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

I am just off the phone from the state member for Rowe, Peter Rundle, who describes what the Labor federal government has done to his community as 'quite traumatic'. 'They have taken it to heart,' he told me. He represents the people with the most sheep in the Western Australia parliament, just as the member for O'Connor, Rick Wilson, represents people who have so many sheep. It is their livelihoods, it is a generational thing and it is so upsetting for those farmers. But beyond the farm gate, it is so upsetting for those communities which are, in many instances, largely underpinned by the live export trade.

I received a letter on 21 May from Councillor Philip Blight, Shire President of Wagin, who, in his letter, said:

The recent decision by the Federal Minister to ban the live export of sheep means that our community which has farmed here since the 1870s is under threat. The ban puts the livelihoods of not only our farmers but the entire community at risk. Across regional Western Australia this decision impacts thousands of Australians.

Wagin has a population of 1,800. It's these small communities which are the heartbeat of our nation and these small communities should be respected. They have been greatly disrespected by this decision.

And then we hear Labor's falsehoods about how many sheep and the value of the export trade. In 2023—and these are the facts—the total value of livestock exported from Australia was more than $1 billion. Contrary to Labor's false claims, live sheep exports are growing. According to data collected by the agriculture department, live sheep exports increased from nearly 380,000 in 2022 to more than 654,000 in 2023. And, really disturbingly—worryingly—this isn't just about economics. Sadly, in yet another dark chapter in this sorry tale, we've also learned that the Albanese government sold out the WA sheep industry for what could only be described as a 'dirty' preference deal with, of all organisations, the Animal Justice Party in the lead-up to the Dunkley by-election in March.

When Minister Watt made his announcement on the shutdown deadline on 11 May, the Animal Justice Party had this to say:

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.

That's the quote: fine-tune government policy. This is a dirty deed, but it hasn't been done cheap—with all apologies to AC/DC and its 1976 album. This is a dirty deed but it has not been done dirt cheap, because it has come at the expense of our fine WA sheep producers.

Labor has put cheap political expediency and the ideology of extreme activists over and above the livelihoods and the emotional wellbeing of our farmers and our sheep producers. And they admit that it's over and above the emotional wellbeing of our farmers, because the $107 million package for the phase-out includes emotional and rural financial counselling for those farmers. So Labor admits that this is going to be a strain on the mental wellbeing, the mental health, of our farmers, and yet they're going ahead with it. And they're going ahead with it because the AJP indicated that it needed to be so, to get their preferences at that by-election. We all know that the AJP's next target is all live animal export industries, and that is going to have such an effect on so many industries—not just sheep but cattle as well. Indeed, next they'll ban shuttle thoroughbred stallions from operating in the horseracing industry—banned from going from Australia to other places for their stud services. Mark my words, that will happen. And then they'll come after the horseracing industry per se.

The Albanese Labor government's policy to end live sheep exports has caused significant tension with the WA state Labor government. They're publicly opposed, and so they should be. Premier Roger Cook has labelled the policy as unnecessary. The relationship between the Western Australian agriculture minister, Jackie Jarvis, and Minister Watt also very much appears to be strained. Minister Jarvis stated that the decisions over live exports had not been in the interests of WA—and that's correct—and said:

… it is difficult to see how we can work collaboratively.

In government, we will absolutely restore this important industry. Unlike those opposite, we will always support our farmers and always back our farmers. And we very much back our WA sheep farmers. It's a disgrace!

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Riverina—a wonderful contribution as always, but an important contribution to this debate. I also need to pay tribute to the member for O'Connor. His electorate and his community are going to be directly impacted by these changes, by this government decision. I had the honour to serve with him on the agriculture committee, and we looked at this legislation in a very rushed two-week process; I'll speak to that in a minute. In my time serving here with the member for O'Connor, and serving with him on the committee, what is clear is his connection to his community, his passion for his community and his willingness to fight and to continue to fight for his community because he knows how devastating this will be to them. He knows because he is a sheep farmer; he is a farmer of the community. We heard so much testimony during the hearing about the impact this will have. So it is important that I put on record my admiration, respect and praise for the member for O'Connor, for the work he's done fighting for his community. We hope it will make a difference—if not now, then in the future. We know that there are many farmers and many community members in the west that continue to campaign to protect the agriculture community not only in WA but also across the country. We heard during the committee hearing from the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association about their concerns about this bill, the precedents it sets, and about their memories of decisions of those opposite when they were last in government—of shutting down their trade and the ongoing legal situation afoot with that.

Let's take this back to basics and first principles, and understand what is happening here with this bill, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. The federal government, the ALP, are shutting down an industry. They are shutting down an industry, and that can send businesses out of business. If their decision shuts a business down they are not giving one dollar of compensation to that business, to that family or to that farmer. In the inquiry I asked the department of agriculture, 'Is any of the money that is allocated for the transition package going to compensation for businesses that are shut down by a government decision, that have to close because of a government decision?' Their answer was no. What precedent does that set for every agricultural business in Australia? What precedent does it set for every business in Australia? That this government is prepared to shut you down, close your business and give you no compensation. That's why the live cattle export industry are worried and why many other businesses and many others in agriculture are worried. We heard testimony after testimony that I will get to about the impact it will have on farmers and on families.

The part that we heard was most frustrating for the industry was that it has been documented that there were challenges—there is the Awassi case. Now there is also a situation where significant money was paid to the gentleman who filmed that incident, who was the whistleblower to get this started. There is a stat dec that I'll look to table that I was not able to table—the Labor majority would not let me table that stat dec—that showed the money that had been paid to the whistleblower. There was another statutory declaration that I was not able to table, that I was denied the right to table, that alleged the whistleblower did what he did—created the situation with the footage—to create outrage. That first stat dec said that footage was sent and the person was told that that footage wasn't good enough, that the quality wasn't good enough and then, lo and behold, months later, much better quality footage was then used to shut down this industry. That is something that frustrates and devastates the farmers that are impacted.

What is also galling to those farmers and those communities—and we heard testimony after testimony over this—is that, since the incident that started this, there have been systematic and significant reforms and changes. The mortality rate on ships has dropped over 80 per cent, to the point where now more sheep in a flock pass away in a paddock than on the ship. So this industry, to be clear, has learnt the lessons, taken them on board and improved their practices to the point where even those vets and other experts that criticised the industry acknowledged that Australia is leading the world in standards for animal safety with live sheep exports. This industry listened, it reacted and it was still shut down, with no benchmark given by those opposite.

Let's understand how significant this impact will be, and it's acknowledged by the government. We hear from those that will vote for this bill about a just transition and how it's going to be okay. Well, it's going to be okay if you live in the city. If you live in the city, you can find another job pretty easily because there are thousands of businesses and opportunities. But that is not the case when you're on the farm and not when you are a fourth or fifth generation farmer. We know the impact, which the government acknowledged, that this legislation is going to have. To be clear, the $107 million allocated is less than the independent committee appointed by the government recommended.

I would note that we put in a dissenting report. During that inquiry, we had less than two weeks and only two hearings to talk to people, stacking everything against the community and rushing the process. In that rushed process, over 35 per cent of submissions were not even read or looked at. Even in that process that was so congested, the committee urged the government to commit more money to the transition. That's how obvious it is, but we're going to vote on $107 million.

That package includes support for the mental health of those impacted. Let's think about that for a second. That is an acknowledgement that this decision by this government is going to seriously impact the mental health and wellbeing of community members. If it wasn't going to have an impact like that, why would they put the money towards supporting mental health? But they're doing that without even acknowledging the hard work of the industry—ignoring everything that it has done over so many years. Then, to make it worse, they don't even have the respect for the industry or for the community to give them a proper hearing.

Senator Murray Watt, the minister for agriculture, promised these communities a Senate hearing into this process. What did he give them? Less than two weeks as part of an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Agriculture. As I said, almost 35 per cent of submissions were not read or processed, because the secretariat did not have the capacity. I want to put on record that that's not a criticism of the secretariat. They did an amazing job in an impossible situation. I want to apologise to all those people that took the time and effort to put a submission in that was ultimately ignored because the ALP were running a sham process to rush it through. I'm sorry that your voice wasn't heard in that process. That's not how this House, this parliament or that inquiry should have operated. But the decision was made before we started. I respect the chair of the committee and those opposite. They were in a tough situation. They were given their marching orders by the minister and the government and they rushed it through and they did what they had to do—no doubt deeply uncomfortably. But this is people's lives. This isn't politics; this is people's lives.

Others have referenced this, but let's understand what the government were prepared to trade. They're prepared to trade communities, people's livelihoods and agriculture for preferences in a by-election. The Animal Justice Party were nice enough to be honest about this. This is a direct quote from the Animal Justice Party:

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.

