Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today, Senator Fifield and Senator Siewert each submitted a letter in accordance with standing order 75 proposing a matter of public importance for discussion. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot.

As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Siewert:

The Gillard Government's failure to properly regulate and monitor the live export trade via the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System and ensure animal welfare concerns are properly addressed.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today we debate the ongoing animal welfare crisis in the live export trade. It is saddens and distresses me to think of the suffering of animals sold into the live export trade. These are concerns shared by the majority of Australians. There is a systemic failure to ensure the welfare of animals being exported from Australia. Sheep and cattle continue to suffer inhumane treatment under the government's live export supply chain assurance system. The system is fatally flawed because it was never designed to ensure animal welfare. It was hatched by industry and bureaucrats as a political fix and as a means to manage media, that has done so much to inform the public of the cruel reality of the live export trade.

In 2011, when the ABC's Four Corners program exposed the cruel, brutal exploitation of animals on long voyages and their horrific treatment in overseas abattoirs, the Gillard Labor government was forced to halt the trade and set up an inquiry in response to the public outrage and concern. The government went into crisis mode and established a dedicated live exports body to manage the public outcry, and a series of industry-government working groups cobbled together a new regulatory system.

What emerged from that process was the resumption of the live export trade with new rules. But it has proven to be business as usual for the industry, with ongoing cruelty and suffering for the animals. The simple truth of the matter is that there is no humane way to ship thousands of animals across the world to slaughter. The only humane solution is to ban the live export trade and instead assist an industry transition in Australia to develop an ethical meat processing and export market.

The reality was brought into stark relief last week when once again ABC television aired shocking footage taken by an Animals Australia investigation which exposed the cruel slaughter of Australian sheep in an illegal Kuwaiti market. The Al Rai market in Kuwait, which has been the scene of terrible animal rights abuses, is not approved under the government's new supply chain system, so it is illegal for livestock to be sent there. However, hundreds of Australian sheep have been openly sold in this market in blatant disregard of the new regulatory system. I congratulate Animals Australia and Lyn White for the investigative footage that was screened in Australia last week. Without this information we would not know about the abuses of this system. There is no-one on the ground in these destination countries to oversee compliance with the federal government's regulations.

The incident at Al Rai market is an extremely serious breach of the new Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System. It should lead to the exporter facing criminal sanctions and losing their licence. This is needed to send a clear message to the industry and the public that any failure to comply with the new system will not be tolerated. The agriculture minister, Mr Joe Ludwig, needs to fully answer for his department's slow response to this distressing incident and why they passed responsibility on to the exporter to ensure that animals do not end up in illegal markets. The government is failing to protect animal welfare because its system is failing badly, and we are left to rely on the diligence of Animals Australia to monitor the live export trade. While the Greens are critical of the Al Rai market incident, we do welcome that the government has set up an investigation into this matter.

A few days before this story broke we had also heard that there were two live export sheep shipments stranded for over a week in the Middle East. After spending 33 days at sea—more than double the length of time the trip from Australia to Bahrain usually takes—about 22,000 sheep destined for Kuwait were left stranded off Bahrain, trapped and crowded in sweltering summer temperatures. The memorandum of understanding that requires the sheep to be unloaded within 36 hours of reaching port was not enforced. The sheep were eventually offloaded in Bahrain and Pakistan, but very little information is available about the welfare or the mortality rates of the sheep on board. Every one of those sheep suffered, making a mockery of the MOU that supposedly assures their welfare.

An official government investigation into these two shipments needs to be called. The department should be publicly held to account for their handling of the rejections and what appears to be their willingness to participate in a cover-up for the industry. The public expect that the department, as a body independent of the live export industry, will provide an accurate assessment of events. However, that did not occur in response to these shipments. The department, in one of its statements, referred to 'delays in approval to unload the sheep in Bahrain'. However, there were no delays. The animals were rejected, otherwise they would not have been forced to source an alternate market for the sheep in Pakistan. The department also stated:

This use of an alternate port is consistent with the requirement for exporters to have contingency arrangements in place for all voyages.

That statement is completely misleading. How could Pakistan have been a contingency plan when it did not have ESCAS—Export Supply Chain Assurance System—approval at that time and Pakistan has never taken Australian sheep? It was a case of deception rather than decency. It also should be noted that neither the RSPCA nor Animals Australia were officially notified of these incidents. The RSPCA especially should have been told, as they are represented on the review of the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock, which relates to selection and inspection of animals.

