Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hunter proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The need to work with industry to phase out live sheep exports.

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—

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

I thank the House. Most people view the current live sheep trade controversy as an animal welfare issue, and it certainly is, first and foremost. But it is much more than that. It is true that the vision we saw on 60 Minutes right on a month ago, I think, was horrible and totally unacceptable. Indeed, the live sheep trade is neither acceptable nor necessary. This debate is not just about animal welfare; it is also about the rights of the workers on the ships which cart those sheep to the Middle East in particular, and it's about the economics of the trade and its impact on the Australian economy—and I want to say something about all three things.

Unlike the cattle industry, the live sheep sector has proved itself unable to demonstrate a capacity to meet the animal welfare expectations of the broader Australian community and, indeed, I'm sure, anyone in this place. It's not as if the industry hasn't been given plenty of opportunities; it certainly has. Reports of animal cruelty in the live sheep trade go back to at least the early 1980s. My first experience of it in this place was in 2006, when the then Prime Minister, John Howard, suspended the live sheep trade. The breaches keep occurring and promises of reform keep coming, but, sadly, nothing ever seems to really change.

A month ago, I came to the conclusion that a bipartisan approach was necessary to reform this sector. It was my very firm view that the best way to secure deep, meaningful and broad reform was for the major parties to work together, and I still believe that to be true. I extended a bipartisan hand to the minister, who, I'm pleased to see, has joined us for this debate—I think that's important—and he accepted that bipartisan hand, and I've been somewhat encouraged by his responses in the course of the last month. It is a big change from and a great contrast to the responses that I used to receive from the former minister for agriculture and that I'm sure I would have received if the member for New England had still been the minister for agriculture. That is because one of the core issues here is regulatory capture and the culture of the regulator, and direction of the culture within the regulator—which in this instance is the department—comes down from the minister of the day. The problem was that, when the member for New England provided a free pass for the sector, unconditional approval of the sector, as you would expect we got the wrong culture in the sector, complacency in the sector and risk-taking in the sector. The manifestation of all of that, of course, was what we saw on 60 Minutes a month ago.

I just want to take the House through 10 key things the member for New England did to retard our progress on animal welfare improvements. He ignored industry warnings. We saw that front and centre with the Wellard letter which was leaked last week—the industry warning the department itself that things were going awry. He delayed the review of ASEL, the key standards for the sector, but not by a period of months. I as minister, I think, if it wasn't former Minister Ludwig, commissioned the review in 2013. Here we are in 2018, and we're told that the ASEL review is due in mid-2019. The ASEL review is critical to improving the standards. The member for New England rejected Labor's review of ESCAS, the other auditing trail for protecting animal welfare. He abolished Labor's Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. He rejected the idea of an independent office for animal welfare. He rejected regular ministerial parliamentary reporting on animal welfare and live exports. He abolished the Australian animal welfare advisory committee. He defunded the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy. He abolished the Office of Animal Welfare within his own department. He allowed exemptions from animal welfare standards without sunset provisions, something we read about in the newspapers as recently as last week.

The minister will be asking why I said we were prepared to wait for the so-called McCarthy review report before taking a firmer decision on the northern summer trade in particular but on the live sheep trade more generally.

I'll say, first of all, that the minister has now commissioned four reviews. I welcome all of them, but the timing of some of them has me a little concerned. There is a review into the Awassi Express incident, which is the incident we saw on 60 Minutes. The regulator reviewed the incident and declared there were no breaches. Despite the vision we saw, it declared there were no breaches. To his credit, the minister has asked the regulator to revisit that. There is a review into the horrible summer trade, where 60,000 sheep are put on a voyage for four weeks in the hottest of hottest conditions on this planet and in the deepest humidity—50-degree heat and deep humidity. There's a review into the minister's own department. I welcome and congratulate the minister for having the robustness and the courage to ask the Attorney-General's office to have a look at his own department to find out what in the hell is happening there. But I think, again, you'll find it's the culture pushed down by his predecessor. And, of course, there is a review into the ASEL standards which, unfortunately, because of the member for New England's delays, won't report until 2019. I have spoken to the minister, and I know he will endeavour to bring that ASEL review forward.

So, why aren't I waiting for McCarthy to report on the review of the summer trade? Why isn't the Labor Party waiting? It is because we heard from the industry itself last week the admission that what happened with the Awassi Express was a climatic event, which was out of the control of anyone in this room, anyone in the industry and anyone in the Australian community. It was an admission from the sector itself that, no matter how much we improve standards, no matter how much we strengthen regulatory oversights, no matter how much we strengthen penalties and enforcement, the industry can't guarantee another Awassi Express incident won't happen. I don't need to wait for the McCarthy review. The industry itself has told us what the outcome is, or at least what the outcome should be.

Then there is the worker welfare. Those who read the Latika Bourke story, I think, on Saturday, would have been horrified—the image of workers trying to lift sheep off the dirty decks of those ships to be thrown overboard, only to have their limbs coming away, only to be squirted by boiling blood. They are underpaid and overworked in the most atrocious conditions.

