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

I move:

That the Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Northern Hemisphere Summer Prohibition) Rules 2022 made under the Export Control Act 2020 on 5 April 2022 and presented to the House on 26 July 2022, be disallowed.

The northern summer export ban for sheep was introduced in 2019, banning exports between the whole of June and the whole of September. This was a response to the 2018 McCarthy review into the conditions for the export of sheep to the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer. That McCarthy review found that a ban should apply on all shipments between May and October due to the extreme heat stress suffered by the sheep on those vessels. That review was, in turn, a consequence of the 2017 Awassi Express scandal, when about 2½ sheep perished on the Awassi Express export vessel.

I would remind all honourable members of the terrible conditions that were revealed on the Awassi Express, which were made public in 2018. Who can forget the shocking—they are genuinely shocking—images that were revealed to the public after that voyage? Sheep and lambs were literally drowning in shit and urine—terrible conditions on that vessel. Sheep were panting uncontrollably, constantly, all day and all night. They were as graphic demonstrations of animal cruelty as anyone has ever seen in this country. It was entirely reasonable that the government of the time established the McCarthy review and that, as a result of the McCarthy review, a ban was put in place on the export of sheep to the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer.

I tell all that background because it's very, very important for honourable members to understand the ban was based on expert advice and science. It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction; it wasn't some sort of emotive response to the sight of an animal suffering. It was based on expert advice and science. How, then, do we explain that in April 2022—this year!—the then coalition government made regulations which effectively reduced the live-export prohibition period during the Northern Hemisphere summer? I remind members that those regulations made by the previous government allowed Australian exporters to take sheep through the Red Sea to Israel for that two-week period from 1 to 14 June, which had been previously banned. Moreover, in terms of the ban on exporting to some Persian Gulf destinations, including Qatar—although not the major live export ports of Oman and Kuwait—live exporting was allowed to begin a week earlier, on 22 May, this year. Effectively, this means there was an 11-day reduction in the prohibition on exporting sheep to Qatar and a 14-day reduction in the prohibition on exporting sheep to Red Sea destinations.

This was such a blatant political fix in the lead-up to a federal election. In fact, the previous government implemented the changes to regulations not just before the May election this year but also before a review into the live export trade was finalised by the department. It was a political fix. The question now is: what will the new government do in response to this disallowance motion? The new government—the Labor government—of course went to the federal election with a promise—a policy—to, over time, wind up the live sheep trade to the Middle East. So you would think logically that the government will support this disallowance motion. For the government to have gone to an election with that promise and not to support this disallowance motion would be a remarkable turn of events, and it would suggest that the new government is happy to continue to walk both sides of the track when it comes to animal welfare.

The choice today is really simple and really clear. Either the government will support this disallowance motion and be pro animal welfare or the government will come in here and not support this disallowance motion and be anti animal welfare. That is the challenge confronting this government. I say 'challenge'. I don't think it should be a challenge; it should be a straightforward matter. Will the government continue to kowtow to the live animal export industry—as was the case for the previous nine years by the previous LNP government—or will the new government come in here, show some backbone, show some humanity, show that it's prepared to deliver on its election commitment to, ultimately, wind up the live animal export trade and, in the interim, do everything it can to make it more humane until it is wound up?

It begs the question: why are we continuing this trade at all? We have an abundance of evidence that the live animal export trade, including the export of beef cattle to countries throughout South-East and North Asia, that it is systemically cruel. It goes back decades. There were a number of episodes in the 1990s. I can remember clearly in 2003 the Cormo Express scandal. That vessel called the Cormo Express bobbed around like a cork around the Middle East for a total of 80 days at sea and almost 6,000 sheep perished, not to mention all of the terrible suffering experienced by the tens of thousands of sheep that fortunately did survive. Turning from sheep to beef cattle for a moment, who can forget those images on Four Corners in 2011 of the barbaric mistreatment of Australian beef cattle in Indonesian slaughterhouses and the way those unfortunate cattle were treated? Thank heavens for the Animals Australia investigators. Thank heavens for the Four Corners ABC show that shone a light on the conditions being experienced by the beef cattle in Indonesia. Who can forget, in 2012, those images on the TV of Australian sheep in Pakistan being buried alive? Australian sheep were buried alive in Pakistan because we were happy to send our sheep off to these countries—all care, no responsibility.

