Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) that Australia has the most stringent and effective live animal welfare regulatory system in the world that is underpinned by the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System;

(b) recent alleged breaches of Australian's animal welfare standards in the live export sector; and

(c) the Government's:

  (i) abolition of the position of Inspector General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports; and

  (ii) failure to increase regulatory and supervisory resources to keep pace with growth in trade; and

(2) calls on the Government to build public confidence and to protect the sustainability of the live export sector by:

(a) appointing an independent Inspector General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports; and

(b) providing quarterly ministerial reports to the Parliament on:

  (i) any new markets;

  (ii) the number of head exported;

  (iii) any allegations of breaches of animal welfare standards and investigations undertaken; and

  (iv) any sanctions or other action taken against those who have breached or should have prevented breaches of Australia's animal welfare standards.

Recent reports of unacceptable abuse of Australian cattle in other countries remind us how difficult a task it is to maintain in other, and often developing, countries the animal welfare standards Australians justifiably demand. But it is a task worthy of our continuing efforts. There are two very good reasons. Firstly, our live trade exports are providing much needed protein in markets which would otherwise be filled by those not so committed to animal welfare standards. Secondly, it is a trade which is critical to Australia's economy, earning around $1.5 billion in foreign exchange each year while maintaining the livelihoods of hundreds of producer families.

Each year Australia sends around thee million cattle and sheep to 26 countries to meet the food needs of their people. I am often asked why we don't slaughter the animals here in Australia. That, it is suggested, would surely mean adding value and creating jobs here. It would also, it is argued, give us total control over the treatment of the cattle and sheep. To find the answer to that question, we need to first understand that for many reasons there is a market for live animals begging to be filled, ranging from cultural preferences through to logistical and infrastructure issues, including refrigeration. Further, in some markets, including Indonesia, the buyers are looking for lighter cattle which they can fatten and add value to in their quite efficient feedlots. If we do not fill these markets, some other country with lower animal welfare standards surely will. That is the demand side, but what about supply? Here, there are at least three key points.

Firstly, cattlemen in Australia's far north do not have the feed and conditions to grow cattle all the way to slaughter weight at this time. Without the live trade industry, producers in the far north would not be viable. Secondly, climatic issues like the north's wet season and transport difficulties make slaughter, storage and transport to port difficult. Having said that, new abattoirs are emerging in our far north, and I certainly welcome that. Thirdly, the live trade sector provides producers with alternative selling options, bringing competition to the equation and often better prices for producers. Australia's live trade sector is feeding the globe's growing population in a food constrained world. It is creating wealth and jobs here and raising handling and slaughter standards elsewhere. It is also putting pressure on exporters from other countries, and the importers they deal with, to raise their own standards.

Can Australians have confidence in our industry? That, more than anything else, is what this parliamentary motion is all about: building public confidence. We have the world's best animal welfare standards. The positive outcome of the regrettable 2011 live export pause was the introduction of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance Scheme, otherwise known as ESCAS. This regulatory regime forces exporters to show they have a plan to treat the animals humanely and provides a monitoring and auditing system all the way from port to abattoir.

Heavier sanctions and penalties can be applied for breaches of ESCAS. They range from financial penalties, the suspension of an export licence, the cancellation of a licence or indeed imprisonment. It also provides exporters with incentives to do the right thing, because breaches tend to bring more oversight, regulatory burden, more regulatory delays and more cost. It is also worth remembering that incidents like higher than acceptable mortality rates on a voyage result in significant additional costs for exporters. It is in their interest to deliver the goods to the other end in good shape.

Despite the robustness of our regulatory system, reports of animal mistreatment continue to emerge. These events undermine public support for the trade, and this motion puts forward some initiatives designed to maintain and build upon that support.

I have learnt that one of the things which undermines the sector's image is a lack of publicly available information about alleged breaches, action taken and sanctions imposed. That is why I want the minister to, in the future, regularly report to the parliament, and it is why Labor wants the Abbott government to revive our plans to establish an independent inspector-general for animal welfare and live animal exports.

The minister's report will place on the public record any easy to access and understandable account of the state of the sector, any animal welfare incidents and how they have been dealt with. As an independent statutory officer overseeing of the work of the department, the inspector-general will be critical to building and maintaining public trust. Labor also wants the government to provide reassurance that the resourcing of the animal welfare system is keeping pace with growth in the sector.

