Meat and Livestock Australia is meant to fight for cattle producers in Australia, making sure there’s plenty of cheap red meat available for Australians and the world. Instead, they are “aligning” themselves with the “sustainable development” goals of the United Nations. This is the same United Nations whose goals will result in less cattle, less meat and more bugs being eaten. You have to ask why the industry body for livestock isn’t standing against organisations that want to see livestock reduced.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for attending today. Can I start by confirming, Mr Strong, that the sustainability update 2021, this document, is designed to provide an update on the progress of the carbon neutral by 2030 road map?
Mr Stron g : Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. That was quick. I note the new document reproduces the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. So we’re all the way with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Is Meat & Livestock Australia endorsing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals relevant to the meat and livestock association, which I believe is eight of the goals? Is that correct?
Mr Strong : No, it’s not our position to endorse those goals. We’re just referencing them in the program so if people are aware of those broader commitments that have been made by the UN, for example, they can see where the activities in CN30 line up with that.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that driving you in any way? Guiding you?
Mr Strong : Like I said, it’s just a reference.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got here, in prime position on page 5, ‘Sustainability—Australian red meat and livestock industry alignment with global goals’.
Mr Strong : It’s referencing those goals.
Senator ROBERTS: But you’re aligned with it.
Mr Strong : It’s a reference. The goal is to be CN30 as an industry. The important part of that document is what’s on the very front page; the statement that says something like, ‘The drivers’—you might even want to read it out.
Senator ROBERTS: This is quoting you:
Our industry is driven to be productive and profitable, inter-generationally sustainable and leaving the environment in better shape.
Then you go on to feature the UN sustainability goals.
Mr Strong : The reason we put that comment up front is that that’s the most important part of it. The efforts that we have—
Senator ROBERTS: Well, let’s continue—
Mr Strong : The efforts we have in this place and the focus we have in this space are very much driven by the profitability and production of our producers and industry.
Senator ROBERTS: Which of the UN sustainability goals does red meat fit into?
Mr Strong : I don’t have that in front of me. As I mentioned, it’s just a reference. The more important piece are the things that we’re investing in is a research and development corporation to support our producers and the industry to be more sustainable while they can still productive and profitable. That’s the focus.
Senator ROBERTS: You said while they can still be profitable? Sustainability, surely, if it’s genuine sustainability, they would be supported by that. It wouldn’t be opposite. It’s not productivity versus sustainability. If there’s genuine sustainability, that would help profitability. Your language betrays the UN. The UN sustainability goals are not possible without subsidies. So the UN really is about profit or sustainability. Now, what is it?
Mr Beckett : We think it’s both.
Mr Strong : I don’t have a position on the UN’s role. But our view is that you can actually be profitable, productive and sustainable.
Senator ROBERTS: There are eight sustainable development goals, which are not yours, that the MLA have targeted in this document and to which each RDC contributes. They are: zero hunger; clean water and sanitation; affordable and clean energy; decent work and economic growth; responsible consumption and production; climate action; life on the land; and peace, justice and strong institutions. Have you got KPIs for each of those eight?
Mr Strong : As I mentioned at the start, that’s a reference to those goals. They’re not goals that we would set.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s get on to the nuts and bolts then. What’s the average weekly adult consumption of red meat and red meat products in Australia?
Mr Strong : It depends how it’s measured. Red meat and red meat products, did you say?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes—red meat products being sausages, mince—
Mr Strong : Across all species, I’m not exactly sure. The total protein consumption is nearly 90 kilos, and red meat’s the largest contributor to that. The beef consumption that comes out of the ABS figures—which is as sold—is just over 19 kilos, which is the actual consumed product.
Senator ROBERTS: Over what period?
Mr Strong : That’s annually.
Senator ROBERTS: The United Nations is pushing for a 30 per cent reduction in methane production by 2030. How will that affect Australian red meat production?
Mr Strong : I’m not sure the two things are as closely connected as where you’re heading. The commitments that the red meat sector have, particularly the CN30 commitment, which was made in 2017, are about a path to being carbon neutral, as far as a total contribution to the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory is concerned, and about doing that in a way whereby the industry increases its production and profitability at the same time.
Senator ROBERTS: We need to get down to nuts and bolts, because it’s systems that drive behaviour, including farmers’ behaviour. The 2021 update says:
The red meat sector has reduced CO2 emissions by 53.22% since 2005 baseline.
What does that mean?
Mr Strong : The current number is actually 59 per cent, and that’s a number which has been calculated by the CSIRO using the national greenhouse gas emissions—
Senator ROBERTS: CSIRO—what does it mean?
Mr Strong : The CSIRO?
Senator ROBERTS: No. What does that statement mean? It’s in your booklet.
Mr Strong : It’s the reduction across the industry of the contribution to the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory.
Senator ROBERTS: Based on 2005?
