Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received a letter from Senator Williams proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The dangers presented by the Rudd Government’s decision to allow the importation of beef products from countries that have had confirmed outbreaks of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease).

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

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

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me a deal of pleasure to speak to this, although I have to say it gives me a deal of concern that we have to deal with an issue as serious as the government’s process of changing the protocols to allow beef imports from countries that have had mad cow disease. As we heard during question time and as we have heard over the last week or so, the manner in which the government goes about its process of dealing with reform and the inadequacies of that have been clearly demonstrated again through this process. Right from the commencement of this process the government was asking industry to keep this a secret. The government did not want its constituency to know and it desperately did not want the opposition to know what was going on. In fact, it asked industry not to talk to the opposition about it and industry, disappointingly, was compliant. I think that it has lived to regret that because it has been proven since, through revelations during the Senate inquiry, that the industry was largely being led by the nose by the government on this.

It has been put to the parliament, the industry and the Australian people that this is an issue about food safety and the safety of Australia’s food supply. That is clearly a very serious and legitimate concern that all Australians should have. We heard a range of evidence during the Senate inquiry about the potential impacts—some concerns were raised as late as this morning—but what we really know about this is that it is about trade. We know that it has been driven by the Trade portfolio, we know that countries have been pushing Australia to change its protocols through the Trade portfolio for some period of time and we know that countries, particularly the United States, desperately want to take part of our market share—particularly markets like Japan and Korea.

Prior to the initial outbreak of BSE in the United States in 2003, Australia shared, by roughly one-third, the beef market in Japan. It was shared between Australia, the United States and the Japanese market itself. About one-third of the beef came from Australia, one-third came from the United States and one-third came from Japan. A little bit of it came from New Zealand, which has a similar reputation to Australia. What happened when the BSE outbreak occurred was that 50 per cent of that market went to Australia, 50 per cent went to Japan and a little bit remained with New Zealand.

The performance of the industry representative groups through this process has been abysmal. The performance by the Cattle Council of Australia this morning was one of the worst I have seen at a parliamentary inquiry for a long time, and I have seen a lot of Senate inquiries in relation to the beef industry in my eight years here. The performance this morning was really very disappointing, but the performance of the government was too. As I have said, it has tried to keep this quiet. Nobody has seen the provisions yet. This measure is supposed to start on Monday. We still do not know what the protocols are going to be for importing beef into Australia. We were told this morning that, hopefully, we will find out this afternoon or perhaps tomorrow. Tell me: under what circumstance is that a reasonable period of time for this parliament to scrutinise it or for the industry itself to scrutinise it?

The government has gone to every possible measure that it could find to avoid putting this through a process that has scrutiny of the parliament. It is using a measure that does not go to the Senate and does not go to the House of Representatives. It cannot be disallowed by this parliament if it is proven that it is a problem, and yet industry leaders this morning said, ‘We just hope that the government does what we’ve asked it to do.’ That is what they are saying: ‘We trust that it’ll do what we want it to do.’ I do not know how you could actually trust the government to do what the industry has asked it to do. This whole process has been cloaked in secrecy. If you look at what this government has done to the agricultural sector since it has been in government, you would have to seriously question whether it would actually do what the industry has asked it to do. We have seen it buying water, but it will not put any money towards upgrading infrastructure; we have seen an abysmal performance with respect to releasing its drought review; we have seen it taking grasslands off farmers without consultation. It has done a whole range of things and yet the industry has been quite happy to sit there and say, ‘We hope that the government will do what we have asked it to do.’ The industry has not seen the regulations. None of us have seen the regulations. We have asked; we asked this morning. The way that this has been managed is an absolute disgrace. This is all about creating the perception of equality in Australia’s primary produce with other countries and them attempting to attack our markets. That is what this is about.

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

I wish to make a contribution to the debate today. Before I start, I just want to take Senator Colbeck to task on his accusation about an abysmal performance by the Cattle Council. I have to be really honest: the abysmal performance was from opposition senators on the attack—like hyenas hunting in a pack, screaming and carrying on. There was the calling of names and interjecting while witnesses were trying to give answers—not you, Senator Colbeck, but your colleague’s performance was damn disgraceful.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Sterle, address the chair, please.

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

I will, Mr Deputy President. I apologise. Through the chair, I was certainly not aiming those accusations at Senator Colbeck, because Senator Colbeck does not stoop to such low performances in Senate hearings as some of Senator Colbeck’s colleagues are renowned for. The attack on Mr Greg Brown from the Cattle Council was absolutely pathetic. We are talking about—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Sterle will be heard in silence.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

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

Got a guilty conscience, have you? You’ll get your turn.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Most of those interjecting on my left I see are on the speakers list, so I would ask them to wait until their turn comes.

