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

I have received a letter from Senator Parry proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Rudd Government’s complete mismanagement of implementing revised protocols for the importation of beef into Australia.

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—

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

The government have really only got themselves to blame for the complete mess that they find themselves in in relation to the changed protocols for the importation of beef into Australia, particularly the relaxation of requirements for the importation of beef from countries that have had outbreaks of BSE. As we have said previously in this place, the whole process was conducted under a cloak of secrecy. The industry asked that the opposition be consulted; the opposition were not. The information was brought out during estimates hearings, when the government hoped that members of the opposition would be otherwise occupied. The government tried at all times to be clever, they tried to be secretive, but all they have done is create a significant problem for themselves and enormous concern within the Australian community.

It must be clearly stated that Australia is the safest place in the world to eat beef. For a long time we have had strong protocols and strong protections in place, and in some ways we were fortunate that we had already put into place bans on feeding feed derived from meat products to bovines well in advance of BSE unfortunately becoming a part of life in some other countries. We had made some decisions upfront which put us into a very good position. We had dealt with that, and, when the unfortunate outbreaks occurred, we were very well placed, because there was a strong level of trust in our beef products in overseas markets, particularly the prime overseas markets of Japan and Korea.

When the government made the decision during estimates in October last year to change those protocols, one of the real impacts was that the advantages we have in those particularly strong and important markets were potentially reduced. That is what this is all about: marketing and perceptions of the safety of beef coming out of countries that have had BSE outbreaks. We know that there were huge reductions in the consumption of beef in those countries at the time, particularly in Japan, which is highly sensitive to food safety.

One of the important things that Australia had going for it was that it had a good, strong record; it had traceability. The Australian industry had put through the National Livestock Identification System, albeit with some resistance from some cohorts of the beef industry, and it proved to be a very strong and valuable part of our credentials in those key markets. The government tried to be secretive. It tried to be exclusive. It tried to bring in a process that excluded this parliament from having any say in the changes, and it should rightly be condemned for that.

We welcome Minister Burke’s decision yesterday to conduct a full import risk analysis for beef coming into Australia from countries that have had BSE. That is what we said should happen some weeks ago. That is a position that the opposition has held for a long time. We welcome the fact that that is what the government has now done, but there is still more to be done. There are issues of labelling. We know that beef does not enjoy country of origin labelling as many other products do.

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

It was announced today.

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

If that is the case, then that is another good announcement, Senator O’Brien. I welcome that announcement, and it is about time. But I think it just goes to demonstrate the pressure that the government has come under from the industry and from the opposition over this complete debacle.

The other thing is traceability. If the Australian beef industry is going to have traceability, which is mandated by government and is an expense, the opposition believes that growers from any other country that wishes to import beef into this country should have the same imposts as ours. I think that is entirely appropriate. That is what the opposition has been saying for some time, and that is what the bill that we introduced into the parliament earlier today is saying. Full import risk analysis, traceability and country of origin labelling are more than appropriate to deal with the complete mess that the government has created through its handling of this matter.

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

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, but I have to take Senator Colbeck’s claims to task. I cannot let them slip through. It is just not true that it has been an absolute debacle. It was a very emotive couple of weeks of hearings—I would not argue with that. A massive scare campaign has been put out by the opposition, but everyone out there has to understand that the government consulted with industry. With my background in representing transport workers for all those years, I do not see anything more credible than the government’s consulting with industry. The industry came and worked hand in hand with government to see how the heck we could improve the situation.

In defence of the previous government, they were right to put the blanket bans on in whichever year they did that—you would remember the year better than me, Mr Acting Deputy President. They were correct to do that, but since then the science has changed. The science has improved. The science showed that we could import meat from these countries. There is no argument about that.

