Senate debates

Thursday, 11 March 2010

Food Importation (Bovine Meat Standards) Bill 2010

Second Reading

4:41 pm

Photo of Glenn SterleGlenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share 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?

Comments

No comments