Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig. Has the minister ever visited a working Indonesian abattoir?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I have not visited a working Indonesian abattoir. Can I say, though, that the government is determined to reform the live animal export industry, unlike those opposite, who seem stuck in the past. With proper, well-managed reform, the live export trade can transition to a sustainable industry where animal welfare outcomes and trade certainty are assured, because failure to reform the way in which Australia conducts this trade places in jeopardy the significant social and economic benefits that it brings to regional communities, particularly those regional communities of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. It is disappointing to see that those opposite do not want to bring the trade back online as quickly as possible, to ensure animal welfare outcomes are maintained and to make sure that we have facilities that are appropriate and that meet OIE standards.

It is surprising that you then ask whether I have visited an abattoir or not. You seem to miss the point that it is about ensuring that we have animal welfare outcomes to resume this trade. We should not recommence this trade without that standard in place to ensure animal welfare outcomes. If those opposite are urging that we resume the trade without those safeguards in place then it is negligent to do so. You will also not be able to guarantee the animal welfare outcomes.

It is particularly important to ensure that we maintain this industry. Of course, the industry bodies that have led us to this circumstance have failed their own producers, have failed to be able to provide assurances to their industry that they can continue this trade in a responsible way. (Time expired)

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the minister's admission of not having expertise in this particular area of his portfolio, has the minister ever visited a working Australian abattoir? If so, when, where and what animals were being slaughtered? Upon what does the minister base his expectations of humane practices in slaughtering Australian cattle?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have had the opportunity of visiting a meatworks. I can certainly go into describing the circumstances and the time, but partly I think the opposition are simply playing politics with this issue. Dinmore meatworks is an area which I have visited and spoken to the industry about. Also not only the domestic market; I have been working with industry, both with the Meat Industry Council and the other representative bodies that I have described, on a couple of major important issues which are significant to those industries and those abattoirs that are domestic, which include export certification. But what I am disappointed about is that the opposition's approach to this is not about supporting animal welfare outcomes so that the trade can continue. What they are about is trying to score cheap political points on animal welfare issues. It is critical that we— (Time expired)

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Upon what direct practical or working knowledge of Indon­esian or Australian abattoirs has the minister based his actions thus far, or are his actions based purely upon television footage supplemented by the advice of well-meaning Canberra based bureaucrats?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What those opposite should recall is that this has been a government that has conducted a measured approach to this issue. If you recall, the first thing I did post that footage on ABC Four Corners was ask the department to investigate the footage and the evidence itself. They are ably qualified to undertake the task. I also put a moratorium on the installation of any new Mark I restraint boxes with Commonwealth funding. I also asked for an independent, scientific assessment of the Mark I and Mark IV restraint boxes by the Australian Chief Veterinary Officer.

In addition to that, as part of this work, a team of DFAT officials have already arrived in Indonesia. They will be joined this week by an independent representative of the Australian Veterinary Association. They will be conducting a review of the processing facilities that received Australian cattle in Indonesia and continuing to review the Mark I and Mark IV restraint boxes. They will also— (Time expired)

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Given that the live cattle export industry is now facing serious financial hardship as a result of the necessary suspension of exports to Indonesia, and given the failure of organisations such as Meat and Livestock Australia to maintain welfare standards, I would like to know when and how the government will hold these organisations to account?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The farmers' friends, the Greens—what a joke that is!

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not call the minister until the debate has stopped. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President, and I thank Senator Siewert for her interest in this industry, unlike those opposite. I understand that the suspension of trade will have an impact on Australian producers and those involved in the live export trade. We know this will be particularly acute in the areas of the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The gov­ern­ment and the department are committed to working with industry every step of the way to achieve the best outcome for all involved. Any short-term impacts will be for the longer term sustainability of the industry.

In terms of the short-term impact in that area, I have DAFF officials looking at the current onshore areas as well, but in terms of support broadly for industry can I say that I have written to Meat and Livestock Australia asking the association to consider making an initial contribution of $5 million to an industry contingency fund. I have received a reply from the MLA stating that the board would not provide those funds. This is a disappointing response from an industry body representing the major producers in this area who have failed to take responsibility for their actions and, of course, not accept the substantial role that they have played in the current issues as well. I have now acted to exercise my powers to direct the MLA to use some of its substantial reserves to manage the immediate domestic impact of the suspension of trade. The government believes that the industry body should support its industry itself, particularly given the funding base which includes both industry and government contributions. To that end, I have acted to deal with that issue and ensure— (Time expired)

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. Although it was very useful, he did not answer the question I asked, which was: what are you doing about MLA to hold them to account? So I ask him to please answer my first question, but my supplementary question is: now that he has exercised his power to direct MLA to do this, what is his time frame for ensuring that happens as a matter of urgency?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under the statutory requirements, I do have to give them an opportunity to consult with me about the decision I have made in terms of the time frame. Given the urgency of this issue, I expect that to be a relatively short period of time. I would have expected the industry to take responsibility for itself and for these circumstances. The industry have failed to do that, and that is why I have acted to ensure that they do take responsibility. That $5 million is important to provide support and relief for onshore domestic producers, to ensure that they can maintain their stock and defray some of the initial impacts that the decision has caused. In terms of a broader industry question about MLA, I foreshadow that I will be— (Time expired)