No system can ever guarantee an incident-free industry, nor can we expect it to. But we have a responsibility in this place to ensure the system is the best it possibly can be and that people can have confidence in it. The motion is about transparency and accountability and in the interest of the community and the sector alike. I urge the government to embrace it.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion. I rise to speak on the motion brought into the House this morning by the member for Hunter. I would like to point out that livestock exports are important to the ongoing trade in Australia. The industry employs around 10,000 people and contributes significantly to the country's economy, supports many rural and regional communities, and underpins the economic returns to farm gate.

In the first full year of this government, the value of live animal exports has exceeded $1.4 billion and continues to grow. Our international market share and reputation has been built on our ability to supply international markets with a high-quality, reliable and safe source of protein. The livestock trade contributes to the food security of millions of people in importing countries across the world.

The member for Hunter did not mention this: in many parts of the world, live trade and fresh meat are the only option of supply in protein to communities, because of a lack of infrastructure, lack of refrigeration, and the lack of ability to get chilled or frozen produce into those parts of the world.

Australia's leadership in this trade has provided significant opportunity to positively influence animal welfare conditions in importing countries and continues to do so. After the debacle that we saw back in 2011, the Australian government put in the place the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance Scheme, ESCAS, and it is now a leading piece of regulation that is world-class.

The review that was put in place showed that, since the introduction of ESCAS, Australia has exported eight million head of livestock to 18 countries with only 22 incidents of animal welfare. I have to say, any incidents of animal welfare are a concern and, as someone who has worked with livestock all their life, no-one wants to see that. But 22 cases out of eight million head is a vast improvement on what we have seen before. The review also indicated that 99 per cent of Australian animals that were exported were treated humanely and in accordance with the standards set out by the World Organisation for Animal Health. In fact, the OIE has said that the Australian livestock export industry is leading the world in animal welfare and the industry's investment in approving implementation of OIE welfare standards had its full and unequivocal support. So it goes back to the provision of training under ESCAS for the livestock industry to more than 8,000 people working in the supply chains in Asia and the Middle East, including managers and animal welfare officers, who help improve animal handling and husbandry techniques and increase the use of stunning equipment.

The department has already introduced the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System regulatory performance report, which is available on its website. The report offers a more efficient approach to providing information on reviews into both alleged and substantial noncompliant activity across the livestock export markets. The department intends to publish this report at least twice a year. This report is in addition to a report by Minister Joyce to the parliament every six months on livestock mortalities on every sea voyage.

So the industry has to manage a unique challenge of ensuring appropriate animal handling and welfare practices from paddock to plate. We have a robust regulatory system to deal with issues when they arise, and that is the ESCAS system. The ESCAS system is the only system in the world which ensures that international animal welfare standards are met throughout the supply chain. No system is perfect, and this industry needs to continue to manage the risks that occur when you move livestock across borders.

The mover mentioned a change to have an inspector-general of welfare and export. The current legislation of livestock export is designed to minimise the risk, and I am confident that we do not need to establish another level of bureaucracy such as an inspector-general of welfare. The inspector-general was a classic example of another layer of bureaucracy, without any real practical outcome.

In conclusion, the mover acknowledged this and I will reinforce what happens when governments do not understand the full complexities of this: the removal of the live cattle trade back in 2011 caused not only untold economic hardship to the cattle industry but also a lot of pain to animals that were left stranded on drought-affected properties.

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

Firstly, I commend the member for Hunter for bringing this motion to the chamber. Once again, Australians are confronted with images of Australian cattle being brutally killed; once again, footage is from an approved overseas facility; once again, the livestock export company LSS is a party in the supply chain; and, once again, the evidence mounts that Australia cannot ensure the humane treatment of animals once they leave Australia.

What is additionally disturbing about the latest image from an Israeli abattoir is that Israel is an advanced economy and the abattoir at the centre of the allegations is a large, modern facility. It is also obvious from the person who revealed the cruelty that this was not an isolated incident. It was normal practice, and the horrific treatment would have continued had not the cruelty been exposed. This appeared to be everyday practice that authorities, auditors, inspectors, agents and others who are parties to Australia's Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System should have known about. It is difficult to believe that they did not. This latest event highlights a secondary matter, and that is that kosher slaughter does not live up to the claims that it is not cruel.

