Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the Hon. Leader of the Nationals proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to competently administer Australia's live cattle export industry.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The pictures of mistreatment and cruel abuse of Australian cattle in Indonesia shocked us all. The humane slaughter of cattle and other livestock to feed humanity is something that we know about and expect in this country. Australian farmers take immense pride in breeding and raising healthy and well-cared for animals, in line with the highest animal welfare standards in the world. So the footage that was aired on Four Corners was abhorrent to every Australian, especially every Australian farmer. I thought it was well summed up by Northern Territory cattle producers Chris and Murray Muldoon, at their Midway Station, when Mrs Muldoon said:

I was absolutely horrified. I made myself watch it, but I couldn't stop crying …

We had no idea things were that bad. I think it's a small proportion of the Indonesian industry, but that's no excuse, it's not acceptable.

Let me say that my own reaction was very similar. Senator Ludwig, the Australian Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, had an immediate response. His response was to promptly prevent Australian cattle being slaughtered in such appalling circumstances by slapping bans on unsatisfactory Indonesian facilities. That was absolutely the right decision. Once more, the minister made the decision promptly; he acted decisively.

But that is not the government's way. We all know that the decision-making process of this government is always burdened with incompetence, mismanagement and bungling. Indeed, that has been the trademark of the way in which this government has functioned. Every decision-making process it undertakes is a litany of disasters. It governs by committees, reviews and inquiries. But this minister had actually dared to be decisive and make a decision on the spot. Once more, he got it right, but that was unacceptable to certain nervous Nellies on the government back benches. It was too much for them to bear to have a minister actually make a decision and, once more, for that decision to be the right one. So, apparently, they got in the ear of the Prime Minister, whose knees got weaker and weaker. She contacted the minister to tell him that he had to reverse his decision. They humiliated their own minister, who had done the right thing.

The Prime Minister told him to back off and to implement immediately a total ban on all exports of Australian live animals to Indonesia. This ban covered not just the abattoirs that had been identified as having bad practice. Indeed, a list was prepared by the RSPCA and others, upon which the minister had first acted. There was no room for any abattoir that was not covered by that list or indeed subsequently identified as being one of poor practice to be separate from those who were actually doing the right thing. The point that seems to have been lost in the debate at that time, but which is very important in this debate, is that a number of abattoirs in Indonesia have world's best practice. They are leaders in good practice. They have slaughtering and processing facilities at least equivalent to what we have in this country—higher standards than are required by the OIE, the world animal health organisation. But the government announced a ban, potentially for six months, on the good abattoirs as well as the bad ones. Those doing the right thing have been penalised along with those who are doing the wrong thing. Those who spent money on putting in place world's best practice are being denied an opportunity to remain in business.

Clearly it was important to make an immediate call to ban those abattoirs with unsatisfactory practices, but the subsequent ham-fisted decision did not take into account the fact that there are many facilities—or at least a number of facilities, with others in the process of being upgraded—where the trade could have reasonably remained in operation. Indeed, some of these facilities could have stood as an example to other places. One of the worst things about this decision to ban everything was that it ended the incentives for Indonesian abattoirs to do the right thing. Why should you spend money? Why should you incur extra costs if you are going to be treated exactly the same as abattoirs that are not doing the right thing?

Earlier in the debate that we have just had, the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was critical of me for having suggested that we could get the trade back up in operation very quickly. Let me give you a very specific example where the trade could recommence within 24 hours without any risk that Australian animals would end up in an unsatisfactory abattoir. Let me tell you about the 1,937 cattle currently being held in an AQIS certified holding yard in Port Hedland. They are all NLIS tagged. These are Australian cattle, owned by an Australian company. They are ready to be transported on an Australian owned and operated livestock carrier with full AMSA accreditation. They are to be delivered to an Australian owned and operated feedlot that has a full set of quality assurance procedures which are independently audited by an international company. The cattle are to be sent there for 80 to 110 days, then they are to be slaughtered in an Australian owned and operated abattoir and processing facility. There are many Australian staff in this facility. It has HACCP and ISO 9001 accreditation.

