Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

There are two major issues here in regard to the government's policy to phase out live sheep exports. One is: is that a good decision for our country, and for the people of Western Australia in particular? The other is: why has the Labor Party decided this, and what are the motives behind its decision? I will deal with them in a separate order. I will deal with the motives first.

As we've just heard from Senator Brockman, there is strong circumstantial evidence that the Labor Party has adopted this specific policy in a dirty deal, in exchange for preferences in a by-election that occurred in Melbourne, in Victoria—far from the impact of the Western Australian epicentre of the live sheep industry. The Animal Justice Party have put out a statement saying this was a direct result of the discussions they had with the Labor Party on preferences—in particular the shutdown date, against the advice of the government, of a four-year period rather than a 12-year period. The government has provided no justification here, none that I've heard so far—maybe other speakers can, but the minister couldn't. Why has the government chosen a four-year shutdown period, against the advice it was provided, to help and assist those farmers in WA affected by this?

What's the rationale for it? We've got one rationale—the statement of the Animal Justice Party saying, 'This was in exchange for our preferences to help the Labor Party get another member of parliament in the House of Representatives.' All we've got from the Labor Party is, 'We didn't do it; trust us.' That's literally what Senator Urquhart just told us all: 'Trust us. You can trust politicians. They're saying the right thing.' Does anybody buy this? Does anybody believe the bland, basic statements of this minister? Why don't they have a proper rationale for four years rather than 12? It seems the only rationale is they needed preferences, and they decided they would be willing to sell out the jobs of many people in Western Australia to get those votes and preferences for one job over there in the other place. It's an absolute disgrace!

That brings me to the other question. There are thousands of people that will be impacted by this decision. There are the graziers and farmers directly involved in the industry that are already feeling the impacts, with their sheep prices being low. Markets are already moving to other countries because this ban has been announced; that's already having a devastating impact on farm in Western Australia. It's flowing on to eastern Australia as well and it will go to sheep prices through the country, as we saw during the live cattle ban. But there is another group of people that sometimes gets forgotten: the truck drivers, the fencing contractors, the musterers and the helicopter pilots. What happens to them? They lose their jobs, the jobs that the Labor Party used to represent. The Labor Party was founded in my home state, in Queensland, in response to a shearers' strike in Barcaldine. There's still a tree there, the Tree of Knowledge, that you can drive past, where the modern Labor Party was formed to protect the rights and interests of shearers. They don't represent shearers anymore. They don't represent anybody who works in the sheep industry anymore, because they're willing to sell out the job of a truck driver in Western Australia so they can get a few lousy preferences in Melbourne in a by-election. What an absolute joke!

Where are the Western Australian senators on that side standing up for their state? Your Premier doesn't support this policy. The Labor Party in WA are against this policy because they know it'll be a hammer blow to the agricultural sector in Western Australia. They're standing up for their state. Where are the Western Australian senators from the Labor Party? Why are they so mute? Why are they patsies, going along with this policy rather than standing up for their state? This is meant to be the states' house. This is meant to be the place where we represent our states. I want to represent farmers around the country, so I'm happy to fight alongside Western Australian farmers, truck drivers and fencing contractors—but where are the Western Australian Labor senators doing the same thing? They are selling out their state. They are selling out the jobs in their state for some preferences in a by-election on the other side of the country.

I don't think the people of Western Australia will forgive this. There are a few similarities between Queenslanders and those in WA, but Western Australians feel more separate from the rest of the country. They will not take kindly, I think, to a government that is seeking to sell out their jobs because of the views and preferences of people on the east coast. That is what is happening. The reason the whole WA industry is being shut down is the particular preferences—uninformed preferences, I should say—of people in our major cities on the east coast. This should be objected to, because we should have decision-making in this country that looks after people in our regions.