❓ WA government responds to a question regarding federal government's stance on country-of-origin food labelling, particularly concerning packaged goods. WA intends to advocate for labelling of fruit and vegetables with two or fewer ingredients at an upcoming meeting.
AnsweredQoN 247Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
FOOD LABELLING
I refer to the federal government’s reluctance to embrace food labelling, which identifies the country or state of origin of farm and food products at the point of sale. (1) Will the state government constitutionally enforce this provision in Western Australia for either fresh or manufactured food products? (2) If not, will the government pressure major and minor supermarket chains to adopt a voluntary code to achieve the general wishes of consumers of food products? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Leader of the House, I point out that the first part of the question seeks a legal opinion. Hon KIM CHANCE
I refer to the federal government’s reluctance to embrace food labelling, which identifies the country or state of origin of farm and food products at the point of sale. (1) Will the state government constitutionally enforce this provision in Western Australia for either fresh or manufactured food products? (2) If not, will the government pressure major and minor supermarket chains to adopt a voluntary code to achieve the general wishes of consumers of food products? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Leader of the House, I point out that the first part of the question seeks a legal opinion. Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) Notwithstanding the President’s ruling - The PRESIDENT : I have not made a ruling; I just pointed it out. Hon KIM CHANCE : It is reasonable to seek a comment from the state about the news that the commonwealth government has adopted a pre-emptive position. I stress that it is a pre-emptive position only in relation to the third tranche of the food labelling issues that the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand ministerial council - the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council - identified about six months ago. The three tranches of that decision become effective six months apart. The first tranche relating to unpackaged goods becomes effective on 8 June this year and the second tranche relating only to pork becomes effective on 8 December this year. It is the third tranche, which was to have become effective on 8 June 2007, to which the commonwealth government’s announcement applies. The third tranche applies only to packaged goods. It is timely that the member has asked this question today because the ministerial council will meet in Sydney tomorrow. I will not be going to that meeting, but the Western Australian government’s interests will be represented by Tony McRae as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The commonwealth government has made a determination on the matter, which is unfair given that it has pre-empted the FSANZ meeting by a few days. I would prefer that it had not been done in that way, but I can understand that Hon Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was probably driven by the time lines of the federal cabinet rather than by FSANZ. However, it puts him in a difficult position at the meeting in Sydney tomorrow. I actually agree with some of what Minister McGauran has done. We were subject to the same lobbying forces as the commonwealth certainly was subject to. With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
(1) Will the state government constitutionally enforce this provision in Western Australia for either fresh or manufactured food products? (2) If not, will the government pressure major and minor supermarket chains to adopt a voluntary code to achieve the general wishes of consumers of food products? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Leader of the House, I point out that the first part of the question seeks a legal opinion. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Notwithstanding the President’s ruling - The PRESIDENT : I have not made a ruling; I just pointed it out. Hon KIM CHANCE : It is reasonable to seek a comment from the state about the news that the commonwealth government has adopted a pre-emptive position. I stress that it is a pre-emptive position only in relation to the third tranche of the food labelling issues that the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand ministerial council - the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council - identified about six months ago. The three tranches of that decision become effective six months apart. The first tranche relating to unpackaged goods becomes effective on 8 June this year and the second tranche relating only to pork becomes effective on 8 December this year. It is the third tranche, which was to have become effective on 8 June 2007, to which the commonwealth government’s announcement applies. The third tranche applies only to packaged goods. It is timely that the member has asked this question today because the ministerial council will meet in Sydney tomorrow. I will not be going to that meeting, but the Western Australian government’s interests will be represented by Tony McRae as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The commonwealth government has made a determination on the matter, which is unfair given that it has pre-empted the FSANZ meeting by a few days. I would prefer that it had not been done in that way, but I can understand that Hon Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was probably driven by the time lines of the federal cabinet rather than by FSANZ. However, it puts him in a difficult position at the meeting in Sydney tomorrow. I actually agree with some of what Minister McGauran has done. We were subject to the same lobbying forces as the commonwealth certainly was subject to. With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
