Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Historically, the federal parliament has been largely inactive on animal welfare, and that has been, frankly, deeply distressing to millions of Australians. It's very telling that when I speak up in the parliament about animal welfare, as I do from time to time, the response to my electorate office and to me personally is multiples of the response when I speak up on just about any other issue. The matter of animal welfare is very important to a great many Australians—and it cuts right across the political spectrum, from far-left to far-right. I think the Australian parliament should be more alert to that, and I think Australian governments need to be more alert to that.

Mind you, occasionally the silence and inaction is punctuated by some significant turns of events. I applaud, again, the Gillard federal Labor government, who brought in a three-month ban on the export of beef cattle to Indonesia. Yes, it was very controversial and, yes, there have been matters dealt with in the courts since then, but that three-month ban was very popular and very strongly supported by millions of Australians. Hence it's pleasing today to see some small further reform being moved by the current Labor government.

I suggest that, as far as it goes, this bill, the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023, is welcome. I think it is a good thing that the office of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports has its resources and powers expanded, and it's commendable that it is being directed to have a stronger focus on animal welfare in particular. But, within the narrow scope of the bill, there are still deficiencies. We'll talk about the broader issue of animal welfare in a moment, but within the bill there are obvious deficiencies. I noticed that the minister, in her second reading speech, used the word 'independent' repeatedly; time and time again, she slipped in the word 'independent'. But that's quite misleading because the inspector-general will remain embedded within the agriculture department. There is a fundamental tension by leaving the regulator within the agriculture department because the department's job is to promote agriculture, promote the growth of agriculture and promote the export of our agricultural products, and there is surely a fundamental tension between that role of the department and the role of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports, who now has this much stronger focus on animal welfare.

The bill, and the role of the inspector-general, fails completely to try and address the widespread animal cruelty in this country more broadly. We all know that animal welfare generally is within the jurisdiction of the state and territory governments. We know that it's been the state and territory governments that have let us down in so many ways when it comes to the domestic production of cattle and sheep, aquaculture, poultry, pigs and the breeding of dogs and cats, and it's been the state and territory governments that have let us down terribly when it comes to the interaction between gambling and horseracing, steeplechasing, harness racing and greyhound racing. But it's not good enough to just simply say, 'It is what it is, and it will ever be thus.' The fact is we have an animal welfare crisis in this country—that is surely beyond dispute—and we should be taking a leadership role in the federal parliament, particularly in areas where state and territory governments have let us down. We should be looking at ways to take a leadership role and to improve things across the whole country. Why on earth the inspector-general within the agriculture department can't be empowered and resourced to take that leadership role more broadly beggars belief. Surely the federal regulator could be given the remit to develop policy, to work with state and territory governments, to work with state and territory agencies, to work with industry bodies and to shepherd them, so to speak, towards more effective regulations and laws around animal welfare. I think that would be very handy.

We could think even more broadly and say, 'Okay, what levers does the federal government have to be more involved in animal welfare in areas where, historically, it's been the job of the state and territory governments?' I brushed up against this firsthand in my first term, in the 43rd Parliament, when the then federal government was working with me and looking at how it might intervene in the states and territories with poker machine reform. Very quickly we came to realise that laws like the Corporations Act and powers like the taxation power do in fact give the federal government means to intervene, at least when it comes to corporations or to farms that are paying tax and so on. All that's lacking is the vision for the federal government to think, 'How can we, at our level, be more engaged in animal welfare across the whole country?' Frankly, it's simply not good enough to say: 'All we can focus on is the live animal export industry. That's the beginning and the end of our responsibilities.' That's not good enough, and it's also abrogating our responsibilities.

Back to this specific issue of the live animal export industry. Yes, to be fair to the new federal Labor government, it is consulting with the sheep industry about a ban on the live export of sheep in, hopefully, five years or so. I do applaud the current government for starting that process. That is ambitious and it will meet with a lot of resistance. It already is meeting with a lot of resistance from the industry. But I tell you what, it's darn sight more than any government has done since Federation in 1901, so I hope it goes well.

We can't allow the consultation to be the end in itself. The consultation must be an effective stepping stone to a ban in a timely manner. When I talk about a timely manner, I note that the industry, when they are prepared to entertain some sort of ban, they're talking 10 years or more. I note that the government is talking maybe five years. But I also note that animal welfare bodies and scientists who are mixed up with them are talking about three years. That would seem to be a much more effective and much more humane time line.

Now, I take the point from the member for O'Connor that there are issues with the breeds, the make-up of the flock, the fact there there's such a preponderance currently of merino wethers. I think that's what the member for O'Connor referred to. And, yes, it will take time to change the breed, to change the nature of the flock, perhaps to even change the mix of farming activities on individual farms and to grow into new roles. That will take time, so I do support there being a transition period. But I make the point again: it needs to be a sensible transition period and not just kicking the can down the road into the never-never like the industry would have us do.

