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

Today I will revisit the Greens Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2015. We first introduced this in 2015. We've taken the call for an independent office of animal welfare to a number of elections. The Greens are very passionate about the issues of animal welfare and animal rights.

In Australia the need for this office has really become more pressing. You really need to go back to 2013 to look at some of the developments then. There was a real wind-back on animal welfare issues. This was a huge setback because at the time there were a number of bodies in place at a federal level that allowed for consideration to be given to the protection of animals. There were advisory bodies that did actually exist, but under the Abbott government all that was removed. It was a messy structure, but there were means for stakeholders to come forward at the federal level to have some input. But these structures went, and since 2013 there's been no way for stakeholders to engage with industry for there to be some cross-fertilisation of ideas for people to raise their concerns. That's very serious.

From 2013, because of that shocking step backwards, many animal organisations such as Animals Australia, Voiceless and others have raised a voice very strongly calling on political parties to come forward with an independent office of animal welfare. I emphasise the word 'independent' because that's really what's critical here. We understand that, in terms of how governments work, they can set up such bodies.

So what we were left with was that the Labor Party did move on an office of animal welfare but not an independent one. I'll come to this in more detail, but I just wanted to give some framework to how this has played out in cent years. Sadly, what they did was say: 'The office of animal welfare? Yes, it's needed, but it will go in under the Department of Agriculture.' That is totally inappropriate. This is where there's a huge conflict of interest, with the department of agriculture having failed in so many areas for so long to adequately ensure that animals aren't exploited, don't suffer and are not abused in how they're used in various production processes.

That's been a very big issue in how we've approached the urgent need for this office to be established. We need to ask ourselves: how many animals must suffer cruel and torturous conditions in how they live and die? How can it be that those charged with protecting animals from abuse are too often the ones who benefit most from it? I urge that senators, in considering this bill before them, give some thought to those important questions, because this independent office of animal welfare is, in the scheme of things, very mild. It's not about to change agriculture. It's not about to change how everything works when it comes to the use of animals in this country. But it allows the different people who are concerned about this to engage with government and industry.

I'm fortunate to have this portfolio, and one thing that comes forward so often when I engage with this work is the range of people from such diverse parts of our society—politically, socially, where they work—who are deeply concerned about animal welfare, but they're frustrated by how animals are handled in this society. They feel they have nowhere to turn. A federal independent office of animal welfare is urgently needed to help people engage successfully, get this national conversation going and get some strategies in place so we can ensure that the suffering of animals does not continue.

The essence of this bill is the establishment of a Commonwealth statutory authority that would have responsibility for advising about the protection of animal welfare in Commonwealth-regulated activities. How would it go about that? It would establish an office of animal welfare that would be an independent statutory authority. It would have a CEO, and that person's functions would include the reviewing and monitoring of live export standards and the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, known as ESCAS.

ESCAS alone shows why this office is needed. It was set up apparently to ensure that the suffering that we have seen so graphically many times on our TV screens when animals are exported overseas would not continue. But ESCAS has been a failure. We're told it works, but so often we see the proof in a very graphic way that that's not the case. This office would also report on animal welfare issues that impact the Commonwealth, report on the work of animal welfare committees and review animal welfare laws and policy that impact on the Commonwealth. That's what I wanted to emphasise. We'll probably hear some speeches in this debate that get all outraged about what Greens and animal groups have said about live exports and trying to end cruel cosmetics.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're going to hear that next—just be patient!

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

I acknowledge that the interjections have already started from the Nationals. We have a bill that we could all unite around because it's about bringing forward adequate processes. Surely nobody wants animals to suffer in various production processes. That's all it does—use various means through this statutory body.

The CEO will report to the minister. They can put forward recommendations to the minister, and those recommendations and their reports need to be tabled in parliament. The minister will be required to respond to those recommendations. It's not just a fancy little body that sits there and sounds good; it actually has follow-through. We, as parliamentarians, can scrutinise it, and the public can be fully aware of what's going on.

