Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Animal welfare is an issue of great significance and importance to most Australians. This is most certainly the case for the people of Newcastle. The former Liberal government failed to regulate the live animal export industry, and we saw the result play out in horrific scenes on board ships leaving Australia. Back then I promised my constituents that I would hold the Liberal government to account—and I did, rising in this House on multiple occasions to speak against animal cruelty and to call for increased oversight and accountability. I remember when, in 2020, the Liberal government backflipped on its own live export summer moratorium and allowed the Al Kuwait live export ship, a last-minute exemption, to set sail. That decision meant that 33,000 sheep took the very dangerous journey from Western Australia to Kuwait at the height of that Middle Eastern summer. That was against the strong advice from the RSPCA and the Australian Veterinary Association, and, indeed, the department's own initial decision.

It was right to instigate the summertime moratorium, to stop sheep overheating and dying on board ships during the Middle Eastern summer. But the backflip from the former Liberal government was the latest in a long string of catastrophic failures by the then federal government, and Novocastrians were not happy. I received hundreds of calls, emails and letters from my constituents, utterly dismayed, despairing and outraged at this gross act of animal cruelty. So I am very pleased to stand in the Chamber today to reassure my constituents that Australia now has a government which supports strong animal welfare standards and believes that all animals should be treated humanely. We want Australia to lead the world in animal welfare practices. The Albanese Labor government does not tolerate cruelty towards animals and will not compromise on animal welfare standards.

In the October budget just last year we committed $4 million over four years to establish the independent Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. That funding was just the first step in delivering on our commitment to the Australian people at the 2022 federal election. Today, this legislation is the next step. The Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 expands the role of the existing inspector-general to include additional animal welfare related objectives. Those additional functions will help increase oversight, accountability and, importantly, transparency for animal welfare in exported livestock. I know this is welcome news for Novocastrians. For too long there has been an absence of leadership on animal welfare at the federal level, and the Australian community expects robust oversight, accountability and transparency of animal welfare in livestock exports. That message has been heard loud and clear by this government, and this bill is a very sensible step in ensuring that Australia meets these expectations.

There are some who will be critical of the scope of the role and will call for it to be broadened beyond live export, but this could impinge on the powers of states and territories. Let me be clear: Australia's state and territory governments have primary responsibility for animal welfare and laws to prevent cruelty. The Commonwealth is constitutionally empowered to regulate animal welfare as it relates to exports, and that is why there is a very specific focus in this bill today.

Public consultation on this issue was open on the department's website between 2 February and 9 March this year. Feedback was sought on additional animal welfare related objectives, functions and expertise that could form the new expanded role. A total of 24 submissions were received from industry groups, animal welfare organisations and other interested parties via the website as well as by direct mail.

During the public consultation, stakeholders were most interested in the scope of the inspector general, the nature and the level of animal welfare reporting requirements, the need for relevant expertise and qualifications in the role and the need for independence. The current act says that the inspector-general must consider the welfare of animals in Australia's livestock exports. The proposed amendments to the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Act expand the role of the existing Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports to include these additional animal welfare issues.

The additional objectives allow for that independent inspector-general to monitor, investigate and report on the implementation of animal welfare and live animal export legislation and standards as well as the outcomes of such implementation. The functions of the inspector-general will also be expanded to include conducting reviews into the effectiveness of the Commonwealth systems for the administration of livestock exports, including reviewing the effectiveness of the Australian standards for the export of livestock. During the public consultation, stakeholders were consistent in their call for the importance of independence and transparency. They could not have been clearer in their expectations for both of those measures to be satisfied.

This bill provides for independence of the inspector-general and provides a legislative basis for the inspector-general to operate independently, impartially and transparently. On top of the $4 million in the October budget last year, the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports will be complemented by $5 million in funding from the 2023-24 budget to renew the Australian animal welfare strategy. A renewed strategy will cement a national approach to animal welfare, providing a vision for the welfare of all animals in Australia, and together this will increase accountability for and transparency of the development and implementation of relevant legislation and standards.

This legislation signals the Albanese Labor government's commitment to a modern, sustainable and science based approach to animal welfare, and it forms part of a suite of measures our government is implementing to prioritise animal welfare. The Albanese Labor government is committed to phasing out live sheep exports by sea, and we are getting on with it in a very smart and orderly manner.

In March this year, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Murray Watt, announced consultation to inform how and when to phase out the live sheep exports. An independent panel is leading the consultation process, chaired by the former chief executive of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and a very senior public servant, Phillip Glyde. The panel also includes Western Australian agriculture expert Ms Sue Middleton, former federal minister and member for Lingiari the Hon. Warren Snowdon and former RSPCA CEO Ms Heather Neil. This strong and diverse mix of skills, expertise and experiences will help facilitate meaningful consultation with all of the interested stakeholders. It will allow the phase-out to happen in an orderly way with proper planning.

I commend my colleague Senator Watt for his approach to this complex issue. It shows that along with the new Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports, just how serious the Albanese Labor government is in delivering on our election commitment to strengthen animal welfare in Australia. Taking proactive steps to prioritise animal welfare just makes sense. Industry acknowledged it, the community knows it and the trading partners expect it. I am proud to be part of a government that takes animal welfare seriously, and I am very proud to support this bill today.

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

I rise today to oppose the government's bill, the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023, not because the coalition don't absolutely support animal welfare but because this is a case of overreach which may have a perverse outcome of seeing state governments withdraw from the animal welfare space. We have seen that in housing and many other areas; where the Commonwealth government gets involved, the state governments tend to use that as an excuse to withdraw their resources. So the coalition will be opposing this bill, and I certainly support that stand. I want to use the opportunity today to talk more broadly about live exports and certainly the importance of those live exports to my electorate of O'Connor, where probably 70-plus per cent of the sheep originate from, and also to touch on the phase-out panel which the government has put in place, which the member for Newcastle, speaking previously, touched on.

Firstly, about live exports in O'Connor, around 70 per cent of the animals that are exported from Western Australia come out of O'Connor; it's essentially a Western Australian industry. The importance of that industry to my constituents and up to 120 towns—many of them small towns, small communities, where the school might only have 20 or 30 kids and two or three teachers, and the education department are constantly looking for an excuse to close those schools down. Many of the local pubs, which are the heart and soul of the community, are struggling to remain viable, particularly with labour shortages and other issues. They are relying on the people that work in this trade. They are the people who drive the trucks, the shearers who shear the sheep, the livestock agents who are the brokers between the farmers and the exporters. They are critical to my communities, and their livelihoods are under threat, as are those many, many small communities across the electorate of O'Connor.

As the member for Newcastle said, the government has instigated a panel to phase out the live export industry out of Western Australia. They are effectively inviting members of those communities and the people who work in the industry to come along to a session to debate how they should phase themselves out of a job, phase themselves out of existence. When I say 'invited', I say that reservedly, because initially the phase-out panel headed by Mr Phillip Glyde tried to sneak into WA and meet with some hand-picked groups that they thought might give them the sort of answer that they wanted—that yes, the industry is ready to roll over for 40 pieces of silver, a bit of compensation money, and everybody will get on with life and things will be rosy.

That plan came off the rails; it didn't last 24 hours. When word got out in the Moora district, in the northern part of the Wheatbelt, in the member for Durack's electorate, that the panel was coming to Moora but would only be speaking to hand-picked guests, the outrage was palpable and the panel backflipped very quickly. With less than 24 hours notice, 80 people turned up in the Moora town hall, and the panel got a taste of what was about to unfold. I wasn't at that particular meeting, but I believe that 80 very angry farmers and local business people and community members told the panel in no uncertain terms, firstly, that they resented the fact that they had tried to sideline them in this process; and, secondly, just how important the industry was and is to those communities.

The panel then travelled to York; Narrogin in my electorate; and Katanning, which is my home town, the home of the largest sheep-selling centre in the Southern Hemisphere and a large abattoir owned by the Western Australian Meat Marketing Co-operative, a cooperative of growers. That was the first meeting that I attended. There were over 200 people there. Once again, I couldn't have been prouder of my constituents, my people, my friends and my neighbours who turned up to that meeting. They were respectful while being very passionate, and they left the committee in no doubt that this industry is critical to their future prosperity and the future of the community and their businesses.

There are some very sound reasons for that. As a lifelong farmer in that particular district, I can certainly relate to the arguments that they put forward. The first and most important one that most people don't understand is that the live sheep export industry is the outlet for the merino wethers. I'm glad the member for Fremantle has arrived in the chamber, because he's been to Katanning and the saleyards. I'm about to give him some insight into just how important this particular industry is. The merino wether is a by-product of the self-replacing merino flock, which produces wool and is the backbone of the rural economy across the Wheatbelt of Western Australia. As I say, it's a by-product. It is not a fat sheep. It's not bred to grow a round carcass, which is the lamb chop or the lamb roast that people would buy—if they can afford to nowadays—at the supermarket. The merino wether is a lean animal. It is bred to grow wool.

