Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Back interjects that it does not say that. I interpreted what he was saying to be they had put requirements on the import risk assessment as to how they should assess, what would be acceptable and what would not be acceptable. If the bill does not say that, we will have a look at it. An import risk analysis is one which is conducted by a very important body—a scientific panel—which is set up to examine all of the risks of importation, and they go beyond BSE. Further, there are time lines which apply to that process. It involves the Eminent Scientist Group, which is important because one would hope that this would give the findings of the analysis panel, subject to assessment, even more rigour and credibility in the public’s eyes.

If we look at what this government is faced with a decade after the initial ban had been put in place—the ban on importing beef from countries that had had BSE—global science has moved on. There is no longer a scientific reason to keep the ban in place. The new food safety policy brings Australia into line with other major beef trading nations—Japan, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, South Korea, Taiwan and Europe—none of which have retained that old policy which many previously had.

We have a very competitive beef industry here in Australia. It is strongly competitive in domestic and global markets. The gross value of production is estimated by ABARE to be worth $7.1 billion to the Australian economy, of which 60 per cent is exported. We find it hard to understand how it could be suggested that this policy would threaten those jobs. To be frank, there would be a bigger threat to our jobs if we failed to meet our obligations under trade arrangements. We are entitled to assess things based on the science, and this government supports that. But to put in place measures that are not in compliance with our arrangements with our major trading nations would threaten our trade in beef products and indeed in other products. I remind senators opposite that I think our quota arrangement with the United States is 378,000 tonnes per year. There should not be a quota. We should not be limited. That is the limit. But we do trade an extraordinary amount of beef to that nation.

What would Australia’s producers say if the measures that some opposite have been talking about in blocking trade in breach of our obligations with nations like the United States meant that we were not able to export that quantity of beef or anything like it? It was the former government that was keen to renegotiate some of those arrangements to increase quotas, and in the fullness of time some years into the future it is expected that those quotas will increase. But they have been very important—indeed, very valuable—to the beef industry. When our currency was at much less comparable rates to the US dollar, when it was down around 50c and 60c, the scrambling by beef producers to get access to beef quotas was a sight to be seen, because it was a very valuable commodity. I am not sure that I want our currency to go back to those levels. I am sure many beef producers and exporters would love it, because they would be able to be very much more competitive. We are still selling hundreds of thousands of tonnes of beef into world markets, particularly into the United States, and we cannot afford to jeopardise that by taking steps that are not consistent with our trade obligations.

Senator Milne talked about a no-risk policy. We have never had a no-risk policy. The previous government never had a no-risk policy on quarantine. The government’s policy was a minimal-risk policy. Nobody is able to say that any trade policy guarantees you against any intrusion. You can only minimise the risk. That is what the previous government argued it was doing in a number of areas, and that is what this government is doing in relation to this. If we are talking about BSE and its transmission, we know that it is not a contagious disease. It is spread only through cattle eating contaminated meat products. Since 1997, we have banned the feeding of meat products to cattle. The Mathews report quantified the risk over the next 50 years at 0.002 per cent. FSANZ said consumers could be 100 per cent certain that all imported beef would be BSE free. Animal Health Australia found there was no viable pathway for transmission of BSE to Australian cattle—that is, because there were no live exports we would not bring in cattle with the disease and no bonemeal feed was imported nor was it allowed to be used in Australia for animals.

I think people have been alarmed by what has been said. A lot of people in the community, naturally, would be fearful of the introduction of a disease or the possibility of getting it from eating imported beef. And cattle producers who were not attuned to the reality of our quarantine arrangements could be easily frightened into thinking that perhaps the markets for their products would be damaged. The reality is that this government has done the right thing by the cattle industry and the industry accepts that. That is why it supported the government’s initial position.

In addition, today the government announced that, consistent with that and with what has taken place before, there will be a requirement for labelling of beef. Previously, seafood and pork had to be labelled in a supermarket context so consumers could know if it was imported or locally produced. Now, with the prospect of imports of beef, this government has announced that it will require that beef being sold to the consumer be labelled with whether it is Australian or imported product. Beyond that we will wait for further announcements. I would hope the labelling would say more than just whether it was imported and perhaps in a lot of cases where it was imported from, just as other products are identified in the supermarket cabinets as being products of China, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Norway, the United States or Canada. Then the consumers could make an informed decision. The government do support consumers making informed decisions. We do support the idea that Australia’s industries, such as the beef industry, be allowed to trade in an environment where their day-to-day existence is not threatened by a policy that we believe would require the government, if we had an outbreak of BSE, to remove beef from the shelves. Just as importantly, we should not be in a position where we run foul of our trading partners to the point where it damages our capacity to export beef and other products into their markets.

I recall when there were challenges to our regime relating to the importation of fish products, particularly salmon. The suggestion that came before the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, as it was then, inquiring into those matters was that if the challenge was successful a challenging nation could seek to implement measures against trade in any of our products to an extent equivalent at least to what was adjudged to be damage caused by any prohibitions on their products entering this country in breach of trade obligations. The previous government was mindful of that and argued its case based upon that. This government does the same.

In relation to this matter, we are completely confident that the science upon which the original decisions have been based is solid. We are completely confident that the appropriate consultations were conducted. Clearly, there was a view that an alarmist approach to this might damage public confidence in the beef industry. We have seen some of that occur, unfortunately, in the process of this examination. Minister Burke has listened to public concerns and decided that the appropriate course of action is to try to give as much certainty as possible to the Australian community and that, although beef was imported without an import risk analysis prior to the ban, an import risk analysis will be required.

So what has happened? We were initially thinking that beef would be allowed in without an IRA. There was public concern. We are now implementing an import risk assessment. We expect that assessment to take two years or thereabouts. Our trading partners will not be completely happy about that, but it is a measure we are entitled to take under our trading obligations. At the end of that time I expect that there will be a protocol—we will see the importation of beef. Some countries may not like the protocols and may choose not to comply with them, as happens with a number of trade arrangements, by not sending food to this country. That will be their choice. They will not have been prevented by anything other than a scientific assessment of risk and the application of policies consistent with our trade obligations. That is the responsible position this government takes. I acknowledge that Minister Burke has been commended on some of the actions taken. The announcement today on labelling of beef goes a further step in the right direction. (Time expired)