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

I rise to speak in support of the original bill, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. This bill will see the export of live sheep by sea end on 1 May 2028, delivering on our election commitment from not just one but two elections now to phase out this trade in a considered and orderly way. Australians expect Australia to have the world's best animal welfare practices, and Novocastrians do too. I have received thousands of emails from constituents advocating for an end to live sheep export. Like me, they have seen the confronting and distressing footage on board ships like the Awassi Express in 2018 and the MV Bahijah earlier this year.

Two weeks into its journey to Jordan, the MV Bahijah, laden with live sheep, was turned back due to the increased risk of Houthi rebel attacks on cargo ships in the Red Sea. With sheep still onboard, the ship remained moored off the coast of Perth while the exporters sought permission to re-export the sheep to Jordan. The sheep suffered for five weeks in filthy, hot conditions, leading to acute stress, high respiratory illness rates and death before eventually being taken off the ship. Tragically, this level of suffering is not isolated to this incident. Sheep frequently spend weeks and months at sea onboard ships in scorching temperatures.

Both the RSPCA and the Australian Veterinary Association have observed that conditions on board live export ships are frequently unacceptable. Ships have been found lacking in adequate ventilation with sheep unable to sit, sometimes drowning in their own filthy excrement, their carcasses flung overboard. When they reach their destination, we have little or no control over how those sheep are treated. We've seen the footage of sheep with their legs bound together, dragged alive across concrete before being put in the back of cars and taken away for slaughter in conditions that are unknown and against Australian regulations.

Both the industry and the opposition know that this trade is cruel and indeed unnecessary. It was the industry that announced a three-month pause in trade during the Northern Hemisphere summer, following the release of the shocking images onboard the Awassi Express. It was the now opposition that implemented a summer moratorium on exports—a recommendation of their own McCarthy review, which found unacceptable heat stress for sheep occurred during those Northern Hemisphere summer months.

There was also the Moss review, commissioned by the member for Maranoa—who is, unfortunately, no longer in the chamber but was the then agricultural minister. That review found there had been a catastrophic failure to regulate the live animal export industry. The review also found that the culture of fear within the department of agriculture meant staff were not reporting their concerns about animal welfare within the industry.

But it is the statement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Farrer, that is the most telling. In 2018 she introduced a private member's bill to end the live sheep trade and expose the hypocrisy of the coalition's position. She told the parliament:

I know all the arguments that are used to support the live sheep trade because I ran them myself for 15 years.

…   …   …

I have researched the science, the facts, the economics and the opinions. I have not allowed emotions to overcome reason.

The case for continuing long-haul live sheep exports fails on both economic and animal welfare grounds.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was not alone in her criticisms; she was joined by a number of her conservative colleagues, including the now shadow minister for community safety, migrant services and multicultural affairs, Senator Sarah Henderson. They had a lot to say in support of shutting down the live sheep trade in 2018, so I look forward to their support of Labor's bill today.

The Albanese Labor government supports strong animal welfare standards, and we know Australians do too. They have told us they want an end to this cruel trade. Almost 44,000 people have signed a parliamentary petition to legislate an end to live sheep exports, and each one of us is hearing the same from communities—that they expect this to happen too.

This bill is a mandate from Australians—including Western Australia, home to most of the live sheep export industry. It was here that the RSPCA found that 71 per cent of people support an end to live sheep exports, with 72 per cent in metro areas and 69 per cent in regional areas. Australians have told this government what they want, and we have listened. This bill reflects our nation's values of compassion and ethical treatment of animals as well as ethical trade.