After the cattle are slaughtered, the beef will be boxed and distributed by a company half owned by the same Australian company. It is a closed loop. What is the reason for banning this shipment from departing Australia? Was it this shipment that was the catalyst for the minister's decision when he was overruled by the Prime Minister? They could have sent Australian animals on Australian ships to an Australian abattoir to be processed by Australians and distributed through Indonesia by Australians. Why cannot that trade be allowed to recommence immediately? In addition to everything else, it would provide an example and a lead to others. If you wanted to, you could put inspectors in to make sure there is nothing lost along the way and that the tags that are already on these animals are regularly read. You could put all of those kinds of conditions in place—and this shipment could be on the water within 24 hours. The reality is that the government's ham-fisted approach, turning good policy response into bad policy response, has sent shudders right through the industry.

The Ramadan festival is nigh—the time when the demand for livestock in Indonesia peaks. Indonesia cannot stand by and allow the loss of the meat for this festival. I am told that Indonesia is already inquiring about sourcing stock from Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and even India. None of those countries will be as demanding as Australia when it comes to the treatment of the animals that go to Indonesia. They are not investing any money in improving animal welfare standards in the marketplace. They do not have the disease-free status of the herds we have in Australia, so imports of those cattle to Indonesia will bring foot-and-mouth disease and other diseases close to our borders. The abattoirs are not going to stay idle because there are no Australian cattle. The cattle will come from other places where standards and concerns are not as high.

In addition to the government's ill-considered approach to delivering the best possible animal welfare outcomes in Indonesia—and, for that matter, in Australia—the government made this decision without any plan to deal with the immediate implications of the decision. They gave no thought to the consequences of what they had done. There were 13,000 head or thereabouts in quarantine, ready for departure. There were 150,000 head in the train and 250,000 either about to be mustered or in various stages of the process of assembling for the trade. The jobs of hundreds were at stake—stockmen, truckies, helicopter pilots, vets, food suppliers, agents, wharf workers, seamen and shopkeepers. Whole towns have been put at risk because of this ill-thought-out decision by a government that is simply unable to take a positive direction.

Instead the minister announces a repeat of the Labor way of making decisions—a whole stack of reviews. They appoint Mr Farmer, but he will take six months to consider all of these sorts of issues. There will be no industry left in six months time. The dry season will have passed, these cattle will have to have been dispersed in some way or another and the industry will not be able to recover again for the next season, whenever that might happen. Action needs to be taken urgently. It could be done now if the government had the will and if they were of a mind to do it.

Let us look at some of the practical implications of what has happened. This is a $320 million industry—47 per cent of our total live cattle exports. In reality, however, it is a billion dollar industry because there are so many other industries that are attached to it. There has been an immediate drop in the cattle market across Australia and meat in Australian stores has devalued. A Western Australian helicopter musterer, Colin Lauritsen, said he would just have to find something else to do for a living. His heli-mustering business in the Gascoyne is grounded. Shares in Australia's largest cattle producer, AACO, were placed in a trading hold as the company assesses the impact of the government's decision. The General Manager of the Milne AgriGroup, which supplies cattle feed, said that he will not be supplying feed to those markets and the company will have to lay off shifts of workers due to the drop in sales. South Australian feed producer JT Johnson has 500 tonnes of feed sitting in Darwin. The company director Robbie Johnson said that he will be forced to let employees go. Executive Director of the Australian Livestock Transporters Association, Philip Halton, says the impact on truck companies will be severe. They are concerned also about the state of the domestic market. The Broome Port Authority says it is struggling to make ends meet after losing two of its most important industries. It says that if the export ban is not lifted soon, the port will struggle to remain viable. Perhaps ABC's Chris Uhlmann, in his report on The Drum, made some of the most important comments:

There are 82 Indigenous cattle properties in northern Australia with strong links to the live export trade—54 in the Territory, 22 in the Kimberley and Pilbara and six in far north Queensland. These directly support 700 real Indigenous jobs—

they are so rare, as we know—

and it's estimated they indirectly support a further 17,000 people in station communities. And that's not counting the Indigenous employees working for non-Indigenous companies. All up the cattle industry that trades with Indonesia employs 11,000 people.