I would like to spend a minute defending the standing of Mr Greg Brown from the Cattle Council of Australia, who came before us on a number of occasions. Mr Brown took a lot of heat from senators opposite. Some of the questioning from some of the opposition senators was very good, but some of the attacks on Mr Brown’s persona were nothing short of disgraceful. I know that it is an emotive issue, but Mr Brown’s being called a fool or being accused of not knowing what he was talking about and having his credibility carved up in a Senate hearing was nothing short of disgraceful.

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

He called me an effing c!

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

Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I did not want to mention anyone’s names, but seeing that Senator Heffernan is going to lead with his jaw, let us call it as it is: Senator Heffernan was really very rude to Mr Brown. I shook Mr Brown’s hand, but if that hand had been around Senator Heffernan’s throat he would not have been so smart or so forward in attacking the man.

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

The chair of the committee, the Nationals Senator for New South Wales, Senator Nash, can come across as though butter would not melt in her mouth, but, my goodness, she was just a little better behaved than Senator Heffernan—I will give you that, Senator Nash. But I spoke to Mr Brown the other day. I do not think he would mind me saying that he rang me, very upset, on the Friday after the hearing, to tell me that he wished he could have the opportunity to turn the attack back onto those National and Liberal senators, given the way they conducted themselves in the hearing. He also said that he had had phone calls from Senator Boswell and from Mr Cobb, the shadow minister for agriculture and food security, and another person—I think it might have been the member for Maranoa, Mr Scott, and if not I will apologise to him—who were very concerned that industry had worked closely with the government and yet come under such a virulent attack from certain National and Liberal senators.

Once again, the government, in all fairness—and I take my hat off to congratulate Minister Crean—negotiated with industry. There are some senators on that side who are very badly suffering relevance deprivation syndrome. They just could not handle it that the beef industry had spoken. They did not like what was being said, so they ran the scare campaign. With the greatest of respect, I would also like to congratulate Minister Burke. Minister Burke has listened, and we as a government have listened, to concerns raised.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! I remind senators on my left that they are all on the speakers list, so I suggest they make their comments in their allocated time.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I am used to the shouting and screaming from the other side. Thankfully, I do not lower myself to that standard. I have my chance to have my say—and I will—and they will have their chance.

We really have to understand what this means. Under the previous policy, it would have been a sin had we not revisited this blanket ban because, regardless of what will be said on that side of the chamber, if there was an outbreak in a country that had BSE then all meat would have to come off the shelf. There is no argument about that; the Hansard will show that.

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, wait your turn. Senator Sterle has the call and you will have your chance later.

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

Quite simply, it is the truth: all meat would have had to have come off the shelf. The policy has not changed. I think it is very important that, while we congratulate Minister Burke for implementing an IRA, the government have made it quite clear that they will do whatever they can to expedite the time. Quite simply, let us not be fooled by those opposite: so far there have been no applications to import beef—none at all; not one. I know that upsets that lot over there but, anyway, that is the truth of the matter.

As I say once again, this is all about looking after our beef industry. To quote Mr Greg Brown from the Australian Cattle Council—and it is on the Hansard record—when I asked him whether he has been a producer for long: ‘Four generations’ was his answer. I find it disingenuous that a couple of farmers on the other side could think that someone with four generations of history in the beef industry would do anything to jeopardise a $7.1 billion industry. Sixty per cent of that $7.1 billion is export. As I have said, it has been a major scare campaign from those opposite.

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

Why did you change your mind then, you dope?

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

Order! Senator Heffernan, you know the rules of this chamber; withdraw that.

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

Sorry, Senator Sterle: I withdraw for saying ‘you are a dope’.

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

You are only compounding it, Senator Heffernan.

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

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

I rise today to join this matters of public importance debate on the decision by the government to reverse its decision to overturn the ban on the importation of beef products from countries affected by BSE. I do welcome the fact that the government has done a backflip on this particular issue. I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for intervening. It demonstrates that when the community is concerned and raises its objections in a logical manner, through a Senate inquiry process, at least the minister is listening. So I am pleased, and I congratulate Minister Burke for taking this decision. There should actually be more of that. There should be more of government ministers recognising that when they have made a mistake they should change their minds, not dig in and pretend that nothing has happened and that the community ought not to be listened to.

