John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the live export industry through the motion before the House. I have been a beef producer who has bred, raised and cared for cattle most of my working life. I believe I know that beef producers, perhaps even more than the rest of the Australian public, were horrified by the cruelty showed recently on television. I fully supported the government's initial action in banning the supply of animals to those abattoirs such as the ones that were shown on TV processing cattle inhumanely, and to implement an urgent review of the abattoirs system in Indonesia. However, the subsequent caving in to a very vocal group—admittedly a minority of voters—advocating a full suspension of live-shipping trade to Indonesia has been a massive overreaction from a government that has lost all credibility with the general public in dealing with difficult issues, who acts first and thinks later.

I understand the outcry from people who were shocked at the senseless cruelty that they witnessed, as we all were. However, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of families doing the right thing, that are being penalised. It is not just beef producers. This will be felt all across Northern Australia, through real estate, finance, insurance, transport, the trucking and helicopter industries and fuel industries, export yards, shipping and stevedores, veterinarians, animal health, Indigenous employment and training, stock agencies, hay producers, feed producers, processors and nutrition supplement manufacturers, rural contractors, local town suppliers, government department jobs—right across Northern Australia, the whole social fabric.

And it is not just the beef producers in Northern Australia. This has impacted on the beef producers across the country with prices dropping around 25c. For the uninitiated, for a well-conditioned cow, that is $150 a cow. That is a lot of money. Do not get your hopes up that this will reduce the retail price of meat, because even if we could trust the processors and supermarkets to pass on the $150 to $200 per beast to the consumer, the meat supplied impact is mostly on grinding meat for the US market, the hamburger market, so it will have little impact on our retail price for meat in supermarkets and butchers.

We have made our position on live exports clear. We support the suspension of the trade of cattle to abattoirs that are not processing cattle humanely. But we should not be penalising those who are doing the right thing. Being a player in the market and only supplying those that are doing the right thing is the best tool available for animal welfare reform in developing countries. There are a number of abattoirs in Indonesia that have state-of-the-art processing facilities with stunning facilities, and if we have the infrastructure already in Australia to track these cattle with the National Livestock Identification System, the only true cattle tracking system in the world. Every animal that gets on a boat has a tracking device and these cattle have to be checked off as arriving at compliant abattoirs. We use plenty of handheld devices for reading the tags at saleyards in Australia, which can immediately deploy to accredited abattoirs.

The fact is that industry has combined to provide the way forward, the mechanisms to ensure that Australian cattle are now always slaughtered humanely in Indonesian abattoirs. It just remains for the Gillard government and Minister Ludwig to fix the politics and to talk to Indonesia and to fix relations both in industry and in government there.

I am concerned for those Australians that oppose this industry that they are being led by misinformation from agenda-driven groups who do not even want us to eat meat at all. Have Australians become so disconnected from the social, economic and agricultural basis on which this country was built and from the farmers who built it? Farmers are the most determined to stop cruelty, but it seems that most Australians have no idea anymore how food is actually produced. Do people truly think that like an episode of The Goodies a happy cow goes in one end of a machine and sausages magically come out the other? Primitive man hunted animals and so do we, and for the same reasons, and we do it far less cruelly and wastefully than primitive man did it. Yet those who believe we should not now touch them have no problem with that.

A national school survey by the Kondinin group found that 88 per cent of children had never visited a farm and 73 per cent did not know a farmer. Let us take a quick history lesson. The Northern Territory industry really struggled in Australia until the introduction of the Zebu or Bos indicus cattle—most of you would know them as Brahman—in the 1930s. Since the 1970s these cattle have revolutionised the industry and taken it from near bankruptcy to an efficient and profitable enterprise that contributes hundreds of millions of dollars annually towards the economy, supports the whole social fabric of Northern Australia and brings in export dollars, apart from anything else. These cattle are drought resistant, great foragers and descendants of four breeds of Indian cattle. They are bred to not only survive but thrive in the tropical climate. However, the main reason for the breed's success is their resistance to cattle tick, which certainly broke early pioneers with European cattle. Traditional European breeds could not overcome the ticks and were in poor condition and susceptible to diseases carried by the ticks.

So from the onset of live exports Northern Australia has flourished. This major economic industry that has been developed has been very important to the local economy, especially for Aboriginal or Indigenous employment. It has been reported that there are some 80 large Indigenous cattle stations, employing around 700 Aboriginal stockmen, plus many other non-Aboriginal run stations. Those 80 Aboriginal stations turn off around 200,000 cattle a year.

