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

I present the first report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, The possible impacts and consequences for public health, trade and agriculture of the government’s decision to relax import restrictions on beef.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

There has been a lot said on this issue. There has been a private member’s bill passed through this Senate and there is another full report to come. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave not granted.

Because there is new science since the committee was first convened on this issue, because there is no real understanding of the transmissibility of a chronic wasting disease in North America and Canada, because the path to the cattle herd is still not scientifically confirmed, because most witnesses were not even aware of such a disease and because of the lack of knowledge of a lot of people who were taking a view on this particular issue, most of whom did not understand the difference between an import risk analysis and an assessment, we made a decision. I note there is a dissenting report, which is, to say the least, splitting hairs and I note that the government has altered its position. We decided there are to be further hearings and at those hearings there will be evidence of continuing investigation into the science, not only on the question of BSE but also on other diseases.

The World Trade Organisation rules allow us to invoke a clause for a full import risk analysis because of changed circumstances and things like the chronic wasting disease. There was a set of weasel words used in terms of what equivalency was for applying nations. In Australia we have, for instance, a birth to death traceability program which was interpreted by some people, without getting too aggressive, to mean that you could have closed herd status traceability or states traceability. However, this year there have been 40,000 cattle that have come across the border from Canada with their herd demography being after 1999. In fact the latest BSE reactor, which was not disclosed to OIE for some time after it was discovered by Canada, was in the 2003-04 cattle herd up there. All this means that 40,000 cattle have been transported across the border into the United States and—given that there is no live test, given that there is no reliable dead test except in advanced cases and given that a lot of the world trade now is under 36 months or 30 months, for which there is no reliable dead test—Australia should err on the side of caution under the precautionary principle. I think what the government has decided is the right way to go, and I am not going to get into an argument as to why everyone changed their mind.

I think it is important to recognise, and I do so now, the work of all members of the  Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. We have done a lot of good work. If we had not done that work, we would not have changed the government’s mind. I think there is no question about that. That work alerted the public to the whole thing. It was distressing to see people who allegedly are peak body representatives not understanding the technical things and to see someone come to the committee and say, about the protocols that were agreed to by Mr McCutcheon from the department, that they agreed to them not having seen them and not having understood them. At one stage of the game some of these peak bodies—without naming them—did not even know there was trade over the border with Mexico. So if you are going to have livestock identification within 48 hours, obviously you have to go back—for the purposes of followers, calves—to the point of birth, which means that in the case of Canada and Mexico they would have to be traceable back to Canada and Mexico and then there is the power of the United States cattle lobby, which has told the US government, ‘We’re not interested in having traceability of that nature’. I think the report speaks for itself and I commend the report. I congratulate and thank the secretariat for their patience in putting this report together. I appreciate there is a dissenting report, which is some sort of face-saving, hair-splitting operation.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 4.30 pm, debate is interrupted. I remind the Senate that standing orders provide for general business to be called on at this time. Before I call on general business, is leave granted for item 14 on today’s Order of Business, specifically on Senator Heffernan’s motion, to be completed?

Leave granted.

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

I will not take up too much time of the Senate, but there is a dissenting report from government senators. I will not get into the semantics of a good stoush across the chamber with Senator Heffernan, which is unusual because we quite passionately combat each other. Senator Heffernan uses words like ‘weasel words’ and ‘face-saving’, and I think that is disingenuous of Senator Heffernan.

Senator Heffernan did say that there has been new science since the committee established this inquiry. I will not argue but it is also imperative everyone understands that in 2001, when the previous government put the blanket ban on the importation of meat from countries that had had BSE outbreaks, that was the right decision at the time. There is no argument about that. This decision to relax the importation rules was not taken because Minister Crean had nothing better to do. There was new science available. There is no argument about that. Also, it is imperative that Australia understands that the beef industry approached government through the RMAC, the Red Meat Advisory Council, and its members. Its members include the Cattle Council of Australia; AMIC, the Australian Meat Industry Council; the Sheepmeat Council of Australia; the Australian Lot Feeders Association, MLA and the NFF.

To clear up a few things: the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Burke, has decided to implement the IRA. Quite simply, he did that because he heard the concerns of the community, he heard the concerns of the committee and he heard the concerns of his backbenchers—being Senator O’Brien and me. It was a good decision. There is no argument about that. There are another couple of things I wish to take note of. If the policy had not changed, if the Australian government had not worked closely with the beef industry, and if there had been an outbreak in Australia of BSE—and I know that side over the will want to jump down and have a fight, and I am quite happy to have the fight with them—in meat in Tasmania, every bit of meat all over Australia would have had to have been taken off the shelves. Now that is not the case and that is good policy. There are a lot of beef producers out there who know that it is a good policy, and that was told to us on many occasions.

Another area I want to touch on is food labelling. I will conclude my remarks after this. I have absolutely no argument with food labelling. A lot of consumers want improved food labelling. We are moving down the path of addressing food labelling. But Australia’s border protection and quarantine protection should not be determined on the shelves of Woolworths, Coles or the butchers. That has to be done through quarantine. Food labelling should all come down to a choice for consumers. On that, I will conclude my remarks. The best way of reassuring the Australian community that effective protocols will be put in place is to provide for the safety of the imports through the IRA.

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

I am very conscious of the time and so will limit my remarks. I welcome the tabling of this interim report of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport on the matter of importing beef products from countries that are BSE affected. When I moved for this inquiry last year, I did so because I was fully aware that the community had no idea what was going on and that it was being done in secret. I thought it was absolutely critical that it be brought to the attention of everybody—that is, all the stakeholders and the community—and that has now happened. That the government has changed its mind is an extremely welcome outcome. As I have said many times in this house, it is the mature thing to do when you are wrong to change your mind. I am glad the government has done that and I am glad an IRA process will be undertaken, as should have occurred in the first place. Having said that, that goes for traceability as well.

Food labelling is something I have been passionate about for a very long time, and we have a lot further to go in labelling our food products in all sorts of ways. It is important that consumers can make informed judgments, particularly since the laws are so lax at the moment. As we know, if 50 per cent of the production costs are incurred in Australia then a product can be labelled as a product of Australia when in fact half of it can have been brought in from overseas. That has raised concerns in Tasmania, where packets of frozen vegetables have a beautiful photo of Tasmania on the front and the overwhelming majority of vegetables in the packet have been frozen and imported from China. The consumer deserves to know much more about what they are purchasing. As a result of this inquiry, that will be the case for imported beef products.

It is essential that that the community has confidence in the food it is eating. The community needs to ask the question: why would you go from the situation of having an absolute guarantee that your public health is not going to be compromised to one where you are taking a negligible risk? That is what this does. It moves from zero risk to negligible risk. I understand the trade ramifications but, nevertheless, that is what we are doing and the community deserves an opportunity to comment on that.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the committee secretariat and the fellow members of this committee, the rural and regional committee. The reason I wanted to particularly thank the secretariat is that they bend over backwards to make sure that the committee members have as much information as is possibly available, and also to include all committee members in trying to come to a consensus report and to consider it in an appropriate way. I know that they are overloaded, as indeed most of the secretariats of the committees in this building are, but, nevertheless, I wanted to particularly commend them for the work they do. I also want to commend the way that the committee works. Having been through an appalling process with the Economics Legislation Committee, it has made me realise just what a good culture exists in the rural and regional committee. People genuinely try to come to a consensus and, if they cannot, there is respect for the fact that there are dissenting views. They are expressed and at least there is a fair process. I want to commend the chairs of both the rural and regional references and the rural and regional legislation committees for creating a culture where that is possible and where people feel like their contribution is valued. I think that is important.

Question agreed to.