This matter came to the Senate on 27 October last year, when I moved a motion to refer it to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee because it was very clear to me that the community did not even know what was about to be proposed—that the ban on these beef imports was about to be reversed. It was of greater concern when I discovered that many of the people in the beef industry with whom the government had been negotiating had been sworn to silence. The reason they had been sworn to silence was that the government knew full well that once the beef producers and consumers did become aware they would not support it. So the government assumed that the best way of getting this through was to swear the industry to silence and to try to reverse the ban. Getting that Senate inquiry, enabling people to get the message out to the rural community and the broader community through consumer groups, has led to this process, where the minister has reversed his decision. Now there will be two years during which an import risk analysis will be undertaken and everybody will have the chance to feed into the process in the manner that they ought to have been able to in the first place. We should not have had to do this, but, nevertheless, it has worked. I am very pleased that the decision was made to refer this to a Senate inquiry and that the Senate inquiry has aired the issue to the point where the government has made this decision.

Having said that, it is very clear that this was always a trade agenda. Otherwise, why would a country with a strategy of having no risk whatsoever of the Australian community being exposed to BSE go to a negligible risk strategy? It would make no sense whatsoever to do that. Why expose your population when you do not have to, when you are clean, when your product is clean and when your markets depend on it being clean? Why would you take risks? The reason is purely and simply a trade agenda. We now know that former US trade representative Susan Schwab asked the Minister for Trade, Simon Crean, to cancel the ban on US beef when they met in Washington in January 2008 and again in Canberra that March, during trade talks, and in June that year. Canadian trade negotiators repeatedly complained about the ban during meetings with Australian trade officials in Geneva in October 2008 and in a meeting between Mr Crean and Canada’s Minister of International Trade a month later. Mr Crean was lobbied by US and Canadian officials again in Bali last June. In October, after more than 30 representations from the North Americans, Australia agreed to lift its ban on beef from countries with a history of mad cow disease.

The issue that I have is that this was always driven by a trade agenda. Australia was worried that if Canada was successful in its WTO case against Korea then eventually other countries would join the case and Australia might well lose in a WTO hearing. The worry was that Australian beef producers might then be exposed to retaliatory action. That would mean, for example, that other countries would be able to impose higher tariffs on Australian beef exports. At least 65, if not up to 75, per cent of Australian beef goes into export markets, which is what led to this decision. So it was purely fear of retaliatory action through the WTO processes that led to this. It is the same kind of pressure that was brought on by the Canadians when they tried to send salmon into Australia. Tasmania mounted a very strong retaliatory action internally in that case. It is the same pressure that the New Zealanders are now bringing on in relation to fire blight and apples. It is no doubt the same as the case the Filipinos will make in relation to bringing bananas into Australia.

It is because Australia accesses export markets on the basis of negligible risk that other countries are saying, time and time again, that they should be able to access our market on the basis of negligible risk. That begs the question: why is Australia so slavish in its commitment to the WTO processes and free trade rules when nobody else is? It seems like Australia wants to always take the white knight role. Frankly, look around the world and you will see that nobody else has the slightest intention of adhering to those rules. I was in Europe in December, in Copenhagen, and I can tell you now that Europe is moving very strongly to become a global island in terms of food security and self-sufficiency and fuel security and self-sufficiency. It will continue to subsidise its farmers to the last because Europe never, ever again wants to be in a situation where it could starve because of not being able to access food. Nor does it want to be in the position ever again where Russia can turn off the gas and Europe freezes. It does not want to be in that situation. If you want to talk to Europeans about where things are going, do not go off to the trade talks; go and wander around Europe and you will see that there is no community support for that.