The Indonesian market alone takes over half a million cattle, mostly from Northern Australia, worth over $340 million directly and contributes about $1 billion to the overall economic activity. The meat from these animals is different from traditional European breeds. If it comes down south, as I said earlier, it is not going to end up on our plates, because we consume a different type of animal down here. It is going to have an awful effect upon the whole beef industry in Australia. The double standards that abound are rather outrageous. We continue to have stricter standards imposed on our farmers with regard to OH&S, chemical use and care for animals by a conscientious Australian public; however, when they go to the supermarket they seem quite happy to buy the cheap imports that have not been required to abide by the same standards.

Many people believe the answer is simple: just set up an export abattoir in Northern Australia. Many have tried. Failed abattoirs in Broome and Innisfail are a testament to that. It is not as simple as saying: 'Let us put abattoirs in Northern Australia. We can send everything off in boxes chilled.' It is not like that. There is a very small window of opportunity to operate in Northern Australia. You need skilled people who are not going to put their hand up for four or five months work a year and come back in eight months time when they can work in mines for far more. It does not work like that. On the other side of the equation boxed meat will not replace live exports to Indonesia any time in the near future. Many of the places that have been provided with our cattle are rural and regional villages that have little access to electricity let alone refrigeration.

This motion provides a simple way forward that can get the trade restarted immediately. I urge the government to adopt this rational and sensible approach. All of us, particularly those who breed cattle, only want humane slaughter of cattle. It can be done. This is Australia. These are traditional Australians doing this, traditional Australians in every sense of the word. They have shown they will overcome anything and do anything that needs to be fixed. Gillard and the Labor government must proceed to get this going as soon as possible.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the issue of live exports that is facing the country and the industry at the moment. The honourable member for Calare said that it is simple. It is not that simple. If it were that simple, it could be fixed overnight. Part of the problem is you get some people saying you have to fix it straightaway and you get other people saying take the time. The fact is that it will take time. I will focus on what we are dealing with now—the cessation of the export of live cattle to Indonesia.

There are a few things I want to focus on tonight. I want to start by putting on the record what some of the people in the industry are saying. Some people in the industry feel very frustrated as well. They want to get this right so that when it restarts it starts in the right way. They have had a long time to get this right and they have not. I read in all the media coverage that major cattle producers, the Consolidated Pastoral Company, Heytesbury Holdings, the Australia live export council, AAco, RSPCA Australia and other bodies that care about animal welfare all support mandatory stunning before the slaughter of Australian cattle in Indonesia. Before that can happen we have to know that that will happen. We have to know the supply chain and that it will happen. I know there has been talk about the different standards—the OIE and Australian standards—but the fact is that the Australian community and the industry have said clearly that, whatever the legal policy practice framework is, this is what they want to happen and this is what they expect. That is the first thing.

There has also been a lot of talk about what practices are appropriate and inappropriate culturally. The fact is that stunning is not contrary to halal. That is very clear. The evidence is there. That is another debate that we do not need to have, because the evidence is absolutely clear. So stunning can happen.

I want to talk about the MLA. The Land was interesting reading this week. It is one of my regular newspapers. There is a whole debate going on in the Land. It is interesting because farmers and people on the land write to the Land. Overwhelmingly, they are saying they are appalled by what they saw on the ABC Four Corners program and they are appalled that the industry bodies did not have this in order, among other things. I would like to quote Mal Peters in The Land on Thursday, 16 June on page 30. Among other things, he says:

Equally importantly Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) needs to start explaining why its name was all over one of these atrocious practices.

He is talking about the cruelty that we witnessed on TV.

I am particularly pleased to donate about $4000 in a year in levies to a mob that has just decimated our export trade by their sheer bloody ineptitude.

If stopping animal cruelty was the goal what the hell are the knocking boxes MLA has supplied to Indonesia abattoirs meant to do?

Any reasonable observer could see they would never fix the problem.

Some heads need to roll for what is clearly a monumental stuff up.

Mal always says it as it is. He calls it how he sees it, and he has there. He has said other things, but I want to focus on what he said directly about the MLA. I also went onto a National Party website to look at something they have put out which says: 'Blanket ban on live exports sends wrong message'. What hypocrisy! Then you read that they have said:

We support the live cattle trade ban on facilities that fail to comply with acceptable animal welfare practices …

It is just a whole lot of gobbledygook which is really aimed at maximising political support, not fixing the industry. That is what is about. It would be so nice if we could come here, actually have a sane debate and discussion and chart a way forward where people are not seeking to maximise political gain and advantage and going into the traditional 'divide and rule', which happens. The website also says:

There is a better way to handle the issue.

If there was, they could have done it. They did have 12 years in government. They did introduce self-regulation. The Nationals have also said:

We know from experience that when live exports are halted—such as the ban on cattle to Egypt or sheep to Saudi Arabia—demand for boxed meat does not rise.

