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

I rise to speak on the Food Importation (Bovine Meat Standards) Bill 2010 put forward by Senators Joyce and Colbeck in relation to the ministerial decision from Ministers Burke, Crean and Roxon to allow the importing of beef into Australia from countries that have had confirmed outbreaks of BSE or, as we commonly know it, mad cow disease. This bill is most important, and I would like to say that that decision by the ministers was actually supported by people such as Greg Brown from the Cattle Council of Australia. I want to make the point that one of our greatest marketing tools in Australia is our clean, green image. People not only in Australia but overseas can buy Australian food with total confidence, whether it be our beef, our vegetables, our lamb or whatever. We have a great advantage in our island nation where fortunately, for decade after decade, we have escaped many of these diseases. So having to face a situation where the ministers had made this decision to allow the importing of beef was of great concern. There was so much concern that I had a poll on my website where 3,191 people voted, and 98.7 per cent opposed the ministerial decision. They are people concerned about keeping that clean, green image we have in Australia and about the risk of bringing disease into this nation.

This bill says three things. Firstly, that we do not allow the importing of beef from countries that have had this disease, BSE, until a proper import risk analysis has been carried out. Thankfully, the minister has agreed to that and will now continue along those lines. That is a pleasing result. Why he did not do that in the first place is beyond me but, thankfully, Minister Burke has now announced that he will be carrying out an import risk analysis. Let’s wait for the science on that. That is the right thing to do and something we have called for since day one when this issue arose.

Secondly, Australia has the National Livestock Identification System, which was controversial when it was first introduced. Many of the cow cockies did not want it. Some said it was expensive, a waste of time and not necessary. However, it was brought in and implemented. We can go back over time to the seventies when we conducted the brucellosis testing of cattle right around Australia to eliminate that disease. That is why I come back to this clean, green image and the way we have protected our country from such diseases.

We now have a national livestock identification scheme. Surely, we should not be importing beef from any country that does not have an equivalent trace-back, trace-forward scheme, so if a disease is discovered, you can trace it back to its origin. Identification from birth to plate is what we have in Australia. If we are going to consider importing beef, we should at least insist on an equivalent scheme.

Finally, we need a labelling system so the Australian consumer can identify what they are eating. Australians have, for a couple of hundred years now, eaten our beef with total confidence. A labelling system that identifies imported beef and where it comes from, to me, is essential. Thankfully, the government has now acknowledged that.

This bill says three things. The government have already conceded on two out of the three. I hope they concede on the third by accepting this legislation. I would like to thank the public for the pressure they have applied on this issue. As Minister Burke said, there was a loud call from the public. That call was justified. People were concerned about the risk of importing a disease into our nation that we do not have here, and rightfully so.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

The interjections of those allies of Mr Greg Brown I can hear in the background are beside the point. We have achieved two out of three concessions and there is one step to go.

I am not going to speak for long on this but I just want to say steps have been taken in the right direction after a disastrous decision by our ministers. Thankfully, the public pressure and political pressure have brought some commonsense to this whole debate. I commend the bill. I will not spend any more time speaking on this. I will allow my colleagues to continue the debate.

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

It is interesting that this Food Importation (Bovine Meat Standards) Bill 2010 that hit the deck—if I can put it in the vernacular—earlier this week has not been to a committee, has not been the subject of any scrutiny and has been subject to such a scant address by the coalition. I note that, on other important legislation that the government put up recently, we had speaker after speaker speaking for 20 minutes and taking days to deal with legislation that everyone knew the coalition was going to vote against. But on this bill the first speaker, Senator Williams, gave us about five minutes of his time and addressed none of its specifics.

From the government’s point of view, this is unnecessary legislation. It does not add any additional protection for Australians or Australian cattle. It is ambiguous and it is unworkable. For example, in proposed section 4 of the bill the definition of meat and meat products as ‘bovine meat and food ingredients’ is very broad and could be interpreted to include milk and milk products. Biosecurity Australia’s formal regulated import risk analysis process, which Minister Burke announced, is limited to fresh, chilled or frozen bovine meat or meat products and does not include retorted—that is, canned—beef products.

Proposed section 9 of the bill refers to the 2009 assessment processes. Clearly, we cannot be certain which assessment processes this bill refers to. For example, does it refer to the food safety process, the animal quarantine process, the chemical residue process or other processes? If, indeed, it purports to be an omnibus bill that refers to matters that are dealt with in other legislation, what sort of nightmare is that going to give to the regulators in terms of observance and enforcement?

The National Livestock Identification System, which is referred to in proposed section 6(b) of the legislation, does not require animals to be tagged at birth. They are required to be tagged before they leave the property of birth, which could be years after they are born. I will interpose here that we have strongly resisted pressure from the European Union and Japan over the years to introduce the date of birth. There are many cattle in Australia that do not have traceability under NLIS—for example, cattle born before the relevant state or territory mandated the NLIS. The receiver of animals does not record cattle sale or movement, which is a legal requirement. And proposed section 6(b) requires traceability of animals but does not specify which species of animal.