So this government are prepared to destroy families, communities, a whole industry for preference in a by-election. The quote is there, and it's there in their actions. For everyone in agriculture, that leaves the question: what's next? We heard testimony from those vets and other groups criticising the live trade export, and it included cattle, so how long will it be before the Northern Territory cattlemen get closed down in another preference deal with the AJP? That's the question they're asking. That's the uncertainty it has created.

Those opposite say it won't happen. Well, the cattlemen remember 2011, and they'll remember this dirty deal with the Animal Justice Party. Those opposites can't make that guarantee. We saw it on the agriculture committee. Those members opposite were deeply uncomfortable, asking those questions, but they followed the orders from the leadership. We know in the ALP that, if you cross the floor, you're out. We're going to see in the next 24 hours if that still applies. So those opposite on the backbench can say that it's not going to happen to the live cattle export traders in the Northern Territory, but unless they're the Prime Minister of this country, which they're not, they can't make that guarantee. What we know is that if the Prime Minister, from the inner city of Sydney, can get political advantage by throwing another agricultural industry under the bus, he'll do it in a heartbeat. He'll sell out the Australian people. He'll sell out the hardworking farmers of Western Australia for preferences. And if that is the start, what's next?

As I said, this is an industry that has made significant improvements. Mortality rates have dropped over 80 per cent in the last five years. We're recognised as having the highest standards in the world. Let's be clear: this trade will continue in the Middle East because this is cultural and this is their region. Live sheep export will continue from Africa, South America and other countries at a lower standard. This will actually lower global animal welfare standards. But it will make some feel better and it will get the ALP preferences, so it's worth throwing Australian farmers under the bus.

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

Over 13 per cent of the letters that arrive in my electorate office in Mackellar are about the live export trade. It's one of the top five issues that spur constituents to write to me. Australians across the country, in both regional and urban areas, are sickened by the footage that we too often see in the media of Australian animals from Australian farms suffering on ships as they make their way to markets halfway around the world.

Most recently in January of this year, we saw the example of the Israeli owned MV Bahijah ship with 15,000 sheep on board that was ordered by government officials to return to Western Australia. It was about 15 days into a live export voyage to Israel. But, because of fears about the attacks in the Red Sea by Houthi rebels, the owners of the ship proposed to sail around the Cape of Good Hope instead. This would have turned a 17-day voyage into one that was nearly two months long, with thousands of sheep crammed together for weeks on end. This was not the first time this exporter had come to the attention of authorities for horrific abuse of livestock. A related company had been the subject of an investigation in 2015.

These sorts of incidents show that, despite regulation and diligence from Australian regulators, animal cruelty aboard live export ships continues. Even across Western Australia, the historical heartland of live sheep exports, people in both regional and urban areas support the phase-out of this cruel trade. Independent polling commissioned by the RSPCA and conducted in May 2023 found that 71 per cent of Western Australians support the federal government's policy to phase out live sheep export by sea. This includes 72 per cent of people in metropolitan areas and 69 per cent in rural and regional Western Australia. As Australians, farmers and city dwellers alike, we pride ourselves on being a compassionate nation, one that treats animals with dignity and one that embraces world's best practice when it comes to farming and the slaughter of animals for food.

Since at least 1985 we've known that live exports are inconsistent with our values. That's when the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare report found that live exports were 'inimical to good animal welfare'. Since then, there have been a plethora of media exposes, government reports, independent investigations and court cases about the trade. The fact is that the practice is inconsistent with animal welfare and with our values.

According to the RSPCA's research published in 2023, over 60 per cent of independent observer reports on live sheep exports published between 2018 and 2023 revealed indications of heat stress. Starving and underfeeding was reported in over 80 per cent of cases of death and illness onboard, and 26 per cent of reports indicated issues with ventilation. Issues of noncompliance with the Australian standard for exporting livestock were recorded in approximately 70 per cent of journeys. But, as the RSPCA points out, many ships sail without an independent observer—about two-thirds, according to the RSPCA.

Regulation has failed. In my view and the view of the RSPCA, that's because it is not possible to humanely transport thousands of sheep, packed together, halfway around the world through equatorial heat for three weeks and sometimes longer. So it has to stop, and that's why I'm supporting this bill to end the export of live sheep. I would prefer to see a quicker timetable than May 2028, but I understand why the minister has proposed this timeline. It is helpful that there are viable alternatives to live sheep exports, alternatives that will benefit Australian workers and Australian communities. There is no reason why livestock cannot be slaughtered here and transported in refrigerated ships. We have the technology, and we have the expertise to kill animals in a way that meets the requirements of Middle Eastern markets.

Moving processing onshore would add jobs and ensure that abattoir activities are conducted in line with Australian animal welfare standards. The processed meat trade is already worth far more than live exports. WA's boxed and chilled sheepmeat export trade is worth $648 million. That is eight times more than the live sheep trade. It is projected to continue to grow in the short to medium term. I note that the minister has already announced a $107 million transitional support package. I would also encourage the minister to adopt the findings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which has recommended additional funds. The committee suggests that these be made available at the 2026 stocktake of progress.

Lastly, this bill only deals with live sheep exports. Australia is still exporting over 700,000 live cattle each year, mainly from the Northern Territory to Indonesia. Again, there have been recorded incidents of appalling conditions in Indonesian abattoirs, which highlight the difficulties Australia faces in managing animal welfare once livestock leaves our shores. In my view, we should follow the lead of the United Kingdom and New Zealand and end the entire live export trade. I commend this bill to the House.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, I'd like to note the member for Mackellar—this is the issue: people who have no idea about the live sheep trade are making comments on it. I'd like to note that the member for Mackellar has to deal with those well-known sheep producing areas, such as Palm Beach, Scotland Island, Dee Why and Akuna Bay! It's so easy to be moralistic about something when you don't actually live in the industry and you know nothing about it, to be quite frank. The incidents that the member talked about are incidents from many years ago. Might I just note that some of them were inspired by payments by animal activists to put the animals under stress. They turned off the air conditioners and didn't de-foul the pens. Because they had graphic images, they got paid a lot of money. In fact, that person got themselves a very nice house. I think it's in Thailand. That was one of the people whose responsibility on the ship was actually to look after the sheep.

The mortality rates of sheep on ships now are about equivalent to what they are in the paddock. It's a completely different industry. There were issues in the past, and they've been dealt with. You will not get rid of the live sheep trade, I hate to say to the member for McKellar. It's still going to continue on. It's going to continue on from Somalia, from Kenya, from Turkiye, from South Africa—and the way they work is this: whatever comes off, they get paid for it. They don't care about the animal welfare issues. So, by doing this, ipso facto, you are actually promoting a worse form of the trade. You are taking out of the market the best player, the model player, in the live sheep trade and replacing them with all the others.

We also note that they talk about how you make more money out of processing sheep. But do you think the processors are going to be happy, mad or sad that one of their biggest competitors is now out of the market? They're going to be loving this because there's less competition, less people on the rails buying the sheep, which, of course, forces the prices down. Have I heard the Labor Party or anybody else say, 'That's alright; what we'll do is invest in abattoirs to deal with this issue.' No, they won't. What we will see is—and I'm very aware of this—that people will make a judgement to just keep shearing the sheep and hope that what they make out of the wool this year is more than what the sheep would cost. What that actually means is that they end up just dying on the paddock. They just keep shearing them until they die. That will be the prospect. Some people will go broke because their place is just not viable unless you have this.

There are so many issues happening in the Middle East. I have been to the Middle East quite a number of times, and that is pertinent to the live sheep trade. For us to have relevance, there has to be something that we do that they want. And the live sheep trade was it. It gave us a mechanism to have a conversation with people in the Middle East, which now will be lost. We have to understand how they work culturally and not try and impose our culture on them.

One of the reasons the live sheep trade happens is because of a lack of refrigeration in those areas; that's how you keep the meat from going off. But now, by reason of Australia being in it, they have brought in new abattoirs—new abattoirs for humane treatment when slaughtering sheep. That's because Australia was involved in the trade! That's why it happened. But now we're removing that. Now we're going to vacate that market. So it's a very scripted and constricted view of the holistic outcome of what happens to sheep. What those opposite are saying is that what happens to sheep in Australia justifies the more barbaric treatment of sheep somewhere else. And that's exactly what will happen.

I also note that the member for Mackellar said exactly what we know—that this is just the start. This is the thin end of the wedge. She actually nominated the live cattle trade—they want to close it. Banning the trade was probably one of the worst decisions Australia has made in regard to its closest neighbour, as a supplier of protein to its people, especially the people of Jakarta for their bakso balls, a staple that they eat. She said it: it's on. So we're heading towards banning live cattle. We also heard the member for Bendigo giving a speech, I believe, on issues of land transport. This is where you can only transport them for so long and then they have to have a 24-hour spell. In a country the size of Western Europe, this will be devastating. The way we work is completely different to the way they do in Europe. It just won't work! And I declare that I produce and sell sheep, and also cattle.

