Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The export of live sheep by sea is an industry which has certainly faced its fair share of scrutiny and criticism over the years. As a result, it's true that this industry is currently one of the most highly-regulated trades in the country. It's also true that there are farmers, particularly in Western Australia, who breed stock to meet the demands of this export sector. I accept these markets exist for a variety of reasons, including slaughter, feeder and breeder, and that, in some instances, the reason that livestock is important is because refrigeration facilities in some of their destination markets are scarce. But the challenge lies in the ongoing operation of a trade that has lost its social licence, because, fairly or not, the images and stories told around it show that our continuing involvement in the trade is problematic from an animal welfare perspective.

It is with a deep sense of responsibility then to multiple stakeholders and communities that I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. To be clear: among many other issues, including climate change, the housing crisis, integrity in politics and equality, my community cares deeply about animal welfare. While we do not have a live sheep export in my electorate, we have a substantial number of people who have become increasingly concerned about the way this industry has operated over time. These people aren't raving mad. Nor are they the inner-city latte-sipping woke set that some will claim. Many of them, like me, are people who grew up in regional or rural Australia but who now reside in an urban area. So they're not naive of the challenges that transitioning away from any industry brings. Rather, they're compassionate people who accept that those who live on the land are frequently the most committed to animal welfare. But they're also able to recognise a diminishing trade which is not only increasingly difficult to justify in terms of animal welfare but which also has limited long-term economic prospects. My community sees an upside here for animals and agribusinesses, and for those connected to them, in instituting a planned transition away from this trade. And they're prepared to use their voices and their votes to ensure that everyone comes out the better because of the transition.

Ending live sheep exports by sea was an issue that was raised consistently with me from the very beginning of the community independent movement in my electorate of North Sydney.

As a girl who grew up in regional Australia, it was not a trade I was naive to. I am an incredibly passionate advocate for our regional and rural communities and economies, so it is not lost on me that the commentary that pits city people against country people is something that could play out during this debate. With all of that said, having looked at the evidence available to this point in time and listening to the community in its broadest sense, I do stand to support this legislation because I believe we can pursue higher ethical standards when developing government policy. At the same time, though, my community has also called to ensure that those regional communities, particularly those in Western Australia, who have clearly articulated what they need to navigate the closure of this industry, must be supported. I want to acknowledge the organisations and communities that have actively participated in this robust debate around this policy reform, including the 44,000 Australians who signed one of the largest official e-petitions in the history of our parliament.

Reform in this area is also supported by recent findings of an independent panel following a six-month inquiry which heard from over 2,000 individuals, undertook 96 stakeholder meetings and received more than 800 submissions and 3,300 survey responses. The panel did hear from a broad range of stakeholders, including producers, supply chain participants, export businesses, community groups, animal welfare organisations and trading partners. During the process, some argued that an end date of 1 May 2028 was too far away. But I believe it strikes the right balance in meeting the community's expectation, whilst also allowing for an orderly transition and the effective delivery of appropriate financial and other support for farmers, supply chain businesses, exporters, and trading partners. As the Australian Alliance for Animals has said, many accept this legislation is a fair, common-sense package that supports the industry to move forward towards a more humane and sustainable future.

Ultimately, the truth is this industry has not only been in decline for some time but has also been on notice that this reform was coming. For this reason, while I honestly do feel for those who will now have to navigate this change—and I will fight to ensure they are adequately supported by this government—I also believe they've had ample notice. Inquiries into live sheep export welfare issues date back to 1985. Since then, at least 10 government and parliamentary reviews have examined the live sheep export trade and its associated animal welfare issues. While these reviews have led to significant regulatory reform of animal welfare standards to which exporters must adhere, reports of breaches continue to occur.

Politicians from all sides of the political spectrum have made attempts to reform or phase out our live sheep exports over the years, including through private members' bills from Andrew Wilkie, Nick Xenophon and the Greens in 2011, through to now deputy leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Farrer, Ms Sussan Ley, who in 2018 tabled a private member's bill to not only ban live sheep exports to the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer months in 2019 but to entirely close the sector down five years from the date of introduction of that bill. Ironically, that would have seen this sector close this year. Because notwithstanding the intended support of the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock and the exporters' supply chain assurance system, repeatedly we have seen poor outcomes for sheep as they travel long, stressful journeys, often in suboptimal conditions aboard live export vessels.

Since 2019, the only trading route used for live exports by sea is out of Western Australia to the Middle East, a journey that can take over three weeks. The most recent live sheep export crisis was just a few short months ago when the MV Bahijah left animals stranded on a vessel off the coast of Western Australia for over a month due to conflict in the Red Sea. Sadly, the case followed many other high-profile cases, including of course the incredibly stressful footage we all saw from aboard the Awassi in 2018, which saw the then coalition government adopting enforceable restrictions to trade during the hottest months of the Northern Hemisphere summer.