(2) If not, will the government pressure major and minor supermarket chains to adopt a voluntary code to achieve the general wishes of consumers of food products? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Leader of the House, I point out that the first part of the question seeks a legal opinion. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Notwithstanding the President’s ruling - The PRESIDENT : I have not made a ruling; I just pointed it out. Hon KIM CHANCE : It is reasonable to seek a comment from the state about the news that the commonwealth government has adopted a pre-emptive position. I stress that it is a pre-emptive position only in relation to the third tranche of the food labelling issues that the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand ministerial council - the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council - identified about six months ago. The three tranches of that decision become effective six months apart. The first tranche relating to unpackaged goods becomes effective on 8 June this year and the second tranche relating only to pork becomes effective on 8 December this year. It is the third tranche, which was to have become effective on 8 June 2007, to which the commonwealth government’s announcement applies. The third tranche applies only to packaged goods. It is timely that the member has asked this question today because the ministerial council will meet in Sydney tomorrow. I will not be going to that meeting, but the Western Australian government’s interests will be represented by Tony McRae as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The commonwealth government has made a determination on the matter, which is unfair given that it has pre-empted the FSANZ meeting by a few days. I would prefer that it had not been done in that way, but I can understand that Hon Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was probably driven by the time lines of the federal cabinet rather than by FSANZ. However, it puts him in a difficult position at the meeting in Sydney tomorrow. I actually agree with some of what Minister McGauran has done. We were subject to the same lobbying forces as the commonwealth certainly was subject to. With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Leader of the House, I point out that the first part of the question seeks a legal opinion. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Notwithstanding the President’s ruling - The PRESIDENT : I have not made a ruling; I just pointed it out. Hon KIM CHANCE : It is reasonable to seek a comment from the state about the news that the commonwealth government has adopted a pre-emptive position. I stress that it is a pre-emptive position only in relation to the third tranche of the food labelling issues that the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand ministerial council - the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council - identified about six months ago. The three tranches of that decision become effective six months apart. The first tranche relating to unpackaged goods becomes effective on 8 June this year and the second tranche relating only to pork becomes effective on 8 December this year. It is the third tranche, which was to have become effective on 8 June 2007, to which the commonwealth government’s announcement applies. The third tranche applies only to packaged goods. It is timely that the member has asked this question today because the ministerial council will meet in Sydney tomorrow. I will not be going to that meeting, but the Western Australian government’s interests will be represented by Tony McRae as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The commonwealth government has made a determination on the matter, which is unfair given that it has pre-empted the FSANZ meeting by a few days. I would prefer that it had not been done in that way, but I can understand that Hon Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was probably driven by the time lines of the federal cabinet rather than by FSANZ. However, it puts him in a difficult position at the meeting in Sydney tomorrow. I actually agree with some of what Minister McGauran has done. We were subject to the same lobbying forces as the commonwealth certainly was subject to. With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Notwithstanding the President’s ruling - The PRESIDENT : I have not made a ruling; I just pointed it out. Hon KIM CHANCE : It is reasonable to seek a comment from the state about the news that the commonwealth government has adopted a pre-emptive position. I stress that it is a pre-emptive position only in relation to the third tranche of the food labelling issues that the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand ministerial council - the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council - identified about six months ago. The three tranches of that decision become effective six months apart. The first tranche relating to unpackaged goods becomes effective on 8 June this year and the second tranche relating only to pork becomes effective on 8 December this year. It is the third tranche, which was to have become effective on 8 June 2007, to which the commonwealth government’s announcement applies. The third tranche applies only to packaged goods. It is timely that the member has asked this question today because the ministerial council will meet in Sydney tomorrow. I will not be going to that meeting, but the Western Australian government’s interests will be represented by Tony McRae as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The commonwealth government has made a determination on the matter, which is unfair given that it has pre-empted the FSANZ meeting by a few days. I would prefer that it had not been done in that way, but I can understand that Hon Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was probably driven by the time lines of the federal cabinet rather than by FSANZ. However, it puts him in a difficult position at the meeting in Sydney tomorrow. I actually agree with some of what Minister McGauran has done. We were subject to the same lobbying forces as the commonwealth certainly was subject to. With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
