Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table the explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This Bill is introduced to arrest the Coalition Government's Halal Inaction Clock.

The Australian Conservative Party maintains the clock on its website and on l December it will tick over to 3 whole years of inaction on the Senate Economic References Committee's 2015 inquiry into Third Party Certification of Food ("the 2015 inquiry").

This Bill remedies the Parliament's inaction by taking reasonable and proportionate measures to address the concerns expressed by the 2015 inquiry about the halal certification industry.

The submissions to the 2015 inquiry and its findings demonstrated the widespread fraud and misrepresentation to consumers within the halal certification industry.

The fraud in this sector is not a new phenomenon. In September 1982 a federal Royal Commission report into the infamous meat substitution scandal also found there had been fraud within the meat export industry regarding halal certification. As a result, the Australian Government took a role in certifying red meat as halal for export purposes. The Royal Commission report included Appendix H which remained withheld from publication for 30 years, due to the recommendation that the cases in Appendix H be investigated for prosecution.

Case 17 from Victoria related to Halal Slaughter and Certification. Therein, Woodward Jstated:

"I have referred in the body of my report to various types of malpractice associated with halal slaughter and certification: forging of AFIC certificates, obtaining of AFIC certificates by falsely representing to AFIC that animals had been slaughtered according to Islamic rights when they had not, corruption of Muslim slaughtermen and forging of consular seals and signatures … One large meatworks operator obtained halal certificates from AFIC for millions of dollars worth of meat by presenting interim certificates signed by a registered slaughterman who in fact had not slaughtered the animals which we the subject of those interim certificates. The size of the operation can be gauged from the fact that, when found out, some $2m worth of meat certified in this way was still held in cold-storage. The operator had paid a registered AFIC slaughterman to provide false certificates at a rate of 20c per carton certified. It had paid him more than $38,000 in the space of just over ten months. The slaughterman presented his false certificates to the state Islamic Council office which issued final certificates without question. The matter came to light only by chance when an employee at the state Islamic Council tried to ring the man at work only to be told he did not work there."

It must be observed that in 1980, $38,000 was a significant figure - close to $150,000 in today's money. Another unnamed export company sent chilled meat to the Middle East and forged the signature of a diplomat from another Arabic nation to speed up its operation.

The 2015 inquiry made a number of findings, and Recommendation 6 is most relevant to the Bill I am tabling today:

Recommendation 6

The committee recommends that the halal certification industry consider establishing a single halal certification authority and a single national registered certified trademark.

This, along with all of the other recommendations, was handballed across to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and, in turn, a subgroup of consumer affairs ministers. Theoretically, a State Government or one of their ministers would lead 'action' on the issue, but the topic has vanished from COAG communiques.

After three years of inaction, it is clearly time for the Parliament to act.

In fact, over 15,000 Australians agree. I tabled their signatures to a petition in the Senate in August, demanding action on the 2015 inquiry's recommendations.

This Bill adopts what the industry has determined not to do itself, and that is to establish a single, transitional halal certification authority.

This Bill targets halal alone because that is what Recommendation 6 directed.

The Committee did not see fit to recommend action in other fields of food certification as it was not satisfied there was an evidentiary basis to do so.

I have not ventured into the certified trademark element of the 2015 inquiry' s recommendations, though I have looked into the matter. I intend for colleagues to focus on this central reform. A certified trademark is something an Authority created by this Bill could lead action on.

By creating a transitional certification authority, the Government will be acting in an instance of market failure. By having a transitional body - subject to a sunset provision in the Bill - the industry can pick up and run the body when it concludes, or establish its own alternate body instead.

In establishing an authority to address matters not presently being addressed by any level of government adequately, with the powers necessary to be effective, the Bill runs to dozens of pages. There are no nasty surprises in the provisions. The provisions ought to be familiar to honourable Senators who have reviewed Bills such as the Export Control Bill 2017 or the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018. Objections to these operative provisions are in effect objections to provisions in those regimes that have already passed the Senate as Government Bills.

The simple proposition of this Bill is about the long overdue need to act due to:

As a conservative, and in particular a fiscal conservative, I feel it is prudent to take two steps.

Firstly, the Bill contains a sunset provision for the transitional authority - governments should only step into the private sector for so long as market failure persists, and be preparing from day one for the day when it can step away again.

Secondly, this regime must function on a full cost recovery basis. There should be no cost to general revenue, or direct charge on the taxpayer, for this regime. Those relying on the certification arrangements in the industry ought to contribute to the cost of its operations. Whether they absorb that cost or pass it on to their consumers is entirely a matter for them - and for consumers to respond to accordingly.

The Bill has a positive impact for all concerned.

For the halal certification industry, it provides a pathway to certainty and improvement of the public standing of its image. It gives the industry a timeline for improvement and eventual self-regulation. It gives license to ethical and genuine operators in the industry to weed out those acting improperly in their midst, aided by an independent arbiter free from whatever historical or cultural impediments that for decades have stood in the way of effective self­regulation.

For consumers, it provides confidence that certification is occurring in an environment free of fraud, misrepresentation and corruption. It provides confidence for consumers that money raised from halal certification is being properly applied for certification purposes and not diverted for unrelated purposes.

For the Government and the Parliament, it resolves a problem for which they have not, thus far, been able to propose a solution, notwithstanding the 2015 inquiry recommendation I have built this Bill upon today.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.