Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Canavan and Senator Ciccone, which has also been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The significant impact that the European Union Deforestation Regulation will likely have on Australian beef producers because of the EU's definition of forest and uncertainty about its implementation; and hence the consequent need to delay the implementation of the Regulation until these matters can be resolved.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, and also on behalf of Senator Ciccone, move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The significant impact that the European Union Deforestation Regulation will likely have on Australian beef producers because of the EU's definition of forest and uncertainty about its implementation; and hence the consequent need to delay the implementation of the Regulation until these matters can be resolved.

I recognise the great achievements of the Australian cattle industry. It's an industry that has existed in this country from pretty much the inception of European settlement here in Australia. In fact, the First Fleet brought over the first herd, so to speak—four cows and two bulls. They were put out to pasture on Bennelong Point, where the Sydney Opera House now stands. It didn't go so well because they escaped from that area within weeks, and the first settlers lost them. But it was actually a happy circumstance because around 20 years later they found this herd of cattle south of Sydney that had flourished; hundreds of cows had bred and naturally grazed on Australian pasture lands. There was no human development, no clearing of land; it was just a natural place where cows could survive and ultimately build the cattle industry we have. I remember being at a meeting in Normanton where Fred Pascoe, a great Indigenous leader, spoke about how the cattle industry is now part of his people's culture. He is part-owner, with other Indigenous leaders, of the Delta Downs cattle station in the Gulf of Carpentaria.

The cattle industry is part of our country's heritage and history, and it's why there's been such a reaction from the industry to the attempt of another nation's government—another colonial power—to take over and dictate what Australian graziers should do on their own lands and properties, including Indigenous Australians who run their own cattle properties now. The European Union, a few years ago, introduced a new set of regulations called the deforestation regulations. They cover a range of products, but the one I'm focusing on is beef. In short, those regulations mean that in areas of Australia that the EU deems forest land we will not be able to raise, graze and ultimately produce beef from cattle. If any cow sets foot in an area the European Union deems forested area, it won't be able to be exported as a beef product or other animal product to the EU. I think this is gross overreach into the sovereignty of another nation. It should be the job of an elected representative body either here in Canberra or at state level to decide how our land is regulated in such a detailed way. But you also, of course, get the normal problems when other governments—on the other side of the world, in this case—seek to dictate what should be best for the environment and for agricultural production in a part of the world they obviously know very little about.

The European Union's regulations have a number of challenges for our graziers. Those regulations dictate that, of any area that has a canopy of five metres or above, over 10 per cent is deemed forest land. Consistent with my example from the First Fleet, a lot of our pastoral lands have not been cleared. They are naturally part of the environment already available for cattle grazing, even with a large amount of woodlands on them. It's very different from the European situation, where they have very thick forests and, to graze cattle, they have to clear those forests. That's not necessarily the case in Australia, where there is lots of downs country that is naturally formed in that way, or it has been slightly cleared over time but it's been part of our practice to do that.

The Europeans have put out maps of the forest areas that they reckon exist in Australia. They've taken it upon themselves to map our own country. That area covers 144 million hectares, not far off the size of Victoria, and 44 per cent of the green blotches the EU have on their map are actually grazing lands in Australia.

There remain huge issues with the implementation of the EU regulations. They haven't finalised the country-benchmarking scheme. There is no clarity for our beef industry on how they would comply with these regulations.

The reason we're moving this motion is to respectfully ask the European Union to look again at these regulations and to defer their implementation. We're not the only country in this boat, asking for a deferral. We ask that they look properly at this issue and not seek to overregulate another part of the world that they don't really understand, understandably, which will only actually worsen environmental outcomes here in Australia and cause economic damage to the relationship that we have with our friends in Europe. We should work together on these issues, not seek to pass laws against each other's nations, ignorant of the facts on the ground.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Canavan for that contribution and also for working constructively with Senator Ciccone on this motion, because this is an important issue for our country and for our cattle industry and beef producers in particular. As a Queensland senator I understand the importance of the cattle industry to my state, and, in my new role as Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, I have enjoyed the engagements I've had with the cattle industry across Australia at the same time. It is an issue that is important to our economy, but it's also important to many regional places. I was in Cloncurry and Mount Isa last week, and it was a topic that came up for discussion amongst the mayors and community members that I engaged with whilst I was in that part of the world, which obviously has a really proud history in terms of beef cattle, particularly the export trade.

This specific issue is important. It is something that the government are taking seriously, and we understand the role that we have to play in supporting our industry in this country. We are committed to combating deforestation, and we understand the European Union's concerns about the rate of deforestation globally. Like the European Union, we understand the critical importance of forest biodiversity and sustainable land use. The European Union is a close trading partner of Australia's, and we look forward to working with them on areas of mutual interest. As Senator Canavan said, that is something that we have a strong history on in the past and that we would seek to continue on this matter.