This is a hasty piece of legislation which I understand the government is concerned about but which the opposition is keen to simply rubber-stamp through this chamber. Indeed, there was discussion earlier that somehow there would be a move to guillotine debate on the bill to require it to be voted on by 5.50 this evening. So far that has not happened. I do not know whether it is intended at some stage to attempt to do that, but that would be most unfortunate, I think, in the circumstances.

The bill itself has been through the Selection of Bills Committee, and the report, which has just been presented, indicates that the question of whether the bill should be referred to a committee has been deferred—in other words, the committee has not decided that the bill should not be referred to a committee. In addition, the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report on beef imports including BSE matters, which have been dealt with by government decision and which are objected to by those opposite, has been deferred. We have yet to see that final report and the comments of the senators who participated. One would have thought that at least we would have that final report on the record before there was an attempt to pre-empt its findings by bringing this bill before the chamber.

Given that we have had very limited time to look at this bill and very limited time to explore its consequences, why is it so urgent that the bill be dealt with today? Why would the coalition be so concerned about the passage of this legislation that they would float the idea of a guillotine motion to ensure a vote on it before six tonight, when the time for general business will conclude? The bill cannot have any effect, because, given Minister Burke’s decision to refer the issue of bovine imports et cetera to an import risk assessment, there cannot be any imports until that is concluded, which is expected to be in around two years. So one wonders what the urgency is about the passage of this bill. I can only conclude that the coalition are looking to use this as a political campaigning tool, not as a real issue. They want to campaign not on the basis of the science of this matter but, again, on the basis of fear—the fear campaign that has been run in relation to BSE by some of those opposite and by others in the community, some of whom have been witnesses before the rural and regional affairs committee inquiry.

In terms of labelling, the fact is that this government has already made an announcement. It is our intention that FSANZ, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, be tasked with the proposal to label fresh beef in the way that pork and seafood are now labelled, as one sees in the supermarket cabinets. This bill would present a problem for the food regulatory system. This is because the FSANZ Act in and of itself has no effect on state or territory food law due to constitutional constraints. The adoption, monitoring and enforcement of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code is dependent on states and territories putting the standards into their laws, meeting the conditions of the agreement with the Commonwealth. Therefore, a standard developed in accordance with proposed section 12 of the Food Importation (Bovine Meat Standards) Bill 2010 is not likely to become law, as states and territories are not bound to adopt something that is developed outside of the food regulatory framework. The FSANZ Act, the food regulation agreement and our treaty with New Zealand do not contemplate a process whereby the Commonwealth can unilaterally impose a law on the states, let alone New Zealand. To do so would require a significant referral of powers. So this is a rather hasty drafting of legislation which creates more problems than it solves.

As I said earlier, on 9 March, the Parliamentary Secretary for Health, the Hon. Mark Butler, announced his response to consumer concern about the labelling of beef products:

I am asking FSANZ to review the Country of Origin Labelling standard to ensure that consumers are fully informed of the origin of the fresh beef they are buying.

The state and territory governments, as I said, are responsible for enforcing food laws, including country-of-origin labelling, so that is going to have to be worked through there, and that is the proper process.

In terms of the underlying intent of this bill, I can only interpret it as an attempt to impose, upon a process which is taking place in accordance with Australian law, conditions which I have no doubt our trading partners will find objection with. The last thing that beef producers want is a dispute with our trading partners that might lead to a finding against this country by the World Trade Organisation. Some people are wont to make what I would describe as—if you will excuse the term, which in the context of some of the recent photographs of the opposition leader might be taken more humorously than I initially expected—hairy-chested statements about our right to control what comes into this country, and say that we should take no risk.

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

There is no need to explain—we understand!

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

I will be interested to hear what Senator Nash says when she has the call but at the moment, as I have the call, she might listen to what I have to say. In terms of our quarantine arrangements, over the last decade of coalition government the coalition repeatedly lectured those who talked about implementing measures which might be seen as protectionist that there was a requirement for us to operate a quarantine regime based on science and on the appropriate level of protection determined by their government, and indeed previous governments and, I suspect, the current government. The appropriate level of protection is one which cannot of necessity involve no risk. In reality there is always some risk and we need to be consistent as to how we apply the laws of this country in relation to our obligations. Just as we require other countries not to exclude goods that come from Australia to their country on quarantine grounds that are not scientifically based, we are entreated by our international commitments to observe the same standards as to goods which are imported to this country.

The basis of this bill, if I understand it—and we have had a limited time to understand it—is that somehow whatever happens with future assessments, the provisions which occurred on 1 July—that is, before this government responded in a responsible way to requirements to reassess the treatment of beef in relation to BSE—should apply and the bill should come to this house on the basis of a disallowable instrument for both houses.

