Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move as an amendment:

That the words "the next sitting" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"17 September 2018, where it shall be the first item of private Members' business, and if the second reading debate has concluded on 17 September 2018, the bill be called on immediately for its third reading as the first item of private Members' business on 15 October 2018, and on each day it shall be permitted for the debate to conclude and the question to be put".

To explain the detail of this to the House, we have a private member's bill that has come from the Senate that is in very similar terms to a private member's bill which is currently on the Notice Paper in the name of the member for Farrer. This House has not had the opportunity to debate any bill relating to the future of live exports. This motion is to make sure that the bill that has already passed the Senate has the opportunity to be fully debated in this House. If this amendment is not carried, the impact will simply be that, given that the call went to the Leader of the House and not the member for Melbourne, the practical outcome of that is that instead of this being listed in private members' business, it disappears into the ether. The government has been so determined to make sure that we don't have a debate about the future of live sheep exports that not only are they wanting to pretend that a bill from the Senate, moved from the crossbench there, is in fact now government business; they've also announced that the member for Farrer's private member's bill is intended to be taken off the Notice Paper. The action that they proclaimed as urgent, and introduced their own legislation to respond to some of the effective scandals about the live sheep trade that emerged over recent months—they now won't even bring on their own bill containing their own policy, because (1) it would lead to a debate and (2) it might lead to amendment.

I simply implore both the members of the crossbench and those opposite, because there are many people in this chamber—it's not hard to get to a majority of people in this chamber—who hold the view that we should at the very least debate this issue and, beyond that, people who have a view that the sheep trade ought to either be phased out or, in some people's view, stopped immediately. The only chance we will have this term to ever have that debate and make that decision is by voting for this amendment today. It doesn't determine the outcome of the debate, but it does determine whether or not the parliament will get to debate it. The private member's bill in the name of the member for Farrer is on the Notice Paper today. It won't be on the Notice Paper tomorrow. This bill is before us now. If the motion moved by the Leader of the House is not amended, then this bill will never be in front of us again.

In relation to the legislation that the government has brought forward, so concerned are they about there being a majority in this House that wants to do something about the trade that they have even abandoned their own legislation that they had introduced. While it's technically on the Notice Paper, it never gets listed for debate. We were told how urgent it was; we were told how important it was; and it never turns up anymore from the moment the member for Hunter gave due, responsible notice that when we got past the second reading debate we would seek to amend it in the same terms as the member for Farrer's private member's bill.

There was some good cross-party work not long ago from people on all sides who were genuinely passionate about this issue. There is no point putting out media releases, holding media conferences, saying you care so much about this issue and then going missing the one time there is a vote that matters. What's about to happen in this House today will be the one time this term that will determine whether or not this parliament has an opportunity to act on phasing out the live sheep trade.

Originally it was expected that this debate would start in the Senate. You would all remember when the member for Farrer announced her private member's bill, together with the member for Corangamite, and the big question was, 'Well, you know, it will start in the reps and then go to the Senate.' Well, the Senate has now had the whole debate. The Senate has dealt with it, the Senate has carried it, and it is now here anyway. Those who are supporting the private member's bill, when they held their media conference, said that they would not support a suspension of standing orders to bring it on. Today they don't have to. This is not a suspension of standing orders. This is an amendment that simply says: 'We're not going to let this bill disappear. We will debate it and it will come to a conclusion.'

How it lands when it comes to a conclusion, I don't know, but be in no doubt that, if this comes to a vote, anyone who chooses to vote against this amendment will have made an active decision that we will not be dealing with the live sheep trade in this term of parliament. That is the necessary consequence of anyone voting against this, because the private member's bill that is in front of the parliament is about to disappear, and the government's own legislation is never coming back. For people who set a threshold that they wouldn't play political games, that they wouldn't support a suspension—and that was their argument—here is the simple procedure. The simple procedure is that, on 17 September, it will be the first item of private members' business. If debate is concluded that day, it will be called on immediately for its third reading as the first item of private members' business on 15 October. Then it will be called on as the first item each day and will be allowed to be debated until the debate concludes. Then, unusually—because you normally don't get to do this in private members' business—the question will be put. We will get a vote.

This is an unusual opportunity and it has happened in a way that navigates past every objection that has been put by people who felt they were bravely crossing party lines to deal with this. They've received a whole lot of community support. The time for that bravery to turn into action is now; the clock runs out today. This is the last moment. This amendment deals with every one of the objections those individuals raised.