But it just so happens that our customers in the Middle East have a strong demand for that type of animal. The local processors don't want that animal. Yes, they will process that animal if it's put into a feedlot and, at great expense, is fattened to within an inch of its life—then it becomes an attractive animal for the processor. But there's no profit in that for the farmer. By the time he feeds that animal up to the extent where it's ready for the processing market, there is no profit. But the live export trade, which has been going for nearly 70 years now, has a strong demand for the merino shipping wether. If you take that fundamental economic pillar out of the self-replacing merino flock, the merino flock itself, which underpins the rural economy across my electorate, is effectively unviable. The impact is not just on people that might sell their surplus wethers to the live export trade; the impact goes much further than that. This is what the panel heard loud and clear, that the impact on those communities when you lose your shearing teams, when the school closes down, when the truckie goes out of business—those communities have a very dark future under this current government's policy.

To move on from that, I want to update the House on the current situation in Western Australia in relation to animal welfare. This might be of interest to the member for Fremantle. I want to put some context around this. When I first finished university and went back to the farm, in late 1989, the wool industry was at its peak. There were 190 million sheep in Australia at that time, producing five million bales of wool. It was still one of the nation's largest export earners. With the collapse of the Wool Reserve Price Scheme, sheep became valueless overnight. One of the first jobs that I did when I left university, under the then Labor government's national flock reduction scheme, was to destroy hundreds if not thousands of sheep because they were valueless.

What's happening in Western Australia at the moment is shaping up, unfortunately, into a similar situation. We've had a very poor start to the season in terms of rainfall, although there are good rains forecast today. Just about every farmer across my electorate will be doing what I'm doing, checking the radar every five minutes. We'd had 5.8 mils of rain at Katanning a few minutes before I stood up to speak. The forecast is for a bit more, hopefully. But the season has begun very poorly.

The processing sector—in Western Australia, there are two main abattoirs that process sheep—can't find enough people to work in the plants. They are so far behind in their processing schedule that farmers can't get a booking until October. It was weeks ago when I heard that, so I don't know what it is today.

Without the outlet of getting sheep away to the processor—if they are that type of sheep—and without being able to get the sheep away to the live export trade, farmers are confronted with a very, very dark situation. They either have to try and buy feed in to keep those sheep alive for at least six months, going then into a very tough summer, in the hope that at some point they will be able to get rid of those sheep to a market somewhere; or they go to the local gun shop and stock up on a lot of bullets. That's the situation that we're currently facing in Western Australia. Hopefully, that will be alleviated with some good rains in the next few days—as I say, it is forecast, and I'm watching that radar with great interest. I am praying and hoping that that will relieve the pressure on the farming businesses across my electorate, but, if not, it's the most heartbreaking thing you'll ever do, to have to destroy sheep.

Fortunately, at this point in time, come the middle of September, the live exporters will be back in the market. At least a farmer in my electorate today knows that, if he can keep those sheep alive for three months, if he can keep them in condition score 2 or 3—which is a good, healthy condition but nowhere near fat enough for the processors to contemplate, even if they were looking for sheep; even if they weren't booked out for months ahead, those sheep would still be unattractive to the local processors—at this point in time, come September, the live exporters will be back. I've spoken to them, and there is great prospect for reopening the Saudi market. They're talking about having two ships on the run—we're down to one ship at the moment—getting rid of 100,000 sheep every two weeks.

That's the outlet. That's the safety valve that we have today. But who knows how long that safety valve is going to be there? There's talk about, 'Oh, but we'll process them locally.' Find me the people that are going to work in the processing plants to do that. Deputy Speaker Stevens, I know you come from the wool industry yourself. You would understand better than most other people in this chamber the sort of situation that my farmers are confronting at the moment.

Yes, we'll get through this period, because there are good rains forecast over the next week, and that will get the season going. We will get through to September, possibly at great cost in terms of hand feeding, but we'll get rid of those sheep in September to the live export trade, and we'll have the opportunity for the spring feed to get away so that we've got some feed in the paddocks to carry those sheep through the summer—the ewes, the lambs and the hoggets that we're retaining for next year's breeding program. But we'll do it because we have the live export trade there.

A lot of farmers in Western Australia, as we speak, are going: 'This is all too hard. I can sell my sheep. I've got a tractor, I've got a big air seeder bar, I can put some extra crop in. I don't need the shearing team. I'll get rid of the workmen and the stock manager that looks after the sheep. I don't need to get the truckie in to cart the sheep.' What we'll probably have is a town where the school will close, the pub will close and the local footy team will shut down. That's what confronts my community simply because this government made a promise to win some votes in some inner-city eastern state seats. Yes, we have the member for Fremantle here. He would have worked out that it would have played well in his seat as well. It is going to destroy livelihoods and communities and, perversely, it could have some absolutely devastating animal welfare outcomes.

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

I'm glad to make some remarks in support of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023. It is a welcome reform. It's another case of the Albanese government delivering on the commitments it made to the Australian community. I respect the contribution the member for O'Connor made. He speaks from the heart for the interests of his community. I have travelled with him in Western Australia, including in the south-west in the O'Connor electorate and to the Katanning sheep yards. I will address in a minute some of the things the member for O'Connor said.

This bill essentially expands the scope and resources of a role which shall be known as the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. There are lots of good reasons for the role to exist. It is very hard to understand how it is that the coalition have reached the point of saying that they won't support it. It doesn't really relate to most of the things that the member for O'Connor was just saying. I can't understand how the coalition can get to the point of not being prepared to support something that unquestionably will improve animal welfare outcomes across the board, particularly in the areas that the Commonwealth is responsible for, which is the export of live animals, noting that broader animal welfare responsibility is generally handled by the states and territories.

It's good that this reform is occurring because of that Commonwealth responsibility and because we know that there has always been an inherent conflict to some degree as far as the departmental responsibility in this space is concerned. The department obviously has an interest in supporting agricultural production and the economic outcomes that come from that. There are lots of instances you can look at when it comes to large-scale agricultural production where the push to make it bigger, better and more profitable does put animal welfare at risk. So having a department that is entirely responsible for both of those things is not ideal. Having an independent role that looks at those things is a much better arrangement. That's one of the reasons the government is taking that step.

It is also the case in the interests of our farmers, Australia's agricultural production sector, that high animal welfare standards are part and parcel of who we are, of our character, of the way we relate to the world and of the way we promote our products, sell them and export them overseas. Our agricultural sector and our farmers, quite rightly, have an absolutely excellent reputation abroad. They have that reputation because they care for animals, because we apply high animal welfare standards in keeping with community expectations, because of the quality of the produce that results and because of a range of other areas that I guess go under the banner of sustainability that the farming sector is embracing. While the government makes this reform specifically in the area of animal welfare, of course it's also doing things to make sure that the work that farmers do to reduce carbon emissions is recognised, supported and rewarded and that the work that farmers do to improve country, restore the environment and provide greater protection for biodiversity is recognised and rewarded.

It's certainly the case that live animal export brings with it some particular risks. It's appropriate that we have the proper oversight mechanisms and regulatory arrangements to guard against those risks. We haven't always been prepared to acknowledge that fact. Unfortunately, those opposite have almost always preferred to be in denial of the reality of the live animal export trade and sometimes indulged in a form of wilful blindness and in some cases been apologists for things for which there should be no apology. That is despite all the evidence of the risks and despite those risks being manifested in a litany—an endless parade, frankly—of terrible animal welfare atrocities, and it's despite all the expert assessments of those risks.

That is not something that we have woken up to in Australia in the last five years. As long ago as 1985, the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare held an inquiry that concluded:

… if a decision were to be made on the future of the trade purely on animal welfare grounds, there is enough evidence to stop the trade. The trade is, in many respects, inimical to good animal welfare, and it is not in the interests of the animal to be transported to the Middle East for slaughter.

That was in 1985, 38 years ago. More recently, following the case of the Awassi Expressjust one of many very extreme animal welfare disasters that occurred through the live sheep export trade, almost all of which goes through Fremantle, my seat—the Moss review back in 2018 stated:

By its nature, live animal exports present a high risk to animal health and welfare. There have been instances of non-compliance with animal welfare standards and instances of animal cruelty that have not been anticipated by the regulatory framework or evoked an appropriate regulatory response.

That was the conclusion of the Moss review, which the former government had to commission after the Awassi Express once again showed the reality of the live sheep export trade.

Frankly, on that basis I was quite surprised to see the shadow minister for agriculture, the Leader of the Nationals, get up and say that the coalition will not be supporting this sensible change to improve animal welfare protections, but maybe I shouldn't have been. Maybe I have too much optimism about the potential for people to learn and change. I guess what surprised me is that the member for Maranoa—the Leader of the Nationals and the shadow minister for agriculture—has every reason to understand the depth of animal welfare regulatory failures that existed in the past, under his watch, and every reason to understand why making some changes to those arrangements is absolutely required.

The former Labor government saw that pretty clearly and took steps to put an independent Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports in place towards the end of that government. It was one of the first things that the former coalition government decided to junk when they came to power, and then, of course—five or six years later and a few more disasters later and a few more tens of thousands of mistreated sheep and hundreds of terrible voyages later—after the Moss review and various other things, they had to put an Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports back in place. But it was a relatively underresourced and weak form of that office, and that's what this bill seeks to correct.