The government is committed to halting and reversing net forest loss and land degradation by 2030. Australia and the European Union are both signatories to the Glasgow Leaders' Declaration on Forests and Land Use, the Forest & Climate Leaders' Partnership and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. We have a well-established institutional framework to support the conservation and sustainable management of forests. However, we are concerned about the complexity and regulatory burden that the European Union Deforestation Regulation will place on our agricultural exporters, in a market that already has high costs of entry—a concern that is shared strongly by industry.

As we have continued to do since coming into government, we will support and advocate for our agriculture sector when it comes to arbitrary measures imposed by trading partners. The Albanese Labor government has undertaken significant advocacy with the European Commission on the European Union deforestation regulation since forming government. These steps have included a submission on Australia's forest status provided to the European Commission on 30 June 2023 supporting our advocacy for a low-risk-country rating. On 6 May 2024 Senator Watt, in his former capacity as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, wrote to the European Union environment commissioner calling for a delay of commencement beyond 30 December 2024 and outlining a range of issues with the European Union deforestation regulation, including a lack of clarity, slow development of European Union information technology systems and insufficient preparedness among member state competent authorities, all of which could potentially have an adverse impact on Australia's agriculture trade.

There have been a range of government officials meetings and exchanges of correspondence with European Unions counterparts to seek clarity on specific destinational issues to ensure that the European Union understands Australia's agriculture and forest management practices, including our national forest maps, to increase the accuracy of the European Union global forest cover dataset, although the European Commission confirmed that they are preparing additional formal guidance for trading partners with respect to agricultural use, grazing intensity and frequency, set-aside land and plantation forest, among other topics that Australia has raised with them directly. We are still waiting, and our advocacy will continue.

The government continues to engage with the European Union on the regulation to seek clarity and to support our agricultural industry's efforts to comply with the regulation. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry recently completed work to assess the implication for Australia's trade, which involved industry stakeholder engagement, in-depth trade analysis and ongoing engagement with the union. Separately, we continue to work closely with like-minded countries to raise specific concerns about the European Union deforestation regulation, including with the WTO. We are supporting Australian led industry initiatives to respond to the European regulation, including an ag trace project led by the Food Agility Cooperative Research Centre. We call on the European Union to delay implementation of the European Union deforestation regulation until the uncertainties around its implementation are resolved.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deforestation is a significant contributor to emissions and therefore to climate change. So, avoiding deforestation—in which Australia, sadly, is a world leader—is taking climate action. I expected that the LNP would bring on a motion like this, because they spent the last decade in government in this place doing whatever they could to undermine climate action. But I am surprised that the Labor Party would co-sign and join this motion. I'm not surprised about the timing. We had farmers here yesterday protesting, so the timing of this is no doubt designed to try to give the Labor Party some cover in trying to keep farmers on side.

Let me tell you a little bit about deforestation. Documents obtained by the Wilderness Society by freedom of information revealed that the government was seeking assurances from the EU in relation to its deforestation import regulation and that Australia ought to be considered a low risk for deforestation, because it claims that Australia has a robust environmental law that supports the protection and sustainable use of our forests. Well, Australia's environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, has described the environment law as broken and recognised that under these laws deforestation is a significant problem. So, which one is it?

The law is currently going through a supposed reform, and no doubt this is something we are going to be acting on. As the good senator from the government said, the Australian government is also a signatory to a global Glasgow leaders' declaration to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. There is a quote from the Wilderness Society that I really like, from Adele Chasson, Corporate Campaigner for the Wilderness Society:

The government can't seem to keep its story straight on Australia's deforestation problem. The Australian government is telling the world Australia is a global leader on environment issues, all while asking for delays and exemptions to the EU's flagship deforestation regulation. At the same time, they are undertaking a tumultuous environment reform process to, at least in part, tackle a serious and admitted deforestation problem.

Well, we now know that the laws around deforestation aren't going to come before this parliament, and I reckon we'll be bloody lucky if they come before the next parliament, having been in this place for nearly 13 years and having seen how little attention, focus and priority is put on climate action.

So, let's call this out for what it is. This is an attempt, on behalf of a vested interest—the beef industry—who want to have a low carbon footprint. The MLA and others have actually been ahead of the government in their emissions reduction targets, and consumers want to buy zero-carbon beef, as they do in the EU. And good on the EU for having strict regulations. I hope they stick to it. I hope they force Australia to step up and do something about avoiding deforestation and tackling this issue. Maybe then we'll be the world leaders we claim to be in environmental and climate— (Time expired)

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not surprising the Greens stand up in here supporting the taking over of Australian sovereignty by ideological fellow travellers from overseas. The fact is that Australia should set the rules for Australian farmers as to how they operate in what is considered forest country in Australia. We should not have those rules imposed on us from outside by another party.