Kirsty Forshaw at Nita Downs draws attention to the problem with cattle welfare, saying, 'Cows are already pregnant and there will not be enough food for all of them. It is a no-brainer. It is not one or two or even 20 that we are talking about; it is thousands and thousands of cattle that are going to suffer and die.' That is not a good outcome. That is not a good outcome for the people of Northern Australia and it is particularly not a good outcome for animal welfare.

I know that considerable effort will need to be undertaken over a period of time to get the whole of the Indonesian industry to a stage which we regard as satisfactory. The industry needs to play a key role in continuing to raise standards in Indonesia. The government should use some of the foreign aid that it gives to Indonesia to invest in these abattoirs and to improve animal welfare and animal welfare practices. If we care about Australian cattle, don't we also care about Indonesian cattle and Brazilian cattle? Don't we want good animal welfare outcomes for all animals? That means improving the whole chain, not just for Australian cattle but for all animals. I know that this will take some time, but what the minister can do and can do immediately is open up the trade for those who are doing the right thing, those who can guarantee the security of their supply chain and guarantee there will be no leakage to abattoirs of unsatisfactory standards and, as a result, help to encourage investment in best practice right across the country.

Indonesia has been a good friend of Australia and this has been a good market for us. The government has bungled yet another issue. The minister had made the right decision. I call on members of the government to let him alone and let him get on with implementing the good decision that he made, which will deliver the best possible outcome not just for the Australian cattle industry but particularly for animal welfare in Indonesia.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a shame that we have had to prolong the embarrassment of the member for Wide Bay on this issue of live animal exports after his statements on Radio National today. To reiterate, this issue has a long generation going back the many years of the Howard government's time in office—the full 12 years in fact. The relationship and arrangements that related to the MLA began with John Anderson's activities back in 1997. So this has a long history. But, once again, this is another case of the coalition being asleep at the wheel as they were on so many issues during those Rip Van Winkle years.

We should systematically respond in this matter of public importance by talking about what the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has done and what is at stake, what is involved and how technically difficult this issue is. We should highlight that the minister initiated action on this matter back in January, well before the Four Corners material was aired on 30 May. He wrote to the industry asking them to address the issue of better animal welfare and then followed through by working with the industry in follow-on contact. The essential part of this was that we were seeking transparency and trying to work through the lack of verification across the system. In my earlier comments I referred to some of the subsequent action that has been taken. I emphasise the action taken by the Australian Chief Veterinarian Officer on 31 May after the program was aired, but the letter that the minister wrote was way back in January.

The minister acted aggressively after a full airing of that program. He only saw the footage on the day it was made available prior to programming. He responded by asking for orders to be prepared to enforce the complete suspension of live animal exports. He directed DAFF to implement a moratorium on the installation of any new Mark 1 boxes and he also instructed the Australian Chief Veterinarian Officer to coordinate an independent scientific assessment of the ongoing appropriateness of both the Mark 1 and Mark 4 restraint boxes.

On 8 June, the minister suspended the export of live cattle to Indonesia and made it very clear that that would remain in effect until there was a verifiable and transparent supply chain giving us assurance up to and including the point of slaughter for every consignment that leaves Australia. This was followed on 13 June by the appointment of Bill Farmer to conduct the review that I referred to. The immediate investigation that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is being ordered to do followed the picking up of that footage and the evidence associated with it—looking into it and determining what it represented and what abattoirs it was portraying. The department is working on that aspect as well as a moratorium on the installation of any new Mark 1 restraint boxes with Commonwealth funding. The DAFF officials have already arrived in Indonesia. They will be joined this week by an independent representative of the Australian Veterinary Association, and I stress that it is an independent representative. They will be conducting a review of the processing facilities that receive Australian cattle in Indonesia.