As I said, the bill is an opportunity for Labor and the coalition to really show that they are committed to working in a collaborative way to establish an independent office of animal welfare that has the power to bring forward strategies and talk with those involved with animals in all sectors and different industries so we can lift our standards in this country. This is something that is happening in many other countries; they're starting to recognise that in the 21st century we need to show that we do care about animals, that we do understand that they have rights and that we have a responsibility to promote their welfare. With an independent office we can achieve that.

As I said in my opening remarks, Labor have come forward with a policy of an office of animal welfare, but for various reasons it sounds like they're trying to walk down the middle of the road again, trying to give a voice to those in animal groups who are agitating around this issue. They've come forward with the office, but because they're keeping it under the department of agriculture it is effectively sending a signal to certain sectors of the industry, particularly the big agribusinesses, that nothing really has changed. We know that if you walk down the middle of the road you're going to get run over. Labor really should be showing some leadership on this, working with those people who are advocating for an independent office of animal welfare. They're saying they want one, but why put it in the department of agriculture? It's not the way to proceed.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because it's a balanced approach!

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

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

I am again happy to acknowledge the interjections coming from both sides of the chamber. In 2012, I understand, the federal parliamentary Labor Party caucus endorsed the Live Animal Export Working Group of caucus to develop a model for the office of animal welfare. I understand it reported to the Labor agriculture minister in 2013. So they've been working on this for six years, and again I commend them for that. It seemed to be going somewhere, but then things started to slip. What happened was that when the Greens questioned the Labor minister of agriculture about the office, they said:

I recognise that there is work to be done in this area but the primary responsibility for animal welfare issues does remain with the state and territories.

I've got to say that when I heard those words coming from Labor it was a real worry because they're weasel words. That's pollie speak for not wanting to get caught out. But these days people are cluey and they can see what's going on there. Labor were wanting not to say, 'We're not going to deliver on an independent office of animal welfare,' and so they tried to get out of it by passing the buck. I'm not letting the coalition off the hook; we're about to hear from Senator O'Sullivan and he'll give a big blast to this whole idea, going by previous track records. That's deeply appalling, but again it's a reminder that Labor should have some backbone on this and show some leadership. You can't just talk about an office of animal welfare, thinking that'll get you through the next election and you'll have some talking points around it; you have to be serious about it and make it independent.

The bill that we have before us does allow a constitutionally valid federal response to animal cruelty issues that tragically continue to occur at alarming rates in Australia. What it does—this is where the coalition should actually wake up to themselves—is reinstate the coalition government's dissolved Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and its advisory group and begin the long but easily doable task of protecting animals in this country. I think it's worth reminding ourselves why this office is needed. This is where we do actually need to think of the animals involved—the suffering of animals like poultry hens, dairy cows and beef cows. The list goes on and on, sadly, and it doesn't have to be like that.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And Leadbeater's possums!

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

I'm always happy to take your interjections, Senator O'Sullivan, because you expose where you're coming from. Let's just remind ourselves of the depth of the failure of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, the ESCAS. I imagine most, if not all, of us have seen the harrowing images of cattle cowering, slowly dying under the blows of sledgehammers, throats sawn agape, eyes gouged and tendons slashed; and of sheep kicked, trussed together, thrown on the top of car roofs or thrown in the back of boots when it's baking hot—suffering an appalling death. That's how it's been for too long.

These are the things that we should be dealing with and working out how we can end them, not coming up with an ESCAS scheme that is really nothing more than a PR exercise so when the exporters are caught out again, the government can get up there and say, 'We've got rules. We'll have to investigate why they were broken. They've broken Australian rules.' We know now that that's absolutely ridiculous. How can you control animal welfare from behind a desk in Canberra? It's not possible. Different countries have different rules. Just on the issue of live exports, I can never understand why Labor go along with live exports. We know why Liberals and Nationals do, because they're locked on to the rich pastoralists.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Regional Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're sovereign nations.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is ridiculous.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Regional Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you serious?

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

I'm happy to take your interjections. But let's remember that none of those pastoralists involved in the live export trade rely solely on live exports. And this is where these Nationals are such a sellout to regional Australia. Where these Nationals are such a sellout to regional Australia is that if we built the abattoirs, if we got the infrastructure in place so there were all-weather roads leading to those abattoirs, then we could create tens of thousands of jobs in regional Australia.

