Shadow Minister: "Has anyone stopped to think that there might be sound legal and trade ramifications for maintaining the ban?"

Certainly not me. I don't think about these things that deeply. I am however very suspicious of trade restrictions of any sort. If we let the beef industry hide behind trade restrictions, it is entirely possible without the competition they will become fat and inefficient. Just like say, New Zealands lamb did when they ran a protectionist regime, or Australian Wool when they hid behind the AWB.

The reasons trotted out by Rusty are typical of those arguing for protection. I don't know if they are real or not. He would help his case considerably if he cited examples of when imported meats have caused problems in the past.

Shadow Minister

You failed to mention the indirect subsidies available to primary producers in the US and elsewhere.

You also appear naive about the myriad of ways the US puts indirect trade embargoes and restrictions on our exports. An example could be the mountain of paperwork to export wine to the US (to protect against terrorism, what a joke!).

Other examples could be the array of expensive USDA requirements (and frequent changes) for imported beef that don't apply to their home produced or processed meat.

rstuart
Australian wine producers are not subsidised but US wine growers are - yet Oz wine is still cheaper in US supermarkets. So much for fat and lazy Aussie primary industry.

I reckon our PMs are too easily seduced by the US State Department. John Howard and others before him have gone quite weak at the knees after being dined and feted and allowed a photo shoot with Dubya Bush or others.

Cornflower: "So much for fat and lazy Aussie primary industry."

Are you saying our primary industry is fat and lazy? If so, I must be wrong, because I thought the lack of import protections kept it lean and mean.

rstuart

What I was endeavouring to prove and it hasn't been refuted so far is that other countries may have indirect subsidies in place.

It isn't necessarily a level playing field.

Shadow minister is quite right take note of his post it may be one we have reason to remember.
And remember what if Australia has an out break of blue tongue?
Foot and mouth?
Can any reasonable person not know we will, only when is unknown.
We then will want our exports back on world markets won't we?
The bleating is from minority's, not all farmers would be happy to kill the free trade agreement.
What is its over all impact?
Well remember it is one half of one percent of total meat used in this country.
Most surely apart from pork is in food production not meat markets.
So flood the market it will not.
Disease? seen border protection? the documentary series it shows every episode people trying to bring plants and meat ,smuggle it, past customs, getting fined nothing or warned.
Far more danger exists here than imported meat from country's that have stopped feeding animal waste to animals bring this illness into being.
We risk trade barriers, we risk our future after we are no longer a clean country and for what?
Come who truly thinks we risk mad cow by bringing it in.
Tony Abbott bloke you are no leader you say no to so much you would agree to if you ever got Rudd's job, I do not value your honesty you have none.

Australian primary producers [farmers and graziers] far from happy if the ban is lifted for various reasons. Also, any playing around with the risks of potential Bovine Spongiencephalitis in meats from a country who had or still has the disease lying dormant is idiotic behaviour.