David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

A person with a Nobel prize in physics knows a lot about physics but probably not about Middle East politics. Being a victim of crime does not make you expert at how to prevent similar crimes or the implements used in them. And being a retailer means you understand things like margins and stock turns, but you do not have expertise in the production of what you are selling—unless, it seems, you are Coles.

Despite being a retailer, Coles apparently believes it knows enough about pig production to tell pig farmers how to produce their pigs. And, if they do not do as they are told, Coles will not sell their pork. We also know what happens when we reach our limitations. We make wrong decisions. We potentially cause harm to others. If we do that in spite of being told we are making a wrong decision, we are not only stupid but culpable. Coles is both stupid and culpable. I will explain.

As male pigs reach puberty, they begin to produce male hormones. That has two effects. First, it makes them fight. A pen full of pubescent male pigs is not a pretty sight. As the hormones kick in, they become aggressive and covered in bites and scratches. Second, the male hormones cause an unpleasant taste in the meat, known as boar taint. Consumers dislike boar taint. Some find it utterly offensive. It is enough to put them off pork permanently. A pen of young adolescent female pigs is placid, with very little fighting, and their meat is quite untainted. Some meat buyers insist on pork from female pigs, but obviously pig farming would not be viable if only female pigs were used.

In the past there were two options. One was to surgically castrate male pigs prior to puberty so the hormones were not produced. This is effective but has obvious animal welfare issues. We are not talking about an operating theatre and anaesthetic here. It also has an economic effect: the shock of castration plus the loss of the anabolic effect of male hormones means the pigs stop growing for a while. The other option was to slaughter male pigs at a young age, prior to puberty kicking in. This is far from ideal in terms of the type of pork produced and is not very efficient either.

A few years ago a vaccine-like product called Improvac came on the market in Australia and elsewhere. It is a simple injection given to male piglets when they are small which blocks the production of male hormones. It is high technology, not a chemical or a hormone, and will in due course be used in other species. When it is used in male pigs, they do not develop boar taint, do not fight with each other and can be allowed to grow to an economic size.

But Coles tells its pork suppliers not to use Improvac—not because it has superior scientific knowledge to the regulators who approved Improvac, not because it knows more about pig farming than pig farmers; it is so it can say to consumers, 'We don't sell pork that contains things'—things it knows nothing about. It feeds on ignorance and bigotry about agriculture. The result is: Coles's suppliers of pork are forced to either castrate their male pigs, slaughter them too early or risk losing consumers because of boar taint. This is bad for pig farmers, bad for animal welfare and bad for pork consumers. Coles does not actually care about pig welfare, or the pig industry, or its own customers. It just wants to be able to tell a nonsense story to gullible consumers. It is dishonest and, as I said, stupid and culpable. If the issue is not fixed, I will have a lot more to say about it in future.

On another matter: like many Australians, I understand the appeal of a very fast train. In fact, those of us forced to spend 20 weeks a year in Canberra love the idea of getting out of here at a very rapid rate. The ABC television documentary Utopia pointed out that 95 per cent of Australians are in favour of very fast trains. But the other five per cent are economists, engineers and other experts in transport. Several studies have shown this plan is not viable in Australia. Even before the inevitable cost blowouts caused by detours to avoid disturbing the habitats of eastern post turtles, it is estimated that a Brisbane to Melbourne train would cost about $114 billion. This is more than $5,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. This is too much money for private companies to raise without setting uncompetitive ticket prices, so the idea can only be entertained by a reckless government. A very fast train would make our taxes disappear faster than a speeding bullet. I also bet that everybody—and especially people in Townsville, Darwin, Perth and Adelaide—can think of things they would rather do with $5,000. For this money, we could offer every Australian several return flights to anywhere they want to go.

As usual, there is a cheaper option which involves governments getting out of the way. If governments really are worried about travel times, and they ought to be, they should reform speed limits on our roads. We could do this for the cost of replacing some road signs. In fact, my mate Ferret, the proprietor of the Penrith Muffler Shop, says he would personally be willing to remove speed indicators between Brisbane and Melbourne at no charge to the taxpayer. I jest—but there is nothing silly about this idea. What is really silly is that we still trundle around our huge continent at speed limits set in 1964, while other countries have adjusted their speed limits as cars and roads have improved. There are huge sections of our highways where a speed limit of 130, which is what applies in much of Europe, would seem more appropriate.

But it should not be up to me to set speed limits; nor should it be up to engineers or the road safety lobby, which thinks speeding is responsible for everything wrong about society. Speed limits should be set based on what the community considers to be appropriate. There is an internationally recognised methodology for working this out. And when speed limits are considered appropriate, relations with law enforcement are positive and the tedium of long distance travel is reduced as travel times are lowered. We cannot afford very fast trains, but we can afford to reduce our travel times through higher speed limits. And if this means getting out of Canberra faster, I reckon it would have a lot of support.