Again, they voted today. We had a motion in parliament today about live exports. Again, Liberal, Labor and Nationals all voted against it, with the Greens and Derryn Hinch standing up for what should be a win-win in transitioning away from live exports to developing chilled box meat in Australia. In doing that, we would create these thousands of jobs.

You all get up there and beat up on the Greens about jobs. When we recognise that an industry is in transition, we have a jobs plan, and this is certainly one where we have worked with the meat employees union and worked with animal welfare groups, recognising that this is where something can be achieved for animals, for regional Australia and for jobs, bringing back dignity to people who, in many places for generations, haven't had work because of policies that come from the Liberals, Labor and the Nationals.

When we saw that vision, Australians were rightly outraged. I think it's worth revisiting what happened in May 2011, when we saw the first very graphic vision of the live export trade. The Gillard government were in office and they did listen to public opinion. They suspended the trade. They did the right thing. But rather than hold on to the decision that they had made, they just weakened. They gave it away. They didn't look to the future in transitioning out of the live export trade to the boxed chilled meat trade in Australia. We clearly would be able to develop it in a way that the suffering of the animals would be drastically reduced, jobs would promoted and we could boost the economy of Australia, so a win-win-win. It is a fantastic plan, a plan that still should be adopted and, one day, I'm sure, it will be. But because Labor went weak there, we ended up with a shocking decision for the animals, for regional Australia and for the economy.

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union has identified that 40,000 jobs were lost due to the live export trade over a number of decades. And independent research also shows that livestock processed in Australia are worth more to the economy, in the case of sheep 20 per cent more.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who's going to eat it?

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

Yeah, okay, that's a great interjection. It shows how ignorant Senator O'Sullivan is about this. He thinks he's being smart by saying, 'Who's going to eat it?' You're the one telling us about how the world wants to eat Australia's meat. The box chilled meat export trade is expanding around the world, and Australia is missing out on it because of the failure of successive governments to get behind it.

Government senators interjecting—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right!

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

What a silly question: who's going to eat it? It's about the export trade. Surely, you must have examined it?

Again, it's just that you're locked on to a few pastoralists and also that you're obsessed by the whole issue. It is clear that trying to reform and regulate the live export industry has failed.

Again, this gives further weight to the Greens' call for an independent office of animal welfare. I acknowledge that we're not going to solve this issue overnight, but we need to look at a strategy for what works best for this country. This country includes the people, it includes consideration of their jobs and it includes consideration of animal welfare. The office would be integral to the welfare of animals across Australia.

The committee—which is part of what we would be setting up in this bill, along with the CEO—would consist of scientists, consumer groups, non-governmental animal welfare groups, the department, commercial producers and purchasers of animals and animal products. These stakeholders, collectively, would have a seat at the table together. That would allow for reasonable debate. At times it would be challenging, but you could have a balanced debate surrounding animal welfare and animal rights. That really is the direction that we need to be taking, for so many reasons. We still have before us—this fell over at the end of last year—trying to deal with cruel cosmetics. It looked like the Liberal-National government was running a bit of a scam on that one. We need to get back to that, so that we can stop cosmetics and ingredients coming into this country that have been tested on animals. Then there's the issue of the management of our poultry, both for egg-laying poultry and poultry that is eaten.

In too many areas there is extreme cruelty continuing, and something needs to be done about this. Right now, the situation is leaving Australia very vulnerable. We've seen reports of dairy cows having their calves removed moments after birth, as surplus to requirements; hens in artificially-lit sheds and overcrowded cages where they are constantly standing on sloping, wired floors, never able to rest their legs; and mother pigs confined to pens too small. There are so many reasons why an office of animal welfare is urgently needed, an office that is independent, that works with all stakeholders and that can ensure our economy develops in a proper way. (Time expired)

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I nod off during this presentation, I'll need my whip to keep an eye on me, because I have delivered a response to these sorts of arguments from the Australian Greens so often I'm tired of hearing my own voice. If I look like I'm nodding off, Senator Williams, you need to intervene.