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

As I was saying, when I asked Mr Greg Brown from the Cattle Council if he had been a producer for long, he said, ‘All his life.’ He is fourth generation. To suggest that Mr Brown or others representing the beef industry are going to destroy a multibillion dollar export industry I find abysmal. What we have had is an absolute scare campaign run by the opposition. There has been so much misinformation out there in the media. Every time we have a hearing or something, we see certain reporters from a certain paper in New South Wales called the Land and—lo and behold!—out echoes all the opposition senators’ comments and statements. The scare campaign is absolutely amazing.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nash interjecting—

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

If you have a problem with that—through you, Mr Deputy President—the chair of the committee, Senator Nash, will make her contribution later. We need to get back to the facts.

Back in 2001 the Australian government—the previous Howard government—introduced the blanket ban on the domestic sale of beef and beef products from any country that had a confirmed case of BSE. We know that. The policy was implemented with the best available science at the time. The science was conservative, to say the least, and the need for the policy to be reviewed was certainly acknowledged. Since 2001 the science has improved significantly and our understanding of BSE has developed enormously. It is now scientifically evident that BSE cannot—I repeat, cannot—be introduced into Australia simply through the importation of beef. This means that the risk to human and animal health can no longer be the reason to prevent the importation of beef. The Australian beef industry understood the new science and it, the industry, has urged the government to make the change in policy. The government went through a very rigorous and thorough consultation process—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bulldust! You’re joking!

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

including with key representatives of the Australian beef industry and the relevant major health organisations. It is very clear that the vast majority of the Australian beef industry support the change in policy—the vast majority.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Three hundred out of 200,000 have been consulted!

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan!

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

The Red Meat Advisory Council, known as RMAC, is the peak body for the Australian beef industry. RMAC has as its members the Australian Meat Industry Council, the Cattle Council of Australia, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia, the Australian Lot Feeders Association and the Australian Livestock Exporters Council. RMAC, the peak body, said:

The Federal Government’s decision to modernise Australia’s import policy as it relates to beef and beef products is scientifically justifiable and supported by industry.

They went on to say:

Until this change, Australia stood out from the international trading community as having an outdated policy developed at a time when scientific knowledge was significantly less than it is today. With the rigorous application of the new rules Australia will continue being recognised as a Negligible BSE Risk country and enjoying the level of trade this has traditionally brought.

There you have it. The peak industry body, RMAC, has put in on the record that they have written to relevant ministers supporting the policy change. They have also issued media releases and written pieces for the rural papers. The industry’s position represents the vast majority of the industry.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Garbage!

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

There is one very small body that does not represent many people.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Through you, Mr Deputy President, those on the other side of the chamber will have their turn here and they will continue the mistruths and the misrepresentations and say how they are the gatekeepers to everything rural and agricultural in Australia. I find it amazing: about the only time the coalition come together is when they are going to attack a government policy. I would like to be in the party room and hear what really goes on in there. As I said, the peak bodies were consulted.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Heffernan! Senator Sterle has the call.

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

As I said, RMAC will be consulted while the protocols of the importation of beef are being developed.

The health and safety of the Australian population was at the centre of the review and policy change. That is why a significant review has been undertaken by Professor Mathews, an eminent scientist with over 40 years experience. In his report, Professor Mathews explained that the science has improved significantly over recent years. He found that:

… an estimate of the absolute risk to Australians from UK beef imports, if this was to be allowed, is found to be—

I want to make sure those opposite really understand, because I do not think they quite get it. The absolute risk to Australians is:

… 40 million times less than the risk from road accidents.

The Mathews report, written by an expert, was also peer reviewed by expert scientists under the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Heffernan, I see you are on the speakers list. You will have a chance to make all of your points, hopefully without interruption. Senator Sterle should be allowed to make his contribution without interruption as well.

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

Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Jim Bishop, was also consulted. In summary, Professor Mathews concluded that there was a theoretical and negligible risk to human health.

I did table this at the hearing today—the Australian Red Cross Blood Service has put out a press release. It is also satisfied that the change in policy will not impact on Australia’s blood supply. In a media release the Red Cross has rejected claims that blood donations could be hindered by the government’s decision to allow imports of beef from countries previously affected by mad cow disease. This policy change does not mean that we will open the floodgates—far from it—to beef imports from any country wishing to export their beef to Australia. Under this new policy, beef from other countries must still meet country-by-country science based risk assessment processes. This includes, as necessary, in-country inspections to verify other countries’ risk mitigation systems.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No import risk analysis, mate!

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

The government is not changing its policy towards the importation of live cattle, hence this is not a viable pathway for introducing BSE into Australia. It is important that I say this: BSE is not a contagious disease, and its only significant route of transmission is through feeding cattle meat and bonemeal produced from BSE infected cattle. Australia has a ban on the importation of this risk material. We also have a ban on Australian cattle domestically being fed bonemeal. There is therefore no viable pathway for Australian cattle to contract BSE from safe imported fresh beef.