In fact, the whole world is now moving to fresh, local, seasonal food. People are over the focus on free trade. They are now looking at sustainability, at peak oil, at the carbon constrained world of the future and how that will impact on food production. Food security and sustainability, not free trade, are becoming the issues that people are talking about. Frankly, Australia is flogging a dead horse. Pushing these agendas, against the interests of Australian public health and Australian producers, is crazy policy. I am really pleased that we are now going to go into this process in terms of reviewing the risk associated with importing beef and beef products from countries affected by mad cow disease. But it begs a bigger question. This country needs to start having a discussion about food security: where we are going to grow our own food into the future and how we are going to manage our ecosystems so that they are sustainable? As a country which can produce more food than it consumes, we also have a moral responsibility to supply food into markets in the future in order that the world can feed itself with a growing population.

There is a whole rethink needed here. That is why I think it is stupid to continue having these endless fights about the science of negligible risk. We will argue the case for years on end, but what happens is the science gets caught in the middle of what is effectively a trade agenda. I think we need to rethink this whole scenario. Having said that, I am very pleased to have played a part in stopping the overturning of this ban. I look forward to the process for the next two years. I congratulate the minister for listening to the community, but I put the Rudd government on notice that it ought to stop secret processes, because when the community find out about them they are doubly suspicious of their intent.

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

As Chair of the committee which held the inquiry into the relaxation of the importation rules—the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—I have been as close to the issue over the last couple of months as anyone else. I take this opportunity to commend some of my Senate colleagues. It has been a collective effort to get some focus put on this issue. I commend my very good colleagues Senator John ‘Wacka’ Williams, Senator Chris Back, Senator Richard Colbeck, Senator Julian McGauran and especially Senator Bill Heffernan for his efforts. On this occasion Bill and I have both been blowing steam out of our respective ears. It has taken all of us working together as a team to get some impetus on this issue. It was certainly needed because, as people quickly realised, there was no legislation and no regulation attached to the ministerial decision to do this; it was simply a swipe of the pen from the minister. We felt it was entirely appropriate to refer this to the Senate committee for greater scrutiny given that there was no parliamentary oversight whatsoever, other than our Senate inquiry.

I absolutely repudiate the accusation that we have been scaremongering on this issue. That is complete rubbish. What we have done is embark on an entirely appropriate process of scrutiny, through an entirely appropriate committee, to look at this issue. To say that we have been scaremongering is quite appalling. As a committee we certainly reject the accusation that we have ever done that. One of the witnesses, Mr Greg Brown, from the Cattle Council, thought we were being ‘mischievous’ in holding a Senate inquiry to get some scrutiny of this very important issue. All I can say is that I am very glad that the Senate committee was ‘mischievous’. If not for our ‘mischievous’ action this government would not have changed its mind and we would not be embarking on a full, transparent and comprehensive import risk analysis. To say that we were mischievous is quite an extraordinary thing. This comes from a person who was, to all intents and purposes, representing the cattle industry.

What we do know is that producer after producer after producer came to us during the course of this inquiry saying they either had no knowledge the import restriction on beef was being lifted or that they completely disagreed with it. They had no knowledge of it because of the secrecy that was required of the industry body heads during this process. There was no broad community consultation because of this veil of secrecy. Those producers absolutely should have been aware of this and they should have been part of the process—which, with the IRA, they now will be. The Cattle Council’s Greg Brown referred to Senator Colbeck as ‘a germ’. He said the issue had been ‘beaten up by certain members of the Senate determined to destroy this industry’. I am a farmer from the Central West of New South Wales and, while I am in this place, I will do nothing but fight for the agricultural industries I represent right across this country. It is just appalling that a leader of the cattle industry could stoop so low with remarks such as that.