As I have mentioned, the Indonesian government shares our concern that some animals are not being slaughtered in accordance with Indonesia's own animal welfare laws. Certainly both governments have acknowledged that this is not an issue that threatens the relationship but that it is an issue that we both need to get settled. The trade minister, Dr Mari Pangestu, has stressed in her public comments that Australia's action represented a temporary suspension and that Indonesia was keen to improve practices. Also, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has recognised the importance of the issue and he has asked his ministers, the ministers for agriculture and health, to examine and manage abattoirs in Indonesia in accordance with health, religious and animal welfare standards. So we are seeing a very genuine engagement from the Indonesian government, and I thank them on behalf of the government for their actions in this respect. I do want to highlight that they are being serious in this engagement. They understand the implications, for themselves as well as for our industry, associated with this issue.

It is important to stress that this order is in place for six months only as a maximum. We will ensure that the suspension only applies for as long as is absolutely necessary to guarantee supply chain assurance. I stress that it is very important that we have supply chain assurance, because while the abattoirs are a key link in the supply chain they are not the only part. What is important is to be able to ascertain that animals are being handled well throughout the processes and that the exporters have certainty about where the animals they export are being slaughtered. That will involve establishing technical measures in Indonesia to be able to provide the full range of support that is required through the National Livestock Identification System. Otherwise there will be no point in us proceeding with the tagging of these animals unless that system is in place at the other end to assist us in tracking those animals right through the chain.

The concern that has been expressed in relation to the animals that have been held up, as a result of this suspension, is a legitimate concern and I recognise that people would be concerned about what is happening with those animals. I can assure the House and the community that AQIS has inspected all cattle currently in AQIS facilities onshore and they are reported to be in good condition, so I think we can rest assured in that respect.

Of course, there is an issue here about what is happening for farmers, and that is of deep concern to all of us. I think we should genuinely recognise that there are many members on both sides of this chamber who are very much concerned about the situation of our farmers and it is very important to note—and to emphasise and stress again—that the minister is now taking direct action and exercising his powers to direct the MLA to use some of its very substantial reserves to manage the immediate domestic impact of the suspension of this trade. We all know how integral the MLA has been to this situation. The MLA, as its members have been very loud and long in stating, has been funded through the contributions by these farmers. Their expectations were that the MLA were providing certainty about the welfare treatment of these animals. We should note, when I refer to the Howard government's stewardship and time spent on this issue when they could have done something to put us in a better position in this respect, that they had experience of livestock issues along these lines and banned the export of live sheep to Egypt but that was over a much longer period than simply six months. It was a very long period indeed. Very extensive and detailed measures were put in place to make sure that there was an international-standard abattoir to receive our animals, and that was over a very long period of time.

I was in Iraq at the time that the Howard government was attempting to offload sheep with scabby mouth that were floating around for quite some time. I did manage to convince the administrator of the CPA to actually take these sheep but unfortunately the port facilities were not up to taking them. Certainly this presented another difficult problem for us in the live meat trade. So the Howard government was no stranger to this but obviously did not go through the root and branch exercise that we are now engaged in, to make sure that we as a country and our farmers are never put in this situation again. We need to put this industry on a sure footing, or at least a sure hoof. So the industry body should support the efforts of the government and get involved in supporting our farmers. If they will not do it voluntarily they will be made to do it, because it is right and proper that they do so.

In relation to Mr Farmer's independent review, as I mentioned earlier, it will investigate all live animal trade and it will review and examine the whole live animal export supply chain for all markets that receive Australian livestock. He was appointed, as the minister indicated, on 13 June and he will be asked to provide an interim report to the government by 29 July and a final report by 31 August, so there will be in no delay, no dallying, in relation to going through this process.

