Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm so honoured to have the opportunity to speak in support of this bill to end long-haul live sheep exports. Australians are asking us to end the brutality of live exports, and I am hopeful that today the Senate will answer that call. Just in the last few weeks we have all received thousands of emails from everyday Australians, from all walks of life and from all over the country, asking us to end this trade in misery. This cannot be ignored. We must answer their call.

Animals are not mere cargo. They are living, breathing things with sentience. The images, exposed by Animals Australia and 60 Minutes, aboard the Awassi Express were indeed sickening and heart-wrenching—images of thousands of sheep dying from heat stress and overcrowding. In one day alone, more than 800 sheep died in excruciating conditions. These images are burnt indelibly into my mind: scared, confused and terrified animals knee-deep in excrement; a newborn lamb lying abandoned and alone on a metal floor; sheep desperately trying to escape pens as they are literally cooked alive from the inside out; and carcasses piled up as they decay in the oppressive heat.

I wish that this was a one-off. I wish that we had caught the bad guys and punished them and life could go on. But this fantasy world that the government lives in doesn't exist. It simply doesn't exist. Cancelling one licence doesn't change the fact that this is a trade built inherently on cruelty, on standards that guarantee the horrific and cruel deaths of thousands of sheep each year. This has been going on for decades, yet every time it happens it is written off as another bad apple. I am here to tell you today that the live export trade is simply and totally incompatible with animal welfare.

The bill we are debating today represents a historical political compromise to wipe out the very worst of live exports, to end immediately long-haul sheep and lamb export voyages to the Persian Gulf or through the Red Sea during the Northern Hemisphere summer and then, through a transitional five-year period, on all those trips. The Greens, however, maintain that all live exports of all livestock for slaughter overseas should be banned. Let's not forget that over 30 years ago a 1985 Senate report stated that on animal welfare reasons alone the live export trade should stop with the transition to chilled meat exports. A plethora of economic reports since have confirmed that the live export trade has competed with and caused the closure of meat-processing plants and abattoirs in regional Australia, with the loss of local jobs and community incomes. Australia's chilled meat industry is worth seven times more to Australia than live exports and is rapidly growing. It makes no economic sense to keep the cruelty on these ships going. The live sheep export trade in particular is a dying industry. Every importing country already buys chilled and boxed meat products from Australia. Just six per cent—a mere six per cent—of Australian sheep enter the live export chain, and they can easily be accommodated in the chilled meat industry. With support, we can actually help farmers transition out of this trade and into long-term security and sustainability.

I remind senators that the only reason we know about what happens on live export ships is because of the bravery of whistleblowers. In the case of Emanuel Exports' Awassi Express, it was a young Pakistani trainee navigation officer on the vessel, 25-year-old Faisal Ullah, a graduate of Pakistan Marine Academy. He described the conditions on board the vessel to be the same as putting live animals into the oven. Mr Faisal Ullah said he felt a personal obligation to expose the cruelty because of the severity of the suffering that he witnessed, including lambs born on the ship being crushed to death and the cruel slitting of the throats of sheep to throw them overboard. We can't see this again and again and think it should continue. Over the years, many others have risked their jobs and their safety to expose the truth of animal abuse. This bill honours their bravery in ending this trade in misery.

I thank Senator Hinch and Senator Storer for co-sponsoring the bill with the Greens and all senators who have spoken in support of it. I also pay tribute to my predecessor, Lee Rhiannon, without whom we would not be here today. Her passion for animals and her determined work to end suffering is indeed legendary. I also note the incredible work of the many organisations like Animals Australia and RSPCA Australia that have pushed for this change. Most of all I thank the community. This is truly a historic day, when issues of animal welfare have made it to the floor of the Senate. Today we say no to second chances. Today it is our obligation to end this cruelty. Today it is time to ban live exports. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too—perhaps delighted is too strong a word—am honoured to be making a contribution to what is a public debate. No doubt we have all had very similar, if not the same, email correspondence from many people across Australia advocating for the ban of live sheep exports. I don't doubt the sincerity of those in this place and outside this place who argue that we should be moving towards a ban. But the emotional response—the kneejerk response that we've witnessed in detail in the presentation of this private senator's bill, the Animal Export Legislation Amendment (Ending Long-haul Live Sheep Exports) Bill 2018—ignores a couple of fundamental issues and a fundamental point: that the live sheep export industry underpins the agricultural base of my home state of Western Australia. So decisions that are taken to ban live sheep exports need to be highly considered, need to have regard for the broader economic argument, and need to be very aware and conscious that this is an industry that supports, in a very substantial way, the agricultural base of a state like Western Australia and, in the process, the livelihoods of many Western Australians—not just those living across regional communities who are dependent on farming but, indeed, the livelihoods of those people in associated industries.