Despite the opposition’s claims, the policy change from 1 March—next Monday—does not mean that beef from other countries will start arriving the following day. We have to make that very, very clear; some mistruths have been put out that at one minute past 12 the gates would be opened.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know all that!

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

Senator Heffernan interjects. Why put out mistruths that the floodgates are going to open at one minute past 12? That is how untruthful, devious and deceitful this argument has become. What is does mean is that countries must then undergo a rigorous process—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No import risk analysis is required!

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

to meet the high standard that is set by Food Standards Australia New Zealand.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No import risk analysis required!

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan, I have asked you to cease interjecting! You will get your chance later.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. The beef industry is significant in both its domestic and export value. There is no argument about that. Approximately 60 per cent of the total $7.1 billion of beef produced in Australia each year is exported. Trade is crucial for our beef industry, and this trade occurs under a rules based system. As members of the World Trade Organisation, Australia is bound to follow these rules and we have to follow these rules. We need to ensure that our rules are based on the best science in the world. Australia is entitled to implement rules to protect human, animal or plant life but must ensure these rules are based on international standards.

There would be adverse ramifications for our beef export trade if the policy remained unchanged or a WTO dispute was brought against Australia, and I think you could relate to that, Mr Deputy President. In particular, the continuation of the 2001 policy under the previous government may have resulted in retaliation, with major markets closing down trade in response to our ban on beef from those markets. Australian beef producers benefit from the access they gain to export markets around the world, and that has been made very, very clear to us in the committee on a number of occasions. The former policy risked our markets being shut down. It risked our industry being devastated.

The Howard government saw the need for change, but simply avoided it because it was all too hard. They had the scientific evidence and they sat on it—two reports, I believe: one in 2005 and one in 2006. The Howard government risked the future of our beef industry because they insisted on a BSE beef policy that was outdated, dangerous and wrong. If there was a single cow found with BSE, all Australian beef would come off the shelves—a blanket ban with no exceptions. If that did happen, imagine what that would do to jobs in rural Australia. Imagine what it would do to our beef industry. The beef industry called on the government to guard against this sort of calamity. The policy change protects Australian farmers and it protects Australian jobs; it protects Australian beef. Now that they are in opposition, that lot over there are running the classic scare campaign: disregarding the science and disregarding the facts. It does not suit them to have the science or the facts. It does not suit them to work in conjunction with the industry.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In Australia, we are in the lucky position of being able to control what imports we allow into our country. Our position as an island means we have a natural barrier protecting our livestock and crops from pests and diseases that affect other countries—that is, unless they slip past our quarantine protection or we make a decision to risk it. And this is about making a decision of needlessly risking such a vital industry and our health. We know that BSE causes variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans. We know that outbreaks of BSE cause serious and sometimes permanent damage to the beef industries of affected countries. And we know that, so far, Australia is one of the few countries in the world to remain BSE free.

I strongly believe that people have the right to make informed choices about the food they are consuming. This is evident in the bills I have put to the Senate in relation to food-labelling laws in conjunction with my colleagues Senator Joyce and Senator Bob Brown. Currently, under the Food Standards Code, beef products can only be exported to Australia if they are from animals that are BSE free. Under the new standards, countries will be able to export beef products to Australia if they are assessed as having appropriate controls in place to ensure that the products exported are BSE free. This means that countries previously banned from exporting beef products to Australia because of their BSE status will now be able to. But consumers will not know what products come from which countries. Under current labelling laws, they cannot even reliably know which ones are Australian. And we know we have the farcical and, I think, dangerous position where a meat pie, for instance, could be categorised as being made in Australia because of the substantial transformation rule, where over 50 per cent of the value of the product is made in Australia—it could be the packaging or the pastry—but 100 per cent of the meat could come from a BSE affected country and we would be none the wiser under our current food-labelling laws.

We should not be relying on other countries to do the right thing. We should be actively and aggressively protecting our country and our beef industry and, above all, the health of our citizens. Let us put this in perspective: if you want to donate blood to the Red Cross and you lived in the UK for more than six months between 1980 and 1996, you cannot because of the risk posed by BSE. I know that a former president of the South Australian medical association, Dr Andrew Lavender, is in that category and he said so publicly. He has been quite vocal because he has seen what happened in the UK and he does not want it to happen here in Australia. In fact, you are deferred—that means banned—from donating blood for good. But the government feels it is safe to allow beef imports from BSE affected countries. As we saw with the equine influenza, just because we have never had the disease here, it does not mean it cannot happen. And it certainly does not mean we should take a chance. I think the fundamental question here is: what is more important—a free market or a safe market? I know which side I am on, and my colleagues in the coalition and the Australian Greens are on that side as well.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me absolutely no pleasure at all to speak on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. As a veterinarian for most of my career working in the livestock industries, I am absolutely amazed and aghast to think that we are even confronting this question. More importantly, the fact is that we will not be debating this matter in the Senate and the reason is simply that there is no capacity for the Senate to scrutinise it. Because there is no legislation, there are no regulations. This new arrangement will come in on 1 March and this place has no capacity to assess it. The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee was told by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry today, in a submission, that the updated policy announced on 20 October does not require a change to the Food Standards Code or to control measures. Therefore, there is no amendment to any act or subordinate legislation required to bring this into place. I think this is a perversion of the parliamentary process. We have seven days and we simply do not have any capacity to act.

