Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to speak to document No. 1, which is the report for the last six months of last year on livestock mortalities for exports by sea. It is a requirement under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act for the federal government to table details of all export of livestock and the mortalities involved in each of those voyages for each six-month period. This particular report deals with the six months from July to December last year and details a whole range of different voyages, their points of departure, their destination points, the length or duration of the voyages and the number of livestock on each vessel—the vast bulk of which are sheep. Over two million live sheep were exported from Australia during that six-month period, as were 363,084 cattle plus relatively small numbers of goats, buffaloes and camels. On this occasion there were no deer.

The reason why this process is followed is because of what is known as the Kenery review, which occurred after one of what has been a continuing string of disasters involving the live export trade over many years. Every time there is a disaster, whether it is a fire at sea, ships not being able to offload their livestock or details of appalling cruelty, the government says this is a one-off aberration. They then hold an inquiry, bring in some recommendations, make a few changes at the edges and then assure everybody that everything about the trade is now humane—that is, until the next expose shows that the facts are completely different. The simple fact is that there is an alternative to the live export trade. The chilled and processed meat trade is already significantly greater than the live animal export trade. If we put the same energy into expanding that trade as the government, and those who benefit from it, put into maintaining and expanding the livestock trade, then not only would we have a significant reduction in animal cruelty but we would also have significant value adding for jobs in Australia—although I do accept that there is the minor issue of being able to fill those jobs due to the skills and labour shortage in many parts of Australia.

I want to specifically point out one voyage detailed here, and that is a voyage through Livestock Shipping Services that left Portland and Fremantle in November of last year. It was a voyage of over 30 days and included more than 72,000 sheep and 7,805 cattle. One of the mechanisms of the report is that if there is a percentage of deaths over what is known as the reportable percentage—which I think is two per cent—then an inquiry is required. I draw senators’ attention to just how much transparency there is or is not in this area. This is one of the things they point to. They had the Kenery review and they say, ‘We have this detailed report which is tabled in the Senate every six months. You can’t get any more transparent than that.’

What happens is that once a report or inquiry is triggered because there are too many deaths—as occurred in this case with over three per cent of the cattle dying on this voyage—there is an inquiry through AQIS. But all the summary of the report that was made public said was that pneumonia and heat stress were the main factors causing the deaths. It has taken six months through freedom of information inquiries for the organisation Animals Australia to get the full report from AQIS about the real reasons. Firstly, it is outrageous that they do not have access to that report straightaway. If we are about transparency then why the hell isn’t that made public? Secondly, it became apparent that the deaths were due to a range of other issues, including prolonged recumbency and leg infections due to abrasive flooring. Indexes 2 to 7 said: ‘The relative difficulty of the cattle in getting up off the floor with abrasions, and wet flooring caused skin damage which became infected because of the wetter than normal conditions. Once infected, the cattle spent an increased time recumbent and the cause of death is septicaemia.’ Why aren’t those things made public straightaway? Why is it up to an animal rights organisation to have to work for six months to get the facts out in the open, if we are about transparency? I draw people’s attention to the piece on the back page of the Sydney Morning Herald today by their freedom of information editor, Matthew Moore, which goes into the situation in more detail. It simply shows for all of the smokescreens—

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regretfully I must interrupt you, Senator Bartlett, because the time allocated for the consideration of government documents has expired. Senator Macdonald, I can assure you that those orders relating to government documents that have not been considered here tonight—that is, every one but one—will remain on the Notice Paper and will be considered on the next day of sitting. The question is that the Senate take note of document No. 1.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debated adjourned.

Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek clarification about the red. Point 17 says that general business consideration of government documents is to commence not later than 6 pm, which is what we have just done. We have commenced and Senator Bartlett has spoken to report No. 1. It is my understanding that the consideration of committee reports is to commence not later than 7 pm, which means that we have enough time to consider those reports. I was wondering if I could obtain some clarification on that.

The clarification I can give you may be inadequate. If it is, you are quite welcome to seek further clarification. Because we finished the afternoon’s business 2½ hours earlier than was scheduled on the Notice Paper, the time that has expired from that point until now has been the same as usual. At this point, at seven minutes past six, we have still considered those areas in the usual amount of time.