• Home
• Media releases
• Transcripts
• Speeches
• Statements
• Current Minister
• Department

SIMON CREAN I thank the shadow minister opposite for the way in which he is constructively - without emotion and without raising concerns within the industry or with the consuming public - seeking to address the issues which we as a government are seeking to address. I might say that it stands in stark contrast to some of the more outrageous claims that have been made by some members of his own party in another place. Let me also say at the outset: there is no way that this government, nor I personally, would risk a decision which would in any way impact upon consumer health and safety or impact upon the great industry that is the Australian beef industry. The campaign that has been waged by some is now being criticised by the Cattle Council itself for having brought fear and damage to the industry.

So I would urge those opposite, if we are looking for a rational way through this, to get on top of some of their more extreme elements, because those elements have been rightly referred to as political opportunists.

Let us go to the facts. First of all, why is it that we have to change this system? It is because the system that we have now is dangerously out of date with international beef import laws. It is important to recall the history: in 2001 the Australian government introduced a blanket ban on the domestic sale of beef and beef products from any country which had had a confirmed case of BSE. In international trade law, we are required to apply reciprocity here to the same standards we require of other countries. In other words, under the former policy, if there were a single case of BSE found in Australia, all beef would have to come off the shelf - because that is what we say: 'The US is excluded as a whole.' It would only require one case. In other words, if there were an outbreak in Tasmania, the beef would have to be taken off the shelves across Australia. What do you think that would do to the Australian beef industry - an industry that already exports 60-plus per cent of its produce? What do you think it would do in those circumstances?

Do not take just my word for it. I ask you to look at what has been said by the Red Meat Advisory Council, which is representative of many of the peak organisations in the beef industry. It represents the meat processors, the wholesalers, the retailers, the Australian Meat Industry Council, the Cattle Council, the Australian Lot Feeders Association, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia and the Australian Livestock Exporters Council - a pretty representative group. They wrote to the government back in September and said: RMAC - the organisation which represents all of these organisations - believes it is imperative for the federal government to amend the current standard such that it is made more consistent with the standard set by the World Organisation for Animal Health and current ambiguity is removed.

The letter went on to say: RMAC, at its most recent meeting, endorsed its opposition to the BSE certification rules currently operating in Australia. These rules would potentially remove all domestic beef from sale in this country in the unlikely event of a domestic case of BSE.

That is not in the government saying it; that is the industry representative body saying, 'We have a problem in relation to our industry and we want you, the government, to fix it.'

We have tried to fix it. As a former Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, I say that, when there is any representation made by an industry group saying, 'We have a potential threat to the future of our industry,'it is incumbent upon us to try and deal with it. In its correspondence, therefore, the industry asked us to do it. We then took the view that we had obligations to find out where the science was up to and to consult further with the industry.

The shadow minister at the table says there was no consultation. There was. There was much consultation and, of course, there have been the Senate processes - open inquiry where anyone who has an issue can come along and make their representations. So, we have dealt with the reason why; we have dealt with the fact that the industry asked us to do it; and we also know, from the consultations that we have undertaken, that the science has moved on since 2001.

It is in a much better position to be able to make decisions now which protect consumers and protect the herd but still, far better, keep us in sync with our international obligations.

I invited the shadow minister around yesterday to talk this matter through with him. He did not raise the issue of labelling - I will come to that in a minute - but he raised two particular issues: (1) why we were not undertaking an independent risk assessment analysis and (2) this question of equivalence. I got back to him this morning with a detailed response and I do urge the members sitting opposite to take this issue into account rationally when they consider their position going forward concerning what is going on in another place.

I will go to the traceability issue first. In essence, what the shadow minister has been saying is that we have a world-class national tracing system. I agree with that and I think it is one of the great backbones of our industry and why it is so well regarded. It is also true that other countries wish they had our system in place.

The mechanisms that we are putting in place will, in fact, drive them in that direction. Why? Because we will require the equivalent traceability on animals or meat for which export to this country is being sought.

So, will we require the tracing of animals to origin and birth? Yes. Will we require the ability to trace the animal forward to its destination? Yes.

Mr Katter Come on, Simon, you are having a piece of us.

