian companies might be happy to move there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if Australian manufacturers have got New Zealand ingredients in their products, obviously, that will be accommodated by this labelling system. What New Zealand does is a matter for New Zealand. We are confident that what we are proposing today complies with our WTL obligations.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, how concerned are you that the company that provides healthcare services to asylum seekers in detention, IHMS, believed quote, “Fraud is inevitable in meeting the healthcare standards set by the Immigration Department”? Will you consider a review of those standards?
PRIME MINISTER:
Can we finish dealing with this issue and then we’ll go onto other issues.
QUESTION:
Will the country of origin labelling apply to all seafood, including that which is sold at restaurants?
PRIME MINISTER:
The short answer is yes. There is already country of origin labelling requirements. They’re not always enforced, I’ve got to say. What we want to ensure is that the country of origin labelling is meaningful in a way that it isn’t always at the moment.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, this was triggered by the frozen berries scandal. How will this stop people contracting hepatitis A from frozen Chinese berries?
PRIME MINISTER:
This is about country of origin labelling, it’s not about food safety standards. Now, different people might have different views about where you are most likely to be confident in the quality of your food, but they’re two separate issues effectively. We are dealing with one. Obviously, it’s up to the various levels of government to deal with the other.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, have you done modelling on what sort of change this might have as far as consumer confidence goes? Is it expected there will be an uptick in the purchasing of fully Australian-made products?
PRIME MINISTER:
As I understand it, we haven't done that kind of modelling. What we did do was a lot of very extensive survey work, asking the public what they wanted and canvassing with the public their preferences for the potential information that we would give them and this is overwhelmingly what the public wanted.
Do you want to add to that, Barnaby?
AGRICULTURE MINISTER:
We have had over 17,000 responses for the consumers as to how they see this system. Even on my own website in New England, over one million hits. We know this has a huge response. We also note that this is important, not just for Australians in how they buy their product, but also because the IP Macca owns or the Commonwealth owns, it is also important overseas, where people want a bona fide understanding of what is truly an Australian product. Knowing that overseas the Australian product sells because it is seen as clean and green. So, it is not just our domestic market that wants this, it is also other countries overseas that want this as well.
And to the start of your question, in going and talking to Woolworths and other people, I remember going to a cannery for Woolworths, they have said that when they clearly label a product as Australian, there is an uptake in the sale of that product because inherently people see a reason for them to buy Australian and this gives them that clear and unambiguous indicator of that.
QUESTION:
But it won’t be Woolworths – will it, Minister – that’s paying? This will be the manufacturer.
INDUSTRY MINISTER:
It will be the consumer and the consumer, as Barnaby said, will pay on a $5 good it is a cent and on a $2.50 it is half a cent. On that basis, consumers have said through the survey that they are prepared to pay significantly more than that.
QUESTION:
Given the recent WTA trade ruling between Canada, the US and Mexico on meat labelling – are you confident these meet all the WTA requirements?
PRIME MINISTER:
The short answer is yes, we are.
Barnaby, do want to give them the long answer?
AGRICULTURE MINISTER:
On that issue, it was about being born, raised and slaughtered in the US. It was an issue pertaining to Canada and Mexico. Because they don't have a traceability system in the United States, it created real impediments in the capacity of the Canadians and Mexicans to supply to certain abattoirs, therefore it was vastly more explicit as a trade barrier. This is not.
QUESTION:
On a non-food labelling question?
PRIME MINISTER:
Have we exhausted food labelling issues?
AGRICULTURE MINISTER:
You all think it’s a great idea – thank you very much.
PRIME MINISTER:
Ok, if you wouldn’t mind just reminding me of that question?