This bill also reflects our care for the community. We know that for some in the industry this will be a big change, and that's why we're taking the time to ensure a transition is done in an orderly way and with care. We can't end live sheep exports immediately because we know some people's livelihoods depend on it. We've just heard from the member for Paterson and about the inquiry that's just taken place. That's why we're charting a way forward with a $107 million transition package over five years to assist sheep producers and the supply chain, particularly in Western Australia, to capitalise on existing and emerging opportunities—such as the expansion of the packaged chilled and frozen sheep meat export industry—and Australian abattoirs and packing facilities to support this trade. We know chilled and frozen sheep meat exports are already worth 58 times the live sheep trade, and expansion in this industry means more jobs for Australians and more profit for Australia.

Labor's transition package will be available to help all parts of the sheep industry supply chain, from farmers to truckies to shearers and processors. This is a comprehensive package that will strengthen supply chains, expand market opportunities and improve animal welfare outcomes. I also note the recommendations of the report that was published last week and tabled in the House just now. This government will be considering those recommendations very carefully.

Today the Albanese Labor government has made the right call to put an end to this cruel and unnecessary trade. We are taking decisive action that is long overdue, and we are doing so in a sensible and reasonable way to ensure impacted communities are well positioned, resilient and ready when the trade ends in 2028. I'm proud to be part of a government taking this important step, and we know Australians are behind us.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in opposition to the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. I listened to some of the debate on the other side. I've been around for a while, and it always seems to be that when people want to make improvements it always impacts on someone else; it's never their constituents. I'm one of a few people in this House that's actually had quite considerable experience in raising and farming sheep. Indeed, I have spent most of my life working in the sheep industry. I've got to say, looking after sheep is not easy. They are an animal that requires a high level of management and care. I've been listening to some of the debates, and I know the member for Paterson, who's one of the more practical members on the other side—it must be sticking in her throat having to toe the party line on this, because I'm sure there are constituents in Paterson who would not be happy with this line of legislation that's going through.

As I listened to the member for Newcastle, we're going back into ancient history in picking out some of the disasters that have happened in the past and also the worst-case scenario at the other end. Whereas, in recent years, there have been considerable improvements to the transportation by sea with the facilities on board, the monitoring by veterinary staff, the air conditioning, the flow of air and the close scrutiny of the welfare of those sheep, including the diet that they're fed. So, in actual fact, during their passage on the water, the sheep actually improve in condition. They actually put on weight.

I can tell you from experience, if a sheep is stressed or they're in an area that is uncomfortable, they will not put on weight. They talk about canaries in the coalmine. Sheep quite often fit that role because, if things aren't going well, it shows up in their health. These ships, now, are world class and better than anywhere else.

At the other end, some of our markets now have abattoirs set up that meet the cultural requirements of our customers. In this debate, we seem to have forgotten about our customers, the people who rely on it for a couple of reasons, whether it's cultural or the fact that they live in an area where they rely on freshly killed meat—the refrigeration or electricity might not be as reliable or indeed present. These people rely on being able to purchase healthy sheep to be slaughtered in a culturally sensitive manner that meets their requirements and also provide the necessary protein and nutrition for their family.

If Australia stops this trade, we're going to see sheep from other countries, notably probably African countries, where there are no requirements. If we're looking for welfare outcomes, does not a sheep from Africa require the same amount of welfare as one from here? There's a big difference. Then, if we go into the producers—I happen to have been here under the Gillard-Rudd era when Senator Ludwig, overnight, pulled the live cattle trade from Indonesia, and the devastation that was felt from that decision is still being felt in the cattle industry. I live in New South Wales, a long way from where those cattle were exported from, and the flow-on effect to the markets in the southern eastern states was dramatic. Not to mention, the welfare of the cattle that were left with no market to go to—you've got to understand that livestock production is continually moving forward and continually revolving. You can't just stop the production line, because you would end up with people being overstocked and with real welfare conditions. So this decision for Western Australian sheep producers is absolutely catastrophic, particularly for those who have no other option because of the landscape of where they live but to run sheep. This market has been a valuable market for them to sell their cast sheep as they make way for younger sheep or lambs coming through. It affects whole communities—the shearers, the truck drivers, the livestock agents, the feedlot operators near the port—all the people who work in that sector. I'm sure the member for Fremantle is very concerned about the employment of the people who work in this trade in his electorate. They will have that ripped out from under them as well. The flow-on effect beyond the sphere of people who are directly impacted goes to those communities.

