Download PDFThe Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia
ROYAL COMMISSION INTO AUSTRALIAN MEAT INDUSTRY
September 1982
Presented by Command 21 September 1982 Ordered to be printed 22 September 1982
Parliamentary Paper No. 222/1982
m
REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION INTO AUSTRALIAN MEAT INDUSTRY
S e p te m b e r 1982
REPORT OF THE
ROYAL COMMISSION
INTO
AUSTRALIAN MEAT INDUSTRY
September 1982
The Hon Mr Justice A.E. Woodward
Commissioner
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING SERVICE
CANBERRA 1982
© Commonwealth of Australia 1982
ISBN 0 644 02098 9
Printed by C.J. Thompson Commonwealth Government Printer Canberra
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paras
1 SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES
(a) The adequacy of administrative arrangements for export meat 1.1
(b) The adequacy of administrative arrangements for meat in Victoria 1.23
(c) The adequacy of administrative arrangements for meat in the NT 1.27
(d) Malpractices in the Australian meat industry 1.29
(e) The handling of allegations of malpractices 1.55
(f) Pet meat 1.67
2 THE CONDUCT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION
(a) Setting up - terms of reference 2.1
(b) Collecting and selecting the evidence 2.16 The Commonwealth Royal Commission 2.17 The Victorian Royal Commission 2.47
The NT Royal Commission 2.57
The decision of the High Court concerning a witness 2.66
(c) Limitations 2.83
(d) Evidence and opinions 2.94
(e) Specific allegations 2.112
3A THE EXPORT MEAT INDUSTRY
(a) Quantities, types and destinations of exports 3.1
(b) The organization of the industry 3.11
( c ) The regulation of the industry 3.13
(d) The steps in the export process 3.16
(i)
3B THE MEAT INDUSTRY IN VICTORIA
(a) The size of the industry - recent trends 3.32
(b) The organization of the industry 3.38
(c) The regulation of the industry 3.43
(d) The steps in producing meat for 3.49
human consumption
3C THE MEAT INDUSTRY IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
(a) The organization and size of the industry 3.60
(b) The regulation of the industry 3.69
4A THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ON EXPORT MEAT
(a) Preparation on approved premises 4.1
(b) Inspection by qualified persons 4.4
(c) Accurate trade description 4.9
(d) Freedom from disease 4.10
(e) Freedom from contamination or damage 4.14
(f) Certain special requirements 4.18
(9) Breaches of legal requirements 4.21
4B THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION IN VICTORIA
(a) Preparation on licensed premises 4.26
(b) Inspection by qualified persons 4.28
(c) Freedom from disease 4.31
(d) Freedom from contamination or damage 4.35
(e) Accurate trade description 4.36
4C THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
(a) Within Licensed Abattoir Area 4.37
(b) Outside Licensed Abattoir Area 4.41
(c) Storage and transportation 4.42
(ii)
(d) Freedom from contamination
(e) Accurate trade description
5A ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS AND PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE EXPORT OF MEAT
(a) The Commonwealth inspection service (i) DPI organization - proposed changes (ii) Perceived role of meat inspection (iii) Staffing levels and mobility (iv) Administration from Canberra (v) Relations with state services (vi) Dual or unified system
(b) Veterinary Officers and meat inspectors (i) Role of the veterinary officer (ii) Meat inspectors' functions (iii) Responsibilities and pressures (iv) Power and abuse of power (v) Qualifications and training
(c) Approval of premises
(d) . Transport of meat.
(e) Security measures 1 Australia Approved1 stamps and tags Sealing of cartons Sealing of loads Sealing of premises Segregation of export meat
Inventory control General
(f) Export procedures
(g) Sampling and species testing
(h) Penalties
(i) AMLC licensing and quality control
(j) Arrangements for religious slaughter
(k) Arrangements for export of game meat
(1) Arrangements for export of pet meat
(m) Summary
4.43
4.44
5.1
5.4 5.8 5.24 5.40 5.45 5.48
5.80 5.92 5.108 5.113 5.115
5.120
5.165
5.174 5.185 5.193 5.199
5.204 5.212 5.217
5.220
5.244
5.254
5.266
5.289
5.291
5.297
5.301
(iii)
5B ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS AND PROCEDURES CONCERNING MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION IN VICTORIA
(a) The Department of Primary Industry 5.302
(b) The Victorian Abattoir and Meat Inspection Authority 5.304
(c) The State meat inspection service Staff numbers 5.311
Role of veterinary officers 5.312
Place of the inspection service in the Department 5.314
Training 5.319
Career development 5.322
Allocation of inspectors 5.323
Keeping of records 5.326
Brands and stamps 5.327
Responsibilities of industry management 5.332 Meat transport vehicles 5.336
Relations with Commonwealth service 5.338 Relations with Victoria police 5.343
Relations with Health authorities 5.347
(d) The Victorian Health Commission 5.350
(e) Summary 5.358
5C ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS AND PROCEDURES CONCERNING MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
(a) The Department of Primary industry 5.364
(b) The NT Department of Primary Production (i) The meat inspection service 5.367
(ii) Legislative structure and administrative procedures 5.375
(iii) Illegal slaughter 5.388
(iv) Legal slaughter for remote communities 5.390 (v) A combined service with DPI 5.393
(c) The NT Department of Health 5.400
6 THE PET MEAT INDUSTRY
(a) Relevance for purposes of the Commission 6.1
(b) Quantities and types of pet meat 6.6
(c) Organization of the industry 6.19
(d) The Victorian pet meat industry 6.25
(e) The Northern Territory pet meat industry
(iv)
6.39
(f) Dyeing of fresh pet meat 6.68
(g) Export of fresh pet meat 6.80
7 MALPRACTICES 7.1
7A MALPRACTICES CONCERNING EXPORT MEAT
(a) Species substitution 7.4
(b) Local connivance in overseas malpractices 7.12
(c) Substitution of local for export meat 7.17
(d) False description of age, quality or cut 7.25
(e) Misuse of government stamps 7.34
(f) False statement of slaughter date 7.41
(g) Forgery of transfer certificates 7.45
(h) Failure to obtain export documents 7.50
(i) Forgery of export documents 7.56
(j) Halal slaughter and certification 7.57
(k) Corruption of government officials 7.106
Meat inspectors 7.107
Veterinary officers 7.121
DPI action 7.125
Police officers 7.131
7B MALPRACTICES CONCERNING MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION IN VICTORIA
(a) Pet food in smallgoods 7.135
(b) Other malpractices 7.144
7C MALPRACTICES CONCERNING MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION IN NORTHERN TERRITORY
(a) Corruption of government officials 7.157
(b) Importation of poor quality meat 7.158
from other States
(c) Pet meat 7.162
(d) Illegal slaughter 7.163
(v)
8 ALLEGATIONS AND THEIR TREATMENT 8.1
8A ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING EXPORT MEAT
(a) Department of Primary Industry 8.5
(b) Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation 8.19
(c) Australian Federal Police 8.28
(d) Ministerial responsibility 8.33
8B ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MEAT FOR HUMAN
CONSUMPTION IN VICTORIA 8.49
8C ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MEAT FOR HUMAN
CONSUMPTION IN NORTHERN TERRITORY 8.59
9 RECOMMENDATIONS
9A RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING EXPORT MEAT
(a) The inspection service 9.1
(b) The registration of premises 9.24
(c) Industry responsibility 9.32
(d) Sampling and species testing 9.34
(e) Refrigerated containers 9.35
(f) Penalties 9.36
(g) Security arrangements 9.37
(vi)
(h) AMLC licences for export 9.44
(i) AMLC powers of inspection 9.45
(j) Export documents 9.49
(k) Halal slaughter and certification 9.50
(l) Game meat 9.54
(m) Pet meat 9.55
9B RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING MEAT FOR HUMAN
CONSUMPTION IN VICTORIA
(a) The meat inspection service 9.56
(b) Standards of meat inspection and 9.59
of premises
(c) Keeping of records 9.60
(d) Industry responsibility 9.61
(e) Penalties and prosecutions 9.62
(f) Relations with police 9.63
(g) Granting of meat establishment licences 9.64
(h) Relations with Health authorities 9.65
(i) Dyeing of pet meat 9.66
(vii)
9C RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION IN
THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
(a) The meat inspection service 9.67
(b) The legislative structure 9.70
(c) Pet meat 9.75
(d) Health Department 9.78
10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 10.1
(viii)
APPENDICES
Pages
(A) The Royal Commissions 286-295
(B) List of submissions from organizations 296-304
(C) List of witnesses making submissions
or giving general evidence 305-311
(D) List of exhibits containing
general information 312-317
(E) Extract from ruling on BAH files 318-324
(F) Free or cheap meat for meat inspectors
and veterinary officers 320-324
(G) Glossary 325-326
(H) Cases investigated Separate
. . . _ Volume
/V.
/ 2 C 3 . C X
(ix)
CHAPTER 1
SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES
(a) The adequacy of administrative arrangements and
procedures for the supervision of the handling
of meat for export
1.1 Evidence put before the Commission shows clearly that,
before August 1981, arrangements and procedures for export meat
supervision were seriously deficient in a number of ways and
for a variety of reasons.
1.2 As a result of the new security measures introduced
following the meat substitution scandal of August 1981,
administrative arrangements and procedures are now adequate for
their purposes; but there is still considerable room for
improvement.
1.3 In my view the chief deficiency in the arrangements
before 1981 was that the Department of Primary Industry (DPI),
which administers the meat inspection service, was too trusting
about some areas of activity of the export meat industry, while
giving industry managers too little responsibility for
self-regulation in other areas.
1.4 The Department undertook an oversight role which, by
using a large number of officers in abattoirs, placed little
reliance on the ability of managers to produce a safe, good
quality product. In other parts of the export chain, such as
boning-rooms, coldstores and transport, oversight was very
limited, even in the case of operators who were under
suspicion. in the result, many malpractices flourished unseen.
1.5 Penalties provided for breaches of the relevant
regulations were ridiculously low and served as no deterrent to
wrongdoing.
1.6 Following the events of August 1981, the inspection
arrangements for all parts of the export chain were tightened
up in such a way that they became comprehensive and generally
effective, but they also became inconvenient to the industry in
a number of ways and appreciably more costly. They can still
be circumvented by combinations of ingenuity and human error or
human weakness.
1.7 I believe that, although present security measures
must be retained for the time being, better results could
eventually be achieved with arrangements that required industry
managements to accept more of the basic responsibilities for
the soundness, accuracy of description, and security of their
products. At the same time there must be a high probability
that any default would be detected and severely punished.
1.8 Another major deficiency of the export meat
arrangements before August 1981 was that the DPI and the
Australian Federal Police (AFP) paid too little attention to
those malpractices which did come to their notice. Those which
the Department handled were often dealt with in a weak and
indecisive fashion. On most occasions when police were called
in, their work was ineffective.
1.9 There were a number of reasons for the deficiencies in
DPI's administrative arrangements and procedures. Probably the
chief among them was the very fact that the meat inspection
service was placed in the Bureau of Animal Health (BAH) and
administered almost entirely by veterinary officers. This meant
that heavy emphasis was placed on the detection of diseased
animals at abattoirs and the hygienic handling of meat up to the
time of export. The accuracy of trade descriptions was given
much less attention, and any suggestion of serious wrongdoing
in the industry - such as substituting local for export meat or
operating a meatworks out-of-hours in the absence of inspectors
- was seen as a matter to be handed straight over to the
police, for them to prosecute or not as they were advised.
2
1.10 A second important reason for the inadequacy of the
arrangements was the dominance accorded to the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the Australian approach to
export meat inspection. The United States is a vital market
for Australian beef, and the USDA takes a strong line in
demanding that various detailed conditions be met before it
will approve individual export establishments as suppliers to
USA. The result has been that US requirements have been
generally accepted as the basic standards for export
establishments, and the energies of the Australian service have
been, in no small measure, devoted to keeping the USDA
content. Since that Department can only judge Australian
performance by looking at meat actually received in USA, or by
what its reviewers see in their periodic visits to Australian
establishments, its level of contentment is clearly an
inadequate yardstick for the overall performance of export meat
inspection in Australia.
1.11 I believe that, instead of applying US standards to
all export establishments, and having many different standards
applying to domestic meat production, a uniform Australia-wide
standard for all meat establishments and meat inspection systems should be developed. Efforts should then be made to
have this Australian standard accepted by as many importing
countries as possible, and those countries which insist on
different standards should be catered for in specially
designated and inspected establishments.
1.12 Another reason why past arrangements for export meat
inspection have proved inadequate has been the lack of good
communication and co-ordination between the head office of the
Bureau of Animal Health in Canberra and those responsible for
administering the inspection service in the regional offices
and at meatworks. A good deal that was known in regional
offices about malpractices was never conveyed to Canberra.
Material that did reach Canberra was never properly
co-ordinated and no firm lead was given to regional offices as
3
to how such problems should be tackled. All too often the
regional office showed a preference for the easier path -
particularly when dealing with wrongdoing within the service
itself.
1.13 To sum up what I might call the internal weaknesses of
the Bureau's meat inspection service I can put the matter no
better - and would not wish to be any more harsh - than the
Department in its own frank self-appraisal contained in its
final submission to me. The meat inspection service, in the
words of that submission "has proved to be inefficient, costly,
poorly managed, overstaffed and .... in some respects corrupt".
1.14 Turning then to the external problems of the
Commonwealth service, the first point to note is the existence
of the so-called dual system of meat inspection, whereby
Commonwealth and State services operate side-by-side with
overlapping responsibilities. There is general agreement, in
which I concur, that a unified system of meat inspection is
highly desirable, and perhaps even essential, to the well-being
of the meat industry. Certainly the lack of co-ordination, and
imperfect passage of information, between the various services
has contributed to the general deficiencies of administration
of meat inspection.
1.15 Because of the deficiencies to which I have referred,
the DPI meat inspection service performed poorly in detecting
and preventing malpractices in the industry. It missed
opportunities to avert the major crisis which occurred in
August 1981. Details of the ways in which those opportunities
were missed can be found in Cases 1 and 2 in Appendix H to this
report. The Australian Federal Police must also bear a share
of the blame for those missed opportunities.
1.16 This leads me to refer to the other great external
weakness of the DPI service, and that is its relationship with
the AFP. Not enough cases were passed to the police for
4
action, and those that were handed over were not conveyed with
any sense of urgency, importance, or great interest in their
outcome.
1.17 On the other hand it must be said that the Department
had little to show for those occasions when matters were
referred to police. There were no grounds for confidence that
police inquiries would achieve worthwhile results.
1.18 The lesson which has been learnt from these
experiences, and the very different results achieved since
August 1981, has been the need for close co-operation between
the meat inspection service and the police, both at headquarters
level and, even more importantly, at the regional level. Also,
the inspection service could usefully employ some former police
officers to assist with its own investigations.
1.19 Returning to the Department of Primary Industry
itself, it is only fair to say that, under instructions from
its Minister, it acted promptly and effectively when the meat
substitution scandal erupted.
1.20 The steps taken were drastic, but appropriate to the
situation. There was some confusion as a range of new measures
were hurriedly introduced. Not all the detailed rulings made
amongst the pressures of that time were sensible, but the
Department did succeed in restoring the confidence of the USDA
in a comparatively short time and without excessive disruption
or cost to the Australian industry.
1.21 Since then, and during the Commission's hearings, the
Department has, for the most part, reacted promptly and
appropriately to problems that have been brought to light. It
has not, as it might have done, sat back to await the
Commission's recommendations. Instead it has, while keeping
the Commission appropriately informed, continued to carry out its proper functions of administering the service and forward
5
planning. This has culminated in the proposals set out in the
Department's final submissions, which reflect the determination
of the Minister and the Department to resolve the problems
which now stand revealed.
1.22 I believe that, in consequence of the strong reaction
of the Minister and the Department, and the establishment of
this Royal Commission, the current level of malpractice in the
industry is lower than it has ever been. This desirable
situation should be vigorously maintained.
(b) The adequacy of administrative arrangements and
procedures for the supervision of the handling
of meat for human consumption in Victoria
1.23 The Victorian Department of Agriculture operates a
meat inspection service which is very much smaller than the
Commonwealth service. Although a significant proportion of
meat produced in Victoria is consumed locally, much of it is
produced in export works and the Victorian Government has been
content to leave meat inspection in those works very largely to
the Commonwealth.
1.24 Although run by veterinary officers, the Victorian
service has a much lower percentage of such officers than the
DPI. More reliance and responsibility is placed on meat
inspectors themselves. This seems to have worked well in the
Victorian context and I have no fault to find with the way in
which the service has, in general, performed its duties. In
particular the Victorian service has been prepared to do more
of its own detective work than the DPI and this more inquisitive
approach has, I believe, paid dividends. On the other hand
there have been times when the Victoria Police should have been
called in and were not. There is a need for better
co-ordination between the inspection service and the police.
1.25 I should make it plain that, in drawing comparisons
between the two services which are favourable to the Victorian
6
service, I am conscious of the fact that the Commonwealth
service faces problems of distance, seasonal mobility and
complex overseas requirements which go far beyond anything the
State service has to face.
1.26 In place of the dual inspection system now operating
in Victoria (see para 1.14 above) there should be a combined
inspection service along the lines which have already been
proposed in negotiations between DPI and the Department of
Agriculture.
(c) The adequacy of administrative arrangements and
procedures for the supervision of the handling of
meat for human consumption in the Northern Territory
1.27 The NT Department of Primary Production operates a
very small meat inspection service which has performed
reasonably well in spite of a most inadequate legislative
base. The relevant legislation should soon be amended to cover
the various deficiencies.
1.28 There should in future be a combined Commonwealth/NT
inspection service in the Territory. The precise form it
should take will have to be negotiated by the respective
Governments, having regard to the need for it to work closely
with other organs of the NT Government while at the same time
providing reasonable career prospects for those few present
members of the NT service.
(d) Malpractices in the Australian meat industry
1.29 In summarising my findings on this subject, it is
convenient to consider the export and domestic meat industries
together.
1.30 The main question which the Royal Commission has been
asked to answer is how widespread have malpractices been in the
meat industry in recent years.
7
1.31 Unfortunately there can be little comfort for the
industry or the community in that answer. It is clear that
malpractices in the nature of commercial cheating have been
widespread in the export industry. In saying that I bear in
mind that the Commission has concentrated on wrongdoers and
their misdeeds and has therefore studied a biased sample of the
industry's transactions, the great majority of which are no
doubt perfectly honest.
1.32 However I am also conscious of the fact that a longer
and more detailed investigation than has been possible in the
time available, would undoubtedly have revealed many more
transgressions; and the prevalence of commercial malpractice
disclosed by the evidence - at all levels of the industry -
constitutes a very serious problem. In particular, large
quantities of meat, from animals killed more cheaply at non
expert abattoirs, have found their way onto export markets, and
the quality, age or other characteristics of export meat have
often been falsely described.
1.33 I have not been asked to consider what effect this
serious level of commercial malpractice may have had on the
export meat industry itself, or on Australia's reputation as a
trading nation. That would, in any event, be difficult to
judge in the absence of any knowledge of the meat industries of
other countries.
1.34 Certainly there will need to be a change of attitude
amongst export meat processors generally, and a much firmer
line taken by government regulatory bodies, if Australian meat
is to attain the high international reputation which it ought
to enjoy.
1.35 So far as meat for human consumption in Victoria and
the Northern Territory is concerned, there is little to suggest
that consumers have been cheated when buying fresh meat from
their local butcher or supermarket.
8
1.36 On the other hand it is clear that purchasers of some
meat products have not always been eating the meat they
expected and have sometimes been eating an unwholesome
product. There has been, particularly in the last few years,
quite a large quantity of pet meat which has found its way into
such products in Victoria and been consumed throughout
Australia. I am speaking here of hundreds of tonnes of
kangaroo, buffalo, donkey and horse-meat which was not killed
or processed in the manner prescribed for human consumption,
but which nevertheless found its way into the human food chain.
1.37 It is necessary to keep a sense of proportion about
this matter. There is no evidence linking this use of pet meat
with any deaths or outbreaks of disease in Australia. Although
many Australians would find it distasteful to eat some at least
of these animals, there is nothing inherently dangerous in
doing so. The risk lies in the methods of slaughter, transport
and preparation which are used. They may be appropriate for
pet food, but not for meat intended for human consumption. The
factor which greatly reduces the risk of illness from eating
such meat is that most of the harmful organisms which would
undoubtedly be present are killed in the cooking process.
1.38 I suspect that it was the successful infiltration of
pet meat into the human food chain in Victoria which gave
several unscrupulous people the idea that the same thing might
be done on a large and very profitable scale in the export
trade. I believe that this has been a comparatively recent
development, that only a handful of operators have attempted
it, and that the amounts involved have not been very large -
amounting in total, perhaps, to several hundred tonnes.
1.39 Although there have been some connexions between the
operators involved, I have found no evidence of a master-mind
behind the schemes. I think several people decided
independently to accept the risks involved, for the sake of the potential rewards, although the idea may have been spread by
contacts between them.
9
1.40 Another area of malpractice which has caused
particular concern, because of its potentially very serious
repercussions in a vital market, has been that involving halal
slaughter and certification.
1.41 Evidence given to the Commission in private sittings
(because of the sensitivity of the subject) showed conclusively
that industry arrangements for securing proper religious
slaughter and certification for Muslim markets have not worked.
1.42 There have been widespread abuses of the system by
industry, considerable inefficiency on the part of the major
Muslim group claiming to ensure the religious nature of the
slaughter and some corruption among Muslim slaughtermen. Costs
to the industry have been far too high.
1.43 Government authorities have, naturally enough, been
reluctant to become involved in religious matters, but it is
now clear that, up to a point, they must.
1.44 The position is greatly complicated by the differing
requirements of various Middle Eastern countries and by
divisions within Muslim communities in Australia.
1.45 In my view the following principles should, so far as
possible, be observed in the arrangements which will be worked
out in the months ahead -(i) the overall integrity of the system for halal
slaughter and certification must be
guaranteed by the Australian Government;
Government inspectors must supervise the
mechanical and objectively assessable aspects
of the system;
(ii) the religious aspects of the system must be
arranged and periodically checked by a Muslim person or body believed, on past record or
other evidence, to be acceptable to at least
10
some importers of halal meat; a monopoly in
such Muslim oversight should be avoided; and
(iii) the Muslim persons or bodies involved should
be permitted to make reasonable charges to
cover wages and out-of-pocket expenses for
their part in the system; such charges
should not be seen as a way of raising
revenue for other Muslim purposes unconnected
with the meat industry.
1.46 I should make it clear that I have no reason to
believe that there has been any malpractice in relation to
halal slaughter and certification in recent months, or that
there is likely to be any in the future, if arrangements along
the lines recommended are adopted.
1.47 The final issue which I need to deal with in this
summary of malpractices relates to the corruption of government
officials.
1.48 The most disturbing evidence to emerge from this
inquiry has concerned bribery and corruption of a number of DPI
meat inspectors and some DPI veterinary officers and Australian
Federal Police officers. It is impossible to avoid using words
such as 1 bribery and corruption1 in this context, although it
is important to understand that, with a few exceptions, the
value of bribes was not substantial and the corresponding
neglect of duty not heinous.
1.49 In many cases the bribe has taken the form of valuable
quantities of free meat or very cheap meat not available to
employees of the meatworks concerned. In a number of cases
cash payments or fraudulent overtime claims have been
involved. In each of the cases I have in mind, there has been
a regular, valuable benefit on which no tax has been paid.
11
1.50 Sometimes such benefits have been extracted from
unwilling operators by the abuse of inspectors' powers.
1.51 Most often the meat has been given, or the payments
made, to ensure that the meatworks will not be subject to
unusually vigorous supervision by inspectors - that it will be
treated at least as leniently as its competitors.
1.52 However in some cases payments were made to ensure
that a blind eye was turned to clearly improper practices. In
the case of police officers, and a senior meat inspector, meat
was given and payments were made respectively in order to
secure advance warning of troublesome inquiries.
1.53 The really disturbing feature of these revelations was
that the people concerned were not evil - many of them would
have been regarded as reliable and effective officers. They
were ordinary Australians, in positions of some responsibility,
who were either demanding, or at least accepting, clearly
improper payments which could only have the effect of
compromising them in the performance of their duties. The
surprisingly widespread nature of these abuses suggests the
need to watch all areas of government licensing and control
where the decision of an inspector on the job, or similarly
placed official, can make a significant commercial impact on
persons in business.
1.54 These practices in the meat industry must of course be
stamped out.
(e) The handling of allegations of malpractices
1.55 Each of my Commissions requires me to consider any
allegations concerning malpractices in the meat industry that,
in recent years, have been made publicly or to Ministers,
departments or authorities of the Commonwealth or the State of
Victoria. I am asked to say whether such allegations were
12
dealt with in a manner that was adequate and effective, or, on
the other hand, whether any illegality or corruption occurred.
1.56 There have been a number of complaints from overseas,
about particular consignments of Australian meat, which have
come to the notice of DPI. Some of them could be said to have
amounted to allegations of malpractice but, until August 1981,
they were no worse than the malpractices which the inspection
service was discovering for itself. The same general
criticisms which I have already made, of DPI's inadequate
handling of such matters, would apply.
1.57 The same could be said about general allegations
concerning the substitution of local for export meat, which
have been made in the Commonwealth Parliament and elsewhere
from·time to time. Both the Department of Primary Industry and
the Australian Federal Police had, in 1977, a fairly accurate
idea as to where the trouble might lie - in certain independent
boning-rooms in Melbourne. But, due partly to a lack of
determination in either body, and partly to an absence of
co-ordination between them, their efforts were inadequate and
ineffective.
1.58 I am bound to record the possibility - I put it no
higher - that another contributing factor to the failure of
these investigations may have been the corruption of certain
police officers with free meat or of a senior meat inspector
with cash payments, which I have referred to in paragraph 1.52
above.
1.59 I have no fault to find with the response of the
Victorian Department of Agriculture or of the Northern
Territory Department of Primary Production to allegations
coming to them from outside sources.
1.60 So far as ministerial responsibility is concerned,
some allegations of malpractice did come to the attention of
13
Ministers responsible for departments administering meat
inspection in the Commonwealth, Victoria and the Northern
Territory.
1.61 In the case of the Commonwealth, I think it fair to
say that not enough of the allegations which came to the
attention of DPI were referred to the Minister and that,
accordingly, successive Commonwealth Ministers were not
sufficiently informed by DPI of allegedly illegal activities in
the industry or of complaints about the efficiency, and in some
cases the integrity, of elements of the meat inspection service.
Generally, such matters as were referred to Commonwealth
Ministers were dealt with adequately and effectively.
1.62 However, I do consider that the findings by the
Hon C.R. Kelly and Mr W. Buettel about the state of the industry
and the DPI inspection service, in their Report of their
inquiry into meat inspection services in 1978-80, received
insufficient attention from the Minister, the Hon P.J. Nixon.
1.63 In presenting their report those gentlemen expressed
strong views about the industry and meat inspection. Although
they did not give specific details to the Minister when making
their report, they described conduct amounting to bribery of,
and blackmail by, inspectors which in my view should have been
the subject of a much more vigorous response from the Minister
and his Department than in fact occurred. Senior officers of
the Department had available to them a good deal of detailed
information which was not passed on to the Minister. They must
bear the major share of responsibility for inaction.
1.64 But I believe that the Minister, having heard from a
responsible source that there had been cases of bribery and
abuse of power in his Department, should have taken positive
steps to investigate the matter. In my view he did not deal
with this allegation in a manner that was adequate and
effective.
14
1.65 So far as Victoria and the Northern Territory are
concerned, I consider that such allegations as were referred to
the responsible Ministers, concerning the handling of meat for
human consumption, were dealt with adequately and effectively.
I have been critical of the delay in legislating to control pet
food in the Northern Territory, but this has not been the fault
of any particular Minister and, on a strict interpretation, may
not be covered by my terms of reference relating to the
Northern Territory.
1.66 Apart from the matter touched on in para 1.58 above,
there is no evidence to suggest that there was any illegality
or corruption on the part of any Minister of the Crown, or any
official, in response to any allegation of malpractice in the
meat industry.
(f) Pet Meat
1.67 Pet meat is only directly covered by my terms of
reference when I come to consider its export. However the huge
quantities of wild animals in this country, which can be used
for pet meat, constitute a very real threat to the integrity
and reputation of the beef industry. It was the use of pet
meat as a substitute for beef which gave rise to the Royal
Commission.
1.68 It has thus proved necessary to devote a good deal of
time to evidence relating to the pet meat industry.
1.69 This has demonstrated that it has been insufficiently
controlled in all States and particularly in the Northern
Territory. Even those States which have had reasonably strict
controls over the sale of pet meat within their own borders,
have been lax in controlling its production for sale to other
States.
1.70 Virtually no records have been kept of the interstate
movement of pet meat, and there has been no general requirement
that such meat should be dyed.
15
1.71 Over a number of years this was seen, by many people
in the Northern Territory in particular, to be a serious
problem; but nothing was done.
1.72 It is essential, for the protection of public health
and of the meat industry, that pet meat be dyed as soon as
practicable after slaughter. It would be a great advantage if
dyeing were uniform, and so readily recognized throughout
Australia for what it was. Uniform packaging would be helpful
for the same reason. I endorse the decision of most States to
adopt brilliant blue as the dyeing medium for pet meat, and to
require all surfaces to be generally and visibly coloured.
Meat being sent under controlled conditions from an abattoir to
a pet food factory can properly be exempted from such
requirements.
1.73 Even pet meat for export should be dyed, in the same
way as local pet meat, unless the exporter can demonstrate a
cast-iron security system for the particular shipment.
1.74 Governments should try to assist the fresh pet meat
industry by stressing, in public statements, the safety and
reasonable handling qualities of brilliant blue dye.
1.75 States, and the Commonwealth and Northern Territory,
must keep each other promptly informed of any suspicious or
untoward developments concerning pet meat.
1.76 Meat inspection authorities, and police forces, must
be prepared to give reasonably high priority to any inquiries
concerning the possible misuse of pet meat.
16
CHAPTER 2
THE CONDUCT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION
(a) Setting up - terms of reference - first sittings
2.1 On 27 July 1981, a food inspector in San Diego,
California became suspicious of three frozen blocks of
Australian meat. They looked "darker and stringier" than beef
- which they were supposed to be. Samples of the meat were
sent to a laboratory for testing. On 6 August preliminary
screening tests indicated that the meat concerned was horse- meat. Further tests on 10 August produced the same result,
which was formally confirmed on 13 August.
2.2 On either 10 or 11 August the news of these findings
by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) first reached the
Australian Department of Primary Industry (DPI). Immediate
steps were taken to retain, both in USA and in Australia, meat
from the establishment concerned. Further quantities of
horse-meat from the same establishment were found at Los Angeles
and in Australia. Other meat from the same source, found in
Australia and later in New Jersey, proved to be kangaroo-meat.
2.3 Meanwhile, on 14-15 August, the fact that horse-meat
had been passed off as beef in Australian shipments to the USA
became public knowledge in both countries. The meat
substitution scandal had broken and there was a public outcry,
particularly in Australia.
2.4 On 25 August USDA took steps to locate, examine and
sample all Australian boneless beef then in the country. This
proved to amount to 30 000 tonnes. As a result of this testing,
which continued until 30 October, two other Victorian
establishments were delisted by USDA, because horse or kangaroo-
meat was found in consignments of beef.
17
2.5 Following these developments, allegations were made in
the media, and in Commonwealth and State Parliaments, of
widespread malpractices in the meat industry. It was also
quite widely suggested that the existence of such malpractices
was well known to Commonwealth and Victorian Government
authorities, who had failed to take adequate steps to put an
end to them.
2.6 In the light of these discoveries and allegations, it
was thought appropriate to introduce stringent new security
measures and to establish both a short-term, independent,
administrative review of those security arrangements, to be
carried out by Price Waterhouse Associates Pty, a firm of
management consultants, and a longer-term Commonwealth Royal
Commission of Inquiry. The Royal Commission was to inquire
into certain aspects of the export meat industry, which could
be summarised as
. whether existing administrative arrangements and
procedures are adequate to ensure that export meat
meets all legal requirements,
. whether malpractices have occurred in the
exportation of meat, and
. whether past allegations of malpractice concerning
export meat have been dealt with adequately and
effectively or, on the other hand, whether
investigations into such allegations have been
tainted with corruption.
2.7 The full text of this Royal Commission, which was
issued to me by His Excellency the Governor-General on
12 September 1981, is set out as Appendix A (1) to this report.
2.8 A few days later, on 15 September, His Excellency the
Governor of Victoria issued a Royal Commission which
complemented the Commonwealth Commission, but related to meat
for human consumption in the State of Victoria.
18
2.9 The only other difference between the two Commissions
which is worth noting is that the Commonwealth Commission set
an arbitrary limit of ten years on past malpractices to be
investigated. The Victorian Commission set the cut-off point
at the coming into operation of the Victorian Abattoir and Meat
Inspection Act 1973.
2.10 The full text of the Victorian Commission is set out
as Appendix A (2) to this report.
2.11 In November 1981 His Excellency the Governor-General
issued a further Commission which related to meat for human
consumption in the Northern Territory. A copy of this
document, which is in the same general terms as the Victorian
Commission, is Appendix A (3) .
2.12 No difficulty has emerged in conducting these three
inquiries jointly and concurrently, since there is a considerable degree of overlap between them. This same overlap
has led me to conclude that a single report is the only
practical way in which to discharge my three separate
obligations. However my concluding recommendations have been
carefully segregated.
2.13 I understand that the other States of the Commonwealth
were also invited to issue complementary Royal Commissions, but
they decided not to do so unless some cogent requirement emerged
from the Royal Commission's inquiries. (For convenience I
shall refer to the Commission in the singular).
2.14 In the event, no such circumstance arose and, except
on one issue (see paras 5.50, 5.60 and 5.61), I have not felt
inhibited by the absence of such Commissions. Indeed any
further extension of the limits of my inquiry would have made
it impossible to conclude it by the prescribed date -
originally 1 September but extended in August to
22 September 1982. As it is, I have been grateful for the
19
assistance of authorities in the other states - who have given
it whenever requested - and I hope that my findings and
recommendations in relation to Victoria and the Northern
Territory may be of use in suggesting possible lines of inquiry
and courses of action elsewhere.
2.15 After the Royal Commission had been formally set in
train, it naturally took some time to appoint secretarial
staff, find and furnish premises, retain counsel to assist the
Commission, and establish contact with likely sources of
information and opinions. However a formal sitting was held on
13 October 1981, informal inspections were made of some 30
premises over the next two weeks, and the calling of witnesses
commenced on 5 November.
(b) Collecting and selecting the evidence
2.16 The findings and recommendations made in this report
are based upon the submissions received by, and the evidence
led before, the Royal Commission. The evidence led was that
part of the whole range of material available to the legal
staff of the Royal Commission, relevant to the terms of
reference, which was selected by them as appropriate for
presentation at hearings of the Commission. I think it is
desirable that I should describe the method of collection of
that material, and the selection process by which some of it
became evidence and some of it did not. I am indebted to
Senior Counsel assisting the Commission for some of the
information which follows.
The Commonwealth Royal Commission
2.17 Broadly, the terms of reference of the Commonwealth
Royal Commission called for inquiries in two areas. The first
term concerned the adequacy of existing administrative
arrangements for the handling of export meat. The remaining
terms concerned past malpractices and allegations of
malpractice. The two areas are, of course, closely related.
The existing administrative arrangements were in part devised
20
to prevent expected malpractices. And it is by the study of
past malpractices that the efficacy of the existing
arrangements, and the adequacy and cost-effectiveness of
suggested changes to those arrangements, can best be judged.
2.18 In response to the substitution scandal, DPI
immediately made a number of changes to the then-existing
administrative arrangements. Later, further changes were made
in response to the Price Waterhouse review. The Price
Waterhouse Report, and the experience of government and
industry in dealing with those changes, provide most useful
material for any consideration of appropriate administrative
arrangements for the physical control of meat exports.
2.19 Views on this subject were sought from a wide range of
interested persons; and little difficulty was encountered in
obtaining evidentiary material and submissions in this general
area.
2.20 By way of contrast, obtaining material as to past
malpractices proved to be a more difficult matter. Initially,
both government instrumentalities and industry had been much
shaken by the substitution scandal. However, by the time the
Royal Commission commenced hearing evidence, there seemed to be
a general satisfaction that the new administrative arrangements
were fully adequate to prevent a repetition of that scandal,
that the USDA had been appeased by the introduction of the new
security measures, and thus the export industry was free from
any immediate threat. There was concern that nothing further
should occur to 'rock the export boat'. There was thus little
general enthusiasm for any detailed public investigation by a
Royal Commission of past malpractices, either in the area of
species substitution or elsewhere, because of the publicity that would inevitably ensue.
2.21 Lack of official interest in meat industry malpractices
was not new. In the decade before the substitution scandal, a
21
total of seven persons had been successfully prosecuted under
various Commonwealth Acts for offences relating to export meat
handling. Only one successful prosecution had been brought
under the Exports (Meat) Regulations. In January 1981, the
Bureau of Animal Health (BAH), the branch of the DPI then
responsible for meat inspection, sought information and
assistance from regional directors to aid a review of those
Regulations, because of the considerable difficulties said to
be experienced in proceeding with prosecutions. However, with
one exception, the responses to this request revealed little
enthusiasm for any such review.
2.22 The files of the Australian Federal Police (AFP)
revealed a handful of police investigations conducted over the
previous decade, most of them being unproductive. There had
been no concerted effort by BAH and the police to detect and
prosecute offenders. Indeed, the difficulties of prosecution
inherent in the then-existing regulations, and the trivial
penalties prescribed for offences, provided little incentive
for any such effort.
2.23 Nor did the files of the BAH reveal any systematic
attempt to collect or disseminate information about
malpractices, either in Canberra or at regional level. When
the setting up of the Royal Commission was announced, steps
were taken by DPI to secure the files of the BAH and to search
them to provide information for the Royal Commission. To that
end a Royal Commission Information Centre (RCIC) was
established.
2.24 The labours of the RCIC over several months produced a
bundle of 164 files relating to allegations of malpractice. In
no sense did these files represent a comprehensive body of
information previously available to BAH in the area of
malpractices. They were specially constructed files, consisting of copies of documents gleaned from an examination
of some 30 000 DPI files in Canberra and regional offices and
22
of ' off file' material. This process was necessary because it
was apparent that no comprehensive system of recording
allegations of malpractice as such existed either in Canberra
or in the regions. I had occasion to comment on the BAH files
in giving my ruling on certain allegations that documents had
been improperly destroyed at the time the Royal Commission was
announced. (I found there was no substance in the allegations)
Attached as Appendix E to this report are some relevant
extracts from that ruling.
2.25 Despite the painstaking efforts of the RCIC staff to
produce an intelligible collection of files for the assistance
of the Royal Commission, the result was disappointing. Often
there were obvious gaps in the sequence of events recorded in
the documents on the file. Some files lacked either a clear
starting point or a conclusion. Some lacked both. In many
cases it was impossible to ascertain what action, if any, had
brought the matter to finality. Nonetheless, these files did
provide a useful starting point for a number of significant
investigations conducted before the Royal Commission. It
should be recorded that the RCIC was in no way to blame for any
defects in the material provided.
2.26 Official indifference to, or ignorance of, the true
state of affairs in the industry was reflected in some of the
evidence given in the early stages of the Royal Commission.
The Director of the BAH testified that he had heard rumours of
local meat going for export, but never one that could be
substantiated. He knew of no occurrence, and had not heard
persistent rumours, of the substitution of mutton for lamb.
He had heard no persistent rumours of the substitution of
cow-beef for ox, nor of the use of pet food in smallgoods nor
of the substitution of local offal for export offal. The
Chairman of AMLC testified that he had never heard of the
relidding of cartons for any underhand purposes in his 44 years
in the industry. The Australian Meat Exporters Council stated
that "the Council is not aware of any previous incidence of
23
malpractice in the preparation and marketing of export meat",
and the Executive Director testified that the question of
blatant malpractice had never been raised at a Council meeting
in his 19 years in office.
2.27 As to the meat inspection service, the provision of
free or discounted meat had been seen as a problem from time to
time, and some desultory but unsuccessful efforts to control
the practice had been attempted. The notion that illegal
benefits were being obtained by meat inspectors on any large
scale, whether by cash payments or claims for excessive
overtime or otherwise, was apparently regarded as so unlikely
as not to require any mention.
2.28 It was against this stance by government and industry
officials of real or professed ignorance of malpractices that
the legal staff commenced to search for evidence of past
misdeeds in the industry. That search was to reveal a serious
situation that should have been known to, or at least suspected
by, the officials concerned.
2.29 Late in September 1981, the terms of reference and
first sittings of the Royal Commission were extensively
advertised in newspapers circulating in capital cities, in
regional areas, and in the rural press. Later, there were a
number of press releases relating to interstate sittings of the
Commission. The evidence given at the Royal Commission
received widespread and consistent media attention. The
publicity given to the Royal Commission by these means resulted
in considerable public response.
2.30 All government departments and statutory bodies which
it was thought might conceivably have relevant information as
to malpractices, were requested to search their files for the
past decade and provide such material as they had. This they
did, and I am very grateful to those bodies for the considerable
effort involved in that task. The relevant files of police
24
forces, and of the Deputy Crown Solicitors' offices, were
obtained. The Hansards of the last decade were examined and
those Members of Parliament who appeared to have relevant
information were contacted. The files of the major daily
newspapers and of the rural press, where available, were
searched. Transcripts of public statements made on television
and radio were obtained.
2.31 Producer and trade organizations and trade unions were
requested to provide such material as was available to them.
In addition, the legal staff selected a number of persons in
the industry, thought to be typical of its various aspects, and
requested their individual contributions. Some hundreds of
persons whom it was thought might have useful information were
interviewed by the legal staff. Eventually, some were called
to give evidence and some were not. There are listed in
Appendices B and C to this report the names of those
organizations which provided submissions and those persons who
made submissions or gave general evidence to the Royal
Commission.
2.32 Direct evidence of past malpractices was slow to
emerge. As the Hon C.R. Kelly had found in conducting a
previous inquiry, industry managers professed to be "proud of
the fact that their behaviour was above reproach, but they all
cast grave aspersions on the behaviour of their competitors".
However, when pressed for specific information about their
competitors' activities, these managers showed a general
reluctance to identify individuals or to provide specific
information for the use of the Commission. This approach was
consistent with previous industry practice. Eventually it was
revealed that there had been widespread malpractices in the
industry, and that this was well known, but the industry had
usually preferred to remain silent. Only rarely had industry
leaders reported known or suspected malpractices, and then only
when the activities of some competitors were seen as being so
outrageous as to constitute a serious threat to the whole industry.
25
2.33 To this general attitude of reluctance to assist the
Commission, there were a few notable exceptions. These were
persons who believed that the long-term interests of producers
and of law-abiding processors in the industry would be better
served by frank disclosure than by secrecy. These persons
provided valuable starting points for investigations by the
Royal Commission, and it is to their credit that they did so.
2.34 Shortly before the commencement of the Royal
Commission, a joint police task force had been set up to
investigate the substitution scandal and related events. It
was commanded by a Chief Inspector of the Australian Federal
Police and consisted, in due course, of 37 detectives from the
Australian Federal Police and the Victoria Police, together
with support staff. A public appeal by this force for
assistance resulted in a very considerable response, reflecting
the widespread community concern about the substitution
scandal. However, much of the information supplied initially
was little better than rumour, and in the early stages the
police task force had hundreds of bits and pieces of
information, but little direct, usable evidence.
2.35 Nonetheless it was the combined efforts of this police
task force and the legal staff of the Royal Commission that, in
the end, produced the evidence most useful to the Royal
Commission on the question of malpractices.
2.36 In recent years, Royal Commissions have become
increasingly the vehicles of investigation into areas of great
public concern where other modes of inquiry have seemed to be
inadequate. The appropriate relationship between police forces
and the investigative arms of Royal Commissions has received
little attention, and deserves more. In the case of this Royal
Commission, by a mixture of good will and hard work on both
sides, a proper and effective relationship was established.
26
2.37 Often, an investigation commenced by one side would be
handed over to the other to pursue and, eventually, a joint
presentation would emerge. Commonly, agreed areas of
investigation were pursued concurrently in hearings of the
Commission and through further police investigation. This
proved a particularly effective approach in certain areas of
inquiry. Constant liaison was necessary to ensure a continuing
exchange of information. The result of this co-operation was
rewarding in terms of the evidence it produced.
2.38 A good deal of the hearing time of the Commission was
devoted to the examination of specific instances of malpractice.
It is important that the approach of the Commission to this
question be understood.
2.39 · The terms of reference of the main Commonwealth
Commission theoretically encompassed all malpractices in the
export industry, Australia-wide, over the the previous ten
years. In practice, what the Commission was concerned to do
was to establish generally whether a malpractice existed and
whether it was likely to occur with sufficient frequency to be
significant; to consider the ease or difficulty with which the
malpractice could occur having regard to current administrative
arrangements; and to obtain sufficient knowledge of the method
of the malpractice to be able to recommend effective measures
to prevent or deter its repetition. It was clearly not
possible to deal with all the allegations of malpractice made
during the decade.
2.40 Nonetheless the detailed examination of some specific
instances of malpractice and of allegations of malpractice was
seen as important. Not only did such examination provide the
necessary information about the malpractice itself, it also
provided considerable insight into the attitudes of industry,
the meat inspection service and other government agencies to
the particular case. This was much more revealing than general
statements about malpractices provided from those sources.
27
2.41 The Royal Commission had available to it about 100
sitting days. As the flow of information about malpractices
increased, it soon became obvious that it would be impossible
to deal thoroughly in the hearings with all of the material
coming forward. In consequence, those instances of malpractice
which were dealt with in evidence constituted only a selection
of that material. Many factors affected that selection.
Generally, those instances which provided the best and the most
easily accessible evidence of a particular malpractice were
selected. The more recent instances were selected in preference
to the old. Further proof of an already demonstrated
malpractice was generally avoided.
2.42 The location of the hearing played a part. Although
the Commission also sat in Sydney, Perth and Darwin, Melbourne
was its home base, most of the sittings were held there, and it
was in that city that the main thrust of the police effort was
available. Experience showed that effective evidence was much
more readily available in those places where the Commission sat.
2.43 Chance also played its part. On several occasions,
persons previously unco-operative in providing information to
the police, or to the legal staff of the Commission, gave
revealing evidence when required to testify on oath. This
sometimes opened up unexpected lines of inquiry.
2.44 In Appendix H to this report there are findings of
fact, and some comments, on nearly all the specific instances
of malpractices investigated by the Royal Commission. A few
have been omitted as being of too little value to include.
Although most of them have not been named, the identity of the
persons who have been the subject of those investigations will
be readily ascertainable in the public records of this
Commission after the Appendix is published. It needs to be
understood that the affairs of those persons, and the firms
with which they are connected, fell under the spotlight of the
Royal Commission as a result of the selective process outlined
28
above. In particular, it must not be inferred that they alone
were guilty of malpractice in the past decade, nor that their
conduct has necessarily been any worse than that of others
whose affairs have not been similarly investigated.
2.45 To this general proposition, there is one exception.
This Royal Commission had its origin in the discovery that pet
food had been substituted for export meat, a practice so
obnoxious as to stand apart from other malpractices. In
consequence, the legal staff brought before the Commission all
allegations of pet food substitution in respect of which they
considered there to be sufficiently credible evidence to justify
a public allegation that some particular person had knowingly
and wilfully engaged in the substitution of pet food for export
meat. Appendix H details the parts played by those most closely
involved in pet food substitution. They are referred to by name
to avoid any possible confusion in identification.
2.46 This report was required to be presented by
1 September 1982 - later extended to 22 September. This
necessitated setting a deadline beyond which no further
substantive evidence could be heard. This had two consequences.
First, there were a number of persons who made information
available to the Commission which could not be pursued at
hearings of the Commission. I am nonetheless grateful to them
for their co-operation. Secondly, a number of lines of
investigation, that had been opened up in evidence before the
Commission, remained incomplete when the evidence ceased. The
follow-up of those matters, where appropriate, must be left to
others.
The Victorian Royal Commission
2.47 As the control of Victorian meat inspection services
now belongs almost exclusively to the Department of
Agriculture, access to that Department's senior officers and
files became necessary from an early stage of the proceedings.
The Department conducted a thorough search of its file
29
registries and provided the Commission's staff with detailed
analyses of the files, which assisted in the identification of those matters which fell within the terms of reference. In due
course, many of those files were produced to the Commission and
either became exhibits or formed the bases for segments of
evidence. Other departments such as the Health Commission and
Law Department (Crown Solicitor's Office) also searched their
records and provided files to the Commission.
2.48 Reports and files from such bodies and agencies as the
Public Service Board of Victoria, the Victorian Ombudsman, the
Fisheries and Wildlife Division of the Ministry for Conservation
and the Bureau of Consumer Affairs were also examined.
2.49 Where available, searches of the files of the major
Victorian newspapers were conducted. The object of such
searches was to locate public allegations of malpractice in the
meat industry in order to enable the Commission's staff to
inquire whether such allegations had come to the attention of
the appropriate authorities, and thus to determine whether such
allegations had been handled adequately.
2.50 A search of Victorian Hansards for the period 1974 to
1981 enabled Members of Parliament who appeared to be in a
position to contribute to the Commission to be contacted and,
where appropriate, invited to give evidence.
2.51 All Ministers and ex-Ministers of the Departments of
Agriculture and Health and the Health Commission, and an
Attorney-General, were contacted with a view to ascertaining if
they had, since 1974, received any allegations of malpractice
relevant to the terms of reference. Several ex-Ministers
ultimately gave evidence on this and other more general matters.
2.52 Advertisements placed in the daily press announcing
the formation of the Royal Commission resulted in a good
response from various sections of the meat industry and the
30
public generally. Information obtained as a direct result of
such publicity often proved to be valuable.
2.53 At the time of the setting up of the Royal Commission,
there were some 300 licensed meat establishments in Victoria
(excluding meat inspection depots) which in the twelve months
ending 30 September 1981 processed over 15.5m animals for human
consumption. Despite the Victorian meat industry's size and
dispersal throughout the State, efforts were made to contact
representative operators of all such types of establishments,
no matter where they were located. Operators of export and
local abattoirs, slaughterhouses, boning-rooms, coldstores,
smallgoods and pie factories and retail outlets, as well as
operators of knackeries and pet food establishments, were
contacted and invited to make a contribution to the Commission.
Many such operators eventually gave evidence and provided
important information.
2.54 As one would expect to find in an industry as large
and diverse as the meat industry, there are many trade and
industry organizations and unions covering the widespread views
and interests of the industry's various components.
2.55 Many such bodies responded to the open invitation to
make submissions which was contained in the public
advertisements. In other cases, submissions were made after
discussion with the legal staff of the Royal Commission. In
very few cases did these organizations decline to participate
in the workings of the inquiry.
2.56 As with the Commonwealth Royal Commission, it was
apparent from an early stage of the proceedings that it would
be impossible to present in evidence all relevant material
which had come to the attention of the legal staff. The same
sort of criteria were applied to the selection of Victorian
material as those which were applied in the Commonwealth
inquiry. In a number of cases, the help of members of the
31
police force was sought in the conduct of further enquiries
before a particular matter was aired in the public hearings.
At the time when a decision was made to call no further
evidence, some of these matters were still under investigation
and will need to be pursued by the appropriate authorities.
The Northern Territory Royal Commission
2.57 At the beginning of these proceedings, there was a
widely held view in the Northern Territory that no malpractices
in the meat industry had occurred there in the past ten years.
However, once the Royal Commission established an office in
Darwin, little difficulty was encountered in securing the
co-operation of industry representatives, government departments
and their officials and the Northern Territory Police Force in
obtaining and marshalling material suitable for presentation to
the Commission. On the other hand, it was probably the
Territory belief about malpractices which resulted in virtually
no unsolicited public response to the widespread media publicity
which both preceded the public sittings in Darwin and occurred
during the actual hearings.
2.58 The recent constitutional history of the Northern
Territory necessitated requesting assistance from, and file
searches of, a number of Australian Government departments
which used to have responsibilities in the Northern Territory
meat industry, as well as the Departments of the Chief Minister,
Primary Production, Health and Law in the Northern Territory
Government. Many dozens of files were received from the
various departments, some simply providing useful background
information, whilst others formed the basis of segments of
evidence led before the Darwin sittings of the Royal Commission.
2.59 Because of the decentralized nature of the meat
industry in the Territory, the process of searching
departmental registries for the purpose of locating material
relevant to the terms of reference often proved to be a
difficult and time-consuming exercise, involving extensive
32
travel around the Northern Territory. This, coupled with the
loss of and damage to some files and other material in Cyclone
Tracey in 1974, added to the difficulties in collecting and
collating evidence.
2.60 The Commissioner of the Northern Territory Police
Force provided valuable assistance to the Royal Commission by
permitting the secondment of the two members of the stock squad
to assist the staff of the Commission in the preparations for
the hearings. They also conducted searches of the Force's file
registries in Darwin, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine
and provided valuable background information on the Territory's
meat industry.
2.61 The corporations of the main towns and cities in the
Northern Territory were contacted with a view to ascertaining
whether they wished to make submissions to the Commission or
had any. material relating to malpractices occurring or alleged
to have occurred in the past ten years.
2.62 All major industry, producer and union organizations
were similarly written to and invited to participate in the
Royal Commission's hearings. A number of representatives of
these bodies ultimately gave evidence at the Darwin sittings of
the Commission.
