Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports Bill 2018, moved by my friend and colleague the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon. This would reintroduce an inspector-general, a position that was let lapse by the Abbott government when it was elected in 2013. The reintroduction of an inspector-general would see the further strengthening of our live export regulatory system. It builds upon Labor's proud achievement of creating the Export Supply Chain Assurance System in 2011, which was in response to a Four Corners report that recorded atrocious acts of animal cruelty within Indonesian abattoirs.

For a number of years now, ESCAS has effectively enforced animal welfare standards in other countries. While ESCAS is a great Labor achievement, more needs to be done to prevent future incidents of animal cruelty. For example, the shocking footage obtained by 60 Minutes on 8 April this year exposed the hideous conditions that Australian sheep were being subjected to during long-haul live export voyages to the Middle East. Unfortunately, this is not a one-off event. The 60 Minutes footage covered onboard treatment of live sheep over a series of voyages. Upon seeing the original footage, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, David Littleproud, said:

I've seen that footage and I was absolutely shocked and gutted … This cannot go on.

He continued:

We saw sheep that basically died from a heat event that were left and decayed, that were unable to get to water and food, and it disturbs me greatly that this has happened.

If that is the case then the government must commit to immediately halting the northern live sheep trade, phasing it out completely within five years, as Labor has pledged to do. During the five-year transition period, Labor will impose the highest regulatory standards. Labor will work with farmers, unions and industry on a strategic red meat industry plan to do more value-adding here in Australia. This will be good for farmers. It will be good for animal welfare standards and good for the Australian economy. Labor will end the live export of sheep and Australia will be better off for it.

There can be no doubt that appointing an inspector-general of animal welfare and live animal exports is integral to preventing further cases of animal abuse, such as the kind that was seen in Indonesia in 2011 and during long-haul live export voyages earlier this year. Not only does this bill and the appointment of an inspector-general have the support of the caucus of the Labor Party; importantly, it has the support of the live export industry itself. So it's hard to see why the government is so opposed to this practical measure. The only people opposed to this bill are some of those opposite in the deeply divided rabble that is the ATM government of Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison.

Indeed, it's a fact that the Liberal member for Farrer, Sussan Ley, introduced her own private member's bill in May to stop live sheep exports entirely. Ironically, the member for Farrer has now withdrawn her support from voting for this bill. The fact is that a majority of this parliament—of the House of Representatives and the Senate—supports this legislation. So why is it that it is not going through this parliament? This is a failure of our democracy if it doesn't happen.

Our animals need support and our agricultural sector needs strong and sustainable regulation. Both of these measures can be achieved by supporting this legislation. And the parliament needs to wake up to how angry the Australian population are about these issues not being addressed. Anyone who looks at that footage can't possibly say that this is okay to just continue. This should not be a partisan issue; we should be bringing on this bill for a vote and we should be carrying it through both houses of parliament. I commend the bill to the House.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports Bill 2018.

I think we should remember some of the basic facts here: 99.7 per cent of sheep that go to live export get off the ship in a better or the same condition—99.7 per cent. Of course there are times where there are issues that need to be addressed—absolutely. There are issues that need to be addressed, like there are on the roads if there is an accident, or like there are in a factory if there is a workplace accident or like there are in so many areas. But those are not solved by closing down an industry. And that seems to be the intent of the Labor Party: to close down an industry.

We've had a go at this before. They closed down the live cattle industry and that ended in an absolute disaster for the people of Northern Australia and for Indigenous communities—for the whole lot—because there was this sense, this conceit, that thousands of kilometres away they were going to make a decision about other people's lives. And now we're going down this path again. They're deciding, without any real attachment to the industry, without actually being in the industry, that they're going to close another person's industry down.

We know the path that this will follow. The people who are pursuing this are not going to stop with live sheep. After they've finished with live sheep, it will be live cattle. And after it's live cattle, it will be the transport industry. You can't believe for one second that these people—the animal rights people with this anthropomorphic principle that all animals are people and all people are animals—are going to relent after they close down just one section of the live export industry.