On the economics—Labor wants a strategic red meat industry plan. We want to add more value here in Australia, create more jobs here in Australia, create more foreign exchange here in Australia and, of course, lift animal welfare standards. And we can do this. With the guidance of government and with the wit, we can do this in partnership with the sheepmeat producers, with the processors, and with everyone else along that supply chain. I'm absolutely determined that sheep producers will be better off under Labor's plan, not tied to the live export trade but heading for premium markets and getting bigger returns.

Here's the economics of this trade at the moment. Animal welfare cruelty is being externalised. By shoving 60,000 or more sheep on a ship, you are able to deliver a premium to the sheepmeat producer. Sheepmeat producers think that's not a bad thing. However, what does that do to the competitiveness of our abattoirs? Abattoirs can't compete, because they're overstocking and sharing the benefit with the farmers. Now, I don't mind farmers receiving a benefit, but not at the expense of animal welfare. We can do better than that. Our markets are changing. Community preferences, consumer preferences, are changing right around the globe. There is an opportunity to push those farmers up the value curve, to head them in the direction of premium markets and to create those jobs in Australia. This will take time. We can't transition sheepmeat producers out of the live export trade in a hurry. But we can do it, and we're best placed to do it if we're working together. I do appeal to the minister, again, to work with us on a bipartisan basis. We can get this done. Everyone in that supply chain can benefit and, of course, the broader community will secure its expectations on animal welfare standards.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hunter for his speech. I too feel the anger and pain that each one of us had when we saw that vision. There's no sane person that wouldn't have had the same emotive response. But this is a time for calm decisions that are predicated on science, not emotion. That's the path that I'm going to take this government down to protect those farmers and the animals, which have done no wrong in this, and to get it right. I can't change the past, but I intend to influence the future to have a sustainable and viable industry and to do that in a sensible, methodical way. It's been that way from the very moment that this incident came to light. I instigated a number of decisive measures to ensure that we put a pathway in place to support those farmers, particularly in WA, whose livelihoods will be ripped out from under them like they were in northern Australia in 2011. We can't revisit the ills of the past on emotive decisions. It has to be predicated on science.

I'm proud to say that, the moment we saw that horrible vision, I made sure that the independent regulator reopened the investigation and looked at that footage, frame by frame by frame, to make sure that natural justice can take its course. It's important that we allow that to take place. It's important that we're calm around that process so that, if there are prosecutions to be made, they are able to be made and carried through to penalty. It is important that I implement a whistleblower hotline and create an environment where those that see the wrongs of animal welfare can feel comfortable to come forward, because the standard we walk past is the standard we accept. And it's not just government's responsibility to call out poor behaviour. It's the responsibility of each and every one of us to create an environment where those in the industry feel comfortable to come forward and call out poor behaviour. That's the responsibility of each and every one of us, no matter our nationality; it's just being a plain human being. It's important that we do that in a systematic way, and I'm prepared to work with those opposite and those in the animal rights industry to make a robust whistleblower program where people do feel that comfort. It's important to me.

I've also made it abundantly clear that no-one is beyond reproach in this. I received a report into that shipment just before Easter. It raised enough concerns with me that I asked for my own 'please explain' of the department. Four days later, I received that footage, and I was shocked. I was horrified that that could happen when I had just received a report from the independent regulator to say that there was no standard breach. And I'm on the record—if no standard has been breached in this, from the footage I've seen, the standards quite clearly aren't good enough, and I intend to fix it; I intend to change it. I make that commitment, and I made that commitment from the get-go. But that's about being calm and decisive about our actions to support those livelihoods. I've reached out to Mr Philip Moss, who is an eminent Australian with significant experience in terms of creating an environment for investigations and prosecutions, to look at the department and the independent regulator and to make sure that they have the tools, the capabilities and the culture. It's important that we set that environment, because the regulators themselves are the ones that will create the culture in the industry. They are the ones that will set the culture of how that industry treats animals and what people think they can and can't get away with.

We've got to be clear: we have one allegation against one exporter at the moment. Let's put it in perspective. That's why I'm saying we need to be calm and decisive about our decisions, to let the facts talk for themselves. But it's important that I set the environment with the independent regulator to get it right. No matter the persuasion of government and no matter who comes after me, it's my responsibility to leave a legacy whereby animal welfare is held in the highest regard. Those opposite want to talk about the former agricultural minister. Well, there have been wrongs in the past by both sides. The Beale review, in 2008, gave a clear indication of separating the independent regulator away from the department. The Labor Party, while in government at that point, did not take up that recommendation. So, ills have been done on both sides. As I said, we can't change the past, but we can definitely change the future.