Country towns already are struggling to keep their numbers up with the mechanisation of agriculture, particularly in the cropping sector and others. This will be a death knell for some of those communities, particularly in Western Australia. When there are not enough shearers and no truck drivers, their children won't be attending the school, so there'll be a reduction in numbers. The people presenting at the local health service will decline and so on. It's a snowball effect.

I see this in this place time after time after time. Whether she realised it or not, the member for North Sydney belled the cat on this. She said, 'Oh, my goodness, the people of North Sydney do not like this trade,' without having one single clue—with great respect to her constituents—about it. Once again, the people of the regions get traded away in this place for the votes of those who live in the elite, leafy suburbs of our capital cities. It happens time and time again. In my electorate, with reforms to the Murray-Darling Basin, for ideological, political, but certainly not practical reasons, we're starting to see productive water removed from communities in my town. We see it here. We've seen it in the energy debate, where it's okay for farmland to be turned into wind factories in my part of the world but it's not okay to have them where people of the cities might see them. This is another classic example of that.

The rate of death of sheep on an export ship is lower than the rate of death on a property—a well-managed property—and that is testament to the processes that are in place on those vessels, which are world-class. All those people concerned about the welfare of the sheep, where were they a couple of years ago when the sheep were struggling in the drought and the farmers were struggling to keep those sheep alive? Where was the concern then?

What we see is we see animal welfare concern when there's political advantage for some to show their virtue of saving animals when in other places there might be livestock in real peril because of drought or, in some cases, flood. Where's the concern then? No, it's only when it's a visible thing that doesn't impact them so they can show their constituents: 'Look how virtuous we are. We've stopped sheep getting on boats.' What they don't say is they've destroyed the livelihood of thousands of farmers, they've reduced the social cohesion and welfare of country towns and they've deprived our customers of a valuable resource. We saw that with the cattle in Indonesia, and it's only now that we're starting to get a relationship back over the last couple of years with Indonesia because of that.

Those countries in the Middle East are major customers of ours—people who pay the bills through the balance of trade for the other things that we decide on in this place, whether it's welfare, disability, education or defence. It's us selling things to people and customers overseas that pays those bills.

We need to do it in a humane way. There were issues in the past that have been addressed. But, no, we're seeing this legislation come through now to show the virtue of those opposite but no real concern, quite frankly, for the sheep—or, more importantly, for those producers of the sheep that rely on live export.

Somehow, it's thought that there's a heartless coldness in this, that the people who are in the sheep industry are somehow cruel, heartless people. I can tell you, as someone who has been a livestock producer all their life, that there is no-one who cares about the welfare of their livestock more than the farmer. They have been supporting this industry because they know that those sheep are cared for, fed and nurtured right up until the point of slaughter.

There might be some in here that don't want to see sheep slaughtered, quite frankly. I can remember one of our colleagues here in the live cattle trade speaking to someone about what we should do with the cattle that don't go to Indonesia. 'Couldn't they stay with their families on the farm?' I think there's a bit of that in here, quite frankly: the belief that farms are places with butterflies and little lambs prancing around, and we're all happy-go-lucky. But the reality is agriculture is a business. They rely on breeding animals, nurturing animals and selling them to an end user. What we've seen now is that the end user, the main market and the main buyer of this product, has now, not through their request, with no misbehaviour of the livestock producer and no real scientific evidence—no scientific evidence at the moment that this trade is bad for animal welfare.

I'll defy the member. I know the member for Fremantle is nodding over there, but the scientific evidence, as of now—we're not going to have a history lesson, like we had from the member for Newcastle—is that this is a humane way to dispose of sheep. If you don't want to see sheep killed, I guess you probably will not support this.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fess up! Just be honest!

