Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying earlier, my contribution at the hearing included a letter from Wesley and Louise Hagboom from Dowerin, which eloquently detailed the impact this ban will have on their farming business and the broader community. The turnout at the hearing was incredible, with almost 2,000 people coming along to support the Keep the Sheep campaign. Cars stretched for multiple kilometres down the road from the Muresk Institute, such is the passion to defend this industry and regional Western Australia.

I appreciate that some Labor members on the committee were able to hear directly from concerned stakeholders and community members. But I do struggle to believe that it would be impossible for them not to be moved by the powerful testimonies of those who were able to speak directly to the committee. Former senator and veterinary surgeon, Chris Back, made a great point during his submission: that this decision to ban the live sheep trade for the minister was an issue of mind over matter. The minister's approach has been, 'I don't mind, and you don't matter'. I think that sums up the issues pretty well.

Another important point is the inevitable toll this legislation will have on the mental health of farmers and the broader community. The $107 million transition package announced by this government acknowledges the seriousness of the mental health fallout this bill will have on members of WA rural and regional communities. Unfortunately, I believe the impact is well underestimated. I do not believe any amount of counselling can ameliorate the damage being done en masse to each and every member of the supply chain, their forebears and their future generations. They will not only see their livelihoods ruined but also their reputations sullied, leaving them pigeonholed as animal abusers by an animal welfare lobby hell-bent on ending all livestock production and transportation. As stated by the WoolProducers CEO, Jo Hall:

The mental health impacts of the decision to ban live exports cannot be overstated. As a cohort, primary producers are already overrepresented in suicide rates as compared to the general public, a responsible government should be developing policies to reduce this incidence, not making decisions that add further stress.

The announcement of this ban only adds to the pain farmers are currently suffering due to severe decline in the price of sheep, Labor's cost-of-living crisis and a period of drought.

I'll conclude by reaffirming that the coalition's commitment to the future of Australian agriculture is iron-clad. I will not be supporting this disgraceful and cruel bill. I'm proud to say that we are united on this side of the House. The Liberal Party stands in solidarity with Australian farmers and the agriculture sector in strongly condemning and opposing Labor's destructive policy to shut down live sheep exports. We are committed to upholding the highest standards of animal health and welfare while supporting a lawful and sustainable live export trade. If this bill is passed by the House and Senate, when we are elected to government—in not such a long period of time—we will introduce legislation to reinstate the live sheep export industry. Given the constant attacks on regional Australia, I can only hope that this will occur sooner rather than later.

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

I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. Over the years, for too long now, we've heard in this place, and we've seen many images on TV news reports et cetera, that live sheep exports have raised serious ethical concerns. That's why this government promised at the last election to phase them out. We will fulfil that promise, and that is what this bill is about. We said so, and we're now taking action to do so. It's time to move away from this very outdated practice and focus on creating more value, right here in Australia.

There is a demand for boxed or frozen meat; there's a big demand, worldwide. We are growing our exports in frozen meat, sending it all over the world, and this will create more jobs and value-add to a particular product that we export. As I said, it's time to move away from the outdated practice and focus on creating more value and creating jobs right here in Australia.

You don't have to look far back in my home state of South Australia; we had the Gepps Cross meatworks, where thousands of people were employed. They shut down back in the nineties, when there was a move to export live overseas, losing thousands of jobs. We can recreate those jobs right here at home in Australia over the next few years. We've consulted extensively with farmers, industry experts and the community to ensure that we get this transition right—that we get it right for the farmers, right for rural areas and right for the economy. It's about ensuring a fair go for everyone involved.

Change is never easy, we know that, but we're backing it up with a $107 million support package to support people in the industry. This funding is crucial for helping those farmers and others in the supply chain to adjust to those new opportunities that exist. As I said, this funding is absolutely crucial. As a government, we've taken the time to get this right, and we know that farmers and other industry participants need time to prepare for the pathway forward. This approach strikes the right balance, based on extensive industry and community consultation. The government's $107 million package and plan support the sheep industry to seize the opportunity for more onshore processing. This means more local jobs and value-adding to a product, helping the economy right here at home and creating jobs.

We're determined to build a strong and sustainable future for the Australian wool and sheepmeat industry, and we want that future to be right here in Australia. I'll give an example. Currently, we're exporting live sheep to Kuwait, which has one of the largest abattoirs in the world. They then slaughter the sheep and export to the entire Middle East and other countries. They're value-adding to our product and making money out of it, which is benefiting their economy. We could do that right here in our own country. We can do that right here, providing jobs and value-adding to the product. We want the future to be here in Australia, and we're giving certainty to sheep producers and to the supply chain by legislating a date and providing a well-planned, collaborative transition away from this trade.

The live sheep export industry has been in decline. It has actually been in decline for many years—down from $415 million in 2002-03 to $77 million in 2022-23. But processed sheepmeat, both here and overseas, has been in high and increasing demand. Every contributor to this industry has been taken into account—and we will continue to do so—from farmer and truck drivers to shearers and processors. That's because we are committed to ensuring, as I said earlier, that no-one is to be left behind. Australians overwhelmingly support ending live exports because they expect the highest standard for our animals and for animal welfare. And by managing this phase-out thoughtfully, more opportunities for work and economic growth will remain here in Australia: that's our goal. This isn't just about meeting expectations; this is about leading with integrity as well. This is progress. This is about creating jobs and ensuring that the cruel live sheep exports are ended. As I said, this isn't just about meeting expectations; it's about leading with integrity.

To those who stand opposite and oppose this, I'd ask them to take a moment to think about the opportunities that this transition will have for all of our constituents, in rural areas and in the cities, and to work to ensure that every Australian is looked after and heard in every electorate. I know every electorate is diverse, with varying views, opinions and concerns. I ask that they consider the industry and those directly affected and listen to the voices urging us to act on this phase-out.

We can do better; we should have done better many years ago; and we will do better. What I'm saying is: let's work together to get this phase-out right for the farmers, for the regional areas and for the entire population of Australia by value-adding to a product, by creating jobs and by exporting, in a humane way, boxed meat or frozen meat, which there is a growing demand for. I support this bill, and I know that it will build a better future right here in Australia, value-adding to our product.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a great deal of respect for the member who spoke previously, but I will make this point: he's a city expert on a regional issue. That's what I'd say. With all due respect to the previous speaker, this bill—I say this on a lot of bills that we're debating at the moment. with what the government are bringing forward—is showing a city-elite attitude versus a regional or rural attitude. What this bill is all about is city elites saying to country people either (1) we don't like what you do or (2) we don't like how you do it. This is another example. It's getting quite depressing. I'm sure the elite teals would feel the same and the inner-city Greens would feel the same, and, obviously, we're seeing the same thing from the inner-city Labor people. They know best! They know what country people should do. They know what farmers should or shouldn't do. How do they know that? They know that from a TV program.

About 10 or 15 years ago we saw when this first started. This ideological obsession they have started from a Four Corners program that ran a negative thing on live exports. We saw within a few days that the then Labor agriculture minister shut that industry down. It caused great distress to the farming community here and, let's not forget, it caused great international relations problems too, with us and our trading neighbours.

There's a term that's become a little bit infamous, if you like, in Australian politics. It was tweeted—or now x-ed, if you like—by a left-wing journalist, who accused a previous prime minister, a Liberal prime minister, of 'ideological bastardry'. That was the term that she used in relation to what he was doing. I can tell you right now that this Labor Party bill is ideological bastardry. I don't think you'll see that journalist tweet that about anything that the Labor government does or that the Greens talk about, because that suits her ideology. But, obviously, things that the other side of politics did didn't suit her ideology. You'll never hear that term—ideological bastardry—come from her about what this Labor government does, but that is exactly what this policy is.

All industries reform and all industries, hopefully, get better over time. There have been—and I've heard a couple of speakers on the other side talk about this—instances where what happened on some of these ships and boats was not okay. The industry admits that. They've reformed and they've got better. We are a world leader in animal welfare with live exports. We have become a world leader. We should be proud. We are proud, on this side of the chamber, about what our farmers do, how they've reformed and how they've got better at what they do. They do that across everything.

But from the elite teal people and the elite greenies to this side—no. They have an ideological obsession—'ideological bastardry', as Laura Tingle used it—about what we do, about what our farmers do and about what we do in the country. I could go on about a whole lot of other industries that they have this on, but I won't. This is another example.

We have said very clearly on this side of the chamber that, if we win the next election, we will reverse this decision. I went to a meeting near where the member for Forrest lives—not in your electorate, Member for Forrest, but in Katanning, a big sheep-producing area in WA. They were sitting there, about 300 or 400 of them, going, 'Look, maybe if somehow we could move the wharf or the export terminal from where the live sheep get exported from out of Perth, maybe if we moved it to a different area'—that would be an issue—'maybe that would change their minds and they'd be more accepting of it.' I said to them, 'Look, unfortunately, it doesn't matter where you do this. It doesn't matter where the terminal is; they hate you. They hate what you do and they do not want you to do what you do. You could have this in a terminal 100 kilometres down the road and they will close you down because they don't respect what you do and don't respect who you are because of what you do.'

As we said, we will reverse this. I know the member for Parkes spoke earlier—a great farmer himself. One of the things he raised was animals give you really good feedback if they are being well looked after. Because of the reforms in the industry, what happens when sheep go on to these live export ships is they put on weight. I'm a far more modest farmer than the member for Parkes. I know my cows, calves, when they are happy, they put on weight. If they have enough feed, they are content and they will put on weight. That is the experience of these live export ships. But do these people want to hear that? No. Because it doesn't matter what the industry does. They want to shut it down because they know best. They know best from social media or media stories. It is unacceptable. I would like to challenge if any of them have been to a live export ship. I have. I have had a look. I would like to challenge them: Who has? Who has gone out? Who's gone and spoken the Western Australian sheep farmers and asked them, eye to eye, 'Why do you think what you do is okay? Why do you think you should continue what you're doing rather than take your news from a left-wing media source?' That, again, is one of the problems we are having here.

I want to go through some of the amazing reforms that have happened within the industry. They don't do live export all year round. It was decided that, in the really hot Northern Hemisphere summer, we wouldn't export at that time because it is less comfortable. There was improved ventilation, there was automated environmental monitoring, there were independent government observers on decks, there was a system called Live Ex to ensure consistent data was being collected, there were selection criteria at farm level to make sure sheep were more suitable, lower penning numbers and a whole lot of other stuff. But they don't care. They're not interested in the reviews. The review was half-hearted.

The other thing I want to end on is what this does to our international relations. In the Middle East, we are looking to do a comprehensive agreement with the UAE. We live export now to the Middle East and to Indonesia too, a country close to us that we export beef to. What are we saying to those countries when we say, 'We are not going to do this anymore.'? We are saying to them, 'What you do is not okay.' This is causing international issues. Again, what the inner city elites are saying is they know best, not only about what we think on this side of the chamber but what should happen around the world. That is unacceptable.

What is the perverse outcome of this legislation? This is the perverse outcome: if you want good animal welfare standards, you have just made them worse because this industry isn't going to disappear. There are countries, for cultural reasons and for other reasons, who demand and want to process their own beef or their own red meat. They demand that and that industry will stay. So what's going to happen? There will be countries who step in to fill this void who have worse animal welfare standards. If you are going to be completely altruistic about this, what would you say? You would say, 'We should stay in the industry because we are improving the animal welfare standards worldwide because we're the best at it.' When we remove ourselves from this, when these bastardry ideologues opposite remove us from this, what will this do? It will mean the animal welfare standards around the world fall. So what will that mean for the animals involved? It will mean they have worse welfare than they currently do.

That's the hypocrisy of those opposite; they are not interested in what is actually a good outcome, or in what is a good outcome for the farmers, or in what is a good outcome for our exports, or in what is a good outcome for our trading partners, or even in looking to continually improve the industry. They are interested in their ideology of satisfying the left-wing, inner-city, entitled groups of who they are. I felt a lot of empathy for the farmers I spoke to in WA a month or two ago. It was clear that the writing was on the wall that the Labor Party was never going to listen to them, no matter what they did, said, changed or improved. The government were never going to listen to any of that because they'd made up their minds with their own ideology.

It is a very sad day for the farmers, their families and a lot of the communities. This is a big industry in some of these communities, and the sole industry in some of these communities. The supply chains they have, the carters, the truck drivers, a lot of the industries around that support them—again, this is Labor, for ideology, killing off an industry. It's going to have a detrimental effect which will be felt and already has been felt; other people have raised this issue. When you can't export something, when you have all these animals that were going to be live exports staying onshore, it floods our market. We don't have the processing capacity. They go, 'We should be value-adding and selling them ourselves offshore.' We do that, and we satisfy that demand. This is a market that exists because they want live exports. I know the member for Parkes said this when he spoke: the stock stays onshore, and the stock floods markets over in the eastern states and everywhere else around the country. What does that do? That makes really low prices for people's sheep. What will that do? That'll hurt every sheep farmer in the country because we're going to have oversupply and we're not going to have the processing capacity—and we don't have the processing capacity—to process these sheep.

The government don't care. They talk about this compensation package which does nothing for the people involved and won't help them in any meaningful way. It is very disappointing to be up here again talking about how this country is now divided between inner-city elites—the teal elites, the Green elites and the inner-city Labor Party elites. It is to the detriment of the good people of Australia, especially regional and rural Australia—good, hardworking people who want to earn a living and generate jobs and wealth for this country. This industry is doing that. The government are doing this simply to keep Four Corners and the people who watch it happy.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. There are many issues that the people of Macnamara deeply care about, and this has been one where they have advocated for a long, long time. For multiple elections the Labor Party has committed to ending the export of live sheep because of too many incidents of animal cruelty on the way to a very long and hot journey across the world for our sheep. I've been contacted about this on countless occasions by people in my community, and they have expressed to me their concern of animal welfare standards on those long and hot journeys of our sheep. This has been something that should come as no surprise to those opposite. This should come as no surprise to those interjecting; we have taken this policy to successive elections because, time after time, industry have been given the opportunity to clean up their act and have failed to do so.

When I was first elected in 2019 I started a petition against live sheep exports to take with me to Canberra. It was signed by hundreds of members in my community. Despite numerous reviews and reforms and even private member's bills from those opposite—I remember that the then member for Corangamite, now a senator for Victoria, Senator Henderson, and even the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Farrer, both had a private member's bill looking to phase out live sheep exports after those countless times sheep were facing the most awful of circumstances on these hot journeys overseas. Even the Liberal Party members themselves were putting forward bills to phase this out. Instead of sticking with their convictions and sticking with those policies, the now senator and the now Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party were both promoted to the cabinet and—very surprisingly!—dropped their own bill. They dropped their own bill because their own promotion was apparently more of a priority for them. There have been numerous reviews and reforms, but my community still holds the same view, that this needs to end and this bill will provide an end date.

I recently met over 30 locals who came and made it clear that they wanted to see us follow through on our commitment. I went outside my office and I spoke to each and every one of them. They were polite, they were passionate, and they were advocating in the way in which politics should be conducted. I was very pleased to go and speak to them. I committed to them on that day outside my office that I would come in here, into this place, and advocate for an end date to be legislated and I would advocate for us to follow through on our commitment that we made at the election. I'm pleased to say that this bill does exactly that. On 1 May 2028, this bill will legislate the end to live sheep exports. It gives people time but also sets a clear date that will bring this practice to an end. For the past two elections, we've committed to this. It matters to not only people in my electorate but people right across the country.

Despite those opposite putting on crocodile tears right now, the decision is based on the best of expert advice. The reality is that, despite reforms and despite small improvements to the treatment of sheep during export, the live sheep export trade is simply not acceptable. An analysis of the trade led by the RSPCA scientists revealed that between 2018 and 2023 activities inconsistent with the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock, which they like to champion, were noted in 70 per cent of all reports. In 70 per cent of all reports, the RSPCA found that we weren't meeting up to the standards of animal welfare that those opposite like to talk about. That simply isn't acceptable. Sheep were loaded with obstruction to access to food and water onto ships. Sheep with wool length greater than 25 millimetres, leading to a higher risk of heat stress, were also loaded on. Over 60 per cent of voyages since 2018 have reported heat stress in the sheep. The RSPCA said this.

The science supporting this position is clear and irrefutable … years of this scientific evidence that prove that sheep undoubtedly suffer in live export, both on the lengthy sea voyages and in the country of destination …

Just earlier this year, more than 14,000 animals were subjected to a 34-day journey from Australia to the Middle East, and this journey was in addition to the prior 38 days at sea these animals were subjected to before being offloaded back in Australia in February to stand waiting for several weeks before departing again in March. That was the single longest journey for animals in our history.