We know that the IRA process needed to be put in place. The government has done a sensational backflip here. Isn’t it interesting? Senator Sterle is accusing us of scaremongering at the same time that his government is doing a backflip and asking what we the coalition knew the government should be doing months ago to make sure a proper process was put in place. The Australian people deserve to know that they were going to have the proper process in place when determining changes in these laws. I commend our media commentators, including Leon Byner in South Australia, Alan Jones and Jason Morrison at 2GB, and Graeme Gilbert. I have probably missed some of them, and I am sorry to the ones I have missed. A range of commentators realised that this issue was important to the people of Australia. Through them, with senators on the coalition side raising this issue, the people of Australia were able to have a voice on this issue. They made their voice heard very loud and clear by the minister and, as a result of their actions, the minister is now going down the path of a full import risk analysis process.

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

I will not put up with the chatter from Senator Sterle but obviously Senator Sterle when this process started knew nothing about it, as did the Cattle Council. The Cattle Council indeed did not know the difference between an import risk assessment and an import risk analysis. I have to say that they did not know there were cattle transported across the border from Mexico into the US, into Texan feedlots, so we started from a pretty low base of knowledge. Once again I congratulate all the people involved who got the government to change its mind. As late as last Friday Mr Crean and his mob still did not want to change their minds, so something happened over the weekend. My congratulations to the people involved, as Senator Nash said, especially to some of the media people, certainly Leon Byner in South Australia, who led the charge back in October-November of last year before it caught on in Sydney with Alan Jones and others this year. As a consequence the power of the people prevailed. So I think it was a fantastic outcome.

Can I just put some things on the record so that we get into context what this really is all about. We are entitled under World Trade Organisation rules to have a full import risk analysis. We are entitled to have an import risk analysis whenever there is a major change of circumstances. There has never been an import risk analysis into the importation of beef into Australia. In fact, the assessment that was done that allowed the Brazilian beef in was a similar process to what the government was going to do until they changed their mind yesterday, which in fact brought meat into Australia from a country that had foot and mouth disease, even though it had OIE accreditation to the fact that it was clear.

This is really as much about trade as it is anything else. In 2003, to get a couple of things on the record, America exported 1,274,098 tonnes of meat worth $3.856 billion. The currency ran from 59c Australian to 70c Australian per US dollar. At the same time and in the same period when the BSE came along—that was when the BSE struck—they went from that amount of meat back to 321,000 tonnes of export, from 1.2 million. This is about market share in the marketplace and us being the safest place in the world to eat beef maintaining our reputation as the world’s leading supplier of clean, green and fresh food that is safe. And it still is. In the same period, 2003, 375,455 tonnes of meat were exported out of the US to Japan. When they got the BSE ban, 797 tonnes went out instead of 375,000 tonnes. In Korea at the same time, when the won was at 77 won, oops, along came the BSE and the US went from 246,595 tonnes to 672 tonnes. Japan went from $815 million down to $4 million. Korea was the same: Korea went from $1.3 billion to $4 million. That is the damage they did to their own trade by not having full traceability. We demand full traceability birth to death. While the government was silent on supporting the Senate hearing, the bureaucrats did not even know and had not considered whether they closed the US border under the protocol. So there were a whole lot of things brought up in the protocols.

This war is not won; it has just begun. We have to go through things like we went through with the import risk analysis on apples. Senator O’Brien knows all about that. The Biosecurity Australia report said that indeed they thought we would import fire blight into Australia in the apples but it would not actually get out into the orchards. Those are the sorts of silly things you have to put up with, and that is why this deserves the full scrutiny it is about to get. We will be demanding that labelling gets sorted in the meantime. We will be demanding that there is full country birth to death traceability and if they are going to source cattle from other countries, Canada and Mexico, they have to be traced back to where they were born in Mexico and Canada. It is only the right thing to do. We can demand it under the WTO rules. So this is a fight that has just begun. We are not allowed to interfere in the subsidised dairy herd reduction in America; we have to compete in the hamburger market with that. We are not allowed to complain about the $200 a head feedlot subsidy in the US— (Time expired)

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It really is complete mismanagement of implementing revised protocols for the importation of beef into Australia. The tragedy of it, of course, is that it need never have happened. Had there been open consultation from the word go, all of these matters could have been resolved in advance of last October. It was only following a period of secrecy between industry, demanded by government ministers, that we have the lamentable situation which we emerged from in October last year. It was not only, regrettably, that the industry groups were bound to secrecy to not speak to us in the coalition. It then emerged that they were also bound to secrecy to not speak to their own producer representatives and indeed their processor representatives. What a shame that was.

