Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the live export of cattle to Indonesia.

What we have seen this afternoon regrettably has been an absolute abrogation of accountability and responsibility from this minister and far from his comments about the coalition not engaging or supporting I can assure you, Mr Deputy President, that up until he made his ill-considered decision to suspend the live export trade all he had was support from the coalition. Unfortunately, that has been a knee-jerk reaction to an ill-considered email campaign by a group of activists—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Back! There is far too much audible conversation in the chamber.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was saying that the minister's decision was a knee-jerk reaction to an ill considered email campaign by activists who knew little about the consequences of what they were doing or indeed the animal welfare issues that they will subject Australian cattle to. Unfortunately, the minister's action has been to penalise those abattoirs in Indonesia which, as Senate colleagues from this side have said, are performing to normal international standards and have long done so.

The best evidence that I have of this was the minister saying that he had to suspend the trade because he had no confidence about where animals would end up. I ask him then if he could tell me how the decision was made on 6 June, two days before he brought in this suspension, to disallow the shipment of 1,900 cattle from Port Hedland owned by the Northern Australian Cattle Company, a branch of Elders International, which were to go to an Elders owned feedlot on their way to an Elders owned abattoir of a calibre and quality that has met Australian standards for many years. This was two days before. Regrettably, the AQIS veterinarian involved had seen these cattle and had approved them for export. The ship was alongside, the cattle were waiting to be shipped and the veterinarian received advice from Canberra to say that he was not to sign off on that consignment of cattle to go into their own feedlot and their own abattoir. I would like to know from the minister what involvement he or his staff or indeed senior officers of the department had in interfering with normal, good, lawful trade. We still do not have an answer as to what happened. For the minister to stand here this afternoon and say that he had to bring in a complete suspension because he had no knowledge or confidence of cattle going into our approved abattoirs overseas is an absolute nonsense and it is a cop-out.

The question now to be asked of course is: what do the Indonesians do? What options do they have now that a valuable source of safe protein has been denied them? Speaking of safe protein I have to draw the attention of the Senate to the unfortunate circumstances in Europe over the last two or three weeks with the outbreaks of E. coli which has led to the deaths of more than 24 people in Europe. The Australian product is a safe product, the abattoirs that are approved for international use are safe.

Amongst other things this decision by this minister will expose Indonesians to standards of safety less than those that they can reasonably expect. But the unfortunate outcome for Indonesia, if they are denied access to our live cattle, is to look elsewhere and where they will look will be to India where there are hundreds of millions of cattle and buffalo and the country has an endemic problem with foot-and-mouth disease. The other countries that are lining up to take away the Australian trade are South American countries, including Brazil and Argentina, which also have foot-and-mouth disease. Australia worked hard some years ago in assisting Indonesia to make sure it was free of foot-and-mouth disease so that we could build a biosecurity barrier around Australia. If cattle from those countries come into Indonesia we will end up with foot-and-mouth disease in this country. The impact on animal welfare alone will be horrific. The losses of animals across Australia, including wildlife, as we try to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease will be on a scale never seen in this country. Quite apart from the fact that the best estimate is a cost of $14 billion alone and a doubling of unemployment in the first year after we get foot-and-mouth disease, quite apart from the impact on northern towns and communities from the loss of tourism and other activities, the question to be asked is: what has gone wrong? Why did this minister bring in a total suspension when all he needed to do was terminate the trade with those abattoirs that do not meet international standards? We in Australia do not think that the Australian border is the limit of animal welfare. We have an opportunity to increase animal welfare standards in Indonesia, and we must resume the trade.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Far from condemning the minister, those opposite should join with the government in congratulating Minister Ludwig on the actions that he has taken thus far. Far from earning condemnation, the minister should be receiving congratulations from those opposite for the actions he has taken thus far. What we started with was the Four Corners footage of the treatment of Australia's live cattle exports in Indonesian abattoirs, which was truly horrific. Nobody could watch that footage of animal mistreatment and think that it is acceptable. That is why, immediately after seeing the footage, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig, ordered an investigation into the footage. He also asked to be provided with all the regulatory and legislative actions available to him to address the immediate welfare issues for those animals. Equipped with that information, and with the investigation underway, the government firstly suspended live animal exports to the facilities identified by the evidence from the RSPCA and Animals Australia and agreed to add further facilities to the list of banned facilities; implemented a moratorium on the installation of the restraint boxes seen being used in the footage, a change that applies to the installation of any new boxes with Commonwealth funds across all global markets; asked the Chief Veterinary Officer to coordinate the independent scientific assessment of the restraint boxes used in Indonesia; and announced that the government would appoint an independent reviewer to investigate the complete supply chain for live exports up to and including the point of slaughter.