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, just be honest. Maybe the member for Fremantle has an issue with those smelly boats pulling up in his river. I suspect that the people that are having their brunches on the waterfront at Fremantle are offended by sheep trucks coming in and loading up. Everyone has to represent their constituents. That could be the case. But, just from me, I oppose this legislation. Sadly, I've seen this sort of thing happen here before. It always ends badly. It always ends badly for the people of the regions, and it always ends badly for this country as a whole. I oppose it.

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

The Albanese government is taking responsibility for managing a change that has been necessary and inevitable for years—namely, the end of the live export of sheep by sea to the Middle East. It's the end of an industry that has always involved and continues to involve the unacceptable suffering of Australian animals; the end of an industry that has never overcome the intrinsic tendency of this trade to do harm to Australian sheep; and the end of an industry that has steadily and drastically declined over the last 20 years, having fallen now to less than 10 per cent of the trade at its peak.

While the live sheep trade has effectively dropped off a cliff, there has been enormous and welcome growth in the export of chilled and frozen boxed meat. Indeed, Australia remains the largest exporter of sheepmeat in the world, and 2023 set new records for the tonnage and value of sheepmeat exports. That's exactly what the Albanese government is working to deliver. It was great to see Meat & Livestock Australia say that exports are likely to grow further in 2024.

The Albanese government is opening new markets and expanding existing markets for chilled and frozen boxed meat. Last year trade to our traditional markets grew as follows: to China, our largest market, lamb exports increased by 30 per cent and mutton exports increased by 70 per cent; and to the Middle East and North Africa, the second-largest market category, sheepmeat exports increased by 63 per cent. Last year trade to newer markets grew as follows: to the UK, lamb exports were up 17 per cent and mutton was up 75 per cent; and sheepmeat exports to India grew by 160 per cent. Those are the facts of the live sheep trade. That is the scientific reality. That is the economic reality.

It's excellent that we've seen a more than 400 per cent growth in humane, locally processed chilled and frozen box meat. It's excellent that the trade in processed sheepmeat is worth more than 58 times the value of the live sheep trade, which itself is worth less than 0.1 per cent of Australia's agricultural output and less than one per cent of WA's agricultural output. Indeed, in Western Australia alone, chilled and boxed frozen meat is worth eight times the live export trade, and that gap is widening. That is what you call progress. That's exactly what's occurred throughout the history of Australian agriculture—a sector that's always sought to become more productive, more efficient and more sustainable. That's precisely the trajectory that's occurring here, as we leave behind a form of export that's proven to be incapable of occurring without chronic animal welfare shortcomings and recurrent animal welfare disasters.

Sadly, for too long, too many people have ignored and even resisted this inevitable transition, and, too often, they've been prepared to hide behind claims that are fundamentally false. Those claims are as follows: (1) quite bizarrely, that there are no animal welfare issues with this trade; (2) that all the issues, when they become horribly apparent time and time again, are made up by some nefarious animal welfare or inner-city communist conspiracy; (3) that the industry of its own volition has made every effort to own up to and clean up its terrible record; and (4) that live export is somehow an essential and vital part of Australian and, more particularly, Western Australian agriculture. All those claims are false. They are all false. Most importantly of all—I say this in response to the member for Parkes—it has to be noted that over 60 per cent of voyages since 2018 have involved heat stress in sheep. Those are voyages that have occurred since the changes that were forced upon those opposite. That continues today. Mortality is not the measure of animal welfare. You can have animals arrive in the Middle East that are still alive. That does not determine whether or not they have suffered unacceptably, and the evidence is that 60 per cent of voyages after 2018 have involved heat stress.

