Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Calare proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the government to properly protect Australia from the risk of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Food Security, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I add my congratulations to our competitors in Vancouver, both those who have been successful and those who are simply competing.

As a beef producer myself, and—probably in common with many members of the House, particularly my colleagues—somebody who probably consumes more than their fair share of beef, I am aware, as I know that Australians in general are, that without doubt we have the best and the safest beef in the world. In large measure that is due to the fact that we have not only the best and the most efficient producers in the world but also the best and safest regulatory system in the world.

It was therefore with some surprise that we read in a joint media release on 20 October last year that, without any consultation or any forewarning, Ministers Burke, Crean and Roxon stated that they were scrapping the ban on imported beef from countries which have had BSE outbreaks, and that beef would be allowed in from BSE infected countries from 1 March, on certain conditions. There has been widespread concern about this decision not only from our beef producers and retailers but also from our consumers. I have got to repeat at this point that our beef is as good as any beef in the world to eat but also, without doubt, it is the safest. I have to concede that there are other people who produce good beef, but it is not better than ours and it certainly is not as safe.

It has to be made very clear, as I said, that our beef is the safest in the world. The coalition is committed to ensuring that that remains the case, and so we have given notice that we will introduce the Food Importation (Bovine Meat Standards) Bill 2010 to ensure equivalence to Australian production standards, requiring the government to undertake import risk analysis and requiring country of origin labelling for the importation of beef and beef products into Australia.

It will be asked by some, ‘Why would you have country of origin labelling?’ Quite obviously the US features highly in this debate, for wrong or right reasons, but I can assure you that the USA already has country of origin labelling issues; so I do not think they can complain about that. I do believe that Australians have a right to know if we are going to start allowing beef into Australia, under whatever conditions. Consumers have a right to know if they are eating Australian beef or foreign produced beef—wherever it might be from.

The coalition believe that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry must, at the very least, demand equivalency with current Australian standards, which would mean that any country which has a BSE outbreak must have an equivalent to Australia’s National Livestock Identification System, the NLIS, in place before they can import beef into Australia. Under the Rudd government, Australian beef producers will have to produce beef to a higher standard than imported beef from countries which have had a BSE outbreak.

Our industry requires an NLIS to sell beef to Australian consumers and to sell beef outside of Australia. It is ridiculous to suggest that we should lower the bar and allow beef in from countries which have lower food safety and quarantine standards than we have for our own products. I am a beef producer myself, and I was in agripolitics back when NLIS first happened. I supported it then and I support it now. There has been a lot of grief along the way. Producers did not like it because it is onerous. It requires a lot of book work, it requires expense, it requires a levy, and it is not something you do lightly. Producers have in the main, over a decade, accepted the need for it and accepted the success of it. Why then would we not require a safety standard to sell not just in Australia but in the very countries that might require to sell to us?

A farmer in my electorate who owns a 7,000-head cow herd, in conjunction with his family, is extraordinarily angry that his business cannot sell beef without radio frequency tags in their ears. Yet we are talking about allowing beef imports which are not required to have the same standard that he has. NLIS satisfies the requirements of all our customers. In the case of the EU, audits have to be done. That is something that the farmer with 7,000 head of cattle mentioned: he has to be audited from time to time to keep selling into the EU, one of our good markets, even though it is quota. In the case of the best paying markets in the world, Korea and Japan—which everybody wants to be able to sell beef to—they are satisfied with our NLIS standard. In fact, our customers like it and our competitors are envious of it.

In speaking recently to marketers, beef processors, exporters and producers of beef in the US and South America—particularly Brazil, which, like ourselves, has a high percentage of exports—they were all totally envious of something they did not have and probably do not think they can do. In the case of Brazil, I really do not think they can do it. In the case of the United States, they have recently said they are not going to have the equivalent to NLIS. They are going to do it in a far different way, and I will get to that later. Our competitors are envious of us, because they know that that gives us entree into the best markets in the world and it gives us total confidence. It gives our consumers total confidence, I can assure you of that.

The United States recently abandoned the central plank in its BSE control measures, which it was calling the National Animal Identification System—the names are so close that obviously they were intended to be virtually the same. On 5 February the United States Secretary of Agriculture announced that the US had scrapped its national identification scheme in favour of a state based scheme which will, the United States Department of Agriculture website says:

• Only apply to animals moved in interstate commerce;
• Be administered by the States and Tribal Nations to provide more flexibility;

I need to expand on this a little. There are 50 states in the USA, or 51 I think—

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

There are 50, I promise you.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Food Security, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fifty, sorry. Even on the mainland—

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

John Howard tried to make us the 51st state.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Food Security, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Actually, I think what the Minister for Trade is trying to do is to make us the 51st state. Madam Deputy Speaker, in Australia we have to trace every movement in an animal’s life—from one property to another, whether it goes to slaughter or simply interstate; wherever it goes to the day it dies—so that we know where the meat is going and we have a total record for that animal. In the United States, not only will this not be a national scheme but in the 50 states—and obviously not every state is entirely involved in the beef industry—there will be 50 different systems and even different systems within those states. Tribal nations have federal country, not state country, and they are going to be allowed to have their own systems as well—that is, if they choose to put them in place.

