David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Can the minister confirm that the Inspector General of Biosecurity's recommendations that import risk assessments should include the oversight of a scientific advisory panel were implemented in the decision to overturn US beef import bans? If not, why not?

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the Nationals for that question. As the member opposite knows, this was a risk-based assessment done by the department on scientific evidence, and the department officials have gone through the process. The report was popped up on the website last week, and, as the member would know, Australia benefits from a two-way trade system. Australian beef going to the US is very significant indeed, and what I would say to the member opposite is that he should not be undermining Australia's biosecurity system—

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are. What are you running from?

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's decision—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister's going to pause. The member was given a lot of courtesy in asking his question. I think it's only reasonable that, when the minister is providing details to the House about the question she was asked—it is not acceptable to be throwing loud interjections a metre from where the minister is standing. Cool it down. We're going to listen to the minister.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have not compromised on biosecurity at all in any way, shape or form, and the member opposite would know, of course, we've had to put around $2 billion additional into biosecurity since we came to office because of the way they left our biosecurity system.

The other thing I would say to the member opposite is he would be aware that this decision has been coming for some time. He would know all about the process that I have spoken about. He would know about the industry engagement that has occurred throughout this process. The other things that he would know are that the US and Australia traceability systems are equivalent and that the decision has been taken, based on science, around the US system and the Australian traceability system, and all food imported into Australia must be safe and compliant with our food standards. This has been done on a scientific basis, and the member opposite would know that the department's security assessment is done in the usual manner as it is done for every other import into this country.