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

There isn’t a disallowable instrument.

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

This legislation in clause 9 talks about varying the processes that were in effect on 1 July 2009 by a legislative instrument, and the intent of that is to create a disallowable instrument. So, irrespective of findings, the intention is to bring it back to the political process so that it can be disallowable.

The law we are operating under at the moment is effectively coalition made law, and the problem with that is that we are seeking to put in place arrangements which would override the basis of a scientific assessment and return it to the political process. I can assure you that in my time in this place, whenever we have been seeking to examine the processes which have been used in determining import risk analysis, we have been looking at the process and the science and there have been plenty of complaints, for example, from New Zealand in relation to apples, from Canada in relation to pork and to salmon and from the European Union in relation to a whole lot of other things, suggesting that we in fact were not proceeding on the basis of science but were proceeding on the basis of a political assessment of the matter.

This particular bill will lend a lot of weight to the arguments that those countries will make in the future if it is passed by the Australian parliament. It will be saying that we have got all these processes but we are going to implement a process where, ultimately, everything is disallowable by the Australian parliament—so science has gone out of the window and it becomes a political football and we will run the extreme risk of assessments being taken to the World Trade Organisation and findings being made against this country, a situation which must be resisted. A finding against this country in relation to trade allows a finding as to what is an equivalent retaliation. That country can then take that retaliation in any area it chooses, against any commodity that we are exporting to that country.

I say this on the basis of a limited assessment of this bill. This bill is recently created. Private members’ bills are often created in a hurry and they are often created for political rather than legislative purposes. One could well have been excused for thinking that that was the purpose of this bill, and indeed I believe it still is.

In relation to the urgency of dealing with this matter, why is this more urgent than dealing with the fairer private health insurance legislation or the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme pieces of legislation which took us days and days and have been through this place twice? I think there were 29 coalition speakers the second time the CPRS went through this chamber, and we knew that all but two of the coalition were voting against the bills. Yet they were prepared to take up the time of this chamber with those bills, which I suggest were much more timely than this piece of legislation, given that, with an import risk assessment running for two years, if this legislation is passed by both houses of parliament it would sit there with nothing to act on for that period of time. If it were to do anything else it would be retrospective, and this chamber has resisted the concept of retrospective legislation for decades.

What we have is a rushed piece of legislation. There is apparently a proposal—perhaps it is not going to be put now—that this bill be rushed through this chamber in time for it to be talked about as early as tomorrow as legislation that the government must pass in the House of Representatives. We have seen the commencement of another scare campaign about beef when, in reality, the minister’s responsible decision has made sure that there will be an assessment responding to concerns in the community. There will be a proper assessment. The rural and regional affairs committee intends to look at other matters, and that will continue. (Time expired)

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

I note with interest the contribution from Senator O’Brien on the Food Importation (Bovine Meat Standards) Bill 2010. At the outset he seemed to suggest that we were trying to bring this to a vote today. The senator knows full well that, by agreement, there are no votes in the chamber after 4.30 today. Just before I commence my comments on the bill, I will refer to a couple of the comments that Senator O’Brien made. I am on the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport with Senator O’Brien—have been for some time—and I have great respect for his intellect and his knowledge.

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

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

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

No, Senator Heffernan, I do. I have a lot of respect for Senator O’Brien as a Senate colleague. But on this issue the government has got it completely wrong. Senator O’Brien referred to a scare campaign. Over the last few months, some sectors of the community have repeatedly said that my coalition colleagues and I are running a scare campaign, as Senator O’Brien has just alluded to. I fail to see how raising an issue in the public domain is a scare campaign. Anybody who is calling it a scare campaign obviously has something to hide. It was entirely appropriate for the Senate rural and regional committee to conduct an inquiry into this very matter. The Australian public deserved to have some scrutiny of this issue. They deserved to know what was going on. They deserved to know what the government was doing. For people to label that as a scare campaign is undermining the appropriate use of the committee system of the Senate. Quite frankly, I think that is appalling.

I will quote Senator O’Brien. I am fairly sure Hansard will show that I am correct, because I would not want to verbal him. Senator O’Brien said that the bill we are discussing this afternoon was created for legislative purposes. Yes, it was. It was absolutely created for legislative purposes, because the government decision to, on 1 March, relax the rules about the importation of beef had no legislation attached to it whatsoever. There was nothing. There was no regulation—nothing. It was simply a decision of the minister to change a policy on an issue this big: the relaxation of the rules for the importation of beef from countries that have had BSE, or mad cow disease.

I think the Australian people deserve more scrutiny and more accountability than is provided by a minister simply deciding that something seems like a pretty neat idea. That was not good enough. That was exactly why the Senate committee held the inquiry: to make sure that we could drill right down into the detail of the issue. What that did, ultimately, was show so many holes in the process that it simply could not go ahead. One of the main difficulties with the process was the fact that there was no recognition at all of the impact on the beef industry. It was done purely on the basis that it was a human health issue, and there were even some questions around the scientific basis of that. That simply was not good enough.