What was interesting in what the shadow minister for agriculture, the member for Maranoa, had to say—and I guess it goes back to the point I was making about denial and wilful blindness—was that he was talking about mortality rates and how they had improved as a result of the summer moratorium, the reduction in stocking densities and a few of the other changes that had been made when the industry was belatedly dragged to do some half-sensible things, including improving ships that had been barely maintained to modern maritime standards over the course of 20 years. He kept pointing to mortality rates when he knows full well that one of the things that happened when he was the minister was that we recognised that mortality rates are not the measure by which we should judge animal welfare. It shouldn't be hard for people in the community to understand that whether animals are being properly cared for is not just a matter of whether they die. You can starve an animal close to death. An animal could be subject to extreme heat or extreme cold or various other kinds of mistreatment and still live. That doesn't make that treatment acceptable.

The reality is that the assessment we now use is a heat stress measure, and there is lots and lots of evidence that almost every voyage to the Middle East involving live sheep that occurs involves unacceptable heat stress. It's certainly the case that, for all of the decades in which those ships travelled to the hottest part of the world at the hottest time of the year, every single one of those voyages would have involved subjecting animals to unacceptable heat stress, in sealed, close-confined decks below the waterline, for weeks and weeks at a time. That is not acceptable to the Australian people. It shouldn't be acceptable to anyone, anywhere. It is inhumane. It is wrong for us for economic purposes to subject animals to that kind of treatment. It's cruel. It's a kind of torture that's being inflicted on animals, and the Australian community won't have that anymore.

The member for Maranoa and people on that side, I suspect, including the member for O'Connor, know that that problem of subjecting animals to heat stress for days and days and sometimes weeks at a time continues now. They know that, despite the changes that have been made, the industry still doesn't manage to have independent observers on every voyage as they say that they're prepared to do. They know that the former government massaged the heat measurement parameters, knowing that if they didn't do that the moratorium would have needed to be longer. So they didn't follow the initial departmental advice on what the heat parameter should be; they massaged those parameters to make it more acceptable than it otherwise would have been.

They know that the heat measurements are not taken on the decks where the animals are kept; they are taken up on the top of the ship where the humans are, where the wet bulb temperature is significantly less than what the sheep experience. The member for Maranoa knows that, and, I dare say, the member for O'Connor knows that. Certainly the departmental people, and anyone with some time and experience in veterinary expertise in this area know all of those things. That is the case with the industry today.

I'll turn to some of the things that the member for O'Connor was saying. He said that there are very dark days ahead, that there's a very dark future ahead, that there are going to be catastrophic impacts if the live sheep trade should come to an end. I understand that as an expression of concern from the member for O'Connor and, perhaps, the member for Maranoa about the communities they represent, but it's the kind of catastrophising we see too often from those opposite—rather than a preparedness to look the reality in the face and take responsibility for a transition that has been underway for some time.

It's very hard for someone to make an argument that the shift from what is currently 500,000 animals a year to zero will be a catastrophic shift when the live sheep export trade has already declined from seven million animals to fewer than 500,000. It's declined by 92 per cent. It's less than one-thirteenth of what it was 20 years ago. And all of the things that the member for O'Connor talks about have just not happened.

People talk about how the sheep flock will be dramatically reduced. In 2010-11 the Western Australian sheep flock was 13.7 million animals. At that stage, we were exporting more than three million live sheep annually. Get to 2019-20, virtually a decade later, and the live sheep export trade, which had halved between the turn of the century and 2010, had more than halved again. So we're talking fewer than a million live sheep. And what was the WA sheep flock a decade later? 13.7 million animals—exactly the same number of animals. Wool production out of WA in 2010 was 67 million kilos. Last year, in 2022, at a point when the live sheep export trade had declined by a factor of seven, wool production out of WA was 67 million kilos—exactly the same.

We keep being told that schools will close, pubs will close and, God knows what, the sky will fall in. This is an industry that's declined 92 per cent in the last 20 years and that has not occurred. We're constantly told that 3½ thousand jobs will be lost when the trade has declined to one-thirteenth of what it was at the turn of the century. Where is the evidence that those jobs have been lost? In fact, the member for Maranoa received departmental advice, when he was the minister for agriculture in 2019, that said quite clearly that when we finally make the last part of the transition out of the live sheep trade more Australian jobs will be produced.

Yes, it is a challenge. Yes, there are adjustments that need to be made. The points that the member for O'Connor put forward, about the need to increase labour to ensure that the abattoir capacities are there, are things that are challenges, but they're challenges that can be addressed. The question of how you feed animals to the correct weight is something farmers have always wrestled with. Some of the catastrophising the member for O'Connor was doing about what might need to happen on farms involving sheep, guns and various other dark and terrible prospects—he was talking about this year. The live sheep trade still exists. Those are challenges that farmers have always had to deal with. That's the nature of the trade in Western Australia. He referred to your circumstances, Deputy Speaker Stevens. There's hardly any live sheep trade that comes out of South Australia. There's no live sheep trade that comes out of all the other parts of Western Australia that are involved in sheep production. New Zealand has got out of the live sheep trade altogether.

The proposition that we cannot get out of the very last skerrick of the live sheep trade has no basis whatsoever. This government is improving welfare for Australian animals, and we are taking on the responsible task of managing the transition out of the live sheep trade.

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

Historically, the federal parliament has been largely inactive on animal welfare, and that has been, frankly, deeply distressing to millions of Australians. It's very telling that when I speak up in the parliament about animal welfare, as I do from time to time, the response to my electorate office and to me personally is multiples of the response when I speak up on just about any other issue. The matter of animal welfare is very important to a great many Australians—and it cuts right across the political spectrum, from far-left to far-right. I think the Australian parliament should be more alert to that, and I think Australian governments need to be more alert to that.

Mind you, occasionally the silence and inaction is punctuated by some significant turns of events. I applaud, again, the Gillard federal Labor government, who brought in a three-month ban on the export of beef cattle to Indonesia. Yes, it was very controversial and, yes, there have been matters dealt with in the courts since then, but that three-month ban was very popular and very strongly supported by millions of Australians. Hence it's pleasing today to see some small further reform being moved by the current Labor government.

I suggest that, as far as it goes, this bill, the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023, is welcome. I think it is a good thing that the office of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports has its resources and powers expanded, and it's commendable that it is being directed to have a stronger focus on animal welfare in particular. But, within the narrow scope of the bill, there are still deficiencies. We'll talk about the broader issue of animal welfare in a moment, but within the bill there are obvious deficiencies. I noticed that the minister, in her second reading speech, used the word 'independent' repeatedly; time and time again, she slipped in the word 'independent'. But that's quite misleading because the inspector-general will remain embedded within the agriculture department. There is a fundamental tension by leaving the regulator within the agriculture department because the department's job is to promote agriculture, promote the growth of agriculture and promote the export of our agricultural products, and there is surely a fundamental tension between that role of the department and the role of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports, who now has this much stronger focus on animal welfare.

The bill, and the role of the inspector-general, fails completely to try and address the widespread animal cruelty in this country more broadly. We all know that animal welfare generally is within the jurisdiction of the state and territory governments. We know that it's been the state and territory governments that have let us down in so many ways when it comes to the domestic production of cattle and sheep, aquaculture, poultry, pigs and the breeding of dogs and cats, and it's been the state and territory governments that have let us down terribly when it comes to the interaction between gambling and horseracing, steeplechasing, harness racing and greyhound racing. But it's not good enough to just simply say, 'It is what it is, and it will ever be thus.' The fact is we have an animal welfare crisis in this country—that is surely beyond dispute—and we should be taking a leadership role in the federal parliament, particularly in areas where state and territory governments have let us down. We should be looking at ways to take a leadership role and to improve things across the whole country. Why on earth the inspector-general within the agriculture department can't be empowered and resourced to take that leadership role more broadly beggars belief. Surely the federal regulator could be given the remit to develop policy, to work with state and territory governments, to work with state and territory agencies, to work with industry bodies and to shepherd them, so to speak, towards more effective regulations and laws around animal welfare. I think that would be very handy.

We could think even more broadly and say, 'Okay, what levers does the federal government have to be more involved in animal welfare in areas where, historically, it's been the job of the state and territory governments?' I brushed up against this firsthand in my first term, in the 43rd Parliament, when the then federal government was working with me and looking at how it might intervene in the states and territories with poker machine reform. Very quickly we came to realise that laws like the Corporations Act and powers like the taxation power do in fact give the federal government means to intervene, at least when it comes to corporations or to farms that are paying tax and so on. All that's lacking is the vision for the federal government to think, 'How can we, at our level, be more engaged in animal welfare across the whole country?' Frankly, it's simply not good enough to say: 'All we can focus on is the live animal export industry. That's the beginning and the end of our responsibilities.' That's not good enough, and it's also abrogating our responsibilities.

Back to this specific issue of the live animal export industry. Yes, to be fair to the new federal Labor government, it is consulting with the sheep industry about a ban on the live export of sheep in, hopefully, five years or so. I do applaud the current government for starting that process. That is ambitious and it will meet with a lot of resistance. It already is meeting with a lot of resistance from the industry. But I tell you what, it's darn sight more than any government has done since Federation in 1901, so I hope it goes well.