Let's make a few facts clear. Australia is one of the largest exporters of sheep meat and wool, yet live sheep exports are only one per cent of Australia's sheep industry and exports are 0.1 per cent of Australia's agricultural production. The trade itself has declined 90 per cent from 2001-02 all the way to 2022-23. That's a 90 per cent decline. This industry is shrinking, and it is continuing to shrink. Seventy-one per cent of Western Australians support the phase-out, including 69 per cent in rural and regional parts of the state. National polling in 2022 placed support for the phase-out of live sheep exports at 78 per cent. Of the 13,000 submissions and correspondence received by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, over 85 per cent expressed support for the bill.

Our agricultural trade is a vital part of Australian industry. There is no doubt about that. But the reality is that we must do things in the Australian way, in the humane way, and we must exercise our humanity when we are conducting our business. The live sheep export simply cannot provide that and cannot comply with that. That is what we have committed to on successive elections. It should come as no surprise to those opposite. As I said at the start of these remarks, even the Liberal Party themselves, even the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party herself, thought that it was time to phase out live sheep exports. That's why she introduced a private member's bill. But, like what often happens with those opposite, they say a lot and then, when push comes to shove, aren't willing to follow through on what they apparently stand for.

But we will do what's right, while ensuring the jobs and livelihoods that are impacted are supported with that process. We have given time to be able to support those who are no doubt facing a difficult time in this transition. I take no joy in knowing that there will be people impacted by this—we don't shy away from that—but it does mean the end to a practice that, frankly, has been unacceptable for too long. There have been too many awful instances of animal cruelty. That will come to an end. We will transition away from live sheep exports, and there can be other things that are taken advantage of. We will do this through an orderly transition.

The Australian people have made it clear that they expect the government to uphold standards of welfare. We don't need the live sheep export trade. It's been shrinking. It has had too many chances to repair itself and it has not done that. This bill will bring an end to live sheep export. It is an important reform—one that we have committed to for the last two elections—and the Labor government, just as we said we would, is introducing this bill.

When I was first campaigning in 2019 I was proud to be a part of a party that committed to ending live sheep export, and now I'm proud to be part of a government that is doing just that.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who'd have thought we'd be back here debating this again after the disaster of the live cattle export cancellation by the previous Labor government? But, now, here we find ourselves, where this Labor government is effectively cancelling the live sheep export from Western Australia.

I did some research and I've looked around. The issue has been around for some time. I looked at the Saturday edition of the West Australian from 7 May 2022. The headline was: 'An Albo backflip or more fake ewes?'—spelt e-w-e-s—'Senior ALP MPs forced to clarify live sheep ban'. As I'm sure you're aware—

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

Member for Hinkler, even if you are going to use props, which is not okay, when you're referring to members of parliament, you must use their correct titles. Quoting doesn't get you out of that.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I read it straight off the page, Madam Deputy Speaker.

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

Quoting is not a good excuse to offend the standing orders.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The now prime minister, Mr Albanese: a backflip or more fake ewes? Whilst that's a snappy headline, it's terrifying, terrible and disastrous for the people involved in the trade. It is an absolute debacle for them because they're at risk. They have mortgages. They have bills to pay. They rely on this for an income.

As I said, I went to inform myself. I don't have a lot of sheep locally—in fact, I doubt there are more than a handful. But I had over 500 contacts the last time this issue reared its head in previous parliaments. I attended a live export loading with the member for Petrie and others back in 2019. I think the member for Forrest was there as well. Mia Davies, a current MLA in the WA state parliament, posted on Facebook at the time:

We were invited by Emanuel's, WA Livestock Exporters Association and Sheep Producers Australia to join MPs from across Party lines to view the loading of a live export ship at Fremantle Port. Dr Holly Ludeman led the tour, and representatives from the exporter, ship and industry were on-hand to answer any questions—

which they did—

… in relation to the supply chain from our paddocks to the final destination for these sheep in Kuwait.

The Nationals WA condemn any behaviour that incentivises putting livestock's welfare at risk for financial gain—the allegations that emerged yesterday must be investigated.

The overwhelming majority of Australians have no direct involvement in our food supply chain; they simply don't. They don't really understand what it takes to produce the protein that they rely on, how it is delivered to them or what arrangements must be made. But, coming from a regional area and knowing people like the member for Forrest, they love their animals. They don't want to see losses, because losses cost money. No-one wants to lose any of their product, whether it's part of a dairy herd, a single sheep or a single lamb. But every single day in this country there are stock losses, whether it's from an accidental death, a fall, wild dogs, a snake bite, illness, sickness, getting caught in a fence or drowning. This is the reality of agricultural life. For the producers who are putting protein on our table, unfortunately this is a regular event. But the idea that they would stock a ship knowing there'd be enormous losses and afterwards a direct impact on potential profits is just false. It is wrong. They won't do that; it's not in their interest. It's not in the interest of them, their industry, our nation's reputation, the supplier and the buyer. All the people who are in that supply chain are now going to be effectively unemployed because this Labor government has made the decision that they just don't like the industry. That's the reality. There's nothing else about it; they just don't like it. Sure, they've made some other commitments as a government, but when you have even WA Premier Roger Cook reported as stating the federal government's $107 million transition support package for the industry is just not good enough—a Labor Premier—surely you would listen to the Premier in the state where the actual impact is on the industry.

If we look at the supply chain—agents, saleyards, shearers, transporters, feed growers, millers, live exporters, Australian government regulators, vets, all the technical science and support, the people involved at the other end—every single one of them rely on this industry to pay their bills, to pay their mortgage, to feed their family, to clothe their children, to educate them, to give them an opportunity. They've taken enormous risks because they've invested in an industry they support, an industry which is actually legitimate, has been around for a long time and fills a need in the world's demand for protein in countries where there's basically no refrigeration. How else do you do this? As many before me have pointed out, if they are not supplying sheep from our country with our standards, they'll come from somewhere else. Animal welfare is not on the list of things those other nations are interested in; it is simply volume and value. Every single individual involved in this trade in Western Australia will have an enormous detrimental impact from this decision by the federal government. Imagine showing up in two months and you can't pay your mortgage, because the federal government put you out of business with a decision which is simply about what they believe. It's not about science, the facts or the impacts. It's not about the fact that they're feeding the world and are part of a very important supply chain out of WA; it's just that the federal government don't like them.

There are lots of other things around. We have seen accusations and allegations from the Animal Justice Party in what I'd have to say is just a disgraceful chapter if it's true. According to the Animal Justice Party, 11 May 2024:

We are proud that the AJP could deliver the knockout blow by demanding the end of live sheep export as a requirement for our preferences at the Dunkley By-election in March. Ongoing conversations behind-the-scenes between AJP and Labor leadership has helped to finetune government policy.

What an incredible statement. Every single one of those Australians who are invested in this trade have been sold down the river, if this is true, by allegations that this is about a preference deal. If this is the case, my question is: what's next? Who's next? Which industry is on the chopping block because a deal needs to be done? If we look at the opportunities, I'm sure Animal Justice has had plenty to say about some of these sorts of things. I'm quite confident they don't support jumps racing; in fact I'm very confident. Is that the next deal necessary in a by-election or a federal election—the jumps? Are they out there; are they done? What about the dogs, the greyhounds?

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

Horseracing.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are lots of people involved in the horse industry, as the member for Forrest says. What about the Melbourne Cup? We've seen lots of protest from Animal Justice and others about the Melbourne Cup, something that puts literally half a billion dollars into the Victorian economy. Are they next? Is that the next opportunity? Are they the ones that will be sold down the river to do a deal like this? I can understand the outright anger—it is not frustration anymore—from the producers in Western Australia. They are furious, they are white-hot angry and they should be, because they have been absolutely sold out. Can you imagine any individual in this place losing the ability to pay their mortgage, educate their children and make their own way in this world, because someone, somewhere, decided they didn't like their industry for some particular reason and, potentially, a deal was done and they were out of business? We make tough decisions here all the time, but this one is absolutely unnecessary. We have the highest welfare standards in the world, bar none. Why shouldn't this industry be allowed to continue what they've been doing? Where there were changes necessary, they have made them. They have invested. They have taken risks. They have borrowed. They have employed. They have paid taxes. They are entitled to exist.

What is the next industry that's going to get rolled? We have members in here who are absolutely against the gambling sector. They don't like pokies, for example. Is that next, if a deal is necessary to form government—maybe if there's a minority government? Is that next? Is that industry going to be wiped out as well? The idea that any federal government, a government of Australia, would shut down an industry like this simply because they just don't like it, I find just appalling. So I 100 per cent support the 'Keep the Sheep' program that they're running in Western Australia. Their anger will continue to grow. The closer they get to losing their businesses, the worse this will be.

And imagine the damage it does to our international reputation—the reputation of this country as a reliable supplier—one that held us in incredibly good stead throughout the COVID period, whether in resources, or in agriculture or anything else that we exported. People come to this country because they know Australia can be relied on: when they put in an order, we deliver. And in the midst of one of the most difficult periods of time, this country continued to delivered. We kept the lights on in Japan, South Korea and everywhere else. We kept food flowing to the world, including live sheep, because we can be relied on. Yet now we have statements from the Japanese ambassador, for example, that there is sovereign risk in this nation, and these types of decisions back up exactly what the ambassador from Japan has said. We rely on trade; trade is an enormous part of this nation, its economy and its ability to employ people in this country, and we must continue to protect it—not destroy it. So I want to congratulate the members for O'Connor, Durack and Forrest, the WA Nats, the WA Libs and the WA Labor Party, who also oppose this and who also say it's not right because it directly impacts the people in their state and that it is absolutely unnecessary.

I ask again of the House: what is next? Which industry is it that will upset Labor's sensibilities? Which industry is it that will be sent down the river because they need a deal on preferences to win? We all know statements from the Hon. Graham Richardson, the former member of the other place, in Whatever It TakesI get all that. But 'whatever it takes' shouldn't be at the cost of an Australian's livelihood in an industry which has been in place for a long time and which fills a need and a demand. It's an industry that's necessary because of the circumstances. We don't live in a world that is made up of fluffy clouds and unicorns running around providing layers of gold for every individual. In the world of reality, particularly if you're an agricultural producer, you get stock losses. You do! It doesn't matter if you're in livestock or you're in horticulture, you get damage and you get loss. It is part of the risk of farming. But, in this industry, they've done everything they possibly could to reduce that risk. Will there be incidents? Of course there will be incidents. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of heads of sheep. It doesn't take very much for one of them to fall over, to break a leg. It happens. But we have to accept that if we want to provide protein to the world, particularly in places where there is no refrigeration and no refrigerated logistical transport then live export is what there is.

I'll come back to where I started: is the cattle trade next? If you're in the Northern Territory, if you're in the Far North or if you're in Queensland and you rely on what is a very import of trade for that area of the country, are you at risk? I think the answer is: absolutely you are under this federal government, because they've done it before. Overnight, they closed down live cattle.

We've all read the media reports on the costs—which are significant and yet to be paid, if I recall correctly—and the impact they had on Australia's reputation. These are live animals. Regardless of what the federal parliament decides, they continue to grow. They continue to move outside the bracket of where it works for them to be exported. They continue to produce wool. They continue to do a whole pile of things. Ultimately, the result of this policy in Western Australia will be hundreds of thousands of head of sheep that have to be destroyed because they are valueless and cannot be fed. They will end up in a hole in the ground, and there will be more heartbroken farmers, because they established an industry, they took the risks that were necessary, and they did everything right apart from causing an upset to this federal Labor government.

I say again to the ministers involved: you don't need to do this. Listen to all the individuals that keep the sheep. Listen to your WA counterparts. Listen to the ones who are directly impacted, because it is they who pay the price. It is not individuals like the member for Macnamara, and I heard his speech just before. If you live in an inner-city seat, you don't see most of this. Some of them will come from regional areas, but they don't live in the world of reality. The reality is that these things take effort and risk. You take the risk, you want the reward. Every single person involved in this supply chain deserves the respect of every individual in this country, because they are providing food for this nation and food for other nations. They are ensuring that we do not have further sovereign risk and further reduction in agricultural production in this nation. I oppose this bill absolutely and wholeheartedly.

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. This bill is an incredibly important milestone for our parliament's commitment to animal welfare. When I was first elected in 2019, live sheep exports quickly became one of the issues that constituents were contacting me about more than many other issues. Many hundreds of my constituents emailed me to express their outrage after a whistleblower made public footage of a voyage to the Middle East. More than 2,000 sheep died on that vessel. The video showed sheep crammed into dirty pens, panting from heat stress and leaping over one another to access food. Carcasses piled up, with some thrown overboard. Newborn lambs were caught up in the carnage despite laws meant to prevent pregnant ewes onboard.

Ending the practice of live sheep exports remains one of the key issues that Canberrans raise with me, and I want to thank them for their ongoing advocacy. I also want to thank the many members of the Canberra community who got in touch to thank our government for this legislation. When we were in opposition, in my first term, I was pleased to raise this issue with the former minister for agriculture, the member for Maranoa, calling on him to follow the lead of New Zealand and put an end to live sheep exports. I was proud when, in opposition, we committed to getting that done in both the 2019 and 2022 elections. I was proud to write to our new minister for agriculture, Senator Watt, calling on our government to honour this commitment as well.

Today, with this bill, the government is honouring our commitment to end the live sheep export trade. As Benjamin Anderson, Madeline Stewart and Aiden Whitfield, three young people from my electorate, recently told me when they presented me with their petition on this issue, nothing justifies live exports. This bill will prohibit absolutely the export from Australia of live sheep by sea on and after 1 May 2028. This date reflects the recommendations of an independent panel. It provides certainty to farmers, supply chain businesses, the Australian community and trading partners. It will support a more successful transition to onshore value-adding through domestic processing.

Those opposite have claimed that this will end farming in Australia. We have heard many of those opposite talk about people representing city electorates like my own speaking in support of this and not understanding the industry. What I would say to that is that I have the deepest respect for farmers and people who work in agriculture, including many in my own family. I do appreciate the critical role that they hold in our economy and community, but this is about moving on from a particular part of this industry that I feel is not justified. This cruelty to the sheep that we see is not justified, and our government is working to support those farmers and communities through this.

Those opposite are also ignoring the fact that live sheep export industry has reduced by 90 per cent since 2001, from 6.5 million head of sheep then to 652,000 head of sheep today and ignoring the fact that live sheep exports by sea were worth only $77 million last year compared to the $4.5 billion in sheepmeat exports. Ending this trade will not be the hit to farmers that those opposite claim. This is an industry that is already on the decline.

This government is not just leaving those farmers who currently work in this industry to fend for themselves. We have put $107 million on the table to ensure an orderly and well-planned transition away from the trade. Knowing farmers in my own family, I know that farmers are adaptable—they have to be—to the conditions they face. They know when an industry is in decline and when something is no longer working. Support is on the table now so that the industry can start to plan so that those affected by the phase-out are well-positioned, resilient and ready when the trade ends in 2028.

In fact, ending the trade will ensure more sheep are processed here in Australia, employing more people through the supply chain. It means more people employed in Australian abattoirs, more Australians employed as butchers and so on, value adding to our economy and to our agricultural industries. And importantly, it means we will have full oversight and confidence that our high standards for animal welfare are adhered to. This is something that many of those opposite have in the past supported.

I want to draw attention to 2018, when the now deputy leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Farrer, introduced a private member's bill supported by Senator Henderson—the then member for Corangamite—the member for Leichhardt and the member for La Trobe. That private member's bill would have ended the live export trade then. The member for Farrer said at the time:

The case for continuing long haul live sheep exports fails on both economic animal welfare grounds. … The live sheep trade is in terminal decline … The litany of animal cruelty in the live sheep trade makes a mockery of the industry's "no fear no pain" mantra. … Unfortunately this is an industry with an operating model built on the suffering of animals.

In a joint media release with Senator Henderson, the member for Farrer also said:

Our personal conviction on this issue remains and we will continue to advocate for a change in Coalition policy and for a phase-out of this awful trade.

Unfortunately, the cruelty of this industry remains, and the only thing that has changed is the conviction of some of those members opposite, who have seemingly sacrificed those beliefs. I hope they will support this bill because this is an important step we are taking for the welfare of animals in this country. I am proud to be a member of a government that has followed through on its commitment to end the live sheep export trade. I have been pleased to hear from members of my community who have been supportive of this bill and I want to thank you again for your advocacy. I commend this bill to the House.

