Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Innovation and Industry) Share this | Hansard source

I want to start by acknowledging the contribution that has been made in this debate by the member for Calare, who I think is attempting to inject some sanity into the whole issue. As the Minister for Trade said, it does stand in stark contrast to the way in which this debate has been conducted elsewhere. This debate and this issue around the change of the government’s policy about the potential importation of beef into this country from other countries which may have had cases of BSE recorded in their stock is, at the end of the day, a traditional debate which has been waged between scaremongering and science. On the part of scaremongering, you have basically the National Party and some of the wild Liberals and, on the part of science, you have the Labor Party and the government.

The whole progress of human history really has been defined by the triumph of science over fear. In ancient China it has been recorded that eclipses were the subject of enormous fear. There was a belief that an eclipse was caused by an invisible dragon swallowing the sun, so drummers would start beating their drums and archers would start shooting arrows into the sky in the hope of scaring the dragon off or killing it. Wikipedia does not record whether those same archers and drummers were members of the National Party. Nowadays an eclipse is a completely predictable event and one which is seen with wonder. This human progression of science over fear is a progression which has been defied by one group in society and that is the National Party of Australia. When there is an opportunity to engage in scaremongering, they take it and, when science presents itself, the National Party will ignore it.

Since the policy that currently exists on this day, before it changes on Monday, in relation to BSE and the importation of beef was introduced by the Howard government back in 2001, we simply have seen science move on and we need to change that policy because it is now outdated. We need to change it in fact to protect the Australian beef industry and we can change the policy in a safe way. It was on that basis that the government made its decision, on a sound and scientifically based rationale. We did it for the very reason that we needed to protect a $7 billion industry, the beef industry, in this country. The National Party saw in that decision the opportunity to engage in a scare campaign.

The Nationals might be scared of mad cow disease, they might be beating on their drums and they might be firing their arrows into the air, but the Australian beef industry in this country is scared of one thing and that is mad Nationals disease. Right now, this country has a problem with this policy. The situation as the policy stands on this day were it not to be changed is that we have a blanket ban on importing beef from any country in the world which has ever had a recorded case of BSE. The WTO rules require that we treat our own product in the same way as the product that we import. What that means is that in the unlikely event that there were ever to be a BSE outbreak in this country it would require that we take Australian beef off Australian shelves—the whole lot. There would be no exporting it, it would come off our shelves and that is a $7 billion industry closed down overnight. That is not a risk in terms of public policy that this government will take.

There is a second reason that we have a problem. As the science has moved on and as our policy has become increasingly out of date, the world is looking at us and we risk the possibility of a dispute being lodged in the WTO. Indeed, right now Canada is lodging a dispute against Korea, which has a very similar policy to the one which we have in place on this day and will change on Monday. If that were to occur and it were to be successfully prosecuted, it would risk the $5 billion export beef industry again closing overnight. It is for that reason that the beef industry themselves have been asking this government to change the policy. We have acted on their concerns. The argument that we are out there not consulting is utter rubbish. It is in fact their lobbying, their persuasion, which has led us to make this decision, and it has been ably done through the Red Meat Advisory Council. The policy which we are putting in place right now is one which the science says will be perfectly safe. The first thing to understand is that the policy that we will implement will absolutely ensure that no meat from a BSE affected animal will ever be imported. That is what our policy says—there will not be any meat from a BSE affected animal imported into Australia. That is what the policy will be from Monday onwards.

On the issue of human health, two reviews under the Howard government, in 2005 and 2006, made it clear that the science had moved on and that systems could be put in place to make sure that no BSE affected meat would come into this country and give rise to any infection of humans. Professor John Mathews was asked to review this by this government. His review made it clear that it was absolutely possible to move in the direction to change our policy in a safe way provided that we put in place appropriate risk strategies, as we are doing. In response to the member for Barker, it is not right to say that the protocols that will be put in place in order to assess beef coming into this country are not public. They are public and they are on websites as we speak. Professor Mathews identified a small risk in relation to human infection from BSE. He said the theoretical risk was that there was a 0.002 chance that a person could contract vCJD at some point in the next 25 years by virtue of this change in government policy.

In effect this means that this change in government policy gives rise to the possibility that one person in Australia might be infected by vCJD in the next 12,500 years. That is a long time. Humankind only started farming 9,000 years ago. The entire recorded history of humanity is 5,000 years old and we only domesticated the horse 4,000 years ago. What he is saying is in double the time it took for the rise and fall of the whole Hittite kingdom, the rise and fall of every Egyptian dynasty, the rise and fall of the entire Roman Empire, the Spanish Inquisition, the Renaissance and the industrial age there is a chance that one person in this country might contract vCJD. That is the risk to human health as a result of the policy that we have put in place. It is negligible indeed.

In relation to our animal stock, it was concluded that there was no risk at all for two reasons. Firstly, one of only two ways in which BSE can be contracted by another animal is if they are in contact with an animal with a case of BSE. On that point, there is no live cattle importation into this country and that will not change under this policy. Secondly, the only other way is if there is some form of cattle product in feed and this is fed to other cattle. Again, that practice is not allowed in this country and the policy does not change that either. So it was concluded there could be no viable way for another animal to contract a BSE infection. That is where it is: completely safe.

This is a policy which will give rise, on the basis of science, to a safe outcome for this country and one which is so important for our beef industry. Principally this is a decision that has been taken on the basis of science, but it is also one that we need to consider in the context of trade. This is a $7.1 billion industry which is 60 per cent export based. It is utterly insane to take decisions which risk that trade. I guess when we talk about insanity that is where the National Party comes into it. In the five years before the outbreak of BSE in the United States, which resulted in a ban on importing beef from that country in 2004, an average of only 34 tonnes of beef was imported from the United States into Australia. By comparison, we export 280,000 tonnes of beef every year. New Zealand made this decision eight years ago. That is a country whose economy is principally based on agriculture. There has been no effect on its industry. The opposition has been utterly hopeless on this. They know the issues and their arguments should be based on science rather than fear. (Time expired)

See this speech in context