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

I'm proud to be an Australian farmer and I'm equally proud of all our Australian farmers, who work so hard, day in, day out, in this country. We often farm in harsher and more challenging farming and market conditions than any other producers in the world. Just consider the drought conditions being experienced right across Australia and in my electorate in the south-western part of Western Australia.

From what we've heard in this debate, it's obviously easy for some members to make the decision to shut down an industry when it doesn't materially affect their farmers or their state. It's obviously easy for some members to strip away a third or a half of farmers' incomes when it doesn't materially affect their farmers, their small businesses, their small regional towns and communities or their state. But it is going to materially affect my state, my family farmers, my small communities and the hundreds of small businesses that service the industry in Western Australia, where 85 per cent of the live export sheep come from. It's an industry that's worth $250 million in Western Australia. A report shows that the cost of shutting it down will be between $80 million and $150 million at least. What is certain is that closure of the industry will give farmers only one option: to sell to a meat processor. They will become, effectively, a captive supplier of a product for a meat processor. Make no mistake about it; farmers will have no option but to take the price they're given. It doesn't matter what that price is.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 16:48 to 16:59

Make no mistake; farmers will have no option but to take the price they're given or get out of production. Just consider those who would be affected. Let's look at the human cost of shutting down the industry and the effect that cutting off the millions of dollars from the industry will have on individual small businesses and small regional communities, primarily our farmers but also farming contractors; shearers; livestock transporters; feedlots, those who grow, supply and process feed for the live shippers; pellet manufacturers and staff; those loading the livestock on the wharves; tyre dealers; mechanics; welders; fuel distributors; fencing contractors; and the countless other small businesses and their workers in rural towns and communities that rely on local farming incomes coming into their businesses.

We know that we are already seeing lower prices, with the state Labor agriculture minister's determination to shut the industry down. Unlike the members supporting this legislation, I did not come into this parliament to put farmers out of business. I did not come into this parliament to put countless small businesses that rely on those farmers out of business or out of work either. I certainly didn't come into this parliament to rip millions of dollars out of small rural and regional communities and towns.

Talk of transition and new chilled-meat markets is just a cop-out. It's an easy throwaway line, like throwing fish to a seal. The practical effect will be entirely different. As the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources was told during a visit to the Gulf States, if these states are forced to look elsewhere for live animals, they'll look elsewhere for chilled meat also. So the practical impact will be that, if we phase out live trade, the chilled trade will likely shrink, and Australian farmers would lose both markets. It's a lose-lose situation. And these countries will continue to import live sheep, but they will just come from other countries, countries that don't have the animal welfare standards or ESCAS regulations that we have.

I have no doubt that, in spite of some of the comments we've heard, this puts an absolute risk back into live cattle exports. The risk is real. We know that Labor will shut our industry down. The shadow minister for agriculture has said so. I find it extraordinary that a shadow minister for agriculture is actively working to put sheep farmers out of business. It is just extraordinary. I've lived through the deregulation of the dairy industry and I've seen what happens in a small community—to the farmers, the businesses, the small towns—when you take multimillions of dollars out of an industry and out of farmers' pockets. It is direct, it is real and we lose really good people. There is a human cost to what is being proposed here, an absolute human cost that is being ignored by those who are supporting this.

As I said earlier, I am proud to be an Australian farmer. I might be a dairy farmer but I am very proud to be an Australian farmer and I am exceptionally proud of the work our farmers do in providing some of the most amazing food and product, for markets not just here in Australia but right around the world. I will stand up for our farmers every single day of the week.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this private member's bill brought forward by the member for Farrer, the Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018, and to acknowledge that this is not a partisan debate. In fact, there are people from both sides of the House who support this bill. I understand why. In my area, I have had over 1,600 individual constituents email me with their great distress and concern about what is happening in this industry. I'm sure many of my colleagues around the chamber have had similar levels of contact. In fact, I've never seen that level of engagement on any issue during the time that I've been here. In total, I have had over 4,800 emails on this subject, so some people have emailed me on more than one occasion, generally speaking first when they've seen a round of reports in the media, and images that have caused them distress, and then again when they see that repeated. I think that's what's taken its toll on people's patience with this particular aspect of the industry. I want to acknowledge each and every one of those individuals, many of whom took the time to write quite extensive personal comments in their emails about why they felt that this live sheep long-haul export trade, particularly in the summer months in the Northern Hemisphere, has to stop. I don't know that anybody could have seen the vision that was reported, including, I know, many in the farming industry, without feeling it was a completely unacceptable reflection of what we as a modern nation should see as an acceptable part of the industry sector.

I'm sure the member for Farrer thought long and hard about bringing this. She's a country-based member herself, and I acknowledge that. I have no doubt that it wasn't lightly that she brought this private member's bill before this parliament. It certainly has my support, as it has Labor's support. It would be good if we could actually bring this bill to a vote, in keeping with the expressed clear wishes of our community—certainly my community. I think it would be the view of all of those people—over 1,600 of them who emailed me from my electorate—that we actually have a vote on this and address the issue. But, of course, we require an absolute majority to bring the vote forward and we would require government members to cross the floor to enable that process to happen. To date, there hasn't been an indication that that would be supported, but I do think it is the will of many communities, and most certainly mine, that we get on with voting on these issues.