Yet if you have a look at the facts and figures on the industry websites you will find:

In Egypt, the one scenario where live export was stopped, there was a remarkable growth in the exportation of meat processed in Australia. Egyptian imports of Australian processed sheep meat rose by 300 per cent between 2002-03 and 2005-06, when Australian live sheep imports were stopped.

There is so much hypocrisy around this debate and all sorts of comments that just do not stand up to scrutiny. The best article in TheLand on Thursday, 16 June was written by John Carter and is on page 31. The heading is 'Meat structure stinks of failure.' He says:

In 1997, when John Anderson announced the new meat structure, I wrote a scathing Counterpoint on its impracticality.

I am on the record in this place talking about that issue as well. He goes on:

Now, 14 years on, with $1.7 billion of our money gone, the lowest cattle prices in the developed world and a drop of more than 20 per cent in domestic consumption the hopelessness of the structure has been painfully illustrated.

Australia's beef industry has its worst crisis in 25 years.

The Red Meat Advisory Council (RMAC) is meant to advise the minister.

He goes on to talk about the MLA and he questions whether the producers have any confidence in the MLA to fix the problem. But the problem is: they are there. I have no confidence in the MLA to help fix the problem, but the fact is that they are there and we have to deal with them for the moment.

When I looked at the MLA website—as the honourable member for Kennedy said, taking everything advisedly—on 10 June 2011, in relation to one of the claims that cattle sale prices are plummeting as a result of the suspension announced, it said:

… the suspension of the live cattle trade to Indonesia will neither result in a rush of cattle into Australian processors, nor a surge of beef in coming weeks and months. Cattle placed on ships to Indonesia are typically Brahmans of light weight (less than 350kg lwt). These cattle will require much longer periods on feed to reach suitable slaughter weights for either the Australian, or more particularly, export markets.

When that cattle weight was introduced because of Indonesia's requirements and because they are moving to self-sufficiency for 2014, it had an immediate impact on the Australian live export market. The figures that I have read are a drop of between 34 and 40 per cent in exports of cattle to Indonesia. So that was happening anyway. The MLA finish by saying:

Therefore, the most impact for the entire beef industry will be felt in the medium term if the situation is not resolved quickly, as heavier cattle move through to slaughter in 6-18 months time.

There are all these claims, but we have to look at them. I know a lot of people in the industry say they would like a judicial inquiry into the MLA and I think that shows the absolute frustration with a body that they all pay levies to.

Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to second, and speak on, the motion. This is a very serious debate, and the decision that the government has taken is very severely and adversely impacting on the lives of struggling Australians now. Northern Australian pastoral leases have one sustainable economic purpose, and that is the breeding of beef cattle for export. There is no abattoir in the area. There is no abattoir from Harvey in Western Australia right around the coast to Rockhampton. There is not one operating abattoir that handles beef cattle for export licence. The argument that this industry should have been shut down on the whim of a number of impressionable Labor members adds weight to the argument that this government has lost its way and no longer represents ordinary hardworking Australians.

We have had so much pap fed to us in this place today by the member for Page that it is almost intolerable, because it proves without doubt the level of her ignorance. It proves without doubt that she is not concerned about animal welfare; she is consumed for union members' welfare.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member's use of—

Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope so.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is just plain rude. It shows what a rude pig you are.

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

Thank you, Member for Page; your point is noted. You can use other practices in the House to raise your point.

Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And when one realises that the concern here is with union members and voters in an electorate and not for the welfare of animals, it puts a level of hypocrisy into this debate that is absolutely intolerable. We have people on properties whose whole livelihood is being destroyed by a decision based on, primarily, ignorance. Some of the impacts of the decision are that kids are being ripped out of school. Families will not be able to pay their mortgage. They made their last payment on it more than 12 months ago because of the extended wet. We have truck owners who will not be able to make payments on their prime mover, which they purchased solely for the purpose of moving live export cattle across Northern Australia. We have helicopter pilots in debt to the bank for repayments on choppers that are there specifically for the muster season in Northern Australia. This decision has far deeper, more meaningful ramifications than appeasing a few members of the union. If you go around abattoirs in Australia, you will find that most of the employees are working on 457 visas anyhow. So this nonsense about taking jobs away from Australia is just that—absolute nonsense.