We can't allow the consultation to be the end in itself. The consultation must be an effective stepping stone to a ban in a timely manner. When I talk about a timely manner, I note that the industry, when they are prepared to entertain some sort of ban, they're talking 10 years or more. I note that the government is talking maybe five years. But I also note that animal welfare bodies and scientists who are mixed up with them are talking about three years. That would seem to be a much more effective and much more humane time line.

Now, I take the point from the member for O'Connor that there are issues with the breeds, the make-up of the flock, the fact there there's such a preponderance currently of merino wethers. I think that's what the member for O'Connor referred to. And, yes, it will take time to change the breed, to change the nature of the flock, perhaps to even change the mix of farming activities on individual farms and to grow into new roles. That will take time, so I do support there being a transition period. But I make the point again: it needs to be a sensible transition period and not just kicking the can down the road into the never-never like the industry would have us do.

We have to not stop at sheep. Sheep have had much publicity in recent years, and the member for Fremantle quite rightly referred to the Awassi Express a number of times, and the expose about the shocking cruelty being endured by the sheep that survived—but many, of course, died on the Awassi Express. There were images of the terrible heat, images of the panting mouths, images of newborn lambs—which is illegal; they shouldn't have let pregnant sheep on the ship in the first place—literally drowning in the filth and the faeces and the urine on the decks of that ship.

But while there has been so much focus on the live sheep export industry, we've taken our eye off beef cattle. There are still problems with the export of beef cattle, often into South-East Asia and North Asia. Just recently there were exposes about terrible misconduct—again in Indonesian abattoirs and slaughterhouses. So if this country is fair dinkum about animal welfare, we should be talking about a ban on the export of beef cattle and sheep in a timely manner—that's what we should be doing; other countries have done it; New Zealand did it—and putting our agricultural sector on a pathway to replacement activities on the farm.

To do so would have enormous public support. When I look at polling around the country, there is clearly majority public support for winding up the live export industry. The public know that the trade is systemically cruel and, in fact, the only way to and the cruelty is to end the trade. You can change your density levels on the ships, you can do this, you can do that, you can improve ventilation, you can have inspectors go into Indonesia and other countries, but we are tinkering around the edges. The fact is that the only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade. The only way to be genuinely rebuilding Australian manufacturing and industry is to be processing those sheep and cattle in Australia. I know we have a shortage of workers in abattoirs, but that has been in part created by ourselves running down the processed meat industry as the country over decades has ramped up live animal export. Surely, with a bit of nous, we can resurrect the domestic red meat processing industry and have processing jobs on shore, adding value, employing Australians and creating profits for Australian companies.

Of course, the industry will trot out all the usual reasons why we can't do this. We heard some from the member for O'Connor. It's said that people in the Middle East won't buy chilled or frozen mutton or lamb, but of course they will; they already do currently. In fact, the value of the sheep meat we currently send to the Middle East is much more than the value of the live sheep we send to the Middle East. It's a desirable product, and people in the Middle East and other countries want to buy it. So why we aren't sending them more chilled and frozen meat is unfathomable.

I have covered a bit of ground here, and I want to flag at this stage that I am moving an amendment to the bill. It has been circulated in my name, and it's not too long, so I will read it out. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House

(1) notes that:

(a) Australia continues to be responsible for an animal welfare crisis;

(b) while much of this crisis is historically and constitutionally the responsibility of the state and territory governments, it can be seen in many industries including but not limited to: cattle; sheep; aquaculture; poultry; pigs; the breeding of dogs and cats; and where the gambling industry intersects with thoroughbred horseracing, steeplechasing, harness racing and greyhound racing;

(c) the systemic cruelty in the live animal export trade continues, with the export of sheep to the Middle East and beef cattle worldwide exemplifying the worst of animal abuse; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) establish a genuinely independent office of animal welfare which, by working with state and territory governments and their agencies, will take a policy development and leadership role to ensure that all animals are treated humanely and with dignity;

(b) develop a much-improved legal framework to ensure that beef cattle and sheep are treated ethically during all stages of the live export process, so long as the live export industry exists; and

(c) commit to legislating within six months a ban on all live sheep and beef cattle exports by sea with the ban fully implemented within three years.

I will say that last part again because it really is the bottom line. If we are an ethical country, if we have integrity, if we want to set an example to the community of nations when it comes to animal welfare and take a leadership role globally, if we want to treat our animals as they should be treated and to recognise their inherent value, then it all comes down to this:

(c) commit to legislating within six months a ban on all live sheep and beef cattle exports by sea with the ban fully implemented within three years.

I'm pleased to say that the member for Warringah has agreed to second that amendment, so thank you to the member for Warringah.

I make the point again that this bill is good as far as it goes, and I applaud the government for bringing this bill to the parliament. It's a rare thing to see anything to do with animal welfare come into this parliament, but I would urge the government to consider again where the inspector-general sits. If it is to be genuinely independent, then take it out of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Have it as a standalone and genuinely independent body and give it the remit and resources to work with the state and territory governments and their agencies and with industry bodies to take a leadership role to develop policy, to try to lift the standard around the country markedly and to try to harmonise the standards around the country. That would put us on a pathway to the federal government being more involved with animal welfare nationally and putting the weights on the state and territory governments, who frankly have let us down terribly when it has come to so many aspects of animal welfare. It's not just about the welfare of sheep and cattle in the live export trade.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before addressing the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill, I will position myself to head off any charge of having a conflict of interest. I am not a vegetarian, even though I do represent many, especially in the Buddhist community. These are the facts. My grandfather was a butcher, my father was a butcher, my uncle was a butcher, my mother once owned a butcher shop, two of my brothers were butchers, another brother worked in an abattoir and my brother-in-law imports and exports meat. For full disclosure, when I was a kid I also worked in my father's butcher shop and then abattoir. When I was a uni student and a school teacher in the eighties and nineties, I spent quite a bit of time mustering for my father when he moved on to running sheep and cattle. For completion, my personal preference would be for all Australian livestock to be slaughtered here under our animal welfare rules by our workers, thus value-adding to the food chain.

I believe the majority of Australians want to see the highest level of animal welfare in this country—in fact, the shadow minister for agriculture, the member for Maranoa, said so on behalf of the coalition in response to the introduction of this Albanese government legislation—whether it's making sure that household pets are being well looked after in homes in every town and city in Australia or that produce animals on farms and stations are being treated humanely, and everywhere in between those.

At the last election, the Labor Party under Anthony Albanese committed to investing $4 million in establishing an independent inspector-general of animal welfare. Why? Because Labor believes in having strong animal welfare standards and in being a government that is true to the promises it made when in opposition. I know the Prime Minister very well, and if he makes a promise, he keeps that promise.

This investment does not just have the support of Australians but also complies with expectations of our trading partners. In the October budget, the Treasurer delivered on that election commitment with $4 million over four years to establish the independent Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. The Albanese government put the money in the budget, exactly as we said we would do. I note that this is something the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments often overlooked. Their focus was on the announceables instead of the deliverables—puffery before carry-through. The Albanese government underpromises and overdelivers. This commitment of $4 million in funding is the first step in delivering to the Australian people what we promised to do at last year's federal election.

The legislation we are debating right now is the next step in delivering on our promise. The proposed amendments to the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Act expand the role of the existing Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports to include additional animal-welfare related objectives. These additional functions review the effectiveness of the activities of livestock export officials under animal welfare and live animal export legislation and standards; Commonwealth systems for the administration of live exports under such legislation and standards; the Australian standards for the export of livestock as part of such systems; and Commonwealth reporting relating to animal welfare and livestock export matters.

Why are these changes needed? The additional objects and functions proposed in this bill will help to increase the oversight, accountability and transparency of animal welfare in exported livestock. Importantly, it delivers on the government commitment to strengthen animal welfare.

These reforms form part of a suite of measures that the Albanese government is implementing to respond to the growing expectations from Australians and our trading partners in terms of prioritising animal welfare. The Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports will be complemented by $5 million in funding from the recent budget to renew the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy.

For too long there's been an absence of leadership on animal welfare at the federal level. The Commonwealth, sadly, has been missing in action for nearly nine years. I note the member for Clark talked about the 43rd Parliament and the endeavours there by a former Labor government. No-one should be really surprised at the fact that things have been quiet for nine years, as the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments lacked leadership when it came to courageous reform. Sadly, few things have changed for the opposition, and their go-to happy place seems to be saying no to everything. They have become defined by what they are not. They have no vision, and, as the proverb says, where there is no vision, the people perish. However, that is a problem for the current Leader of the Opposition. We'll get on with the job of sensible government.

Therefore, the Albanese Labor government is delivering this renewed strategy that cements a national approach to animal welfare. It will provide a vision for the welfare of all animals in Australia. The establishment of the inspector-general will signal our commitment to a modern, sustainable and science based approach to animal welfare. Taking proactive steps to prioritise animal welfare just makes sense. Industry acknowledges it, the community knows it, our farmers know it and our trading partners expect it more and more.