The department also appears to be trying to keep the line that there has not been a high level of mortality in these incidents. Without a high-mortality event there would be no official government investigation into either the Ocean Shearer's refusal to unload or the Al Shuwaikh. There are reports coming out that the department has said that 22,000 sheep were unloaded when the Pakistan government agreed to that shipment arriving there. But the Pakistani government is reporting that it was 21,000 sheep that were unloaded. So again there is a discrepancy indicating a high level of mortality that needs to be further explored.

All these developments underline why the agriculture minister should initiate a full and transparent investigation into the voyages of both the Ocean Drover and the Al Shuwaikh. It is disheartening to reflect that in 2003 over 6,000 sheep died on the MV Cormo Express while waiting to be unloaded in the Persian Gulf and 10 years on we still have not learnt the lesson that the welfare of animals bound for live export cannot be assured. There is a clear way forward for the Australian meat and livestock industry if a ban on live exports was in place. Thousands of jobs could be created by making the shift to processing more meat in Australia. ACIL Tasman's 2009 review into the live sheep trade found that phasing out live sheep exports would have long-term benefits for farmers and the economy.

In the 1970s the Australian meat processing industry employed between 40,000 and 48,000 workers. By 2009 the number had dropped to around 32,000 workers. Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union figures show that 150 meat processing plants have shut down due to the live export trade. This trade has been a drain on the meat processing industry, with flow-on effects for those in regional communities. A ban on live exports could be a win-win outcome for both animal welfare and Australian jobs.

This week the House of Representatives member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie, has his livestock export bill down to be debated in the House. It calls for more humane treatment of live export animals and mandatory preslaughter stunning. The Greens do support the bill, although we believe it should be extended to cover ritual slaughter. It would be a step forward to protect the welfare of all these animals. However, we do know that the only answer to guaranteeing the welfare of these animals remains the implementation of a ban on live exports. The Greens will await the outcome of the investigation into the breach of the live export regulations in Kuwait. I urge all parties and members to reconsider their position and to consider supporting the Greens private member's bill to ban the live trade, which is the only way forward to end this farce of industry self-regulation, to end the controversy and, most importantly, to end the cruel suffering of these animals, help create tens of thousands of jobs in Australia and boost local and regional economies.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no doubt that recent images from live animal export destinations in Asia and the Middle East have been very troubling and deeply disturbing to many Australians. I am certainly well aware of the extent of concern many Australians have about live animal exports and the fact that many of these concerns are ongoing. Of course, the government's policy on this matter is clear. The Australian government supports the export of livestock where acceptable conditions are maintained. The Australian live export trade is important. It supports jobs, it supports families and it supports communities across regional Australia.

Last year, following the evidence of animal cruelty provided to the government and to the ABC's Four Corners program by Animals Australia, the Australian government acted to temporarily suspend the export of all livestock for the purpose of slaughter to Indonesia. It was proposed that exports would resume when new animal welfare safeguards were established for the trade. Prior to the suspension, exporters of livestock to Indonesia were only required to track exported animals from their origin in Australia to the port of export and report on the outcome of the voyage to Indonesia. An industry-government working group and an independent review were established to develop a regulatory framework to address the areas of concern with the export of livestock to Indonesia. As we know, a new regulatory framework was established requiring exporters of livestock to Indonesia for slaughtering to supply evidence of an acceptable exporter supply chain assurance system before approval to export by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry could be issued. This decision reflects the recommendations of the Farmer review; I think all of those recommendations were accepted by the government.

In October last year the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry announced that the Australian government would extend the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System framework developed for Indonesia to all livestock exports for the purpose of slaughter by the end of 2012. The new framework is being implemented progressively in countries that receive Australian live animal exports. New regulatory arrangements of course applied immediately to Indonesia and Egypt. Tranche 1, effective from 1 March this year, covered some 75 per cent of the live export trade, including to Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Turkey. Tranche 2, effective from 1 September this year, covered 99 per cent of the live export trade, including to Israel, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Oman, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates. Finally, tranche 3 will cover 100 per cent of live animal exports by the end of this year, covering the remaining markets such as Brunei, Mauritius, Russia and Vietnam.

With the support of industry, the new framework is being rolled out with, it seems, minimal disruption to trade. The new framework, the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, requires exporters to provide evidence of compliance with internationally agreed welfare standards, demonstrate control through the supply chain, demonstrate traceability through the supply chain and meet reporting and accountability requirements, and it must include independent auditing.

The Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System regulatory framework for livestock exports provides, as we know, for the investigation of allegations of non-compliance and regulatory action. And this is happening. In fact, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is currently investigating a complaint alleging that Australian live animal exports have been offered for sale and slaughter outside an approved supplier chain. It is my understanding that those investigations are ongoing and I note that in her speech earlier Senator Rhiannon was planning to await the outcome of those investigations.

The Australian government has worked closely with the livestock industry and state and territory governments to develop the new regulatory framework. It has engaged with our trading partners during the development of the reforms and intends to continue to work with them. I think it would be unrealistic to expect that there will be no more incidents of noncompliance again under the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System. But I think what is critically important is how incidents in the future are addressed and how we ensure accountability and transparency from exporters and their supply chains.

Reform of the live animal export trade has been a long time coming. It has been vitally important and it is vitally important for government to get the balance right between supporting this important industry, respecting the welfare of animals and giving the Australian community the confidence that our live export trade is world's best practice. I happen to be one person who believes, as a result of all these events over the past 18 months, that we are now much closer to achieving that very important balance.

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

There are some aspects of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System that are worthy of note. Regrettably, as I have said often since it has been introduced, there are many aspects of it which are deeply flawed and we do see some of those and we hear commentary in this chamber today about them. In many ways this legislation was set up to fail. It is making completely unreasonable demands on exporters, producers and industry generally and indeed on foreign countries. In fact, it is making demands that Australians would never tolerate if they were in reverse. It is having a devastating effect on rural communities and, perversely, will probably lead to a decline in animal welfare standards in the target markets into which we operate if and when we lose our competitiveness and our access to those industries in those countries, and of course back here in Australia, which I hope to outline.

There is no precedent. What this ESCAS confers on an exporter, under threat of criminal liability, is responsibility for the conduct of every participant in the supply chain right through to the end customer. There is no other product and no other commodity in any other country that demands this. I asked the secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Richardson, in estimates that very question: do you know of any other commodity or product we export from this country that imposes on the exporter entire responsibility for the performance of the product right through to the end consumer? The answer is no, they do not have any such information. So what we have with ESCAS unique to the live export trade is a burden of responsibility that rests on nobody else. That is unfair and untenable and it must be changed. As Senator Faulkner just said, no other country demands any controls at all once a shipment of animals has reached either the port or the airport. They have no control, they have no capacity, they have no demand to work out what is happening in the country to which those animals are being sent.

So I ask this question: is this going to be Australia's new philosophy now for failure of policy or performance? Why should we stop at live animals? Let us take, for example, the recent revelations of corruption and waste in AusAID. Does that immediately lead then to a demand that we are to withdraw all AusAID in the same way that others are saying, because there apparently has been some failure in the ESCAS of the live export trade in the Middle East, that means we should withdraw that trade completely? Nobody would suggest that. If we have a failure of drugs amongst our Olympians, are we going to say that Australia is not going to send anybody to the Olympic Games? When we have medical and surgical failures in our hospitals, are we then to turn around and say: 'There has been a failure of policy. We must now withdraw from that market'? It is a nonsense that we would do that and it is equally a nonsense those who are calling for the suspension of the live export trade because there has been on this occasion an indication, a trial by media. We have not even yet seen the results of an inquiry and yet here we are being asked to judge.

Let me give you this analogy: let us take it from an export to a domestic situation. Let us imagine for a moment that a family went to buy a pet at an RSPCA shelter. They take the pet home and for whatever reason that family perpetrates some sort of welfare abuse on that animal. Are we then to assume that either the RSPCA senior management or those who are in control of that shelter will be criminally liable for the behaviour of somebody who purchases an animal from that shelter? Of course we would not say that! And yet we are being invited in this debate to blame exporters for behaviours which clearly would be well beyond their control if and when that investigation has been undertaken and completed.

Following the earlier two speakers, let me give you some indication of the consequences of ESCAS on producers, on support services, on communities in rural Australia and on the Australian economy generally. Contrary to what Senator Faulkner actually said when he indicated that there has been minimal effect on the export trade, everybody who was in the chamber last sitting period would know that I asked the agriculture minister, Senator Ludwig, if he could explain why live animal exports to Indonesia had halved. And, indeed, through you Madam Acting Deputy President, I also made the point to Senator Rhiannon that far from beef sales going up they had also halved. I will come back, if time permits, to debunk the myth about a stopping of live exports leading to an increase in beef sales.