If people in this nation truly want over time to achieve some improvement in the welfare of animals at slaughter in Indonesia—I underline the fact that it is necessary to slaughter animals before you eat them; it is a prime requisite, which comes as a shock to many people in suburban Australia—and if the suburban Australian population are truly concerned about improving the conditions of those animals going to slaughter, they would send bouquets to the MLA and to the livestock industry, because more has been achieved for the welfare of animals being slaughtered in Indonesia in the last 15 years by the MLA than any other institution—more than the RSPCA, more than PETA, more than Pew and more than Animals Australia. If the ignorami of Australia realised this, they would work with MLA and they would start to achieve more than just five abattoirs being convinced to use stun guns. We would start to work on the greatest majority of the 700-plus abattoirs. How members of this place can believe that 3,000 years of culture could be overturned by— (Time expired)

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I oppose this motion. It is another example of the pressure being put on the government by Liberal and National Party MPs to resume live cattle exports to Indonesia. I do not want the suspension to be lifted. I fear that, if we lift the suspension, the pressure which is now on the industry to lift its game will melt away. The suspension is doing a power of good. We are now seeing a flurry of activity on the part of the Indonesian government and the industry, which is a good thing, taking us towards an end to the cruel practices which were exposed by the Four Corners program.

I believe the Australian people do not want the suspension to be lifted. I see the opposition leader has discovered the idea of holding plebiscites. How about we hold a plebiscite on whether we export live cattle abroad and the opposition agrees to abide by that? Failing that, I urge all concerned Australians to contact members of parliament, particularly their own member of parliament, to tell them that they do not want live cattle exports to Indonesia to resume any time soon. Every MP's and every senator's view matters, but, in particular, tell those Liberal and National MPs who are putting on the pressure to resume live exports that this is a bad idea. Send the emails, ring their offices and go and see them. Tell them the jig is up in relation to live exports. It is time to move to domestic processing. That is the future of the meat industry.

They may well raise various objections to the live cattle exports ban, but these objections are not valid. They may claim that the animals will starve and that there will be an environmental disaster. This is not correct. There are animal welfare standards in this country. People are not allowed to starve their animals or just turn them into the bush. They may claim that the industry will collapse and that people will lose their jobs—not true either. There are abattoirs around Australia, including Townsville, Mackay and Rockhampton, which have spare capacity. Animals can be fattened up and sent to those abattoirs. There are industry plans for an abattoir in Darwin. The Northern Territory government and the industry should focus their efforts on making that happen.

The truth about jobs is that jobs have been lost as a result of the industry focus on live exports to the detriment of domestic processing. In the past 30 years, 150 abattoirs have closed and 40,000 jobs have been lost. It is still going on. Last year 1,000 jobs were lost. They may claim that Indonesia will go elsewhere and we will lose the market. It seems unlikely to me. Indonesia has put out feelers to New Zealand. New Zealand, which, to its credit, has a ban on live animal exports, said no. Last year, global beef production declined. In 2006, the Howard government suspended the live cattle trade to Egypt as a result of media revelations of animal cruelty. The trade was not resumed for three years. The sky did not fall in. The Egyptians bought chilled beef killed here in Australia instead. They may claim that this action will annoy Indonesia and damage our relationship with that country. There is no evidence of that. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has ordered his health minister and his agriculture minister to personally inspect Indonesian abattoirs to improve their animal welfare standards. This is a good thing.

The advice I have received is that there is nothing inconsistent between humane animal welfare standards and halal killing. In any event, religious convictions do not give anyone a licence to depart from basic standards of decency and humanity. You cannot get out of observing basic animal welfare standards by claiming it is against your religion. The great philosopher Immanuel Kant said:

We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.

He was right.

They may claim that domestic processing is not as profitable as live exports, that there are extra costs, but overall I have no doubt that the meat processing industry will be better off. A study by ACIL Tasman concerning live sheep exports showed a 20 per cent increase in the economic value of domestic processing compared with live exports. Some things are more important than money. We should not seek to make a profit on the back of the torture, misery and suffering of powerless animals. We rejected this argument way back in 1791 when William Wilberforce introduced his anti-slavery bill. We rejected it 220 years ago; we should reject it again today.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased that the member for Wills spoke long enough to say something that I did agree with. What I do agree with is that the mistreatment of animals cannot be accepted at any price. What I cannot agree with is the way that this government has handled this issue.

The member for Wills believes that we should stop this trade and the people of Australia should demand that. I would like it to be a prerequisite that, for every email that his constituents send around the country, they donate one year's salary with that email because that is what they are asking the people of Northern Australia to do—to donate one year's salary. As for this email flood, I am getting a lot of emails in my office too, but they all have the same words. They are all coming from my constituents at 3 o'clock and 5 o'clock in the morning. I think an investigation into GetUp! finding out how that email list is being put around would also bear not much scrutiny.

