Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare) Share this | Hansard source

The issue of the live export of sheep dates right back to the early 1980s, when this parliament considered it and a Senate committee, chaired by Senator George Georges, came back with a recommendation that made it absolutely clear that the future viability of this industry was under question. Indeed, from my interpretation of their recommendation, the committee said it was an industry that, on moral grounds, should not continue. Yet, some 35 years later, we are still debating whether it should or should not continue. What's interesting is that there's no doubt that the industry reached a peak a few years after that committee report, but since then it has been in continuous decline.

Today in this parliament, we are effectively debating the same issues that were being debated in the early 1980s—whether it is reasonable to export sheep, particularly during the hot summer months, on journeys to the Middle East that take two, three or four weeks, because of the losses of those sheep and the cruelty that is inflicted upon them. Those losses are very clearly documented by the department after each journey. If one wants to look at the number of losses, if we go right back to the start of this industry, they must run into millions—millions of sheep that have died in a very cruel and horrific way.

We know that even under a coalition government, the Howard government, the industry had to be suspended because of the cruelty imposed on the sheep during those export journeys. I believe it was because of the very heavy losses incurred on a voyage to Egypt that the Howard government suspended the trade. Again, it highlights that it wasn't just this side of the House who had concerns about the safety and the welfare of the sheep that were being exported; it was also members of the coalition parties themselves. I wonder whether any of the members who sit in here today ever allude to or refer to the Howard government's suspension of the trade at that time. That wasn't done by this side of the House; it was done by their very own government in recognition that the trade needed to be better managed.

We've seen in more recent times—after this side of the House brought in the ESCAS conditions, which we thought would put an end to the suffering if they were complied with—that it is clear that, even with the ESCAS conditions brought in by this parliament, the trade still imposes horrific cruelty on the animals when they are on these long voyages. We saw that again with respect to the Awassi Express losses of 2017. Those losses caused a huge backlash from the community. There was a very widespread backlash, including from, I believe, the farming community itself. Those losses brought this issue to a head once again. Indeed, the coalition government, as a result, reviewed the industry on several fronts. We had the Moss review, the McCarthy review and a departmental review of its own operations. As a result of all of those reviews, we now have a situation where several things have arisen. Firstly, the government itself brought legislation into the parliament which imposed additional fees on exporters who didn't comply with the ESCAS conditions. That was in response to the death rate. If we need increased penalties, it clearly says that the industry is not living up to the expectations of it. I remind members opposite that this industry has had 35 years or so to get its act in order. Unfortunately, the government has put that legislation in limbo. So, albeit the minister came in and said, 'Look, we will impose heavier penalties on those people who do not comply and who do not provide safe transport conditions,' the reality is that the legislation is in limbo and does not take effect.

We also saw, as a result of those inquiries, that the exporter at the time had their licence suspended. Again, this was an exporter who had been exporting sheep to the Middle East for years and years. It was only because of public pressure and pressure from this parliament that those reviews took place, which caused the government to act and the licence of that exporter to be suspended. I understand that there's an appeal against that suspension. Nevertheless, the critical issue that arose from all of those reports, and in particular from the McCarthy review, was that there should not be the export of Australian sheep during the hot summer months. That was a critical finding, because, regardless of the stocking ratios, the temperatures on those ships reach a point where the sheep cannot survive. With respect to that, it doesn't make any difference whether we reduce the stocking ratios or not. It's the hot temperatures that really matter.

What was also interesting was that, at the time that the debate on increased penalties and the suspension of the export licence to the exporter took place in the House, this side of the House made it clear that, if the summer trade were halted, that in itself would effectively make the industry unviable. The government, by not adopting Labor's position at the time, was simply leaving farmers stranded, not knowing what the future of their industry would be.

Yesterday, we had the Australian Livestock Exporters' Council, the industry body itself, come out with a statement that the summer trade would be stopped—that there would be no summer trade of live sheep as a result of the findings of past inquiries. If the industry itself is prepared to come out and say that it is not appropriate to export sheep in the hot summer months, why are the government and the department not imposing the same standard? It's disappointing to think that the industry is prepared to act when the government isn't.

I made the point earlier that this is an industry in decline. Currently, it's worth about $250 million a year in a sheep industry that, across Australia, is worth about $5 billion a year. The difference between today and years gone by is that there are now many other options for sheep farmers to sell their product. There are also other options for Australia with respect to export. Ten, 20 and 30 years after it was first raised, the countries that at the time might not have had refrigeration probably do have it. We've also had government ministers come into this chamber, week in and week out, talking about the new markets that have been opened up by the trade agreements that have been signed by this government with other countries. Surely, if they are true to their word that those trade agreements are going to help the farmers of this country, you would think that there would be enough opportunities to find markets for processed sheep, rather than having to send them as live sheep to destination countries. Surely, if those agreements stack up and are worth what the ministers are saying they are worth, we should be able to support our farmers by processing the sheep here in Australia and then sending them to one of those new markets that the government claims have been opened up.

I will finish on this point, because it is one of the rebuttals often used by members opposite: if Australia does not export sheep overseas, some other country will, and therefore we are not stopping the suffering of the sheep. The reality is that New Zealand has stopped sending its live sheep overseas. But, more importantly, it is very unlikely that the other countries that might send live sheep to the Middle East will have to send them on ships that are on the water for two, three or four weeks. They will have much shorter journeys in most cases. Therefore, the argument that we're not in any way acting to stop sheep from suffering is simply not true.

The community has spoken out on this issue time and time again. Public opinion has shifted. Public opinion makes it absolutely clear that today, when we do have options to support our farmers—and certainly we should be doing that—we should be using those options, rather than continuing a trade that has been shown, time and time again, to be cruel and unnecessary.

See this speech in context