Donald Trump declares victory over beef concession as Labor denies ‘compromise’

Donald Trump’s administration has declared a major win over Australia with the removal of decades-old biosecurity rules stopping US beef from entering the nation, despite Labor denials the move had anything to do with the trade war.

US President Donald Trump in Washington on Thursday (AEST). Picture: AP

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

Donald Trump’s administration has declared a major win over Australia with the removal of decades-old biosecurity rules stopping US beef from entering the nation, despite Anthony Albanese and Labor strenuously denying the move had anything to do with the trade war.

As the Coalition and the Greens threatened to team up in calling for a review of the decision to lift the remaining restrictions on US beef imports, Trade Minister Don Farrell has repeatedly denied it was designed to gain leverage in tariff negotiations. 

Declaring the Albanese government would never “compromise” on Australia’s strict biosecurity rules, Senator Farrell said on Thursday the decision had been made independently by department officials based on a scientific evaluation of the risk.

But US Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins seized on the removal of restrictions on imported US beef derived from cattle raised in Canada and Mexico as an “example of the kind of market access the President negotiates to bring America into a new golden age of prosperity”.

“American farmers and ranchers produce the safest, healthiest beef in the world,” she said.

“It’s absurd that non-scientific trade barriers prevented our beef from being sold to consumers in Australia for the last 20 years. Gone are the days of putting American farmers on the sidelines.”

Trade Minister Don Farrell. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Amid experts’ warnings the move may not aid efforts to secure an exemption from US tariffs, Senator Farrell insisted there was “nothing suspicious” about the timing of the department’s decision on beef.

“We haven’t made any compromise, and we certainly haven’t compromised Australia’s strict biosecurity rules,” he said.

“This has been a process that’s been under way for the last 10 years, it’s now come to a completion. And it’s appropriate that we announce the results of that inquiry.

“At no stage did we risk our terrific biosecurity standards.”

Senator Farrell also denied that the Albanese government may seek to make concessions on pharmaceuticals, steel or other Australian industries in Mr Trump’s crosshairs.

After the government spent Thursday standing by its denials that the decision was linked to looming tariffs, the Prime Minister made light of Mr Trump’s “America First” trade agenda in parliamentary question time and vowed to continue to put forward Australia’s interests.

“We will also do so in the full recognition that the America First policy and ideology, which has been promoted by the Trump administration, is clear,” Mr Albanese said. “He regards ‘tariffs’ as the most beautiful word in the English language, to quote President Trump. We have a different position and will continue to put it.”

Nationals leader David Littleproud said he was suspicious about the speed and “secrecy” of the decision, calling for a review of the science behind the decision to ensure Mr Albanese wasn’t “sacrificing our high biosecurity standards” to obtain a meeting with Mr Trump.

“Labor’s decision has more questions than answers and is unconvincing,” Mr Littleproud said.

“I believe Labor’s announcement needs to be independently reviewed, with an independent panel set up by industry, to review the science behind the decision.”

Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce also raised his suspicions about the decision to lift restrictions on US beef, calling for the chief veterinary officer to come out and publicly back the decision to lift the beef restrictions.

“The Trade Minister’s not the chief veterinary officer. Let’s get the chief veterinary officer out to say that,” he told Sky News,” Mr Joyce said. “I want to hear from the person, I want to see their face and see if they grimace when they give the advice that this is the proper process.”

Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce on Sky News.

Greens leader Larissa Waters also raised concerns that the decision had been designed to leverage an exemption from Mr Trump’s tariff regime.

“The Greens are really concerned about the biosecurity impact of this decision. Flooding the Australian market with lower-quality, potentially … risky beef is not going to be great for Australian farmers or consumers,” she said.

“I think anyone who’s buying beef should choose Australian and it’s very convenient timing when Mr Trump is … threatening tariffs on us that the Australian government suddenly allows lower-quality beef on to our supermarket shelves.”

ANU distinguished professor of economics Warwick McKibbin said the lifting of beef restrictions won’t have an impact on the nation’s position under US tariffs, with Australia’s imports of American beef being minuscule and the Trump administration more focused on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

“If it was done for the reason of reducing tariffs, I don’t think it makes any difference at all, because the decision on tariffs by the President is a fairly random process,” Professor McKibbin said.

“There’s no restrictions on US beef, it was just beef that’s coming from Mexico and Canada being slaughtered in the US, and then exported to Australia.

“The amount of beef we import is tiny. Australians consume about 99 per cent of their own beef that we produce, because we’re a world-leading producer of beef.”

Professor McKibbin said countries that gave into Mr Trump tended to fare worse in negotiations, with the President pushing them further. He said the countries that tended to achieve the best outcomes “don’t provoke the President” and decline to negotiate.

Victoria University Centre of Policy Studies deputy director Robert Waschik said the Trump administration often looked favourably to a decision perceived as being made to “curry favour” but it could take the opposite view. “If there is some sort of a quid pro quo, that would be nice,” Associate Professor Waschik said.

“But I suppose, you could probably imagine examples where the US administration has done the opposite, or just sort of ignored any sort of potential goodwill and just gone ahead with their own way.”

University of Sydney chair of Veterinary Public Health & Food Safety Michael Ward said there should be a review of the beef decision. “I’m struggling to find the data, methods and assumptions that (have) gone into this risk assessment and decision,” Professor Ward said.

“Risk assessment only works when it’s transparent and the assumptions and the data can be scrutinised. That’s the whole basis of the World Trade Organisation.”