US 'will sell so much' beef to Australia after relaxed restrictions: Trump
He added that other countries that refused US beef products were on notice.
Australia on Thursday said it would loosen biosecurity rules for US beef, something analysts predicted would not significantly increase US shipments because Australia is a major beef producer and exporter whose prices are much lower.
"We are going to sell so much to Australia because this is undeniable and irrefutable Proof that US Beef is the Safest and Best in the entire World," Trump said in a post on Truth Social.
"The other Countries that refuse our magnificent Beef are ON NOTICE," the post continued.
Trump has attempted to renegotiate trade deals with numerous countries he says have taken advantage of the United States – a characterisation many economists dispute.
"For decades, Australia imposed unjustified barriers on US beef," US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement, calling Australia's decision a "major milestone in lowering trade barriers and securing market access for US farmers and ranchers."
Australia is not a significant importer of beef, but the United States is, and a production slump is forcing it to step up purchases.
Last year, Australia shipped almost 400,000 metric tons of beef worth $US2.9 billion ($NZ4.8 billion) to the United States, with just 269 tons of US product moving the other way.
Australian officials say the relaxation of restrictions was not part of any trade negotiations but the result of a years-long assessment of US biosecurity practices.
Canberra has restricted US beef imports since 2003 due to concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease. Since 2019, it has allowed in meat from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the US but few suppliers were able to prove that their cattle had not been in Canada and Mexico.
On Wednesday, Australia's agriculture ministry said US cattle traceability and control systems had improved enough that Australia could accept beef from cattle born in Canada or Mexico and slaughtered in the United States.
The decision has caused some concern in Australia, where biosecurity is seen as essential to prevent diseases and pests from ravaging the farm sector.
"We need to know if [the government] is sacrificing our high biosecurity standards just so Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can obtain a meeting with US President Donald Trump," shadow agriculture minister David Littleproud said in a statement.
Australia, which imports more from the US than it exports, faces a 10% across-the-board US tariff, as well 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium. Trump has also threatened to impose a 200% tariff on pharmaceuticals.
Asked whether the change would help achieve a trade deal, Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell said: "I'm not too sure."
"We haven't done this in order to entice the Americans into a trade agreement," he said. "We think that they should do that anyway."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Better late than never
The government's reasoning for stopping late voter registration, including enrolling and voting on election day, is flimsy. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has put too much strain on the system and it is taking too long to get the final vote count. He says this could worsen in future general elections, conveniently not mentioning the other delay to new government formation — protracted negotiations between political parties. There were multiple issues with the count in 2023, but should the blame for the time taken fall on late enrolled voters or a system which was poorly resourced, staffed and organised? The law was changed for the 2020 election to allow enrolment on voting day after 19,000 people who had turned up at the previous election to enrol and vote were disenfranchised. The Electoral Amendment Bill, introduced to the House last week, will not take the situation back to that which existed for years before 2020. Then, late enrolments could be accepted up until the day before the election. (That is the case for local elections, and officials have pointed out having substantially different deadlines for the two types of elections may confuse voters.) Now, for a vote to be valid in a general election, enrolment would have to be completed 13 days before the election; a day before advance voting starts. In his media release announcing the proposed change, Mr Goldsmith referred to the Australian law setting the enrolment deadline for 26 days before the Federal election. Whether he was trying to provoke an odd Trans-Tasman rivalry — anything the Aussies can do we can do in half the time — is not clear. It was a strange comparison to make because, unlike New Zealand, Australia has compulsory voting. He did not mention almost half of the states in the United States of America allow same day enrolment and voting, as does Canada. In our last election, special votes included more than 97,000 people who enrolled during the voting period and nearly 134,000 people who changed electorates during that time. Officials have suggested this gives some indication of the number of people who may be affected by this policy change, and the earlier the deadline, the more people who are likely to be impacted. Also, Electoral Commission data indicates special votes are more likely to come from areas with larger proportions of Māori, Asian and Pasifika, and younger people. We should be encouraging these voters, not putting obstacles in their way. When, traditionally, special votes have favoured the Left, this move by the current Right-leaning government looks self-serving. The argument that if people were taking their voting responsibilities seriously, they would ensure they were enrolled with up-to-date information well before voting begins, assumes everyone has an orderly and predictable life, and fully understands their obligations. For David Seymour to say he was "a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law" was another illustration of his failure to make the transition from shoot-from-the-lip party leader to the gravitas-requiring role of the deputy prime minister. Call us picky, but the special voters lodging votes on or close to polling day in the last two elections were not outlaws. Mr Goldsmith's description of Mr Seymour's comments as unhelpful was an understatement if ever there was one. Among other things, the Bill also proposes reintroducing a total ban on prisoner voting for those convicted and sentenced, something which is not a surprise from the government. It is more about cynically playing to those still convinced by its tired tough-on-crime mantra than considering its fairness or contravention of the Bill of Rights Act. It also is against the advice of the Ministry of Justice which supported giving all prisoners the right to vote. Whenever changes are proposed to electoral law, major consideration should be given to whether alterations might improve or dissuade participation from all parts of our society. In this instance, it is difficult to see what weight has been given to this for both prisoners and those who, for whatever reason, might not be up to date with their voter registration 13 days before an election.
