Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of all answers to coalition questions asked today.

I want to focus on the questions related to the lifting of the biosecurity restrictions. There are two key points that I want to address in taking note of the answers given to those questions. The first one relates to the answer that Senator Farrell gave in relation to having to correct the record, and the second relates to the significant industry matters that are occurring right now for farmers right across this country. We know farmers are distressed and very concerned about this government's handling of all things agricultural, and certainly when it comes to the live export and key industries like sheep and beef—as I know, in Western Australia.

Initially, regarding what we've seen with Senator Farrell's answer to the question about the contradicting information that was provided to the Prime Minister, maybe Senator Farrell wishes, like we all do, that the Prime Minister was able to have a conversation with the President of the United States. In giving the answer that he gave earlier in an interview, he was hoping, like all of us, that the Prime Minister would have direct conversations with the President of the United States, but we know that's not happening. We wish the government well in that regard because it is important to Australia's position to be able to have that direct dialogue with the United States—our most important international partner, a relationship that we must foster and develop. But it is concerning when there is this conflicting information at very senior levels of government. It's not just a backbencher getting something wrong here—this is the trade minister misrepresenting the information and misrepresenting the reality of what was actually occurring. It's good that he has corrected the record but, nonetheless, it is concerning that those sorts of facts aren't front of mind. We know that there haven't been conversations directly between the Prime Minister and the United States.

This issue of lifting the biosecurity restrictions is very concerning because the quality of our beef is held in internationally high regard, and we've got to make sure that is maintained. We are the envy of the world when it comes to our biosecurity of our beef here in this country. We are able to export it across the world because of those very high standards, and to see those standards undermined by any sort of watering down is incredibly concerning. This is why we should have an inquiry into this. We should understand fully all the information that was provided and that was used to make a determination as to whether or not this is a sensible thing to do. I would urge the government to consider getting behind the coalition's request for an inquiry into this matter, because we need to ensure integrity. We need to ensure that our system holds integrity. Without the government going along with that and opening themselves up and being fully transparent then we can't be sure. Who is to say that we don't undermine our standards and see a situation where this enviable position that we currently have across the world is undermined. We have already seen the impact and the cost that would have in my home state of Western Australia, with the absolute breaking of the hearts of farmers across the state in relation to the live export ban on sheep. We've seen their hearts broken, and I know you know very well, Deputy President Brockman, as a fellow Western Australian senator, the impact that that is happening. Well, if we see an undermining of the beef industry in Western Australia—and, indeed, right across the country—that would be devastating. We know that this government doesn't have a good track record. We know that the previous time they were in government, under prime ministers Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd, they had a devastating impact on beef with their illegal implementation of those— (Time expired)

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's good to be back here in this chamber for a new term, but, unfortunately, being back here also means that we need to deal with and debate some of the issues that do come up from time to time, and it's a bit brave for the coalition to come back into this place after the election period and lecture the government on biosecurity, given that it was this government, when we first came into power back in 2022, that had to fix our biosecurity system, which was not just broken but also underfunded. The government has worked backwards in order to make sure that we continue to have one of the world's best biosecurity systems, if not the world's best. It is envied and is really considered to be the benchmark for biosecurity when it comes to trading nations.

Like many in this place, I too am very passionate about Australian agriculture and our meat industry. I'm very proud to be co-chair, with Senator McDonald, of the Parliamentary Friends of Red Meat group, which is about promoting our quality beef.

It is worth mentioning some of the facts that are before us when we are dealing with this issue, at the moment, regarding the United States and the government's decision to deal with the US around the importation of US beef. I just want to lay out before us a couple of facts, just to be absolutely clear about what we are dealing with.

When the Liberals and Nationals were in government, they did absolutely nothing to change the rules around importation—absolutely nothing. Beef from the United States has been able to be imported into this country since 2019, when those opposite were in government.

The US beef imports review has been ongoing for some time now—as the minister explained, I think close to a decade—and it has undergone a very rigorous science and risk based assessment for almost 10 years. The decision by the Australian federal department of agriculture has been undertaken in the same way that we deal with any other matter that relates to market access here in Australia.

It's important to understand that Australia is an island nation. One in four jobs are reliant on trade. And our cattle industry has significantly benefited from this. Aussie beef has had back-to-back record-breaking exports, every single year, and it's worth around $14 billion.

On the back of all that, it's worth noting that the reason we're in this situation today is because of the free trade deal that we have with our great friends over in the US—the Australia-US free trade arrangement—that was signed by the former Howard government. Mark Vaile, a member of the National Party, when he was minister, went to the US and signed this agreement back in 2004. So this is not a new set of circumstances that we are dealing with.

It's fair to say that those in the government—and, I'm assuming, most on the other side, particularly in the Liberal Party—are very open to free trade. But when the National Party come in here and talk about these issues in the very first fortnight of a new sitting, you do have to question what is going on internally, in their party, rather than externally, because the only way that I can see what is happening right now is that the government has done everything that we should be doing. If those on the other side were in power, they would have done absolutely the same process; they would have adopted the very same risk-assessment processes that are in place, that we are going through right now. So there is nothing new about what the government has concluded with its review.