If we take it the next step further, when looking at that impact on human health, all of the assessment was going to be done by Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Let us just have a look at that for a moment. Food Standards Australia New Zealand were going to be providing a questionnaire to the countries that wanted to export beef to Australia and that had had outbreaks of mad cow disease. The questionnaire was provided to the committee and through the inquiry process we looked at it in detail. While the questionnaire showed the questions that were going to be asked of those countries and the detail that it asked them to provide, there was absolutely no indication to the committee or to the general public from Food Standards Australia New Zealand of what their requirement would be to accept beef from those countries. They had said what they were going to ask those countries, but they had not said at any stage what their requirement was going to be for the tick-off for those countries. That raised a lot of alarm bells on our committee. We felt that process simply was not good enough.

Let us take it one step further. Not only was there no indication of the requirement Food Standards Australia New Zealand would have for those countries to receive the tick-off; there was no accountability once they had made their decision. Once Food Standards Australia New Zealand had made their decision, that was it. It simply rested with Food Standards Australia New Zealand. There was no ministerial or parliamentary accountability. The only thing underpinning the risk assessment for this entire process, for allowing the importation of beef into Australia from those countries, was the Food Standards Australia New Zealand questionnaire. There was no indication of what they were going to require to give those countries the tick-off, and, once they had, there was no accountability for the decision they had taken. My coalition colleagues and I felt that this simply was not good enough. It just was not good enough, which is why we so stridently called for the minister to put in place a full import risk analysis.

I again congratulate my Senate colleagues—in particular, Senator John ‘Wacka’ Williams, Senator Chris Back, Senator Richard Colbeck, Senator Julian McGauran and the leader of the pack Senator Bill Heffernan. Without Bill’s input we would not be at the stage right now where the minister has changed his mind. Bill belled this cat long before anybody else and has done an extremely good job of making sure the Australian people knew what was going on—as have the rest of us. It was a coalition effort. If it were not for the inquiry, if it were not for my coalition colleagues and me raising this issue, nothing would have happened. The government would not have done a thing. This process would have started on 1 March and most Australians would not have known about it. It would simply be happening without the right processes having been undertaken, without the right protocols having been put in place, without knowing that the proper stringent process had been gone through before the minister had made his decision. This is the key point.

Witnesses who came before the inquiry said this is all about trade—that we cannot deny access to these other countries because the science says there is negligible risk and we do not want to risk trade retaliation. Even if you agree with that principle, you must agree that the proper processes should have been gone through before the minister made the decision to change the arrangements that were in place. That is simply a no-brainer. The proper processes were not in place. I rarely congratulate anyone in the Rudd government for anything. While I certainly do not congratulate the whole government, I do give a tick to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Tony Burke, because he listened to what the problems were. He listened to the people and he listened to the concerns raised by coalition senators through the inquiry that the government had simply got it wrong and needed a better process. From that, we have seen the IRA put in place.

We have been accused of scaremongering, and some sectors of the beef industry have tried to give us a belting, but I will never take a backward step in doing the right thing for people across the country, particularly those who are involved in agriculture—in this instance, the beef industry. As a National Party senator, it was about doing the right thing not only for Australian consumers as a whole but, in particular, for the beef industry so that they knew the right process had been gone through and that it was fair.

The private senator’s bill before us today does three things, as my very good colleague Senator Williams referred to earlier. It insists on a full import risk analysis, it insists on equivalence when it comes to identification in overseas countries and it insists on labelling. Interestingly, the government has already agreed on two of those three areas, so one would hope that they will insist on equivalence. They have been saying all along that equivalence is very important and that we have to have it. So there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the government not to support this bill. If the government do not support this bill, they will actually be going back on the things they have said are important and that they would agree to. They have agreed to an import risk analysis, they have agreed to labelling, and they have said in the past that they think there should be equivalence. So there is absolutely no reason for the government not to support this bill.

With that, I will conclude my remarks. Again, I thank and congratulate my colleagues for the work they have done to raise this issue and make sure that we got the right outcome for the Australian people. The fact that the minister has changed his mind and we have a full import risk analysis goes partway there. We know there is still more to do to make this process perfect. But, thanks to the committee, the inquiry and the people of Australia, the import risk analysis is now in place. I am certain that the committee will continue to keep a watching brief over this to ensure that the right thing is done not only by the beef industry but by people right across the country.

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

I have been looking forward to making my contribution to the debate on the Food Importation (Bovine Meat Standards) Bill 2010. There are a few things I would like to correct on the record. One is the scare campaign that Senator Nash keeps accusing some of us of accusing opposition senators of. I will tell you who the biggest pusher of that is. Me. And it was a scare campaign. I will tell you why it was a scare campaign. There is nothing wrong with the political process of getting out there and talking to people on the ground. In fact, it is absolutely fantastic and it is rewarding. The IRA has been implemented in the last week because the minister has heard the people speak. What is wrong with that? The difference is that, when there are scare campaigns, when there are absolute mistruths being spoken by that lot over there—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Heffernan, you will have your chance later in the debate.