I consider myself a strong free-trader. It's one of the reasons I thought very hard before speaking out against a prospective free trade deal with the EU, because, quite frankly, the EU have history in this space. They have a strong focus on trying to control the countries they do business with and how they operate and, quite frankly, this is not acceptable. This is not an acceptable way for an international player to operate, and it's not an acceptable way for an Australian government to take those approaches lightly.

We should push back; we need to push back. We need to defend the rights of this place, this parliament, to make decisions for Australia. We need to support great industries, like the Australian beef industry, who do a lot in this area to manage the plains type environments, open savanna type environments that Senator Canavan talked about, where there is a mixture of agricultural activity, trees, landscapes. We have great Australian businesses operating in that sort of an environment. We don't need rules and regulations being imposed on Australian beef producers in this way by a foreign actor.

This isn't the only space where the European Union in particular has sought to interfere in other countries. We've seen it in the use of some chemicals. A chemical like glyphosate is extraordinarily important to the broadacre farming sector in Western Australia particularly, but also right across Australia. Without chemicals like glyphosate, broadacre farming would be forced to either shut down or return to the old methods of tilling. The environmental damage that would be done if we were forced to abandon no-till approaches to agriculture would be simply extraordinary, to the point where it would probably be either completely inefficient or extraordinarily destructive to do.

The idea that we would accept the judgement of other countries who do have other imperatives driving this—as Senator Canavan said, the type and nature of forest cover in Europe, given their long, long history of intensive agricultural production, is very different to Australia. As are their soil types and the kinds of agriculture they undertake. They're much heavier soils than in Australia and the use of chemicals such as glyphosate are less important to their farming systems, on a relative basis, than they are in Australia. So we have to be very careful when considering our relationships with other countries and other foreign organisations like the European Union.

Looking at the incentives that are driving their decisions, they aren't always just about positive environmental messages. Often there are underlying reasons for the settings they seek to put in place, the settings they seek to impose on other countries. These settings actually give them a relative economic advantage. That's their job, and I don't think we should find anything particularly surprising in that. But when making decisions in this country, we have to make them in the best interests of this country. That is why I'm very happy to support Senator Canavan in this urgency motion.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the urgency motion before us today, and I'm proud to co-sponsor with Senator Canavan, someone who I know is a big supporter of the Australian beef producers, which are very important for our economy. Like many in this place, I am very passionate about advocating for Australian agriculture. I celebrate the jobs that it creates, the communities that it supports around the country, particularly in regional parts of Australia, and the significant contribution that it makes to our economy nationally.

From the outset, I would like to particularly acknowledge the role of the beef industry in our ag sector. It's my view and the view of many, thankfully, that our country's reputation as a high-quality, safe and sustainable producer of beef is something that all Australians should be very proud of. In fact, we're also clean and well respected around the world, having some of the best agricultural products. We are renowned for what our farmers do to make sure that we can deliver not just for us to consume here but for us to export internationally. That is why we are a global leader. It's for very, very good reasons, as any person who enjoys a steak or sausage on their barbeque would understand.

According to Meat & Livestock Australia, the total value of Australian beef and veal exports amounts to almost $11 billion, with the export trade accounting for approximately 70 per cent of beef production in Australia. In fact, we are one of the largest beef exporting countries in the world, with only Brazil outpacing us for T-bones shipped. You don't get to be that big without a commitment to reaching and maintaining high standards of quality and safety. You also don't get to stay that big without an equally strong commitment to sustainability and sound land management practices.

I am the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Red Meat with my friend Senator McDonald. I know we constantly enjoy hosting these events here at Parliament House to promote the benefits of our cattle producers, red meat and butchers and the fine work that the many men and women in the industry do every single day to feed Australians right across the country. We also educate our parliamentary colleagues, particularly those on the crossbench who failed to understand the benefits that people in this industry actually deliver for many regional communities and communities in metropolitan parts of Melbourne. These jobs are part of the whole supply chain. That always gets ignored and neglected by those on the crossbenches.

But it is important also to make the point that we who constantly go out to regional parts of Australia see firsthand the commitment of these Australians who do the work every single day, as I and many others in this place have seen. It is with pride that I must say that the demand for Australian beef is at a record high. Indicators are that, in the future, it will only continue to grow. This is very, very good news for the thousands of jobs that it supports across regional and rural parts of Australia. In 2021-22, for example, over 430,000 people were employed in Australia's meat and livestock industry. From the direct jobs of our many producers, who wake up at the crack of dawn, to the additional industries like transport, veterinary services and meat processing, the jobs it provides are critical.