I understand from my colleague the member for Melbourne Ports that, following the footage of cruelty, some abattoir employees were dismissed, the abattoir was temporarily closed and the Israeli government is set to substantially increase penalties for acts of animal cruelty. I welcome those responses; however, if authorities seemed oblivious to the cruelty in the past, it does not fill me with confidence about the future, nor does the response from the Abbott government or the Minister for Agriculture reassure me. The Abbott government has shown little interest in animal welfare, which it treats as an unnecessary inconvenience to the live export trade. When it came into office, the first decision it made was to abolish the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and then cut $2.3 million of funding for the live animal export business assistance program. It also flippantly dismissed Labor's proposal to appoint an inspector-general of animal welfare and live animal exports. Why? Because it did not want any additional oversight of the live export trade. The appointment of an inspector-general of animal welfare and live animal exports would have been a step in the right direction. Better still would be the establishment of a federal office of animal welfare that is independent of the agriculture minister and not conflicted by simultaneously being responsible for promoting meat exports and for animal welfare. Only then will the Australian community have confidence in Australia's animal welfare system.

I also reiterate a concern I raised when I spoke about animal welfare only two weeks ago. That is my concern about the process where auditors are being appointed by the export companies and where industry is forewarned prior to an inspection taking place. That is a process that cannot be relied on. If the process cannot be relied on, animals should not leave Australia, and the focus and effort should be on exporting Australian processed meat. The live export trade accounts for seven per cent of Australia's meat exports. I accept that is a reasonable value to this country, but I also accept that most of our meat leaves this country once it is processed. I also note that New Zealand has managed well without live exports since 2006, and nine years later it does not appear that there is any intention of ever resuming the trade in that country.

I know that the response from the industry has been that Australia's presence in the live export trade is raising animal welfare standards. With the latest revelations from Israel, those responses are far from convincing. As I said earlier, the best response would be to establish an independent office of animal welfare. I certainly support the member for Hunter's motion in this respect. At the very least, the government should be providing information back to this parliament on a regular basis with respect to the number of incidents that are reported to the government, what measures are being taken to ensure that those incidents do not continue, and what other actions and penalties are being applied to those who quite wilfully and deliberately breach the ESCAS conditions that we have put in place.

I also accept that the ESCAS conditions introduced by Labor have made a difference, but we can do better still. If we do, that will give the community confidence to support the Australian cattle and meat growers of this country, irrespective of whether the cattle and sheep are processed here in Australia or exported overseas. As I have said time and time again, our ability to control standards once the animals leave Australia is indeed limited.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak today on the private member's motion regarding animal welfare. I want to start by stating categorically that I do not support animal cruelty in any form. Australia is regarded as a world leader in welfare standards for livestock exports. The Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, known as ESCAS, which was rolled out in Australia in 2012, is a system which not only maintains but also reinforces Australia's solid reputation as a world leader in animal welfare.

Australia is the world's second largest exporter of live sheep and the fifth largest exporter of live cattle. To hold that mantle is something that we should be proud of and should support. I am proud to say that Australia's leadership has positively influenced animal welfare in other countries. It is imperative that we support our local farmers, and I repeat once again that I do not support cruelty to animals.

Following the review of ESCAS released in January, it is clear that Australia sets a bar in animal welfare standards. Since ESCAS was introduced, Australia has exported eight million head of livestock to nearly 20 countries, in 1,139 consignments, with just 22 incidents of animal welfare noted. I want to repeat: that is 22 incidents in over eight million head of livestock, which equates to 0.000275 per cent. I will admit that no percentage is acceptable, but I think it is worthwhile keeping this number in perspective. The report also found that an awareness of animal welfare issues in livestock handling and slaughter facilities overseas has been improved, and ESCAS has provided a valuable source of previously unreported data about the movement and the treatment of animals. Importing countries have said that the implementation of ESCAS has led to a greater efficiency in processing animals at the point of slaughter.

The World Organisation for Animal Health, OIE, said the Australian livestock export industry is 'leading the world in animal welfare'. They also said the industry's investments in improved implementation of OIE standards have its 'full and unequivocal support'.

WA and Durack's contribution to Australia's live export market is significant. Last year WA contributed a whopping 84 per cent to Australia's sheep exports and a very large proportion were from Durack. During the 2013-14 financial year, WA's live exports rose by 56 per cent, the equivalent of an additional 300,000 head and again, a large portion were from Durack.

