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

I move:

That the Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Northern Hemisphere Summer Prohibition) Rules 2022, made under the Export Control Act 2020, be disallowed [F2022L00537].

On 5 April, the ban on live sheep exports to the Middle East was rolled back by the former Morrison government. This was just before the height of the northern summer. It was cunning timing, just before a federal election being called, as it meant the Senate was denied the crucial opportunity to scrutinise or to act on these last-minute changes. This motion seeks to reverse those changes which unwind the northern summer ban—which wasn't perfect in the first place, but did provide protection to animals in some of the hottest months.

Let me make clear at the outset that the entire live export industry should be shut down, and it should be shut down as soon as possible. It is beyond repair. Its social licence has well and truly expired. It cannot be made safe for animals. The Greens have fought long and hard to ban the cruelty that is the live export trade and this disallowance is one small step in the journey for animal welfare.

It is worth reflecting on some of the history to see how far we've come and how much further we have to go. In 1985, a review of the live sheep trade by the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare reported that if a decision were to be made on the future of the live export trade purely on animal welfare grounds, there was enough evidence to stop the trade. Since 1985 at least 10 government and parliamentary reviews have examined live export, and the evidence in support of that statement has only piled up.

The death toll has been enormous, with tragedy after tragedy: in 1980, 40,000 sheep died aboard the Farid Fares; in 1986, 67,000 sheep died aboard the Uniceb; in 1999, 800 cattle died aboard the Temburong; in 2003, 5,000 sheep died aboard the MV Cormo Express; in 2014, 4,000 sheep died aboard the Bader 3; in 2016, 3,000 sheep died aboard the Al Messilah; in 2018, 2,000 sheep died aboard the Awasi Express. The sheep on the Awasi Express died in shocking conditions that were broadcast to the world on an unforgettable 60 Minutes episode, which showed sheep crammed into dirty pens, panting from heat stress and leaping over each other to access food. Piles of sheep carcasses were also shown. These disasters grab the headlines, but the reality is that every year thousands of sheep and cattle die on live export ships.

It is important to remember that it's not just the cruelty of deaths but that, while surviving, thousands of sheep and animals suffer unbearable heat stress and distress; laboured breathing, open-mouthed panting and extreme discomfort is experienced by animals. Deaths are caused by a range of factors, from heat stress and disease to injuries developed on board. This is considered routine and fine as long as exporters keep their voyage mortality rates under what the government considers an acceptable level. However, those accepted mortality rates translate to thousands of deaths. How is that acceptable? And since 2006, there have been at least 70 occasions where that so-called acceptable mortality level was exceeded.

Animals suffering from heat stress literally cook from the inside out. They can suffer for days as their organs shut down one by one on these crowded floating ovens. Whistleblower live export vet Dr Lynn Simpson says she once took the temperature of a fallen sheep on the ship and was blown away to find it was 47 degrees Celsius—almost 10 degrees higher than normal. 'Their fat was melted and like a translucent jelly,' she said. 'They were cooking from the inside. After that, any animal that looked like it was about to collapse, I killed.' Lynn is one of the many brave whistleblowers who have exposed the cruelty of the live export trade at great personal cost. Trainee navigator Faisal Ullah is another, and I pay tribute to them today. Their courage led to the northern summer ban in the first place.

The ban officially came into force in 2019, in recognition of the fact that the risk of heat stress for sheep on live export ships to the Middle East during the northern summer months is simply too dangerous. Unfortunately, the ban only prevented live sheep exports from June to September. The science clearly tells us that it should be from 1 May to 31 October. Nonetheless, the ban has been important in reducing mortality rates and in keeping sheep off ships at the most dangerous time of the year.

And now, instead of listening to science and expanding the ban, the department of agriculture has wound it back. The Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Northern Hemisphere Summer Prohibition) Rules 2022 reduces the ban on exporting sheep to Red Sea destinations by two weeks in June, and reduces the ban on exporting sheep to Qatar by 10 days in May. Animal welfare experts agree that this reduction is alarming. In its submission to the Northern Hemisphere summer prohibition review, RSPCA Australia stated:

The RSPCA does not support the proposal to reduce the prohibition to, or through, the Red Sea by a further fourteen days because the Indian Ocean equatorial region is hottest in May and June. Updating the Animal Rules in support of this proposal would be irresponsible given the scale of known animal welfare risk and the government's responsibility to protect animal welfare. The RSPCA understands that Red Sea destinations … represented 22.6 per cent of the sheep exported from Australia under the current regulations in the three-year period between 2019-2021.

The Alliance for Animals, whose members include Animals Australia, Voiceless, and Humane Society International Australia, were also firmly against these changes, stating that allowing sheep to be exported through the Red Sea in June would push them to their biological limit and risk a significant mortality event.