(1)-(2) Notwithstanding the President’s ruling - The PRESIDENT : I have not made a ruling; I just pointed it out. Hon KIM CHANCE : It is reasonable to seek a comment from the state about the news that the commonwealth government has adopted a pre-emptive position. I stress that it is a pre-emptive position only in relation to the third tranche of the food labelling issues that the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand ministerial council - the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council - identified about six months ago. The three tranches of that decision become effective six months apart. The first tranche relating to unpackaged goods becomes effective on 8 June this year and the second tranche relating only to pork becomes effective on 8 December this year. It is the third tranche, which was to have become effective on 8 June 2007, to which the commonwealth government’s announcement applies. The third tranche applies only to packaged goods. It is timely that the member has asked this question today because the ministerial council will meet in Sydney tomorrow. I will not be going to that meeting, but the Western Australian government’s interests will be represented by Tony McRae as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The commonwealth government has made a determination on the matter, which is unfair given that it has pre-empted the FSANZ meeting by a few days. I would prefer that it had not been done in that way, but I can understand that Hon Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was probably driven by the time lines of the federal cabinet rather than by FSANZ. However, it puts him in a difficult position at the meeting in Sydney tomorrow. I actually agree with some of what Minister McGauran has done. We were subject to the same lobbying forces as the commonwealth certainly was subject to. With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
The PRESIDENT : I have not made a ruling; I just pointed it out. Hon KIM CHANCE : It is reasonable to seek a comment from the state about the news that the commonwealth government has adopted a pre-emptive position. I stress that it is a pre-emptive position only in relation to the third tranche of the food labelling issues that the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand ministerial council - the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council - identified about six months ago. The three tranches of that decision become effective six months apart. The first tranche relating to unpackaged goods becomes effective on 8 June this year and the second tranche relating only to pork becomes effective on 8 December this year. It is the third tranche, which was to have become effective on 8 June 2007, to which the commonwealth government’s announcement applies. The third tranche applies only to packaged goods. It is timely that the member has asked this question today because the ministerial council will meet in Sydney tomorrow. I will not be going to that meeting, but the Western Australian government’s interests will be represented by Tony McRae as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The commonwealth government has made a determination on the matter, which is unfair given that it has pre-empted the FSANZ meeting by a few days. I would prefer that it had not been done in that way, but I can understand that Hon Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was probably driven by the time lines of the federal cabinet rather than by FSANZ. However, it puts him in a difficult position at the meeting in Sydney tomorrow. I actually agree with some of what Minister McGauran has done. We were subject to the same lobbying forces as the commonwealth certainly was subject to. With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
Hon KIM CHANCE : It is reasonable to seek a comment from the state about the news that the commonwealth government has adopted a pre-emptive position. I stress that it is a pre-emptive position only in relation to the third tranche of the food labelling issues that the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand ministerial council - the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council - identified about six months ago. The three tranches of that decision become effective six months apart. The first tranche relating to unpackaged goods becomes effective on 8 June this year and the second tranche relating only to pork becomes effective on 8 December this year. It is the third tranche, which was to have become effective on 8 June 2007, to which the commonwealth government’s announcement applies. The third tranche applies only to packaged goods. It is timely that the member has asked this question today because the ministerial council will meet in Sydney tomorrow. I will not be going to that meeting, but the Western Australian government’s interests will be represented by Tony McRae as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The commonwealth government has made a determination on the matter, which is unfair given that it has pre-empted the FSANZ meeting by a few days. I would prefer that it had not been done in that way, but I can understand that Hon Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was probably driven by the time lines of the federal cabinet rather than by FSANZ. However, it puts him in a difficult position at the meeting in Sydney tomorrow. I actually agree with some of what Minister McGauran has done. We were subject to the same lobbying forces as the commonwealth certainly was subject to. With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
