Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Let me begin by first congratulating my colleague Senator Duniam for his fine words. He highlighted how the Labor members of this place and the other place from Tasmania have done little to stand up for their own state. I'm going to tell a similar story of my home state of Western Australia, where the most egregious part of this budget is, from my perspective as a Western Australian who comes from a farming background, the ban of the live export trade from Western Australia.

This is an issue that, indirectly, has huge flow-on negatives, but, directly, the negatives affect Western Australia and Western Australia alone. This is an industry that is 100 per cent Western Australian. It comes out of mostly one electorate. About 80 per cent of live export sheep come out of the electorate of O'Connor, which is the large electorate that covers the southern Wheatbelt. It is the electorate that is represented by my good friend and colleague Rick Wilson, the member for O'Connor, who has done a power of work highlighting the negative impacts of this government's ban on his local communities. But it's not just Rick Wilson, it's not just me and it's not just some of my colleagues in this place that have spoken out; the community has spoken out.

The community has risen up in a grassroots movement that, a few weeks ago, saw a convoy—in fact, four convoys—go through the city of Perth. There was a north convoy, a south convoy, an east convoy and a port convoy, and all converged on the transport yard at Muchea, protesting the government's ban. Then, just a few days ago, in conjunction with the rushed and, quite frankly, disgracefully conducted House of Representatives inquiry into the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024—where two hearings were held in a week, with no time even for most of the submissions to be considered by the committee—we saw the community turn out in big numbers. There were 2,000 people from across Western Australia. But it wasn't just farmers at that rally. It wasn't 2,000 farmers, and it wasn't 2,000 farmers, shearers, truckies, the local IGA and the petrol station. There were plenty of people—and I know because I was there and I walked through the crowd and talked to hundreds of those people. Many, many people had come up from Perth to show their support for Western Australian regional communities because they are the ones who will be hit hardest. They are the ones that will suffer the brunt of this attack on Western Australia and the Western Australian agricultural sector.

Those opposite will say, 'Oh, no, there's an adjustment package. It'll all be okay.' But then why has every agricultural organisation, not just in WA but right across Australia, described this as a red line in the sand? It's because they know that the radical activist groups that are behind the campaign to end the live export of sheep will not stop there. They do not agree with feedlots, with the live export of cattle, with practices in abattoirs, with shearing, with mulesing or with the use of glyphosate for cropping. They basically don't agree with agriculture. They don't agree with farming. They don't agree with Australia playing a role in feeding the world. You've got to remember that Australia produces three times as much food as we consume. We are an exporting nation not just when it comes to minerals, though we do that very well—we also export food. We feed the world. We feed twice our population overseas through the sale of high-quality food products, and that includes live exports.

The really sad thing about this is that industry has actually won all the debates in this space. There was a moral question asked. People asked, 'Is this industry being managed in an ethical way? Are animal welfare standards being maintained to a high level?' But the absolutely clear and overwhelming evidence is: yes, they are. We not only have the best animal welfare standards in the world when it comes to our live export industry but we actually export those standards. We say to countries that want to buy our live animals, 'Yes, you can come, you can buy them, but if you do so then you have to live up to our standards of animal welfare and how those animals are managed, how they are moved and how they are treated in slaughter.' Not only do we export live animals but we also export animal welfare standards to the rest of the world.

A little over a decade ago, Saudi Arabia, who were one of our biggest markets, said: 'No. We are not going to do what you ask us to do. We're not going to do what you tell us to do through your export standards. We'll go elsewhere.' Saudi Arabia today—still the largest importer of live animals, I believe, in the world, importing some four million head of livestock per annum, have reconsidered. They've said: 'Wait a sec; maybe we should actually improve our animal handling and welfare standards. Maybe we should have a look again at the Australian system and re-enter that market—bring our abattoirs and our animal handling systems up to their requirements and be able to purchase from Australia once again.' That is what they have done. They have signed on to meet the requirements of our animal supply system. They have signed on to meet our ESCAS requirements. They have said, 'We will meet the highest animal welfare standards in the world because we know Australia produces high-quality animals that meet the requirements of our market.' That is what we see—when Australia is involved in this industry, we export not just live animals but also our animal welfare standards. So we've won the moral argument. We've won that ethical argument. The industry has won it.

What about the scientific argument on how those animals go aboard ship? It is very clear now that with the changes made—not just over the last few years but, in fact, over decades—mortality rates have fallen to a level where they are actually better than on-farm. One of the vets at the inquiry that the House of Representatives undertook described ships as 'floating feedlots' because those ships are designed to take animals and increase their weight. Every farmer will tell you—every livestock farmer in Australia will tell you—if an animal is putting on weight, it is not under stress. Animals do not put on weight if they're uncomfortable or if they're under stress. Those ships now have mortality rates lower than in a paddock.

We've won the scientific argument. We've won the community argument and the social argument. This industry being banned will destroy regional communities because those communities are based on an industry that supplies jobs. We heard Darren Spencer, the head of the shearing association, talk about his role and his business' role in one country town. He talked about the $100,000 he spent at the local IGA, the $50,000 he spent at the local petrol station. He talked about the families he employed in town, the kids who went to school because of his business and the doctor that was still in town because those families were still in town. This government's ban will rip the heart out of those communities because they rely on this industry as a key part of—