It's also worth noting that a number of key bodies in the industry—like Meat & Livestock Australia, and others, like Cattle Australia—have also been very supportive about this process, acknowledging that Australians, to be frank, are still more likely to buy Australian beef, because we have such a strong supply of quality produce here in Australia that whatever may be imported from the US may actually not be able to penetrate such a very strong market. So the concerns that are being articulated and vented by members of the National Party, quite frankly, will not fly very far. That is why the government is backing the scientists and the department when it comes to the review that is being conducted by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and all the officials that have been working on this process for the last 10 years. (Time expired)

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of all answers to coalition questions during question time. I had to pause for a moment when I was listening to the questions from Senator Bragg in relation to the HAFF and the CFMEU. We are in a housing crisis in this country. We have been for a number of years. One of the most significant inquiries that I sat on in my committee work for the Senate was the housing and rental crisis inquiry, where I heard the stories of people unable to afford somewhere to live or to have a roof over their heads. That's the Australian dream—to own your own home—and I don't think it is an unreasonable dream, either. I think it's fair to suggest that, if you work hard, you do all the right things and you choose to buy your own home, you should be able to do that.

What really bothered me was the fact that the CFMEU announced the other day that they're going to be expanding into New South Wales. I was sitting here wondering, 'Is there any other organisation or entity in this country that has actually expanded whilst it's in administration?' I couldn't think of anybody. I could be wrong. I thought it was extraordinary that, just before the end of the last term, the CFMEU went into administration because of all the things that were wrong and their significantly egregious behaviour, particularly in Victoria—and we heard some stories recently in Queensland. They went into administration, but guess what? They said, 'We'll expand into New South Wales now so that we can broaden the damage, we can harm more people and we can ensure that the reasons we were put into administration in Victoria can be spread further around the country.'

The madness of what I'm saying and what I'm suggesting is that it's real. This has actually happened. What did the New South Wales CFMEU boss Michael Crosby say? He said:

… we are looking at large multiple complex residential construction—

and that it may 'push up costs'. So they are coming into large-scale residential construction in NSW with the knowledge that it may increase the costs—not 'may' but will likely increase the costs—of those dwellings when we have a housing crisis. When people already can't afford the cost of dwellings, they're going to make them even more expensive.

We know from the information that my colleague Senator Bragg has shared with us many times that those costs are around 30 per cent more. Let's have a think about that. Paying $800,000 for a unit in Sydney is probably entry level in many places. Add 30 per cent to that. That's an extra $240,000. That takes that unit's cost from $800,000 to $1,040,000. Let's go one step up: a $900,000 unit. An extra $270,000 takes the cost to about $1.170 million, just under $1.2 million. That's the cost of having the CFMEU participate in what they call 'large, multiple-complex residential construction', and we're going to sit here and say that that is okay. I don't understand.

This threatens to kill off homeownership for millennials completely. If young people weren't already so disheartened by the fact that they may never own their homes, this is a further nail in the coffin of that dream. That is under the watch of the Albanese Labor government, because they cannot hold the CFMEU to account. The government cannot stop the CFMEU from spreading their damage across our country. We should not stand by and allow that.

When the union was placed in administration in August last year, the Prime Minister said:

… there's no place for corruption or intimidation in the building industry.

Yet it is there plainly for all of us to see. Yet it continues. It continues with the further infiltration of the CFMEU into New South Wales despite the damage that they have caused in Victoria and Queensland. This Labor government has no interest in probity. It has no interest in transparency, and it has no interest in stopping the CFMEU. (Time expired)

Josh Dolega (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

May I note that this is not my first speech. I hear those opposite talk about the CFMEU, but let's be really clear: this is just another attack on working people. It's an attack on working people, their conditions, their wages and their wellbeing. Union members built this country. There's no doubt about it. Union members are not embroiled in corruption, like some of the things we've seen in the media. I think Senator Wong addressed it really well, in saying that we couldn't have taken any stronger action to place the CFMEU into administration and that corruption has no place in unions or workplaces. But most union members are workers in a workplace. They are decent, good people, and this is just another attack on union members.

Building homes and helping Australians get into homes is one of this government's absolute highest priorities. Those opposite, and Senator Bragg, have no credibility on housing, having cut housing investment while they were in government and having opposed every housing investment made by Labor. Those opposite delayed houses being built by up to two years, which is an absolute disgrace. The only answer that the coalition has to the housing shortage is to cut wages and have workers working for cents in the dollar, which is not the Australian way. The fact is that wages have not been driving up the cost of housing; wages have been growing more slowly than other costs in construction. For 10 years the LNP complained about the CFMEU but did nothing to clean it up. It's been this government that put the CFMEU into administration and has been supporting the union to clean itself up and to be able to represent its members.

