Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The recent photo depicting the sledgehammer killing of cattle in Vietnam has precipitated another wave of community outrage about the merits of live exports. The incident has been attributed to Vietnam being a rapidly-growing new market for live cattle exports, and enforcement of Australia's export supply-chain assurance system there being still a work in progress. It would be overly optimistic to expect that, in a new market, breaches would not occur. However, it is very likely that the breaches identified do not reflect the full extent of the problem.

I am aware that several other alleged breaches relating to the Vietnam trade are currently under investigation. I also note with some concern that the independent auditors engaged to ensure compliance with Australian ESCAS conditions are selected by the exporters, and that overseas meatworks are forewarned of an impending inspection. I acknowledge that the ESCAS conditions, introduced by Labor, have much improved animal-handling conditions within the live export trade and in time even the critics of Labor's response to 2011 Four Corners program will acknowledge the good that came out of that situation.

However, the system would work even better if the government followed Labor's lead and appointed an Independent Inspector-General of Animal Welfare or an Independent Office of Animal Welfare. Instead, immediately upon coming to office, the Abbott government dismantled the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and cut $2.3 million of funding for the live animal export business assistance program.

What I do not accept is that the live export trade is vital to Australia's cattle industry, nor do the industry figures support that assertion. Live exports represent just seven per cent of Australia's export market and about 93 per cent of Australian cattle are slaughtered in Australia. Furthermore, meat exports are growing whilst live exports are declining.

I also note the Abbott government's flippant dismissal of any criticism directed at the industry or the government. There is a widespread public perception that the Abbott government does not take animal welfare seriously. That perception is further fuelled by the Abbott government's narrative that we have to choose between the humane treatment of sheep and cattle and the livelihood of farmers. The dishonesty in that representation is that it does not have to be a choice, as both objectives are possible.

What is clear, however, is that Australians have demonstrated time and again that they will not condone animal cruelty. We have seen that not only with live exports but also with race jumping, greyhound racing, whaling, animal experiments and the intensive farming of pigs and poultry. When cruelty is exposed, it evokes widespread public backlash. Nor will governments silence concerns by introducing ag-gag laws.

The enforcement of Australian animal welfare standards can never be guaranteed once animals leave Australia. Furthermore, animals are not subjected to long, torturous journeys if they are processed in Australia. The best protection for animals is to process them in Australia, where Australian conditions apply and where those conditions can be enforced. That is what the Australian government and industry should be working towards. (Time expired)