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

It will not be any surprise to anyone who knows I am a farmer that I strongly oppose this bill. I support WA's efforts to Keep the Sheep and I thank every farmer out there working their heart out. And don't forget: no farmers, no food. For goodness sake, Labor, for a change, how about listening to our hard-working common-sense farmers and not just elitist fanatics and activists? We know with this legislation that, if you are a farmer in Australia, Labor is coming for you and your right to farm in some form or another, because as farmers we know we just don't matter. No industry is safe when the government gets into bed with the latest outrage elite city based extremist, and certainly not agriculture.

Labor are literally biting the hand that feeds them. As a farmer, I know farmers might be only small in population and therefore don't matter to this government but we produce the most fabulous and critically nutritious food that supports and sustains all Australians and many overseas as well. Even worse, what we Western Australians absolutely know is that this is an East Coast Labor city elite-focused federal government, dictating to, as well as being prepared to sacrifice, WA Farmers and communities. They are pandering to people who literally don't like or don't approve of the work regional people do, in spite of the over $400 billion generated from regional and rural areas to help fund the very basic services that all Australians rely on. Labor doesn't have to care about us as farmers, primary producers or people who live or work in the regions. Those of us in ag and mining who kept Australia out of recession during the global financial crisis are those who, as I said, are right now paying for the services and supports Australians need through royalties, taxes and export revenues. We just don't matter to Labor. Labor doesn't give a damn and we are totally expendable; that's what we know.

Australia has the best farmers in the world who feed and clothe us. That excellence is front and centre in the live export trade. The industry introduced world-leading animal welfare reforms in 2019 in both transport and processing of sheep in the Middle East. In the live sheep export sector Australia is literally world and global gold standard. If we don't support our farmers there will be increases in food prices and losses of intergenerational and hardworking farming families who have quietly, efficiently and effectively sustained our nation. Who do you trust to produce your food? I hope it's an Australian farmer, because that's what we do well. It is going to have a devastating impact on those farmers that are affected.

We all need to protect our future food supplies. I'm asking you, if you're watching, to support our Australian farmers, because right now the Labor government is constantly choosing to support and empower radical, extreme activist fanatics instead of our farmers. If you're a Western Australian farmer you are directly at the mercy of eastern states Labor politicians, who simply want to put you out of business. None of us feel safe, no matter what we're farming. This is a shot across the bow for all of us as farmers. I've said before that I've never been as worried about the future of farmers in my 50 years in this industry as I am right now. We're seeing a deliberate and calculated Labor government approach to directly and indirectly get rid of more and more farmers, and more and more production animals, giving in to those elite city extremists. Make no mistake: Labor is coming after us, one sector at a time.

After this, that will mean more land is available for Labor's renewables only policies. The more farmers that are gone, the more land there is for endless wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines and our water. Labor is shutting down live sheep exports now, but in WA this effectively means that, in the southern part of the state, it's shutting down live cattle exports as well, because it's the sheep carriers that deliver WA's live cattle to markets. Seventy-five per cent of sheep ships out of WA have cattle on board. We know Animals Australia have said they're coming after live cattle exports next. Labor will say yes to this; they've done it before. And we know that if there is a minority government made up of Labor, the teals and the Greens, Labor will say yes to shutting down live cattle exports, simply continuing to destroy without any compunction the livelihoods of small communities, based on fanatical activist petitions. There are endless attacks on us as farmers, whether it's the biosecurity food tax levy or aggressive and anti-farming provisions in the nature positive bill—it goes on and on.

I actually felt quite sick when I saw the ag minister hold up Labor's document and there was almost a smirk on his face. That smirk said, 'We're putting farmers either at risk or out of business.' He is not only openly celebrating the end to an industry; that smile was about the impact this will have on small, rural and regional communities, and small family farming businesses mostly in WA. He doubled down on that with that contemptuous comment at his post-budget address, when farmers left in protest—just as well I didn't talk about it earlier in the speech. What contempt! We heard in this chamber today a terrible comment—that it's just crocodile tears from any of us objecting. Try being the crocodile tears when you're losing a third or more of your income overnight.

What utter contempt both he and Labor are showing for our farmers. We've even heard the Prime Minister making a joke about the end to live exports. Is it really a joke to directly cause harm to small regional communities? How disgusting to announce that the government is taking away farmers' livelihoods and then flippantly dismissing our reaction—what an indictment! Unlike Labor, I believe that the majority of Australians actually respect our farmers and value the wonderful, high-quality food that they put on their tables.

Equally, in Australia, livestock is an essential part of sustainable land management in WA. It is especially important in managing land that is not suitable for cropping, which in some areas is around 20 per cent of the land. It's because of our farmers that the majority of Australians, unless they've fallen on very hard personal circumstances, have never been hungry. The food is always on the shelves. Australians know that we farmers are working day and night, in all weathers, to get the job done and to put that beautiful food on the table for them and their children. But, without the help of Australians, we can't fight a Labor government that's hell-bent on putting us out of business, that's compromising our children's and grandchildren's futures in farming, and that's directly and deliberately undermining the sustainability of those small regional and remote local communities, small businesses and contractors—the truckies, stock agents, shearers, schools, vets, retailers, coffee shops, garages, mechanics, fuel suppliers, sporting clubs, and volunteer emergency services organisations in towns from York, Kojonup, Boyup Brook and Beverley right through to those more remote communities.

Each one of those businesses keeps their community going by buying from one another and supporting each other. The dollars circulate around a small community. We haven't got big communities to draw on. They support local community service and sporting organisations as well. Each one is interdependent and each one helps to make our community sustainable and survive. There is the farmer, the sheep or grain producer who buys locally—hardware, machinery, feed, super, food, groceries, tyres, mechanical services. If you haven't lived in our world, you don't understand how interdependent they are. Clearly Labor doesn't, and it does not care either.

There's the local livestock transport operator who buys locally. It's the same with the shearing contractor. In turn, each one of these small businesses buys from and supports each other and the family businesses in those local communities. Every time we lose one of those families it means fewer kids in our little local schools, reductions in teaching staff and maybe closures. So what happens to the few kids who are left? As those families leave the community, there are fewer parents to help out at the schools. The local pub closes, the local shops close, and communities shrink. It is brutal, but that's how it works. If you take a source of major income out of a small community, that is the result.

For those of us who live and work in regional or remote Australia, we know it firsthand. As my colleague the member for Durack said recently, the consequences of this legislation are not merely political. They are deeply personal and devastating to the livelihoods of hardworking Australians who rely on this industry. Please don't underestimate the industry. It underpins our farming systems and creates thousands of jobs, from the paddock to small local communities and the broader WA economy. Why on earth would Labor think it's a great idea to make these small regional communities less self-sustaining, less viable and less cohesive—or simply disappear altogether? It's death by a thousand cuts. That's how it works. It's gradual and it happens.

The ban won't create demand for chilled or boxed meat. It will simply push the live trade to countries with far lower—if any—animal welfare standards, because this is the product the market needs. As I said, the industry introduced world-leading animal welfare standards in both transport and processing.

I received a letter from Kurt and Kristen, who made it simple for me:

Our enterprise relies on our ability to be able to manage the highs & lows in the markets and the weather.

Australia is a harsh climate and the reason sheep have thrived in this state is because they are resilient and WA farmers are so professional and know how to manage them, no matter what is thrown at them!

We have the best sheep husbandry practices and to be told that we don't by people who have no interest and no part in the industry is a kick in the guts!

Those are her words. She said:

If the facts were presented and the powers that be wanted to listen, they would realise that we are world leaders in sheep husbandry, production and export, and removing this vital option for selling sheep will only result in the most terrible outcomes for the stock, and regional WA. The first thing being that countries with much worse animal welfare outcomes will come in and sell sheep where we have been, is it case of we don't care if we are not involved? Instead of setting the standard for sheep production and export, and making the world step up to where we are by leading the way.

She said to me:

The second thing will be that this is a giant nail in the coffin of regional WA. Our small towns survive on the people who are needed for all facets of farming sheep.

Not just the farmers, staff, their children, schools, shops, small businesses, medical facilities, volunteers, sporting groups, shire councils, stock agents, shearers, agronomists, grain merchants, the list goes on. The numbers will continue to decline in the communities the more that gets taken from us, when there are no people needed on farms to work with these sheep.

That came from Kurt and Kristen from Koorda in WA. These are the people that Labor is affecting by this decision. As I said, don't underestimate this industry and don't underestimate these people.

Overseas markets, both historic and new markets, want our livestock. They know that Australian farmers are producing high-quality livestock that meets their needs—and these sheep actually put on weight on on the voyage. Let me tell you, as someone who actually farms livestock, that animals don't put on weight if they're not really doing well. They just don't. For those in this place to say otherwise is just an absolutely false statement. The industry continues to deliver quality sheep and cattle, partly due to historic breeding improvements and the quality of our stock, along with the highest live export animal welfare standards in the world. That should say it all.

But I say to any farmers that are watching that I met a lot of you when I was at Wagin Woolorama, and I was very worried about what this is doing to you personally. I said to you, 'If you need mental health support because you're not doing well because of what Labor is doing to you, can you please get the help you need?' You don't have to be alone in this space, and I know the trauma that this is bringing you, because some of you were very personally direct with me about this. Please get the help you need, in spite of what Labor is putting you through.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese government support strong animal welfare standards, and we know Australians do too. For years now, Australians have called out the live sheep export trade, describing it as cruel and inhumane. This is especially true for locals in my electorate of Corangamite. Since the people of Corangamite elected me as their representative in the federal government, they've been writing to my office, calling the trade 'barbaric and disgusting'. Many of them added their signatures to last year's 40,000-strong petition calling for a phase-out of live sheep exports. Through this petition and the many that came before, Australians have told government they want the trade to end, and the Albanese Labor government has listened. Our party went to the last two elections committing to phase out live sheep exports, and now, in government, we are acting.

This bill, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, will prohibit the export of live sheep by sea from Australia. The trade will be completely phased out by May 2028. This date, and our approach, strikes the right balance. It is based on extensive support for the industry and community consultation. Our plan acknowledges that farmers and the supply chain need time to prepare, and we do acknowledge that farmers are at the centre of our food supply chain. We will support farmers, and that's why we're proposing a $107 million support plan for industry to transition to onshore processing. This will deliver more local jobs and a strong and sustainable future for the Australian sheep, wool and sheepmeat industry. Importantly, our supports will be available to help all parts of the sheep industry supply chain, from farmers to truckies to shearers and processors. These workers play an important role in rural economies, and our government wants to help these workers to thrive.

It should be said the industry has been in decline for many years, down from $415 million in turnover in 2002 to $77 million in 2023. This equates to less than 0.1 per cent of Australia's estimated agricultural production. At the same time the trade in chilled and frozen lamb and sheepmeat has grown by 369 per cent, with exports to North Africa and the Middle East region more than tripling in value over the last two decades. In 2022-23, chilled and frozen sheepmeat exports earned $1.5 billion compared to $85 million for live sheep exports in that same period. This is a huge difference, and it shows that much of this live sheep export trade has been replaced by a higher value, humane alternative that is already worth 58 times more to our economy—58 times.

Given the debate today, it's worth noting that this decline in live sheep exports occurred under the watch of the Liberals and the Nationals. Over the past 10 years, when the Liberals and Nationals were in government, live sheep exports decreased by $144 million and over 1.5 million sheep, yet they stand here today claiming they back the farmers. It was on their watch that the industry declined, and not a cent of government support was provided to facilitate a transition that has been underway for the best part of 20 years. I do not often have the opportunity to acknowledge the words of a former Liberal member for Corangamite, but in this case her words in 2018 in support of ending live sheep exports still ring true. She said the following:

Overwhelmingly, the people of Corangamite are saying, 'Enough is enough.' After decades of noncompliance, after decades of inhumane treatment of sheep, after decades of tolerating a trade which continues to tarnish our international reputation, Australians are saying, 'Enough is enough'.

Unfortunately, after receiving an assistant ministerial position in the former coalition government she withdrew her support for ending of the trade. I call on the Geelong based senator, the former member for Corangamite, to stand by these convictions and support this bill in the Senate, and I call on her colleagues here in this place to do the same and support the bill. It is time to act on the evidence. It's time to recognise the myriad opportunities we have onshore—opportunities that will deliver new jobs and support for our farmers and at the same time deliver a sustainable, humane future for the industry. It is time to phase out live sheep exports.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. Farming, agriculture and trade play pivotal roles in Australia's economy and national identity. Agriculture is a significant contributor to our country's GDP, providing employment in rural communities and supporting livelihoods across the nation, and many small and family businesses are involved in agriculture, including a number of members in this House, particularly on our side of the House. The Middle East is Australia's largest export partner for sheepmeat, and this demand for Australia's live sheep exports is mostly driven by Middle Eastern customers who prefer freshly slaughtered meat that adheres to specific cultural practices. Also, given their infrastructure and electricity supply over there, boxed meat isn't always applicable.

The coalition, the Liberal and National parties, argue that the live sheep export ban—that's exports of sheep by sea—will have enormous consequences for local jobs, local communities, local farming families, small and family businesses and the Australian economy. This industry provides jobs, hundreds of jobs, for people who reside in Western Australia. We're going to see many of these people unemployed. We're going to see many of these people leave their communities. This would include farmers, vets, tradespersons and other people that are the backbone of those local communities.

Farming and agriculture are deeply ingrained in Australian culture. So to hear that the Labor Party, with this bill, wants to ban live sheep exports by sea is absolutely astounding, particularly when we look at some of the evidence that the member for Hinkler spoke about before—it's well documented—in relation to the recent Dunkley by-election in Melbourne, where a political party was giving preferences to the Labor Party, in return for, possibly, bringing this bill to the House now.

We know that the Labor Party are not for farmers, small and family business, or those in rural areas. This bill further proves this. I couldn't help but hear the member for Canberra speak before. She said that when she came into parliament, in 2019, she received hundreds of emails from constituents during that time. I understand that. As a member of the House, with a marginal seat, you do look at emails from constituents. Sometimes you might get a couple or a few. At other times, in relation to live sheep, when you have a campaign on the back of Animals Australia, you might get hundreds.

I was the same. When I was on the backbench, in the lead-up to the 2019 election, I received hundreds of emails about it as well, so I took note. As someone that loves animals—I've got all the animals: dogs, cats, birds and everything else—I want to make sure that animals are treated properly. So what did I do? I decided to go over to Western Australia and take a look. I don't know if the member for Canberra went over to Western Australia when she was elected in 2019. She could have. She was receiving hundreds of emails from constituents. It might be a good idea to go over and have a look at what they're emailing you about so you've got some idea of what you're talking about. That's the way I do things. That's the way I see things, when people contact me. So, on 17 January 2019, I, along with the member for Hinkler, flew to Western Australia where we were met by the member for Forrest and the member for O'Connor, whose communities are going to be particularly impacted by the Labor Party's closure of this industry. We found that trip to be very beneficial. I went there with a very open mind to look at the good things in the industry but also what could have needed improvement.

When I was there, on that trip in Western Australia, I met with Holly, an Australian accredited veterinarian. She's a vet who actually travels with the sheep on the ship when they go to the Middle East. Holly is also a compliance manager for live export companies as well as a vet. She travels on these ships to look after the sheep. She explained to me that there are lots of animal welfare quality assurances, from Australian farms all the way to the importing country. Regarding moving onboard, she said that what's involved with the daily routine is getting all the sheep moving around and making sure they have access to clean, fresh drinking water and food. I saw that when I boarded the ship. There were eight or so levels on the ship. Each of the pens that the sheep go into had water containers, and food containers were distributed. There were lots of those in every pen, and they were quite accessible. Also, the sheep couldn't be jam-packed into the one pen. Only about two-thirds of the pen was full, so there was room to move around and so forth. There were massive vents that came out into each of the pens. It was basically like aircon. They suck fresh air from the ship into every deck. That's what I personally witnessed. I don't know if the minister or the member for Canberra has been there or their team, but, when I looked at that and saw what was involved with this particular ship, it was excellent. It was very, very good.

