Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thought that was a pretty poor contribution by the Western Australian member, and I do not think anything was gained by it. It was a short-term view—take the money and run, and do not care about the long-term issues for Australia. There are two strong reasons for the phase out of the Australian live animal export trade. Firstly, there is the dismal transport conditions of stock with their potential mistreatment on reaching their destination which is unsustainable in the long term. An unsustainable industry will not last into the long term.

Secondly, there is the continuing job loss being caused by a live animal export trade here in Australia, which is a loss to the Australian economy and to regional Australia. We need to be very conscious of the way that is occurring. Australia consistently treats animals humanely during the slaughter process and has gained recognition across the Middle East for observance of halal and those standards. By processing meat in Australia we are not threatening the important religious practices of other cultures, and we can do it all here.

Our good reputation is largely due to the skill and dedication of workers in our meat-processing sector. Those people are the human face of the live animal exports debate, the face that is often forgotten in this debate about this trade. The AMIEU, the meat workers union, asserts that 10,000 jobs have been lost over the past 30 years as a result of the live animal exports trade and more than 100 processing plants have closed in regional Australia due to this trade. Recent research shows that if livestock was retained for processing in Australia, it would be worth 20 per cent more to our economy, worth 20 per cent more to the local processing sector and to the Australian economy. Value-adding from a chilled product would give us that.

If we lose our skill base in the Australian meat industry, rural Australia will be the loser. The viability of our processing plants is at risk here. The live trade last year was worth $330 million. If we processed that meat here it would be worth $65 million more. The whole of the Australian economy would benefit. Regional areas are at risk—four works closed in the past two weeks—and the contribution from the members for Durack was an appalling indication of his ignorance in understanding the Australian meat industry. The live animal trade is a very risky trade for rural Australia. The trade is heavily subsidised by the Middle East governments. Therefore, with political unrest going on there now, that could fall over within days. So if we lose the skill base of our workforce in Australia, and if we lost the capital in our processing works, this could be a great threat for the future of our industry and for rural Australia. Cold storage is in place in the Middle East and it could grow quite easily. And, as the member for Page has said in the motion before the chamber, encouraging Austrade to be involved in negotiations to increase exports of frozen and chilled meat is the way for us to go—that is, to use our trade negotiations and our skill base to do that so that we are enhancing the Australian economy by value-adding.

A renewed focus on the Australian processing industry would certainly help to alleviate this problem and get us back to where we should be going as a nation. Giving money to a few shippers and to a few agents at the expense of building a solid longterm sustainable industry is what we should be doing. So I am very disappointed that we have not been able to have a better debate. Most members on that side have been reasonable, except for one member. In my home state of Tasmania a processing plant was recently laying off workers due to stock shortages while stock was still being shipped overseas. This is a real problem. We need to be serious about this and—(Time expired)

See this speech in context