On 1 September 2012 we have, as a result of this ESCAS tranche 2, lost the live export trade to Saudi Arabia, one that we have supplied for some 35 years. We now look like we have lost the sale of live cattle to Turkey, a tremendous trade and a tremendous product for the Turks. And the Egyptians are now indicating that they may not be interested in taking animals. I made the point earlier that the perverse effect of all of this is a reduction in animal welfare standards in the target markets. Why? Because Australia, alone of the 109 countries that export animals around the world, is the only one that has ever invested time and money and expertise to improve standards of animal welfare in these countries. If and when the live export trade finishes, and there are those who want to see that happen, we have no doubt at all that animal welfare standards will deteriorate to those levels that I observed when I was a veterinarian involved in this trade back in the early 1980s. And I am pleased to say that I did not observe them in Australian animals that we were shipping, but I certainly did observe them in locally bred and supplied animals.

So we have a circumstance now where, as I asked the minister the other day, we are facing the risk of foot-and-mouth disease getting into Indonesia. The Indonesian government, as a direct result of the decisions taken last year, have now decided that their beef processors and beef importers can look at importing beef from so-called foot-and-mouth disease-free zones in Brazil. History knows, and my own association, the Australian Veterinary Association, indicates very, very clearly, that when beef comes in from foot-and-mouth disease countries that foot-and-mouth disease follows. Let me remind the chamber that if we were to get foot-and-mouth disease in this country the most conservative estimate would be, apart from the slaughter of animals, a $12-$16 billion cost to the Australian economy in the first year alone.

So what happens then to animal welfare standards in those markets if we are forced to depart? The first point I want to make again is that they will not be replaced by meat sales. Some years ago in the 1980s we temporarily lost the live export trade to Saudi Arabia and concurrently we lost the meat trade to Saudi Arabia. As I indicated here in the last sitting period, we halved the supply of live animals to Indonesia recently and, at a time when they are desperately short of protein, we have also halved our exports of beef. It is not going to replace live exports. Those who would say that the live export trade has stopped the abattoirs and caused the closure of abattoirs in the north of Australia are simply out by about 10 years. The first shipment of live animals left Darwin in July 1990, and it was some five to 15 years earlier that the export abattoirs had closed in northern Australia. We just simply have not got this message right.

I have to say that every single solitary producer wants to see the highest levels of animal welfare. All Australians want to see high levels of animal welfare. Only in the last week I was going through the Wheatbelt areas of Western Australia, where we have had a shocking season and where there is very little feed on the ground. Contracts for supply of sheep to go away on the ships are now being held up and there is no feed left on the ground. Talk about animal welfare! Talk about feeding animals if we do not have the access to this trade. Senator Rhiannon knows very well that the ACIL Tasman survey of some years ago which was done for the RSPCA, indicated no loss of income for sheep producers in Western Australia, was badly flawed and was a nonsense. Producer groups are feeling it; they are feeling it in very, very hard ways. Shippers are moving their ships away from Australia, and the end result of all of this will be a severe loss not just to producers and not just to rural communities but to the Australian economy.

Madam Acting Deputy President, I thank you for the opportunity.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having heard the contributions that have been made by all sides on this debate I am supremely confident that the Gillard government has the balance right on this very important area of public policy. On one side we have the agrarian socialists in the form of the National Party saying that we have gone too far and that we have acted with too much haste, and on the other side we have the socialists in the Greens party saying that we have not gone far enough.

Coming back to the National Party—wonderful to see!—the agrarian socialists over there are now advocating that the government should be in the business of buying farms in Australia: agrarian socialism at its best. They are saying that the government acted with too much haste when it came to suspending the live animal export trade in the wake of the Four Corners debacle, that there was no need for new standards, that the new system is not working and that, in Senator Back's words, it is placing 'unreasonable demands' on exporters and farmers in this area. Then on the other side we have the contribution of the Greens, who are saying that the new system does not go far enough and that we should consider shutting down the live animal export trade and simply exporting processed beef and lamb. That says to me that the Labor Party is right in the middle, spot on. Between those two poles it is spot on, with a reasonable and sensible approach to what is at times a very emotive topic in Australian public discourse. The reality is that the Gillard government has got the balance right when it comes to a proactive, industry based approach to this scheme—one that is based on international standards, on consultation with industry and, importantly, on independent auditing of those standards through the supply chain.