Perversely, the department claims that the instrument is a win for animal welfare because the rules also, ostensibly, introduce stricter conditions for a 10-day period in May for some Persian Gulf destinations. However, there are no additional monitoring and enforcement measures to ensure these conditions are met. Given that the current monitoring and enforcement framework is already inadequate, we can safely conclude that these conditions will be meaningless.

Again, the Greens aren't alone in this view. The RSPCA were also critical of the effectiveness of imposing additional conditions, stating:

… such conditions have not proven to protect animal welfare to date due to inadequate inspection requirements and insufficient enforcement.

The insufficiencies are significant. For example, the additional new conditions include that each individual sheep be of a certain weight and have a certain length of wool to mitigate against heat stress, but the enforcement framework does not require sheep to be assessed individually. They are assessed in groups, which makes it impossible to ensure that necessary heat mitigation conditions are actually being met. There is also a lack of independent third-party inspection arrangements and a lack of independent and appropriate veterinary care. Only one accredited veterinarian is required on long-haul voyages that can carry tens of thousands of sheep at one time across multiple decks.

The department of agriculture justified rolling back the ban based on climatology data, but in a warming world this is a patently laughable excuse. In fact, the department didn't even consider the increasing temperatures associated with climate change before deciding to send more sheep to the Middle East in the hottest times of the year. Predictive climate analysis on expected future temperatures was also not considered, despite this being an important indicator of the level of heat that sheep would be exposed to. Even worse, the department made these changes before it had even finished its own review into the ban, which we are still waiting on.

It's hard to conclude that the changes were based on anything other than the commercial interests and profit margins of live exporters, who have been lobbying the department to wind back the ban. Sadly, the department's capitulation is not surprising. It has a long history of failing to adequately prioritise animal welfare. The department is inherently and fundamentally conflicted because it is also responsible for promoting the interests of farmers and exporters. Animal welfare will always come second to profit-making.

I don't make these assertions lightly. In 2018, Philip Moss released a comprehensive independent review into the regulatory capability and culture of the department. The review found that there had been a catastrophic failure to regulate the live export industry and that a culture of fear within the department meant staff were not reporting their concerns about animal welfare within the industry. It was a pretty damning indictment. The report found:

On occasions, in our view, reportable mortality reports were revised or redrafted to dilute or expunge findings which adversely reflected on the regulatory framework.

Following the Moss report, John Lawler was appointed to investigate whistleblower allegations that staff were dissuaded from reporting the full extent of animal welfare breaches. This investigation stopped due to whistleblower protection laws. Those accused of wrongdoing have never been forced to explain their actions, nor do we know if the culture of secrecy and fear within the live exports regulator has been adequately addressed. The community should have no faith in the ability of the live export industry to operate ethically or the regulator to oversee animal welfare. The rot is set too deep. What we desperately need is an independent office of animal welfare to protect animals from cruelty and exploitation. As long as animal welfare remains the responsibility of the department of agriculture, the interests of animals will be ignored.

The end of the Liberal-National government is welcome news from any perspective, but particularly from an animal welfare perspective. Labor may have gone to the election with a promise to end live sheep exports, but they have refused to commit to a time line since coming to office. Prime Minister Albanese has ruled out an end to the trade in this term of government. That is a bit of a slap in the face of anyone who cares about animal welfare. It would be another slap in the face if Labor voted against this motion. It would practically guarantee that the Morrison era changes to the ban would continue, and it would seal the fate of thousands of sheep.

Senators here, and especially the Albanese government, have a chance today to show that they care about animals by supporting the Greens motion and by introducing a new instrument which expands the northern summer ban so that it extends from 1 May to 31 October, just as experts are calling for. Then let's quickly move to end this brutal trade once and for all.

But whatever happens, the Greens will keep pushing for a clear and swift time line for the end of live exports, with a careful transition for workers and a plan to transform the live sheep export trade to a locally processed chilled meat trade. The clear majority of Australians agree with that position. Fifty-eight per cent of people in Australia support a ban on live sheep export within this term of government, according to a poll conducted by Lonergan Research in June. RSPCA Australia commissioned an independent poll in January 2022, and the results show that around eight out of 10 people in Australia are opposed to reducing the northern summer prohibited period for live sheep exports. Two-thirds want an end to the live export of animals, including 66 per cent in rural or country areas and 70 per cent in Western Australia.

So I implore the government to listen to our communities. Don't unwind the northern summer ban; commit to a deadline to end live export in this term of government. The Greens have been steadfast in our position. We first introduced legislation to end live exports back in 2011. In 2018 my bill, co-sponsored by then senators Hinch and Storer, to ban live sheep export passed the Senate but languished in the House. In 2019 we again introduced legislation to end live exports. We will continue to fight for animals in this term of parliament because animals are not mere cargo. They are living, breathing, sentient beings. They are capable of fear and suffering. They have meaning and work beyond their commercial value.