(1) Will the state government constitutionally enforce this provision in Western Australia for either fresh or manufactured food products? (2) If not, will the government pressure major and minor supermarket chains to adopt a voluntary code to achieve the general wishes of consumers of food products? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Leader of the House, I point out that the first part of the question seeks a legal opinion. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Notwithstanding the President’s ruling - The PRESIDENT : I have not made a ruling; I just pointed it out. Hon KIM CHANCE : It is reasonable to seek a comment from the state about the news that the commonwealth government has adopted a pre-emptive position. I stress that it is a pre-emptive position only in relation to the third tranche of the food labelling issues that the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand ministerial council - the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council - identified about six months ago. The three tranches of that decision become effective six months apart. The first tranche relating to unpackaged goods becomes effective on 8 June this year and the second tranche relating only to pork becomes effective on 8 December this year. It is the third tranche, which was to have become effective on 8 June 2007, to which the commonwealth government’s announcement applies. The third tranche applies only to packaged goods. It is timely that the member has asked this question today because the ministerial council will meet in Sydney tomorrow. I will not be going to that meeting, but the Western Australian government’s interests will be represented by Tony McRae as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The commonwealth government has made a determination on the matter, which is unfair given that it has pre-empted the FSANZ meeting by a few days. I would prefer that it had not been done in that way, but I can understand that Hon Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was probably driven by the time lines of the federal cabinet rather than by FSANZ. However, it puts him in a difficult position at the meeting in Sydney tomorrow. I actually agree with some of what Minister McGauran has done. We were subject to the same lobbying forces as the commonwealth certainly was subject to. With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
(2) If not, will the government pressure major and minor supermarket chains to adopt a voluntary code to achieve the general wishes of consumers of food products? The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Leader of the House, I point out that the first part of the question seeks a legal opinion. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Notwithstanding the President’s ruling - The PRESIDENT : I have not made a ruling; I just pointed it out. Hon KIM CHANCE : It is reasonable to seek a comment from the state about the news that the commonwealth government has adopted a pre-emptive position. I stress that it is a pre-emptive position only in relation to the third tranche of the food labelling issues that the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand ministerial council - the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council - identified about six months ago. The three tranches of that decision become effective six months apart. The first tranche relating to unpackaged goods becomes effective on 8 June this year and the second tranche relating only to pork becomes effective on 8 December this year. It is the third tranche, which was to have become effective on 8 June 2007, to which the commonwealth government’s announcement applies. The third tranche applies only to packaged goods. It is timely that the member has asked this question today because the ministerial council will meet in Sydney tomorrow. I will not be going to that meeting, but the Western Australian government’s interests will be represented by Tony McRae as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The commonwealth government has made a determination on the matter, which is unfair given that it has pre-empted the FSANZ meeting by a few days. I would prefer that it had not been done in that way, but I can understand that Hon Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was probably driven by the time lines of the federal cabinet rather than by FSANZ. However, it puts him in a difficult position at the meeting in Sydney tomorrow. I actually agree with some of what Minister McGauran has done. We were subject to the same lobbying forces as the commonwealth certainly was subject to. With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
The PRESIDENT : Before I call the Leader of the House, I point out that the first part of the question seeks a legal opinion. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Notwithstanding the President’s ruling - The PRESIDENT : I have not made a ruling; I just pointed it out. Hon KIM CHANCE : It is reasonable to seek a comment from the state about the news that the commonwealth government has adopted a pre-emptive position. I stress that it is a pre-emptive position only in relation to the third tranche of the food labelling issues that the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand ministerial council - the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council - identified about six months ago. The three tranches of that decision become effective six months apart. The first tranche relating to unpackaged goods becomes effective on 8 June this year and the second tranche relating only to pork becomes effective on 8 December this year. It is the third tranche, which was to have become effective on 8 June 2007, to which the commonwealth government’s announcement applies. The third tranche applies only to packaged goods. It is timely that the member has asked this question today because the ministerial council will meet in Sydney tomorrow. I will not be going to that meeting, but the Western Australian government’s interests will be represented by Tony McRae as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The commonwealth government has made a determination on the matter, which is unfair given that it has pre-empted the FSANZ meeting by a few days. I would prefer that it had not been done in that way, but I can understand that Hon Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was