To suggest that we're going to sit here and predicate our decisions on industry—I won't be. The industry has let those farmers down and let those animals down. I don't intend to take directions from the industry. I intend to be giving them the directions. That's the course of action I set from the very moment this incident came to light. But it's important to understand that there are a number of different elements to this issue. We talk about the McCarthy review—another review I created—and the time it's taken. Let me say that it is a five-week review. I would challenge anyone out there to tell me how many government reviews have been done in that short period; to give us the scientific evidence that will be peer reviewed and make sure that we have the best conditions for sending sheep out into the northern summer; to stand here and say, 'We did have bipartisanship, but we're not going to do it because industry came out and they didn't give us confidence.' Well, from the start they've never given me confidence. But I'm going to take the evidence that's in front of me and let the scientists, the eminent professionals, come with me on that journey and guide me. We talk about the consultation. I've sat with those farmers in Western Australia, with the tears in their eyes because they can see what happened in 2011. They can see what happened to people up in northern Australia when their trade was ripped out from under them—the loss of income and the mental health issues that came from that. Those are real people.

When you're in government, you sometimes have to make tough decisions. You've got to have the ticker not to run off with emotion but to wait for the facts—to do it properly, swiftly and decisively. We did have bipartisanship. I was proud to say that as soon as this incident happened I reached across the aisle, because I wanted to leave that legacy for those farmers who have done no wrong, and for those animals. It was great, because on 19 April the Leader of the Opposition said, with regard to the McCarthy review: 'We will honour our commitment and await its findings.' That was great, but, unfortunately, the member for Hunter backed it up on 23 April. Just banning the trade is not the answer, not the solution. We have to be far more sensible about it than that.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

A phase-out is a ban, I'm sorry. The reality is that on 3 May Labor panicked. You can't lead a nation through tough times if you don't have the ticker, if you don't have the temperament to lead your nation and to wait for the facts, to wait for the science. Two weeks is all they had to wait. Instead, they put uncertainty on the livelihoods of people in Western Australia who have done no wrong. They put them on the chopping block without any consideration, and, I dare say, without any consultation. They didn't sit out there and look those farmers in the eye and explain to them why they made this decision.

Something that we as a government are proud of is that we're going to continue to stick to the pathway. My hand is still out—it will always be out. This is more important than politics or pointscoring. This is about the livelihoods and future of so many Australians who have done no wrong. It is important to think and understand that if it's not our sheep it will be another nation's sheep. There is world demand for this, and let me tell you: there are nations out there that don't have the same standards and the same values that we do. If we think we can close our eyes and say that because we banned it in Australia we can blindly feel happy, put our head on the pillow and it's all gone away, we're wrong. We've got a responsibility to stay and get it right. I'm determined to stay and get it right. My hand is across the aisle to stay and get it right. This is a time for leadership, not politics. We can prove to this nation that we can do the right thing, not only by the farmers but also by the animals.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is right: it's time we did the right thing by Australians; it's time we did the right thing by farmers, by sheep producers and certainly by the animals that we have a responsibility to care for. It's time for the long-haul live export of sheep to come to an end. It's time for us to move to an expanded chilled and boxed meat trade that represents a high-value export industry, will create 300 to 400 additional jobs in Australia, will deliver stability for sheep producers and, above all, will stop the systematic mistreatment of animals. Above all, we have to remember that there is not a sliding scale that makes animal cruelty acceptable at a certain price. We know that ending live export is entirely possible, we know that it's entirely reasonable and we know that it's necessary. This diminishing trade has a clear alternative, and Labor has grasped that alternative. Labor, through its strategic red meat industry plan, is moving us towards that alternative by making a transition, which government leadership is all about and which parliamentary partnership and cooperation should be all about.

I represent the port through which the vast majority of the trade passes, and Western Australia, my home state, produces 85 per cent of the sheep destined for live export. I want to see a transition that supports farmers in my state. I want to see a timely shift to a trade that has a future, a trade that is of higher quality and higher value and has more jobs. More than anything else, I want to see an end to a trade that produces animal welfare atrocities on a regular basis. The minister has said that this is not the time for emotion, it is a time for waiting. I can tell you, if you've lived in Western Australia or if you've lived in Fremantle, as I have done all my life, you don't need to wait another two weeks. I've lived in Fremantle for 40 years. I've seen this trade and what it produces for three decades. So it is a bit rich for the minister to suggest that people need to wait a bit longer.

I welcome the commitment from Labor's shadow minister for agriculture to a sensible and balanced change under a future Labor government. I'm sorry that the minister today has talked about the move and the support for this transition as being somehow emotional—or, as the Prime Minister said, emotional and reckless. That is a lot of rubbish. Moving to end the live export trade in a sensible, managed transition is profoundly rational. It is comprehensively based on the facts, the history and the science. It does not take a genius to understand that sending tens of thousands of sheep crammed in badly ventilated, derelict metal ships to the hottest part of the world at the hottest time of the year is a recipe for intolerable animal suffering. As if that weren't enough, we know that since 2005 seventy-one separate voyages have involved the deaths of more than 1,000 sheep. We know that countless breaches and countless instances of gross mistreatment of animals have occurred without any consequences whatsoever. We know that vets' records have been falsified. We know that the International Transport Workers' Federation has highlighted the unacceptable workplace conditions faced by seafarers on these ships. We know that the department of agriculture decided there was nothing wrong with the voyages shown on 60 Minutes. We know that last year an industry stakeholder informed the department that export vessels were so decrepit that catastrophic animal welfare incidents were likely, yet nothing was done. If you want to talk about the science, we know that only yesterday the Australian Veterinary Association said the summer live export trade was incompatible with animal welfare standards.