I respect what those people would now be weighing up, given that at least one of them is now back as a member of the executive. There may well be from the government a penalty for keeping to your convictions. But, if you've gone out there publicly, said you are willing to do that, said that that's what has to happen, used some extraordinarily compassionate language about how important all of that is, and then when the opportunity is presented in the exact terms that those individuals demanded—I certainly hope they vote for the amendment. If they vote for the amendment there will be an opportunity to act on the live sheep trade this year. If this amendment fails, almost certainly there will not be that opportunity. I commend the amendment to the House.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

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

I second the amendment. I support the amendment for three very key reasons. Members of the House of Representatives should be given the opportunity to vote on this matter before we go to the next federal election, for three key reasons. First of all, the Australian community has broadly made its views on this point very well known. There is a growing concern about animal welfare issues in this country, and it is a concern that stretches across each of the 150 electorates represented here in this place. There is a particular concern about the inability of the live sheep export trade to continue while also meeting what are reasonable community expectations on the animal welfare front, and I will return to those issues.

The second reason is Australia's reputation. The most important thing to our agriculture sector in this country, the thing that brings us our key competitive advantage, is our reputation as a provider of clean, green, safe, high-quality and, importantly, and increasingly so, ethically-produced food. The longer the live sheep trade continues—inconsistent with community expectations, not just in Australia but internationally—the more damage will be done to that reputation and to our key competitive advantage.

The third reason is the will of this parliament. The Senate has been given the opportunity to express its will today, and a majority of senators have chosen to reflect the view of the broader Australian community, which I have no doubt is in favour of phasing out this trade. I challenge anyone on the other side, in response to this amendment, to stand in this place and challenge that proposition—to challenge the idea that a majority of Australians now believe that it's impossible to reconcile the live sheep trade with community expectations. We are elected to this place to represent our people. I do understand the role of the executive in the Westminster system, but here is an opportunity for the executive to let the members have their say—to allow the members to properly represent the views of their constituents.

As the member for Watson has pointed out, this is a vote that would only require a simple majority of the parliament, not an absolute majority and the 76 votes that would usually be required. I worked this out quickly, and the member for Watson will correct me if I'm wrong, but, at the moment, if the Labor Party secured the support of all members of the crossbench—and I would be very confident, given they are now gathering, of strong support on the crossbench—there would only be, at best, one vote in this. That would be the case if the members for Farrer and Corangamite go back on everything they've said in this place with respect to the live sheep trade. What they should do today, in response to this amendment, is stick to their principles, as enunciated here, and join with the Labor Party and the majority of the crossbench to support this amendment, which is about giving members of this place a say and, eventually, a vote. That is not an outrageous proposition by any stretch of the imagination.

The members for Farrer and Corangamite, stoically supported by the member for La Trobe at a subsequent press conference, spoke on their private members' bill in this place very, very passionately. Given the short notice of this amendment—in other words, the short notice of the Leader of the House's motion—I haven't had the opportunity to drag out quotes from the speeches of the members for Farrer and Corangamite, but I can assure the House they were passionate, they were heartfelt and they left every member of the Australian community and every member of their own electorates in no doubt that, given the opportunity to vote on this matter in this place, they would be voting to give effect to an immediate cessation of that dreaded northern summer trade and to phase out the live sheep trade within five years. That's what they stood here and told the Australian parliament, it's what they told people in the broader community and it's certainly what they told the members of their own constituencies. To have now accepted promotions to the very junior ranks of the Morrison ministry, knowing that they would then be able to argue that they were no longer in a position to stand by their convictions, will come as a great disappointment to the many constituents who are relying upon them.

The Leader of the House is indicating to me that if I leave my comments at this point, members of the crossbench will have an opportunity to make a contribution, and I will give way to them. I thank the Leader of the House.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have the opportunity in this House to do something meaningful for animals right now. We could do something meaningful right now and restrict and hopefully, ultimately, bring an end to the live sheep trade. Why can we do that? Well, something very significant has happened. A bill has passed the Senate. The Animal Export Legislation Amendment (Ending Long-Haul Live Sheep Exports) Bill 2018 passed the Senate, co-sponsored by Senators Rhiannon, Hinch and Storer. Obviously, they had the majority of their colleagues with them. The bill put in place a process to begin to restrict the live sheep trade. Is it a perfect bill? Is it the ideal bill that the Greens would want and would move in our own right? No, it's not. It's a bill that restricts the trade through certain months of the year. It doesn't unfortunately deal in detail with the stocking density question, which is a very important question, and it's not a full ban or end to the trade—all things the Greens would like to see happen. It only applies to sheep, whereas we see no reason for it to not apply across the board, but it would be a very good start.

