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

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Canavan, which is also shown at item No. 14 on today's order of business:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The Albanese Government's decision to allow imports of beef from the US could have serious implications for Australia's biosecurity status and our $92 billion agriculture industry, public health and the environment.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is not a much more important topic for Australia's agricultural industry, and indeed for all Australians, than the biosecurity settings of our country. We are very lucky to have the cleanest, greenest, safest food supply system in the world. Not only is that important for Australians, who get to eat that beautiful food; it underpins the economic strength of our agricultural industry, because we do export something like 60 per cent of our farmed produce overseas. So it's absolutely integral that we maintain that safe system, those strong biosecurity settings, to keep the markets open in overseas countries.

So it has been a bit of a shock over the past week to hear the government announce that it would be changing those biosecurity settings. Some were concerned they are potentially weakening those biosecurity settings when it announced that it would allow US beef to have greater access into the market. The fundamental problem here is that the government hasn't been able to answer basic questions about on what basis this decision has been made and on exactly what terms US beef will be allowed in. I do and will recognise that, since 2019, we have allowed American beef into Australia. It has been permitted. I don't believe there has been much or any beef imported from America, but it has been done. It was approved under the former government under the strictest conditions. In particular, there had to be traceability on US beef to ensure that, in the box, though it may have had an American flag on it, there was no beef coming from Mexico or other parts of the Americas, where there are and may be diseases, like mad cow disease, which would be devastating if it ever came to these shores. The Americans generally struggle to provide that level of traceability. They don't have the same systems—the same supply chain assurance systems—that we have in this country. In this country, every calf is marked. It gets a little tag in its ear—it's called an NLIS tag—and it will make sure that, every time that cow or bull is moved through its life, it's recorded where it has come from and where it goes. Therefore, we can tell the final customer, wherever they may be, exactly where the beef in that box has been raised and has come from and assure them that there's no disease in those areas. That system does not apply to anything to that extent in the United States. It is not unusual it doesn't, because the US beef industry largely serves its own domestic market. It doesn't seek to have these supply chain assurance systems in place like we do to open up overseas markets.

The key thing here is it would seem like the government is not insisting that the same traceability requirements we have and impose on our beef sector should apply to the US beef sector. As I said, the details still remain somewhat murky about this. But I do have concerns if we are going to impose more stringent and strict requirements on our own beef sector than would be applied to a competitor in another country. I mean, surely, we should be able to tell the Australian people that we will seek to apply the same standards to our businesses as those that imported products have to comply with, in terms of safety requirements on others. Otherwise the American producers would have a natural economic advantage because of our policy settings, and that would be very inequitable to Australian beef producers.

This issue has not been helped, though, by the government's confused messaging here. There's obviously a very political element to this because it is wrapped up with demands from President Trump to open up our access to their beef and to do other things in our policy settings. So this change was always going to be viewed with a degree of cynicism, and the government has been left completely flat-footed and unprepared for basic questions. In fact, we saw the spectacle on the weekend of the trade minister saying one thing about a phone call in one hour and then the next hour saying something else completely different. So it's absolutely legitimate for the Australian agricultural sector to want answers to questions on this issue. That's why we have moved this motion today. That's why we're pursuing this through other means in the Senate.

The Australian farm industry deserves to know exactly on what basis this decision has been made. It deserves to know the protections that are in place for the industry. Even more importantly, Australia as a whole deserves to know that those protections are in place, because some of these diseases can affect human health as well. It is a very serious matter, and the government should take it much more seriously than they have.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the matter of public importance moved by Senator Canavan in relation to beef imports. I take on board everything that Senator Canavan shared with the Senate, and I'll probably touch on a couple of things as well as we go through. But I wish to make this abundantly clear—and I say this as someone who has been on the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for 20 years and chaired it for 18: the Albanese government, as with every previous government in history, has made a massive effort in the biosecurity area. We've got to get this right. No government is going to do anything that could undermine our biosecurity.

I note that Senator Canavan talked about what happened previously with biosecurity, but let's not forget that we were left with a biosecurity system in an unfunded mess during the last two terms of your government. Let's not forget that. The Liberals and the Nationals did absolutely nothing to make importers pay their fair share for over a decade. While I have no doubt that Senator Canavan's motion will stir up a fair bit of conversation, I'd like to inform and remind those listening, as Senator Canavan said, that we have imported beef from the United States and we've been doing it since 2019—and, yes, we have been doing it with those strict protocols. There is no absolutely no doubt about that. But the same departmental officials that assessed that way back then, when the coalition was in charge of it, are the same ones now. The US beef imports review has undergone a rigorous science and risk based assessment over the past decade. The decision by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was undertaken by the department's independent scientists in the same way as all other technical market access requests.

