Bills

Fisheries Management (Fish Processors) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:38): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Fisheries Management Act 2007. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is simple. It requires outlets that prepare fish as a meal for sale to provide details as to whether that fish is local or imported. This is achieved by altering the definition of processing to include the preparation of fish whether cooked or uncooked as a meal.

The amendments would require all food outlets that sell fish as a meal to be registered as fish processors and therefore subject to the conditions of registration, which would require outlets to provide details as to whether the fish is local or imported. The requirement to provide country of origin details will remain optional. The amendments would extend to restaurants, takeaway shops and the like that sell fish products in their meals.

Registration as a processor will be about the process by which we will ensure that food outlets provide relevant information as to the source of the fish that they sell. Whilst this process will result in some additional regulatory requirement, given that we are only talking about processors who sell fish as a meal, it certainly is not intended to result in the imposition of all the additional regulatory processes that apply to other fish processors under the Fisheries Management Act. This is certainly something that I think we can discuss further during the committee stage debate and may result in some additional exemptions in respect of this category of food processing.

What is extremely important to note is that food outlets will not be charged a fee for registering as a processor for the purposes of the preparation of fish for sale as a meal. I will be the first to admit that this process may sound overly complicated and cumbersome; however, the reason the bill has been drafted the way it has is because constitutional barriers prevent us from mandating country of origin food labelling laws in this jurisdiction.

Despite repeated efforts over many months to overcome these hurdles, this appears to be the only model that we can adopt that does not interfere with the interjurisdictional trade agreements and the like. It is based broadly on the Northern Territory model which has been operating successfully in that jurisdiction for some four years.

Over time, in order to increase yield and meet public expectations with regard to the physical appearance of food, practices have changed to include a variety of additives and chemicals. However, community attitudes are changing again and individuals are becoming increasingly aware and concerned about where their food comes from and what process has been undertaken during production.

Recently, the alarming scare with potentially contaminated frozen berries which had been processed in China really brought the issue of food labelling to the front of people's minds. Many found that determining where products were from was more difficult than they thought. It was not as easy as turning the packet over and reading the information on the back.

Similarly, awareness has been raised with regard to fish which has been imported from overseas. When tested against local fish, imported products have shown to be higher in PCBs—that is, polychlorinated biphenyl—dioxins and mercury. It seems now, and excuse the pun, that the tide is turning when it comes to people's choices about fish.

As I mentioned earlier, the Northern Territory introduced similar legislation in 2011. It has been operating successfully in that jurisdiction for four years. Two Senate committees were established to look at seafood labelling, and evidence provided to these committees outlined that there was no significant impost to businesses. In many cases, the country of origin labelling allowed businesses to charge a premium for the local product. Australia is known to produce some of the best seafood in the world, and people are often happy to pay a premium price.

This bill is about empowering consumers to make choices about food they purchase. It does not outlaw imported fish: it is intended simply to provide consumers with information so that they can make an informed decision about their purchases. I look forward to hearing from other honourable members on this very important issue.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.