Then of course, there was the 2020 episode with the Al Kuwait. I remind honourable members that the situation with the Al Kuwait was that in June 2020, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment—and this is particularly relevant to this disallowance motion—granted an exemption to the northern summer live export ban which allowed approximately 35,000 sheep to be shipped into the scorching Middle East summer on the vessel Al Kuwait. The government's after-voyage report on that voyage stated that a thousand sheep were exposed to score 4 on the heat stress scale, which is the highest level on the scale. This means that those thousand sheep were panting with open mouths and tongues protruding. Score 4 had never before been recorded in one of the reports of those voyages. The reason that's relevant is that there was an exemption made to the Northern Hemisphere summer ban, and the report came back top of the scale, almost off the scale, when it came to the scientific measurements of the suffering being experienced by those Australian sheep on the Al Kuwait vessel.

How much more evidence do we need to know that the live animal export trade is cruel, systemically cruel, and the only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade? Moreover, the live export industry is simply not in Australia's economic best interests. We are shipping thousands of processing jobs overseas, even though we know there is the capacity in existing Australian abattoirs to process those sheep in our country. We just need to recruit and train more workers, providing more jobs.

The trade does not have public support. Sure, it's got the support of the National Party and the Liberal Party. Sure, it's got the support of a relatively small number of sheep and cattle producers. Sure, it's got the support of a couple of shipping companies running ships manned by foreign crews. A small number of people depend on this industry. But the opposite side of the coin is that many millions of Australians are appalled by the trade and look to the government, any government, to show some leadership, show some humanity, show some interest in animal welfare and shut it down.

We've got to stop peddling these myths that come out of the proponents for the trade. They say the animals are treated humanely. Garbage. They say that the trade is in Australia's economic self-interest. Garbage. They say that customers in the Middle East won't buy processed meat. But I remind members that, in 2019, 57 million kilograms of boxed Australian lamb and mutton was sold into the Middle East. I'll repeat that, because it's very, very telling: in 2019, 57 million kilograms of boxed lamb and mutton—processed meat—was sold into the Middle East. They love the stuff. They can't get enough of the stuff. Why don't we keep sending them more of the stuff, instead of live sheep? Because some advocates for live exports say, 'But these poor people in the Middle East don't have refrigeration.' That's racist nonsense. It's complete and utter nonsense. As long ago as 2011—11 years ago now—a survey found that almost all households in the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain had refrigeration. They live like us—probably better, many of them. They've got fridges. They're not all out in the back with a dirty big knife wanting a live sheep, to slit its throat.

There is the argument that there are religious considerations and that, due to religious beliefs, people in these countries will only buy a live animal, so that they can kill it and process it in accordance with their religious beliefs. Again, that is complete and utter nonsense. There are numerous Australian abattoirs that are halal certified. That helps to explain why, in 2019, we sent 57 million kilograms of boxed lamb and mutton into the Middle East.

I've tried many times to shut this trade down. In fact, I think at last count I've moved five private member's bills with the aim of shutting down the live animal export industry. Each and every time, my private member's bills have failed to gain the support of the Liberal Party, the National Party or the Labor Party. So imagine my delight when, before the most recent election, the Labor Party were quite clear that they support a wind-up of at least the live sheep trade to the Middle East. Well, in a matter of minutes, maybe half an hour, we'll get to see whether the Labor Party took a fair dinkum promise to that election, or whether it was hollow. We'll get to find out very, very soon whether the Labor Party genuinely cares about animal welfare and wants to eventually shut down the live trade, or whether the Labor Party does not care about animal welfare and, in fact, wants to line itself up with a couple of shipping companies and their mates, as far as this policy goes, on the opposition benches.