While exceptional failures such as these make headlines, the live sheep export industry has been plagued by concern for decades. Indeed, a summary of the RSPCA Australia's analysis by independent observers paints a pretty stark picture. Data gathered by these observers from over 53 live sheep export journeys carrying 2½ million sheep between 2018 and 2023 found that, in over 80 per cent of voyages, sheep were starving onboard. In at least 60 per cent of cases, there were signs of animals suffering from heat stress. In addition, 14 of the 53 independent observers' reports also indicated issues with ventilation, including sheep being housed in unapproved areas of the ship, hot spots near engine rooms and the smell of ammonia building up in some pens. They were starving, stressed and suffocating.

With extreme weather events happening increasingly frequently across Australia, it's true that you can at times also find starving and stressed animals on farms right across Australia. But when seen in these circumstances, people are able to reconcile themselves to the fact that this is a natural event beyond their control. The difference here is that, when we see these images of animals aboard a ship, we know that this is actually within our control. Therefore, it is little wonder that these images have resulted in the loss of social licence for this industry. Sadly, whether we like it or not, the general consumer impression is that, despite industry assurances to do better, the commitment is not able to be borne out. As RSPCA Australia points out, if these problems could be fixed, they would have been fixed by now.

In a broader context, as the social licence has declined so, too, has the real market for live sheep exports by sea. It's due in large part to the prohibitive costs of international buyers in sourcing live sheep from Australia. From 2002 to 2023, the number of live sheep exported by sea decreased by a massive 90 per cent, from over 6½ million head to just 652,000 sheep. In 2022, Australia exported just 489,000 sheep, which represents just one per cent of the total value of Australia's sheepmeat and wool exports and around 0.1 per cent of the total value of Australia's agricultural exports. Given this decline, it actually does seem that now is the time to step into a phased, planned transition out of this sector.

Some will argue that our absence from this market will simply open it up to others, and I do not disagree. Some will also argue that the whole issue here is perpetuated by sovereign overreach that sees us sell a product to someone else but then demand control over how they use that product once it's handed over. In this case, I can absolutely see the hypocrisy. After all, we happily ship our fossil fuels offshore, taking no responsibility for what happens to them once they hit their destination. How is it, then, that our obligations to track scope 3 emissions, which we know are having a direct impact on climate globally, are so easily sidestepped while our animal welfare issues are grinding this trade to a halt? I don't have the answer to that question, but I would suggest it has something to do with political expediency.

Focusing on the transition—for it to proceed successfully, it is absolutely imperative that the plan and the support package offered by the government are not only appropriate but are delivered effectively to those affected by the phasing out of live sheep exports. In this context, I will take the opportunity to say that the government's record on supporting impacted businesses in this area is appalling. After all, our government still finds itself at loggerheads with those suppliers who were directly impacted by the 2011 decision to ban live exports to Indonesia. Those producers who joined forces to bring a class action against the government are still waiting for compensation, even though they won their case in the Federal Court. I say to the government, 'Settle that case now, or risk entering this next phase with little to no credibility.' In our current place and time, the businesses, communities and other entities that rely on this trade for economic sustenance must be able to trust that they will be supported as they navigate switching their land use to other purposes or as they try to capitalise on emerging opportunities in the domestic processing of sheepmeat for chilled or frozen export.

Having grown up in a regional community, I know exactly how tough a transition like this can be and how vulnerable it can leave families if governments and new industry do not step into the gaps created. In my own lifetime, I have seen the impact of the demise of the regional rail network on many small regional communities near my home town of Coonabarabran. More recently, I've personally witnessed the impact of the loss of the forestry industry in the Pilliga not only on the economy but also on the overall health of the forest. Ultimately, transitions like this fail when they are forced upon communities, and the communities are just expected to cope. The affected communities must be put at the epicentre of the challenge, and people like me and others across my electorate must be prepared to listen to them, work with them and advocate for them to ensure that those navigating the coalface of this transition can thrive.

I welcome the government's consideration of the concerns of farmers and businesses in the supply chain who will be negatively impacted by this legislation, and I commit to holding this government to account for making appropriate levels of funding available to support the industry transition. I note the government's plan to work directly with Austrade to build business and trade relationships in the Middle East and North Africa, and to fund a transition advocate to maintain two-way communication between industry and government throughout the transition period.

In closing, I do want to ensure that it's understood that the reform we are discussing today relates specifically to the live sheep export industry, and it is not to be taken to be immediately applicable to other forms of agricultural export. I am aware of a deliberate campaign of misinformation launched by some in this place, painting me as someone who is set on closing all live export industries, and that claim is simply not true.

Having grown up around farms, I understand the importance of food security and regional communities. I value the agricultural sector, and I will fight tooth and nail to ensure regional and rural communities are not left behind. No-one cares more for their stock than a farmer. No-one knows their animals better. No-one gives up more to make sure their animals are healthy, strong and productive. Therefore, where industries have shown themselves to be capable of managing the requirements of animal welfare, such as in the case of live cattle exports, I will back them and I will encourage my community to do the same.

Many in my community will welcome this legislation today. But I want to reassure those who will be directly impacted by the cessation of this trade that we do see you, we will not forget you and we are committed to ensuring that our federal government works with you to ensure that you are stronger on the other side of this reform.

See this speech in context