Australia is a trading nation, with one in four jobs relying on trade, and our cattle industry has significantly benefited from this. Aussie beef has had back-to-back record-breaking export years. Last year they were worth $14 billion. Supported by reinstated and improved market access, exports, including to our largest market in the US and the second-largest in China, have increased 55 per cent since we came to government. As the agriculture minister and other senior members of the government, including the Prime Minister, have continued to say, and as I said earlier, we will not compromise on biosecurity and our enviable biosecurity status is not up for negotiation. Any suggestions from those opposite to the contrary are incorrect—given the severely underfunded biosecurity system we inherited, as I said before.

The US was granted beef access in 2019 and requested expanded access in 2020, well before the current US administration. These conversations started five years ago. Australia has been engaging with them on this matter since then, including, as I'm well informed, by the previous coalition government, to progress the issue.

Under international rules, Australia responds to market access requests from our trading partners in line with our World Trade Organization obligations, just as our trading partners respond to Australia's market access requests. And, while the opposition are certainly stirring up a bit of a scare campaign around biosecurity risks to Australia, I say again—and I don't know how many times I have to say it: Australia does not trade off our strong biosecurity system, science based risk assessments, import policies or biosecurity requirements.

The US beef imports review has undergone a rigorous science and risk based assessment over the past decade. I am ably informed by the minister that we have also engaged with industry and have made sure that they are consulted all the way along. Officials have regularly and extensively engaged key industry stakeholders, such as Cattle Australia, the Australian Meat Industry Council and the Red Meat Advisory Council over many years. In fact, Mr Will Evans, CEO of Cattle Australia, told ABC Radio National recently that the department had undertaken a technical scientific assessment, and, he said, 'We have to put faith in them.' He also said: 'We are a global advocate for rules and science-based trading.' He also said, 'we have to recognise that the science has been used here to make this decision'. Mr Evans also said that the US was an important trading partner and Australia needed to maintain the relationship with them.

Engagement with the industry started in 2017, with an initial review for beef and beef products from Japan and the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United States and Vanuatu. (Time expired)

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with Senator Canavan on one thing, and that is: biosecurity is important. In fact, at the beginning of the last parliament we were in almost a groundhog day situation—as we are today, with the Nats putting up an inquiry into biosecurity. The Greens cooperated with the crossbench and with the government. We looked into foot-and-mouth disease. And then we had a very constructive inquiry into the red imported fire ant program and incursion, as well as into varroa mites. So this is something that the parliament does take very seriously and the Greens take very seriously.

On this particular issue: last week, when this broke, I did speak to the Labor Party and I spoke to the minister and suggested that we immediately organise a briefing for the rural and regional affairs committee, for any senator who would like to attend and have a private question and answer session with the department, and then see how we felt after that. And I understood that that issue is in train now.

Where Senator Canavan and I don't agree is this. I think there is a very important issue facing farmers that the National Party and the Liberal Party don't want to talk about, and that's climate change. There is no bigger threat to the farming community and to our agricultural communities than climate change. The risks from climate change are prolonged and more frequent. There are much more destructive droughts, as we are seeing. There are heat waves, floods, pestilence—I could go on. Our entire food system is at risk from climate change if we don't take climate action.

So, if you want to talk about the risks to farmers, then, yes, biosecurity is a risk, but take climate change seriously. This nonsense around trying to get rid of net zero—I mean, what could be more important to our farming community than all of us reducing our emissions and trying to keep global warming to 1½ to two degrees, when we know that, beyond that, we're going to be facing an increasingly dangerous situation with climate change?

So, while we're talking about biosecurity, on one hand it's a good distraction from Mr Barnaby Joyce's Nationals' push to get rid of net zero in this country, which I can just tell from the vote in the chamber is certainly supported by Senator Canavan and some in the Liberal Party. I mean, seriously? You talk about representing farmers? You talk about steers. You talk about bulls. Well, let's talk about the bullshit in this argument that the National Party have been executing for the last 15 years, since I've been in this place, undermining climate action—undermining what we need to do to face the great challenge of our time, and putting farming communities and agricultural communities at risk. That's what they're doing, and they need to be called out on it. And I'd like to see the farming and peak agricultural bodies come out and call out this bullshit as well, because I've had enough of it and a lot of other Australians have had enough of it.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, I know you're passionate about that. I've worked closely with you for many, many years. You really are fired up, but I ask that you retract that one word that was mentioned twice, please.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's one word that farmers love to use, but I retract it.

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

Firstly, I want to thank my colleague Senator Canavan for raising this important topic for debate. As we all know, maintaining strong biosecurity is absolutely critical for protecting our Australian farmers and the agricultural sector. Biosecurity cannot be taken too seriously.