More broadly, when it comes to unions, let's not forget that unions have created some of the safest workplaces in Australia. Trade unions are there to support their members and other workers in their workplaces, which is something that's often forgotten or that some people might even take for granted. Health and safety is absolutely paramount in workplaces, and it's core union business. I, and this side of the chamber, stand with working people to have safer workplaces. We won't stand for attacks on that.

When it comes to housing, might I add that this government has an ambitious housing agenda. We took plans to the last election to have further shared equity schemes and five per cent deposits for first home buyers, which is a game changer. We talk about the great Australian dream. Well, the great Australian dream is to own your own house, but it's also to go to work to earn a fair wage for a fair day's work. It's to participate in collective organising when you want to. We want workers to have their fair share of power in their workplaces, and their trade unions will help them do that. So it's really hard to sit over here and hear those opposite attack working people and union members. It's something that we don't stand for. First home buyers have been struggling to get into the market. There's no secret about that. We absolutely want to see more people get into more homes. We want to see the supply shortage filled, and we want to see more homes built as quickly as possible. Labor's policies support homes to be built.

I might talk quickly about beef imports. I come from a family that has a small farm. My brother is a beef cattle farmer. Australian beef is the best beef in the world. I absolutely love a good steak—a good Australian steak and a good Tasmanian steak. As Senator Ciccone said before, when we came into government we took steps to repair the Public Service after a decade of cuts and degradation, and our biosecurity laws will not be compromised.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of answers, specifically the answers given to questions asked by Senators Cash and McDonald around the decision by the Labor government to allow US beef exports into Australia when those beef exports have been raised in, and imported into the US from, Canada and Mexico. To be honest, I don't really give two hoots what the Minister for Trade and Tourism said and whether he was misquoting the Prime Minister or whether the Prime Minister made a mistake and did have a conversation with Donald Trump. Let's face it: we know that it's been 266 days now since President Trump was elected, and the Prime Minister has yet to have a meeting with the President, our most important strategic partner. The Prime Minister hasn't even managed to get a meeting with him. So let's put aside who said what and when. I'm actually more concerned about the decision itself.

This is not a small deal. We can take the word of the trade minister and the Prime Minister that the decision to allow US beef into Australia, even if it was born and bred in Canada and/or Mexico, has nothing to do with the trade sanctions that have been placed on Australia by the US, nothing to do with Trump's tariffs. We can take everybody's word for it. If that is the case and if we take everybody's word for it, that's fine, but why not just have an independent review of the decision, because it's not a small deal? Everybody around the chamber has spoken about the quality of Australian beef and why it is so important. Everybody around the chamber has spoken about what an important export it is for Australia, and that is at risk when biosecurity laws change. It wasn't that long ago that the Prime Minister was up there, saying, in response to President Trump's tariffs, that we would have no changes to our biosecurity laws, and then, all of a sudden, we do. Yes, it may be a result of a 10-year review—that's fine, but let's just have an independent review of the decision so that we can rest assured and sleep easy at night knowing that there is no risk to our beef industry.

If, though, this was a decision that was prompted by the trade tariffs that were put on Australia's goods and services, then just be straight with us, because that's not the worst thing in the world either. We just want to know what the motive is. These trade sanctions, these tariffs, have massive implications for so many of our exporters. We just want to know, just want to be clear, if that was the motive. If it was the motive, I don't mind, as I said, but what did you get in return? Did you actually get a commitment from the US to lift the tariffs, and, if you didn't, why are we changing the biosecurity laws?

I heard Senator Ciccone say, 'It's because we've got a free trade agreement with the US.' Absolutely, we do, and we are good global citizens, and we abide by our free trade agreements, but the US hasn't abided by its part of the bargain on the free trade agreement, has it? So what is it that we have we given up here and for what? And what is it that we will give up next? If we haven't secured an exemption from those tariffs, what is it that we need to do next? Do we need to make changes to the PBS? Are we going to make changes to our news bargaining code and have our tummies tickled by the tech sector? Is this what the Labor government is prepared to give up to get an exemption from those tariffs? We know that there's a 50 per cent tariff on steel and aluminium, we know that there's a 10 per cent baseline tariff on all goods and services, we know that pharmaceuticals are next in the firing line, and we know that copper exporters are also facing sanctions. So, if this is the first step, that's okay, but just be straight about it.

Let's be clear: there are no second chances with Australia's biosecurity. If we have created a brand-new threat, we should be very clear about that. If, as we are told, our biosecurity is not under threat, if there is a 99.9 per cent chance that we're all okay, that still translates to a one in 1,000 chance that we're not okay. And that's something that has to be acknowledged. So, if you're going to sell us upstream with this decision, Labor, that is absolutely fine, but let's be clear about it. Let's have an independent review. That's not too much to ask. That's not too much to ask, because, even if this decision is made with a pure heart, the timing smells off. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.