I am rather disappointed in the member for Page, who represents one of the finest beef-producing areas in New South Wales. The fact that the member for Page had a motion on banning exports on the books of this parliament for some months—

Ms Saffin interjecting—

It is about saving face within the left side of the Labor Party. The reality is that the cattle that are leaving Australia now will not be killed for 90 to 100 days. That leaves plenty of time to put the required changes in place. These cattle are not house bricks. They cannot be stacked up until we build an abattoir in five year's time. The wet season starts by Christmas time. Where will they go then? What is going to happen to these cattle? Are they going to go to a farm where they are going to live out their old age? This is a nonsense.

We can get this trade going. We can ban the delivery of cattle to the abattoirs that are not up to standard. But nowhere in that Four Corners report was there any question that the cattle were mistreated on the trip to the wharf. Was there any question that they were mistreated on the boat? Was there any question that they were mistreated in the feed line?

I was a cattle producer for 35 years and I have great admiration for anyone that can fatten a Brahman. Anyone who saw that Four Corners show saw that those cattle in those feedlots were in prime condition. The issue here—to the member for Wills, the member for Page and others who want to speak on this—is in the last five minutes of that animal's life. We are banning a whole trade and putting the economy of Northern Australia and the welfare of 520,000 animals at risk, and the member for Page has the hide to say that some website said that the cattle market was not going to be impacted by this. If she wants to go to the saleyards in my electorate, it is already 30c to 40c a kilo. I have to say the bottom has fallen out of the sheep market as well on the strength of the rumours that there is another Four Corners show coming on sheep.

Ms Saffin interjecting—

The idea that the member for Page can go on to some website and be reassured that the cattle market is hunky-dory is nonsense. Quite frankly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have had it up to here with people in this place taking the high moral ground with other people's welfare. We have people with full wallets and full stomachs wanting to affect the livelihoods not only of individual families and companies but also of entire communities. The party on the other side is supposed to be the great carer for the Aboriginal people. What about the 700 Aboriginal people that are employed in this industry? What about the 70 to 80 stations that are owned by the Aboriginal corporations in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia? What about their livelihoods?

We have just had it up to here with the hypocrisy in this place. We need to fix up the welfare of these cattle. We need to be over there doing it. I take my hat off to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—I think he was rolled in the first place. He has gone over to Indonesia to sort this out three weeks or probably six weeks too late from when he would have known about this. This has been a disaster at a diplomatic level and an implementation level. I want to know what is going to happen to those cattle that are stranded in Australia: where they are going to go and how the members opposite think they are going to restore some of economic balance— (Time expired)

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is now some three weeks since the footage of horrendous treatment of Australian cattle in Indonesian slaughterhouses aired on Four Corners. While acknowledging the difficulties faced by producers as a result of the government's suspension of the live trade to Indonesia, it must be said that the abject failure of the industry representative bodies to ensure the most basic animal welfare standards left the minister no other choice. It is critical that, during any discussions related to the reopening of the trade with Indonesia, we do not forget the scale of the brutality we witnessed in the Indonesian slaughterhouses and that, currently, there is no enforcement of laws to prevent such treatment from recurring on a nightly basis. Indeed, I understand that no Australian officials are being allowed into Indonesian slaughterhouses at present, so there is no way of knowing what is happening inside.

Indonesian animal welfare groups have expressed the view that a majority of the 6.5 million Australian cattle exported to Indonesia over the past 18 years would have been subjected to some form of appalling and inhumane treatment. A recent report in the Jakarta Post quoted a slaughterhouse worker talking openly about routinely slashing the leg tendons to bring down cattle for the throat cut in a major Jakarta abattoir. In no way was he ashamed to admit this; it was just part of the business of slaughtering cattle—as is their traditional method of roping slaughter,which isa standard practice throughout Indonesia except in a small number of privately operated abattoirs.

It is apparent that the willingness of Australia's live export industry to supply cattle has reinforced local beliefs that such cruel practices are acceptable, and we now know that the restraint boxes Meat and Livestock Australia provided in fact facilitated the inhumane roping slaughter method. We know that, on viewing the operation of MLA's boxes, the world's leading slaughter expert, Professor Temple Grandin, was appalled and said, 'I think it is just disgusting that Meat and Livestock Australia is actually helping facilitate something like this' and that the mark 1 box 'violated every humane standard anywhere in the world'.

In the past week, another internationally renowned slaughter expert, Dr Mohan Raj, of Bristol University in the United Kingdom, wrote to Prime Minister Gillard in support of Professor Grandin's findings that the mark 1 box is inhumane and should never be used. Dr Mohan Raj is an expert adviser to the European Commission and on the working groups of the OIE, the World Organisation for Animal Health. In his letter to the Prime Minister, Dr Raj concluded that the slaughterhouses documented in the Animals Australia footage are 'in breach of even the minimum standards of animal welfare adopted by the 174 OIE member countries' and, further, that it is worth noting that the 'OIE codes are not intended as auditable standards or as best practice but as basic minimum standards for developing countries'.