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Warning US tariff ‘jungle' regrowing
Special agricultural trade envoy Hamish Marr explains the impact of United States President Donald Trump's tariffs on New Zealand exporters. PHOTO: TIM CRONSHAW A trade expert warns the tariff "jungle" is growing back as nations grapple with United States President Donald Trump's fast approaching tariff deadline. Many US trade partners face hefty tariff increases in the fallout, including close allies such as Japan and Korea. Mr Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs have New Zealand exporters watching how it will play out for them, their trading partners and the wider marketplace on the August 1 deadline. Another concern is that Mr Trump's trade policy might encourage more nations to step up protectionism. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade's trade and economic deputy secretary Vangelis Vitalis told meat professionals at the Red Meat Sector Conference in Christchurch last week the uncertainty was a real challenge for exporters looking to trade with the US. He said nobody really knew what was happening in day-to-day international policy. Research showed trade uncertainty was worth the equivalent of at least a 10% to 12% tariff, he said, "The jungle is definitely growing back. We do face a really challenging and turbulent external environment and it's not just the US, although that's a major factor at the moment for uncertainty," Mr Vitalis said. ''The challenges are real, all of the big players are thinking whether these [free trade agreement] rules work for them any more and we place a premium on these rules." A baseline tariff applies to almost every nation, including New Zealand, of 10%, with auto parts at a 25% tariff and aluminium 50%. The 10% tariff is on top of existing tariffs — such as the about 16%-18% New Zealand exporters already face sending frozen vegetables to the US. "Over the last two to three weeks the president has been announcing additional tariffs, he's extended the pause to August 1 and so we know a whole series of tariffs may be imposed at that time, although we also know the president does tend to extend those delays as well so, again, lots of uncertainty." He said the known certainties were the US was striking some deals — including with Vietnam, eliminating all of its tariffs in exchange for a 20% tariff. Some countries not concluding deals had the threat of additional tariffs being placed on them, including 25% on Japan and Korea, while and Brazil was being hit with a 50% tariff on the deadline. Mr Vitalis said the concern for all nations facing a 10% tariff was this might increase to 15%-20%. That would really concern NZ wine, red meat and other exporters, he said. He said a lot of official engagement was being carried out in Washington to talk to counterparts and listen closely to build a picture of Mr Trump's trade direction. "Again we don't actually know what he's going to do, but he's certainly suggesting there are going to be further increases out there." Mr Vitalis said ministerial leaders and officials were taking a structured, calm and thorough approach to the coming challenges. New Zealand wanted to protect its interest in the US as it was our second most important export destination, and the tension between it and China was being followed closely, he said The option he favoured for the global trade turbulence was to negotiate new free trade agreements and expand existing agreements, as explaining the logic of global economic damage from tariffs was not working. Another focus of New Zealand's strategy was pushing back against non-tariff barriers, worth an estimated $22.6b in the Asia/Pacific region alone, and protectionism, he said. Dairy giant Fonterra was modelling trade implications from tariff hikes and the dynamics between the US and China. Fonterra trade strategy manager Justine Aroll said the uncertain trading marketplace was the new normal for the co-op, which exports to 100 markets globally. One of the silver linings was agricultural exporters were familiar with a protectionist and challenging trade environment and had built up resilience in their businesses, she said. "Like other New Zealand exporters our product is facing the additional 10% tariff into the US and for us we are finding our way through that." A concern was the disruption to the global dairy market, the reaction of other countries and the implication of US deals with other countries, she said. Special agricultural trade envoy Hamish Marr said uncertainty was the new certainty. "We have been living in a world of globalisation for many years and now it seems we are not in globalisation — we are in regionalisation." Countries were more focused on food security and New Zealand's strong reputation would mean it was well positioned to navigate through the uncertain times, he said. NZ International Business Forum executive director Felicity Roxburgh said governments around the world were shifting from economics to security for supply chains and critical materials, including red meat.
1News
12 hours ago
- 1News
YouTube threatens to sue Aus govt if roped into social media ban
Google has been warned its threats to sue won't sway the potential late inclusion of YouTube in Australia's world-first social media ban for children. The tech giant wrote to Communications Minister Anika Wells declaring it was considering its legal position if its video sharing platform was included in the ban for children 16 and under. The letter, first reported by the Daily Telegraph, flagged the ban could be challenged on the grounds it restricts the implied constitutional freedom of political communication. Signals the Australian government was contemplating an "abrupt policy reversal" prompted Google to seek further clarity. "YouTube is a video sharing platform, not a social media service, that offers benefit and value to younger Australians," a YouTube spokesperson said. ADVERTISEMENT "We have written directly to the government, urging them to uphold the integrity of the legislative process and protect the age-appropriate experiences and safeguards we provide for young Australians." The social media ban is due to come into effect in December. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat were among platforms covered when legislation passed parliament. YouTube was exempted, in a move TikTok described as a "sweetheart deal". "The government was firm in its decision that YouTube would be excluded because it is different and because of its value to younger Australians," a YouTube spokesperson told AAP. "This intention was repeatedly made clear in its public statements, including to the Australian parliament." But e-Safety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has recommended a rethink, citing research showing children were exposed to harmful content on YouTube more than any other platform. ADVERTISEMENT "The new law will only restrict children under the age of 16 from having their own accounts — not accessing content on YouTube or any other service through links from the school or in a 'logged-out' state," she told the National Press Club in June. "There is nothing in the legislation that prevents educators with their own accounts from continuing to incorporate school-approved educational content on YouTube or any other service just as they do now." Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took a dim view of Google's attempt to muscle in on the decision-making process. "The minister will make these assessments... independent of any these threats that are made by the social media companies," he told ABC TV on Sunday. "I say to them that social media has a social responsibility. "There is no doubt that young people are being impacted adversely in their mental health by some of the engagement with social media and that is why the government has acted." The early findings of an age-verification trial found technologies could block young kids from social media platforms, but not without loopholes. ADVERTISEMENT Platforms will face penalties worth up to AUS$50 million (NZ$54.5 million) if caught not taking reasonable steps to prevent children 16 and under from creating accounts.