I was actually quite glad when the minister became a bit emotional when the 60 Minutes story broke. He was pretty fired up. He was a bit angry and used some strong language. I'm concerned that the minister is being drawn back into the fog. I'm concerned that the minister is going to treat us to the same old story. I'm concerned that we're going to be told that it's just a few bad apples, that it's something that can be fixed, that the industry shouldn't get a second or a third chance but should have its 76th or 77th chance. I can tell you that my community is calm and focused and is committed to seeing action. We are committed to seeing sensible and necessary change. But I can also say that Australians are angry, and they're rightly angry. They're angry when they see animals being cruelly mistreated. They're angry that this doomed, narrow, barbaric trade has gone on for so long, that it has lied so much, that it has gone completely unregulated, that it has gone completely unpunished for its multiple failures, which in every instance have involved the terrible and prolonged suffering of animals. It's enough. It's time for it to end.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was a farmer for 30 years, and like all farmers—like all Australians—I was appalled at the images on the 60 Minutes program about the Awassi Express. It is clear that, as a nation, we will not tolerate this kind of treatment of our animals, and the industry is unsustainable if it continues. But our response must be guided by facts. On so many issues, I am dismayed by the power of uninformed opinion to influence debate.

I applaud the minister for his actions. Obviously angry, like so many of us, he ordered an immediate, sharp and stiff review and announced a stream of interim measures including mandating departmental inspectors on every boat. The stakes are high. The last time the live trade was suspended, untold damage was done to the cattle industry. While the numbers exported live are but a small part of the national market, the track record of 2011 demonstrates that the knock-on effect of termination of the industry is likely to be a significant depression on the rest of the market, far beyond whatever the differential may be at any time. I have no doubt the transportation of the sheep to the Middle Eastern markets can be done in an acceptable manner. It does happen on the vast majority of occasions. That's why we know it's possible. What we need to do is make sure that it occurs that way not just some of the time but almost all of the time.

We don't know yet what the specific circumstances surrounding the Awassi Express were, and it's important that we don't make precipitate decisions until we do. Without making any presumption of innocence and without knowing that the minimum standards were or were not observed, I make the comment that even in nature things go catastrophically wrong from time to time. This is never more evident than when we find a pod of beached whales. The McCarthy review is due next week, and I ask on behalf of my farmers and my rural communities that depend on a competitive meat trade that we wait for that report, its recommendations and the minister's response.

I estimate that around 10 per cent of the live trade in sheep comes out of my electorate. A friend of mine rang me last week. He doesn't often sell to the live export trade, but he said the last time he did he received a $25-a-head premium, and he remarked that, for 60,000 sheep on board, that's about $1½ million. Indeed, over the last three years the national numbers have averaged about 1½ million per annum, and if that premium is extrapolated you end up with a figure getting close to $40 million. It would not be any stretch to assume that, if the top payer in the market were taken out of the market, prices across the board would recede by a similar amount or even more. Even if we estimate a 10-million-a-year turnoff across the whole sheep sector, multiplied by a factor of $25 a head premium, it's an extraordinary loss that will be borne by farmers who have done absolutely nothing wrong. They are the innocent parties.

Some of my colleagues are considering supporting a bill phasing out the live trade. I understand why and I respect their views, but I do urge caution. It is possible—indeed highly likely—that as a result of the McCarthy review operators will be required to undertake significant capital expense to bring their vessels up to standard—perhaps even to a totally new standard. If that is the case and they are presented with a termination date, it would almost certainly mean that investment would not occur, and so the trade would effectively be terminated immediately.

Hardworking Australian farmers need us to take a fact-driven and considered path. While I know members are being bombarded with emails at the moment and are concerned about the repercussions, it is worth reflecting that, after the early accolades the Labor government received for suspending the trade in 2011, the situation turned poisonous as stock were left in the paddock, growing too big for the market. Farmers faced ejection from their farms, and public attitudes changed very quickly. I won't forget that process.