Holly was telling me that her job is to make sure that these sheep are looked after, there's fresh ventilation and there's food and water, and, if there are any sick sheep, they're quarantined. There is also a daily crew of about 30 people on board as well as independent observers ensuring that all processes are followed, and welfare quality is ensured. The industry average of livestock mortalities from these voyages is about 0.3 per cent to one per cent. These ships have roughly 66,000 livestock on board. They're big ships with multiple decks, as I explained. Fewer than one per cent of animals would die on the journey, which is often a two-week journey. Before the animals even board the ship, they are quality checked. Any sick or injured animals or pregnant ewes are taken care of and removed from the rest. If animals become sick or injured on the vessel, they are removed and put into a quarantine facility, and the main risks for sickness or injury are lameness, pneumonia and gastrointestinal issues.

On that visit to Western Australia to this live export ship, I watched all the trucks, the road trains, come in and unload the sheep as well. I put it all on social media and out there for my constituents to see. Rather than give some sort of bland response that I got from an advisor in my office or something, I actually emailed all the constituents in my electorate and said: 'Here is a video of me on site. This is Holly, the vet. This is what we're looking at. These are pictures from each of the decks.' You know what—probably 60 per cent of the people who emailed me were satisfied with that. They said: 'Thanks very much, Luke. Thanks for going over there and actually having a look.' It's good to get some firsthand knowledge, eyeball it yourself and see what's going on with it. It's common sense, you'd think.

I also had the opportunity on that trip to speak with Bindi, who is a Western Australian farmer—

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

Bindi Murray.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Bindi Murray. The member for Forrest knows her. She is a lovely woman who has live sheep cropping. They have a challenging environment, and it becomes very seasonal. Bindi highlighted the importance of completing these live sheep exports ethically and to do it well. Bindi spoke about the transparency of the live sheep export process and how she has become more engaged with the process to have the best outcomes for the sheep. The sheep manure on the journey becomes quite dry and compacted and turns into a powder consistency. That also makes it easier for the sheep when they're laying down or standing on their hooves—for the sheep to stand on—until the area is hosed down at certain intervals. I saw all of that firsthand. I asked how Australian standards are regarded as the best in the world when it comes to live sheep exporting. Bindi said that it's quite extraordinary that Australia can go in country—to these properties overseas, the destinations where the sheep are going—and make changes the whole way along the supply chain to benefit the animal.

What we are basically saying—as the member for Forrest, the member for O'Connor and others speaking on this bill have said and as I heard firsthand from Bindi and Holly, the vet—is that having Australia in the live sheep export business improves the animal welfare of every sheep in the world. What more can someone who loves animals ask for? What more can you ask for? Those opposite, I don't know if you've visited these places in Western Australia or had a look, but that is important. Don't just blindly get up here and do some sort of little speech supporting your agriculture minister because you made a promise to win the Dunkley by-election or whatever it may be. The reality is that our involvement in the Western Australian industry improves sheep lives all around the world. And, when we exit in the not-too-distant future, as the Leader of the Nationals said in his speech as well, what's that going to do? Who's going to be there to uphold the highest standards in the industry?

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

No-one!

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly! As the member for Forrest says, nobody—nobody will be there. So, for all the other sheep in different countries around the world, that's bad luck. If the industry falls and isn't as good, bad luck for them. To people that are emailing their senators or members in relation to Animal Australia's email list, what about all the other animals? If you love animals, you've got to be consistent. It's not just Australian animals; it's all animals around the world.

We all love to look at wildlife documentaries—David Attenborough and everything else. You see deforestation in some places. We love animals. In this industry, we're the best in the world. This is a real issue. The minister for agriculture, Senator Watt, said in his media release on 30 May 2024:

The legislation is the next step in the orderly and considered process to deliver on this election commitment to the Australian public …

Wow! The Albanese Labor government want to deliver on an election commitment! But what happened to your election commitments on stage 3 tax cuts, reducing electricity by $275 or not making changes to superannuation? They've broken every single one of them. The members opposite on the backbench that came in in 2022, who were elected under those promises, get up in here and make excuses as to why they had to break them. But, when it comes to live sheep exports, 'No, we have to do that,' despite the families that are going to suffer. The member for Canberra and every single one of them—watch the next member get up and say, 'It's only worth $77 million.' I can tell you $77 million goes a long way in local farming communities.

Imagine if I said to the member for Barker here, 'We're going to shut down, let's say, 77 businesses in your electorate.' What would happen if we said, 'We're going to shut down 77 businesses'? For $77 million, if you've got families that farm and they're all turning over a million dollars each—I don't know what the figures are exactly; it's probably a lot less than that—that's 77 individual businesses worth a million dollars that are gone. They're gone! They have no more income. What's going to happen? There are a lot of those businesses. They're going to pull their kids out of school. They're going to move out of that industry. They'll have to sell off their land for whatever it's worth. Where are the abattoirs here? What is the government actually doing? It's giving some sort of package, but why not support the industry better?

Your own party in Western Australia is against what you're doing. The Western Australian Labor Premier says no to this. The Western Australian state Labor members say no to this. There's no research and there are no facts here. Those opposite who are speaking are parroting the talking points. Get out and visit and understand what you're doing and the impact you're having. (Time expired)

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

Labor went to the 2019 and 2022 federal elections promising to phase out live sheep exports by sea, and I am pleased to speak in support of the bill, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, that makes this happen. Calls for banning live sheep exports have arrived consistently at my office since I entered parliament in May 2022. People are concerned about animal welfare, and is it any surprise when 26 million Australians own 28 million pets? That's nearly 70 per cent of households. We are a nation of animal lovers—amongst the highest in the world.

Debra said:

The quality of a society is reflected in several ways including the way it treats animals. These animals should be spared another arduous journey into an uncertain war-torn area. It would be a powerful step to show the Government is serious about animal welfare. Hopefully, locally processed meat (as humanely as possible) will be our export in place of cruel live animal export before too much longer. A powerful step toward that end would be to spare these poor animals from further distress.

Michael said:

It is about time that we all ask ourselves the question, by what right do we take the lives of these sentient beings who feel pleasure, suffer pain, who want to live and who do not want to die, and who have done us no harm … Live animal export is brutal, barbaric and unnecessary. Please use your best endeavours to stop all of this immediately.

Sarah wrote to acknowledge the tabling of this legislation:

This action is important in bringing agricultural practices in line with Australian society's expectations and upholding respect for animal welfare. Thank you for putting an end to live export. We can support agricultural development in Australia in a sustainable and ethical way, and do not need to transport animals across the world in terrible conditions and allow their slaughter to be undertaken at the end of a long journey.

These are the voices of Higgins.

In 2023, nearly 44,000 Australians signed a petition calling for the parliament to legislate an end date to phase out the export of live sheep by sea from Australia. A petition to reverse the government's policy and continue live sheep exports by sea received 10,000 signatures. Several members of the opposition are on the record as opposing live sheep exports from Australia. So these changes are in line with the current views of many, many Australians. But they also do affect communities, particularly in Western Australia, and we acknowledge that. It is important, however, to understand the careful scope and timing of this legislation and the transitional supports that we have put in place in order to support those communities who will be affected. This is how we do things as a government—implement important change in line with community expectations in a timely fashion and provide support and a way forward for those affected. We are trying here to strike the right balance.

This change has been a long time coming and has been comprehensively researched. An independent four-person panel that also included a previous CEO of the RSPCA engaged with over 2,000 attendees at in-person events and 330 people in virtual forums. They held over 80 meetings with organisations and farmer representative groups and received over 800 written submissions and 3,300 survey responses. This was incredibly comprehensive. The panel provided its report, containing 28 recommendations, to the government in October last year. Of those, 23 recommendations have been supported and five have been noted. The resulting bill before us prohibits the export of live sheep by sea from Australia from 1 May 2028. It allows the export of live sheep by air to continue. It allows the export of all other livestock, including cattle, by sea or by air to continue.

The 2024-25 budget includes $107 million over five years from 2024-25 for transition support for the phase-out of live sheep exports by sea. Specific measures include $64.6 million for sheep producers and the supply chain to plan and implement transition actions and expand domestic sheep-processing capability. It will also support community and wellbeing activities and rural financial councillors. There's $27 million allocated to market sheep products in Australia and overseas, $2.6 million to continue to improve sheep welfare standards, $1.7 million to appoint a transition advocate to facilitate two-way communication between industry and government and, finally, $11.7 million for the implementation of the phase-out, including a stocktake of transition progress in 2026-27.

This is a change that is simply the right thing to do. It has community support and is designed for an orderly transition for industry. The end date provides certainty to farmers, supply chain businesses and trading partners. The change will encourage onshore value-adding such as domestic meat processing, creating more local jobs. A period of transition also allows for the humane management of existing stock.

I conclude with words from Sarah, a Higgins constituent: 'Australia can be a leader in ethical treatment of animals and a role model for the rest of the world. You have shown that your government upholds its commitments and has integrity, and that you do what you say you will do.' Hear, hear! I commend this bill to the House.

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

I rise in opposition to the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. This bill is a slap in the face and a major career- and business-ending piece of legislation. The response in Western Australia of those people concerned is overwhelmingly sad and angry at seeing their livelihoods destroyed.

People have to realise that live sheep export to people in the Middle East has been a longstanding business which has attracted controversy and has had improvements done to address the issues of heat stress. There are plenty of places in the world, particularly in the Middle East, to which Australian animals head by live export because those nations can't produce that amount of animal protein. As we know, the grazing capacity for Australian agriculture is much greater. These sheep have grazed in open pastures and are clean, healthy sheep. Their life on this planet is not taken for granted. Any farmer who is producing sheep for meat or for wool is very proud of their flocks and has cared for and tended to them.

Since man has walked the earth, sheep and other animals have been a source of sustenance. A lot of people don't like that, and I fully respect the choices they make in their lives. A lot of strict vegans and vegetarian people don't like the idea of eating animal meat, but there are millions and millions of people for whom this is the most effective way of keeping their nutrition up to the standards they require.

Australia has been a world leader in improving the standard of transport of live animals out of our country. We've done a great deal by introducing ESCAS, which not only looks at all the steps up to hopping onto the ship; it also follows the animals into the market where they are sold, and it has changed the standards in places in the Middle East where the abattoirs have been upgraded so that the cultural and social norms of having sheepmeat can be observed with their religion and their beliefs. We can't dictate to them what they do in their civilisation, with their cultural norms, or anything they should be doing.

What will happen if this ban goes through? You will find that other countries in Africa and in the Northern Hemisphere that have no concern for animal welfare will be there in a flash. We have to realise that the other consequences of this are that the whole blowback on the sheep industry in Australia will affect much more than just what occurs in Western Australia. There were 654,000 sheep exported in 2023. This is the exact opposite of what opponents of it said was happening. A lot of the opponents said: 'It's a fading industry. People don't like it. You have to ban it.' The figures the year before, following on from COVID, were only 380,000 but a year after that were up to 654,000.

The sheep staying in Australia means the price the farmers and graziers will get for their sheep will go down dramatically. We saw this happen back in 2011 when there was a summary banning of the live cattle export to Indonesia. A lot of the cattle that go to Indonesia are going there as live exports because they have similar cultural and religious practices about the consumption of their meat, and they also didn't then and still don't have the widespread refrigeration in every house and every shopping centre that we have in Australia. We can't judge them by those standards. But I can tell you the same thing will happen. Even with the announcement, the price of sheepmeat has, in the marketplace at least, been deleteriously affected, and it will ricochet across the country into South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and even Tasmania.

When you have 650,000 sheep who generally go, because that's tend of their life span—they won't be shorn any more, they are in their prime and they have good nourishment and good animal protein—it means all that value will have to fit into the eastern market, so the price will go down. What does this mean? For people who invested in years of genetic improvements for these sheep, all that value is going to evaporate overnight. A lot of their loans might have covenants on them, depending on the price of their sheep and value of their flock. It will do all of these things to all the people in the industry who know this industry inside out. It will affect the haulage contractors, the feed suppliers and the towns in which the markets operate. All of the ramifications of banning export mean the whole value case of those sheep will be diluted and will reduce.

To do it because they made a commitment to get preferences at the Dunkley by-election and were happy to put their principles aside to get a few votes in a by-election in another state just shows you why people are so annoyed. We're not making this up; the Animal Justice Party proudly announced it on 11 May 2024:

We are proud that the AJP could deliver the knockout blow by demanding the end of live sheep export as a requirement for our preferences at the Dunkley By-election in March. Ongoing conversations behind-the-scenes between AJP and Labor leadership has helped to finetune government policy.

For 20 pieces of silver the government, by this decision, is sending many businesses possibly to the wall, because their whole business case evaporates at the stroke of a pen when this goes into action. Admittedly, it's delayed till 2028, but it won't stop magically on that day; it'll be winding back from now, because people want to have certainty of supply. They want to know they have a viable industry going forward.

Our trading partners think of this very poorly. The member for Maranoa, the Leader of the National Party, actually travelled over to Kuwait and other parts of the Middle East and spoke to their industry people, and they were quite blunt and open. They're not going to buy our boxed lamb, because they don't want boxed lamb. There's a certain part of their market that wants to have freshly slaughtered animals, and that's why they built special abattoirs where the cultural practice of choosing your animal can be observed. They follow religious rules, which are up to the highest standards, for the slaughter. The standards on the vessels are a far cry from those that we saw in public several years ago on the Awassi Express.

The package the government is offering as a readjustment package will not replace an existing driving value chain around live exports. People in the cattle industry have connected the dots: the same Animal Justice Party who congratulated themselves on trading livelihoods for a few votes at a by-election have live cattle in their sights. We will revisit this, I am sure. People are speaking about this already in those circles, because it is their firm commitment and they can hold it. But you can't destroy what is a social or cultural norm in our trading partners' countries and destroy the industry that supports them as well as their food security.

I travelled to the Middle East many years ago when this was an ongoing industry. Members were speaking about it then. We travelled to the United Arab Emirates where they displayed how they developed a country that was underdeveloped at the end of World War II through developing their natural assets and have turned the place into amazing cities. Other countries in the same area, as their populations grow, have to feed people but they don't have hundreds of thousands or millions of acres of grazing country to run animals. They can only have a limited number of cattle and sheep and goats. All those animal protein industries are at risk as a result of this. The message, loud and clear, that this government needs to hear is that people in the Middle East also supply oil that runs our liquid fuel transport industry. We depend on Middle Eastern providers of our oil and we provide them with lots of other technology but particularly food security—grains and fruit as well as animal protein.

The other side of the House needs to realise this will be to their detriment. The industry will not support them at the next election if that is what moves their dial. They need to know that Animal Justice have established petitions. I have heard of numbers of 10,000 or 12,000 people signing petitions to end this trade.

Since this was announced, in Perth, in the space of three or four weeks, 60,400 people have already signed up to support the Keep the Sheep campaign, which is aimed at getting the government to change its mind. So we have only 10,000 or 12,000 across a whole country people signing a petition yet in three or four weeks, in one city in one state, we had 60,000 people put pen to paper and sign up to the Keep the Sheep. The whole idea, whether they like it or not, is not going well in WA.

Mr Speaker, I'm sure you are really enjoying being in government, because people voted you there, but a lot of those voters didn't realise that you were going to ruin agriculture, and this bill is the latest measure that will make agriculture more difficult.

In the Murray-Darling Basin area, which has a lot of sheep graziers and large, large flocks in Victoria and New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia, they are all watching this closely. The ramifications of this ban won't just be felt in Western Australia. This is a really bad piece of policy. We do defend the rights of people to export their sheepmeat and their cattle. We insist on very high standards. We've improved the standard internationally, but this will mean that other people who get judged by Australian standards won't have to compete with us anymore; they will be given open slather. I don't support this bill— (Time expired)

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

In 14 years in this place, I have never heard as much misinformation, disinformation and downright drivel as I've heard during the opposition's contribution regarding the phasing out of the live sheep export industry such as the claim I heard from the member for Maranoa about the conditions on live export vessels. Heavens! It sounded like he was describing a Carnival cruise with the conditions described as being so luxurious for the sheep. This is patent nonsense.

The reality about the conditions on the vessels is to be found on the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's own website where, among other pieces of very valuable information, there are reports from independent observers that travelled on 53 journeys between 2018 and 2023. Of the reports the independent observers filed, 64 per cent documented indicators of heat stress, ranging from increased respiratory rates to sheep with extended necks and extreme heat stress; and 30 per cent reported marked heat stress, measured as open-mouthed panting or worse.