What is clear in all of this is that the producers and the community have been let down by the industry—and the government has taken the appropriate course of action in the circumstances. It is not possible in the current system to guarantee that cattle will not be exposed to the conditions that we have seen. That is why the total suspension order is in place. As those opposite distort the debate, we need to consider whether it is worth taking the risk that Australian animals will continue to be exposed to the shocking conditions we have seen. Cattle producers do not want to see cattle treated this way, nor do the community and the government. This suspension will allow the establishment of a transparent, verifiable system that will account for cattle in Australia right through the supply chain. That is the community standard, that is the government standard and it must be the industry standard.

Minister Ludwig has made it clear that the trade to Indonesia will only recommence when we are certain that the industry is able to comply with that supply chain assurance. The decision to suspend trade was not made easily, but the purpose of the suspension will ensure the better and humane treatment of Australian livestock into the future.

The government is committed to reaching the best possible outcomes for the livestock, for the industry and for our important relationship with Indonesia. To achieve the best possible outcomes the government is talking to industry and assessing the impact of the suspension. The next step is to develop a plan to ensure welfare compliance in the supply chain and also to ensure a sustainable domestic industry.

For those opposite to argue that the government has not previously taken any action to protect Australian livestock exports is completely untrue. Minister Ludwig has consistently expressed his concern about animal welfare outcomes in the live animal trade. As with any industry, it is appropriate to work with them to raise the standards. In fact, as we have heard here today, in January the minister wrote to the industry asking them to better address animal welfare. The plans presented by the industry in March and May were not accepted. The minister said publicly, including, as I understand it, at the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association conference, that the industry had to act on these issues. The minister has said previously, including in question time today, that the plans did not go far enough, that he did not have confidence that they addressed the issue of animal welfare.

Notwithstanding that, industry responses have not addressed the core of the problem, and that is a lack of transparency and verification across the system. We need a transparent and verifiable system that will account for cattle from Australia right through the supply chain. At the moment, the suspension order is necessary to ensure the welfare of Australian livestock. There is currently no guarantee that cattle from Australia are able to be exported to Indonesia and processed within an approved facility. As a result, the government— (Time expired)

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

I would like to start by commend­ing the minister on his first decision in this regard. It was a good decision and it was easy to understand. We have identified 11 abattoirs and processing facilities in Indonesia and the minister was able to dictate that no Australian animals would be allowed to go to those abattoirs. Now, something happened in the interim. Some would say that it might be an email chain. It might have been all sorts of pressures, but it was not seen to be tough enough. So the government just rolls out a highly politicised decision that seems to be good enough: they put a ban on the trade. One needs to understand the impacts on farmers and families; stock contractors; helicopter services—fine pilots and fine services, the Milton Joneses and the John Armstrongs of the world; the feed and pellet producers; and the truck companies.

Can you or any Australian imagine for a minute the impact it would have on you as a grocer, a chemist, a builder or a newsagent if it was suddenly said to you, 'You cannot trade; you can continue to do whatever you like but you cannot sell your product and, by the way, we're not actually giving you an answer about when that will start again so you can have some sort of a plan'? The only consistent thing happening in Northern Australia is that bills need to be paid and the banks are going to need their pound of flesh, and rightly so, every month.

