Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

The greyhound racing fiasco in New South Wales once again highlights the difficulties that can occur, both for government and industry, when animal cruelty is ignored. In 2006, the Howard government suspended live exports to Egypt because of cruelty. In 2011, cattle exports to Indonesia were suspended because of the torturous killing methods used in Indonesian abattoirs. This year, the national greyhound industry was thrown into chaos because of cruelty in that industry. The message from these events should be clear. Firstly, Australians will not tolerate animal cruelty. Secondly, governments that dismiss the cruelty do so at considerable political risk.

Public reaction to animal cruelty should come as no surprise. Galaxy polling this year found 75 per cent of people support the re-establishment of a national body focusing on animal welfare, 84 per cent believe that the federal government should set goals for animal welfare and have a plan to achieve them, and 73 per cent of Australians believe that farm animals could be treated better. In the examples that I referred to earlier, the cruelty should have been, and probably was, known to government authorities. However, it took media exposure and then public outrage for governments to act. When they did react, nothing less than tough measures would have sufficed.

Live export trade, although much improved by the ESCAS conditions, is still fraught with cruelty. Unacceptable slaughter methods are common, and transport continues to be problematic. The stranding of the MV Ocean Outback after leaving Fremantle in December 2015 carrying 13,000 animals is a case in point. Here in Australia, intensive animal farming and questionable halal and kosher slaughter methods continue unchallenged. Notably, the ESCAS does not mandate stunning animals before slaughter, nor can it whilst halal and kosher slaughter without stunning is allowed in Australia. The slaughter of animals for commercial meat supply will never be pleasant, but in this day and age where pre-slaughter stunning is widely used and proven to be much more humane, it should be mandatory in Australia and a condition of export. Such an approach is unlikely to occur while the government department that is responsible for animal welfare also has the role of promoting live exports.

It is only a matter of time before a new cruelty case emerges and another industry sector is immersed in controversy. Excuses about isolated cases of noncompliance or adherence to weak OIE welfare standards will not suffice, nor should they. We can and should do better. It is a sad reflection on humanity when more care is taken in most manufacturing industries than in the handling and slaughter of animals that endure and feel pain. Yes, the animals will end up on the food plate, but that does not justify or excuse unnecessary cruelty.

To date, the existing system has failed animals. A new approach is required. For some time, I and others have been calling for a national independent office of animal welfare that would have oversight of all animal welfare matters. It should be established. Labor committed to an independent office of animal welfare at the last election. Such a body, if adequately staffed and empowered, could provide the oversight needed. By contrast, since its election, the coalition government has shown little interest in animal welfare. In November 2013, Australian government funding for a national animal welfare framework through the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy ceased, in turn ending both the Australian Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and the Animal Welfare Committee itself. There is no national strategy, and animal welfare is mostly left to under-resourced state government departments. Not surprisingly, Australia's global animal welfare standing is falling and is now well behind that of New Zealand and the UK.

As expected, there is little support for an independent office of animal welfare across industry sectors, many of whom seem indifferent to the suffering of animals and instead prefer to get behind ag-gag laws which seek to prosecute those who expose the cruelty.

Conversely, establishment of an independent office of animal welfare has widespread support from animal welfare advocates. It will take the politics out of animal welfare and provide national leadership for all animal welfare matters across Australia. The issue will not go away until we have a process that the community can have confidence in.

See this speech in context