Mr Strong : Since the baseline of 2005.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s going below 2005.
Mr Strong : In 2005, the contribution that the red meat sector made to the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory was just over 20 per cent, and it’s now just over 10 per cent. That’s what it means.
Senator CANAVAN: Can I ask a follow-up question?
Senator ROBERTS: Can I keep going through these—unless I get the time?
Senator CANAVAN: I’ll ask after you.
Senator ROBERTS: There are only eight years left. Where are we now, and what measures will be needed to get to 100 per cent?
Mr Strong : Where we are now is that, as you mentioned, there are eight years left on that goal that the industry set in 2017, so we’ve more than halved the contribution to the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory, and we’ve got, as you mentioned, the roadmap that lays out the things that we’ll invest in and develop over the next eight years to take us the rest of that journey.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand a bit more. Genetics, feed management, feedlot, and fattening as opposed to grass finishing—that all helps. Right?
Mr Strong : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: But they’re already doing these things close to saturation, as I understand it. So what else have you got?
Mr Strong : They’re not close to saturation. There’s a long list of things. To date, we’ve invested between $140 million and $150 million in research and development, and there’s a runway roadmap for about the same level of investment over the next few years to head us towards that goal.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it the case that what you’ve really got to do in order to reach a 100 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030 is cut production?
Mr Strong : No, not at all—absolutely not.
Senator ROBERTS: As I see it, this could be another major industry being derailed.
Mr Strong : No, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: The UN has put goals out with regard to food, and they’re basically wanting to cut food; they’ve stated that. The UN has put out goals regarding different energy, by which they really mean no energy. The UN has put out different cars, electric vehicles, they really mean no cars for the masses. This is what they’ve said: the UN calls for initially 500g per week of red meat, which is 70g per day. They failed to get an endorsement for much, much lower. That’s what the UN’s stated.
Mr Strong : I’m managing director of Meat and Livestock Australia. We’re a service organisation for the Australian red meat sector.
Senator ROBERTS: Who are you serving?
Mr Strong : We’re committed to the productivity and profitability of the red meat sector, intergenerational sustainability of the sector and leaving the environment in better shape. We are not aligned to the UN goals; we’re not driven by UN goals. We understand individuals concerned with those things; they are not the things driving our decisions or investments, which we make on behalf of the industry and with the industry. Our absolute focus is on the profitability, productivity and intergenerational sustainability of our sector.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question: I understand some of these documents have gone from being fairly prominent on MLA’s website to being obscure.
Mr Strong : No, not at all. I’m more than happy to provide hard copies, soft copies—
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got them.
Mr Strong : links to, arrows to, extra versions.
Senator ROBERTS: A way to increase profitability for a few is to cut the number and dramatically increase meat prices.
Mr Strong : No. I’m aware of the comments that you made in the Senate about that. It’s absolutely not the truth. The commitment of MLA is about long-term profitability and productivity of the sector and supporting red meat production across the country.
Senator ROBERTS: We won’t have farmers scratching around, sitting in a town, relying on carbon dioxide credits while the others make money?
CHAIR: I will have to remind you of the time, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thanks Chair.
After listening to this absolute rubbish. Why to actually pay these groups and bureaucrats in general WE DON’T NEED THE UN AND WE DONT NEED OVERPAID PUBLIC SERVANTS We should spend this money and have an audit I think we need to put the cleaners are all bureaucrats and stop coming up with garbage
This crap is worth nothing in general to us OPT OUT OF THE UN ASAP they are useless insidious organisation.
Thank you Senator. Shame on our politicians are they not brave enough to stand up for human rights?
Thankyou Senator for your courage. So on and on it goes. Prices already put prime meat cuts off the table for the average Australian. Free trade agreements being the culprit as Supermarkets fight over scraps that are left behind in Australiia as the majority is sold overseas at a premium. Any producer would do the same of course. Free trade agreements have always left this once bountiful country to now fight for the scaps left behind as the best of our goods disappear offshore. Protections are needed to guarantee abundant supplies of all Australian made product to the Australian consumer to keep prices reasonable. Up to this point our Government has certainly failed us miserably. Everytime, the Government pats themselves on the back and spruik about how fabulous the latest free trade agreement will be for business. However at the same time they always fail to adequately protect the consumer. Just my thoughts.
Accurate comment.
Hi there Malcolm, I would like to acknowledge the great work / The searching for truth/ the exposing of corruption/ the honesty and integrity that you and a few significant other politicians have shown over recent times, and are still relentlessly pursuing .
Also , a massive thank you for being the voice of the average person, whose voice rarely gets heard in the public arena.
In regards to the bs around the CCA – Climate Change Agenda- have you heard about / was it you that told us about , a Sydney based bank / equity fund , buying up very large cattle stations in western Qld , and then DESTOCKING them & closing them down ?
That insidious type of behaviour fits right in to this UN CCA BS. .