Why have we been so concerned about this for as long as we have—since it was announced, spuriously, on 20 October? The reasons are twofold: the protection of the community, which is our role, and the protection of beef producers. One would have thought that in a circumstance like this there would have been certain measures put into place. There have not been. They are not yet evident to us. Let me advise the Senate that at this time Australia is free of BSE or, more particularly, under a change that none of us knew about, we went from being free to being at negligible risk. We have now been told, with this change of policy in a week’s time, that the risk will not change. I am at a loss to know how the risk will not change when in fact we are now going to allow and invite beef to come in from countries that have had BSE. In that particular event I would have thought we should go and have a look at it and ask what will the protocols be that Food Standards Australia New Zealand will impose. This announcement was made on 20 October by ministers for health, agriculture and trade—four months ago. As of this moment, as of the third public meeting which the committee had this morning, we still do not know what those protocols are going to be.

Secondly, we have no guarantee that there will be a trace-back system. Again for the benefit of the Senate, we in Australia, alone in the world, expended considerable sums of money with an enormous amount of angst and disagreement some years ago to have a national livestock identification system so that in the event of any untoward disease or other factor we could go back to the farm of origin and immediately determine where that particular disease originated. Let me give you a quick analogy—the case of foot-and-mouth disease in the UK. Imagine the enormous effect on security requirements had they been able when the UK first had foot-and-mouth disease to go straight back to the farm of origin and detect and determine where it had come from. The problem would have been nowhere near as great. Similarly, with BSE in the United Kingdom, again there was no trace-back. So Australia says that is fine, we must not under free trade and other restrictions and legislation impose on other countries that which we do not impose on ourselves. And that is fair—but do you think we could get a guarantee out of government that we will impose those same restrictions on countries who want to import into Australia? The answer, unfortunately, is no.

First of all I was told that there would be an equivalence, so I asked the President of the Cattle Council of Australia this morning whether he knew of any system equivalent to that that Australia has, and he assured me that he did not. I then went to the Red Meat Advisory Council, commented upon by my colleague Senator Sterle. What he did not say was that there were three factors upon which the council would give their support. The first was good science—and I ask where is the good science at this moment to be able to examine beef offshore and be able to guarantee that a consignment of beef is free of BSE? I will tell you the answer: we do not have the science of that testing. The science is not there. Secondly, he said that there had to be a trace-back system at least equivalent to that in Australia. We have already been told publicly and today that we will not be requiring that. The third criterion by RMAC and others concerns the whole question of protocols. Seven days out, and we do not know the protocols. This is a nonsense.

So we go to the industry itself, the producers. A point I have made before and will labour again is that five or six years ago we had similar changes in the pig industry when the vast majority of pig meat consumed in Australia was produced here. At Christmas last year, 75 per cent of all pig meat consumed on Australian Christmas tables was imported. I am inviting producer groups and others to tell me how different they think the situation will be for the Australian beef industry if this change is made. I cannot get any answer out of them. We are an island. We can protect ourselves from and we can contain that which comes in. Regrettably, many of the countries who will be importers under these changed conditions cannot. For example, we have the American-Mexican border. We may have all the faith in the world in inspectors in the United States but how do we know that meat has not come across the border from Mexico, where there is no BSE status at all, into the United States, where there is a controlled status, and then into Australia? Remember, we do not have the science of the testing to be able to deal with this. The final point is secrecy—why was there secrecy?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise, in following my colleagues, to outline our concerns about the relaxation of the importation of beef from countries that have had BSE or, as people would more commonly know it, mad cow disease. Firstly, I take exception to Senator Sterle’s comment about the comments coming from this side being scaremongering. It is anything but scaremongering. We are actually trying to get the facts of this out into the community, out into the public arena, so people can know what is going on. There is no parliamentary oversight of these changes—absolutely none—and there is no legislation and there are no regulations required, which means that the Parliament of Australia has no ability to have any input into the decision to make these changes. It is a decision of Minister Burke alone. It is about time that people around Australia had the opportunity to hear what is actually going on. This has been brushed under the carpet. As my good colleague Senator Back has just asked in his comments, why the secrecy? This has only started to come out because my colleagues Senator Heffernan, Senator Back and I, as a committee chair—and Senator Colbeck, Senator Williams and other very interested coalition senators—know that this should not be going ahead. If it were not for us the Australian people would not even know that these changes were going to come in on 1 March.