To perhaps humanise this, we have been talking a lot about animal welfare and there is none on this side of the house who would accept that an Australian animal should be treated in any way differently overseas from here. Colin Fink runs a family operated feed mill at Tortilla Flats, just south of Darwin. He has grown, harvested and carted 3,000 tonnes of hay this year at a cost of $120 a tonne for which he does not have a market. He has just processed 160,000 tonnes of pellets to supply three live-cattle boats, but the contracts have stopped so there are no payments or prospects for this feed. He laid off four staff last week and, when all the hay is in, he will lay off another three staff, including his own son who works in the business. Colin spent eight years building this business and says that if this lasts a few more weeks he is going to have to shut down. The mill and the hay property will be vastly devalued if this continues. No-one is going to buy the feed mill, certainly with no market. These are the sorts of emails and stories that I am striking and I have dozens and dozens of people who are literally going to the wall.

I touch on the impact of animal welfare by this decision to have a ban. People need to understand that the Bos indica stock across Northern Australia are fundamentally a breeding stock. You have a certain amount of land and on that land once a year you will turn off those animals. That land can only handle the breeding stock. It will handle over and after the wet season an increased number of animals that have been bred and are ready to be turned off. Keeping those animals on this country for a longer time is going to have a devastating effect both on the range lands—the country, the environment—and on the animals. Because there is less feed, the animals generally get weaker and I myself have witnessed so many times that when the animals get weaker there is less water, they get bogged and they generally come to a pretty grisly end courtesy of the wild pig population. It is a pretty grim circumstance.

This could all have been avoided if the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry had stood up here today and said that we need to have a food chain process and it all has to be accredited. At the moment there are at least four processing facilities that have an internal closed system. They know that the animals leave Australia in a perfectly functional vessel that is now set to world standards and they go to a perfectly functional feedlot that meets world standards and to a perfectly functioning slaughter­house, which was not seen on Four Corners,that meets and exceeds international standards.

So why would you not be more sophisticated in your approach to ensure that the Colins of this world are not getting beaten up over this process and to ensure that we can continue the trade? There is a legitimate trade that is going to legitimate processes. Everyone acknowledges that those processes now need to expand to take up the remainder of the trade. Those abattoirs that are ready to go now need to be accredited. As soon as they are accredited, the minister should simply make the very important announcement that the trade recommence.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I do not know where you were on Monday a fortnight ago, but I was at estimates and did not get an opportunity to watch the live footage of the Four Corners program on the subject of the live animal trade. But certainly a few nights on I watched it on-stream and it really shocked me. It shocked me to see the horror of this treatment of our animals in Indonesia. I am sure none of us in this chamber would want to sit idly by and allow that sort of conduct to continue.

I will never forget the images. One part of the footage showed an Indonesian man belting a cow with chains. I do not know what the purpose behind that was, but that sort of behaviour really troubled me. It has been suggested here today that we have acted on this issue as a result of an email campaign or that there were delayed responses from the government. I do not think that is the case. When you look at the examples and the feedback from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry today during question time you see that is not the case. The suspension of the live-animal trade will be in place until appropriate safeguards can be established. The minister said that after the announcement last week. I really challenge anyone to go back and have a look at the footage again of the animal mistreatment. I think anyone will attest that it is totally unacceptable.

That is why it is clear that producers and the community have been let down by the industry. Under the current system, it is not possible to guarantee that cattle will not be exposed to the conditions that we have seen in that footage. Cattle producers do not want to see cattle treated that way, nor does the community and this government. This suspension will allow the establishment of a transparent, verifiable system that will account for cattle from Australia right through the supply chain. That is a community standard. That is the standard that this government stands by and a standard that must be in the industry. The decision to suspend trade was not really an easy one to take and not one that one takes off the back of little evidence and information. But let us be clear on this: it is a suspension that the government will lift as soon as the industry can establish a better system. We made the decision to suspend trade to bring about better treatment for Australian livestock into the future, and that remains our primary goal.

