Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister opposite for the way in which he is constructively—without emotion and without raising concerns within the industry or with the consuming public—seeking to address the issues which we as a government are seeking to address. I might say that it stands in stark contrast to some of the more outrageous claims that have been made by some members of his own party in another place. Let me also say at the outset: there is no way that this government, nor I personally, would risk a decision which would in any way impact upon consumer health and safety or impact upon the great industry that is the Australian beef industry. The campaign that has been waged by some is now being criticised by the Cattle Council itself for having brought fear and damage to the industry. So I would urge those opposite, if we are looking for a rational way through this, to get on top of some of their more extreme elements, because those elements have been rightly referred to as political opportunists.

Let us go to the facts. First of all, why is it that we have to change this system? It is because the system that we have now is dangerously out of date with international beef import laws. It is important to recall the history: in 2001 the Australian government introduced a blanket ban on the domestic sale of beef and beef products from any country which had had a confirmed case of BSE. In international trade law, we are required to apply reciprocity here to the same standards we require of other countries. In other words, under the former policy, if there were a single case of BSE found in Australia, all beef would have to come off the shelf—because that is what we say: ‘The US is excluded as a whole.’ It would only require one case. In other words, if there were an outbreak in Tasmania, the beef would have to be taken off the shelves across Australia. What do you think that would do to the Australian beef industry—an industry that already exports 60-plus per cent of its produce? What do you think it would do in those circumstances?

Do not take just my word for it. I ask you to look at what has been said by the Red Meat Advisory Council, which is representative of many of the peak organisations in the beef industry. It represents the meat processors, the wholesalers, the retailers, the Australian Meat Industry Council, the Cattle Council, the Australian Lot Feeders Association, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia and the Australian Livestock Exporters Council—a pretty representative group. They wrote to the government back in September and said:

RMAC—

the organisation which represents all of these organisations—

believes it is imperative for the federal government to amend the current standard such that it is made more consistent with the standard set by the World Organisation for Animal Health and current ambiguity is removed.

The letter went on to say:

RMAC, at its most recent meeting, endorsed its opposition to the BSE certification rules currently operating in Australia. These rules would potentially remove all domestic beef from sale in this country in the unlikely event of a domestic case of BSE.

That is not in the government saying it; that is the industry representative body saying, ‘We have a problem in relation to our industry and we want you, the government, to fix it.’

We have tried to fix it. As a former Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, I say that, when there is any representation made by an industry group saying, ‘We have a potential threat to the future of our industry,’ it is incumbent upon us to try and deal with it. In its correspondence, therefore, the industry asked us to do it. We then took the view that we had obligations to find out where the science was up to and to consult further with the industry. The shadow minister at the table says there was no consultation. There was. There was much consultation and, of course, there have been the Senate processes—open inquiry where anyone who has an issue can come along and make their representations.

So, we have dealt with the reason why; we have dealt with the fact that the industry asked us to do it; and we also know, from the consultations that we have undertaken, that the science has moved on since 2001. It is in a much better position to be able to make decisions now which protect consumers and protect the herd but still, far better, keep us in sync with our international obligations.

I invited the shadow minister around yesterday to talk this matter through with him. He did not raise the issue of labelling—I will come to that in a minute—but he raised two particular issues: (1) why we were not undertaking an independent risk assessment analysis and (2) this question of equivalence. I got back to him this morning with a detailed response and I do urge the members sitting opposite to take this issue into account rationally when they consider their position going forward concerning what is going on in another place.

I will go to the traceability issue first. In essence, what the shadow minister has been saying is that we have a world-class national tracing system. I agree with that and I think it is one of the great backbones of our industry and why it is so well regarded. It is also true that other countries wish they had our system in place. The mechanisms that we are putting in place will, in fact, drive them in that direction. Why? Because we will require the equivalent traceability on animals or meat for which export to this country is being sought. So, will we require the tracing of animals to origin and birth? Yes. Will we require the ability to trace the animal forward to its destination? Yes.

See this speech in context