probably driven by the time lines of the federal cabinet rather than by FSANZ. However, it puts him in a difficult position at the meeting in Sydney tomorrow. I actually agree with some of what Minister McGauran has done. We were subject to the same lobbying forces as the commonwealth certainly was subject to. With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Notwithstanding the President’s ruling - The PRESIDENT : I have not made a ruling; I just pointed it out. Hon KIM CHANCE : It is reasonable to seek a comment from the state about the news that the commonwealth government has adopted a pre-emptive position. I stress that it is a pre-emptive position only in relation to the third tranche of the food labelling issues that the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand ministerial council - the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council - identified about six months ago. The three tranches of that decision become effective six months apart. The first tranche relating to unpackaged goods becomes effective on 8 June this year and the second tranche relating only to pork becomes effective on 8 December this year. It is the third tranche, which was to have become effective on 8 June 2007, to which the commonwealth government’s announcement applies. The third tranche applies only to packaged goods. It is timely that the member has asked this question today because the ministerial council will meet in Sydney tomorrow. I will not be going to that meeting, but the Western Australian government’s interests will be represented by Tony McRae as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The commonwealth government has made a determination on the matter, which is unfair given that it has pre-empted the FSANZ meeting by a few days. I would prefer that it had not been done in that way, but I can understand that Hon Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was probably driven by the time lines of the federal cabinet rather than by FSANZ. However, it puts him in a difficult position at the meeting in Sydney tomorrow. I actually agree with some of what Minister McGauran has done. We were subject to the same lobbying forces as the commonwealth certainly was subject to. With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
(1)-(2) Notwithstanding the President’s ruling - The PRESIDENT : I have not made a ruling; I just pointed it out. Hon KIM CHANCE : It is reasonable to seek a comment from the state about the news that the commonwealth government has adopted a pre-emptive position. I stress that it is a pre-emptive position only in relation to the third tranche of the food labelling issues that the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand ministerial council - the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council - identified about six months ago. The three tranches of that decision become effective six months apart. The first tranche relating to unpackaged goods becomes effective on 8 June this year and the second tranche relating only to pork becomes effective on 8 December this year. It is the third tranche, which was to have become effective on 8 June 2007, to which the commonwealth government’s announcement applies. The third tranche applies only to packaged goods. It is timely that the member has asked this question today because the ministerial council will meet in Sydney tomorrow. I will not be going to that meeting, but the Western Australian government’s interests will be represented by Tony McRae as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The commonwealth government has made a determination on the matter, which is unfair given that it has pre-empted the FSANZ meeting by a few days. I would prefer that it had not been done in that way, but I can understand that Hon Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was probably driven by the time lines of the federal cabinet rather than by FSANZ. However, it puts him in a difficult position at the meeting in Sydney tomorrow. I actually agree with some of what Minister McGauran has done. We were subject to the same lobbying forces as the commonwealth certainly was subject to. With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
The PRESIDENT : I have not made a ruling; I just pointed it out. Hon KIM CHANCE : It is reasonable to seek a comment from the state about the news that the commonwealth government has adopted a pre-emptive position. I stress that it is a pre-emptive position only in relation to the third tranche of the food labelling issues that the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand ministerial council - the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council - identified about six months ago. The three tranches of that decision become effective six months apart. The first tranche relating to unpackaged goods becomes effective on 8 June this year and the second tranche relating only to pork becomes effective on 8 December this year. It is the third tranche, which was to have become effective on 8 June 2007, to which the commonwealth government’s announcement applies. The third tranche applies only to packaged goods. It is timely that the member has asked this question today because the ministerial council will meet in Sydney tomorrow. I will not be going to that meeting, but the Western Australian government’s interests will be represented by Tony McRae as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The commonwealth government has made a determination on the matter, which is unfair given that it has pre-empted the FSANZ meeting by a few days. I would prefer that it had not been done in that way, but I can understand that Hon Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was probably driven by the time lines of the federal cabinet rather than by FSANZ. However, it puts him in a difficult position at the meeting in Sydney tomorrow. I actually agree with some of what Minister McGauran has done. We were subject to the same lobbying forces as the commonwealth certainly was subject to. With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