A particular round of the emails that I got came in after the McCarthy review was completed and reported. There's a lot of frustration in what people feel is the science that was laid out in that and the recommendations that were made. The Prime Minister did say he wanted to take a science-based approach to this very difficult issue, but he's actually ignored the advice of the Australian Veterinary Association and the RSPCA, and we haven't seen the response that the community expects to the McCarthy review. That's certainly the feedback I've had very, very strongly. It is Labor's view that we need to have a plan in place to transition the industry, not just to stop the transport of the sheep in these conditions, but also to support and transition the industry into a more viable method of production. That includes our strategic red meat industry plan to help farmers make that transition to sustained profitability and viability, but to recognise that this industry has lost the support of the Australian community. They do not see the component of that that involves sheep being treated in the way that we've seen as being in any way acceptable. They have my support.

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

I support the live sheep export industry, but not on any terms, not in any case and not if sheep are going to die like flies on the journey. I support it on the premise that this trade can be undertaken safely, because it has been before. It can be done. As the member for Grey, I represent the farming region in Australia that would be most impacted after Western Australia. Through the last couple of months I, like all members in the place, have had a large number of emails and contacts. However, while some growers have contacted me seeking a cessation of the trade, the predominant sentiment from them by far is a sense of disappointment and concern that this crisis has occurred, no patience for those who have transgressed, but also an underlying commitment to the trade and the importance to the farms and associated industries.

Current estimates are that the trade is running at $20 to $40 a head premium to the market, but the unknown and unsettling factor is what that extra stock would do if it came onto the market in a short space of time. If we learned anything from the knee-jerk reactions when the trade was banned in 2011, it was that the effect of the ban went far further and deeper and lasted far longer than anyone had imagined. It left animals on properties longer than they should have been. They grew too large and were prohibited from the trade after the ban was lifted. We offended our trading partners and they radically reduced their quotas. The designated livestock was pushed onto domestic markets and depressed the domestic markets, and all producers suffered. It was a rolled gold rolling disaster.

We should not underestimate the knock-on effect to associated industries in country towns. Take Johnson's, for instance. Johnson's is a stockfeed manufacturer at Kapunda and has recently installed $18 million worth of pelleting equipment primarily for the trade. Denis Johnson said:

Johnsons purchase over 100,000 tonnes of grain, green screenings, hay, straw and damaged hay from farmers throughout the Mid North, Barossa, Yorke Peninsula, Eyre Peninsula, Murraylands and South East of the state providing an important source of income to farming operations. This income flows back into local communities.

Farmers buy machinery from local dealerships, have their trucks repaired by the local mechanic, purchase on-farm supplies from their local rural merchandiser. They use the local doctor, hairdresser, supermarkets, kindergartens, schools and hospitals—the list goes on to include all business and services with whom farming families have dealings.

Without this money spent in rural towns, these services are lost.

As someone who spent the best part of the last 35 years raising and caring for livestock, I am, like the member for Forrest, a proud farmer. I am one of the first to condemn mishandling of stock and one of the first to say that whenever our livestock are heading off farm, they simply must be treated with humanity, care and concern. But there are two underlying premises in the Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018 that is before us. One is the premise that the industry can be slowly turned off, rather than ceasing immediately and, thus, saleyard impacts avoided. This simply flies in the face of reality. Livestock transporters are required to invest in their ships and infrastructure, and that requirement is ramping up quickly as a result of the latest regulations, and rightly so. But who would invest millions of dollars in their business if they were given a closure date at the same time? There is a very strong case that, unless the operators are given a long-term future, they will not invest and they will withdraw, with the fall-out that would cause.

The second premise is that Australian sales will not suffer because our markets will switch product—to chilled and frozen product—rather than switch suppliers. The member for O'Connor provided some figures on this matter only a few weeks ago in this place, and they bear reiteration. Australia provides less than 10 per cent of the world's live sheep trade—1.6 to 1.8 million tonnes per annum out of a total trade of 10 million tonnes. The trade is growing, and global food services company GIRA is forecasting 2½ per cent growth over the next four years.

The member for O'Connor reminded us that Saudi Arabia used to be a major customer and took the bulk of our live sheep from Australia. They have chosen not to comply with ESCAS—that is their choice—and have not converted to other product. They have simply found other suppliers. When our trade with Bahrain became unprofitable and ceased, the beneficiaries were certainly not our chilled and frozen meat suppliers. In fact, the crash in our chilled meat supplies to the market underlines the value and impact of trade relations across the board. Our chilled meat trade with Bahrain has shrunk from 12,000 tonnes per annum to 7,500 tonnes. That's because we're out of the game. All kinds of figures abound that support this premise, and I urge a commitment to continuing the trade.

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

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