Trump’s beef attack rejected by top Australian biosecurity experts

Top former biosecurity officials have rejected claims by American farmers and the Trump administration that Australia uses strict biosecurity rules unfairly to help our farmers and block US beef imports, as the federal government readies a post-election plan to reverse the 10 per cent tariffs imposed on Australian goods.

Under the plan being worked on by the Albanese government, Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong and Trade Minister Don Farrell, working with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, would push for the US tariffs to be removed in one go, rather than on a sector-by-sector basis as occurred with the winding back of Chinese tariffs on Australian goods.

Cattle farmers have reacted angrily to US tariffs on Australian beef.Credit: Belinda Soole

Albanese confirmed on Friday that access to Australia’s supplies of critical minerals would play a key role in securing a deal with the US to wind back the tariffs, while Coalition leader Peter Dutton also emphasised critical minerals – and Australia’s close defence ties with the US – as key to winding back the tariffs.

US President Donald Trump announced this week that the US would impose global tariffs on all imports to the US, including a 10 per cent tax on Australian goods, which is the lowest rate for any country and has also been imposed on the UK, Brazil and Singapore.

US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick lashed out at Australia on Friday, claiming biosecurity protections that bar US beef exports are “nonsense”.

“Our farmers are blocked from selling almost anywhere ... Europe won’t let us sell beef, Australia won’t let us sell beef,” Lutnick told CNN.

US President Donald Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard LutnickCredit: Bloomberg

Helen Scott-Orr, a former inspector-general of biosecurity and a former NSW chief veterinary officer, said the Australian regime was “very strongly science-based” and, in the case of US beef, it protected against foot and mouth and mad cow diseases.

“We do not use them [biosecurity protocols] as non-tariff trade barriers. When other countries query our biosecurity requirements, we have to justify them and show that we are applying proper controls to allow trade to all those countries to continue,” Scott-Orr said. “The requirements we have are very cautious because the consequences would be huge.”

Lutnick’s remarks follow years of lobbying against Australia’s ban on uncooked beef from the US by American farmers, who rank among the economic sectors most exposed to a stinging response from international markets, including China, by way of retaliatory tariffs on their exports.

Lutnick was circumspect when asked on broadcaster CNBC about Australia’s prospect of winning a tariff exemption in return for allowing in US beef.

Ian Thompson, Australia’s former chief environmental biosecurity officer, said a key sticking point is that the US beef industry runs an internationally integrated supply chain that imports and processes beef from Canada and Central and South America that has not been approved under Australia’s biosecurity regime.

Many countries involved in that supply chain present a risk of cattle with mad cow disease – which is linked to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, a fatal brain disorder in humans – and foot and mouth disease – a highly infectious livestock virus that could require herds around the country to be destroyed. The federal government has estimated a foot-and-mouth outbreak could cost the economy $80 billion.

Australia’s biosecurity regime treats all imported products as if they come direct from the country of origin.

Thompson echoed Scott-Orr’s description of Australian biosecurity rules as science-based and said the standards are upheld by international co-operation.

“We don’t send inspectors to every plant in the United States, or New Zealand, or Vanuatu. We rely on the capability and authority of that country’s supervising authority. They’ve got to go and check that the veterinary and health inspections by that country meet our standards and there will be reviews from time to time,” he said.

“It works both ways. The US sends inspectors to Australia, for example, for our exports to the United States.”

Cattle Australia chief executive Chris Parker, who heads Australia’s peak beef lobby after working for years as a top biosecurity official in the federal government, said: “These are the same conditions that the US imposes on Australian exporters – reciprocal arrangements are already in place. The US industry has not been able to meet these standards and now wishes to include beef from cattle born in Mexico and Canada.

“Our science-based biosecurity and certification system is not up for negotiation within trade and tariff discussions, and we encourage all parties to await [the government’s] scientific assessment.”

On the election campaign trail on Friday, both leaders argued they were best placed to negotiate with the Trump administration. A senior government source, who asked not to be named so they could detail internal conversations, confirmed more details on a critical minerals deal were imminent.

Asked if Australia’s critical minerals offered a path through to a deal with Trump – and to respond to comments from Trump on Air Force One that he would be open to striking “phenomenal” deals with countries to wind back tariffs, Albanese said that “this [critical minerals] is something that we began discussions with the Biden administration on.

“What we’ll do is probably not make a phenomenal offer at a press conference, but we’ll engage diplomatically in a considered way. That is what serious governments do ... serious governments engage government to government. That is what we have been doing,” he said, adding that Australian officials had been in contact with Trump officials in the previous 24 hours.

Dutton said the government had not done anything to facilitate a critical minerals deal and that as a reliable partner of the US “there are so many opportunities; the government’s missed every one”.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.