On a serious issue, in November last year I spoke about the case of David Waters and his dismissal by Goodyear. David is one of Australia's top sporting shooters. He has won many competitions and medals, both domestically and internationally. In July 2015, while at work, David agreed to meet a member of a rifle club similar to his own. The visitor, a 59-year-old woman, is a keen shooter looking to excel in her sport. Liz needed advice on fitting an accessory to her new target rifle. David was leaving for overseas in a couple of days, so he agreed to see her during his lunchbreak at work.

Liz drove into the basement carpark that Goodyear shares with several other businesses and their visitors in the building. David was expecting her to turn up with the accessory only. However, she had also brought along the rifle to which it was to be fitted. Until she took it out of her car, David did not know she had the rifle with her. Liz is a responsible shooter and therefore the bolt and magazine had been removed. At no point did the rifle present a risk to anyone. Unsure of his position, David nonetheless suggested to Liz that she return the rifle to the car and leave. But the carpark entrance is open to the street and a passer-by must have noticed the rifle. Within a couple of minutes the police showed up, eventually totalling about 16 of them. They arrested David and Liz and searched their cars. They accompanied David upstairs to his office to retrieve his identification and car keys. He was not charged, for the obvious reason that he had committed no offence. Liz was charged over unlocked transport of ammunition, but no conviction was recorded.

Not surprisingly, some of David's work colleagues saw him being accompanied to his office by the police and drew their own conclusions. People do that. David was instructed to attend a disciplinary hearing. He was suspended without pay. I attended the hearing with David. Those present were Trent Hudson, Goodyear's HR consultant, and Anil Singh, Finance Director and David's immediate boss. Mr Hudson, who now works for Foxtel, did most of the talking, adopting a condescending and patronising manner towards both of us. Mr Singh, who is still at Goodyear Dunlop, said little. However, it later emerged he was the key decision maker. David was summarily sacked with no compensation, no notice or pay in lieu, on the grounds that his conduct had had 'significant reputational impact' on the company.

The letter to David that followed sets out the injustice in detail. It said he had breached company policy by allowing firearms and ammunition on company property. This is a lie. David had no prior knowledge of what was in Liz's car. It said he 'failed to ensure the safety and security of fellow associates, building tenants and Goodyear assets'. Another lie. Safety and security were never jeopardised. It said he was responsible for conduct that resulted in a complaint and a formal warning against Goodyear by the building owner. A complete lie. No such complaint or warning ever occurred. It said David was responsible for conduct that has resulted in a financial penalty against Goodyear by the building owner. Another lie. There was no penalty. It said, without explanation, there was a 'breach of trust in the employment relationship'. That is true, but it was Goodyear that breached the relationship after employing David for 12 years. In summary, the letter said: 'Your actions placed Goodyear in a position whereby it was in breach of its obligation to provide a safe and secure working environment for its associates.' False, and an outright lie. The mere presence of a rifle does not constitute a threat, and, in any case, it is quite trivial in the presence of at least 16 police, each of whom carries a firearm.

What occurred should never have attracted attention in the first place. We Australians are rightly proud of our Olympic, Commonwealth Games and World Championship shooters and the medals they regularly bring home. Unfortunately, it seems the rest of the time they are treated as presumptive criminals. David took action against Goodyear in the kangaroo court known as the Fair Work Commission. Goodyear refused to negotiate in the conciliation phase. Goodyear turned up with four lawyers and a huge pile of documents containing lies and distortions, which it dumped on him 10 minutes before the case was to be heard. Nonetheless, David represented himself and did a fine job. The company's lawyers, Hentys Lawyers, even tried to use my support for him to pursue their assertion that he had done something wrong. Totally unprofessional and disgraceful. He was awarded pay of four weeks on the grounds that his dismissal should not have been summary.

But this is not the end of the matter. There are consequences for Goodyear. Australia's sporting shooters will come to know about Goodyear and its treatment of David. Firearm owners around the world will come to know about it. Virtually all of Australia's 800,000 licensed firearm owners drive cars for which they require tyres. Virtually all of those licensed firearm owners have friends and relatives who also drive cars, requiring tyres. Virtually any Australian who looks at what happened and says, 'That is manifestly unfair,' drives a car. Virtually every firearm owner around the world who recognises injustice to a fellow shooter also drives a vehicle with tyres.

I am calling on firearm owners around the world, wherever they are, to stop buying products made by Goodyear until it does the right thing by David. These products come under the brands Goodyear, Dunlop and Beaurepaires. I am calling on Goodyear to hold responsible those employees responsible for this outrage: Anil Singh, in particular, and those employees who have done nothing to rectify it—in particular Asia Pacific President Chris Delaney. It seems firearm owners have replaced blacks and Jews in the discrimination stakes. We cannot afford to allow this injustice to stand—because, when they come for one of us in the morning, they will be coming for the rest that night.