Of course, the need for this policy came in the wake of the Four Corners episode on cattle exports to Indonesia which aired last year. In the wake of that, the Gillard government acted quickly and decisively, and we suspended the trade on the basis that warnings had been given to the industry over a number of years that self-regulation was not working and if it did not improve then the government would have to step in. Ultimately that is what occurred. So the industry was given adequate warning that the processes were not up to scratch or up to standard and that standards needed to improve.

In the wake of that, the government implemented the Farmer review. We asked an independent expert to review the trade, the policy and the processes, and the Gillard government accepted all of the recommendations of the Farmer review and its findings on this industry—and, indeed, much of the advice of the industry government working groups. Of course, the government consulted with industry about the process of developing guidelines and what was international best practice, and of course it consulted with buyers overseas. The process involves independent auditing through the supply chain, which can provide confidence to the Australian public regarding the new framework. The new framework was developed as a set of standards that provide checks and balances to meet community expectations regarding animal welfare and also, importantly, ensure the ongoing viability of this industry into the future. As I said earlier, the guidelines were developed in consultation with industry through those industry-government working groups.

So we have a new set of guidelines and standards that the people of Australia can have every confidence in, the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, or ESCAS as it is known. Australian exporters under this scheme meet international animal welfare standards from start to finish. The new framework, developed on the basis of international best practice and in consultation with the industry, requires evidence that animals will be handled and processed in accordance with internationally accepted World Organisation for Animal Health animal welfare guidelines. Importantly, it enables the continuation of a highly valuable trade by placing it on a sustainable footing and by ensuring that the Australian live export industry meets the community's expectation.

The framework provides an increased level of transparency and accountability from the point of export to the point of processing. Exporters need to show that they have a supply chain assurance system that delivers internationally agreed animal welfare requirements along all points of the supply chain, from the beginning of export to processing at the abattoir; control throughout the supply chain; tracking and accountability of animals throughout the supply chain; and importantly, as I mentioned earlier, independent auditing and reporting together through the supply chain. The framework is being phased in, with 75 per cent of the trade covered on 1 March this year and 99 per cent of the trade covered on 1 September this year. All markets—100 per cent of the trade—will be covered by the end of this year. So over a period of nine months the government will be implementing full coverage of this new set of guidelines throughout the industry in Australia, and that will provide the level of confidence that Australians feel is appropriate when it comes to live animal exports in this country.

Importantly, there are sanctions so that exporters that do break the rules and breach the guidelines will face sanctions. Some of those sanctions, if the penalty proposes it, are quite strict. The sanctions can include placing conditions on future consignments, refusing to approve future consignments and cancelling an exporter's licence, and they go right up to criminal sanctions for the most serious of offences. So in all aspects of this policy there is a clear set of guidelines that is independently audited. Where breaches of standards are found to occur, there will be sanctions and possible criminal offences for the most serious breaches of the guidelines.

That is a sensible approach to this important issue. It ensures that exporters have a process which everyone understands and works to; it ensures, importantly, that they were consulted and had input into the development of this process; but ultimately it also ensures that the Australia people can have confidence that animals that are being exported to overseas markets from Australia are being treated humanely in accordance with best practice in terms of international standards. Much has been made of particular incidents and the highlighting of those incidents in the media. I think it is unrealistic for the people of Australia not to expect that there will be incidents of potential breaches of the guidelines. That is a fact of life. But overwhelmingly the statistics show that the incidence of breach is certainly a very minor occurrence in terms of the level of exports throughout the country.

Where there are potential breaches, there are powers for the department to investigate them, and that is what is occurring in respect of the complaint that has been made regarding a marketplace in Kuwait. The complaint was received on 30 August 2012 alleging that Australian sourced sheep were being offered for sale and slaughter outside the approved guidelines in Kuwait. That is being investigated in the proper course in accordance with the guidelines, and it will be reported in due course. Procedural fairness must apply in respect of adherence to and investigation with these guidelines, and that is occurring.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we have the Greens once again trying to shut down another rural industry in Australia. That is why rural Australia despises the Greens. Lock it up and leave it. Shut everything down and go live in a cave. That seems to be the attitude of the Greens—lock up the country, don't use it for farming or producing; lock it up and use it for bushfire. Don't allow grazing on the country; let the fuel levels increase to sometimes up to 150 tonnes to the hectare. On a 40-degree day with 50-kilometre wind, a lightning strike hits and what do you have? A bushfire out of control just like, sadly, we experienced a couple years ago in Victoria on Black Saturday, where half the country's national parks burnt, killing the animals and trees with hot fires. And that is called 'conservation'. The Greens have no idea of conservation.