Hon KIM CHANCE : It is reasonable to seek a comment from the state about the news that the commonwealth government has adopted a pre-emptive position. I stress that it is a pre-emptive position only in relation to the third tranche of the food labelling issues that the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand ministerial council - the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council - identified about six months ago. The three tranches of that decision become effective six months apart. The first tranche relating to unpackaged goods becomes effective on 8 June this year and the second tranche relating only to pork becomes effective on 8 December this year. It is the third tranche, which was to have become effective on 8 June 2007, to which the commonwealth government’s announcement applies. The third tranche applies only to packaged goods. It is timely that the member has asked this question today because the ministerial council will meet in Sydney tomorrow. I will not be going to that meeting, but the Western Australian government’s interests will be represented by Tony McRae as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The commonwealth government has made a determination on the matter, which is unfair given that it has pre-empted the FSANZ meeting by a few days. I would prefer that it had not been done in that way, but I can understand that Hon Peter McGauran, the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was probably driven by the time lines of the federal cabinet rather than by FSANZ. However, it puts him in a difficult position at the meeting in Sydney tomorrow. I actually agree with some of what Minister McGauran has done. We were subject to the same lobbying forces as the commonwealth certainly was subject to. With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
With respect to the highly valued converted packaged goods, there is no doubt that the proposed packaging laws would have created major problems and may have even been counterproductive, particularly where a company was multinational or trans-Tasman in its structure, or even in its distribution network, but particularly where it manufactured on either side of the Tasman. Honourable members will be aware that New Zealand is part of this ministerial council. New Zealand opted out of the third tranche provisions relating to packaged goods and said it would not apply them. That created particular difficulties for people manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia to make a determination about where they would carry out such manufacturing. It was made very clear to me by a trans-Tasman company that goods such as processed coffee and mixed spices by their nature draw their materials from a very wide variety of sources. With coffee, quite frequently the sources are shifted from one country to another. It may be Columbia one week, Brazil the next and New Guinea the next. The logistical problems become enormous. I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
I have come to the view that elements of the decision at the last FSANZ ministerial council would be inapplicable in some areas. However, I was intending to go to Sydney with the proposition that we stick to the packaged goods requirement for country-of-origin labelling with respect to fruit and vegetables only where there are two ingredients or less. The law would apply to a freezer pack of corn and peas, for example. That is what the commonwealth seems to have walked away from, and that disturbs me a bit. Tony McRae will be putting forward the proposition in Sydney tomorrow that the commonwealth be supported in its decision, except in respect of that kind of commodity. Not everyone will be happy about that but most people will be. That will fundamentally achieve the position that the Australian Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, for example, was seeking, although it initially wanted three. Maybe even that is possible if it is confined to only fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables. That is a longish explanation but that is where we are. I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
I will not criticise the commonwealth; it would be easy to do. With some finetuning, we can make the decision work in most people’s interests. Can the state do that? No. The state has real constitutional problems. If we were to apply a country-of-origin prescription legislatively within Western Australia, we could not bind the other states to that point. Therein lies the difficulty. We will not pressure supermarkets any more than we have. We have come to a very good working relationship with supermarkets with the position we reached prior to the mandate position reached at FSANZ about five months ago, when the supermarkets pre-empted the decision and people went into the shops the following Monday and saw country-of-origin labels all over fresh fruit and vegetables. I think people were very happy with that. The supermarkets have done a good job. I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
I had lunch today with representatives from a major food company which manufactures in Western Australia. It is a national company. They were telling me their plans for the future, whether or not the third tranche mandate provisions get up. When they wrote to me seeking the meeting, the commonwealth had not made the announcement. That is what they wanted to talk to me about. They think it is worthwhile labelling their packages “Made in Australia”, as it allows them to compete with people who import juice concentrate from Brazil, mix it with water and market it 40 per cent cheaper than their product. When that company uses Western Australian oranges, it wants to tell people about it. Country-of-origin labelling can be seen by food marketers, processors and packagers as a plus. We have to be very careful that, by the excessive use of mandate, we do not kill the goose that might well lay the golden egg.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.