No-one ever said that managing change is easy. No-one ever said that managing change can occur without making adjustments that ease the transition and lessen the short-term impacts. That is precisely what taking responsibility means. That's what good government requires. It's the complete opposite to what occurred under the coalition. It's the complete opposite of the approach they are taking today. While some may want to stay stuck in the past, and some are intent on catastrophising the transition that has been underway for 20 years, we're focused on managing the inevitable change to a marginal, unnecessary and harmful trade. Again, in response to the member for Parkes, with all of the talk about the terrible impacts that will occur in terms of the vitality of towns in Western Australia and jobs and economic activity and other related social measures, how is it that the trade has declined by 90 per cent without those things occurring? How is it that the trade declined 75 per cent just in the decade between 2012 and 2022, and the WA sheep flock and wool output remained exactly the same?

We're focused on working with the many sensible people in WA agriculture who want to see the $107 million assistance package delivered constructively and effectively and who want to see support to address real issues—competition issues and processing capacities—and to accelerate the incredible market demand opportunities for a stable, humane, locally processed, export-focused industry that continues to promote Australia as the premiere sheepmeat producer in the world not just in terms of volume and value but in terms of quality, sustainability and animal welfare.

A couple of weeks ago, the shadow minister for agriculture, the member for Maranoa, stood at the dispatch box and turned on the fire and brimstone in his compelling style. The member—who I like a lot—was happy to trot out some of the four falsehoods of the apocalypse that I described earlier. I understand why, for political reasons, the member for Maranoa wants to play to his own crowd in that way, but it did involve some selective amnesia that was painful to watch. Afterall, the member for Maranoa was the minister in the aftermath of the Awassi Express disaster. He received the Moss review and the McCarthy report. There are some people right now who are trying to claim there is no evidentiary or scientific basis for the very serious animal welfare failures involved in the live sheep export trade.

If the member for Maranoa is being honest, he really should set them straight. He should quote to them from the advice he commissioned and then received. The Moss review in 2018 stated:

By its nature, live animal exports present a high risk to animal health and welfare.

That came 33 years after the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare released its report in 1985 on the live export of sheep, noting that the trade was inimical to good animal welfare. The Moss review made it clear to former minister Littleproud that there was an inherent conflict in the department with respect to supporting trade while at the same time regulating animal welfare; that the department didn't have the appropriate capacity and expertise when it came to regulating animal welfare; and that it was clearly suboptimal to have animal welfare in this chronically problematic trade supervised by vets that were employed by the live export industry. That, of course, continues to be the case today. It's preposterous for anyone to deny the reality that the live sheep trade has always been shot through with animal welfare failures. Those failures were not avoided by the industry or effectively regulated out under the coalition government. The coalition government was always inclined to turn a blind eye, put its head in the sand and blame animal welfare organisations and communities that, like mine, have lived alongside this trade, in order to give the live export industry its 15th, 16th, 17th or 18th 'second chance'.

There's another bit of honesty you will not hear from the opposition in this debate and which you'll certainly never get from the former minister, the member for Maranoa, or from those who pledge blind loyalty to defend at all costs what has demonstrably been a rotten trade. The honesty you'll never hear is that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government from the outset took steps to weaken animal welfare protections. They were not just relentless apologists for the worst aspects of the trade but actually knocked down some of the protections the previous Labor government had sensibly put in place. They were elected in September 2013. In November, they abolished the Australian Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. In December, the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy inside the department was discontinued; the department's animal welfare branch was disbanded. This was in their first six months of government. No wonder the Moss review found serious shortcomings in the department's capacity to deliver its animal welfare regulatory function.

Here we are, as in so many areas, cleaning up the mess. Here we are, sensibly and consultatively managing a change that's been underway for 20 years. We made a clear commitment to do so at two consecutive elections. We started the work with an independent panel process that met with more than 2,000 individuals and received 800 submissions and more than 3,000 survey responses. The panel held 96 stakeholder meetings, including 14 in-person forums and eight virtual forums. Following that process, the independent panel recommended that government move to set a date for the end of this trade and to provide an assistance package to support farm businesses and expand processing capacity in new markets. That is exactly what we're doing with the bill before the House. It's exactly why I support it so strongly. The passage of the bill has now been recommended by the report of the inquiry undertaken by the House Standing Committee on Agriculture, which itself received a further 13,000 submissions in a short space of time, with 85 per cent of those submissions expressing support for the reform we're undertaking.