Now they are into the live exports. 'Let's ban that.' I remember very well my days in the mid and late seventies, when I was driving livestock transport in South Australia. I would load up three decks of shipper wethers and take them down to Outer Harbour, where we would unload them in Port Adelaide and then laugh at the waterfront workers and how they were loading the sheep onto the Danny F. Danny F was a big ship with plenty of decks on it for 70,000 live sheep. Amazingly, those sheep would put on weight on the ship as they travelled to Kuwait. It was a well-known fact that they were fed and watered so well. Of course there have been some problems on the odd occasion. We saw a rejection last week for scabby mouth. Scabby mouth is like cold sores on human beings; I have shorn thousands of sheep with scabby mouth. But it was an excuse for them to reject the taking of the sheep.

So here is an industry that has been around since I know of in 1976-77, and here we have the Greens trying to stop it. I remember when we had the AMIEU—Senator Rhiannon mentioned the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union—boycott the yards of North Adelaide. There was a court order put out to have the picket line removed. Of course, Premier Don Dunstan, the Labor Premier of South Australia, said, 'Oh, we can't move the union workers.' So what did we do? We got the boat shifted from Port Adelaide to Wallaroo. Every farmer, every livestock transporter went in there in the middle of the night, loaded the 40,000 or 50,000 sheep up and carted them out to Wallaroo. We then stood outside the hut of the waterfront workers and gave them an option: 'You load the boat and get paid or step aside and we'll load it.' It was a pretty angry time—I think former Prime Minister Bob Hawke said it was the one time he thought there might have been blood shed—because people pushed the farmers and graziers to their limits. And now we have the Greens doing it again. Shut down the industry, take away their livelihoods, have the banks sell them up.

And now we get onto the recent activities of Senator Ludwig with the Four Corners program. None of us condone the abuse of any animals. As I have said before, I am no stranger myself to a butcher's knife when it comes to slaughtering animals. But what was the reaction? The opposition supported the government in banning the supply of cattle to those abattoirs doing the wrong thing. But no; in came the emails to Prime Minister Gillard's office, and they banned the whole trade, shutting down the Top End of Australia. The helicopter pilots doing a muster were put out of work. The truckies stood their rigs idle and had no money to make their lease payments, sending them broke. The Aborigines working on the stations were put out of work. This was the overreaction of this government. They made an absolute disgrace of the way they handled live exports to Indonesia.

And what was the final wash-up? The government went over there and gave the Indonesian government $20 million to improve their beef industry efficiency in Indonesia to breed more stock so we cannot sell to them. How much did they give the Australian graziers up at the Top End of Australia who suffered huge financial losses? The stock had to go under 350 kilos for live weight, but with the delays and the banning so many thousands of stock then exceeded the 350-kilo mark, so what were they doing? Transporting them down to New South Wales. We were getting aged cows from the top of Western Australia transported to Inverell, the town I live in, to the abattoirs there—thousands of kilometres on a truck, a lot longer than even on a boat going overseas. This is the way the government has handled it. And the Greens want to shut the industry down.

Australia exported 3.8 million feeder or slaughter cattle, sheep and goats in 2010 valued at $863 million and accounting for 2.7 per cent of Australia's agricultural exports. It is underpinning the employment of around 10,000 people. Senator Faulkner made the point that this is about jobs, but of course the Greens trying to ban the export do not care about jobs in rural Australia. That is why rural Australia despises the Greens so much. The further away you get from the cities, the more the Greens vote goes down and down because they say, 'Let's play the populist vote and ban everything so we can be popular in the cities.' Rural Australia will not forget them, I can tell you that. The industry provides livestock produced for alternative markets. What are we going to do with the cattle if we cannot export them live? We have abattoirs closing—King Island today, which is another hundred jobs gone—because this government is hell-bent on putting costs on industries and sending them down the gurgler. When live export was closed, between 500,000 and 700,000 cattle were basically left homeless.

And what happens when you overgraze a paddock? Then you have them all starving. You cannot ship the cattle out, there is no feed left on the station to feed the ones that should have gone off the property, the rest are losing condition and then you are looking at more stock losses. That was the result of the government banning live exports to Indonesia: more cattle dying at home because we could not ship them out overseas, we could not unload the numbers off the properties—as the breeders came along, the calves for the new season—and the next thing you have got cows losing condition, not milking properly and more dead stock. The sad thing is that when you have livestock, you will have dead stock. There is nothing surer than that. We know the industry is a good industry for rural Australia. We know in some places overseas they do not do the right thing, such as some of the abattoirs in Indonesia. But the 7A class abattoirs should never have been black banned from the supply of cattle.