My favourite story—and we'll start on where the good senator finished; she's well aware of this—is about the chicken prosecution in Western Australia. The chickens are in these big sheds with adequate space that is air-conditioned and climate-controlled. They wanted to free range them, so they hunted all the chickens outside, but as quick as they could get them out the chickens wheeled back in. The chickens preferred that environment—the environment that you don't want them to operate in. They preferred it over free range.

Let's get all this in perspective. I decided the other day that I needed to understand the green movement, the environmental movement, better than I have. You've heard the senator say that I've been labouring under ignorance. So I found what the equivalent is of a peak body for the environmental movement worldwide, and I went to their site. It was very illuminating. Here's where they think the problems are in the world, in part. They tell us that we need to make sure that we don't offend and displace the hidden people, the elves in Ireland or the hags. I didn't know until I read their site that there are not just Italian fairies; there are Welsh fairies, there are Irish fairies and there are Transylvanian fairies. They have big red eyes, the Transylvanian fairies. There are fairies from the Isle of Man. We have wall-to-wall fairies in the environmental movement in this country. I'll laugh as I go through this, but this is serious stuff. This is what you have to do to get inside their heads. This is what's in their heads as they're going through the process to determine what should happen. You are a lone voice in this room, senator—through you, Acting Deputy President. Not even your colleagues have come down to support you, as you try and present this legislation. The chamber's as empty as I've ever seen it.

Then there are the Brazilian shape-shifting dolphin men—

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

The what?

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Brazilian shape-shifting dolphin men, and then—you'll recognise this one—there are the gnomes. They are, I'm told, not related to the Russian firebirds or the West African evil tree spirits. We're all familiar with goblins. I've seen the odd goblin myself, as I've left, later than I should, from some of my local pubs! We've got hobgoblins. Now, they're not related to goblins, apparently; they're a whole other species. We've got gremlins and harpies, otherwise known as the Greek wind spirits, and we've got nixies.

This is all off a credible site, according to them. This is what's in their minds—these fairies and hobgoblins and goblins and gremlins and tree nymphs and wood nymphs. There are also skinwalkers, vampires, gryphons. Then there are the dodore, Solomon Islands' little people. They've got one eye, one leg and long red hair. They're automatically qualified for membership of the Greens! There are Tibetan disease demons, and we've got pixies and trolls.

We can have some fun here, but my all-time favourite question is: how does it impact? In Iceland—Senator Rhiannon, you'd be aware of this, because it's close to where you spent a bit of time being educated—there is a road there that they've been trying to build since 1930, but they haven't been able to because it's referred to as 'the world of the hidden people'. There are no photographs. They're a bit like the one we've got running up at Nambour—a yeti or something. But this was a serious discussion in public discourse that affected the development of sites.

I had my ear up to the glass one day when the Greens were developing policy on what they'd do with something in this place. On the whiteboard, they had this big word: 'no'. They hit the printer button and they printed off 100 pieces of paper with the word 'no' on it. That's their policy on everything: no jobs; don't support rural industries and remote communities like ours; don't support industries like the cattle industry.

I'll be honest; I do find the good senator the most honest of the Greens. I think she's a true warrior and a true believer, but she has got too many elves running around in her head when she starts to make recommendations. They are anti sugar; they are anti cropping; they are anti development; they are anti progress; they are anti breathing; they are anti animal flatulence. This would be laughable, hilarious, if it were not so serious.

So, what's happened in Iceland as a result? Companies planning large-scale projects try to pre-empt problems with the supernatural world. I'm serious; you can go and check it out. One company planning a significant dam project in the east of Iceland consulted with clairvoyants. Clairvoyants' skills were engaged by the company to do a report for its planning application. Honestly, I don't know whether to laugh or to break down and cry as I deal with what these people want—this lone voice, who I debated on ABC Rural, who would tell all the Australians who were listening that the kangaroo population was under risk of being wiped out completely, a population that the good senator knows full well is ten times larger than it would be if natural circumstances applied.

I invited her, as I've often done the Greens, but they've never taken it up, on air—thousands of Australians heard it—'Senator, I've got a few bob. Let's do something. The next time you get a new car, I'll pay to ship it up here to Longreach, and we'll sip a bit of coffee until it just gets on dark and we'll go for a drive to Ilfracombe.' But the good senator has never contacted me, and I can only assume she has not bought a new vehicle recently. I said, 'Make sure you don't insure it, though, before you get there.'