2.63 Appropriate Ministers of the Crown and politicians
who, as revealed by a search of the records of parliamentary
debates, had spoken on matters of interest to the Commission
and appeared to have useful information were contacted. One
Minister of the Crown, the Minister for Primary Production, and
one Member of Parliament ultimately gave evidence before the
Commission.
2.64 A wide range of individuals involved in the meat industry and thought to be representative of its various
facets, including pet meat producers, abattoir proprietors,
33
operators of mobile slaughtering facilities, station owners and
managers, exporters, retailers, coldstore managers, transport
operators and their drivers, meat inspectors and veterinary
officers were selected by the legal staff and requested to make
their individual contributions. Many of these persons were
called as witnesses, some travelling many hundreds of kilometres
to attend conferences with the staff of the Commission and to
give evidence at the public hearings.
2.65 The files of the major newspapers were examined for
information on malpractices and on the industry generally.
The decision of the High Court concerning
a witness before the Commission
2.66 There is a matter to which, with some diffidence, I
think I ought to refer; and it is convenient to deal with it
at this point.
2.67 One of the witnesses called before me objected to
answer questions on the ground that his answers might tend to
incriminate him. He had been charged with a criminal offence
arising from the events about which Counsel assisting the
Commission wished to question him.
2.68 When the witness, acting on legal advice, objected to
answering any questions, beyond giving his name, address and
occupation, I took the view that, provided the further hearing
was in confidential sittings, there was no reason why it should
not proceed and the witness be required to answer. I indicated
that I would entertain an application that all copies of the
transcript should be retained by the Commission and police
officers excluded from the hearing-room.
2.69 I need not go into my reasons for taking the view of
the law which I did, because the High Court has held that I was wrong, and the relevant law is now to be found in the judgments
given by the Court.
34
2.70 However I believe that I should say something about
the practical results of this decision. The effect of it is
that a person who has been charged with a criminal offence and
is awaiting trial cannot be pressed to answer questions, about
matters relating to the circumstances of his alleged offence,
by a Royal Commissioner appointed by the Executive. It may be
that even a willing witness in such circumstances cannot
properly be questioned. It seems further that the impropriety
of pressing questions applies even if the persons present at
the hearing are strictly controlled or, indeed, if only the accused person and the Royal Commissioner were present. Nor,
it seems, would it make any difference if the Royal Commissioner
had no intention of reporting any findings until after the
trial had been held.
2.71 . The Court also appears to take the view, although it
was not necessary to the decision, that the Commonwealth Royal
Commissions Act 1902 does not take away the right of the
individual to refuse to answer any question asked of him at a
Royal Commission on the grounds that the answer might
incriminate him. All the Justices seemed to be of this view,
and it was not suggested that the hearing of the evidence in
private would alter the situation.
2.72 The main effect of the decision will be that, in any
future inquiry into wrongdoing in some area of community or
public life, the Executive will have to choose between
instituting criminal proceedings promptly, and delaying
relevant parts of the inquiry until those proceedings have been completed, or delaying the criminal proceedings until after the
inquiry has been completed.
2.73 A more difficult problem arises from the expressed
views of the Court about the need for explicit legislative over
riding of the privilege against self-incrimination before that
right can be lost in proceedings before a Royal Commission. I
am bound to say that, in the light of my experience in this
35
Royal Commission, I consider it would, more often than not, be
a waste of public money to set up a Royal Commission to inquire
into an area of suspected malpractice in society if a right to
refuse to answer questions on grounds of self-incrimination
exists and is maintained. It would not be possible to engage
upon effective inquiry, except in cases where the Commission
had available to it a quantity of useful documentary material.
2.74 I shall illustrate this by reference to the course of
the evidence at this Commission. As I have pointed out, in the
early stages the proffered view of government and industry
officials was that there was little or no malpractice in the
export meat industry, and most individuals involved in the
industry showed a marked reluctance to identify anyone who
might be engaged in any malpractice. By the last week of March
all major industry and Commonwealth submissions had been
received, a number of allegations had been investigated and
half the sitting days had gone. I can only recall one witness
up to that time (apart from a central figure whose evidence I
have commented upon in Case 2 Appendix H) who had volunteered
evidence about his part in a malpractice.
2.75 If this report had been written in April of this year
instead of September, on the basis of the evidence then
available, I would have reported that malpractice in the
industry was rare, and felt compelled to recommend that, in the
light of that finding, many of the present security measures
were unnecessary and that no fundamental change in
administrative arrangements was required to prevent or detect
malpractices. Such a report would have been totally misleading.
2.76 However, between late March and July, the Commission
concentrated on hearing evidence of a number of individual
allegations of malpractice. In almost every case malpractice
was proved and the vital evidence came from some witness who
had himself engaged in the malpractice or who was a party to
it. It was rare for a person to have direct knowledge of a
36
particular malpractice without himself having played some role
in its execution. In only a few cases was there documentary
evidence relevant to the malpractice.
2.77 Whether or not those persons would have been entitled
to refuse to answer the questions which revealed the truth
about the malpractices, even in a very rigidly controlled
private sitting, if that were necessary, must await further
judicial pronouncement. But if such a right did exist, I have
no doubt that it would have been exercised by most, and perhaps
all, of the relevant witnesses at the Royal Commission hearings.
It provides an easy way out for those whose real concern about
giving evidence is not their own part in the transaction, which
may have been minor, but the effect of that evidence on their
associates or their employer. The granting of indemnity in
such cases is, in my view, an awkward and invidious process. I
do not see it as a practical solution to the problem posed.
2.78 There would have been a number of consequences if such
witnesses before the Commission had chosen this way out.
First, I would not have been able to reach any clear conclusion
about the probable level of malpractice in the industry.
Secondly, I would have been deprived of the knowledge of the
mode of execution of various malpractices and, in the absence
of that evidence, I would have been unable to make constructive
suggestions as to how they might be prevented in the future.
Thirdly, whatever I might have suspected to be the true
position, I may nonetheless have had to base my ultimate
findings on the first proffered views of the government and
industry officials. As I have said, those conclusions would
have reflected a quite different situation from that which I
now report - and which is now generally conceded - to be the
actual state of industry malpractice.
2.79 The question of whether or not Royal Commissions
should be established from time to time to investigate
allegations of wrongdoing in Australian society, raises
37
political, social and legal issues which are no concern of mine
in this report. However, my experience of this Royal Commission
obliges me to say that, had an absolute right against self
incrimination been known to exist and been exercised, I would
have been unable to write a useful and accurate report. I feel
sure that the same observation would apply to most Royal
Commissions enquiring into any general area of suspected
malpractice. The only solution in such cases would appear to
be special legislation to abrogate the right against self-incrimination, coupled with confidential sittings whenever
the possibility of such incrimination arose.
2.80 The question of confidential sittings calls for some
comment before I leave this topic. If the objection to self
incrimination rests only upon the potential effects on a
possible trial of criminal charges to be brought against the
particular witness, then I believe a Royal Commissioner can
readily devise practical measures to overcome those
difficulties. The potential effects could include the
publicity given to the witness's admissions delaying or even
preventing a fair trial; the possible unfairness of having to
give evidence in the presence of a police officer, who might
make use of it to gather incriminating evidence not otherwise
available to the police; the risk that the witness's version
of events may become known to the prosecutor in advance of the
trial; and the risk of unfair publicity as the result of a
report by the Royal Commissioner being made public before the
criminal trial is held.
2.81 All these possible results could be prevented. The
hearing of evidence from a witness which may have the tendency
to incriminate him can be held in private, in the presence only
of the Royal Commissioner, the shorthand writers, Counsel
assisting, possibly other Counsel, the witness and his legal
advisers. Appropriate undertakings could be obtained as to
non-disclosure of the evidence. Procedures of this type are
used in other areas of the law where confidentiality is seen as
38
important, for example court hearings involving secret trade
processes. Apparently these procedures are successful in
achieving the desired result. I see no reason why the same
result could not be reached at a Royal Commission hearing.
Similarly, the confidentiality of any part of a report by the
Royal Commissioner reflecting evidence given in private could
be maintained as long as was necessary.
2.82 Steps such as these may not be entirely satisfactory,
particularly where there are several malefactors who contradict
each other, but they would at least allow each witness's
testimony to be received, and tested up to a point. The public-
interest in the openness of such inquiries could be served by
release of the transcript at the end of all criminal
proceedings, if that were thought appropriate in the particular
case.
(c). Limitations
2.83 I have already referred, in paragraphs 2.8-14 above,
to the fact that the Commission has been limited to the State
of Victoria and the Northern Territory, so far as meat intended
for human consumption in Australia is concerned. Although a
good deal of evidence relating to other States has been
received incidentally, it must be stressed that no assumptions
concerning meat intended for human consumption in those States
can properly or safely be made on the basis of the findings of
this Commission.
2.84 As I have suggested in paragraph 2.14, the findings I
have made in relation to Victoria and the Northern Territory
may suggest lines of inquiry for other States. Similarly,
recommendations made may be of interest to authorities and the
industry in other States. But that is as far as this Report
can be taken in dealing with the domestic consumption of meat
outside Victoria and the Northern Territory.
39
2.85 In addition to the geographic limitation described, it
must be said that the Commission has worked against a limitation
of time. I make no complaint about this, because it is
obviously a matter of prime importance that the doubts cast
over the export meat industry by the events of August and
September 1981 should be cleared up as soon as possible. On
the other hand those doubts would not be dissipated by anything
less than a thorough inquiry.
2.86 The result has been that I have had to arrive at a
compromise between investigating all allegations which have
come to notice, and dealing only with those of major
significance. In the event, Counsel assisting the Commission
have put before me a cross-section of complaints and
allegations, including all the more serious ones and a
sufficient selection of others to give a fair overview of the
industry and its regulatory problems. I have reviewed the
matters which have not been investigated in detail, have taken
them into account in a general way (without trying to determine
the truth of the matters alleged), and have concurred in their
omission from detailed investigation.
2.87 In addition to limiting the number of allegations and
complaints investigated, the time factor has also influenced me
in determining how wide an interpretation I should give to the
word "meat" in the respective terms of reference. I have been
guided in my decision on this point by the circumstances in
which the Royal Commission was established and by the way in
which material has come forward to the Commission.
2.88 in particular, no organization or person has sought to
involve the Commission, to any significant extent, in the
affairs of the poultry or rabbit industries. Thus, although it
may seem strange that the very large chicken industry appears
to attract so much less attention and regulation than other
meat-producing industries, I have not thought it appropriate to
spend any of the available time on this subject. With this
40
exception, I think it is generally true to say that the
attention given to different types of meat broadly reflects the
numbers slaughtered - whether for human consumption or pet
food. Thus cattle, sheep, pigs, kangaroos, buffaloes and
horses have attracted most of the Commission's time, and deer
and goats very little. Donkeys have been looked at closely in
relation to one producer only.
2.89 Finally, in stating the limits within which the
Commission has operated, it is desirable to point out that the
Commission has not been asked to consider the economics of the
meat industry nor the appropriateness of any of the basic laws
which govern the industry.
2.90 The financial repercussions of any recommendations
made obviously require consideration, but the Commission cannot
be concerned with production or marketing methods, prices, wage
levels, employment opportunities or other economic or industrial
factors. In particular the Commission is not asked to express
a view on what proportions, if any, of the cost of meat
inspection should be borne by the industry or by State or
Federal Governments.
2.91 Although 'administrative arrangements and procedures'
may be given the force of law by regulation-making processes,
it is necessary to distinguish between them and the basic laws
which they are designed to protect and enforce.
2.92 Thus it is no part of the Commission's task to
determine whether game meat (for example, from kangaroos or
wild pigs) should be available in Victorian butchers' shops or
allowed to be exported for human consumption. Nor can the
Commission properly involve itself in determining what diseases
should cause a carcass to be declared unfit for human
consumption.
41
2.93 What it is called upon to do is to determine whether
such laws as exist in these areas are being properly observed
and whether policing measures are adequate.
(d) Evidence and opinions
2.94 The Commission has collected information and opinions
in several different ways. It began with the informal
inspection of some 30 differing types of meat premises. The
purpose of these inspections - to assist in the understanding
of later evidence - was fully achieved.
2.95 The great bulk of the material put before the
Commission has been in the form of sworn evidence, given at
public hearings and subject to cross-examination by Counsel
assisting the Commission or appearing for other parties. Much
of this evidence was volunteered, or given in response to
requests from Counsel assisting the Commission.
2.96 However in the case of investigations into alleged
malpractices, many witnesses were called on subpoena.
2.97 One witness gave some evidence after being subpoenaed,
was advised to seek legal representation and, having done so,
refused to answer any further questions. He was fined $700 in
a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and then he failed to reappear
before the Commission. He could not be found by the police and
may have gone abroad.
2.98 He is the only witness who failed to answer a
subpoena. Two other witnesses refused to answer questions on
the grounds that their answers might tend to incriminate them.
2.99 Some evidence was taken in confidential sittings. This
was true of evidence relating to halal slaughter and certifi
cation; the reasons for this are explained elsewhere in this
report (paras 7.77-78). Two other witnesses who, I accepted,
42
were in genuine fear of physical violence, also gave brief
evidence in private.
2.100 I also heard evidence in confidential sittings
concerning one episode which could have been thought to involve
malpractice, though I am now satisfied it did not. The
evidence was heard in private because time did not permit a
full examination of all the facts of the case. Its interest to
the Commission lay in the way in which the incident was handled;
and publicity for facts not fully explained or ruled upon could
have resulted in adverse commercial consequences for the
company.
2.101 Since I am satisfied that the company was innocent of
any deliberate wrongdoing or culpable negligence, I believe
that the evidence on the matter should lose its confidential
status at the same time that that part of my report (Case
No. 10 in Appendix H) is published.
2.102 Some other evidence was taken in private in order to
prevent possible prejudice to pending criminal proceedings.
The High Court's ruling on this question is referred to in
paras 2.66-82 above.
2.103 In the final result, a total of 497 witnesses gave
evidence on just over 100 sitting days. Those who gave general
evidence about the industry, or made submissions as to the
Commission's findings and recommendations, are listed in
Appendix C.
2.104 Over the same period a total of 891 exhibits were
received in evidence. Those which contained information of a
general kind are listed in Appendix D.
2.105 A number of exhibits were received on a confidential
basis. In many cases this was done because persons or
companies were being named as possible malefactors, and it
43
seemed unfair to publicise their names before they were in any
position to respond. In some instances these allegations were
followed up in evidence, and there is no need for exhibits
referring to them to remain confidential. In other cases the
matters alleged were, for one reason or another, not pursued.
All the exhibits received in confidence were so designated by
adding 'C1 to their respective numbers. At the final sittings
of the Commission I directed that a number of exhibits should
lose their confidential status for the reason given.
2.106 The remainder should, in my view, remain confidential
to all but those police and other authorities who need to
determine whether further investigations should be undertaken
with a view to criminal prosecution. I do not believe that
they should be available to regulatory authorities for any
other purpose, since they involve, for the most part,
uninvestigated allegations against persons who have had no
oppportunity to defend themselves.
2.107 In the case of other types of documents received in
confidence (apart from those returned to their source on
grounds of convenience) any further disclosure of them should,
in my view, be a matter for their originators, or others having
a proprietary interest in them, in each case. They should not
be published simply because they were made available to the
Commission. In some cases confidential trading information is
involved.
2.108 In addition to the formal evidence and the exhibits
placed before the Commission, there were two days on which
seminars were conducted as a convenient way of receiving
opinions and submissions.
2.109 I take the view that examination and cross-examination
of witnesses is a slow and inefficient way of eliciting opinion
evidence about future courses of conduct in general and
possible regulatory and administrative measures in particular.
44
2.110 Accordingly I took the chair at separate discussions
of new and proposed Victorian legislation and regulations, and
proposed DPI arrangements for a totally new system of meat
inspection. The transcripts of these seminars have been marked
as exhibits.
2.111 These discussions were held in public and bodies
likely to have an interest were invited to participate in each
case. There was a full opportunity for each participant to
express points of view and question other participants. I
regarded the use of this procedure as being highly successful.
(c) Specific allegations
2.112 As I have already said, Counsel assisting the
Commission selected all the more serious allegations of
malpractice, and a representative sample of others, to bring
before the Commission.
2.113 So far as possible, each allegation was dealt with at
one time and pursued either to conclusion or to a point where
it seemed that any further investigation would not be in the
public interest - having regard to the cost of the Royal
Commission, the relative seriousness of the allegation, and the
lessons to be learned from it. Some complex matters, involving
a number of parties and spreading over several states, had to
be dealt with in parts.
2.114 As soon as it became clear that allegations would be,
or were being, made that a company or individual had broken the
law, the opportunity to obtain legal representation was given.
Many persons and companies were so represented.
2.115 In no case was the name of a person or company, against
whom there was an allegation, made public before the Commission
began to deal in open hearing with the issues involved.
45
2.116 I have not been asked to make recommendations about
prosecutions or other punitive action against persons or
companies referred to in this report, and I have not made any
such recommendations.
2.117 A decision whether to prosecute or not will depend
upon a number of factors - the seriousness of the allegation,
the time which has passed since its occurrence, the extent to
which guilty persons have already been punished in one way or
another (for example by loss of income or reputation or
superannuation entitlements), and the likelihood of a
prosecution being successfully concluded. In many cases I do
not have all this information.
2.118 I hope that it will be possible to publish most of
this report within a reasonable time after it is presented.
Because of the possibility of criminal proceedings, any
detailed findings against named individuals or companies could
lead, in the interests of justice, to delay in publication. I
have accordingly segregated all those detailed findings into
Appendix H.
2.119 In addition, because I am conscious of the fact that
persons against whom allegations have been made have not had,
before the Commission, all the protection afforded by the laws
of criminal procedure, I have decided to avoid using names of
offenders in the body of this report and, except in pet food
substitution cases and one or two serious instances of
corruption, in Appendix H. The identity of those concerned
will be clear enough to those having the responsibility to
consider further action and, when Appendix H to the report is
published, to anyone who takes the trouble to check the public
record of the Commission's hearings.
2.120 Another reason for following this course is that I am
satisfied that, as I have said earlier, there have been many
more instances of malpractice than the Commission has been able
46
to identify. To castigate publicly those persons who have come
to notice for reasons other than the substitution of pet food
or serious corruption - particularly those who have admitted
their faults - would be unfair. It could, in some cases, give
advantage to others who are equally guilty.
2.121 Each of the allegations investigated is dealt with in
appropriate detail in Appendix H to this report. The lessons
to be learned from these cases have been incorporated in the
findings and recommendations in the body of the report. In my
view Appendix H to the report should not be published until any
criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings against persons referred
to in it have been finalized. I might add that I had determined
upon this method of presentation and this recommendation before
the High Court gave its decision in the case referred to above
(para-s 2.66-82). That decision makes it essential that this
course be followed.
47
CHAPTER 3A
THE EXPORT MEAT INDUSTRY
(a) Quantities, types and destinations of exports
3.1 In order to provide a back-drop against which the
results of the Commission's inquiries can be properly
understood, it is necessary to describe briefly the Australian
export meat industry.
3.2 The industry is, of course, subject to considerable
fluctuations in production and potential markets, and thus in
prices. This may be relevant to the development of
malpractices in the industry. With this thought in mind it is
worth recording the broad trends of recent years. These do not
include the effects of the 1982 drought. (All references are
to years ending 30 June) .
3.3 The national cattle herd has stood in recent years at
about 25m. Some 8.5m are killed each year. The national sheep
flock is about 135m, and some 30m sheep and lambs are killed each year.
3.4 Over the last decade, the numbers of cattle slaughtered
per year rose sharply from 1972 to 1978, apart from a dip in
1974. Since 1978 they have declined just as sharply - although
not yet back to 1972 levels. Sheep and lambs, on the other
hand, reached a peak in 1972, declined sharply to 1974 and have
maintained a slight upward trend since then.
3.5 Cattle prices were low in 1977, rising steadily
through 1978 and sharply in the first half of 1979. Since then
they have tended to decline but are still well above 1978
levels. While fluctuating considerably, sheep and lamb prices
have maintained a steady upward trend since 1977.
48
3.6 So far as the most recent history of the industry is
concerned, the following figures can be taken as describing the
general size and importance of the industry.
3.7 Australia exports about 0.9m tonnes of meat each year,
representing about half its total production and almost $1600m
worth of export earnings. Some two-thirds of this export trade
comprises beef and veal, while mutton and lamb make up most of
the balance. The other exports (amounting to roughly 10% of
the total) are, in order, fancy meats (mainly offals), canned
products, smallgoods, goat-meat and pig-meat.
3.8 In recent years a little more than half of Australian
beef and veal production has been exported, while about
three-quarters of mutton production and about one-sixth of lamb
production has gone abroad.
3.9 Generally speaking, beef exports have been declining
in recent years and mutton and lamb exports increasing.
3.10 Australia's largest markets for meat are found in USA,
Japan, the Middle East, USSR and Canada. In 1981 USA took 60%
and Japan 18% of Australia's beef exports. In the same year,
32% of our lamb and mutton went to the Middle East and 38% to
USSR.
(b) The organization of the industry
3.11 The Commission is, of course, only concerned with that
part of the export trade which lies between the point of
slaughter and the point of shipment. About half of this trade
is in the hands of ten large companies. Most of the exporting
is done by companies which are themselves integrated
producers. By this I mean that they own abattoirs,
boning-rooms and coldstores, usually on the same site. However
there are also a number of independent boning-rooms operating,
particularly in Victoria. They purchase carcasses, or parts of
carcasses, from export abattoirs, break them down to their
49
component parts according to the specifications of the importer,
then pack them in cartons for freezing before export. The
freezing is usually done by independent, export-registered
coldstores. Some of these boning-room proprietors are licensed
exporters. Others sell their product to meat brokers, who
handle a significant part of the trade. Meat may change hands
several times before being exported.
3.12 It must be noted that the beef and veal exports are almost entirely of boneless product, while the opposite is true
of mutton and lamb. Beef exports are generally from poorer,
manufacturing quality, animals.
(c) The regulation of the industry
3.13 The Department of Primary Industry has the main role in
regulating the export meat industry. It registers export
premises and provides an inspection service, at all those
premises, for all meat produced, whether it ultimately goes for
export or is sold on the local market. In some states, particularly NSW, the numbers of DPI inspectors are augmented by
state inspectors, particularly where a good deal of the product
goes to the local market, but they all work under the ultimate
control of a DPI veterinary officer.
3.14 The Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation (AMLC)
has a parallel regulatory role to that of the DPI. It issues
licences to meat exporters (to the business, not to the premises)
and is responsible for quality controls over those exporters
which it licenses. Over 200 licences are issued each year.
3.15 The Customs Bureau is responsible for ensuring that no
meat is exported without appropriate documentation from DPI.
(d) The steps in the export process
3.16 In order to make later segments of this report easier
to follow it is convenient now to give a brief description of
the main steps in the meat export process.
50
3.17 Animals are brought to a registered export abattoir.
They are then inspected before slaughter, usually by a
veterinary officer of the Department of Primary Industry but
sometimes by an experienced meat inspector working under the
general supervision of a veterinary officer. Only those
animals which appear to be fit for slaughter for human
consumption are allowed to go forward to the killing floor.
Any which are suspect are segregated for special examination
after being killed. Others may be deferred until their
condition improves or, if they are found to be dying or
seriously diseased, they will be killed in the yards and either
burned or rendered down for fertilizer.
3.18 Sound animals are slaughtered and dressed under the
supervision of meat inspectors employed by the DPI or, in some
cases, by the relevant State Government department. All these
officers are in turn supervised by a veterinary officer of the
DPI. An interesting point about the work of meat inspectors is
that most of them are directly involved in work on the
production line, known as a meat chain, which, if they were not
there, would need to be done by employees of the abattoirs. In
effect, they perform a number of functions related to quality
control. They examine the head of the animal for signs of
disease. They similarly examine various glands of the animal
and, in the case of the viscera (which includes all the edible
offal) they determine, in the course of their examination,
whether that offal is fit for human consumption, suitable for
pet food, or should be condemned. In carrying out these tasks,
they are not merely checking the work of others; they
physically perform the examination and sorting functions.
3.19 If the head, glands or viscera of the animal, or the
carcass itself, show any signs of a disease that could be
passed to man, or any other defect that could affect the
quality of the meat, then the carcass is segregated until a
final decision can be made as to whether all or part of it
should be condemned entirely or used only as pet food.
51
3.20 At the end of this process a stamp is placed on the
carcass to indicate that it has been approved for export. The
carcasses are then, in most cases, placed in a chiller.
3.21 The next process for most export meat is boning. Only
a very small proportion of beef exported goes in the form of
whole carcasses or smaller sections with the bone left in;
and, as already noted, beef represents about two-thirds of the
export meat trade. On the other hand, most mutton, lamb, goat
and pig-meats are exported bone-in. When meat is exported in
this form there is less scope for breach of the export laws,
because the nature and quality of the carcass can be inspected
and the original export-approved stamp should be evident.
3.22 When the bones are removed, however, the meat itself
no longer carries a brand and its original form and quality are
less recognizable. Thus, for reasons of both volume and
opportunity, any inquiry into breaches of the law relating to
export meat will be mainly - but not entirely - concerned with
boneless meat.
3.23 Some boning-rooms are integral parts of abattoirs;
some (particularly in Victoria) are entirely independent
operations - though often sited next to an abattoir; and some
are part of a cannery or smallgoods operation. In all cases
they are covered by a registration for export and are now
subject to full-time inspection by a meat inspector. Before
August 1981 some boning-rooms were only inspected on a part
time basis.
3.24 After boning, the meat is placed into appropriately
labelled cartons (normally 60 lbs/27.2 kgs) which are stamped
as being approved for export. This is done under the
supervision of the inspector.
3.25 The meat in cartons, and usually on pallets, is then
placed in a coldstore, awaiting instructions for shipment or,
52
in some cases, delivery to a smallgoods factory or cannery.
This coldstore may be part of the original abattoir/boning-room
complex, or attached to a smallgoods establishment or cannery,
but it will often be an entirely independent storage place.
Carcass meat intended for export may similarly be retained in a
coldstore attached to the original abattoir or consigned to an
independent coldstore for freezing and retention until required for shipment.
3.26 Next, such export meat as has not found its way into
smallgoods or cans will either be loaded into a container at a
coldstore or will arrive at a container depot, wharf or airport
for loading. After it has been finally checked for temperature,
and for the hygienic state of the area into which it is to go,
the inspection responsibilities of the Australian authorities
are concluded.
3.27 It will be seen from the description of meat handling
which has already been given, that there may be several
occasions on which meat for export has to be transported from
one place to another. The meat in one group of cartons could
be moved several times - from abattoir to boning-room in carcass
form and then in cartons, first to a coldstore and then to a
vessel. There could be a further move between different cold-
stores in order to assemble a shipment or because the ownership
of the meat has been transferred from one exporter to another.
3.28 Any movement of export meat must be accompanied and
evidenced by a transfer certificate - signed by a meat
inspector at the point of departure and checked against the
load by another inspector on arrival at its destination.
3.29 The ability to tamper with these certificates and add
non-export meat to the load during transit, has provided one of
the largest loopholes in export procedures in the past. More
careful preparation of the certificates, and the sealing of
loads, have recently been introduced to combat such practices.
53
3.30 Finally it is necessary to produce appropriate export
documents before the Customs Bureau will pass goods for export
and importing countries will receive them. These certificates
are given by officers of the Department of Primary industry and
are based on the sighting, by inspectors at the point of
loading, of the appropriate 1 Australia Approved1 stamps on
carcasses or cartons, and the export and transfer documents
from the registered export establishment where the meat was
last held.
3.31 The firm exporting the meat must hold an export
licence from the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation.
Not all export meat processors have such licences and not all
licence holders are meat processors - some operate merely as
brokers.
54
CHAPTER 3B
THE MEAT INDUSTRY IN VICTORIA
(a) The size of the industry - recent trends
3.32 The meat industry in Victoria is important to the
State's economy. Latest available figures before the 1982
drought showed that there were 4.3m head of cattle in the State
(compare Queensland's 9.7m and NSW's 5.3m). There were 25.3m
sheep and lambs (compare NSW's 45.1m and WA's 30m).
3.33 The cattle numbers in Victoria have declined
considerably since the peak year of 1975, but have been steady
for several years. Sheep and lamb numbers declined from 1975
to 1977, but have risen steadily since.
3.34 . Cattle slaughtering figures reached a peak in 1978,
declined greatly in 1979 and 1980 and rose again in 1981.
Sheep slaughtering declined considerably from 1976 to 1979 but
rose steadily in 1980 and 1981.
3.35 Victoria's overseas exports of meat rose steadily
between 1975 and 1978, declined rapidly in 1979 and 1980 but
rose again in 1981. Mutton and lamb did particularly well in
1981.
3.36 In 1981, Victoria was responsible for producing just
under 40% of Australia's mutton and lamb and exporting just
over 40%. In the case of beef Victoria produced 25% and
exported 18% of the Australian totals.
3.37 So far as prices are concerned, cattle prices slumped
in 1975, due to the collapse of major export markets. They
recovered a little between 1976 and 1978, then rose
dramatically in 1979 and 1980 (reaching a peak in June 1979)
before declining to some extent in 1981. Sheep prices have
tended to follow cattle prices, but have remained higher in the
last year or so, thanks to overseas demand.
55
(b) The organization of the industry
3.38 The Commission's interest in the industry in Victoria
lies between the point of slaughter and the retail butcher's
shop, supermarket or delicatessen.
3.39 The first point to be made is that the major part of
the meat consumed in Victoria originates in export-registered
abattoirs. (This is particularly so in the case of mutton and
lamb). Much of it is also processed in export-registered
boning-rooms, smallgoods factories and canneries.
3.40 In June 1981, the following establishments handling
meat for human consumption were licensed to operate in
Victoria -Export abattoirs 19
Local abattoirs 85
Slaughterhouses 29
Meat premises 165
(Meat premises, for this purpose, include boning-rooms,
coldstores, smallgoods factories and canneries).
3.41 Approximately half the animals slaughtered in Victoria
are killed at metropolitan abattoirs.
3.42 The latest available Annual Report of the Animal
Health Group of the Department of Agriculture (1980-81) noted
the growth in the number of boning-rooms and cold-storage
facilities, to keep pace with the increasing number of
take-away food outlets. There is now less direct movement of
meat from abattoir to wholesale or retail butcher than in the
past.
(c) The regulation of the industry
3.43 The regulation of the meat industry in Victoria is in
the hands of the Victorian Abattoir and Meat Inspection
Authority, the Department of Agriculture and the Health
Commission.
56
The Victorian Abattoir and Meat Inspection Authority
3.44 The Authority is comprised of senior officers of the
Department of Agriculture, representatives of the Health
Commission and of municipal councils and industry
representatives. Its chief function is the licensing of
abattoirs and other meat establishments, having regard to the
requirements of the industry and the standards of construction
and equipment of the particular establishment. It is also
responsible for controlling the training of meat inspectors and
issuing them with a certificate of competency.
The Victorian Department of Agriculture
3.45 The Department is responsible for the day-to-day
running of the meat inspection service. Its officers inspect
almost all meat establishments and knackeries. In recent
months.those responsibilities have been extended to cover pet
meat wholesalers and retailers.
3.46 With the application of stricter standards since about
1975 the number of local abattoirs has risen from 74 to 85 but
the number of smaller slaughterhouses has dropped from 84 to 29.
3.47 The only meat establishments not falling within the
responsibilities of the Department are those covered by the
Health Commission.
The Victorian Health Commission
3.48 The Commission, which (under another name) used to be
generally responsible for meat inspection, retains control over
retail butchers' shops and certain smallgoods manufacturers,
canneries and other processors which produce goods only for
local consumption.
(d) The steps in producing meat for human consumption
3.49 As already noted, the larger part of the meat consumed
in Victoria comes from animals killed in export-registered
establishments. The procedures at those places have been
57
described in Chapter 3A. It is appropriate at this point to
set out the differences between the production of such meat
appropriate for export and the remainder of the process of
providing Victorians with meat for human consumption.
3.50 Most animals intended for slaughter in Victoria are
purchased at a saleyard, although some are bought in the
paddock. They are either purchased by the abattoir owner or
sent to a service abattoir by the purchaser.
3.51 Thus animals headed for the domestic market may
already be the property of a retailer before they are killed at
a service abattoir. More often they will be purchased after
slaughter by buyers for the big retailers - such as supermarkets - or sold to a meat wholesaler, from whom smaller
butchers, restaurant owners and other users will make their
purchases.
3.52 Whatever their ownership, the animals are brought to a
licensed abattoir (small abattoirs are officially known as
slaughterhouses). They are inspected by a meat inspector from
the Department of Agriculture on the day they are to be killed,
although the inspection is less thorough than in the case of
export animals. They are either passed, marked for separate
killing because there is some query about them, deferred until
their condition improves, or condemned. If condemned they are
shot and either burned or rendered down and used as fertilizer.
3.53 Sound animals are slaughtered and dressed under the
supervision of meat inspectors employed by the Department of
Agriculture. These inspectors are under the general control
of, and receive periodic visits from, veterinary officers of
the Department.
3.54 The ratio of inspectors to slaughtermen is not as high
as in the case of export-registered premises, and they are not
expected to pay the same meticulous attention to the appearance
58
of the carcass as occurs in export establishments. On the
other hand a similar search occurs for any evidence of disease,
and the inspectors do perform functions covering many aspects
of quality control which, if not done by them, would have to be
done by abattoir employees. Suspect animals are treated in the
same way as at export abattoirs.
3.55 At the end of the inspection process an inspector
places a stamp on the carcass to show that it has been passed
fit for human consumption. The carcasses are then, in most
cases, placed in a chiller before despatch to a wholesale
butcher, retail butcher, boning-room, cannery, smallgoods
factory or coldstore.
3.56 If the meat is to be boned, it may go direct to a
boning-room (which could be in the abattoir complex), or may be
sent to a coldstore first, to be thawed and boned out later.
After boning the meat will normally be packed in cartons and
frozen, before being purchased by a smallgoods factory or other
end user .
3.57 If the meat goes to a retail butcher (which for this
purpose includes a supermarket), or to any other meat premises
specifically exempted by the Minister from the operation of the
Act, it passes beyond the control of the Department of
Agriculture. If it goes to any other establishment, such as a
boning-room, which is subject to such control, it becomes the
responsibility of a visiting meat inspector, who checks the
quantities received by the establishment and the quantities in
store. He stamps the cartons with a stamp, incorporating his
own official number, to indicate that the meat in the carton
has been passed fit for human consumption. He does so on the
basis of his sighting of the Department's stamp on the
carcasses waiting attention each time he calls and on his rough
reconciliation of carcasses coming in from known licensed
premises and the cartons which he stamps as they are prepared for delivery.
59
3.58 similar considerations apply to periodic inspections
of canneries and smallgoods premises. As in the case of
boning-rooms, these are carried out at quite frequent, but
irregular, intervals and the inspector relies upon his sighting
of the Department's stamp on incoming meat, together with his
own observation of the conduct of the premises in question, to
justify his stamping of the outgoing cartons or other
containers as containing meat fit for human consumption.
3 . 5 9 inspection carried out by municipal health officers
completes the process of government regulation of meat
production. Butchers shops and other retailers of meat are
inspected for hygiene, and meat is taken for sampling in order
to ensure that it has not been contaminated by, for example,
excessive use of preservatives in those cases where such
additives are permitted at all.
60
CHAPTER 3C
THE MEAT INDUSTRY IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
(a) The organization and size of the industry
3.60 Meat is one of the Northern Territory's three most
important industries. 1.8m cattle are distributed between 317
properties. They fend for themselves in an open range system;
in the more inaccessible areas they are virtually in a wild
state.
3.61 In the southern half of the Territory, traditional
varieties predominate, but in the 'Top End 1 Brahman types do
much better. The southern cattle can, in good seasons, fatten
sufficiently to compete on the domestic market for the butchers'
trade. Northern cattle are mainly used to produce lean meat of
manufacturing quality for export and the home market.
3.62 Of the 378 000 cattle turned off in 1980-81, 55% were
shipped interstate or overseas as live cattle. Of the
remainder, 65% were slaughtered in southern abattoirs.
3.63 In addition to these cattle, there were 41 000
buffaloes slaughtered at NT abattoirs in the same period, and a
further 2 0 0 0 shot in the field but dressed at abattoirs for
export as game meat.
3.64 It is important to note in passing that NT cattle and
buffaloes are remarkably free of disease. Constant vigilance
is necessary to prevent the spread into the Territory of the
very serious diseases which are endemic in countries to the
near north of Australia. These include foot-and-mouth disease
and rinderpest, not to mention various types of insect
infestation which can injure cattle.
3.65 Brucellosis is confined to cattle and mainly to the
southern part of the Territory. Tuberculosis remains the worst problem for both cattle and buffaloes - particularly in the Top
End.
61
3.66 NT abattoirs also handle comparatively small numbers
of pigs and a few horses are killed for human consumption.
3.67 In 1980-81 82% of the total numbers of cattle
slaughtered in the Territory were killed in the three export
abattoirs at Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine. None
of the meat produced at export abattoirs is exported directly
from the Territory. A small proportion of it is sold in the
Territory, some of it goes to markets in other states and the
bulk of it is exported through Brisbane, Adelaide, Sydney or
Melbourne. Thus road transport is a particularly important
feature of the meat industry in the Territory.
3.68 Most meat consumed.in Darwin, Alice Springs and the
other main centres of population in the Territory, comes from
inter-state. This is necessarily true of all sheep products
and most pork. It also applies to most of the better cuts of
beef. It comes in by sea, road, rail (to Alice Springs) and
air .
(b) The regulation of the industry
Department of Primary Industry 3.69 Since 8 6 % of the cattle slaughtered in the Territory
are killed in export-licensed abattoirs, the main burden of
regulating the meat industry falls on the Commonwealth
department. Generally speaking the same control systems apply
as have been described for the State of Victoria. Differences
in administrative arrangements are dealt with in Chapter 4C
below.
NT Department of Primary Production
3.70 The NT Department which has responsibility for inspection of abattoirs is that of Primary Production. The
Animal Health Branch of that Department contains within it a
small meat inspection service.
62
3.71 That service operates under an Abattoirs and
Slaughtering Act which all witnesses agreed to be inadequate
and out of date. The Act is based on a system which identifies
the Territory's five main centres of population as "Licensed
Abattoirs Areas". It provides that, within these areas, meat
may only be sold for human consumption if it has been marked as
fit for human consumption under the laws of a State or in
accordance with the NT Abattoirs and Slaughtering Regulations.
This means, in effect, that it must have been slaughtered at a
licensed abattoir which is subject to inspection.
3.72 Outside the Licensed Abattoirs Areas it is not
unlawful to sell unmarked meat for human consumption - which
may have been killed and dressed in the field, or at a station
homestead or aboriginal settlement. It is however unlawful to
slaughter an animal in such circumstances unless it is to be
consumed by its owner or his family or employees.
3.73 There is provision for abattoirs to be licensed within
Licensed Abattoirs Areas but, since these are defined as the
township areas in each case, it is not surprising to find that
only one - the Angliss abattoirs in Darwin - is so located.
All the others are some distance from their respective towns or
are deep in the bush near their sources of supply.
3.74 It is open to the Department to object to the grant of
a licence to an abattoir owner if he "is not a fit and proper
person to hold the licence". This provision would be of little
assistance in the case of a company or where the person in
charge of the operation is someone other than the owner of the premises.
3.75 The Act and Regulations provide sufficient control
over the construction of abattoirs and their hygienic
operation. There is also power to enter butchers' shops and
cold-storage rooms for the purpose of checking markings on meat for human consumption and determining whether unmarked meat is
being held for sale. 63
3.76 Maximum penalties for breaches of these laws are
generally either $200 or $400.
Other NT authorities
3.77 In addition to the powers of the Department of Primary
Production under the Abattoirs and Slaughtering Act, the NT
Health Department has powers, under the Public Health Act, to
control the sale of meat in butchers' shops.
3.78 The Stock Squad of the Northern Territory Police also
has some relevant responsibilities in relation to illegal
slaughter. For the most part this refers to unauthorized
killing of stock belonging to other persons, but it also
includes the detection of persons killing feral animals without
observing the laws relating to pet food production.
3.79 Although there are no legal limitations on the
production of meat by aboriginal communities for their own use,
the Departments of Primary Production and Health do provide
advice on hygienic slaughtering and handling whenever it is
sought.
64
CHAPTER 4A
THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF EXPORT MEAT
4.1 The first term of reference of the Royal Commission
asks whether relevant arrangements and procedures "are adequate
to ensure that all meat exported from Australia meets the
requirements prescribed by law".
4.2 It is therefore necessary to establish what the law
does in fact require of export meat. The answer, in summary
form, is
(a) preparation on approved premises,
(b) inspection by qualified persons,
(c) accurate trade description,
(d) freedom from disease,
(e) freedom from contamination or damage, and
( f) certain special requirements.
Each of these topics is dealt with briefly below.
4.3 These requirements are generally to be found in the
Exports (Meat) Regulations (EMRs) which depend for their
validity upon powers given by Sec 112 of the Customs Act 1901
and Sec 11 of the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905.
(a) Preparation on approved premises
4.4 The export of meat is prohibited unless it has been
slaughtered, treated and stored only at premises duly
registered as export establishments. This requirement is the
keystone to the whole structure of controls over the export of
meat.
4.5 Not only does registration require that the premises
must be soundly constructed, to standards which make hygienic
handling practices easy to apply; it also provides the basis
for the supply of departmental officers who oversee and direct
all the steps necessary to ensure a sound export product.
4.6 Most of the serious cases of breaches of the law
regarding export meat, have had their origins in work done at
unregistered premises. The resulting product has then been
illegally inserted into the export stream at a boning-room,
smallgoods factory or coldstore. In a few cases it may have
gone straight to a container depot, wharf or airport.
4.7 There have also been some cases in which work has been
performed illegally, out-of-hours or otherwise in the absence
of inspectors, at registered premises; and the law may have
been broken with the connivance of government inspectors. But
most of these cases would also have involved the use of
premises for slaughtering which were not export-registered.
4.8 The requirement of registration of premises for the
export trade is set out in Reg 11, paras 1, 2 and 2A of the
EMRs. Other detailed provisions are in Regs 20-29 and the
Sixth Schedule.
(b) Inspection by qualified persons
4.9 The Regulations provide that the exportation of meat
is prohibited unless it has been "passed for export"
(Reg 12(1) (b) ) . Regs 30, 31 and 33(1) make it clear that the
animal concerned must be slaughtered and dressed under the
supervision of departmental officers and inspected and passed
fit for export by an officer.
(c) Accurate trade description
4.10 The exportation of meat is also prohibited unless an
accurate trade description is applied to it in the prescribed
manner (Regs 15-19). Subject to certain specific exceptions,
the description must be accurate as to
(i) the identity of the manufacturer or producer
(Reg 16 (3)) ,
(ii) the weight of the meat (Reg 16(1) (e)) ,
66
(iii) the type of meat, for example ox beef, heifer
beef, yearling beef, veal, lamb, ewe mutton,
pork, horse-meat (Reg 16(6)(b) and Third
Schedule), and
(iv) the quality (first, second or third) in the
case of bone-in meat (Regs 16(4) and 11(5)).
4.11 These are the required elements of the description.
Any other information supplied as part of the trade description,
such as the cut of meat, must be truthful (Reg 16(1)(b)).
(d) Freedom from disease
4.12 Although the word "disease" is widely defined in
Reg 5(1), the requirement that export meat shall be free of
disease tends to be taken for granted in the body of the
Regulations. It is not stated in specific terms, although the
Second Schedule refers, in paras 1 and 2, to the search for
evidence of disease in the course of inspections. Regs 61B and
63 provide for the handling of condemned animals and condemned
carcasses.
4.13 A health certificate is invariably required by an
exporter. Although the regulations specify a form of health
certificate (form 8 in the Fifth Schedule), some importing
countries require certificates in somewhat different terms.
Form 8 calls for a DPI veterinary officer to certify that the
meat -"has been examined and found by ante-mortem and post-mortem veterinary inspection, to be free from disease and suitable in every way for human consumption".
(e) Freedom from contamination or damage
4.14 The wide definition of "disease" referred to in the
previous section would be sufficient to cover some types of
damage or contamination. It refers to a "deviation from the
normal in the condition of .... any tissue, forming part of the
meat .... as renders the meat .... unsightly or unfit for human
consumption".
67
4.15 The Form 8 Health Certificate, referred to in the same
section, also calls for a statement that "no injurious
ingredient has been used" in the preparation of the meat.
4.16 The Second Schedule requires that meat, once passed
for export, shall not be exposed to direct or indirect contact
with other goods which could cause it to become contaminated
(para 5) .
4.17 Apart from these provisions, the requirement that meat
for export should not be contaminated is assumed by the
Regulations, and provided for by requirements relating to such
matters as the state of the premises, the personal hygiene of
workers, manner of transportation, adequacy of refrigeration
and use of approved chemicals only.
(f) Certain special requirements
4.18 In addition, it should be noted that there are special
requirements
. of some importing countries
. for canned goods, smallgoods and other meat products
. for game meat.
4.19 However, with one exception, none of these has come to
notice in the course of the Royal Commission's inquiries and so
there seems to be no point in detailing them. The one exception
related to the requirements of Muslim countries for halal
slaughter. This topic is dealt with in detail in Chapter 7A.
4.20 Laws relating to the export of pet foods will also
require some attention. This subject is dealt with in
Chapter 6 .
(g) Breaches of legal requirements
4.21 As will become apparent, there have been three main
ways in which the legal requirements set out above have been
breached.
68
4.22 In the first place there have been many instances of
false trade descriptions being used.
4.23 Secondly, large quantities of wholesome non-export
meat, suitable for consumption in Australia, have found their
way into the export trade. This product has not been
slaughtered, and may not have been prepared or packed, on
premises registered for export, and so will not have been
inspected by the proper inspectors. It will however have been
slaughtered and prepared on premises registered for domestic
production and inspected by inspectors appointed for that
purpose.
4.24 Thirdly, some meat has been exported which has not
been slaughtered under any sort of inspection in abattoirs
approved for any purpose. This meat, which could only lawfully
be sold as pet meat for use in Australia, has been exported in
breach of all or most of the legal requirements.
4.25 Thus it has not been prepared on approved premises or
inspected by qualified persons. The species of meat has been
falsely described and, in many cases, the meat has not been
free from disease or contamination.
69
.
â ;··
â
.
1 > ? â â "..
S i , . · â
â s:
ss ,
s - : '
. â
' i · ' · , *â >
â â
: â , ·
- S
-
'
CHAPTER 4B
THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF MEAT FOR
HUMAN CONSUMPTION IN VICTORIA
4.26 The legal requirements of meat sold for human
consumption in Victoria are to be found, for the most part, in
the Abattoir and Meat Inspection Act 1973 and in Regulations
made under that Act.
4.27 They may be summarised by saying that such meat must
be from animals which have been -(a) killed and dressed on licensed premises,
(b) subject to inspection both before and after
slaughter, and
(c) found free from disease which could affect the meat.
The meat itself must be -(d) free from contamination and
(e) truthfully described when offered for sale.
(a) Preparation on licensed premises
4.28 The Act requires that most places which handle meat
have to be licensed. This applies to abattoirs, boning-rooms,
coldstores, canneries, smallgoods factories and places
receiving meat from interstate, classified as "meat inspection
depots". The exceptions to the general rule are retail
butchers' shops and certain specific establishments (mostly
engaged in the manufacture of meat products) designated by the
responsible Minister for exclusion from the coverage of the
Act, presumably on the grounds that they are more appropriate
for coverage under legislation dealing with public health.
4.29 With these exceptions, it is an offence to operate an
unlicensed meat establishment or to sell meat from an animal
not killed at a licensed establishment.
4.30 The purpose of licensing is, of course, to enable
checks to be made on the condition of the premises, the methods
70
of killing and preparing meat at those premises and the
suitability for human consumption of the meat produced or
handled.
(b) Inspection by qualified persons
4.31 The Act gives wide powers to inspectors employed by
the Department of Agriculture. It is an offence to sell meat
which has not been inspected and branded in accordance with the
Act. It is even an offence to remove meat from an abattoir
unless it has either been passed as fit for human consumption
or rendered unusable for such consumption.
4.32 It is part of the Regulations under the Act that stock
for human consumption must be inspected and passed by a meat
inspector, on the day on which it is to be slaughtered.
4.33 The main differences in inspection requirements
between meat for export and meat for domestic consumption in
Victoria are
(i) there is no requirement under State law that
a veterinary officer should be involved in
ante-mortem examinations or in the day-to-day
supervision of work at abattoirs, and
(ii) less attention is given to some detailed
inspection matters which largely relate to
the appearance of the product and are less
relevant when meat is likely to be consumed
soon after killing. Such questions include
the presence of grass seeds in sheep
carcasses and the touching together of
carcasses as they hang in a chiller - which
can produce marking.
(c) Freedom from disease
4.34 The Act defines "disease" as including any of a list
of diseases or conditions set out in a Schedule. The list can
be added to by the Minister. It is an offence to accept a
71
diseased animal at an abattoir, without special authority, and
inspectors can prohibit the slaughter of diseased animals or
condemn any meat or meat product which has any defect or
disease rendering it unfit for human consumption. Diseased
animals are, so far as possible, traced back to their points of
origin, so that appropriate steps can be taken to reduce the
incidence of disease in stock.
(d) Freedom from contamination or damage
4.35 The whole thrust of the Act and Regulations is to
ensure that only meat fit for human consumption reaches the
public. This covers both the initial condition of the meat
after preparation and anything which may happen to it later.
There are many detailed regulations dealing with the cleanliness
of premises, equipment and personnel and with the adoption of
hygienic processes. It is the duty of an inspector to condemn
any contaminated meat which cannot be safely cleansed.
(e) Accurate trade description
4.36 The passing-off of inferior quality meats, of the same
or different species, for superior quality and more valuable
meats would constitute a breach of various legislative
provisions, both Victorian and Commonwealth, which make it an
offence to employ false or misleading descriptions on consumer
items. Such provisions can be found in the Health Act (Vic)
1958, the Consumer Affairs Act (Vic) 1972 and the Trade
Practices Act (Commonwealth) 1974. The Crimes (Theft) Act
(Vic) 1973 also deals with the offence of obtaining a financial
advantage by deception.
72
CHAPTER 4C
THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF MEAT FOR
HUMAN CONSUMPTION IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
(a) Within Licensed Abattoir Area
4.37 The chief requirement of meat for human consumption in
the Northern Territory is that, if it is to be sold in a
Licensed Abattoir Area (the townships of Darwin, Alice Springs,
Katherine, Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek) it must have been
"marked as being fit for human consumption" in accordance with
relevant laws.
4.38 This means in effect that it must have been produced
in a licensed abattoir, and should have been the subject of
inspection by a meat inspector. Only an inspector can lawfully
mark meat.
4.39 There is a qualification to this general provision in
the case of buffalo-meat, which must have been "slaughtered in
pursuance of a licence".
4.40 In practice this means that it must have been either
slaughtered at an abattoir approved for the purpose, or brought
to such an abattoir for butchering within about an hour of
being shot.
(b) Outside Licensed Abattoir Area
4.41 There are no legal requirements which have to be met
in the case where an owner has his own stock slaughtered for
consumption by his family or his employees. Apart from this it
is an offence to slaughter stock for human consumption except
at a licensed abattoir.
(c) Storage and transportation
4.42 The Abattoirs and Slaughtering Regulations contain
some provisions relating to the storage of meat at licensed
abattoirs. There are no provisions about the storage of meat
73
at independent coldstores or about the transportation of meat.
There is no control over the importation of meat into the
Territory. It must however comply with the requirement set out
in section (a) above.
(d) Freedom from Contamination
4.43 The Food and Drugs Act contains general provisions
concerning the protection of food from contamination. Meat is
of course included in this general coverage.
(e) Accurate trade description
4.44 Meat products must, like all other goods for sale, not
be in breach of the Trade Practices Act (Commonwealth) 1974 or
of NT laws relating to false and misleading trade descriptions.
73a
CHAPTER 5A
ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS AND PROCEDURES
CONCERNING THE EXPORT OF MEAT
5.1 A great deal of evidence has been led, and many
opinions have been offered, concerning administrative
arrangements designed to ensure that export meat complies with
relevant laws.
5.2 A study of this subject involves consideration of the
workings of the meat inspection service and other Commonwealth
bodies which have a role in the same area. It also involves a
detailed examination of regulations and procedures which govern
the various stages of production and movement of export meat.
5.3 The position is considerably complicated by the need
to examine three broad sets of arrangements - those in force
before the substitution scandal broke, those introduced as a
result of that scandal, and those now proposed for the future.
(a) The Commonwealth inspection service
(i) DPI organization - proposed changes
5.4 Throughout the period covered by this Commission's
inquiries, the inspection of meat for export has been the
responsibility of the Department of Primary Industry (although
it was, for one brief period, called the Department of
Agriculture). Although the situation is now changing, the
responsibility within the DPI has, from 1975 until now, been
carried by the Bureau of Animal Health (BAH).