We've also had the activists in the same genre coming and saying they don't want rodeos anymore. Those are part of our culture; they're what we do. People from Palm Beach might not understand that, but you understand it if you're from Tamworth because that's part of who we are. And there are campdrafts and, for those who are lucky enough, polo. But, really, it's about campdrafts, rodeos and stock transport. In our area, people get so frustrated. The people I talk to don't get this place, and this is a great example of why they don't. Look at a contract musterer who is working hard; they say: 'Our job is to feed and clothe people. That is what we do. Because we do our job, we add to the global food stack. And because we add to the global food stack, people at the bottom of the stack, who would otherwise go without, get fed.' The people who feed off the top are having steaks, but it all falls down: there are too many people on the globe and not enough food. That's exactly what's happening now: the number of people who are malnourished and who are 'starving' is going up exponentially because this globe cannot produce enough food.

Now, this is what you do if you want to make it worse. This thing abides by an anthropomorphic principle, where animals are people and people are animals. What happens if you follow that is that you just start treating people like animals. If you believe that and you want to go to a non-animal diet then a couple of things will happen. You will have to completely denude all the country at certain elevations with certain rainfall and certain soil types of all vegetation and then plant soybeans. And you will still have about three billion people too many in the world. I don't know what you do with them; they will die. People have to be sustained by protein, and there are some tricks to growing protein. What we've got—what nature made, what God made—is this very interesting thing. He made capacity in marginal areas where you can't grow soybeans and you can't grow chickpeas so that you can convert minor pasture and lesser pasture into units of protein. It's a really clever thing. And that goes onto the food stack and feeds people. That converter unit that converts minor pasture and lesser pasture into protein is called a' sheep'! It eats mulga and lesser vegetation, and converts them into protein. So you can actually get an outcome, an output—a moral good—in food, from lesser country. But what they're doing here is to say, 'No, that won't happen,' because this is the sort of country they come from—basically, older sheep; full-mouth whethers and full-mouth ewes. They're the ones who end up in the live sheep trade.

We now see this great split, where regional Australia is run by Palm Beach, Scotland Island and Bellevue Hill. It's not run by the people who actually live there. This will filter through into other sections of the rural economy. It's no good saying, 'I believe in rural Australia,' and getting yourself a brand-new set of RMs—maybe not RMs, because that is Mr Forrest, and he's putting up the swindle farms—or a new Akubra, or maybe not because that's also Mr Forrest, and parading yourself around saying, 'I love youse all. Here we are at Rockhampton, rah, rah, rah. Come on, come and have a beer. I love to have a beer with Duncan,' and then go and shut down one of the cornerstone industries because you want to look after the people of Palm Beach, the people in the seat of Manly or people who really have nothing to do with the industry at all.

I'll tell you about another group that has been thrown under the bus. There was a former premier of Western Australia who was very popular. I think his name was McGowan. Even though he was from Labor, he actually stood by the industry because he's a Western Australian, and it's very much a Western Australian issue. It's part of the iconography of Western Australia. One thing that Western Australians hate is eastern staters telling them what to do, and this is precisely that. It's eastern staters telling Western Australia what to do. The parochialism of Western Australia works in such a form that they sort of bind together very quickly when they see you picking on Western Australia.

So we've got a bit of an issue here. The Prime Minister is not going so well. He's not going so well in the polling; let's be honest. He's kind of cooked. They're going to have to do something rather tricky at the next election to try and stay there. Part of that trick is that they've got to hold seats in Western Australia. This says to Western Australians, 'Don't vote for the Labor Party,' and that's precisely what they'll do. Maybe, in a perverse political sense, I should say, 'Thank you very much,' because you're going to help hand across seats to us from Western Australia. All you ministers can go back to that other part called 'the corridors of irrelevance', which is opposition. You'd be great! You've successfully made yourself the second one-term government in the history of Australia, because you've decided that it's better for you to look after teal seats and inner urban seats than to actually stay in government.

I know you don't really care what we do in regional areas. You just don't like us. That's quite evident. You don't understand us. You have no respect for us. You push an unreasoned and unresearched moral view of an industry that you don't understand. You haven't been a part of it recently to understand exactly what we've done in the improvement of animal standards, where we lead the world.

I remember when the live cattle trade started. I have to be honest, I was the first one to give a press conference as the shadow minister for water, and Tony Abbott lost his mind with me. He rang me up, said I was outrageous and asked whether I had watched Four Corners. I assured him and said, 'Tony, this is one of the worst decisions that has been made by a government, and time will prove me correct.' Without self-aggrandising—but I suppose I am—I was correct. People now clearly acknowledge that it was a disaster of a decision. The Indonesians looked at us and said: 'Our relationship with you relied on you feeding us and being a reliable source of protein. Jakarta's a big place. We get rather scared when we've got nothing to eat. We thought you were reliable, but you're unreliable. You've got this vacuous, mystical philosophy that says, "I can supply you with protein," and then all of a sudden you don't.' They'll also be watching what we're doing here with the Middle East and saying: 'They're at it again. Here go the Australians again.' They're on the path, and they'll be saying: 'We've got to start looking around. We've got to start finding somewhere else.'

Much of the whole economy that underpins northern Australia is the live cattle trade, which is just another addendum to the live sheep trade—the live animal trade. This is remarkable, because these are the things that actually take Indigenous Australia, ahead. They are actually part of the industry. They can become very wealthy. They'll also be looking at it and saying, 'Well, there you go. The people of urban Australia, they love us and they want to buy our paintings. But when it comes to something we start making a buck out of, they start closing us down. They moralise about us. They only like us in a kind-of way, in a way that suits their rules, their morays and their terms.' There's another word for it; it's called 'patronising'. They're very patronising.

The coalition have stated, as they should, that we'll reinstate the trade. Here's a clear statement to the people of Western Australia: if you vote for the Labor Party, they will take away one of your major trades because they don't respect you. They're eastern staters coming over to tell you how to live your life, because they think you're repugnant and immoral. If you vote for the coalition, if you vote for the Liberal Party or the National Party, we will reinstate your trade because we believe Western Australia has a right to have one of its major industries maintained. You'll get this choice as to whether you vote for people who don't respect Western Australia or do respect Western Australia, I would suggest, in the next six months, maybe earlier. And when you go to the ballot box, you can say, 'Am I going to have someone in Mackellar, in Palm Beach, in Scottish Island, in Bellevue Hill, at Manly, at Dee Why, telling me what to do in Western Australia? Or am I going to boot them out?' And I would boot them out.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had a history of Australia published, which I consider to be a very great honour. That was done. In writing that history of Australia, you can't write the history of Australia without writing the history of the Labor Party, of which my family were foundation members. They were very wealthy people who put a lot of money behind the Labor movement. We believed in it. We stuck to it. The Labor Party split in two in the 1950s. Unions were controlled by communist elements and the Labor Party split in two. Half the Labor Party ended up in a bit of a bushwhacker's turnout—I don't know if a lot of them could read or write too good—called the Country Party.

The Labor Party was founded by shearers. I'll repeat that slowly. The Labor Party was founded by shearers. If there's a second element, they were the cane cutters. I'll talk about the Labor Party being founded by shearers. If ever there was a group of people that have betrayed their roots and their foundations, it is the Labor Party. In Queensland, we had 22,000 people employed in the railways in 1979. When the government went down in 1989, we had 20,000 people employed in the railways. In other words, there'd been a cutback of 2,000 people over 10 years. In five years under the Labor Party, the railways lost 12,000 jobs—12,000 sacked.

One of the good unions out there decided they'd had enough of Jackie Trad. And here is a warning for you Labor politicians: you, as a party, think you can get away with it. You, as an individual, be careful, because Jackie Trad was no more. She sacked all those railway workers and thought she could walk away from the table. She thought she could shoot her mouth off against coalminers and walk away from the table. She thought she could sack 2,000 electricity workers and walk away from the table. It doesn't work like that.

Julia Gillard thought she could get away with it. I hate to criticise Julia Gillard. I really liked her as a person and I still do, and I have great respect for Julia. But she thought she could stop the export of live cattle and she thought she could get away with it. Within three weeks, she was out on her head. Just remember, it is not the size of the dog in the fight; it's the size of the fight in the dog. So this dog bit her and she was gone. I mean, how many messages do you need to get to have a little bit of political brains—not doing the right thing by the country, just political brains? The last speaker—the honourable once leader of the National Party—was quite right in pointing out that people will starve as a result of your decision. You just can't take that much food away and not have people die of starvation. You don't die of starvation; you have malnutrition and you're unable to fight off diseases. You die, really, as a result of malnutrition breaking down your ability to survive diseases. So people will die as a result of your decision.