Why did they in fact come to the table supplicant like this? It was because of an apparent policy that said that in the event that there was an outbreak of BSE in Tasmania then all of the state and territory ministers would be influenced to remove beef from their retail shelves. Only yesterday did we receive advice from the minister, Minister Burke, in a press conference when he said:

The policy of ‘beef off the shelves’ is gone. For our domestic industry, this means we no longer have the ridiculous situation where if there was an outbreak in one corner of Tasmania, all Australian beef would have to be removed from all Australian shelves. That policy is finished with.

I do recall those words being used a few times in the hearings. What industry urgently wants now is two things from the minister, and I request that those on the other side see that they are provided. The first is written undertaking and guarantee that that stupid policy, denied by the New Zealanders and everybody else in the world, is in fact finished. The second is that we would require and seek advice from the minister as to who he consulted with and by what process he determined that in fact the ‘beef off the shelves’ policy is behind us and finished. For me, one of the biggest issues here in this whole debate and the four hearings we held was ministerial accountability. It became clear very quickly that the decision to either allow beef or not allow beef, the decision to determine the protocols by which beef would be allowed into this country from countries that had had BSE, would in fact not be signed off by ministers of the Crown but would be policy decisions by bureaucrats.

I have absolutely and utterly the highest regard for those people who look after our welfare in this regard. When we are dealing with a condition that has the potential to risk human and animal life—variant CJD in humans and BSE in animals—it is not adequate that this is merely a policy decision implemented by bureaucrats. It must have ministerial accountability.

When the Food Importation (Bovine Meat Standards) Bill 2010, announced this afternoon, comes before this chamber, I will urge that it be passed and go to the other house to be debated and passed as a sign of goodwill. This is a bill for an act to ensure equivalence to Australian production standards and importation of bovine meat and meat products. In other words, those importing to Australia must be subject to the same terms and conditions, or their equivalent, as those imposed on our own producers and processors.

This goes a stage further. It talks of the import risk analysis. I am delighted that the results of four hearings have resulted in the minister reversing a previous decision, which his colleague the Minister for Trade stated would never, ever happen; that is, an import risk analysis. The third element of this bill is for labelling so that the consumer can see the origin of the beef.

This has been a critically important hearing. As a veterinarian, most of my practice time was associated with the beef and livestock industries. I am very proud that this Senate committee produced the outcome we had yesterday. I acknowledge the minister for his decision and hope his ministerial colleagues take notice that secrecy has no place in this place.

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

I note in his press conference Minister Burke said that there has been growing concern about an irresponsible fear campaign run by some. I think that is absolutely correct. It is not correct that the policy, which came into effect on 1 March, has been overturned. It has not; it remains. The thing which has changed is that a decision has been made to implement an import risk analysis on top of that policy decision. The original reason it was not believed necessary for there to be an import risk analysis was that prior to the decision previously made—I think by the previous government—to exclude beef from this country on the grounds of BSE, beef was imported into this country. The minister’s decision was initially based on the fact that beef had been previously admitted to this country without an import risk analysis. However, responding to community concern—which the minister believes was whipped up by an irresponsible fear campaign—and in the interests of the reputation of Australia’s industry with Australians, it was felt important to implement a process to ensure overall confidence in the system.