Some of us here would remember the first few weeks of the Labor government in the last term of parliament and the major concerns with the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak that we had to manage quickly. The Australian beef industry also had to respond quickly, because it's not us here in this place who suffer; indeed, it's the cattle stations and farmers across Australia that suffer when outbreaks occur.

Yet, with this latest decision, the Australian beef industry was blindsided by its own government's announcement last week. There was no consultation, but of course that's a common theme with this government, as we saw in the last term, and unfortunately we're already seeing it happen here and we're only a week into a new term. In fact, the government themselves cannot even get their story right with this deal. It's been well reported that the Minister for Trade and Tourism publicly stated that this issue had been directly raised with the US president in a phone call to our prime minister. If only there were a phone call that had occurred between the Prime Minister of this country and the President of the United States, but it wasn't true, and an hour later he had to retract it. This creates only confusion and requires us to ask the important questions to ensure the PM isn't throwing the beef industry overboard in order to finally secure that phone call or a meeting with the President.

Let me be clear: the United States is one of our most important allies, if not the most important ally. They are our strategic partner in AUKUS, a vital trade partner and a friend in an increasingly uncertain world. But, even in a strong partnership, we must stand up for our national interests. We must protect our beef industry, our world-class biosecurity standards and, indeed, the livelihood of our precious farmers. Being a reliable ally doesn't mean being a pushover in the hopes of a handshake in Washington.

Once again, Labor is making decisions that will hurt Australian agriculture, exactly like the reckless live sheep export ban, which is impacting farmers in my home state of Western Australia. They're abandoning hardworking farmers and regional communities without a credible plan for the future. Labor's contradictions are mixed messages and they risk undermining not just our beef industry but also our credibility with international partners. We cannot afford to look this disorganised on the world stage, especially when our own farmers are asking why we'd import something they never asked for.

I think that on these debates we should always listen to those who are on the very front line. Australian Black Angus beef producer Robert McKenzie said, on ABC Radio National:

All it is is just playing in the hand of the US and bending over and giving up and not looking after our biosecurity.

…   …   …

Our appetite for US beef isn't there. We exported last year 1.3 million tonne of beef back to the US. So why would we want to import US beef that potentially is still, well, we don't know whether it's going to be US beef, we don't know whether it's going to be Canadian beef, we don't know whether it's going to be Mexican beef. Why would we take that risk, bring it into Australia when clearly we don't want it?

These concerns are the concerns of Australian farmers. We need to listen to them and understand exactly why this is happening.

This is why we're pushing for a review into this decision. It may be sound, but let's get to the bottom of it. The government must give the Australian beef industry and our farmers the confidence that there is a plan in place to manage any emerging biosecurity risk with this new deal. We simply cannot rely on US biosecurity measures. We must be proactive and protect our industry and our farmers as a priority. The greatest risk is rushing this deal and not ensuring that we have the appropriate biosecurity protections in place. So we're calling for an independent review into this decision to ensure that we're getting it right for the Australian beef farmers. It's not a big ask. Irrespective of country of origin, it will end up being the Australian consumer who will dictate what they purchase: Australian beef or beef from the United States. Well, we all know that it's important to get this right. A simple inquiry into this would absolutely be a sensible and essential thing to do.

Tyron Whitten (WA, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not my first speech. In response to the lack of response from the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—I got nothing, zero, the inside of a doughnut—I asked why the government is targeting the beef and sheep industries. No response. I asked which agricultural industry would be targeted next. Nothing. I asked: will imported beef from somewhere be labelled correctly? Still nothing. So, when a farmer asks me about this, my response will have to be, 'No-one knows.' What a sad state of affairs.

It is of the utmost importance to understand the reason that the ban on the import of beef from the USA was put in place: because they cannot trace back to the farm any beef originating in Canada, which has mad cow disease, or Mexico, which has foot-and-mouth disease. The ban is absolutely essential for our biosecurity. Here's what we do know: foot-and-mouth disease could be an $80 billion hit to our agricultural industry. BSE, or mad cow disease, could harm Australians. Here's the quiet part out loud: it seems the Prime Minister is happy to sacrifice Australia's biosecurity to get a meeting with the President of the United States.

Corinne Mulholland (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance moved by Senator Canavan. As a senator for Queensland, I am proud to speak about our mighty beef industry. My home state of Queensland has the largest beef sector of any state by some distance, accounting for about half of the national cattle herd. Biosecurity matters to all of us. The whole world knows just how good Australian beef is. The beef sector supports businesses and good jobs right across our region and throughout the entire supply chain—like JBS, located near Rockhampton, which Senator Chisholm and I recently visited. That's why it is so important that the government makes decisions on this sector based on facts.

