Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The new supply-chain-assurance conditions imposed on Australia's live export trade in response to the cruel treatment of Australian animals in overseas markets would be applauded by most Australians. Of course, there is much more to do, but the conditions are an important step in the right direction and, hopefully, will also lead to changes in international animal handling standards. It is notable that the conditions were imposed once the cruelty was exposed on television, yet many within the industry were very likely aware of the cruelty, but chose to ignore it.

Since the film footage aired by the Four Corners program, there have been other revelations of animal cruelty, including in abattoirs in Australia. Within Australia authorities at least can take appropriate action, because standards are prescribed and prosecution is an option under the states' animal welfare legislation.

Abattoir standards are, however, the last step in the process. Breeding and transportation of animals can also cause considerable distress and suffering to them. For some time now concerns have been raised about the intense breeding of chickens and pigs in countries around the world, including in Australia. Those animals are bred in tightly confined spaces and under conditions that would obviously cause immense suffering.

Nor is it limited to pigs and chickens. I understand that some puppy farms are no better. Yet they continue to breed in those conditions because they are out of sight and therefore out of mind, for most people. Confining battery hens to a floor space the size of an A4 piece of paper, preventing them from even stretching their wings, in unclean cages with dead birds around them should be outlawed. I recently spoke with a person who has worked in that industry. He told me that he left the industry appalled at what he had seen and experienced. How any regulatory authority in Australia can condone such practice beggars belief. Interestingly, if you kept a pet in similar conditions you would be prosecuted.

It is likewise for pig sows being confined in steel and concrete pens about two metres long by 60 centimetres wide for most of their breeding lives. It must be incredibly torturous. The furrowing crates where the sows then give birth are even worse. These are intelligent creatures made to suffer just so that growers can minimise their breeding costs. The growers will say of course that the sows are better off in the pens and that they are well cared for. Consumers may also benefit from these practices, because they buy cheaper meat or eggs. But I firmly believe that the food quality is also much inferior to that of animals kept in better conditions.

To change international standards is understandably difficult, but there is no excuse for allowing unacceptable practices to continue in Australia. Furthermore, our efforts to change international standards will not be credible whilst we continue with cruel treatment in our own country. Animal welfare standards are set and meant to be policed by state governments. In reality the standards are set by the industry. The industry sectors inevitably commission and substantially fund the research and reports that underpin the standards and animal welfare policies more broadly. There is very little non-industry research available and, indeed, researchers have limited access to the commercial breeding facilities. To compound matters, the existing cumbersome processes relating to animal welfare regulations can take years to work through before the changes can be made. It is indeed encouraging to see that European standards are changing and that many past practices of animal breeding will no longer be acceptable. It is also encouraging to see some Australian food retailers taking a stand and refusing to market products that originate from unacceptable breeding farms. I note that the Australian pork industry, after years of denying that sow stalls were cruel, has announced a voluntary phasing out of sow stalls by 2017. I welcome the change of direction. However, 2017 is still years away, and in light of the track record of animal industry bodies to date I treat with caution promises of industry self-regulation. It seems that, to date, industry self-regulation has primarily served to protect bad practice from prosecution.

That is why we need an independent office of animal welfare, an independent office that has no conflict of interest and no self-interest and that can set appropriate animal welfare standards for all animals in relation to breeding, transport and slaughter processes. In the interim, I call on the state governments around the country—who currently, through the Primary Industries Ministerial Council, have the power to set improved animal welfare standards—to do so and thereby end the unnecessary suffering of millions of animals each year in this country.