The commitment of the industry and the government to sustainability and constant improvement in livestock practices will play an important role in ensuring that we keep our status as a leader in beef production. But I'm concerned at what the implementation of the European Union Deforestation Regulation would mean for our beef producers. I'm concerned about the complexity of the measures and the regulatory burden that it would create, and I know beef producers share this concern, as does the government. Like all governments should be, ours is committed to combating deforestation and reversing net forest loss. Like the EU, we appreciate the importance of our forests and sustainable agricultural practices. This has been mentioned by the former minister Murray Watt when he spoke at beef week in Rockhampton, where he articulated the government's call on the EU to delay the implementation of the regulation.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last year the European Union regulation on deforestation-free products entered into force. It ceased to control deforestation worldwide using a devious trick: requiring proof that products imported into the EU did not originate from recently deforested land or contribute to forest degradation—products like Australian cattle and wood, as well as derived products like leather, chocolate and furniture.

It does seem inconsistent to One Nation that the two parties, Liberal-National and Labor, who just voted through a bill to prevent illegally logged timber coming into Australia, now oppose a measure to stop the same material being exported from Australia to the EU. One Nation, on the other hand, opposes both measures. Trying to control deforestation through holding food and building materials hostage is the long way around the block. It introduces compliance costs, and it's impossible to confidently determine the status of products. It's easier to use satellite imaging to identify and take direct action against illegal logging.

Using the European Union approach allows for politics to enter into the equation. It allows greenmail, it allows tit-for-tat sanctions on spurious environmental grounds and it gives life to bureaucracies that should not exist. For instance, define 'recently cleared land'. In Australia, farmers will let fields go fallow for several years, after which there is some vegetation growth, which is cleared to return the field to use. It's bad enough that farmers have to put up with idiot greenies crying over junk vegetation being mulched to enrich the soil. Now we must put up with the European Union bureaucrats joining them.

Seriously, our farmers won't be able to feed and clothe the world with the layers of stupid regulation being heaped on them. They're the best farmers in the world. They know what they're doing. I don't know how we can influence the European Union on this matter, yet One Nation is happy to support the motion. At some point, hunger might inspire an awakening of commonsense across Europe and across the Liberals, Nationals and Labor to stop pushing climate fraud and its allies and to stop pushing net zero.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to support this urgency matter, and I thank Senator Canavan and Senator Ciccone for providing a bipartisan position of reason on this matter. To be clear, this is not about environmental management or protection. This is not about diversity. This is not about habitat protection. This is nothing more than a cheap, non-tariff barrier to trade.

What this will do is ensure that Australian beef producers and, I'm concerned, other agricultural producers, like blueberry and cane farmers, will also bear the brunt of these EU deforestation regulations. We don't have a huge beef market into the EU—it is a very premium market—but what we do have are markets for things like cattle hides, markets that could otherwise no longer exist because of the crazy rhetoric on pleather and other fake leather products, on motor vehicles and on other things. But I digress.

What I am concerned about is that we are going to have a non-elected, non-Australian organisation restricting Australian farmers from being able to export into this market and, worse, that these restrictions will be picked up by other countries. When we start seeing these same standards which are unclear and undefined creeping into other regions and other trade markets, this is incredibly dangerous. We know that, over the last five years, since 2019, we have seen 10,000 pages of legislation on this matter. That equates to about 15 pages a day that farmers are expected to manage.

This is outrageous because food production, fibre production, is the most important that we can do for humans. We eat three times a day, and the quality of food that we produce should be protected. Our farming expertise should be protected and encouraged. As I've already said, this is a non-tariff barrier to trade and is going to restrict Australian farmers. Worse, we're not sure where it stops. This is an incredibly important precedent that has to be pulled up. I think that the lack of definition, of Q&As provided and of advice means that we are trying to manage a regulation that is unclear and complex, and it is an unreasonable regulatory burden to put on people who are doing such important work.

I'm from northern Australia. I also want to flag what this will mean to the development of northern Australia. From Cape York right across the Northern Territory, this will stop any future development of agriculture and, potentially, mining. This is a shocking piece of regulation that we should hold out against at every opportunity. Already we're seeing companies like Woolworths and banks adopt some of these allegedly science based target initiatives, but I'm here to tell you that they are not about environmental management. They are a restriction that we should be very afraid of. I want to call out to Woolworths and any other retailers here in Australia: if you think adopting these measures is going to be in the interests of Australian farmers or Australian consumers, you are wrong. You will restrict their ability to farm, and, worse, the contagion may mean that we will see other regions and other trade areas for Australia also restricted.

This is dangerous stuff. Wars are fought over food production. Food security, food reliability and, particularly, the high standards of Australian produce are things that we should nurture, encourage and protect. To have these EU deforestation regulations that are not about the environment but about non-tariff barriers to trade is dangerous. We should be very afraid of what this could do to both our beef industry and farmers more broadly, and I urge the government to hold out against it and ensure that our farmers are protected at all costs.

Question agreed to.