This government believes that the previous policy would have jeopardised the entire domestic industry if ever there were an outbreak of BSE in Australia. We believe that it would have required all Australian beef to be removed from sellers’ shelves. If other governments did not believe they were bound by that policy, that is a different matter. I am not certain, but it is my recollection it was the previous government that agreed to the arrangements that would have put this in place. Be that as it may, we have gone past that point. We are now in a position where we are working towards a public assurance process, where the matter will be determined according to the science. I have always been a supporter of the determination of quarantine matters based on the science, not on politics. So I do take issue with the idea that there will be a constraining of the import risk analysis process by this private member’s bill that Senator Back is talking about. In effect, it tells the scientists what they find should acceptable—I do not find that acceptable.

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

But the bill does not say that.

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

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is pleasing to see that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Burke, has done what I call the right thing by ordering an import risk analysis. This issue as to whether an analysis was necessary was argued very strongly in Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee hearings. The point here is that we are an island nation. We all know that the clean, green image this nation has in producing food and exporting food is essential so that people overseas can buy Australian food with confidence. To have had this decision by the Minister for Trade, Mr Crean, the Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon, and Minister Burke to allow the importing of beef from countries which have had confirmed outbreaks of BSE, or mad cow disease, without an import risk analysis was simply putting at risk our nation’s clean, green image.

We now have a backflip by Minister Burke, and I welcome that. There are three parts to the Food Importation (Bovine Meat Standards) Bill 2010, which was presented in the Senate today by Senator Colbeck. One is that a complete import risk analysis be carried out to see what risk, if any, Australia’s beef industry and the Australian people may be put at as a result of the importing of beef from these countries. The second issue is that a national livestock identification scheme equivalent to that in Australia should be essential for all countries that we are going to import beef from. This was very controversial when it came in several years ago. Many of the beef producers in Australia did not go along with it, but now they see the advantage of having a proper trace-forward, trace-back identification scheme in Australia. We should not be importing beef from any country that does not have a system equivalent to that which we have in Australia.

It is good to see Senator O’Brien now talking about labelling. Being a former pig farmer myself, I know the effects of importing pig meat. When importing pig meat was allowed many years ago under the Hawke-Keating government, the comment was made, ‘Don’t worry about it, we won’t import much pig meat’—the same sort of comment that is being made now about the beef industry. We imported 49,000 tonnes of pig meat into Australia in 1999 and last year a massive 219,000 tonnes of pig meat. That in itself is a concern. If we are going to import beef, we must see that we protect our nation from diseases and that we protect our clean, green image, as it is a major marketing tool for exports, especially in the beef industry.

I would like to make special mention of the Cattle Council of Australia and Mr Greg Brown, who called the committee mischievous. Mr Brown, representing the Cattle Council, should take note of public opinion—of what people actually think. I refer him to the poll at my website, where 3,191 people voted: 98.7 per cent opposed the ministerial decision to allow the importing of beef into Australia from countries that have had confirmed outbreaks of BSE. Of the people who voted, 1,043 were beef producers and just 18 of those beef producers agreed with the ministerial decision. Yet Greg Brown of the Cattle Council says that we are mischievous, we are out of touch and we are running a fear campaign. Have a look at the results from the general public and the beef producers and what they have had to say about this.

There was a beef forum in Armidale in northern New South Wales just a couple of weeks ago. It was run by Bindaree Beef, in my home town of Inverell, which employs almost 600 people. They have a magnificent works. It is an industry that our local community is so dependent on. The employees are so concerned that they are signing letters to Ministers Burke, Roxon and Crean telling them that they do not want their industry and their jobs put at risk. No doubt the minister has changed his mind and has now ordered an import risk analysis because of public pressure. I thank people, as Senator Nash mentioned earlier, like Leon Byner on FIVEaa Adelaide radio, Alan Jones, Graham Gilbert and many others around regional Australia who have brought this issue to the public’s attention.

We must protect our nation from disease. That is the right of all governments. Now that the import risk analysis is in place, it finally looks like the government is doing the right thing about labelling so that Australians can at least identify what they are eating. It is essential that all other countries have an NLIS equivalent. (Time expired)

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion has now concluded.