Even though the Minister for Trade says that we are going to require something like our system, we want a system as onerous and exacting—not a herd scheme, not a scheme in which you fill-in blanks on a piece of paper. We want a scheme that requires the tracing of every animal in a particular country in the same onerous way in a physical sense—not where the herd goes, not only if it goes interstate. If a scheme only traces an animal after it goes interstate, the animal could have moved around 10 different properties in the course of its life before it went interstate. We are not going to have the faintest idea where that animal comes from. Given that BSE is a slow-developing disease in an animal, an animal could be 10 years old by the time it leaves the state and it could have been around 20 properties in that time.

I cannot understand, given that the minister believes he is going to insist upon the same exacting standards that we have, why he might not consider accepting our bill. We are not asking for anything we are not already doing, and the minister himself, I am sure, will see the sense in having labelling. I have not actually heard him reply to that issue but I do not think labelling is a big thing to ask for, particularly given that the main country involved here already requires one for meat in its own country.

Even the senior animal health experts in the United States are saying that the abandonment of the National Animal Identification System is an enormous problem. Their CEO, Ron DeHaven, says the American Veterinary Medical Association cannot endorse Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s new approach to animal disease traceability because there are simply too many unanswered questions. As I understand it, they will let each state and tribal nation more or less develop their own program, so I am concerned about interoperability of 50 or more different systems. Will one state be able to talk to another state as an animal moves through interstate commerce?

In the regulatory system that the minister proposes to introduce, we are willing to look at more than one system within the one country. The American Veterinary Medical Association says we could be looking at 50 different systems within America, and my understanding is that even a company might be able to come up with one within that system. How in the heck could a company tell you—given that they only slaughter the animals and retail them—what happened to an animal prior to slaughter? Given all these different systems, how can we possibly expect our regulatory system to collate that information—because I hope we are not going to rely on somebody else’s word for this? How can we possibly look at these 50 different systems—that is without companies and without tribal nations; that is just the states in America—and give an exact scientific answer as to whether they fit with and are as exact and onerous as our own?

According to Ron DeHaven, who was the Chief Veterinarian of the United States Department of Agriculture when the first US BSE case was discovered in 2003—in Washington State, as I recall—politics trumped animal disease control. The problem with the US is that they export very little, as opposed to Brazil and Australia where the whole industry understands the value of exports. Let’s remember that we are talking about putting at risk our greatest export tool. The minister said that and he is right; it is an enormous export tool—but it is an enormous tool to trace what might happen in Australia and what might have happened in the countries that want to export into ours. The politics in America are simply that they do not want to go to such trouble because exports are not that big amongst the producers and ranchers themselves.

Bruce Knight, the Marketing and Regulatory Undersecretary of the United States Department of Agriculture in the final years of the last administration, said he fears that abandoning the NAIS model will undercut US efforts to obtain a negligible BSE risk rating from the World Organisation for Animal Health. The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that it is too big a risk. (Time expired)

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister opposite for the way in which he is constructively—without emotion and without raising concerns within the industry or with the consuming public—seeking to address the issues which we as a government are seeking to address. I might say that it stands in stark contrast to some of the more outrageous claims that have been made by some members of his own party in another place. Let me also say at the outset: there is no way that this government, nor I personally, would risk a decision which would in any way impact upon consumer health and safety or impact upon the great industry that is the Australian beef industry. The campaign that has been waged by some is now being criticised by the Cattle Council itself for having brought fear and damage to the industry. So I would urge those opposite, if we are looking for a rational way through this, to get on top of some of their more extreme elements, because those elements have been rightly referred to as political opportunists.

Let us go to the facts. First of all, why is it that we have to change this system? It is because the system that we have now is dangerously out of date with international beef import laws. It is important to recall the history: in 2001 the Australian government introduced a blanket ban on the domestic sale of beef and beef products from any country which had had a confirmed case of BSE. In international trade law, we are required to apply reciprocity here to the same standards we require of other countries. In other words, under the former policy, if there were a single case of BSE found in Australia, all beef would have to come off the shelf—because that is what we say: ‘The US is excluded as a whole.’ It would only require one case. In other words, if there were an outbreak in Tasmania, the beef would have to be taken off the shelves across Australia. What do you think that would do to the Australian beef industry—an industry that already exports 60-plus per cent of its produce? What do you think it would do in those circumstances?