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

The same bobbing heads pop up all the time as soon as you want to tell the truth. They cannot handle the truth. It sounds like a movie line, but it is so true. It was a brilliant scare campaign. That lot over there still cannot get it through their boofheads that the government actually negotiated with industry. They did not want to ‘take it to the people’ when they were talking about Work Choices.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: Senator Sterle might like to retract that. I do not think I have a boofhead.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: Senator Sterle might like to withdraw ‘boofhead’ in relation to my Senate colleagues, but he can leave it there for me.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Heffernan, please take your seat. Senator Nash, I did not hear Senator Sterle call you a boofhead. Senator Sterle, please continue.

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

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I retract ‘boofhead’. It should probably have been ‘thickheads’! I am not going to call Senator Heffernan a boofhead because that would be the nicest thing anybody has said about him all week! I apologise to Senator Nash.

As I was saying, the government has listened and the government has made the desired changes. The government should be congratulated. I got a bit confused listening to Senator Nash’s contribution where firstly she attacked the industry, then attacked the government, then congratulated the government. But I want to make it very clear for those who are listening out there and are not sure that the government consulted with industry that the government consulted with the Red Meat Advisory Council. The government consulted with the Cattle Council of Australia. The government took guidance from the industry. There are other industry players who are absolutely minute and, as I said, unfortunately in their contribution to this discussion here earlier this week all of a sudden those opposite wanted to grab some lines and some figures from people who purport to represent industry but who represent five-eighths of not very much. I will defend the industry. I will defend the government. I think it has been a fantastic outcome. It has been a consultative outcome all the way through, and congratulations once again to the minister for implementing the IRA.

Let us get some other facts and figures on the table while we are at it. No country has made any application to export beef to Australia. As has been clearly stated by senators opposite, the IRA will be at least two years. Senator O’Brien has even mentioned that fact—at least two years. But I will bet London to a brick that that scare campaign will still continue, and I bet London to a brick that at the so-called grower or producer meetings out in the bush the protagonists will throw in a host of other issues around agriculture. It is very easy to whip up fear in the bush.

I also want to discuss a statement by Senator Williams. His words were that this bill is very important. I would not insult the good people in the bush by saying this bill is not important. It is a mess and it is very ambiguous, but this issue is very important to the people of the bush, absolutely no argument about that, as it is to all Australians. But what we have seen in this chamber in the last two years, but particularly since the new Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, has taken over the reins after his one-vote win over the previous leader, has been nothing short of obstructionism. As this issue is very important, so are the previous 41 pieces of legislation that we have seen tipped out in this chamber, not through an argument over what is good for Australia and Australians but through pure obstructionist politics from that lot over there. They are still suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome. They still do not get it that in November 2007 the Australian people spoke. There are numerous issues we took to the election. There was none of this core promise stuff that we got from the previous Howard government. We took a number of clearly defined policies to the electorate and people voted. Forty-one pieces of legislation. They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves; their carry-on has been disgraceful.

When you start looking at some of the very important bills, you can talk about the CPRS, for example. I take note that my esteemed colleague Senator O’Brien mentioned that there were no less than 29 opposition speakers. I know it was a busy fortnight but it was also a crazy fortnight, and you would not find 29 opposition senators in this chamber contributing to any bill unless they wanted to filibuster. And they were making that very clear at the time. I was very confused, mind you, with so much going on, trying to work out some form of consistent conversation around the CPRS from that lot over there. They had so many mixed messages: they wanted to do it in May, some wanted to do it there and then, and some did not even know what the heck it was all about. Some have still got their heads stuck in the sand. But it was very difficult because they were all out there fighting their leader. I know how hard it is. I can understand. I could see the pain in their faces every day when they came in and said, ‘Who will I vote for today, because I really do not like either of them.’ I could see it, or I assume that is what they were saying. It was absolutely incredible. In fact, it was so scary during the CPRS debate that I was too scared to walk through Aussie’s in case any of them had a plastic knife in their hand. It was unbelievable: swords at dawn.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What has this got to do with the bovine meat bill?

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

Senator Parry asks what this has got to do with it. I will help you out, mate. Clearly this is filibustering from you lot. That is what we have seen here. You just oppose for the sake of opposing.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Parry interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senator Parry, you know that interjections across the chamber are disorderly and I ask you to refrain.

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

It is quite hurtful to listen to that lot over that side. It is very hard to focus while you are trying to make an intelligent contribution in this chamber. I know it has been hard lately.