We are being told that there is negligible risk of an outbreak of mad cow disease if the importation rules are relaxed. The people that I am talking to about this are not at all comfortable with ‘negligible risk’ because ‘negligible’ means that there is a risk. I do not think anybody wants to walk into a restaurant with a sign out the front saying ‘Negligible risk of getting mad cow here’. That might sound a bit extreme but nobody can tell us otherwise. Nobody can look us in the face and say, ‘This will not occur. We will absolutely guarantee that we will not get mad cow disease in Australia.’ Under these changes they simply cannot do that. They absolutely cannot do that. This is being done purely on the health impacts. There is no import risk analysis whatsoever on the impact on the beef industry, absolutely none, and we are being told that that is fine and that is okay because there will be a negligible risk and there will not be a problem at all. That is just rubbish. It is not right and it should not be going ahead. This disease has a dormant period of 40 years. How can we possibly know that we can really say, ‘Yes, this is safe and this is fantastic’? It is just not right. This has been rushed; there has been undue haste.

We have the reputation of being a clean, green exporting nation. Why on earth would we risk that? We are being told by industry bodies that it is about the risk of trade retaliation if we do not move to the same level playing field, because the science now says that it is okay. That might be their view but there is still this risk attached to it. It is interesting that we have been told during the process that our trading partners have been pushing for years to try to get access to our market because they feel they are being unfairly precluded. Yet on the other hand at the same time we are being told that there is really not going to be any great increase at all in the importation of beef into this country. Doesn’t that then lead to this question: if our trading partners are so keen to get access to our market, why do they want to do that if they are not planning on supplying it? There must be a very good reason. I would imagine, as Senator Colbeck said before me, that it has something to do with the markets that we already hold. Interestingly, it was put forward this morning by MLA that indeed when this was announced there were concerns from Japan about our existing markets. We already export into Japan. What is this going to do in terms of creating a risk for our existing markets in places like Japan? If all of a sudden we now have relaxation of the rules that are going to allow imports from the US, for example, into Australia, what does that say about our standing in terms of our clean, green, top of the range—top of the level, if you like—status as an exporter? I would ask this: what is going to be the reaction of those countries if there is an outbreak after this all happens—and we hope it does not go ahead—in the US? What does that then do to our exporting relationship with Japan? Is it going to put us in the same basket as the US because we have been letting their beef come into this country? Of course it is.

This whole argument that the science is now okay simply does not wash. It absolutely does not wash. We know that the protocols have not even been drawn up yet. Those very guidelines that are the only things that are going to determine how, why and when countries that have had mad cow disease can send beef here are not even finalised—and this is starting on Monday morning. While we might not have beef coming in through the doors on Monday morning, their ability to apply to export absolutely starts on Monday morning and we do not even have the protocols. We do not have anything in place that says by what measure they are going to be allowed to do this. This is an absolute farce. The minister should simply be changing his mind, along with that of the departments, right now in the best interests of Australia.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to make a few brief remarks in relation to this matter of public importance. The Greens have long been supporters of the precautionary principle that ought to be applied when it comes to the natural environment or human health. What is going on here is we are abandoning the precautionary principle in favour of a calculated risk. We have no risk at the moment because there is no importation, but we are moving to a calculation by which we are taking some action which will have negligible risk—but that has very little to do with this argument. The only argument that we have here is to do with the World Trade Organisation, and that is what I want to focus on today. The fact of the matter is that the old doctrine of free trade under the WTO is just riven with hypocrisy, with court cases and with bullying of all sorts. The reality is the rest of the world has moved on and Australia is clinging to an absolutely religious view about free trade which has gone out the window in Europe all over the place. I was in Copenhagen at the end of last year and I can tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the big issue in Europe is food and energy security. The Europeans are locking up Europe as fast as they can in terms of being self-sufficient in food and self-sufficient in energy, because they can see the way that the world is going. They will find all manner of ways by which to continue to subsidise their own growers to maintain their own food security regardless of what the WTO might have to say or what anyone else might have to say.

We have been fighting exactly the same fight time and time again, whether it is salmon from Canada, apples from New Zealand, bananas from the Philippines or, now, whether it is beef from BSE countries. We will fight it over and over again. The simple reason is that, if we want to export our product into other markets on the basis of negligible risk, they want to export their product into Australian markets on the basis of negligible risk. If we want to say ‘No risk’ to them, they will say ‘No risk’ to us and therefore reject our product. This is all this is about. It is a fight about the WTO rules and whether you apply the free trade rules to maximum benefit to the home country. That is what is going on here.