The Albanese government, through the careful and consultative work of Minister Watt, is moving forward with a reform that has been a long time coming. For too long, the live sheep export trade has caused the suffering of Australian animals. For too long, the trade has dwindled away to almost nothing, and, for a decade, that occurred under a coalition that wasn't prepared to take responsibility for regulating an industry beset by chronic animal welfare issues and which produced recurrent animal welfare disasters. For too long, sheep producers have made the best of a volatile and dying trade. Now it's time to move forward. It's time to make a sensible and well-managed change to a stronger and more sustainable future. I look forward, personally, to sharing that work, which means focusing on the needs of WA producers and other participants in the supply chain as we make the transition by 1 May 2028.

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

I rise today to speak against the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. The introduction of this bill represents a complete and utter betrayal of Western Australian farmers and regional communities. There is simply no scientific, economic or animal welfare justification for ending the WA live sheep trade. Those opposite are shutting down a valuable Western Australian industry—sadly, for their own political benefit.

Those opposite have completely misrepresented the industry in terms of standards and scale. One example is their insistence that the live sheep trade is disappearing on its own. This is just another fabrication. A submission by LiveCorp to the standing committee inquiry demonstrates that the industry is growing. In 2023, the number of live sheep exported from Australia was 30 per cent higher than the year prior. Their reintroduction into the Saudi market provides huge growth opportunities. I also have no doubt that the industry would be able to grow even further if the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—you know, that department who's supposed to support the industry—actually did support it.

Middle Eastern and North African countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, have high demand for live sheep imports due to the limited growth potential for local production. They have a preference for local, freshly slaughtered, halal meat for use in religious observance and daily diets. The broader region was forecast to import around five million head of live sheep and goats in 2022. This number is forecast to be around 7.3 million head by 2027. The growing demand won't go away if Australian producers are forcibly removed from the market.

This takes me to my second point, regarding animal welfare. Australia's live export industry has the highest standards in the world. The Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock set out conditions for the export of livestock, and the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, known as ESCAS, requires exporters to enforce Australia's strict animal welfare standards in importing countries. This means that animals being exported from Australia are protected throughout the entire process, from Australian paddocks to the point of slaughter in international markets. As these welfare standards are enforced in the feedlots and slaughterhouses of destination markets, sheep that are held and processed abroad are treated the same as our Australian sheep.

Australia's live sheep trade is exporting the highest animal welfare standards to the world. This is not just a Liberal Party or an industry talking point. It is a fact that the standards are recognised by international animal welfare bodies. The World Organisation for Animal Health and Welfare have stated, 'Australia has taken animal welfare improvements to the rest of the world, and for this Australia has the organisation's unequivocal support. The live export trade in Australia is leading the world in animal welfare and provides benchmarking.'

As the coalition members of the standing committee made clear in their dissenting report to the recent inquiry, for Australia to just simply cut and run from this industry will certainly lead to worse international animal welfare standards, with no more welfare benchmarks and more sheep being imported from developing nations who do not have the same standards or, in many cases, any standards at all.

Another important issue that has been overlooked is the impact that this bill will have on our global reputation and our trading relationships. The Middle East is an important market not just for live sheep but also for other agricultural commodities. Grain Producers Australia have indicated:

This ban will also have negative impacts on our trading partners in the Middle East who also buy Australian grains, including for feed stock, and our overall international trading reputation.

Labor's own Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have confirmed that a linkage had been made by an unnamed Kuwaiti company between Australia's grain exports and the phasing out of the live sheep trade.