I am not convinced that appointing an independent Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports, as proposed by this motion, is going to help farmers or the industries. This could simply be adding another layer of bureaucracy, when the report found the system is already 'costly to administer for both industry and the Department of Agriculture'.

It is worth noting that the live export industry is currently working on an alternative or an amendment to ESCAS which would dispense with the need to have every single link in the supply chain audited on every single occasion. What they are proposing seems very sensible. I applaud the industry for showing such initiative and I wish them well with their deliberations with the Department of Agriculture.

It is imperative that we support farmers, particularly when they are at their most vulnerable. I am committed to the farmers and pastoralists of Durack and the Abbott government is committed to farmers around Australia. Hence we have seen the Farm Finance Concessional Loans Scheme and the Farm Management Deposits Scheme. More recently we have seen significant drought assistance and also the farm household allowance, for which I have supported the government in delivering since we came to office nearly two years ago—together with the latest budget announcements with respect to small business and primary producer instant tax deductions.

I conclude by referring to the bill proposed recently by Senator Chris Back, the Criminal Code Amendment (Animal Protection) Bill 2015, which makes it a criminal offence for people in possession of film footage showing cruelty to animals who fail to bring the information to the attention of authorities as soon as practicable. The objective of this bill is to cease the practice of withholding such important information by so-called animal welfare groups who release the information at a time which suits their own political agenda, while, due to the time delay, the perpetrators of the apparent animal cruelty are not held to account. I commend Senator Back's bill to the House.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The live export industry has to realise that it is in its best interests for the industry to lift its game and to ensure that ESCAS is not only properly enforced but also is strengthened. I was amazed by the comments by the member for Durack that in fact in her view and in the view of the government we should be reducing the strength of that supply chain assurance. The growers and all of those in the export chain cannot stick their heads in the sand just because they have a minister who is prepared to ignore the problem because the community will not stay quiet.

Time and time again we continue to see major breaches in ESCAS. In the past months it has gone beyond leakage of animals from the approved supply chain to cruelty exposed within an ESCAS approved abattoir. This is eroding community confidence in the trade. Let us get these numbers right. An Essential Media poll in 2013 found that one quarter of the country does not support live export at all. Importantly, the same poll found that 50 per cent of people were prepared to support the practice if appropriate safeguards were in place to guarantee that Australian animals are treated humanely both here and overseas.

This morning I have seen a more recent UMR research poll which showed that 59 per cent of respondents disapproved of live exports, including interestingly 53 per cent in Western Australia. It is in this context that the reality of this situation has to be understood. Every time footage emerges of our cattle being treated cruelly in an overseas abattoir, the community loses faith in the safeguards we have put in place to protect these animals.

The minister has claimed that ESCAS is working and that 99 per cent of exported animals are treated humanely but there is absolutely no transparency around this claim. The only time the public ever hears of action being taken against breaches in the supply chain is after the barbaric treatment has been exposed by animal welfare groups. Exporters have admitted that thousands of animals are outside the supply chains in Vietnam. When footage of sledgehammering emerged in April, the minister said about the matters that the incidents had been under investigation for the previous two months but the treatment continued on a regular basis. Then we saw—and it was extraordinary—when the latest information came out about the mistreatment in an accredited Israeli abattoir, the minister said that it is a problem relating to stunning; whereas stunning is not part of the practice of kosher slaughter, and so of course was not in play in the Israeli abattoir.

We can not continue to have these regulations in place and claim that the industry is doing just fine. We need to ensure that these regulations are properly enforced. The auditing process has been conducted by the exporter, and clearly is unsustainable and literally incredible. That is why we need to strengthen the system. That is why we need an independent inspector-general of animal welfare and live exports to ensure that we do have some independence in the auditing, and that we have this information brought before the parliament and the public on a regular basis.