Let us make it very clear what else they had been out to obstruct. Clearly the Rudd Labor government has had a parental leave plan, no ifs and no buts. Nothing came from that side. In fact--I am sure someone on that side will jump if I am wrong, but the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, about eight years ago when he was a minister in the Howard government made the comment on the implementation of a paid parental leave scheme that it would happen over his dead body. All of a sudden he has had another thought bubble and he wants to come up—

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

What about bovine meat?

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

I tell you what, this is all very relevant because of the behaviour of this lot in this chamber. Forty-one pieces of legislation. I remind you, Senator Back, coming from Western Australia, that there are a lot of Western Australians hanging on that legislation being passed. You are just as guilty as the other ones opposite. But this lot over there go on the attack on anyone who says anything against them, because they have to be the gatekeepers to all the intelligentsia in the bush. I cannot help this because it is absolutely amazing watching them. If someone from the bush has a different view than those on the RRAT committee, oh my goodness, don’t they cop it. Don’t they get the absolute personal attack because they have got no idea what they are talking about, but the three or four senators from the opposition—

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

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Heffernan, please do not distract Senator Sterle.

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

He has just hurt my feelings again.

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

Senator Back interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order, Senator Back! Senator Sterle, please continue.

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

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President Brown. To go on a personal attack and trash people’s reputations is nothing short of embarrassing. It is embarrassing for the Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, which most of the time is a very respected and reputable compilation of senators, in its latest inquiry into mad cow disease, or BSE. It has also been embarrassing, I think, for those opposite.

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

Can I take that interjection through you, Madam Acting Deputy President? Senator Nash plays the good cop, bad cop. While Senator Heffernan is out there trashing people’s reputations and abusing them, Senator Nash sits there like butter would not melt in her mouth. I tell you what, and I will stand corrected if I am wrong, she is either a very good actress or she has absolutely no control over her senatorial colleagues on that committee. Let us get back to some of the truths.

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

Senator Nash interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senator Nash, please cease interjecting.

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

As I was saying before I was rudely attacked again, Madam Acting Deputy President, two years before any beef will come into Australia there will be an import risk analysis. There is absolutely no argument about that. This decision was based on science. I have said it before and I will say it again, and I will put it in an email for them if they need it. In 2000, when there was a mad cow disease outbreak in Britain, the previous government were correct to implement an across-the-board ban. They were absolutely correct and there is no argument about that. They did the right thing by Australia, by Australian consumers and by Australian producers, and they did the right thing by our market and our trading partners. But the science has moved on. There is far greater science around mad cow disease now than there was then. The government sat down with the beef industry and the health industry and consulted widely. It would not hurt for that lot over there to remember who was involved. It was not a rash decision. The decision was made on the science and it was on good science.

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

Here we go again with interjections from that side. There were esteemed professors in health inquiring into the matter and, all of a sudden, a farmer—and no disrespect to the farmers; I have one walking past me at the moment—or a producer or someone who has lived in the bush is far more expert than a professor. They were just mistruths.

Then they chuck in the mixed labelling argument, so let’s talk about that. I have no dramas and no argument with the labelling situation because we have made the announcement that we are going to make the changes and have the inquiry. This is where we have to get the truth out.

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

Senator Nash interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order, Senator Nash!

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

Australia’s biosecurity protection and the likes should not be determined on the supermarket shelf, Senator Nash—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President. That is not where it should be done. It should be done at our borders with our border control. So there is another mistruth to stir up the population to think that the tag on the shelf will solve everything. It will all be done with the correct protocols. To listen to that lot on the other side say that all of a sudden on 1 March we were going to be bombarded with beef from countries that had mad cow disease was just totally misleading. It is not hard to upset the public—just chuck out a scare campaign and that will have the desired effect. We have to cut through all that and get to the truths.

We were talking about the National Livestock Identification System, which I know Senator Williams quoted. I will check the Hansard that Senator Williams, quite rightfully, said that other countries should have the same procedures as us from birth. That is not a problem. I just want to clear that up because the NLIS does not require animals to be tagged at birth. If you listen to that lot on the other side you would think that every time a calf was born it would have a plastic tag on its ear. That is not the case and I will stand corrected if I am wrong. I do not hear Senator Nash attacking me now. I do not hear the good Dr Back attacking me now. If I am wrong, prove it.

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

Senator Nash interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senator Nash, please cease interjecting.

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

I wasn’t saying anything.

The Acting Deputy President:

Order, Senator Nash!

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

See, she comes across as being all innocent. See the way she did that? I heard her.

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senator Sterle, please address your remarks through the chair.

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

Thank you Madam Acting Deputy President. That is another mistruth that has been spoken, this time from Senator Williams. The actual law requires the tag to be put on before the animals leave their property of birth. You will have your turn to stand up and knock me over on that one but I do not hear too much opposition coming from that side. Getting the truth out to the people and having decent, honest, open conversations with the people affected is a far more honourable way than going out and making all sorts of false accusations and claims. I listened to all those claims and, if I had not been involved in the committee, I would have thought that come 1 March we would have been bombarded with every imaginable disease that could come to the country. And it just was not true. It was absolutely nowhere near the truth.