Activities inconsistent with the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock were noted in approximately 70 per cent of the reports from the independent observers, cited by the agriculture department. The inconsistencies with ASEL included poor loading practices; poor handling of sheep; poor management of ill sheep; lambing on board; wool length greater than 25 millimetres—leading to a higher risk of heat stress; loading of sheep with horns; obstructed access to food and water; and sheep with pre-existing health issues and injuries. In other words, any claims that the conditions on the vessels are like a cruise liner are patent nonsense. Then, of course, there are the numerous exposes over the years. Who could forget the most shocking expose, the Awassi Express, with lambs born on board, drowning in the faeces, urine and filth on the decks of that vessel.

Regarding the claim that no country has better animal welfare standards than Australia, every country that doesn't participate in the live animal export trade has better animal welfare standards than us. For example, New Zealand banned live animal exports years ago. There's currently a bill before the UK House of Commons that would ban live export from the UK. Germany is tightening safeguards. It is patent nonsense to maintain this fiction that Australia is leading the world in animal welfare standards. We are not. You only have to look at these figures from the agriculture department and compare us with countries that have banned the trade.

Then there's the ridiculous claim that the live sheep export trade is somehow growing when in fact it's shrunk by 90 per cent over the last two decades. The only reason there's been a small bump in recent numbers is exactly that: just a small bump in the numbers. But, when you look at the trendline since 2003, it has been down, down, down and down. In fact, WA live sheep exports are now valued at less than $100 million. That is less than two per cent—not much more than one per cent—of the value of Australian sheepmeat exports. What is growing is exports of processed sheepmeat now valued at almost $4.5 billion. That's right: the live trade is worth less than $100 million; and the processed sheepmeat trade is worth something in the order of $4,500 million. We are now supplying more than 50 per cent of the global sheepmeat trade. Is this going to the Middle East or is this another fiction that customers in the Middle East will only buy live animals? Well, processed meat to the Middle East is going up in the United Arab Emirates and it's going up in shipments to Kuwait. Our sales to Qatar are going up. Our sales to Jordan are going up. Our sales to Saudi Arabia are going up. In other words, customers in the Middle East and North Africa are craving our high-quality processed sheepmeat, be it frozen or chilled.

What of this very significant claim—and I should add that I have all the respect in the world for our farmers—that the ban will destroy their farms and destroy the towns in those farming regions? I would say to those farmers: stop listening to the nonsense from the opposition and face the reality that your industry is in terminal decline. In fact, it's the politicians who want to help you pivot to a different mix on the farm and different practices on the farm and to provide $107 million of assistance so that farmers and towns—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Groom. The member for Barker.

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

The fact is that the industry is in terminal decline, and, if people in this place really care about the farmers and don't want to be just using the farmers to score cheap political points in this place, then they would get behind helping the industry to pivot, for the farmers to change the mix on their farm and to change the practices on their farm so that, rather than crashing into the end of the industry with no preparation, under the government's plan they have four years to slowly transition across and be ready for the future.

I don't make this point lightly, but it seems to me that the opposition—and, in particular, the National Party members—are desperate for some issue to latch onto to look like they're fighting for farmers. But the reality is that, by fighting for the farmers on this issue, what they're doing is letting the farmers down by preventing or slowing down their transition to an alternative mix of farming on the property.

One of the most bizarre claims by the opposition is that only a minority of people want reform. This is a crazy proposition. In fact, polling conducted by McCrindle research in May 2023 found that 71 per cent of Western Australians supported the phase-out, including 69 per cent of Western Australians in rural and regional areas of the state. So it's not a case of how many signatures are on a petition; it's about proper research done by proper research companies which are finding that almost three-quarters of Western Australians—almost 70 per cent of Western Australians in rural and regional areas—want this trade done away with. National polling also conducted by McCrindle research in 2022 placed support for the phase-out across the whole country at 78 per cent. In other words, this is a trade that is not only systemically cruel and not in Australia's economic best interest but has very low levels of support. I'm delighted and I'll give credit where it is due. Here's an issue where the federal government are actually in step with the wishes of the vast majority of Australians, and I applaud them for that.

I will say to the opposition that there are two claims that have been made in various members' contributions that do have merit at face value. I want to dwell on those for a moment. There is the point that some people in the Middle East want live sheep for cultural or religious reasons. I agree. That is an entirely valid point to make. But to suggest that not selling sheep to those people is going to break the back of our sheepmeat export industry is patent nonsense. Less than two per cent of Australia's sheepmeat exports are live sheep. I make the point that, if these people are going to be provided with live animals, why on earth would they come from just about the furthest place on the planet and have to endure just about the longest sea voyage that any animals could have to endure? What about those people sourcing their stock from Spain, Romania or other nearby countries that, as best I can tell, don't have animal welfare standards worse than Australia and are much closer, ensuring that the journey that those suffering animals go on is much shorter?

The other point made by the opposition—and I see face-value merit in this—is that customers will just get their live sheep from somewhere else. I offended honourable members in this place recently when I likened that to the drug dealers' defence. I wasn't calling the members of the opposition drug dealers, but we all know that that is the defence used by drug dealers: 'If they don't get the drugs from us, they'll get them from somewhere else.' I don't buy that. We need to, as a country, act with integrity, do the right thing and set an example for the rest of the world about what is the right thing.

If we want to genuinely get behind our primary producers and grow their exports to the rest of the world, then we need to do everything we can do to foster our reputation as a clean, ethical primary producer. That's so if you buy anything from Australia then it has been produced in the best country in the world, to the best standards in the world, and it has been produced with real integrity. That's what will grow our primary production—not by being seen on the world stage as a pariah which continues to send animals virtually to the other side of the planet in some of the most shocking conditions imaginable. I applaud the government for pushing through with this; I know it isn't easy. Yes, I want the ban to be in place sooner and, yes, I do want to shut down the life beef cattle export trade. I do—and I'll turn my mind do that now and keep campaigning on that. It is a difficult policy area for reform, so I will applaud the government. And I won't be moving any amendments, even though I'd like to see a shutdown sooner than four years.

The bottom line is that the live export trade is systemically cruel. That anyone would come into this place and dispute that beggars belief. They either haven't been paying attention or they are trying to fool people who might be listening in. It isn't in Australia's best economic interests. Surely we would do better to raise these sheep and the beef cattle here, and to process them in Australia? We already have a lot of spare capacity in our abattoirs. And where we don't have enough capacity to process these sheep, then we should build capacity. And if we have trouble getting workers for these abattoirs, then we should work out how to fill those jobs—there's an important role for government into the future. And the trade has little public support; as I said, the research by McCrindle Research put support for a phase-out at 78 per cent, nationally.

I say to phase it out because history shows that the fundamental problems in the industry can't be remedied. You just can't get numbers on these vessels so low as to achieve genuine animal welfare and for those voyages to be profitable. They will always be overcrowded as far as animal welfare goes. Remember the filth, remember the suffering and remember the barbaric conditions that we've seen in media revelations over recent years. It's not a luxury cruise liner, as the opposition would have us believe—no. I make the point again: the only way to end cruelty is to end the trade, full stop.

Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. The Greens welcome the government's decision to ban live sheep exports from 1 May 2028 and to fund a package to help farmers and communities transition out of the industry. This win belongs to the brave whistleblowers and the determined animal welfare organisations who have fought tirelessly for decades for the inherently cruel and morally bankrupt live sheep export trade to be shut down. The Greens have introduced two bills since 2011 to ban live exports and have continued to fight for an end to this practice for decades. It's good to see, many years and many deaths later, that Labor finally accepts a ban on live sheep export is necessary.

While it's great to see the government commit to an end date, 2028 is still too far away. Thousands of sheep will continue to suffer and die on sweltering, packed death ships until then. The Greens intend to introduce amendments to the bill in the Senate to ensure that the industry doesn't ramp up the cruel exports in the years leading up to the ban and to protect sheep until the ban comes into force. The Greens have stood firmly against live export for decades because animals are not mere cargo; they are living, breathing, sentient beings that deserve a dignified life, free from suffering, just as much as anyone else does. The reality is that the live export trade cannot be made safe for any animal. It is a business model built on cruelty that causes untold animal suffering. It is a business model that will always put profit above animal welfare.

Governments have facilitated this trade for decades, condemning thousands upon thousands of animals to horrific death and unimaginable suffering. Mortality is just one measure, though. So many sheep suffer in extreme heat and crammed, stressful and overcrowded, filthy containers, going hungry and thirsty. The disasters have continued even into this year. After more than 9,200 sheep and 3,700 cattle were subjected to torturous heat on the MV Bahijah for eight straight days back in 2018, in January of this year a further roughly 14,000 sheep were left sweltering through a heatwave off the coast of Western Australian on the very same ship.

The industry has long tried to hide and diminish the true extent of suffering involved in live export, and the government has enabled this. To this day, there is little transparency about the suffering on these ships. It is only thanks to the tireless and courageous efforts of animal welfare advocates and whistleblowers who, time after time, have exposed the cruelty of this industry. There have been dozens of reforms, reviews and inquiries since the industry started, but the cruelty has always continued. It is crystal clear that we cannot stop animal cruelty in live export, because animal cruelty is inherent to live export. We won't be alone in doing this either. In New Zealand there have been no shipments of live animals for slaughter purposes since 2008, and the sky did not fall in.

We also know that the community is firmly in favour of banning live sheep exports, with poll after poll showing huge support from the Australian public. In fact, in June 2023, the Greens commissioned a poll that showed 85 per cent of Australians support a phase-out of live sheep export. This is one of the reasons the live sheep export trade has already declined by over 70 per cent since 2018, accelerating a longer term decline that has been happening over two decades. This needs to end, and it needs to end as soon as possible.

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, and I certainly will not be supporting this bill. We've heard the last two speakers, and their whole speeches were dripping in sanctimony and ideology, but I'm here to offer the real story and the realism. I've been very fortunate to be on two committees in parliament. I'm on the joint agriculture committee and I'm also on the coalition ag committee, so I've had the opportunity to go across to Western Australia, to talk to sheep farmers and to have a good look around. So I don't get my information off the back of a cornflakes packet like some of the people do. I'm a farmer by trade, and I get to be able to see and feel the real story.

During my last visit to WA, I toured the MV Dareen, which is a live sheep ship, and I toured that with export manager Paul Keenan from Livestock Shipping Services. It was really interesting to go through that ship and do it from start to finish. He took my tour at late notice, because no-one actually knew that I was going to go there, so nothing was set up. It was exactly as it is. I went aboard the ship, and the bottom couple of layers actually have cattle on the bottom. We've heard from the honourable member for Clark, who said that he's happy to get the live cattle industry killed off as well and not just the sheep industry. I just wonder: is that the cunning plan for those opposite? Is it sheep first, and then is the live cattle industry going to be killed off as well?

I know, in my electorate of Dawson, how they've killed off the gillnets. About 90 fishermen, not to mention the auxiliary businesses, have lost all their business. You can just see the modus operandi here—how it seems to be one primary industry after another facing the axe.

But let's go back to the ship. When you go on the ship, there are cattle on the bottom couple of rows, and then you go into the live sheep decks. They have the live sheep pens on the side, nice open walkways as you go through, sheep in the middle, walkways again and then sheep on the side. And all the sheep are divided up. In each pen there's 30 per cent space, so there's plenty of room for all the sheep to move around within those pens. There's also a hospital pen on there. In case any of the sheep get crook or they're not feeling so well, they're taken from their pen and put in the hospital pen to be nursed back to health. There's ventilation on the top. You can't feel it quite as much because it's open air, so you haven't got a vacuum, but when you go down within the ship you can actually feel the air ventilation going through. This is the lived experience. This is actually what happens and is the real story.

Food and water are delivered to the sheep. Every single pen has feeders across it and water going through it. All the sheep are constantly monitored. People are walking through them. They have vets. Even the captain, who I met on the ship, takes a personal interest in that because he knows, as does the crew, that to have successful outcomes and successful voyages you have to have happy and healthy sheep. If they don't then they don't have a job. Pure self-interest makes them do the best possible job they can.

This is Paul's business model. He bought these sheep. He's got a feedlot, so he fattened the sheep up a little bit more. He made sure they were nice and strong and ready for the voyage. Then he loaded them onto the ship. When they come off the ship they go into another feedlot and then get sold for processing. Let's just have a look at that. If you've got a business, and your business model is to have happy and healthy sheep, wouldn't you do every single thing possible to make sure that those sheep are healthy and looked after? I certainly would, because that's how you make money in the real world.

People were talking about temperature. Now they only send the sheep in the cooler times of the year. They have learnt what the best possible time is to send sheep, and that's what they do. That is real animal welfare. But don't just take my word for it. Dr Holly Ludeman, a renowned vet, provided this evidence when I was on the joint ag committee. The success rate of the sheep is now 99.85 per cent. So they're actually safer and better off when they're on the ship than when they're in the paddock. They actually have problems when they're in the paddock as well. I suppose it's like cars. When they're driving down the road, every now and again they have an accident. Some things do go wrong. But, with the live sheep trade, when they're on the ship, they're looked after exceptionally well.

When we were over there, I talked to the farmers. A lot of these farmers have been on the land for three, four, five generations—one for up to six generations. They are really concerned about their livelihoods and their welfare.

I heard some of the members of the Greens and the crossbench talking about transition. Some of the farmers said to me: 'Andrew, we can't transition. Our land is not suitable for this. Our land is suitable for sheep. We can't grow crops. The soil type is not in the right condition that it needs to be in.' These farmers are actually hurting. I know we're talking a lot about sheep and their welfare, but let's digress a little bit and talk about farmers' welfare. Are we concerned about how farmers are and how their mental health is? Are we concerned about how they've got to go home and explain to their kids, 'We're going to have to walk off the land here because it doesn't work'? Let's think about their mental health.

There were 1,300 people in a rally in Perth, and thousands of people attended the hearing in Muresk, telling their stories. They're not just stories that have been made up on the back of a cornflakes packet. These are real people and real people's livelihoods. I'd like to read an open letter from a sheep farmer: 'We have been sheep farming for 46 years and haven't sent a sheep on a boat for over 25 years, but I would like to know that that is still an option. They used to say that Australia rode on the sheep's back. This is true, but there are many things that keep us prosperous. Wool and sheep are seen as valuable commodities, so much so that in the 1980s and 90s our government backed reserve price schemes were introduced. This created an oversupply, and as a result over four million bales of wool were stockpiled, because alternatives like cotton and synthetics were more affordable—a lesson learned that market dictates the price. The solution to this was another government backed scheme called the flock reduction scheme, which involved sheep farmers rounding up their youngest breeding ewes, digging a hole and euthanising them to receive $6 per head in compensation. I never participated, but many did—another bad policy.

Today's debate is different. From the dark days of the tragic Awassi, our sheep industry has imposed its own restrictions to achieve a goal that the world is proud of in animal welfare standards, without government intervention. Why step in and ban an industry that is progressive and expanding ethically? Mr Watt is quoted as saying that 70 per cent of Australians are against live export. I do recall a referendum around that number, but that was certainly not with regard to live export. I ask that you people in government think seriously about opposing this legislation based on the facts I've given.'

That's signed Vanessa O'Brien from Pingelly, WA—an accurate estimate from the lady that handed me that letter.

We have heard from the crossbench again that the trade is decreasing. It has over a long period of time, but in the last couple of years it has been increasing. That's what happens when you have market forces. Some things go down and then up, but now we're in an upward trend. If it is so bad and we're going to lose it anyway, why not let the market forces take their course? Let them sort it out.

We also heard some heartfelt pleas from local government, mayors and counsellors, and they said: 'This is going to decimate our shires and decimate our region. All the businesses are going to be affected, the farmers. It's going to affect schools. The schools will be closing, and it's going to cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.' The transition I think is $107 million or something. They said that is a pittance. That will not even touch the sides. Plus there's no modelling on how that $107 million is going to work, but that's a little bit of a side note.

International reputation is another one. What does this say to our people over in the Middle East that we are currently serving with the live export—you're not good enough to eat our sheep now? They will all have to go and buy that sheep from someone else, someone who doesn't have the same standards as us. In the whole animal welfare debate, is a sheep not a sheep not a sheep across the whole world? If you're looking for animal welfare, why not support the Australian industry, which actually has the best standards in the world? Would it be just because of cheap political pointscoring? Would it be for those opposite? I can see in question time I think the Labor-Greens coalition is in a little bit of trouble. There's a bit of argy-bargy backwards and forwards. Is that what it is? I'm not exactly sure, but we need to make the decision on facts and we need to make sure we are supporting our farmers.