The thing that amazes me, and always bothers me, is this: I get all these emails to ban live exports and I see the Greens motion today, and I think, 'Why don't I ever get any emails when a woman is being stoned to death in a country overseas?' Just recently I heard a bloke ring up John Laws. This caller was of the Muslim faith. There was a woman shot only about eight weeks ago for adultery. This bloke rang up John Laws, he comes from out Penrith way, Hussein someone, and he said that the man should have been shot as well. It was wrong to shoot the woman only; they both should have been shot. And if that would happen in Australia, he would be quite happy with that. Don't we care about human life in this place? Why don't I get complaints about women being shot for adultery or women being stoned to death overseas? And yet when we get some story put together on a TV program about an abattoir, some people in Australia start sending emails about the treatment of animals. Don't human beings count as well? Don't we hear the Greens saying, 'What are we fighting about this issue for?'

Senator Rhiannon interjecting—

No, you are out here trying to shut down rural Australia again with your crazy ideas: banning live export, taking money out of communities, making station owners front up to their bank managers and ask, 'How do we pay now?' The bank managers are saying, 'You've got to pay or we're going to kick you off.' What does that financial pressure do to families when they do not have an income to pay their bank interest? But you are not concerned about that, are you? Just shut down the industry.

And the Labor government are just as bad and as complicit in the crazy way they have handled this whole situation and what they did to the people in the Top End with their panicky moves. As soon as that Four Corners film went to air Senator Ludwig should have been on a plane to Jakarta the next day, met with their primary industries minister and said: 'We have a problem. Let's talk it through.' But, no, they banned exports. We supported the start of it, but then Labor just did a blanket ban and shut down the industry to the detriment of those good Aussie battlers in the Top End where one-third of the stations are owned by Aboriginal people, who work hard and work well and try to make an honest living. And between the do-gooders in this place, what did you do to them? You sent them broke. They were in my office a few weeks ago saying, 'How are we going to handle this with the banks because of what the government and the Greens have done to us?' And here are the Greens now trying to do more: shut them down, put them out of business.

As I said, any wonder rural Australia despises the Greens for the way they want to lock everything up and shut it down? Who is going to feed this world when the whole place is a national park? Who is going to run the properties when station owners are out of business and they cannot make a living, when they go broke and the price of land goes down. This is the problem we face, and between the Greens and the Labor Party, come next election, they will both be condemned in rural Australia for what they have done. (Time expired)

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

I rise today to make a contribution to Senator Siewert's matter of public importance on the live export trade as well. I reflect on some of the parts in Senator Williams' contribution on this subject as well as the matter in the media after the Four Corners program on this particular issue.

No doubt people were alarmed seeing the treatment of those animals in some of those abattoirs over in Indonesia.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was!

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

I am sure you were. I was as well. My memory is that was aired during estimates and I had to watch it on a downloaded stream later. It shocked me and it shocked many Australians and that is why this is so topical in the media, and this is why this Gillard government has acted decisively and accepted all of the recommendations of the Farmer review on this issue.

If you look at those recommendations, you could summarise it in two points: (1) the way animals are handled and the way animal welfare is handled in respect of the live export trade—that is heart of this particular issue; and (2) jobs. This important point, and Senator Williams and Senator Faulkner also touched on this, is about jobs in regional Australia, jobs and the communities in those areas. I can reflect on that quite easily, being a Queenslander and having been up in the cape on numerous occasions and seeing the extent of jobs in that area.

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

You couldn't have been there recently, they would've lynched you.

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

I will take that interjection because the senator opposite supports a Premier who is out of control in Queensland, sacking public servants—it was 20,000 public servants and now they have brought it down to 15,000 public servants. We need jobs in Queensland. We do not need a Premier who is out there sacking workers and reducing standards and conditions in our wonderful state of Queensland. This is why this particular subject is extremely important and why we need to make sure the jobs in the live export trade up in that region are protected.