The reason it is in a position before us in the House today is that it's a bill that's a result of compromise by people of good will from across the political spectrum. Up until recently some of those people sitting on the Liberal backbench have said to us: 'We agree with you and the Australian population that these ships of shame cannot continue. These shiploads of death that result in animals under our watch dying in huge numbers as we send them offshore have to come to an end.' What we know, because we've been here time after time, is that it's not possible to regulate the treatment of those animals from behind a desk in Canberra. Once the sheep get on the ships and the ships set off on their long journeys to the other side of the world, it is impossible to regulate the conditions under which they are being kept. That is why they die in huge numbers. That's why you find them in their own excrement, dying. That's why you find them in heat that they cannot tolerate, dying. They begin to pant, they begin to expire and then they die.

The Australian population wants this regulated. Most of them, I suspect, want it brought to an end. We've tried, as the Greens, and I know the member for Denison has tried as well, to bring bills in here to bring the whole trade to an end—to either do it immediately or have it done over a period of three years. In the Greens we've also worked with the meat workers union to say it would be much better to have the processing conducted here. When you have the Greens and the meat workers union working together to say, 'Wouldn't it be a good idea to have processing here rather than to send these animals offshore?' it tells you something about the strength of feeling in the community and how widespread the view is that people want something to happen.

We now have, probably, the best opportunity that we've had for a very long time to do something. I was on my feet seeking the call while the Leader of the House was still sitting down. I've got an explanatory memorandum for the bill ready to be tabled right now. I was seeking the call to try and progress this debate and start it in the House today, so that we could debate it for the rest of this week and hopefully pass it. I didn't get the call—so be it. The Leader of the House got the call and the government is now trying to kick this off into the long grass. The government is now trying to make sure that this bill, which has passed the Senate and could pass this House if we're given the chance to debate, can never, ever come to a vote. But there is a way this House, just like the Senate, can say 'No, actually the treatment of sheep is an important issue and the deaths that we have seen of these sheep as they've been exported is important enough for us that we want to debate it now.' How can we do that? All it would take would be for a few members to stand up and say that they are going to vote to have a debate now. I was very, very encouraged to hear and talk to the member for Farrer not that long ago about a compromise bill, like this bill, that wouldn't satisfy everyone but would start to rein in this terrible trade.

I've heard the member for Corangamite and the member for La Trobe speak very passionately about this, and I think they believe it. They want to see this horror stopped. I also know that those members, the member for Corangamite and the member for La Trobe, are in very close contact with people who run in their electorates at election time and they beg them for their preferences. They say, 'Come and give us your preferences, because we are much better on animals and, even though you might not agree with everything my party says, you know that, when the opportunity comes, we will stand up for animals.' I've spoken to many activists in Victoria who say that the member for Corangamite and the member for La Trobe do what they can. Well, now's the chance to earn that support that you've been given by your constituents, who want you to take action on animals. Now's a chance to say nothing more than, 'We want a debate in this House and a chance to consider a bill that would start to rein in some of the worst excesses of the live export trade.' So I say to those members that now is your chance. We might not get another chance. Now is your chance. I say to anyone in this House who says that they're concerned about the welfare of animals that now is your chance.

In many respects, there couldn't be a better week to debate this, because the government don't have much else on the agenda for this week. They're frantically running around trying to make sure that we don't debate anything that might be potentially controversial. So the program is looking very bare indeed. So there is time to debate this. I would prefer that we get it on this week, and that's why I was seeking the call. We're not going to be able to do that, so I support the amendment that has been moved by the Manager of Opposition Business, because that would mean that we'd get to it next week—but we would get to it.

People should be under no illusions about what they're voting on. If we don't vote for this amendment, we're voting to do what the government wants and it will be kicked off into the long grass and this horror will continue. This horror will continue, because the government has run away from taking any action itself. It had a bill on the Notice Paper and now it's pulled it back. The Senate has called the government to account—and I'm very, very proud of the work that former Senator Rhiannon has done, together with her colleagues, to come up with this cross-parliamentary, cross-partisan, bill. Now is a chance for us to do something about it.