Do not take just my word for it. I ask you to look at what has been said by the Red Meat Advisory Council, which is representative of many of the peak organisations in the beef industry. It represents the meat processors, the wholesalers, the retailers, the Australian Meat Industry Council, the Cattle Council, the Australian Lot Feeders Association, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia and the Australian Livestock Exporters Council—a pretty representative group. They wrote to the government back in September and said:

RMAC—

the organisation which represents all of these organisations—

believes it is imperative for the federal government to amend the current standard such that it is made more consistent with the standard set by the World Organisation for Animal Health and current ambiguity is removed.

The letter went on to say:

RMAC, at its most recent meeting, endorsed its opposition to the BSE certification rules currently operating in Australia. These rules would potentially remove all domestic beef from sale in this country in the unlikely event of a domestic case of BSE.

That is not in the government saying it; that is the industry representative body saying, ‘We have a problem in relation to our industry and we want you, the government, to fix it.’

We have tried to fix it. As a former Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, I say that, when there is any representation made by an industry group saying, ‘We have a potential threat to the future of our industry,’ it is incumbent upon us to try and deal with it. In its correspondence, therefore, the industry asked us to do it. We then took the view that we had obligations to find out where the science was up to and to consult further with the industry. The shadow minister at the table says there was no consultation. There was. There was much consultation and, of course, there have been the Senate processes—open inquiry where anyone who has an issue can come along and make their representations.

So, we have dealt with the reason why; we have dealt with the fact that the industry asked us to do it; and we also know, from the consultations that we have undertaken, that the science has moved on since 2001. It is in a much better position to be able to make decisions now which protect consumers and protect the herd but still, far better, keep us in sync with our international obligations.

I invited the shadow minister around yesterday to talk this matter through with him. He did not raise the issue of labelling—I will come to that in a minute—but he raised two particular issues: (1) why we were not undertaking an independent risk assessment analysis and (2) this question of equivalence. I got back to him this morning with a detailed response and I do urge the members sitting opposite to take this issue into account rationally when they consider their position going forward concerning what is going on in another place.

I will go to the traceability issue first. In essence, what the shadow minister has been saying is that we have a world-class national tracing system. I agree with that and I think it is one of the great backbones of our industry and why it is so well regarded. It is also true that other countries wish they had our system in place. The mechanisms that we are putting in place will, in fact, drive them in that direction. Why? Because we will require the equivalent traceability on animals or meat for which export to this country is being sought. So, will we require the tracing of animals to origin and birth? Yes. Will we require the ability to trace the animal forward to its destination? Yes.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on, Simon, you are having a piece of us.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have the right to talk about this later, but I am being asked to deal with the concerns that are legitimately being raised, and I am dealing with those through the appropriate channels—through the shadow minister who represents the opposition in these areas. We will demand the same traceability standards of foreign beef producers as we demand of Australian beef producers. It cannot be any simpler than that; we will demand it. It will be required before we give approval for the beef coming into this country.

The second issue was the question of why there is no independent risk analysis. It is because the analysis we have in place is already better than an IRA. We have long imported beef, and all the diseases that can be carried by beef have been assessed in terms of their impact—diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease and rinderpest, for example. We are going to do exactly the same for BSE but, in addition to the protocols, which the industry has been consulted about and which are now posted on the Food Standards Australia website, we are also undertaking a quarantine risk assessment for each country wanting to export beef into this country. What we are saying is that risk assessment and the targeted science that we are using in terms of the protocols and in terms of the individual country assessments are the best response to manage any of the animal quarantine risk. It is not a question of going to an IRA that simply tells us what we already know. What we need is the ability to put protocols in place to ensure that what we do know is carried out and applied in relation to any country seeking to export beef into this country. I have sought to answer the issue being raised in another place as to why there is no IRA, and the shadow minister has got it in written form.

On traceability, again I say to you that we will be requiring the same traceability standards of foreign beef producers as we demand of Australian beef producers. The head of Food Standards Australia has said that the protocols that are in place will ensure that any beef imported into Australia will be 100 per cent guaranteed to be BSE free. That is what Food Standards Australia are saying. They have posted the protocols that are required to make the assessment country by country, and people who have been alarmist about the fact that, from 1 March when these changes come in, there will suddenly be a flood of beef into this country from other countries are absolutely wrong. All that will happen on 1 March will be the ability for countries to seek to send it, but what is then required is the process, the protocols, the country assessment and the risk-in-country assessment being undertaken. So let us not get alarmist about that.