This is crazy, crazy, crazy stuff. It's crazy and it's deceptive. Last year alone, the RSPCA and other organisations dealt with 350,000 complaints of cruelty to domestic animals. We all find it abhorrent, including you, Senator, I suspect. Listen again: 350,000 complaints about the welfare of domestic animals. Has one word ever been spoken by Senator Rhiannon or her colleagues in relation to that? Not one single word. But where do they want to go? They want to go to the live export cattle job. Again, Senator, you need to start being totally honest with the people of Australia. You don't want to change the way that we export live animals out of this country; you want it to stop, full stop. You've got no plan for the tens of thousands of people employed in the industry—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, I remind you to direct your comments through the chair.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will, Sir. Through you, Senator Rhiannon has a zero plan for dealing with the economic impacts that will wipe out northern Australia. There will be tens of thousands of families losing their properties, as they almost did in 2011. Let's have a look at how that happened. This very chamber that we stand in gave due consideration to the circumstances of that and made a very measured decision. I don't know whether you were here, Senator Williams. They made a measured decision to withdraw four licences out of Indonesia for the processing of these cattle. And then, somewhere that night, some hairy armpit sitting in Melbourne or somewhere hit a send button and put 48,000 emails into the Australian Labor Party, and they buckled. They made a decision that wasn't taken through this chamber to cease the live cattle trade.

That decision brought devastation to large tracts of northern Australia. It drove cattle onto the domestic market. These are the cattle that Senator Rhiannon doesn't want exported—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. She wants them slaughtered, chilled and then put on a shelf where no-one's going to buy them. If all of the cattle that were exported live were slaughtered and chilled for the local markets here in Australia, there would be no buyers. I can't imagine that she wants to take a live beast that's going to Indonesia, put it into a box and chill it and deliver it to the Indonesians where it will rot at the port. These poor people have no refrigeration. Large parts of China where our live export goes have no refrigeration.

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

And Vietnam.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For centuries in Vietnam—thank you, Senator Williams. I've got to say, in the same period that there were 350,000 complaints of welfare issues around domestic animals, there were 145 ESCAS regulatory complaints—millions of cattle, handled for tens of millions of hours from when they come off the properties and get into the export system, and there were 145 ESCAS regulatory complaints. I'm going to tell you something. I've got an advantage, Senator Rhiannon—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I am a cattleman. I've been a lifelong cattleman, and I will not be lectured by you on the welfare of looking after beef cattle. Most cattlemen—and we've got Senator Williams here, who reputedly takes lambs into the house with him when they're in distress. Is there any truth in that, Senator Williams?

Honourable senators interjecting—

No, no; he's not a Kiwi. He's from Inverell. He's okay. It's just a welfare thing. But, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will tell the chamber: cattlemen and cattlewomen have monstrous respect for these animals.

An honourable senator interjecting—

I don't think you have ever been outside, through you Mr Acting Deputy Chair—I corrected myself. I know that the only kangaroos that the good senator has seen are at Taronga Zoo, and she thinks that's all of them! She thinks that all their brothers, sisters and cousins have gone!

I've got to say to you: you've got no regard for the 167 staff, for example, in the packer industry near Caboolture, who process kangaroo and leather hides; you've got no regard for them. You were actively part of pulling down the industry that exports hides into California, successfully—two years now. That's a company I think will survive. It's third generation—decent men and women. They will survive because they're people of that type. They're not your type of people. But, I'll tell you what: you're making it awfully hard for them. You sit there in your cotton clothes, but you don't want us to disturb one square metre of earth—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator O'Sullivan, resume your seat. The words 'you' and 'your' shouldn't be part of your speech if you're referring to someone in the chamber, because you should be directing your comments through the chair. Use the third person if you must.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rhiannon sits here in her cotton clothes, yet she would not have us disturb one square metre of the earth to move the trash, to plant the seed. She would not have us take one cupful of water from the river to irrigate the cotton. As I said in a speech just the other day: God forbid the filthy puff of smoke that comes out of the harvester, which takes the cotton to the gin to be processed so that we senators, including Senator Rhiannon, can come here in our cotton garments—and our woollen garments, Senator Williams—and our leather shoes and our cotton socks, and sit on these leather or vinyl chairs, whatever they are. There's not a single thing within sight of any of us that has not been produced, in part sometimes, from the gift that animals provide as we propagate them for food and clothing and as we take the land, disturb it, and irrigate it in some instances, to provide food, fibre and all the other necessities of life. There's not a single thing! We would all be naked, standing in a virgin forest and sucking on day-old tofu if some of these Greens had their way with respect to how we are to live.