As someone who spent many, many years in Fremantle, you know what it's like when the ships are in town. You know when there is storey upon storey of sheep and animals piled up ready to go offshore, because you can smell the stench of death as you walk around town. When it hits 40 degrees on a summer's day in Perth, you know that there are animals there that are suffering. Then you think about what it's like when they've been at sea for days and weeks and the temperature starts hitting 40 and 50 degrees and you imagine the suffering that those animals are going through then. The Australian people know what that suffering means. That's why they want this trade restricted. They know that, whatever the government is doing, it's not enough. So now we have an opportunity.

I'll just say once more to anyone with a good heart in this place who believes that it is time to act to stop the suffering, now is your chance. If you don't vote for this amendment, we will remind everyone about it right up until election day. If you don't vote for this, every promise that you've made about standing up for animals counts for absolutely nothing.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are obviously a great many reasons that politicians, and federal politicians in particular, are being held in contempt by many members of the community. One of the reasons that the community has lost confidence in federal politicians and the federal parliament is that, somewhere along the line, we stopped representing them. Whether it be climate change or asylum seekers or animal welfare, this place has stopped representing the majority of Australians. There is no better example than when it comes to animal welfare. There is no way in the world that a majority of Australians support the live animal export trade. Every poll you can come up with that is conducted fairly and among the broad members of the community shows overwhelming public support for shutting the trade down—the beef trade, the sheep trade, the whole lot. Because the only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade.

I know the bill that has come down from the Senate is far from perfect because it only would phase out the trade over five years and shut down eventually, in five years time, the sheep trade just to the Middle East. But in the absence of anything else, or everything else, it's a bill that should be brought on for debate and should be supported. In the first instance, this parliament should get behind the opposition motion to at least schedule debate on the bill that has come down from the Senate. That's what the community wants. If we want to do the right thing by the community, if we want to act in the public interest, if we want to start in a little way to restore the public faith in federal politics and the federal parliament, we should get behind this opposition motion to at least schedule the bill that's come down from the Senate. That's what the community wants.

Who can forget the shocking footage from the Awassi Express a few months ago? Thank God there was one brave whistleblower that had the strength and the means to record the scenes on that vessel. About 2,500 sheep perished on that ship of horrors. Remember the scenes of the little lambs dying in the filth on the floor and the scenes of the sheep panting with the extreme heat stress just before they died. No-one can defend that, and no-one can say that the cruelty on the Awassi Express was a one-off. What was rare about the Awassi Express was that there was a whistleblower on board with a camera. Because we know it's a fact that the trade is systemically cruel and it is not unusual to have that sort of cruelty on the sheep ships to the Middle East. It's not unusual to have similar cruelty on the sheep ships to Indonesia, to Vietnam and in increasing numbers to China. It is a systemically cruel trade. The only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade.

It's a systemic cruelty. It's not one off. Since 2010, 2011, 2012, how many exposes have we seen in the media of cruelty to Australian livestock being sent to and arriving in China, in Vietnam and repeatedly in Indonesia? Who can forget the scenes on our TV of live Australian sheep being thrown in to a hole in Pakistan and covered up with dirt—all the time approved by the Australian government, encouraged by the Australian government, a government that rubs its hands together in glee at every announcement of an expansion of the trade. What about the cruelty that we know happened to Australian animals in Turkey, in Israel, in numerous countries in the Middle East? This is a trade that is systemically cruel. The only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade. The only way to do the right thing by Australian workers in the Australian economy is to process those animals in Australia. If you draw a line from Perth to Townsville, I think there's only one abattoir north of that line that's licensed for export markets. All the rest have been shut down. No wonder the unions oppose the trade, because it's cost us thousands of jobs. Indeed, if you want to put sheep and cattle production in this country on a sustainable footing, if you want to safeguard Australia's reputation as an ethical producer of food, then you'd shut the trade down. It is systemically cruel. It's not in Australia's best interests. The excuses for keeping the trade are preposterous. If you were to believe the nonsense from some quarters, you'd think Australian farmers are doing this for free because they want to do the right thing by low-income people elsewhere in the world—that it's an act of altruism; nothing to do with money; it's about providing protein to the world's poor. What bunkum. There's no altruism here. It's business and it's all about what sort of business will give a small number of farmers the best return on their investment. There's nothing fair dinkum about this claim to provide protein to the poor. It's bunkum.

