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

My story this evening is not nearly as interesting as that of Senator Canavan's with regard to the Titanic, DiCaprio and others, but it deals with an issue that would have been considered had we not wasted the time of the Senate this afternoon—that is, in consideration of documents. I refer to the Department of Agriculture's report to the parliament on livestock mortalities, which has some relationship, Senator Canavan—through you, Mr President—to activities at sea. There are the excellent figures represented by the Australian livestock export industry as reported by the department for the period of July to December 2013. I am able to go a stage further and report this evening on the six-month period from 1 January 2014 to June 2014, particularly on the export of cattle and sheep.

Let me share once again why Australia is the leading livestock exporting country in the world. For the period of July to December 2013, our livestock exporters exported 441,644 cattle. Of that number, only 535—0.12 per cent—were lost during the voyage. In other words, more than 441,000 of 441,600 got to our end markets in prime condition. If I go forward to cattle numbers in January to June of this year, the number was equally impressive with only 1,000 of 663,000 not making it. In other words, 99.85 per cent of the cattle arrived safely. When it came to sheep numbers, the figures were 1.22 per cent and 0.59 per cent. These figures are outstanding for an industry that is so mature and that has such a reputation internationally. As you know, because I have spoken on it so often in this place, it distresses me that we have people, particularly the Greens and others, who so badly decry this industry and run down the participants in it, whenwe not only lead the world but also have increased the survival rates of livestock being moved.

Let me put it into perspective. I gave you the figures of 0.12 per cent for cattle and 0.15 per cent. When I was opening an international cattle diseases conference about six weeks ago, my veterinary colleagues were telling me that the mortality levels of the cattle on the range lands—excluding drought and overstocking, which was caused by the disastrous decision of the then Labor government to ban the export of live cattle to Indonesia—were about three to eight per cent per annum. Compare that with 0.12 per cent. There is an industry which you yourself were associated for some period of time, Mr President—that is, the mortality rate of humans in Australia. Remember the figure of 0.12 per cent for cattle. The mortality rate for human beings in this country is 0.6 per cent, some four times the mortality rate of cattle on ships going to our destination ports, which are Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and, more recently, countries such as Russia.

It is interesting to reflect on just how important Australia is as a trusted supplier of protein in markets like the Middle East and North Africa, and traditionally in places like the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia—throughout Asia, including, of course, Indonesia where we are once again trying to re-establish the level of confidence that we had gathered over so many years. You will often hear it said in this place by others that we can replace the live export trade with the meat trade. I am on record often enough over the years saying that live animal sales reflect meat sales. The best example is that when we lost the live export trade to Saudi Arabia some years ago we also lost the meat trade. When live exports to Indonesia halved in 2011, the apparent logic of those who were opposed to this trade was, 'If live exports have halved, surely meat exports will double.' What happened with meat sales? They also halved.

The point to be made here is that, of the 109 countries around the world that export live animals for production purposes and the processing and supply of protein, only one has ever supplied and continues to supply services, personnel, investment of time and money, and transfer of expertise and technology to improve the standards of livestock management in our target markets—and that country, amazingly enough, is Australia.

I probably should have declared not a conflict of interest but a convergence of interest, because this is an industry with which I was associated for several years. My elder brother took over my live export practice. I have actually been told accusingly by Greens and others that I should declare a conflict of interest. If I did that, he would have to go back to 1846 when my great-great-grandfather, Captain Edward Back, was the master of the first vessel that ever exported live animals—they were cattle—out of the colony of Western Australia through the port of Fremantle. They were live cattle going to Batavia, now Jakarta. Amazingly enough, the report from the captain's log of the vessel, the Black Swan, was that all stock arrived safe. So, if I have a conflict of interest, it goes back to 1846!

But I want people to know just how well animals are, firstly, selected. What is the point of selecting sheep or cattle that are not going to make the voyage and be a required commodity at the other end? Remember that we have supplied many of our markets for 40 years. Can you imagine a product that is undesirable and not wanted by the market at the other end being bought for 40 years? It is because they know we are a trusted supplier of a quality and safe product.

The animals are well transported into feedlots where they are inspected by people like I was years ago, AQIS accredited veterinarians. They are highly respected and highly competent. It is unfortunate to see that some of my Senate colleagues have called into question the integrity and professionalism of those veterinarians. I reject that. If anyone is concerned about that, they simply need to examine answers to a question that I have asked of the department of agriculture at different times. That question is: how many, if any, cases have there been of AQIS accredited veterinarians being anything other than of high integrity? None of the departmental officials in their history can remember an incidence in which any of my colleagues have been the subject of any adverse comment.

The animals are inspected. If the importing country requires vaccination, treatments or whatever, these are all undertaken. The animals are inspected again as they go on to trucks and into feedlots and inspected yet again as they go on to the ships. I recall one occasion when we were loading 116,000 sheep and about 22,000 cattle as well as camels, goats and, in fact, reindeer in the Port of Fremantle one day. This old lady came up to me and asked what the sheep do for entertainment. It was too much for me and I said, 'After they promenade around the deck of an evening, we put them to bed!'

But I can assure you, Mr President, that the best indicator of the health and wellbeing of the livestock on the ships, as indeed is the best indicator of the health and wellbeing of children, is the fact that they not only maintain their body weight but, younger animals particularly, gain body weight on the way to the other end of the voyages they undertake. Australia leads the world in this. I give credit here to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority for setting international standards for the quality of ships and the way in which the ships are prepared—including the provision of feedstuffs, air conditioning, exchange of air, and water—for the voyages.

The story that I want to leave the Senate with this evening is of an industry that is well governed and well managed. I give credit to the minister, the exporters and the department. At different times I have been critical of the department, but these days I believe they are back on track. Australia stands proud of the tradition of the live export trade. (Time expired)

Senate adjourned at 21:20