If there is no import risk assessment, how do you know what the real risk is to the beef industry here? If there is no traceability, that is inexcusable—and at this stage I understand that is the case. There are no protocols in place as yet. I can tell you why there is secrecy. It is because the Australian community would hate it if they knew this was going on. They were terrified by the BSE outbreak in the UK. There is nothing more frightening than the concept of getting mad cow disease and it being in the population. That is why the community did not want it, will not want it and will not like it. The government wanted to change it to satisfy the WTO rules because of the negligible risk requirements, but they did not want the community to know because the community would not want it and the community would want the precautionary principle and say, ‘Why would we want to do something like that when we are safe in Australia, when we still have a beef industry?’

We know that, with globalisation, globalisation of trade and multinational corporations, what we will get here is a massive import of carcasses. And what is going to happen to our own beef industry in the long term? Let us get real about who is going to be producing beef, who is going to know what is on their table and how you are going to know what you are eating and where it comes from. That is a big concern out there in the community now. It is why people are going to farmers’ markets. People are shifting. They want local, seasonal, fresh, regional products. They are getting more and more suspicious of what is being imported, the lack of controls and the lack of labelling laws. I think the government has really made a serious mistake here—but so has the coalition. You cannot cling to free trade, to the WTO, and then complain about these outcomes, because they are consequential of a belief in the WTO free trade system.

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

In some respects, I could not agree more with Senator Milne on this matter of public importance on the importation of beef products, because there is a bit of a two-faced approach to this question from the coalition. Having been in this place during the years that my party was in opposition, and having been part of the committee process that examined this matter, I have been party to examining issues on the importation of salmon, apples and pork—those issues which have troubled Australian farmers where there has been an argument put by Australian farmers and their representatives that the importation of those products would pose a risk to their industries because the importation of those products was increasing the risk of the introduction of a particular disease.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

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

Senator Heffernan interjects again, but I listened to other senators in silence. If he is going to behave here the way that he behaves in the committees and disgrace himself, let that be on his head. For many years the coalition in government—and now the Labor Party—supported an appropriate level of protection which does not involve zero risk. The reason we do that is that if we have that issue for one product we have to have it for all. The examination of the risk assessment and the challenge to our risk assessment process on the importation of Canadian salmon failed because we did not apply the same standard—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was no import risk analysis!

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

and this was under your government, Senator Heffernan. Would you put a stopper in it and behave properly? If the chair is not going to assist me, then I will have to take it up—

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan, you will have your moment to speak in 10 minutes.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just pointing out there was no import risk analysis.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Heffernan, it is disorderly to interrupt, as you know.

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

With salmon, we lost a challenge at the WTO. Whilst we were concerned about the introduction of particular fish diseases with salmon, the Canadians and New Zealanders were all keen to point out that we did not apply the same standards to other products, and we lost that case. Salmon can be imported to this country now, and some is. We have had various propositions put for the importation of pork and they have been resisted by industry on the basis of identifiable animal diseases coming from that product. The position of this government on foot-and-mouth disease remains that, if there is an outbreak which poses a serious risk, we will not allow meat from a country where that outbreak exists to enter this country.

The evidence has been unclear for some time about the chances of introducing BSE by means of the introduction of animal meat. There are parts of an animal that are a greater importation risk than others, and I am not going to touch upon that. Suffice to say that if one can exclude those parts of the animal then the chance of introduction of the material which might carry the disease is reduced. The second thing we know from the science is that if we do not feed animal products to animals then the chance of introducing BSE to animals is basically nonexistent. For the last 13 years we have had a rule applying around the country which prohibits the feeding of animal product or blood and bone, or anything connected to animal waste, to animals such as cows, sheep, goats and the like. The reality is that we have had in place a protocol going back years to effectively minimise any chance of any such disease being introduced.

What are we faced with here? The process which was followed in coming to this decision was full and detailed, and the safety of the Australian people and our food supply, as well as animal health, were utmost considerations. A comprehensive range of meat industry and health stakeholders were consulted. An independent expert, Professor John Mathews—an eminent scientist with 40 years experience who has had a longstanding interest in this issue—provided a report that indicated that the risks to human health of a change in policy were negligible, provided the appropriate risk mitigation strategies were in place. The report was peer reviewed and endorsed by expert scientists under the National Health and Medical Research Council. The three lead departments—Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Health and Ageing; and Foreign Affairs and Trade—have worked closely together to ensure that all aspects of the change have been carefully dealt with.