There's the nonsense about religious practice—that we can only send live sheep to the Middle East because that's the only sort of sheepmeat that we could possibly send there. What nonsense. The fact is that the value of the processed red meat that Australia exports to the Middle East, and specifically sheep, is almost three times the value of the live sheep we send to the Middle East. There's the nonsense about no refrigeration. My godfather! Let's not be so condescending and paternalistic. They have fridges in other countries; they have fridges in the Middle East, they have fridges in South-East Asia, they have fridges in Indonesia and they have fridges in Pakistan—all those places. Let's stop being so racist by coming up with the nonsense about them not having fridges and that, if we're going to feed them, we need to send live animals.

And there's the issue that someone else will fill the gap—that, if we don't send those sheep to the Middle East, someone else will. Absolute nonsense. The fact is that there is a strong demand for meat from this country which is fine meat, carefully processed in Australia and ethically produced. That's one of the reasons the Middle East is taking almost three times the value of processed Australian sheepmeat compared to the live export trade. Even if they do go somewhere else, wouldn't it be nice that we act like a country with integrity and that we will say that we will not be party to systemic animal cruelty in those markets? That's what we should be doing: acting like a rich and civilised country with integrity that will do the right thing. I'll tell you what: by doing that, we enhance the value of what we do export, because so many people in the world will be increasingly attracted to Australian suppliers because they know that Australian suppliers raise their sheep and their cattle in as humane a condition as possible and they process it in Australia in as humane a condition as possible. They'd be buying ethically produced meat from Australia.

If I had my way, we'd shut the whole live animal export industry down this afternoon because the only way to end the cruelty is to end the industry. But, if we're not going to do that, then let's at least phase out, over five years, the sheep exports to the Middle East—ban them completely at the height of summer and be done with them in five years. That is enough time, particularly with some government assistance, for the sheep export industry, especially in WA, to prepare for that transition. If nothing else, let's at least debate the issue. That's why I think that everyone in this House with any common sense and any decency should get behind the opposition's motion to at least schedule the bill that has come from the Senate, because the Manager of Opposition Business is quite correct: if we don't debate this bill shortly, then nothing will be debated. Like so much else that's said in this chamber in all of those grand speeches and all those wonderful press conferences, with all of those looks of anguish, will amount to nothing. Then we'll wonder why the community still has no time for politicians. It's because the community thinks that words are worthless unless they're backed up by action. Why doesn't this parliament for once do something in the public interest and for once represent the majority of the community? Let's pass this motion, let's schedule this bill and let's have a debate of ideas because I'm quite confident that, in a debate of ideas, the best idea will win and we will decide to back the bill that's come from the Senate and we'll at least wind up the sheep exports to the Middle East.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have an opportunity to do—

Mr Katter interjecting—

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Kennedy will resume his seat if he wants to contribute to this debate.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have an opportunity to do a very good thing here today, and goodness knows we need to start doing some good things in this place. Six months ago we all saw the 60 Minutes interview, and I would say that there is not a member in this chamber who has not received emails, phone calls or personal representations from their community. They want us to act. This motion quite simply says, 'Please debate this bill.' The Senate has debated this bill, and the Senate has passed this bill. All we are saying is: allow us to debate this bill. That is what a democracy does. That is actually the job of every person in this place. We are employed by our communities to be legislators, and our communities want us to vote on this bill.

I refer to the comments by both of my crossbench colleagues here: this is perhaps not the bill that many people who are supportive of ending animal cruelty want. However, it is a compromise. The first thing we need to do is actually use this place—this place that is supposed to be a place for the contest of ideas and the contest for debate—for constructive debate.

I have received thousands of emails from my community. I have a regional community. I have a community with many entirely rural pockets. Even sheep farmers have said, 'Rebekha, we need to end this industry.' My community wants to see its closed abattoirs reopened. We have an abattoir begging to be opened at Normanville. We have an abattoir, Thomas Foods, at Lobethal. They already have two chefs. They could put on a third. These are true regional jobs. To every member over there who stands on their feet and lauds regional Australia, and says how much they support regional Australia and want to see regional jobs: there are no truer jobs in regional Australia than those in the meat processing industry. They are good, quality jobs. They are stable jobs. They don't exist on the north shores of Sydney or in central Melbourne, but they do exist in my community and many of the regional communities around here.