5.5 In 1975, the Veterinary Public Health Branch of the
Department, the branch responsible for the export meat
inspection service, was transferred to the Bureau of Animal
Health. It carried with it a staff of about 1900 meat
inspectors and veterinary officers. It became one of five
sections of the BAH. The Bureau had been established in 1974
as a technical unit in the field of animal and poultry health,
designed to co-ordinate and provide a service to Commonwealth
and State organizations, while not directly formulating
policies. The other four sections of the Bureau consisted of
about 40 staff, mainly scientists. These sections operated
with a degree of delegation and independence seen as fitting
for high level scientists and administrators, and the operation
of the Veterinary Public Health Branch was seen in the same
light. In turn, the Bureau itself operated independently from
the main stream of Departmental activities. There can be no
doubt that the Director, Dr R.W. Gee, a distinguished
veterinary scientist, was an appropriate person to direct the
activities of the advisory technical unit contemplated when the
Bureau was first established. However, for Dr Gee and the
Bureau to have thrust upon them the responsibility for a meat
inspection service of this size was to saddle them with a task
of an. entirely different nature.
5.6 It is significant that the first report of the BAH,
covering the years 1974-78 listed 20 functions for the Bureau.
Of those directly relevant for present purposes, No. 17 was
"Provide professional advice on Australian standards relating to export meat and poultry inspection", and No. 20 was
"Pending the outcome of negotiations aimed at introducing a single meat inspection service in Australia, the Bureau would be responsible for all Australian government functions relating to
operational meat inspection."
5.7 It is no doubt in recognition of the fact that the
meat inspection service has sat rather awkwardly and
impermanently within the BAH that the Department has now
established a separate Export Inspection Service, divorced from
the Bureau and headed by administrators rather than
professional veterinary officers.
75
(ii) The perceived role of meat inspection -protection of health or detection of malpractice
5.8 The importance of US Department of Agriculture
requirements to Australian meat inspection has been referred to
in para 1.10 above and is also dealt with at paras 5.27-29
below and elsewhere in this report. One aspect of those USDA
requirements is the emphasis on veterinary presence at plant
level. This, together with the placement of the inspection
service within the BAH, resulted in the inspection service
being strongly oriented towards veterinary matters. In
consequence it concentrated on works hygiene and animal
disease. It undertook little responsibility for quality
control. It did not see itself as responsible for out-of-hours
oversight of meatworks or the detection of malpractices. The
professional training of veterinarians is significant in areas
of health and disease prevention, but has no relevance to the
broader aspects of administering a meat inspection service
which must deal with problems of malpractice in the industry.
5.9 The notion that wrongdoing was a matter for the
police, if it was sufficiently serious to worry about at all,
lies at the heart of most of the weaknesses in the inspection
system which have come to light in recent months.
5.10 Before August 1981 the BAH Compliance and Evaluation
Unit was staffed by two principal veterinary officers reporting
directly to the Senior Assistant Director, Veterinary Public
Health Branch. This unit received monthly reports by senior
veterinary officers on all registered export establishments
listed for export to the United States, reports compiled by
meatworks standards officers, reports from overseas reviewing
veterinarians and reports of trade complaints from, and product
rejections by, importing countries. However, as events have
shown, this unit was not effective in securing continued
general observance of regulations by operators and was not
effective in detecting breaches of regulations by operators.
76
5.11 Although DPI had available to its Compliance and
Evaluation Unit the sources of information about the operations
of registered export establishments which I have just
mentioned, there was no system in the Department whereby
inspection staff at an establishment could be made aware of the
past history of operations at that establishment and, where
appropriate, told that the establishment to which they were
posted was one to which special attention should be given for
one reason or another. Of course from time to time arrangements
were made to inform inspection staff of some matters that had
occurred at particular establishments, but there appears to
have been no systematic early warning system whereby inspection
staff could be alerted to the possibility of trouble occurring before it occurred in fact.
5.12 As I have said, the DPI meat inspection service did
not see itself as being an investigative law enforcement
agency. Where malpractice was suspected, matters were referred
to the Commonwealth Police (later the Australian Federal
Police) for investigation. However, this system proved
ineffective in detecting malpractice or deterring its
repetition.
5.13 Given the attitude of the Department to its role in
the meat industry, this is perhaps hardly surprising. But
apart from that perception on the part of the Department, there
was what DPI has described in its final submission as an
"inadequate legislative base". I refer elsewhere to some
particular deficiencies in the legislation and I need not
repeat them here. Foremost among those deficiencies was the
ridiculously low level of penalties prescribed for serious
breaches of regulations.
5.14 Given the level of penalties prescribed it is not
surprising that Commonwealth Police tended to regard suspected
breaches of BMRs referred to the force by DPI as being matters
of comparatively low priority. This, coupled with a lack of
77
technical expertise, may largely explain the low level of
success the Commonwealth Police force, and more recently the
AFP, had in detecting malpractice before the discovery of
horse-meat substitution.
5.15 Relations between DPI and Commonwealth Police
sometimes showed a lack of co-operation and understanding which
cannot have assisted the investigation of allegations of
malpractice. Thus, in 1977 police sought to be authorized to
act as officers under the EMRs. Legal opinion was sought on
this question and the Department was advised that, as the law
stood, it was not appropriate to appoint police officers in
this way. Yet the Department took no further step in the
matter whether by pressing for changes to regulations or
assigning properly authorized officers to assist the police in
their enquiries. Some years later the police sought to have veterinary officers and inspectors nominated by the Department
as persons to whom they could look for assistance at any time
in the course of investigations into alleged malpractice in the
meat industry. Some arrangements were made in the
Victoria-Tasmania region but despite the fact that this was
reported to the central office of DPI no step was taken to
introduce such an obviously sensible arrangement elsewhere.
5.16 DPI has now established an Investigations Branch
reporting directly to the Director of the Export Inspection
Service. This Branch consists of a Compliance Evaluation Unit
and an Investigations Unit.
5.17 It is said that the Compliance and Evaluation Unit has
a technical audit role together with a responsibility for
continuing evaluation of operational procedures aimed at
improved performance, whereas the Investigations Unit is to
investigate allegations of malpractice relating both to
inspection staff and industry.
78
5.18 I regard the level of performance of both these units
as being of critical importance for the future well-being of
the export meat industry.
5.19 The precise way in which these units are established
and function is a matter that will have to be determined in
part by a process of trial and error. However, the principles
that must underlie the operation of these units are, I think,
clear.
5.20 Unless the industry is to be burdened by ever-rising
costs, operators must take increased responsibility to ensure
that operations at their premises comply with the requirements
which are laid down from time to time. As industry takes up
that responsibility, less emphasis can be placed on having an
inspector on the spot all the time to ensure that rules and
regulations are being observed. Continued compliance by
industry should be ensured by frequent, random, unannounced
checks by compliance staff. Their efforts must be visible,
active and demonstrably efficient. The system must be such that operators will know that if they do engage in malpractice
there is a very high risk that they will be detected in that
malpractice and that such malpractice will be visited by heavy
penalties which may well include loss of their licence to
continue in the industry. The sooner such a system can be
implemented, the sooner expensive and sometimes cumbersome
physical security arrangements which I describe later can be
dismantled, or at least scaled down.
5.21 Clearly, it is essential that better early warning
systems be devised which will enable both inspection staff
assigned to works and compliance staff to identify works likely
to require special attention in particular respects. It may be
that the development of so-called 'risk profiles' will assist
in this regard. However, whether that is so or not, it is
clear that there is little value in sending an inspector to an
establishment where the operator has been suspected of
79
malpractice without telling the inspector to pay particular
attention to matters which have been the cause of suspicion in
the past. It is also obvious that compliance staff should make
more frequent visits to suspect establishments than they should
to those with an unblemished record in the industry over many
years.
5.22 The establishment of an Investigations Unit within DPI
may be seen as usurping the traditional function of the police
force. Defining the relationship between that unit and the
police force is essential to ensure the adequate investigation
of malpractice and effective prosecution of wrongdoers.
Clearly investigative skills are necessary to such a unit. But
there will be investigations which, because of their complexity
or risk, will require resources greater than can be provided by
the unit. On those occasions the unit will obviously look to
the police for assistance.
5.23 Just where the line should be drawn between the
functions of the Investigations Unit and the functions of the
police force is a matter that will have to be worked out in the
future. Much will depend upon the numbers and types of persons
that are to be recruited to the Investigations Unit. I have no
doubt that that unit must include persons with proved
investigative skills, but equally clearly it will not be
possible for that unit to have available all the resources that
are available to the Australian Federal Police. The Department
has begun discussion with AFP on these matters.
(iii) Staffing levels and mobility
5.24 It has not been suggested that any of the problems of
export meat inspection have been brought about by staff
shortages.
5.25 In fact, although numbers have declined a little since
the peak production period of 1978, the meat inspection service
is manned by some 180 veterinary officers and 1650 inspectors.
80
These have been organized on a regional basis, with the head
office of the Bureau in Canberra providing policy guidelines
and co-ordination. Within the regions the regional director
has had nominal control over the service, but the day-to-day
running has been left to the Veterinary Officer-in-charge.
5.26 It will be seen from the numbers quoted that the
Commonwealth Service is very much dominated by veterinary
officers. It is in fact the largest employer of the profession
in Australia.
5.27 This came about in the early 1970s when a fresh
emphasis on the US market led to the imposition of US standards
on all abattoirs which hoped to produce meat for USA. These
standards came to be accepted, for most practical purposes, for
all export establishments.
5.28 I should say in passing that it has been alleged by a
number of witnesses that the requirements insisted upon by the
US Department of Agriculture for US registration are higher
than those imposed in USA - they are merely a device for
limiting the quantities of Australian meat available for the US
market. I have been left with the general impression that US
meatworks approved by USDA (as distinct from those supervised
by state or municipal authorities) are of a similar structural
standard to that which the Department requires in Australia,
but manning levels for inspectors are distinctly higher in
Australia.
5.29 Whatever the truth of those matters, the USDA did
insist that every abattoir registered for export to USA must be
supervised by a full-time veterinary officer. It also required
more meticulous trimming and a more detailed examination of
certain glands and of viscera than was usual in the case of
meat for domestic consumption in Australia. This considerably
increased the number of meat inspectors required on the chain. In fact witnesses have spoken of instances such as an abattoir
81
in Sydney which moved from 27 inspectors to 6 when it
surrendered its export registration - with no change in
throughput - and another in Melbourne which went from 13 to 28
when it obtained export status.
5.30 I believe that, given the comparative freedom from
disease of Australian live-stock, there is scope for
negotiating with the USDA a reduction in numbers of inspectors
required at US-listed abattoirs. (The question of veterinary
officers is dealt with below).
5.31 On the other hand it must be remembered that there are
seasonal factors which create great difficulties for the
Commonwealth service and are likely to lead to shortages at
some establishments at some times of the year and excessive
numbers of inspectors at other places and other times. This is
almost impossible to avoid, and can lead to practices such as
'lapping' which have grown up in the meat inspection service
and are to be found in various abattoirs around Australia.
5.32 This practice involves a proportion of the inspectors
from the killing floor resting in their amenities room while
others take their turn on the chain. Regular changeovers can
produce the result that each inspector only works two-thirds or
three-quarters of the time.
5.33 Attempts have been made to justify this practice on
the alternative bases of seasonal over-staffing and of
excessive fatigue caused by a high throughput of animals.
5.34 I do not find either argument convincing, although I
can imagine days of low production - not expected to last long
enough to justify a change in staffing levels - when some time-
off could sensibly be allowed.
5.35 On the question of mobility of inspectors I have
already noted the inevitable incidence of seasonal movements,
82
but even this could be reduced by encouraging some inspectors
to reside in those towns where the abattoir kills for a large
part of the year.
5.36 There are two possible views of the practices which
have grown up of rotating most inspectors at NT abattoirs every
six weeks and most capital city inspectors every six months.
5.37 The Meat Inspectors Association wants such moves so
that both the advantages (such as overtime earnings) and the
disadvantages (such as monotonous work or long distances to
travel) can be evenly spread amongst its members.
5.38 The Department has been prepared to accede to this
approach, partly as a result of industrial pressure and partly
to reduce the risk of too-cosy relationships being built up
between managements and inspectors.
5.39 There is some merit in these ideas; but I believe
such considerations are outweighed by the disruptive effect on
the industry of constant changes in inspection personnel, with
new inspectors bringing different judgments to bear when
applying regulations, and not fully understanding the local
scene or knowing how best to handle local personalities. In my
view nothing would be lost, and some real advantages would be
gained, by lengthening the tours of duty at each establishment
at least to three months for NT rosters and twelve months in
the case of capital city rosters.
(iv) Administration from Canberra
5.40 The inspection service has obviously suffered over the
years from inadequate delineation of responsibilities, and poor
communications, between Canberra and the various regions. This
is a disease endemic in relations between head offices and
their branch offices when distances are so great.
83
5.41 Its symptoms are a general lack of understanding, at
each end, of the other person's problems, an unwillingness at
the branch level to accept responsibility for difficult
decisions, a reluctance to take the trouble to inform head
office of those problems which are dealt with locally, long and
frustrating delays in correspondence, and a tendency to conduct
much important business by telephone without making any (or any
adequate) record of decisions reached.
5.42 The BAH seems to have suffered markedly from all these
disabilities. (See Appendix E for some earlier findings of
mine as to the state of the Bureau's files).
5.43 Each organ of government must be left to find its own
solutions to such problems, adapted to its special needs. I
would however suggest that, in the case of meat inspection, the
best solution would be to allow more autonomy at the works
level and the regional level, while keeping head office
informed of all decisions made, so that an overview can be
maintained and policy guidelines supplied as required.
Generally speaking each level of authority should be prepared
to back the judgment of the next level down unless it seems
clearly to have been in error.
5.44 Leaving more matters to be decided centrally might
make for greater uniformity of decisions, but might also lead
to bad decisions, because not all the facts are fully conveyed,
and it will certainly lead to delays in decision-making. It
will also lead to feelings of frustration and inadequacy at the
inspection place and in regional offices.
(v) Relations with state services
5.45 Generally speaking, relations between the Commonwealth
and Victorian meat inspection services have been quite good at
a personal level. The Veterinary Officer-in-charge of the
Commonwealth service, in Victoria has been on friendly terms
with his State counterpart. And, at least in recent years,
84
there appear to have been quite good personal relations between
Victorian and Commonwealth inspectors on the job. I am not in
a position to judge the situation accurately in other States,
but I suspect that co-operation is at its best in Victoria.
5.46 From a formal organizational viewpoint, relations in
all States have been dismally bad. There have been many
instances of failure to pass helpful information speedily or at
all. The Commonwealth Meat Inspectors Association has quite
often threatened industrial action to prevent sensible use of
state inspectors at export establishments. Industry has been
forced to construct separate amenities for Commonwealth and
State inspectors.
5.47 These matters have already been detailed in the report
of the Kelly Committee of Inquiry, 1980 , and there is no need
for me to elaborate further. Suffice it to say that there was
little sign of any improvement after that Report was made
public and all my inquiries have only tended to confirm the
findings of that Committee.
(vi) Dual or unified system
5.48 The Kelly Committee, like the Bland Committee before
it, found the problem of overlapping State and Federal
inspection systems to be intractable. Everyone was agreed that
the present 'dual' or 'tandem' system was quite
unsatisfactory. But considerations of constitutional power,
foreign government requirements, States' rights, government
funding and union pressures - all pulling in differing
directions - seemed to make it impossible to find a viable
alternative.
5.49 However a good deal has happened in the last twelve
months, and there is now a climate favourable to change. The
choice now seems to lie between, on the one hand, a simple
Commonwealth take-over of State meat inspection functions and,
on the other, the creation of a joint Commonwealth/State
85
authority, either to operate throughout Australia or to be
formed separately in any State which wishes to adopt such an approach.
5.50 Before saying something about this choice I should make
it clear that I am conscious of the limitations of my terms of
reference. I have not been expressly asked, as the Kelly
Committee and before it the Bland Committee were, to consider
the subject of a unified inspection service. Nor do I have any
right to make recommendations about the systems of inspection
of meat for domestic consumption in States other than Victoria.
5.51 On the other hand I am required by each of my
Commissions to consider the "administrative arrangements and
procedures for the supervision of the handling of meat" and to
make appropriate recommendations for desirable administrative
or legislative changes.
5.52 In this situation it would be difficult, and somewhat
artificial, to avoid comment on an issue which is central to
the arguments of most sectors of the industry whenever the
question of meat inspection arises.
5.53 It is true that a good deal of the discussion of a
unified inspection system revolves around the question of fees.
There are many in the industry who would not mind what system or
systems prevailed provided there was no fee charged or, at most,
a moderate, uniform fee. Much of the strongest opposition to
the dual system arose when meatworks found themselves paying two
lots of fees for meat diverted from export works to the local
trade. Pig producers object to paying export levies for
slaughtering at export works, when very little pig-meat is
exported.
5.54 However there is also much opposition to the dual
system based on arguments of logic and convenience. The
86
consequences of the fragmented nature of current meat
inspection are considered in the following paragraphs.
5.55 In the first place, there is a lack of co-ordinated
control over pet food, including monitoring of its extensive
interstate movement, uniform dyeing and packaging requirements,
and comprehensive powers over the sale and distribution and the
recording of sales of pet food.
5.56 In consequence there is a real risk that pet food may
again find its way into meat destined for export. This
possibility, with its potentially disastrous consequences for
the export industry, constitutes a strong argument in favour of
a unified system.
5.57 . Another important consideration is the absence of
co-ordinated control over 'local' meat being boned-out or
relidded as export meat.
5.58 This became a prevalent malpractice in some areas of
the industry. Often it was not viewed as a malpractice of any
great consequence, probably because it was thought that meat
inspected and packed as fit to be eaten by Australians was fit
to be eaten by residents of importing countries. However, the
evidence showed that the description 'local' meat may cover a
variety of meats. Local operators who supply exporters with
cartoned meat for relidding for export, knowing that it will
not be inspected by DPI inspectors before export, are not
always fussy about what they put in the carton. And the meat
may well have been packed out-of-hours , in the absence of state
inspectors. Further, the encouragement given by operators to
DPI inspectors to turn a blind eye to this practice can be a
starting point for the corruption of those inspectors.
5.59 Finally, there has in the past been a distinct lack of
co-ordination in the investigation and detection of malpractices
87
relating to export meat. A single meat inspection service
should go a long way towards overcoming this problem also.
5.60 For these reasons alone, a recommendation to establish
a single inspection service can be made with confidence. But
in considering more detailed recommendations as to how a single
inspection service should be brought into being, I am
immediately confronted by the limitations in my terms of
reference, already referred to, and thus in the evidence
presented to the Commission.
5.61 One illustration of this problem should suffice. Some
of the State meat inspection services supported the concept of
the single inspection service, but claimed that this should not
be handed over to DPI but should be retained by the States. In
support of that claim they asserted that the State systems were
superior to that of DPI, more economical, more effeccively
staffed, with better morale and so forth. However, except in
the cases of Victoria and the Northern Territory, the Royal
Commission had no power to enquire into State meat inspection
services, nor to establish whether or not such claims were
justified.
5.62 In due course, the DPI in a final submission asserted
that the criticisms of the DPI inspection service in the past
would be overcome by the development of a completely
restructured single inspection service established by the
Commonwealth. This final submission in turn raised a number of
problems relating to Federal/State relationships, the
implementing of necessary legislation, industrial relations,
and the financing of such a scheme. All of these matters are
clearly beyond the terms of reference of this Royal Commission.
5.63 It would seem therefore that, strictly speaking, I
should recommend, as others have done before me, that there be
a single meat inspection service. But I should not make the
attempt that some of those others have, to recommend ways and
88
means. However, partly in deference to those many persons who
went to the trouble to make submissions to the Royal Commission
in this area, I believe it is appropriate that I record my
views about some aspects of this question which came to the
notice of the Royal Commission.
5.64 One question central to the debate was who should
control and conduct a single inspection service. There were a
variety of views, including -(a) Commonwealth control, exercised through the
Department responsible to the Minister, but
overseen by a Council which would include State
representatives and which would have direct access
to the Minister;
(b) control by a statutory corporation which would
include Commonwealth, State, industry and producer
representatives;
(c) control by the States, which would have the
Commonwealth responsibilities for export meat
delegated to them, but work under overall
Commonwealth supervision so far as export meat was
concerned; and
(d) control at State level by a joint meat inspection
service, consisting of an independent chairman and
a representative of both the Commonwealth and the
State, the Commonwealth retaining responsibility
for export meat, the State for local meat.
5.65 Much of the debate on the question of control related
to the past performance and cost-effectiveness of the various
established meat inspection bodies. In this connexion it must
be remembered that the DPI's own assessment of its past
performance as expressed in its final submission to the Royal
Commission was that "the DPI inspection service has proved to
be inefficient, costly, poorly managed, overstaffed and in some
respects corrupt." The Hon Peter Nixon, Minister for Primary
Industry, agreed with this assessment. So do I.
89
5.66 However, in adopting this criticism of the state of
the DPI inspection service as at the time of the setting up of
the Royal Commission, it should not be overlooked that, in the
past, much constructive effort has been injected into the
export meat industry by the establishment of an inspection
service acceptable to importing countries. No doubt many
persons have made significant contributions to this effort.
This must have been particularly so when the USDA requirements
were first imposed on the industry.
5.67 DPI has now prepared a plan for a radically new single
inspection system. There is scepticism in some quarters as to
whether the Department which allowed its inspection service to
fall into the state described can be relied upon to rebuild a
service which will not in time suffer the same fate. Without
doubting the ability and determination of those DPI officers
responsible for devising the new plan, I must say that I have
some doubts on this point.
5.68 As I shall indicate, in Chapter 5B below, the State
inspection service in Victoria, when compared to its DPI
counterpart, appears superior in management and efficiency, and
less prone to corruption. My impression is that the same could
be said of New South Wales and Queensland. This can be no more
than a matter of impression having regard to the absence of any
direct enquiry by the Royal Commission into the meat inspection
services in those States, but it is a clear impression
nonetheless. I had less opportunity to form a view on this
aspect in Western Australia, and none in Tasmania.
South Australia is under DPI control. The Northern Territory
service is small and operates in special circumstances. I
believe that the Territory should endeavour to establish a
joint system appropriate to its particular circumstances.
5.69 If my view about Victoria, and my impressions about
New South w ales and Queensland, are correct, clearly the
virtues of those services should not be lost or swamped in any
90
reorganization of meat inspection. I believe there are a
number of factors which have led to the superiority of these
State services. In the case of Victoria, I refer to them in
paras 5.359-362. The point to be made here is that, in any
single meat inspection service that is established, there
should be heavy emphasis upon day-to-day control being
exercised at State or regional level.
5.70 One vital question in any debate about a unified meat
inspection system is who is going to pay for it? Should the
industry pay the cost or should it be a charge on public
funds? Should a distinction be drawn in this regard between
the export industry and the local industry? Should exporters
bear all the costs of meat inspected for export? If not, is
the current recovery of about 25% of these costs by the
Commonwealth fair, or should the recovery be greater or less?
Should exporters bear any of the cost of meat inspected for
export, but which goes back to the local market, and if so what
proportion? Are the States justified in charging a
re-inspection fee on such meat where there is in fact no
re-inspection but merely re-stamping?
5.71 The debate on these questions is complicated by
differing approaches by several States and continuing
differences of view between producers, exporters, consumers and
government authorities. Such matters are well beyond my terms
of reference, and I only mention them for the sake of
completeness in identifying issues.
5.72 The single inspection service proposal has been
debated for years without resolution. Recently, New South Wales
has agreed in principle to hand over meat inspection services
to the Commonwealth. In part at least this is based on the view
that the new DPI plan can be effectively implemented. At this
stage, that plan contains many problems; some of them are
serious problems, as yet a long way from final solution. They
may be solved, but I doubt if they will be solved quickly.
91
Queensland and Western Australia, whilst willing to review the
position, are still committed to State inspection and delegation
of Commonwealth powers. Victoria has shown a willingness to
seek a solution through a joint authority. However, its final
submission would indicate a great reluctance to hand over
effective control of the system to the Commonwealth, in the
light of the evidence given at the Royal Commission.
5.73 I think it is probably still unrealistic to expect
that any final Australia-wide plan for a single inspection
service can be formulated which has any prospect of universal
acceptance by the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories,
let alone the industry and the unions concerned.
5.74 I believe the best that can be presently achieved is a
commitment by the States to the need for a single service, and
the establishment of interim arrangements which represent a
move towards, and which leave the way open for, a single
service under single control. In any such interim
arrangements, the States should have an involvement equal to
that of the Commonwealth.
5.75 What I have in mind is a joint meat inspection
authority in most States, along the lines developed in recent
discussions between the Commonwealth and Victoria. The
principal features of the proposed authority, identified in
those discussions, are:
- the authority will have a Board of Management
consisting of an independent Chairman, the
Commonwealth Veterinary Officer-in-charge and the
Victorian Principal Veterinary Officer;
- the role of the authority will be to direct
day-to-day meat inspection operations in Victoria
and to bring about an efficient meat inspection
service covering both export and local production;
92
- the Commonwealth will retain responsibility for
standards of export meat production and licencing
of premises; Victoria will retain legal
responsibility for the oversight of local meat
production and registration of premises;
- staff will be seconded to, and paid through, the
joint authority, with superannuation and similar
rights being preserved by the respective
governments;
- inspection staff will move towards complete
interchangeability; and
- a single fee will be introduced for the inspection
of all stock slaughtered.
5.76 I believe such an interim arrangement would have these
advantages -(a) the Commonwealth would retain, through DPI, control
over export meat;
(b) it would allow DPI the time to pursue those many
reforms of its own system proposed in its final
submission which do not depend upon the existence of a
single inspection service, such as new regulations,
the development of trade description standards for
export meat, a decentralised management service, the
re-training of staff, and the reorganization of the
manning schedules in meatworks; I consider that DPI
needs a breathing space to put its house in order
before it could properly be accepted as a body
appropriate to have control of a single inspection
service;
(c) it would allow for the development of an Australian
domestic standard to which each State and the
Commonwealth could contribute through the Australian
Agricultural Council or some other appropriate body;
(d) it would compel a degree of co-operation between the
States and the Commonwealth on a day-to-day basis;
this may give impetus to the solution of many
93
problems, such as standard conditions of employment
for all meat inspectors, which might otherwise involve
years of discussion;
(e) it would provide a framework for the sharing of
knowledge about what is happening in the meat
industry, not only about meat for human consumption,
but pet food also; this shared knowledge would lead
to more effective joint efforts to ensure compliance
with the law and a better integration with police
authorities to that end;
(f) it would permit the continuation, on a joint basis, of
disease trace-back, a function now mainly carried out
by the States; this function is important, and its
continuing success may have an important bearing on
how the role and structure of a meat inspection
service is viewed some years hence;
(g) it would leave intact those aspects of the existing
State services which are seen as vigorous and
competent;
(h) it would facilitate the introduction of a single and
uniform fee collection system (one possible variation
of the system proposed would be a system based on the
number of inspectors required); and
(i) most important, it may lead in time to a fully
integrated single meat inspection service.
5.77 I am conscious that at times, during the hearings of
the Commission, there was a feeling of optimism that this Royal
Commission would be the vehicle which would provide a permanent
solution to the whole problem of the single inspection
service. I am conscious also that the suggestion I have made
for an interim arrangement for the State of Victoria will fall
far short of some people's expectations. However, it is
precisely because all past attempts to find a solution to this
problem have completely failed that I have reached this
conclusion. I am inclined to think that those earlier schemes
failed to gain acceptance, even though they were logical and
94
sensible, because they tried to achieve too much too quickly.
It is not possible to change long-standing practices and
overcome deep-seated prejudices just by making recommendations
or obtaining promises of better performance. It is, however,
possible to hope that, with the effluxion of time and with
increasing goodwill, practical improvements will emerge and
will lead to the final desired result.
5.78 Before leaving this topic I should make it clear that I
have not overlooked the most hopeful conciliatory sign of the
last few years, namely the expressed New South Wales
willingness to accept Commonwealth control. However I cannot
disregard the fact that the New South Wales decision was taken
in the light of a pressing financial problem peculiar to that
State, namely the failure to collect State re-inspection fees.
Further, the new DPI plan, to be really effective, would
require acceptance by all the States. I see little sign of
enthusiasm for such acceptance in Queensland, Victoria or
Western Australia. Nor can the attitude of those States be
said to be short-sighted or parochial. They can point to quite
valid reasons for their concerns.
5.79 As I have said, there is a compelling case for a single
inspection service; there is no simple solution for its
achievement. My suggestion for an interim arrangement is not
intended to delay or defeat that end, but rather to enhance its prospect of ultimate achievement. I am encouraged in my
approach by the evidence relating to the efforts made in
Victoria to achieve a joint inspection authority. They have
seemed to me to be the most realistic and hopeful steps yet
taken in this very difficult area.
(b) Veterinary Officers and meat inspectors
(i) Role of the veterinary officer
5.80 It has been made clear in evidence that veterinary
officers play a major role in some meat inspection services
95
overseas. This is particularly true of some European countries
such as Switzerland and West Germany. It is also true of USA.
5.81 However it does not necessarily follow that the same
level of involvement is required in Australia, bearing in mind
the generally healthy state of our cattle, sheep and pigs.
5.82 It is clear that a high number of veterinary officers
was forced upon the DPI when there was a major switch from UK
to US markets in the early '70s. The USDA insisted (among
other things) upon a high level of veterinary involvement,
before it would list Australian abattoirs and other meatworks
for purposes of exporting to USA.
5.83 Since private practice was lucrative at that time and
it was hard to find recruits in Australia, a large number of
officers had to be attracted from overseas. Even this was not
easy, and the Bureau of Animal Health was forced to take some
officers whose qualifications would not have been recognized
for all purposes in Australia. Some of them also had language
difficulties.
5.84 Officers such as these, and others coming straight
from University, must have found it difficult to assert
authority over experienced meat inspectors. So, although the
veterinary officer was theoretically in charge of all aspects
of inspection at each abattoir, many preferred to confine
themselves to what they saw as their professional duties,
leaving control of the day-to-day work of meat inspection to
the supervising inspector.
5.85 The main professional tasks of the veterinary officer
are to conduct an ante-mortem inspection of all stock, looking
for signs of disease, and to adjudicate on all animals put
aside for closer examination, as a result either of that
ante-mortem inspection or of something found after the animal
96
has been slaughtered. In addition, the veterinary officer is
responsible for obtaining samples from condemned animals for
pathological laboratory testing.
5.86 One obvious concern about such work is that it offers
little professional challenge to a veterinary officer. Some
officers can obtain satisfaction from the other administrative
aspects of their duties - but if they spend too much time on
those, there is little for the supervising meat inspector to
do, and his satisfaction with his job is impaired.
5.87 One step which can be taken is to encourage veterinary
officers to spend time on research work which has either local
or general significance. Regular seminars, involving the
preparation of papers, can assist in maintaining morale and
interest in the job. But research, in many cases, requires
laboratory facilities which may not be available, or capable of
being supplied at reasonable cost, at or near the veterinary
officer's place of work. And seminars involve travel expenses
and the employment of relieving veterinary officers in many cases. It is for reasons such as these that initiatives along
these lines have not had much impact. Nevertheless it is
important that such steps be taken, in consultation with
relevant professional bodies, to maintain the morale and
professional interest of veterinary officers - particularly
those in remote areas.
5.88 It would also be desirable gradually to reduce, so far
as possible, the number of veterinary officers in the field.
In this way it should be possible to ensure that those who
remain are fully extended - perhaps by having responsibility
for more establishments than at present. (This will not, of
course, be possible in remote country areas). Present staffing
levels are largely dictated by the USDA and efforts should be
made to persuade that Department to agree to a somewhat reduced
veterinary presence. In practice there should be no risk in
such a reduction, given the low level of animal disease in
Australia.
97
5.89 The contrast between the levels of veterinary
involvement in the state inspection services, and that required
for export premises, is incapable of justification on logical
grounds. And I am satisfied that, while the state services may
be a little understaffed with professional officers, they are
much nearer a reasonable level than the Commonwealth service.
There is nothing to suggest that the state services in
Victoria, NSW and Queensland are any less effective than the
Commonwealth service - either in the quality of their
administration or in the wholesome nature of the meat produced
under their supervision.
5.90 It is disappointing to have to record that many of the
defects in the Commonwealth system, revealed by this
Commission's inquiries, existed in spite of the immediate
presence, and in fact under the very noses, of veterinary
officers. There is no evidence to suggest that alert
veterinary officers were responsible for detecting the many
malpractices which have now come to light or that they dealt
effectively with those that did come to notice. Indeed the
rather vague demarcation of responsibilities between veterinary
officers and supervising meat inspectors created a situation in
which it was possible for both officers to overlook matters
that clearly should have been attended to.
5.91 Thus more supervision - and in particular more
supervision by veterinary officers - is not the solution to the
problems of meat inspection. On the contrary, there is room
for savings.
(ii) Meat inspectors' functions
5.92 The tasks required of meat inspectors have become
increasingly varied in recent times.
5.93 At an abattoir the first task of the day, usually
carried out by experienced inspectors, is the hygiene
inspection of the premises - designed to ensure that the
98
premises have been meticulously cleaned after the previous
day's work. If any defects are found they normally have to be
rectified before work can commence in the particular area.
Tasks involving repairs to structures may be noted and left to a later time.
5.94 Inspectors will often also assist the veterinary
officer with the ante-mortem inspection of animals due to be
slaughtered that day.
5.95 As slaughtering commences and the chain begins to
move, inspectors will take up allotted positions so that they
can separately examine the head of the animal, the viscera and
the carcass for any lesions or other signs of disease or injury.
5.96 . When any such evidence is discovered they must make
decisions about the disposal of the whole or parts of the
carcass - whether they can be passed for human consumption,
consigned as pet food or have to be condemned. All condemned
carcasses and doubtful cases are put aside to be examined by a
veterinary officer.
5.97 Other inspectors keep an eye on the general work of
trimming and dressing to ensure that no unwanted parts of the
animal, such as pieces of hide or blood clots, are left on the
carcass and that it is not contaminated with matter from the
animal's digestive tract. They also have the task of palpating
or incising certain glands for any sign of disease.
5.98 A final inspector approves the carcass as a whole and
permits the 'Australia Approved' stamp to be placed on it.
5.99 Inspectors are also generally responsible, throughout
the day, for such things as the hygienic condition of workers,
slaughter-floor and equipment, and the proper disposal of
by-products.
99
5.100 Another inspector will normally be responsible for the
security of condemned material and pet food and supervising the
preparation and packing of edible offal.
5.101 Boning-rooms, whether attached to abattoirs or
independently located, require their own inspector. He is
responsible for the hygienic state of the operation, including
the premises and equipment (again an inspection must be made
before work begins), the correctness of trade descriptions on
cartons and the stamping of those cartons with an 1 Australia
Approved' stamp.
5.102 An inspector must be present whenever meat, whether in
carcass or carton form, is loaded into a container or a
transport vehicle. He must check the cleanliness of the
vehicle or container and the proper packing of the load. He
should be satisfied that all product appears to be in good
condition and at the right temperature and that it corresponds
with the trade description which he is asked to place on the
meat transfer certificate. Finally he should seal the load,
complete and sign the transfer certificate and hand it in a
sealed envelope to the driver.
5.103 If meat has to be placed in a coldstore - as is the
case with most meat in the export chain - an inspector is
responsible for monitoring the hygiene and temperature of the
store and the possibility of contamination from other goods,
and above all for the security of the consignment - thus
preventing it from being improperly added to, or having its
description altered, while in the store.
5.104 This is achieved by regular inspections and inventory
checks during working hours and the sealing of the store room
at other times.
5.105 Officers on duty at coldstores must carefully check
seals and stamps on all product and scrutinize transfer
100
certificates and notices of intention to export before releasing product.
5.106 Inspectors also supervise the loading of meat into
cargo holds of ships and aeroplanes. The responsibilities are
the same as for loading into containers.
5.107 Finally it should be noted that inspectors have
detailed responsibilities to supervise the cleanliness and
integrity of cannery and smallgoods operations.
(iii) Responsibilities and pressures
5.108 It can be seen from this description that meat
inspectors accept a good deal of responsibilty and can have a
considerable effect on the profitability of a company. For
example, an over-zealous inspector may be constantly requiring
carcasses to be retained for further attention to trimming. If
the 1 retained' rail becomes full, work has to be interrupted
while those carcasses are attended to.
5.109 Any inspector can require the chain to be stopped or
slowed if he believes he is not being given sufficient time to
carry out his inspection tasks - this may depend on the general
condition of the particular run of animals.
5.110 It is the inspector at the viscera table who
determines which offals are fit for human consumption. Such
judgments are to some extent subjective, and a meatworks can
lose a lot of money if a difficult inspector consigns a high
proportion of offal to pet food.
5.111 On the other hand, the pressures do not all operate in
the same direction. There are reverse pressures also. Every
time a chain is held up, the workers lose time and the company
loses money. Meatworkers are not all gentle people and it may
take some courage for an inspector on the chain to delay or
101
find fault, with the work of a large, and perhaps excitable,
slaughterman with a knife in his hand.
5.112 If the activities of the inspectors are such as to
affect the profitability of the meatworks, and that meatworks
is the economic mainstay of some country town, then even though
they may wish to do their job conscientiously, there will be
great pressure on them not to behave in a way which might
jeopardise the economic viability of that meatworks, or the
capacity of the meatworks to provide employment in the district.
(iv) Power and abuse of power
5.113 It follows from what has been said that, as a group at
any particular establishment, meat inspectors have great power
over the operation. Because they naturally tend to support
each other, and to be supported in turn by their plant
veterinary officer, even an individual inspector can have a
marked impact on the profitability of a business in the short
term. As noted elsewhere, this largely explains the gifts of
free and cheap meat which have been so widespread.
5.114 The Commission has heard evidence about occasions when
meat inspectors have deliberately set out to disrupt production,
either in retaliation for some grievance felt against management
or, more often, in order to wring financial benefits from a
reluctant company. It is impossible to imagine any case in
which such tactics on the part of government inspectors could
be justified, directed, as they are, not against their own
employer for industrial reasons, but against a commercial
enterprise and its employees for reasons of spite or greed.
(v) Qualifications and training
5.115 The best way of ensuring that such events do not recur
is to make sure, through careful recruitment procedures and
good training, that inspectors have a proper appreciation of
their responsibilities and pride in their work.
102
5.116 It is no longer enough to recruit meatworkers who can
handle a knife skilfully. As inspectors progress in their
careers, they will in future be increasingly called upon to
study company books, keep their own records and make out
returns and reports.
5.117 Because of the need for flexibility in staffing, and
reasonable mobility amongst inspectors, no inspector should be
recruited unless he has demonstrated, through school or course
work or aptitude tests, an ability to handle figures and write
intelligent reports. Inspectors must also have personal
qualities appropriate to qualify them as members of a
governmental inspection service, able to resist improper
pressures from management, and not disposed themselves to
resort to the application of pressure on management for
personal gain. They should be selected, trained and paid
accordingly.
5.118 The Commonwealth inspection service must take a more
direct interest than it has in the past in the structure of
technical courses for meat inspectors. These should be pitched
at a realistic level. If they become too academic, or require
too high an entrance standard, they may create false
expectations of the nature of meat inspection, which, for all
its responsibility, is fairly routine and repetitive.
5.119 The recent increase in in-service training of
inspectors should also be maintained. As has been recognized,
this is both important to the development of all-round
knowledge and skills and a useful way of filling in spare time
caused by seasonal fluctuations. Appropriate personnel
management training should also be offered to supervising
inspectors and those being considered for supervisory positions.
(c) Approval of premises
5.120 Premises used in the production of export meat and meat products are now, and for many years have been, registered
103
under the Exports (Meat) Regulations. That registration is
tied to the premises but is in the name of the occupier or
owner. Registration is for a year at a time and is renewable
annually, but ceases automatically when an occupier or owner
ceases so to occupy or own those premises. Registration is
transferable, on application, to a new occupier or owner.
5.121 Detailed standards for the structure of, and equipment
to be used in, export meat establishments are laid down in
manuals which were published by the BAH. Those manuals have no
direct statutory authority and are no more than administrative
directions.
5.122 The standards for structure and equipment are said to
be directed solely to matters of hygiene and are such as to
comply with recognized international norms and the requirements
of major markets to which Australia exports. Plans for new
premises are assessed by standards officers qualified in meat
inspection and public health inspection and major premises are
then inspected from time to time by a standards officer or
veterinary officer.
5.123 I note that New Zealand has found it useful to use
persons with other skills, notably engineering, in approving
premises. Although there is no evidence of dissatisfaction
with the present system in Australia, the New Zealand system is
said to be very successful, and I believe consideration could
usefully be given to broadening the skills available to the
Export Inspection Service in approving plants and laying down
procedures to be used in plants.
5.124 There was little evidence called which was critical of
particular details of standards laid down for registration of
premises and I therefore say nothing about the detail of such
standards.
104
5.125 Several importing countries require specific
registration of premises with their responsible authorities and
some specify requirements different from those ordinarily
required for export premises. The most notable of the specific
country registration lists is that maintained for the United
States of America. Premises are certified annually by
Australian authorities as complying with US requirements. In
addition, USDA veterinary inspectors conduct their own
quarterly reviews of compliance.
5.126 However there has been no basic difference between US
and Australian standards, with the result that, whether or not
they are listed for US export, establishments which fail to
comply with US standards are under pressure to improve their
facilities and procedures or face deregistration for export.
Nevertheless not all plants have sought US listing, presumably
because they do not wish to supply the US market or do not wish
to subject themselves to periodic review by US veterinarians.
5.127 These reviews have tended to be definitive in the eyes
of both the industry and the meat inspection service. The
service has been regarded as effective so long as the export
trade, particularly the trade to USA, has not been impeded.
Success has been measured by the comparative rarity with which
establishments have been delisted by USDA. Special efforts
have been made to satisfy the reviewer, whose reception has
been well prepared and who has not always seen a typical level
of activity. The Australian meat inspection service should
concentrate on establishing and enforcing its own standards
every week of the year rather than on satisfying a US reviewer
once a quarter.
5.128 It was suggested, particularly by some witnesses from
the Northern Territory, that these high US/Australian standards
placed an unnecessary burden upon some works and amounted to
making excessive demands for the requirements of some markets. Thus, it was submitted on behalf of the Northern Territory
Department of Primary Production that it is unreasonable for
Australian authorities to impose restrictions, over and above
those required for the Australian domestic market, on abattoirs
wishing to develop export trade in Australian domestic standard
meat to the less affluent countries of South East Asia, which
are the Northern Territory's most accessible markets.
5.129 In its final submission DPI took up the question of
export standards. DPI proposed that there should be developed
a single Australian domestic standard of meat inspection which
presumably would specify both structural requirements and
operational standards, onto which would be built any added
requirements of those importing countries which would not
accept that base domestic standard. DPI said that the base
domestic standard would have to comply with the principles laid
down in the International Code of Practice, recommended by the
Codex Alimentarius Commission, which it was said are broadly
similar to the standards now insisted on by state authorities
for domestic abattoirs. Although DPI put forward such a
suggestion in the context of its proposal for an integrated
meat inspection service, it made clear that the introduction of
a common export standard for construction, hygiene and
inspection (to which would be added any further requirements
specified by importing countries) was not dependent upon
acceptance of its proposals for the integration of Commonwealth
and State meat inspection services.
5.130 I consider that there is much to commend this
approach, so long as the base standard is fixed realistically
having regard to Australian domestic needs. To fix the
standard at present US requirements would not achieve any
significant advance. It must be remembered that states have
found that their present requirements which, in general terms,
are less stringent than US requirements, are sufficient to meet
the public health needs of their citizens.
106
5.131 Introducing a base domestic standard, from which there
might be several levels and types of variation, could of course
lead to problems in ensuring that meat not produced from
abattoirs meeting those additional standards was not exported
to the countries having such additional requirements. No
longer would it be sufficient to separate the export stream
from the local stream. The export stream would have several
distinct tributaries.
5.132 If the proposal is to work I think it may be
necessary, and at least it would be desirable, that a
significant number of importing countries accept the base
domestic standard. No doubt some countries will seek to use
the imposition of additional requirements as a trade barrier.
The practicality of introducing a base domestic standard having
any real significance in the export trade will depend upon the
response of overseas countries. In those circumstances I can
say only that I regard the proposal as one which should receive
careful consideration by government and, if found practicable,
it should be put into effect.
5.133 One criticism which was made of arrangements for
approval of premises was that there was not sufficient control
over the identity of operators of those premises, particularly
in cases where several independent boning-rooms are available
for lease at an abattoir.
5.134 No immediate step was taken after August 1981 to
change the arrangements for registration of premises. At an
early stage of the proceedings of the Commission AMLC indicated
that it thought it desirable that all operators of export
establishments should be required to seek and obtain export
licenses from AMLC. No doubt this was seen as a method of
controlling operators, especially those whose operations
required no substantial capital investment, who could enter and
leave the industry quickly and thus were relatively free to
engage in questionable practices.
107
5.135 In its final submission to the Commission, DPI said
that it was seeking to have regulations made that would require
persons in whose name establishments were to be registered to
show that they were fit and proper persons. If it is thought
necessary to have special powers to control fringe operators I
would regard this as a more satisfactory way of dealing with
the problem than the more artificial method of requiring all
persons who operate registered export premises to hold a
licence as exporters. Some persons (such as coldstore
operators, for example) may never wish to export meat and I
think it inappropriate to require those persons to hold a
license as exporters.
5.136 At first sight the submission that only fit and proper
persons should be permitted to operate registered export
establishments is very attractive. There has been a
significant level of misconduct in this industry which must be
condemned. There is much force in the proposition that those
who have committed such acts should be forced out of the
industry and others who may commit such acts in the future
should be kept out of the industry. The potential harm that a
single miscreant can do to a vital export industry is enough to
justify unusual restrictions. It is only when further
consideration is given to just who is a fit and proper person
that the difficulties in the argument emerge.
5.137 Questions such as these have been addressed in the
Australian Meat and Live-stock (Amendment) Act 1982 in
connexion with requirements for grant of a licence to export
meat. The amendments made by that Act will require applicants for meat export licences to satisfy AMLC that they are persons
of integrity, competent to hold such a licence, and of sound
financial standing. In the case of corporations, the applicant
will have to satisfy AMLC that each person who participates or
would participate in the management or control of the business
is a person of integrity.
108
5.138 In determining whether a person is a person of
integrity regard is to be had to prior convictions for certain
types of offence, the accuracy of information supplied by
applicants to the corporation and the reputation of that person
or applicant in the industry for reliability in business
dealings. In addition to specified matters AMLC is empowered
to have regard to such other matters as it considers relevant
in determining whether an applicant is a person of integrity.
5.139 Of course, any attempt to define who is 1 a fit and
proper person' or ’a person of integrity' is going to be
difficult. Necessarily, a measure of discretion and judgment
must be vested in the authority determining such questions.
Probably all that can be done by way of assurance is to
prescribe some criteria to which regard must be had in
determining whether an applicant meets the required standard.
5.140 Clearly one of the criteria specified in any such
provision must include whether the applicant has been guilty of
malpractice in the past. But in the case of this industry,
that would mean that regard must be had to a number of
practices which were common in the industry and yet were
contrary to regulations. Should regard be had to all forms of
malpractice? Should regard be had only to those forms of
malpractice which are regarded as 'serious1? If the latter
proposition is accepted, how are malpractices to be
classified? Is the practice of introducing locally killed meat
into the export chain to be regarded as serious or not
serious? If regarded as serious it is likely that a
substantial number of operators have committed a serious
malpractice in the past and have done so persistently over a
number of years. Should they be excluded from the operation of
registered export premises?
5.141 As I have said earlier, operators without substantial
capital invested in the industry have been able in the past to enter and leave the industry quickly and thus have been seen as
109
being more free to engage in questionable practices. It may be
at least partly for this reason that the provisions of the
Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation (Amendment) Act
1982, to which I have referred, require applicants for meat
export licences to demonstrate that they are of sound financial
standing. However I do not consider that such a requirement is
an appropriate or even effective method of dealing with the
problem I have described.
5.142 Financial standing cannot be measured in absolute
terms beyond enquiring whether the applicant is solvent or
insolvent (and even then there may be grey areas within which
opinions may differ). In determining whether a person is of
sound financial standing, regard must be had to the type and
size of business enterprise which he conducts. The financial
resources required by the operator of a large integrated
meatworks are very different from those required by the
operator of a small independent boning-room. Unless a
significant financial barrier is to be put in the way of those
who would seek to enter the meat industry through operating a
small independent boning-room, I do not consider that the
requirement to demonstrate financial standing will of itself
serve to keep out those who may be seen as more likely to
commit some malpractice. Since it is clear from the evidence
that large and medium-sized companies, as well as smaller
firms, have engaged in serious malpractices, I do not believe
that financial barriers can be justified on these grounds.
5.143 Again, I do not consider that requiring a licensing
authority to form a judgment on the competence of an applicant
to hold a licence will act as any effective screen against
those more likely to commit malpractice. Many of those
operators who have engaged in malpractice in the industry have
been highly competent and skilled operators. Had they been
less competent and skilled their activities might have been
discovered sooner.
110
5.144 Some submissions have requested me to make findings,
specifying which of the individuals and companies mentioned in
evidence before me are not fit persons to continue in the meat
industry. However I do not regard this as falling within my
terms of reference. Even if I believed it did, I think it
would be inappropriate for me to express any such opinion on
the material which has been placed before me.
5.145 As I have explained in Chapter 2, there has been a
degree of chance in the way in which matters have been singled
out for consideration in evidence led before the Commission.
By no means all persons who have committed some form of
malpractice have been examined. In other cases the examination
has had to be truncated by reason of the limited time available
to the Commission for its inquiries. Any question of whether
particular persons are or are not fit and proper persons to
hold meat export registrations or licenses will have to be
determined by the appropriate authorities having regard to the
relevant criteria established in the legislation and the
circumstances existing at the time of the application.
5.146 Although I have found the question a difficult one, on
balance I am of the view that it is desirable to require
applicants for registration of premises for export to show that
those who participate or would participate in the management or
control of the business to be conducted at those premises are
fit and proper persons. If effect is given to this
recommendation I have no doubt that difficult questions will be
raised.
5.147 There will be few operators presently carrying on
business in the export meat industry who can say that they have always abided by every regulation and requirement. Because
circumstances will vary from case to case I can offer no
general prescription of what past conduct should be seen as
relevant in determining whether any particular applicant is not a fit and proper person to be approved as an operator of
111
registered premises. I can see powerful arguments for saying
that those who have participated in pet meat substitution
should be regarded as falling short of the required standard,
whereas those who have participated in the practice known as
1 robbing the pack' should not on that account alone be regarded
as unfit for approval.
5.148 In my view different considerations should apply in
the case of persons who can be shown to have committed acts
dangerous to public health from those applying in the case of
persons who have merely committed a breach of regulations.
However I emphasise that every case will have to be determined
on its individual merits.
5.149 I consider that great care must be exercised when
first implementing any provision requiring applicants to
demonstrate their fitness to be approved as operators of
registered premises. Operators may say, with some force, that
because the introduction of any such provision represents a
significant change in the rules applicable to registration of
premises, conduct before the change in rules should be regarded
differently from conduct occurring after that change. Before
the change in rules, conduct which will now be regarded as
inappropriate for operators of registered premises attracted no
sanction other than a small monetary penalty. It had no effect
on the registration of their premises or their continued
participation in the industry. Again I emphasise that each
case must be dealt with on its merits.
5.150 In the case of allegations that particular persons
have committed acts amounting to criminal acts, a licensing
authority should be permitted, and indeed required, to have
regard to convictions based on that conduct. However, where
the authority only has some information from an outside source
which, if true, would establish the commission of a criminal
offence then, generally speaking, I think it inappropriate for
the authority to embark upon a trial of the issue. That should
112
be left to the ordinary processes of law. There is however no
reason why the authority should refrain from acting on
uncontradicted material, or on other material on which it can
make a confident finding, just because criminal proceedings have not been brought to a conclusion.
5.151 Two further matters should be dealt with. First,
there was some evidence to suggest that operators whose
premises had been de-registered shortly after discovery of
horse-meat substitution, continued their operation at other
premises through other companies. It was suggested that,
although there was no formal connexion between the former
operators and the company conducting business at those other
premises, either by directorship or shareholding, the company
carrying on the business was in fact controlled by the former
operators. For present purposes it is unnecessary to do more
than acknowledge the possibility that that occurred, for it
reveals, a difficulty which must be considered.
5.152 If there is to be effective control of registered premises through the mechanism of a provision requiring proof
that the operator is a fit and proper person, the relevant
judgment to make is whether the persons in actual control of
the business are fit and proper persons, not whether some
nominal controller meets that test. The Australian Meat and
Live-stock (Amendment) Act 1982 tackles this problem in the
case of corporations (see para 5.137 above). The applicant
must be able to show that persons who would participate in the
management of the business as well as those who control it
satisfy the test. Determination of the question of who is in
control of that business may be very difficult. I do not
consider that the licensing authority can be expected to seek
out for itself all the relevant information relating to each
applicant and I therefore think it is necessary to make clear
that it is for the applicant to make all necessary disclosures
in this connexion and to satisfy the licensing authority of the
integrity of all relevant persons.
113
5.153 Secondly, there was some argument before me to the
effect that operators should also be required to specify a
natural person as nominee to take responsibility for the
operation of the establishment - in the same way as holders of
liquor licences are required to specify a nominee. On balance,
I think it unnecessary to go this far. True, a nominee system
would make investigation of malpractice easier in that there
would be a single natural person who would be held responsible
for events at the establishment. However, there would be a
considerable increase in the burden of administering the
registration system, if only because there would no doubt be
frequent changes in nominees. I do not regard the advantage to
be gained as sufficient to warrant the administrative cost. I
consider that it. is enough to require the applicant to show
each year at renewal time that those who will control and
manage the business are fit and proper persons.