On the question of labelling, it is true that the labelling laws, in my view, can be improved, and I think it is important from the point of view of consumers that we do it. But let us all understand this—

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And growers too, of course. It is important for the industry and we need to consult the industry about those labelling laws as much as we consult consumers. But I make the point that the food labelling laws that are currently being complained about were introduced by the previous government in 2006.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re right.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not hear Bill Heffernan or any of the others talk about the prospect of a pie having foreign meat in it then in terms of their own food labelling standards. But what have we done? We, on coming to office, understood that if we had to move in this area we also had to look afresh at the labelling laws.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Katter interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Kennedy is warned.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And we have looked afresh.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Katter interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Kennedy, the minister has the call.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Katter interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy will remove himself from the chamber under standing order 94(a).

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some people in this place are as bad as in the other place. They want to yell abuse. They do not want to listen to rational argument. There are forms in this House in which they can have their debate.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Katter interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat. I have asked the member for Kennedy to remove himself from the chamber. He is not above the processes of this House.

The member for Kennedy then left the chamber.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having inherited a set of laws by a previous government, for which some members if it now seek to blame us and complain about, we have taken steps to try to address this issue, because we do believe it is important in terms of the changes that are being made that consumers know where they are getting their beef from. What we are doing by way of the protocols is ensuring that the meat that comes in is 100 per cent free of BSE. Those are the standards that have been determined and guaranteed by the head of Food Standards Australia. Those are the protocols. We have risk assessments in place that will ensure that that guarantee can be met, and we are also looking at what relevant changes can be made to the labelling laws so that consumers can have a better fix than they currently have of where beef products come from.

It seems to me in all of those circumstances that not only have we approached this in a comprehensive way; we have approached it in a consultative way. We have approached it in a way that has tried to deal with reason and sensible argument and concern. What we can never deal with are people who fly off the handle, interrupt meetings and pull stunts in the name of—as the Cattle Council says—striking fear into consumers and undermining the future of the industry. Those people should be condemned. I am happy to try to address the concerns that are legitimately raised. I am not going to deal with people who fly off the handle. (Time expired)

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From the outset I want this chamber to know that I believe Australia is the best place to eat beef in the world. I also believe that Australia is the safest place to eat beef in the world. Our standards ensure that there are no risks to the quality of the meat and the Labor government should be doing their utmost to retain this quality.

The reputation of Australian beef must be protected at all costs. Standards should be equivalent to current Australian standards, meaning that any country which has had a BSE outbreak must have an equivalent to the Australian National Livestock Identification Scheme, the NLIS. That should be in place before they can import beef into Australia. The minister is responsible for making this happen, and I will come to this later.

There has been some concern about the lack of consultation surrounding the government’s decision to abolish the ban on beef imports from countries which have had a BSE outbreak. I accept the minister’s comments today that he has consulted, but certainly the coalition will be moving a private member’s bill to ensure that not only is a full and independent risk analysis undertaken by the minister’s department but any beef coming into Australia is produced under the same high standards as Australian beef, and that this is enacted under this legislation.

It is important to know the difference between the risk assessment that the minister has used and the full independent risk analysis that we believe should be instituted. A full independent risk analysis is driven and measured by Australia. The risk assessment is an international assessment driven by the countries wanting to export to us, with the hope that they fully comply.

I will quote from the letter that the trade minister referred to in his speech, and we thank the minister for supplying us with this information. But I say to the minister that it is not possible when you are using points 4, 5 and 6 to actually comply with points 1 and 2. I note that the minister did not quote from points 4, 5 and 6. About point 4: we have electronic ear tags in Australia. I am a beef producer, and the tags are a nuisance, but we have been using them for years as part of being in that system. We actually know from birth to death where that animal has been. With tags you say, ‘We will accept same, or alternative methods are accepted—yes to plastic ear tags.’ Animals lose plastic ear tags, they have them ripped out of their ears and they fade so they are unreadable. I know this because I am a farmer and I have been using sheep tags all my life. All my animals get tagged within 24 hours of birth, and I can tell you we take the greatest care but they get lost, they get ripped out and they fade and become unreadable. So you cannot have the same compliance with tracing animal to origin or birth, or tracing the animals forward when these things occur. It always happens.

You say that alternative methods are accepted for the national vendor declaration. I do not know that some countries take the same care with their declarations that we do in Australia.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have verified it.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They might say that they are verified, but I can say to you that I have been to countries in South America and my parents have been to properties in South America and some of them really do not take much notice of the vendor declaration.