In this nation, under this government, we have made it our target to get a better return to the farm gate. Whilst the Labor government was there, there was no real escalation—in fact, agricultural output in their last quarter went backwards. Agricultural returns went backwards. But we brought about that record return for lambs, mutton and live sheep. We went to Western Australia and Western Australian towns, and they said: 'You have to do something about revitalising the economics of these towns. You have to get the live sheep trade going again.' And we did, and it did. So now we are saying to these regional towns: 'Sorry, you go back to being poor. That's what we're going to deliver to you. We're going to make an edict from here, from the inner suburbs, that you be poor. We think that's the only thing you deserve: to be poor.'

And that comes from the Labor Party, which is supposed to support those on the peripheries. And there is their vague promise, 'Somewhere down the path there is going to be something that may help you.' No-one is going to believe that. No-one takes them seriously. We can't take them seriously, because we've got to take them by their track record—their track record which decimated regional towns and industries, and that has no empathy and no understanding of those away from the inner suburbs of the major urban capitals.

We also have to note that we're living in a global economy and note the cultural practices of some of our major trading partners. Some of our major trading partners in agricultural products are Islamic. I spent a lot of my time as a minister going to the Islamic countries to make sure that we were seen as a global trading partner. Now we're deciding that we'll no longer do that. After we've stopped preaching to regional towns, we'll start preaching to Islamic countries around the world about how they should act. I'll tell you what: they're not going to listen to our sermon. We've got to be really careful because, if we start having a conceited approach to how they live their lives, they might have a very parochial approach as to how they trade with us, or whether they do at all. Might I remind people that there are a lot of meatworkers in the processing sector who sell meat to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait and, if we lose those markets, there will be downward pressure on their jobs and a reduction in their prospects.

We're expanding. I think the biggest manufacturing industry in Australia is the meat processing industry. That's where the jobs are, and it's worked hand in glove with the revitalisation of the ag sector because of the returns that are there. The Labor Party represent a closure of the live export industry. They represent a reduction in income to regional towns. They want you to go back to being poor. That's what they believe you should be. If you're in a regional town, away from an urban capital, the Labor Party have no policy for you but that you should be poor again.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I speak in support of the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports Bill 2018. My colleague the member for Hunter and shadow agricultural minister has formulated legislation that would make Australia a world leader in animal protection in live export industries. The former speaker, the member for New England, boasted that 99.7 per cent of animals reach their destination in a better state or the same state in which they left. Well, if that figure is indeed true, then point 3 certainly troubled many Australians. I and many of my colleagues and those across the chamber have received hundreds, if not thousands, of emails about this. It has been one of the issues that has engaged people like none other. People who live in the bush and produce have also sent me emails saying, 'We don't want to see the animals that we produce treated this way.'

Coming from a radio background, I distinctly remember the dark days in 2011 when the switchboards lit up as people across Australia saw the horror unfold before them in the Indonesian abattoirs. It was visceral. People reacted because they, on some level, thought, 'This is not how we, at the top of the food chain, should be treating the animals that get there.' No-one is suggesting that we shouldn't eat or consume meat—that's a big thing and that's what we do—but we have to treat those animals with respect. I think that's why we've seen such an incredibly heartfelt response from the people of Australia over this issue. We know we're better. We know that we have the capacity to treat the animals with dignity that we and others consume.