I ask the public of Australia and the members of this place to reflect on what the end game is for organisations like Animals Australia, who are sponsoring the email campaign. Do not think that, if they win this battle, the war is over. A quick visit to the Animals Australia website will tell you they are opposed to a wide range of practices in the wool industry, including shearing, lambs being born in the paddock, mulesing and artificial insemination. They oppose greyhound racing—and we saw what happened in New South Wales a little over 12 months ago—and horseracing, citing the mental and physical stress for the horses. They are opposed to zoos, rodeos, animal testing and a plethora of other things which are normally highly regulated activities in this society. I ask people to consider who is making the bullets they are being asked to fire.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Neither of the previous government speakers have actually stood here and apologised and recognised that it was the former ag minister, the member for New England, who has helped create this crisis. It was the member for New England who abolished Labor's independent Inspector-General of Animal Welfare. It was the member for New England, when he was the ag minister, who abolished the animal welfare committee and created the culture in the department of 'Don't rock the boat'. There has been no acknowledgement of what their side of politics has done to create this situation, which is allowing rogue operators to export live sheep in a very unsafe way. Everyone's saying the footage is terrible—60,000 sheep crammed on. It wouldn't have happened if the previous minister had not abolished the committee and the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare. Where is this side taking responsibility for their actions of placing their own constituents in the situation that they're in?

Labor has called for work with industry to phase out live sheep exports. It's to work with industry; it's to work in partnership; it's to talk about a transition to. We on this side acknowledge that means developing markets. I have a tier 1 abattoir in my electorate. They say that the cost barriers, the extra compliance required to increase their exports, particularly to the Middle East, is something that financially they can't do. They are interested. There is an opportunity for government to work with industry to help our tier 1 abattoirs step up to that tier 2 stage.

We've also talked about the importance of jobs. The jobs issue cannot be underestimated. There is work we need to do to ensure that Australians are given first opportunity to work in the meat processing industry. We currently have a problem in the meat processing industry, where they are staffed predominantly by backpackers. There's an opportunity there to create good, secure Australian jobs for permanent residents, for people living in regional areas. That's another part of this plan. If we want to phase out live export we can work towards creating good secure jobs in the regions, developing the trade, as I've said, and working to remove those non-trade and tariff barriers that exist. These are issues we need to address.

We need to look at domestic transportation. Because Labor started to talk about this and create the office of animal welfare, we started to get the data in about what's been happening in live animal export. But we don't have good data on what is happening in domestic transportation. Just outside Ballarat there was a crash not long ago where hundreds of sheep were killed. In my electorate of Bendigo, when two trucks collided 800 sheep were killed. And then, in the Bendigo stockyards on a very hot day, 20 sheep were just dumped; they had died of heat exhaustion. We have to look at how we transport sheep in our country. We talk about chickens—that's another area where we have a challenge—dead on arrival. There are stacks and stacks of issues that we have with our own domestic transport.

These are issues that we need to address in a constructive way, to work with industry to ensure that we are meeting not just animal welfare standards but also the standards that our consumers expect. Australians are horrified not just by this footage that they're seeing in the media but also by the stories that they're learning about how this continues to happen. This is why we need to work with industry to phase out live sheep exports.

I just want to pick up on another point the minister made. Labor is not talking about the beef trade. We are not talking about live exports of cattle, because the markets are fundamentally different. This is the point the government is missing. The distances are shorter. The reforms that Labor brought in in the live cattle trade are working. This is Labor saying that we need to work with industry to phase out live sheep exports, just like they have done in New Zealand. The world hasn't collapsed, farmers haven't gone broke in New Zealand, where they have phased it out. We need to work with industry to develop markets, and we need to work with abattoirs to ensure that they're employing locals and they're able to export. This can be done and it can start now.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Humanity makes a pact with animals. We raise them, we treat them humanely, we kill them in the least painful way we can and we eat them. The lessons of human health tell us that, when the pilgrims came to the Massachusetts colony in the Mayflower in 1620, they drastically increased their red meat protein and, within three generations, life expectancy had increased by 20 years, and the height of the population had increased by 20 centimetres. Red meat protein plays a very significant role.

What we have here is the same old Labor. We need to go back to our history. In 1974, 40,000 dairy cattle and beef cattle were shot and put into pits, subsidised by the Whitlam government. In 1992, when the Keating government was there, I as a 17-year-old—because my father couldn't bring himself to do it—had to shoot sheep because we couldn't get anything for them. The markets had collapsed. The live trade has come along and has underpinned that marketplace. If you want to see a broken farmer, if you want to see someone who actually sees the futile waste—he said to me: 'Can't we give these away? Can't somebody take these? Isn't there a market somewhere that will take these?' Well, there was, and it has become a market for us.

We supply 80 per cent of the red meat needs for the country of Bahrain through live exports. When there were some restrictions, in Bahrain they did not stop buying sheep; they bought them from another country. If you run true to the principle that the welfare of animals is of great concern to Australia, that also means the welfare of animals from other countries. One of the great things that I have found, having looked at the live export industry, is that, when we participate in this trade, we lift animal welfare standards globally. We lift animal welfare standards in countries that we need to develop good working relationships with. When I was in Indonesia in 2014, I visited the largest receiver of Australian live cattle and they said to me, 'Can you guarantee that no government is going to shut down this trade? If you can, we will continue the further investment into better animal welfare practices and newer facilities.'