That'll be the measure of the new government. I know that there are a lot of very good people in the new government. There are a lot of very good people on both sides of the chamber. There are an awful lot of people who support me and support my colleagues who are overtly calling for an end to this trade. Here's your chance to make amends. I say to anyone and everyone in this place: if you care about live animal exports, if you care about the terrible cruelty being experienced by Australian sheep on stinking hot ships, going to stinking hot countries at the height of the northern summer in the Middle East, when it's 50 degrees outside, what is it on the decks of these miserable hulks? Who knows? Something well north of 50 degrees. If you care about that, I say to my colleagues on both sides of the chamber: maybe even think of this as a conscience vote and vote to disallow the reduced ban on the export of sheep to the Middle East during the northern summer.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. I thank the member for Clark for moving this disallowance motion for the Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Northern Hemisphere Summer Prohibition) Rules 2022, made under the previous government. These rules weaken the ban on live sheep exports to most port in the Middle East during the hottest months of the Northern Hemisphere summer. Two-thirds of Australians say that they support moves to completely end the export of live animals. Ending the live animal export trade has been one of the top issues that people in my electorate have been writing to me about. Australians have been horrified at the reports of sheep under extreme heat stress enduring cruel conditions and perishing in staggering numbers during the long voyages to the Middle East. They are also horrified by the treatment of sheep upon arrival at their destination, where they are subjected to brutal methods of transport and slaughtered with practices including tendon slashing and eye gouging.

In 2018, 60 Minutes televised footage taken by the whistleblower Faisal Ullah during a voyage that resulted in the death of nearly 2,400 sheep in horrifying conditions. This footage revealed to Australians the reality of the live sheep export trade. During these voyages to the Middle East, sheep endure weeks of torturous conditions, packed tightly onto ships, forced to stand for days on end in their own urine and faeces and experiencing extreme heat stress. Those that perish decompose so quickly in the heat that some deaths can't be counted. The 60 Minutes footage shocked Australians. It shocked people in my electorate and it shocked me. Four years earlier, in 2014, even more sheep perished on a similar journey. On that journey to Qatar 4,200 sheep died in simply awful conditions.

These incidents and others led to a ban on the export of live sheep to most ports in the Middle East during the hottest four months of the Northern Hemisphere summer. The previous government shortened the length of the ban by two weeks, allowing live sheep exports to resume through the Red Sea from 1 June to 14 June. However, when considering the suffering of these animals, we should look beyond mortality rates and also consider the heat stress indicators, such as open mouth panting. The most recent Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry report, September 2022, showed that sheep on 60 per cent of voyages during the Northern Hemisphere summer demonstrated extreme behavioural and physiological responses to heat. Simply put, they are suffering, it is torture.

Rather than shortening the ban on live sheep exports, we need to transition towards ending this practice altogether, as the current government have agreed to do, although they have not yet provided a time line. We're keeping an eye on that. In this context, it makes no sense to be weakening these bans.

I also want to recognise the work done by the member for Farrer, who introduced a private member's bill in 2018 to phase out live sheep export by ship to the Middle East where the voyage last 10 days or longer. As the member for Farrer said: 'If we increase the processing capacity in Australia, we actually don't need this trade at all.' I agree with the member for Farrer. According to Pegasus Economics, the Australian live sheep export industry is in structural decline, with exports down 70 per cent since 2018. Rather than propping up this declining industry, Australia should focus on investing in our onshore processing sector. This is both more humane for livestock and better economically for Australia, with the potential to add jobs and millions of dollars to local farming communities.

However, before we investigate the full phase-out of live sheep exports, this parliament must back this disallowance motion and reinstate the original four-month ban. To do anything less is inhumane and deprives local Australian farming communities of the economic benefits of onshore processing. The member for Clark's disallowance motion, reinstating the original, full four-month ban on live sheep exports, is a step in the right direction. It is the right thing to do. It can be a springboard to help the parliament to go further and begin phasing out live sheep exports completely. I support this disallowance motion and call on the House to support it as well.

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

I acknowledge the member for Clark's motion and I acknowledge the conviction of the member for Clark on this issue over many years in the conversations we've had, but I ask him to open his mind. The assessment that he's made is predicated on the Awassi Express incident of 2017—I was the minister in 2018—which, I agree, was wrong, and it had to be fixed, and I fixed it.

Let me be clear about this: there needed to be significant reforms after that incident and we needed to move from a mortality methodology to an animal welfare methodology. We are the first country in the world that has moved from a mortality standard to an animal welfare standard, because of the reforms that I put in place as the minister. I'm proud of those. I'm proud of the fact that we are now making decisions. Those decisions about the northern summer that you're talking about were, in fact, decisions that I brought in with industry.