We have strongly resisted pressure from the EU and Japan over the years to introduce date of birth tagging. There are some major trading partners on our case but we have resisted them. There are many cattle in Australia that do not have birth-to-death traceability under the NLIS. If you listened to Senator Williams you would think that that could not be further from the truth. I will give you an example. For cattle born before the relevant state/territory mandated the NLIS, the receiver of the animals does not record the cattle sale or movement.

I know that is a favourite of Senator Heffernan. I heard all through the committee about cattle being born in Mexico and trotting over the border to America before they actually got a tag. Also, in the new bill—the new, flawed bill; the ambiguous bill—section 6B requires traceability for animals but it does not specify which species of animals. There is a lot of work to be done. I have not heard of this yet. Something may have happened in the last half hour or so, but I do not recall it being recommended that this bill go off to a committee for inquiry. If it is going off to a committee, that is fantastic because I will look forward to it coming through the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee and I will look forward to working with opposition senators because, from now on, I am sure there will not be a big scare campaign—no, I cannot say that in all honesty. I would hope that truth will be transmitted through all media statements and meetings out in the bush with growers.

It is all right for those opposite to jump up and down about accountability and honesty. There was a suggestion earlier today that we should try and ram this bill through because of its high importance. It was said we had to get it through today before we even had the chance to properly go through it, to analyse it and to dissect it. The modus operandi of those opposite is to circumvent the Senate committee system when it suits them. It was not that long ago, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore—as you and I would both remember, when we were in opposition—that the Senate committee system was shaken on its head and tipped upside down because it did not suit that lot on the other side. They were very quick to do away with some, I think, eight committees. As soon as they got into opposition and there was the chance of doing a grubby deal—I will take that back; of doing a deal—to appease some of the sooks in the Greens, they all of a sudden tipped it back. I do not have to apologise for ‘the sooks’, do I?

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask you to watch your language, Senator.

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

I will take that back. I will say some of the ‘whingers’ in the Greens. They had the chance to tip the committee system back on the other side again to give us what we had before. That lot on the other side see Senate committees as their little plaything. It suits them when they have the numbers. When they do not have the numbers, they do not want to play by the rules. It has been no more evident than it was through the inquiry into the importation of beef. I am looking forward to having some more conversations with industry. I am looking forward to going through the import risk analysis. I am looking forward to seeing any extra science. I am also looking forward to making sure that mistruths are not spread out there in the countryside. I have said on many occasions that producers are very decent, hardworking people. There is not an argument; I have never had that argument. I also know that they are under immense pressures not only from the drought but also from the Aussie dollar being low—

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

High!

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

High—I am sorry. Thank you very much, Senator Back. I know they do it tough. I know they face a heap of problems. It is not hard to throw out some wild statements, scare the living bejesus out of the country people—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle—

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

Yes—the living daylights. I am sorry. I looked at the other side and I lost my train of thought.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann interjecting—

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

Hang on! Here is the intelligentsia from the Western Australia Liberal Party. It is Senator ‘the knife’ Cormann. Welcome to the chamber. I do not recall seeing your fat head at any of these hearings.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, again, your language. You are getting very close to your time.

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

I know. Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. There is something about Senator Cormann that makes me lower my standards to his modus operandi, and I do apologise for that. As I say, I look forward to this bill coming to the committee. (Time expired)

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

It is nice to listen to someone who absolutely does not know what they are talking about! Can I table a document?

Leave granted.

Thank you very much. I am tabling a document, which is a press release from R-CALF USA. It reads:

R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) is a national, non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry … Members are located across 47 states and are primarily cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and/or feedlot owners.

It is a great pleasure to speak on theFood Importation (Bovine Meat Standards) Bill 2010, a bill for an act to ensure the equivalence of Australian production standards in the importation of bovine meat and meat products. ‘Equivalence’ is a great word, because there is great variation between what people in the office of Simon Crean; the Cattle Council; MLA; RMAC; the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Burke; and the growers think that means. We are insisting in this bill on full traceability from birth to death and that, when the tag goes in, it is property of birth. Some people mark their calves at six weeks, some mark them at six months and some mark them when they wean them. When the tag goes in depends on the management of the property. It is property of birth. That is to clear it up for Senator Sterle, as he probably does not realise that because after all he is a truck driver. I am a truck driver, too, and a wool classer and a welder and I have not read a book since I left school. But anyhow.

What this is really about is getting a clear understanding in parliament of what we demand of people that want to import product into Australia and of what ‘equivalence’ actually means. The difficulty we have had is that there are a few things surrounding this debate that have been confusing to people. There is no question, as Senator Nash has said, that the government would not have changed its mind if we had not got the inquiry up and if we had not got talkback. I commend the talkback people—Leon Byner in Adelaide and Alan Jones—and the various print media people who had a crack at this, because it was the power of the people that combined with the Senate inquiry to change the government’s mind on this. It was nothing else. I commend the minister for the strong stance he took against his own trade minister.