The contrast between our side of parliament and the other side of parliament is that we know that a phased shutdown stops investment. A phased shutdown stops investment in better ships, in better processing, in the transition to better animal welfare. This is the contrast. The Labor Party chooses to take away some of the market opportunities for Australian farmers, take away some of that investment in animal welfare. It is proving to be the same old, same old Labor—40,000 cattle under the Whitlam government, thousands of cattle under the Keating government and cattle under the Gillard government. This just goes to prove that, if you trust Labor to look after animal welfare, it ultimately translates to perverse effects.

We believe that people in other countries deserve to have access to food. We believe that in other countries they deserve to trust us that we will honour long-term contracts. The great thing that we learned out of the 2012 shutdown by the Gillard government was that they were prepared to break that nexus of long-term contracts because of a reaction to a TV program.

My table grape growers—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listen to this, because you'll find this interesting—still have trouble getting market access in Indonesia because of the way we treated that market. So this principle does not just run through to the live animal husbandry and live export industry; this actually runs through to all our agricultural industries. That is to say: we believe our customers have a right to food; we are going to provide that food for them; we are going to ensure, wherever possible, we can lift the standard. We want to ensure that we are consistent with our values, but we believe that markets should stay open.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin by reminding the House that the topic of the MPI today is 'The need to work with industry to phase out live sheep exports'. And I say that very deliberately, because no-one on this side of the House is suggesting that the industry ought to be cut at the knees as of today. We are saying quite clearly that we understand that this is an industry that is already in decline and that we need to work with the industry for the benefit of farmers who are sheep growers to ensure that they have a future. The 60 Minutes program has once again exposed the horrific cruelty associated with the live sheep export trade. This is a cruelty that was brought to the attention of this House in a parliamentary report, a report of a Senate committee chaired by Senator George Georges at the time, which, in 1985, brought to the House's attention the need to do something about the cruelty associated with the live sheep export trade. It seems that since then, with numerous examples of animal cruelty having been exposed—never by industry, might I say—we are still repeating the debates and discussions that would have happened 33 years ago.

It was the Howard government that in 2006 put a suspension on this trade because of the cruelty associated with it. So it is not something that simply arises out of the concern of members on this side of parliament. It beggars belief that industry insiders were unaware—oblivious—to the appalling conditions after years of voyages, countless exposes and the death of tens of thousands of sheep on those journeys. For the industry to pretend that this is an isolated case and something that we can deal with really takes the Australian community as fools. This is another example not only of the industry's denial but of its own failures.

As the member for Hunter quite rightly pointed out, the industry has had four decades to get itself in order and has failed to do so. Then we have the response from the government and in particular from the minister—initially feigned outrage about what happened on the Awassi but then condemnation of Labor when Labor called for action commensurate with the gravity of the offence and consistent with community expectations. The exporter involved in this case is responsible for about 71 per cent of all the trade between us and the Middle East and has been the subject of previous allegations of cruelty. The exporter was prosecuted in 2008, I believe, by the Western Australian government.

The Australian people do not need more inquiries, increased penalties, lower stocking rates or better ventilation on vessels in order to get the reassurance they need from this government. We already have penalties of up to five years jail and $50,000 fines that have never been applied or imposed on anybody. Yet the government's response is, 'We will increase the penalties.' Well, what's the point of that, if the current penalties are never even being applied? With respect to the lower stocking rates, the industry itself, in a submission to the Productivity Commission, stated that if you lower the stocking densities by 10 per cent or more you will increase the losses in profitability by anywhere between 35 and 100 per cent. They themselves will claim that lowering stocking densities will make the industry unviable. Yet this is the response we're now getting.

Let me turn to why this industry needs to be transitioned out. It's already an industry in decline. Numbers have fallen from around six million sheep exported in 2001-02 to 1.7 million last year. Those export numbers represent only five per cent of the industry value of $5.2 billion. We know that chilled sheepmeat exports to the Middle East—the very countries where these sheep are going—increased tenfold between 2006 and 2016. So the government should work with Labor on a response that helps to phase out the industry and provide the certainty to the growers that is needed by them. The reality is that there are alternatives. We can process the sheep here in Australia, and there are markets for the chilled meat overseas. Yes, that takes time, and it needs transition time in order to get the abattoirs in Australia up to speed and with the right skills and staff required. Already the RSPCA and Animals Australia have together committed $1 million towards a transition strategy. What we need now is a government that is prepared to do the same. If the government truly cares about the farmers it claims to represent, it will work with Labor to do exactly that. (Time expired)

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to defend the hardworking farmers, truck drivers and stockmen who work across my electorate of O'Connor. I'll start by supporting the minister on his stance, and I take offence at the comment that he was showing faux outrage. I think anybody who saw the minister's response could tell that he was genuinely moved and upset by the scenes depicted on the footage that we saw on the 60 Minutes program. I share his concern, and I know that all members on this side—particularly those from the farming communities who are sitting around me here today—share those concerns. My community exports around 50 per cent of the live sheep that leave this country. Around 20 per cent come out of South Australia, and the member for Grey's electorate makes up a large proportion of that. The member for Durack's electorate would probably supply about 30 per cent of the sheep to the market, and my electorate supplies around 50 per cent.