Also , approximately a month ago, I heard on an ABC group forum type program , about a push to move away from natural gas in regards to household use. They were talking about swapping gas appliances to electric.
Apparently the emissions from burning gas are not as bad as the emissions from making electricity. So, let’s swap your gas appliances over to electricity.
No mention about the embedded energy in these gas appliances ( which are most likely manufactured overseas and need to be transported to Australia ) …
No mention of the fact that the electricity infrastructure / powerlines, have not been designed or constructed to handle a massive increase in load due to aforementioned BS / woke / far left / globalist ideology , plus the additional load of all the new EV – Electric Vehicle – chargers.
No mention of the fact that we have a massive reserve of natural resources that we are selling and shipping overseas at a very cheap price ( WHICH WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN BECAUSE OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ) , yet we are paying a substantially higher price for domestic consumption.
It would be the height of hypocrisy to reduce our domestic consumption whilst still exporting it overseas.
And , the hypocrisy of the ideology of the leftys, wanting to “ transition away from dirty coal “. to solar and wind , yet at the same time , adding a massive amount of base load to the electricity networks.
And we know that solar and wind do not provide enough base load power.
So … one could easily assume that the wef agenda is Malevolent in its intent. Knowing full well the intended outcomes and consequences, of these types of policies…
Whilst relying on the ignorance and apathy of a large portion of society, to easily make the policy changes un opposed .
It seems apparent to those of us that pay attention, that the majority of MSM is fully onboard with the wef agenda. There is next to no investigative journalism from any of the msm. They simply parrot the narrative that they are told to. And they continually attack those of us on “ the right / the side of common sense “ , as extremists/ climate deniers/ homophobic/ racist / anti this or that , etc.
they blame us for the very thing that they are doing.
I hope that we can wake more people up, quicker than we have over the last 3 years.
Keep up the great work & May god help us.
Cheers , Owen
Owen, well said.
UN AGENDA demands that all housing is changed to make it climate suitable or whatever the term is, must be done n o later than 2030, one man thinks about 100,000.00 for average home. this is a world wide “demand”, or you get thrown out of your home.
Well said Owen and Malcolm. The Albo train only has one destination for Australia, bankrupt and bereft for the quiet Aussies and our children and grandchildren.
I feel like Australia is on a very fast train headed for a cliff with only a minority of truth tellers trying to apply the brakes.
* Edit To my previous post
I meant to say the following.
Apparently the emissions from burning gas are worse than the emissions from making electricity.
Another UN or WEF puppet on display here with Senator Roberts.
Think it is about time we put it to the people in a referendum at the same time with the voice in parliament referendum.
1 VOICE IN PARLIAMENT
2 LEAVE WHO
3 LEAVE UN
4 SACK ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL POLITICIANS ( EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO TRUELY CARE FOR AUSTRALIA )
One would think most people are over the crap that is coming out of Canberra and all our state politicians mouths.
It is time we the people made Australia the great country it used to be.
There must be a complete overhaul of all public bodies local Country and International.
this is why WHO, a private health group, started by RCKEFELLER is trying so hard to pass a RULE in WHO that The WHO shall be the supreme body for all Countries in the World and their word LAW when there is any Health problems rising up in the World.
And given all the so called vaccines in the pipeline this is a huge worry, all those bugs in Bio weapon Labs throughout the World. and all that money to be made…….
I mean how obvious can the agenda be – they are closing down agriculture all over the world – our injected animals will be sick and they will push us to the bugs. This is what all the despicable animal culls have been about all along.. And eventually they won’t allow us to garden or have our own animals because we will be hurting the planet. WHO – I say who – can possibly believe this unmitigated bs!
Injections – a new mix of Foot and Mouth Vaccine being given out in ??? – not sure which Country is first , who wants most probably an untested Vaccine in the meat they buy?
Thank you again Senator Roberts for questioning these overpaid, inept bureaucrats. Oh how we need a BIG cleanout of the public service.
Lee
How do we go about jailing these WEF clowns and organising a new way of governing our country ?
“Genetics, feed management, feedlot, and fattening as opposed to grass finishing—that all helps. Right? Yes”
I suspect soon we will see all cattle required to be intensively raised in feedlots, on seaweed based fodder, taking the cattle industry out of the hands of family owned farms and into the realm of corporate owned facilities because the cost of doing that will put it beyond the average farmer. So much for a love of the environment or animals or even humans for that matter. At least the planet will be saved. Or so we will be led to believe, for after all the assets change hands and we will be herded into SMART cities, restricted into 15 minute travel limited zones, unable to complain or protest that the land that we gave up for “rewilding” is used for profiteering.
Which is why we cannot let anyone waffle on pretending that all the world / global groups are benign and charitable. They are driven by their stakeholders who are big business. Their goal is profit and grabbing assets under false pretexts. Carbon has become a commodity. Saving the planet is just marketing spin.