This is about ensuring that we do in fact have full traceability and that we do have a full import risk analysis—unlike the analysis that went on with the beef importation from Brazil. I will go to the tabled document. It is headed ‘On 25 February confirmation of a BSE positive cow kept secret’. It points out that in Canada they have had their 18th case of BSE—in a 72-month old Angus cow, which means the cow was born in 2003-04. Canada has an arrangement with the United States that any cattle born after 1999 can be exported into the United States. In fact, this press release points out that 40,000 older Canadian cows were imported into the United States for domestic slaughter.

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

This year.

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

This year—I am sure that Senator Back will go into great detail on this particular press release:

Forty organisations representing consumers, the cattle industry and other livestock and farming interests sent a joint letter to USDA in November 2009 urging the new Administration to restore the United States’ weakened import standards that are exposing the US to a heightened risk of BSE.

Hence my insistence and this bill’s insistence that, if the US want to export meat to Australia they have to make up their minds about what is equivalence. Equivalence is not about a closed herd status because anyone can rogue that; equivalence is not about a state boundary; it is about a national boundary. If we are going to have birth-to-death traceability, they either close the border with Canada and Mexico or they trace cattle back with a tag to wherever they were born in Canada or Mexico. That is the basis of traceability.

I can give you the impact against the rising Australian dollar—Senator Sterle thought it was the falling Australian dollar; I guess that is understandable. In 2004, the United States exported 375,455 tonnes of meat into Japan. When they got their infection, they imported 797 tonnes. In Korea, 246,595 tonnes went in 2003; in 2004, 672 tonnes went in. This gives you an idea of the worry we have in losing that market share because we have the world’s cleanest, greenest and freest status of beef production. Australia is the safest place in the world to eat beef and we want to keep it that way.

This bill is designed to bring to parliament some accountability. What was proposed before, as Senator Sterle says, ‘we made a fuss’, was a system of assessment where one bureaucrat, Mr Steve McCutcheon, would have been accountable. No-one in the government is accountable. No-one in this parliament would have been accountable for any catastrophic mistake. A few years ago, we made a catastrophic error with Brazil and, sure enough, the person who made the mistake has moved on to another part of the bureaucracy.

This announcement today by the United Stockgrowers of America points to the fact that there are serious flaws in the United States, Canada and Mexico trade. We want to straighten it out. We want it in black and white and we are prepared to have it tested by whoever wants to test the process. We are quite happy to go through a biosecurity process, we are quite happy to go through a FSANZ process, but we absolutely want the people in this parliament to be accountable to the process.

I have full sympathy for the various bodies that gathered together to do the secret deal on 28 July last year. There were eight people there from the industry. Seven of them were from the processors and they were dominated by the international processors. One producer and seven processors signed up to the government to say, ‘We’re going to do this but we won’t tell anyone.’ In Armidale the other day, the chairman of Meat and Livestock Australia, David Palmer, said that in fact it was said in that meeting, ‘Don’t tell Bill Heffernan,’ that is, me. The government actually said that—‘Don’t tell him.’ As a consequence, everyone has to walk backwards on this because we need to protect our reputations.

We had excellent evidence given to our committee. I feel sorry for the people who did not know the difference between an import risk assessment and an import risk analysis. They did not understand there was even trade, including the bureaucrats who were putting the protocols in place on Thursday a fortnight ago. They did not know that there was trade across the border with Mexico, they did not know the status of the Mexican herd, which we have now given in a question on notice. With the excellent technical backup of people like Senator Back, Senator Nash, Senator Williams and others, we are in good shape.

I commend this bill to the parliament. This is a bill to protect the interests of not only Australia’s cattle producers but also Australia’s consumers of beef. Let us keep Australia the safest place in the world to eat beef. There is a whole lot of new science which will come forward through the IRA process, which has only just come in the last few weeks and will point out the unknowns and the difficulties in identifying the spreadability of not only the prion of BSE, that is the protein, but also things like the new wasting disease which is now up on the Canadian border with the United States where all this border traffic is. There is a wasting disease in a laboratory which has now spread to cattle. We do not want that in Australia. We brought Johne’s disease in because of a sloppy process with sheep in New Zealand a few years ago. We do not have scrapie. Let us keep Australia the best place. This bill ensures that. Thank you very much.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

According to standing order 199, I move:

That the question now be put.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind honourable senators that if a division is called for on Thursday after 4.30 pm, the matter before the Senate shall be adjourned, pursuant to standing order 57(3), until the next day of sitting at a time to be fixed by the Senate. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry for those listening to today’s broadcast because they would be trying to make sense of what is going on in the Senate. Given Senator Parry’s motion, I move:

That the vote be taken after the discovery of formal business on the next day of sitting.

Question agreed to.