When I drive between Perth and Albany, as I do on a regular basis, I drive through the blue ribbon merino sheep breeding heartland of Western Australia. I drive through the town of Boddington, which is in the seat of Canning, and through the towns of Williams, Kojonup, Cranbrook, Mount Barker, all of which are blue ribbon merino sheep producing areas. I'd invite the member for Fremantle to get out of the latte strip one day and come down to the Wagin Woolorama and the Williams Gateway Expo and have a look at the pride that the merino breeders of that area put into their sheep to present them at shows and to breed absolutely top-quality stock. I extend that invite to you, Member for Fremantle, because you would then understand that every farmer would have been absolutely appalled by the way the sheep in that particular cargo were treated.

The industry is very important to those said farmers. In terms of financial return, we're looking at between $50,000 and $100,000 per sheep operation across my electorate that comes from those sales into the live sheep trade. It's been suggested that the local processing market could pick up those sheep and process them locally, and we'd send them off in a chilled box to the Middle East. There is some market for chilled mutton in the Middle East, but consider this: the 1.6 million sheep out of Western Australia are heavy shipping wethers, between 50 and 70 kilograms. While they make up one-third of the numbers, they would probably make up about 50 per cent of the weight of product. If you'll pardon the pun, that would put an enormous weight on the domestic producer market. What we'd see, and what I've seen estimates of—and I think they're quite correct—is that it would put a dampener on the price of around $30 per head on not just live shippers but new mutton and lamb as well. If you extrapolate that across around five million sheep that are processed in Western Australia, which are all sold live, you'd be looking at about a $150-million hit to the industry as a whole. That's real money to very hardworking farmers in my electorate.

The member for Hunter didn't really seem to have his heart in it today. He lived through the 2011 fiasco, and I suggest that he's probably thinking that this could end up the same way. But the Left of the party are obviously pushing very hard, and they've got this MPI up. But I'd just like to point out, Member for Fremantle, some comments from the Western Australian Premier, Mark McGowan, in an article by Nick Butterly in The West Australian. Premier McGowan has split from federal Labor over its plan to end live sheep exports, saying many Western Australians rely on the trade for their livelihood. Mr McGowan said that the government should be working to weed out 'bad apples' rather than closing it down entirely. I think that's exactly what the minister at the dispatch box said a few minutes ago. Mr McGowan said that a lot of Western Australians who drive trucks, run farms, work on the port, or work in feedlots, rely on live exports for a living. I applaud the Premier for standing up for his constituents, for Western Australians, because that is exactly what will happen here.

In the last few minutes I just want to talk very briefly about the way forward. The improvements in the live export trade over the last 20 years have been quite dramatic. The average mortality on a ship back in the early 1990s was around 1.9 per cent per cargo. That has been reduced in the last four years to 0.7 per cent per cargo. That's a dramatic decrease. We can do better. I know that, while the minister is waiting for the McCarthy review, ALEC have already instigated some measures that they were talking about making. We can reduce these mortality rates and avoid these sorts of incidents. (Time expired)

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we go again, debating this issue, as we have been doing for many, many years in this place. It seems to pop up every now and again, and it does so because of the regulations that aren't up to standard. It does so because, in the standards that are in place, the bars are placed very low. For too long we've witnessed the mistreatment of animals through the live export trade. It's just not necessary and it should never be acceptable. When we look at nations across the world, we see that New Zealand, for example, has been able to phase out its live export. New Zealand exports more sheep than we do. It manages to have a market, and it does so in a humane way and in a way that doesn't lower its standards by being inhumane to animals. It does it in a way which value-adds to its workforce and the industry and ensures that it has controls on the meat that does leave the country, and it's doing quite well out of it. Only last month, we saw other nations, in South America, planning to go the exact same way.

Opposing live exports has not always been a popular choice in this place. Nevertheless, many of us on this side of the House have stuck with our values and the decision that it is cruel and inhumane and that there should be value-adding to the industry here in this country. I say so because Australia is a humane nation; we are a nation that cares about our animals. It's not just people on this side. Farmers and people involved in the industry don't want to see the horrific images that we've been seeing on our TVs, on 60 Minutes, and in the newspapers. We've been seeing them for far too long.

