Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to be here at the tabling of a report that has taken a long time to complete but was born of producers in the north-east of my home state of Victoria. The report comes at the end of the eighth inquiry into the red meat industry in the last 17 years. I too would like to acknowledge the work and time that has been invested in the inquiry and this final report by all involved. When it comes to producers in the north-east of Victoria and to the peak bodies, they have inundated us with over 120 submissions to inquiries over this period of time, and this time we had to get it right. I think Senator O'Sullivan, who's come on board as the Deputy Chair of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, has been absolutely diligent, steadfast and determined in making sure the report we have handed down today provides a clear pathway forward for the red meat industry, to end the rumours and insinuations that led us to set up the inquiry in the first place.

Since the notorious incident known as the Barnawartha boycott on 17 February 2015, when nine processors were no-shows at the first prime sale of the Northern Victoria Livestock Exchange, at Barnawartha, it's become clear, through evidence to this committee, that industry practices require a root-and-branch overhaul to restore fairness, transparency and accountability to a sector marred for years by conflicts of interest, allegations of collusion, intimidation and bullying. Whether it was in the public submissions, at the public hearings or at hearings conducted in camera, that was the evidence we heard, and I will stand by those words, as will Senator O'Sullivan. A couple of weeks ago we had the red meat peak bodies before us so we could ask what they thought about the ACCC inquiry recommendations, and they attempted to crab walk away: 'Nothing to see here, Senators. Not a problem! It's all a storm in the teacup, dear Senator McKenzie!' Well, the evidence stands. I would ask all those peak bodies and, indeed, anyone listening tonight with a concern in this area to go to the evidence to this committee, to the Hansard and the submissions.

The committee reports key areas of concern as outlined by submissions from processors, producers, community members and councils. There are seven recommendations, including a recommendation that the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources request Meat & Livestock Australia to conduct 'a study into pre- and post-sale weighing to provide the southern industry with an evidence base on which to consider selling methods at saleyards'. This was a key concern to producers in my home state of Victoria and a key driver of the reason those processors didn't turn up. When we came to prosecute the issue within the Senate inquiry we relied on a piece of research from the 1980s. That something was a policy of the Victorian Farmers Federation—and I recognise it's not a policy of other livestock producers in other states—and that peak bodies took the levy, took the money, without one study being conducted on the efficacy of pre-sale versus post-sale weighing over that period of time, goes to the fundamental issue we are outlining here.

Another key recommendation, which Senator O'Sullivan has spoken about, is to support the grass-fed cattle sector 'in its efforts to replace the Cattle Council of Australia with a transparent and accountable producer-owned body as the sector's peak industry council'. There is also a recommendation for revision of the MOU and the establishment of a government task force, which I encourage to consult widely. As we looked deeply into this area and this industry, we found one of the issues was that there were favourite people to talk to and favourite bodies to talk to. I would encourage this task force to be very robust and broad in its consultation processes over the coming two years.

I met with the Victorian Farmers Federation Livestock Group after the ACCC market report, which really was spurred by this Senate inquiry. Rod Sims, and the agricultural commissioner, Mick Keogh, when he came to our inquiry, said, 'Hang on; there's something wrong with that Barnawartha boycott.' They went and had a look and said: 'Yes, Senators, there is something wrong there. We need some concerted practices legislation in our competition law.' Well, this government's delivered that in the meantime so that the Barnawartha behaviour cannot occur again, or at least can be prosecuted in the current legislative environment.

But there was enough of an issue for Rod Sims to say: 'Do you know what your first market inquiry will be as Agricultural Commissioner? It's going to be into the red meat industry.' So Mick Keogh and his officers brought down an ACCC report with 15 recommendations that really went to the heart of what this inquiry was all about: what is the impact on producer return from the lack of competition within the red meat sector? That was the heart of that ACCC report. A couple of weeks ago those peak bodies tried to walk away from those 15 recommendations. I would encourage and say: 'You might not have liked who was tasked to do the job, but we can talk about that.' Issues that were traversed included the fact that we don't need transparency around pricing and livestock agents not needing education, training and registering. Those issues were traversed as were complaints processes for producers and processors. Those 15 recommendations from the ACCC are fundamental to returning confidence and competition to the red meat industry.

For now, the committee have declined to entertain the suggestion that a binding code of conduct should be imposed; however, our report rightly notes that a code, industry-led or legislated, cannot be an open-ended pipedream. In this sense, the ACCC's recommendations offered the industry a framework that you can adopt as your own. When Mick Keogh wrote to our committee after the evidence from the peak bodies, he said:

… RMAC is in a unique position in the industry. RMAC is the only organisation that regularly holds discussions with a wide range of industry participants and then advocates on behalf of members directly with the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.

The ACCC felt that RMAC was uniquely placed to facilitate discussions.

Price grids was another contentious issue identified by the committee, the ACCC and the Victorian Farmers Federation. Yet, despite all the evidence presented, certain sectors in the industry—namely, the processors—don't think that price transparency is an issue for the industry. I do; I absolutely do. I think it's important to have that information available to producers to make decisions in a clear and transparent way. The producers were concerned about its potential impact to the market price and that it could potentially have an adverse or potentially opposite impact compared to the intention of the ACCC in asking an industry for greater price transparency.

Compare that to evidence on transparency given to the committee—like the submission from the Shire of Campaspe, who submitted about the potential of misidentifying or distorting the value of a product during various stages of the supply chain. We had evidence from a producer who suggested that most producers wait for months for a kill date, and they only know the grid price days before the point of sale. He suggested that sometimes it was the case that, 'If you don't like the price, then you lose your booking,' and, 'If you don't like it, too bad.' That was a direct quote of his interaction with some of the processors.

I was particularly interested in the evidence from Australian Livestock & Property Agents Association CEO Andrew Madigan, who seemed a little confused on the question of collusion in the industry. There's been a bit public commentary on that of late. Responding to a question on notice on 28 August, Mr Madigan said:

At no stage did I say the following—that since the 1970s he had witnessed collusive behaviour at livestock sales, the committee might like to point out where this was said in evidence on 27th August 2015.

Well, I'm really pleased to accommodate Mr Madigan. I will directly quote from the Hansard of 27 August 2015. This is your quote, Mr Madigan:

In my experience I have seen buyers talk to one another—just have a little whisper. I have not heard what they have said. I have no proof of it, but I have seen it. They will go up and talk to one another. One will stop bidding and then walk away, and then they will buy the next pen. I have seen that, yes.

That's a direct quote. We've all seen that kind of behaviour and we've heard of that kind of behaviour. That is why I would encourage ALPA on an education training and registration program for the livestock agents to assist in that.

I'd also like to thank the hardworking secretariat, Dr Thompson and her team. I would particularly like to thank my colleagues in the Victorian Farmers Federation Livestock Group, Leonard Vallance and Dave Picker, for their continual advice and support. To those producers who bravely stood up after the Barnawartha boycott and said for the first time publicly what we've known for decades has been going on: thank you, because we would not have had that ACCC inquiry and we would not have had this Senate report without you actually saying, 'Enough is enough; we have to have some accountability and transparency.' This is a billion-dollar industry and hundreds of thousands of Australians are employed in the red meat industry. We back you. Let's just clean it up.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.