Mr CREAN You have the right to talk about this later, but I am being asked to deal with the concerns that are legitimately being raised, and I am dealing with those through the appropriate channels - through the shadow minister who represents the opposition in these areas. We will demand the same traceability standards of foreign beef producers as we demand of Australian beef producers. It cannot be any simpler than that; we will demand it. It will be required before we give approval for the beef coming into this country. The second issue was the question of why there is no independent risk analysis. It is because the analysis we have in place is already better than an IRA. We have long imported beef, and all the diseases that can be carried by beef have been assessed in terms of their impact - diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease and rinderpest, for example. We are going to do exactly the same for BSE but, in addition to the protocols, which the industry has been consulted about and which are now posted on the Food Standards Australia website, we are also undertaking a quarantine risk assessment for each country wanting to export beef into this country.

What we are saying is that risk assessment and the targeted science that we are using in terms of the protocols and in terms of the individual country assessments are the best response to manage any of the animal quarantine risk. It is not a question of going to an IRA that simply tells us what we already know. What we need is the ability to put protocols in place to ensure that what we do know is carried out and applied in relation to any country seeking to export beef into this country. I have sought to answer the issue being raised in another place as to why there is no IRA, and the shadow minister has got it in written form.

On traceability, again I say to you that we will be requiring the same traceability standards of foreign beef producers as we demand of Australian beef producers.

The head of Food Standards Australia has said that the protocols that are in place will ensure that any beef imported into Australia will be 100 per cent guaranteed to be BSE free. That is what Food Standards Australia are saying. They have posted the protocols that are required to make the assessment country by country, and people who have been alarmist about the fact that, from 1 March when these changes come in, there will suddenly be a flood of beef into this country from other countries are absolutely wrong. All that will happen on 1 March will be the ability for countries to seek to send it, but what is then required is the process, the protocols, the country assessment and the risk-incountry assessment being undertaken. So let us not get alarmist about that.

On the question of labelling, it is true that the labelling laws, in my view, can be improved, and I think it is important from the point of view of consumers that we do it. But let us all understand this - An honourable member interjecting -

Mr CREAN And growers too, of course. It is important for the industry and we need to consult the industry about those labelling laws as much as we consult consumers. But I make the point that the food labelling laws that are currently being complained about were introduced by the previous government in 2006.

Mr Katter You're right.

Mr CREAN I did not hear Bill Heffernan or any of the others talk about the prospect of a pie having foreign meat in it then in terms of their own food labelling standards. But what have we done? We, on coming to office, understood that if we had to move in this area we also had to look afresh at the labelling laws.

Mr Katter interjecting -

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) Order! The member for Kennedy is warned.

Mr CREAN And we have looked afresh. And Mr Katter interjecting -

The DEPUTY SPEAKER Member for Kennedy, the minister has the call.

Mr Katter interjecting -

The DEPUTY SPEAKER The member for Kennedy will remove himself from the chamber under standing order 94(a).

Mr CREAN Some people in this place are as bad as in the other place. They want to yell abuse. They do not want to listen to rational argument. There are forms in this House in which they can have their debate.

Mr Katter interjecting -

The DEPUTY SPEAKER The minister will resume his seat. I have asked the member for Kennedy to remove himself from the chamber. He is not above the processes of this House.

Mr CREAN Having inherited a set of laws by a previous government, for which some members if it now seek to blame us and complain about, we have taken steps to try to address this issue, because we do believe it is important in terms of the changes that are being made that consumers know where they are getting their beef from. What we are doing by way of the protocols is ensuring that the meat that comes in is 100 per cent free of BSE.

Those are the standards that have been determined and guaranteed by the head of Food Standards Australia. Those are the protocols. We have risk assessments in place that will ensure that that guarantee can be met, and we are also looking at what relevant changes can be made to the labelling laws so that consumers can have a better fix than they currently have of where beef products come from. It seems to me in all of those circumstances that not only have we approached this in a comprehensive way; we have approached it in a consultative way.

We have approached it in a way that has tried to deal with reason and sensible argument and concern. What we can never deal with are people who fly off the handle, interrupt meetings and pull stunts in the name of - as the Cattle Council says - striking fear into consumers and undermining the future of the industry. Those people should be condemned. I am happy to try to address the concerns that are legitimately raised. I am not going to deal with people who fly off the handle.

ENDS