Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In between me shaking in my boots, thank you Mr Deputy President, I do appreciate the opportunity to continue what I was saying. As I was saying, the import risk analysis will now be part of the assessment. The IRA will provide further opportunities for public consultation. We know the game: those on the other side have made it very clear that whatever they can do to keep this alive, whatever they can do to stall the process, whatever they can do to put out a greater scare campaign, whatever they can do to mislead the beef industry and have them believe that the world is going to come crashing down, they will continue to do. They are continuing to do that. We will play the silly game. I will attend the hearings, no worries, and make up their numbers for them while they play to their constituents. Their dwindling importance in the bush has just been highlighted more and more. That is for them to sort out, not me.

In that time the government will also amend the current labelling regime for beef. I think that is a major concession. Let me take this opportunity to talk a little bit about the labelling. It can be a political football; it can be a hot potato. Some members of parliament can use it for their own vested interests and a grab on the six o’clock news. But this country should not be fooled into thinking for one minute that our biosecurity all lies on what the label says on the shelf. Let us get this very clear. I challenge those opposite to correct me if I am wrong. Our biosecurity, in the interests of this country, lies at the border—with the protocols, with the IRA and with all those systems in place—and not what it says on the shelf. What it says on the shelf should be a choice issue for consumers. That was another scare campaign being run in tandem here.

It is also imperative to take this opportunity to mention that we asked—and Hansard can be checked—everyone who came before us how many producers they represented. There was one group that kept coming back time and time again—it was like Groundhog Day—because it suited those on the committee from the other side of the chamber to keep rehashing the same scare campaign and the same vested interests who did not represent many growers at all compared to the Australian Cattle Council, the Australian Lot Feeders Association or AMIC, the major industry body. And when they did come to us, there was always a barrage of assault put on them. They could not help themselves. Even Senator McGauran could not help himself from lowering his standards and personally attacking a witness.

On that, I am glad to say that Senator O’Brien and I were part of the hearing. It was very interesting to have that hearing. It was good to hear from the industry. It was good to hear that the majority of industry had the opportunity to work closely with government. Regardless of what they say over that side, it was an industry decision and it was the right decision. Science has moved on. This is clearly a science argument. There are no ifs or buts about that. You cannot argue against science, although you like to. (Time expired)