Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to bring a bit of balance to the comments made by the member for . In May last year the federal government was provided with evidence of systemic animal cruelty in facilities across Indonesia. Who will forget the small section of this evidence shown on the ABC's Four Corners report? For nearly every viewer, it was disgraceful. As many MPs like me know full well, the public outcry was deafening from both the wider community and from cattle producers. Indeed, this report generated some of the most numerous amounts of correspondence on an issue I have received in all my time in the parliament since 1998.

It is true to say that many people in this place and in the wider community hold firm views on the issue of animal welfare. Where deliberate and unregulated cruelty is exposed, there is a moral, let alone administrative or regulatory, imperative to act. In the instances captured on the ABC's Four Corners program, the industry charged with the responsibility for ensuring an ethical regulatory process had failed. In essence, it had failed to adequately ensure the community's expectations of the livestock exporters were maintained. Clearly, industry self-regulation had failed. It was clear that for a legitimate industry to continue, decisive government intervention would be required.

I remember speaking in this chamber on the issue just over 12 months ago. I acknowledged, as all members of the government did, that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Joe Ludwig, made a difficult but important decision to temporarily suspend the export of livestock to Indonesia. Make no mistake: the minister's decision was not easy and was not taken lightly. Indeed, the conflicting nature of the interests at stake guaranteed massive tension whichever decision was made. However, the minister's decision to briefly suspend the trade enabled the government to put in place a once-in-a-generation reform for the livestock export industry and undertake an independent review of the broader livestock export issues. As I said, the suspension decision was difficult to make but, contrary to the beliefs of the critics of the minister's actions, it was the right decision to make.

To the naysayers of the industry let me say that the livestock export industry is an important industry. It supports numerous jobs across Northern and Western Australia. It is a significant employer of Indigenous peoples and it is the main market for the cattle producers in Northern Australia. Indeed, in 2009, the live export sector earned nearly $1 billion and underpinned the employment of around 10,000 people in rural and regional Australia. Suggestions by critics of this trade that it could and can be completely replaced by chilled and frozen meat fail to take into account the requirements of the overseas market. The lack of refrigeration and cold chain facilities as well as strong cultural preferences for professionally slaughtered meat preclude Australia from servicing all of its export markets with processed meat products. No, the live animal export trade is a mutually beneficial trade between Australia and our trading partners who seek our product. What we had to do, upon the temporary suspension of the live export trade to Indonesia that took practical effect on 8 June 2011, was devise and implement a new regulatory framework requiring exporters to establish an exporter supply chain assurance system, or ESCAS, in offshore markets.

The live animal export trade is a legitimate industry that can continue, but the industry must be held accountable for the outcomes it provides. This is why the minister announced on 8 June 2011 the temporary suspension of export to Indonesia of all livestock for the purpose of slaughter. During the suspension the Australian government together with industry developed a new regulatory framework for the export of livestock to Indonesia, and on 7 July 2011 the suspension was lifted. From this date supply chain assurance principles were implemented to ensure internationally agreed animal welfare outcomes in Indonesian supply chains. Importantly, these principles underpinning ESCAS are being progressively implemented during 2012 to all feeder and slaughter livestock export markets such as Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Turkey. Phased in was 75 per cent of trade covered as of 1 March 2012, and 99 per cent is expected to be covered by 1 September this year, with all markets covered by the end of the year.

As of 1 March this year the new regulatory framework also applies to all new markets, so no amount of negative commentary can deny that the reforms this government has put in place ensure the future of the industry and the future of the jobs it supports. Indeed, industry should be encouraged by the recent report by the agricultural banking specialists Rabo Bank that the long-term outlook for the live cattle trade to Indonesia remains strong. The report indicates Australia is well placed to supply the Indonesian market into the future with low-cost, disease-free beef to complement domestic production.

The reforms mean that exporters must show they have a supply chain assurance system that delivers on internationally agreed animal welfare requirements along the supply chain to the point of processing, control of animals throughout the supply chain, tracking and accountability of animals throughout the supply chain itself and independent auditing and reporting. These reforms put animal welfare at the heart of the trade, an expectation of both producers and the public alike. The essential principle behind the reforms is that if you cannot show you will ensure animal welfare, you will not export.

Members might remember that the new system faced a significant test earlier this year when additional footage was provided to the government of further serious malpractice. Many critics claimed that this was evidence of a system that had failed. However, what they did not say was that because of the new system—not in spite of it but because of it—the regulator was able to hold those who were found to be in breach accountable for their practices and failure to abide by the reform processes. The new framework allowed a detailed analysis of the evidence provided and allowed those parties who were found not to have complied with the regulations to be penalised for this.

I want to touch on the issue of credibility. I notice on 7 July last year the member for Leichhardt issued a press release welcoming the Gillard government's move to lift the temporary suspension of livestock exports. In the same press release, the member stated:

The trade did not need to be suspended for a month, immediate measures could have been put in place when the inhumane treatment in certain abattoirs was exposed.

However, the facts speak very differently. The investigation earlier this year showed that even the exporters who claimed their systems were the best, that their facilities have no problems, were found to have significant issues. The member for Leichhardt seemed to have bought the propaganda from the industry. This is not the first time the member for Leichhardt has been out on a limb when it comes to livestock exports. I do not need to remind many of those opposite about the atrocious handling of the MV Cormo Express by the former Howard government. Remember?

Over 50,000 sheep were stranded at sea when the importing country refused to take delivery. It took the Howard government over 70 days to get the sheep disembarked. But this is no surprise, as his own backbench was refusing the then minister for agriculture, Warren Truss, to do the right thing for animal welfare and bring the sheep home. Mr Entsch and another Liberal backbencher, the former member for O'Connor, my friend Wilson Tuckey, even attempted to refuse the vessel return to Australia for fear of biosecurity risks. This shows that the member for Leichhardt really has little credibility when it comes to ensuring animal welfare. Just like we have each state and territory policing their own animal welfare, we now have a cop on the beat for livestock exports, no matter how much the other side want to poo-ha what I am saying.

This transition has been a difficult time for many. There is no doubt about that. The decision to temporarily suspend the trade was not taken lightly and, indeed, I know that Minister Ludwig found the decision personally difficult in the knowledge that families and enterprises would experience difficulties. That is why the government provided a range of domestic assistance measures to assist producers transition through the suspension of trade with Indonesia. The government made available an income recovery subsidy of up to 13 weeks of income support for individuals, priority access to employment assistance through Job Services Australia for individuals retrenched as a result of the temporary suspension, a business assistance package comprising a business assistance payment of $5,000 and a business hardship payment of up to $20,000, as well as a system of grants and a subsidised interest rate scheme on new business loans of $300,000 over two years. (Time expired)

See this speech in context