This is very serious. They get up with a bland face as if they're serious and, in their narrative, they pretend to believe what they're saying, when none of it is true. It is a gross act of dishonesty. There was not one single phrase in the speech by the senator—and I listened very carefully—about what alternative provision she may have for the 200,000 coalminers in Central Queensland who'll be displaced, and their families, and the businesses that rely upon them, the industries that employ—

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

That's not true! You know that.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, she shouldn't be speaking to me; she should be speaking through you.

Senator Rhiannon does not, on any occasion, make any reference to the alternative plan. Here they are, wanting to create yet another bureaucracy. We have got some of the sharpest regulations and legislation around biosecurity and the management of animals, the welfare of animals, anywhere in the world. We are world leaders in these areas. And don't take my word for it; you need to take the word of a number of your colleagues. At the live export exchange conference, held in Darwin in November 2015—I'll bet you a carton of beer that nobody from the Greens was in attendance to have a look, to meet the people, to come to understand the industry, to make a contribution; I'm happy to be proven wrong but I'm pretty certain about that—Dr Temple Grandin, who's a world-renowned animal behaviour expert, in reference to Australia and the conditions in which we operate, stated that we were light-years ahead of anyone else in the world with our handling and animal welfare under the Export Supply Chain Assurance System—anyone else in the world!

What gets a bit inconvenient for the contributors to this debate is PETA—and we all know about PETA. I'm not talking about Peter Pan; I'm talking about P-E-T-A, an organisation that I think it should be illegal to participate in. Nonetheless, PETA and the Humane Society of the United States give an award. Ingrid Newkirk, the president of PETA, said:

I applaud Dr Grandin … I admire her work—

I'm sorry; I referred to her before as a gentleman—

in the field of humane animal slaughter.

So, as I close, let's consider something. Senator Rhiannon has made a contribution in the chamber. It is crystal clear that none of her colleagues agree with her and they have not joined her in this enterprise. They're listening—they can scurry down here in their dozens if they think they can. Nobody here agrees with Senator Rhiannon. Nobody in the Labor Party agrees with the thrust of her arguments here today. The crossbench is absent; nobody from the crossbench agrees with her. The humane society for animals in the United States doesn't agree with her. PETA doesn't agree with her. Leading world experts don't agree with her. The people don't agree with her. The industry doesn't agree with her. Australians don't agree with you, Senator Rhiannon, otherwise you'd have seats in the bush.

You need to give away your soft little seat in the Senate—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—and I'll give away my soft seat in the Senate, and both of us will run for the seat of Kennedy. How's that; you, me and Bob. We'll have a crack—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. We'll see just how many votes you garner in Kennedy. You'll have to put a mo and a wig on, otherwise, if they recognise you up that way, you'll be riding on the tail of the kangaroo on the back of the plane! You wouldn't be on the inside!

This is ridiculous. This is a consistent thing. Senator Rhiannon reminds me of one of those toys I bought for my kids, where you punch it, it goes down and up it comes—those ones that are weighted in the bottom—because this isn't the first time this argument has been made and it's not the first time it's failed. It will fail each and every time that she brings it into this chamber. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President: all the Greens should stop listening to the elves and the gnomes and start listening to the Australian people and people in industry, and maybe at some stage they'll get something right.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to go immediately to the opening statement of the policy that Labor took to the last federal election to try and restore some order and seriousness to the show that we've had here this afternoon. Our comments commenced with this statement:

Protecting animal welfare and boosting agricultural profitability aren’t competing aims—they support one another.

