Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the federal coalition, I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023, and, in doing so, I affirm that on this side of the chamber we're committed to upholding and preserving the highest standards of animal health and welfare while supporting a lawful and sustainable live export trade. The federal coalition is proud of the exemplary animal welfare measures that underpin Australia's world-leading live export industry. We appreciate that the humane treatment and wellbeing of animals is an important issue in our communities, our society and the broader agricultural sector. It's also a big part of our international reputation as a nation.

Before we get into the detail of this particular legislation in the Senate, it's worth recognising that in Australia we have a live export system that already operates extremely well. It is defined by the high standards of animal welfare and demonstrated through record-low mortality rates. Our live export industry makes an enormous contribution to our economy, to our $90 billion agricultural sector and to the social fabric of so many communities across regional, rural and remote Australia.

The numbers demonstrate its strength. In 2023 we exported nearly 1.3 million head of livestock, which included more than 614,000 head of cattle and almost 64,000 head of sheep. Live exports currently have their lowest mortality rates ever. In 2022 for cattle it was 0.05 per cent. I'd argue that's as good as any paddock. And for sheep it was 0.14 per cent. This success extends to our export abattoirs. In 2020 just 0.0066 per cent of animals sent to these facilities had an animal welfare report raised, and in 2021 it was only 0.005 per cent. For those who weren't paying attention through year 8 maths, that's very, very low. When we were in government, the federal coalition's approach was to work constructively in partnership and in collaboration with the live export industry to deliver improvements in animal welfare outcomes, and this was achieved. And it's a legacy we are very, very proud of as a coalition government.

That brings us to the bill before the Senate today. This legislation will seek to expand the functions and arrangements of the existing Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports to include animal welfare related objectives. The office would be rebranded—and, Madam Acting Deputy President Grogan, pardon the pun—as the inspector-general for animal welfare and live animal exports. We note that it was the former coalition government who established the office of the inspector-general through an act that we passed in 2019, and its role was to review the performance and exercise of powers by the department of ag, fishing and forestry in regulating livestock exports. Importantly, the inspector-general was a recommendation of the independent Moss review, which affirmed the need for an external watchdog on the work of the regulator, the department.

Senators would be aware that this bill was introduced by the government into the House of Representatives in May. In the House, the coalition did not support this legislation on the basis that it potentially constituted an overreach into state and territory animal welfare responsibilities, and on this point it needs to be noted that under current constitutional arrangements state and territory governments are responsible for animal production and welfare laws and their enforcement. The federal government's role is limited to trade issues, including the oversight of live animal exports and at export meat abattoirs. Our concerns on this front were based on a provision in this bill for the inspector-general to review the effectiveness of Commonwealth reporting for potential noncompliance with state and territory laws, as reported to state and territory governments.

But it wasn't just this bill's potential interference with state and territory responsibilities that needed clarification from the Albanese Labor government before the point where we are here today in the Senate. We in the coalition also sought assurances about the remit of the inspector-general's power. It was important that we were strenuous and methodical in our approach to this legislation, not just because our live export system and animal welfare standards already work very efficiently but also because we know how easy it is for Labor to just slide the thin end of the wedge into the animal welfare agenda, particularly in partnership with their coalition partners, the Australian Greens.

So, after carefully considering the uncertainty presented by these provisions in the bill, in August the coalition supported its referral to a Senate inquiry, and the Senate could do the good work of the Australian people. It was led by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, ably deputy chaired by Senator Matt Canavan. And at a public hearing during the inquiry the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry stated that 'the only substantive addition to the remit of the current inspector-general of live animal exports was reviewing the Australian standards for export of livestock'. The ASEL outlines the minimum animal welfare conditions that exporters must meet through the entire live export supply chain, which includes the sourcing, preparation, transport and onboard management of livestock.

Importantly, it was also clarified during this inquiry process and through correspondence to Minister Watt that the inspector-general will review the effectiveness of departmental officials reporting noncompliance with state and territory animal welfare regulations only in the livestock export supply chain. While departmental officials may also witness animal welfare incidents outside that export supply chain, and it's the case that these incidents must also be reported to the relevant authority, it has been confirmed that these cases will fall outside of the remit and scope of the inspector-general. That's a very important clarification that would only have been achieved had this legislation gone through the appropriate review process through a Senate inquiry.