So it will come as no surprise to people in this place that I will not be supporting this particular private senator's bill. I have been very clear with correspondents to me who have argued that I should support this bill that, as a representative for Western Australia, my primary goal and my primary interest is to stand up and defend the interests of Western Australians and, most particularly in this case, those Western Australians whose livelihoods—let's remember this—and capacity to raise an income, support their families and support regional communities are not just a little bit but wholly dependent on live sheep exports.

There are a couple of things I'd like to share with the Senate in my brief contribution this morning. The first is to recount an experience and representations that were made to me by the WA Grains Group. Some people might be surprised to hear this. Why would the WA Grains Group be coming to speak to Senator Smith in regard to live sheep exports? That goes to the very critical point of why this industry is, in part, how many regional families sustain their broader agricultural interests. Secondly, I think it's always important to go back to first principles and remind people why this trade is important—why it is important for Australia and what important contribution it is making to those nations that we are exporting to. Finally, it might be worth responding to the criticism or the suggestion that the government has been slow to act and deaf to the concerns of those in the electorate who want to see tougher, more prudent animal welfare conditions by going back to what the government has said it will do in response to the McCarthy review, which arose specifically out of this.

If we listen to the contributions of those who have made a contribution to the debate already or those who will follow this morning, it is important to remind ourselves that the opponents of the live sheep export industry have made numerous false claims in defence of their argument. They say that the live sheep trade is in terminal decline. They say that Australian exports of live sheep are in terminal decline. They say that sheep don't get enough space under the stocking reductions in the new allowance systems recommended by Dr McCarthy, and I will come to the McCarthy review recommendations and our response to them shortly. They say that Dr Michael McCarthy's review ignores the science. They go on to say that New Zealand successfully transitioned from live sheep exports and it didn't hurt the New Zealanders. Finally, they say the farmers who are currently supplying sheep into the live export supply chain could transition to the chilled meat trade to the Middle East, which would grow to replace the live export trade. I think this idea that you can just displace one trade with another trade is the greatest myth. It goes to the very critical issue that, in regard to live sheep exports, we trade because of consumer taste. We trade because there's a consumer-driven requirement or need that we're responding to, and the chilled meat argument fails to recognise that very critical point. Finally, a subsection of the last false claim is that Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE are happy to transition to chilled meat if Australia phases out live sheep exports, which, of course, we know is not the case.

I just want to turn briefly to the conversation that I had in my electorate office in West Perth in response to some representations made to me, first by the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia and then by the WA Grains Group. It was very, very insightful. Their point is a point that often gets overlooked by many people who would like to see an end to this trade, and that point was well made by Peter Stacey. Senator Brockman might recall Peter Stacey; he is a feisty character, but he made a strong and powerful argument. In that conversation, which was later reported in the Farm Weekly, he told what I thought was a very compelling story that put to bed some of the ignorance on which the opponents of this trade base their arguments. I quote directly from the Farm Weeklyin July:

This autumn on our property—

in eastern Western Australia—

we had 1200 lambs in the feedlot," he said.

"The local processor, in this case WAMMCO (Western Australian Meat Marketing Co-operative Limited), gets their pick of the lambs first and on this occasion they took 638 head.

"Next we deal with the live exporter, who will hopefully take the balance of the lambs.

"We try to sell the total of all of the lambs in the feedlot now, when it’s the optimum range in terms of age and condition.

"If the exporters don’t take the balance to suit their customers, then what’s left will probably go to the sale at Katanning—

which is one of the saleyards in Western Australia—

for other producers or butchers to buy."

He said WAGG—

the Western Australian Grains Group—

disagreed with the statement that processors could handle the extra sheep … if there was no live export.

"This is not correct and the processors can’t get enough workers in the abattoirs," Mr Stacey said.

"The processors want the live trade to end as this will drop the market price of sheep.

This goes to a very, very important point: banning the live sheep export has an economic consequence across the agricultural base more broadly, and that is particularly the case in Western Australia. Peter Stacey is further quoted in the article as saying that, if there were a drop in the market price of sheep:

… growers know that would be the beginning of the end of the sheep and cattle industry, processors will have no competition.