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question—and the minister might roll the final part of his answer to the previous question into this one. You said that they have to come back to you, Minister; could you please outline the time frame for that? Could you also please outline what analysis you did to determine the amount of $5 million initially put into the fund for compensation? On what information is that based, on what analysis is that based; and how confident are you that that is enough to significantly help the industry?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I finish the last answer first, then. It was disappointing to get that response from MLA. The initial $5 million—and I use the word 'initial'—is to deal with the immediate impacts on the onshore domestic supply chain. In terms of the broader issue, what I was saying before is that I foreshadow that I will be pursuing a reference to a joint committee to look at not only the broader representative bodies but also the domestic impacts and a range of other matters that I want the parliament to address, because it is important that the parliament have oversight of these important issues. A joint committee would be an appropriate way to deal with that. Of course, I do need the support of the parliament to be able to undertake that process, so at this stage I will simply foreshadow that I do want a joint committee to be able to look into some of these issues that you have raised— (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig. During Senate estimates hearings on 24 May, the minister told Senator Coonan that he had asked the live export industry to bring forward a plan to deal with animal welfare outcomes and animal-handling issues in Indonesia. I ask the minister specifically: did he accept or reject the plan? I understand he got it. If the plan was rejected, on what date was it rejected, was the rejection in writing and on what date did the minister so inform the industry; and, Minister, could you release the correspondence between you and the industry on that plan?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is correct to identify that I have been working with industry on this very issue since at least as early as January, when I wrote to the industry. I understand that letter is in the public domain. They did come back with a plan. I am certain Senator Macdonald can obtain the plan from them. I indicate that I did not endorse that plan. As I have continuously said, the plan itself did not go far enough and the timelines it contained were too short to warrant its endorsement. What the industry failed to realise in particular was that the action plan that they provided to my office was not sufficient to provide me with any confidence that they were going to address this issue in the short and near term. As a consequence, I have now had to suspend the live animal export industry to ensure that we can quickly move to a situation where animal welfare is dealt with appropriately and where we can then resume the trade with a supply chain assurance in place—that is, ensuring that we can track and trace animals from the point of departure to the point of slaughter. Without both of those systems in place, there is no confidence that the industry will be able to restart the trade shortly—not until and unless they address those two requirements. Failure to reform this industry will mean that, in areas of the Northern Territory and Western Australia, unemployment is likely and, certainly, the industry will be under stress. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I asked the minister if he rejected the plan, and I repeat that question. And, if you did, on what date did you reject it, did you do it in writing; and on what date did you actually inform the industry? Following that answer, I ask the minister: is he not aware that parts of his own state, in the Cape York and Gulf Country of Queensland, are in desperate difficulties as a result of the decision he has made? Why is he ignoring the plight of Queensland cattle growers and referring only to the plight of others?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To answer the opposition's last question first, Queensland, New South Wales and all of the other states of course have an interest in the resumption of this trade, unlike those opposite. What is important, as I highlighted in my answer to the previous question, is that the significant impacts were in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. There are lesser impacts but still impacts in Queensland and other states as well, as those opposite would understand. What we as a government have been doing, unlike those opposite, is working through, firstly, how we can investigate the footage and do the work necessary to make sure we can get this trade up and running again on a sustainable, long-term footing. This industry is at risk if it cannot quickly and deftly move to ensure animal welfare outcomes, because it is an industry that has lost its social licence. Without a social licence, the community will not support the industry in its current form. The industry has not heard that message loudly or clearly enough to date— (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I ask the minister: what additional facts did he get that caused him to change his mind from his first decision, which was to ban live cattle exports to just those abattoirs that appeared in the Four Corners program, to his subsequent decision to completely ban those exports to Indonesia? Is the minister aware that there are a number of abattoirs in Indonesia that are run to Australian standards and could continue to slaughter cattle humanely and in accordance with Australian standards?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What those opposite are relying on is guaranteeing that any cattle that leave Australia will end up in a particular abattoir of that standard, but there is no guarantee. What those opposite want to be able to do is say, 'Here is an abattoir that we can send to and we should send to,' but they cannot guarantee it and what they are mischievously trying to suggest is that they can. You cannot guarantee such a thing as there is no supply chain assurance in place as we speak.

It is wrong to suggest that simply concentrating on an abattoir of a particular standard solves the problem. The problem has to be solved by industry itself looking at how it can put in place a supply chain assurance so that we can have traceability, we can have accountability and we can have transparency and an audit of that supply chain to make sure that the welfare of any cattle that leave Australia is taken care of throughout the supply chain right up to the point of slaughter. (Time expired)