5.154 The Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation
(Amendment) Act 1982 provides that applications may be made to
the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of decisions of
AMLC refusing applications for export licences. If there is to
be a provision requiring operators of registered export
premises to show that they are fit and proper persons or
persons of appropriate financial standing, I consider that it
would be essential to provide a mechanism of appeal against any
refusal of approval which was founded on a judgment of such
matters. I say founded on a judgment of these matters because
I do not consider it necessary to allow appeals against refusal
of approval which are founded on technical matters such as, for
example, standards of construction. Those are more readily
capable of objective measurement than questions of integrity,
in which a large measure of discretion and judgment must be
vested in the licensing authority.
5.155 The system of approval of registered premises now runs
parallel with the system of licensing of meat exporters. There
are different licensing authorities and, as legislation stood
114
immediately before the 1982 amendments to the Australian Meat
and Live-stock Corporation Act, there was little need to
co-ordinate the two systems. If however there are to be
provisions governing grant of export licences and registration
of export premises, which both have some requirement for
applicants to show that they are fit and proper persons, I
think it necessary that the two systems should be
co-ordinated. The best method of achieving that co-ordination
is itself a difficult question.
5.156 In my view DPI bring to the question of approval of
premises expertise which may not be available immediately to
AMLC. Likewise AMLC bring to certain commercial aspects of the
export of meat expertise not available immediately to DPI. I
have considered whether a joint authority should be established
to consider such applications, but I tend to think that such an
arrangement would be clumsy. The difficulty which it is sought
to avoid is a judgment by one body that a particular person is
not 'fit and proper1 followed by a judgment by the other body
that the same person does have the necessary integrity. I
think that that can be cured by providing that the criteria to
which regard should be had in determining that question should
include any formal expression of opinion by the other licensing
authority. But I do not think it right that that expression of
opinion should be conclusive of the matter. Each body must
make up its own mind. In order to assist it in matters of
procedure and admissibility of material, I think it highly
desirable that a barrister or solicitor be retained to advise
at all its licensing deliberations, at least in the first year
or so of applying the new criteria. It would be helpful if the
same person were retained to advise both DPI and AMLC.
Difficulties must be resolved by the good sense of the two organisations concerned, and, if need be, ultimately by
decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
5.157 Events immediately after the discovery of horse and
kangaroo-meat in boneless beef packs exported to the
115
United States revealed weaknesses in the provisions then
governing the withdrawal of approval of premises as registered
export premises. Powers of cancelling registration were vested
in the Secretary of the Department, but only on proof of one of
a limited number of grounds relating to structural
requirements, the efficiency or hygienic manner of conducting
operations, or failure by the owner or occupier to comply with
a provision of the EMRs applicable to him. However, if
premises were de-registered, the owner or occupier could
re-apply for registration and, upon proof that the premises
were structurally satisfactory and equipment was adequate to
carry on operations efficiently and hygienically, the Secretary
was bound to register the premises as an export establishment.
This led to the odd result that operators of some premises
connected with substitution were able to have their premises
re-registered after a comparatively short period of
de-registration. Nevertheless, having been removed from the US
list, they remained unable to prepare meat for export to that
market.
5.158 There appears to have been no procedure established
within the Department for dealing with cases of possible
cancellation of registration. Perhaps this is not surprising
when it is recalled that in the ten years before August 1981
there had been only one case of cancellation of registration
and that occurred where an operator ordered inspection staff
off the slaughter-floor at his establishment. Thus when the
registration of some establishments was cancelled after
discovery of horse-meat in their product, some of those
operators commenced action in the courts challenging that
cancellation.
5.159 One of the grounds relied on by the operators was that
they had been given no opportunity to be heard on the matter,
and indeed they had not. Their registration had simply been
cancelled without notice. Although this was understandable in
the climate of the time, I consider that if procedures are not
116
provided by legislation, at least Departmental rules should be
established such that, in any future case of possible
e9istr ion, the operator is given an opportunity to show
cause why his registration should not be cancelled.
5.160 There is now no power under the EMRs to suspend
registration of premises, only power to suspend operations.
The power to suspend operations is vested in the senior DPI
officer at the establishment and is exercisable only for the
purposes of ensuring preparation of meat under hygienic
conditions and facilitating proper inspection of meat. It is
not directed to penalizing breaches of regulations or enabling
investigation of suspected breaches. DPI says that it wishes
to have a power of suspending registration as well as a power of suspending operations.
5.161 Since it is reasonable that an opportunity be given to
operators to show cause why registration should not be
cancelled, before cancellation is effected, and since the
requirement to be given a hearing in these circumstances may be
assumed to be imposed by law in any event, it would be
desirable to set up a simple procedure for temporary
de-registration for a limited period which could be used in
urgent cases pending a full consideration of the
circumstances. I have in mind, for example, any further
discovery of pet food on export meatworks. Any such procedure
should be availed of only in truly urgent cases, and the
decision to use it should rest with the responsible Minister.
5.162 The power of suspending operations was used in
relation to operations in all Victorian independent
boning-rooms and coldstores in September 1981 until new
security measures and species testing procedures were
introduced. In most cases the suspensions were lifted very
quickly; but a general suspension at all establishments of a
particular kind, followed by progressive lifting of that suspension over a period of time, led some operators to believe
117
that competitors, back in operation before they were, were able
to steal a march on them. I think that the general suspension
of operations was necessary on this occasion, but I would hope
no similar step would ever again be necessary.
5.163 In my view the weaknesses in arrangements for
withdrawing approval of premises, which were demonstrated in
1981, will be rectified if a scheme of regulations along the
lines proposed by DPI in its final submission is brought into
effect. Provisions for cancellation or suspension of
registration would include a series of criteria based on
failure by the operator to comply with directions or
regulations, relevant persons ceasing to be fit and proper
persons and other criteria drawn from the present EMRs.
However I believe such powers should be exercised by the
Minister, hot the Secretary as proposed by DPI.
5.164 The scheme contemplates that where registration has
been suspended or cancelled, the onus of showing that the
matters leading to suspension or cancellation have been
rectified will rest on the applicant, not the department. I
regard that as a necessary measure to prevent recurrence of
malpractice. The provision that, on reinstatement of
registration, the department may impose conditions necessary to
ensure proper operation of the establishment, should prove a
further useful measure.
(d) Transport of Meat
5.165 The EMRs regulate the transport of meat from one
export establishment to another only in the most general
terms. The regulations require that vehicles used for the
purpose must be clean and of a kind approved by the Secretary;
meat may be handled only by persons wearing clean outer
garments; meat must be inspected before and after it is moved
and the inspector who examines the meat before it is moved is
to issue a certificate describing the meat and naming the
export establishment from which it is to be moved and the
118
export establishment to which it is to go; unfrozen meat must
be moved as a hanging load. The regulations do not go beyond these matters.
5.166 The meat substitution practices which were discovered
in August 1981 have shown that the importance of regulating the
transporting of meat between establishments cannot be
over-estimated.
5.167 Apart from one possible area, there was no significant
criticism of present regulations governing the transport of
export meat. Some criticism was made of the practice known as
1 snow shooting' which involves the use of carbon dioxide as a
refrigeration agent in containers of meat being transported by
road. This method is used widely in the Northern Territory.
Little expert evidence was led before me on this subject and I
therefore think it inappropriate for me to embark on any
discussion of the technical questions raised; but if the
method is to continue to be used, it would seem desirable that
operators give further attention to the condition of containers
and the techniques involved, for otherwise some meat will
deteriorate before it arrives at its destination.
5.168 It may be that this is an area in which DPI considers
that it can offer some technical assistance, but whether or not
this is so I doubt that it is a matter which is appropriate to
be dealt with by regulation. The present regulations are
couched in terms which are directed to the achievement of an
end result, namely that meat should be in a condition fit for
export. I think this is sufficient, except that there is no
provision for re-examination at the wharf of the contents of
refrigerated containers which have travelled long distances in
very hot climates. This problem requires further consideration.
5.169 The weaknesses highlighted by the discovery of
substitution practices centre upon the lack of security that
previously existed in control of transport of meat from one
119
export establishment to another. It was because of those
weaknesses that it was possible to introduce pet meat into the
export chain.
5.170 Some weaknesses in existing systems had been
identified before August 1981. In particular, the Victorian
region of DPI had begun a trial of a new form of transfer
certificate. Before this trial, meat transfer certificates
recorded no more than that a particular number of cartons or
carcasses of a particular kind of meat had been despatched from
an identified export premises. Although the certificates were
numbered, and issued in duplicate, no record was kept of those
numbers and it simply was not possible to correlate
certificates with particular-loads of meat after those loads
had been delivered. Further, those certificates did not make
plain whether the meat the subject of the certificate was fit
or unfit for export to those destinations which had specific
requirements relating to the preparation of meat.
5.171 The Victorian trial was directed to enabling
correlation between a particular meat transfer certificate and
a particular notice of intention to export meat. That is, it
was directed to establishing a form of inventory control. A
new form of transfer certificate was designed which required a
fuller description of the product the subject of the
certificate and required specification of markets for which the
product was not acceptable for export. This form of
certificate must be seen as a considerable improvement on
earlier forms and has now been adopted for use throughout
Australia. I shall deal later with the need for and efficacy
of inventory control (see paras 5.212-216).
5.172 Although the meat transfer certificate system is an
important documentary control on the movement of meat within
the export system, in my view it cannot be seen as a panacea.
DPI has conducted a survey of the accuracy of meat transfer
certificates and found a significant level of error in the
120
completion of such certificates. Given the circumstances in
which they are completed, I think it inevitable that there will
continue to be a significant level of error. Even if that is
not so, unless there is some regular audit process, it must be
acknowledged that there is a possibility of the use of a false
transfer certificate to accompany meat which ought not to be in
the export stream. With or without the connivance of
inspectors, the dishonest operator will obtain certificates for
loads that ought not be certified. Present requirements that
transfer certificates be completed in words and figures and
ruled off, and that copies be spot-checked against originals,
are very useful. But I do not consider that meat transfer
certificates can be regarded as being in themselves a
sufficient control. Other measures are necessary to ensure that substitution does not occur.
5.173 In my view it is the possibility of discovery, and the
serious consequences which would follow such discovery, which
represent the most significant deterrent to malpractice.
(e) Security measures
'Australia Approved' stamps and tags
5.174 Where meat intended for export has been prepared under
the supervision of an officer, inspected by an officer and
passed fit for export, the meat may be stamped with an
inspection stamp, or a prescribed tag the front of which has
been stamped with an inspection stamp may be affixed to or
packed with the meat (EMRs reg 33). The EMRs prescribe the
stamp to be used: the 'Australia Approved' (AA) stamp
incorporating the number allotted to the export establishment
concerned.
5.175 In the past AA stamps have always been supplied by
operators. The stamps have been obtained, from any of a number
of stamp makers, as often as the operator has wanted and in the
quantity he has ordered. All that the inspection service
demanded before August 1981 was that the operator made available
121
sufficient legible stamps for use by inspectors. In theory,
operators were expected to order no more stamps than were
necessary and give them up to the inspector in charge who would
keep them securely. In fact not all stamps were given up and
sometimes those that were given up were easily accessible to
the operator.
5.176 Generally the AA stamp is not applied by the inspector
himself to meat or a carton containing meat, but is applied by
works emp]oyees. Nominally that application of the stamp is
supervised by inspectors assigned to the establishment. Before
inspectors were assigned full-time to independent establish
ments such as boning-rooms and coldstores it was of course
inevitable that the supervision of activities at such
establishments was imperfect at best. Even at large integrated
works where several inspectors would be assigned full-time,
there have been times when inspectors have been unable to
supervise all operations all the time. I have been given the
impression that, in such cases, boning-room operations have
been one of the first points to lose an inspector if men were
short. The operator has then been left to get on with the job
with little immediate supervision.
5.177 These circumstances led to a number of recurring
difficulties. The system for provision of AA stamps led to a
number of operators using stamps, which cannot be said to have
been improperly obtained, in places other than registered
export establishments and on meat other than meat inspected for
export. The system whereby works employees applied AA stamps
led to the stamp being applied to meat and to cartons to which
it should not have been applied.
5.178 Some of these deficiencies had been recognized by the
Department before August 1981 but little had been done to
correct them.
122
5.179 The AA stamp was in fact critical in the control of
the export of meat. Inspectors, particularly those at
independent coldstores and at boning-rooms, relied on the
presence or absence of the AA stamp on carcasses, wraps or
cartons to determine whether meat was or was not export meat.
As I have said earlier, the meat transfer certificate system
used before 1981 did not allow identification of the meat
described in the certificate after the meat had been
delivered. Thus the inspector supervising the loading of a
container at a coldstore could do no more than look at the
cartons to see whether they appeared to be sound and to have
been packed at export premises. As it turns out, the meat
concerned may not have been killed at export premises but may
have been local meat which had been relidded; in some cases it
was pet meat packed in unregistered premises.
5.180 Although DPI made many changes to procedures relating
to operations at registered establishments soon after the
discovery of horse-meat substitution, only a few of those
changes related to the AA stamp. The system of operators
providing the stamp continued but improved security was
provided for the stamps when not in use.
5.181 At first sight it may seem strange that no further
changes were made: that old stamps were not recalled and stamps
of new design issued by DPI. Instead, the main emphasis in the
changes that were made was on physical security measures
intended to ensure that only export meat entered the export
system. It seems to me that events have justified that choice,
in the sense that the security measures introduced in
October 1981 appear to have worked reasonably well, without any
change in the designs of stamps.
5.182 It was said, and I think rightly, that it was not
enough simply to say there must be new stamps. It was necessary
to design a new stamp with some care and allow importing
countries time to make administrative arrangements to accept
123
that new stamp. It was also essential that regulatory
provisions be made to ensure that the fresh supply of stamps
would be properly regulated by DPI, and wrongful possession or
use of stamps prohibited.
5.183 In its final submission, DPI has now proposed measures
for the introduction of new stamps which will replace the AA
stamp, and new controls over the procurement, possession and
use of such stamps. Those proposals should be implemented.
5.184 It is clear that there was some doubt in the past
about how far DPI was responsible for the accuracy of trade
descriptions applied to meat. It was said that the inspection
staff was responsible for ensuring that the trade description
was accurate and that the AA stamp attested to that accuracy.
Yet there is no doubt that DPI inspectors turned a blind eye to
some so-called commercially acceptable practices of
misdescription of product. Control over quality and grading of
product is, of course, difficult. However, so far as it is
possible, I consider that the AA stamp or its replacement
should attest to the accuracy of the trade description of meat
bearing that stamp.
Sealing of cartons
5.185 It seems clear that before August 1981 the practice of
relidding cartons was quite common. Meat produced at local
abattoirs and packed in two piece cartons would be sent to a
boning-room or a coldstore where the lids on the cartons would
be changed for lids bearing export legends and AA stamps.
5.186 To counter this practice, in October 1981 DPI
introduced a requirement that all cartons of meat produced at
export premises should bear an adhesive seal bearing a unique
serial number and so placed that any attempt to open the carton
would result in damage to the seal or the carton surface or
both. This requirement was borrowed from New Zealand which has
used the system for some years, apparently with success.
124
5.187 Its introduction in Australia met some opposition from
operators. Most if not all operators found that they needed to
use more labour to apply the seals. Some operators regarded
the sealing of cartons as unnecessary when coupled with
requirements for securing premises and taking species tests.
Some operators criticized the quality of seals supplied, saying
that they could sometimes be peeled off and replaced, and often
proved not strong enough to withstand normal handling. Some
meat inspectors felt, perhaps with some justification, that the
task of reconciling seals issued with cartons produced, and
recording daily usage of seals, was turning them into mere
tally clerks, who had to rely on the operator for too much of
the basic information they were recording.
5.188 All of these criticisms have some basis. Use of seals
is costly: seals must be bought and labour employed to apply
them. Seals do break. Inspectors are now required to do far
more clerical work than they used to do. But the question is
whether other means can be used to achieve the same end of
preventing relidding.
5.189 I was told that glued cartons cannot be used for all
types of product: cartons of that kind will break if filled
with some types of primal cuts. In any event not all operators
are set up to glue cartons. Nor does it seem that other one
piece cartons find general acceptance, for they are said not to
be as strong as two piece cartons. Western Australian
operators do use 'ordinary slotted containers' which are one
piece cartons, in spite of an increased risk of damage to the
carton; but that is because they are much cheaper in
Western Australia than two piece cartons.
5.190 I have considered whether industry should be given a
choice of using one piece cartons, or glued cartons or adhesive
seals on two piece cartons, but I think there is much force in
the argument that such a system would create confusion overseas.
I do not think it useful to institute a system which leads to
125
the export of some cartons which bear official government
adhesive seals and others which do not. For similar reasons, I
do not think that some establishments should be exempted from
requirements to seal cartons.
5.191 Unless there is a concerted move from industry to use
one piece cartons or glued cartons universally, I consider that
adhesive seals remain the best method of indicating physically
that a carton has not been tampered with after packing.
Consideration should be given to whether such a seal could be
incorporated in, or replaced by, strapping similar to that now
used to secure the carton. If this could be done, some of the
present double handling of cartons could be avoided.
5.192 Whether it is necessary to persist with any physical
evidence of the integrity of cartonned meat is a separate
question. Where requirements for export meat differ from those
for domestic meat, it is important to ensure that local meat is
not introduced into that export stream. Unless the possibility
of improper relidding of meat can be excluded with reasonable
certainty by other means, I consider that sealing of the carton
remains the preferred solution, expensive as it is. But it
must be said that both DPI and industry should continue to look
for cheaper alternatives to sealing cartons and continue to
look for improvements in the sealing system.
Sealing of loads
5.193 I have referred earlier to the importance in
preventing malpractice of regulating the transport of meat
between establishments. One weakness perceived after August
1981 was that product being carried from one place to another
could be added to or tampered with unless the vehicle carrying
that meat was sealed.
5.194 In October 1981 DPI directed that transport of product
to and from registered export premises would be permitted only
in vehicles sealed or secured so that any tampering with the
126
product would be obvious. Previously there had been no
requirement that vehicles be sealed. Numbers on seals are to
be recorded on the meat transfer certificate. In the case of
consignments to more than one registered export establishment,
separate meat transfer certificates are to be completed for
each delivery and the vehicle is to be resealed after each delivery.
5.195 One problem revealed in evidence before me is that
hauliers may wish to carry a mixed load of frozen product of
which only some is export meat. Unless the last place of
collection and first place of delivery are registered export
premises, such a load cannot remain sealed. I appreciate that
this creates difficulties, but so long as the sealing system
remains I do not think it capable of solution. If the sealing
system is to remain, I consider that only inspectors should be
permitted to apply and remove seals and that only rarely, in
obviously innocent circumstances, should a load on which the
seal is broken be permitted to remain in the export stream. To
permit others to apply or remove seals or to allow frequent
exceptions to the requirement for integrity of the seal would
reduce the value of the sealing system to vanishing point.
5.196 Of course seals are of little use unless their numbers
are checked at the place of receipt. There is no system now
for receiving inspectors to sign for receipt of the meat
received. Consideration might usefully be given to instituting
such a system and incorporating a requirement that inspectors
acknowledge checking the seal. This could be done quite simply
on the transfer certificate.
5.197 The seals used by DPI are aluminium seals which are
not tamper proof and, it seems, are known not to be tamper
proof. I cannot say what other types of seal are available but
if sealing is to serve its purpose it is important that the
seals be, and be thought to be, secure. Of course cost must be
considered, but I would be surprised if better seals than those
127
now in use were not available. The design of truck doors,
which may permit them to be lifted from hinges, or to have
bolts unscrewed, without breaking the seal, must also be borne
in mind.
5.198 Again, as with other aspects of security, I do not
think that the worth of sealing of loads can be assessed in
isolation from other security measures. For example, it may be
possible to grant exemptions from sealing loads in cases where
firm documentary controls, perhaps linked to carton
identification, can be demonstrated. .
Sealing of premises
5.199 In addition to introducing, in October 1981,
requirements for sealing of cartons and sealing of trucks, DPI
also required for the first time the sealing of premises.
Chillers at meat works and boning-rooms were to be secured by
seals when inspection staff were not present. Areas, chambers
or stores at nominated coldstores where export meat was kept
were also to be secured by seals when inspection staff were not
present.
5.200 Assuming that sealing of premises is desirable, I do
not think that chillers will always be the best point to seal
at all works. If a particular works may more readily be sealed
at some other point, that should be provided for.
5.201 Introduction of these measures seems to have produced
early difficulties, but those difficulties appear now to have
been largely cured. One complaint which remains is the cost
and delay in getting a meat inspector to break a seal out of
normal working hours - often because of a refrigeration problem
or some other reason unconnected with the movement of meat.
5.202 I believe consideration should be given to allowing a
nominated senior officer of the company to break the seal in
such circumstances, after notification to the meat inspection
128
service. Visits could be made to such incidents on a random
basis. There would be a requirement for a written explanation from the company official.
5.203 The only general criticism made of sealing
requirements was based on the proposition that either these or
other security requirements were unnecessary in view of all the
measures which had been introduced. Again the validity of the criticism depends upon an examination of all the security
measures that are in force.
Segregation of export meat
5.204 In 1978 the EMRs were amended to provide that, subject
to some minor exceptions, meat other than meat inspected and
passed as fit for export should not be brought into an export
establishment. The regulations had previously provided and
still provide that, save with the approval of an inspector,
which could be given only in special circumstances, meat passed
for export should not be kept under refrigeration in a room
with meat that had not been passed for export.
5.205 Clearly it was intended by these 1978 amendments to
ensure that export meat was separated from local meat at all
times. In fact that intention could not always be put into
effect.
5.206 There is little difficulty in prohibiting registered
export abattoirs and boning-rooms from accepting local meat on
the premises. Enforcement of that prohibition has proved
difficult in the past, but few problems are caused to honest
operators by the prohibition.
5.207 I think some independent coldstore operators saw
difficulty flowing from a requirement to segregate export meat
from local meat and other products on their premises, at least
if that segregation involved separation by secure physical
129
barriers. Operators feared that such a requirement would
deprive them of flexibility in the use of large freezer chambers.
5.208 Yet when DPI made such a requirement in October 1981
it seems that the operators were able, after some initial
difficulty, to cope with the problems of operating such a
system. However, such a system is not consistent with a
general prohibition against accepting local meat on registered
export premises - it is founded upon the making of suitable
arrangements whereby meat passed for export may be kept under
refrigeration in a room with meat not passed for export.
Clearly the regulations must be amended to reflect this. The
general prohibition should be directed only to those
establishments to which it is intended to apply, namely
abattoirs and boning-rooms.
5.209 DPI has administered the regulations on a basis that
amounts to permitting dispensations from the general
prohibition of the regulations. While this may be an expedient
solution, it should not be allowed to continue. Necessary
amendments should be made.
5.210 A clear difficulty arises in the case of canneries and
smallgoods premises. Some of those premises are registered
export establishments, but in fact export only a small
proportion of their output. Much of the meat received at such
premises for use in canned goods or smallgoods. is local meat.
Again this is permitted by DPI as an administrative expedient.
Theoretically DPI inspectors are required to ensure that only
export meat goes into product for export, but given that
commonly there is only one inspector at such a plant, I doubt
that this can always be done.
5.211 The requirement that only export meat be permitted on
export registered premises was introduced at the insistence of
US authorities. Most smallgoods, and significant quantities of
130
canned goods, exported from Australia are exported to other
countries. If those countries of destination have no objection
to the use of local meat in products sent from Australia, I
consider that the regulations should be amended to reflect that
fact. Requirements for use of export meat in processed meat
products should be made only to the extent necessary to satisfy
importing countries. If US authorities in fact require rigid
segregation of export meat from local meat at smallgoods and
canning plants preparing product for the US market, that should
be enforced. If the US or other importing countries do not
require rigid segregation, but do require use only of export
meat in smallgoods and canned product, then that too should be
enforced. However, whatever the requirement is in fact,
regulations should be made and administered which reflect the true position.
Inventory Control
5.212 . Theoretically the most effective method of monitoring
the possible introduction of unauthorised product into the
export stream would be to take stock of how much meat was in
the export stream at any given time and compare that with the
amount of meat legitimately produced at export establishments.
The practical difficulties of implementing any such system are
enormous. Nevertheless I am firmly of the view that continued
examination of inventory control proposals is not only
worthwhile, but is essential. Only with the introduction of
some form of inventory control can there be a substantial
withdrawal of the present expensive physical security measures.
5.213 DPI had made little progress towards inventory control
before August 1981. The amended form of meat transfer
certificate introduced in Victoria was one small step towards
such a system of control, but little other progress had been
made .
131
5.214 In October 1981, as part of the general review of
security arrangements designed to prevent substitution of local
for export meat, DPI required boning-rooms and nominated
coldstores to keep inventory records showing the origin and
quantities of meat taken to the premises and the destination
and quantities of meat leaving the premises. These records
were to be made available for examination by inspectors.
5.215 While this measure gave an appearance of control by
DPI, I suspect that the control was more apparent than real.
Inspection staff do not have the training necessary to allow
them to audit the figures kept by management. Often there
would be little time available to inspectors to conduct even a
rough stocktake at premises, let alone an audit of the records
kept by management. I doubt that the requirement to keep
records would stand in the way of an operator determined to
introduce non-export meat into the export stream. It would
simply mean that the records would be altered to the extent
necessary to hide the introduction of illicit product. Without
properly trained persons to audit records kept by operators, I
would regard provisions such as those introduced in October
1981 requiring operators to keep inventory records as having
only limited value. Such records can, however, provide a
starting point for further inquiries.
5.216 In its final submission DPI indicated that it was
hoping to develop and test an inventory control system by
1 July 1983. I consider that it is highly desirable that work
in this field proceed. Of course even the testing and
developing of such a system will prove to be expensive. Its
implementation may be even more expensive. However, if an
adequate inventory control system can be introduced, I consider
that present physical measures can be considerably relaxed. If
that happens, there will be cost savings. But until some
effective inventory control system can be introduced, I
consider that a number of physical security measures must
continue.
132
G e n e r a l
5.217 I have no doubt that industry sees the present
security measures required by DPI as being over-elaborate.
Equally I have no doubt that, had it not been for the discovery
of horse-meat substitution, the security measures now in place
would never have been introduced. Nevertheless, I consider
that those measures are necessary and must be maintained at
least in the immediate future. I do not think it desirable to
forgo any of the measures now in place. Sealing of premises,
transport and cartons should continue. Locally killed meat
should not be permitted in export abattoirs or boning-rooms.
Export meat should be carefully segregated in coldstores. Just
how much segregation is necessary at canning and smallgoods
factories should be determined having regard to requirements of
importing countries.
5.218 How long these procedures must be maintained will
depend upon the progress made in developing better
alternatives. No better alternatives ready for immediate use
were presented before me.
5.219 One further point must be made, for there may be a
danger of becoming mesmerized by security arrangements. I have
said elsewhere in this report that I am of the view that the
most effective incentive to persuade operators to obey the law
is the fear of being detected and then subjected to heavy
penalty. Whatever security measures are used will be capable
of being broken. What is important is that the security
measures should make the breaking of the law more difficult and,
even more importantly, make the chance of being detected in that
breach more certain. I regard the security arrangements now in
place as generally effective to achieve both ends. However,
other better methods may well be devised in the future.
Present arrangements must not be regarded as immutable.
133
(f) Export procedures
5.220 Nominally, procedures which existed before August 1981
were designed to ensure that meat for human consumption was not
exported unless it had been slaughtered, treated and stored
only at approved premises, had been inspected by qualified
persons, bore an accurate trade description and was free from
disease, contamination or damage. Further, no meat could be
exported by any person unless that person was licensed by AMLC.
5.221 Meat for human consumption might not then (and may not
now) be exported without a permit. That permit was, and is,
issued by officers of DPI. The EMRs require an exporter to give
the Department notice of intention to export meat. An inspector
must then certify that the meat is marked in the prescribed
manner with the prescribed trade description and that he is
satisfied that the conditions and restrictions applicable in the
EMRs have been complied with. The export permit which is
printed on the notice of intention is then completed.
5.222 On its face, such a system appears to be satisfactory
to ensure that only appropriate product is exported. However,
it had deficiencies, some of which had been recognized by the
Department before August 1981.
5.223 The system took little account of the fact that meat
might have moved several times since leaving the place of
packing, let alone the place of slaughter, and took little
account of the differing requirements made by importing
countries. Although meat could not move from one export
premises to another without a transfer certificate, that
certificate used not to record whether the meat concerned met
the requirements for export to particular destinations.
Although steps had been taken by DPI in Victoria to try a new
system, which included recording that information on transfer
certificates, that system was not in use generally in
August 1981. Thus, when inspectors were called on to certify
134
that meat was fit for export, there was often no means of
telling whether it was fit for export to its particular
intended destination.
5.224 Commonly, DPI inspectors were not assigned full-time
to independent boning-rooms or independent coldstores; they
were assigned to a number of such premises and made periodic
visits to check their activities. There was no system of
inventory control at such premises, whereby DPI inspectors
could check whether all meat entering or leaving the premises was meat which had been slaughtered, treated and stored only at
export premises. Inspectors relied on the presence or absence
of an 'Australia Approved' stamp on the carcass or carton to
determine whether or not the meat was export meat. Even had
the inspection service been minded to do so, it seems that,
except in gross terms, there was no practical method of using
transfer certificates to reconcile the number of carcasses or
cartons of meat entering a coldstore, and recorded on transfer
certificates, with the number of carcasses or cartons packed at
the coldstore into containers or otherwise sent for shipment
overseas.
5.225 The use of shipping containers has led to the practice
of exporters specifying, in notices of intention to export, a
number of cartons or carcasses slightly greater than they
expect to be able to pack in each container. Understandable as
this practice is, it does not assist any system of inventory
control.
5.226 Procedure for issuing export permits by DPI varied
considerably from region to region. In some cases the
certifying meat inspector signed the permit; more often, all
permits were issued only at regional offices. Uniform
procedures have now been instituted and, apart from some
outports, all export permits are issued by regional offices.
135
5.227 Invariably importers require exporters to produce
health certificates attesting that the meat is fit for human
consumption and, in many cases, attesting to the absence of
certain animal diseases in Australia or in the particular area
where the animals concerned were slaughtered. DPI provides
exporters with health certificate forms which, when filled out
by the exporter, are presented to a DPI regional office for
signature by a veterinary officer and sealing with the
departmental seal. The EMRs require that certificates may be
issued only after the meat has been loaded aboard the vessel or
aircraft in which it is to be exported. Special arrangements
are made for air freight consignments so that the health
certificate may accompany the load, but in the case of
consignment by sea, the exporter must produce a signed bill of
lading to DPI before the certificate will be issued. Details
given on the certificate are checked against the export
permit.
5.228 While at first sight it may appear unwise to make
blank forms of health certificate freely available, it must be
recalled that some 90 000 certificates are issued annually. I
do not regard it as practicable to have DPI prepare all
certificates. In one instance drawn to the attention of the
Commission an exporter arranged for the supply of forged health
certificates to an importer, thus enabling the exporter to pass
off pet meat as being fit for human consumption. (See
paragraphs 6.86-89). No doubt the free availability of blank
health certificate forms facilitated that deception.
Nevertheless, I do not regard this matter as one warranting any
change in the system of preparation of health certificates.
The difficulty exposed in that matter can and should be dealt
with in other ways.
5.229 As events have shown, the system of documentary
controls in use in August 1981 was not effective to prevent the
export of meat which should not have been exported.
136
5.230 Notices of intention to export bore certificates from inspectors who had never seen the meat which they were
certifying had been prepared in conformity with the EMRs; the
inspectors had seen only the cartons or wrapping surrounding
the meat, which may have been slaughtered in one place, packed
in another and presented for export at a third place.
Inspectors signed the certificate in the belief that the system
was such that only meat eligible for export was presented for
export. It is clear that any such belief was wrong.
5.231 It may be said that no criticism should be made of DPI
in this regard because no one contemplated events of the kind
that did occur; and even if such events had been within
contemplation, it is unlikely that industry, or for that matter
government, would have agreed to the introduction of elaborate
security and inventory control schemes of the kind now in force
or proposed. No doubt there is force in this argument.
Further, it may be said that in fact DPI had moved some short
way towards an inventory control system before August 1981.
But it is now clear that the documentary controls then in force
were not effective to prevent export of meat ineligible for export.
5.232 Some changes were made soon after the discovery of
species substitution. Boning-rooms and coldstores were
required to keep inventory records, which were to be made
available for inspection by DPI staff. This may have had some
slight tendency towards making good the assumption that only
export meat entered and remained in the system. Much more
significant was the introduction of elaborate physical security
measures and full-time inspection of independent premises.
5.233 In essence, the whole system of documentary control
over the export of meat was, and still is, one based on the
twin assumptions that only export meat enters and remains in
the system and that cartons, labels, tags and accompanying
documents describe the meat in question accurately. That must
137
remain the basis of the system for as long as the system is one
where those documents may be brought into existence after the
meat has moved from its place of preparation, and by persons
other than the inspectors who supervised that preparation. No
doubt it would theoretically be possible to devise a system
whereby the inspectors who supervised preparation of the meat
were responsible for issue of any necessary certificates. But
the practical difficulties of instituting and operating such a
system would be immense.
5.234 In any event, such a system would itself.be dependent
upon an assumption that the meat presented for export was
identifiable as, and identical with, meat inspected possibly
months before and many miles away.
5.235 DPI has indicated in its final submission to the
Commission that it is examining the use of electronic
information and communication systems for transmission of
documents and information between export establishments and DPI
offices. It is thought that the use of such systems, perhaps
in conjunction with improved inventory control systems, may
enable the introduction of more efficient documentary controls
and the removal of some physical security measures at plants.
The proposal is only in its infancy. Much work will have to be
done before it can be seen whether it is practical, efficient
and worth the expense of implementing it. Nevertheless I
consider that the proposal is well worth exploring not only to
see whether a more efficient documentary control system can be
devised, but also in the hope that such a system may permit
withdrawal of some expensive physical security.
5.236 However, I think it most unlikely that any documentary
control system can of itself prevent the export of product that
should not be exported. It can make the introduction of
non-export meat into the system more difficult and more likely
to be detected but, in the end, any system of control depends
upon the efficiency and integrity of those who must implement
138
it and those whose activities it seeks to control. If one
cannot rely on that integrity, and past events suggest that
often one cannot, then fear of detection of malpractice is in
my view the best available method and perhaps the only
available method of bolstering the integrity of those who might
waver.
5.237 Ideally a system would permit the identification of
any suspect meat and the tracing of that to a particular
plant's production on a particular day when a particular
inspector was charged with supervising production. Whether
that could be done by physical identity marks on cartons or
carcasses I cannot say. The numbering of cartons might well
prove possible and would assist with the worst problems. Just
as importantly I cannot say whether such a system, if possible,
would-be reasonably practical and cost-effective. All I do say
is that while documentary controls are a necessary step in
ensuring the integrity of the export chain, I think it unwise
to regard such controls as being a sufficient step.
5.238 DPI regarded its control over the export of meat as
ceasing once the export permit was issued; thereafter it
became a matter for control by the Bureau of Customs.
5.239 Not surprisingly, Customs' first concern lies with
control of imports into Australia; in that sense control of
exports assumes a relatively low priority. Perhaps for this
reason, before August 1981 a degree of looseness crept into the
administration of Customs' control over exports of meat. Before
August 1981, export permits were not always produced to Customs
before clearance of the vessel. Repeatedly Customs was asked
to clear a vessel when not all required export permits for meat
and other commodities had been produced. This led in 1978 to a
'letter of guarantee1 system for dairy products, which was later
extended to other commodities including meat. When an exporter
did not make an export permit available before the time of
clearance of the vessel, the shipping line would provide
139
Customs with a letter guaranteeing to supply the permit. In
fact permits were not always supplied. Sometimes exporters
would assure the clearing clerk that a permit had been issued
and even quote a permit number in support of that contention
and, in that event, no letter of guarantee was normally
required. Since blank forms of permit bearing the relevant
number were freely available to exporters, and were not
accountable documents, such an arrangement had obvious defects.
Nevertheless there is no evidence to suggest that this practice
was connected with any export of meat that should not have been
permitted.
5.240 Discovery of horse-meat substitution caused Customs to
look back over past events and practices. Enquiries made in
August and September 1981 showed that, in some cases, meat had
been shipped without being recorded in the interim cargo
manifest used by Customs to clear the vessel and without permits
having been produced to Customs for that meat. But again, there
is no evidence to suggest that that was related to any
malpractice in the meat industry. Indeed it would seem to be
no more than another symptom of a casual attitude which had
developed among shipping companies and exporters in relation to
export procedures for meat.
5.241 The letter of guarantee system was stopped in
October 1981 and tighter Customs controls instituted. Apart
from cases where no permit is available because DPI is at
fault, no cargo is to be shipped on board without production to
Customs of any necessary permit. In cases where DPI is at
fault, DPI is to give written advice of the permit details to
Customs.
5.242 No evidence critical of those new procedures was led,
and I therefore think it safe to assume that they are working
well.
140
5.243 Health certificates are important commercially in that
letters of credit often require production of a health
certificate before funds may be drawn against the credit.
There was some suggestion before me that documentary controls
over exports of meat should recognise that commercial
significance and make the health certificate a key control
document. I do not consider that to be appropriate. Apart
from the fact that the health certificate is a document
directed to the authorities of the importing country, rather
than Australian authorities, and apart also from the practical
difficulties of introducing greater control over the issue of
health certificates, I think it important that attention not be
directed away from the export permit. That should remain the
most important document governing whether goods can be placed
on board a ship or aircraft destined overseas.
(g) Sampling and species testing
5.244 Before August 1981 DPI had no system for the regular
taking of samples from meat prepared at export establishments,
or ultimately presented for export, and testing the species of
that meat. Some tests were made for undesirable chemical
residues in meat where importing countries required that to be
done. No regular tests were made for bacteriological quality
or cleanliness in general. Very infrequently DPI became
involved in commercial disputes about the quality of meat to
the extent of having a representative examine meat either in
Australia or overseas, but more usually these matters were
dealt with by AMLC.
5.245 The United States Department of Agriculture did
conduct regular examinations of imported meat on a statistical
sampling basis. In the case of meat from producing
establishments having a good record of past performance, a
so-called 'skip lot1 system was used which entailed examination
of fewer shipments from those establishments.
141
5.246 If meat was rejected for entry to the United States,
USDA would advise DPI of the fact of the rejection and the
reason for the rejection. DPI maintained a record of those
rejections, by reference to producing establishments, and
arranged for veterinary officers to visit those establishments
to investigate the cause of those rejections. Meat could be
and was refused entry for any of a number of reasons ranging
from being in what was termed 'off condition1 to having
excessive undesirable chemical residues.
5.247 As a result of its own horse-meat scandal in the
1960s, USDA introduced routine species testing for both its
domestic and imported meat. But in 1974, after more than ten
years without any detection of species substitution in imported
meat, species testing for imported meat was stopped. The
stopping of regular testing was not made known to Australian
authorities; and indeed at the time of the discovery of
horse-meat in August 1981, DPI officers did not know what, if
any, species testing USDA was performing. I cannot say whether
it was known in the United States or Australian industries but,
if it was, I doubt that it was known widely. Although USDA
inspectors were instructed to sample any suspicious product,
the first discovery of horse-meat in Australian boneless beef
packs was made not as a result of inspections at the port of
entry of the meat but by an inspector at a processing plant.
5.248 As soon as DPI was advised of the discovery of
horse-meat, it began random species testing of meat then being
held in coldstore before it was exported to the United States.
On 14 September 1981 it began a planned programme of
statistical sampling and testing of meat from all registered
export establishments. USDA agreed with the sampling and
laboratory test procedures adopted. Export meat establishments
were classified into three different risk categories and the
number of samples to be taken was fixed by reference to the
142
category to which establishments were assigned. All export
meat other than items readily recognized on visual inspection
were to be subject to test.
5.249 Although DPI approached state departmental authorities
suggesting that states institute routine species testing, not
all states did so. For this reason, I cannot exclude the
possibility that some meat originally destined for export, and
which was not as labelled, was diverted to domestic consumption.
5.250 Two kinds of species test are presently used: an agar
gel diffusion test (AGDT) and an iso-electric focussing test
(IEFT). The AGDT detects the difference between cattle, sheep,
horse and kangaroo-meat. It does not differentiate beef from
buffalo or goat from mutton. The IEFT does differentiate
between these related species but, compared with the AGDT, is a
specialised and expensive test. Subject to the limitations I
have mentioned, both tests are sensitive and accurate.
5.251 The species testing programme is time consuming and
expensive. Inspection staff must take the samples. In itself
this is an expense and may be seen by exporters as leading to
delay in the preparation and despatch of shipments. No doubt
there are now and will be occasions when delay is caused. On
top of this, considerable laboratory effort must then be
devoted to testing the samples taken.
5.252 Of the many thousands of samples taken since
September 1981, only a very few samples have proved to be meat
of a species other than that appearing on the label, and those
were taken from meat produced before August 1981. It may be
said that this suggests that the programme should be
discontinued, but in my view it must be maintained. Its
existence is a real deterrent to species substitution. It must
be remembered that Australia has abundant wild animals
providing a ready source of meat for the unscrupulous. Fear of
detection of the introduction of such meat into the export
143
chain is the surest safeguard against recurrence of incidents
of the kind discovered in August 1981. Continued negative
results of such testing should be seen as no more than proof
that the deterrent is effective; they should not be seen as
reason to abandon, or greatly reduce the scale of, the
programme. It is to be hoped that further research may
simplify and cheapen the task of species testing.
5.253 No substantial evidence was led to suggest that it was
either necessary or desirable to institute regular testing of
the bacteriological condition of meat presented for export or
make other tests for cleanliness in general. Nothing in the
material presented to me suggested that the cleanliness of meat
exported from this country was such as to require any regular
testing regime. In any event, there is nothing before me to
suggest that such a regime is necessary to deal with any
recurrent malpractice.
(h) Penalties
5.254 The EMRs prescribed penalties for breach of a number
of provisions of the regulations. The maximum penalties
prescribed remained unchanged for many years and, fixed as they
were at a fine of $100, did not represent any deterrent at all
to continued malpractice in the industry.
5.255 Immediately after the discovery of horse-meat
substitution, legislation was passed increasing penalties for
breach of some of the provisions of the EMRs - relating to
improper use of inspection stamps, interference with official
marks and false or misleading statements in declarations
furnished under the EMRs. The penalties were increased to a
fine of up to $100 000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or
both. These penalties were reviewed when the Export Control
Act 1982 was passed and some changes were made. Penalties were
prescribed for some conduct not previously prohibited and in
the case of the offence of making false or misleading
144
declarations, the penalty was reduced from a fine of $100 000
or 5 years imprisonment or both to a fine of $2000 or 12 months imprisonment or both.
5.256 It is clear that the penalties which were fixed by the
EMRs were inadequate.
5.257 Not only were the penalties too low to act as a
deterrent against, or as a punishment for, wrongdoing that may
have resulted in great financial advantage to the wrongdoer,
there were also significant gaps in the penal provisions of the
regulations governing the industry. Some of those gaps were
revealed by matters which had come to the attention of DPI in
the ten years before the appointment of this Royal Commission.
Generally, DPI's response to the revelation of such gaps was
disappointing. Little was done to attempt to fill even the
most obvious of them.
5.258 Early in 1981, before the discovery of meat
substitution, central office of DPI began a review of the penal
provisions of the EMRs with a view to clarifying or redefining
offences and examining the magnitude of penalties. That review
revealed that only rarely had regional offices of DPI attempted
to initiate prosecutions for breach of the EMRs. Generally,
they had preferred to use persuasion and the threat of possible
action to obtain compliance with the regulations. The
Victoria-Tasmania region had referred a number of matters to
Commonwealth Police and there had been some prosecutions, but
these had resulted in the imposition of relatively small
fines. The response of many of the VOICs and regional
directors to the request for information by central office
revealed a low level of interest in the subject of the review
and a general lack of appreciation of the problems that past
events had revealed.
145
5.259 Foremost among the problems that those events had
revealed was the ridiculously low level of penalty that could
be exacted from wrongdoers. In November 1979 a company was
discovered substituting boneless mutton for boneless beef.
Thirty cartons were found and it seems that at least 167
cartons of mutton had been described as 'beef'. The same
company had been suspected earlier of substituting mutton for
hoggett and beef kidneys for sheep kidneys. The principal of
the company was charged with applying a false trade description
to the meat which had been described as beef. He was convicted
and fined the maximum amount of $100. The company continued on
its way and was later discovered substituting cow beef for bull
and mutton for lamb, both on a very large scale.
5.260 Despite this and other incidents where similarly low
penalties were exacted, nothing was done by DPI about that
level of penalties until the institution of the review I have
mentioned.
5.261 Events in the ten years before the discovery of
horse-meat substitution revealed a series of problems related
to the 'Australia Approved' stamp. I have said earlier that
inspectors at coldstores and boning-rooms relied on the
presence or absence of that stamp on carcasses, wraps or
cartons to determine whether or not meat was export meat. Yet these stamps were provided by operators and this was allowed to
continue for years. In 1977 a VOIC wrote to Central Office
noting that inspection staff could control all official stamps
conscientiously but never be sure of how many new stamps were
in the possession of the operator. From time to time questions
arose as to whether an 'Australia Approved' stamp was an
'official mark' within the meaning of Part V of the Crimes Act
1914 and thus a mark the forgery of which was punishable with
up to two years imprisonment.
146
5.262 On several occasions matters came to the attention of
the Department where it was clear that 'Australia Approved1
stamps had been applied without authority and that the stamps
had been obtained in circumstances where they should not have
been obtained. Apart from one case in 1972 where an operator
was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, an offence of making a mark resembling an official mark, arising out of the misuse of
an 'Australia Approved' stamp, no conviction was recorded
before August 1981 for an offence related to the misuse of such
stamps. Despite these and other similar matters, no move was
made to close the gaps which had been revealed.
5.263 Several cases were referred to DPI where it seemed at
least highly probable that meat produced at non-export
abattoirs had been introduced or was intended for introduction
into the export chain.
5.264 In 1979 an operator was discovered at unregistered
premises, in possession of an 'Australia Approved' stamp,
packing meat stamped with an 'Australia Approved' stamp, into
cartons stamped in the same way. When advice was sought from
the Deputy Crown Solicitor, the Department was told that there
was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case
against the operator. Whether that advice was right or wrong,
the events should have suggested a need to change the regulations to ensure that meat could not be packed in this
way, yet no step was taken.
5.265 It is unfortunate that it took the discovery of
horse-meat substitution to induce any positive action to deal
with these matters. They are now dealt with in the Export
Control Act 1982. I do not propose to deal with the provisions
of that Act in any detail. It is enough for me to say that I
regard the penalties provided as realistic and far more likely to deter malpractice than were the previous provisions.
147
(i) AMLC licensing and quality control
5.266 The Australian Meat and Live-Stock Corporation was set
up in 1977 and replaced the Australian Meat Board (AMB) which
had been formed in 1935. AMB had statutory responsibility for
meat only whereas AMLC has responsibility for export of both
meat and live-stock. There are other differences between the
powers and functions of the two bodies, but it is not necessary
to deal with those for present purposes.
5.267 AMLC considers itself to be an organ of the Australian
live-stock and meat industries. Its income is derived from
those industries; it has elaborate machinery for consultation
with elements of the industry. It seeks to fulfil its statutory
function of encouraging and promoting the consumption and sale
of Australian meat in Australia and overseas by providing a wide
range of technical and marketing services of a kind which it is
said individual industry participants could not.
5.268 The Act setting up AMLC was amended significantly in
1980, and further amending legislation was passed in 1982 but
that later legislation had not been proclaimed at the time of
writing this report. Nevertheless I assume that the 1982
amendments will come into force.
5.269 For present purposes, the key provision in the
Australian Meat and Live-Stock Corporation Act 1977 is that
which prohibits the export of meat from Australia except by
persons holding a licence issued by AMLC. Strangely, until the
1982 amendments to the Act, the legislation did not provide a
penalty for breach of the provision prohibiting export by
unlicensed persons. Licence-holders were required to comply
with the conditions and restrictions imposed on their licence
and breach of any of those conditions or restrictions was
subject to penalty.
148
5.270 The 1982 amendments to the Act made very significant
changes to the provisions governing the licensing of meat
exporters. Before dealing expressly with those provisions,
something should be said about the licensing arrangements that
existed before the 1982 amendments.
5.271 Not all operators of registered export premises are
licensed by AMLC to export meat and not all those who are
licensed to export meat conduct meat premises. Many licensed
exporters are simply traders in meat and other commodities who
seldom, if ever, see the meat they buy and sell. As I
understand it, the 1982 amendments are not intended to effect
any change in this general position. As I have said earlier
(para 5.135), I think it inappropriate to require all operators
of registered export premises to obtain licences to export meat.
5.272 Before the 1982 amendments, the Act did not make clear
whether AMLC had a discretion to refuse licences to applicants,
or, if it had such a discretion, how wide that discretion was.
It was clear that the licensing power was conferred for the
purpose of enabling the Corporation effectively to control the
export of meat from Australia and was exercisable only for the
purpose of achieving the objects of the Corporation specified
in its Act. But to what extent this permitted the Corporation
to refuse an application for a licence remained unclear. Both
before and after the 1982 amendments, provision was made for
applicants who were refused licences to apply to the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the decision.
5.273 AMLC has always had power to cancel or suspend
licences, but that power has been restricted. Until the 1982
amendments it was clear that the power could be exercised only
when AMLC was satisfied that a licensee had contravened or
failed to comply with a condition to which the licence was
subject. The Corporation took the view, and I think rightly,
that it could not use the power of suspension of licence as a
form of punishment for past misconduct. The power of suspension
149
was intended for use in circumstances where a licensee was
required to effect some changes to his manner of conducting
business, in order that he might be compelled to comply with
the conditions of his licence. The power of cancellation of a
licence was to be used only where a licensee had demonstrated
that he was not capable of fulfilling the terms and conditions
of his licence. Again, decisions made by the Corporation to
cancel or suspend licences were subject to review by the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
5.274 The Act made plain that licences were, issued subject
to the condition that a licensee should not export meat except
in accordance with written directions given by the Corporation.
As I have noted above, it is an offence for a licensee to export
meat in contravention of a condition of his licence. Until
October 1981, that offence carried a penalty of $2000; after
the amendment of penalties in relation to meat exports that was
made in October 1981, that offence carried a penalty of a fine
of up to $100 000 or imprisonment for five years or both.
5.275 AMLC has issued many directions in writing to its
licensed exporters. Many of them related to the application of
quotas for export of Australian meat to particular markets.
Other directions required exporters to report their export sales
to the Corporation. In 1979, the Corporation issued a direction
to all licensed meat exporters requiring each of them to
"ensure that the class, quality, standard, grading and preparation of any meat for export in his name is as specified in any agreement (whether in writing or otherwise) for the sale or supply of that meat".
5.276 This had the consequence that thereafter it was an
offence to export meat where the exporter had failed to ensure
compliance with contract specifications. No doubt proving such
an offence would be difficult, particularly where the meat in
question was overseas and the exporter was not the producer of
the meat. No evidence was led before me of any attempt to
prosecute for such an offence. However it was a step that was
150
open to the Corporation. In my view, the failure to abide by
contractual obligations should not of itself form the subject
of criminal sanctions.
5.277 I have referred previously to the fact that the 1982
amendments will require applicants for licences to show that
they are persons of integrity, who are competent and of
sufficient financial standing. I have said (paras 5.141-143)
that I have doubts whether provisions relating to competence
and financial standing are effective to achieve any significant
control over malpractice. It may be thought appropriate to
make such requirements for the purpose of protecting
Australia's reputation overseas against the acts of
incompetents or of those without sufficient financial backing
to honour their commitments. That is not a judgment I am
called o.n to make. It is enough for present purposes for me to
say that I doubt that those provisions would have any
significant effect in preventing malpractice.
5.278 I have expressed (paras 5.135-140 and 5.144-156) a
number of views about a proposed DPI provision requiring
applicants for approval of premises as export premises to show
that they are fit and proper persons for registration. I
regard those comments as equally applicable to the
administration of the provisions for licensing of meat
exporters; I need not repeat them.
5.279 For some years AMLC has attempted to persuade the
industry to institute efficient quality control programmes.
Indeed the general direction to meat exporters about compliance
with contract specifications, which I have mentioned earlier,
may be seen as one such step.
5.280 AMLC employs some four or five officers for its
quality assurance programme. Those persons have not had right
of entry to premises, but in fact have encountered little
difficulty in gaining access to plants by invitation. It was
151
said that their object is not quality control but quality
assurance. AMLC naturally regards operators as having the
primary obligation of ensuring that their product meets required
specifications. The Corporation's assurance staff is there to
respond to complaints, identify what, if anything, was wrong
with the product, investigate what caused that fault and suggest
methods of preventing its recurrence. On occasions the
Corporation has taken the extreme step of requiring individual
operators to permit AMLC staff to supervise preparation and
packing of product.
5.281 I can well understand the importance of ensuring that
inferior quality meat is not exported. A general reputation
for good quality meat satisfying contractual specifications, is
obviously vital to the export trade. Indeed, the satisfaction
of public health standards may be seen as no more than one
aspect of that general concern for the reputation of Australian
product. Nevertheless, I think it important that the industry
should not be unnecessarily burdened by controls and,
particularly, should not be subject to control by any large
number of different authorities.
5.282 The greater the number of authorities that have
control over the meat industry, the more likely it is that
inefficiency, gaps and duplication will result. In my view the
primary responsibility for ensuring that good quality product,
meeting contract specifications, is exported must rest with the
individual operator. It is certainly not appropriate, and
perhaps not even possible, for any supervisory service to
assume the major responsibility for quality control.