It is important that we need to be able to track systems all the way through to approved abattoirs and make sure that it is backed up by an accountability and veri­fication regime. So I think we can very clearly see that the government has been rigorous, has been systematic and has been determined and methodical in relation to making sure we are never put in this situation again. It is representative and indicative of the measures that this government has been taking to reinforce our farmers in this country, measures that have been long neglected by the coalition, and by the time this government is done it will be well demonstrated that this government was the best friend farmers in this country ever had. There have been many examples of what we are doing. It was this government that implemented the drought reform analysis. Everybody understood the old exceptional circumstances regime was a blunt instrument that was not serving our farmers properly so it was this government that instituted the review into the drought policy. We have committed another $44.1 million towards that process in this year's budget. It is a process that has been well accepted by the farmers, who understand we need to get it to a better place, we need to get into risk management rather than consequence management and we need to enable our farmers to deal with the peaks and troughs of the challenges they face from drought from climate change. That is where we are going with our drought reform policy. It is something this government instituted. We also have the Rural Financial Counselling Service program being extended, and I know that has been well received by men and women in the bush. We have committed $464 million for a smarter approach to the management of biosecurity right across the system. I know from my own family and from farmers in my region that biosecurity and invasive species are critical issues for them, issues that were neglected by the previous government. And we are introducing the first-ever national food plan, which will finally make sure we get the balance right of preserving our arable land and meeting the food security challenges of the future, making sure at the same time that we enable our farmers to be more productive and efficient in that process.

It has been a great day for farmers today in the passing of the Carbon Farming Initiative bills through this House. I must stress that this is a set of legislation, a set of tools, that the coalition opposed. How could they possibly be in favour of farmers and oppose the Carbon Farming Initiative, an initiative that will no doubt be regarded in the future as one of the key turning points in enabling our farmers to obtain productivity at the same time as diversifying their income while contributing to the climate change effort. It was opposed by the coalition. Why on earth would they do that? It defies belief. And it shows clearly that they are always prepared to place politics above the interests of the people we are supposed to be serving in this House. It is a great shame and discredit to them. The fact that it is an important piece of legislation for our farmers was well and truly illustrated by the fact that the Independents in this House backed that legislation, including the very wise and knowledgeable words that we heard from the member for New England, who is a farmer, who understands the benefits of this legislation. There is also the $8.8 million that we have put forward over four years to assist the implementation of reforms for the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority.

Most importantly of all, as I mentioned, our farmers are concerned about invasive species, and it was the Howard government that was going to trash the weeds CRC. It was going to be wiped off the map with nothing to replace it. I am extremely proud that I was able to advocate on behalf of my farmers, who were facing a serious challenge of fireweed in the Bega Valley, that we replace the loss of the weeds CRC with a new National Weeds and Productivity Research Program for which we have assigned $15.3 million. This is very much appreciated by our farmers. Unless you get out there and understand the threat of serrated tussock, of African love grass, of fireweed, you cannot understand that these are great threats to the productivity of our farmers. We needed research happening there. We need to get into management and eradication programs. All of that was completely neglected by the previous government. They were going to can the weeds CRC and abandon our farmers to their fate in trying to deal with invasive species. Well, we have not. We have picked that ball up and we have run with it and we are helping them in that process by backing up that research money with extra money through caring for our country and environmental stewardship programs to be applied to eradication. I have seen many examples of the success of that in my own electorate.

I say to the coalition: do not come to the dispatch box dripping hypocrisy, cheap politics and intellectual bankruptcy. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to, for once, be helpful to farmers and not sacrifice their best interests on the altar of his unbridled ambition.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All I can say is God help the graziers in Northern Australia when you have got that type of absolute uninformed drivel that is coming forward here on an issue that is so critically vital to so many families in Northern Australia. We are supposed to be talking about the banning of live exports. He talks about drought plans, food plans, carbon farming infrastructure, pesticides and weeds. He talks about everything except what concerns those families that will be sitting there today listening to this debate wondering when they are going to get their next pay cheque. The last one would have been at the end of the season last year. Many of those people, particularly in my electorate, that service this market, which is the overwhelming majority through Cape York, would have only started mustering in May because they could not get access into their country because the Peninsula Developmental Road was still shut at Easter. They have that one chance of getting a cheque for the year, for those few months. This is something that this mob on the other side have no understanding of at all. They get one opportunity to get a cheque once a year.