I have to acknowledge the industry. The industry put a self-imposed ban on the northern summer until the science was determined. We have continued to work on that science—on the stocking densities and the types of sheep that go over in those shoulder periods and when to stop it altogether—so much so that the decision that was made on this still precludes it in some parts of the Middle East, because it is too hot, as you've said. That has meant working with the Bureau of Meteorology and other international meteorological societies to make sure that the data is correct. We made sure about the size of the animal that goes on. In fact, even the length of the wool is determined.

You talked about a special approval being given in June 2020. That was provided only because of COVID-19. It was provided because there were 56,000 sheep sitting on a boat that was already docked and loaded. They couldn't have been taken off or they would've all been destroyed. Every one of those 56,000 sheep would have been destroyed, so the right thing to do was to reduce the number down to 36,000, using the science that we had, to make sure that we could have some hope of letting those sheep sail. That was a hard decision to make, but it was one that was thrust upon us as the result of COVID-19, because the boat was meant to sail pre the closing of that window.

Let me make this clear: this new order that I put in place before the election was predicated on the science of this northern summer and of when sheep can sail and of the quality of those sheep that can sail. When they go to the Middle East, this is a food security issue. I'm sorry to tell you that this industry is not in decline. You might want to look at ABARES. ABARES shows that it's a $107 million industry this year. It'll be $119 million next year. Let me tell you that the reason it was in decline in 2018 is that there was this little thing called a drought. If you want to come west of the divide and have a look at how agricultural production takes place, when drought hits stock numbers go down. It's not rocket science; it's agricultural production.

Let me tell you, this isn't in decline. I've been to the Middle East and I've actually seen the facilities. What we have and what we put in place—not only our government but governments before of both persuasions—was two systems. There is ASEL, which protects those animals, whether they be sheep, cattle, donkeys or anything we export live. There are standards that are set that the exporters must adhere to. Then there is ESCAS. That means when those sheep or cattle or any animal gets to another destination in country, those in-country facilities must adhere to those standards, which are Australian standards, the world's best standards. If they do not, then we simply do not send any animal to those facilities. Exporters themselves have stopped a number of facilities, particularly in cattle, immediately. In fact at one sheep facility in the Middle East, where the stockmen were using more aggressive means of getting sheep into a pen than we would have thought reasonable in Australian standards, we stopped it. But we invested in the education to make sure that those facilities were done properly.

In the Middle East it's not about refrigeration; it's about culture. I've been to a brand new facility in Kuwait City. That is to ESCAS standards, Australian standards, but it respects the cultural differences between our two countries in a respectful way, to make sure that that can be adhered to it. It's not barbaric. Those cultures are rich and should be respected, but if they can learn the ways in which we as Australians have the best animal welfare standards in the world, haven't we done a better thing for this world? Are we exporting our animal welfare standards to other countries by doing this? If you want to shut this industry off, let me tell you where the Middle East will get their sheep from: Sudan, Ethiopia, South Africa—

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

That's the drug dealer's defence!

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

Where is your moral compass? Let me ask the member for Clark, where is your moral compass? Do you value the welfare of a sheep from Australia above a sheep from the Middle East or from anywhere else in the world? Where is your moral compass? It shouldn't matter where an animal comes from; it should be treated in the best way with the best animal welfare standards in the world, and we have it. We have it and you're ignoring it. You're saying that a sheep from Sudan—

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

The member will address his remarks through the chair.

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

which is not treated in the same way, can go and be killed that way? Can be put on a boat where there are no standards about how many can go on the boat? They don't count how many go on the boat; they count how many come off it.

So let me give you a stark reality of the real world, not the ideology of a capital city, the ideology of how the world operates. This thing is not going away. This is a growing industry. This is a cultural issue that will not go away. In other markets it is around refrigeration and food security. Let me make this clear. I invested about three months of my life in cleaning this industry up. I'm proud of what I've done, but I'm proud of what the industry has done, because they came on the journey. They made sure that they got the science right, that they had the best animal welfare standards in the world. We're not going to run for cover, like cowards, and let someone else do it and not do it as well as the Australians. That's not the Australian way. We're better than that. But you don't want to be like that. You want to run, put your head in the sand and not realise that there is a reality in the world.