I also want to say that it should be understood that we have got to make sure that we have got resilience in our industry, and I am particularly concerned about northern Australia. We are very dependent on live exports to Indonesia. The Indonesians have indicated that they want to move out of live exports, they want to be self-sufficient. We have got alternatives. Last week, I was with Yeeda pastoral company and saw that their new abattoir is almost complete. When it is opened in October they will soon be able to process 70,000 head of northern cattle per year. They have already signed a contract with Burger King in the USA for half the meat they are processing in that facility. The abattoir will employ 80 people from the day it is open; creating enormous opportunities for the local community, including the local Indigenous community. So we have got the capacity to have alternatives to live export, but if those people in the live export industry want this industry to continue they have an obligation to enforce— (Time expired)

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Hunter for bringing this motion forward. Indeed, nobody condones cruelty to animals, of any sort. No abattoirs are nice places. No abattoir in Australia or in other parts of the world are nice places. But we have become so sterilised as a society to the fact that sometimes you actually have to kill animals so that you can use them as food—it is terrible, I know. I represent the electorate of Lyons, which takes up about 50 per cent of the state of Tasmania and a big proportion of it is arable agricultural land. Whilst not directly exporting live sheep or cattle at the moment, the decisions made by the previous government impacted on farmers and businesses in my electorate and in the state of Tasmania, as it did across much of eastern Australia.

My constituents and I know how vital agriculture is to the Tasmanian and Australian economy. I have had many representations and indeed genuine concerns, and I do respect and understand those concerns that are raised. But these are isolated incidents and they are not reflective of a well managed trade. As a nation we are a net exporter of agricultural produce, estimated to be worth more than $40 billion this financial year. Our produce is among the best in the world. Our enviable pest- and disease-free status gives our farmers a unique advantage over many of their competitors. The member for Hunter, in raising this issue this morning of Australia's animal welfare standards in the live export sector, and his criticism in fact of the sector is nothing more that classic Labor window dressing.

The facts are that the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System reported this year that Australia has been exporting livestock for more than 100 years. We are the second biggest exporter of live sheep and the fifth biggest exporter of live cattle in the world. We produce some of the highest quality sustainably produced livestock in the world. The reality is that we are providing some of the highest quality, safest and most affordable protein for millions of families all over the world. Since the introduction of the ESCAS scheme, Australia has exported eight million head of livestock to 18 countries in 1,139 consignments, with 22 incidents of animal welfare concerns being raised. None, of course, is acceptable, but any realistic person would have to admit that it is an outstanding record.

Nobody condones animal cruelty. No country invests more than Australia in improving animal welfare outcomes in the markets that we supply. Take Australia out of that system and animal welfare outcomes will be poorer. Nobody cares more for animal welfare than our farmers. The live export animal trade is essential to the livelihood of thousands of Australian families and underpins the economies of many communities across the country. The trade is essential to providing competition in the domestic meat processing sector and is an essential source of income for the farming communities involved. The government and the industry have been working together to open new export markets and to improve the market access for Australian livestock in existing markets, such as the free trade agreements that we have signed in China, Japan and South Korea.

Since the government came to office in September 2013, the value of live animal exports has risen from $1.4 billion and continues to rise. We understand that our customers value continuity of supply so we have worked particularly hard to repair the damage done to our international reputation as a reliable supplier by the previous government. Goodness knows the damage that was done and the knock-on effect to Tasmania. Never again should we allow policy to be dictated by social media populist campaigns with no regard for the farming families, no regard for the businesses that support those things and no regard for the customers that we supply.

Government and industry continue to work hard with our trading partners to improve animal handling and husbandry skills and improve animal welfare outcomes; we are doing it all the time. Industry is in fact reporting many of these breaches. We have trained more than 7,000 people. Industry is continuing to upgrade facilities in the countries we supply to meet international animal welfare standards. Our shared commitment to this work is ongoing. No country invests more in our markets than Australia. Australian livestock exports are an important economic contributor to regional Australia, adding significantly to the total value of Australian farm exports.

Australia's leadership in the trade has provided a significant opportunity to positively influence animal welfare conditions in importing countries and continues to do so. In fact, the World Organisation for Animal Health has said that the Australian livestock export industry is leading the world in animal welfare and that the industry's investment in improving implementation of OIE welfare standards has its full support. I welcome the investment by the AACo in northern Australia to open the abattoir there. Indeed, for some customers that is going to be appropriate, but for many it is not.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, as it is my obligation to do so at the first opportunity, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Lyons, throughout his contribution, accused me of being critical of the live export trade in my contribution.

An honourable member: Not much!

I was never critical of the sector. Therefore, that is patently untrue and he should reflect on his comments.

Debate adjourned.