It is these OIE codes that are being proposed as the basis for 'acceptable standards' for the reopening of the trade with Indonesia, and this is where I take issue with the motion moved by the member for Calare. OIE standards do not exclude the terrible roping slaughter techniques that we witnessed on Four Corners and they do not require the stunning of animals prior to slaughter. Cutting the throat of conscious cattle is brutal and barbaric and subjects them to unacceptable trauma and suffering. The entire live cattle trade to Egypt was stopped by the Australian government on the basis of the cutting of leg tendons of conscious animals. Why would we consider the cutting of the throat of a live animal any more acceptable?

Religious authorities in Indonesia accept pre-slaughter stunning of animals as part of halal slaughter. This is a significant breakthrough, and it begs the question of why we would undermine Indonesian attempts to improve the welfare of livestock during the slaughter process by setting a lesser standard, especially when stunning is the ethical and legal standard required by the Australian community for the slaughter of Australian cattle. What is more, I am informed by Paul Holmes a Court that major cattle producers, including AACO, Consolidated Pastoral Holdings and Heytesbury Holdings, as well as exporters Elders and Wellard and the Australia Live Export Council, all support mandatory stunning and independent monitoring in Indonesian slaughterhouses. Why would we not support the industry in its efforts to ensure sustainability and certainty?

The remarks of Jim Anderton, former New Zealand agriculture minister and former deputy prime minister, on ABC radio last Saturday are instructive. He said that New Zealand's decision to ban live exports in 2007 was a 'combination of concern for animal welfare and concern for the economic backlash that would occur if New Zealand's reputation was harmed by evidence of mistreatment'. It would be a mistake to think that the horrors of the Four Cornersreport will fade in the mind of the Australian community. Many Australians already want the live trade to end, so they will certainly not accept the trade reopening with Indonesia without confirmation that Australian cattle will be stunned while appropriately and humanely restrained in an upright position or without assurance that abattoirs will be regularly and independently audited and that a fully accountable and traceable system is in place. (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak on this motion. There is much in what the member for Fremantle has said that I agree with. I am somebody who has had quite considerable experience in the cattle industry and I still have an interest in it. I agree that stunning is the most appropriate way of processing and slaughtering these animals. I too was absolutely gobsmacked when I saw the types of killing boxes that were shown on that program. To me, they are totally inappropriate and, given the technology that is readily available, even on my place, where I restrain cattle with a compression crush and what have you, it beggars belief that that has not been implemented over there. So those sorts of questions need to be answered. However, there are already seven abattoirs that I am aware of in Indonesia that have all of those facilities—stand-up slaughter, stunning and the whole lot—and they process a very significant number of cattle.

It is this knee-jerk reaction. As I have said before, I have no issue with the first decision made by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in stopping these animals going into abattoirs that do not comply, but the next step is the major issue in that we now have thousands and thousands of animals stranded in stock export yards, with nowhere to go. We have to address this quickly.

I note that some of those who are arguing for the closure of the live export trade have said, 'Why don't we just slaughter them, freeze them and send them away?' For anybody who has no understanding of the industry I suppose that is a logical argument to put up. But the reality is that we have only two export-processing abattoirs in northern Australia, from the Kimberleys right through to the east coast, and the types of animals they slaughter there certainly would not meet that criteria. We would love to have more. It would certainly value-add to the jobs and create jobs in our region. However, I suppose it is that middle-class thinking on the type of consumption of beef that would be happening in these destinations in Indonesia. The reality is that it is not just the electricity issue concerning chilled beef; you also have to understand that a lot of the people that access product from these cattle do not have the capacity to enjoy what I call the middle-class cuts—and, unlike in Australia, over there they eat everything from the hoofs to the horns. There is very little that is wasted. A lot of the product that is consumed from these animals over there is stuff that for us ends up in the pits and is turned into fertiliser, but it is the only product that these people can afford. The value of that animal is much greater in relation to what is needed in that community. It is impossible to contemplate any prospect of our cutting these animals up and sending them over as chilled.

There are abattoirs over there now that are fully accredited and that comply with Australian standards, which in fact are much greater than any of the international standards, so there is no reason why we cannot start this trade again tomorrow. There are cattle sitting there that need to go somewhere. There are animal health issues in those cattle that have now been confined for several weeks. There are ships there that comply in all aspects; we have feedlots over there that comply; and we have abattoirs over there that comply with Australian standards. There is no reason why trade cannot resume tomorrow. Those abattoirs that wish to process Australian cattle—or any cattle for that matter, because I think we should be out there trying to prevent any sort of inhumane treatment—need to be upgraded before they can access them. We have an NLIS tag tracking system that is very effective in Australia and that could easily be put into place so that those animals can be traced from the paddock right through to the plate. Any suggestion that it cannot is an absolute nonsense. The government is constantly changing its position; it has destroyed the authority of the minister and has left Northern Australians asking whether or not there is anybody in the Labor government who will ever stand up for them. I think it is absolutely appalling.