"Farmers need competition to support prices for our product and live export provides a floor in the market." WAGG believes that the lack of recognition of Australia’s high animal welfare standards, as the fourth largest exporter of live sheep in the world, was another frustration for WA farmers.

Mr Stacey said Eastern States politicians—

in pursuing this line of action—

did not understand the WA system and the consequences to all agricultural industry businesses and exports.

"This is always a problem when there is an export-based State compared to a domestic-based State," Mr Stacey said.

"We also supply these countries with grain and hay, so why is the government upsetting our customers and putting uncertainty in the minds of potential customers with this live export ban talk?"

Farmers work on such fine margins with all livestock and grain industries.

"Eighty to 90 per cent of WA produce is exported and this earns big dollars for the whole of Australia.

"The east coast politicians and public should be supporting us, not banning us from doing what we do best."

This goes to a critical point for those of us from Western Australia, including Senator Brockman and Senator Reynolds, who are also in the chamber today, who argue against a kneejerk, disproportionate response to what was, there is no doubt—and for which there can be no justification—a horrific experience for those live sheep on that vessel. But what I and others argue is that this is not systemic. This is not a systemic problem. In fact, the evidence makes it abundantly clear that, by international standards, and I would argue by community standards, the live sheep export industry in our country is performing well. That's not to say that those people who have as a broader, wider objective the ban of live exports, whether they be sheep or cattle, don't use an opportunity like the one that was presented for the world to see on that vessel to advance their arguments about undermining or bringing to an end live sheep exports, but the most critical point in all of this is that it has very real consequences for the livelihoods of Western Australia families.

I think it's worth putting on the record some of the important facts with regard to the Western Australian industry. It makes economic sense to support and maintain a live export trade. It is the cornerstone of Western Australia's sheep industry and contributes more than $1.4 billion to the WA economy. That $1.4 billion contribution in turn supports about 5,000 farm businesses across Western Australia, directly employing shearers, mums and dads, brothers and sisters, transporters, stock agents, feed suppliers and veterinarians, for example. Australia exported 1.5 million sheep to international markets primarily in the Middle East. In the last financial year that trade grew by 21.4 per cent. This trade is delivering for Western Australian families and businesses, for the national economy and in a way that is responsible, prudent and, I'd argue, living up to community expectations.

It's important to recognise that banning the Australian live sheep export trade damages Australia, damages Australian farming families and does nothing to improve the welfare standards of other nations that are engaged in this trade. You have to ask yourself: what is the real benefit or outcome when the most responsible country in this trade—that is, our own country—withdraws from the market? What does that do? Does the incentive for higher standards in the international trade remain or is the incentive for lower standards imported into that international trade? I'd argue that, once Australia withdraws from that international trade, whatever pressure there might be for higher animal welfare standards disappears. If you are genuinely concerned about the long-term change in animal welfare standards not just in this country but across the world when it comes to live exports then I'd argue that maintaining Australia's participation, not withdrawing, is the best way to protect animal welfare standards. If you're interested in the welfare of a sheep that leaves Australia, why wouldn't you be interested in the welfare of every sheep that leaves any port in Australia or indeed the world?

My argument is this: of the 100 countries exporting livestock around the world, Australia is the only one that invests in ensuring and improving animal welfare outcomes throughout the entire supply chain including slaughter in other countries. If your concern is the welfare of live animal exports, then surely that concern should be for every live animal no matter where it is imported from and exported to. You're arguing that the most responsible international participant withdraw from the market. I can't speak for others, but I can guess what will happen. There will be no competitive pressure for any other international exporters to improve or maintain animal welfare standards. While it looks and feels good, and might warm your heart in this country, it will over the longer term undermine animal welfare standards across the world.

Turning briefly to the suggestion that was made by some in earlier contributions that the government has been blind to the events on the Awassi and blind to community concerns, you only have to look at the response it has made to Dr McCarthy's review. In short, the government has accepted all 23 recommendations made by Dr McCarthy, subject to further testing and consultation regarding recommendation No. 4, which dealt with the heat stress risk assessment. As a result, stocking densities will be reduced. This means that sheep will get up to 39 per cent more space, reducing stocking densities by up to 28 per cent. The reportable mortality level will be halved to one per cent, which means that, if more than one per cent of sheep die, it must be reported and must be investigated. There'll be tougher, new penalties on exporters who put profit before animal welfare and break the rules. I think that is something the community will absolutely endorse and probably has been looking for. Independent observers will be placed on every voyage carrying either sheep or cattle, not just the sheep voyages during the northern summer, reporting back daily to the independent regulator.