So we're going to continue to make sure we support this industry. It's not barbaric. One of the most important things I did was give truth and proof on those boats, independent observers. I challenge all those that condemn the live export industry: you can actually see the photos. They are not standing in urine or in faeces. In fact they are waited on between here and the Middle East. The tests are very clear. The science is very clear. In fact they are putting weight on because they are in an environment that is helping that. Even the markets in the Middle East are telling us that because we have better standards now these animals are better in terms of the condition they arrive in and the standard that they're able to provide.

You talk about public support. Let me give you a bit of six to four on public support. I've actually seen the polling on this, and it's not as cut and dried as you might think. But this shouldn't just be about public support. It should be about doing the right thing—doing the right thing for animal welfare, whether the animals are from Australia, Sudan or the Baltic states. So don't think you're virtuous and think you have some sort of moral compass that is greater than anyone else's, because there is a reality in the world that this trade will continue and it will continue to increase—in places like Qatar. Qatar, yes, does import some of our boxed and chilled meat. But I had a conversation with the Prime Minister in his own residence about the fact that he will continue to get this, whether it's from Australia or somewhere else, but he'd prefer to get it from Australia.

I'm proud of the reforms we put in place—the independent observers, the stocking densities. To think that we can just put the processing sector up is being ignorant about the reality. You can't. In fact, most of the facilities at the moment are only at about 60 per cent because they don't have the people in there to run them. So, while I respect your conviction, just understand the practical reality of the world. We've got a responsibility to stay, to get it right and to do it in the Australian way because that's the best way.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to acknowledge all the previous speakers. The government are committed to protecting animal welfare, and that is exactly why we are opposing this motion. At the May election, the Australian people endorsed Labor's policy to phase out the trade of live sheep by sea. In fact, in Tuesday night's budget we announced funding for the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare. We've committed to working with industry on an animal welfare strategy. We've committed to the phase-out of live sheep by sea. Labor are committed to ensuring that live animal exports are well regulated while we work with industry to transition away from the trade. Now, we were surprised to learn that the member for Clark and the Greens were seeking to move this disallowance motion today. But, if this motion were to pass, it would produce worse outcomes for animal welfare.

In April this year, amendments to the northern summer prohibition rules were made to improve the management of heat-stress risks for sheep exported in late May. The rules introduced a 10-day conditional prohibition period, preventing export to some Persian Gulf destinations, off the back of new data that showed an increased risk of heat stress during this period. This strengthens animal welfare. The rules further impose additional conditions targeted at heat-stress risk reduction that must be met during the designated period. This also strengthens animal welfare.

To disallow this instrument would force the regulators to find new, likely weaker measures to protect animal welfare. Voting for this disallowance is a bad outcome for both animal welfare and the exporters. The government's commitment to phase out the trade of live sheep by sea reflects community sentiment. Balancing community expectation and Australian industry remains a key priority for the government. That is why we will continue to support regulators to protect animal welfare as we work with industry to phase out the trade of live sheep at sea.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the disallowance motion put forward by the member for Clark. The decision by the department of agriculture, water and the environment to partially roll back the ban on exporting sheep to the Middle East during the hottest months of the year ignores scientific evidence, ignores animal welfare and has deeply disappointed my community in Wentworth. The changes introduced by the department run contrary to the findings of the heat-stress review commissioned by the government, which identified heat-stress risk on all shipments to the Middle East that occur between May and October. Partial reversal of the June export ban will push sheep to their biological limits and could result in many deaths. The change should be reversed and the full June to September export ban reinstated.

More generally, my community in Wentworth believes strongly that we need to modernise our animal welfare laws and end live exports of sheep as soon as feasible. Research by the Alliance for Animals highlights the appalling conditions that animals are subject to on these voyages, including 24-hour lighting, 90 decibels of noise, faeces acting as bedding and inadequate dietary provisions. This is a fundamentally inhumane trade. It needs to be phased out so that we can alleviate the unnecessary suffering of millions of animals and restore our damaged animal welfare reputation.

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

The most important thing for the Australian community to understand is that the Albanese Labor government has made a commitment to transition out of the live sheep export trade, and we will keep that commitment. The minister has made it clear, on a number of occasions since the election, that that is what it will deliver and the minister is undertaking that work.