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

I do not think the position of the previous speaker, the member for Leichhardt, is very far different from where the government stands at the moment. Coming from the very southern part of this nation, I fully appreciate the importance of the live meat export trade to northern Australia. I have just looked at some of the figures for Northern Australia. The cattle industry is worth around $200 million a year—absolutely vital to the economy of the north. It directly supports more than 1,800 jobs—very important. It supports hundreds of Territory families who manage in excess of 220 pastoral leases. Pastoral properties in the north are almost totally reliant on the live export trade. There are 80 Indigenous land corporation properties across the Top End, including the Kimberley, who have a vital interest in the continuation of the trade.

I share the sentiments of the member for Leichhardt, whom I heard in this place last week, of how he along with Northern Territory cattlemen and most people in this country were appalled by those pictures we saw on the Four Corners program, and I heard the member for Leichhardt quite rightly condemn those. We have a situation where we have a significant trade which is important to many families in Australia, and the end result of that trade is that we cannot guarantee the welfare of the animals that we send—indeed, that we breed, we feed and we send—to Indonesia. That is at the nub of this whole issue. I join with the member for Leichhardt in saying I want this resolved as quickly as possible so we can do something about that. So does the minister. The minister has said that several times and is in Indonesia now trying to do something about it. He joins the industry and most people in Australia who want something done about it straightaway.

How did we get to this situation? The member for Leichhardt spoke about this earlier. I remember back to the time when we had live export trade of sheep and cattle to the Middle East that had to be suspended because of the cruelty to the animals involved and because Australia could not guarantee what happened to the welfare of those animals when they arrived there. That is at the nub of what is going on here. I can sit here and shout—as some others shouted earlier today—and call others hypocrites, but that gets us nowhere. For instance, I know that the member for Page, who is very passionate about this, raised this issue in March, talking about the welfare of the animals. The member for Leichhardt might disagree with the member for Page in terms of the extent that they would go to to do something about it, but the member was raising the question of the welfare of those animals in March, and the parliament went about its business, as did the industry and all those involved, knowing that this would come to a head.

There has been criticism of this government on its decision to suspend the trade without giving a firm timeline about how we could resume it. I draw the attention of members in the chamber to the Land of Thursday, 16 June 2011 and an article by Mal Peters—no great supporter of our cause. Mal went on to send one in to the government, as those opposite and others may want to, but he also had some very serious words to say about Meat and Livestock Australia and its inability to take responsibility for its side of the chain of supply and what happens both from here and into Indonesia. I could sit here and rant and rave and cite that, but that gets us nowhere.

I noticed today an update on the industry animal welfare plan in Indonesia from Meat and Livestock Australia which talks about increasing stunning. The member for Leichhardt quite rightly said: 'That is what we should be doing; that is what we should insist on.' It does not in any way make halal suspect. That is what we should be doing: improved infrastructure, OIE compliance assurance programs and also traceability of cattle within Indonesia. I can tell you one thing: most people in the industry and most people in Australia want this traceability worked out now. They want it worked out as quickly as possible so we can get on with this. There is no easy solution except to say that we need to communicate this much better. (Time expired)

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australian farmers take great pride in breeding and raising healthy, quality, well-cared-for animals, and they were appalled by the footage of the mistreatment in some Indonesian abattoirs. But they also know that in Indonesia there are at least seven A-grade facilities right now and a further 18 B-grade facilities that could be accredited and could be processing animals. By working government to government and putting as many departmental and industry officials on the ground as it takes to bring these up to accredited standards as soon as possible, the decision could be made to recommence live exports to these accredited abattoirs. This is a time-critical decision that cannot wait six months. Limiting trade to only those that meet our animal welfare expectations will have flow-on effects in other abattoirs through training, traceability and processing.

The first ban was the right decision, but this second, total ban has been referred to as one of the most severe trade restrictions imposed by government on local industry in living memory. The government either ignored or certainly did not plan for the broader effects of their live export ban, and they did not even inform the Indonesian government or the livestock industry here. How many people were out of work the minute the ban was announced, and how many people are now in very dire financial circumstances as a result? This is not only an agriculture and biosecurity issue but an economic issue and a foreign affairs and trade issue, and we have offended our neighbours in Indonesia. It is a regional development and sustainability issue. It is an Indigenous employment issue and it is an issue for the thousands of families, individuals, contractors, and small and large businesses that are directly and indirectly affected both here and in Indonesia. Farmers right across Australia know that this decision has or will impact on them no matter where they sell their animals.