No-one wants to see those distressing videos that we all sat through back in 2011, when Four Corners exposed the treatment of some of the animals shipped from our shores to overseas abattoirs—well, except maybe the former member for Boothby, Nicolle Flint, who attacked the ABC for a lack of balance in its reporting on the issue in a column back in 2013. At the time, the former member for Boothby's argument boiled down to this: 'Well, if it isn't Australian animals being mistreated, it will just be other animals. You know these animals are being used for food, and it doesn't matter if they are mistreated, because they are just going to be eaten anyway'—not coming from a butchering family, obviously. The Liberals and Nationals love to attack the ABC when it just does its job.

Unlike the former member for Boothby and the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments, the Albanese Labor government and Minister Watt will address these challenges. We committed to this before the last election, and we are seeing that commitment through. This bill is a sensible step to guarantee the regulator is playing its part in ensuring that Australia meets these expectations. I commend the legislation to the House.

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

My community cares deeply about the welfare of our animals. From the kids I meet here in Parliament House and the parents I see outside the school gates to the couples, grandmas and grandpas that I talk to on Bondi Beach, they all want to see a kind and caring society which demonstrates decency in its treatment of animals and the natural environment. Historically, we have fallen short of this endeavour, and that is why we must urgently modernise our animal welfare laws.

Chief among Wentworth's concerns is the systemic cruelty in the live animal export trade, particularly in the export of sheep to the Middle East. Research by the Alliance for Animals highlights the appalling conditions that sheep are subject to on those voyages, including 24-hour lighting, 90 decibels of noise, faeces for bedding and inadequate dietary provisions. Given these appalling conditions, it was disappointing that the government last year partially rolled back the ban on exporting sheep to the Middle East during the hottest months of the year, ignoring advice on animal welfare impacts. The live sheep export trade needs to be phased out so that we can alleviate the unnecessary suffering of millions of animals and restore Australia's damaged animal welfare reputation.

The need to restore this reputation brings me to the bill before the House, the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023. Whilst I'm pleased to see the progress on the establishment of the inspector-general of animal welfare, the model outlined in the bill falls short of the community's expectations and the government's manifesto commitments. The proposed role and objectives of the new Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports add little that is new to the role and objectives of the current Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports. It's certainly not the new statutory body that many had hoped for. Reviewing and reporting on the department's approval of regulated entities, detecting noncompliance, conducting investigations, interacting with state and territory enforcement agencies and reporting on animal welfare breaches are all topics where the current inspector-general has power to review. The primary difference made by this bill appears to be a change in the name.

I therefore strongly encourage the government to expand the functions of the new inspector-general so that it has a broader scope of responsibility over all relevant fields of Commonwealth jurisdiction, including the welfare of animals at export abattoirs and the international trade in wildlife. This would bring into scope activities like kangaroo shooting and crocodile farming. We need the IGAW to play a policy development and leadership roles so that all animals are treated humanely and with dignity. We also need the government to legislate a ban on live sheep exports within the next six months and to fully implement the ban within three years.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023. As many speakers have said, desire by community members to see an end to this trade has been running very strong for many years. In my community of Macquarie, in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, there are people of all ages, all political views and all parts of my 4,000-square-kilometre electorate who want to see an end to live trade. Many of them recognise that this is something that needs to be done in an orderly way. The commitment that we have taken to the electorate—not just in the previous election but in the one before as well, so we've taken this to the electorate twice—our policy to phase out the live sheep export trade, is a position that's very well supported in my community.

That brings us to what this bit is in that journey. And it is a journey. Right now, another part of the journey is underway, and that is the consultation on how you work with industry to phase out the sheep trade. I note that submissions to that close at 10 o'clock tonight. It's very timely that this other part of the legislation is being debated today. We have committed to phasing out live sheep exports from Australia by sea, but the phase-out will not take place during this time of the Australian parliament, because we want to allow time for individuals and businesses to adapt and prepare for the transition away from those sea exports. I think it's right.

Having come from a business background, it's very appropriate to look at the logistics of it. It's appropriate to look and seek input on how we should phase it out, what the time frame for implementation should be and how the phase-out will impact exporters, farmers and other businesses across the supply chain. It's appropriate to take the time to look at how we support and provide adjustment options for those who are impacted by the phase-out. And it's appropriate to look at what the opportunities are that this opens up in terms of expanding domestic processing and increasing sheepmeat exports overall. When we come to this part of it, one of our commitments around it was to lift the standards that exist, particularly in this interim period, right across the board on animal welfare and to have an independently established Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports that has real powers that meet the standards people expect. That's what this particular step is about. In the October budget we committed $4 million over four years to establish this independent Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. That was the first step, and this legislation is the next step.

The proposed amendments to the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Act expand the role of the existing Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports to include additional animal welfare related objectives. One of the first things that will happen is to review the effectiveness of the activities of livestock export officials under animal welfare and live animal export legislation and standards. You do really need to thoroughly review what we have and look at what the gaps are. The additional functions will allow the review of Commonwealth systems for the administration of livestock exports. They will allow for a review of the effectiveness of the Australian standards that we have and the Commonwealth reporting relating to animal welfare and livestock export matters. These additional objects and functions will simply help increase oversight, accountability and transparency for animal welfare among exported livestock, and this is delivering on our commitment to strengthen animal welfare. As I said, these reforms are part of a suite of measures and really need to be seen in that context. They are responding to growing expectations from the community, and also from our trading partners, to prioritise animal welfare.

The inspector-general will be complemented by $5 million in funding from the 2023-24 budget to renew the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy. For too long there's simply been an absence of leadership on these matters—a total absence of leadership. I cannot imagine that those who sat on the other side of the parliament from me in the last two terms of parliament, those who were in government, weren't receiving similar emails from constituents who, whether they supported an export trade or not, wanted to see higher standards of animal welfare, but nothing was done to improve it.

The renewed strategy will cement a national approach to animal welfare, providing a vision for the welfare of all animals in Australia, while the establishment of the inspector-general signals Australia's commitment to a modern, sustainable and science based approach to animal welfare. Taking proactive steps so that we're prioritising animal welfare just makes sense. The industry acknowledge it, the community knows it and our trading partners expect it. I think this has been the real gap between community expectations and what the parliament's legislation has demanded of the industry. The industry has really, I have seen, been caught in the middle. This bill is a very sensible step to guarantee that the regulator is playing its part in ensuring that Australia meets those expectation.

I want to address one of the issues that have come up, about whether this inspector-general is independent, and say very clearly: yes, this bill makes clear that the inspector-general may operate independently and impartially and would not be subject to direction on how the inspector-general carries out their role under the act or any outcome the inspector-general may reach in the performance of their functions. That's the sort of transparency, independence and accountability that is required.

So I'm very pleased to see this as a next step in the work that we are doing and will continue to do, because this is something that will take some time to get to the point that the community wants, and that is a policy to end the export of live sheep. It is a very significant step along the way, which will have benefits in improving welfare for animals right across Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we've heard, the federal coalition opposes the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023, which is before the House here. The bill is part of federal Labor's broader animal welfare and activist agenda, aimed at actually getting rid of more production animals in Australia. Unfortunately for our farmers, this was a cynical political decision. For you, the farmers out there, it's your families, your communities and the countless small businesses and workers who rely on you for their living who will be affected and who like you, are the collateral damage of Labor's decision, because, as we've just heard, it's not just about live export animals; it's about all animals in Australia. This is the federal Labor government and its Canberra appointed bureaucrats coming onto our farms and saleyards and overseeing the loading and carting of live animals, and I have no doubt that there's a broader agenda. I believe it's the Trojan horse Labor will use to once again shut down live cattle exports, as they did in 2011, either directly or indirectly by their actions. We've also seen the reports that buyers, customers, in the Middle East—one of the largest markets for WA rangeland cattle and sheep—are saying they will no longer take cattle from Australia if they cannot also buy sheep.

As I said, by direct or indirect means, the federal Labor government is well into the process of shutting down the live sheep export industry, which is worth between $85 to $92 million and employs more than 3,000 Western Australians through the supply chain. The total value of livestock exported from Australia in 2021-22 was around $1.3 billion, at the same time that mortality rates are at record lows.

I want to talk about what impact this decision to end live exports has on the farmers themselves and the communities and businesses that rely on them, the personal cost. And it's a great one ignored by those opposite. I've lived through—and tried my best to help my dairy farmers through—dairy deregulation. That was profound. The effect on the families is extreme, and the stress is appalling—the individuals and families that fall apart, the relationships that are ruined, the businesses that are gone, the mental health problems and intense stress this is creating right now. You heard the member for O'Connor talking about this earlier. It is there right now. But there has been no concern and no care for these people from the Labor government. The bigger issue is the absolute disrespect for us as farmers and the disrespect for rural and regional people.

We know that the majority of the impact of this ban falls on WA, because the majority of sheep shipped from Australia last year were from WA—97 per cent of them. So here we have a Labor government directly attacking a WA industry. It's an industry that's done so much along the whole production, stock handling, supply, delivery and overseas abattoirs chain management, and with the most robust export supply chain assurance scheme in the world. These are standards that continue to be raised and improve global standards as well.