Whilst Labor supports the sustainable live export industry, where acceptable animal welfare standards can be achieved, the Australian public are becoming increasingly concerned about breaches to the current regulations. People in my electorate want guarantees that animals exported from Australia will not be subject to the types of abuse most of us have seen on our TVs, on our phone screens and on the internet. Abuse of livestock, particularly in the live export industry, is not new, but what has changed is technology, and investigative journalism has brought us pictures that we never saw in the decades before. We know that this has potentially been going on for as long as the trade itself has been going on, but what we have now is images and that's what make it all so very confronting. Public sentiment shifted dramatically following that ABC Four Corners program which screened the terrible acts of animal cruelty in Indonesian abattoirs. Community outrage forced the government's hand and the live cattle export trade was suspended, pending improvements in the industry. There is no doubt that this was an extraordinarily difficult time for producers and exporters alike, but we responded, not like this government, which turns tail and does nothing. No-one, including producers, wants to see those animals mistreated. Producers are often the first ones on the phone and on the email to say, 'This is not what we want to happen to the animals that we've produced.' But this environment paved the way for the establishment of the Export Supply Chain Assurance System, known as ESCAS. Internationally it was recognised as a good animal-welfare assurance, or guarantee.

Over time it became evident that more needed to be done, and in 2013 Labor announced that it would establish the inspector-general for animal welfare and live animal exports, or IGAW. The IGAW's role would be to review the regulator's processes and systems to ensure that the regulator was working with the regulatory framework. This would include the regulator's processes and decisions under the new ESCAS reforms.

True to form, in October 2013, that same year, when in government, the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, and his then Minister for Agriculture, the member for New England, scrapped the inspector-general for animal welfare and live animal exports. The Abbott-Morrison government subsequently scrapped two parliamentary committees committed to contributing to animal welfare strategies. The former agriculture minister has nothing to boast about in terms of the agricultural industry. At his best, he was absent and, at worst, obstructive in improving this space, handballing responsibility to the Australian veterinary authority, which has neither the resources nor the leverage of government.

This private member's bill calls on members to support the re-establishment of the independent statutory officer, and I recommend it strongly to this House. This do-nothing government should do something about this. (Time expired)

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

( I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports Bill 2018, this private member's bill by the member for Hunter. It seems to me that, in so much of our political conversation in Australia, conversations taking place are often mired in misinformation. Certainly, so it is in the case of the live export trade. As someone who farmed for over 30 years and had sheep on my property for about 95 per cent of that time, I can tell you that I am completely committed to the welfare of the animals. I understand that animals are raised with a specific purpose. In the case of merino sheep, they are for wool, but they are also for human consumption. Somewhere along the line there comes a reality about that, and we need to recognise that reality.

Farmers produce animals for various reasons. I touched on the merinos. Merinos, of course, produce one of the finest fibres in the world, one that is actually riding on a great high at the moment. But farmers need to sell their stock. Sometimes they've reached the end of their useful life; sometimes they are surplus to requirement owing to droughts; and always we hope for an increase in our flock that will go to the human consumption market.

In the case of lambs, lamb is Australians' preferred way of eating sheep. I won't say mutton, because 'mutton' refers to a sheep at a different stage of its life. A lamb is something that's less than 12 months old, but the 12 months is actually measured by dental development in the animal. The day that those first two large front teeth—just like our children when they are six years old—cut through the gum, they turn from being a lamb into being a hogget.

Now, 'lamb', of course, is a very marketable name. We've invested a lot of money in Australia into marketing lamb. Unfortunately the day it turns to 'hogget', it does not seem to be so attractive to the public. I think that's misinformation in itself. A number of people over the years have said to me, 'I don't want to eat old hogget.' Of course, there isn't any such thing as old hogget, because that particular sheep is only a hogget until it cuts its four teeth—until the next set of teeth come through. They come through in roughly 12 months time again, so that's what we would call a two-year-old. Then of course the meat becomes 'mutton'.

Once it's become mutton, it's particularly unfavourable for the Australian public. We've got to think about why farmers would keep a sheep until it turned into mutton rather than having sold it off as a lamb. Firstly, when the lambs are born, about 50 per cent of them are male and about 50 per cent are female. The females are generally kept for breeding purposes, but they will be assessed on their wool value sometime after they become hoggets, not when they are lambs. Consequently, there is already a part of this market where Australian marketing is not preferable. The wethers are castrated at around four or six weeks old. They might be for wool production for a time, and then they need to be sold off.