There are different types of sheep as well. You have lambs, and as they grow a bit older they grow into hoggets, two-teeth sheep, and then you have mutton. People say we'll just process these sheep locally. The fact of it is, as farmers have told me, these sheep they're actually sending to live export aren't suitable to be processed locally. They have no commercial value. Again, this is a trade that underpins and provides some certainty not for just the meat industry but for the wool industry, because there are sheep that they can shear five or six times and then put on a boat and actually make some money out of them.

The good news is a coalition government will reinstate the live sheep export industry. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with our farmers, support our farmers and make sure we're there for them. There are so many businesses involved: the truck drivers and the shearers. Let's talk about the shearers—isn't that where the Labor Party started, in Barcaldine, with the famous knowledge tree? Now, all of a sudden, the Labor government is turning its back on those very shearers and the workers. When I was a kid we were told that the Labor Party looks after the workers. But no—not anymore. They just want to look after their votes in the cities and their little deals that they've done with their Greens counterparts.

Let's be honest: the inquiry we did was quick. It was quick and dirty, to be honest. Two or three weeks, then bang! We had to go over and get the information, and there were a whole lot of submissions that weren't even fully analysed. So what I'm calling for is to make sure that we have a Senate inquiry. This one needs to be shelved and we should have a Senate inquiry, where these people's livelihoods and where the live sheep trade industry can actually have their say and have their information fully analysed and treated with respect and dignity so that we can keep that vital industry going. And, for heaven's sake, let's make sure that we keep the live cattle trade open and thriving as well, and not listen to some of our members from the crossbench.

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

():  I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. Most of us will remember the sickness we felt in our stomachs when we saw the ABC's 7.30 footage on board the Awassi Express back in 2018. We remember the sense of anger and injustice as we witnessed the appalling conditions those 60,000 sheep were exposed to—conditions that ultimately resulted in the inhumane death of 2,400 of these helpless animals from causes like heat exhaustion and dehydration.

It is because of this, and incidents like this, that the live sheep trade has lost its social licence in Australia. Over the past two years, I have received an ongoing stream of letters and calls from dozens of my constituents, horrified by these reports and images. Few issues have attracted such prolonged and emotive attention by my community, because animal welfare is an issue that cuts through Australians regardless of location or industry. All of us live among animals and we are collectively appalled by instances of cruelty and traumatised by the helplessness. I promised my community to fight for the end of live sheep exports and the government too promised the people of Australia to put an end to this trade.

I am pleased that under this bill the export of live sheep will be phased out by 1 May 2028. I am also pleased by the recognition of support needed for those adversely affected by the transition of this industry. That's because, while I support this bill, I do acknowledge that people's livelihoods are affected by this bill and that many farmers, particularly in WA, will need to adjust their businesses or leave the industry entirely—and this is hard. I have been moved by the scenes last week of Western Australians lining the streets and tuning into the House standing committee. I have even been contacted by concerned Western Australians, outlining the impact they feel it will have on farmers, businesses and communities in Australia. I have heard your concerns. And while the industry has introduced new animal welfare measures since the Awassi Express, such as mandatory vets on board for long voyages, I am just not convinced that any measure can guarantee the end of suffering during live exports.

The Australian Alliance for Animals, for instance, found that 60 per cent of voyages since 2018 have experienced heat stress while travelling across the equator and the Persian Gulf. Sheep are still exposed to cramped and unhygienic conditions, 24-hour lighting, constant loud noises and inadequate food and medical care on compliant vessels, resulting in distress and death. Furthermore, I do not believe that our duty of care for these animals stops at the point of destination. Despite our best advocacy efforts, Australian sheep continue to be handled poorly in overseas markets. The only way we can guarantee humane treatment of animals through to the end of life is to process these sheep here, where we can monitor and hold the industry to account effectively.

I have heard it said that Australia's treatment of live exports sets a global standard and that withdrawing from the industry will result in a void being filled by even worse conditions. This may be so, but doing something wrong better does not make it right. There will be an economic cost as the remaining exports are gradually phased out and that is why I am glad to see an economic support package included in this bill. This transition support includes $107 million, with $64.6 million of direct funding allocated to assist sheep producers and exporters transition to new opportunities, including the expansion of meat processing facilities.

For some years now, the industry has been in natural decline, with live sheep export occupying a smaller and smaller fraction of the exported sheepmeat and the Western Australia economy. From 2002 to 2023, in financial years, the number of live sheep exported decreased by 90 per cent. Last financial year, live sheep exports by sea made up 0.02 per cent of WA's gross state product and only 5.4 per cent of WA's total value of sheep exports, because the industry is already moving away from live sheep exports. However, I know that this ban will make it hard for some, and it is for these communities that the support package is essential.

This bill represents progress but 2028 is a long way away and our job is not yet done. The promise to end the export of live sheep was made two years ago, ahead of the 2022 election, but it will be another four years before this ban is fully implemented. While we work towards the deadline in 2028, we need to do everything possible to minimise animal suffering in the meantime, as well as work with the farmers affected to support them in their transition. We are headed in the right direction but we're not moving fast enough. I'm pleased the government is consulting on its Australian animal welfare strategy with the stated commitment to a national approach to animal welfare. That is essential in this country. I know the people of my electorate expect better for animals across Australia, including those live sheep exported, and they want this parliament to take action.

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill is a treacherous act not just against the good farmers of Western Australia and those involved in the live sheep export industry but further, to the Australian people who go out there every single day and work to put money in the coffers that this government spends irresponsibly. What government in any country would shut down a billion-dollar industry? We have an $80 billion agricultural industry and this government, this Labor-Greens-Teal government, wants to shut down a part of that.

But put the billions of dollars aside—put that aside—what about the cost to those generational farmers, those people who have worked the land for decades and decades, who have put it all on the line year after year, who have paid their taxes, who have done their dues, who will have it all pulled out from underneath them? The government says, 'Well, that's too bad. You will be right; you can retrain. We will give $107 million to share between 3,000 individual farmers and tens of thousands of subcontractors indirectly linked to the industry.' How much money do you think those farmers and subcontractors will see? Not much—nothing. If it's any reflection of the policies that Labor puts out, half of it will go on consultancy fees. That is where it will go.

This is a decision based on two things: ideology and a deal done between Labor and the Greens on a by-election. That's exactly what this is. So, to get the numbers and to get the power—speaking of power, the power is going out!—the Western Australian farmers are being sacrificed. They are lambs to the slaughter, because this government—this Labor, teals and Greens government—doesn't care about the Western Australian farmers. It doesn't care about farmers in general, and we saw that through the biosecurity tax only recently. But let's look at the logic. Yes, in the past, there have been poor practices. We accept that. We have acknowledged that, but what did we do about that? In 2019, we implemented the world's best practice for exporting live sheep. Nobody across the floor has disputed that fact. That is a fact. We measure the fleece on those sheep down to the millimetre before they get on the boat. We weigh the sheep before they get on the boat. There is technology to examine the air that flows through the boat during the trip. We have veterinarians on the boats; we have inspectors on the boats. The results show for themselves. The sheep that get on the boats are putting on weight on the trip. A distressed animal doesn't gain weight. We've had plenty from this side who have had experience in farming with sheep and cattle, who tell us you that you will not get a beast to put on weight in distress. We have an industry with world's best practice which this government, hand in hand with the teals and the Greens, has decimated for ideology and for a dirty deal.

So I say to the Western Australian farmers, you are justified in being outraged, because you have been crushed by the government which is supposed to be protecting you. They have said, 'We don't care about you,' and they have crushed what you have worked for—what your fathers and mothers and grandfathers and grandmothers have worked for for decades and decades, and they don't care. Coming up to the next election, I know that you will remember that—that they said to you: 'We don't care. We're going to crush your industry. We don't care if you lose your home. We don't care if you have overheads. We're going to be the nation that bans live exports even though they have the world's best practices.'

Let's step aside and ask what else we could do. Let's build an abattoir here, and let's kill the sheep here and pack it to go overseas. There are two things there. Firstly, that is not what the countries that we export to want. Why should we be telling them how they should be receiving their export goods? That's the first issue. Why should we be so sanctimonious and carry on like elitists and tell other countries how we will deal with them in trade? Secondly, sheep export is seasonal. If you were to build an abattoir, you would have to run it 24/7, 365 days a year to make it viable. It is just not possible to do that.

One of the biggest issues about live sheep exports is the cultural aspect for other countries. It is a cultural and deeply religious issue for them. We see in Dubai and other places that their abattoirs have viewing rooms for up to 2,000 people to watch the process of that beast or sheep being slaughtered. It is done so culturally, and it is done so humanely.

For us to tell our trade nations how they should be doing things or what they should be thinking is, in fact, an insult to them. It is damaging our reputations with our international trade partners. But is this a consideration that was taken into account in crushing the live sheep trade? No. We just went ahead arrogantly. We know best. Australia knows best. In turn, what's going to happen now? We're exporting 500,000 sheep a year. Where are they going to go? Where are they going to come from to go to these alternative trade nations? They're going to go from Somalia and African countries that have zero animal welfare—none in place. They work on volume and value. They couldn't care less how many animals die.

For sanctimony, ideology and symbolism, you are going to see a substantial increase in the deaths of sheep being exported from other nations. Yet there's nothing from the other side. 'Australian sheep are safe now.' Don't worry about sheep from Africa. Don't worry about the fact that we have the best practices in the world, and they've got the worst practices. They don't have any animal welfare practices; they just load them on. 'Get them on; make sure the boat doesn't sink. We'll toss the carcasses over the side for the sharks once they die. And we'll make money on how many survive at the other end.'

This is just complete contempt by this Prime Minister and, quite frankly, complete contempt by the agricultural minister, who made jokes in a speech at a budget night just recently when the farmers walked out. He said, 'I'm lucky I didn't say that earlier.' He couldn't even go and face the farmers in Western Australia. He increased the carbon footprint by flying over to Western Australia to go to the Commonwealth buildings to make an announcement. He could not eyeball the farmers. I know why he couldn't. It's because he knows he's wrong. He knows he sold out the Western Australian farmers, the Western Australian people, the truckers and the shearers—all those people involved in the industry. He couldn't stand there and eyeball them. If you believe you're right, Minister, why didn't you do that? And, Prime Minister, why didn't you go over there, speak to them and say: 'I'm sorry I'm ripping away your generational legacy. I'm sorry I'm ripping away your job.' Prime Minister, you'd want to hope that the ideology that we shouldn't have prime ministers in this country doesn't come out of there. I'm sure that won't happen.

The contempt speaks volumes, and not just from the Prime Minister or the minister but from both opposite, particularly those on the crossbench. We hear about how terrible this industry is. Well, I haven't seen any sheep roaming down Victoria Road in Sydney or through Wentworth in Sydney. You might go to a petting zoo every now and then, but that just doesn't cut the mustard. Go and walk a mile in these people's shoes. Go and sit with them at the kitchen table now they know their industry is about to be decimated because you've done a dirty deal with the Greens and teals to get your numbers. That's not how a country runs. The government is here to support our industry. This is a billion-dollar industry. You have kicked it into the gutter and you are going to literally kill these hardworking families.

This is one of the most abhorrent bills that I have seen any government introduce. They don't care about the farmers. They say they care about the welfare of sheep, yet what we'll now see is sheep from countries with no protections. We'll see no welfare protections for the animals on board. It'll be worse than ever. But that's not taken into account because they've achieved what they needed to achieve, and that was the dirty deal with the Greens. It will be forever remembered. God hope that we get back into government, because we will repeal this, and we will work with the Western Australian sheep farmers—all farmers—because they need to be appreciated. We, on this side—the National Party and the LNP—are very grateful for their existence.

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

I was in this chamber earlier today when the member for Paterson delivered the parliamentary committee majority finding. I was also here when the member for O'Connor tabled the dissenting report. I believe the member for Paterson; I found her a fine person. She's a nice lady. I think she works hard for her electorate. But I am really surprised. She has a significant agriculture sector in her electorate. I know it's the Labor Party and dissension is simply not allowed, but I would be surprised if her heart was in that finding that the committee delivered today.

She was in Western Australia recently with the committee. Around 2,000 industry representatives confronted her there at a recent hearing. She must have heard the same voices I heard when I led a coalition agriculture backbench committee to Western Australia in March to meet with growers, shearers, truckies, stock agents and young women in the sheep industry to discuss the government's proposed ban on sheep exports. She and that committee must have heard the same story.

Let me say that this is seen as a Western Australian issue. It is not only a Western Australian issue. I don't currently farm, but I own a farm in South Australia, and part of that farm has sheep on it. Following the government decision last year—I think it was back in about March—to announce the phase-out of the industry with, at that stage, an unknown time reference to just how they were going to go about it, there has been a collapse of confidence in the Western Australian sheep industry in particular.

Growers are sick of interference and not just on this issue. Whether it be managing staff, maintaining and managing their machinery, farm practices or water management, they're sick of interference. The government has their fingers in the pie at every level, and this is another insult on top of all those things before. That's why farmers in Western Australia are fed up: 'I can't handle this anymore.'

Not everywhere do people have the opportunity to say, 'I'm not going to run sheep anymore.' Perhaps they could run cattle. But, in fact, this decision affects the cattle industry too, because the cattle in Western Australia, in the south, that are exported out live are actually travelling on the live sheep ships. So there'll be no ships for them, and I expect this to kick through to the cattle industry as well, when the boats cease. They don't all have that option, but a lot of them do. There's very fine agricultural land throughout Western Australia. They can grow crops instead, so, in terms of feeding the world, I suppose others will argue that the farmers are still growing stuff and whatever. But what they're not allowed to do is actually run the farming system that they want to run. This is taking away the options. It's taking away balanced management of farmlands, and that's very important.

At that time, when that confidence collapsed, they started pushing stock over the border to South Australia. I don't know what the current rate is of stock coming into South Australia. I was talking to a prominent Western Australian agricultural identity the other day; he was in South Australia, drumming up support for the Keep the Sheep campaign—I'll get to that a little bit later. He said: 'I feel bad. I've punted 6,000 lambs over the border through to Thomas Foods down at Murray Bridge. We had to get rid of them. We had to get them off the properties because everybody is trying to unload sheep in Western Australia at the moment. I know that's had a serious effect on the South Australian market. I feel bad telling South Australian growers that, but it is really between a rock and a hard place.' I said: 'Don't feel bad about it. I think everybody understands in South Australia that you are being forced into this position.' It's worth noting it costs about $35 a head to ship sheep from Western Australia to South Australia, and some of them are going through to New South Wales—I presume that's $55 or $60 a head—and the farmer has to absorb that cost. It's smashed the South Australian market, so it's much more than just a Western Australian issue. There is interest in South Australia in bringing the boat trade back for exactly the same purposes that exist in Western Australia.

Last year the government appointed an independent committee to go to Western Australia and advise the government on how they were going to phase out the industry—not if they were going to phase out the industry but how they would go about it. They sent this independent committee over there—no minister, no Labor backbenchers and no courage to go and face Western Australians and tell them to their faces that they were going to abolish the industry. In that light, the coalition backbench ag committee, of which I am the current chair, decided it would go to Western Australia instead. First of all, we held a meeting in Adelaide. Around 100 people turned up for that; people say this is a Western Australia thing, but we had 100 people turn up in South Australia. As part of that meeting I organised for a grower from Western Australia, Steve Bolt, to come to South Australia. He's in the eye of the storm. He's a producer, and he's been one of the public faces of the campaign in Western Australia. He put it in a nutshell for me. He said the Western Australian industry on average produces 125 per cent of the requirement of their slaughter chain. This means that, in a time of undersupply, they have enough animals available for the industry to keep their slaughter chain open all the time. What happens when you've got undersupply in that situation? The price goes up and the ships disappear; they go and ship sheep from other countries. But when you've got an oversupply situation, and the price trends down and farmers need to offload their sheep but not pay $60 per head to get them through to New South Wales, the ships come back. They put a floor in the market, which is about $120 or $130 per head. That's why it's the safety valve that Western Australia needs. It is perfect. It covers back and puts a floor in the market. Currently, because they can't keep up, it's down well below that point.

The problem is the government thinks you can build new abattoir capacity. The abattoirs will thrive when there's an oversupply situation, but what happens when, inevitably, there is an undersupply situation, when we've had a recovery of drought or whatever it might be? You close the abattoir—somebody has invested millions and millions of dollars to build an abattoir—and put the staff off. I can tell you: it's hard enough to staff an abattoir on a good day, let alone to tell your workers to nick off for 18 months or so while the sheep trade comes back and then be expected to re-recruit skilled staff at that stage. It simply will not work. This will be a death spiral for the industry. When they've got undersupply an abattoir, a slaughter chain, will shut. And when they've got oversupply farmers will start to exit the industry. It's difficult for me to see how the WA industry thrives without this safety valve.

