Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

This bill has been closely watched, discussed and debated in my electorate of Curtin. I've been inundated with emails and calls from farmers, current and retired, and those involved in the live sheep export industry who don't want the market to end, as well as inundated with emails and calls from constituents who want to see the market end as soon as possible.

It's clear to all that the halting of the live sheep export industry will disproportionately affect Western Australia and Western Australians. WA has been the only state exporting live sheep since 2019. According to the WA Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, in 2023, 12 per cent of sheep disposals by WA producers were by live sheep export. In relatable numbers, this means that nearly 671,000 sheep were exported, which contributed $70 million to the economy. Geographically, WA is isolated from the large eastern states' sheep market and, for the last 50 years, has exported live sheep as an integral part of the sheep industry. So it's understandable that WA sheep farmers are very concerned.

Because this is such a divisive topic in my electorate, I've been trying to learn as much as I can from all sides of the debate to ensure I can make a positive and pragmatic contribution. In December last year, I held a live sheep export round table where I invited a farmer, a representative from the Australian Livestock Exporters Council, a vet, an academic and a representative from the RSPCA into a room together to discuss the, at that stage, proposed ban. Needless to say, after a 90-minute discussion, I came to the useful conclusion that it was very complicated.

The attendees who were in favour of continuing the live sheep export made some good points: animal welfare in the sheep industry is now better than it used to be and better than many other countries that export sheep; the mortality rate on sheep ships is now fairly low; ending the live sheep trade will have a significant economic impact on many WA farmers; and live exported sheep play an important and integrated role in the viability of many WA farms. The attendees who were in favour of banning the live sheep export industry made the following points, which also seemed to stack up: it's hot on our sheep export routes to the Middle East, without much relief at night, and the sheep are likely to suffer heat stress; we don't have very sophisticated measures of distress and heat stress; the reform in the Australian live sheep industry has been largely reactive; and self-regulation doesn't seem to work particularly well, because of a lack of transparency and accountability.

Of course, there are a number of statements that were disputed by both sides, like whether the live sheep export decline in recent years has been because of the anticipation of a ban or if it was declining anyway. Also, there was conflicting data presented on public sentiment relating to live sheep export.

At its heart, this issue comes down to economics and livelihoods versus values and animal rights. This is not an argument where one side can convince the other. Those against the industry believe that the slaughter of sheep should happen as close to the farm gate as possible to reduce stress. Farmers who stand to lose financially believe this is a politically populist decision driven by the eastern states. As we know, in 2018, the ALP announced that it would phase out the live sheep export industry. It was a pre-election promise for the 2019 and 2022 elections. It is an ALP platform issue and I'm not going to argue against this position. I understand the animal rights concerns and I'm equally concerned by the stories of animal suffering. I've seen the figures that show the live sheep export market has been declining and sheepmeat exports have been increasing, so I will be supporting this bill before the House which will end live sheep exports by sea by 1 May 2028.

However, I want to discuss the government's announcement that it will commit $107 million to a transition support package to support the Western Australian sheep industry supply chain. I see my role as advocating for those in WA and in Curtin who are affected by this policy and making sure they get the best possible deal as they transition to a new industry. It's an unusual step to ban an industry and farmers should be looked after during the transition. The transition is focused especially on the expansion of the Western Australian onshore processing market, with refrigerated product to be transported to international and domestic markets.

In order to represent the largely retired farmers in Curtin, I sought input on what the transition package should look like from Curtin constituents who contacted me in favour of keeping the live sheep trade. I asked three questions: Firstly, what are the biggest needs for affected farmers and others in the supply chain during the transition? Secondly, what's the best way to support more onshore processing of sheep in Western Australia? Thirdly, what other types of support should be included in the program?

I was pleased that so many constituents were willing to engage with this process. Based on the replies received, I've made a submission to the minister in relation to the transition package based on this feedback. All reiterated their dismay about the live sheep export phase-out. The feedback specific to the live sheep ban transition package illustrated a number of important points: firstly, the need for a long-term perspective. Constituents were clear that the focus should be on genuine transition rather than short-term cash handouts. Many considered the package grossly inadequate, especially given the need to apply to the entire supply chain from farmers to exporters.

Secondly, extensive planning is needed for abattoir infrastructure. Expanding onshore processing of sheep will require more abattoirs. The reality is abattoirs in Western Australia require migrant labour and associated accommodation to operate effectively. These are already proving to be very difficult in the current economic conditions. Infrastructure will need to be built and housing provided. The challenge for a successful transition to build this industry and provide farmers with an alternative is therefore significant.

Thirdly, mental health implications for communities need to be considered. Mental health support for affected individuals and communities will be required and will be significant. When livelihoods are jeopardised, the impacts cut deep and undermine whole communities, including schools and the social fabric of towns. These are tight-knit communities who pride themselves on looking out for each other. Transitioning workers and ensuring meaningful employment and opportunities ties in with this mental health support.

Fourthly, there are significant supply chain issues. The lack of refrigeration in largely Middle Eastern country importers need to be addressed to facilitate the market for packaged meat. Freight subsidies for processed meat should be considered and new markets for processed meat need to be opened up to enable a proper transition pathway. Appropriate subsidies should be considered.

In conclusion, I recently supported a motion to refer this legislation to a committee because it will have a significant impact on the farmers affected. The size and make-up of the transition package needs to be carefully considered. I recognise that the ALP made the banning of this industry an election promise and is unlikely to reverse that decision and break its election promise, but I also recognise that banning an entire industry is a bold and unusual move. This is an industry that operates largely in Western Australia. Adequately supporting transition is essential, and I will give voice to my affected constituents in this transition process. I urge the government to engage deeply with those affected and ensure we are finding viable alternatives to protect our important agricultural exports from Western Australia.

See this speech in context