The export industry is largely based on wether sales and ewes that are deemed to be unpregnant. They might be barren ewes is, for instance. They need to be preg tested before they go on boats. The industry is very necessary—it is the safety valve for Australian farmers. It's the reason why the trade exists. It's good for farmers, because it's a necessary way of unloading sheep that are not particularly palatable for our domestic markets. They are also not particularly palatable for our chilled markets, in so much as the areas that we sell these live sheep into demand that they have a live sheep.

Whilst they are prepared to accept some chilled beef, it is worth reflecting on the market of Bahrain, for instance. Up until about 2015, Australia was supplying around 11,800 tonnes of chilled meat into the Bahrain market. We lost our pre-eminence there as the live sheep provider, and we lost 40 per cent of the chilled meat market along with it, because these companies—these countries—actually trade as an entity. They are looking for trusted trading partners, which is why we need to be steady and careful about the things that we do in this place that disrupt those long-term trade arrangements we have made with other countries. With all things, I urge caution around the live sheep trade. It is very important to the farmers, particularly of WA and certainly of my electorate of Grey as well.

Emma McBride (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports Bill 2018 introduced by the shadow minister for agriculture and member for Hunter. The purpose of this bill is to re-establish an independent statutory officer to watch over the regulation of the live export sector. His or her role will be to ensure that correct animal welfare standards are maintained, and, when there is an alleged breach, that the regulator fully and properly investigates the matter, comes to the right conclusions and imposes appropriate sanctions.

When in government in 2013, Labor appointed an interim inspector-general of animal welfare and live animal exports. Unfortunately, the incoming coalition government did not proceed with the legislation necessary to make the position permanent. That was the wrong decision, which has proven to be devastating for animal protection. This government has been consistent in its opposition to the appointment of an inspector-general. We've made it clear that a Shorten Labor government will, at the first opportunity, put an end to the northern summer live sheep trade. The evidence on this is clear, and the community sentiment is clear. The northern summer live sheep trade is just not possible, because it's cruel. We've stated that, during the necessary transition period, we'll put regulations in place that will ensure the highest standards, proper oversight and appropriate sanctions for breaches, including the establishment of the inspector-general as an independent statutory position. The inspector-general will be responsible for advising on the protection of animals in all Commonwealth regulated activities and will report directly to the minister on issues like live animal exports, animal welfare standards and required guidelines. The inspector will also work with the states and territories to establish an independent office of animal welfare to oversee animal protection and welfare activities nationally. This re-establishment of state and territory cooperation on animal welfare matters will ensure a consistent national approach and continuous monitoring.

Labor supports the sustainable live export industry where acceptable animal welfare standards can be achieved. In government, Labor will provide more transparency and accountability around the live export trade. For a long time, Labor has been calling for these changes, as have many in the community. Like many members of this House, I have received thousands of letters and emails in recent months about the live export trade. It took the horrifying Awassi Express incident to get a response from this government—a response that did nothing to fix the systemic issues with the long-haul sheep trade. They have now withdrawn even their very small token measures. It is clear the government is not willing to deal with the abuses that have occurred on its watch. This is a heartless approach. The Awassi Express incident has made it clear that the regulation isn't working. The current system is cruel. You simply cannot load 50,000 or 60,000 sheep onto a boat for four weeks and sail them through some of the hottest and most humid climates in the world and expect animal welfare expectations to be upheld. That is the reality. As one of my constituents said, if you treated your dog like that you'd likely end up in jail.