I acknowledge the member for Clark's consistent position and his relentless advocacy in relation to seeing the live sheep trade come to an end. It's a position, needless to say, I share. I've been part of that campaigning almost my whole life. Ninety per cent of the sheep that are involved in the live sheep export trade come from Western Australia, and they all go out of the port of Fremantle. The civil society advocacy efforts that have recognised the deeply rotten fundamental nature of this trade began in Fremantle and have continued in Fremantle over the last 30 or 40 years. The question for the Australian community and this House to consider is how that is done, and it's not done by this disallowance motion.

I want to address some of the things that the minister said before. It's not right for the minister to come into this place and try in any way to suggest that the previous government took the rotten nature of the live sheep export industry seriously. It's important to remember that it was one of the very first things the previous government did upon coming to office: it removed the inspector of live sheep or live animal exports. As a consequence of a number of changes that were made—relaxation of export conditions and animal welfare protection measures—we saw, yet again, a sequence of animal welfare atrocities, including that of the Awassi Express.

The previous government came into office and, to the detriment of everyone—to the detriment of the animals most of all but even to the detriment of the farmers who had participated in the trade—they took away, altogether, what relatively flimsy and pathetic protective measures were there. What ensued was, quite predictably, another set of animal welfare atrocities. So the fact that the minister was proud of the months that he had to spend trying to take some belated remedial action—it has to be seen in that context. Everybody who knew something about this trade knew that the sequence of terrible animal welfare circumstances would roll on, again and again—and the fact that the previous government moved as fast as it possibly could to take away the very few protections that were in place at that time only ensured that those things happened.

To the extent that there were people in Western Australia, whether they were farmers, truck drivers or feedlot operators, affected by the response, the moratorium that had to be put in place—they should level that blame where it belongs. They should level that blame on the jokers over there who came and took the brakes off, who thought that it was clever to take the relatively flimsy and pathetic protections that were in place away altogether. They took them away altogether. The result was the Awassi Express. The result was the death and suffering of thousands and thousands of sheep in the most appalling conditions. Australians have seen the truth of that. They have judged that, and the expectation is crystal clear about the lack of tolerance in the Australian community for those kinds of outcomes. There is not a sliding scale that makes animal suffering acceptable at a certain price. The kinds of animal suffering that have occurred through the live sheep export trade is abominable, and it was enabled by those opposite. The fact that tens of thousands of sheep on voyage after voyage after voyage had to go through that hangs around the necks of those opposite. And the other effects—which, frankly, aren't as important—on farmers and transport operators hang around the next of those opposite.

We have made it clear that we are going to do what has been necessary for a long time. This is not a growing industry; this is an industry in decline. You can look at the year-on-year trade in live sheep. There were about six million animals a year at the turn-of-the-century and there are now fewer than 500,000 animals. If you look at a bar graph of this trade, it is a 45-degree angle down. It has decreased in pretty much every one of those 20 years. There might be two or three where it has slightly ticked up. That's nature of this industry. It is doomed, and this government is doing the responsible thing that those opposite never had the strength, the courage or the capacity to do.

We are managing a transition that has been under way for 20 years. We're going to do that in a responsible way. We're going to do that in a consultative way. The minister has met with everybody involved, from farmers to exporters to transport operators and, of course, to the animal welfare sector and community advocates. He is moving steadily, as you've already seen this government do in a number of areas in our short life, to implement what we have committed to doing. We have committed to transitioning out of the live sheep export trade. Hallelujah! We've been waiting for that for decades. It will occur, and it will be conducted in a prudent, steady, consultative way by Minister Watt and by this Labor government. I completely understand where the member for Clark is coming from, but as my friend the member for Solomon pointed out, the actual impact of this disallowance motion would be to take away some of the measures that were put in place recently that actually improve animal welfare, and that would be counterproductive.

Going to another point that was made by the member for Maranoa, about the best practice that he claims exists, he would know well that there was a review commissioned by the former government into the summer moratorium and how it was working, but that the review was compromised. That review occurred during the COVID period, and there were supposed to be independent inspectors on every voyage, but for two entire calendar years—2020 and 2021—there was an inspector on only one of those voyages. On every single voyage, even on the so-called model voyage on the shoulder of the moratorium period, there was scientific evidence of heat stress. There was scientific evidence of heat stress, even though the government influenced the departmental settings to try to increase the chance that the heat-stress levels might be acceptable. And that didn't occur. They didn't locate the heat-stress measures on the decks where the animals were kept—the heat-stress monitors were up on the bridge, which is just utterly ridiculous.