This is repeated right across Northern Australia. He talked about it only going to be six months. By my calculation, six months comes in about November or December this year. It is either too hot or the rains have started and the opportunity to get those 500,000 head of cattle across Northern Australia that would be going to this market has been lost. What happens with those cattle? He talks about our being humane and that we have them in the feedlots; we know they are being looked after there. How long are they going to be looked after? I have not seen any offer to feed this stock. Where are we going to process these animals? You are going to need your pesticides and your weed control as these animals will put on extra pressure if we leave them on these properties, because they will be overstocked. You are going to need all the pesticides and weed control you can get. It is going to blow your carbon initiative out the window too, I would suggest, with the numbers of cattle that we are talking about!

Quite frankly, this is an absolute disgrace. All of us that saw the program on 30 May were shocked at the revelations and there is nobody that would say that the treatment of some of those creatures was in any way acceptable. It needs to be addressed immediately. As shadow minister I have supported the minister's initiative of immediately putting a ban on those abattoirs that were featured and that showed they could not provide the appropriate level of processing. I applauded that because I thought to myself, 'We have got a minister on the other side that actually might know what he is doing.' But how disappointing. What the minister did was react to media. He reacted to form letters. He had under­standing. He should have been on a plane the next day to Indonesia, saying: 'Let's have a look at this. What have we got to do to fix this problem?' He had no idea. Here we are today and people still have no idea where they are going as far as their economic future is concerned. He still has not got on that plane; he has not bothered to check. In preparing to speak here tonight, I thought I would have a look at the government website. Maybe that will give me a little insight into the thinking of the minister and the department. I have here the Australian government's response to the mistreatment of Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs, dated 27 April 2011. The program was aired on 30 May. Obviously they knew about it just prior to it being aired. The website has not been updated. It says:

Australia leads the world in animal welfare practices. The Australian Government does not tolerate cruelty towards animals and will not compromise on animal welfare standards.

He talks about being asleep at the wheel! This mob has been in for four years, and this is what they say on the website. For anyone going to the Australian government website to find out what is happening, this is the current information. It further states:

Suggestions that the live trade could be completely replaced by chilled or frozen meat fails to take into account the requirements of the market. While Australia has developed a significant trade in meat products, the lack of refrigeration and cold chain facilities, as well as strong cultural preferences for freshly slaughtered meat, precludes Australia from servicing all of its export markets with processed meat products.

This is what is on the website even today. This is what you read from the minister, but what is said here contradicts absolutely the decision he made.

The shadow minister was right: we intro­duced NLIS tags to this country some years ago. There was some objection within industry, but the tags are very effective and they are now a national requirement. In the Northern Territory and in Western Australia there have been some exceptions to their use on cattle for export, but the exporters themselves are demanding that the NLIS tags are in place on animals before they are loaded on the boat. From what I understand, only about 10 per cent of animals going overseas now do not have NLIS tags. Those on the other side suggest that it cannot happen, but it can happen overnight. It is a simple application. For those on the other side who have no understanding of how you deal with cattle, it is a simple matter: as the cattle go through the crush, it is a one-hand operation to apply the NLIS tag. As far as registration is concerned, there is a reader in the crush and every single animal that goes through that crush is read. That record is with that animal all the way through the process. We know that there are seven large processing abattoirs in Indonesia that can deal with this problem to Australian standards, which are much higher than other international standards. It should be happening right now. There is no reason why it cannot be applied immediately. There are cattle that are ready to go out now. There is nowhere else for those cattle to be treated.

