Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

This bill sets a horrible precedent. Let me tell you and the people of Australia what that precedent is. We have before us an industry, the live sheep industry, which has done every single thing asked of it by government. I'll reflect on the 2018 Awassi Express saga shortly, but, assuming for a minute that that wasn't a contrived situation, from that point this industry has done every single thing asked of it by government. Yet this industry can be cancelled just like that. Lives, potentially, but definitely livelihoods lost.

The industry should think deeply about that. What industry is next? If you can do everything that government and the regulators have asked of you and you can be put out of business at the stroke of a parliamentary pen, a prime ministerial directive, then think about your industry and your country. That's the precedent we're setting here tonight by this bill. It's not based on the science. It's not based on the data. It's based on blatant ideology. Some could argue that it is based on science—political science. It's not based on the science around animal welfare because, as I said, the industry has done every single thing asked of it.

The industry was asked to initiate a moratorium on sheep exported during the Northern Hemisphere summer. It did that. The industry was asked to increase space and reduce stocking rates on ships. It's done that by up to 38 per cent since 2017. Improved ventilation on ships, with independent auditing—done. Automated environmental monitoring on decks to record deck temperatures—done. Independent government observers on decks—done. The industry has done every single thing asked of it, yet this government turns its back on these farmers and this industry.

So let's talk about the Awassi Express. I wonder how many Australians know that Animals Australia paid the so-called whistleblower A$160,000 for the material he furnished to Animals Australia. I don't think many Australians know that. Lyn White at Animals Australia indicated in her affidavit that she did that because effectively this person was taking real risks to provide that evidence. She did that after having previously been provided evidence by a particular individual which wasn't quite up to scratch. She provided him with a new phone, a more modern phone, and indicated the kind of evidence that was sought and, lo and behold, on the Awassi Express, that evidence was collected—$160,000 does beg a question, doesn't it? I support whistleblowing legislation. I think we should have it. I think whistleblowers perform an important role in society. But I don't think it's cash for whistleblower contributions. It's worse; it's cash for evidence of cruelty. I don't think you should do that. It will forever lead me to question how that came about.

Australian farmers care deeply about their livestock. I don't know an Australian farmer who doesn't. Indeed, Australian farmers expend tens of thousands of dollars, and in some cases many hundreds of thousands of dollars, on animal veterinary products. They do that because they want to ensure their animals remain healthy because a healthy animal is a profitable animal. So for me this is a really difficult pill to swallow on behalf of the farmers I represent. They care so deeply about their livestock and they take care of their livestock, and yet they're being accused, if you like, of animal cruelty simply because they participate in the live sheep trade.

People might think that Australia's decision to no longer participate in the live sheep trade will end the live sheep trade globally. That's rubbish. Sheep will continue to be traded live globally. It's just that Australians—and in particular Australian farmers—won't be able to participate in that trade. They'll be blocked from accessing the trade. Now, people come in here who quite frankly don't know one end of a ewe from the other and say, 'Oh, well, we can process these animals in Australia.' It's very difficult in the Western Australian context to get a lamb up to specification in the way that you can in areas like mine. As a result, this product is simply not going to be viable; if you take out one part of a farming system, you affect it in its entirety.

But I don't want the House to misunderstand and think that this is only a Western Australian problem. Once this position was announced, the price of sheepmeat in this country plummeted. In my electorate, it as good as halved. There aren't sheep exported from my electorate live. But, of course, the sheep that were slated to leave—with the industry already packing up and leaving—were processed domestically, and as a result the price for processing sheepmeat reduced significantly. This had a real impact, not just on sheep producers in Western Australia but on sheep producers all over the country.

Those opposite might think they've pulled a particularly smart political trick. They might think that, well, they've made a cold, hard, calculated decision that they can achieve this outcome politically and it won't hurt them. Well, good on the farmers of Western Australia, who have stood up with the 'Keep the sheep' campaign. Sixty-one thousand people have signed that petition. Those opposite think, 'What's in a petition?' That's not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This industry has had enough. The animal activists have spent their time for too long on their business while farmers, who get up at the crack of dawn and work until well after dusk have been spending time on theirs. The point is that the farmers have now worked out that, while they were working on their business, the activists were working on theirs, and the activists' business was to put the farmer out of business. The farmers, via the Keep the Sheep campaign and, let's hope more broadly across Australia, via the 'let them farm' campaign to keep farmers farming, will fight back. They will do it in the smartest of ways.

I travelled to Western Australia to support the sheepmeat industry with my good friends the members for O'Connor and Durack, whose constituents are at the pointy end of this particular decision. Do you know what each of those farmers at those events, no doubt including some of the 61,000 people who have signed the petition, said to me? 'Tony, we can name the six most marginal Western Australian seats. Actually, we can name the most marginal seats across the country.' I expect there'll be an army in these seats come election day. Those opposite might say, 'No, we're not gonna see that; good luck.'

I come from South Australia. I saw the campaigns that were run by the state Labor Party. SA ambulances said, 'I can't save your life if I'm fighting for my job.' I saw the campaign. There were fake firies in other contexts, on polling booths, asking people to vote in support of the brave firefighters. Well, good luck in your campaigns, because the Western Australian farmers and farmers across the country will have tens of thousands of people rolling out on polling day with a single message: put Labor last. If I were in a marginal Labor seat, I'd be terrified at that prospect, and they should be. Three thousand Western Australians are employed directly by this industry, thousands of people indirectly. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, this is an industry that has done absolutely everything asked of it.

Whilst I'm on the subject, the Australian live sheep industry doesn't just export sheep. It exports animal welfare standards to the world. Why? Australia the only jurisdiction in the world, and I'll say it again—the only jurisdiction in the world—to take an interest in our stock, via the world-renowned ESCAS system, once our stock have left our borders. No other country in the world takes that interest. As I said, this won't end the live sheep trade around the world, as much as Prime Minister Albanese thinks he's a global thought leader. It just punishes Australian farmers.

Globally, it also subjects animals to more cruelty. Why do I say that? I've had the pleasure of inspecting the facilities that are used by Australians to export live sheep. I've looked at the standards. I've also seen footage and images of other countries and how they go about the trade. I've got to tell you, it's chalk and cheese. As I said, no other country in the world has the ESCAS system. While Australia was participating in this trade, it was exporting those world-renowned standards to the world. Australia is no longer going to participate in the trade and, as a result, those standards won't be seen in this trade anymore. So the ability to influence other jurisdictions by the very enlightened Australian way of being is gone.

I mentioned the real politics of this. I hasten to suggest that Premier Cook has a fair handle on sentiment in Western Australia—that he's someone who gets that this is a dog of a policy and that this is going to be bad for Western Australia and Western Australians. He said that it's unnecessary, and:

We believe the welfare arrangements that are in place, the checks and balances that have been put in place as a result of the reforms around that are sufficient.

That was Premier Cook of Western Australia.

This is the thin edge of the wedge. If Australians think for one minute that those opposite, who have been corralled by inner-city voters and the keyboard warriors of this country into banning what is a lawful trade and, as I said, an industry that's done everything asked of it—where mortality rates are lower on the ships than in my own paddocks—do we really think that the activists are going to stop there? How long before the activists celebrate the victory and move to the cattle industry? How long? Not long, I suggest. This is a government that still hasn't finalised settlements from the Brett cattle case. So my message to rural industries is clear: watch out, you're next!

See this speech in context