I went to the Boyanup store sale on Friday in my electorate. Farmers there were not only disgusted with the government's knee jerk total blanket ban; they are shaking their heads. They are also worried that meat processors will drop prices locally as a result. One farmer said to me, 'You know, if we had a problem in an abattoir in Australia, we would fix the problem, not ban the lot.' Unfortunately, the Labor government did exactly that and this decision resonates to many electorates right around the nation.

The member for Bennelong, who gave his speaking opportunity to me—and I thank him for doing so—asked me to raise the following points on his behalf. Australian live exports comprise approximately 10 per cent of the cattle slaughtered in Indonesia. The most humanitarian policy response on this issue would care for the slaughtering methods employed on all cattle in Indonesia, not just Australia's 10 per cent. Argentina and Uruguay are enthusiastic in their attempts to take Australia's place in the live export market. Neither of these nations have strong records on animal welfare. The long-haul shipping of live cattle from South America to Indonesia would only exacerbate the trauma, leading to significantly more animal cruelty compared with the short-haul trip from Northern Australia to our Asian neighbours. Argentina and Uruguay have considerable problems with foot-and-mouth disease, with Argentina currently vaccinating approximately 50 million cattle twice a year. Refrigeration facilities are rare in many regional areas of Indonesia, so the local slaughtering of cattle for same-day sale is the only option available to much of the population. Australian aid efforts were central to the eradication of FMD from Indonesia for more than 20 years as a buffer to protect our own high quarantine standards. The reintroduction of South American cattle will threaten Australia's biosecurity, potentially harming millions of Australian cattle. We provide $558 million in aid funding to Indonesia. The member for Bennelong suggests that a proportion of this aid should be redirected for the purchase and installation of stunning equipment, and halal and other slaughtering equipment. This is a long-term remedy to satisfy all parties. We have practical experience of the use of licensing arrangements for the transportation of meat to insure ethical standards have been utilised. These are the words from the member for Bennelong.

I am very concerned, but I am not surprised, that the Labor government made such a city-centric decision. There is not one member of the ministry who lives in or represents regional Australia—not one who genuinely understands the challenges faced by regional communities and families and the people in this room every single day of their lives. The government does not understand. Western Australia supplies nearly 65 per cent of the live cattle sent to Indonesia and is hardest hit—from $47 million to $60 million directly, and the multiplier effect makes it $98 million to $125 million, just in Western Australia. This is a very serious issue that needs immediate action.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an issue I have spoken on before in this parliament, and it is an issue that has engaged an enormous number of Australians. In the last speech I made on this issue before this parliament, I quoted Mahatma Gandhi: 'The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals.' The first part of this motion states that it deplores the inhuman treatment of cattle at some abattoirs in Indonesia, and it noted that it was unacceptable. In the entire time I have been a member of parliament, and that is nearly 13 years, there has never been an issue that people within my electorate and throughout Australia have engaged with me on more. When the Four Corners program finished, within 30 seconds I had three emails from people within my electorate. This just demonstrates how the people of Australia—because I do not think the Shortland electorate is any different from anywhere else in Australia—believe that this is an issue that we as a nation have to resolve.

I think it is also important to state that this resolution that we have before us was introduced in the Senate and was voted down in the Senate. The reason it was voted down, and the reason that it is so important that we address the issues, is that, if we allow live export to recommence to Indonesia at this stage, there are no guarantees in place that the same thing will not happen.

I think it is really important to note that Paul Holmes a Court backs ban on live exports. He has put out a media release. It is also important to note that he is one of the biggest cattle exporters to Indonesia in Australia. He states that there is no way that this live export should start until the issues that were identified in that Four Corners program have been dealt with. He points out that there needs to be a much tighter surveillance system. He also points out that Australian producers currently cannot guarantee that the standards that the industry and Australians would like to see will be met. He also says that the ban should only be lifted—I emphasise that—once we have an independent, auditable system which can allow that to happen. And that does not exist. He says that there needs to be an improved surveillance system to the extent that the National Livestock Identification System can be put in place to track animals in Indonesia.

These are very tangible things that need to happen before the live export of Australian cattle can ever be thought of. Currently we are in a situation where that cannot be guaranteed. Australians demand that animals that leave Australia be treated humanely, and that Four Corners program demonstrated very graphically that Australian cattle were being mistreated. We cannot support that. The motion we have before us today wants that trade to commence immediately to identified abattoirs; but, as I have already pointed out, the tracking system for the safety of the animals cannot be guaranteed. (Time expired)

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.