Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask: what is a reputation worth? It meant everything to Australian actress and comedian Rebel Wilson who successfully sued Bauer Media for defamation on a series of gossip magazine articles she claimed painted her as a serial liar.

Brand reputation was worth a staggering $8.5 billion for the instant messaging app Skype which was purchased by Microsoft in 2011.

Like 'Google', 'Skype' has become a verb in the modern vernacular and when you are battling for the hearts and minds and money of consumers in the information saturated world, name recognition is priceless.

Today I rise to speak to protect the reputation of an industry that is central to Australia's economy and the Australian way of life. Today I am speaking about the Australian beef industry.

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Safeguarding the Reputation of Australian Beef) Bill seeks to safeguard one of the country's oldest and most profitable export industries from losing its good name through no fault of its own.

This bill, if passed, would make it illegal for an Australian company or an individual in Australia to market beef as an 'Australian' product if the meat they are selling has not been processed under Australian standards and regulations and, importantly, in Australia.

We have high food standards in Australia, and they cost money, big money, and they are the reason that we have a quality range of standards.

That quality—that well-earned reputation—is worth a premium in export markets.

That premium helps pay for animal welfare regulations, for the ethical transporting, handling and processing of Australian beef.

It helps to pay for strict food hygiene processes and modern equipment at our abattoirs.

And it helps to pay the award wages and ensure Australian working conditions, good conditions, for the 35,000 full-time equivalent jobs provided by the meat processing industry in Australia.

So we at NXT believe it is manifestly unfair that a company could bypass all that regulation and scrutiny by processing Australian cattle overseas—but still profit from the reputation of Australian beef by marketing their product as Australian beef.

We would go so far as to say it is 'un-Australian' to take a free ride on the hard work of others.

So we at NXT want to keep those 35,000 jobs in Australia, and the 100,000 indirect jobs associated with meat processing through sectors such as transport and storage.

We believe that this bill will close a loophole and ensure a level playing field for the beef industry, and the red meat industry as a whole.

We understand from our discussion with industry bodies that beef products derived from live cattle export are not permitted to market themselves as 'Australian beef' products.

We also understand that it can be hard to police, particularly in the markets of less developed countries, and it can be difficult to seek enforcement of market breaches from other sovereign nations.

That is why we need to have these safeguards in place within Australia.

Penalties in this bill include a maximum fine of $1.1 million for Australian companies and corporate bodies and $220,000 for individuals.

These are substantive enough to deter those determined to get around the rules. If the threat of a court conviction and the public attention would not be enough, I think the dollars certainly are.

Last year the red meat and livestock industry (including domestic and live export markets) was worth $22.9 billion to this nation.

The red meat industry, which includes sheep, lamb and goats as well as beef, directly employs around 200,000 people, including on-farm production, processing and retail.

Last year Australia processed 7.9 million head of cattle and exported $7.15 billion worth of beef.

Fewer than 23 million lambs, seven million sheep and about two million goats were processed.

Australia is the largest exporter of sheep meat in the world with the total value of lamb exports in the 2015-16 year estimated at $1.7 billion, with mutton being worth $700 million.

There are about 200 licensed abattoirs in Australia, including 78 export-accredited plants processing red meat.

They are jobs in regional Australia, and we need to safeguard those jobs.

The red meat processing industry is a huge contributor to Australia's bottom line and a major employer.

As I said, we cannot afford to put this Australian-based industry in jeopardy by taking away their competitive advantage and their reputation for quality.

In 2015-16 alone, Meat & Livestock Australia spent $24.3 million on its activities including developing market access, marketing meat products, meat safety and traceability programs, training, research and development. That is a significant investment.

That money was raised mainly through producer and processor levies with some matched funding from government for research.

This is an industry walking the walk in ensuring its longevity.

We need to safeguard that investment by ensuring other enterprises do not ruin Australia's reputation by selling meat that is substandard or processed in an environment where we, as Australians, cannot determine its standards and yet labelling it as an Australian product.

You only have to look at the food contamination scandals we have seen in the United Kingdom with mad cow disease or the E.coli outbreaks in the Jack in the Box burgers in the US—we have seen it even with berries and hepatitis scares—to realise how easily an industry can take a blow to its reputation.

When overseas buyers pay a premium for an Australian steak, they know they are purchasing a meat cut that will not only taste delicious but has been ethically and hygienically prepared.

Australian processors manage that reputation through strict regulations.

The Australian based industry should not be made to take on responsibility for the risks associated with plants outside of its borders, control and management.

We have no jurisdiction over regulating overseas enterprises.

But we can close the gate before the cattle have bolted.

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Safeguarding the Reputation of Australian Beef) Bill seeks to shield the Australian beef industry from losing its good name through no fault its own.

We need to ensure a level playing field and prevent the unnecessary export of Australian jobs.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. In my home town of Charters Towers, we had the biggest meatworks in Australia. Through the financial collapse of the company and a couple of other issues, we now do not have a meatworks in Charters Towers. But, being the centre of a huge cattle-growing area, we have had meetings with almost all Chinese interests. I was very surprised that, in each case when I said, 'Maybe we should have a quartering works and you do the final processing out'—which is the major labour content—'in China,' in an effort to encourage them to come in, because the amount of capital required is nowhere near as great if we go to quartering, every one of the groups from China said they wanted everything done in Australia. The people who were introducing them to us got us aside afterwards and said, 'If it wears an Australian stamp, they believe it has been hygienically processed. If it doesn't bear an Australian stamp, they assume it has been processed in China, and it may not have been hygienically approved.' The terrible case that happened in China with their baby milk, which was processed in China, led them to buy out the dairy farms in Tasmania and endeavour to get around the problem that way.

I make these points to indicate to the parliament that we have a very good reputation for hygiene in Australia. If you buy something that is processed in Australia, you can count on it meeting the highest of hygiene standards in the world. If the member's legislation does not go through, our reputation will be placed grave jeopardy because I cannot see anything that would stop the initiatives coming out of what is now the Chinese-controlled S. Kidman & Co Ltd. That company has said that they will control all of the chain into China, so I would assume that they would be doing their processing in China, in the way that it was put. (Time expired)

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.