At the beginning, I spoke about the regulations and the laws that are in place at the moment. We know that the current government, when it was first elected, ignored both industry and animal welfare group warnings of systematic failure. Those warnings have been there for a long time. It delayed the review of the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock, rejected Labor's commitment to a review of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System and—something very significant—abolished Labor's Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports, which would've been able to inspect and ensure that the rules and regulations were being adhered to. It also rejected the proposal from this side for an independent office for animal welfare, which would perhaps have been able to put things in place so that these horrific images wouldn't be on our TVs. The government has also rejected regular ministerial reports to parliament on investigations into reported breaches. It abolished the Australian Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, defunded the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and abolished the Animal Welfare Unit within the department of agriculture. These are things that were put in place by Labor to try and better the industry. The industry has been given every single opportunity to clean up its act, and it's quite clear from everything that we've seen and everything that we hear on a continuous basis that it isn't doing so.

Labor's decision to phase out live exports is the right decision and the humane decision; it's the decision that will value-add and create jobs here in this nation. It will make sure that the meat that we export is slaughtered in a humane way and that we have total control over it, and, most importantly, it will create jobs here in Australia. We had a great industry in South Australia, in Gepps Cross, where hundreds of people worked in the abattoirs. That's all gone. We had abattoirs all over the country where people worked. They've all gone. This is an industry where we could value-add. We could absolutely ensure that we have control over it and stop the inhumane and cruel things that are taking place that we see in the media on a regular basis. This has to stop. We are a humane nation. We are a nation that cares about our animals. We grow some of the best meat in the world. We have great agriculture. Let's not ruin it all and give ourselves a bad name by what we're exporting at the moment. It's not just the meat—the sheep and the livestock; it's the horrendous situation that workers are under to remove the dead carcasses that we've seen footage of as well. Labor's decision is the right decision. The government should look at phasing it out completely and ensure that we do the right thing. (Time expired)

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

As a farmer in this place, I've been very interested in some of the comments from those opposite, particularly around value-adding. I can tell you, through bitter personal experience, that the only value-adding out of what Labor is suggesting will be to everyone except the farmer, because that is how the market operates. For any of you that have ever been to a farm or to a sale, or maybe stood on the rails at a beef sale or anywhere, for that matter, where flocks of sheep are sold, if they're going to a meat processor, you take what you're given. You are the absolute price taker. When you give our farmers and our sheep producers no other option—'Sorry, you're not allowed to sell into any other market, and you've only got one option: it's got to go to a meat processor'—they will take whatever price is being offered. Having been in that situation myself with beef, I can tell you that's why we no longer produce it. That's what those members opposite—who, I bet, have never been on a farm, stood on the cattle rails or sold a flock of sheep—could even think about. They've got absolutely no idea. There will be very few options.

As a farmer myself, like every other farmer, I was horrified by what we saw on the Awassi Express. The government and the minister have acted, and I commend the minister for his actions. The McCarthy review into the Middle Eastern summer sheep trade is due next week. If people have done the wrong thing then they will be accountable. The goal and focus should be that the animals come off the ship on arrival as good as or better than when they went on. That's what all of us, as farmers, want, and that's what the industry wants.

In 2016, of the 1.9 million live sheep exported at a value of $233 million, 90 per cent came out of WA. So what we're seeing here today from Labor is a red-hot attack on the economy of Western Australia. That's what we're seeing. Make no mistake: WA will suffer. It is an attack on the 10,000 jobs that exist in the industry in rural and regional Australia.

I want to talk about some of those fantastic people in the livestock transporters' patch. They do an extraordinary job. I know some of the blokes. When I talk to some of those that do the transporting, they tell me about a bloke by the name of John Logue out at Williams. Ninety-nine per cent of his business is shippers. What would he do? He's from Williams, where the population is 300 or so—is that right, Rick? It's your patch. You look at Ben Schinzig. He's out Moodiarrup way—a population of just over 100, I think.

So I look all around and look at all these great small businesses that are so important to those small communities. I look at those that supply them when we take them out, which is what Labor wants to do—take them out. What happens to your local fuel distributor who supplies that transporter? What happens to the tyre dealers that they deal with? What happens to the welding businesses and all these other small businesses that keep our small communities operating? That's what those opposite have no idea about, and they literally do not care about the impact that they're imposing on those communities. The devolution of those small communities in the member for O'Connor's area, particularly, is what we'll see. What about the local service station and the local stockmen, who do an amazing job? All of those people will be affected. We're talking about real families. We're not talking about some pie in the sky, as Labor does. They've got no real contact with these people, these families and these small businesses—none. I live it. The member for O'Connor lives it. The member for Durack lives it. Other members in this House understand it really well.

We're listening to idealists, not those who live in the real world as we do. We know that a lot of these people operate in marginal country. What other options do they have? That's one of the other issues that those opposite haven't thought about. Have no doubt: in spite of what's said on the opposite side, Animals Australia will not end here. The left of your party will give in, and cattle will be next. There is no question at all. They will be captives of the left, and we will see cattle next. There is absolutely no question. We saw the disaster of what Labor did in 2011. I will never forget it, and neither will the farmers of this nation, and I support them every single day.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the discussion has concluded.