We have a minister and a government with no idea about rural and regional Australia and certainly no idea about the live export industry. We've even seen, through Senate estimates, the government admitting it had no idea that ending live export sheep could also cause the collapse of livestock export corporation LiveCorp. That is sheer incompetence, at best. Both the minister and the government have a responsibility to know exactly what the impacts of the closure of the industry will be. What's worse, the Labor government simply does not care about agriculture, our farmers, our small and family businesses and our communities in regional and more remote parts of Australia that are so dependent on this industry.

It isn't just farmers who will be affected, it is the whole community. It's the grain sector. I've read that Australia's merino sheep flock will diminish significantly as well. The western wool industry will shrink by up to 15 per cent. It's the livestock transporters, truck drivers, small-business owners, vets, local mechanics, fuel suppliers, feed providers, local businesses and community service organisations, the sporting groups and others supported by both the farmers and those local businesses who rely on that live sheep industry. They're all in the firing line here. But I also believe that the Labor government is very cleverly working to get rid of many of us farmers and graziers and primary and agricultural producers as they can, and our livestock, whether it's by natural attrition or more directly. This will service their No. 1 policy agenda of reducing emissions. So what's next?

I'm waiting for the Labor government's methane tax on production animals to follow this. We've even recently seen this pressure building, from Labor branches, to halve emissions from agriculture and the transport sector as well. That's a methane tax. This is on top of the Labor government's truckies tax. Both of these disproportionately affect regional and rural Australians. Perhaps those of us living in the regions shouldn't be so worried, because, apparently, according to Labor's budget papers, we will simply be the hosts for renewable energy—not the producers of some of the highest quality food and fibre in the world, feeding millions of people, Australians and people overseas.

This is just the beginning of what the Labor government is planning with this bill. As I said, I'm warning every farmer: federal Labor is coming to your farm. It's not just the activists harassing our farmers that we will see—we're seeing them now—coming to your local saleyards, your local piggery, and any and every animal production, transport and processing facility and business. I suspect that the Labor government also wants to exercise these new animal welfare powers in the thoroughbred breeding industry and horse racing and trotting, which is the practical effect, as the previous member said. This involves all animals. This is not the last attack on farmers, on production animals and on regional and rural communities by the Labor government. I suspect that Labor will weaponise the role being created by this bill to attack farmers and livestock transporters in all forms and all ways, whether it's those raising animals on their farms or cattle or sheep properties, or those carting live animals by truck, by horse float, or those transporting live animals by sea or air. This role, as we have heard, will focus on all forms of animal welfare.

Now, the federal coalition has been and is committed to upholding and preserving the highest standards of animal health and welfare while supporting a lawful and sustainable live export trade. Well, so are our farmers. These animals are our livelihoods. We raise them from birth. If you're a dairy farmer like me, you often know them by name. In the early years on our farm, we had cows with wonderful names like Long-wheel Base, Bonnie and Brindle, and our neighbours, the Mannings, knew every cow had a name. They are precious to us, and that's not the impression given by those opposite. Now not only will we have to put up with the activists patrolling our roads, putting those drones up over our properties and harassing our local farmers both on their farms and at the local abattoir saleyards; like we heard from the pork producers recently in Senate estimates, we will have representatives from the federal government as well. So will the road transport industry and the livestock transporters who do such an amazing job right around Australia.

This bill and the government's actions come in spite of the now minister for agriculture saying in 2020:

… the live export industry continues to be a world leader with regard to animal welfare and continues to operate on a sustainable basis.

They are the words of the current minister. We do take animal welfare seriously, as do our farmers and the whole of the livestock transport sector in all its forms. We also understand its importance as an issue within the Australian community but also the broader agricultural industry and the vital role that animal welfare has for our international reputation.

Under Australia's current constitutional arrangements, state and territory governments are actually responsible for animal protection and welfare laws and their enforcement, but it seems that the federal government does not trust or have confidence in states or territories, the overwhelming majority of which are Labor states, to effectively and efficiently manage animal welfare as defined by constitutional arrangements. I wonder if it's the plan to duplicate each state and territory law or rule or regulation as well as what we see in live export.

We have a live export system that operates very well. It's underpinned by the highest standards of animal welfare and record low mortality rates. Australia is the only country in the world with an existing federal framework for animal health and welfare conditions: the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, ESCAS, combined with the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock. No other country has this level of compliance. This system has seen extended animal welfare measures actually adopted by our training partners already. They are lifting their standards in response to what we're doing here in Australia. I am proud of how the federal coalition, when in government, worked so constructively in partnership and collaboration with the sector to deliver the improvements in animal welfare outcomes.

The bill also seeks to expand the objects of the act to enable monitoring and investigation and reporting in relation to live exports, but it's already happening. A review of monitoring and reporting during livestock export voyages is already on the current work program of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports. Also the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock, ASEL, currently undertakes extensive monitoring and reporting requirements. It's regularly updated, and every six months the minister for agriculture must table in the parliament a report that includes livestock mortalities on every sea voyage. Given Australia's animal welfare, ASEL and ESCAS conditions, when the Labor government shuts the live sheep trade our international trading partners will not stop importing live sheep. They will simply source them from other countries that do not have Australia's animal welfare standards. Is that really what the government wants to achieve in relation to animal welfare outcomes? I wouldn't have thought so.

This bill will significantly increase the role of the inspector-general into the animal welfare responsibility of state and federal governments. So what does concern me? As we saw with the NDIS, once the federal government became involved in that space, states and territories actually reduced and removed funding and resources from those various sectors. That's what I'm concerned about here: how will the states react to this and what will their response be?

The bill will add more red tape to the office of the inspector-general and could well end up duplicating or replacing existing animal welfare efforts and initiatives that we currently see across governments and the live export industry. They are the reasons why I oppose these measures in this bill.

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

I stand here today to strongly support this particular bill, the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023. As I've said in this place many times over the years, we've all seen the cruel footage on TV—on A Current Affair, on Four Corners, on a whole range of programs—of animals suffering on these voyages. Animal welfare is very important to Australia. It's important to the Australian community, industry and all our trading partners.

This government supports strong animal welfare standards, and we believe all animals should be treated humanely. That's why we've also said that we will support the phase-out of live sheep exports as well. Yet when we hear the arguments from the other side, it's basically an argument that says this industry will be shut down. That's not the case. All you have to do is go back a few years—just north of my electorate we had the Gepps Cross meatworks, which employed thousands and thousands of people. Those industries were decimated in the nineties.

One of the smart ways of doing business when we're exporting is to do the work here in Australia, value-add to the product, and then sell overseas. One of the fairly horrendous things I saw a few years ago was that we exported live animals or live sheep to Kuwait, who set up one of the biggest slaughterhouses in the world. They box their meat and then send it off to other parts of the Middle East. When you think about it, it's not rocket science. There had been the phase-out of live animal sheep exports—a good policy, in that period, was to ensure that we have an Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports that can keep check and balance what's happening on board these ships when live trade's being exported. And, as I said, this Albanese Labor government supports strong animal welfare standards, and believes all animals should be treated humanely.

In the October 2022 budget, we committed $4 million over four years to establish this independent Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports and animal welfare. The funding in that budget was the first step in delivering on our commitments to the Australian people who expect better of us when it comes to the treatment of animals. Legislation is the next step that is a part of this welfare standard that we've been talking about.

The Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports will have additional functions. The additional functions are to review the effectiveness of: the activities of livestock export officials under the animal welfare and live animal export legislation and the standards that currently exist; Commonwealth systems for the administration of livestock exports under such legislation and standards; the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock, as part of such systems; and Commonwealth reporting relating to various matters relating to animal welfare and livestock exports. That is the least the Australian public can expect from us. Some of the additional objects and functions proposed in this bill will help to increase the oversight, accountability and transparency of animal welfare in exported livestock. And it delivers on the government's commitment, as I said, to strengthen animal welfare. There is no doubt of that.

The Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports will be complemented by an extra $5 million in funding from the 2023-24 budget to renew the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy. Within that strategy is the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports, which will be complemented, as I said, by that $5 million of funding.

For too long there has been an absence of leadership on animal welfare at this federal level. Again I remind members of this House of the footage we saw on TV of horrendous treatment of animals. I think that is unacceptable not only to the Australian public but to everyone involved in the export of animals. We heard the previous member, the member for Forrest, speak about farmers. Farmers don't want to see their animals treated that way. I don't think a single farmer in Australia would want to see animals treated that way. The whole idea is to have the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports oversee the treatment of these animals when they're being transported.

Also dovetailed into this is the policy to phase out live sheep exports. We won't be the first country doing this. New Zealand is already phasing out live animal exports. Other countries as well are talking about it. Already in Argentina there's a move to ban live exports as well.

As I said earlier, we can value-add in this industry. We can value-add by creating jobs here, by creating meatworks industries. In South Australia we have Thomas meatworks in Murray Bridge. It is going gangbusters at the moment processing meat for export overseas and for the local market. In fact, they employ about 800 to 900 people in Murray Bridge, and they are continuously growing. There is no reason why we can't phase out live animal exports and move to boxing the meat here and looking at markets overseas to export to. As I said, a few years ago we did one of the stupidest things we could ever have done. We saw this meat work take place in Kuwait, which now slaughters meat and exports it to the rest of the world. There is a market there. There is a way of doing things better. There is a way of ensuring that our animals are protected. There is a way to ensure that the welfare of animals is taken care of.

