Senator O'BRIEN (7:19 PM) —I thought Maggie Thatcher had given up public speaking but we have seen an incarnation in the chamber this evening. In my contribution I want to deal with an issue that is more relevant to the Australian community than either the contributions that Senator Brandis was referring to or indeed his own. On 1 October 1997 the then agriculture minister, now Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson, detailed the new administrative arrangements for the meat industry.

Mr Anderson laid out the new framework for the meat industry, including details for the Red Meat Advisory Council, RMAC. He said that RMAC was to be established primarily to provide advice to the government on issues affecting the whole industry. Mr Anderson listed RMAC functions which included oversight of the meat industry strategic plan, assessment of the performance of the industry against that plan and management of industry funds. He told the House of Representatives that the role of RMAC was to provide an interface for resolving sectoral differences or problems within the industry. They are important words. He said that that should be done in a way that does not adversely affect industry, but in a way that promotes the image and purpose of the industry.

RMAC was given the very difficult job of sorting out internal differences within the red meat sector and presenting to the minister a consensus position. The method of determining how best to allocate the United States beef quota was one such task given to RMAC by the present minister, Mr Truss. This quota, in its current form, has been in place for seven years. It was raised to its current level of 378,214 tonnes in 1995 under GATT and was filled last year. The minister had been warned of this impending event as early as April last year. He was forewarned of a major policy issue to enable him to plan ahead. As with the forward planning to manage the deregulation of the dairy industry, Mr Truss failed to take up the challenge. Here we are over a year later still with no plan in place to give the management of this quota the order it desperately needs.

The US market represents 42 per cent of Australia's total beef exports. Due to low US production, high Australian production and a highly competitive exchange rate, US demand for Australian beef has increased significantly in recent years. It is difficult to understand why the minister would not have been quick to respond to industry warnings that the quota would be filled and there would therefore be some need for a management system to be put in place.

Mr Truss did finally address the issue. In March of this year, the Red Meat Advisory Council responded to his invitation to provide him with advice on how to best manage what was in effect a $1.7 billion quota. Mr Truss rejected the RMAC recommendation, which had the support of five of the six council members, with one member choosing to abstain. Mr Truss then wrote to RMAC on 11 April, urging the council to find a compromise that was acceptable to all industry sectors. RMAC did just that. In April, the Red Meat Advisory Council put an amended plan to Mr Truss that had the support of all six council members. I understand that achieving a consensus among council members was a very difficult task, but RMAC was committed to deliver what had been asked of it by Mr Truss, and it did just that.

I must add that, whilst there was a unanimous view put to the minister by RMAC, there were, obviously, still individual processors that were not happy with that view. That is to be expected in a significant industry across all of Australia. As an industry adviser to government, RMAC put to Mr Truss a view endorsed by all council members on how to best manage the quota. Mr Truss chose to ignore that advice. He then set about devising his own very different plan. That plan has now been considered by RMAC. It is a plan that I understand Mr Truss refers to in the press release that he put out this afternoon. That plan has been rejected by all six RMAC members—all six, as I am given to understand.

We now have a stand-off between the red meat industry and the minister. The whole process has turned into a farce very much of the minister's making. The decision by Mr Truss to ignore advice from RMAC and attempt to impose his own plan has created considerable confusion and uncertainty in the Australian beef production and processing sectors. Further, Mr Truss's decision to subject his own plan to a further review as early as mid-2003—next year—will guarantee that uncertainty continues to make proper planning by the industry almost impossible. It is my view that the minister has left the parliament no choice. It is clear from the information given to me that the minister, Mr Truss, has now lost the confidence of large sections of the red meat industry. It is also clear that Mr Truss is now not at all well placed to find a resolution to this matter, which is, after all, about an export market worth somewhere between $1.7 billion and $2 billion to Australia.

A short and timely inquiry by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee is in my view the best course now available to seek a satisfactory outcome. It is important that all sectors of the industry have an opportunity to put their case as to how the US beef quota should be managed. An inquiry such as the one I refer to will provide just that opportunity. It is also important that the Senate committee deal with this matter as quickly as possible. The findings of the inquiry would then allow the Senate to make an informed decision as to whether Mr Truss's plan should receive the support of the parliament, presuming that it is the intention of the minister to promulgate that plan in the form of a regulation or an order under the legislation. Naturally, as senators would be aware, such an order would potentially be the subject of disallowance before both houses of the parliament. A similar process was followed in relation to orders relating to the meat industry. As I understand it, the EU high quality beef quota issue was dealt with by the Senate in just such a fashion; in that case, ultimately the order made by the minister was not the subject of disallowance, following a process which allowed members of the industry to put their views to the Senate committee.

As I described early in my contribution, RMAC is the body that was established by this government to advise the government, to assess the performance of the industry to manage industry funds and to resolve sectoral differences. It made a unanimous recommendation to the minister which the minister chose not to endorse; it looked at the minister's alternate position; and it took a position which I am advised is unanimous against that position. As I said, if the Senate is to do its job properly, that leaves the Senate with no choice but to give the industry a chance to put its view and to make recommendations to the Senate as to what should happen to any regulation which is promulgated by Minister Truss on this matter.

It is regrettable that the matter has come to this. The fact of the matter is that not too long ago the minister was saying that he did not believe there was a need to intervene. His press release today concedes that he was wrong and that there is a need to intervene. Unfortunately, it has taken some time to get to this point, and unfortunately he has chosen again to ignore the advice of the advisory body which this government established to set a course for the industry which would resolve these sorts of differences.