Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Prime Minister had to correct the Minister for Trade and Tourism on Sunday and deny that the US president had discussed the beef import ban with him. Was the beef ban discussed during the Prime Minister's meeting with US officials, including Scott Bessent and Jamieson Greer, that replaced the planned meeting with the President at the G7 in June? Sorry, Don.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd make a few points in response to Senator Scarr on that. The first is that I think that to characterise it as the Prime Minister 'correcting' doesn't reflect appropriately that Senator Farrell was very upfront about the mistake he made—and full credit to him. There are some in this place who try to not own up when they make a mistake, and I think he did. And it's an easy mistake to make. Obviously, there are a lot of conversations between—

You think it's funny, Senator Ruston?

Honourable senators interjecting—

There's a lot of graciousness on that side, isn't there! It's an easy mistake to make. There are always a lot of conversations. In relation to beef, the implication in all of the opposition's questions is that somehow this is related to a discussion with the United States. I want to make two points very clear. First, our biosecurity process is independent. It was commenced under, I think, Mr Joyce, when he was the minister, and went through a proper process not related to any negotiations.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr, a point of order?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On direct relevance—it was a very tightly worded question as to whether or not the beef ban was discussed.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Scarr. You made reference to Senator Farrell, you made reference to discussions with the US and you made reference to the Prime Minister, so I do think the minister is being relevant to your question. Minister Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The second point I'd make—through you, President—to Senator Scarr is that, of course, the US have raised this publicly. The President raised this in the press conference on 'Liberation Day', so it's not a secret that the US had a view about it. But the process was independent. The decision has taken over a decade. The first US application was in 2015. The most recent application was made in 2019, and it's been under review since then. The review was undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries—

Would you like to stand up and say something, Senator McDonald?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator McDonald, your constant interjections are disorderly and rude. I would ask you to desist, and, if you can't, please leave the chamber. Senator Scarr, first supplementary?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Journalist Andrew Clennell reported today that when asked about this meeting the Prime Minister's office told him, 'We do not comment on private discussions.' At a media conference in Canada after the meeting, the Prime Minister was asked if beef and the news bargaining code were discussed. The Prime Minister confirmed the news code was discussed, and talked at length about it, but did not mention beef. So is it the case, contrary to what the PM's office said, that the Prime Minister is happy to talk about some things that are discussed at such meetings but not others?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We engage appropriately with counterparts and officials from countries, including the United States. We provide appropriate diplomatic readouts of those conversations. They do not include everything and, Senator, they wouldn't have included everything under you.

But I again make this point. There is no secret that the President of the United States stated publicly his view on beef. We know that. But, as we said very clearly, the biosecurity process in Australia is independent, and it will not be compromised and it has not been. I would make this point in relation to beef producers. We have ensured, through access to other markets, that there are more opportunities available to beef producers. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr, second supplementary?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why won't the Prime Minister level with the Australian people about the discussions and dealings with the United States that led to Australia changing its biosecurity protocols to allow US beef raised in Mexico and Canada into Australia?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That assertion is completely false. It is completely false and it is irresponsible. I know that those opposite are desperate to try and play politics with trade policy. Of course they are. But the reality is this decision was made on an independent basis, because Australia's biosecurity is not up for negotiation—end of story. That is the truth. That is the end of the story, Senator Scarr.

But there is a more important point here, which is the point I made earlier. I think Australians do understand the challenges that are presented by a US administration that has a very different view about America's place in the world, by a US administration that has a very different view about its position on trade—one that is very different even from the first iteration of President Trump's presidency. Now, what they would want is responsible leaders to navigate those challenges. It would be much better if we could do that on a bipartisan basis. (Time expired)