But you're not Christians. You don't believe in that sort of thing, like that you have a duty to other people in the world. You don't have those ideas. You have an ideology. I thought this was a beautiful phrase: 'This is reckless and criminally irresponsible ideology.' There's no rationale. There's no reason involved here. It's just reckless, criminally irresponsible ideology. We have a saying in the bush: 'When your neighbour starts preaching religion, reach for your branding iron.' Once people start talking about ideology or their beliefs, or say, 'We care about these poor animals'—no-one's going to believe that; I most certainly don't believe that. You people have never had an animal in your life. Most of you have never even had a dog, and yet you love animals. How can you love animals if you've never had one? I've seen cattlemen leave their dinner to go out at night because a cow was calving, and they will preserve that calf. You say, 'You're going to kill them in the end.' Yes, they're going to die in the end; that's the truth of the matter. If you continue on the pathway that you have carved out, the cattle industry will collapse.

The mid-west, where I come from—which is almost all of inland North Queensland, about one-fifth of the surface area of Australia—is covered with troughs. Out of those water troughs comes birdlife. Out of those water troughs comes kangaroo life, and various other marsupials. When you take those troughs away, they will all die—over a million square kilometres, and they're all going to die. You don't know what you're doing. You don't care about animals. You don't care about human beings. History is a very, very angry person, and it tells people what you did.

I always hold this up, and I say, 'What's that?' They say, 'It's a map of Australia.' I say, 'No, it's not, actually. It's a map of Australia, shorn of the east coast'—shorn of Victoria, but who'd miss Victoria, truly? So Victoria's gone. But it's substantially a map of Australia; 93 per cent of the surface area of Australia is in that map. It's occupied by less than a million people. How much longer do you think that is going to go on for? That golden Australia, where there's no-one living, produces all of our iron ore, aluminium, gas, gold, copper, silver, lead, zinc, uranium, oil and fertilisers. It produces almost all of Australia's coal and cattle and most of Australia's wool and wheat—what's left of the wool industry, anyway. And there's no-one living there. It's shown in gold because it's a goldmine. That area is literally a goldmine.

For those that read history books, there is a very chilling aphorism that comes to us from Carl von Clausewitz, the greatest commentator on warfare in human history. In his landmark work On War, Carl von Clausewitz says, 'A people without land will look for a land without people.' Read Mein Kampf, and you'll see on every third page he uses the word 'lebensraum'—living room. 'We have a population, but we don't have the land. Russia has the land, but they don't have the population. We'll fix that up with a little war that'll cost the lives of 49 million people,' because the idiot politicians didn't understand the lessons of history. I will quote Winston Churchill: 'Those that do not understand the lessons of history will be doomed to suffer again those lessons.' He's dead right. We are in a land without people. I'm not going to go any further than that. You can look around for where there's people without land.

To insult and offend those people—I talk here of people of the Islamic faith—to pick a fight with them and take away their food source? You want to get a picture of this. You're a tiny little European country of 26 million people, living in Asia—with two-thirds of the world's population—and you're going to tell them what to do. You're going to tell India that they can't have coal, are you? Who the hell do you think you are?

As far as a sense of responsibility goes, we have to have an income. We want to buy everything from overseas. We've closed down all our own industries, so we have to buy everything from overseas. To buy something from overseas, you've got to sell something. It just so happens that we've only got three things that we sell now. That's coal, iron ore and gas. Well, you people gave the gas away, and I don't mean the ALP. I mean the Liberal Party and the Labor Party and the National Party. You gave the gas away. You sold it for 6c a unit. We have to buy our own gas back at $16.50, which means we can't produce fertilisers in this country. They have to be imported from overseas, as many other products have to be because we can't afford to buy our own gas. Everyone else on Earth has reserve resource policies, as does Western Australia, God bless them. We had a reserve resource policy in Queensland. But with the enlightenment in this place? No reserve resource policy. So the gas went for 6c a unit. You let all your gas go. To put that in perspective, Qatar, a tiny country, produces as much gas as Australia and exports as much gas as we do. Last time I looked, they were getting $29,000 million a year for their gas and we were getting $600 million for ours.

Who's running this place? I'll tell you who's running this place. It's the people who sit on that front bench and the people who sit on that front bench. Who's responsible for that decision that cheated our country out of $29,000 million a year? Who's responsible for that? When you go to bed at night, you'd better start thinking about this because one day you will die and you'll have to go to meet your maker, and he will say: 'I gave you arguably the richest country on Earth. What did you do with it?'

Let me return to the Labor Party. It was founded by the shearers. The shearers needed a wool industry. So Keating came in, and one of his first acts was to deregulate the wool industry. He might hate wool farmers, but he sure doesn't like the shearers, that's for certain. So 80 per cent of the product which has carried the Australian economy—and in 1990 was still carrying the Australian economy; we exported $6,000 million worth of wool that year. We now export $5,900 million of coal. Wool in 1990 was still bigger than coal. Now it's nothing. It's absolutely nothing. It's not in the top 25 export items. The thing that carried us for 200 years, the industry that created the labour movement—a very proud and great movement in this nation's history—was completely destroyed by those people sitting over there. That's who destroyed it, and they will go down in the history books as the people who destroyed it.

I represented, in my state seat, 3½ million sheep. The president of the Wool Council of Australia came from Hughenden, the heartland of my home country, in the mid-west. We had 3½ million sheep. I doubt we would have 100,000 sheep now in that area, and the shearers have gone. If you argue that these animals are poorly treated in travelling on these ships—we had a lady in the electorate I represent who said, 'The disgraceful way that you torture cattle, carrying them in the back of cattle trucks, where there's dust and noise and wind—that's just absolutely deplorable.' I said, 'Lady, you just happen to be knocking on the wrong door,' because all of our rugby league teams travelled in the back of cattle trucks. I was one of the people who put up with that—with the dust and everything else. Where I come from, that's normal for human beings, let alone for animals.

I just get back to that phrase, 'reckless and criminally irresponsible ideology'. When ideology starts running policy, big trouble follows. I would refer to the Nazi party, where ideology controlled Germany. We all know how that ended up. Ideology controlled Russia and China, and communism in those two countries cost 78 million lives under Stalin and Mao Zedong.

Finally, I'd just like to say that it's a matter of values. Do you put no value at all upon human life? There are people that need that food to stay alive. To go hungry is something that we as Australians have never encountered. But in other countries it drives, to a large degree, their politics. For those, again, who study history—during the French Revolution, the people of Paris were starving and the queen made a very ugly reference, and that was all it needed to set the tinderbox alight.

As I said, I have great respect for Julia Gillard—I like her very much—but she was no more. You carry this out—this stupid irresponsibility—don't worry about the size of the dog in the fight; worry about the size of the fight in the dog.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 and an amendment that has been put to this bill by the Leader of the Nationals, Mr Littleproud. The first part of the amendment criticises the government for its reckless and ideological decisions to shut down the Australian live sheep export industry by sea.

At the outset, the opposition will be opposing this. Listening to the debate in the parliament, it's interesting to hear the comments from members that are opposing this position, and those that are supporting it. In stark contrast, those that are supporting it, when you have a look at the geographical footprint of where they live, most of them don't have sheep. Their livelihood is not relying on sheep. In fact, the livelihoods of most of the people who are making a contribution in support of this bill do not rely on any type of livestock. I'm in a partnership. We've got 2,000 cattle—a breeders program in Queensland. I know firsthand the devastating impact that shutting down an export industry had on our industry.

It's poignant to point out to those Australians that are listening to this debate that, in the current climate, they're talking about a mandatory code of conduct for large retailers. In the cattle industry, when you took away the prices that the retailers were offering the cattle industry—and let's use hypothetical numbers—if you were getting $2 a kilo at the saleyards and live cattle was giving you $3, it kept the pressure on the retailers to provide that value, because there was another market. But when you arbitrarily take away that third market, the export market—which often pays better than the local domestic market, otherwise you'd just sell into that—you take away that competitive tension, and that's the perfect storm for the large retailers. And it's a storm that domestic growers do not want to be in.

Again, to put it into contrast, it was $3.60 a kilo for cattle heifers that were going to Indonesia, and no-one will ever forget the diabolical, devastating effects that the decision made by the then Labor government to shut down the live cattle export market overnight had on the cattle industry in Australia. It affected not just the cattle producers of Northern Australia. Immediately after those markets shut down, those cattle set to go overseas had to come back into our domestic market. There's not a lot of domestic cattle sold in the Northern Territory. They go out of Townsville. There are big selling yards in Rockhampton and Roma, which absorb a lot of Central Queensland's volumes. But, when you get down to my electorate, we have three small selling yards at Moreton, Silverdale and Beaudesert. When the live cattle export market collapsed, Brahman cows were selling for less than $1.20. It just collapsed overnight because of the old demand-and-supply principle of economics. It just shut it down.

