David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the federal coalition, I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023. In doing so, I affirm that on this side of the House we are committed to upholding and preserving the highest standards of animal health and welfare while supporting a lawful and sustainable live export trade. The federal coalition is proud of the exemplary animal welfare measures that Australia has within our world-leading live export industry. We appreciate that humane treatment and the wellbeing of animals is an important issue in our communities, our society and the broader agricultural sector and that it is a crucial part of our international reputation as a nation. However, the coalition will not be supporting this legislation before the House on the basis that the measures that it outlines constitute a significant overreach into state and territory responsibilities and would also create duplication of current effort within the life export system and animal welfare regulations.

It's vital to recognise that Australia has a live export system that already operates extremely well and is underpinned by the highest standard of animal welfare and record-low mortality rates. This industry makes an enormous contribution to our economy, to our $81 billion agricultural sector and to the social fabric of many communities across regional, rural and remote Australia. The numbers demonstrate its strength. In 2021-22, Australia exported more than 1.1 million livestock, which included 615,000 cattle and nearly 490,000 sheep. Live exports currently have the lowest mortality rate ever. In 2022, for cattle, it was 0.05 per cent and, for sheep, it was 0.14 per cent. This success extends to our export abattoirs. In 2020, just 0.006 per cent of animals sent to these facilities had an animal welfare report raised. In 2021, it was only 0.005 per cent.

In government, the federal coalition's approach was to work constructively in partnership and collaboration with the live export industry to deliver improvements in animal welfare outcomes. This was achieved, and it is a legacy we on this side of the House are immensely proud of. In contrast, the legislation before the parliament seeks to interfere with, change and modify a live export industry that simply doesn't need it.

Firstly, the bill seeks to deliver a 2022 election commitment by Labor as part of its strengthening animal welfare policy platform. Members will know that this is the same animal welfare platform that pledged to destroy the $85 million live export industry, which I will revisit later. As part of its election commitment, Labor promised to establish an office of an independent inspector-general for animal welfare. This bill will deliver this by expanding the current roles, functions and arrangements of the existing Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports to now include animal welfare related objectives and having the office rebranded as the Inspector-General for Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports, with $4 million committed over four years. It was the former coalition government that established the office of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports through an act that we passed in 2019. Its role was to review the performance and the exercise of powers by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in regulating livestock exports. Importantly, the inspector-general was a recommendation of the independent Moss review, which affirmed the need for an external watchdog for the department when it comes to this industry.

It needs to be noted that, under current constitutional arrangements, state and territory governments are responsible for animal production and welfare laws and their enforcement. The federal government's role is limited to trade issues, including oversight of live animal exports and export meat abattoirs. On this front, the bill will expand the review powers and responsibilities of the inspector-general into the animal welfare obligations of state and territory governments. Under item 6, section 8, of the bill, the act will be amended to expand the office responsibilities and powers of the inspector-general, with the intent to increase its focus on animal welfare. Under item 11 of the bill, a new subsection 10(1) of the act will propose that the review functions of the inspector-general include:

… potential non compliance with State and Territory laws relating to animal welfare, as reported to State and Territory Governments.

These extensions to the inspector-general's responsibility represent a major overreach, because Australia's domestic animal welfare regulations are set and managed by respective state and territory governments, not the federal government.

However, it's not just interference with state and territory governments that is of concern. The bill also seeks to expand the objects in the act to enable monitoring, investigation and reporting on the implementation of animal welfare and live animal exports legislation and standards in relation to live exports. This is already occurring. A review of monitoring and reporting during livestock export voyages is already on the current work program of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports. Additionally, the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock—the ASEL—currently undertakes extensive monitoring and reporting requirements. The ASEL is regularly updated, and every six months the Minister for Agriculture must table in parliament a report that includes livestock mortalities on every sea voyage.

So, it's clear that the provisions in this bill will unnecessarily duplicate existing efforts when it comes to reviewing and monitoring live exports and animal welfare. It's also telling that prominent agricultural stakeholders, including the National Farmers' Federation, Wool Producers Australia and the Australian Livestock Exporters' Council, all oppose this legislation. This bill undermines the reality that the system is already working efficiently, with high animal welfare standards being met as well as record low mortality rates and an ongoing healthy international demand for Australian live export products.

So, why do we see such determination from this government to change and interfere with the live export industry? Unfortunately, it appears that this bill fits into the federal Labor government's broader animal welfare and activist agenda, which has Australian farmers, the national agricultural sectors and our exporters extremely concerned. They have every right to question this government's commitment to the live export industry, because we're already witnessing the devastating consequences of the government's move to shut down live sheep exports. The live sheep industry is worth $85 million a year and employs more than 3,000 Western Australians through the supply chain. That includes our hardworking farmers, transporters, veterinarians, shearers, feed suppliers and livestock agents.

The Minister for Agriculture has claimed in an interview that ending live sheep exports is based on alleged evidence, but what kind of evidence is he referring to? It's not based on animal welfare outcomes, because the science and evidence clearly demonstrates that since 2018 this industry has delivered major reforms which have been enormously successful. These reforms have included an industry-initiated moratorium on sheep exports during the Northern Hemisphere summer, increased space for animals, improved ventilation requirements, better data collection, temperature monitoring, the presence of independent government observers on deck, and public reporting. These measures have made a real difference and have seen industry move away from a mortality methodology to an animal welfare methodology.

The government's decision to end live sheep export also contradicts the proclaimed intent of this bill, which is to strengthen animal welfare. If the live sheep trade is shut, perverse animal welfare outcomes will be the direct result, because our international trading partners will source their sheep from other countries, who do not uphold Australia's high animal welfare standards. As the government continues to push ahead with destroying live sheep exports, other live export industries, such as the live cattle industry, will be worried about whether and when they'll be next on the chopping block.

During her second reading speech when she introduced the bill into the parliament last week, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government made an important admission. The minister said that she wanted to ensure that 'Australia's livestock exports continue to be underpinned by high standards and the best available science'. That statement's correct. Australia does have a live export system that is underpinned by high standards and the best available science. This is reflected in the record low mortality rates that we see, the comprehensive reforms that have been made in recent years and the extensive monitoring and reporting that we have throughout the entire system. Overall, the evidence and science demonstrates that the current system is working efficiently.

To conclude my remarks: Australia doesn't need the interference and changes outlined in the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023. There is no need for this bill, which will add more red tape for the officers of the inspector-general and duplicate existing animal welfare efforts and regulations that we currently have across governments and the entire live export industry. There's no need for this bill, which significantly overreaches the role of the inspector-general into the responsibilities of state and territory governments. There is no need for this bill which attempts to expand the functions of the inspector-general into duties which capture a heavier focus on animal welfare. Rather than change the functions of the inspector-general, the government should be demonstrating real support for the live export industry by immediately reversing its ideological decision to shut down live sheep exports. This is what's actually needed. By introducing this bill into the parliament, the government has shown once again that, when it comes to supporting Australian agriculture and the live export industry, its priorities are all wrong.

For these reasons, the federal coalition will be opposing the bill.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context