Some questions have arisen as to whether the appropriate risk assessment for beef import purposes will be carried out. Food Standards Australia New Zealand has indicated that it will finalise its protocols before 1 March 2010 and has confirmed it will consult with industry in the development of those protocols. The Red Meat Advisory Council will act as the contact point for those consultations. Food Standards will undertake rigorous assessments, on a country-by-country basis, of countries that wish to export fresh beef products to Australia. In addressing fully the human health issues through the FSANZ food safety risk assessment process, the animal health issues related to BSE will also be appropriately dealt with.

The two ways that BSE could flow to animals are addressed in this process. The first way, through live animal imports, is not an issue because we are not allowing live animal imports into this country—so that is not a way that the disease could be introduced. The second way, through cattle eating fresh beef, as I indicated earlier, will not be an issue either, because no imported beef cuts or bone meal or canned meat are or can be fed to Australian cattle. That ban has existed, as I said, for 13 years. So there is no viable pathway for Australian animals to contact BSE from safe imported fresh beef. Therefore a separate import risk analysis process for animal diseases is not necessary, and that is the reason one has not been carried out. Aside from having met the requirements of a rigorous BSE assessment, any country wishing to export beef to Australia will need to meet all other quarantine requirements related to fresh beef imports, including the strict import conditions for animal diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease. In other words, any arrangements in relation to this BSE matter will not allow a country to skirt around other issues that are raised in relation to the introduction of these—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How do you do that without an import risk analysis?

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

I just explained, Senator Heffernan. Perhaps you were not listening because you do not want to listen. The fact of the matter is that Senator Heffernan has been running a scare campaign. He has been behaving in what I consider is a most inappropriate fashion at committee hearings. He has been harassing witnesses, interjecting and trying to put pressure on people because he does not agree with this decision. It is his right not to agree with it, but I think he should behave a bit better than he is today.

I want to talk about some of the evidence we have had. I think everyone has got the right to come along to a Senate committee and give evidence and put their point of view. I have supported the process of Senate committees examining issues all the time I have been in this place, and I continue to do so. I do not support parties coming along and using the process to spread alarmist or untrue information. One of the matters which I raised with Senator Heffernan during a hearing was a proposition which was put by a representative of the Australian Beef Association. They were trying to, in effect, whip up a bit of a fear campaign that somehow we were about to be deluged with US beef if this decision went ahead. The proposition was put that somehow you only had to look at the price of beef in the US compared to the price paid here to see that, if we allowed this decision, suddenly we would be getting steaks out of US feedlots and they would be replacing Australian steaks. Prices were quoted. Mr Bellinger said, at a hearing on Friday, 5 February:

Choice-grade sirloin in the United States is currently selling for $13.86 a kilogram. In Australia it is selling from anywhere between $30 and $50 a kilogram at retail.

Point No. 1 is that ‘choice’ grade, under the USDA, is the second-grade steak and ‘select’ is the top grade. He gave us the prices for the top grade Australian steak as a comparison with choice grade. Point No. 2 is that, on searching the web that very day and looking at prices available on the web for the product that he mentioned, I could not get any price within a bull’s roar of the $13.86 a kilo that he was talking about. I could for a pound, but I could not for a kilo. In other words, I suspect—and I will give him the benefit of the doubt; he might have just made a mistake—that he quoted incorrectly the figure of the price per pound for USDA choice-quality sirloin steaks, that he misinterpreted it and put it on the record as $13.86. The fact of the matter is—you only have to do your own research—for anyone buying anything but ultrabulk cuts, the price comparison that Mr Bellinger gave to the committee is utterly wrong. It is part of the scare campaign that some people are seeking to mount. I guess, with their moment in the sun, they like to make the best they can of it and, if they exaggerate a bit or if they make a mistake, well, who is to know? Frankly, I think it is incumbent on people representing organisations that want standing in the community to get their facts right.

That point highlights one of the problems that we have had with this debate. There has been an attempt to scare people about this issue. There has been an attempt by the coalition to forget the fact that, all the time they were in government, they supported the principles that underpin the decision this government has made. Now they are in opposition it is their chance to try and make hay while sun shines, to forget about all the principles they had for 12 years in government and to run as if they do not support a limited-risk regime in terms of quarantine. They did for the 12 years they were in government. Frankly, it is something which we have to be part of because we export a lot more food than we will ever import. We export 378,000 tonnes, give or take a bit, to the United States. It is a market we could not afford to lose. I would not like to be in a position to have to say—if this government had not acted—that we might lose some or all of that market because we did not obey the rules. That is what is being proposed to the government. (Time expired)

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not hard to tell that there is no-one—not a single solitary soul—in the government in this parliament who lives and makes a living in the bush. This is the biggest ambush by a government of an agricultural industry in Australia’s history. It is a whole-of-government decision driven by the trade department. That is what I am informed by the bureaucrats and the ministerial staff. Simon Crean is very angry. He has been to America, as has Minister Burke. They put the hard word on them. They have come back here and said: ‘We’ll swear the industry to secrecy. We’ll sign them up to no discussions.’ We were given evidence this morning that their consultation process was three meetings with about 300 people out of 200,000 levy payers in Australia. That was the biggest. There have been 37-odd pieces of correspondence putting pressure on the government from Canada and the United States. There has been no scrutiny by parliament. If we had not raised it in that committee we would not be having this debate today. The 200,000 cattle growers—the levy payers—of Australia should sack RMAC and the Cattle Council, because they have absolutely distracted, destroyed and betrayed the industry. It is a disgrace.