Labor's proposed five-year transition period will give the industry time to adjust to the changes. It will be a transition to something better. In contrast to all of that, all we see from the government is inaction. In fact, those opposite failed to even list their bill to increase penalties for breaches of the animal welfare standards in the live animal export sector. The government withdrew the Export Legislation Amendment (Live-stock) Bill 2018 in June following our announced intention to move amendments to the bill, which, if successful, would have put an immediate stop to the Northern-Hemisphere-summer live sheep trade and phase out the trade within five years. In September, the government used its numbers in this House to block debate on a private member's bill on this issue that was passed by the Senate. The government seems determined to keep looking the other way while these appalling abuses continue.

But Labor will not stand by and do nothing. Many of my constituents have written to me. Christie from Wyoming said, 'It's so difficult to see no action being taken on such an important issue.' Labor will act. We won't stand by and do nothing, like this government has done on such a critical issue as animal welfare. It's time the government started listening to the community and hearing the concerns that they have voiced. I call on those opposite to support this private member's bill. Currently, as I and many others in this House have said, the system is cruel and unfair. The government should stop doing nothing. It should listen to the community's concerns and support this private member's bill.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party, Assistant Minister for Children and Families) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to stand up and defend the interests of this nation and the people who put the food on our tables and the wealth in our economy. Mark my words, this bill, the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports Bill 2018, is not just about sheep exports during certain months; it goes to the very core of the difference between the two sides of our parliament. On one side we have the coalition government wanting to improve the lives of people across the country by helping them engage in the economy to their capacity. We back our farmers and we back our rural communities. On the other side we have the entirely trade-union owned Labor and Greens parties wanting to erode and degrade our economic strengths and at every turn demonise and deride our farmers and fail our rural communities. It is a sad indictment on the intelligence and capacity of every single Australian that we would even entertain the member for Hunter's motion for the second reading of this bill, a bill that would place every grazing operation in this country in a perilous state and weaken our economy as a result.

What we have seen in recent footage of sheep on boats has been shocking and an absolute disgrace. This footage is certainly not representative of normal transport conditions. In 2017, some 1.7 million sheep were exported by sea; of those, some 99.29 per cent were delivered in good health. That is the real story of live export. The people I have met with who were most upset by that footage are graziers and transporters in my local electorate, people who know a thing or two about animal welfare and who care a great deal about the shape animals are in when they arrive at their destination. What these people do take to heart, though, is the response from Minister Littleproud and this government. We haven't just thrown our hands in the air and said, 'Well, this is just too hard.' We haven't done that, because this is too important. The value of live export is absolutely integral to small rural economies right across the country. Even if those opposite don't realise it, our live export markets are just like any other market for export; they are part of the tapestry of opportunities that make up the whole export picture. Having access to live export markets helps drive the prices for our sheep and cattle. Because of that positive effect, we're currently seeing livestock prices as high as they've ever been in living memory, and that's great news for primary producers, especially during times of drought.

That's why Minister Littleproud has acted swiftly in enacting the McCarthy review, headed by veterinarian Dr Michael McCarthy. All of Dr McCarthy's 23 recommendations were accepted, subject to further testing and consultation on the heat stress risk assessment recommendations. Adopting outcome measures that focus on welfare rather than mortality is perhaps the most significant suggested solution, and by adopting the recommendations we are delivering both a better outcome for the welfare of livestock and the opportunity to keep trade open.

The only option those opposite are content with, though, is to shut down the whole trade. We saw how well this went when they were last in power. Labor shut down the live cattle trade to Indonesia for a matter of weeks, and many graziers are only just recovering from the effects of that decision. Those opposite may wish to suggest a five-year phase-out, but the result will be the same. Our rural communities will suffer. Other countries who care far less about animal welfare will supply the sheep. One does not require a degree in economics to work out what will result from this. We will have secured ourselves a weaker-economy country, especially in our rural areas, and we will achieve nothing for animal welfare. So I urge those opposite to stop trying to fight a trade that delivers over $1.4 billion to the nation's economy and get on board with the government's efforts to reform and improve it. Every farmer and grazier across this wide brown land is counting on you to do so.

Debate adjourned.