Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the issue of live exports that is facing the country and the industry at the moment. The honourable member for Calare said that it is simple. It is not that simple. If it were that simple, it could be fixed overnight. Part of the problem is you get some people saying you have to fix it straightaway and you get other people saying take the time. The fact is that it will take time. I will focus on what we are dealing with now—the cessation of the export of live cattle to Indonesia.

There are a few things I want to focus on tonight. I want to start by putting on the record what some of the people in the industry are saying. Some people in the industry feel very frustrated as well. They want to get this right so that when it restarts it starts in the right way. They have had a long time to get this right and they have not. I read in all the media coverage that major cattle producers, the Consolidated Pastoral Company, Heytesbury Holdings, the Australia live export council, AAco, RSPCA Australia and other bodies that care about animal welfare all support mandatory stunning before the slaughter of Australian cattle in Indonesia. Before that can happen we have to know that that will happen. We have to know the supply chain and that it will happen. I know there has been talk about the different standards—the OIE and Australian standards—but the fact is that the Australian community and the industry have said clearly that, whatever the legal policy practice framework is, this is what they want to happen and this is what they expect. That is the first thing.

There has also been a lot of talk about what practices are appropriate and inappropriate culturally. The fact is that stunning is not contrary to halal. That is very clear. The evidence is there. That is another debate that we do not need to have, because the evidence is absolutely clear. So stunning can happen.

I want to talk about the MLA. The Land was interesting reading this week. It is one of my regular newspapers. There is a whole debate going on in the Land. It is interesting because farmers and people on the land write to the Land. Overwhelmingly, they are saying they are appalled by what they saw on the ABC Four Corners program and they are appalled that the industry bodies did not have this in order, among other things. I would like to quote Mal Peters in The Land on Thursday, 16 June on page 30. Among other things, he says:

Equally importantly Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) needs to start explaining why its name was all over one of these atrocious practices.

He is talking about the cruelty that we witnessed on TV.

I am particularly pleased to donate about $4000 in a year in levies to a mob that has just decimated our export trade by their sheer bloody ineptitude.

If stopping animal cruelty was the goal what the hell are the knocking boxes MLA has supplied to Indonesia abattoirs meant to do?

Any reasonable observer could see they would never fix the problem.

Some heads need to roll for what is clearly a monumental stuff up.

Mal always says it as it is. He calls it how he sees it, and he has there. He has said other things, but I want to focus on what he said directly about the MLA. I also went onto a National Party website to look at something they have put out which says: 'Blanket ban on live exports sends wrong message'. What hypocrisy! Then you read that they have said:

We support the live cattle trade ban on facilities that fail to comply with acceptable animal welfare practices …

It is just a whole lot of gobbledygook which is really aimed at maximising political support, not fixing the industry. That is what is about. It would be so nice if we could come here, actually have a sane debate and discussion and chart a way forward where people are not seeking to maximise political gain and advantage and going into the traditional 'divide and rule', which happens. The website also says:

There is a better way to handle the issue.

If there was, they could have done it. They did have 12 years in government. They did introduce self-regulation. The Nationals have also said:

We know from experience that when live exports are halted—such as the ban on cattle to Egypt or sheep to Saudi Arabia—demand for boxed meat does not rise.

Yet if you have a look at the facts and figures on the industry websites you will find:

In Egypt, the one scenario where live export was stopped, there was a remarkable growth in the exportation of meat processed in Australia. Egyptian imports of Australian processed sheep meat rose by 300 per cent between 2002-03 and 2005-06, when Australian live sheep imports were stopped.

There is so much hypocrisy around this debate and all sorts of comments that just do not stand up to scrutiny. The best article in TheLand on Thursday, 16 June was written by John Carter and is on page 31. The heading is 'Meat structure stinks of failure.' He says:

In 1997, when John Anderson announced the new meat structure, I wrote a scathing Counterpoint on its impracticality.

I am on the record in this place talking about that issue as well. He goes on:

Now, 14 years on, with $1.7 billion of our money gone, the lowest cattle prices in the developed world and a drop of more than 20 per cent in domestic consumption the hopelessness of the structure has been painfully illustrated.

Australia's beef industry has its worst crisis in 25 years.

The Red Meat Advisory Council (RMAC) is meant to advise the minister.

He goes on to talk about the MLA and he questions whether the producers have any confidence in the MLA to fix the problem. But the problem is: they are there. I have no confidence in the MLA to help fix the problem, but the fact is that they are there and we have to deal with them for the moment.

When I looked at the MLA website—as the honourable member for Kennedy said, taking everything advisedly—on 10 June 2011, in relation to one of the claims that cattle sale prices are plummeting as a result of the suspension announced, it said:

… the suspension of the live cattle trade to Indonesia will neither result in a rush of cattle into Australian processors, nor a surge of beef in coming weeks and months. Cattle placed on ships to Indonesia are typically Brahmans of light weight (less than 350kg lwt). These cattle will require much longer periods on feed to reach suitable slaughter weights for either the Australian, or more particularly, export markets.

When that cattle weight was introduced because of Indonesia's requirements and because they are moving to self-sufficiency for 2014, it had an immediate impact on the Australian live export market. The figures that I have read are a drop of between 34 and 40 per cent in exports of cattle to Indonesia. So that was happening anyway. The MLA finish by saying:

Therefore, the most impact for the entire beef industry will be felt in the medium term if the situation is not resolved quickly, as heavier cattle move through to slaughter in 6-18 months time.

There are all these claims, but we have to look at them. I know a lot of people in the industry say they would like a judicial inquiry into the MLA and I think that shows the absolute frustration with a body that they all pay levies to.

See this speech in context