I have an email here from Shirley McPherson, the chairperson of the Indig­enous Land Corporation. Like all of us, she was absolutely shocked at the footage and the way that the cattle had been handled. She contrasted the excellent treatment of Australian cattle on the properties of origin, on export boats and in Indonesian feeding lots. She went on to say in the email that the ILC is involved with 80 Indigenous properties, collectively running over 200,000 head. They employ over 700 people and there are approximately 14,000 Indigenous people living on or near these pastoral properties. As the minister said, there are many more Indigenous people involved in this industry. It gives them a whole lot of benefits. Shirley states here that there is significantly increased employment and accredited training opportunities, increased income for Indigenous people, increased capacity as a result of training, and increased self-esteem, pride and wellbeing. These are all of the things that we talk about, including this mob over here, such as closing the gap.

These are the sorts of things that actually close the gap. They have no other opportunities in these areas other than to be processing cattle. It is what they want to do and what they do well, and here you are robbing them of that opportunity. It is all very well to say it is only six months. Six months income means a lot to people. Cameron and Doreen Quartermaine up at Watson River Station have spent a lifetime building up their property, which is at the tip of Cape York, near Weipa. They are totally reliant on the export market. They have not had a pay cheque since last year, and they are not going to get a pay cheque this year. I do not see this mob going to them saying, 'We're going to get out there. We'll help them. We'll fill that in.' They have cattle there that they have to process. We have to move very, very quickly. There is no reason why we cannot be loading cattle onto boats today or tomorrow to go into those accredited abattoirs, and the other ones have to be fixed. We need to be moving quickly on that.

What we have got to do, though, is get the minister on a plane—maybe the parlia­mentary secretary will jump on the plane with him so that he does go over there, so that the next time he comes into this place he can contribute to some level of informed debate on a process that is destroying a huge number of people's livelihoods in Northern Australia. I think they should be shamed for their lack of action, their lack of compassion and their total lack of understanding of an industry that is worth $1.8 billion to this community but, more importantly, for each and every one of the people who are affected by this, aside from those whose livelihoods have been affected in Northern Australia. These people here have a knee-jerk reaction, as I said, to form letters and have no understanding of the consequences. They stand condemned for this appalling treatment.

Mr Truss interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton has the call.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not a cattle producer. I do have some cattle in my electorate, member for Wide Bay, and I have some familiarity with the cattle industry. My grandfather was a butcher, my father was a butcher, my uncle was a butcher and my brothers were butchers. In fact, my brother-in-law still trades in meat. So I do have some connection with the meat industry. In fact, my first job was in a butcher's shop. My mum used to own a butcher's shop, and I even worked in abattoirs when I was going through teachers' college. I have a little bit of a connection with the meat industry but there are not a lot of cattle in my electorate, I will admit that—apart from one school's herd. Nevertheless, I do know a little bit about it; it involves ships going overseas with live cattle in them. My understanding is that you have vets on the ship, obviously sailors, and I think there are people who focus on making sure that they clean up after the cattle—all the bovine faeces. It is only appropriate I have a bit of respect for those people, coming on after the member for Wide Bay. This is an amazing MPI from the member for Wide Bay, who took 18 months to bring in a scheme for the national identification of animals and then comes out today and says, 'We can do it overnight, instantaneously, in 24 hours.' For the benefit of those people listening and the copious number of people in the gallery, I will give you a little bit of history. I take you back to 1997 and a statement by the federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Anderson. He was talking about the initiation of the Meat and Livestock Association. He issued this press release in Brisbane. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you may even have been there with him. I know you have a lot of cattle producers in your electorate. It is appropriate that it was released in Queensland where 42 per cent of meat processing takes place. In fact, it is one of the strongest manufacturing sectors in Queensland. This was his statement:

The new structural arrangements for the red meat industry, which come into effect on 1 July 1998, are a watershed for the industry. They deliver a more efficient structure, increased responsibilities and, of most importance, give ownership and control of the industry back to everyone involved in meat production in Australia.

These arrangements are my most significant and important reforms ever undertaken by government. They signal a new direction of cooperation between government and industry.