5.283 The 1982 Amendments to the Australian Meat and
Live-stock Corporation Act confer very wide powers on AMLC
officers to ensure compliance with that Act and the conditions
to which export licences are subject. I was told that, after
extensive negotiations between AMLC and DPI, it had been agreed
that AMLC would become responsible for quality assurance in
152
boning-rooms and offal rooms and would monitor carcass meats at
load-outs for product description and quality.
5.284 DPI is to be responsible for health, hygiene, product
description, carcass description and trade description
including questions of religious slaughter, net weight and
labelling to meet both Australian regulations and requirements
of importing countries. In order to fulfil the functions which
are to be assigned to AMLC, the Corporation considers that it
will need a staff of approximately thirty to monitor
boning-rooms and offal rooms.
5.285 The agreement to which I have referred was reached
bearing in mind that DPI proposes to introduce as much
objective measurement of carcass and other meats as is
possible. It is said that contract specifications go beyond
what is objectively measurable, and are matters for AMLC rather
than DPI because subjective questions are more likely to
produce overseas complaints. AMLC has now, and for some years
has had, a number of officers stationed at various overseas
posts. The functions of those officers include investigation
of marketing disputes. Although AMLC will not embark upon the
arbitration of any dispute it does lend the expertise of its
officers, and their good offices, to the settlement of those
disputes.
5.286 The quality assurance proposals to which I have
referred are said to be interim measures. It is proposed by
both DPI and AMLC to transfer responsibility for some aspects
of hygiene, quality control and product description to operators. Company graders are to be trained by DPI and AMLC
together and AMLC is to train company quality assurance
personnel.
5.287 Whether these proposals to place more formal
responsibility on industry are practical or not can only be
determined in the light of experience. There is no reason
153
apparent to me why they should not work, and indeed work well.
However, I emphasise that I think it would be unwise to allow
the development of a further substantial supervisory service,
independent of existing services, even if directed only to
questions of quality control. As I have said earlier, I
consider quality control to be primarily the responsibility of
the individual operators. I would like to think that the
oversight of that responsibility could be integrated into the
one meat inspection service even if it did call for persons
having special expertise.
5.288 Some efforts have been made in the United States to
introduce voluntarily quality control programmes. Those
programmes have apparently met with mixed success. Ultimately,
the success of any such programme in Australia will depend upon
the efforts made by the inspection services and by the
industry. If the industry is unwilling to participate fully in
such programmes they are bound to fail and it may then be that
the only alternative is greater regulation with the inevitable
consequence of increased costs to the industry.
(j) Arrangements for religious slaughter
5.289 Until recently the slaughter of animals in accordance
with the tenets of religious faiths which require particular
methods of slaughter, has been regarded as a private matter to
be dealt with by the industry, without supervision of that
aspect of the preparation of meat by any government entity.
DPI has had no role in the supervision of compliance with
religious requirements in the preparation of either kosher or
halal meat. Since 1979 AMLC has had a limited role in the
certification as halal of meat for export to Iran, but
otherwise has had no direct involvement in these matters.
5.290 For a number of reasons both DPI and AMLC have now
proposed that they should each play a role in the certification
as halal of meat which is to be exported to Islamic countries.
I deal in more detail with that subject in Chapter 7.
154
(k) Arrangements for export of game meat
5.291 I have noted elsewhere in this report that Australia
has a large population of wild animals which may be regarded as
a source of meat for human consumption. The difficulty in the
way of using that resource lies in ensuring its disease-free
preparation.
5.292 Until 1980 it was illegal to export field-shot game as
product fit for human consumption. It could be exported only
as pet food. In fact, significant quantities of kangaroo-meat
were exported as pet food and, in the case of exports to some
markets, notably Taiwan, most of it appears to have been
diverted to use for human consumption. Product that was
exported as pet food was nevertheless often accompanied by a
health certificate from DPI. Buyers required sellers in
Australia to supply such a certificate. There was no form apt
for the purpose and DPI made a practice of issuing certificates
in such cases which were normally used for the export of skin
and hides. Such documents certified that Australia was free
from certain diseases, notably foot-and-mouth disease and
blue-tongue disease, and that the district of origin was free
from certain other diseases, notably anthrax.
5.293 There is a significant market for game meats in parts
of central Europe and Scandinavia. In 1980, DPI published a
set of operational guidelines for inspection of game meat for
export, and export of game meat commenced. Regulations
governing preparation of game meat for export were not
promulgated until 1981. The guidelines and the regulations
fixed times within which animals must be bled, eviscerated and
refrigerated after shooting. The regulations provide broadly
similar documentary controls for the export game meat to those
which are required for the export of other meats for human
consumption.
5.294 The total market for game meat is not large when
compared with the market for other meats for human consumption,
155
and the number of operators in the field is very small.
Nevertheless, even taking these facts into account, the present
level of inspection by DPI appears to be hardly adequate. DPI
does inspect the works at which animals are processed, inspects
carcasses, notes the time between slaughter and receipt of the
carcass at the processing works, notes the temperature of the
carcass of the time of receipt at the processing works and
inspects carcasses for pathological conditions. There is
however little, if any, systematic inspection of field
operations.
5.295 In my opinion it is desirable to devote some greater
attention to inspection of field operations of game meat
producers. By their nature, these are operations that must be
conducted in large part unsupervised, but at least some
attention should be directed to setting standards for equipment
to be used in field operations, to ensure that the opportunity
is there for hygienic preparation of carcasses in the field and
some system should be instituted for regular random inspection
of field operations.
5.296 Without such a system, there is a risk that effective
measures to ensure that game meat is free from disease will be
left to the goodwill and sense of propriety of individual
operators. A potentially valuable industry could be destroyed by one irresponsible operator.
(1) Arrangements for export of pet meat
5.297 There was no government control over the export of pet
food until after discovery of horse-meat substitution. I deal
with some aspects of the export of pet food in Chapter 6.
5.298 I have noted in para 5.292 above the practice of using
'skin and hide' health certificates to accompany exports of pet
meat. Apart from the issue of such certificates, DPI had no
role at all in export of meat unfit for human consumption until
13 November 1981, when export of inedible meat was prohibited
156
unless authorised by permit issued by DPI. From 1 March 1982,
further requirements were made that all inedible meat exports
from Australia should be labelled as 'Inedible meat. Not fit
for human consumption'.
5.299 Past events have made plain that such controls are necessary.
5.300 I have referred in Chapter 6 to a number of practices
whereby diversion of pet meat into human consumption overseas
was facilitated. I regard the regulations which were brought
into effect after August 1981 as effective to prevent
recurrence of the practices I have mentioned there.
(m) Summary
5.301 It will be apparent, from all that I have said in this
chapter, that I believe administrative arrangements and
procedures, for supervision of the handling of meat for export
have been far from adequate to ensure that such meat has met
the requirements prescribed by law. I believe that they are
now adequate, but could be made more cost-effective and more
certain. My recommendations to bring this about are in
Chapter 9A.
157
CHAPTER 5B
ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS AND PROCEDURES CONCERNING
MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION IN VICTORIA
(a ) The Department of Primary Industry
5.302 A large part of the meat consumed in Victoria comes
from abattoirs registered for export. Some of it reaches the
local market through export-registered boning-rooms, coldstores,
smallgoods manufacturers or canneries. Thus a great deal of
the inspection of meat and meat products consumed in Victoria
is performed by the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry.
Large parts of the description given and comments made in
Chapter 5A are therefore directly relevant to Victorian
consumers. .
5.303 It is only necessary here to make the point that the
problems have tended to be greater in Victoria than elsewhere
because of the large number of independent, export-registered
boning-rooms and coldstores. Another relevant factor is the
large number of export-registered smallgoods manufacturers in
Victoria, many of which have been permitted to receive meat
killed in non-export abattoirs for use in non-export lines of
product. This has been hard to avoid in cases where only a
small part of the factory's product goes to export. If the
rules requiring only export product on export-registered
premises were strictly enforced in such cases, the manufacturer
would either have to purchase exclusively the more expensive
meat from export abattoirs or give up his export trade
altogether. Nevertheless, as I have already said (paras 5.209
211), practice and regulations must be brought into line.
(b) The Victorian Abattoir and Meat Inspection Authority
5.304 This authority was created in 1974. Officers of the
Department of Agriculture, on behalf of the Authority,
immediately set about the task of reviewing existing non-export
abattoirs and slaughterhouses. Over the succeeding years these
were either brought up to required standards or closed down.
158
In more recent years, similar attention has been given to
boning-rooms, coldstores, smallgoods factories and other meat
establishments.
5.305 Since no issue concerning the standards of construction
or equipment of licensed establishments in Victoria has been
raised before the Commission, there is only one aspect of the
licensing system to which I need refer.
5.306 This relates to the provision in the Abattoir and Meat
Inspection Act 1973 that the Authority may refuse to issue a
licence "if the Authority determines that the application should
be refused having regard to .... the unsuitability of the
applicant or the lack of merit in the application" (Sec 27(c)).
5.307 Until recently, this seems to have been taken by the
Authority to refer in particular to the experience and
financial standing of the applicant, and his or its ability to
conduct a viable enterprise.
5.308 However it is clear from evidence given about a
particular recent application that the Authority now regards
itself as free - and perhaps obliged - to take into account the
behaviour in the industry of persons closely associated with
the application.
5.309 I must say that I support this view, as a matter both
of statutory interpretation and of desirability. The Authority
could certainly have regard to cases where there has been
deliberate and serious disregard of public health (as where pet
meat, or product known to be unfit, has been sold for human
consumption). It could also take into account serious cases of
fraudulent misrepresentation of product.
5.310 These however are questions of policy, to be
determined by the Authority, subject to normal procedures for
the review of such administrative decisions. My comments in
159
paras 5.135-156 above are also relevant here. The Authority
will no doubt take the advice of the Victorian Crown Solicitor
as to its powers and obligations in such cases - particularly
on the question of the type of relationship between a
particular wrongdoer and the applicant which could justify a
refusal.
(c) The State meat inspection service
Staff numbers
5.311 The Meat Inspection Branch of the Department of
Agriculture was established late in 1974. It is headed by a
principal veterinary officer, who is responsible to the Chief
of the Division of Veterinary Public Health. Apart from the
branch head, there are 5 oth.er veterinary officers, some 250
meat inspectors, including supervising meat inspectors and a
principal meat inspector, and 30 branders.
Role of veterinary officers
5.312 It will be noticed from these figures that the
proportion of veterinary officers to inspectors is very much
lower than in the case of the DPI. It is, of course, the
requirements of the USDA and other importing countries which
have played the major part in causing the DPI to be so heavily
veterinary-oriented. And, naturally enough, the DPI is
concerned to defend the system it has become used to, just as
emphatically as the Victorian Department defends its system.
5.313 I can only say that, having regard to.cost factors, to
the current level of animal disease in Victoria, the lower
likelihood of exotic diseases appearing in Victoria than in the
northern States, and the generally younger age and higher
quality of animals killed for the domestic market, I do not
believe the Victorian Department is significantly understaffed
with veterinary officers. I say "significantly understaffed"
because I do not want to be taken as expressing a view on the
precise number of veterinary officers desirable for the
effective management of the Branch. Nor have I considered
160
whether senior officers with other skills - as administrators
or construction and equipment experts, for example - could
usefully be employed. I am merely saying that I believe that
the general Victorian approach to veterinary involvement in
meat inspection is right for Victoria's purposes.
Place of the inspection service in the Department
5.314 Before the Meat Inspection Branch was established, all
meat inspection was in the hands of municipalities, under the
general control of the Commission of Public Health. The
details of these arrangements are no longer important; nor are
most of the reasons which led the Victorian Parliament to hand
control of meat establishments over to the Department of
Agriculture.
5.315 . One significant point about the changeover should
however be noted. The direct involvement of the Department of
Agriculture in meat inspection at abattoirs ensured that
information on stock diseases could more readily be connected
with the farm of origin and thus linked in with the
Department's programmes of disease eradication. This is an
important consideration which must never be lost sight of when
planning a meat inspection service.
5.316 I am assured by senior officers of the Department that
relations between the meat inspection service and related
services of the Department, concerned with such matters as
disease control, industry development and the provision of
field services, is excellent at all levels. I have no reason
to doubt this.
5.317 One reason for such good integration of the meat
inspection service is that it sees itself as having
responsibilities going well beyond the ensuring of wholesome
meat for the public. It believes that it should also try to
improve the efficiency of abattoirs, play a part in animal
disease control, review the adequacy of regional meat
161
processing facilities, generally supervise the pet meat
industry and, through research and encouragement, seek to
improve the quality and efficient marketing of meat for human
consumption.
5.318 Although I have some doubts about the division of
responsibility for meat inspection between an appointed
Authority and a government department, and I suspect that such
arrangements have not always worked well in other States, the
system has been effective in Victoria.
Training
5.319 One area in which the Authority has, with the support
of the inspection service, been active is that of training. A
good deal of thought and planning has gone into the development
of courses in meat inspection and the selection of students for
those courses. The task of developing such courses has been
complicated by the fluctuations in demand for meat inspectors.
There have been occasions in recent years when significant
numbers of new recruits were needed quickly. At other times
there has been very little demand.
5.320 In-service training also received close attention when
the service was first established and was developed until 1978,
when lack of manpower and funds unfortunately forced its
curtailment. It is only resuming this year.
5.321 I have expressed elsewhere (5.115-119) some general
views on future training requirements for meat inspection
services. All I need say here is that I believe Victoria has,
to the limit of its resources, played a full and effective role
in the training of meat inspectors in recent years.
Career development
5.322 On the subjects of recruitment and career development
it seems that the Victorian service competes quite well with
the Commonwealth service. Although it is much smaller, its
162
fewer veterinary officers mean that there are a number of
responsible and quite well-rewarded jobs available to meat
inspectors in the Victorian service. And although overtime
earnings tend to be a good deal higher in the Commonwealth
service, there seems generally to be more stability of postings
in the State service - which has, of course, no requirement for
temporary interstate transfers.
Allocation of inspectors
5.323 I have described in Chapter 3 the various steps in
meat production and the role of meat inspectors in relation to
each of these steps. In doing so I mentioned the presence of some State inspectors on export-registered establishments. The
extent to which State inspectors are so employed varies
considerably throughout Australia.
5.324 In Victoria there are about 40 state inspectors at
export establishments. Of these some 27 are at four meatworks
which have a considerable local through-put. Under a senior
meat inspector they are generally responsible for inspections
at the beginning and end of the chain and at the viscera
table. They also have boning-room responsibilities when meat
is being packed for local consumption.
5.325 Apart from inspectors stationed at abattoirs, the Meat
Inspection Branch has, under a supervisor, a team of six
experienced meat inspectors each of whom is responsible for
about 25-30 meat premises - boning-rooms, coldstores and meat
inspection depots. Their responsibilities are to check the work
being performed at the time of each visit, the meat awaiting
processing and the packs of finished product. They also examine
records kept by the establishment. All this is done to ensure
that hygienic standards are maintained, that meat being
processed comes from a licensed abattoir, properly branded or
stamped, that the product being produced is accurately described
on its cartons or other containers, and that, generally
speaking, there is nothing to arouse suspicion of any breach of
the law.
163
Keeping of records
5.326 At the moment there is no prescribed form in which
records concerning the production, storage and movement of meat
have to be kept. It would obviously assist the inspection
process if there were some consistency of records required, and
this is now in hand.
Brands and stamps
5.327 Brands and stamps are an important part of the meat
inspection system. They are purchased by the Department and
they remain in the possession of the inspectors at the various
establishments. They are applied by the inspectors themselves
or by branders employed by the Department. Most brands
incorporate the number of the licensed establishment but, in
the case of those inspectors responsible for a range of meat
premises in a geographic area, the number used is that of the
inspector himself.
5.328 Brands are increasingly being varied to enable
distinctions to be drawn between, for example, lambs, hoggetts,
goats, kids and deer.
5.329 In addition to marking individual carcasses and
cartons, the inspector appointed to each establishment (or the
senior inspector if more than one) is required to maintain
daily records of the quantities of meat packed and processed.
5.330 This should enable him to detect any movement of meat
which has occurred without appropriate branding taking place.
The system does, however, break down at times and meat is
despatched unmarked, either because the processor could not be
bothered notifying the visiting inspector of its imminent
departure, or because the inspector's other functions prevented
him from getting to the establishment in time. In such cases
the inspector responsible for the receiving end of the
164
consignment ought to be notified by telephone of the unstamped
consignment and should do the stamping - but the human element
quite often intervenes and this does not occur.
5.331 In the course of its informal inspections of Victorian
establishments, the Commission noted several examples of stacks
of cartonned meat which should have had 'D of A' stamps but did not.
Responsibilities of industry management
5.332 I do not believe that the solution to any security
weaknesses in the Victorian system lies in the employment of
more inspectors. I think, rather, that more acceptance of
responsibility by management would be a great help. Instead of
regarding the inspection system as being something superimposed
on their commercial arrangements, for which they have no direct
responsibility, operators should regard the inspection system
as part of their own quality control mechanisms. Thus if a
batch of cartons come into the works unbranded, the foreman
should take the initiative in drawing them to the attention of the visiting inspector and querying the occurrence. The
inspector should begin his visit by asking appropriate
management representatives if there is anything he should know
about. He should then rarely be in the position of discovering
anything untoward for himself and should report any apparently
deliberate non-disclosure.
5.333 Managements which, over the years, build up a
reputation for straight dealing and for bringing any problems
they have into the open, should attract sympathetic responses
and be permitted a greater degree of self-regulation. Those
which volunteer nothing that they do not have to, should
attract the continuing close attention of inspectors.
5.334 Those establishments which are dealt with on a
visiting basis - and particularly those which are suspected of
cutting corners, or indulging in any form of malpractice -
165
should be visited at random times and in varying sequences, so
that no predictable pattern of inspection emerges. This has
always been the aim of the service, but it is easy to slip into
reasonably regular ways and difficult to avoid giving an
appearance of distrust if two visits are made in quick
succession. But if an operator is contemplating some dishonest
act, he is most likely to initiate it immediately after an
inspector leaves - believing that he will at least be safe for
the rest of the day.
5.335 I believe that none of these difficulties is insoluble
and that common-sense supervision can produce an effective
inspection service which is not too expensive of manpower.
Meat transport vehicles
5.336 One difficult area of supervision for the Meat
Inspection Branch is meat transport vehicles. Almost 3000 such
vehicles are licensed, after inspection, by the Branch. Two
inspectors are engaged full-time on these duties. Other
inspectors, stationed at meat establishments, have a general
responsibility to keep an eye on the cleanliness and general
condition of vehicles coming to the premises.
5.337 Since standards are not always high, a large number of
operators are warned in writing each year. Apart Lrom an apparent unwillingness to launch prosecutions, I have no reason
to think that the Branch is not taking all reasonable steps to
maintain proper standards for these vehicles. Prosecutions
should only be launched for serious or repeated offences, but I
suspect the Department has been too lenient in the past.
Re 1ations with Commonwealth service
5.338 Generally speaking, relations between the Victorian
and Commonwealth inspection services have been friendly, but
not fully effective.
166
5.339 At the plant level there has been little evidence of
the antagonism between the two services which has been apparent
in some other states until quite recent times.
5.340 The veterinary officers at the head of the two
services in Victoria in recent years have co-operated well
whenever one has approached the other for assistance or
action. Most of the weaknesses to which attention was drawn
during the Commission's hearings arose from a lack of any
communication on the particular topic.
5.341 In most cases the failure was on the Commonwealth side
and seemed to arise from a desire to get on with an inquiry and
achieve a degree of certainty before notifying the Department
of Agriculture of what had occurred. Such a tendency is
natural, but must be resisted when the State has a genuine
1 need to know' in order that it may take appropriate action or
institute its own inquiries.
5.342 The Department of Agriculture seems to have
successfully resisted this temptation and passed information
promptly. This has not always produced the vigorous response
it might have hoped for.
Relations with Victoria Police
5.343 The Department of Agriculture has been much more
prepared than the DPI to pursue its own investigations into
apparent breaches of its Act or Regulations. It has done this
by means of teams containing a judicious mixture of head office
investigatory experience and local knowledge. Such teams of two
or three officers have been established whenever a need arose
and, generally speaking, seem to have operated effectively.
5.344 The main criticism which can be directed against this
practice is that some more serious cases, which should have been
referred to police - particularly when the alleged criminal
conduct of meat inspectors was in issue - have not been.
167
5.345 This seems to have arisen partly from a sense of
sturdy self-confidence in the Branch and partly from a
disappointing experience in 1979, when inquiries into the
misuse of pet food were compromised by a leak to the press,
which was believed by the Branch to have come from within the
Victoria Police.
5.346 The Department is considering the establishment of a
compliance section, along with the related question of the
extent to which the Victoria Police should be involved by the
Department in investigations of malpractice, including questions
relating to the integrity of its own inspection force. Both
Dr Rees and a previous Minister, the Hon I.W. Smith, were
inclined to concede in retrospect that the Department had taken
more upon itself than it should have done, and required less of
the police force than it should have done. However I did not
gain the impression that the Department was looking with much
favour at the prospect of increased police involvement. I
think this is wrong. I would recommend that the Department
seek the setting up of a permanent compliance unit along the
same lines as I have recommended for the DPI (5.22-23). This
will require close co-operation with the Victoria Police. The
Department should recognize that it has neither the resources
nor the skills to pursue certain types of investigation.
Relations with Health authorities
5.347 When the Meat Inspection Branch was first established,
it seems to have met with a good deal of opposition from
municipal health surveyors. This was understandable since the
work of meat inspection was being removed from their general
area of control.
5.348 Some ill-feeling and sensitivity seems to have
persisted over the years, though all agree that relations have
been much better in recent times.
168
5.349 I was invited to consider one quite recent bad case of
lack of co-operation between officers of the meat inspection
service and of a Melbourne municipal council. Having done so I
was left with the clear impression that there had been errors
of judgment and some rather foolish behaviour on both sides,
but that the episode contained no useful lessons for the future
- beyond the obvious necessity for all public servants to work
together to achieve the degree of protection from unwholesome
meat to which the public is entitled. I have not thought the
episode worthy of any detailed description in this report.
(d) The Victorian Health Commission
5.350 The Health Commission retains the responsibility for
supervision of retail butchers' shops and of certain other
premises where meat is used in the preparation of food products
5.351 The present dividing line between the responsibilities
of the Meat Inspection Branch and the municipal health
surveyors, working under the general control of the Health
Commission, is somewhat anomalous.
5.352 In April 1978, a number of smallgoods and other
similar establishments sought and obtained, from the then
Minister, exemption from the provisions of the Abattoirs and
Meat Inspection Act. This meant that they were beyond the authority of the Meat Inspection Branch. Immediately
afterwards, many of them discovered that, without a certificate
from the Branch, they could not send their products inter-state
Those establishments then obtained revocation of their
exemptions. There is no logical reason why one group of such
operators should be supervised by meat inspectors and the other
by health surveyors.
5.353 The important consideration from the meat inspection
point of view is that the Branch should be able to trace meat
up to the point where it loses its identity in a manufactured
food product, is cooked for eating, or is sold by retail.
169
5.354 It seems more appropriate that the cleanliness of such
premises, and the wholesomeness of the product, should be seen
as a health responsibility. Thus municipal health surveyors
routinely sample meat and meat products in shops and take
action if any adulteration is found (typically preservative in
minced meat) or if there is any breach of regulations
prescribing, for example, meat content in sausages or pies.
5.355 But the ability to demand an answer from a smallgoods
manufacturer, restaurant owner or wholesale butcher, to the
question "Where did that meat come from?" is vital for the
functioning of an effective meat inspection service. And if a
manufacturer is handling so much meat that it is desirable to
have constant or regular inspection of his operations, there
seems no point in not accepting responsibility for the hygiene
of the premises and workers at the same time.
5.356 In spite of the arbitrary line of demarcation to which
I have referred, which is repeated in the case of small boning-
rooms attached to retail butchers' shops, relations between the
meat inspection service and the health authorities now seem to
be good and improving. It is important that they should not be
compromised by any changes that might take place in the
inspection service.
5.357 One recent case which tested the ability of a number
of authorities, including DPI, the Department of Agriculture
and the Health Commission, to work together in a crisis, is
reported in Appendix H (Case 10). As described in the
Appendix, that case pointed up the need for quality controls
and batch-coding of smallgoods - particularly products which
were cured rather than cooked. It also showed the need for the
authority most directly involved in any major investigation to
take control of it and co-ordinate the contributions of other
authorities.
170
(e) Summary
5.358 I have been impressed by the standard of the work of
the Victorian meat inspection service. This has been
demonstrated by the files examined and by the quality of the written and oral evidence placed before me by the Branch. I
believe that, speaking generally and subject to certain
recommendations for improvement made in Chapter 9B, the
administrative arrangements and procedures of the service have
been adequate to ensure that meat for human consumption in
Victoria has met the requirements of the law. It is meat coming
from export establishments and released onto the domestic market
which has quite often failed to meet legal requirements.
5.359 However in saying this, and drawing an apparently very
marked distinction between the Victorian and the Commonwealth
service, I am conscious of a number of off-setting factors. In
the first place, the Victorian service is smaller, more compact
and so much more manageable. Secondly it does not have the
range of problems to deal with that beset a service which has
to cater for the requirements of many diverse overseas markets
and move inspectors across the country to cope with seasonal
demands. Thirdly, the Meat Inspection Branch has not had to
deal with a well-organized, determined and militant union such
as the Commonwealth Meat Inspectors Association. It has
undoubtedly enjoyed a better union co-operation and freer hand
in the allocation of duties than the DPI has been able to
achieve.
5.360 Further, the Victorian Department spent a great deal
of time, effort and money in presenting its case to the
Commission through its legal representatives. They actively
defended the Department's record at all points. A departmental
view well orchestrated by legal advisers does not encourage the
emergence of critical dissenting views from within the
department, and in consequence the Royal Commission may have
lost the value of conflicting viewpoints which might have
exposed existing problems. On the other hand, the DPI was not
171
legally represented (although the Minister was personally
represented) and was content to let individual officers present
the facts as they knew them and let the Royal Commission pass
judgment on them.
5.361 In saying what I have I am not intending to criticize
either approach. It is seldom easy in such cases to determine
whether the cost to the taxpayer of legal representation of a
government department can be justified, or even how the
interests of the Royal Commission can best be served.
Certainly the fact that the Department of Agriculture was
represented relieved the legal staff of the Royal Commission of
a good deal of routine work associated with the preparation of
written submissions.
5.362 Finally, it is my impression that the Victorian
service has been particularly fortunate in having an officer of
the calibre of Dr Bryn Rees in charge of its day-to-day
operations in recent years. His extensive and varied
experience, coupled with his personal qualities, have fitted
him well for the task. And he has apparently been allowed
sufficient independence by his superiors to enable him to put
his mark on the service. I suspect that his personal
contribution has affected the quality of both the service
itself and its performance before the Royal Commission. It
does not necessarily follow that a compact state service will
always perform better than a larger and more widely spread
Commonwealth service, or that the Victorian service will always
be as good as it appears to be today.
5.363 It must be understood that all that I have said in
this section has to be read in conjunction with my
recommendations in paras 5.48-79 above for a combined meat
inspection service in Victoria. The comments and
recommendations in this section are designed to stand alone
whatever the fate of that proposal.
172
C H A P T E R 5C
ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS AND PROCEDURES CONCERNING
MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
(a) The Department of Primary Industry
5.364 There are some differences between the arrangements
for DPI inspection in Victoria and those applying in the
Northern Territory. The two main differences are, first, that
the system is managed from Adelaide and all meat inspectors and veterinary officers working in the Territory are seconded from
South Australia or other States. Some stay in the Territory
for the whole of the 6-9 months season. Some go only for short
periods (typically six weeks) and are then relieved by others.
5.365 This arrangement produces problems, in that some of the
officers concerned have been posted against their will; others
may find the heat, and the isolation of some abattoirs, worse
than they had expected. Such conditions should, of course
attract appropriate compensation. In all cases, rapid turnover
of inspection staff leads to variations in interpretation of
requirements and problems arise from a lack of familiarity with
the local scene. Remote control from Adelaide adds to the
difficulties of isolation and rapid turnover.
5.366 The second main difference from Victoria is that no NT government inspectors are employed in the export abattoirs, even
though a significant part of the production of some of them is diverted to domestic markets. The 'Australia Approved' stamp,
whether obliterated or not, is accepted in the Territory for
all purposes of local consumption.
(b) The Northern Territory Department
of Primary Production (DPP) (i) The meat inspection service
5.367 The line of responsibility for meat inspection in the
Northern Territory is not entirely clear. A recent
re-arrangement of responsibilities in the senior echelons of
173
the Department has yet to produce a clear picture of
responsibilities above that of the Chief Veterinary Officer and
Chief Inspector of Abattoirs, Dr G.R. Fallon. These
uncertainties are not important for present purposes, although
it is obviously necessary that precision be achieved in time.
Experience elsewhere would suggest that the officer most
immediately responsible for meat inspection throughout the
Territory should, in time of need, have direct access to the
Secretary of his Department.
5.368 Dr Fallon has immediate responsibility for such
matters as animal health, quarantine, brucellosis and TB
eradication, veterinary laboratories and field research as well
as meat inspection. The meat inspection service is now headed
by a veterinary officer class 3, Dr B.L. Rideout, who has under
him a team of seven qualified meat inspectors supervised by a
district stock inspector, seconded for the purpose. Until this
year the only direct supervision of meat inspectors came from
the district stock inspector.
5.369 There are four meat inspectors in the Darwin area, one
at Katherine and two in Alice Springs. From time to time stock
inspectors are given meat inspection duties to perform; but
this is unsatisfactory because they have only had one or two
days formal training as meat inspectors to add to their years
of experience with stock. Less use has been made of them in
the last year or two.
5.370 Because of the seasonal nature of the meat industry in
the Territory, the Department likes to employ meat inspectors
who are also qualified as stock inspectors. But this may be
becoming less important as the killing seasons are tending to
lengthen as much as the supply of stock will permit.
5.371 Meat inspectors have qualified elsewhere, in the
States or overseas, but have no Territory meat inspection
manual available to them and no opportunities for further
174
training. It would be simple for the Department of Primary
Industry in South Australia to include the NT department's meat
inspectors and veterinary officers in appropriate seminars and
training courses which it conducts for its own officers. This
would both help to keep them up to date with the latest
developments in the field and maintain their motivation.
5.372 It is obvious that motivation will be particularly
important to this service as long as it maintains its separate
identity. When small numbers and lack of promotional
opportunity are added to the disadvantages of life in remote
areas of the Territory (particularly for families), and the
problems of monitoring workers amongst whom you live, it can be
seen that the service has real difficulties to grapple with.
5.37-3 In these circumstances it is not surprising that
officers of the Department of Primary Production have, until now, seen their role as being, in the main, to support meat
industry operators rather than to detect and punish offenders.
They have sought to obtain co-operation by persuasion in
preference to punishment.
5.374 A good example of this mild approach is the case which
occurred in the Alice Springs area about six years ago when a
butcher was detected offering for sale beef from beasts which
had been killed and butchered in the bush. The chief
veterinary officer of the day decided that the condemnation of
the 20 carcasses involved was a sufficient punishment and no
further action was taken. A similar course was followed early
this year in the case of two or three bodies of field-shot beef
found in an Alice Springs boning-room. They were sprayed with
dye by a meat inspector and allowed to be sold as pet food.
(ii) Legislative structure and
administrative procedures
5.375 However, the greatest problem of the service in
identifying its proper role arises from the inadequate
175
legislative structure under which it operates. There are a
number of major gaps in the system. In particular, meat
inspectors have no authority over transport vehicles carrying
meat or over independent boning-rooms (there is fortunately
only one such boning-room in the Territory, and it is not
registered for export). Their only authority in coldstores and
outchers' shops is to look for brands. In other words they have
no effective powers over meat after it leaves the abattoirs.
5.376 In the case of meat coming into the Territory from
inter-state they have virtually no authority at all. There is
no power of re-inspection provided the product is appropriately
marked for human consumption.
5.377 The result of this is that no records are kept of the
movement of meat into the Territory and the certificates given
for movement out of the Territory have no legal sanction
(although they are relied upon by other States). They are of
course issued only when the interstate destination of the meat
is known. Until recently, it was quite common for meat to go
from an abattoir to a coldstore with no accompanying
certificate. When a certificate was required, it was quite
often given by an inspector who had not even seen the meat in
the coldstore or at load-out. If he did inspect it, he could
only look at the stamps - there was no signed certificate
relating the batch of meat to any particular production run at
the abattoir from which it had come.
5.378 In the same way, an inspector might not always be
present when meat left an abattoir - perhaps at a weekend. The
evidence makes it clear that in such circumstances it was quite
usual for the inspector to make out the certificate in advance,
leaving the quantities of meat to be filled in by the management
when the truck or container had been loaded.
5.379 There was, however, some tightening up of these
procedures following allegations of lax inspection at a remote
176
abattoir in 1979 (see Appendix H Case 21). In February 1981 a
letter to meat inspectors from the then Secretary of the
Department included instructions that
no meat is to leave an abattoir without a completed inspection certificate . all load-outs from abattoirs are to be supervised . no inspection certificates are to be issued
until the meat is loaded into the truck . all stamps and blank certificates are to be maintained under close security, and are not to be left at the abattoir in the absence of
the inspector."
5.380 Later in the year all existing stamps were recalled
and inspectors were issued with new stamps incorporating a
number personal to the inspector. Certificate of Inspection
forms were also serially numbered and made accountable
documents. A central register of certificates issued was established.
5.381 The lack of authority over meat transport vehicles and
coldstores has however continued to inhibit the effectiveness
of the inspection service. Because of the long distances and
extreme heat through which the vehicles have to travel, the
quality of refrigeration is critical. It is not always
adequate for the purpose, but this is a matter over which
inspectors have no control.
5.382 Even more important, interstate experience has shown
that transports and coldstores are the places where
substitution of one species for another, or of inferior for
better quality meat, can most easily occur.
5.383 It is essential that an inspection service has ample
powers to stop and inspect meat-carrying vehicles, without
having to rely on the police to supply the necessary
authority. Coldstores should also be regularly visited, meat
for human consumption segregated from pet meat, and detailed
records of the ownership of meat available for inspection. It
177
should be possible to put out of the meat business any
transport operator or coldstore owner who commits a really
serious breach of the laws relating to meat handling.
5.384 Further, there are no provisions concerning the
packaging and labelling of meat - provided it is "marked" as
being fit for human consumption.
5.385 Even in the area of abattoirs inspection there are
some weaknesses, in practice, in the DPP system.
5.386 Generally speaking an inspector will be present on
slaughter days and, because throughputs are low, one inspector
can give adequate supervision. However there are many
occasions at the Tennant Creek local abattoir, and some days at
Curtin Springs and other abattoirs, when no inspector is
present.
5.387 In addition to the supervision of licensed abattoirs,
the Territory presents special problems of slaughter in other
circumstances - both legal and illegal.
(iii) Illegal slaughter
5.388 In an area like the Northern Territory, where large
numbers of cattle are spread over great distances, and many
small communities are looking for cheap meat, it is not
surprising that problems of illegal slaughter arise from time
to time.
5.389 The Department of Primary Production believes that it
has succeeded in reducing greatly the level of illegal
slaughter in recent years. It has done this by threats of
prosecution and by appealing to a sense of responsibility -
particularly among road-house proprietors and others who might
be tempted by cheap meat, but who depend on a flourishing
tourist trade for their livelihood.
178
(iv) Legal slaughter for remote communities
5.390 So far as aboriginal communities are concerned the
Department has offered advice and given a degree of supervision
to operations in those cases where it has the right to prevent
the operations altogether if it sees fit - that is in those
cases where only meat from a licensed abattoir should be sold
in a community store.
5.391 I believe that this has been a sensible approach, and
better than compelling the community to deal with a distant
abattoir. The Act and Regulations should be amended
appropriately to authorise and regulate such controls.
5.392 There are, however, very similar communities living on
cattle stations which are operated on a commercial basis, and
which therefore fall within the exemption entitling "employees"
to be supplied with station-killed meat. I believe that, for
the protection of all concerned, there should be some controls
available in such cases which are similar to those applying to
other aboriginal communities. Since it would not be practicable
or appropriate to distinguish between aboriginal-owned stations
and others in framing such regulations, it should be possible
to limit the long-standing total exemption from control to
situations where less than (say) 20 people are being supplied
with meat from the property.
(v) A combined service with DPI
5.393 So far as the composition of the inspection service is
concerned, it should be noted that, although inspectors are
trained and experienced in looking for TB and brucellosis, they
cannot be expected to have the same eye for possible introduced
diseases as a veterinary officer would have; and such
officers, although available in case of need, are often a
considerable distance away. There is a case for wider
availability of veterinary officers, which would be met if the
Commonwealth were involved in a combined meat inspection
service in the Territory.
179
5.394 There seem to be adequate provisions for the DPP to
obtain kill figures and disease statistics from its own
officers and from the DPI. Disease trace-back could however be
improved, and this is in hand.
5.395 Although there is little formal contact between the
officers of the DPP and DPI, relations are basically good and
only one instance of alleged lack of co-operation was referred
to in evidence. It was not sufficiently important to pursue,
particularly since the problem seems to have been overcome by
consultation. .
5.396 It is tempting to recommend an immediate take-over of
the NT meat inspection service by the Commonwealth. It is so
small as to be hardly viable from a career point of view and
the precedent has already been set in South Australia, whose
DPI officers service the Territory.
5.397 On the other hand the DPI has not yet shown its
capacity to handle its own affairs in the Territory
effectively, and the Territory is a place where local knowledge
is all-important. Relations with other Territory authorities,
such as the Stock Squad, will continue to be very important.
5.398 I think it best that I should recommend that there be a combined service in the Territory, suggest several principles
to be observed and then leave it to the respective authorities
to determine the precise framework within which meat inspection
in the Territory will be carried on.
5.399 The principles I have in mind are -. the service should be administered from Darwin, not
Adelaide,
. it should have responsibility for pet meat as well
as meat for human consumption; it should be able
to exercise all Territory powers in this area,
180
. the closest liaison should be maintained between
the service, the police, the Health Department and
other relevant arms of NT Government, and
. the fullest possible use should be made of
veterinary officers posted, or temporarily
attached, to the service. In other words,
Commonwealth officers should be able to spend any
available time on other veterinary affairs of the
Territory in addition to meat inspection.
(c) The Northern Territory Department of Health
5.400 Because the public health responsibilities of the
Department of Health include the safety of food and food
handling practices, the Department is involved with the
storage, handling and sale of meat for human consumption and
with some aspects of pet meat marketing. Thus it can and does
require that pet meat be displayed for sale separately from
meat for human consumption.
5.401 The Department in its submission said that it was
satisfied with the extent of its powers over the cleanliness of
butchers' shops and meat delivery vehicles and the hygienic
handling of meat at the retail level. It did not, however,
have adequate powers to deal with meat which it had determined
to be unfit for human consumption. It also had some difficulty in applying appropriate objective standards to laboratory
findings of salmonella in meat.
5.402 The Department is hoping that the early adoption by
all States of a model Food Act will provide the solution to
these problems.
5.403 Another area of particular concern to the Department
is the deficiency of its powers to enforce standards of
refrigeration. These should be extended at least so far as may
be necessary to ensure the soundness of meat and meat products.
181
CHAPTER 6
THE PET MEAT INDUSTRY
(a) Relevance for the purposes of the Royal Commission
6.1 Although there is no specific mention of the pet meat
industry in the Commission's terms of reference, there are
several reasons why I have had to give some consideration to
it, and now include a chapter on it in my report.
6.2 In the first place, the terms of reference which
relate to the handling of meat for export are not confined to
meat for human consumption. They clearly extend to the
exportation of pet meat.
6.3 Secondly, the pet meat industry has been the source of
considerable quantities of meat, not intended for human
consumption, which have found their way into the human food
chain both in Australia and abroad.
6.4 Thirdly, it is one of the tasks of a meat inspection
service to see that meat not suitable for humans, but suitable
for animals, is so designated and consigned.
6.5 Finally, I am conscious of the fact that some
recommendations I could make for the protection of meat for
human consumption, could have a serious detrimental effect on
the pet meat industry. I must be careful not to make
recommendations which cast an unnecessary or unjust burden on
that quite important industry.
(b) Quantities and types of pet meat
6.6 It has been estimated by one witness that the total
value of meat products sold either as fresh pet food or as a
result of manufacturing is in the order of $350m per annum. In
the year 1979-80 inedible meat (a description of meat in which
the Australian Bureau of Statistics has also included some game
meat) to the value of $3.2m was exported from Australia. In
182
1980- 81 the value of inedible meat exports was $10.6m; but in
1981- 82 it dropped back to $2.7m. It was suggested that the
introduction of a variety of export controls by DPI, after the
meat substitution scandal, was a possible cause of this
significant drop in the value of inedible meat exports. I
shall deal with the new export controls later in this chapter.
6.7 Whatever the total monetary value of the pet meat
industry, it is apparent that its value to the producer of meat
for human consumption is significant. As the manufacturers of
processed pet food mainly use the parts of animals which are
not used for human consumption, a meatworks operator can, by
selling those parts to a pet food manufacturer, obtain
approximately three times the price he could achieve by
rendering those parts into blood-and-bone or meat-meal. It has
been estimated that Australian meatworks gain an additional
income of approximately $30m per annum from the manufactured
pet food market, a market which has contributed to sustaining
the viability of marginal abattoir operations, thus providing
employment in rural areas.
6.8 Further, since it appears that an estimated 30% of the
pet meat intake of dogs and cats in Australia is supplied by
the fresh pet meat industry, that part of the pet food industry
is a substantial user of meat which is derived from poor
quality and injured stock, and feral animals, which would
otherwise have little commercial value.
6.9 It was unfortunate that neither the responsible
authorities in the Northern Territory, nor those in any state
in which the Commission sat, were able to supply me with
accurate or reliable figures on the value or quantities of pet
meat produced in their areas of control. This has resulted in
my being forced to rely upon estimates which are, at best,
approximations. It is important that reasonably accurate data
be collected regularly on the pet food industry. Its importance
183
lies not simply in the maintenance of checks on the types and
numbers of animals being processed for pet food, but also in
monitoring the movement of pet meat around the continent.
6.10 It is clear that pet meat, today, is a highly
marketable and mobile product; and at least one government
department conceded that an important aspect of the problem of
the substitution of pet meat for food for human consumption was
the inadequate information available to the department as to
the volume of pet meat being imported into the state. However,
as was pointed out to me, an operator's record . books, and thus
a department's or authority's statistics compiled from those
books, are only as useful for investigation purposes as the
operator is honest.
6.11 Although, as I have said, reliable figures are not
available, the pet food industry in the Northern Territory has
been estimated to be worth approximately $10m per annum. I
believe that any such figure underestimates the industry's true
value to the local economy.
6.12 In the first place, it provides employment for a
number of people and supplies good quality pet food at
reasonable prices for both residents of the Territory and
others. Further, it helps to control the large populations of
buffalo, feral cattle, horses and donkeys found particularly in
the Top End. However, the factor which in the short or medium
term makes the pet food industry of greatest importance in the
Northern Territory, is its role in the campaign to eradicate
tuberculosis and brucellosis in Territory live-stock. The
provision of a reasonable market for affected live-stock is an
important element in any eradication programme.
6.13 A variety of animals are used to produce pet meat in
Australia. In the Northern Territory, the bulk of the pet meat
is derived from feral animals such as buffaloes, scrub bulls
and cattle, horses, donkeys and a small number of camels. In
184
Victoria, poor quality and injured cattle, dead stock, horses,
and kangaroos imported into the state from New South Wales and
Queensland, are the main types of animals being processed as
pet meat. In the other states of Australia, one finds that
kangaroos, horses, donkeys and dead and 'downer' cattle are the
main sources of pet meat.
6.14 It has been estimated that the kangaroo population of
Queensland is between 20m and 25m animals. As this represents
approximately 65% of the total number of kangaroos in
Australia, it is not surprising that this State has the largest
harvest of kangaroos. Its total shooting quota for all species
of kangaroos has been 1.5m for the last three years, although
the actual harvest was 1.2m in 1979, just over lm in 1980 and
below 0.7m in 1981. The eastern grey species of kangaroo is
the most populous (with an annual quota on its slaughter of
900 000) followed by the red kangaroo (with an annual quota of
450 000).
6.15 Kangaroo shooters are required to be licensed by the
Parks and Wildlife Department and may only operate in
designated areas. They are required to purchase carcass tags.
There are over 150 licences for different areas, although over
half of them are held by four companies which, between them,
would handle 60% of Queensland's Kangaroo production. Freezer
boxes and boning-rooms are required to be licensed and are
subject to inspection by the licensing authorities. Dealers
must keep a fauna register and submit monthly returns to the
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service listing carcass
and skin purchases and tag sales. I was informed that about
two-thirds of all kangaroos shot in Queensland are killed for
their skins alone, no meat being taken.
6.16 Most of New South Wales' 7m kangaroos are located on
the inland plains and in the west of the State. The State's
National Parks and Wildlife Service has divided the State into
ten kangaroo management zones for the purpose of kangaroo
185
harvesting, although some of those zones are now closed to
commercial shooting. The red kangaroo is, presently, the most
common species of kangaroo found in NSW. For 1982, out of a
total quota of 843 000 kangaroos, the National Parks and
Wildlife Service permitted the harvesting of 550 000 red and
288 000 grey kangaroos.
6.17 The total quotas for NSW for the last few years have
varied between 645 000 in 1979 and 1980 and 843 000 in 1982.
Except for 1980 when the harvest of kangaroos exceeded the
quota by 35 000, the number of animals shot has never reached
the quota. As all macropods in NSW are protected, all kangaroo
shooters (called "trappers" under the National Parks and
Wildlife Act, 1974) are required to be licensed, maintain
records and tag carcasses and skins.
6.18 Shooters can sell kangaroos only to licensed fauna
dealers who, themselves, must keep records of sales. Kangaroo
management zones are allocated to a licensed fauna dealer who
is known as the zone operator. Such a dealer may be allocated
more than one zone. Other fauna dealers, licensed to trade in
skins only, are not allocated zones and may purchase skins in
any of the zones. Chillers must be licensed and may only be
operated in specified zones. All interstate movements of
kangaroo products are subject to a licensing system, although
the constitutional validity of the system may be doubtful.
Unlike Queensland, there is pressure in NSW for the full
utilization of the kangaroo carcass, and shooters are permitted
to shoot kangaroos solely for their skins only if their
licences are specially endorsed for this.
(c) The organization of the industry
6.19 There are three main ways in which animals are
processed for pet food. First, in the case of feral animals
they are shot and butchered in the field and the meat is
transported to nearby base camps where it is trimmed, dyed
(where required), packaged and either chilled or frozen in
186
mobile chillers or freezers. In the case of field-shot meat
there is a high risk of contamination and spoilage of the
product through contact with the ground and insects, the
unsanitary equipment and containers used, the often hot and
humid conditions under which the meat is prepared and the
distances required to be travelled before the raw meat can be
chilled or frozen. As such operations are carried out as
quickly as possible, scant attention can be paid to some steps
(such as post mortem inspection) which could ensure a higher
quality product.
6.20 The second main method of pet meat production is the
processing of stock in knackeries. The bulk of a knackery's
output is derived from the processing of horses and poor
quality and injured live-stock. However an important part of
any knackery's production is inevitably derived from the
processing of dead stock which have been collected from the
paddock, or wherever else they may have fallen. In Victoria,
in the year 1980-81, licensed knackeries processed a total of
nearly 44 000 dead animals, which represented 45% of their
annnual throughput of stock. As a result of evidence which
has established that some knackeries were the sources of pet
meat which found its way into the human food chain, it may be
suggested that it is undesirable to permit knackeries to
process dead stock. In my view, now that adequate controls on
knackeries have been introduced in Victoria and the Northern
Territory, they should be free to continue to provide this
valuable public service.
6.21 The quality of the product derived from knackeries
depends upon both the standards of the knackery management and
the degree of control exercised by the supervising or licensing
authority in the particular state.
6.22 The third method of pet meat production is through the
use of carcasses, parts of carcasses, offals, organs and other
meat products from abattoirs and slaughterhouses which are
187
either judged to be unfit for human consumption or not in
demand for such purposes. The quantities of such products used
as pet food varies from state to state and abattoir to
abattoir. At present, the greater proportion of such meat and
meat products is derived from export abattoirs where, since
1972, there has been in existence a security system for the
handling of condemned and inedible material.
6.23 In Volume 1 of the Australian Bureau of Animal
Health's "Manual of Instruction for Meat Inspection and Meat
Handling Procedures", the aim of the security system is stated
as being "to ensure that material which has been designated
unfit for human consumption is converted to a form which
effectively precludes its utilisation as human food". This
system, referred to before me as a "sealed distribution chain",
has proved to be an efficient and effective method of
controlling material destined for use as pet food.
6.24 In the absence of any evidence to suggest that the
system has been abused or that meat or meat products derived
from export abattoirs and passing through the security system
have found their way back into the human food chain, I see no
reason to alter the system by requiring such products to be
dyed, at least in cases where the product is to be used within
Australia. I shall later deal with pet food which is exported
from Australia.
(d) The Victorian pet meat industry
6.25 Since 1977, all knackeries and pet food establishments
in Victoria have been required to be licensed by the Victorian
Abattoir and Meat Inspection Authority. Local municipal
authorities still retain some control over knackeries
(principally their location and registration) through provisions
of the Health Act. However, the day-to-day supervision and
control of the 36 knackeries and 17 pet food establishments
which were licensed in Victoria as at 30 September 1981, falls
within the responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture.
188
6.26 Unlike most other states and the Northern Territory,
Victoria has virtually no pet meat produced through the local
slaughter of feral animals. Most fresh pet meat is either
produced by knackeries scattered throughout the state, or
imported into Victoria from New South Wales, Queensland,
Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Pet food
manufacturers, on the other hand, appear to obtain the bulk of
their raw material from export abattoirs.
6.27 As with the Northern Territory and those other states
in which the Commission sat, there are no reliable figures
available as to the size of the Victorian pet food industry or
the extent of the interstate importation of pet meat. Apart
from the fact that records of the Department of Agriculture show
that in the year 1980-81 the 36 licensed knackeries processed a
total of. nearly 68 000 cattle, horses and other animals, I am
left to speculate as to the actual size of the industry.
6.28 The Deputy Director-General of Agriculture for
Victoria stated the principles of control of pet food in
Victoria as being -(i) licensing of pet food establishments and knackeries;
(ii) minimum standards of construction of licensed
establishments;
(iii) supervision of hygiene and procedures at
licensed establishments;
(iv) staining requirements of carcasses dressed at
knackeries;
(v) strict labelling and handling requirements of
pet food produced from licensed
establishments;
(vi) supervision of transport vehicles used for
pet food operations and distribution; and
(vii) requirement for the keeping of records of
incoming and outgoing produce at all licensed
establishments.
189
6.29 This provides a comprehensive code which, together
with recent amendments to the Abattoir and Meat Inspection Act
1973 and the Health Act 1958 (effected by the Meat Control Act
1981) and the introduction of two new sets of regulations under
the Abattoir and Meat Inspection Act (being the Knackeries and
Pet Food Establishments Regulations 1982 and Retail Pet Meat
Shops Regulations 1982), ought to provide protection to the
public against the inadvertent or illicit transmission of
pet meat into the human food chain.
6.30 As most of the fresh pet food, consumed in Victoria is
derived from knackeries, it is not surprising that the
Department of Agriculture should have directed most of its
attention to that area of the pet food industry when attempting
to stamp out the use of pet food as food for human
consumption. Since 1975 the Department has struggled to
balance the competing interests of the pet food producers and
users and the meat-eating public in attempting to produce a set
of effective and workable regulations which, while protecting
the human consumer, did not so over-regulate the pet food
industry as to make it economically precarious. Nowhere is
this more clearly demonstrated than in the debate over the
requirements concerning the dyeing of fresh pet meat.
6.31 In late 1977 attempts were first made to enforce
regulations, promulgated in February 1975, which required that
carcasses or parts of carcasses should not be removed from a
knackery unless they were "thoroughly sprayed on all surfaces
with a solution of methyl violet". The attempted enforcement
drew protests from knackery operators, pet food establishment
operators, retail pet shop owners, greyhound racing
associations and pet owners. The protests resulted in an
amendment to the regulations in March 1978, which required
carcasses to be marked with a continuous 5 cm wide strip of
methyl violet running along both sides of the carcass. In
December 1980 the regulation was further amended by making it
an offence to remove the methyl violet stain.
190
6.32 The 1978 amendment was introduced despite the
opposition of at least some officers of the Department of
Agriculture concerned with meat inspection. However
Mr I.W. Smith, the then Minister of Agriculture, said in
evidence that he "would not have unilaterally made that
decision without the recommendation and support of the senior
officers" of his Department. Although the move to strip-
staining proved to be a mistake in the light of subsequent
events, I do not believe that it was an unreasonable decision
in all the circumstances then prevailing.
6.33 In October 1979, a person was discovered packaging
knackery meat for human consumption. In late 1979 and early
1980, a series of investigations were launched into allegations
that pet meat, mainly kangaroo, was finding its way into
smallgoods and other products for human consumption in
Victoria. Although some of these allegations were
substantiated, deficiencies in both the Health Act and Abattoir
and Meat Inspection Act effectively precluded prosecutions
being launched. I should add that these legislative
deficiencies have been overcome by the Meat Control Act 1981.