There are lessons to be learnt from the collapse of this market as we aimlessly walk into the same traps again. I've heard those on the other side espouse that boxed beef will be the saviour. Some have quoted 400 per cent; some have quoted 500 per cent. 'This will be a windfall for Australia.' I would just make the point that, if there is going to be a colossal, huge windfall for sheep producers in Western Australia—put aside the protests; I'll get to that later on—the government should guarantee it. I know there's a restructuring plan now around that. There's some money associated there. But the government should guarantee it with a cheque so that, if your business is worse off after this bill comes to fruition, the government will square up the difference. That's if the Australian Labor Party is so committed to destroying those amazing farmers of Western Australia and those families' lives, either intentionally or unintentionally. I don't think anyone in this place comes into this building with the intention of destroying lives, but often there are unintended consequences, and I am fearful that that is exactly what's going to happen to those people in Western Australia who have been protesting this bill.

The second point in the amendment put by the Leader of the National Party is that Australia's live sheep export industry employs more than 3,000 people in Western Australia, including shearers, truck drivers, fodder suppliers, livestock agents, farmers and producers. That is all very true. The amendment goes on to say that these workers now face the prospect of losing jobs, and families that are struggling under financial stress may now face a difficult decision to leave their rural towns and their communities. We saw that in the cattle industry when they shut down the live cattle export. To this day, there is still a contingent liability on the Australian government's balance sheets from a class action being taken by those families whose lives were crippled, by those truck drivers who had jobs tracked in, by those people who owned the saleyards who lost revenue, by those businesses who owned the ships, by stock agents and by the very people that this amendment seeks to look after.

This industry has delivered comprehensive reforms which have secured exemplary animal welfare outcomes. I have listened to the speeches in this debate, and I want to acknowledge the member for Parkes. The member made an amazing contribution—when he spoke about mortality rates on ships leaving Western Australia, going off to potential markets—where he said that in Australia the mortality rates of sheep mean they're more likely to die in a paddock than they are on a ship that has 99.8 per cent survival rates.

If you're listening to this debate for the first time, those on the other side would have you believe that video footage from television shows which have previously been the catalyst for this push—their argument is that these ships are just cesspools for our live sheep export. Australia is one of the leaders in animal welfare, sheep welfare, in this space. If we exit the market, the sheep from other countries that are going to fill that market void, countries who don't have the same welfare standards as us, are going to be treated with a greater degree of cruelty. How is it that those very people who are arguing for this bill will put their head on their pillows each night knowing that sheep are being treated with a greater degree of cruelty when travelling from other countries to these ports than what they would from here in Australia? Shame on you. Shame on you. Australia has the highest standards of animal welfare in the world, and it's something that we should be proud of.

The amendment also seeks to further criticise the government for its mismanagement of this policy to end live sheep exports and the lack of consultation with farmers, sheep producers and impacted communities. It acknowledges that this policy is widely and strongly opposed across the agricultural sector, and it's opposed by me as the federal member for Wright. It's a vibrant, sophisticated electorate. We have very few sheep in my electorate. The main contributor to GDP in my electorate is agriculture. I mentioned earlier that we have three selling yards, but the biggest contributor to GDP is horticulture, vegetables. Today I felt compelled to come in here and offer my voice, hopefully a reasonable voice, to this debate. I know that when the antagonists finish with the live sheep export market, they will turn their attention to the live cattle export market once again. It is in their DNA. It is how they are programmed. They will do it regardless of the contingent liability that sits on our balance sheets. They will do it because they are not motivated by animal welfare, as some would have you believe. Some say they might be motivated by Green preference votes, but who knows?

The amendment also speaks to the concerns that, if the live sheep export industry is banned in Australia, alternatives will be sourced from other countries that don't share the same animal welfare standards, resulting in perverse international welfare outcomes. It calls on the government to immediately reverse its policy to shut down the industry. The reality is we, as a coalition, don't have the numbers in this parliament at the moment to stop this bill from going through the House, depending on the will—and we never want to pre-empt them—of the crossbenchers. Can I suggest that we, as a coalition, give an absolute ironclad commitment to the Western Australian farmers and the Western Australian sheep producers that, if re-elected—and the hardcore reality is that if we are going to be re-elected we're going to have to do it with seats we win in Western Australia—we will reinstate, within our first hundred days, the industry. Many years ago Australia was built on the back of our sheep industry.

In closing, I acknowledge some amazing efforts of members from the opposition agricultural committee who travelled to Western Australia: the member for O'Connor; the member for Grey; the member for Durack; the member for Dawson; the member for Barker; the member for Nicholls; and the member for Forrest, who travelled and met with the seafarers, met with the farmers, learnt firsthand and listened to them about their pain and to their toils. They then brought the knowledge they had gained from those trips back to our party room and shared—some with tears in their eyes—the devastation that was about to affect, intentionally or unintentionally, these poor farmers in Western Australia. If I don't stand tonight to offer my support for this industry and for my Western Australian colleagues, I know the government will come after the cattle industry just as they have gone after the fishermen in North Queensland. It's a disgrace. Shame on them.

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

Six years ago I supported a bill by the member for Farrer, and it had a similar aim to this bill, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. The member for Farrer's bill was introduced in May 2018 following the shocking 60 Minutes report that highlighted the atrocities experienced by some sheep on long-haul routes. The 60 Minutes report was deeply upsetting and caused many people to question the activities of live sheep exporters. The footage of sheep dying from heat stress and overcrowding on board the vessel Awassi Express, operated by Perth based company Emanuel Exports, was a turning point in the national discourse. I then introduced my own bill in 2019 and on subsequent occasions have taken the opportunity to call on the government to act. Finally, six years later, we now have a plan to exit the live sheep export trade.

As a member of a regional electorate I understand the importance of the agriculture industry, and I also understand and respect the care taken by farmers and the supply chain in dealing with live animals. The response taken by the sector following the 2018 report resulted in a dramatic improvement in long-haul mortality rates; I think we need to acknowledge that—very much so. The industry, as far as sheep and ships go, has changed significantly since that 60 Minutes report. However, one thing that hasn't changed is the experience of some of those sheep once they arrive at their destination. It's at that point we lose all control of the animal welfare of our Australian sheep, and that deeply concerns me and many people in my community. Therefore, I feel this bill is the only appropriate measure we can take.

There will be a transition in the industry, but I think it's fair to say much of this has already occurred. In 2011-12 the value of live exports was around $600 million. Ten years later this had fallen to $200 million. Much of this was displaced by sheepmeat export, which rose to more than 60 per cent of export value in the 2021-22 year. That's a good news story. We want to be processing more in Australia, value-adding in Australia, in many cases, whether they're cyrovaced or frozen and those carcasses are exported.

The government has allocated $107 million over five years to support the transition through assistance to individuals, businesses and communities affected by the phase-out of live sheep. I've got to say that that is a very low amount. It is simply not going to be enough money if we are serious about making sure that those farmers, those communities, those truck drivers and those shearers are supported, and about building the capacity of processing in the region. So I urge the government to look at that figure of $107 million, to sit down with the relevant stakeholders in the community and to sharpen the pencil, because that is not going to be enough to transition. It simply won't be enough. We need significant investment in food manufacturing that adds value to the products. That means more jobs in Australia and well paying jobs in our community. We need that investment in our regions, close to where the agricultural production occurs.

I will say it again: $107 million is a very small amount to invest in this sector, which is going to go through a very significant transition over the next five years. As I said, this bill does put a timeline in with respect to the export practice that has dominated discussions for several years, but it does not put an end to the livelihoods of sheep farmers. We need to make sure that it's a just transition, that they feel very well supported and that we see other avenues. We need to make sure we're not just saying, 'Let's explore new markets.' We need to do better than that.

In closing, I do support the bill, but I think the government's transition package needs to be looked at very carefully and in partnership with those that will be affected, because we need to make sure that those rural and regional communities have the ability to thrive.

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

This bill sets a horrible precedent. Let me tell you and the people of Australia what that precedent is. We have before us an industry, the live sheep industry, which has done every single thing asked of it by government. I'll reflect on the 2018 Awassi Express saga shortly, but, assuming for a minute that that wasn't a contrived situation, from that point this industry has done every single thing asked of it by government. Yet this industry can be cancelled just like that. Lives, potentially, but definitely livelihoods lost.

The industry should think deeply about that. What industry is next? If you can do everything that government and the regulators have asked of you and you can be put out of business at the stroke of a parliamentary pen, a prime ministerial directive, then think about your industry and your country. That's the precedent we're setting here tonight by this bill. It's not based on the science. It's not based on the data. It's based on blatant ideology. Some could argue that it is based on science—political science. It's not based on the science around animal welfare because, as I said, the industry has done every single thing asked of it.

The industry was asked to initiate a moratorium on sheep exported during the Northern Hemisphere summer. It did that. The industry was asked to increase space and reduce stocking rates on ships. It's done that by up to 38 per cent since 2017. Improved ventilation on ships, with independent auditing—done. Automated environmental monitoring on decks to record deck temperatures—done. Independent government observers on decks—done. The industry has done every single thing asked of it, yet this government turns its back on these farmers and this industry.

So let's talk about the Awassi Express. I wonder how many Australians know that Animals Australia paid the so-called whistleblower A$160,000 for the material he furnished to Animals Australia. I don't think many Australians know that. Lyn White at Animals Australia indicated in her affidavit that she did that because effectively this person was taking real risks to provide that evidence. She did that after having previously been provided evidence by a particular individual which wasn't quite up to scratch. She provided him with a new phone, a more modern phone, and indicated the kind of evidence that was sought and, lo and behold, on the Awassi Express, that evidence was collected—$160,000 does beg a question, doesn't it? I support whistleblowing legislation. I think we should have it. I think whistleblowers perform an important role in society. But I don't think it's cash for whistleblower contributions. It's worse; it's cash for evidence of cruelty. I don't think you should do that. It will forever lead me to question how that came about.

Australian farmers care deeply about their livestock. I don't know an Australian farmer who doesn't. Indeed, Australian farmers expend tens of thousands of dollars, and in some cases many hundreds of thousands of dollars, on animal veterinary products. They do that because they want to ensure their animals remain healthy because a healthy animal is a profitable animal. So for me this is a really difficult pill to swallow on behalf of the farmers I represent. They care so deeply about their livestock and they take care of their livestock, and yet they're being accused, if you like, of animal cruelty simply because they participate in the live sheep trade.

People might think that Australia's decision to no longer participate in the live sheep trade will end the live sheep trade globally. That's rubbish. Sheep will continue to be traded live globally. It's just that Australians—and in particular Australian farmers—won't be able to participate in that trade. They'll be blocked from accessing the trade. Now, people come in here who quite frankly don't know one end of a ewe from the other and say, 'Oh, well, we can process these animals in Australia.' It's very difficult in the Western Australian context to get a lamb up to specification in the way that you can in areas like mine. As a result, this product is simply not going to be viable; if you take out one part of a farming system, you affect it in its entirety.

But I don't want the House to misunderstand and think that this is only a Western Australian problem. Once this position was announced, the price of sheepmeat in this country plummeted. In my electorate, it as good as halved. There aren't sheep exported from my electorate live. But, of course, the sheep that were slated to leave—with the industry already packing up and leaving—were processed domestically, and as a result the price for processing sheepmeat reduced significantly. This had a real impact, not just on sheep producers in Western Australia but on sheep producers all over the country.

Those opposite might think they've pulled a particularly smart political trick. They might think that, well, they've made a cold, hard, calculated decision that they can achieve this outcome politically and it won't hurt them. Well, good on the farmers of Western Australia, who have stood up with the 'Keep the sheep' campaign. Sixty-one thousand people have signed that petition. Those opposite think, 'What's in a petition?' That's not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This industry has had enough. The animal activists have spent their time for too long on their business while farmers, who get up at the crack of dawn and work until well after dusk have been spending time on theirs. The point is that the farmers have now worked out that, while they were working on their business, the activists were working on theirs, and the activists' business was to put the farmer out of business. The farmers, via the Keep the Sheep campaign and, let's hope more broadly across Australia, via the 'let them farm' campaign to keep farmers farming, will fight back. They will do it in the smartest of ways.

I travelled to Western Australia to support the sheepmeat industry with my good friends the members for O'Connor and Durack, whose constituents are at the pointy end of this particular decision. Do you know what each of those farmers at those events, no doubt including some of the 61,000 people who have signed the petition, said to me? 'Tony, we can name the six most marginal Western Australian seats. Actually, we can name the most marginal seats across the country.' I expect there'll be an army in these seats come election day. Those opposite might say, 'No, we're not gonna see that; good luck.'

I come from South Australia. I saw the campaigns that were run by the state Labor Party. SA ambulances said, 'I can't save your life if I'm fighting for my job.' I saw the campaign. There were fake firies in other contexts, on polling booths, asking people to vote in support of the brave firefighters. Well, good luck in your campaigns, because the Western Australian farmers and farmers across the country will have tens of thousands of people rolling out on polling day with a single message: put Labor last. If I were in a marginal Labor seat, I'd be terrified at that prospect, and they should be. Three thousand Western Australians are employed directly by this industry, thousands of people indirectly. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, this is an industry that has done absolutely everything asked of it.

Whilst I'm on the subject, the Australian live sheep industry doesn't just export sheep. It exports animal welfare standards to the world. Why? Australia the only jurisdiction in the world, and I'll say it again—the only jurisdiction in the world—to take an interest in our stock, via the world-renowned ESCAS system, once our stock have left our borders. No other country in the world takes that interest. As I said, this won't end the live sheep trade around the world, as much as Prime Minister Albanese thinks he's a global thought leader. It just punishes Australian farmers.

Globally, it also subjects animals to more cruelty. Why do I say that? I've had the pleasure of inspecting the facilities that are used by Australians to export live sheep. I've looked at the standards. I've also seen footage and images of other countries and how they go about the trade. I've got to tell you, it's chalk and cheese. As I said, no other country in the world has the ESCAS system. While Australia was participating in this trade, it was exporting those world-renowned standards to the world. Australia is no longer going to participate in the trade and, as a result, those standards won't be seen in this trade anymore. So the ability to influence other jurisdictions by the very enlightened Australian way of being is gone.

I mentioned the real politics of this. I hasten to suggest that Premier Cook has a fair handle on sentiment in Western Australia—that he's someone who gets that this is a dog of a policy and that this is going to be bad for Western Australia and Western Australians. He said that it's unnecessary, and:

We believe the welfare arrangements that are in place, the checks and balances that have been put in place as a result of the reforms around that are sufficient.

That was Premier Cook of Western Australia.

This is the thin edge of the wedge. If Australians think for one minute that those opposite, who have been corralled by inner-city voters and the keyboard warriors of this country into banning what is a lawful trade and, as I said, an industry that's done everything asked of it—where mortality rates are lower on the ships than in my own paddocks—do we really think that the activists are going to stop there? How long before the activists celebrate the victory and move to the cattle industry? How long? Not long, I suggest. This is a government that still hasn't finalised settlements from the Brett cattle case. So my message to rural industries is clear: watch out, you're next!

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The export of live sheep by sea is an industry which has certainly faced its fair share of scrutiny and criticism over the years. As a result, it's true that this industry is currently one of the most highly-regulated trades in the country. It's also true that there are farmers, particularly in Western Australia, who breed stock to meet the demands of this export sector. I accept these markets exist for a variety of reasons, including slaughter, feeder and breeder, and that, in some instances, the reason that livestock is important is because refrigeration facilities in some of their destination markets are scarce. But the challenge lies in the ongoing operation of a trade that has lost its social licence, because, fairly or not, the images and stories told around it show that our continuing involvement in the trade is problematic from an animal welfare perspective.

It is with a deep sense of responsibility then to multiple stakeholders and communities that I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. To be clear: among many other issues, including climate change, the housing crisis, integrity in politics and equality, my community cares deeply about animal welfare. While we do not have a live sheep export in my electorate, we have a substantial number of people who have become increasingly concerned about the way this industry has operated over time. These people aren't raving mad. Nor are they the inner-city latte-sipping woke set that some will claim. Many of them, like me, are people who grew up in regional or rural Australia but who now reside in an urban area. So they're not naive of the challenges that transitioning away from any industry brings. Rather, they're compassionate people who accept that those who live on the land are frequently the most committed to animal welfare. But they're also able to recognise a diminishing trade which is not only increasingly difficult to justify in terms of animal welfare but which also has limited long-term economic prospects. My community sees an upside here for animals and agribusinesses, and for those connected to them, in instituting a planned transition away from this trade. And they're prepared to use their voices and their votes to ensure that everyone comes out the better because of the transition.

Ending live sheep exports by sea was an issue that was raised consistently with me from the very beginning of the community independent movement in my electorate of North Sydney.

As a girl who grew up in regional Australia, it was not a trade I was naive to. I am an incredibly passionate advocate for our regional and rural communities and economies, so it is not lost on me that the commentary that pits city people against country people is something that could play out during this debate. With all of that said, having looked at the evidence available to this point in time and listening to the community in its broadest sense, I do stand to support this legislation because I believe we can pursue higher ethical standards when developing government policy. At the same time, though, my community has also called to ensure that those regional communities, particularly those in Western Australia, who have clearly articulated what they need to navigate the closure of this industry, must be supported. I want to acknowledge the organisations and communities that have actively participated in this robust debate around this policy reform, including the 44,000 Australians who signed one of the largest official e-petitions in the history of our parliament.

Reform in this area is also supported by recent findings of an independent panel following a six-month inquiry which heard from over 2,000 individuals, undertook 96 stakeholder meetings and received more than 800 submissions and 3,300 survey responses. The panel did hear from a broad range of stakeholders, including producers, supply chain participants, export businesses, community groups, animal welfare organisations and trading partners. During the process, some argued that an end date of 1 May 2028 was too far away. But I believe it strikes the right balance in meeting the community's expectation, whilst also allowing for an orderly transition and the effective delivery of appropriate financial and other support for farmers, supply chain businesses, exporters, and trading partners. As the Australian Alliance for Animals has said, many accept this legislation is a fair, common-sense package that supports the industry to move forward towards a more humane and sustainable future.

Ultimately, the truth is this industry has not only been in decline for some time but has also been on notice that this reform was coming. For this reason, while I honestly do feel for those who will now have to navigate this change—and I will fight to ensure they are adequately supported by this government—I also believe they've had ample notice. Inquiries into live sheep export welfare issues date back to 1985. Since then, at least 10 government and parliamentary reviews have examined the live sheep export trade and its associated animal welfare issues. While these reviews have led to significant regulatory reform of animal welfare standards to which exporters must adhere, reports of breaches continue to occur.

Politicians from all sides of the political spectrum have made attempts to reform or phase out our live sheep exports over the years, including through private members' bills from Andrew Wilkie, Nick Xenophon and the Greens in 2011, through to now deputy leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Farrer, Ms Sussan Ley, who in 2018 tabled a private member's bill to not only ban live sheep exports to the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer months in 2019 but to entirely close the sector down five years from the date of introduction of that bill. Ironically, that would have seen this sector close this year. Because notwithstanding the intended support of the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock and the exporters' supply chain assurance system, repeatedly we have seen poor outcomes for sheep as they travel long, stressful journeys, often in suboptimal conditions aboard live export vessels.

Since 2019, the only trading route used for live exports by sea is out of Western Australia to the Middle East, a journey that can take over three weeks. The most recent live sheep export crisis was just a few short months ago when the MV Bahijah left animals stranded on a vessel off the coast of Western Australia for over a month due to conflict in the Red Sea. Sadly, the case followed many other high-profile cases, including of course the incredibly stressful footage we all saw from aboard the Awassi in 2018, which saw the then coalition government adopting enforceable restrictions to trade during the hottest months of the Northern Hemisphere summer.

While exceptional failures such as these make headlines, the live sheep export industry has been plagued by concern for decades. Indeed, a summary of the RSPCA Australia's analysis by independent observers paints a pretty stark picture. Data gathered by these observers from over 53 live sheep export journeys carrying 2½ million sheep between 2018 and 2023 found that, in over 80 per cent of voyages, sheep were starving onboard. In at least 60 per cent of cases, there were signs of animals suffering from heat stress. In addition, 14 of the 53 independent observers' reports also indicated issues with ventilation, including sheep being housed in unapproved areas of the ship, hot spots near engine rooms and the smell of ammonia building up in some pens. They were starving, stressed and suffocating.

With extreme weather events happening increasingly frequently across Australia, it's true that you can at times also find starving and stressed animals on farms right across Australia. But when seen in these circumstances, people are able to reconcile themselves to the fact that this is a natural event beyond their control. The difference here is that, when we see these images of animals aboard a ship, we know that this is actually within our control. Therefore, it is little wonder that these images have resulted in the loss of social licence for this industry. Sadly, whether we like it or not, the general consumer impression is that, despite industry assurances to do better, the commitment is not able to be borne out. As RSPCA Australia points out, if these problems could be fixed, they would have been fixed by now.

In a broader context, as the social licence has declined so, too, has the real market for live sheep exports by sea. It's due in large part to the prohibitive costs of international buyers in sourcing live sheep from Australia. From 2002 to 2023, the number of live sheep exported by sea decreased by a massive 90 per cent, from over 6½ million head to just 652,000 sheep. In 2022, Australia exported just 489,000 sheep, which represents just one per cent of the total value of Australia's sheepmeat and wool exports and around 0.1 per cent of the total value of Australia's agricultural exports. Given this decline, it actually does seem that now is the time to step into a phased, planned transition out of this sector.

Some will argue that our absence from this market will simply open it up to others, and I do not disagree. Some will also argue that the whole issue here is perpetuated by sovereign overreach that sees us sell a product to someone else but then demand control over how they use that product once it's handed over. In this case, I can absolutely see the hypocrisy. After all, we happily ship our fossil fuels offshore, taking no responsibility for what happens to them once they hit their destination. How is it, then, that our obligations to track scope 3 emissions, which we know are having a direct impact on climate globally, are so easily sidestepped while our animal welfare issues are grinding this trade to a halt? I don't have the answer to that question, but I would suggest it has something to do with political expediency.

Focusing on the transition—for it to proceed successfully, it is absolutely imperative that the plan and the support package offered by the government are not only appropriate but are delivered effectively to those affected by the phasing out of live sheep exports. In this context, I will take the opportunity to say that the government's record on supporting impacted businesses in this area is appalling. After all, our government still finds itself at loggerheads with those suppliers who were directly impacted by the 2011 decision to ban live exports to Indonesia. Those producers who joined forces to bring a class action against the government are still waiting for compensation, even though they won their case in the Federal Court. I say to the government, 'Settle that case now, or risk entering this next phase with little to no credibility.' In our current place and time, the businesses, communities and other entities that rely on this trade for economic sustenance must be able to trust that they will be supported as they navigate switching their land use to other purposes or as they try to capitalise on emerging opportunities in the domestic processing of sheepmeat for chilled or frozen export.

Having grown up in a regional community, I know exactly how tough a transition like this can be and how vulnerable it can leave families if governments and new industry do not step into the gaps created. In my own lifetime, I have seen the impact of the demise of the regional rail network on many small regional communities near my home town of Coonabarabran. More recently, I've personally witnessed the impact of the loss of the forestry industry in the Pilliga not only on the economy but also on the overall health of the forest. Ultimately, transitions like this fail when they are forced upon communities, and the communities are just expected to cope. The affected communities must be put at the epicentre of the challenge, and people like me and others across my electorate must be prepared to listen to them, work with them and advocate for them to ensure that those navigating the coalface of this transition can thrive.

I welcome the government's consideration of the concerns of farmers and businesses in the supply chain who will be negatively impacted by this legislation, and I commit to holding this government to account for making appropriate levels of funding available to support the industry transition. I note the government's plan to work directly with Austrade to build business and trade relationships in the Middle East and North Africa, and to fund a transition advocate to maintain two-way communication between industry and government throughout the transition period.

In closing, I do want to ensure that it's understood that the reform we are discussing today relates specifically to the live sheep export industry, and it is not to be taken to be immediately applicable to other forms of agricultural export. I am aware of a deliberate campaign of misinformation launched by some in this place, painting me as someone who is set on closing all live export industries, and that claim is simply not true.

Having grown up around farms, I understand the importance of food security and regional communities. I value the agricultural sector, and I will fight tooth and nail to ensure regional and rural communities are not left behind. No-one cares more for their stock than a farmer. No-one knows their animals better. No-one gives up more to make sure their animals are healthy, strong and productive. Therefore, where industries have shown themselves to be capable of managing the requirements of animal welfare, such as in the case of live cattle exports, I will back them and I will encourage my community to do the same.

Many in my community will welcome this legislation today. But I want to reassure those who will be directly impacted by the cessation of this trade that we do see you, we will not forget you and we are committed to ensuring that our federal government works with you to ensure that you are stronger on the other side of this reform.

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

Let's be very clear about what we're doing tonight. We are shutting down an industry. If those opposite, the teals and the Independents get their way, we are shutting down an industry, a $1 billion industry. And why are we doing it? We're doing it because of ideology—nothing else. It's ideology, pure ideology. There is no other reason why this is occurring. And all those who are going to vote in favour of shutting down a $1 billion industry should think again because, sadly, the message you're sending to regional and rural Australia is that you don't care. The message you're also sending is that they can have no confidence whatsoever that you won't do it to other regional and rural industries.

There is no reason why we should be debating this bill at all. Time and time again, this industry—and let's remember how long it's been operating for. You can go back to the 1830s and 1840s and see that we were sending livestock from this country to other parts of the world. And every single time we did it we sought to improve how we went about doing it, to the extent that we built a $1 billion industry, which you are going to try and close down. I hope it won't occur, but, if it does, I want every farmer to know and everyone in regional and rural Australia to know this: the coalition is with you. If we're elected at the next election, we will overturn this ban and we will allow you to get the trade up and going again.

Let's look at what's going to happen if it's successful. What is going to happen if it's successful? Do you think it's going to improve animal welfare outcomes when it comes to the live export of sheep globally? No. It's actually going to see those animal welfare outcomes deteriorate, because we set the gold standard when it comes to the live export of sheep. As a matter of fact, our gold standard means that the fatalities we see in live sheep exports are often less than those we see through natural causes out in the paddock. The dangerous precedent you're setting here means that people are going to say, 'Well, if they banned live sheep exports because of the small number of fatalities we've seen, what are they going to say when it comes to natural grazing or when it comes to feedlotting?' You'll start the campaign to try and close that off. And what will happen to our food security? Our food security will start to disappear.

And look at the time you are doing this. Once again, it shows that you do not care about regional and rural Australia. It means you do not care for farmers, because you're doing it at a time when we are starting to see the impacts of drought in parts of western Victoria, in parts of south-eastern South Australia and in Western Australia. So, at a time when farmers are doing it really tough, what's the response of the government, the teals and the Independents? We're going to make life harder for you.

What has happened to the price of sheep as a result of this government's action, which has been supported by the teals and the Independents? It's seen the price of sheep collapse. There might have been a slight recovery in the price, but it saw it collapse. This is at a time when, especially for young farmers, there are dry conditions, when they've got high interest rate payments and high fodder payments, when the cost of living and the cost of insurance are going through the roof. And what do you do? You bring in a bill that pulls the rug from under them by making sure the returns they're going to get on one of their key industries is taken away from them.

Although this has been incredibly difficult and incredibly hard for Western Australia, and it's having a huge impact in Western Australia—and I acknowledge the presence here of my good friend Rick Wilson, who has, I think, fought more than any member in this place to make sure that this important industry for Western Australia continues—it's also had a huge flow-on effect in Queensland, in New South Wales and in my home state of Victoria, including in western Victoria where my electorate is. I cannot believe that those opposite will not look at the facts and the science when it comes to this issue, because the facts and the science show that we are continuing to improve the outcomes when it comes to this trade, to the extent that we have vets who go on ships and come back and vouch for those outcomes. Yet you will not listen to those veterinary scientists, and it's a shame on all of you.

Let's turn to the compensation. As we know, this is a billion-dollar industry, which flows through to thousands upon thousands of jobs in regional and rural Australia. And what's the government come up with as compensation? A $100 million scheme. Heaven only knows how that is going to be divided up to deal with the loss of a $1 billion industry. That money flows into regional and rural Australia and helps small businesses. How are they going to get helped by this $100 million fund that is being set up? What they want is the continuation of the $1 billion industry, and that is what we want to see. As I've said before—and I speak for all coalition members—if we're elected, let us remember this: we will restore the trade.

I commend Keep the Sheep, an organic, grassroots movement which has sprung up to defend the livelihood of people in regional and rural Australia. They now have more signatures on a petition to keep the live sheep export trade than there were on the petition that led to the teals, the Independents and the government wanting to close it down. As a matter of fact, I have just seen, from the member for O'Connor—and I might need to put my glasses on so I get it right!—that Keep the Sheep now have 61,000 signatures on their petition. I want to get this right. I think the petition which led to this industry being closed down had around 30,000?

An honourable member: Forty-three.

Forty-three. We've got nearly one-third—33 per cent—more signatures than the petition which led to this being closed down. That says it all. I must say that one of the really encouraging things about Keep the Sheep is that not only have they put their signatures in place; they've raised funds. They have raised funds. And they're going to campaign to make sure that those people who are shutting this $1 billion trade down will know that they're not happy about it, because it's shutting down a key industry in regional and rural Australia. So far they've raised $364,000 to run that campaign. That keeps going up, dollar for dollar, each day and each week. I know that Keep the Sheep are coming to Sheepvention Rural Expo in August. They'll set up a marquee, and be out promoting the live export trade there. I'd encourage everyone who believes in regional and rural Australia to make sure they sign the petition for Keep the Sheep, and make sure that they donate so they can send a message loud and clear to the Labor government, to the teals and to the Independents that we want to keep this $1 billion industry.

Let's go back to why we want to keep it. In the last decade, considerable steps have been made, and continue to be made, to make sure that we improve animal welfare outcomes. Rather than shut the industry down, the position the coalition has taken is to work with that industry to make sure that it continues to improve its animal welfare outcomes. Let's be constructive in what we do, rather than be destructive and shut something down completely. Let's understand the importance of food security—food security not only here in Australia but food security around the rest of the world. Other countries depend on this trade for their food security—in particular, Kuwait and some of the other Gulf states. But what's the message we're sending to them? 'We don't care about your food security.' And, sadly, we're sending a message to our farmers that it seems like this government, the teals and the Independents are quite happy to start slicing food security here in Australia bit, by bit, by bit.

All of us who were here when the Labor Party, with the support of the Independents, shut down the live cattle trade, have seen the dire consequences that occur. We would have thought they'd have learnt from that calamity but, sadly, here we are again; we're about to put a similar burden down—this time not onto live cattle but onto live sheep. We know that, sadly, live cattle are likely to be next. Heaven help us what will happen after that! We know that campaigns are beginning for the transport of cattle and sheep here in Australia. Heaven only knows what will be next. It's always a slippery slope with these groups—particularly when we get those vested interests who have no interest in what occurs in regional and rural Australia.

Let's be honest about this—let's be frank: where is the push coming from? Where is the majority of the push to shut this trade down coming from? It's coming from the inner-city parts of our country. That's the sad reality. One of the things we need to continue to do is to make sure that the gap between our inner cities and what happens in regional and rural Australia doesn't continue to grow and grow. If people do not understand an issue and if people do not educate themselves on an issue—if people don't look at the facts of an issue—then we tend to get outcomes like this. And it's a sad, sad outcome for regional and rural Australia.

I say to those opposite: it's not too late. You can think again about what you're doing here. You can think again about the message you're sending to regional and rural Australia. You can think about the petition which now has over 60,000 signatures on it. You can think of the fund which, organically, has raised well over $300,000. You can think about those farmers who have been here to this parliament and said, 'Please, do not do this.'

I'm going to finish on this, because I think it was the worst thing I've seen through this whole sad, sorry issue, and I think it showed that he knows it. The ag minister's trip to Western Australia has to be one of the most shameful things that anyone's seen from a senior cabinet minister in this country. He flew to Western Australia so he could be seen to be being brave in making this decision. He went to Perth, didn't go out to a farm, didn't meet with the farmer groups, made the decision and jumped on a plane. He couldn't get back to the eastern seaboard quick enough. What a sad indictment. To have courage of conviction would have been to go out, meet with farmers, look them in the eyes and tell them what you're going to do to them. Instead, there was this four-hour trip to Perth and back without even doing the proper consultation.

I commend the National Farmers Federation and all the farming federation groups right across Australia for standing up for this industry and standing up for the livelihoods of farmers across the nation. I commend my Western Australian colleagues, two of whom are in this chamber tonight, for the fight that they have put up to save this industry. I stand with you, I'm sure the farmers in my electorate stand with you, and we will restore this $1 billion trade if we are elected at the next election.

Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be opposing the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 as I don't believe this ban is in the interests of Australia's farmers or in our national interest. One of the key reasons given for this ban is animal welfare, but it ignores the huge improvements and reforms that the industry has made. These improvements have been transformational. As Charlie Thomas from the National Farmers Federation told the House Standing Committee on Agriculture's inquiry into this bill:

In 2017 the incident involving the Awassi Express shocked and disgusted farmers as much as it did the general public. That's why we demanded and embraced sweeping reforms. Those reforms, from changes to stocking densities, onboard reporting and care, the northern summer moratorium and much more, have ensured that in the last seven years we've seen a shift to gold standard animal welfare outcomes on board Australian vessels. The data on mortality rates prove this … an Australian-regulated live export vessel is just about the safest place a sheep can be.

That's a very strong submission from Mr Thomas from the National Farmers Federation—very strong evidence and compelling evidence.

The result of this ban will be that other countries which have very few or no animal welfare standards will step in and fill the market share that Australia will vacate. The National Farmers Federation CEO, Tony Mahar, put it this way:

This doesn't end the global demand for live sheep. Today's announcement just sentences foreign sheep to the practices we banned a decade ago …

He also says this about the ban:

This is not just a betrayal of Australian farmers. It runs directly counter to our national interests. We're turning our back on crucial Middle Eastern partners who have plead for this trade to continue.

"It also shows complete ignorance to the real-world implications of a ban, which will inevitably lead to poorer animal welfare outcomes.

And it will. As Mr Thomas and Mr Mahar have pointed out, the reforms and changes to animal welfare have been transformational. Now, that trade will be ceded to other countries who have very few or no such standards, which will lead to worse outcomes for animals around the globe.

This ban will also have a devastating effect on regional communities:

WoolProducers Australia CEO Jo Hall said she wanted the people sitting in Canberra to think about the respected and hardworking men and women in the sheep industry who underpin regional Australian economies for decades.

"And then I want them to tell us what they're going to do to replace jobs, put food on tables, and keep schools open—and that's just for a start.

"They're offering a ludicrous compensation package which will barely touch the edges of what will be needed to support families and their businesses—

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 7.30 pm the debate is interrupted. The member will have leave to continue when the debate is resumed.