Allow me to share some of those facts with the chamber this evening. Fact No. 1: beef from the United States has been able to be imported into Australia since 2019, when the coalition was last in government and, might I add, when the mover of this MPI was a cabinet minister. Fact No. 2: the US beef imports review has undergone a rigorous, decade-long, science and risk based assessment, including when those opposite were in government—'when those opposite were in government'; let that sink in a bit. Fact No. 3: the decision by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was taken by the department's independent scientists, in the same way that all other market requests are made. There's nothing new here. Fact No. 4: the coalition left Australia's biosecurity system in an unfunded mess when they were last in government. Under this government, Aussie beef has had back-to-back record-breaking export years. Last year, our beef exports were worth $14 billion. Supported by reinstated and improved market access, exports have increased by 55 per cent since we came to government, backed in by our work to reinstate and reimprove market access, including in the US and China. As the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Prime Minister have both said, we will never ever compromise on biosecurity.

Those are the facts. But does anyone think those opposite have bothered to learn them? Well, the shadow minister for trade, investment and tourism was asked on the ABC's Afternoon Briefing whether he had read the department's report on the US beef review. Patricia Karvelas asked the shadow minister:

They've published their report. Have you read it?

And the shadow minister said:

There was a draft report, yes. There was a draft report that they released a little while ago.

Patricia Karvelas said:

Today we have access to that—

referring to the final report—

I've looked through it. Have you?

To which the shadow minister responded:

I haven't read it; no.

The coalition have been calling for a review into a report that they have not even bothered to read. Let that one sink in for a bit.

Perhaps they would listen to some prominent voices in the beef sector, which this government has been engaged with throughout this process. Take the voice of Will Evans, the Chief Executive Officer of Cattle Australia. He said, 'The reality is that science has been used to make a technical assessment and that's where we are today.' Or take the voice of Michael Crowley, the Managing Director at Meat and Livestock Australia, who said:

Australia maintains one of the strictest biosecurity regimes in the world to protect our livestock industries, environment, and food safety

…   …   …

The finalised federal government health certification and import permit conditions reflect stringent safeguards to prevent the introduction of exotic diseases and uphold the integrity of Australia's biosecurity system.

This really says it all about those opposite. They are all about the politics and not about the facts. This government will continue to listen to the science, invest in biosecurity and back our Aussie farmers.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm disappointed that the tone of the debate on this important matter of public importance has descended to political talking points provided by the minister's office that really don't reflect the reality of what has happened in the last week. We all, of course, agree that biosecurity is very important. We agree that the beef industry is very important. But what we obviously can't agree on is the importance of transparency.

I was absolutely shocked last week to see that a long-held decision to protect Australia's beef industry—and our biosecurity measures in that regard—was being upended. It is true that the US have been able to send meat to Australian shores and to the Australian market since 2019, based on their having changed their practices to provide traceability of their animals from birth through grazing and processing through to Australia. This is an important point. This is the point that Australian farmers, Australian livestock agents, Australian feedlots and, finally, Australian processors have to comply with.

What has changed is that we are now looking at a break in that transparency of traceability for stock. It could be coming from Canada, it could be coming from Mexico, or it could be coming from a further-south American country. Until we have satisfaction that that supply chain is clear and transparent, we owe it to the Australian beef industry to be able to demonstrate that. Last week, the beef industry were told on Wednesday afternoon that they would receive a briefing. On Thursday morning, they received the review report—at the same time as the statement went out. The initial statement from the department said that applicants could still apply for an import permit, which was not what the government then said—that the borders were open and that we could import beef that had come through the US processing system. It is extraordinary; what the department is saying and what the government is saying are two quite different things.

All that we're asking is that we should respect the people who will be most impacted by this decision. One group is the Australian beef producers—the graziers across Australia. But what about the beef processors? Beef processing is the largest employer in regional Australia. It's the last great manufacturing industry that we have in agriculture. Those men and women work right across the country. They deserve an answer to this question, and, of course, Australian consumers deserve an answer.

At the same time that this announcement was made, there was an outbreak of flesh-eating disease in Mexico. I'm just asking that we have an ability to stop, to pause, to not trade off our industry's agreements in trying to get a meeting with the American President, and to just say, 'Are we all truly satisfied?' I'm asking that we maintain the same sorts of protections that the Australian sector has to maintain. Are we going to truly protect our borders?

We heard a lot of rhetoric from the Labor members about what they were left with and what's happened. Well, in the three years that they have been the government, we have seen no pull-up on the movement of fire ants and we have seen the further expansion of varroa mites, which will mean the very real risk of lack of pollination for crops, as well as native flora, this year. These are very serious issues. I don't have confidence that, once we have disease in this country, we have the capacity to stop it. In the 1970s, I lived through the great shooting of stock to manage tuberculosis and brucellosis in the far north of this country. But we no longer have the frontline resources of the lands department and those people on the ground. So I think that this deserves transparency and I think this is an important matter.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for discussion has now expired.