We do have a responsibility and, like many other countries, we have a respon­sibility to the rules of the World Trade Organisation. Australia has the right under the World Trade Organisation rules to take action to ensure that Australian cattle are treated in accordance with the international standards on animal welfare. The decision to suspend trade to Indonesia has been taken following evidence of the animals' mistreatment and advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. While action has been taken in response to evidence that has been provided to the Australian government detailing animal welfare abuses in Indonesia, the Australian government will appoint an independent person to review the live animal export chain for all Australia's livestock export destinations. We have a positive relationship with the Indonesian government. That has been demonstrated over the many years since we have been in government through our ability to make various changes not only to this particular area but also to other areas of concern in the Pacific. As a close partner of Indonesia, whose relationship with Australia is of such importance, we will be in a position to work through these changes with the Indonesian government.

The minister ordered a complete suspension of all livestock exports to Indonesia for the purpose of slaughter until the new safeguards are established for the trade. This suspension will be in place until the government and the industry establish sufficient safeguards to provide a verifiable and transparent supply-chain assurance up to and including the point of slaughter for every consignment that leaves Australia. The trade to Indonesia will only recommence when we are certain that the industry is able to comply with that supply-chain assurance. This decision was made following serious consideration of the advice and evidence that was presented to the government.

Reflecting once again, I think that if anybody has not had the opportunity to cite that footage from the Four Corners program, they should do so and see the reasons that we acted decisively on this area of concern to the public. There are numerous emails coming through to us expressing the concern in the community over what is happening to our livestock which is taken offshore, and no doubt that concern will continue until this matter is addressed.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to take note of answers given during question time today, I say that I am offended by the implication that seems to be being made by those senators who support the suspension of Australia's live cattle trade to Indonesia that those senators who disagree with the blanket suspension of the live cattle trade to Indonesia somehow do so on the basis that we are prepared to turn a blind eye to the horrific treatment to which we saw cattle being subjected in the Four Corners program. I find that implication offensive. I also find it offensive that this government seems to think it fit to impose upon the Australian community a policy—that is, the blanket suspension of the live cattle trade to Indonesia—which is all pain and no gain. There is no gain in the blanket suspension of the live cattle trade to Indonesia imposed by this government—there is no gain for the welfare of cattle, since cattle know no borders, and there is no gain for the welfare of cattle or, indeed, for the welfare of animals worldwide. But there is plenty of pain. There is pain for Australian beef cattle producers in the north, in the south and in the west. There is pain for the Australian community, especially small Australian communities. There is flow-on pain to the Australian economy. There is pain for those in poverty in Indonesia, who will have to pay more and so find it harder if they want to access protein through meat. There is pain for Australia's diplomatic relationship with Indonesia—it will potentially take decades to resurrect our trade relationship with Indonesia. There is potential pain for biosecurity and health and safety in Indonesia, as Indonesians without access to a reliable supply of electricity, and who are therefore without reliable refrigeration, are forced to source other, less safe markets for access to protein and their 'wet' meat. There is plenty of pain for Indonesian cattle, the 70 per cent of cattle being slaughtered daily, weekly, monthly in Indonesian abattoirs with techniques of the sort that we saw in the Four Corners footage. If you take away the 20 per cent of the market that Australia supplies to Indonesia through 'wet' meat, and if you take away the approximately 10 per cent that Indonesians consume by way of chilled meat, you are left with the 70 per cent of cattle, mainly Indonesian, that are slaughtered daily. This blanket suspension of Australia's live cattle trade to Indonesia does nothing to stop cruelty for the 70 per cent of cattle that are slaughtered in Indonesia.