Why there is no IRA, I do not know. We cannot even get the bureaucrats, let alone ministerial staff or the government, to tell us whether there ever has been an import risk analysis on the importation of beef into Australia. I believe there has been. No-one can tell us. The bureaucrats say: ‘I’ve only been in the job five years. You’d have to go and ask someone else.’ DAFF says to go and ask DOHA; DOHA says to go and ask Austrade. They have no idea; they are dodging the truth. Just so people know, we heard evidence today from the CJD Support Group that, sadly, if you are a person who has surgery for CJD in a hospital there is no way to sterilise the instruments. They have to destroy the instruments that they use on you because they cannot sterilise them.

So here we are, after no grower consultation and absolutely no scrutiny by parliament. There has been no import risk analysis. There are no protocols in place at this point. The government said, ‘We’re going to kick it off on Monday, and we’ll know before then what the protocols are.’ Both the Cattle Council and the MLA said, ‘They’ve talked to us about what the protocols might be, but we haven’t seen them yet.’ The government are not going to let the industry see them; they are not going to let the rural and regional references committee look at them; they are not going to test them for human failure, when the committee that I proudly sit on has tested the protocols for apples, pears, fish, bananas and lots of other things that you might think of. All of those things we have tested and gloriously the government ticked off on them.

And we were as big a critic of our government as we have been of this government in terms of the import of beef from Brazil, where the bureaucrats said, ‘She’s right’ to the government. ‘Bring her in, because there are foot-and-mouth disease-free zones in Brazil.’ The OIE says, ‘We’ve got a bit of paper here that says it’s okay, because there is a tick in that box and that box.’ But there was no such thing.

There is no answer to the fact that there is no traceability. There is no equivalence—do not ask me why. Australia’s cattle growers should go and tell the Cattle Council and their representatives to go and get another job. The Cattle Council said, ‘We really don’t want to worry about national status or herd status; we only want to worry about animal status.’ Unfortunately, there can be no such thing as a BSE-free herd, because there is no live BSE test. The only time that you know the cow has the disease is when you kill it. So here we have an industry that is saying: ‘We won’t worry about an import risk analysis, because it takes too long. The process takes two years.’

We have moved from the precautionary principle to risk analysis. The way that they did that was very tricky. This government did not tell anyone. It did not tell the Australian public. It did not tell the growers that we were going to change our status. But by agreeing to move Australia’s status from ‘free’ to ‘negligible risk’ they moved from the precautionary principle to risk analysis.

We have been betrayed. There is absolutely no way that Australia should be going through this process, because at the present time anyone who is a cattle grower—and unfortunately there is no-one on the other side who has any idea about this—is under siege now. They talk about what happened back in the 1990s when only 35 tonnes came in and the dollar was at 48 US cents, not near parity. They are saying that not much will come in. That is what they said about pork.

There has been no answer given to us. There has been no defence made. And nor do we have any way under the free trade agreement to compete with the $100 tonne subsidy per beast in a feedlot in America, because of the grain subsidy. There is no way that we can compete when labour in Australia—the people who work in the feedlot industry—costs three times as much. We cannot do anything about the fact that the average return for an American cattle person in their market over there is 50 per cent more than that of an Australian. We cannot do anything about the fact that the supermarket consumer pays 40 per cent less. There is no way that we can do anything about that.

We have been absolutely ambushed. Australian cattle producers are, in real terms, receiving less money now than they have received in the last 40 years except for the period of the 1972 to 1974 cattle crash. Australia’s cattle producers are getting $1.65 in the Wagga saleyards today for export beef. It is a joke. This is another impost. The one thing that we had in the marketplace was our clean, green and free status. And this gives that away. This is not about how much beef is coming into Australia. Those gooses on the other side do not care, because they have been stirred up through the free trade agreement. This is about us losing market share in Korea and Japan, because we are now saying to the Americans and the Canadians, ‘We’ll surrender to your status, so if you get another reactor, Australian producers will not have a premium in the market.’ They will say to the Koreans: ‘The Australians take our beef. They are negligible. Therefore, you should take it.’ We will lose market share. This is a disgrace. Australian consumers should rise up in anger and tell the government to go to hell.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the debate has expired.16:37:11