House debates

Monday, 24 June 2024

Bills

Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024; Second Reading

4:06 pm

Photo of Keith PittKeith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The now prime minister, Mr Albanese: a backflip or more fake ewes? Whilst that's a snappy headline, it's terrifying, terrible and disastrous for the people involved in the trade. It is an absolute debacle for them because they're at risk. They have mortgages. They have bills to pay. They rely on this for an income.

As I said, I went to inform myself. I don't have a lot of sheep locally—in fact, I doubt there are more than a handful. But I had over 500 contacts the last time this issue reared its head in previous parliaments. I attended a live export loading with the member for Petrie and others back in 2019. I think the member for Forrest was there as well. Mia Davies, a current MLA in the WA state parliament, posted on Facebook at the time:

We were invited by Emanuel's, WA Livestock Exporters Association and Sheep Producers Australia to join MPs from across Party lines to view the loading of a live export ship at Fremantle Port. Dr Holly Ludeman led the tour, and representatives from the exporter, ship and industry were on-hand to answer any questions—

which they did—

… in relation to the supply chain from our paddocks to the final destination for these sheep in Kuwait.

The Nationals WA condemn any behaviour that incentivises putting livestock's welfare at risk for financial gain—the allegations that emerged yesterday must be investigated.

The overwhelming majority of Australians have no direct involvement in our food supply chain; they simply don't. They don't really understand what it takes to produce the protein that they rely on, how it is delivered to them or what arrangements must be made. But, coming from a regional area and knowing people like the member for Forrest, they love their animals. They don't want to see losses, because losses cost money. No-one wants to lose any of their product, whether it's part of a dairy herd, a single sheep or a single lamb. But every single day in this country there are stock losses, whether it's from an accidental death, a fall, wild dogs, a snake bite, illness, sickness, getting caught in a fence or drowning. This is the reality of agricultural life. For the producers who are putting protein on our table, unfortunately this is a regular event. But the idea that they would stock a ship knowing there'd be enormous losses and afterwards a direct impact on potential profits is just false. It is wrong. They won't do that; it's not in their interest. It's not in the interest of them, their industry, our nation's reputation, the supplier and the buyer. All the people who are in that supply chain are now going to be effectively unemployed because this Labor government has made the decision that they just don't like the industry. That's the reality. There's nothing else about it; they just don't like it. Sure, they've made some other commitments as a government, but when you have even WA Premier Roger Cook reported as stating the federal government's $107 million transition support package for the industry is just not good enough—a Labor Premier—surely you would listen to the Premier in the state where the actual impact is on the industry.

If we look at the supply chain—agents, saleyards, shearers, transporters, feed growers, millers, live exporters, Australian government regulators, vets, all the technical science and support, the people involved at the other end—every single one of them rely on this industry to pay their bills, to pay their mortgage, to feed their family, to clothe their children, to educate them, to give them an opportunity. They've taken enormous risks because they've invested in an industry they support, an industry which is actually legitimate, has been around for a long time and fills a need in the world's demand for protein in countries where there's basically no refrigeration. How else do you do this? As many before me have pointed out, if they are not supplying sheep from our country with our standards, they'll come from somewhere else. Animal welfare is not on the list of things those other nations are interested in; it is simply volume and value. Every single individual involved in this trade in Western Australia will have an enormous detrimental impact from this decision by the federal government. Imagine showing up in two months and you can't pay your mortgage, because the federal government put you out of business with a decision which is simply about what they believe. It's not about science, the facts or the impacts. It's not about the fact that they're feeding the world and are part of a very important supply chain out of WA; it's just that the federal government don't like them.

There are lots of other things around. We have seen accusations and allegations from the Animal Justice Party in what I'd have to say is just a disgraceful chapter if it's true. According to the Animal Justice Party, 11 May 2024:

We are proud that the AJP could deliver the knockout blow by demanding the end of live sheep export as a requirement for our preferences at the Dunkley By-election in March. Ongoing conversations behind-the-scenes between AJP and Labor leadership has helped to finetune government policy.

What an incredible statement. Every single one of those Australians who are invested in this trade have been sold down the river, if this is true, by allegations that this is about a preference deal. If this is the case, my question is: what's next? Who's next? Which industry is on the chopping block because a deal needs to be done? If we look at the opportunities, I'm sure Animal Justice has had plenty to say about some of these sorts of things. I'm quite confident they don't support jumps racing; in fact I'm very confident. Is that the next deal necessary in a by-election or a federal election—the jumps? Are they out there; are they done? What about the dogs, the greyhounds?

Comments

No comments