These changes will deliver a seismic shift in the approach to animal welfare and will deliver truth and proof throughout the auditing process. There is now a strong incentive for investors to invest in improving boats, which improves animal welfare, rather than an incentive to run old boats at bigger profit margins. Very importantly, this will uphold and maintain the livelihoods of farmers across Western Australia, which is critically important to me, and parts of South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, as well as the 1,800 jobs that depend on the live sheep trade. This will give important economic security to these people and their families now and into the future.

My final point is a simple one, and this is a point I made to Kuwaiti exporters when they came to see me: Australia has an obligation to support the food security needs of other nations, particularly those across the Middle East. Our participation in the live sheep export trade meets both a very strong consumer demand for live exports and, importantly, the need to provide sustenance to what is a very volatile part of our global community. We know that food security issues are important to all nations. They're particularly important to nations in the Middle East. Our participation in this trade meets that very important domestic requirement for reliable trade in live meat for these nations who have a very strong cultural and religious need and a very strong consumer preference for access to live meats through the live meat trade.

In conclusion, while this bill responds in a very disproportionate way to what was a horrific set of circumstances, that set of circumstances was unique. Those circumstances did not demonstrate a systemic problem with the live sheep export trade in our country. For those people who might be a little bit undecided or unsure about their response to this particular issue—if anyone comes to this place undecided—I plead with them to be careful and conscious that the livelihoods of ordinary men and women, particularly in my home state of Western Australia, are heavily dependent on this trade. It is a responsible trade. It is a trade that meets and exceeds international expectations, and no good would come to animal welfare standards internationally if Australia were to withdraw from this trade.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a former vet, I know a few things about animal welfare. This debate about live exports and the Animal Export Legislation Amendment (Ending Long-haul Live Sheep Exports) Bill 2018 is not about animal welfare. I'll tell you what it's about. It's about racism. The people who buy our sheep are brown, and those who don't want to sell them our sheep look down on them. It's about arrogance. The people who oppose live exports want to tell people in other countries to get a refrigerator and buy their meat already killed and packaged, just as they do. It is about cultural imperialism. The people who buy our sheep have their own culture, which involves eating freshly killed sheep during religious festivals, even if they own refrigerators. Those opposed to live exports want to stop them doing that. Just imagine if these brown people tried to stop us eating ham at Christmas by refusing to sell us pigs.

It's not about animal welfare. If it were about animal welfare, we would be increasing our exports of live sheep because, the more Australia exports sheep, the less other countries export, and Australian sheep are exported more humanely, with better animal welfare, than those of any other country. Because of our ESCAS scheme, our Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, the welfare of Australian sheep doesn't stop when they're offloaded. We actually tell people how to handle the sheep even when they're not ours. Australia is the only country in the world that actively works in overseas markets to improve animal welfare conditions. We're the only country in the world that attempts to regulate livestock exports all the way from Australian farms to feedlots and abattoirs overseas. Producer levies fund millions of dollars worth of training, education, research and development to improve animal welfare conditions during voyages and in overseas markets. We could sell a lot more sheep if we didn't have that. For example, Saudi Arabia won't buy our sheep, because the Saudis don't want us telling them how to handle them. So, of course, the Saudis buy sheep from other countries, and sheep welfare is not as high. If we were to stop exporting livestock, the welfare of animals overall would decline. In 2007, for example, Australia could not meet the Middle East demand for live animals, so animals were imported from Sudan, Somalia and Iran, countries that do not share Australia's commitment to animal welfare and, critically, may also pose animal disease risks, because Australian exported sheep and cattle enjoy the best welfare of any exported livestock in the world.

It is also a simple fact that boxed and chilled meat exports cannot replace livestock exports. If Australia stopped exporting live sheep and cattle, there would be not one single job created in Australia. The importing countries would simply buy their sheep from somewhere else. Even if they did start importing meat rather than live animals, they wouldn't buy it from Australia. We are a high-cost source, and they need low-cost meat.

