Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Madam Chair I appreciate being able to take a call this evening on this bill the Consumers' Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill. Before I commence my remarks I want to wish the member Gareth Hughes happy birthday and I hope that this is a fantastic birthday present for you.This evening I really only want to traverse four questions. I think look if we take the members' bill that was introduced by Steffan Browning—and there have been a range of quite substantive amendments from that bill. Whilst I'm now a member on the Primary Production Committee I wasn't there for some of the previous discussions that you had had since this parliamentary term commenced and since the member picked this bill up so I've got a couple of questions across a range of different issues.If we turn to clause 5(3) there's a discussion there that regulated foods must include"—and the question I have is around the frozen foods. I know that there is an exception. There are a couple of questions I had about frozen foods. So one they are included in the regulated foods but I saw that they are not going to be included until 18 months after the commencement. I guess I'm just wanting to understand the rationale there and why the delay. Two in the original when this bill was introduced by the member Steffan Browning there was a whole range of single-component foods that were intended to be included—fruit vegetable meat seafood nut grain seed oil and others—and I know that not all of these foods have been included. It would be helpful to understand why because you've obviously received some advice or there have been some issues flagged with them but particularly around things such as seeds and actually the honourable member Stuart Nash earlier raised some questions around nuts. Yeah it would be really useful just to understand the policy rationale for not including those specific foods in the definition of the regulated foods.I think it is—where is it—in clause 5(4). It's an oddly worded provision perhaps—and I appreciate the work that has gone in by the officials to help us understand these particular provisions—but it says here: "However the consumer information standard may exclude any food from being a regulated food if the Minister considers that requiring the food to comply with the standard— (a) would be unduly onerous; or (b) …" wouldn't be helpful basically to consumers. I'm interested in the threshold for "unduly onerous" and what would be considered "unhelpful".In the commentary on the bill I saw that there was a reference to sort of roadside stalls. If that's an example I would be interested in others. My question there would be: why don't we just have an express exemption? It does seem that these are relatively undefined terms. "Unduly onerous"—is that for the small stallholder or others? Yeah it would be good to understand a little bit further there if particularly this issue ever did get down to the courts where they were considering imposing a penalty of between $10000 to $50000 and it turned on the articulation in that provision "unduly onerous". It would be good to understand what the intent of Parliament was for those that are seeking to interpret it.In clause 8—oh yeah right sorry—I think I covered that off. That was around the nuts and other foods and why they haven't been included at this—sorry not nuts. It's seeds isn't it—seeds? Yeah the range of foods I've already mentioned. I won't get into that."