Let us debate the facts. My goodness, New Zealand must just laugh at us and at how we are dragged kicking and screaming to progressive debate in our country compared to theirs. We should be following New Zealand's path. Their lamb meat—and I have travelled to many places overseas—is considered to be much better quality than ours, simply because they no longer have long-haul live exports.

I would like to refer to the member for Farrer's comments when she introduced her bill. I have tremendous respect for the member for Farrer. I was very pleased to be sitting in her room, before she introduced her bill, meaningfully discussing the merits of this proposed legislation with members from the crossbench, the Greens and Labor. That is what this place is supposed to do. The member for Farrer said:

I have researched the science, the facts, the economics and the opinions. I have not allowed emotions to overcome reason.

The case for continuing long-haul live sheep exports fails on both economic and animal welfare grounds.

I would say that they will be hollow words if the member for Farrer does not support this bill being debated. I would also ask the members for Corangamite and La Trobe to consider the words that they have said in this place and outside, in the media, with supporters of animal welfare behind them.

A couple of weeks ago we all saw, in the media, the Prime Minister give lapel pins of the Australian flag to his new frontbench. He said that they were to remind everybody that they're there for the Australian people. Let me say this to the government: if you are genuinely there for the Australian people, you will allow this bill to be debated and you will support this motion. We need to restore the faith of the Australian community, and this is one very good way to do it.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me be caring towards my fellow crossbenchers, at the start, and say I agree with them totally in asking: just how competent is the government? You can't put an inspector on a boat!

With the live cattle trade, I was absolutely shocked to find out that Minister Truss had known for five years about the cruel way in which they were killing the cattle in Indonesia and had done nothing about it. The meat and livestock corporation had known about it and done absolutely nothing about it. Industry representative organisations had known about it and done absolutely nothing about it. If they are saying something should be done about the cruelty to animals on the boats then I agree with them totally. But if members here stand up and say the matter should be debated—well, they've all had a 10-minute go at it. I don't know how much longer they want to speak about it.

I've been away from this place, thank bloody goodness, for about six or seven weeks and I've listened to the people of Australia. People are not interested in you bleating and howling about sheep. They want a job next week. If you say, 'They'll get jobs in the sheep-killing works,' I've got news for you, because I represent the biggest cattle area in Australia and I've been through it. Our party is based upon meatworkers. It should be called the 'Knuth Australian Party' rather than the Katter Australian Party. A Knuth was president of one of the biggest meatworks in Australia, and one of our executive members was the secretary of that meatworks. So don't tell me about meatworks. I'm intimately familiar with them.

We had seven of our nine meatworks in North Queensland close down when there were virtually no live cattle going out of this country because we didn't have the cattle numbers. And we couldn't raise the cattle numbers because we have a drought every year and you people won't let us use the water. You're going to keep it. What are you keeping it for? I want to know what you're keeping it for. You can't say it's stopping the flow in the rivers. In North Queensland we don't have rivers; we have a flood and then we have dry creek beds. All we're asking for is a little tiny bit of those floodwaters to be held back.

But let me return specifically to the question. What you did with your ban on live cattle, my friend, was to cut our incomes clean in half. We had a person committing suicide—and I don't hesitate to say it—every five days. I said it was once every two weeks and I was wrong. It was once every two weeks in Queensland. That didn't include the other states. So thank you! It was a wonderful job you did in destroying us completely. And the farmers of Australia were destroyed completely, because our biggest industry is the cattle industry. You took one-fifth of our market out from under us and the price collapsed completely, to less than half. What happens then? We're now fighting to keep the last two meatworks open, because there are no cattle. When the price dropped by half, they had to sell their breeders. For those of you who don't understand farming—and, clearly, the previous speakers don't—when you're up against the wall and the banks are foreclosing, you've got to do whatever you've got to do, and that means selling your breeders. The breeders went into the meatworks weighing nothing. We got paid nothing for them. But it staved off the banks for a year or two. Now it will probably be 10 or 15 years before the cattle numbers are restored. If you pull this stunt, you'll have exactly the same reaction that you had in the cattle industry. And it won't help the meatworks. You'll be absolutely, definitely shutting meatworks in Australia, because the sheep numbers will not be there.