6.34 I suspect that it was partly because of the results of
these investigations that the Department of Agriculture in
September 1980 pressed for tighter Victorian and Australia-wide
controls on the pet food industry, and sought the concurrence
of the other States and Territories in the introduction of a
system of certification and re-inspection of interstate pet
meat. Further, the Department urged the need for a clearer
means of identification of pet meat, through full carcass
staining and stricter labelling and packaging requirements.
Partial success in this campaign was achieved by the amendments to the statutes and introduction of the new regulations already
mentioned. As the amendments and regulations only came into
operation in the first half of 1982, it is too early to judge
their effectiveness.
191
6.35 However, one matter is already clear. As happened in
1977 when attempts were made to enforce regulations requiring
total carcass staining, the 1982 regulations, which saw a
return to such total dyeing, were greeted with dismay and
prophecies of disaster from the fresh pet meat industry and
other interest groups. Not only has the noise of protest
abated and no evidence been led before me to substantiate such
prophecies, but also such evidence as does exist on the matter
suggests that the introduction of the new staining requirements
has had no significant adverse effect on the industry.
6.36 Having had the opportunity to view photographs and a
video-tape of a staining demonstration conducted by the
Department of Agriculture, and having heard the views of a
number of pet meat producers and industry representatives, I
suspect that the ready acceptance of the new requirements by
both the industry and the public is substantially attributable
to the relatively light level of staining presently required by
the Department. This, in itself, has created a problem for the
Department, for it has given rise to a degree of suspicion in
the minds of the pet meat industry that the Department, after
an initial phasing-in period, will require pet meat to be more
heavily stained. I believe that this matter can safely be left
to the good sense of the Department.
6.37 There is, however, another problem. The wording of
the new dyeing regulation speaks only of a requirement that the
dye, brilliant blue, is to be "visible on all surfaces", which
could refer to a very small area on each surface. I believe
the regulations need to be amended to enable a pet meat producer
to know with greater certainty what is expected of him. The
requirement should be to the effect that the greater part of
all surfaces must be visibly dyed. The precise wording is a
matter for the Parliamentary Counsel.
6.38 The present code for controlling pet meat in Victoria
is, as I have already stated, comprehensive. However, it still
192
relies heavily upon the co-operation and honesty of the pet
meat producer. In this as in other areas I take the view that
the most effective way of deterring dishonest operators from
attempting any form of meat substitution is through constant
supervision of works, frequent and random species testing of
meat for human consumption, and substantial penalties for
offences against the legislation. These measures, coupled with
the type of record and inventory system now in operation in
Victoria, should achieve an effective level of control over the
pet meat industry without any significant increase in cost.
(e) The Northern Territory pet meat industry
6.39 I have already made some reference to the importance
of the pet meat industry to the economy of the Territory. I
was therefore surprised to hear evidence that, although this
importance was acknowledged, few effective steps had been taken
until very recently to regulate an industry which had been a
source of concern for many years, principally because of its
lack of regulation. In 1974, this concern led to an
investigation and report by a senior officer of the Animal
Industry Branch of the Commonwealth Department of the Northern
Territory. This branch has now been absorbed into the NT
Department of Primary Production (DPP).
6.40 The terms of reference for the inquiry were quite
comprehensive and, although it was not conducted publicly, a number of interested people were interviewed.
6.41 One acknowledged weakness of the inquiry was that it
was carried out in the wet season, when a number of pet meat
operators who lived in other states were away from the
Territory. For the same reason the inquiry concentrated mostly on the Darwin area.
6.42 In dealing with the history of the buffalo, the
report, published in May 1974, noted that the animal was
introduced to various settlements along the coast of the
6
193
Territory in the mid-1800s and by the turn of the century it
had bred up into large numbers. The buffaloes were killed for
their hides in the early part of this century, but this trade
had virtually died out by the late 1940s. It was only in the
late 1950s that buffaloes began to be exploited as a source of
pet food. Their killing for human consumption began a few
years later, becoming much more extensive in the late 1960s and
early 1970s. At the time of the report, ten abattoirs were
killing buffaloes for human consumption.
6.43 The substantial use of the buffalo a s .a source of food
for human consumption was, no doubt, one of the main reasons
that the inquiry found that horse and donkey-meat represented a
larger part of the NT pet meat production than buffalo.
Another reason was that buffaloes are confined to certain parts
of the Top End, while wild horses and donkeys are scattered
more widely through the Territory. In this context it is worth
noting that, until May 1980, horses were not covered by the NT
Abattoirs and Slaughtering Act and so they were free of any pet
meat requirement, such as dyeing. Donkeys have been covered
for the first time by the Pet Meat Act 1982 (see para 6.60
below).
6.44 The inquiry found that an estimated total of just
under 3500 tonnes of pet meat was produced in the Territory in
1973. At least three quarters of this total would have gone
interstate, mostly to New South Wales, but also to South
Australia and Victoria. The report noted a strong reaction in
New South Wales to the introduction of dyeing of NT meat in
1973. Consumer resistance, particularly to methyl violet dye,
was thought likely to have a very serious effect upon the trade.
6.45 Apart from these useful statistics, the bulk of the
report was concerned with permit systems for the killing of
buffalo and with the respective claims of leaseholders,
abattoir owners and pet meat operators. These are not matters
relevant to this Commission.
194
6.46 The report did however contain a useful summary of the
replies from the States to queries about their requirements for
pet food imported from the Territory. These showed that, in
1974, only Queensland had a proper system of control for such
pet food. This included notice of shipment, arrangements for
inspection and the requirement of dyeing.
6.47 The report recommended legislation "for the sole
purpose of regulating the pet food industry". One of the chief
reasons given for this was stated in the following terms -"... pet meat being relatively cheap is an attractive substitute in human consumption products such as sausages, hamburgers etc. or even as straight grilling steak. Since it is prepared, transported and packed under the most primitive conditions it presents a potent public health hazard. Buffalo, in particular, have a high
incidence of bovine tuberculosis which is â communicable to man. In addition, buffalo are potential carriers of Salmonella organisms, perhaps . the most common cause of gastro-intestinal
infections in man, and the opportunity for contamination of the meat with faeces or intestinal contents is high. The introduction of beef measles - the intermediate stage of the giant tapeworm of man - cannot be overlooked. It is becoming an
important parasite in Southern Australia and it is only a matter of time before a human carrier introduces it to the Northern Territory. It is
important therefore that legislation should be introduced to control the processing and marketing of pet meat for public health reasons."
6.48 The report went on to list the main points which, it
was thought, should be included in the proposed legislation.
These included -(i) an appropriate definition of pet meat;
(ii) appointment of inspectors;
(iii) registration of pet meat premises;
(i v) registration of vehicles, chillers and
freezers;
(v) licensing of pet meat shooters;
(vi ) firearm controls;
195
(Vii) requirement of dyeing in the field and on
packing premises;
(viii) minimum permitted sizes of meat pieces;
(ix) labelling requirements;
(X) packaging requirements;
(xi) creation of offences protecting the human
food chain;
(xii) segregation of pet food in coldstores;
(xiii) the keeping of appropriate records;
(xiv) written authority from the landholder for
the carriage of pet food; and
(xv) appropriate penalties for breaches of the legislation.
6.49 This was a persuasive report, which pointed to a need
for prompt legislative action. The coming of Cyclone Tracy in
December 1974 is sufficient explanation for inaction in the
years immediately following. However it is difficult to
explain or condone the delay until 1982 before appropriate
legislation was passed.
6.50 The belief that pet meat from the Northern Territory
was finding its way into the human food chain in southern
states was widely held in recent years. Typical evidence given
on this point included the following -"I think lots of people had heard rumours for a long time that perhaps some pet meat might have been finding its way down South and perhaps it might have entered the food chain" - a member of
the Legislative Assembly.
"... we were worried that, with no control, truck-load after truck-load after truck-load of meat going down South, we did not know where it was going and it could finish up in the human chain" - meat inspectors supervisor t
"It appeared that the major illegal activity was the sending of undyed and unmarked cartons of pet meat South with the knowledge that the meat was destined for human consumption" - a member of the Northern Territory Police Stock Squad.
196
6.51 This popular belief also found its way into official
documents. The veterinary officer responsible for the Darwin
area made the following comments in quarterly reports to his
superiors -"Large quantities of unmarked and undyed pet meat continued to find its way into the human consumption market, both in Darwin and southern markets. An
intensive campaign to break this illegal operation is required" (July-September 1979).
"Shonky pet meat buyers are still operating. One particular fellow is offering big money for pet meat in special cartons. Dyed and properly marked this meat is sent to Melbourne, repacked in other cartons and apparently sent overseas for human consumption" (April-June 1980).
These allegations apparently attracted little attention. I
suspect that this was because they contained nothing very new.
The reference to meat being "sent overseas" probably related to
Taiwan (see section (g) below).
6.52 Between 1973 and 1982 the only legislation relating to
pet meat was to be found in Reg 46 of the Abattoirs and
Slaughtering Regulations, which provided for the dyeing or
dusting with charcoal powder of pet meat "at the time of
slaughter", and the packing of pet meat in portions not
exceeding four kilos and dyed or dusted overall, in cartons
marked 'PET MEAT NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION'. The legislation
reflected the fact that nearly all pet meat originating in the
Territory was produced by field-shooting feral animals.
6.53 The prescribed dyes were tartrazine and methyl violet,
but in practice the only one used was the yellow tartrazine.
This did colour the fatty tissues, in a not-too-obvious way, but was virtually invisible on red meat. Since most of the pet meat
concerned was very lean, the tartrazine caused little adverse
reaction from pet owners.
6.54 It is apparent that these few legal requirements for
pet meat were ignored before 1979. As one operator said in
evidence -
197
"It was common knowledge in the pet meat industry that no-one was complying with the regulations and as there appeared to be no attempt by the police or the Department of Primary Production to enforce the regulation, there was no incentive for pet meat operators to alter their methods of producing to comply with the existing laws. In addition,
southern uuyers had clearly indicated their preference for undyed pet meat."
6.55 The first sign of a re-awakened interest in the problem
which pet meat represented came from the NT Police Stock Squad.
This two man 1 squad' has, among its chief responsibilities,
investigations into cases of cattle-duffing and the illegal
slaughter of cattle. It seems that it has also been accepted
generally in the Territory that enforcement of provisions for
the dyeing of pet meat is a responsibility of the Stock Squad
rather than the Department of Primary Production (or its
predecessor the Animal Industries Branch) although the senior
member of the Squad expressed the view that it ought to be a
DPP responsibility.
6.56 In fact there was no enforcement of the provisions by
anyone betwen 197J and 1978; but in 1979 the Stock Squad
started taking its duties in this area seriously. Several
prosecutions were launched for failure to dye meat. Particular
attention was given to those cases in which it seemed that the
meat concerned might have been destined for the human food
chain.
6.57 For various reasons, these prosecutions were not often
successful. Nevertheless, they had the desired effect of
spreading the word that a new era had arrived, in which the very
limited provisions of the law relating to pet meat would be
enforced.
6.58 In order to get some idea of the quantities of pet
food produced in the Territory in recent years it is necessasry
to consider the evidence relating to individual processors.
198
Because no documentation was required for the production or
transport of pet food, no overall figures are available from any
source. The evidence obtained by the Commission was as follows -(Note. Approximately 600 cartons = 1 container = 18 tonnes)
Elston Pet Meats 1 container per month sent to Victoria
between February and September 1980.
- 36 tonnes to one Victorian purchaser
between August and September 1980.
- 65 tonnes and 38 tonnes for the years
1980 and 1981 respectively to a NSW
purchaser.
Howard Springs Pet
Meat Supplies Producing 8000 to 9000 cartons per annum.
NT Exports Selling 450 cartons per week (equivalent to
3 containers per month).
Pt Stuart Bought in between 15 and 20 tonnes over a
Station three month period in 1978-79 and between
1200 and 1800 cartons in late 1979 or early
1980.
Mt Rinqwood
Station Produced a little over 3000 cartons in 1981.
Wildman River Produced an average of 3 tonnes (100
Station cartons) per week in 1980.
Koolpinyah Produces approximately 1.5 tonnes per week.
Station In 1980, supplied one NSW purchaser with
Pty Ltd between 10 and 15 tonnes.
K.J. Carrick In August 1980, negotiated to supply two Victorian purchasers 2 tonnes per day.
Mr Carrick in fact supplied pet meat at this
199
K.J. Garrick rate for only a short time (due to
(cont) mechanical difficulties) and later reduced
his rates of production to 1.5 tonnes and
lower per day.
TBT Industries During 1980 supplied 8 containers (of
approximately 680 cartons per container) to
two Victorian purchasers.
Suburban
Supplies
Pet
Pty Ltd
Markets approximately 100 tonnes of
horse-meat, from the NT each year in Victoria
6.59 It is difficult to get a reliable picture of the size
of the Northern Territory pet food industry from the above
data. However, it is apparent that if the Northern Territory
was capable of producing just under 3500 tonnes of pet meat in
1973 and, in 1980, one operator was capable of supplying up to
2 tonnes of pet meat per day, the industry is important to the
Territory's economy.
6.60 This then was the large and diverse industry which was
sought to be regulated by the Pet Meat Act 1982, which was
assented to on 8 April but is not yet supported by regulations
- although these have been drafted.
6.61 I do not believe it is necesssary to comment on the
legislation in any detail. It has been generally supported by
responsible operators in the pet meat industry and it meets
most of the requirements of the 1974 recommendations. Much
will depend upon the capacity of the departmental and police
authorities to enforce its provisions. This can best be
achieved by irregular, unannounced visits to field chillers,
packing sheds and coldstores and the random stopping and
document-checking of refrigerated vehicles headed out of the
Territory. Liaison with the States over any doubtful movements
is vital.
200
6.62 Such checking should be seen as both a departmental
and a police responsibility. The notion, which prevailed until
recently, that pet meat was no part of the responsibility of
the Department of Primary Production has clearly been
dissipated. Both meat inspectors and stock inspectors can play
a useful role in the random checking of the industry.
6.63 The Stock Squad should also maintain its interest in
the subject and, if its size is not increased, other police
officers in the Centre should be asked to take part in random
checking procedures.
6.64 Although I have said that I do not propose to comment
in detail on the new legislation, there are one or two points
which I think could usefully be made.
6.65 The requirement of dyeing in the field is obviously
not popular with those concerned. They claim that it is
time-consuming and unnecessary. I believe that, if pet meat is
to be dyed at all, it should be dyed whenever it is collected
in such quantities that it could profitably be diverted to the
human food chain. I am, however, attracted to the suggestion
of a senior stock inspector, who had a hand in preparing the
1974 report, that it would suffice if each layer of meat thrown
into the box used by field slaughterers were sprinkled or
sprayed with dye.
6.66 This would typically involve dyeing one half of a
buffalo or donkey before proceeding to the second half. This
sounds like a sensible compromise between no dyeing at all and
dyeing each piece of meat as it is removed.
6.67 I have distinct reservations about continuing to
permit the use of tar trazine to dye pet meat. Not only have
doubts been expressed about its safety as a food dye, but
because of its acknowledged tendency to enhance the appearance
of red meat and be almost visually undetectable, the Department
201
of Primary Production would, I believe, be acting properly if
it were to terminate its use as an approved dye. It will no
longer be permitted on pet meat exported to the Eastern States,
and a uniform approach seems highly desirable.
(f) Dyeing of fresh pet meat
6.68 The level of control over the pet meat industry varies
markedly from state to state. In New South Wales, the Director
of the State Meat Inspection Service conceded that, in many
instances, control-"had been perfunctory at best and it took the export substitution disclosures to induce a lot of people to accept the need for a more regular form of inspectorial control".
Further, it appeared that for many years, despite legislative
requirements to spray knackery meat with methyl violet, very
little pet meat was being dyed and, in fact, no kangaroo-meat
produced within the state was being dyed. However, a new set
of regulations aimed at controlling the operations of
knackeries, and the traffic in pet meat through to the retail
level, has recently been approved and ought to be operative
shortly. It has been decided that brilliant blue dye will be
prescribed in future.
6.69 In Queensland, where pet food is produced in
knackeries, by field-shooting of kangaroos and by way of
diverting stock slaughtered for human consumption to pet food,
the level of control is high. Knackeries and pet food shops
are required to be licensed or registered and inspected and all
carcasses or flesh must be dyed with brilliant blue dye before
removal from the knacker's yard. Brilliant blue replaced
methyl violet in July 1982.
6.70 Imports of pet meat from other states require a notice
of intention to import. However, exports of kangaroo-meat to
interstate markets do not require dyeing under the Queensland
legislation.
202
6.71 In Western Australia, the control of pet meat has
primarily been the responsibility of local health authorities.
At present, knackeries are licensed by local authorities.
Under the Health Act it is an offence to kill horses and
donkeys for human consumption. Following recent meetings of
the Australian Agricultural Council, draft regulations have now
been compiled to control the shooting and slaughter of animals,
refrigeration, transport, hygienic processing at wholesale and
retail premises, structural standards of premises and the dye
marking of pet food. I was informed that the Western
Australian government has elected to require the strip-branding
of carcasses with tartrazine. It seems, however, that this
will not be acceptable for WA exports to any other State.
6.72 It is inevitable that there will be always a marked
difference between the prices of pet meat and meat for human
consumption. Throughout the hearings of the Royal Commission,
many witnesses have given evidence of that difference.
6.73 Early in the life of the Commission, the director of
one large meat export company said that one could buy kangaroo
suitable for export at 35 or 400 per pound whilst export
quality beef cost between 70 and 750 per pound. Evidence in
the Northern Territory suggested that the price difference was
of the order of 35 or 400 per kilogram.
6.74 For as long as there is such a price difference, the
incentive for pet meat substitution will remain. It is
therefore incumbent upon me to make recommendations which will
increase the difficulty of successfully achieving the
substitution and deterring the would-be offender.
6.75 I am of the opinion that there needs to be an
Australia-wide code for the dyeing of pet meat. All pet meat
produced in this country, other than pet meat derived from
export abattoirs and hence subject to the security system in
force in those establishments, ought to be dyed as soon as
203
practicable after production, by means of general carcass
dyeing with brilliant blue FCF (disodium salt).
6.76 In making this recommendation I am fully conscious of
the evidence of a number of witnesses who have expressed fears
that such a step will lead to the collapse of the fresh pet food
industry and disadvantage areas such as the Northern Territory
which has no pet food canning industry which could absorb an
over-supply of fresh pet meat. I think that whilst such claims
were made in good faith, with belief in their accuracy, they
are exaggerated and unsupported by any persuasive evidence.
Although it was suggested that the long term safety of the dye
is yet to be established, and accordingly it was inappropriate
to permit its continued use, I am satisfied on the evidence
presented to me that doubts about its possible safety are
unwarranted and should not prevent its use as a dye for pet
meat. I believe that Ministers and government officials should
assist the fresh pet meat industry by public statements
supporting the use of the dye.
6.77 In reaching the conclusion that I have, I considered a
number of other suggestions as to methods of 'decharacterising'
pet meat. Alternative dyes, such as methyl violet, tartrazine
or brilliant yellow were considered and rejected as being too
objectionable in colour, too difficult to handle, too easily
removed, unsafe or inadequate to provide clear identification
of the meat being stained.
6.78 Powdered charcoal received no support from any
quarter. Aniseed and other colourless flavourings and a
repugnant meat-meal powder appear unattractive propositions
because of the odour they would leave in a pet owner's
refrigerator. Strip-staining, as opposed to general carcass
dyeing, was rejected because of Victoria's experience as to the
ease with which the strip could be removed and still enable
substitution to take place.
204
6.79 Dyeing with brilliant blue, coupled with the
maintenance of sufficient records to enable authorities to
monitor the production and movement of pet meat throughout
Australia and within individual states, regular and unannounced
inspection of all establishments at which pet food is produced,
processed and stored (including, where animals are field shot,
mobile chillers and packing sheds) and frequent species testing
of meat for human consumption, are required to control the
industry adequately.
(g) Export of fresh pet meat
6.80 On 13 November 1981 export of inedible meat was
prohibited unless authorized by permit issued by DPI. From
1 March 1982 further requirements were introduced that all
inedible meat exports from Australia should be labelled as
'Inedible meat. Not fit for human consumption1.
6.81 Before these requirements were introduced, pet meat
could be exported from Australia without restriction. While
the market for pet meat overseas was comparatively small, it
was very lucrative - especially to Taiwan.
6.82 The reason that the Taiwanese market was so lucrative
was that much of the product exported as pet meat was in fact
being used for human consumption.
6.83 It would appear that the practice of diverting pet
meat exported from this country into the human consumption chain has not been restricted to Taiwan. Over the last five
years DPI has received complaints from the United Kingdom and
the Federal Republic of Germany that meat exported from
Australia as pet meat has been found in the human consumption
chain. Although these complaints have been few and sporadic
they suggest the existence of a problem that has extended
beyond one country of destination.
205
6.84 I cannot say whether any Australian producer or
exporter has been involved in that diversion to human
consumption in the European cases referred to DPI. However
there is no doubt that some Australian operators well knew that
pet meat they were sending to Taiwan would be used for human
consumption. In many cases, perhaps the majority, the
operators have taken no positive step to facilitate that
diversion, beyond ensuring that the meat sent was either not
dyed at all or was only lightly dyed.
6.85 In other cases, operators have had the meat packed in
two piece cartons, the lids of which have been printed as for
edible product but which have then been put on inverted, so
that to all appearances the carton is a plain carton. Of
course it has then been easy for the importer to invert the
lids, thus exposing the printed label as edible product.
6.86 In at least one other case, which occurred before the
changes in regulations to which I have referred, the exporter
went a stage further. By a relatively simple series of steps
he was able to provide documents for the importer which were
apt for edible product.
6.87 He booked space on board a suitable vessel, describing
the product to be shipped as "hard frozen pet food". The
shipping line's records, submitted to Customs for clearance of
the vessel, thereafter described the shipment in those terms
and, relying on that description, Customs cleared the vessel
without requiring a permit for that product. However the
exporter prepared bills of lading for issue by the shipping
company which described the product as "frozen boneless
buffalo-meat" which, while accurate, facilitated his
deception. Armed with a bill of lading which was apt to
describe edible product, he then took a form of health
certificate used for edible product, which was a form freely
available from DPI, and completed the form with the details of
the shipment. Then either he, or another person on his behalf,
206
forged a signature purporting to be that of a veterinary
officer and applied a facsimile of a DPI stamp to the form.
This then gave the importer of the product a set of documents,
being bill of lading and health certificate, which enabled the
importer to pass the product off as edible.
6 . 8 8 How much was exported using this method, I cannot
say. The exporter concerned said that, although he had thought
of this scheme himself, he believed many others had done what
he had done. There is no evidence which enables me to say
whether or not this is so.
6.89 This exporter exported at least nine full container
loads of buffalo-meat in this way, perhaps more. Some at least
of the meat was 'certified' buffalo (that is, fit for human
consumption) but given the circumstances in which the deception
was discovered, I am satisfied that some of the buffalo-meat
was field-shot pet meat. These facts came to light because a
person who bought some cartons of the product in Taiwan, as
edible meat, complained that it was grossly contaminated. He
made his complaint to the Australian producer whose name
appeared on the cartons. That producer had not shipped product
to Taiwan and complained to DPI that its cartons appeared to
have been misused. Subsequent police investigations led to
discovery of the matters I have described.
6.90 The trade in pet meat to Taiwan appears to have been
brought to an end in 1981, when the Taiwanese Government
imposed restrictions on imports of inedible meat. I cannot say
exactly how much pet meat was sent from Australia to Taiwan but
the size of the market may be judged from the facts that, in
1980, one company exported between 300 and 400 tonnes to that
country in its own name and sold another 100 tonnes to another
exporter for sale to Taiwan. In the same period another
company sold 13 full container loads of pet meat for export to
Taiwan.
207
6.91 I have no doubt that the participation of Australians
in this sort of trade is highly undesirable and capable of
bringing great discredit upon the Australian meat industry. It
was said that the purchasers of the meat in Taiwan knew the
nature of the product they were buying, that officials in
Taiwan were aware of what was going on, and it was even
suggested that the meat was of a higher quality than one would
normally find being used for human consumption in Taiwan or
other comparable markets. Even if all this were so, and I have
no way of judging the truth of these statements, such a trade
does not help our reputation.
6.92 In order to avoid a repetition of the Taiwan-type
trade and, more particularly, for the protection of the human
food chain generally, I recommend that all fresh and frozen pet
meat exported from this country should be dyed with brilliant
blue in the same way and to the same extent as pet meat
produced for local use will be dyed. It has been said by some
people who have exported pet meat that such a requirement will
lead to other countries that do not have similar restrictions
capturing whatever markets may exist. I consider that the
export market for meat for human consumption is too valuable to
be put at risk. The existence of large quantities of undyed
pet meat anywhere in Australia would, in my view, create an
unacceptable risk. The only exception which I could envisage
without concern would be one in which the exporter was able to
demonstrate that there would be exceptional security measures
covering the consignment from the point of production to the
point of shipment. In such a special case an exemption in
writing could be appropriate.
208
CHAPTER 7
MALPRACTICES
7.1 The central task of the Royal Commission is to answer
the question "whether malpractices are occurring or have
occurred" in the export meat industry or in the domestic meat
industry in Victoria or the Northern Territory. My general
answer to this question has already been given in section (d)
of Chapter 1 above. I turn now to consider the question in
more detail.
7.2 I should say at the outset that I have no doubt that
the industry has never been more free of malpractices than it
is today. All references, unless otherwise stated, are to the
past - most of them applying particularly to the last two or
three years.
7.3 At one stage of the Royal Commission's hearings it
became necessary for me to consider the meaning which should be
given to the word "malpractices" appearing in the terms of
reference of each of my Commissions. I see no reason now to
alter the ruling I gave there, which was in the following
terms:-"I take the expression "malpractices", in its context, to mean corrupt, dishonest or otherwise improper practices, involving actions which are
illegal or, if not strictly in breach of any law, at least morally reprehensible."
209
CHAPTER 7A
MALPRACTICES CONCERNING EXPORT MEAT
(a) Species Substitution
7.4 The malpractice which led directly to the setting up
of the Royal Commission, namely species substitution, proved to
be the most serious malpractice which the Commission
uncovered. This was so not merely because horse, donkey or
buffalo was being substituted for beef, but because the animals
concerned were being slaughtered, transported and processed in
conditions which might have been suitable for pet food but were
certainly not suitable for meat for human consumption.
7.5 A few isolated cases came to light of meat which was
fit for human consumption being substituted for meat of a
different species. Examples included mutton being packed as
beef, and beef livers and kidneys being described as lamb
livers and kidneys. This of course was commercial fraud, but
it raised no public health issues.
7.6 So far as the most serious cases of species
substitution are concerned, there is no evidence that this
occurred in the export trade before late 1979. Almost all
industry witnesses said that they had never heard rumours of
such an occurrence before August 1981; and the general tenor
of their evidence was that, if they had thought about it, their
belief would have been that no-one would be silly enough to
attempt it, at least in exports to USA, because they would be
bound to be caught.
7.7 The fact is, of course, that one small operator did
get away with the practice for almost a year - in which time he
had sent at least 20 0 tonnes of horse and kangaroo-meat to
USA. I should say in passing that I do not know if there was
any collusion at the US end of these transactions. There was
no evidence to support such a possibility, which is of course a
matter for the US authorities in any event.
210
7.8 Perhaps a year earlier and, I believe, quite
independently, a medium-sized company also saw that large
profits could be made by exporting pet food as food for human
consumption. It is clear that that company purchased some
hundreds of tonnes of donkey and buffalo-meat, fit only for pet
food, and sold it for human consumption. The evidence suggests
that the majority of this meat was exported (apart from a few
tonnes still held in store as pet food). However it is not
possible to say just how much went overseas, or to what
destination.
7.9 In giving this summary of that company's operation I
have treated another smaller company as being part of that
operation. I am satisfied that the owners of the two companies
were tightly interlocked financially and that they worked
hand-in-glove on these enterprises. I see no point in trying to segregate their interests.
7.10 One or two other small companies may also have
knowingly exported small quantities of pet meat as meat for
human consumption. The evidence is not clear.
7.11 There is probably little point in speculating about
the motives which led those involved to embark on the courses
they followed. Certainly the high prices and scarcity of beef
between 1979 and 1981 provided an incentive to look elsewhere
for meat which would enable orders to be filled and profits
greatly increased.
(b) Local connivance in overseas malpractices
7.12 It is convenient at this point to deal with a
different aspect of species substitution involving no breach of
Australian law and, in some cases, no breach of law overseas
but nevertheless constituting a deception of foreign consumers of Australian meat and a public health risk in the countries
concerned. Such activity constitutes, in my view, a
malpractice within the Commission's terms of reference.
211
7.13 I am not here speaking of those cases (such as have
come to light in the United Kingdom in recent months) where
kangaroo or horse-meat has been exported in good faith as pet
food, and has been put into the human food chain by some
unscrupulous foreign operator.
7.14 The cases I am concerned with are those in which the
Australian exporter of pet meat has known perfectly well that
his product was going to be used for human consumption in the
importing country. And he has gone as far as he can, in the
labelling of the product and the preparation of shipping
documents, to assist in the process of substitution.
7.15 This certainly happened in the case of the export of
many hundreds of tonnes of buffalo pet meat to Taiwan (see
para 6.90). The fact that some officials in that country may
have connived at the deception does little to reduce the moral
turpitude of the conduct.
7.16 Certainly Australian Government agencies have an
obligation to see to it that the documents they issue or
certify contain no tendency to mislead the authorities in the
importing country. They should state explicitly the species
and status (pet food or human consumption) of the meat. This
is now provided for.
(c) Substitution of local for export meat
7.17 Rumours that meat coming from non-export abattoirs was
finding its way into the export trade have been common for many
years. However it seems that such rumours were seldom
sufficiently specific for any government authority to be
encouraged to take action on them, or to pursue any determined
investigations.
7.18 It is clear from the evidence which has now come to
light that the practice was not uncommon, and was indulged in
by some quite substantial companies as well as a number of
smaller operators.
212
7-19 The reasons for the practice were, of course, purely
financial. Slaughtering costs at a non-export abattoir have
always been significantly lower than at a registered export
establishment. The same is true, to a lesser extent, of
boning-rooms. So if an export boning-room could take in
carcasses from a non-export abattoir, its profits on that
consignment would increase considerably. If the work were done
after hours, and paid for in tax-free cash, concealed under
some other heading in the books of account, there would also be
savings in such areas as payroll tax and workers compensation premiums.
7.20 If the meat came from a non-export boning-room, and
was simply relidded at a coldstore or in transit, even greater profits could be made.
7.21 It is difficult to say just how widespread this
malpractice has been. Certainly it will have varied from time
to time, depending on the general availability of live-stock
and the percentage difference between the costs of similar meat
coming from the two classes of abattoirs. The activity
probably reached its peak between 1978 and 1981.
7.22 Undoubtedly the incidence of this form of substitution
has varied as between States, and has been worst in Victoria.
This is not, I believe, because Victorians are less honest or
more greedy. It has to do with the more fragmented nature of
the industry in that State and, in particular, with the numbers
of independent export boning-rooms and export coldstores. It
also has to do with the ready availability of export-type
cattle and the excess of certain types of domestic production
(such as forequarters and offal) over domestic demand in
Victoria.
7.23 Allegations were made by a number of operators of
large export works that in the winter of 1980 there was a
discernible upsurge in the purchase of export-type cattle by
213
local abattoirs in the Gippsland area of Victoria. It was
suggested that the buying patterns and quantities were such as
to lead inevitably to the conclusion that the local works were
either involved in or facilitating the transmission of large
quantities of local product to the export market. It was
claimed that such purchases ceased when the export meat scandal
broke in August 1981.
7.24 I have carefully reviewed the evidence of the
witnesses who made these claims and that of the Gippsland
operators who were called on the matter. I have also studied
the submission of the Department of Agriculture and the
statistical material appended to it. In the event, I find that
the evidence available to me does not support the contentions
of the export operators who made the allegations. Although it
is probable that some substitution of local for export meat
took place in Gippsland, as in other areas of the State, I am
satisfied that it did not occur on the scale suggested by the
export operators.
(d) False description of age, quality or cut
7.25 It is clear that certain types of false description
have been common in the export meat industry. Perhaps the most
serious has been the misdescription of mutton as lamb. I have
no doubt that hoggett has quite often been packed as lamb, but
the evidence indicates that much older sheep have also, at
times, been slaughtered and packed as lamb. A number of such
cases have come to light as a result of overseas complaints
which have been investigated by AMLC officers. It seems that,
as a result of such practices, the reputation of the Australian
Meat Industry in the Middle East is well below that of the New
Zealand industry.
7.26 I suspect that, in some cases at least, the Middle
East importer has a shrewd idea of the quality of meat he is
getting, because of the price he is paying. Nevertheless a
214
fraud is being practised on the ultimate consumer and the good
name of the Australian industry is at stake.
7.27 Judging from the list of trade complaints to AMLC, it
would seem that only a few firms have engaged in this
practice. One in particular, which is no longer trading,
exported some 4000 sheep as lamb in a period of ten months.
7.28 It seems also to have been a not infrequent
malpractice for processors to describe cow as steer-meat, and
steer as bull-meat. In each case a marginally better price has
provided the incentive.
7.29 A practice on which a good deal of evidence has been
given is that known generally as 1 robbing the pack'. This
involved removing a good cut of meat (usually a scotch fillet
or cube roll) from a boned leg of beef, without disclosing the
fact by adding an 'R' (for ' residue1) to the coded description
of product.
7.30 There is no doubt that this practice was rife
throughout the industry; the only question is whether it was
wrongful. Many witnesses were prepared to defend it as
commercially acceptable, saying that the overseas purchaser
knew just what he was getting and was quite content. The
coding system referred to applied only to the US market, and
the evidence showed that US purchasers were only interested in
the leanness of the meat, not in the component parts of the
pack.
7.31 On the other hand there was a price differential
involved and it is significant that the DPI made a number of
ineffectual attempts to halt the practice. The Department
received little support in this from its own officers - at
least until August 1981 - because they all believed the
practice was rife and they were reluctant to put the company they were supervising at a competitive disadvantage. At least
215
that explanation puts the best possible construction on the
inactivity of veterinary officers and inspectors, which in some
cases may in fact have been due to laziness, or defective
vision induced by free meat. In some cases they would have
been getting some of the cuts in question.
7.32 Some producers seem to have felt that such a 1 robbed'
pack was better than a true residual pack and did not merit
that description. The fault may well lie in the coding system,
but until now neither the industry nor the DPI has taken any
steps to bring theory into line with practice.
7.33 I believe that, because of the existence of the code
and the price differential involved, 'robbing the pack1 must
rank as a malpractice, but only a venial one.
(e) Misuse of government stamps
7.34 The 'Australia Approved1 stamp is an important part of
the mechanism of government control of the export meat
industry. Its misuse is arguably an aid to the carrying out of
some other malpractice, rather than a malpractice in itself.
It is, however, convenient to deal with it separately. This
stamp tells the foreign importer that the meat concerned has
been slaughtered and dressed under hygienic conditions, with
careful ante-mortem and post-mortem examination by, or under
the close control of, a veterinary officer. In particular it
means in most cases that the requirements and standards of the
USDA have been complied with, including the requirement that
the meat has been slaughtered and processed only at
establishments registered for the purpose of export.
7.35 The stamp also represents a guarantee to an Australian
processor or dealer that the meat concerned has been duly
approved for export.
7.36 The number on the seal indicates the establishment at
which the meat was slaughtered or processed.
216
7.37 It follows from this that the safe custody of these
stamps, giving access to lucrative export markets as they do,
is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the
industry.
7.38 Until now, these stamps have been ordered and paid for
by the managements of export establishments. There has been no
control over the numbers ordered and, although reasonable care
of them has been taken by inspectors to whom they have been
delivered, instances of loss and theft have occurred, with
little follow-up action being taken by the Department.
7.39 It is obvious that in this situation an unscrupulous
operator could order a stamp for use out of hours or away from
registered export premises, and not even the stamp
manufacturer's suspicions would be aroused. This has occurred
on a number of occasions in the past but will be much more
difficult in future (para 5.183 above).
7.40 The practice whereby the stamp is applied to meat or
to cartons or other packages by employees of the operator,
under the general supervision of a meat inspector, is
reasonable and should be allowed to continue. It is a
mechanical task, to indicate that the meat has successfully
passed the scrutiny of the inspectors concerned.
(f) False statement of slaughter date
7.41 Some importing countries insist on the meat they
receive, though frozen, being reasonably fresh. Others will
accept meat a year or more old without demur.
7.42 A number of instances came to light, in the course of
the Commission's hearings, in which cartons of meat had been
relidded, labels amended or tickets replaced, for the purpose
of changing the apparent dates on which the animals were
slaughtered.
217
7.43 Since this date stamp is applied at the same time as
the 1 Australia Approved' stamp, and is one of the things that
stamp is intended to authenticate, such a change of date is an
important matter from the DPI's point of view.
7.44 It is clear that some quite large companies have
indulged in this malpractice at times. When caught by DPI
officers, as they have been on occasions, the only penalty they
have suffered has been the cost of replacing the false date
with the correct date. This would, presumably, also prevent
them from using the meat for the purpose they had intended.
(g) Forgery of transfer certificates
7.45 An essential link in â the chain of export meat
inspection is the transfer certificate which is signed by a
meat inspector as meat leaves his control to go to another
export establishment (perhaps for boning or freezing) or to a
container depot, wharf or airport.
7.46 The meat inspector at the receiving end relies on this
certificate as indicating that the meat has in fact come from
an export establishment and has been produced under the
supervision of departmental inspectors. This provides
insurance against the misuse of the 'Australia Approved' stamp.
7.47 However there have been weaknesses in the system which
enabled false entries to be made in these certificates. In
particular it was common practice before August 1981 to show
the number of cartons (or carcasses) in a consignment in
figures only. It was thus a simple matter to alter a
certificate for 140 cartons to 440, 740 or 1140. The
additional cartons, falsely stamped, could be picked up en
route and the receiving inspector would not suspect any
malpractice. There was no system for later reconciling the
copy retained by the originator with that delivered with the
meat.
218
7.48 Further, the certificate forms were readily available,
and were not accountable, and thus a completely false
certificate could be produced. The receiving inspector would
often not know the inspector who signed the certificate and
would not necessarily be familar with his signature even if
they had met.
7.49 Here again changes have been made to the system to
reduce greatly the risks of forgery. Copies are reconciled
with originals on a spot-checking basis, signatures are
registered and similarly checked, quantities are written in
words as well as numbers and blank certificate forms are kept
under lock and key.
(h) Failure to obtain export documents (5.239-243)
7.50 · The Royal Commission's inquiries from the Customs
Bureau brought to light the fact that many exporters had been
breaking a gentlemen's agreement developed with the Bureau over
a number of years.
7.51 It seems that, when loads are made up for shipment at
the last minute, it may be difficult to obtain the necessary
export permits from the DPI and present them at the dockside
before the ship is ready to sail.
7.52 In these cases it has been common to allow the vessel
to sail, on the understanding that the permit is already in
existence and will be presented soon after the date of sailing.
7.53 The Bureau has found it impossible in practice to
follow up all these cases, and it now appears that its
confidence in the exporters' sense of responsibility was quite
often misplaced. In many cases, no permit was ever presented.
7.54 It seems that, in most if not all cases, a permit did
actually exist, although it may not have accurately described
the amount of cargo finally placed aboard.
219
7.55 These procedures have now been tightened up and the
gentlemen's agreement cancelled. Accurate export permits must
be produced before the ship is allowed to sail.
(i) Forgery of export documents
7.56 A reasonably comprehensive check of export documents
issued in 1981 was carried out by the Customs Bureau and it
revealed only one case of apparent forgery of such documents.
This case has been referred to police. It does not seem to be
of importance to the Commission's inquiries.
(j) Halal slaughter and certification
7.57 In 1981 Australian exporters shipped just over 100 000
tonnes of meat to Middle Eastern destinations. Sheep meats
represented 69 000 tonnes of those shipments. The Middle
Eastern market is the third most important for Australian meat
exports and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars each
year. It is by far the most important market for sheep meats
from Australia. It was said in evidence that without access to
it "the bottom would fall out of the Australian sheep meats
market".
7.58 Australian access to markets for sheep meats other
than the Middle East is becoming more restricted. Formerly
Australia had free access to the United Kingdom, Greece and
other Western European countries for its sheep meats, but now
exports to those countries come under restrictions imposed by
the European Economic Community. The current quota for all
sheep meats imports by EEC members from Australia is 17 500
tonnes per annum. Thus the importance of the Middle Eastern
market for Australian meat producers is clear.
7.59 The religion of Islam requires its adherents to
consume meat of permitted animals which have been slaughtered
in a particular way.
220
7.60 While some groups of Muslims differ from others in
their specific requirements concerning slaughter, Islamic
religious laws, generally speaking, require that the animal
should be slaughtered by a Muslim with a knife in such a way
that the animal bleeds to death. While slaughtering each
beast, the slaughterman recites the Arabic prayer
"Bismillah-Allaho-Akbar" (In the name of Allah, the Almighty,
Great). Meat slaughtered in accordance with Muslim principles
is generally referred to as 'halal' or 'permitted'. Pig-meat
is forbidden to followers of Islam and accordingly Islamic law
requires that there should be no contamination of halal meat by
pig-meat or by equipment used for its production.
7.61 Importers of meat, and presumably consumers, in
Islamic countries have sought assurances that meat bought by
them is religiously acceptable, that is, is halal. Meat has
been exported from Australia to Islamic countries over a long
period of time. Certification of its religious acceptability
has been provided by private individuals, companies and
religious societies. For many years the Commonwealth
Government, the Department of Primary Industry and the
Australian Meat Board understandably took the view that the
religious status of product was a commercial matter in which
the Government and its organisations should not become involved.
7.62 In 1974 a two-man delegation from Saudi Arabia visited
Australian capital cities and looked at the needs of Australian
Islamic communities. As a result of this visit, the Australian
Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) was given $1.2m by the
Saudi Arabian Government for distribution among the Islamic
societies of Australia for the erection of places of worship
and Islamic centres. The Saudi Arabian delegation recommended
to the Muslim communities in Australia that AFIC should be
recognised as the sole representative of Muslims in Australia
and that AFIC should become the sole authority in Australia to
certify that meat had been killed in accordance with Islamic rites. The delegation said that it was
221
"worth mentioning ... that such a decision if practised would provide (A FIC) with an income estimated at $400 000 annually and the local community associations would also earn the same which ( w o u l d ) reduce their dependence on foreign
assistance and make them self supporting".
7.63 In 1975 the Ministry of Finance and National Econony
of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia gave AFIC sole certification
rights for all meat coming from Australia to Saudi Arabia. A
circular issued by the Ministry in 1976 said (amongst other
things)
"There is no specific authority abroad designated to issue such certificate ( n a m e l y , t h a t a n a n i m a l o r b i r d w a s s l a u g h t e r e d in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h I s l a m i c r u l e s a n d r e s t r i c t i o n s ) and there is no specific form, but this Certificate in any case should state that the animal or bird has been slaughtered under the supervision of a devout Muslim who is competent and qualified in Islamic Jurisprudence as a Mosque Iman, or a member in an Islamic Organisation, or a member in an Islamic Centre, or a member of an Islamic Country Embassy, except in Australia where the slaughter Certificate should be issued by the Union of Islamic Societies in Australia (AFIC) in accordance with the Royal Decision No. 4211 dated
(15 F e b r u a r y 1976) provided that this Certificate is to be attested and authenticated by the Saudi Embassies or by any other Islamic Embassy in those countries from which the meat is exported and where
there are no available Saudi Embassies."
7.64 It is to be noted that Australia was singled out as a
special case. It seems that halal slaughter is in fact more
centrally controlled in Australia than in any other producing
country.
7.65 About 20% of Australia's exports of meats to the
Middle East go to Saudi Arabia. But that represents only some
8 or 9% of that country's total meat imports. While the main
meat imported is chicken, the rest of the product (being beef
or sheep meats) come from New Zealand, South America, members
of the EEC and to a lesser extent Eastern Europe, as well as
from Australia.
222
7.66 It would seem that most of those competitors of
Australia for the Saudi Arabian market do not have a system of
halal certification of product similar to the system which now
exists in Australia. Although little evidence was given about
the systems of halal certification used in those countries,
Mr McSporran, Chief Executive of the Western Australian Lamb
Marketing Board, expressed the view that those other countries
had less cumbersome arrangements for halal certification than
Australia. Whether or not that characterization of arrangements
for halal certification in this country or elsewhere is
accurate, it seems clear that Australian arrangements are
significantly different from those applying to most of its
major competitors in the Saudi Arabian market, and that this
difference is seen by some processors and brokers as a trading
disadvantage.
7.67 · Following nomination of AFIC by the Saudi Arabian
Government as sole halal certifying authority in Australia,
AFIC has set up an increasingly elaborate system for
registration of slaughtermen and certification of meat as
halal. In 1980 the United Arab Emirates extended sole halal
certification rights to AFIC for product from Australia. In
1982 Kuwait required AFIC certification for meat imported from
Australia. Although Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and United Arab
Emirates may have formal requirements for certification by AFIC
of meat imported from Australia, it seems clear that these
requirements have not been regularly enforced and, at times,
meat covered by halal certificates issued by persons or bodies
other than AFIC has been accepted in those countries.
7.68 AFIC is a federal body. It has over 50 Islamic
societies as members and in each state the member societies of
that state have formed a State Islamic Council which is
affiliated with AFIC. While there are groups within the Muslim
community which are not affiliated with AFIC, and some of them
are quite large, I am satisfied that AFIC is the most representative single body of Australia's 250 000 Muslims.
223
Nevertheless, those groups which are not affiliated with AFIC
cannot be ignored. Some of them, such as the Muslim
Association of Brisbane and the Adelaide Mosque Islamic Society
of South Australia, provide efficient halal certification
services.
7.69 AFIC1s present system of certification of halal meat
is founded upon certificates issued by slaughtermen registered
by AFIC, certifying that beasts have been slaughtered in the
required manner. Slaughtermen are registered by AFIC upon
application to the relevant State Islamic Council and upon
payment of an annual fee of $10. Each slaughterman is given a
registration number and a record is kept of the works at which
he slaughters.
7.70 The slaughterman, on request, issues what is described
as an interim certificate to the meatworks. That certificate
describes the meat, gives details of its export destination,
and specifies the works at which and date on which the beasts
were killed. The interim certificate is signed by the
slaughterman and counter-signed by a person authorized to do so
on behalf of the works. That interim certificate is then
presented to the State Islamic Council for issue of an official
AFIC halal certificate. That document again records
consignment details, the place of slaughter and the name of the
slaughterman. It is sealed with the AFIC seal and signed by
one of a limited number of AFIC officials authorized for that
purpose. The document certifies that the meat:
"has been slaughtered by this Federation's Registered Muslim Slaughtermen using knife and according to Islamic rites. The meat of the animal so slaughtered is halal and, therefore, suitable for consumption by Muslims in any part of the world. Each animal's carcass is branded with the Federation's halal Stamp for identification and adequate precaution is taken to prevent contamination with non-halal meat and pig-meat."
224
7.71 The official AFIC halal certificate is issued on the
faith of the interim certificate. Some checks are made of the
authenticity of the interim certificate, such as verifying the
slaughterman's signature by reference to specimens held by the
State Islamic Council, but if the interim certificate appears
to be regular, a final certificate issues as of course.
7.72 AFIC and its member state councils have few permanent
staff. AFIC now has only two full-time staff - an executive
officer and his secretary. In some cases state councils employ
a full-time supervisor of halal slaughter, who may have some
expertise in the meat industry, but speaking generally AFIC and
its state councils have little practical expertise in the meat
industry. Nor have AFIC or its state councils sought to claim
such expertise, for they would say that their task is
essentially a religious one.
7.73 Certification schemes operated by the Muslim
Association of Brisbane and the Adelaide Mosque Islamic Society
of South Australia are broadly similar to the AFIC scheme.
Those societies are very critical of AFIC, and their
submissions make it clear that they oppose any move which would
enhance the power or position of AFIC. Equally it is clear
that the differences between the Brisbane Association and the
Adelaide Society on the one hand and AFIC on the other go well
beyond matters of halal slaughter and represent a sharp
division between groups in the Muslim community.
7.74 That kind of division is also reflected in the
differences which have existed and appear still to exist
between AFIC and at least one private slaughtering contractor
who offers a halal slaughter and certification service.
7.75 The Halal Sadiq Company, conducted by Mr Sadiq Bux has
provided such a slaughter and certification service in Western
Australia since 1956. It is clear that, following a division
in the Muslim community in Perth, which it is not necessary to
225
look at in any detail, Mr Bux and his company were labelled as
religiously unacceptable by some sections of the Muslim
community in Australia and overseas. Such evidence as was
adduced before me on the matter leads me to the view that the
charges levelled against Mr Bux were baseless and have been
shown to be so on more than one occasion. However this may be,
it is clear that the religious aspect of the task of halal
certification and slaughter can be productive of deep division
of opinion between elements of the Muslim community in this
country as well as overseas.
7.76 AFIC certification is not acceptable in Iran. In 1979
the Iranian Government made special arrangements for
certification of meat destined for that country. An Iranian
religious supervisor is stationed in Australia and retained by
AMLC. He is responsible for approving abattoirs at which
beasts are killed for the Iranian trade and registering Muslim
slaughtermen who work at those abattoirs. Those slaughtermen
may also be registered by AFIC. The supervisor issues his own
certificate that product has been killed and dealt with
according to Islamic rites.
7.77 Before I commenced hearings on the question of halal
slaughter and certification it was clear that some persons
interested in the subject matter wished to have the Commission
deal with it in private session. Accordingly, application was
made to me in the course of the Commission's hearings in Perth
that I should hear all evidence relating to halal slaughter and
certification in private. The application was made on behalf
of the Western Australia Lamb Marketing Board and was supported
by AFIC, AMLC, Australian Meatworks Federal Council and Mr Bux
of Halal Sadiq Company. Both the Minister for Primary Industry
and DPI made clear that they neither supported nor opposed the
application.
7.78 Essentially the application was put on the basis that
any public discussion of weaknesses in existing systems for
226
halal certification, or public enquiry into any past
malpractices connected with halal certification, could have
serious adverse effects on Australia's trade in this area. It
was said, and I accepted, that any reference to these matters
would be circulated widely in Middle Eastern countries and
elsewhere with probable adverse consequences. For these
reasons, I granted the application and heard all evidence on
halal slaughter and certification in private session. In doing
so, I was particularly mindful of the damage that could flow
from incomplete or unbalanced reports of evidence which could
not be completed for some months or ruled upon for an even
longer period.
7.79 For some years now, AMLC and large sections of the
meat industry producing for Islamic countries, have been
dissatisfied with the AFIC halal certification system. That
dissatisfaction has stemmed primarily from beliefs that AFIC
has charged too much for its services and has not been
sufficiently 1 commercial1, meaning efficient, in its attitude
and operation. In the middle of 1978, meat processors and
exporters discussed these matters with AMLC and it was decided
that AMLC should seek from the Saudi Arabian Government equal
certification rights to those held by AFIC. Those rights were
not granted, AMLC being told, in effect, to sort out its
problems with AFIC for itself. Accordingly, discussions were
held between AFIC and AMLC in 1978 and 1979 in an attempt to
seek some common ground. No resolution was achieved. In
February 1981 the Australian Minister for Trade,
Rt Hon J.D. Anthony, renewed the request to the Saudi Arabian
Government that AMLC be granted equal certification rights.
Again the Saudi authorities suggested that discussions should
be held with AFIC to seek common ground. Again no progress was
made .
7.80 It was not until March 1982 that something was
achieved when, instead of seeking to set up a separate system
of certification, AMLC proposed that a single joint system of
227
supervision and certification be established by AMLC, DPI and
AFIC. Discussions on that proposal have continued until the
time of writing this report. While some broad agreement has
been reached, there is still much detailed work to be done.
However, if the principles so far agreed upon could be put into
effect without ignoring minority rights, most of the
difficulties encountered in this area in the past should be
avoided in the future.
7.81 The cost of the AFIC halal certification scheme has
been a subject of great criticism by the industry. AFIC told
me that its income from halal meat certification fees varied
from $131 726 for the year ended 28 February 1981 to $232 413
for the year ended 28 February' 1982. It would seem that, for
some reason which could not be explained by AFIC, the 1980-81
receipts were abnormally low and that an income of more than
$200 000 per annum represents the norm. Half of AFIC's
receipts has been returned to state Islamic Councils and half
used to meet the costs incurred by the Federal body in the
halal certification scheme as well as for the general purposes
of the Federation. The sums received by state Councils have
been used to defray their expenses incurred for halal
certification; but again there has been a surplus of receipts
over those costs, which has been devoted to the general
purposes of the Councils.
7.82 Another less frequently stated ground for
dissatisfaction with the AFIC system has been the widespread
belief that it has been open to abuse. I have no doubt that
the system has been abused, and abused on a very large scale.
A number of meat processors and brokers have engaged in
systematic evasion of the AFIC system over periods of some
years. They have done so in ways, and to an extent, that lead
me to conclude that the present AFIC system of certification
cannot be permitted to remain. To allow that system to stand
would be to invite the repetition of practices which, sooner or
later, would become known in importing countries. This would
228
lead to serious adverse consequences for Australian meat
exports to Islamic countries.