There was probably an average of 100 people arriving at seven different meetings across Western Australia. They were confused, angry and unbelieving that a government would scuttle an industry which had turned itself inside out meeting new requirements coming towards it. There is no science that can possibly justify this phase-out. We have lower stocking rates on board. We have increased ventilation. We have onboard vets. We have specifically designed feed. We have a northern summer ban. And we have—get this, Deputy Speaker Goodenough—onboard stock hospitals. When vets are wandering past pens on a daily basis and they see a sheep that is looking a bit peaky, not on it's feed, then they'll get that little beastie and take him up to the hospital and give him a shot of this or that. That's why the onboard mortality rates now are equal, are on the same level as an on-land feedlot, which is first class and which is not much different to having sheep out in the paddock, quite frankly. So there is no science, there is no good reason to shut down this industry anymore. It is a purely political ploy.

This industry supplies more than 3,000 regional jobs. Not jobs in large, central abattoirs; these are jobs out in the regions. And I can tell you, as someone who represents regions, one of the toughest things I have had to confront while being the member for Grey is the decline of our inland towns. Anything that takes jobs out of a small inland town, I'm against. I cannot stand by and let that happen without passing judgement on it, and I do in this particular case.

For those who have friends in the city and want up-to-date information on what the live export industry looks like, I urge them to visit the Livestock Collective website where they can see video footage of stock on board today and not, as the parliamentary committee heard about recently, from 13 years ago, from a vet that worked onboard ships between 2005 and 2011 or thereabouts. The committee accepted information from a vet who hasn't been on board a ship in 11 years as being up-to-date. It simply is not up-to-date. It is old news.

This is a first-class industry. It sets the standard, as the member for Cowper talked about, with our ESCAS, which actually traces our livestock overseas and has led to investment in new abattoirs and better handling practices in other countries. We are the only country that insists on down-chain upskilling of workforce in the handling of stock. Shutting down the Australian export trade will not lessen the numbers of those that actually go on ships around the world. It will just mean they don't come from Australia and they're not treated in an appropriate manner.

At those hearings in March, we heard the cry of Western Australian farmers. We said to them: 'We will fight your battle here in Canberra to our utmost, but we can't win on our own. You've got to be prepared to fight as well.' They've taken that advice on board, or perhaps they were going to do it anyway—I don't claim to be the author of all of these great outcomes—and they have now launched this Keep the Sheep campaign. Over 60,000 people have already signed the petition, and it's raised around $400,000. The Keep the Sheep campaign is determined to take this battle into the next election and to the marginal electorates in Western Australia. We think there are five or six of them that they will campaign in. They will wear T-shirts that will say something along the lines of 'Keep me on the land.' 'Support Keep the Sheep.' 'Keep the industry that supports you, that supports Western Australia.' I imagine there are five or six Western Australian Labor members right at this moment that are going: 'What the dickens have we done? Prime Minister, do we really have to do this?' Let's hope they can change their minds, but it doesn't look they will because we know what happens to insurrectionists in the Labor Party. They get thrown out.

And it's not just live sheep that's under siege in Australia. I talked about growers being sick of interference. There's the recommencement of indiscriminate water buybacks along the Murray-Darling Basin. There's the closing of the fully sustainable Gulf of Carpentaria gillnet fishery. There's the building of 10,000-plus kilometres—maybe 28,000 kilometres—of high-transmission lines and energy parks across the farmlands of Australia. There's the abolition of the Native Title Respondents Scheme, and this was brought up with me by three councils last week that feel as though they have been completely disempowered. There's the reduction in the instant tax write-off, and imposing biosecurity levies on farmers. We've simply had enough, quite frankly.

I don't think that the Labor Party hate farmers. As I said, I started off talking about the member for Paterson. I think they actually quite like us. I don't think they want to abolish farmers. I'm pretty sure they realise that farmers are quite useful to the nation. But I do think that they think farmers and agriculture are a totally tradable chip. It's a chip in a game of poker. They think farmers drive four-wheel drives and they've got big budgets to put those crops in. They send their kids away to school. They think they're, obviously, filthy, stinking rich. They think farmers will whinge for a while because that's what farmers do, but they'll be alright. Well, they're wrong. You can only push them so far.

I know many farmers that are struggling to balance the books. It's not easy being a farmer, and the input costs are through the roof—and a lot of those are actually delivered courtesy of the government. And then the farmers find that the Labor Party did a deal with the Animal Justice Party for preferences at the last election on the basis that Labor commit to phasing out, getting rid of, the live sheep trade. And guess what? They are now negotiating—this is the Animal Justice Party, not me—to get rid of the live cattle trade. This is a disgrace.

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

I thank the member for Grey for his contribution but also, as the chairman of the coalition policy committee on agriculture, for bringing that committee to Western Australia, as he said, in March. We had a series of meetings around WA regional areas—I think six or seven different meetings—and, as the member for Grey said, they were very well received because the farmers of Western Australia are feeling hurt, they're feeling frustrated and they're feeling kicked around, and at least to be able to turn up and have someone who frequents this place listen to them and take their concerns on board was, I think, a great fillip to them at that point in time.

However, we are here today debating the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, which is what those farmers that we spoke to in Western Australia desperately wanted to avoid happening. We've seen, since those meetings across Western Australia, a very difficult start to the season. It's starting to pick up now. We've had some winter fronts come through. But there was a very difficult period through April and May where farmers were under extraordinary pressure and weren't able to quit sheep. Processing was overbooked, with months-long waiting lists.

So, under the legislation which we are debating today, the adjustment package actually includes a $6.7 million mental health component. Now, I'm not too sure how many pieces of legislation we've stood up and passed through this place, and certainly while we've been in government I can't recall where, by our own admission, we were going to inflict serious mental health issues upon a particular section of the community. But that is what is contained in this bill—an admission that the farmers of Western Australia are already under incredible pressure, as the member for Grey said, and are going to be under even more pressure now and might require these services.

But, interestingly, the Western Australian agriculture minister has said in the parliament that she can't see how she can work constructively with the federal minister, so I'm not sure who's going to deliver these mental health services. Normally, it would be a state government. In the case of Western Australia, the Mental Health Commission would deliver this assistance to those farmers who require it. The federal government are going it alone because the state have said, 'This legislation is clearly going to impact negatively on the WA farming community,' so they've said that they are not going to work with the federal government. WA minister Jackie Jarvis has said that very clearly. So I'm not sure who's going to deliver that package.

Many people who have spoken on this bill, particularly those on the other side, do not have any particular understanding of how this industry works—and I don't blame them for that—and why the live sheep component of the Western Australian self-replacing merino flock is fundamental to the profitability and ongoing viability of that industry. Eighty per cent of the sheep that are run across Western Australia are merinos. Merinos are bred not for meat—although that's considered to be a byproduct—they're bred to produce wool. When a merino eats a kilo of food, most of the energy it consumes goes towards producing wool and only a small proportion goes towards producing meat. A crossbreed or a British-bred lamb, or a shedding sheep—an exotic sheep—has completely different genetics. They're bred to put the larger proportion of that energy into growing meat and fat, and those are the sheep that the processor is seeking when they go into the marketplace to buy sheep. Bear in mind that 80 per cent of the sheep in Western Australia are merinos, and that's a major component of the flock. It has fallen because of lower wool prices since 1990, with the collapse of the reserve price scheme. The Western Australian flock has fallen from 30 million sheep in its heyday to 12.9 million sheep, I think, at the start of this year. It's estimated it will be down to 12.2 million at 30 June, but, interestingly enough, the Wool Forecasting Committee forecasts numbers to drop to nine million sheep at 30 June 2025 and 7.2 million at 30 June 2026.

So, effectively, we're not just looking at the demise of the WA sheep industry, because once we get down to those numbers we lose critical mass and even the processors that we spoke to at the recent House Standing Committee on Agriculture hearings in Muresk in Northam admitted that once we go below a critical mass it's hard to keep processing plants going. It's very hard for them to be viable and, as the member for Grey said, we can't turn these things on and off; we have to keep the workforce working for 11 months of the year. There's a one-month shutdown when we do maintenance and so on, and then everyone comes back from their holidays and we go for another 11 months. That's the only way to maintain a viable abattoir. So once sheep numbers in WA fall below a certain level and those abattoirs can't keep going for that period of time then their viability goes out the window and we see the sheep industry contract even further and go even further downhill.

That's why it's such an important industry; the merino industry is far more labour-intensive than either the lamb industry or, indeed, the cropping industry. Other evidence that we heard from various farm lobby groups was that the assumptions by the department of agriculture, that sheep producers will move from merino sheep to fat lamb sheep or meat sheep, is actually a false dichotomy. That's because sheep are actually in competition with cropping acres. That's the way these mixed farming operations work, and it's another reason why sheep numbers have dropped—because cropping has become more attractive. Machinery and techniques have improved; Western Australia produced a record crop of over 24 million tonnes in 2022, massively up from previous crops because we're getting better at it. The machinery is getting better and more technical, and the techniques are getting more tailored to the environment.

What will actually happen is not that people will move from merino sheep today; once they lose that live export market, they'll move to cropping acres, which, once again, means lower numbers of sheep.

Why is that important? Why does that matter? Because the inland rural towns across my electorate of O'Connor, the member for Durack's electorate and also the member for Forrest's electorate, rely on the labour force that supports the sheep industry. It's a highly labour-intensive industry compared to cropping and meat sheep. Once we lose those shearing teams, the trucking contractors, the mulesing contractors, the stock-handling contractors and the stock agents, there's not much left in those rural communities. They're already in decline and struggling to keep the schools open. Once they lose a couple of families out of the school, the next thing is that they've lost their school. And once they've lost their school, how do they attract people to come and work in their town? If they have a family, what do they do? They aren't going to send a primary schoolkid away to a boarding school or to a hostel at the government schools in Albany or Narrogin. They just can't attract people to come and work in those towns. That's why it's so important that we continue to keep the industry viable and to keep those jobs happening.

I want to touch on the animal welfare issue. We all know that we're here because of the incident on the Awassi Express; it has been mentioned by many others. A lot of Western Australian farmers still want to hear what actually transpired between Animals Australia and the whistleblower. There was a lot of money that changed hands. There were allegations made by another whistleblower that the footage was contrived and that it was manufactured because of the amount of money—we're talking around US$107,000—paid to a deckhand whose monthly salary was US$350.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd reckon that any evidence that was produced in a court of law that had been obtained by that sort of money changing hands would be considered to be tainted. Anyway, that is an issue which we'll continue to pursue. I have 52 questions on notice to the department of agriculture which they have brushed off with a statement of a couple of paragraphs. However, I will not let this issue lie. I can say that to the people at the department of agriculture and others in the minister's office. We'll continue to pursue this until we get a result.

Since that incident, there have been dramatic changes to the way that the animal welfare and the conditions on these boats are conducted. These have made an enormous difference. Things like the stocking density in the pens and the ventilation as measured by the pen air turnover have made an enormous difference, as have the supervision and the reporting on these voyages. The wet bulb temperatures on each deck are recorded every hour; everything about the voyage is recorded.

At the recent House standing committee inquiry, we took evidence from some vets that were part of the Animals Australia, RSPCA and Vets Against Live Export group. One of those vets, Dr Lynn Simpson, alleged that feed shortages on the boats were leading to animals dying of starvation. She also suggested inanition, which is animals not feeding—specifically, that sheep are not accustomed to eating pelleted ration. We had Dr Jane Vaughan, who stated:

Sheep exhibit heat stress in the majority of equatorial crossings … This was demonstrated in 37 of 41 independent observer report summaries between 2018 and 2020.

She said that temperatures on voyages with little diurnal reprieve mean that sheep are experiencing heat stress conditions. She also described manure pads:

Damp, wet, tacky, sticky, sloppy faecal bedding is all indicative that sheep are failing to dissipate heat adequately.

That was the evidence that we heard at the inquiry on Wednesday the 12th here in Canberra.

Subsequent to that, Dr Herbert Rebhan, who is a veterinary surgeon, made a rebuttal submission to the inquiry. He was the registrar for production animals at Murdoch University's veterinary school from 2008 to 2014; from 2014 to 2019, he worked for the department of agriculture in the live animal export division in Perth; and, from March 2020 to November 2023, he worked as a shipboard Australian-accredited veterinarian on live sheep export voyages. He said, 'During this time, I cared for sixteen voyages that exported 899,315 sheep.'

I want to go to a couple of the points that Dr Rebhan made in response to the allegations from Dr Simpson and Dr Vaughan. He said:

My mortality rate ranged from 0.08% to 0.29%, averaging 0.19% (Two sheep out of one thousand). To put this into perspective, the mortality goals on a sheep farm are <2% for the rams and weathers and <3% for ewes and feedlot lambs.

…   …   …

Over my sixteen voyages, the total number of sheep hospitalized and treated was 2182, of which 2056 (94%) walked off the ship healthy and in market condition.

These are the sheep that are identified in a pen that are looking a little bit weak or thrifty. They are taken out of the pen, they are put into the hospital pen and they are treated.

I want to close by saying Mr Rebhan is an American. He studied and did his degree in America. In America, they swear an oath as a vet, similar to what doctors here in Australia do—the Hippocratic oath. The oath is:

… I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health and welfare, the prevention and relief of animal suffering …

That's the guts of what, as a vet in the United States, your oath is. He goes on to say over and above the oath:

I would never work in an industry that fails to comply with the veterinary oath.

I'm disgusted with the lies and deceitful tactics used by those with little to no firsthand experience or knowledge of the live sheep export industry who are trying to shut it down.

That addresses as far as I can in the time available some of the animal welfare issues.

I want to touch finally on the Keep the Sheep movement, which has sprung up. I know that many on the other side, particularly those on the east coast, would look at 60,000 sign-ups in the first month—$350,000 raised without a great deal of effort on their behalf—but let me tell you: this movement is a political movement which is gaining strength. It is the proxy for many farmers who are not involved with the live sheep export trade—they might be cattle producers and others—to get behind this and say: 'We have to draw a line in the sand here. If we allow the government to shut down a perfectly legal industry which has done everything that has been asked of it by the regulator, then what industry is next?' Is it cattle? We know that the animal welfare lobby are going after cattle next. They have made that very clear. Is it glyphosate in the cropping program? Is it atrazine in canola programs? So this movement is real. It's going to be effective, and I give it my 100 per cent support. So #keepthesheep.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill has been closely watched, discussed and debated in my electorate of Curtin. I've been inundated with emails and calls from farmers, current and retired, and those involved in the live sheep export industry who don't want the market to end, as well as inundated with emails and calls from constituents who want to see the market end as soon as possible.

It's clear to all that the halting of the live sheep export industry will disproportionately affect Western Australia and Western Australians. WA has been the only state exporting live sheep since 2019. According to the WA Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, in 2023, 12 per cent of sheep disposals by WA producers were by live sheep export. In relatable numbers, this means that nearly 671,000 sheep were exported, which contributed $70 million to the economy. Geographically, WA is isolated from the large eastern states' sheep market and, for the last 50 years, has exported live sheep as an integral part of the sheep industry. So it's understandable that WA sheep farmers are very concerned.

Because this is such a divisive topic in my electorate, I've been trying to learn as much as I can from all sides of the debate to ensure I can make a positive and pragmatic contribution. In December last year, I held a live sheep export round table where I invited a farmer, a representative from the Australian Livestock Exporters Council, a vet, an academic and a representative from the RSPCA into a room together to discuss the, at that stage, proposed ban. Needless to say, after a 90-minute discussion, I came to the useful conclusion that it was very complicated.

The attendees who were in favour of continuing the live sheep export made some good points: animal welfare in the sheep industry is now better than it used to be and better than many other countries that export sheep; the mortality rate on sheep ships is now fairly low; ending the live sheep trade will have a significant economic impact on many WA farmers; and live exported sheep play an important and integrated role in the viability of many WA farms. The attendees who were in favour of banning the live sheep export industry made the following points, which also seemed to stack up: it's hot on our sheep export routes to the Middle East, without much relief at night, and the sheep are likely to suffer heat stress; we don't have very sophisticated measures of distress and heat stress; the reform in the Australian live sheep industry has been largely reactive; and self-regulation doesn't seem to work particularly well, because of a lack of transparency and accountability.