The growing demand for high quality food produced in an ethical way means Australia’s agricultural producers must embrace the highest animal welfare standards to stay internationally competitive.

That is where we need this piece of legislation to go, and it just doesn't go there. We've been using the analogy of walking the middle path. I note Senator Rhiannon's comment in response to my contribution earlier on forestry that, if you walk the middle of the road, you end up getting run over. I don't agree, Senator Rhiannon. I actually believe that finding a sensible way to balance competing interests in the best interests of the nation is a good goal to seek and achieve. Instead, we've seen the Left heading off the path, bush-bashing, and we've heard the Right argument heading off in the other direction doing the same thing—both of them completely off track, both of them completely out of touch with the genuine and real concerns of ordinary Australians who want to ensure that businesses, like agribusinesses, can be successful in our regions. But those businesses should not be relying on any form of animal exploitation.

This private senator's bill that's been introduced by the Greens this afternoon, the Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2015, aims to establish the office of animal welfare as an independent statutory authority and seeks to have the CEO responsible for reviewing and advising upon the protection of animal welfare and Commonwealth-regulated activities. The office, as it's presented in the bill, appears only to focus on one element of massive concern: live animal export and the issues affecting the protection of animal welfare and Commonwealth regulated activities. It is far too narrow and it doesn't attend to the realities of modern Australia.

The bill claims that the office of animal welfare will assist its CEO in his or her functions, which include the review, inquiry, monitoring and reporting of the Australian standards for the export of livestock and the export supply chain assurance system, known as ESCAS. Whilst Labor is not opposed to the establishment of an independent office of animal welfare, we certainly cannot support the private members' bill that is currently before the Senate.

For the office of animal welfare to be a success it not only needs to be established by the government of the day but has to deal with the reality that Senator Rhiannon failed to confront: that it does actually have to be supported by the states and territories. Ignoring the reality of the federation—ignoring the states and territories—simply will not resolve complex issues. Putting somebody in at a federal level to lord it over the others is an absolutely unsuccessful strategy to pursue. This bill will not achieve these two very important requirements, and Labor has a very different view about what should happen. In fact, the Labor view was well documented and well distributed prior to the last election. It was a comprehensive animal welfare strategy that Labor took and it outlined a pathway that would provide for the establishment of an office of animal welfare, but in a very different iteration from that which is proposed in this private members' bill.

Labor had a six-point plan for animal welfare, and we sought to boost Australia's agricultural capacity by making it more productive as well as sustainable and ethical. Our plan aimed to attract investment and to grow markets for Australia's agricultural products, because when we successfully do that in an ethical way we grow our community capacity to create jobs for ordinary hardworking Australians. Our agribusinesses, we know, compete in a very rapidly changing world, and we know that consumers and investors alike are demanding the world's best animal welfare. In the contributions that we've had this afternoon from Senator Rhiannon representing the left and Senator O'Sullivan representing the conservative right parts of this place, we've seen a failure to find a way to balance the competing needs in a way that advances the benefit of both the animals and the general community.

I go to a report by the Rural and Regional Affairs Transport Legislation Committee, which looked into the voice for animals bill 2015 and the careful work that was done there. The arguments that have been put forward this afternoon indicate there is no way we can find a way to create best practice, and get both farmers and animal welfare activists into the same room and get a good outcome. Mr Glyde, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, told the committee:

We try in our submission to outline the reasons why we think it is not a simple as that.

He was referring to the conflict between animal welfare outcomes and livestock profitability.

There is certainly a tension between welfare and profitability, but in our experience, if you improve animal welfare outcomes, you have increased productivity and you have improved competitiveness – for us, particularly, as we are a high cost producer and increasingly our markets are demanding good outcomes, whether it is sustainability in an environmental sense or good animal welfare practice or good supply chain management to ensure the quality and healthiness of our food products that we export. That is one of the keys: good animal welfare practice is a key to improve competitiveness.

The Australian Labor Party absolutely understands that. We know that consumers are voting with their wallets, demanding that food and other products are made in ways that match their expectations of animal welfare. The Labor Party is committed to making sure that we win in the country, in our regions and that we also win for all those who live right across the country and care about animal welfare. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.