We said to the great geniuses in this place: if you abolish the wool marketing scheme, you will destroy the industry. Within three years the price had dropped to one-third what it had been before statutory marketing. It was ironic that one of the so-called socialists in this place, Keating, said I was the last socialist left in the parliament. I probably am, because I'm the only one who believes the government should interfere in the marketplace when the marketplace is not working. And it most certainly wasn't working in the sheep industry. When that great man Doug Anthony introduced the scheme, the price tripled over the next three years. That woebegone good for nothing Keating removed the scheme—a man who was put in this parliament by the fathers of arbitration. When I walk into this parliament, I proudly clench my fist with Charlie McDonald, the leader of the Labor movement in Australia—he was the second or third speaker in this place—because I'm very proud to carry on those traditions that Charlie McDonald had of giving work to his workers.

We need the sheep numbers out there, and what you are saying is: 'Abolish the sheep industry. That's the answer.' If you are naive enough to believe that you can take one-tenth of the market away and still have a sheep industry then you are obviously toweringly ignorant of economics. People know that with a five per cent undersupply, the market is going to go through the roof; with a five per cent oversupply, the market will collapse through the floor. That's what the great Ron Camm in the state of Queensland—the father of the cheapest electricity in the world—told me, and I found it to be absolutely accurate. You're taking more than five per cent away from the market and, when you do that, the market will collapse, as it did in the cattle industry and we will have the same disaster in the sheep industry as we had in the cattle industry. If you want to fix it up and if you are in any way genuine, you should be calling upon the government to properly police what is going on here.

Is it very difficult to have two people on a boat? The expense is negligible compared with the value of that boat—to ensure that the cruelty to animals is not occurring. People that live in the bush with animals love animals. They wouldn't live in the bush and work with animals if they didn't.

Let me return to what is being proposed here: the removal of, I don't know, 10 per cent off the market, which will collapse the market for sheep in Australia. Now, we've lost 70 per cent of the herd, thanks to Mr Keating and the so-called Socialist Party that is actually the free market party in this place. I hate to break it to the Liberals but you're not the free market party. If you compare how many assets were sold and how many industries were deregulated, these blokes beat you hands down. But that leaves me—well, I never thought I would ever agree with anything that Mr Keating said, but he said I was the last socialist left in the parliament. I'm starting to think one thing Keating and I did agree on is that I am. I can most certainly say that the people beside me here that I share the crossbenches with and the people on both sides of this parliament are most certainly not. They don't believe we should go back in and take the electricity industry over.

If you like to watch programs on the ABC, which I don't, did you see it when I said that the only answer to the electricity industry was to nationalise the industry, and the whole of the audience, 600 people, just screamed in applause and, if you look at the pictures, I was mobbed when I walked out of the audience. So you people are so far off the mark that you don't even know what planet you are living on.

If you go up there and you say in the cattle areas of North Queensland that you are going to ban the live cattle trade, well I'm not taking any life insurance out on you when you go up there and start talking about it. I wouldn't be taking any life insurance out on you when you go into country New South Wales or Victoria—as to what is going to happen, because they may not know at this stage; they may be quite friendly to you at the stage, but I would hate to see what's going to happen to you in the longer term.

Now, let me state again for the parliament, quietly and calmly: if you take five per cent of the market away, you will completely collapse the price. That is what has happened in every industry throughout my lifetime. Sir Joseph McAvoy, the great leader of the sugar industry; Ron Camm, the great father of the cheapest electricity in the world and father of the coalmining industry in Queensland have said that again and again and again that if you take that market away, you will collapse the industry completely and you will have no sheep, because people are not going to keep running sheep when it is costing them money and they're losing money. They will shift out of sheep, get rid of them and move into cattle and grain and other alternatives. That is what is going to happen.

If you think you are going to help the meatworkers, think again. We are now fighting to keep our two meatworks—all we've got left in North Queensland. Out of a cattle herd of twenty-five million, we have five million in North Queensland and we are flat out keeping two meatworks open. It will be another five or 10 years before we recover from the dreadful catastrophe and it could have been fixed up by the government simply by— (Time expired)

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

The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this the Manager of Opposition Business has moved as an amendment that the words 'the next sitting' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

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

The question is that the original motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.