Very clearly, right from the word go, the Howard government minister said that the Meat and Livestock Association will have control. And they do it by putting a compulsory levy on cattle sales and the slaughter of beasts. So whatever the sales and whatever the slaughters, money goes to the MLA. People pay a levy and then they can choose to become a member of the MLA. It sounds a bit like a bargaining fee to me, but being union thugs, we have retreated from such behaviour! The union movement never went for that. We do not believe in bargaining fees—rather, some people in the union movement do, but most union members say that you must volunteer to be in the union. In fact, yesterday I heard the member for Wannon proudly saying that he had never joined a union. He did not say that he had refused pay rises negotiated by the Community and Public Sector Union or anything like that.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They did not want him anyway.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. Anyway, that is the way the scheme works. It is basically a bargaining fee. You have to pay the fee but you can choose to be a member after you pay the fee. So what is the MLA do. I should say upfront that there are a lot of very smart people in the MLA. Some of the research they do is very commendable, particularly some of the work measuring methane coming from sheep and cattle. They have done some wonderful things. It says on their web page:

MLA has the unique responsibility of providing marketing and research and development services to over 47,000 cattle, sheep and goat producer members and the broader red meat industry to help them meet community and consumer expectations.

MLA is committed to fostering world leadership for the Australian red meat and livestock industry by creating opportunities—

and the like. The MLA is charged with that job. That is why it was set up. A levy is paid every time an animal is slaughtered, every time an animal is sold and the MLA has that responsibility. I would suggest that any reasonable person would agree that the MLA has dropped the ball on this occasion. I know there are a lot of good people in there working hard but we are the government and we have to cop flak. We accept that the buck stops with us. We are responsible but I would suggest the MLA is culpable here for really dropping the ball in terms of what was going on in Indonesia. The MLA is the peak body representing the meat and livestock industry. It gets a government subsidy for research and lots of things but as stated in the Australian today:

... the meat and livestock industry, which gets a government subsidy for research and development, planned to spend $3.4 million on improving animal welfare in 2010-11 compared with $23 million on marketing beef exports, out of total expected earnings of $173m.

The reality is the MLA was charged with a certain job and it dropped the ball.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They changed the job to suit the—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They did. With my limited understanding of the meat industry—my family has a history in the meat industry—I do know this: the more sweat you put into doing something with meat, the more you can charge when you sell it. Rather than sell a quarter of a beast, if you turn it into sausages and roasts, all those sorts of things, you make more. Basically, you value add with labour input—a simple fact. There are lots of pressures on our meat processing sector. The high Australian dollar obviously is one. We have had droughts, we have had floods in the north in the member for Leichardt's electorate and we have had supply issues but the live export of meat has been growing. For sheep it has been pretty stable, but there are the same pressures.

In 2005, 573,000 head were exported; in 2009, 949,000 were exported; it is expected to go to a million head this year. Despite those pressures, the industry has been growing and the sad thing is we miss out on the value adding. As a Queenslander I know we have had abattoirs closed down in Killarney and in Pittsworth, mainly in rural and regional areas. I think the member Kennedy was talking about the Innisfail abattoir. We have had Northern Territory abattoirs closed and an abattoir in Cairns closed.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, let's talk about the Northern Territory.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure the member opposite, when she returns to her seat, would support jobs for workers. Once you close down an abattoir it is almost impossible to come back. I have seen it in my home town. My brother managed a sheep processing place in St George and when it closed down that was it. You would know that, Deputy Speaker Scott. When they close down, the jobs go and that is bad for the local industry.

In the last 35 years, more than 150 meat processing facilities have closed down. That is a loss of about 40,000 jobs. When we process meat, we add about 20 per cent more to the meat and the jobs that go with processing are extra as well. Obviously there are extra costs in terms of occupational health and safety and inspectors, all the things that go with our world standards, which I suggest are some of the highest in the world.

Those opposite are exercising short-term politics. Minister Mr McGauran had banned live sheep exports before the credits for 60 Minutes had come up. (Time expired)