7.83 Meat processors and brokers have provided, or arranged
for the provision of, certificates purporting to be AFIC halal
certificates where no such certificate should have been
issued. In some cases the form of certificate and necessary
seals and signatures have been forged. In others, genuine
forms have been used but seals and signatures have been forged
or procured from AFIC by deception. In at least one case the
seals and signature of the consular representative of an
Islamic country have been forged.
7.84 The principal motive for engaging in these practices
has been financial. Where certificates have been forged, or
seals and signatures obtained otherwise than through AFIC,
AFIC1 s' charges have been avoided. Those charges have remained
at their present level for many years, but are still regarded
by the industry as too high and are hard to justify on any
objective criterion. In any event their avoidance gives a
dishonest operator a significant financial advantage over his
competitors.
7.85 A number of operators have used forged AFIC
certificates. In addition, many genuine certificates have been
obtained from AFIC by presenting an interim certificate signed
by a registered slaughterman who in fact had not slaughtered
the beasts which were the subject of that interim certificate.
One large meatworks operator obtained false certificates for
very large quantities of meat in this way.
7.86 One meat broker who had forged AFIC certificates and
consular seals and signatures sought to say that such forgeries
had been motivated, at least in part, by an inability to obtain
genuine documents in time to meet air freight deadlines for
chilled carcasses. Some difficulty may have been encountered
229
in this way, and may lend weight to the criticism of AFIC that
it is not sufficiently 'commercial1 in its operation.
Nevertheless, I am satisfied that financial gain has been the
principal motive for misconduct in connexion with halal
slaughter and certification.
7.87 Plainly, existing systems have not prevented the
widespread occurrence of such misconduct. Existing systems
have relied upon the honesty of operators, brokers and
slaughtermen. There has been little if any check on that
honesty. In particular, government and governmental agencies
have had no role in the area. The size of Australia's trade in
meat with Islamic countries is such that I consider it
imperative that some government agency have sufficient control
or power of supervision in the area to prevent recurrence of
malpractices in connexion with halal certification.
7.88 There are specifically religious aspects of that
process in which it may well be thought inappropriate for
government to play any part; but there are also aspects of the
matter where government can, and in my view should, participate.
7.89 The principles which have been agreed upon by AFIC,
AMLC and DPI in their recent discussions are directed to
achieving several objectives:
(a) that there be a single system of halal slaughter
certification from Australia with an official
Australian government certificate and an official
Australian government stamp;
(b) that this system be under direct and continuous
supervision by the Export Inspection Service of DPI;
(c) to have AFIC provide authentication as to the
religious acceptability of the meat covered by the
certification;
(d) to control costs and charges being imposed upon the
industry by AFIC; and
230
(e) to eliminate any fraud and malpractice associated
with the issue of false and forged certification.
7.90 I regard the first two objectives as essential steps
to be taken in this area. It would follow that product
description, documentation and stamps would have the same status and attract the same penalties for misuse as will be the
case in other aspects of meat inspection arrangements. In
itself this would go a long way to achieving the last and most
important objective of eliminating fraud and malpractices.
7.91 AMLC and DPI are not equipped to deal with religious
aspects of halal certification and, in any event, as I have
said earlier, it may be thought inappropriate for government to
play any part in such matters. Determination of whether an
individual slaughterman is or is not a true Muslim is clearly a
religious question. Questions of slaughtering technique and
segregation of halal product from non-halal product are matters
of religious significance, but are capable of lay supervision.
It may be said that day-to-day oversight of these matters
should be the immediate responsibility of the Export Inspection
Service. But since what is sought by the certification system
is an assurance from a religious source that meat is
religiously acceptable, there must be some method established
whereby religious authorities may themselves be satisfied that
appropriate slaughtering techniques are used, that halal meat
is segregated from non-halal meat, that halal meat is not
contaminated by pork and so on. In my view this could be best
achieved by giving a right of entry to the meatworks in
question to a halal supervisor accredited by AMEC, who would
have power to report any deficiencies he identified to AMLC or
to DPI for appropriate action.
7.92 Who then is to provide the supervisor and thus the
assurance that the meat is religiously acceptable?
231
7.93 Some importing countries have placed great reliance on
AFIC and, it would seem, wish to have that organization
continue with a role in halal certification. No doubt that
wish must be respected. But it does not necessarily follow
that only AFIC should have such a role.
7.94 AFIC's past record of performance in this area is
poor. That is demonstrated by the high level of malpractice
that has occurred. As an organisation, AFIC has not shown any
ability to administer the system of halal certification
effectively. Changes in its small permanent staff cannot have
helped. I am unable to say whether those changes in staff have
been connected with discovery of participation in malpractice,
for the new administrators of the system have professed
ignorance of the reasons lying behind their predecessor's
departure.
7.95 However in one case, when it was discovered that
interim certificates had been issued by an AFIC registered
slaughterman even though he had not slaughtered the beasts, the
then executive officer of AFIC arranged to provide
certification for that product, apparently on the basis that
some obligation was owed to a company that had 1 employed' an
AFIC-registered slaughterman. I cannot say whether or not in
that case final certificates were issued in the belief that the
product was halal, for that executive officer of AFIC was
replaced by AFIC before the incident was examined by the
Commission and was not available to give evidence. However, it
is clear that the final certificates were issued in
circumstances where they should at least have been delayed
pending further enquiries.
7.96 I doubt very much that AFIC or bodies such as the
Adelaide Mosque Islamic Society and the Brisbane Muslim
Association could, or for that matter would wish to, work
together. The matters that divide those groups go beyond
questions of halal slaughter and certification.
232
7.97 However I do not believe that the introduction of
government controls to this area, for the first time, should be
an occasion for the grant of a monopoly, even over the
religious aspects of halal slaughter, where it is not presently enjoyed. In particular I do not believe such a monopoly should
be granted to a body which has yet to prove its efficiency and
objectivity in the area under consideration.
7.98 Certainly there is no case for AFIC to be given any
active role in relation to exports to Iran. Nor do I see any
reason why the Adelaide Society should be required to hand its
role at an Adelaide abattoir over to AFIC, or the Brisbane
Association its role in Brisbane. Nor should Halal Sadiq's
long-established business be put at the mercy of people with
AFIC connexions who have, it seems, some personal or family
feud with Mr Bux.
7.99 Any system that is introduced must not only be fair
but also be seen to be fair; and it must secure the confidence
not only of the industry but also of the Muslim community.
Apart from principles of natural justice and the protection of
the rights of minorities, there are also practical considerations. If it were thought that AFIC was using or
might use its position to achieve ulterior purposes there is,
in my view, a real risk that the dissension which would
inevitably follow could be transmitted to importing countries
in the form of doubts about the religious acceptability of the
product. This would, of course, have adverse consequences on
trade to Islamic countries.
7.100 I consider that, in the first instance, use should be
made of such bodies as are now in the field and are willing to
continue to offer a service of the kind I have described -
providing one or more supervisors, accredited by AMLC, who can
deal with the religious aspects of halal slaughter and
certification. Similar recognition should not be extended to
233
any groups other than those now in the field unless AMLC is
satisfied that there appears to be an overseas demand for the
services of the group in question.
7.101 I believe that the government certification should
indicate which previously acceptable Muslim authority accepts
responsibility for the halal status of the product. It should
contain a clause to the general effect that the named Muslim
authority (for example, AFIC or the Brisbane Muslim
Association) has registered the Muslim slaughterman and
approved the arrangements for halal production of the meat
covered by the certificate. It should make plain that the DPI
role is only to supervise the non-religious, objectively-
observable aspects of halal slaughter.
7.102 One way of taking some of the heat out of this
controversy will be to eliminate the profits which have been
made in the past, I believe quite wrongly, from halal
certification.
7.103 I was told that the available theoretical income for
certification of product exported in 1981 to various Islamic
markets other than Iran, amounted to more than $579 000 when
calculated according to AFIC1s current rates of charge (7.81
above). I am unable to say why there is such a large
difference between that sum and AFIC's statement of its income
from certification.While private certifiers would account for
some part of the difference, they would not account for
anything like all of it. Again, false certificates may account
for some part of the difference; but although the evidence
available to me suggests that forgery was widespread, I do not
consider that that would account for the difference. Nor do I
have any other information that would lead me to doubt the
accuracy of AFIC1s accounts.
7.104 In any event, whether the annual cost of certification
is $580 000 or $230 000, it is a significant cost to the
234
industry which should be contained as far as possible if
Australia is to remain competitive in Islamic markets. The
past system has meant that Australian meat producers have been
paying fees which, in part, have been devoted to the general
purposes of Islamic groups in this country. This should not be
permitted to continue. AMLC has entered the present
negotiations with AFIC and DPI with an attitude that recognizes
that AFIC would have costs to meet which would have to be
reimbursed, while maintaining that the certification scheme
should not be a profit-making venture. AFIC has expressed
general agreement with this principle, and in my view effect
must be given to it.
7.105 When the certification system was essentially a
private matter, the setting of fees was likewise a matter for
private arrangements. If government is to be involved, and I
consider that it must be, fees recovered in favour of a private
group should be no more than the amount necessary to recoup
fully that body's costs reasonably incurred in providing its
service. In the present case, those costs could be met out of
a levy made by AMLC on exporters and producers dealing in the
market for halal meat.
(k) Corruption of government officials
7.106 One of the most serious and disturbing matters to
emerge from the Royal Commission's inquiries has been the level
of corruption and abuse of power amongst government officials.
Meat inspectors have provided all the worst instances of this,
but veterinary officers have not remained free from taint and
there is clear evidence of some police corruption.
Meat Inspectors
7.107 One of the difficulties inherent in any attempt to
describe this problem is that it takes almost as many different
forms as there are meat establishments. And the coloration of
the various practices ranges from white through shades of grey
to a distinct black.
235
7.108 At the lighter end of the range no meat is available
at all - in service abattoirs, for example - or inspectors are
only able to buy meat from the meatworks at wholesale prices
which are also available to all employees and perhaps to the
general public. There can be no harm in that.
7.109 The shades of grey begin to emerge when only salaried
employees of the works share the meat inspectors' privileges,
and where the prices charged are below wholesale levels.
7.110 When meat is free and available only to meat
inspectors, there is something seriously wrong; although the
situation will cause less concern if the quantities are small
and the meat is consumed at meal-breaks on the premises.
7.111 Even more disturbing are those cases, of which a
number have come to light, where management has knowingly
signed false overtime claims. These claims have ultimately had
to be paid by the company and so they amounted to a concealed
bribe - as to which nothing had to be said and no direct
payment was involved.
7.112 Other abuses of overtime entitlements have occurred in
cases where more inspectors than were necessary were employed
at overtime rates. Evidence was given of two cases where
management agreed, under pressure, to accept such a situation.
But in these cases the inspectors did in fact attend at the
stated times, so they are instances only of improper pressure
on management for financial gain.
7.113 The most serious cases of all are those in which
inspectors have received regular cash payments from
management. The Commission has discovered widespread payments
in the Northern Territory and a number of instances involving
independent boning-rooms in Victoria. There was also an
isolated case in Western Australia.
236
7.114 It is quite possible that such payments have been made
at a number of other meatworks around Australia and the
Commission has been given no lead which would enable it to
uncover them. On the other hand the two main areas in which
such payments have come to light are, for different reasons,
rather exceptional. I prefer to believe that there have not
been many other cases where regular payments of money to meat
inspectors have occurred.
7.115 The reasons for making such payments - whether in cash
or in meat - are somewhat blurred. Certainly they are made in
the general belief that they help to make management's life
easier. Most managers giving evidence regarded free or cheap
meat for meat inspectors as a custom of the industry which they
did not·feel safe in ignoring. Some spoke of experiences they
had had when inspectors applied pressure for such concessions
by working ridiculously slowly or finding fault in so many
little ways that the day's production was seriously affected.
7.116 Thus many managers saw the free or cheap meat as an
insurance against malicious or pedantic fault-finding by
inspectors. Naturally, the larger the amount involved, the
more management was likely to expect in return. When regular
cash payments were involved in the Victorian cases, there was
an expectation that a blind eye would be turned to deliberate
breaches of regulations, substitution of local for export meat
or fraudulent misdescription of product. The consequences of
similar payments in the Northern Territory have been less
serious - probably because of the very different conditions
which gave rise to such payments.
7.117 Generally speaking, there is nothing to suggest that
the practice of giving and receiving free or cheap meat has
resulted in harm to consumers either in Australia or overseas.
I accept that the great majority of meat inspectors continued to
do their work conscientiously and well even though they were
receiving benefits from management. Indeed the very fact that
237
such benefits were widespread, and generally accepted in the
industry, meant that an inspector had nothing to lose by doing
his job properly.
7.118 The same could even have been said of the cash payments
made in the Northern Territory, which seem to have had their
origin in the poor living and working conditions then available
to the meat inspectors - who were all on transfer.
7.119 The really pernicious cash payments were those made in
isolated cases known only to those directly involved. The worst
case before the Commission related to payments made to a senior
meat inspector who by reason of his position in the Department
was able to give warning to operators of impending investigation
and who accepted considerable cash payments to provide this
service over a period of years.
7.120 Evidence relating to direct payments to meat
inspectors is summarized in cases numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 18,
20 and 24 in Appendix H to this report. A summary of evidence
about free and cheap meat is in Appendix F.
Veterinary Officers
7.121 Receipt of free or cheap meat by veterinary officers
is also referred to in Appendix F, and Case No. 27 in Appendix H
deals with a particularly bad example of a senior veterinary
officer putting himself in an untenable position in connexion
with such gifts.
7.122 Generally speaking it is true to say that veterinary
officers stationed at meatworks have received the same benefits
as meat inspectors, although in some cases they have done better
and in others it seems that they have properly declined such
benefits.
7.123 There can be little, if any, excuse for well-paid
professional officers accepting gifts from the industry they are
supposed to regulate. 238
7.124 Particularly is this so when the gifts (or other
benefits) are from a company with which the veterinary officer
has only infrequent dealings. If it is wrong for such an
officer to have benefited from a scheme at his work place,
available to meat inspectors and staff as well, it is worse for
a visiting veterinary officer to take gifts away with him, or
for free or cheap meat to be delivered to senior officers at a
regional headquarters.
DPI action
7.125 The Department was unwilling to tackle the problem of
free or cheap meat for its officers until evidence before the
Royal Commission highlighted the problem. This has been
typical of the lack of resolve shown by senior officers of the
Department in handling problems not directly related to disease
control. Some of them may also have been inhibited by the fact
that they were still receiving, or had recently been receiving,
similar benefits.
7.126 Occasional circulars reminded officers of the general
Public Service provisions relating to the receipt of gifts.
But no attempt was made to find out exactly what was happening,
or to take positive steps to put an end to undesirable
practices.
7.127 However the Department has now acted resolutely by
applying a blanket ban on the receipt of benefits, and
requiring written approval for any exceptions. This is clearly
the proper course.
7.128 No inspector or veterinary officer can be confident
that he will be unaffected by a gratuity which depends on the
goodwill of the management. Nor should any management feel
that it has to make gifts, or a loss on some of its sales, in
order to ensure that it will receive fair treatment from a
government official.
239
7.129 On the other hand I am conscious of the facts that the
practice of discounting meat is a long-standing one; it is
common, in one form or another, to many workers in the
industry; and many meat inspectors come from the ranks of meat
workers and work beside them on the chain, performing duties
which would have to be performed by employees of the works if
inspectors were not used.
7.130 In these circumstances I believe that the public
interest would be served if strict limits were placed on the
entitlement. The Department should only give its consent to
cases in which
(a) the price paid by the officer is at or about the
wholesale price of the product, and
(b) the same terms are available to the general public
or to meatworkers or, at least, the same or better
terms are available to full-time staff.
Police officers
7.131 I am satisfied that one company provided free meat to
officers of the Australian Federal Police (two at a time) for a
number of years. The entitlement to receive this meat was
handed on from one officer to another when an officer currently
enjoying the benefit was posted away from Melbourne.
7.132 The officers concerned were in a position to know
about police inquiries into breaches of the Exports (Meat)
Regulations and could well have been in charge of the inquiries
themselves.
7.133 No doubt the company expected, or at least hoped, in
return for its meat, to receive prompt warning of any police
inquiries which seemed to be heading in its direction and,
perhaps, a less than diligent pursuit of such inquiries.
240
7.134 I am unable to say precisely what the company did
receive for all the meat it gave away over several years;
it is certain that, until this Royal Commission was
established, the company was never made the subject of the
rigorous inquiries which allegations against it should have
suggested were necessary.
but
241
CHAPTER 7B
MALPRACTICES CONCERNING MEAT FOR HUMAN
CONSUMPTION IN VICTORIA
(a) Pet food in smallgoods
7.135 By far the most serious malpractice affecting
Victoria's meat supplies has been the use of pet food in
smallgoods and similar products in which the meat is difficult
to identify.
7.136 I think it is likely that this has been going on in a
small way for a number of years; there have certainly been
rumours to that effect. But all the evidence enables me to say
with confidence is that many tonnes of pet food, apparently
destined for this part of the local market, have come into
Victoria in the last two or three years.
7.137 The perpetrators of the malpractice have, for the most
part, been the suppliers who relidded, or otherwise disguised
the nature of the meat they were selling to the manufacturer.
Certainly some reputable smallgoods companies which received
and used such meat were entirely innocent of any wrongdoing.
7.138 However I am satisfied that some manufacturers must
have known, or at least strongly suspected, the true nature of
the meat they were using. Its general condition and the price
they were paying for it must have alerted them in some
instances.
7.139 Since Victoria is the State with the largest
production of smallgoods and similar products in Australia, and
its products are widely sold in other States, it is clear that
many Australians have been eating kangaroo, buffalo, horse and
donkey-meat without realizing it.
7.140 Most of the information about the quantities of pet
meat going into smallgoods and similar products in recent years
242
has come from the supply end of the chain. There is little
direct evidence to show just where this meat has finished.
7.141 However, there have been a number of reported cases in
Victoria involving the use of small quantities of pet food for
human consumption.
7.142 With one possible exception, all these cases arose
between mid-1979 and 1980 and many of them are inter-related -
involving the activities of two or three central figures. In
two cases prosecutions have resulted in fines in the order of
$300 or $400. Other prosecutions are pending and police
investigations continue.
7.143 The one possible exception referred to involved a
country- knackery owner who also owned a nearby butcher's shop.
Suspicions were aroused from time to time, but apparently
nothing sufficient to warrant a prosecution emerged.
(b) Other malpractices
7.144 Most of the instances of alleged malpractice
concerning meat for human consumption in Victoria were provided
to the Commission by the Department of Agriculture.
7.145 The Meat Inspection Branch produced about 740
instances of inquiries it had conducted since 1975. About 120
of these related to pet food - mostly illegal knackery
operations or breach of knackery regulations, usually failure
to dye meat.
7.146 Of the remaining 620 instances, some involved repeated
inquiries into the same allegation, so the actual number of
separate transactions would have been rather less.
7.147 Almost two-thirds of these 620 cases were concerned
with allegations of illegal slaughter in country areas. It is,
of course, legal for a property owner in the country to kill
243
stock for consumption on the property. It is illegal to sell
meat from any animal killed outside a licensed abattoir or
slaughterhouse. It is easy to understand that stockowners are
sometimes tempted to sell meat to friends or to a local butcher.
7.148 Much of the work of the Department in dealing with
such cases involves explaining the law, issuing warnings and
maintaining some surveillance over later conduct. A few clear
and deliberate breaches of the law are prosecuted. Some
investigations prove the innocence of the persons accused and
many are inconclusive.
7.149 Another area of difficulty has centred on the many
small slaughterhouses closed as a result of the Department's
insistence on higher standards in the mid-70s. A number of
owners of such premises have been tempted to use them
illegally. Here again there have been prosecutions when the
evidence was sufficient to justify them.
7.150 A number of cases of unbranded meat found in butchers'
shops are probably related to instances of illegal slaughter.
However the majority of the recorded cases of unbranded meat
relate to export or inter-state meat on which the payment of
're-inspection' fees has been evaded. There was no risk to
public health in those cases.
7.151 Cases of stolen brands have been reported at the rate
of two or three per year. These could have been used to evade
fee payments or to cover the use of pet meat for human
consumption.
7.152 In addition to these 620 instances of inquiries
concerning particular locations, there have also been, during
the same period, over 1 0 0 0 investigated cases of alleged
breaches of the Meat Transport Vehicles Regulations. These are
not sufficiently important to be considered here, beyond noting
that only 3 cases resulted in prosecutions and there were 50
244
cases where prosecution was recommended. In the other cases
the only action taken was to send a warning letter.
7.153 Finally the question arises as to the level of
malpractices detected by health surveyors at the food
manufacturing and retail sales end of the meat chain. Some of
the cases referred to by the Department of Agriculture were
brought to notice by health surveyors. This would happen
whenever meat from a dubious source was found on premises being
inspected.
7.154 In addition, health surveyors take a number of samples
of meat from food premises each year. They tend to concentrate
on mincemeats and tripe, to check the amount of preservatives used, and on products which are required to contain prescribed
proportions of meat.
7.155 Collated figures provided by the Health Commission
show that over 6000 meat samples are taken each year by council
health surveyors. Of these, the proportion found not to comply
with the relevant regulations averaged 9% in 1979 and 1980.
This resulted in about 350 prosecutions in each year. The main
causes of non-compliance were excess preservatives, fat or
water. It is interesting to note that the proportion of
non-compliance was significantly higher in city premises (7%)
than in the country (2 %).
7.156 In order to put these figures into perspective it is
worth noting that, of the 2 0 0 telephone calls per day received
by the Inspection and Services Branch of the Health Commission,
only a small proportion relate to meat or meat products.
245
CHAPTER 7C
MALPRACTICES CONCERNING MEAT FOR HUMAN
CONSUMPTION IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
(a) Corruption of government officials
7.157 There was some evidence that Department of Primary
Production inspectors received 'perks', principally in the form
of free meat, free accommodation in isolated areas and, in one
case, beer or soft drink rations. There was no evidence that
they had demanded such benefits or that the conduct of their
duties was significantly affected by them.
(b) Importation of poor quality meat from other States
7.158 The fact that a very substantial proportion of meat
consumed in the Northern Territory comes from interstate
highlights the lack of control over that meat. Meat may be
imported into the Territory for sale there or re-export without
an accompanying certificate. All that is required is that the
meat should at some time have been stamped as fit for human
consumption.
7.159 This has led to a situation where the Northern
Territory can be used as a "dumping ground" for poor quality
meat from other States. There was evidence of two cases where
Northern Territory meat, properly regarded as unfit for human
consumption in other States, was returned to the Territory
without notice to the Territory inspection service.
7.160 The Department of Primary Production has thus been in
a position where it has no way of knowing the quantities or
origins or ownership of meat imported into the Northern
Territory. While the health surveyors in the Northern
Territory Department of Health have controls over meat stored
and offered for sale in the Territory retail outlets, the
historical details of imported meat might be unknown to the
retailer .
246
7.161 Fortunately, in recent times, meat inspection
authorities in other States have been aware of the inadequacies
of current Northern Territory legislation and have co-operated
with Northern Territory Departments of Health and Primary
Production by advising them of the impending arrival or return
of suspect meat. It is clear that this problem can only be
alleviated by granting the Northern Territory authorities power
of re-inspection over inter-state meat (necessary because of
the long distances and hot conditions of transport) and by
introducing a requirement for the production of such
documentation as would enable the DPP to track the movement of
meat around the Northern Territory.
(c) Pet Meat
7.162 The question of pet meat has been dealt with at length
in Chapter 6 . All that need be said here is that there was no
evidence of NT pet meat entering the human food chain in the
Territory, although this may have happened in small quantities.
(d) Illegal Slaughter
7.163 As I have said earlier (paras 5.374, 5.387-389), the
Northern Territory has had, not surprisingly, problems of
illegal slaughter.
7.164 Certain persons, both landholders and trespassers,
have been suspected of field-killing cattle in breach of the
Abattoirs and Slaughtering Ordinance. One operator estimated
that about 250 beasts were illegally slaughtered on his
property near Darwin over a period of 12 months, but this may
have been an exaggeration.
7.165 In the past, the DPP appears to have done little about
these practices, although attempts have of recent times been
made by the Department to reduce the incidence of illegal
slaughter by promoting an inexpensive and reasonable standard
of slaughterhouse for isolated areas where meat can be produced
247
for local consumption only. This has been so in the case of
aboriginal settlements. It appears, also, that with
increasingly regular transport allowing improved movement of
meat from major centres, the extent of illegal slaughter should
be declining.
248
CHAPTER 8
ALLEGATIONS AND THEIR TREATMENT
8.1 The terms of reference of my Royal Commissions call
for an inquiry into "allegations made, whether in public or to
a minister, department or authority .... of malpractices alleged
to have occurred" in recent years in the export meat industry,
or in Victoria or the Northern Territory. I am asked to say
whether such allegations were dealt with adequately and
effectively and whether any illegality or corruption occurred
"in response to such allegations".
8.2 I should say immediately that there was no evidence
before me to suggest illegality or corruption on the part of
any Minister of any government or of the senior officials of
any department concerned or any police force. The only
possible qualification to this relates to the foolish
acceptance of quantities of free meat by one quite senior
veterinary officer. However there was no link between his
acceptance of free meat and any failure to respond to any
allegation. He has since been dealt with by the Department and
has retired.
8.3 There is however, reasonably clear evidence of a few
instances of what I might call low-level corruption, which has
in the past affected inquiries into certain malpractices in the
export meat industry in Melbourne (see paras 7.119, 7.131-134).
No other evidence of illegality or corruption in response to
allegations has emerged.
8.4 So far as the adequacy and effectiveness of the
response to allegations is concerned, it will be clear from
what I have already said in section (a) of Chapter 1, and from
what follows, that I have found the responses of the Department
of Primary Industry and the Australian Federal Police to have
249
been generally inadequate and ineffective. In one instance I
believe that the response of a Commonwealth Minister was
inadequate. In all other cases, again speaking generally, I
have found the responses of various ministers, departments and
authorities to have been adequate and reasonably effective.
250
CHAPTER 8A
ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING EXPORT MEAT
(a) Department of Primary Industry
8.5 For the most part, allegations concerning malpractices
in the export meat industry came to the DPI. They generally
arose in the regions, and reached the Veterinary
Officer-in-charge or regional director. All too often they
went no further - the head office in Canberra was not
notified. Sometimes, even in serious cases, the whole matter
was dealt with by telephone calls or conversations and no file
was raised.
8 . 6 Generally, however, reports of malpractices were
passed to Canberra - but not always in writing. Most commonly
they were handled locally and head office was merely notified
of the occurrence and the action taken. I make no criticism of
that. As I have said elsewhere, I believe that to be the best
method of dealing with such matters.
8.7 What I must, however, be critical about is the
generally weak response of regional offices to alleged
malpractices - which the Bureau's head office did nothing to
correct. In some cases, specious explanations were accepted at
face value. In most cases the feeling seemed to be that, once
the immediate problem had been rectified, no more action was
needed. Indeed there was a feeling abroad that any form of
publicity was dangerous to the export trade, and so a muted
response was often preferable.
8.8 Where matters were handed to the Australian Federal
Police for investigation, little was done to press the police
for results and, if told that there was insufficient evidence
to launch a prosecution, no alternative action was taken by way
of warnings or increased surveillance.
251
8.9 The best example of this was the failure to take any
special action with regard to the operator who caused the meat
substitution scandal, even after he was caught forging transfer
certificates early in 1981, and refused to answer any police
questions. (See Appendix H, Case 2, paras 47-48) .
Opportunities to detect the worst corporate offender were also
missed. (See Appendix H, Case 1, paras 47-51, 80-82) .
8.10 All this stemmed directly, as I have said before, from
the basic philosophy of the veterinary officers of the Bureau
of Animal Health, that their task was to protect consumers in
Australia and overseas from diseases which can be communicated
from animals to man. They were not trained, nor were they in
most cases temperamentally suited, for the conduct of inquiries
into wrongdoing.
8.11 The Bureau's liaison with State inspection services
and the AMLC was no more effective in dealing with malpractices
than its liaison with the police.
8.12 Information was passed to those other services in most
of those cases where it was obvious that they needed to be told
and there was some action they might be able to take. But
there were many other cases when, in my opinion, information
should have been passed and was not. It ought to have been the
rule to take these other responsible bodies into the Bureau's
confidence, about alleged malpractices which should have been
of interest to them. In fact it was the exception.
8.13 Having made all due allowances for the way in which
the senior officers of the Bureau saw their role, and for the
possible injustice involved in being wise after the event, it
must nevertheless be said that the response of the Bureau and
the Department to malpractices in the export meat industry in
recent years was weak. And that weakness played a significant
part in creating the climate for the gross malpractices that
led to the setting up of this Commission.
252
8.14 Another possible source which the DPI had for
allegations of malpractice was the monthly confidential return
of USDA. This indicated quantities of meat rejected, the
registered number of the export establishment concerned, and
the cause of rejection. The cause was expressed in a few
words, but greater detail could have been obtained from the USDA if required.
8.15 In order to help keep the whole question of export
quality in perspective, it is worth noting that, against an
overall rejection rate in USA of 0.5% in recent years,
Australia's rate has been 0.2%. This compares with Canada's
experience of 0.8% and New Zealand's 0.3%.
8.16 Of the Australian meat rejected between January and
July 1981, almost two-thirds was rejected for "unsound
condition", a further large quantity on "miscellaneous"
grounds, comparatively small quantities for "processing
defects" or "contamination" and a very small quantity for
"container condition". There were 15 separate instances of
"unsound condition" and three of each other complaint - making
27 instances in all.
8.17 Bearing in mind that some of these problems -
particularly "unsound condition" - could be caused by events
after the meat has been loaded for export, the record seems
quite reasonable.
8.18 Such rejections were followed up by DPI with the
export establishment concerned. Here again it must be said
that any resulting investigations have been more in the nature
of assisting the establishment to overcome a problem rather
than a vigorous probing for any possible wrongdoing.
(b) Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation
8.19 Most of the complaints about Australian meat coming from importers overseas or from foreign governments were
253
received by AMLC. Some were made directly to AMLC officers,
either in Australia or abroad. Others were referred to AMLC by
Australian consular or trade officials posted to importing
countries.
8.20 The long list of such trade complaints referred to the
Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation and its predecessor,
the Australian Meat Board, show, for the most part, failures to
comply with specifications for the meat sold. There are not a
large number of cases which could be ascribed to malpractices.
8.21 However the AMLC does list the following as instances
of apparently deliberate misdescription which have come to
light in recent years:-Boneless beef described as boneless bull
Young beef " " veal
Mutton " " lamb
Beef kidney " " lamb kidney
livers and kidneys " lamb livers and kidneys
Mutton " beef
Manufacturers beef " " T-bone steaks
Veal trunks " " veal legs
8.22 Another misleading practice reported by the AMLC has
been the packing of third quality boneless beef in cartons
which are intended to be used for first quality meats of other
types.
8.23 Finally the falsifying of packing dates has come to
notice on a number of occasions.
8.24 Generally speaking, AMLC saw its role as one of
quality oversight. It was prepared to look into trade
complaints to the extent which its limited manpower resources
would permit. If it thought they were justified, it would try
to persuade the Australian exporter to find a sensible
commercial solution to the problem. But it would not attempt
254
to coerce the exporter and it would not directly adjudicate on
such matters. It would go no further than to express an opinion.
8.25 It should be noted that AMLC's only powers were over
exporters. It could, and occasionally did, impose special
conditions on the export licences which it issued, requiring an
exporter who had seriously transgressed to submit to additional
inspections to ensure the integrity of the export product.
8.26 Where evidence from overseas suggested a weakness in
inspection procedures at export establishments, AMLC would
normally notify DPI. It seems that AMLC did this more
consistently in recent years that its fore-runner, the
Australian Meat Board, did in the years up to 1977. However
there were a number of instances looked at by the Commission
where information should have been passed to DPI and there is
nothing to show that it was. Here again the picture may be
confused by the tendency to make telephone calls on such
matters, with no formal note of the conversation being made at
either end and no written confirmation being sent.
8.27 In addition to complaints coming from overseas, AMLC
officers made occasional visits to export establishments in
Australia to check on quality controls.
(c) The Australian Federal Police
8.28 A number of allegations of malpractices were passed by
DPI officers to AFP for investigations. The record of the
police in these inquiries, before August 1981, was particularly
poor .
8.29 There were a number of reasons for this. In the first
place, I do not believe that DPI officers were sufficiently active in conveying to police officers all they needed to know,
including the background to the particular inquiry. They did
255
not display much enthusiasm in following up their initial
contacts with the police in each case.
8.30 For their part, the police officers assigned to most
of these inquiries seem to have pursued them with little sign
of keenness or ability. They do not seem to have sought enough
help from the Department and so usually managed to impress the
people they were interviewing with their ignorance of the
matters under discussion.
8.31 In most cases they seem to have merely gone through
the motions of making inquiries. Many obvious leads have
remained unfollowed and the inevitably negative report has
marked the closure of the file.
8.32 One reason for this may have been that the offences
alleged seemed unimportant, by comparison with other inquiries
on their list at the same time. Unfortunately another reason,
in some cases, may have been that they were receiving benefits,
by way of free meat, from the persons being investigated.
(d) Ministerial responsibility
8.33 Since the Director of the Bureau of Animal Health had
so little knowledge of malpractices in the export meat industry, and his Permanent Head even less, it is not
surprising that no inkling of the seriousness of the position
filtered up to the responsible minister. The Department in
Canberra was not aware of the level of malpractice in the
industry and, in the absence of any adequate collation of
allegations of malpractice which had in fact reached Canberra,
the Department would not have been able to provide the Minister
with an accurate picture of the industry's defaults even if it
had wished to do so.
8.34 As to particular allegations, the Department rarely
referred these to the Minister. For example, the
Rt Hon Ian Sinclair testified that during the periods of some
256
six years in total that he was the relevant Minister, on no
occasion did the Department initiate advice to him about
instances of malpractice. He said that a check of the files
revealed that on some eleven occasions allegations of
malpractice had been canvassed with him, but none had
originated from the Department.
8.35 He was, however, concerned in dealing with allegations
coming from other quarters. Two of these involved statements
made by Mr W. Curran, Secretary of the Victorian Branch of the
AMIEU and by Senator Primmer in 1977 and 1978. They were
referred to the Australian Federal Police. One prosecution
eventually resulted. The activities of the police in this area
are dealt with in other parts of this report. However, such
information as Mr Sinclair was provided with in response to the
reference to the police would certainly not have alerted him to
the true state of affairs in the industry. Mr Sinclair
testified that
"at no stage during my terms as Minister for Primary Industry was I aware of any widespread practice then existing of killing and boning in unregistered works, the misuse of AA stamps, or the
relidding of cartons of meat for export as alleged by Mr Curran. I can recall no allegation of species substitution ever being made to me and I certainly did not believe that this had ever occurred".
8.36 Neither the material in the files provided by DPI, nor
any other credible evidence put before the Royal Commission,
contradict that statement.
8.37 The Hon Peter Nixon succeeded Mr Sinclair as Minister
for Primary Industry in September 197 9. On occasions the
Department informed him of allegations of malpractice.
Mr Nixon testified that, of a total of 42 allegations referred
to the Department during his period of office before the
substitution scandal, only 11 were referred to him. Mr Nixon
was critical of the Department for its failure to report
257
allegations of malpractice to him and, in some instances, of
the paucity of the information provided and the belated nature
of reports.
8.38 I am bound to say that I agree with him on this
score; but the weakness lay not merely at the interface
between the Minister and his Department. It rather took the
form of a general clogging of the arteries of communication,
from regional offices to Canberra, from the two or three
knowledgeable officers in Canberra to their Director, from the
Director to his Permanent Head and from both of them to the
Minister.
8.39 Insofar as allegations were reported by the Department
to Mr Nixon, I do not consider any criticism can be levelled at
his handling of them. He seems to have made appropriate
enquiries and acted on advice which must have seemed to him to
be reasonable. The only possible criticism of his handling of
his responsibilities in this area relates to his reaction to
the Report of the Kelly Committee of Inquiry in 1980.
8.40 In 1978 the Hon C.R. (Bert) Kelly accepted a request
made by the then Minister, the Rt Hon Ian Sinclair, that he
chair a small Committee to advise how to resolve the problem of
the dual inspection services, State and Commonwealth. The
other member of the Committee was Mr W. Buettel.
Mr J.F. Landos, a senior Departmental officer was appointed as
executive officer to the Committee. The Committee's
deliberations resulted in a report commonly known as the Kelly
Report. On 11 February 1980, the Committee went to Melbourne
to present the report to the Minister, by this time
the Hon Peter Nixon. Clearly, one purpose of that visit, so
far as Mr Kelly was concerned, was to provide the Minister with
information the Committee had gleaned about the DPI inspection
service which was not strictly relevant to the report and would
not be fully spelt out in it. Mr Kelly's diary records, among
other things,
2 58
"I went to Melbourne for the day to present meat report to the Minister, Peter Nixon. It was worth it because it gave me the chance to tell him a few of the notes that we could not put in the report, such as the bribery and blackmail which is so prevalent in the meat inspection game. Poor Peter
is now to see what can be done."
8.41 Mr Landos was also at the meeting. In the course of
the Committee's investigations and discussions with various
persons in the industry, Mr Landos had taken summary notes
which included references to particular allegations of
malpractices including the manipulation of overtime, stealing,
the provision of cheap and free meat, and the obtaining of
concessions by inspectors by the enforcement of ridiculous
standards. Mr Landos, in a minute subsequently sent to the
Acting Secretary of the Department, the Director of BAH and
other senior officers, recorded that -' "The Committee in meeting the Minister last week expressed strong views as to the "sordid" nature of the meat industry and meat inspection. Particular
reference was made to examples of graft and the misuse of inspector power, both by DPI and State inspection staff and to the poor reputation that
the DPI service has in too many quarters of the industry."
8.42 The views of the Kelly Committee on this subject, as
expressed at this meeting, were reflected, although somewhat
less directly, in the following passages of the Report,
"Complaints were received of excessive zeal at times stemming from a grievance, real or fancied, on the part of an inspector. It is a fact that production can be slowed by unwarranted stoppage of chains to the annoyance of employees; or
condemnations, allegedly unwarranted, to the annoyance of management." (Page 12)
"... an inspector, if he wants to be vindictive, can press the stop button on a killing chain. This puts meat inspectors in positions of considerable industrial power. That this power has not been used more often is a tribute to the sense of
responsibility of most meat inspectors, but it has been used. The fear that it may be used has encouraged some abattoirs managers to give inspectors gifts of meat, or to sell them meat at
ridiculously low prices. It has been alleged that
some managers have given inspectors this kind of inducement not only to ensure industrial peace, but to induce inspectors to turn a blind eye to procedures that give considerable financial advantage to management." (Page 12-13)
"All works strenuously denied that they indulged in these doubtful practices. However, some of them were quick to point out that they wished they could be certain that their competitors practised their own high standards." (Page 13)
"... one aspect of the meat industry which should be tackled with firm resolution ...... is the
problem of some managers trying to buy the co-operation of inspectors by giving them meat at ridiculously low prices, or countenancing excessive overtime claims, or of meat inspectors demanding cheap meat backed by the implied threat of slowing the killing chain or forcing higher offal or other condemnations if management is not compliant. Legislation should include heavy punishments for administrators, VOs, meat inspectors and management. That this kind of practice has been
too common in the past we know too well. It must be stopped in the future." (Page 6 6 )
8.43 The response by the Department to the information
obtained by the Committee was totally inadequate. Mr Landos
saw the problem as stemming from inadequate control by
veterinary officers, and made some constructive suggestions in
his minute for a review of supervisory control. These were not
acted on by the Department. They never reached the Minister.
There was no adequate Departmental follow-up of the matters
raised by the Commitee at the meeting with the Minister, nor of
matters recorded in Mr Landos' notes, nor of those passages in
the Kelly Report.
8.44 Information concerning the specific instances upon
which the Committee had formed its general impression was
available to anyone wishing to seek it out. In any event, the
general assessment of the Kelly Committee as to the state of
the meat inspection service, coming from the source that it
did, was a matter deserving vigorous further investigation.
Anyone who had assumed previously that, by and large, Commonwealth meat inspection was functioning well, ought to
260
have been jolted out of complacency by what the Kelly Committee
had to say. It is pertinent to observe that what the Kelly
Committee said on this subject was, in due course, fully
substantiated at the hearings of this Royal Commission.
8.45 I have carefully considered the Minister's role in
this matter, having due regard to the responsibility
attributable to senior departmental officers, the heavy
workload which Ministers accept and the potential unfairness of
looking at one issue in isolation. In spite of these
considerations, I am bound to record my view that the Minister
did not deal with these allegations adequately and effectively.
8.46 He says that he can recall Mr Kelly saying that it was a pretty "shonky" industry, but he says that Mr Kelly did not
give specific information about particular instances of
malpractice at the meeting - which lasted about 20 minutes. I
think it may be that Mr Kelly did not hammer home his concern
in any very emphatic way, but he obviously said something about
the problems he saw and the report was there to be read; it
was clear enough.
8.47 However the conduct described in the report is to be
categorized, it was clear that the Kelly Committee felt that
action could and should be taken to correct a very serious
situation. The possibilities of such action should have been
fully investigated; instead it was assumed that nothing could
usefully be done.
8.48 Thus neither the Minister nor his senior advisers took
any substantial steps to look into the questions which had been
raised by the Kelly Committee. They seem to have given all
their attention to the central issue dealt with by the
Committee - the question of a single inspection system - and
hoped that any problems of corruption or abuse of power would
right themselves in due course. In the event, of course, they
did not.
261
CHAPTER SB
ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MEAT FOR HUMAN
CONSUMPTION IN VICTORIA
8.49 As I have already indicated, in paras 7.145-152, the
Meat Inspection Branch of the Victorian Department of
Agriculture made over 600 inquiries, during the period 1975 to
1981, into possible instances of malpractice in the handling of
meat for human consumption. The Branch was diligent and active
in the investigation of a wide range of possible malpractices
including illegal slaughter, sale of unbranded meat,
substitution of non-export for export meat and several cases of
species substitution. Some of the matters came to light from
the Branch's own activities, but many originated with complaints
from the public or from health surveyors or others.
8.50 The Department, conceded that it preferred to carry out
its activities by a process of persuasion rather than coercion
and it seems clear that in some cases the Department may have
been too lenient and too slow to involve police, but these
judgments are made in the glaring light of the meat substitution
scandal. Looked at in July 1981, the Department's record in
this area would probably have attracted no adverse criticism at
all.
8.51 Although the Department saw itself as bearing primary
responsibility for the meat inspection services in Victoria, it
showed a willingness to co-operate in the exchange of
information and conduct of inquiries where other departments or
bodies were seen to have an interest in the matter. Generally,
the Department's level of co-operation with, and trust in,
these other departments or bodies improved as it gained greater
experience and confidence in the exercise of its various
functions and powers under the relevant legislation.
8.52 Apart from what I have said about a tendency to be too
lenient and unwilling to involve police, I have no criticism to
262
make of the handling by the Department of Agriculture of
allegations of malpractice.
8.53 So far as Victorian Government Ministers are concerned,
I heard evidence from two ex-Ministers for Agriculture and one
ex-Attorney-General, and received as exhibits letters from other
Ministers and ex-Ministers, as to their handling of allegations
made to them. I am satisfied that in all cases involving the
handling of meat for human consumption, these matters were dealt
with expeditiously and efficiently and, where appropriate, were
properly referred by the Ministers to other Departments.
8.54 One such case of referral occurred when a Minister for
Agriculture was the recipient of allegations that a particular
meat company was defrauding the Government of inspection fees
and was possibly involved in other malpractices.
8.55 With regard to one aspect of those other malpractices,
the Minister satisfied himself that they were primarily a matter
for Commonwealth authorities and that those authorities had been
informed.
8.56 Other aspects were seen by the Minister as appropriate
for consideration by the Attorney-General. He referred them to
his fellow Minister, who caused a full inquiry to be conducted
by a senior officer of his Department. No evidence was found
which would have justified a prosecution. In any event the
matters involved did not relate to the handling of meat.
8.57 With regard to the allegation concerning fraud in
relation to State inspection fees, there is something of a
mystery. The Minister believes that he referred the matter to
his Department; his informant says that a senior officer of
the Department was present when he told the Minister of the
matter. On the other hand it seems that all senior officers of
the Department at the time have been contacted and say they
have no knowledge of the allegation.
263
8.58 Since the matter is concerned with receipt of
Government revenue and has marginal relevance, if any, to "the
handling of meat for human consumption", I did not attempt to
unravel this minor mystery.
264
CHAPTER 8C
ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
8.59 There have been remarkably few allegations in the
media, the Legislative Assembly, or by way of direct
communications to government authorities, concerning meat for
human consumption in the Northern Territory.
8.60 The few matters which have been brought to notice in
recent years have been handled with reasonable efficiency -
given the very poor legislative support for the meat inspection
system, which would have made vigorous action difficult in any
event.
265
CHAPTER 9A
RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING EXPORT MEAT
(a) The inspection service
Re-organization (5.4-21)
9.1 The Department of Primary Industry should proceed to
reorganize the Commonwealth meat inspection service along the
lines indicated in its final submission to the Commission. In
particular, the removal of the service from the Bureau of
Animal Health and placing of it in a newly-formed Export
Inspection Service is commended. Unless otherwise stated, the
Department's proposals for its new inspection system - so far
as they fall within the Commission's terms of reference - are
endorsed. This applies to both legislative changes and
administrative arrangements.
The dual inspection system (5.48-79)
9.2 The relationship between the reformed Commonwealth
service and the various state services will depend upon
negotiations between respective governments. So far as
Victoria is concerned, it is recommended that a joint authority
be established along the lines already negotiated and reported
to the Australian Agricultural Council. See further
paras 9.56-58 below.
9.3 In the case of the Northern Territory it is
recommended that a similar result be aimed for, although the
very small size of the Territory service would suggest a
comparatively larger role for the DPI. See further
paras 9.67-69 below.
Staffing economies (5.20, 5.28-30, 5.80-91)
9. 4 Wherever overseas requirements and local circumstances
permit, numbers of veterinary officers posted to meatworks
should be reduced, more reliance being placed on senior meat
inspectors, supported by visiting veterinary officers. All
possible steps should be taken to add to the interest of
266
veterinary officers' work. Combined services should provide
additional opportunities for this.
9.5 So far as is practicable, in the light of overseas
requirements and sound meat inspection practices, managements
should be encouraged to take over responsibilities for work on
the chain now performed by meat inspectors. The numbers of meat
inspectors should be correspondingly reduced but, on average,
their work should become more responsible and call for greater
experience and higher personal qualities. The introduction of
approved quality controls and compliance checking methods may
enable numbers of inspectors to be reduced in other areas
also. Such possibilities should be regularly reviewed.
Recruitment and training of meat inspectors (5.115-119)
9.6 · Increases in average responsibilities, together with
greater emphasis on the checking and keeping of records, make
it essential that there should be high quality in-service
training available for inspectors. Appropriate management
training should also be given to those inspectors in
supervisory positions, or likely soon to be appointed to such
positions, who can benefit from it - having regard to their age
and the nature of their duties.
9.7 The Department should accept responsibility for
co-ordinating the basic training courses available to meat
inspectors in the various States. Recruitment policies should
ensure that persons taking up those courses have the necessary personal qualities and abilities to cope with the higher demands
which will be placed upon them as meat inspectors of the future,
particularly by way of inspecting and keeping records and
writing reports.
Delegation of authority (5.40-44)
9.8 Decisions on particular questions of meat inspection,
or concerning the security of export meat, should be made at
plant or regional office level unless they could create an
267
important precedent or otherwise raise policy issues. All
decisions going beyond day-to-day routine should be reported to
head office for information and, if necessary, comment.
Rotation of meat inspectors (5.35-39)
9.9 Meat inspectors should normally be posted to
establishments for a minimum of one year unless family
separations or other hardships are involved. In those cases,
three months postings would be reasonable.
Detection and investigation of malpractices (5.16-23)
9.10 The Department should, as a matter of some urgency,
reorganize its Compliance and Evaluation Unit and establish an
Investigations Unit, as proposed in its final submissions. The
relationship between the Investigations Unit and the AFP will
require close attention - a good working arrangement between
the two is essential. The employment of some former police
officers in the Investigations Unit is recommended.
Information management (2.23-25, 5.41-42, Appendix E)
9.11 All telephone communications on matters which are not
routine should be recorded in writing and filed appropriately.
Complicated or important matters should be confirmed by letter.
9.12 Any incidents of possible malpractice should be fully
documented and filed both on the file relating to the
particular establishment and on a file relating to the type of
malpractice.
Free or cheap meat or other benefits (7.106-130)
9.13 Gifts of free meat to meat inspectors, veterinary
officers or other government officers should not be permitted
in any circumstances.
9.14 The purchase of meat by such officials from meatworks
at prices available to the general public, or to all workers at
the premises, should be permitted.
268
9.15 The purchase of meat by officials in any other
circumstances should be permitted only with the written approval of the Department.
9.16 In no circumstances should officials be permitted to
purchase meat on terms better than those available to the
full-time staff of the meatworks.
9.17 Any meatworks which supplies meat, or official who
receives it, in contravention of the rules prescribed should be
subject to appropriately severe penalties.
9.18 Any meatworks which gives money or other valuable
benefit to an official, without the approval in writing of the
Department, or which helps an official to make a false claim
for overtime payments, reimbursement of living or travelling
expenses, or other money payment - whether from the meatworks
or from the Department - should also be subject to severe
penalties. So, of course, should the official concerned.
Penalties for past transgressions by officials
9.19 It would not be practicable to attempt to discipline
all those officials who have come to notice as the recipients
of wrongful benefits. It would not be fair to punish only
those who have confessed to receiving money. On the other hand
some types of conduct cannot go unpunished.
9.20 I recommend that the cases which should be
particularly pursued, with a view to appropriate prosecution or
other disciplinary action, are those where substantial personal
benefits have been demanded by an official, with express or
implied threats, and those in which substantial benefits have
been offered and received in circumstances suggesting that a
particular return, by way of neglect of duty or other clearly
wrongful act, was expected of the recipient.
269
The role of the unions
9.21 The Australian Meat Inspectors Association will have a
vital role to play in the months ahead in helping its members
come to terms with new organizational arrangements,
particularly where merging, or working closely, with State
government employees is involved. There will also be changes
in manning scales and in responsibilities. Finally, inspectors
will have to adapt to doing without certain valuable 1 perks1 of
office - to put the matter in the kindest possible terms.
9.22 The Association has been very active in support of its
members over the years and will no doubt wish to be closely
involved in the developments which will now occur. The
Department must recognise this fact and consult closely with
the Association before committing itself to proposals which
could affect the industrial interests of meat inspectors. I am
confident that the Association will respond in a responsible
way to the clear need of the industry for a new approach to
meat inspection.
9.23 The Professional Officers Association should similarly
be closely involved in any proposed changes affecting the
industrial interests of its veterinary officer members.
(b) Registration of premises (5.120-164)
9.24 It is recommended that the DPI should promote in every
way possible the concept of common standards of construction,
hygiene and meat inspection for Australian meatworks. This
Australian domestic standard should then also be applied in the
case of all foreign markets which are prepared to accept it.
Different special standards will then be applied only to those
meatworks wishing to produce for export to those countries
which insist upon such special standards.
9.25 The requirement that applicants for export premises
registration should be 'fit and proper persons' is endorsed,
but it is recommended that the power to refuse registration on
270
this ground be used sparingly, particularly in relation to
activities which did not endanger public health and which were
indulged in before the requirement was introduced. With regard
to future misdeeds, refusal or cancellation of registration
should usually be based on conviction for a relevant criminal
offence or failure to 'show cause' in the face of some cogent
evidence of serious wrongdoing. The Department should have
legal advice available at hearings of difficult registration
applications.
9.26 It will be necessary to apply the test of fitness and
propriety to persons who would participate in the management of
the business as well as those who actually control the business.
9.27 Considerations of financial standing or technical
competence should not be used as indicators of likelihood to
indulge in malpractices, though they may be relevant for other
purposes.
9.28 Appropriate appeal provisions should permit the
testing of any adverse decision about a person's fitness to be
associated with a registered establishment.
9.29 The DPI proposal to make it a condition of
registration that meat may not be given to DPI officers, and
may be sold to them only on terms approved in writing, is
generally endorsed. See paras 9.13-18 above.
9.30 There should be provision for the Minister to suspend
the registration of an export establishment in cases where
there is cogent evidence of serious or repeated malpractice.
The onus should then be thrown upon the applicant to show cause
why the registration should be restored pending the
cancellation hearings. Again there should be appropriate
provision for appeal.
271
9.31 The DPI should consider employing officers with
appropriate expertise in the construction of buildings and in
mechanical equipment to assist with technical aspects of
applications for registration. Other disciplines, such as food
technology, should also be considered.
(c) Industry responsibility (5.20-21, 5.288)
9.32 Much greater emphasis should in future be placed upon
the acceptance of responsibility by managements for the quality
and wholesomeness of their products. The meat inspection
service should see its role primarily as policing controls
instituted by industry, rather than providing those controls
itself.
9.33 Recent history would suggest that a close watch needs
to be kept on most operators, but where high standards are
maintained and the inspection service believes the operator's
self-regulation can be trusted, there should be some relaxation
of controls - with a consequential financial benefit to the
operator. For such an approach to succeed, both carrot and
stick are necessary. A direct relationship between levels of
surveillance and cost to the operator (based perhaps on the
number of inspectors) would provide the carrot.
(d) Sampling and species testing (5.244-253)
9.34 The stick is provided by likelihood of detection in
malpractice and the resulting penalties. Some aspects of the
inspection service's role in this have already been dealt with
(para 9.10 above) I also recommend that the random sampling and
species testing of export products should continue indefinitely.