QUESTION:
Just in terms of the brief note from IHMS which provides health care services for asylum seekers. Senior business analysts at IHMS believe that fraud is inevitable in meeting the health care standards of targets set by the Immigration Department. How concerned are you by that and will you review this matter?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am happy to have a look at it. This is the first I have heard of this particular observation. But I am confident that the people that are being looked after in these centres in Nauru and in Manus are receiving good levels of health care. I am confident that we are doing what duty we have to these people, but obviously I am happy to have that matter looked at by the Minister for Immigration.
QUESTION:
Is your Government or your office negotiating with Vietnam over the return of a boat load of asylum seekers? And have you sought answers from Border Force as to how the boat snuck through just a fortnight after you announced it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I repeat what has been the standard rule of this Government – we do not comment on operational matters on the water. We do not discuss things in ways which would give aid and comfort to the people smugglers. This has been an iron law of this Government and I’m certainly not going to change it today. What I am going to do is reiterate our absolute determination to ensure that people will not come to this country illegally by boat – they will not come to this country illegally by boat. And if any – by hook or by crook – actually get here, they will never get permanent residency in this country. Because as long as anyone thinks that by coming here by boat, they will get the great prize of permanent residency here in Australia, the evil, dangerous, deadly trade of people smuggling will continue and this Government will do everything we humanly can to stamp this trade out.
QUESTION:
Are you seeking answers from Border Force? You only announced them a fortnight ago and this new Border Force has allowed a boat to get through, it is only because some offshore workers have seen this boat that you even know about it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Andrew, again, if you want to be critical of this Government's border protection policies, go for your life. But by comparison to our predecessors, we have been magnificently successful and in being magnificently successful we have saved the lives of hundreds of people who might otherwise have been expected to drown at sea.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, [inaudible] meeting with the Premiers tomorrow. I know it’s sort of embryonic [inaudible] on the GST. But would the Commonwealth be prepared to fund any compensation required for low and middle income earners either by withholding its own grant payments to the states? Or from just out of general revenue?
PRIME MINISTER:
Phil, I made this observation yesterday and I hope you won't mind if I repeat it today. I know whenever anything comes up, people want to know instantly exactly what might happen now and one, two, three, 10, 20 or 30 years into the future. We are at the beginning of a process here and I want the process to ensure that Australians have better schools, better hospitals, better TAFEs, better services and at the same time, that we have lower, simpler, fairer taxes. If we do all of that, we will have a stronger economy and we will have a better, happier and more cohesive society.
QUESTION:
In that [inaudible] interview the other day, Greg Hunt appeared to make a concession about the mine. He has said since that he didn’t change anything. In your view, did he make that concession or not?
AGRICULTURE MINISTER:
I’m happy that we have an Environment Minister that’s going to be completely diligent in the job that he has in the auspice of what he is allowed to do – what he is allowed to do which is hydrology. And I must remind you that it now goes back to the state and it’s an issue now for the state and I think everything else on this issue’s been well and truly ventilated.
QUESTION:
A question on Bronwyn Bishop – given the concerns about her entitlements, have you or anybody in your office suggested to her that she step aside or resign?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, look, Bronwyn has my confidence. She’s been a good and effective Speaker of the Parliament, just as over the course of a long career in public life, she’s been a good and effective Member of Parliament and at different times she’s been a good and effective minister. Obviously, this is a serious error of judgement. I don’t want to minimise it – it’s a serious error of judgement and quite understandably the Australian people are unhappy that a senior representative in the Parliament should think that it was alright to use a helicopter to get around when a Comcar would have been available at a fraction of the price.
Now, I said yesterday that she was on probation and what I expect of Bronwyn – indeed, what I expect of all of my people – is that they will act in accordance with the rules. Their total focus will be on how do we best serve the Australian people because that’s what the people expect of us. They expect us to be absolutely focused on them. Yes, it’s a challenging life this one – it’s a challenging life this one – but we come into it because we want to serve the Australian people and we can never be distracted from service to the Australian people and I think the message to Bronwyn, the message to all of us is: please, no errors in the future, like the sorts of errors we’ve seen in the not-to-distant past.
[ends]