Of course, there are a number of statements that were disputed by both sides, like whether the live sheep export decline in recent years has been because of the anticipation of a ban or if it was declining anyway. Also, there was conflicting data presented on public sentiment relating to live sheep export.

At its heart, this issue comes down to economics and livelihoods versus values and animal rights. This is not an argument where one side can convince the other. Those against the industry believe that the slaughter of sheep should happen as close to the farm gate as possible to reduce stress. Farmers who stand to lose financially believe this is a politically populist decision driven by the eastern states. As we know, in 2018, the ALP announced that it would phase out the live sheep export industry. It was a pre-election promise for the 2019 and 2022 elections. It is an ALP platform issue and I'm not going to argue against this position. I understand the animal rights concerns and I'm equally concerned by the stories of animal suffering. I've seen the figures that show the live sheep export market has been declining and sheepmeat exports have been increasing, so I will be supporting this bill before the House which will end live sheep exports by sea by 1 May 2028.

However, I want to discuss the government's announcement that it will commit $107 million to a transition support package to support the Western Australian sheep industry supply chain. I see my role as advocating for those in WA and in Curtin who are affected by this policy and making sure they get the best possible deal as they transition to a new industry. It's an unusual step to ban an industry and farmers should be looked after during the transition. The transition is focused especially on the expansion of the Western Australian onshore processing market, with refrigerated product to be transported to international and domestic markets.

In order to represent the largely retired farmers in Curtin, I sought input on what the transition package should look like from Curtin constituents who contacted me in favour of keeping the live sheep trade. I asked three questions: Firstly, what are the biggest needs for affected farmers and others in the supply chain during the transition? Secondly, what's the best way to support more onshore processing of sheep in Western Australia? Thirdly, what other types of support should be included in the program?

I was pleased that so many constituents were willing to engage with this process. Based on the replies received, I've made a submission to the minister in relation to the transition package based on this feedback. All reiterated their dismay about the live sheep export phase-out. The feedback specific to the live sheep ban transition package illustrated a number of important points: firstly, the need for a long-term perspective. Constituents were clear that the focus should be on genuine transition rather than short-term cash handouts. Many considered the package grossly inadequate, especially given the need to apply to the entire supply chain from farmers to exporters.

Secondly, extensive planning is needed for abattoir infrastructure. Expanding onshore processing of sheep will require more abattoirs. The reality is abattoirs in Western Australia require migrant labour and associated accommodation to operate effectively. These are already proving to be very difficult in the current economic conditions. Infrastructure will need to be built and housing provided. The challenge for a successful transition to build this industry and provide farmers with an alternative is therefore significant.

Thirdly, mental health implications for communities need to be considered. Mental health support for affected individuals and communities will be required and will be significant. When livelihoods are jeopardised, the impacts cut deep and undermine whole communities, including schools and the social fabric of towns. These are tight-knit communities who pride themselves on looking out for each other. Transitioning workers and ensuring meaningful employment and opportunities ties in with this mental health support.

Fourthly, there are significant supply chain issues. The lack of refrigeration in largely Middle Eastern country importers need to be addressed to facilitate the market for packaged meat. Freight subsidies for processed meat should be considered and new markets for processed meat need to be opened up to enable a proper transition pathway. Appropriate subsidies should be considered.

In conclusion, I recently supported a motion to refer this legislation to a committee because it will have a significant impact on the farmers affected. The size and make-up of the transition package needs to be carefully considered. I recognise that the ALP made the banning of this industry an election promise and is unlikely to reverse that decision and break its election promise, but I also recognise that banning an entire industry is a bold and unusual move. This is an industry that operates largely in Western Australia. Adequately supporting transition is essential, and I will give voice to my affected constituents in this transition process. I urge the government to engage deeply with those affected and ensure we are finding viable alternatives to protect our important agricultural exports from Western Australia.

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

There is a deep concern for animal welfare and safety amongst Warringah residents. This includes concern for the welfare of animals being shipped overseas as live exports. I have consistently said that it is our moral and ethical responsibility to bring an end to live animal exports. The science and research on the issues in the live animal trade is clear, showing the devastating impact on these animals. Our live export industry has consistently shown its willingness to condemn animals to extreme risk of suffering and death in the harshest of conditions. And, with temperatures ever rising during summer periods due to the climate crisis, we are already seeing examples from overseas where there are mass deaths of animals being transported in sweltering conditions. For example, during the 2022 UK summer, some 18,500 chickens died in transport, compared to 325 in the same period the previous year. It's clear the conditions are changing, and so too must the regulations and laws.

I commend the efforts of the Independent member for Clark and others in this place who have kept advocating for an end to live animal exports. As I've said before, the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. This is an issue we have walked past for too long. It's also an issue that has been on the agenda for some time. So, whilst I appreciate there is a concern for many communities—and I will go to that in a moment—this is not a new development. This has been on the cards for some time.

In the UK just last month a new law came into effect banning the export of live animals for slaughter, including their cattle, sheep and pigs. New Zealand brought a live animal export ban by sea into effect in April 2023. Now Australia is beginning to catch up. We have a proposed law before us to stop the export of live sheep from Australia, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. Now, let's be clear: it is not coming into effect immediately. It has a long lead time for that adaptation to occur.

Australia's lamb and mutton export industry was worth some $4.5 billion last year, but live sheep exports by sea was in fact less than $77 million in 2023, so about 0.1 per cent of Australia's agricultural production. Historically, we've supplied a large volume of live sheep to Middle Eastern countries, peaking at around $415 million over two decades ago. The overall volume of live sheep exports by sea has been decreasing steadily over the last two decades, dropping by 27 per cent between 2018 and 2019, and then again in 2022-23. Over the last two decades our sheepmeat exports have grown in value by over 300 per cent—that is processed, not live animals—including exports to the North Africa and Middle East region, more than tripling in those situations in value over this period. This means there is a market for processed meats, and there are more jobs in the meat processing and slaughter industry available to Australians. That is where the opportunity lies.

Western Australia has been Australia's only source of live sheep exports by sea since 2019-20. It now directly employs fewer than 100 people, but I do appreciate that there are communities and farms where it's a long family tradition that will be significantly impacted. It does set the scene, though, when we appreciate the constantly decreasing size of this industry and when we start appreciating the growth in the processed meat industry. We can see where the opportunity is to combine economic opportunity, jobs opportunity and ethical and moral opportunity to stop this inhumane treatment of animals.

The government commissioned an independent report into the phase-out of live sheep exports by sea, which reported back in October last year. That report acknowledged the polarised feeling in the community on the issue of live export bans, in particular from those Western Australian communities. However, the review panel concluded that the WA sheep industry can remain viable and sustainable following a live export ban, provided there is appropriate government support. That's what this bill puts into effect. It bans the live export of sheep by sea and provides support to those who will be affected by this change. Again, I appreciate there is debate and discussion in relation to the appropriateness of the support proposed by the government and whether or not this is adequate.

It's important to be clear, though, that it doesn't ban all live animal exports. Live sheep exports by air will continue. Exports of other animals, including live cattle, will continue by sea and/or air. Following the passage of this bill, sheep producers, related businesses and markets have a clear timeframe of four years to manage the transition from the trade into new activities. It is not like they're getting the rug pulled out from underneath them. There is a four-year transition period. This bill does provide certain support to affected stakeholders. The $107 million proposed transition support package will be necessary to assist all parts of the sheep industry supply chain, from farmers to truck drivers, shearers and meat processors, to adjust to that future without live sheep exports.

I do hear, though, the concern in relation to the size of that transition package in that it does not seem to be adequate when one considers the size of what is being lost and the number of areas that need to be covered. The industry was valued at around $77 million in 2022-23, so we should have a package from the government that ultimately helps create new opportunities to grow the domestic sheep processing industry, grow local jobs and contribute to regional development. Already, the sheepmeat export industry is worth some $4.5 billion, so it clearly has the potential to take over and assist these communities in the transition.

I support this bill, but it is worth sensibly raising the issues it presents. Firstly, as I mentioned, I question the size of the support package at $107 million over five years. I would encourage the government to be open minded on whether further support will be needed to properly address the transition. Within the $107 million, the government has committed some $64 million over five years for supporting sheep producers and supply chain participants affected. If you start dividing that over the course of those five years, it really does highlight that it is not a big support package, and so that really needs to be the focus of the government. This involves providing funding for more rural financial counsellors, expanding domestic sheepmeat processing capacities and developing plans to help businesses re-orient their operations away from live exports.

I understand that in WA, from where 85 to 90 per cent of exports originate, the premier has said that the ban of live sheep export would cost the relevant industries up to $123 million per year, implying that the government's $64 million over five years might be less than one-tenth of what is in fact needed. The government has also allocated some $27 million in funding over five years—again—to enhance demand for Australian sheep products in interstate and international markets, but this is unlikely to stretch far enough, given the diversity and unique needs of the various international markets. Again, we all know how to divide by five, so just announcing a number to be a package over the course of five years does not in itself make it a significant package. When we divide that up over the course of five years, it's clear the package falls short in many areas.

I also remain concerned that the live sheep export trade will continue in its current form for another four years without any caps or quotas and with only existing regulations in place. Unfortunately, we know those regulations are all too often inadequate and insufficient. I would strongly encourage the government to reconsider the lack of caps and quotas over the next four years and instead implement measures to achieve a gradual phase-out of live sheep exports over these next four years. The existing regulations that apply to live sheep exports appear to be inadequate, given the cases of inhumane treatment of sheep on ships seen as recently as January this year.

We should be considering the live exports of cattle as well. I acknowledge that the live cattle export market was worth some $1.2 billion in the 2022-23 year, and there are much greater economic consequences of banning the live export of cattle by sea, but the government should still further consider what it can do to improve the welfare of cattle being exported overseas by ship. In many cases, cattle and sheep are transported on the same ships, and, in March this year, more than 100 Australian cattle died on a live export ship to Indonesia. That's one of the highest mortality rates ever reported on an Australian live cattle shipment. The government should be considering further measures to ensure the welfare of live cattle and all live animal exports to ensure that the inhumane treatment of animals is not occurring. The government should consider further measures to ensure the welfare of live cattle and all live animal exports to ensure that inhumane treatment of animals isn't occurring. Examples that have been proposed include mandating vets on all cattle shipments, as recommended by the RSPCA, or installing real-time monitoring systems to track cattle conditions, such as temperature, humidity and health indicators. Live cattle exporters should be required to plan optimal routes to reduce stress and health risks, and also avoid transport during extreme weather conditions.

I will support this bill; it's a good start, but it's clear that there's a lot more work to be done to balance animal safety and welfare, and to prevent cruelty within live export industries—particularly the growing challenge from heat that we'll see as the world warms with the climate crisis. I absolutely support ensuring that communities which are being asked to change can do so with the support of government through packages that adequately meet the needs that they face.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. Our cattle producers would be very nervous if they were listening to that speech by the member for Warringah. They would be very, very nervous because, rest assured, once Labor, the teals and the Independents phase out the live sheep trade by sea, they'll be coming after cattle next. And then what? Will it be horseracing?

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

Dog racing!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dog racing! I just heard dog racing from the member for Warringah. It's because they want to ban everything. The dog-racing ban didn't work so well for the New South Wales government when they tried to implement that. The member for Warringah, who represents a sprawling electorate of 68 square kilometres in leafy coastal Sydney, would know all about the feelings of our cattle producers and the work that our sheep farmers do! I know—and I know that the member for Flynn knows, because he comes from cattle country. And the member for Wannon, who was a very, very good trade minister in the Morrison government for two years, represents an electorate which produces fine sheep, just like the Riverina produces. Why should our sheep markets here in the eastern states be affected by a decision made by this Labor government, albeit for over in Western Australia? But, rest assured, when the sheep are phased out, there's going to have to be something done with those sheep. They'll be shipped to the eastern states and our markets will suffer as a result.

When Labor, through a kneejerk reaction to a television program on the national broadcaster, shut down our live cattle trade in mid-2011, the cattle prices at Wagga Wagga slumped the next week. That's because they were fearful—and markets are driven by fear and greed. There were concerns that cattle from the northern part of Australia would end up in our saleyards, end up in our abattoirs and end up competing with the prices of our locally produced cattle in the Riverina. It's not too distant to say—and my local stock and station agents are already saying this—that a shutdown of the trade in the west will affect our markets in the east. It will affect our markets in Wagga Wagga. Just last December, because of any number of factors, sheep were selling for a dollar a head in the Wagga Wagga saleyards. Imagine trying to make a buck when your sheep are being sold for just a dollar. It doesn't even bear thinking about how much it cost you to transport those sheep to the yards, let alone paying the agents and all the rest.

This is a folly. The Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System is in place and is working well, and it's something that other countries, which will now fill this trade, do not have in place. What we have is the situation where the sheep are very much looked after; the sheep have pens in which to move on the ships and their panting, their breaths are measured. They have veterinarians on board, making sure that their welfare is first class. But that market will now be filled by countries which do not have the ESCAS system, or one like it, in place. What the teals and Labor would have you believe is that, well, Australian sheep will be okay, but to hell with those foreign-bred sheep. I say: shame on them!

I was watching television last night—one of the rare opportunities I ever get to sit down and watch TV—and there was an advertisement by the RSPCA no less boasting about the fact that, because of their diligent work, free-range hens are now able to lay in peace and indeed pigs are able to have big pens in which they can roll around in the mud. The RSPCA, no doubt cheering this home too, was very satisfied with that outcome. This is the same organisation which twice visited a farm near Wagga Wagga where re-homed brumbies were being allegedly slaughtered. It is now the subject of a police inquiry and of another state government inquiry as well and that is a good thing. But the RSPCA saw no problems there. They pick and choose which animals they are going to look after and which animals they are not. Rest assured, sheep were being very well looked after when they were exported to the Gulf states. The trade minister knows that, the former trade minister knows that, everyone on this side speaking in favour of the amendments put to this bill knows that as well. Indeed, the minister, Senator Murray Watt, three days before the budget, skulked his way over the west, did a Zoom meeting, didn't face up to the farmers, didn't eyeball the farmers, and announced this terrible, shameful policy which is going to see the trade shut down.

Then the member for Rankin, just three days later, stood at that very dispatch box and said he was going to put up $107 million to stop farmers doing what they have done for generations. Think about that—$107 million to stop farmers farming. I mean, it makes no sense. The member for Warringah also stated in her contribution that there will be money for rural financial counsellors. We want to make sure the mental health and mental welfare of our farmers is everything it should be, not paying money to counsellors in Western Australia to go and see if those farmers are okay because the rug has been pulled from underneath them by this anti-agriculture government, and that is what Labor are. They are anti-agriculture, as evidenced by this bill.

On 3 June, Minister Watt wrote to the House Standing Committee on Agriculture and instructed it to conduct an inquiry into the bill. However, it only involved two public hearings, offered just a week for submissions and provided a report on 21 June, two weeks after the inquiry started. This is not stakeholder engagement. This is not consulting our farmers, who deserve better. Our exports need to be upheld just to pay for the cost-of-living crisis brought about by this government. And, of course, a rushed process led to the chair recommending support for the bill.

The federal coalition stand in solidarity with Australian farmers. We always will. I am the son of a sheep farmer. I can just imagine what he would be thinking. The only time he ever protested in his life was when he came out the front here when the Hawke government came into power and was so anti-farmer, so anti-agriculture. It was the only time Dad ever protested.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was right to do it.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was right to do it, member for Wannon, indeed he was. The coalition will reverse this ridiculous, insane decision. We will reinstate the live export industry when next we are elected to government and hopefully that will be at the next election. I admire the police officer in Western Australia who is riding around on his motorcycle with a 'Keep the Sheep' sticker on his bike. That takes guts, that takes a bit of courage and well done to him for doing that. This is just a nonsense. Even the fact that after the consultancy panel, an independent panel apparently, developed a report on the phasing out of the industry, submitted its final report to the Minister for Agriculture on 25 October, it took Labor more than six months to release it. Why the secrecy? Because they knew about the backlash that they are going to cop and will cop right up until the next election and beyond for doing this, for phasing out live sheep exports. It's simply not good enough in this day and age when we've got the animal husbandry provisions in place. Those ships are very safe. In fact, those ships are so safe for sheep that more sheep die in paddocks on Australian farms than on those ships going to sea to those Gulf states.

Debate interrupted.