Finally, let's not forget that the livestock export industry supports thousands of Australian jobs. The livestock export industry provides 13,000 jobs, including 11,000 in rural areas, to Australian workers and, in some parts of Australia, is the entire backbone of the community and economy. The supply of Australian livestock also ensures hundreds of thousands of households across Asia and the Middle East have access to essential and affordable protein. We are helping to provide protein to some of the world's poorest people. These countries do not have the resources or the geography to efficiently produce livestock to feed their people. Australia has an important role to play in providing food to Asia's growing population, and livestock exports can be part of the food solution. Calls to ban live exports are wrong from every perspective. They are racist, imperialist, arrogant and anti animal welfare.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the private senator's bill the Animal Export Legislation Amendment (Ending Long-haul Live Sheep Exports) Bill 2018. Of course, this piece of legislation has arisen from the very disturbing footage that we all saw, I think, on the Four Corners program back in April, where a number of sheep on the Emanuel Exports ship were overcrowded and clearly overheated. It was profoundly upsetting, and I can understand exactly why this bill has come about in response to that. However, live sheep exports, as we know, form a very large part of the Australian agriculture industry, and the Morrison coalition government is a very strong supporter of industry in this country, unlike those who are trying to shut this down. The live export trade is certainly not a small industry. It is made up of farmers large and small across our great nation. In fact, I'm sure you've all heard the phrase that Australia is a country whose prosperity has ridden on the sheep's back.

The live sheep trade in Australia has a very long and highly regulated history. It began in the 1830s, believe it or not, when Victoria and Tasmania began domestic live sheep trade with fleets of 15 to 20 ships carrying loads of somewhere between 300 and 1,000 sheep. By the late 1800s, Australia had begun exporting live sheep overseas. They were first exported from Western Australia in 1845. By 1895, over 1,000 sheep were being sold for slaughter in Singapore.

In 1926, interestingly, the Commonwealth introduced the Navigation (Deck Cargo and Live Stock) Regulations. It was the first time the livestock export industry was regulated, and these regulations dealt with such things as the provision of feed and water for that livestock and protection from the weather in addition to drainage and the construction and cleaning of pens and stalls. Those regulations remained largely unchanged until the introduction of the Marine Orders Part 43 (Cargo and cargo handling—livestock) legislation in 1983, so quite a considerable period of time had elapsed.

In fact, the modern sheep export trade began in about 1945-46 when more than 24,000 sheep were sent from Western Australia to Singapore. The Middle East trade commenced in the early 1960s with the introduction of two small ships, each having a capacity of about 6,000 sheep. Prior to 1970, livestock were carried in quite small ships or as deck cargo. By the mid-1970s, ships capable of carrying around 50,000 sheep were coming into service. These were mainly converted oil tankers that had been redeployed after the 1973 oil crisis. Larger ships were subsequently converted to carry up to 125,000 sheep at a time.

When we started exporting live sheep to the Middle East in the 1970s, the unions were in fact the ones that kicked up the most fuss. It was the AMIEU at that stage who felt that they were being retrenched as a result of the closure of abattoirs. They blamed the expansion of the live sheep export trade for those closures. In 1982, in March and April, the Australian sheepmeat study mission to the Middle East examined the demand for sheepmeat in the Middle East, and the majority report concluded there was, in fact, no close substitute for freshly slaughtered or hot meat among the indigenous Arab population. In the dissenting report of the AMIEU at the time, the members concluded that the marketing initiatives by Australian exporters would expand the consumption of chilled and frozen mutton.

I thought this was quite interesting: in 1983, a severe cold snap hit Victoria and approximately 15,000 sheep died in the Portland feedlots as a result of cold, stress and exposure. This was in fact the event that focused the attention of animal welfare organisations and government authorities on the trade. As you can see, animal welfare has been at the forefront of the Australian livestock export industry for many, many years. In more recent times, the coalition government has maintained a very consistent position on the regulation of this sector, ensuring best practice is adhered to.

It is still a very important industry to Australia. The Australian livestock export industry provides over 13,000 jobs, including 11,000 in rural and regional areas, to Australian workers, and in some parts of Australia it is the entire backbone of the community and of the economy. The supply of Australian livestock also ensures that hundreds of thousands of households across Asia and the Middle East have access to essential and affordable protein—as mentioned by Senator Leyonhjelm previously. These countries do not have the resources or the geography to efficiently produce livestock to feed their own people. Australia is very much at the forefront of the demand for livestock exports. Some time ago, the federal government released its Asian century white paper, which showed that Australia had a very important role to play in providing food to Asia's growing population. Livestock exports are a fundamental part of that food solution.