We've had the argument that this industry will be decimated et cetera. People still need to eat, whether the meat is boxed or live. The markets will always be there—overseas and domestically. Animal welfare is important to the Australian community. People want to see us act on this. The Australian community expect robust oversight, accountability and transparency of animal welfare in livestock exports. Expanding the office of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports will support this and will deliver on the Australian government's commitment to strengthening animal welfare. Therefore, I'm supporting this bill. I'm also a strong supporter of phasing out live animal exports and ensuring that we have the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports to oversee the welfare of Australia's animals.

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

I support this bill, the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023. This bill will amend the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Act. It will expand the office of the inspector-general to provide a focus for animal welfare. I commend the government on practical measures that will improve the welfare of animals subjected to the cruelty of live animal exports.

However—and there is a very big however to this—the government did commit before the election to ban live sheep exports. That's what they did; they committed to that, over a year ago now, and we haven't seen any action. I think it is really important to say that there would have been many people who, because of their election commitment to that, would have moved their vote over to the government. As far as I'm concerned, not acting on this and bringing this bill to the parliament is somewhat of a broken promise. I think we expected more, and we expect to see some legislation that would phase out live animal exports of sheep. It's critical that we do this. If we don't do it now, when are we going to do it?

It was five years ago when we had journalists expose the abject cruelty of this practice. In 2018 I supported a bill by the member for Farrer—those of us who have been here a long time, or some of us, have pretty good memories; I remember that bill—to prohibit the export of live sheep on long-haul routes. That bill was introduced after the shocking 60 Minutes report highlighting the atrocities those sheep experienced, where they were effectively up to their legs in their own waste. They had nowhere to move. They were dying the most cruel of deaths. The bill was a moderate approach to phase out the practice over five years. That would have meant it would have been phased out this year. And what do we have, five years later? We still don't have a ban, and we still don't have a plan. In 2019 I introduced my own bill, which mirrored the member for Farrer's bill with the exception of reducing the long-haul exports over the summer months from four months to three. Aside from the animal welfare aspect of this, value-adding in our own country makes good sense. With respect to these animals, we know their whole life experience. If we are processing those animals here, we have far more control over the animal welfare effect of those animals.

While I support this bill, and it does take some steps to improve the welfare of animals—and you could argue it is progressive—I think the government need to do better here. They made an election commitment that they would do better with respect to animal welfare and long-haul live sheep exports. I don't think it's right for us to just assume that people will forget those images, that people will move on from this. I still receive emails on it. Back in the day, back in 2019, I received hundreds of emails from people—many of them farmers—who said we need to do better. It's smart, it's a good economic decision, it's a good environmental decision and it's a good ethical decision. I urge the government: do better in this respect. Don't go to the Australian people at an election and say you're going to ban live sheep exports, and then, a year later, do nothing with respect to banning live sheep exports.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mahatma Gandhi once said:

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.

I think that's a pretty good measure of any nation, not just Australia, but of Australia particularly as a historically agricultural producing nation.

Since I've been elected to this place, there's been a lot of work done, largely in opposition, around exploring the policies necessary for the phase-out of live sheep exports. Like many of my constituents but also like many here, we have been appalled by the footage we have seen of the live sheep export trade over the years. It's a truism to say that animal welfare is a vital and important aspect of our community. It's equally important for our industry and for our trade partners. That is why the Albanese government supports strong animal welfare standards. I have been—as have many of my colleagues across the aisles, in my party and others—very vocal about live sheep exports in the party, in the parliament and in this place. I've argued for the banning of live sheep exports over the northern summer months because of the cruelty that we've seen. Even as the overall review of the trade was conducted by the former government, we were calling for those steps to be taken and, in the longer term, as we're discussing here, for the phase-out of all live sheep export within a timely manner.

As a government, we believe all animals should be treated humanely. That is the responsibility of governments at the state and federal level, and that is why the Albanese government is committed to phasing out live sheep exports. As a government, we also acknowledge that the live sheep export trade is in decline. Our plan is to work with industry and work with the Western Australian government to address this decline. This is important because in the live sheep trade we've seen time and time again the horrible and appalling footage and the breaches of those standards that we here all talk about supporting.

This government knows we need to do more to ensure animals are treated humanely. In the budget last October, the first budget, the Albanese government committed $4 million over four years to establish an independent inspector-general of animal welfare and live animal exports. This increases accountability and transparency for reporting of animal welfare breaches. While this is a significant change, the legislation being proposed today, the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023, will be the next important step to ensure the government can deliver on its commitment to strengthening animal welfare.

The proposed amendments to the act seek to expand the office of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports, which will ensure animal welfare is at the centre of livestock exports. The additional functions will enable a review of the effectiveness of the activities of livestock export officials under animal welfare and live animal export legislation and standards, Commonwealth systems for the administration of livestock exports under such legislation standards, the Australian standards for the export of livestock as part of such systems, and Commonwealth reporting related to animal welfare and livestock matters. These additional functions will help increase oversight, transparency and accountability in relation to animal welfare in exported livestock. This also ensures the independency of the inspector-general and enables a legislative basis for them to operate independently, impartially and transparently. It allows our government to commit to strengthening animal welfare in a substantive way.

This is but one part of the various measures the Albanese government has committed to. In response to the community expectations and the expectations from our trading partners, to ensure animal welfare is at the forefront of what we do, the Albanese government has also committed $5 million in funding from 2023-24 in the budget to renew the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy.

The government has already started implementing its policy to phase out live sheep exports by sea, which was referred to earlier. An independent panel comprising Mr Philip Glyde, Chair; the Hon. Warren Snowdon, former member of this place; Ms Sue Middleton; and Ms Heather Neil has been formed to lead consultations and ensure that government can be provided with advice to inform our policy. The panel will engage all relevant stakeholders, including exporters, farmers, supply chain participants, trading partners, communities, animal welfare organisations, Indigenous Australians, state and territory governments, academics and other relevant parties.

The government's decision to phase out live sheep exports by sea is an election commitment, which we are meeting. Many people voted for us on the basis of that commitment, and it was endorsed by the Australian people at the ballot box. There remain significant concerns from parts of the Australian public around animal welfare and the welfare of sheep being exported, particularly by sea.

This government is making commitments to prioritising animal welfare. That's clear. It's clear in what I've discussed already today. We haven't had, frankly, any leadership on animal welfare for a very long time, and these amendments will enable this country, our community, our industries and our trading partners to take the necessary steps to ensure animal welfare is at the forefront of what we do as a country, as a government and as a nation and to ensure all animals are treated humanely. This bill is an important step in ensuring we can monitor, investigate and report on the implementation of animal welfare and live animal export legislation and standards related to the exports of livestock.

All of the oversight, all of the accountability and all of the transparency that will flow through will finally give us a more modern, sustainable and science based approach to animal welfare. A renewed strategy and the establishment of the inspector-general is a no-nonsense approach to helping Australia work towards its goal of strengthening animal welfare. It helps us as a nation get to that place that Mahatma Gandhi talked about, where we are a nation that is enlightened and is, to use the older term, civilised in the way that we treat animals, and that is a reflection on our character to as a people. I'm proud to be part of a government that is taking these steps and making these changes on live export and on phasing out the industry.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill, the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill, amends the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Act 2019 to give the inspecting office of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports expanded objectives and functions in relation to animal welfare in live exports. The inspector-general will be required to report any misconduct by a livestock export official and to publish a report on each review, a work plan for each financial year and an annual report—good.

This is a welcome step, but unfortunately it doesn't go far enough to achieve what is actually needed to eliminate animal cruelty in the live export industry or more broadly across Australia. The cruelty cannot be regulated out. I believe that the only thing that would actually stop that cruelty is ending that industry entirely. The Greens will move amendments in the Senate to strengthen this bill in relation to animal welfare. My colleague Senator Faruqi, who has been a tireless advocate in this area, will speak to those amendments in the other place.

What I am speaking to today in this place—what I want to say—is that fundamentally this bill is a missed opportunity to properly deal with the cultural cancer of institutionalised animal cruelty in our country. The expanded powers in this amended bill apply to live exports only, when we know that there are so many other areas of animal cruelty that the Labor government appears to have no plans to address. This bill doesn't cover the export of non-livestock animals, the welfare of kangaroos killed for commercial purposes, the trade of animal products or native wildlife management. This bill does nothing to stop public money being funnelled into the cruel and inhumane horse and greyhound racing industries. In fact, the Queensland Labor government is about to give $40 million of public money—our money; your money—to fund a new greyhound-racing track in Ipswich, not far from my electorate. That is $40 million of public money that could instead be spent on schools or hospitals or any other public good.

