Legislative Council
TRANS-TASMAN MUTUAL RECOGNITION (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL
Adjourned debate on second reading.The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I rise to speak briefly to this Bill. We in this place have already passed legislation relating to mutual recognition between the various States of Australia and now we have legislation which extends the same concept beyond Australia to New Zealand. There have been some concerns about the implications of mutual recognition. Whilst the arguments can be more easily sustained within a single country, it becomes increasingly difficult as we seek to involve other nations in it. One of the concerns that people have with mutual recognition is the danger that the lowest common denominator becomes the centre of the standards. The Democrats wrote to the South Australian Farmers Federation seeking its views about the mutual recognition Bill and, for the record, I will read into Hansard a response from the Apple and Pear Growers Association and from the South Australian Farmers Federation itself, because those responses cover a couple of issues that are worth considering. The first letter states:
The Executive of the Apple and Pear Growers Association of South Australia have considered the document and we would offer the following comments— 1. The industry has always had concerns with the principle of mutual recognition as the concept often works on using the lowest common denominator as the base to work from. As a result, if the standard of quality of a product or qualification is lower than those set within South Australia then that lower standard becomes the accepted base. It is essential that the mutual recognition Bill does not lower the standards of products/qualifications produced/offered within South Australia. 2. Industry has always had concerns that the process of closer economic relations between Australia and New Zealand could be used to apply pressure on one or other country to lower/alter some specific legislation and/or process. In the same way the mutual recognition process becomes another `tool' for individuals and/or groups to use in reducing other legitimate barriers. An example is the issue of New Zealand exporting apples to Australia. Quarantine issues, in particular fire blight, have always been the basis for the rejection of New Zealand apples. Regularly the issue is a discussion point at trans-Tasman talks and on occasions New Zealand has threatened to disrupt those talks or other trade activities as a means of applying subtle pressure on our politicians and bureaucrats. To this point Australia has been able to withstand the pressure. We realise that quarantine is an exemption to the mutual recognition Bill but this will not stop New Zealand growers or authorities using the principle of mutual recognition in again applying subtle pressure on the system. We would seek assurances from the Parliament that adoption of this Bill will not result in South Australia giving ground on some of these issues at a later date. 3. Your point on country of origin labelling is most valid. We would seek assurances that the new national country of origin labelling is picked up within this proposed Bill. If it is not then alterations to this draft Bill should be made before proceeding. What is the New Zealand country of origin labelling laws? Are they comparable to those introduced in Australia? Again if there is variation then does that `lowest common denominator' principle apply? We would not want to see the Australian country of origin labelling diminished any further by a lesser New Zealand law. The issue of packaging and labelling of fresh produce is most important. South Australian producers are required to comply with packaging and measurement requirements under the Trade Measurement Act 1993. If New Zealand produce coming into Australia does not have to comply with this legislation then this is a major advantage to New Zealand. We would seek clarification as to whether compliance to this type of legislation is required on New Zealand produce. Overall we have major concerns with section 11 (on page 10) of the proposed Bill. 4. The issue of food safety does not seem to be a major part of the Bill. Given the work being done on food standards throughout the Australian New Zealand Food Authority it may be appropriate to recognise this within the Bill. Hopefully these points will be of some assistance to you. That was from the Apple and Pear Growers Association. The Farmers Federation put in a briefer response, which states: The federation is pleased to see that exemptions are made and that the scheme does not affect laws relating to quarantine, endangered species and agricultural and veterinary chemicals. There are concerns as to how mutual recognition will impact on the new laws covering country of origin labelling. It is not clear whether there is a requirement for New Zealand producers and manufacturers to identify products as grown or made in New Zealand, even though we do not require any other information additional to that of New Zealand. I will give a couple of other examples where the legislation may cause difficulties. At times the States have tried to have different laws for their own reasons. The ACT recently attempted to ban battery hens. It wanted to ensure that eggs were produced by free range hens for reasons of animal cruelty. The ACT has had enormous difficulty getting other States to refrain from sending their eggs into the ACT. The ACT introduced a law not to protect its egg producers but to tackle questions of animal cruelty. Could the Minister respond to that point, that is, could the sort of difficulties that we are seeing even at a national level occur as a consequence of mutual recognition legislation? It does not fit into the exemption category, so I would appreciate knowing how constrained States would be if they tackled questions of animal cruelty, and that is just one example. I have also recently been involved in some debate about quarantine. I am mystified as to why Australia has been very strict about the entry into this country of salmon products destined only for people's plates; yet thousands of tonnes of pilchards have been brought into South Australia and dumped straight into the sea. One would have thought that the latter produced a somewhat greater quarantine risk than the former. I thought that what was on my plate was less likely to contaminate the sea and pass on infection to other species than what was being thrown directly in there by the thousands of tonnes of pilchards. After making inquiries about this I received some correspondence—and unfortunately I have not brought it with me—that seemed to suggest that there were some international treaties—and I was surprised about that—which made it difficult for us to reject the product even though I would have thought it was a quarantine issue. That being the case, I cannot again help but wonder what else we are setting ourselves up for in relation to products moving between only New Zealand and Australia. Is the quarantine exemption absolute? What tests will be applied if one wishes to use quarantine as a reason for not allowing particular products to come into the country? The Democrats have expressed some reservations about mutual recognition in so far as it constrains States on behalf of their own residents to make decisions that their residents want, but I will not go over that argument again other than to simply state it as that. However, I express concern about the further extension to another country. I would ask the Minister to respond to some of the issues that I raised during the second reading.