This bill will only lead to more needless suffering for both regional communities and sheep. So it begs the question: why is it being done? Well, this bill is nothing to do with sheep. This bill is all to do with politics. Labor are worried that standing with those hardworking Western Australian farmers and communities and this vital industry will reduce their chances of holding off the Greens in the inner-city seats on the east coast.

Humanity is often brought up when we have this debate. But where is the humanity for my Western Australian farmers and regional WA communities more broadly? Where's the humanity for them? The message from regional communities across my electorate of Durack, the member for O'Connor's electorate and the broader Australian agriculture sector has been clear: do not take away our industry; do not take away our livelihoods. And they're not going to give up. In just a few weeks, the grassroots campaign in Western Australia called 'Keep the Sheep' has had over 60,000 people sign on to the petition to keep the sheep. The focus of this campaign is to spread awareness of the human impact this bill will have on communities across Western Australia.

But it's not just on farming families, many of whom have been farming families for generations, it's also on the local businesses, the local schools and the local sporting clubs. Those opposite are taking the livelihoods away from at least 3,000 Western Australians but, obviously, this also impacts entire communities spread right across the Wheatbelt in Western Australia and beyond. I recently joined the Leader of the Opposition for a roundtable discussion with industry stakeholders in Perth and, not surprisingly, we heard from the farmers and also the truckies. But an important point made by Darren Spencer from the WA Shearing Industry Association was that, at times, the shearing industry is the largest employer across many of the affected regional towns. Darren indicated that this will have impact on the:

… hardworking people of our shearing industry, including shearers, rousies, pressers, cooks, classers and shearing contractors … The live sheep industry provides work outside peak periods and keeps them in the industry. The forecasts have sheep numbers going as low as nine million next year and seven million in 2026. So we'll lose nearly half our workforce.

With the decline in sheep numbers, which is an inevitable impact of this legislation, those opposite are simply taking away the jobs that are simply not going to be replaced with a shift to cropping—which we're already seeing. Less employment means less money flowing into the local pub or the local bakery. It means people will be forced to leave these communities. That's what the 'Keep the Sheep' campaign is all about: getting that message out there of the human side to this dreadful decision. The Prime Minister claims to be on the side of Western Australia. Honestly, he beats his chest about, 'I'm the friend of WA; I've been there this many times.' I'll say that it doesn't take much for him to sell out Western Australia. Western Australians are watching, not just where he goes or what he says but what he does. They're watching.

The minister for agriculture has announced that the ban won't come into effect until May 2028, so there is no need for the government to gag or guillotine debate on this bill and I hope everybody gets an opportunity to have their say. This bill must be subject to a comprehensive Senate inquiry that will hear from all impacted communities, members of the industry and those involved in the supply chain. I implore those opposite to show some common decency and to announce a legitimate Senate inquiry. The recent charade that was the Standing Committee on Agriculture's two-week inquiry was an absolute insult to regional Western Australians. Honestly, how can anyone justify giving farmers, industry stakeholders and concerned community members just four working days to make a submission to the committee? Honestly, it's a joke, and it's incredibly disrespectful to the people that I represent. Those opposite clearly have no respect for or understanding of our farmers, who feed and sustain this nation. Even though there were only four days to make a submission, incredibly, 13,000 people made submissions. Given that only a fraction of those have been processed and published, it is unbelievable to me that there could possibly be careful consideration of these submissions prior to the writing of the inquiry report. This was simply a box-ticking exercise for the government, with the result never in doubt. I hope that a legitimate Senate inquiry, with a reporting date that allows for a thorough examination, will allow concerned farmers and stakeholders in my electorate to finally be heard.

Even though I believe this inquiry was a true waste of time, I was proud to attend and to speak at the single hearing that took place in Western Australia in the small town of Muresk within my electorate.

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

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the member's speech was interrupted, she'll be granted leave to continue when the debate is resumed.