We're not going to continue turning a blind eye to the way that this industry has actually worked. We're not going to cherrypick and use what you might describe as creative scientific assessment methods to get you the outcome that you want. We're going to look this issue and this trade clear in the face. That's what the minister has been doing. That's entirely in keeping with our commitment to manage a sensible transition out of an industry that has been in decline for 20 years, that is at death's door, that has no social licence, and that has no broader social and economic necessity. As any sensible person in Western Australia will tell you, the nutrients manager, when asked about the cessation of the trade and whether that would in fact, as some people have hysterically claimed, lead to lower sheep numbers in Western Australia, said, 'Absolutely not.' Sheep numbers in Western Australia will continue to increase because there are lots of potential markets and existing markets for sheep in Western Australia. But the live sheep trade, which has consistently produced animal welfare failures, animal welfare atrocities and a range of other serious regulatory failures, will come to an end. It should have stopped a significant time ago. Those opposite didn't have the courage to manage a sensible transition. They didn't even have the courage to keep in place half-sensible animal protection measures; they stripped them away, and we saw the Awassi Express.

You're going to get different outcomes under this government. In this area, as in almost every other area of life, you will get sensible, prudent, consultative management of a transition that has been underway for some considerable time. I can tell you that my community of Fremantle and the people of Western Australia and more broadly will welcome a properly managed end to the live sheep trade.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am the member for Barker, in south-east South Australia, and livestock is what we do. When I say 'what we do', it's also what my family does. I say that only for this reason: too often in this debate—and, I've got to say, this debate has been occurring in this nation for a number of years—farmers are cast as the animal rights abusers. Can I tell you this: nobody in this country as a cohort spends more money on animal welfare than the Australian farming sector. Just today my family has spent over $2,000 on drench alone. Why do we do that? We do that because we care about our animals. We do that because a healthy animal is a profitable animal. I don't want this debate to ever descend into attacks on Australian farmers.

The thing we've got to say about this debate—and this is the part that advocates, activists and others can never get away from—is: if Australia doesn't export these live animals to the world, who will? I'll tell you who will: they won't be nations that have an ESCAS. They won't be nations that care about livestock when they leave their borders. Effectively what you're doing, if you push the Australian industry to effectively ban live exports, which is the long-term trajectory of those opposite, or to end it immediately, which is no doubt the call from those who sit on the crossbench, is subjecting animals to greater levels of cruelty around the world. That's the reality.

Unlike the very strict requirements imposed upon Australian exporters of live animals, that void will be filled by jurisdictions who, quite frankly, don't give a toss. When I say 'give a toss', we don't just care about animals when they leave our jurisdiction or indeed when they're on water; we take action in country. Let's pause and think about this. We take this issue so seriously that we put resources in the jurisdiction of another country to ensure the citizenry of another country meets the standards we expect. No other jurisdiction in the world does that. If you force the Australian farming sector out of these markets, do you think these markets will naturally just evaporate? Do you think that demand which has been well established and built up will just expire? No; of course it won't. We will see other countries around the world meeting this demand. They'll only be too happy to.

A bit has been made about the Awassi Express. I haven't heard yet people talk about the media reporting relating to the Awassi, and the activities and behaviour as reported for Animals Australia. Direct payments, evidence of which has been provided, were being made directly to people on those voyages. I haven't heard those opposite address these issues. We had whistleblowers saying this was an act of sabotage by activists from within Australia, to destroy this industry.

In any event, what did our nation do as a response? Well, as we've always done, we ratcheted up the protections once again. We've ratcheted up the protections to the point that voyage mortality rates during Northern Hemisphere summers are currently at 0.2 per cent of one per cent. Presumably, those who bring this matter to the attention of the House would say: 'Well, that's unacceptable! I mean, 0.2 per cent of one per cent as a mortality rate is outrageous. That's why we have deal with this through a disallowance motion.' Let me tell you this, Mr Deputy Speaker, if we could achieve an on-farm mortality rate of 0.2 per cent of one per cent across our herds or flocks, we would be so excited. We can't, because mortality, unfortunately, is something that is real when you're a livestock producer. We say that if you've got live ones then unfortunately you've got dead ones.