Overall, the federal coalition decided it was both important and appropriate to clarify the inspector-general's remit under this legislation to ensure that there is a very clear delineation of Commonwealth, state and territory responsibilities—to prevent duplication, obviously, but also to avoid any perverse outcomes for Australian agriculture as the inspector-general, without that clarification, may have sought to expand their scope of practice, shall we say, into areas that were not constitutionally appropriate. We note that when this bill was originally introduced the coalition's reservations were shared by major industry stakeholders, and they've welcomed the clarity that we sought and subsequently have received from the department as part of our efforts to protect and preserve the integrity of our live export system.

There are people in this chamber who would seek to shut down that system and decimate rural and regional communities as a result and who also would seek to deprive not only our northern neighbours of Indonesia but also our Middle Eastern trading partners from the vital source of fabulous Australian protein, whether it be sheep or whether it be cattle, which can hold its head up high and be subjected to intense scrutiny and be very proud that our animal welfare system stands up. I put ours against that of Romania and any others that those in this chamber would like to suggest as an alternative substitution for the protein needs of those nations.

Throughout this process, we've been diligent, professional and meticulous, because we take animal welfare and the health of our export supply chains extremely seriously, as we do keeping those trade relationships robust but also authentic and confident. When its report was handed down on 30 August, the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee recommended that the Senate support the bill. Therefore, with this inquiry having now concluded and with the clarity having been confirmed, I can advise the Senate that the federal coalition will not be opposing this bill.

But we've also sent a strong message to Labor, when it chooses to listen to the Greens in particular but also when it comes to live exports in general, because we have every right to question this government's commitment to this essential industry. Already we're witnessing the devastating consequences of Labor's move to shut down live sheep exports and the impact that is having in saleyards and regional communities every single day, let alone what it's doing to WA as a result of this blind, ideologically driven policy position where the minister won't even get out of Perth to sit on the ground in saleyards and communities right across Western Australia and hear from producers and their communities about the impact that this will have on them.

The live sheep export industry is worth $85 million and employs more than 3,000 people. Those across the chamber here talk a huge game on local jobs and the need to protect local jobs. Whilst, on one hand, they talk about that, on the other hand Minister Watt is shutting down and closing up 3,000 local jobs related to the live sheep export industry in WA. It is a shame on the Labor Party, and do you know what? The Australian public is awake to the absolute hypocrisy from the Labor Party on wanting to protect local jobs and, at the same time, having policies before this chamber that seek to shut them down.

When this Labor government seeks to shut down the live export trade in sheep, this can't be predicated on evidence of animal welfare outcomes, because we have delivered major reforms. If you actually cared about outcomes, you would be talking about the science and understanding that these reforms have included industry initiated moratoriums on sheep exports during the Northern Hemisphere summer, increased space for animals, improved ventilation requirements, better data collection, temperature monitoring, the presence of independent government observers on deck, and public reporting. The amount of work that both industry and the former government did to assure the public that our live export industry was up for the task is exceptional. This government's decision to end live sheep export contradicts the proclaimed intent of this bill, which is to strengthen animal welfare. If the live sheep trade is destroyed, perverse animal welfare outcomes are the direct result, because our trading partners won't be buying Australian product, which is protected by the very measures I've outlined. They'll be buying product from elsewhere. But you don't care about animals, actually. You only care about the political outcomes that animals and their welfare issues will provide to you in capital cities.

It's not just the detrimental animal welfare consequences that need to be recognised; it's the human toll, because the enormous stress that our sheep producers are currently experiencing as a result of this decision, especially in Western Australia, is tragic. Since Labor embarked on shutting down this trade, confidence in the whole market has fallen. Prices for sheep in WA have plummeted to dismally low commercial value. We've heard in the Senate inquiry and in public and private conversations that sheep producers across this country are actually having to shoot animals in the paddock rather than pay the livestock transport costs to get them to saleyards, because shooting them is cheaper. You can truck 600 head to saleyards. It costs seven bucks a head to get them there on the truck and another seven to get them back, for a total of 14 bucks a head, because no-one would buy them. That is the economic reality of the Labor Party's agriculture policy. It beggars belief, and you've done it to protect inner-city seats from attack by the Greens. And you'll do it again. You will sacrifice rural and regional Australians and our industries each and every time to buy political favours in capital cities, and we on this side of the chamber, the Liberal and the National parties, are here to call it out. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.