Where is the evidence upon which the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the government have based their decision? The minister has been cowed into submission. Indeed, he has been cowed into suspension; there is no evidence to back his decision to suspend the trade. Not only has this minister never visited a working Indonesian abattoir but he failed to commit to having been inside a working Australian abattoir. He has failed to identify any direct, practical knowledge upon which he based his decision. What has changed between the minister saying that he has raised this issue with the industry and his suspension of the trade? Has there been any change in treatment of cattle in Indonesia over those alleged months? No. What has changed is that we have seen a TV program, and that TV program and the resultant swelling of well-intentioned support in the community has cowed this government into suspension.

It is all pain and no gain with this suspension of trade. This government has no courage and no policy conviction. They must resume the trade immediately with those five or so abattoirs that the industry says are compliant. (Time expired)

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

I too would like to take note of the minister's answers on this issue, and note that he did not actually answer one of my questions, which asked: what is the government going to do about Meat and Livestock Australia's role in this whole business? They clearly had a responsibility to maintain—in fact, improve—animal welfare standards and clearly have not done that. I asked the question amongst all of the comments made here around the issues of evidence. I thought the evidence was pretty compelling when I saw Four Corners, I have to admit. Is the proposition here that we should go on allowing that sort of cruelty to occur while we collect even more evidence? It is quite plain that these animals were suffering terrible, inhumane treatment, and the government did the right thing, we believe, in suspending exports to Indonesia. That was the only humane approach that this government could take.

Having said that, we do believe that there are many, many questions unanswered. I know that the minister has an inquiry being undertaken, but he has not been clear about what he intends to do about the role that Meat and Livestock Australia took—what they knew about the ongoing treatment of these animals in Indonesia, what they did about and what the industry representatives knew about it. The representatives from these organisations have been in Indonesia; they have visited the abattoirs that we saw so graphically depicted on Four Corners. And they thought that sort of treatment was okay? How could our cattle industry be allowed to get into the crisis that it faces today? That is the big question. What were the industry representatives doing about that? Why were the MLA not taking action much earlier than they have?

The issue, then, is around compensation, which is what I asked the government about today. I must say that I was pleased that the government said that they are now going to be exercising their power to require Meat and Livestock Australia to open their contingency fund to help those producers that are affected by this decision. Meat and Livestock Australia should not have to be forced to open that contingency fund. They must bear at least some share of the responsibility for the outcome we have at this point for the industry. There is absolutely no doubt that they should have known what was going on, they should have taken action and they should not have allowed this sector to get into the position it is in now. Having not done that, they do not even want to open their contingency fund—funding that the industry has provided in order for them to improve welfare standards for these animals—and government now has to force them. They should have been dealing with this issue earlier. Now that they are, they need to act immediately so that funding can be made available. I would also like to know on what basis they think that the initial $5 million is adequate and whether they have done an analysis on how much funding is required.

We then need to be looking at how we can improve processing in this country so that this issue does not eventuate again. I think people are very clear about what the Greens' position is—that is, we do not support the live export of livestock for slaughter. We have made that very clear in our policies; we do not believe that should occur. What we believe we need to be doing is investing resources in this country so that we carry out processing in this country. Then we need to be using the marketing skills that bodies such as Meat and Livestock Australia are supposed to have to market processed and chilled meat, and we need to be generating jobs in regional Australia so that we are no longer exporting jobs and so that we can produce a quality product here in this country that supports our cattle industry and processing in this country but still enables us to export a quality product.

The Greens will be pursuing both a ban on the export of livestock for slaughter and we are also pursuing—and if people have read the motions that have been tabled or introduced today they will see that I have tabled a motion—referring Meat and Livestock Australia's role in this whole issue to a committee inquiry. We believe that we need to get to the bottom of exactly what role Meat and Livestock Australia had in this issue, how much they knew, what processes they have put in place to deal with those issues and how many times they have visited these abattoirs. First off, they told us in estimates that everything was okay; that animal practices in Indonesia were okay. Less than a week later, we saw that it was not okay on the Four Corners show. Less than a week before that, they were assuring a Senate committee that all was okay. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.