The alternative method is accepted for the Livestock Production Assurance—not the same but, yes, with equivalent method. You cannot follow through the system when you are accepting a much lower standard of livestock identification. Indeed, one of the things that many of the farmers of Australia, including myself, would like to have assurance about is that important markets such as Japan or Korea will not close their markets to us as a result of that decision. If the minister could assure us of that, then there would certainly be a lot more happiness out there in the electorate when it comes to this decision.

The consultation that has been done with the beef industry has been conducted without proper care, which will have adverse implications for this industry. This so-called consultation was done under a commitment of secrecy, and the minister knows this. What was he trying to hide? It is outrageous that under this government Australian beef producers will have to produce beef to a higher standard than imported beef from countries which have had a BSE outbreak. I think that is outrageous. Our industry legally requires an NLIS to sell beef to our Australian consumers, and it is ridiculous to suggest that we should lower the bar and allow beef in from countries which have lower safety and quarantine standards than those of our own producers. Under World Trade Organisation rules, we are entitled to demand the same criteria for importers as we do for our own producers. The Australian National Livestock Identification Scheme is an integral part of our food safety system, and it also ensures that we can trace an animal back to the property it came from in the event of a disease outbreak such as BSE.

On 5 February this year, the US Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, announced that the US has abandoned plans for a national animal identification scheme and instead will rely on 50 different state-based schemes, which are clearly not equivalent to Australia’s world-class NLIS. The shadow minister for agriculture, food security, fisheries and forestry, John Cobb, was recently in Brazil and the United States, talking to agricultural officials, beef processors and producers, who all said they were aware of Australia’s NLIS and that they were jealous of our NLIS as a food safety, quarantine and marketing tool. However, due to domestic politics a similar system would not be introduced in either country anytime soon.

The coalition has instigated a Senate inquiry into the importation of beef from countries that have had a BSE outbreak. The Senate inquiry has uncovered a number of disturbing issues and the coalition will also be introducing a private member’s bill into both chambers of parliament to protect Australians and our beef industry from this lapse.

The Rudd government should release the import protocols before the ban is lifted on 1 March this year. Our beef industry is worth billions of dollars, it supports hundreds of towns and communities and, as the minister said, it is very important to this country. Thousands of jobs would be destroyed if there were a BSE outbreak in Australia. I accept, Minister Crean, that the risk is low. I do not think any minister would be crazy enough to allow more than a negligible risk, but I am not sure that the minister can claim 100 per cent safety. That was an extraordinary claim yesterday, Minister. It was a bold and courageous statement. I hope the minister is right and we do not live to regret it.

The nation’s clean, green, disease-free status is invaluable and quarantine is too important be ignored. The minister’s refusal to demand an import risk analysis and update the import protocols for all countries which are currently banned from importing beef into Australia because they have had BSE outbreaks is a disgrace and he should change his mind.

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

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the time remaining for debating this matter of public importance, I wish to make some salient points. No. 1 is that Australia is the safest place in the world to be a consumer of high-quality, high-protein, high-iron beef. That is what is important and what needs to be maintained. What we do not need is any change in government policy that puts that wonderful reputation at risk. The last thing we want—and this is not frightening the horses or scaremongering, as the minister would suggest—is a policy from the Australian government that puts that reputation at risk. If the government has a problem and the industry has a problem with an outbreak causing the removal of meat from all the shelves in all the states across Australia then let the Minister for Trade via the department come up with a solution that does not put Australian beef at risk. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, Minister. We do not need to do that.

In Australia we have a protocol that allows us to trace the whereabouts, history and movements of a farm animal from birth to death. No equal system exists anywhere else in the world. Why then should we accept beef from countries that have had outbreaks of BSE if they cannot and will not replicate our trace system from birth to death? It is a question that producers right across this nation are asking, Minister. That question needs to be answered honestly and with great assurance so that our industry know that the impositions being placed on them as producers to put product into our market are equal to the impositions placed on overseas producers if they are now being invited to put their product into our market. This is about consumers and industry producers relying on receiving equity from this minister.

We are being asked to accept that assessment equals analysis. In matters of importing goods from overseas, an assessment is a simple process, the parameters of which are laid down by parts of the UN, and producing countries have to certify under that assessment regime. It is a process undertaken by the hopeful exporting country. It is not a process undertaken by Australia, Australian producers or the industry at large. What the minister is suggesting is that mere assessment under the UN protocols is sufficient because Australian authorities will tick the box that the risk assessment has been carried out and that will give everyone peace of mind.

Debate interrupted.