David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to point out that this issue—to legislate to phase out long-haul live sheep exports—isn't urgent and shouldn't be debated today. But the substantive issue behind it—of whether a live sheep export trade should continue—is a surrogate for trying to shut down all live exports. The other reason they're trying to bring it on as a matter of urgency is that they realise that by the reform of the governance and the procedures in the live export trade, enforced by the minister after the McCarthy review and the Moss review, they are losing the argument. No-one supported what was shown on TV—not even the industry itself. People who are producing sheep around the country were distressed to see those images. So we're not making excuses for that. But Australia does have a very rigorous set of regulations in place now, and the standards have improved.

People depend on this trade. Some of the arguments that have been put up have been quite fallacious—that we should export just processed, chilled mutton and lamb to the world. But there is a market, particularly in the Middle East and in Indonesia, and in other countries around the world, where the people who import chilled meats also want the live product. There is a demand for that, and we would be blowing up our export market for chilled processed lamb and mutton if we didn't supply those same people who demand live sheep. That means places like Indonesia, as well as Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and many other places in the Middle East that rely on Australian lamb and mutton. It wouldn't happen. And what has happened during the period in which we haven't been exporting, while the processes and standards have been corrected and improved? They have been buying from elsewhere. So it's not going to get rid of the trade. As the member for Petrie pointed out, we have the best standards in the world. No other exporter of live animals enforces an ESCAS procedure on the receiving end, but Australia does. We have improved the standards and the governance. That was the issue. The trade itself is a defensible thing. How can we say that what people want in Indonesia and the Middle East, which can't produce animals for protein and for their nutrition, is not allowed?

We also have a duty to our producers. We saw what happened with the live cattle trade. Summarily blocking the live cattle trade meant cattle prices across the whole nation plummeted, including for people in my electorate who produce cattle. I even saw it in my small enterprise producing cattle for export. The prices plummeted because all the product that was going out in live trade all of a sudden washed into the onshore trade, and that depressed prices. Those people have debts and need an income. Would the member for Denison be advocating this if half the people who worked in his electorate all of a sudden couldn't pay their mortgages because regulatory change here in Canberra meant their businesses collapsed? No. They'd be marching in the streets. But that will be the effect.

We need to respect the right of primary producers to produce good product and export it to markets around the world, and there is a portion of that that demands live export. We have put the governance and standards in place. What was shown on the ABC wasn't defensible or acceptable, but things have changed. As the minister, the member for Maranoa, has pointed out, we have accepted all of the recommendations and we are enforcing them. Just yesterday the Livestock Exporters' Council put on a voluntary moratorium during the hot months. The demand can cope without supply for the three months. After that, the standards we have set will mean that there won't be animal cruelty. A self-imposed limit of one per cent mortality on the export trade is seen as a reasonable standard. I'm informed that the last shipment—which just recommenced—had a 0.24 per cent mortality. I put it to many of the members here that some of the sheep walking around the paddock wouldn't have that mortality rate. Over hot summer periods, with water issues and feed in the drought, out in the paddock you would have a greater mortality than that, particularly given that on a boat they would be supervised by a vet and fed and watered.

As we all understand, this is a surrogate for a broader shutdown of the live animal trade. We all support good standards. This will empower members in this parliament who want to shut down the boat trade. They'll see this as a win. This is not urgent, because the changes in the governance and the processes in the live export trade have been improved as a result of the two inquiries—the governance, the supervision, the monitoring, the vets on board, making sure they are well nourished, and lowering the stocking densities so you don't have the heat stress and humidity stress problem. The self-imposed moratorium over the hot, humid periods addresses that even further. So I don't support this amendment. It is not urgent.

We need to look after Australian producers, whose livelihoods, families and businesses all depend on it, whether they are just around Canberra, in Yass, or out at Hay, or over in South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania or Queensland. It is all part of the one trade. If we do what the members who propose this amendment motion are asking for, we will collapse the market and we will collapse the livelihoods of many families in Australia, not just in WA but around the nation.

See this speech in context