Earlier this year—as you well know, Acting Deputy President—the coalition government commissioned veterinarian Dr Michael McCarthy to conduct a review into the live export trade in response to that shocking Four Corners program. You will remember that the Minister for Agriculture, David Littleproud, said at the time that there would be no kneejerk reaction over the deaths of thousands of sheep in a live export consignment. He said that, despite the industry concern that the trade could be damaged or shut down, the response should not be kneejerk. He said he was 'shocked and gutted' by the footage, and he warned that those doing the wrong thing were 'going to get nailed'. That response prompted a little bit of concern from the industry that there would be damage to the trade, but Mr Littleproud said he would support farmers and exporters who did the right thing. He also said, however, that he would not be afraid to call out and take strong action against those who had not fulfilled their responsibilities. He suggested that we would need to create an environment where groups, whistleblowers and individuals are comfortable and confident to come forward, so that those who are doing the wrong thing can be identified and dealt with appropriately.

The WA Pastoralists and Graziers Association president, Tony Seabrook, said that despite the distressing nature of the incidents that were reflected on the Four Corners program, they did not reflect the standards of the wider live export industry. He said also that the release of the footage was motivated not by those who were responsible but by activists who were, in fact, intent on shutting the industry down for whatever motives they may have had:

"There are a group of people totally committed to shutting the industry down, they don't give a damn about the impact it might have throughout the whole length and depth of northern Australia," Mr Seabrook said.

"There's nobody in rural Australia that deals with sheep and cattle that wants to see this sort of thing happen but what does need to be recognised is that we stand like a beacon in the darkness when it comes down to animal welfare standards, especially live export."

That does seem to be the response of the McCarthy review.

Dr McCarthy's task was to review the health and welfare of sheep being transported to the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer. There were 23 recommendations and the coalition government—as has already been said here this morning—accepted all 23 of those recommendations, with further review into one of those. The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, as the independent regulator, began implementing those recommendations immediately. The changes to the regulation of the trade included a reduction in the stocking densities so that fewer sheep will be carried on a vessel at any given time. I think that that was probably one of the most shocking things about the footage: the overcrowding, which you could only imagine must intensify the already oppressive heat on those ships. Reducing stocking densities means that sheep will get up to 39 per cent more space. Stocking densities are being reduced by up to 28 per cent. That was one of the first of Dr McCarthy's recommendations. The reportable mortality level will also be halved, from two to one per cent, which means that, if more than one per cent of sheep die, that must be reported and investigated. This is a significant change.

All vessels carrying sheep to the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer will be equipped with automated watering systems. I have to admit that I thought this was a shocking one. The fact those automated watering systems didn't already exist took me by surprise. However, that will no longer be the case. In addition, independent observers—and this is particularly important—are being placed on every livestock export voyage by sea from Australia, not just the sheep voyages, during the northern summer. Those independent observers will be reporting directly to the independent regulator.

These are very strong steps to ensure that this industry can continue into the future. It is truly important that it does, because there may be considerable ramifications should the live export industry slow down in the future. It is still a major source of income to farmers, particularly in WA. The demand for live sheep in the Middle East is as high as ever. For cultural, historical and economic reasons, the majority of countries in the Middle East have demand for over 50 per cent of their sheep for processing and slaughter to come locally to them. It highlights the importance of this industry to Australia.

It is important to note, as mentioned earlier by Senator Dean Smith, that the live export industry in Australia produces very, very high welfare outcomes and continues to improve, reducing mortality rates on average from 0.89 per cent in 2010 to 0.71 per cent in 2017. In fact, the entire industry, one could say, is being unfairly judged on actions that are not representative of the industry as a whole, by virtue of a few bad players.

If concern genuinely is for the welfare of the sheep, surely there would be a demand for Australia to remain in this industry and to lead by example as the most responsible international participant, as the country who has such a good record of animal welfare, not just in sheep exports but also in other forms of livestock. Theoretically, there should be more calls for Australia to stay in the market and to lead this sector. In conclusion, the acceptance of all 23 McCarthy recommendations is potentially the best example of that leadership. While this bill should be admired for its intentions, its outcomes would be catastrophic not just for the WA live sheep industry but for Australia's economy as a whole.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the question be now put.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill be read a second time.