However there should be a marked concentration of effort in
areas of greatest risk, such as manufacturing beef awaiting
shipment in independent coldstores and minced products. The
areas and level of sampling should be reviewed from time to
time. Samples should also be taken from any batch of meat
which has given cause for concern about its nature, either
because of its appearance or because of doubts about seals or
documentation.
272
(e) Refrigerated containers (5.167-168)
9.35 There should be provision for at least a limited check
on the contents of refrigerated containers which have arrived
at a wharf after travelling long distances relying on 'snow
shooting'.
(f) Penalties (5.254-260, 5.265)
9.36 The penalties provided for breaches of regulatory
provisions must have regard not only to the underlying
criminality of the offence (as where public health is put at
risk), but also to the damage which breaches could do to a
vital industry. EMRs should be kept constantly under review,
so that they are not out of step with industry requirements, as
appears to have been the case with 1 robbing the pack' . (7.32)
Because the rewards for villainy can be very great, so must the
sanctions.be; the recently introduced and proposed levels of
penalties are appropriate. On the other hand, when it comes to
enforcement, there should not be an over-reaction against past
weakness. Sanctions should be invoked with proper discretion,
having regard to all the circumstances of the particular case.
(g) Security arrangements (5.174-219)
9.37 Generally speaking there should be no increase in the
levels of physical security which were imposed on meat in the
export chain after the substitution scandal. Those arrangements
should be kept under review and some requirements should be
relaxed as soon as it is thought that compliance and
investigation units are firmly established.
9.38 'Australia Approved' stamps (5.174-183, 5.261-264)
should be replaced with ones of fresh design as soon as
arrangements for their smooth introduction are completed.
Their future production and distribution should be strictly
controlled. Penalties for theft, wrongful possession and
forgery should be heavy.
273
9.39 DPI should continue to use its present system of
carton sealing (5.185-192) for the time being. It should
continue to investigate, and to consult with the industry
about, the use of one piece cartons, and improved methods of
sealing. Unless present sealing methods can be made more
effective and less costly their use should be reconsidered as
soon as the Department is satisfied that its Compliance and
Investigation Units are operating effectively. The possibility
of numbering cartons for better documentary control and tracing
purposes should be further considered (5.237).
9.40 The sealing of loads (5.193-198) should also continue
for the time being. Here again there is a need to keep
technical aspects and record-keeping procedures under review in
the light of evidence about how the present seals can be
circumvented. Because of the great inconvenience and added
costs which sealed loads can cause in some cases, the
Department should investigate, with the export meat industry
and the transport industry, ways in which exemptions from
sealing could be granted. This will probably depend upon the
development of a surer system of documentary controls than
exists at present. In time it may be possible to eliminate the
need for sealing loads. In the meantime consideration should
be given to requiring receiving inspectors to sign for meat
received and acknowledge the seal number.
9.41 The sealing of premises (5.199-203) should be the
first of the current security measures to be relaxed when the
inspection service feels sufficiently confident of its policing
arrangements to do so. The first step of relaxation should
permit senior officers of a company to break seals provided
advance telephone warning is given to a nominated officer of
the inspection service and a written report is made of the
circumstances by the company officer. Such incidents should be
attended by DPI officers on a random basis.
274
9.42 The complete segregation of export meat from other
products in coldstores (5.204-209) should only be required
where there is a real possibility - because of the nature and
method of packing of the products - that the goods could become
contaminated or confused with similar goods or where domestic
product could be deliberately substituted for export product.
The degree of segregation required in each case should depend
upon what is reasonable, given the physical set-up of the
coldstore and the current pressure on storage space. The
regulations concerning segregation of export meat in
coldstores, smallgoods factories and canneries (5.208-211)
should be in line with permitted practices. Accepted
non-observance of regulations creates a dangerous precedent.
9.43 The Department should press on with its studies of
inventory controls (5.212-216) as part of its armoury of
weapons against malpractice and, in particular, as a possible
replacement for expensive physical security methods. At the
least, company records should disclose certain prescribed types
of information and be readily available to meat inspection
officers. They would provide a starting point for
investigations and, in the hands of properly qualified persons,
could provide valuable evidence of malpractices.
(h) AMLC licences to export (5.269-278)
9.44 AMLC should retain its separate function of licensing
exporters, whether or not they operate export meatworks. Only
those who intend to export on their own account should be
licensed. The principles for the grant of a licence should be
similar to those applying to the grant of registration of
export premises, with due allowance for the differences in the
two functions. Close liaison between DPI and AMLC should be
designed to prevent anomalies in the grant or refusal of
registrations and licences. Legislative provisions should
permit the two bodies to have regard to each other's decisions
(5.156) .
275
t
(i) AMLC powers of inspection (5.279-287)
9.45 While reluctant to argue strongly against an increased
inspection role for AMLC (particularly since it is on the
borders of my terms of reference), I am bound to point out the
illogicality of trying to unify State and Federal inspection
systems while, at the same time, creating an additional Federal
system.
9.46 I believe that there should be a method whereby any
shortcomings in export quality can be investigated, advice
given and repeated failures to comply with overseas
requirements dealt with. This system should be independent of
the day-to-day inspection system, which may itself be partly at
fault.
9.47 However I am not convinced that this type of
'trouble-shooting' could not be performed under the overall
umbrella of the Export Inspection Service - given proper
liaison and co-operation with AMLC.
9.48 This is something to be worked out between DPI and
AMLC, having due regard to possible cost savings and the risk
of overlapping functions on the one hand, and the need for
independent expertise in the field of quality control on the
other .
(j) Export documents (5.235-237)
9.49 DPI should proceed with its plans to obtain
independent advice on the possible benefits which Automatic
Data Processing could bring to documentary controls over the
export of meat. There is potential here for much greater
efficiency without loss of security, but the initial costs will
be high, and all interested areas of government and industry
should be closely consulted before any commitments are entered
into. The present manual system works reasonably well and the
supposed benefits of technological change could prove illusory.
276
(k) Halal slaughter and certification (7.57-105)
9.50 It is recommended that there be a single system of halal slaughter certification in Australia with an official
Australian government certificate and an official Australian
government stamp. This system should be under direct and
continuous supervision by the Export Inspection Service of DPI.
9.51 Description of product as halal, documentation for
halal product and halal slaughter stamps should all be accorded
the same status as other product descriptions, documentation
and stamps and attract the same penalties for misuse.
9.52 With provision for the possible acceptance of others,
those now in the field should be responsible for the religious
aspects of halal slaughter. As long as those in the field are
able to provide a satisfactory service, any further additions
should be limited to those who appear to be capable of providing
a similar service which would be accepted at least by some
Muslim countries. The continued role of AFIC and the other
bodies in the field should be reviewed from time to time in the
light of their performance. There should be no monopoly of
supervision of the religious aspects by AFIC, or any other
body, if that can be avoided.
9.53 The reasonable costs, and only those costs, incurred
by AFIC and the other bodies in the performance of their
supervisory functions should be reimbursed. The necessary sum
could be raised by a levy on exporters and producers dealing in
the market for halal meat.
(l) Game meat (5.291-296)
9.54 The meat inspection service should give the fullest
possible coverage to companies or persons wishing to develop
the game meat industry. It seems clear that the industry can
only hope to develop successfully if there are tight quality
controls observed by the companies involved and reasonably close supervision by the inspection service. This must include
277
some supervision of field operations, because lax standards in
the field can only lead to a product which is a health risk -
and one bad incident of this type could easily put paid to
whatever fledgeling industry may have developed.
(m) Pet meat (6.80-92)
9.55 Generally speaking, all pet meat for export should be
dyed with brilliant blue and come under the control of the meat
inspection service. Written exemption could be considered in
return for special security measures. Premises where such meat
is processed should be registered and periodically inspected by
the service or its agents. Prescribed records should be kept.
278
CHAPTER 9B
RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING MEAT FOR HUMAN
CONSUMPTION IN VICTORIA
(a) The meat inspection service (5.48-79, 5.363)
9.56 As already recommended, there should be a combined
meat inspection service in Victoria for export meat and meat
for local consumption. This service should be developed, in
the first instance along the lines already discussed and
tentatively agreed between DPI and the Department of
Agriculture.
9.57 Consideration should be given in due course, and in
the light of experience with a combined service, to the
complete unification of this service.
9.58 It follows that, if the Commonwealth and Victorian
services are to be combined, many of the recommendations made
for the export service will automatically apply to the combined
service - for example, recommendations concerning free or cheap
meat for inspectors. Such recommendations are not repeated
here .
(b) Standards of meat inspection
and of premises (5.120-164)
9.59 The Department of Agriculture should do all it can to
promote the concept of a common Australian standard for meat
inspection and meat premises, which will ensure that meat from
any state is accepted in any other, without any re-inspection
being required just because it has moved from one state to
another. Spot checks for meat covering long distances -
whether inter-state or intra-state - may of course be necessary.
(c) Keeping of records (5.326)
9.60 Without necessarily requiring complete uniformity of
records to be kept by meatworks or coldstores for meat
279
inspection purposes, regulations should stipulate what
information is to be kept in each case.
(d) Industry responsibility (5.332-335)
9.61 As in the case of producers for export, producers for
local consumption should be encouraged to take as much
responsibility as possible for the quality and wholesomeness of
their products. Levels of inspection should depend to some
extent upon the performance of the individual operator, and
should be reflected in the charges made to the operator - so
that he has a positive incentive to improve his performance in
this regard.
(e) Penalties and prosecutions (5.336-337)
9.62 Now that more appropriate penalties have been
prescribed for malpractices in the meat industry, the
Department should be more inclined than it has been in the past
to prosecute for serious or repeated malpractices. This has
particular application to the activity of meat transport.
(f) Relations with police (5.343-346)
9.63 It is essential for any meat inspection service in
Victoria to have a clear understanding with the Victoria police
about co-operation and lines of demarcation. This will be even
more important if, as is recommended, a combined meat
inspection service is established, with an in-built
investigation capacity.
(g) Granting of meat establishment licences (5.308-310)
9.64 The integrity of owners and managers should, with
care, be taken into account in granting or withholding
licences. Compare paras 9.25-28 above.
(h) Relations with Health authorities (5.350-357)
9.65 At some convenient time there should be a review by
the Department of Agriculture, the Health Commission and
representatives of municipal authorities, of the present rather
280
arbitrary line of demarcation of inspection responsibilities.
Generally speaking, food manufacturing premises should be left
to the oversight of health surveyors unless the quantities of
meat handled are such that regular visits by meat inspectors
are necessary and they are therefore in a better position than health surveyors to supervise hygiene. There should be no
duplication of responsibilities even if both meat inspectors
and health surveyors have occasion to visit the same premises -
as will often be the case.
(i) Dyeing of pet meat (6.75-79)
9.66 The Department of Agriculture should persist with its
requirement for brilliant blue dyeing of all pet met. The
regulations, descriptive publications, and the practice of meat
inspectors should all make it clear to the industry that what
is required is a coating of dye over the greater part of all
surfaces of the meat in question (6.36-37), such that its
status as pet food is unmistakeable, undyed smaller pieces of
meat cannot readily be cut from it, but it is not rendered
unduly obnoxious to the observer. The only exemption from
dyeing should be in the case of meat from abattoirs which is in
a 'sealed distribution chain' (6.22-24). Records covering the
production and movement of pet meat must be available for
inspection. Pet meat premises should continue to be visited
frequently, but at irregular intervals.
281
CHAPTER SC
RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING MEAT FOR HUMAN
CONSUMPTION IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
(a) The meat inspection service (5.396-399)
9.67 It is recommended that responsibility for all meat
inspection in the Northern Territory should be taken by a
combined service, the form of which should be negotiated by the
respective governments. It should be a condition of this
arrangement that the service would be administered from Darwin,
not Adelaide, and would work in close liaison with the other
relevant organs of the NT Government. It must have
responsibility for pet meat.
9.68 The conditions of service for officers of the combined
meat inspection service must have regard to the isolation, heat
and comparative lack of amenities from which many officers must
necessarily suffer. These should be adequately compensated for
by appropriate allowances, whether the ultimate cost is borne
by the meatworks operator or by government. All such
allowances must be out in the open (7.157). So far as possible
the need for such allowances should be reduced by sensible
rostering (not for too-short periods, see para 9.9 above) and
by improving accommodation standards and other amenities.
(5.365)
9.69 In-service training has not been available for DPP
officers in the past. Whatever happens to the existing
services, DPI training facilities should be made available to
DPP officers by arrangement between governments. (5.371)
(b) The legislative structure
9.70 The Department should proceed as rapidly as possible
with its proposed amendments to the NT Abattoirs and
Slaughtering Act, and with the introduction of its proposed Pet
Meat Regulations.
282
9.71 The proposed amendments to legislation should provide
adequate coverage of the previously neglected areas of
boning-rooms, coldstores and meat transport (5.381-383) and in
particular the movement of meat from other states (5.376,
7.159-162). They should also provide adequate penalties for
breaches of the law relating to meat for human consumption.
9.72 There should be administrative provision at least for
spot-checking on arrival the contents of refrigerated containers
and trucks which have travelled long distances in the Territory
relying on 'snow shooting1 for their refrigeration. (5.167-168)
9.73 Further attention needs to be given to standards of
hygiene in slaughtering carried out for substantial communities
of aborigines and others in remote areas, including cattle-
station communities. This will require a mixture of advice,
assistance and regulation. (5.390-392)
9.74 Penalties should be sought in all cases of illegal
slaughter where public health is put at risk. (5.374)
(c) Pet meat
9.75 Considerable attention should be paid to the
activities of pet meat producers. Mobile chillers and packing
sheds should be visited unannounced, from time to time, by meat
inspectors, stock inspectors and police officers. (6.61-63)
9.76 Dyeing requirements should be strictly enforced once a
sensible arrangement for dyeing in the field has been achieved.
(6.65-66)
9.77 The continued use of tartrazine as an approved dye
should be reconsidered. (6.67)
(d) Health Department
9.78 It seems that the Health Department needs wider powers
to deal with meat declared unfit for human consumption and to
283
enforce proper standards of refrigeration in coldstores and
refrigerated vehicles. Objective standards for the presence of
salmonella in meat would also be helpful if they can be agreed.
(5.401-403)
9.88 If there are no early prospects of the adoption of an
Australia-wide model Food Act which would solve these problems,
they should be further considered by the Northern Territory
Government.
284
CHAPTER 10
AC KNOWLEDGEMENTS
10.1 The Royal Commission has been particularly well served
by the legal, administrative and clerical officers appointed to
assist it.
10.2 The Secretariat, under the leadership of
Mr L.R. Dudley, has handled all the clerical, financial and
other administrative work of the Commission with unfailing
efficiency.
10.3 The legal staff of the Commission has carried out the
very large task of collecting and sifting evidence which I have
described in Chapter 2 above.
10.4 In particular, I wish to pay tribute to the work of
Counsel assisting the Commission. Mr N.R. McPhee QC and
Mr K.M. Hayne were briefed just under twelve months ago, and
they were joined by Mr J.W. Rapke when the amount of inter-state
work was appreciated some weeks later. All three have worked
extremely hard and effectively ever since. Their respective
contributions to the work of the Commission have been in the
highest traditions of the Bar.
10.5 Finally I would like to record my personal debt,
for their hard work, and constant support, to my Associate,
Mr Shane L. Stone, and my Personal Secretary,
Miss Sally Withers, who has seen this report through a number
of drafts in a short space of time.
285
APPENDIX A (1)
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth:
TO The Honourable Albert Edward Woodward, O.B.E.
GREETING:
WE DO by these Our Letters Patent issued in Our name by Our
Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia on the advice
of the Federal Executive Council and in pursuance of the
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Royal
Commissions Act 1902 and other enabling powers, appoint you to
be a Commissioner to inquire, for the purpose of the exercise
and performance of the powers and functions of the Parliament
and Government of the Commonwealth, into the following matters,
namely -(a) whether administrative arrangements and procedures for
the supervision of the handling of meat for export are
adequate to ensure that all meat exported from
Australia meets the requirements prescribed by law;
(b) whether malpractices are occurring, or have occurred,
in the handling of meat for export or the exportation
of meat;
286
(c) allegations made, whether in public or to a Minister,
department or authority of the Commonwealth, of
malpractices alleged to have occurred during the past
ten years, in the handling of meat for export or in
the exportation of meat;
(d) whether such allegations were dealt with in a manner
that was adequate and effective;
(e) whether in response to such allegations, any
illegality or corruption occurred.
AND We direct you to make such recommendations arising out of
your inquiry as you think appropriate, including
recommendations regarding the legislative or administrative
changes, if any, that are necessary or desirable:
AND We.declare that, notwithstanding any other provision of
these Our Letters Patent, you are authorized, at your
discretion, to defer your inquiry into any matter that is the subject of a police investigation or of criminal proceedings in
a court:
AND We further declare that if Our Governor-General of the
Commonwealth of Australia so approves, you may conduct your
inquiry into any matter under these Our Letters Patent in
combination with any inquiry into the same or related matters
that you are directed or authorized to make by any Commission
issued, or in pursuance of any order or appointment made, by
any of Our Governors of the States:
AND We require you as expeditiously as possible to make you r
inquiry and -(f) if you consider it appropriate to do so, to furnish to
Our Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia
an interim report or interim reports of the results of
your inquiry; and
287
(g) not later than 1 September 1982 or such later date as
We may be pleased to fix, to furnish to Our
Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia a
report of the results of your inquiry and your
recommendations.
WITNESS His Excellency the Right Honourable Sir Zelman Cowen, a member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight of the Order of Australia, Knight
Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, one of Her Majesty's Counsel learned in
the law, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Force.
Dated this twelfth day of September 1981.
Zelman Cowen
Governor-General
288
APPENDIX A (2)
ELIZABETH THE SECOND, BY THE GRACE OF GOD QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA AND HER OTHER REALMS AND TERRITORIES, HEAD OF THE COMMONWEALTH.
To Our Trusty and Well-beloved
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT EDWARD WOODWARD, O.B.E., Q.C., a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
GREETINGS:
WHEREAS the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia
on the.advice of the Federal Executive Council and pursuant to
the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Royal
Commissions Act 1902 and other enabling powers, has appointed
you ALBERT EDWARD WOODWARD, O.B.E., Q.C., a Judge of the
Federal Court of Australia, to be a Commissioner to inquire
into, and report upon certain matters relating to the
exportation of meat from the Commonwealth of Australia.
AND WHEREAS the Governor of the State of Victoria, in the
Commonwealth of Australia, by and with the advice of the
Executive Council of the said State, hath deemed it expedient
that a Commission should forthwith issue to you in the terms
set out below.
NCW KNOW YE that WE reposing great trust and confidence in your
knowledge and ability, have constituted and appointed and by
these presents do constitute and appoint you ALBERT EDWARD
WOODWARD, O.B.E., Q.C. a Judge of the Federal Court of
Australia, to be Our Commissioner to make inquiry into the
following matters, namely -
289
(a) whether administrative arrangements and procedures for the
supervision of the handling of meat for human consumption
in Victoria are adequate to ensure that all such meat meets
the requirement prescribed by law;
(b) whether malpractices are occurring, or have occurred in the
handling of meat for human consumption in Victoria;
(c) allegations made whether in public or to a Minister,
Department or Authority of the State, of malpractices
alleged to have occurred since the coming into operation of
the Abattoir and Meat Inspection Act 1973 in the handling
of meat for human consumption in Victoria;
(d) whether such allegations were dealt with in a manner that
was adequate and effective; and
(e) whether in response to such allegations any illegality or
corruption occurred.
AND WE direct you to make such recommendations arising out of
your inquiry as you think appropriate, including
recommendations regarding the legislative or administrative
changes, if any, that are necessary or desirable.
AND WE declare that, notwithstanding any other provision of
this Our Commission, you are authorised, at your discretion, to
defer your inquiry into any matter that is the subject of a
police investigation or of criminal proceedings in a court.
AND WE declare that you are authorised to conduct your inquiry
into the matters mentioned aforesaid under this Our Commission
in combination with any inquiry into the matters that you are
directed or authorised to make by any Commission or Commissions
issued, or in pursuance of any Order or appointment made, by
the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia or the
Governor of any State of the Commonwealth of Australia.
290
AND WE do by these presents give and grant you full power and
authority to call before you such person or persons as you
shall judge likely to afford you any information upon the
subject of this Our Commission and to inquire of and concerning
the premises by all other lawful ways and means whatsoever.
AND WE will and command that this Our Commission shall continue
in full force and virtue and that you shall and may from time
to time and at any place or places proceed in the execution
thereof, and of every matter or thing therein contained
although the same be not continued from time to time by
adjournment.
AND WE direct you as expeditiously as possible to make your
inquiry and -if you consider it appropriate to do so, to furnish US an
interim report or interim reports of the results of your
inquiry; and
not later than 1 September, 1982 or such later date as WE
may be pleased to fix, to furnish US a report of the
results of your inquiry and your recommendations.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF WE have caused these Our Letters to be
made Patent and the Seal Of State to be hereunto affixed.
WITNESS His Excellency the Honourable
Sir Henry Winneke, Knight
Commander of the Most
Distinguished Order of Saint
Michael and Saint George,
Knight Commander of the Royal
Victorian Order, Officer of
the Most Excellent Order of
the British Empire, Knight of
the Most Venerable Order of
the Saint John of Jerusalem,
291
one of Her Majesty's Counsel
Learned in the Law, Governor
of the State of Victoria and
its Dependencies in the
Commonwealth of Australia,
etc. etc. etc. at Melbourne
this 15th day of September
One thousand nine hundred and
eighty-one in the thirtieth
year of Our Reign.
Henry Winneke
292
APPENDIX A (3)
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth:
TO The Honourable Albert Edward Woodward, O.B.E.
GREETING:
WHEREAS by Letters Patent issued in Our name on
12 September 1981 by Our Governor-General of the Commonwealth
of Australia, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive
Council and in pursuance of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Australia, the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and
other enabling powers, We appointed you to be a Commissioner to
inquire into certain matters relating to the handling of meat
for export and the exportation of meat:
AND WHEREAS it is desirable that your inquiry be extended to
certain matters that do not fall within the matters to be
inquired into under the Letters Patent issued on
12 September 1981:
NOW THEREFORE, We do, by these Our Letters Patent issued in Our
name by Our Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia
on the advice of the Federal Executive Council and in pursuance
of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Royal
Commissions Act 1902 and other enabling powers, vary the
Letters Patent issued on 12 September 1981 so as to require
you ~
293
(a) to inquire, for the purpose of the exercise and
performance of the powers and functions of the
Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth, into
the following matters, namely -(i) whether administrative arrangements and
procedures for the supervision of the handling
of meat for human consumption in the Northern
Territory of Australia are adequate to ensure
that all such meat meets the requirements
prescribed by law;
(ii) whether malpractices are occurring, or have
occurred, in the handling of meat for human
consumption in the Northern Territory of
Australia;
(iii) allegations made, whether in public or to a
Minister, department or authority of the
Commonwealth, of malpractices alleged to have
occurred during the past ten years in the
handling of meat for human consumption in the
Northern Territory of Australia;
(iv) whether such allegations were dealt with in a
manner that was adequate and effective;
(v) whether in response to such allegations any
illegality or corruption occurred; and
(b) to make your inquiry as expeditiously as possible and
(i) if you consider it appropriate to do so, to
furnish to Our Governor-General of the
Commonwealth of Australia an interim report or
interim reports of the results of your inquiry
into the matters specified in the Letters Patent
issued on 12 September 1981 or an interim report
or interim reports of the results of your
inquiry into the matters specified in these
Letters Patent;
294
(ii) not later than 1 September 1982, or such later
date as We may be pleased to fix, to furnish to
Our Governor-General of the Commonwealth of
Australia a report of the results of your
inquiry into, and your recommendations
concerning, the matters specified in the Letters
Patent issued on 12 September 1981; and
(iii) not later than 1 September 1982, or such later
date as We may be pleased to fix, to furnish to
Our Governor-General of the Commonwealth of
Australia a separate report of the results of
your inquiry into, and your recommendations
concerning, the matters specified in these
Letters Patent.
Witness His Excellency the Right Honourable Sir Zelman Cowen, a member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable
Privy Council, Knight of the Order of Australia, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George,
Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, one of Her Majesty's Counsel learned in
the law, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia and Commander-in- Chief of the Defence Force.
Dated this twenty-sixth day of November 1981
Zelman Cowen
Governor-General
295
APPENDIX B
LIST OF SUBMISSIONS FROM ORGANIZATIONS
Organization Witness/Author
Adelaide Mosque Islamic Society of South Australia Mr C.M. Ashraf, Honorary Secretary
Australian Commercial Pig Producers Federation
Australian Consumers Association
Dr F.E. Peters
Australian Federal Police Det Chief Inspector
L.N. Elkington
Australian Federation of of Islamic Councils Inc.
Mr I. Altallah, National President
Mr A.R. Yahaya, Vice President, Western Australia
Mr A. Saleem, Administrative Officer Head Office
Australian Institute of Health Surveyors
Mr D.J. Hawkins, Member of Council
Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation
Mr R.G. Jones, Chairman
Mr R.S. Jordan, General Manager
Mr L.E. Brownlie, Director, Technical Services
Mr M.E. Basile, State Manager, Western Australia
Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council Mr P.A. Bartlett, Executive Director
296
Organization Witness/Author
Australian Meatworks Federal Council
Australian Pig Industry- Research Committee
Australian Veterinary Association
Mr K.F. Gooley, Chairman
Australian Wildlife Protection Council
Mr P .A . Preuss, Director
Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union Mr J.D. O'Toole, Federal Secretary
Mr W. Curran, Secretary, Victorian Branch
Mr W . Finn, Northern Territory Representative
Cattle Council of Australia Mr A .J . Robb,
Executive Director
Cattlemen's Union of Australia
Cold Storage Association of Australia
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Council of the Australian Public Abattoir Authorities
Mr R .A. Farley, Executive Director
CSIRO
Department of Business and Consumer Affairs
Mr C.F. Vassarotti, Senior Assistant Collector of Customs, (Services Branch),
Bureau of Customs
297
Organization Witness/Author
Department of Business and Consumer Affairs (cont) Mr R.E. Kennedy, Director,
Internal Affairs Bureau
Department of Primary Industry Hon P.J. Nixon MP, Minister
Hon K.S. Wriedt MHA, former Minister
Rt Hon I.McC. Sinclair MP former Minister
Mr G.L. Miller, Deputy Secretary
Mr P.T. Core, Assistant Secretary, Executive Secretariat
Mr J.F. Landos, Assistant Director, Export Inspection Service
Bureau of Animal Health Dr R.w. Gee, Director
Dr J.A. Hart, Senior Assistant Director, Veterinary Public Health
Dr P.T. Preston, Assistant Director, Inspection Operations Section
Dr C.G. Field, Assistant Director, Technical Services and Standards Section
Dr J.H. Auty, Principal Veterinary Officer, Technical Services and Administration Branch
Dr K.R. Constantine, Veterinary Officer-in charge, NSW
298
Organization Witness/Author
Department of Primary Industry (cont)
Dr P.J. Gleeson, Veterinary Officer-in charge, Victoria and
Tasmania
Dr G.D. Hore, Senior Veterinary Officer, Tasmania
Dr P.F. Robinson, Veterinary Officer-in charge, Queensland
Mr P.T. Tierney, Regional Executive Officer South Australia and the Northern Territory
Dr S.J.L. Lionnet, Veterinary Officer- in-charge , South Australia and the
Northern Territory
Mr L. Jury, Regional Executive Officer, Western Australia
Dr R.D. Hartwell, Veterinary Officer-in charge, Western Australia
Dr J. Heitz Acting Veterinary Officer-in-charge, Western Australia
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
Department of Trade and Resources
Fresh Pet Meat Industry Association
Mr R.W. Davis, President
Mr J.B. Fitzsimmons, Vice-President
299
Organization Witness/Author
Greyhound Racing Control Board Mr N.J. Banks, Secretary
Institute of Trading Standards Mr W.H. Binks, Member
Kangaroo Processors Association Western Australia Mr J.R. Saunders, Chairman
Kennel Control Council Mr W.C. Kinsman,
Registrar
Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia
Mr R.H.J. Noble, National Director
Mr I.D . Landells, Senior Vice President
Meat Inspectors Association, Australian Public Service Mr G.J. McColl, General Secretary
Mr B.V. Waters, Honorary Secretary, Victorian Branch
Mr K. Milne, Honorary Secretary, Western Australian Branch
Meat Inspectors Group, Victorian Public Service Association
Mr R.P. Hand, Honorary Secretary
Mr N.M. Kelson, Delegate (South West Region)
Mr L.H. Ruddell, Delegate (South East Region)
Muslim Association of Brisbane Mr J. Hoar,
Secretary
300
O r g a n i z a t i o n W i t n e s s / A u t h o r
National Farmers Federation State Council
National Meat Canners
New South Wales Department of Agriculture Hon J.R. Hallam MLC, Minister
Mr W . A. Mayger, Director, State Meat Inspection Service
New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service Dr J.R. Giles, Assistant Director
Mr T.A. Hill, Senior Investigator
New South Wales Meat Industry Authority Mr G.L. Langley, Senior Licensing Inspector
Northern Territory Department of Health
Dr J.V. Quinn, Assistant Secretary, Environmental Health
Northern Territory Department of Primary Production Hon R.M. Steele MLA, Minister
Dr C.H. Gurd, Secretary
Dr G.R. Fallon, Assistant Director, Animal Industry Branch
Dr D.A. Newton-Tabrett, Regional Director, Northern Division
Dr B.L. Rideout, Veterinary Officer
Dr K.B. Locke, District Veterinary Officer
301
Organization W itness/Author
Northern Territory Department of Primary Production (cont) Dr D. Thomson, District Veterinary
Officer
Dr J.E. Niethe, Veterinary Officer
Mr C.M. White, District Stock Inspector
Petfood Manufacturers Association of Australia
Mr R.J. Inward, Member, Technical Sub-committee
Primary Industry Association of Western Australia Mr G. Porter, President,
Meat Section
Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service
Mr B.G. Williams, Senior Industrial Officer
Dr W.C. Murray, President, Queensland Veterinary Group
Public Service Association of New South Wales
Queensland Department of Primary Industries
Mr B . Parkinson, Director, Veterinary Public Health Branch
Queensland Agricultural College
Queensland Fauna Dealers Association
Mr C.F. Thomas, President
Queensland Pork Producers State Council
Retail Traders Association of Victoria Mr K.E. McDonald, Executive Director
302
Organization Witness/Author
South Australian Department of Agriculture
Tasmanian Division of Public Health
Hon E. Kent MLC, Minister
Hon T.L. Austin MLA, former Minister
Hon I.W. Smith MLA, former Minister
Dr D.E. Here, Deputy Director-General, Chief Veterinary Officer, Animal Health Group
Dr A.J. Turner Chief, Division of Veterinary
Public Health
Dr J.B. Rees, Principal Veterinary Officer, Officer-in-charge, Meat Inspection Branch
Mr B.G. Williams, Director, Administrative Services
Victorian Department of Agriculture
Victorian Department of Health Hon T. Roper MLA, Minister
Hon W. Borthwick, former Minister
Hon W .V. Houghton MLC, former Minister
Hon A. Scanlan, former Minister
Dr J .W. Harrison, Acting Assistant Director of Public Health (Inspection Services)
303
Organization W itness/Author
Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association
Victorian Horse Council
Victorian Master Pastrycooks Association
Victorian Meatworks Association
Wagga Wagga City Council
Western Australian Department of Agriculture
Western Australian Meat Commission
Western Australian Meat Industry Authority
Western Australian Pig Producers Association
Western Australian Lamb Marketing Board
Western Australian Meat Exporters Association
Mr K.G. Shiell, Executive Officer, Pastoral Group
Mr R.O. Johnson, Executive Member
Mr D.G. Culbert, Executive Officer
Mr G.H. Green, Senior Abattoir Inspector
Mr I.S. Flack, Manager, Midland Division
Mr I. Barker, Chairman
Mr M. McSporran, Chief Executive
Mr J . Ware, Chairman
304
APPENDIX C
LIST OF WITNESSES MAKING SUBMISSIONS OR GIVING GENERAL EVIDENCE
Mr M.A. Abed, Honorary Secretary, Islamic Council of Victoria
Mr B.R. Abel, Senior Meat Inspector, Southern Division, Department of Primary Production, Northern Territory of Australia
Mr L.C. Ah Toy, Director, Koolpinyah Station Pty Ltd
Rt Hon J.D. Anthony M P , Minister for Trade and Resources
Mr I.B. Backman, Knackery Operator
Mr R.W. Baker, Stock Inspector, Department of Primary Production, Northern Territory of Australia
Mr D.W. Baldie, Meat Processor/Exporter,
Mr N.J. Bargwanna, Assistant General Manager, Angliss Group of Companies
Mr V.W. Bates, Director, Vacik Trading Pty Ltd
Mr M. Bertocchi, Bertocchi Smallgoods
Mr E.R. Bones, R & R Meats
Mr R.E. Bright, Managing Director, Batchelor Enterprises Pty Ltd
Mr K. Bugg, Manager, Koolpinyah Station Pty Ltd
305
Mr S. Bux, Manager, Halal-Sadiq
Mr M.D. Campbell, Member, Victorian Abattoir and Meat Inspection Authority,
Mr C. Clarke, Director, Itoman (Australia) Pty Ltd
Mr R.F. Condon, formerly General Manager, Katherine Meatworks
Mr R.S. Condon, Managing Director, NT Exports
Mr H.S. Conkey, formerly Managing Director, Conkey and Son
Dr W.E. Crogan, Senior Veterinary Officer, Department of Primary Industry
Mr D.A. Culley, Director, Culley & Russell Pty Ltd
Mr R.F. Dann, Manager - Victoria, AMLC
Mr N. Dickens, Manager, Tusker (Australia) Pty Ltd
Mr A .J . Digby, Manager, W. Angliss & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd
Mr B.C. Drew, Assistant Manager/ Chief Engineer, Darwin Cold Stores
Mr D. Dunkerley, Manager, Woodmasons Cold Storage,
306
Mr B .L . Dwyer , Managing Director, Melbourne Cold Storage Company
Sir Donald Eckersley, Primary Producer
Mr D.N. Einsiedel, Managing Director, Noble Einsiedel Pty Ltd
Mr J.L. Every General Manager, TNT Refrigeration
Mr J.B. Fitzsimmons, Knackery and Kennel Owner
Mr D . Fogarty, Manager, Independent Boning Room
Rt Hon J.M. Fraser M P , Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia
Mr J.F. Callaway, Journalist, Queensland
Mr G.A. Gathercole, Abattoir Operator
Mr T.W. George, Director, Wholesale Pork Butchers
Mr J.A. Gilbertson, Chairman, R.J. Gilbertson Pty Ltd
Mr P.H. Greenham, Director, H.W. Greenham & Sons Pty Ltd
Mr T.R. Raise, Howard Springs Pet Meat Supplies
Mr J.A. Hewitt, Managing Director, Austral Pacific Exports
Mr A. James, Director, NT Exports
307
Mr A.J. Keeling, Manager, Kinloss Nominees Pty Ltd
Hon C.R. Kelly, Chairman, Kelly Committee of Inquiry into Meat Inspection
Dr N.L. King, Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO
Mr M.H.M. Leach, Manager, Mt Ringwood Station
Mr E.A.C. McDonald, Manager, Charles David Pty Ltd
Mr N. McDonald, General Manager, Stuarts Foods Pty Ltd
Dr J.G. McLean, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Melbourne University
Dr D.G. McPhee, Department of Microbiology, La Trobe University
Dr K .A . Mannan, Veterinary Officer, Department of Primary Industry
Mr G. Massie, Manager , Souery Foods Pty Ltd
Mr E.J. Meehan, Director, Moree Meat Pty Ltd
Mr W .G. Meehan, Officer-in-charge, Summary Prosecutions Branch, Crown Solicitors Office, Law Department, State of Victoria
Dr H.R.C. Meischke, Senior Veterinary Officer, Department of Primary Industry
308
Detective Senior Constable T.J. Milera, Northern Territory Police Force,
Mr J.A. Morris, General Manager, Smorgon Consolidated Industries
Mr H.E. Munyard, Chief Health/Building Surveyor, Northam Shire Council
Dr K .G. Newton, Senior Bacteriologist, Australian Government Analytical Laboratory,
Constable R.C. Nuttal, Australian Federal Police
Mr A.L. Oxley, Manager, P & 0 Cold Storage
Mrs C.N. Padgham-Purich MLA, Legislative Assembly, Northern Territory of Australia
Mr D. Pearson, Manager , Point Stuart Station
Mr J.D. Pendarvis, General Manager, Northern Pastoral Services
Mr M.J. Phillips, Animal Health Officer, Victorian Department of Agriculture
Mr A.J. Quinn, Manager, Gunbulanya Meat Supply, Oenpe11i
Mr P .V. Quinn, Director, Flemington Cold Stores
Mr J. Randles, Technical Officer, Quality Assurance, AMLC
309
Mr D.W. Roberts, Senior Research Officer, Western Australian Department of Agriculture
Mr K. Smelzer, Manager, T.A. Field Pty Ltd
Mr G.J. Smith, Honorary Ranger, New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service
Hon H. Storey MLC, Former Victorian Attorney-General
Sir Frederick Somerset, Consultant
Mr S. Swart, Wildman River Station
Mr G.O. Tancred, General Manager, Tancred Brothers Industries
Mr A. Teys, Chairman, Teys Brothers Holdings Pty Ltd
Mr M .R. Thomason, NT Pet Meat Supply
Mr C.W. Tuckey M P , House of Representatives, Commonwealth of Australia
Dr J.D. Tulloch, Supervising Veterinary Officer, Victorian Department of Agriculture
Mr J . Ware, Managing Director, Metro Meat Limited
Dr G.E.L. Watt, Senior Veterinary Officer, Department of Primary Industry
Mr K. Watt, Senior Inspector Public Buildings, Public Health Department, Western Australia
310
Mr A.J. Webster, Manager, Craig Mostyn & Co Pty Ltd
Mr J . Weninger, Weninaer Meats (Australia) Pty Ltd
Dr G.R. Wilson, Director, National Conservation Strategy Task Force, Department of Home Affairs and Environment
Mr M.T. Williams MLA, Legislative Assembly, Victoria
Dr R.T. Williams, Research Officer, Australian Public Service
Mr A.H. Woods, Managing Director, North Australian Cattle Company Pty Ltd
Mr J .V. Wragg, General Manager, E.G. Green & Sons
Mr J.C. Wroth, Commonwealth Meat Inspector
Mr D. Yeaman, Victorian Crown Solicitor
Dr F. Yeh, Supervising Veterinary Officer, Victorian Department of Agriculture
311
APPENDIX D
Exhibit
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
LIST OF EXHIBITS CONTAINING GENERAL INFORMATION
NO. Description
List of relevant Commonwealth legislation
Lists of relevant Victorian legislation
1974-78 Report of the Bureau of Animal Health
1978-79 , 1979-80 Reports of the
Bureau of Animal Health
1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81 Reports of the
Department of Primary Industry
Organization chart of the Department of Primary
Industry
Organization chart of the Central Office of the
Bureau of Animal Health
Manuals of Instruction for Meat Inspection and
Meat Handling Procedures (3rd ed) Vols. 1 & 2
Exports (Meat) Regulations Explanatory Notes
(Construction and Equipment Requirements
(2nd ed))
Department of Primary Industry list of
Registered Meat Export Establishments
File of forms relating to meat exportation
Training manuals for meat inspectors and related
documents
312
Exhibit No. Description
13
14
15
16
17
30
35
Report of Committee to Inquire into joint
arrangements for meat Inspection in New South
Wales, January 1973
Report on career development needs of meat
inspectors and veterinary officers in the
Australian Department of Agriculture,
R.M. Barker Pty Ltd, August 1975
The Report of the Royal Commission on Australian
Government Administration, 1976
Report of the Administrative Review Committee.
Meat Inspection. ('Bland Committee'), March 1976
Report of the Committee of Inquiry to Examine
Commonwealth and State Meat Inspection Systems
('Kelly Report'), January 1980
Proposed AMLC Regulations, dated 21 August 1981
1980-81 Reports of the Australian Meat and
Live-stock Corporation
36 Handbook of Australian Meat (3rd ed) AMLC
37 1980-81 Statistical Review of Live-stock and
Meat Industries (AMLC)
38 List of licensed live-stock exporters as at
1 July 1981
39 Submission of the AMLC to the 'Kelly Committee',
May 1979
313
41
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
53
74
Description
Returns of meat and live-stock exported (A Guide
to Completing AMLC Returns)
Policy statement relating to abattoirs and
slaughterhouses (Victorian Abattoir and Meat
Inspection Authority) dated 15 May 1975
1975-81 Annual Reports of the Victorian Abattoir
and Meat Inspection Authority
1978-81 Animal Health in Victoria (Annual Reports
of the Animal Health Group, Department of
Agriculture, Victoria)
Submission by the Government of Victoria to the
Committee of Inquiry into Meat Inspection in
Australia ('Kelly Report')
Appendices to the Submission by the Government
of Victoria to the Committee of Inquiry into
Meat Inspection in Australia (1 Kelly Report1)
Interim Report from the Meat Industry Committee
of Abattoirs, Meat Inspection and Animal Health
(together with Minutes of Evidence and
Appendices), dated 3 December 1969
Summary of investigations by the Department of
Agriculture of malpractice in the meat industry
Fifty-first to Fifty sixth Reports of the
Commission of Public Health
Submission from the Meat Exporters Association
of Victoria in support of use of the Department
314
74 (cont) of Primary Industry meat inspectors of meat at
works engaged on production for both export and
local consumption (1966)
Exhibit No. Description
100
147
148
195
223
Syllabus Information. Applied Science Courses
Meat Inspection (1979)
Report. Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Progress on consultations between the
Commonwealth and Victoria on meat inspection,
dated 18 September 1981
Report. Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Report of the High Level Working Group on meat
inspection, dated 31 July 1981
Staffing table of Department of Primary Industry
officers stationed in New South Wales
Queensland Department of Primary Industries
submission to the Kelly Committee
236
259
266
267
268
Department of Primary Industry operational
guidelines for the inspection of game meat for
export
Bundle of Department of Primary Industry
circulars concerning trade descriptions
Map of Kangaroo Management Zones, New South Wales
Kangaroo harvesting quota figures for the States
for the period 1980-1982
Bundle of nine pages of kangaroo products
statistics 315
364
504
532
635
642
817
821
846
853
Exhibit No. Description
Department of Primary Industry duty statements
for veterinary officers, Classes 1 and 2
Submission to the Chief Minister and Acting
Minister for Primary Production by The Angliss
Group concerning Limited Export Licenses to
South East Asia, dated 8 March 1982
Report on the pet food industry of the Northern
Territory by the Animal Industry and Agriculture
Branch, Department of Primary Production of the
Northern Territory of Australia, May 1974
IARC monographs on the evaluation of the
carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans,
Volumes 1-20, September 1979
Scientific papers relating to FCF Brilliant Blue
Food Safety and Inspection Service Board of
Inquiry Report on the Australian meat
substitution incident USDA
Report of the Meat Legislation Review Group of
the Institute of Environmental Health Officers,
United Kingdom
Report on New Zealand meat inspection
arrangements
Report of Dr Donald Houston, Administrator Food
Safety and Quality Services, USDA Quality Control
Inspection
316
854
883
886
887
Exhibit No. Description
Report of USDA Food Safety and Inspection
Service Integrity Programme
Report of Price Waterhouse Associates pty
concerning effectiveness of revised system for
documentary and physical control of export meat
together with 3 volumes of Visit Reports, dated 27 November 1981
Transcript of the symposium on the review of
Victorian legislation held 8 July 1982
Transcript of the symposium on the final
submission of the Department of Primary Industry held 5 August 1982
317
APPENDIX E (See para 2.24)
The State of the Bureau of Animal Health files, as revealed
by an independent audit arranged by the Royal Commission
It is clear that many of the Bureau's files, including
some of particular interest to the Commission, were in a very
poor state. The public servants who carried out an audit were
very critical of what they found. Those responsible for the
maintenance of the information systems in the Bureau readily
conceded that there were serious defects in those systems
before about 1977, but claimed that they had improved greatly
in more recent years.
One thing which was quite clear was that the systems
had not proved adequate to cope with the sudden rush of new
material and of file searching which followed the breaking of
the meat substitution scandal in August 1981.
As soon as this became apparent, an officer was
appointed to search out all relevant papers and create special
new files appropriate to the issues which were arising. This
was done, but it occurred outside the normal information
systems and thus created fresh problems.
When the Royal Commission was announced it was decided
to establish a special section of the Bureau's Information
Centre to deal with the Commission's requirements. The first
thing that section did was to restore the special files to a
place in the overall system.
All this meant that many documents, very relevant to
the Commission's interests, were moved about from one file to
another and then perhaps to a third, in a period of a few
weeks. Folio numbering was certainly disturbed in this process
- although the findings of the audit team suggest that, in any
event, it was not as accurate as it should have been.
318
One explanation given for this, and for other defects
in the files, was that the Information Centre was constantly-
beset by staff shortages and the necessity to train
inexperienced staff. I have no difficulty in accepting this as
a partial explanation of the state of the files. Nor do I doubt
that this problem was compounded by professional officers doing
their own filing and re-filing in the course of their work -
without always observing the correct procedures for such filing
Generally speaking the files, in spite of some folios
being missing and others badly out of numerical sequence, were
in chronological order. And, in so far as there were apparent
gaps, these were just as serious in files having no relevance
to the Commission's work as they were in relevant files. There
was no demonstrable pattern of deficiencies in relevant files.
One possibly disturbing feature of the files was the
number of times that references to a particular event or
allegation simply petered out - with no definite conclusion or
action being recorded on file. Having inquired into many such
cases in great detail during the course of the Commission's
hearings, I can only say that this file situation does not
greatly surprise me. My reasons for saying that will be set
out in my final report; suffice it to say now that I find
nothing sinister in that situation so far as the files are
concerned.
My conclusion, from a careful study of the audit
report and all the other evidence about the files, is that the
poor state of many of them does not provide any corroboration
for allegations of improper removal and shredding of
documents. The apparent deficiencies can be fully explained on
other grounds, and it is clear from the evidence of officers
who had worked on them between mid-August and the weekend of
5/6 September, that they were in a bad state before the alleged
shredding occurred.
319
APPENDIX F
FREE OF CHEAP MEAT FOR MEAT INSPECTORS
AND VETERINARY OFFICERS
Est No. 201
Free meat was made available to meat inspectors. The quantity
of meat was limited to personal consumption, but could be taken
off the premises. Works employees were permitted to purchase
meat at a reduced rate.
Est No. 54
Free meat to the value of $22 per person was made available to
senior DPI staff (veterinary officer and senior inspector) and
works staff. Other DPI personnel and works employees were
permitted a 20% discount, up to $7 per person each week, on all
meat purchased.
Est No. 80
Meat inspectors and veterinary officers were able to purchase
meat at a reduced rate - $5 worth of meat for $1. The meat was
limited to personal consumption, but could be taken off the
premises. Some years previously, free meat had been supplied
to veterinary officers in DPI's Melbourne Office.
Est No. 761
Free meat to the value of $15 per person was made available to
senior DPI staff (veterinary officer and senior inspector) and
the senior Department of Agriculture inspector. Other DPI
personnel could purchase meat and have $6 deducted from the
account, or take free meat to the value of $6. The same system
obtained for other Department of Agriculture personnel to the
value of $7. Works employees may purchase meat at a 20%
discount to a maximum of $8 off the total account.
320
Est No. 195
Meat inspectors and works employees could purchase meat at a
20% discount to a maximum of $8 off the total account, Works
staff are permitted free meat to the value of $20 per person each week.
Est No. 157
As for Est No. 195.
Est No. 294
Meat inspectors were able to purchase meat at a reduced rate - one cut for $2 to $3.
Est Nos. 7, 20, 2, 40, 503, 13, 423
Veterinary officers and meat inspectors could purchase meat at
a 20%. discount. Works staff and employees may purchase meat at
the same rate.
Est No. 41K
Free meat was made available to the senior meat inspector, in
the order of one cube roll per week.
Est No. 771
Veterinary officers and meat inspectors could purchase meat at
a discounted rate. Works staff and employees may also purchase
meat at the same rate.
Est No. 712
Meat inspectors could purchase meat at a discounted rate.
Works employees may also purchase meat at the same rate. The
general public may purchase meat direct from the works at
wholesale prices.
Est No. 775
Free meat was made available to meat inspectors and the
supervising veterinary officer. The quantity of meat was
321
limited to a specified cut and was given on an irregular
basis. Free meat was also made available to members of the
Australian Federal Police.
Est No. 140
Free meat was made available to meat inspectors and veterinary
officers. Approximately ten lambs each week were shared among
the inspectorial staff.
Est No. 1562
Some years previously meat at a discounted rate was delivered
to the DPI Office, Sydney for distribution to meat inspectors
and veterinary officers.
Est No. 63
More recently meat at a discounted rate was delivered to the
DPI Office, Sydney for distribution to meat inspectors and
veterinary officers.
Est No. 236
Free meat to the value of approximately $20 per week was made
available to a senior veterinary officer.
Est No. 128
Meat inspectors could purchase meat at wholesale prices. The
same benefit is extended to works staff and employees.
Est No. 439
A free carton of meat was provided for meat inspectors on
completion of their six-weeks tour of duty. Further, meat
inspectors could purchase meat at a discount of approximately
10j z f to 15$zi per pound. This same benefit was extended to works
employees.
Est No, 449
Free meat was provided for meat inspectors' lunch. This same
benefit was extended to works employees.
322
Est No. 172
Free meat was provided for lunch for DPI and Public Health
Department personnel. This same benefit was extended to works
staff. Further, free meat to the value of $7 to $10 per person
was made available to works staff. Meat inspectors could
purchase meat at a discount. Works employees may purchase meat
at the same rate.
Est No. 572
Free meat in substantial quantities was made available to the
senior meat inspector. On the occasion of large beef kills,
free meat was made available to inspectors for lunch on the
proviso that they shared their cooking facilities with the
works foreman and manager. Meat inspectors could also purchase
a side of lamb at a reduced rate of $4. Works staff may
purchase meat at the same rate.
Est No. 1537
A free carton of meat of approximately 30 lb was provided for
meat inspectors on completion of their six-weeks tour of duty.
Est No. 1242
Free meat was provided for meat inspectors' lunch - usually a
chop or steak. Further, on completion of their six-weeks tour
of duty meat inspectors could purchase a carton of meat at a
reduced rate of $12.
Est No, 622
In 1980 the resident meat inspector was provided with free meat
each week, usually a hindquarter.
Est No, 295
Free meat was provided for meat inspectors, usually various
cuts of lamb.
323
Est No. 203
Free meat was made available to meat inspectors and veterinary
officers during 1 smoko1 and lunch. This meat was available for
consumption on the premises only.
Est No. 218
Meat inspectors and veterinary officers were able to purchase
meat at a reduced rate - $1 for 10 lb (approximately $20 worth)
of meat. This same benefit was extended to works staff.
Est No. 642
Prior to 1977 free meat was made available to meat inspectors.
There was also a special provision of meat for breakfast for
the early morning shift of inspectors. After 1977, meat
inspectors could purchase meat at a discount. Works staff
could purchase meat at the same rate.
Est No, 1352
Some years previously meat was made available to meat
inspectors and veterinary officers at a reduced rate - $3 for a
family pack (comprising mince, sausages and some steak). More
recently, and up until 1981, 7 kilos could be purchased for $5
or one cut for $1. Further, free meat was provided for meals
on the works.
Est No. 1272
Free meat was provided for meat inspectors.
324
APPENDIX G
GLOSSARY
'AA stamp' - the 1 Australia Approved1 stamp placed on carcasses and cartons of meat and meat
products that have been passed for export
(See para 7.34)
AFP - Australian Federal Police (successor to
Commonwealth Police Force and ACT Police
Force) began operations 19 October 1979
AMLC - Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation
(successor to Australian Meat Board) began
operations late 1977 (See para 3.14)
BAH - Bureau of Animal Health (See para 5.5)
boning-room - for description of function see paras 3.11,
3.21 and 3.23
chiller - a room or moveable container in which the
temperature of meat is reduced by
refrigeration, but not frozen
coldstore - a place where meat can be frozen and kept in
store indefinitely
container - a metal box for transporting goods - in the
case of meat, capable of refrigeration; holds
over 600 cartons or about 18 tonnes of meat
DPI - Department of Primary Industry (See para 5.4)
DPP - Department of Primary Production,
Northern Territory (See para 5.36)
325
EMRs - Exports (Meat) Regulations
halal - a word used by Muslims for meat killed in
accordance with the religious requirements of
Islam (literally = permitted, see para 7.60)
hoggett - a yearling sheep
integrated - used to describe an abattoir which has boning
and coldstore facilities incorporated in the
same premises (See para 3.11)
knackery - a place where horses and poor quality cattle
are killed for pet food and where dead animals
may also be processed
meatworks - an expression used in this report to include
abattoirs, boning rooms and factories in which
meat is processed
robbing the - removing a prime cut from a boneless pack
pack without disclosing the fact on the label
(See para 7.29)
smallgoods - an expression generally used to describe processed meat products such as sausages,
bacon and cooked meats but not meat pies,
hamburgers or canned meat products
USDA - United States Department of Agriculture
viscera - the internal organs of an animal, including edible offals such as tripe, liver and kidney
VOIC - Veterinary Officer-in-charge (of a region)
326