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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill establishes an independent Commonwealth statutory authority, called the Office of Animal Welfare, that is responsible for protecting animal welfare in Commonwealth regulated activities; for providing leadership on animal welfare matters at the national level, with responsibility for development of animal welfare policy in Australia; and for independently holding the government to account, looking specifically at the activities and decisions of the agriculture minister and the department as they relate to compliance with, and enforcement and effectiveness of, Commonwealth animal welfare laws.

The office will be headed up by an independent CEO, who will be assisted in their functions by an advisory committee made up of members drawn from animal welfare organisations and various professions, with a cross disciplinary focus on animal welfare.

Importantly, strict conflict of interest rules will apply to both the CEO and advisory committee.

The establishment of an independent statutory authority is vitally important, not least because there's been a lack of leadership at the national level ever since the Abbott government withdrew funding from the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and disbanded the entire animal welfare unit within the department of agriculture.

Moreover conflict of interest concerns have been raised multiple times about the development of policy and the oversight of regulation in the agriculture department, for example in the 2018 Moss review into live export, and in the 2017 Productivity Commission report on agriculture regulation.

Indeed the Productivity Commission recommended a similar model to the office proposed in this bill, citing failures of independence, transparency and communication in the regulation of agriculture in Australia, a lack of scientific basis for regulatory standards and pointing to a conflict of interest in the federal department of agriculture in managing animal welfare responsibilities.

Among other duties the office will have responsibility for reviewing and monitoring the export of live animals, including treatment of animals exported from Australia at foreign abattoirs and any breaches of animal welfare laws along the live export chain.

This is necessary and important, because while the government did install an Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports in early 2019, that role is limited to high level reviews of the sector broadly. But no such restriction would apply to an Independent Office of Animal Welfare, which could inquire into specific breaches.

In fact, the actions of the Office would actually compliment the inspector-general's role because the Office of Animal Welfare could examine specific concerns, like when in June 2020 the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment granted an exemption to the northern summer live export ban, allowing approximately 35,000 sheep to be shipped into the Middle Eastern summer on the vessel Al Kuwait.

This of course was a shocking failure of regulatory oversight, considering the government's own after-voyage report stated that 1,000 sheep on that voyage were exposed to score 4 on the heat stress scale, which is the highest level on the scale. This means the sheep were panting with open mouths and tongues protruding. Score 4 has never before been recorded in one of these reports.

The Office could also have investigated, for example, the August 2020 breaches of export rules in Jordan when footage taken by local investigators for Animals Australia showed sheep with Australian national livestock identification ear tags being forced to jump off the backs of trucks and then being dragged by one leg and bundled into cars for home slaughter, which is banned under Australian animal welfare rules.

Other ways this bill will better protect animal welfare in Australia include that the office will undertake inquiries, commission research and prepare reports into not only live animal export but also research and education on animal welfare, commercial use of kangaroos, importation of animals and introduced species. The office will also oversee the development and transition from the model codes of practice for the welfare of animals to the Australian Welfare Standards and Guidelines.

Currently, of course, this process is being managed by Animal Health Australia, a body comprised of 34 member organisations, none of which are animal protection organisations and most of which represent animal use industries—for example, the Australian Chicken Meat Federation, Australian Dairy Farmers and Australian Pork. In other words, industries are essentially writing their own regulations. No wonder animal organisations like the RSPCA believe the new standards are at risk of just mirroring industry practice, not best welfare outcomes, due to the current development process.

It's worth noting here that this bill is similar to the one proposed by Senator Lee Rhiannon in 2015, which received broad support from the RSPCA, lawyers and veterinarians groups. Moreover, there are similar national animal welfare advisory committees and offices in other developed countries, including New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada.

Regrettably, though, the independent office of animal welfare I propose here today would necessarily be limited to those matters the Constitution allows the Commonwealth to act on, which makes the office, as important as it would be, but a start in addressing the animal welfare crisis confronting our country. And a crisis it is when you tally up all of the issues. Sure, the issue of live animal exports gets much attention, as it should, but what about all of the other animal welfare problems in this country?

For example, steeplechase or jump racing is still legal in South Australia and Victoria, where at least 74 horse deaths occurred between 2009 and 2020. Greyhound racing is legal everywhere, in every jurisdiction, except the ACT, despite the well-documented cruelty in that industry. Whips are legal in horseracing in every jurisdiction in the country. Sow stores are still used by 20 per cent of pork producers, and farrowing crates are still used throughout the country. Then there's the free-range hen standard—10,000 hens a hectare when it should be as little as 1,500 hens per hectare or less if we are to be fair dinkum about animal welfare. There are puppy farms everywhere, although some meaningful regulation has occurred, to their credit, in Victoria and here in the ACT. Then, of course, there's aquaculture. We know very clearly that fish and crustaceans are sentient beings, but yet we're seeing an increasing amount of farmed fish in this country, despite all of the well-documented problems in that industry, including what's happening to the poor seals that dare to interfere with the trade.

We have an animal welfare crisis in this country, but this bill will go some meaningful way to address that. Again, this is another test for the government and the opposition: to support the bill and to be a part of the solution or, again, to look the other way, to pretend there isn't an animal welfare crisis in the country and to remain a part of the problem. I now invite the member for Melbourne, who's seconding the bill, to offer some comments in my remaining time.

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

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion. If parliament doesn't act to put in place strong laws to protect animal welfare then no-one else will, because too much of our economy and our society at the moment is premised on the suffering of animals, and too often we only find out about it when brave activists, whistleblowers or journalists expose wrongdoing. We've seen that in many areas. We've seen it in the racing industry and, of course, we've seen it in the live export industry, an area which I've been proud, together with the member for Clark, to come in here and introduce several bills to ultimately phase out over time-out. But what we see time and time again are promises that things will get better but then they don't and the suffering continues. That is why what we have to do is not leave it up to brave activists, whistleblowers and journalists to continue to do their excellent work but, instead, put in place some strong standards to protect the welfare of animals in this country. That would start by having an independent office of animal welfare.

This is something that the Greens have been doing for some time. It has been our policy for some time to have an independent office. It cannot be an office that is subsumed to the whims of the department of agriculture, because that would just put in place a conflict of interest. It needs to be an independent office that reports directly to the parliament so that everyone in this country can have confidence that we are treating our animals properly and we are looking after animal welfare. There needs to an independent office that has some teeth, because we are sick of the scandals, and we need new laws to make sure that animals' suffering is reduced and eliminated. I commend the member for Clark for introducing this bill.

Tony Smith (Speaker) 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.