When it comes to policy decisions, ‘consultation’ is probably one of the most misused words in the English language.
Usually what happens is that a government floats a controversial policy idea, and the lobbyists screech about how there was no consultation. Translation: “you’re not giving us what we wanted.”
Other times, governments will promise to consult on a policy issue when what they really mean is “kick it into the long grass.”
Then, there is the veneer of consultation, when the government has decided what policy change to implement and pretends to consult. One such example is the decision to modify food labelling so that country of origin is more obvious to customers.
The issue came to a head about a year ago, after 28 people were hospitalised with Hepatitis A thought to come from frozen berries imported from China. ‘Foreign’ was conflated with ‘unsafe’, and new country of origin labelling was born.
It’s a troubling development on several fronts. The policy was obviously a knee-jerk reaction to an incident where consumers were genuinely harmed, but there was no demonstrated link between the implementation of this particular policy and prevention of similar incidents in future.
In spite of this, the policy progressed relatively quickly (by Canberra standards). That’s probably because there was always something of a fait accompli about it. The consultation period was just about how country of origin labelling should be strengthened; not about whether it was necessary at all.
It’s difficult to conclude this has happened for a reason other than to benefit buy-Australian protectionism, such as that which afflicts politicians across the Parliament. If it can be cloaked in the language of ‘food safety’, so much the better – it helps obscure what is really going on.
It’s highly likely the only reason this policy change has received media attention is because of what begat it. What about the instances where there is no big story to drive momentum – just pollies kowtowing to lobbyists in a multipartisan fashion? I would wager this story is just a drop in the ocean.
Oh, and … there will, of course, be “a national information campaign to inform consumers”. That sound you hear is your taxpayer dollars being flushed.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Label it protectionist
Label it protectionist
Usually what happens is that a government floats a controversial policy idea, and the lobbyists screech about how there was no consultation. Translation: “you’re not giving us what we wanted.”
Other times, governments will promise to consult on a policy issue when what they really mean is “kick it into the long grass.”
Then, there is the veneer of consultation, when the government has decided what policy change to implement and pretends to consult. One such example is the decision to modify food labelling so that country of origin is more obvious to customers.
The issue came to a head about a year ago, after 28 people were hospitalised with Hepatitis A thought to come from frozen berries imported from China. ‘Foreign’ was conflated with ‘unsafe’, and new country of origin labelling was born.
It’s a troubling development on several fronts. The policy was obviously a knee-jerk reaction to an incident where consumers were genuinely harmed, but there was no demonstrated link between the implementation of this particular policy and prevention of similar incidents in future.
In spite of this, the policy progressed relatively quickly (by Canberra standards). That’s probably because there was always something of a fait accompli about it. The consultation period was just about how country of origin labelling should be strengthened; not about whether it was necessary at all.
It’s difficult to conclude this has happened for a reason other than to benefit buy-Australian protectionism, such as that which afflicts politicians across the Parliament. If it can be cloaked in the language of ‘food safety’, so much the better – it helps obscure what is really going on.
It’s highly likely the only reason this policy change has received media attention is because of what begat it. What about the instances where there is no big story to drive momentum – just pollies kowtowing to lobbyists in a multipartisan fashion? I would wager this story is just a drop in the ocean.
Oh, and … there will, of course, be “a national information campaign to inform consumers”. That sound you hear is your taxpayer dollars being flushed.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: