Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too—perhaps delighted is too strong a word—am honoured to be making a contribution to what is a public debate. No doubt we have all had very similar, if not the same, email correspondence from many people across Australia advocating for the ban of live sheep exports. I don't doubt the sincerity of those in this place and outside this place who argue that we should be moving towards a ban. But the emotional response—the kneejerk response that we've witnessed in detail in the presentation of this private senator's bill, the Animal Export Legislation Amendment (Ending Long-haul Live Sheep Exports) Bill 2018—ignores a couple of fundamental issues and a fundamental point: that the live sheep export industry underpins the agricultural base of my home state of Western Australia. So decisions that are taken to ban live sheep exports need to be highly considered, need to have regard for the broader economic argument, and need to be very aware and conscious that this is an industry that supports, in a very substantial way, the agricultural base of a state like Western Australia and, in the process, the livelihoods of many Western Australians—not just those living across regional communities who are dependent on farming but, indeed, the livelihoods of those people in associated industries.

So it will come as no surprise to people in this place that I will not be supporting this particular private senator's bill. I have been very clear with correspondents to me who have argued that I should support this bill that, as a representative for Western Australia, my primary goal and my primary interest is to stand up and defend the interests of Western Australians and, most particularly in this case, those Western Australians whose livelihoods—let's remember this—and capacity to raise an income, support their families and support regional communities are not just a little bit but wholly dependent on live sheep exports.

There are a couple of things I'd like to share with the Senate in my brief contribution this morning. The first is to recount an experience and representations that were made to me by the WA Grains Group. Some people might be surprised to hear this. Why would the WA Grains Group be coming to speak to Senator Smith in regard to live sheep exports? That goes to the very critical point of why this industry is, in part, how many regional families sustain their broader agricultural interests. Secondly, I think it's always important to go back to first principles and remind people why this trade is important—why it is important for Australia and what important contribution it is making to those nations that we are exporting to. Finally, it might be worth responding to the criticism or the suggestion that the government has been slow to act and deaf to the concerns of those in the electorate who want to see tougher, more prudent animal welfare conditions by going back to what the government has said it will do in response to the McCarthy review, which arose specifically out of this.

If we listen to the contributions of those who have made a contribution to the debate already or those who will follow this morning, it is important to remind ourselves that the opponents of the live sheep export industry have made numerous false claims in defence of their argument. They say that the live sheep trade is in terminal decline. They say that Australian exports of live sheep are in terminal decline. They say that sheep don't get enough space under the stocking reductions in the new allowance systems recommended by Dr McCarthy, and I will come to the McCarthy review recommendations and our response to them shortly. They say that Dr Michael McCarthy's review ignores the science. They go on to say that New Zealand successfully transitioned from live sheep exports and it didn't hurt the New Zealanders. Finally, they say the farmers who are currently supplying sheep into the live export supply chain could transition to the chilled meat trade to the Middle East, which would grow to replace the live export trade. I think this idea that you can just displace one trade with another trade is the greatest myth. It goes to the very critical issue that, in regard to live sheep exports, we trade because of consumer taste. We trade because there's a consumer-driven requirement or need that we're responding to, and the chilled meat argument fails to recognise that very critical point. Finally, a subsection of the last false claim is that Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE are happy to transition to chilled meat if Australia phases out live sheep exports, which, of course, we know is not the case.

I just want to turn briefly to the conversation that I had in my electorate office in West Perth in response to some representations made to me, first by the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia and then by the WA Grains Group. It was very, very insightful. Their point is a point that often gets overlooked by many people who would like to see an end to this trade, and that point was well made by Peter Stacey. Senator Brockman might recall Peter Stacey; he is a feisty character, but he made a strong and powerful argument. In that conversation, which was later reported in the Farm Weekly, he told what I thought was a very compelling story that put to bed some of the ignorance on which the opponents of this trade base their arguments. I quote directly from the Farm Weeklyin July:

This autumn on our property—

in eastern Western Australia—

we had 1200 lambs in the feedlot," he said.

"The local processor, in this case WAMMCO (Western Australian Meat Marketing Co-operative Limited), gets their pick of the lambs first and on this occasion they took 638 head.

"Next we deal with the live exporter, who will hopefully take the balance of the lambs.

"We try to sell the total of all of the lambs in the feedlot now, when it’s the optimum range in terms of age and condition.

"If the exporters don’t take the balance to suit their customers, then what’s left will probably go to the sale at Katanning—

which is one of the saleyards in Western Australia—

for other producers or butchers to buy."

He said WAGG—

the Western Australian Grains Group—

disagreed with the statement that processors could handle the extra sheep … if there was no live export.

"This is not correct and the processors can’t get enough workers in the abattoirs," Mr Stacey said.

"The processors want the live trade to end as this will drop the market price of sheep.

This goes to a very, very important point: banning the live sheep export has an economic consequence across the agricultural base more broadly, and that is particularly the case in Western Australia. Peter Stacey is further quoted in the article as saying that, if there were a drop in the market price of sheep:

… growers know that would be the beginning of the end of the sheep and cattle industry, processors will have no competition.

"Farmers need competition to support prices for our product and live export provides a floor in the market." WAGG believes that the lack of recognition of Australia’s high animal welfare standards, as the fourth largest exporter of live sheep in the world, was another frustration for WA farmers.

Mr Stacey said Eastern States politicians—

in pursuing this line of action—

did not understand the WA system and the consequences to all agricultural industry businesses and exports.

"This is always a problem when there is an export-based State compared to a domestic-based State," Mr Stacey said.

"We also supply these countries with grain and hay, so why is the government upsetting our customers and putting uncertainty in the minds of potential customers with this live export ban talk?"

Farmers work on such fine margins with all livestock and grain industries.

"Eighty to 90 per cent of WA produce is exported and this earns big dollars for the whole of Australia.

"The east coast politicians and public should be supporting us, not banning us from doing what we do best."

This goes to a critical point for those of us from Western Australia, including Senator Brockman and Senator Reynolds, who are also in the chamber today, who argue against a kneejerk, disproportionate response to what was, there is no doubt—and for which there can be no justification—a horrific experience for those live sheep on that vessel. But what I and others argue is that this is not systemic. This is not a systemic problem. In fact, the evidence makes it abundantly clear that, by international standards, and I would argue by community standards, the live sheep export industry in our country is performing well. That's not to say that those people who have as a broader, wider objective the ban of live exports, whether they be sheep or cattle, don't use an opportunity like the one that was presented for the world to see on that vessel to advance their arguments about undermining or bringing to an end live sheep exports, but the most critical point in all of this is that it has very real consequences for the livelihoods of Western Australia families.

I think it's worth putting on the record some of the important facts with regard to the Western Australian industry. It makes economic sense to support and maintain a live export trade. It is the cornerstone of Western Australia's sheep industry and contributes more than $1.4 billion to the WA economy. That $1.4 billion contribution in turn supports about 5,000 farm businesses across Western Australia, directly employing shearers, mums and dads, brothers and sisters, transporters, stock agents, feed suppliers and veterinarians, for example. Australia exported 1.5 million sheep to international markets primarily in the Middle East. In the last financial year that trade grew by 21.4 per cent. This trade is delivering for Western Australian families and businesses, for the national economy and in a way that is responsible, prudent and, I'd argue, living up to community expectations.

It's important to recognise that banning the Australian live sheep export trade damages Australia, damages Australian farming families and does nothing to improve the welfare standards of other nations that are engaged in this trade. You have to ask yourself: what is the real benefit or outcome when the most responsible country in this trade—that is, our own country—withdraws from the market? What does that do? Does the incentive for higher standards in the international trade remain or is the incentive for lower standards imported into that international trade? I'd argue that, once Australia withdraws from that international trade, whatever pressure there might be for higher animal welfare standards disappears. If you are genuinely concerned about the long-term change in animal welfare standards not just in this country but across the world when it comes to live exports then I'd argue that maintaining Australia's participation, not withdrawing, is the best way to protect animal welfare standards. If you're interested in the welfare of a sheep that leaves Australia, why wouldn't you be interested in the welfare of every sheep that leaves any port in Australia or indeed the world?

My argument is this: of the 100 countries exporting livestock around the world, Australia is the only one that invests in ensuring and improving animal welfare outcomes throughout the entire supply chain including slaughter in other countries. If your concern is the welfare of live animal exports, then surely that concern should be for every live animal no matter where it is imported from and exported to. You're arguing that the most responsible international participant withdraw from the market. I can't speak for others, but I can guess what will happen. There will be no competitive pressure for any other international exporters to improve or maintain animal welfare standards. While it looks and feels good, and might warm your heart in this country, it will over the longer term undermine animal welfare standards across the world.

Turning briefly to the suggestion that was made by some in earlier contributions that the government has been blind to the events on the Awassi and blind to community concerns, you only have to look at the response it has made to Dr McCarthy's review. In short, the government has accepted all 23 recommendations made by Dr McCarthy, subject to further testing and consultation regarding recommendation No. 4, which dealt with the heat stress risk assessment. As a result, stocking densities will be reduced. This means that sheep will get up to 39 per cent more space, reducing stocking densities by up to 28 per cent. The reportable mortality level will be halved to one per cent, which means that, if more than one per cent of sheep die, it must be reported and must be investigated. There'll be tougher, new penalties on exporters who put profit before animal welfare and break the rules. I think that is something the community will absolutely endorse and probably has been looking for. Independent observers will be placed on every voyage carrying either sheep or cattle, not just the sheep voyages during the northern summer, reporting back daily to the independent regulator.

These changes will deliver a seismic shift in the approach to animal welfare and will deliver truth and proof throughout the auditing process. There is now a strong incentive for investors to invest in improving boats, which improves animal welfare, rather than an incentive to run old boats at bigger profit margins. Very importantly, this will uphold and maintain the livelihoods of farmers across Western Australia, which is critically important to me, and parts of South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, as well as the 1,800 jobs that depend on the live sheep trade. This will give important economic security to these people and their families now and into the future.

My final point is a simple one, and this is a point I made to Kuwaiti exporters when they came to see me: Australia has an obligation to support the food security needs of other nations, particularly those across the Middle East. Our participation in the live sheep export trade meets both a very strong consumer demand for live exports and, importantly, the need to provide sustenance to what is a very volatile part of our global community. We know that food security issues are important to all nations. They're particularly important to nations in the Middle East. Our participation in this trade meets that very important domestic requirement for reliable trade in live meat for these nations who have a very strong cultural and religious need and a very strong consumer preference for access to live meats through the live meat trade.

In conclusion, while this bill responds in a very disproportionate way to what was a horrific set of circumstances, that set of circumstances was unique. Those circumstances did not demonstrate a systemic problem with the live sheep export trade in our country. For those people who might be a little bit undecided or unsure about their response to this particular issue—if anyone comes to this place undecided—I plead with them to be careful and conscious that the livelihoods of ordinary men and women, particularly in my home state of Western Australia, are heavily dependent on this trade. It is a responsible trade. It is a trade that meets and exceeds international expectations, and no good would come to animal welfare standards internationally if Australia were to withdraw from this trade.