We have to not stop at sheep. Sheep have had much publicity in recent years, and the member for Fremantle quite rightly referred to the Awassi Express a number of times, and the expose about the shocking cruelty being endured by the sheep that survived—but many, of course, died on the Awassi Express. There were images of the terrible heat, images of the panting mouths, images of newborn lambs—which is illegal; they shouldn't have let pregnant sheep on the ship in the first place—literally drowning in the filth and the faeces and the urine on the decks of that ship.

But while there has been so much focus on the live sheep export industry, we've taken our eye off beef cattle. There are still problems with the export of beef cattle, often into South-East Asia and North Asia. Just recently there were exposes about terrible misconduct—again in Indonesian abattoirs and slaughterhouses. So if this country is fair dinkum about animal welfare, we should be talking about a ban on the export of beef cattle and sheep in a timely manner—that's what we should be doing; other countries have done it; New Zealand did it—and putting our agricultural sector on a pathway to replacement activities on the farm.

To do so would have enormous public support. When I look at polling around the country, there is clearly majority public support for winding up the live export industry. The public know that the trade is systemically cruel and, in fact, the only way to and the cruelty is to end the trade. You can change your density levels on the ships, you can do this, you can do that, you can improve ventilation, you can have inspectors go into Indonesia and other countries, but we are tinkering around the edges. The fact is that the only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade. The only way to be genuinely rebuilding Australian manufacturing and industry is to be processing those sheep and cattle in Australia. I know we have a shortage of workers in abattoirs, but that has been in part created by ourselves running down the processed meat industry as the country over decades has ramped up live animal export. Surely, with a bit of nous, we can resurrect the domestic red meat processing industry and have processing jobs on shore, adding value, employing Australians and creating profits for Australian companies.

Of course, the industry will trot out all the usual reasons why we can't do this. We heard some from the member for O'Connor. It's said that people in the Middle East won't buy chilled or frozen mutton or lamb, but of course they will; they already do currently. In fact, the value of the sheep meat we currently send to the Middle East is much more than the value of the live sheep we send to the Middle East. It's a desirable product, and people in the Middle East and other countries want to buy it. So why we aren't sending them more chilled and frozen meat is unfathomable.

I have covered a bit of ground here, and I want to flag at this stage that I am moving an amendment to the bill. It has been circulated in my name, and it's not too long, so I will read it out. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House

(1) notes that:

(a) Australia continues to be responsible for an animal welfare crisis;

(b) while much of this crisis is historically and constitutionally the responsibility of the state and territory governments, it can be seen in many industries including but not limited to: cattle; sheep; aquaculture; poultry; pigs; the breeding of dogs and cats; and where the gambling industry intersects with thoroughbred horseracing, steeplechasing, harness racing and greyhound racing;

(c) the systemic cruelty in the live animal export trade continues, with the export of sheep to the Middle East and beef cattle worldwide exemplifying the worst of animal abuse; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) establish a genuinely independent office of animal welfare which, by working with state and territory governments and their agencies, will take a policy development and leadership role to ensure that all animals are treated humanely and with dignity;

(b) develop a much-improved legal framework to ensure that beef cattle and sheep are treated ethically during all stages of the live export process, so long as the live export industry exists; and

(c) commit to legislating within six months a ban on all live sheep and beef cattle exports by sea with the ban fully implemented within three years.

I will say that last part again because it really is the bottom line. If we are an ethical country, if we have integrity, if we want to set an example to the community of nations when it comes to animal welfare and take a leadership role globally, if we want to treat our animals as they should be treated and to recognise their inherent value, then it all comes down to this:

(c) commit to legislating within six months a ban on all live sheep and beef cattle exports by sea with the ban fully implemented within three years.

I'm pleased to say that the member for Warringah has agreed to second that amendment, so thank you to the member for Warringah.

I make the point again that this bill is good as far as it goes, and I applaud the government for bringing this bill to the parliament. It's a rare thing to see anything to do with animal welfare come into this parliament, but I would urge the government to consider again where the inspector-general sits. If it is to be genuinely independent, then take it out of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Have it as a standalone and genuinely independent body and give it the remit and resources to work with the state and territory governments and their agencies and with industry bodies to take a leadership role to develop policy, to try to lift the standard around the country markedly and to try to harmonise the standards around the country. That would put us on a pathway to the federal government being more involved with animal welfare nationally and putting the weights on the state and territory governments, who frankly have let us down terribly when it has come to so many aspects of animal welfare. It's not just about the welfare of sheep and cattle in the live export trade.

See this speech in context