Every time a dog races in Queensland it has about a three per cent chance of being killed. The state government has no idea about what happens to retired greyhounds and does nothing to stop them being euthanised instead of being adopted by a loving family. It is absolutely appalling, I believe, that this industry continues to be propped up by the Queensland Labor government and by every other state government in this country. It's not just greyhound racing, either. The horseracing industry also receives huge amounts of government funding. Of course, both of these industries also exploit vulnerable people, draining their purses through addictive gambling practices. Public money should be nowhere near these appalling and destructive industries. It is public money that could be going to schools and hospitals, as I said.

It's no wonder that state and federal Labor governments are so incredibly keen to pour money into these industries and not effectively regulate them to stop animal cruelty. It's well documented that the gambling and agriculture industries donate millions to both major parties, and it's not just cash donations. MPs, including the Minister for Communications, the member for Greenway, who is largely responsible for the regulation of the gambling industry at a federal level, have taken free event tickets from gambling company Tabcorp, including to the Melbourne Cup.

Labor needs to do so much better on animal welfare at both the state and federal levels. It needs to shut down these industries and provide a real plan for workers to retrain and transition to other sectors. Until it does, the blood of animal cruelty is on the hands of the federal and state Labor governments.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm no expert on animal husbandry, but, like my colleagues and my constituents, I am highly exercised on the topic of animal welfare. Far from being an activist agenda, the people who approach me in my community on this topic are ordinary Australians. They are studying or working. They may be raising children or, indeed, paying their taxes. All of these people are highly concerned about animal cruelty and animal welfare because they want to ensure that the animal products that they source are humanely delivered. They are also concerned around the social licence for the live animal export trade industry. I cannot lie that I, too, am fairly queasy about this industry. I have been a long-time supporter of Animals Australia.

I want to ensure that this industry continues to operate because it is commercially important for Australia. It amounts to $1.3 billion in trade, and that's nothing to be sniffed at. It certainly supports the lives of many people in the regions in particular. But I think it's really important that as a government and as a parliament we safeguard this industry with adequate controls. This was sorely tested back in 2018 around the AwassiExpress disaster, when that came to light. It was absolutely horrific. All of us have been touched by that. Certainly those images are seared onto our national psyche.

I'm proud to be part of a government that has committed to phasing out the live sheep export trade. I know there are many members of this parliament and in the community who want to see us go further. However, I think this is a really positive first step. This trade has been on the decline. It amounts to around $82 million of a much larger export trade. In March this year the government committed to installing an independent panel of experts to consult with industry and other stakeholders as to how this phase-out will occur, but we have indeed committed to that.

The amendments put forward are also welcome because they expand on our agenda on how to ensure the viability of this industry going forward by strengthening safeguards around animal welfare. Initially it's emphasised by the change of the name, with the insertion of the words 'animal welfare'. We go from calling it the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports to calling it the Inspector General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. There is an explicit name change with the insertion of 'animal welfare'. I think that's really important because language matters; it directs how we operate.

There are also additional objectives that are focused on animal welfare in the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 which are designed to monitor, investigate and report on how the Commonwealth implements improvements to animal welfare in the live export trade. We want to see and promote a culture of continuous improvement in the practice and performance of the live export trade and provide an additional layer of accountability over the regulation of the live export trade. We want to ensure that animal welfare is explicitly taken into account by live export officials. All of these amendments are incorporated in this bill.

For the first time, the inspector-general will provide independent oversight specific to animal welfare. The focus will be on strengthening activities, systems, standards and reporting to help us achieve positive animal welfare outcomes. The bill requires the inspector-general to prepare and publish an annual work plan for each financial year including the details and the timing of the review's priorities and outcomes relating to this program of work. This work will be published on the website for all to see, so there is a degree of transparency there. It will also enable industry and stakeholders to plan ahead. The independence of the inspector-general will be put beyond doubt with this bill. Certainly the inspector-general will be operating at arms length from the government and the minister of the day. The minister can, however, direct the inspector-general to focus on particular areas of concern, and that will continue.

I'm pleased to see that we are advancing the agenda around strengthening safeguards around animal cruelty because, ultimately, this speaks to our core values as Australians. We are nature lovers and we care deeply about not only each other but also the natural world and the animals encompassed in that world, but we want to ensure that the viability of this industry is protected going forward. It's important that this industry meets community expectations, because it's those community expectations that provide the social licence for this industry to operate. It is important that we maintain our clean, green agricultural credentials going forward because this is, in addition, a huge value-add to our nation. I commend this bill to the House.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

LESPIE () (): The Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 represents a significant change in the role of the federal Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports. It was established under the last coalition administration as a response to the Moss report. What is proposed in this legislation is not bracket creep; it's huge constitutional creep. It's taking over or inserting the Commonwealth regulator that looks after export of live animals into the animal welfare row that states already do.

Many of the initiatives that this bill purports to expand are already being done. Enabling monitoring; investigating and reporting on the implementation of animal welfare: these are already occurring. The Australian Standards for Export of Livestock currently includes monitoring and reporting requirements, as is promoting improvements in the development of that standard, the ASEL. They are already reviewed and updated regularly by the regulator.

It also says it's going to expand the effectiveness of Commonwealth administrative systems and the effectiveness of reporting relating to animal welfare and exports. The current inspector-general role does this already. Providing the office is independent and has complete discretion—hello, it is set up as a statutory body, independent from the government, already—and so on and so forth. It also expands the review powers and responsibilities of the Inspector-General into animal welfare obligations of state and territory governments. I wouldn't be surprised if the states appeal this legislation because the constitutional head of powers rests with the states.

I'm very concerned about a few other things. Some of the previous speakers talked about the live export trade as animal cruelty, as an existential problem. Australia has the best animal export industry in the world, second to none. We are feeding protein to nations, to the Middle East and to Asia, that can't grow enough animals to feed their nations. It would be a tragedy if this industry was to shut down by being regulated to extinction. Some of the earlier speakers are against the racehorse industry, the greyhound industry, and they claim they want to shut down these industries. My goodness! The facts of the matter are that we have a very well-regulated system, from the yards through to the export abattoirs and on to the live export ships. They have vets on board. They're monitored.

Live exports have the lowest mortality rates ever. In 2021, live cattle exports had a mortality rate of 0.08 per cent. If you're running a big grazing herd, you will probably have that same mortality in the paddock, for goodness sake. And it's even lower—in 2020, it was 0.006 per cent of animals sent to export had concerns raised about their welfare. If you look at a couple of thousand sheep on a sheep farm, you will have much more than that. Natural damage, roaming the paddocks out in 40-degree heat or in minus 10-degree winters—these things happen in the paddock. I don't know any other country, like those in Africa that export up to the Middle East, that put a vet on board the boat, that have temperature control on the boat because of the expose of all the stuff that happened about five or six years ago.

On constitutional grounds, this is total overreach. We have a good regulatory system. There is obviously so much more to the agenda in trying to shut down a legitimate trade which our trade neighbours rely on for their food and which provides income and industry for Australians—farmers and graziers—who look after their animals well. The reality of life is, if you're going to have lamb chops, there has to be an abattoir to put down animals. It has been since civilisation that man has relied on sheep and cattle meat for our survival and for food. If people don't want to eat it, no-one is making them, but it is a genuine thing.

It's history repeating itself. This will have a huge knock-on effect on the sheep industry across Australia if the live export trade is shut down by overregulation, because all those thousands of sheep that go to export will then flood the market—hey presto—which is exactly what happened in 2011. It is salt in the wounds of the National Farmers Federation and the people that claimed compensation for shutting down the live cattle trade back in 2011 to see it happen all over again in slow motion. Many people's businesses will be ruined because the price they receive for their stock will drop precipitously. In Senate estimates last week, it was revealed that the government offered $250 million to the whole industry, which had billions wiped out just by administrative edict back in 2011. Now they've been given less than one month to accept the small—much lower than what they claimed—settlement of only $215 million, when the industry lost billions and people in the eastern states and the southern states had the price of their cattle drop precipitously. It is really important that people realise you're dealing with the animals—we have a safe system—but you're also dealing with people's lives, industries and incomes. So I cannot support this bill.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all the members who have made contributions on this bill. I know they come from a place of goodwill, generally, and in terms of the experiences that you have in your own electorates. Obviously, we're disappointed in the decision of the opposition not to support the bill, but we will proceed nevertheless.

The Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 expands the current office of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports to provide enhanced focus on animal welfare in exported livestock. The bill amends the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Act 2019 to include additional animal welfare related objects and functions. The additional objects and functions will help to increase oversight, accountability and transparency for animal welfare in exported livestock. The bill also provides for independence of the inspector-general and provides a legislative basis for the inspector-general to operate independently, impartially and transparently.

The bill provides that the inspector-general will be directly focused on the Commonwealth's regulation of live stock exports, not industry. It will also not have any impact on state and territory regulation or domestic animal welfare. There is no interaction with state or territory animal welfare laws in this bill. Together, the expanded role will increase accountability for and transparency of animal welfare in exported livestock.

The bill complements other measures that this government is taking to strengthen animal welfare, including our commitment to provide $5 million to develop a renewed Australian Animal Welfare Strategy to deliver on the government's election commitment to update and enhance our national approach to animal welfare. The measures in the bill will deliver one important part of the Australian government's commitment to strengthening animal welfare. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.