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

There are lots of people involved in the horse industry, as the member for Forrest says. What about the Melbourne Cup? We've seen lots of protest from Animal Justice and others about the Melbourne Cup, something that puts literally half a billion dollars into the Victorian economy. Are they next? Is that the next opportunity? Are they the ones that will be sold down the river to do a deal like this? I can understand the outright anger—it is not frustration anymore—from the producers in Western Australia. They are furious, they are white-hot angry and they should be, because they have been absolutely sold out. Can you imagine any individual in this place losing the ability to pay their mortgage, educate their children and make their own way in this world, because someone, somewhere, decided they didn't like their industry for some particular reason and, potentially, a deal was done and they were out of business? We make tough decisions here all the time, but this one is absolutely unnecessary. We have the highest welfare standards in the world, bar none. Why shouldn't this industry be allowed to continue what they've been doing? Where there were changes necessary, they have made them. They have invested. They have taken risks. They have borrowed. They have employed. They have paid taxes. They are entitled to exist.

What is the next industry that's going to get rolled? We have members in here who are absolutely against the gambling sector. They don't like pokies, for example. Is that next, if a deal is necessary to form government—maybe if there's a minority government? Is that next? Is that industry going to be wiped out as well? The idea that any federal government, a government of Australia, would shut down an industry like this simply because they just don't like it, I find just appalling. So I 100 per cent support the 'Keep the Sheep' program that they're running in Western Australia. Their anger will continue to grow. The closer they get to losing their businesses, the worse this will be.

And imagine the damage it does to our international reputation—the reputation of this country as a reliable supplier—one that held us in incredibly good stead throughout the COVID period, whether in resources, or in agriculture or anything else that we exported. People come to this country because they know Australia can be relied on: when they put in an order, we deliver. And in the midst of one of the most difficult periods of time, this country continued to delivered. We kept the lights on in Japan, South Korea and everywhere else. We kept food flowing to the world, including live sheep, because we can be relied on. Yet now we have statements from the Japanese ambassador, for example, that there is sovereign risk in this nation, and these types of decisions back up exactly what the ambassador from Japan has said. We rely on trade; trade is an enormous part of this nation, its economy and its ability to employ people in this country, and we must continue to protect it—not destroy it. So I want to congratulate the members for O'Connor, Durack and Forrest, the WA Nats, the WA Libs and the WA Labor Party, who also oppose this and who also say it's not right because it directly impacts the people in their state and that it is absolutely unnecessary.

I ask again of the House: what is next? Which industry is it that will upset Labor's sensibilities? Which industry is it that will be sent down the river because they need a deal on preferences to win? We all know statements from the Hon. Graham Richardson, the former member of the other place, in Whatever It TakesI get all that. But 'whatever it takes' shouldn't be at the cost of an Australian's livelihood in an industry which has been in place for a long time and which fills a need and a demand. It's an industry that's necessary because of the circumstances. We don't live in a world that is made up of fluffy clouds and unicorns running around providing layers of gold for every individual. In the world of reality, particularly if you're an agricultural producer, you get stock losses. You do! It doesn't matter if you're in livestock or you're in horticulture, you get damage and you get loss. It is part of the risk of farming. But, in this industry, they've done everything they possibly could to reduce that risk. Will there be incidents? Of course there will be incidents. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of heads of sheep. It doesn't take very much for one of them to fall over, to break a leg. It happens. But we have to accept that if we want to provide protein to the world, particularly in places where there is no refrigeration and no refrigerated logistical transport then live export is what there is.

I'll come back to where I started: is the cattle trade next? If you're in the Northern Territory, if you're in the Far North or if you're in Queensland and you rely on what is a very import of trade for that area of the country, are you at risk? I think the answer is: absolutely you are under this federal government, because they've done it before. Overnight, they closed down live cattle.

We've all read the media reports on the costs—which are significant and yet to be paid, if I recall correctly—and the impact they had on Australia's reputation. These are live animals. Regardless of what the federal parliament decides, they continue to grow. They continue to move outside the bracket of where it works for them to be exported. They continue to produce wool. They continue to do a whole pile of things. Ultimately, the result of this policy in Western Australia will be hundreds of thousands of head of sheep that have to be destroyed because they are valueless and cannot be fed. They will end up in a hole in the ground, and there will be more heartbroken farmers, because they established an industry, they took the risks that were necessary, and they did everything right apart from causing an upset to this federal Labor government.

I say again to the ministers involved: you don't need to do this. Listen to all the individuals that keep the sheep. Listen to your WA counterparts. Listen to the ones who are directly impacted, because it is they who pay the price. It is not individuals like the member for Macnamara, and I heard his speech just before. If you live in an inner-city seat, you don't see most of this. Some of them will come from regional areas, but they don't live in the world of reality. The reality is that these things take effort and risk. You take the risk, you want the reward. Every single person involved in this supply chain deserves the respect of every individual in this country, because they are providing food for this nation and food for other nations. They are ensuring that we do not have further sovereign risk and further reduction in agricultural production in this nation. I oppose this bill absolutely and wholeheartedly.

See this speech in context