So let's get real. If we end this trade out of Australia it will be taken over by another jurisdiction, and what you'll be doing is imposing greater levels of cruelty on animals across the globe, which will be transported from other jurisdictions to meet demand.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise, in the last few minutes before we divide on this motion, to make a few comments about the live export trade and how it impacts and benefits the people of my electorate of O'Connor, where probably 70 per cent plus of sheep for the export trade come from. The balance would come from the member for Durack's electorate, which borders mine.

That trade is worth around $130 million. The supply chain employs around 3,000 people in various jobs, whether they be truck drivers working pellet mills or workers on the wharves. So it's a significant industry for Western Australia—and I want to emphasise 'Western Australia'. It is now a peculiarly Western Australian industry. We export around a million sheep out of Western Australia in any given year, and that's part of a total worldwide trade of around 10 million to 12 million animals. So we account for around 10 per cent of the world trade.

My good friend the member for Fremantle, who's one of the really decent people in this place, claimed that the industry has no social licence. I'm sorry, Member for Fremantle: the Premier of Western Australia does not support the federal Labor government's policy of phasing out the industry at some undetermined date in the future. The Premier has said quite clearly that he does not want to see eastern state MPs and politicians—he didn't say 'from inner-city electorates' but I assume that's what he meant—coming to Western Australia and telling us to close down one of our important primary industries.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I'm here today to speak in support of what is a very important trade for Western Australia. That has been illustrated very much in the last few months, when we haven't been able to find workers for our local abattoirs. We rely on Pacific island labour. I attended the Fiji Day celebrations in Albany just a couple of weeks ago and met some of the Fijians working at the local abattoir. They are the most wonderful people you could ever hope to meet, but we rely on them leaving their families and coming to Australia. Some of those young men have been here for over 12 months without seeing their families. They're desperately homesick, desperate to go home, but they're staying here to keep that abattoir going.

Even with Pacific island labour, the abattoirs are operating at around 60 per cent capacity at the moment. What does that mean for Western Australian growers? During the winter moratorium, which lasts around four months, the trade cannot continue. During that four-month period, when the abattoirs are at capacity, farmers cannot turn off their animals. That's fine this year, we're having a wonderful season in Western Australia. Those sheep that have been kept on property for up to six weeks longer than they otherwise would have been are well fed and well cared for on the grass that's growing due to the great rains we've had this season.

Deputy Speaker Goodenough, let me tell you that in previous seasons, when the rainfall hasn't been as bounteous, that would have led to a massive animal welfare issue; sheep that could not be fed and could not be maintained without significant cost would have died on property. So it's critically important that we have that live export trade as a safety valve to take that surplus stock—those sheep that cannot be processed locally—(a) to pay the farmers and to get some income for them; (b) to take the pressure off the feed on their properties; and (c) to feed our friends and trading partners in the Middle East who rely on our food and trade for their food security. It's critically important for them.

My colleagues have spoken at length about the ESCAS and how that has exported superior animal welfare standards to every part of the world where we export our animals. That's whether it be to Vietnam, China, Indonesia or, indeed, across the Middle East. Those superior standards, which match the standards adhered to in our own abattoirs and our own meat-processing plants here, have been exported to the rest of the world.

I say to the member for Clark—and he'd be aware of this—that less than 12 months ago a ship from Romania carrying 16,000 sheep in wooden cages and with no animal welfare considerations whatsoever sank in the Black Sea. It took 16,000 sheep to the bottom with it. There are no standards in those countries. The nine to 10 million live sheep that are transported around the world which don't come from Australia will continue to have no standards applied to them—

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

That's the drug dealer's defence!

Honourable members interjecting—

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that note, I think I can go back to my growers and tell them that that's what the member for Clark and his fellow travellers think of the farmers—the hardworking, decent and honest farmers—in my electorate—

An honourable member: Criminal drug dealers!

He has likened them to drug dealers! On that note, let's have a vote on this.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be disagreed to.