The Farmer review also allowed the exporter supply chain assurance system to be extended to the second tranche of Australian livestock export markets from 1 September. The system will be implemented in Israel, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Oman, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and the UAE. The government's reforms will now apply to 99 per cent of the Australian livestock export trade. Therefore, we know there are guarantees around to ensure that the welfare of animals is protected in respect of those particular countries and in particular the trade. We know also that the jobs and the livelihoods of those people who rely upon those exports are protected as well. We have introduced reforms that pick up all of the essential matters that were of concern, and we are progressing through the particular reforms as they stand.

We should also reflect and remind ourselves that any good reforms put in place certainly need some sort of incentive and encouragement to make sure they are carried out. We know that in some circumstances, where there are breaches of the rules, some of those exporters will face the consequences. Some of the sanctions that could apply include placing conditions on future consignments, refusing to approve future consignments or even cancelling an exporter's licence, and there are criminal sanctions for the most serious of offences.

This strong new system is only possible because of the hard work of the government and the industry in partnership. A good thing that the minister did was to have a fair degree of cooperation with the industry in this area. He went up to Indonesia himself. He went up to the north and conferred with the industry to make sure that all the concerns were addressed. That is why it is reflected in the Farmer review and adopted by this government: to make sure those matters are resolved. We will continue to have engagement with the industry to make sure that those matters are addressed.

The new framework requires evidence that animals will be handled and processed in accordance with the internationally accepted World Organisation for Animal Health animal welfare guidelines. It also enables the continuation of a highly valuable trade by placing it on a sustainable footing and by ensuring that the Australian live export industry meets community expectations. So, in my view, we have satisfied what needs to be met in the area of live animal export. (Time expired)

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

Why would you think, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the Labor Party would get the live export supply chain regime correct? They completely messed up the pink batts arrangement. They completely confused the Green Loans scheme. They have had six changes so far on the carbon tax legislation. They brought in a flood tax that penalised ordinary householders but not the big multinational companies. They have a mining tax which has already seen a real impact and slowdown in our mining operations and Australian investment in it.

I am sad to learn that, today, BHP has announced that the Gregory mine, near Emerald, will be closing, with 55 jobs lost. These are 55 workers that the Labor Party is supposed to be looking after, and 242 contractors, small businessmen, will go because of the closure of the Gregory mine. Xstrata have today announced that 600 jobs will go from their coalmines, and the South Australian economy is reeling under the Olympic Dam stoppages and the delay in the Australian Submarine Corporation's work because this government cannot pay the bills. So, with all of those failures—and the Gillard government are synonymous with failures—why would you think that they would get the live export regime right?

I am one of those softies. I, like every other Australian, including all pastoralists, loathe animal cruelty. I even had to have the vet come around to my house to put down our old cat because I could not bear the thought of taking the cat to the vet to spend its last moments on earth in a strange place. We all want to ensure that none of our animals are poorly treated. I also want to make sure that human beings are not badly treated. Senator Furner pretends that he goes up into the bush of Queensland. We know that he does not, because if he did go up there he probably would not come back in one piece.

People up in the bush areas, the northern cattle industry, are just devastated by the work of Senator Ludwig and the Labor government. It is the suicides that are happening up in those communities now. Do we have the Greens worrying too much about those?

Senator Williams interjecting—

As Senator Williams said, where are all the emails and the outrage from the Greens about the stoning to death of women? No, we do not see that, but we do see live animal export bringing this huge, confected public outcry. What about the outcry for those human beings who are suiciding because of the work of the Greens political party and Senator Ludwig? Because of Senator Ludwig's action, taken at the behest of the Greens because the Greens keep this dysfunctional government in power—where is the concern about the suicides that are happening directly because of the actions of Senator Ludwig and the Greens political party?

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I ask the senator to withdraw the very insulting statement that he made about suicide and linking it with the Greens. We are deeply concerned about people in the bush, and I actually addressed those comments. I ask him to withdraw that statement.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

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

The point I am making, Senator Rhiannon, is that you bring on these motions and you organise GetUp! to send all these letters to Senator Ludwig, knowing that he is so weak as a minister that he will roll over. Why haven't you done that about the people who are suiciding because of the actions that you initiated, because of Senator Ludwig's stupidity in banning live cattle exports and, as a result of that, putting out of business tens, dozens, hundreds of family farms in Northern Australia? Are you worried about that at all?

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Macdonald, please address the senator through the chair.

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

I am sorry, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I do get emotional about the impact of the sort of stupidity created by GetUp! and the Greens, dealing with a weak minister, in banning a trade that has led to the suicides. Senator Williams and my other colleagues—

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.