Today this Senate has the power to undo these cruel cuts to the northern summer ban and insist that sheep deserve better than to be shipped off to cook at sea in torture chambers at the hottest time of the year. I urge everyone in this chamber to make the right choice and support this motion.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ARRELL (—) (): The government is committed to protecting animal welfare, and that is exactly why we are opposing this motion. At the May election the Australian people endorsed Labor's policy to phase out the trade of live sheep by sea. Labor is committed to ensuring that live animal exports are well regulated while we work with industry to implement this commitment.

We were surprised to learn that the Greens were seeking to move this disallowance. If this motion were to pass it would produce worse outcomes for animal welfare. In April this year, amendments to the Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Northern Hemisphere Summer Prohibition) Rules 2022 were made to improve the management of heat stress risks for sheep exported in late May. The rules introduce a 10-day conditional prohibition period, preventing export to some Persian Gulf destinations off the back of new data that showed an increase risk of heat stress during this period. That change to the rules strengthens animal welfare. The rules further impose additional conditions, targeted at heat stress risk reduction, that must be met during the designated period. Again, those changes strengthen animal welfare. To disallow this instrument would force the regulators of the live sheep exports to find new and likely weaker measures to protect animal welfare. The government does not want that. The Australian people do not want that. So why are the Greens voting for it?

Voting for this disallowance is a bad outcome for both animal welfare and exporters. The government's commitment to phase out the trade of live sheep by sea reflects community sentiment. Balancing community expectations and the Australian industry remains a key priority for this government. That's why we will continue to support regulators to protect animal welfare as we work with industry to phase out the trade of live sheep at sea.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, we know what the Greens actually want to do. The Greens want to ban all live export, and we know what a lot of the organisations that the Greens have quoted in their justifications for this disallowance actually stand for, and that is to end all livestock industries. If you are quoting from the Alliance for Animals or Voiceless or Animals Australia, you are really scratching at the anti-livestock-industry's barrel. But, as Senator Farrell quite rightly said, disallowing this instrument will lead to worse outcomes. Disallowing this instrument will also disallow new animal welfare standards, and, let's face it, Australia's live export industry now has the best animal health and welfare standards in the world, bar none.

Since 2018, the former Liberal-National government, working with industry, with the veterinarians and with the department, developed some of the strongest animal welfare standards in the world. We have used new technologies, where we can now actually count the amount of pants per minute a sheep does. We have decreased the amount of sheep per pen on boats. We have constant monitoring. Every ship has to have an accredited vet on a long-haul journey. And we have significantly improved animal health outcomes. But the Greens don't accept that. While the Greens say we've got to listen to science, 'listen to science', they only want you to listen to science that supports their argument. They don't want you to listen to the many vets who have seen the improvements in animal health and welfare standards that we have put in place since, yes, that dreadful, dreadful event on the Awassi Express, which Senator Faruqi mentioned. But that was four years ago. We can't live in the past. We've got to move forward.

The other issue that disallowing these amendments would create is that we would just be exporting our problem. I can promise you that the countries we export to, the countries that culturally and practically rely on a live animal market, will look elsewhere. They won't go, 'Oh, Australia is not going to send us sheep anymore, so we'll pick up the phone and order a couple of boxes of frozen meat.' They won't do that, because it doesn't work in their countries, it doesn't work for their culture sometimes, and it's not practical. Some countries don't have refrigeration. They don't have easy access, like we do, to a Coles or a Woolworths, so it's not practical for them. So they will go elsewhere to fill that live market gap, and that elsewhere will have worse animal health standards.

But this is typical of the Greens. The Greens are very much 'not in my backyard'. They're like, 'As long as we don't see it and we don't do it here in Australia, then it's all good.' It's like their stance a few years ago that we shouldn't grow rice in this country. Someone else will have to grow the rice that we grow to feed the world, but that's okay. Because it's not happening here, it's not our problem. It is a bit like former Leader of the Greens, Bob Brown, with his NIMBY stance on wind farms, 'I want the world to move towards renewable energy, but not if you're putting a wind farm off the coast of Tasmania, because that's too close to home for the Greens.' That's what the Greens mentality is.

I must commend Senator Farrell and the way he outlined the position of Labor on this disallowance motion, and I must commend Labor for their stance on this motion. But I also must highlight that Labor are still threatening our live export with the closure of the sheep industry, particularly impacting Western Australia, although they say 'not this term'. Well, I hope they use this term of government to get on the ground, to talk to the live export industry in Western Australia and to really understand what closing that industry would do. I hope Labor learnt from the debacle of the closure of the live export industry under the Gillard government, which saw a very successful class action and record payouts having to go back to the farmers, who were absolutely crippled due to an ill-conceived reaction, instead of working with industry, which is what our government did after the Awassi Express. The Liberals and Nationals in government worked with industry to identify the problems, to find solutions, to implement the solutions, to regulate the solutions and to make sure that we became now the envy of the world.

When we are talking about the live export industry, it's not just the ship owners and it's not just the sheep producers; we're also talking about the truckies, we are also talking about the wharfies and we are also talking about the stock men and women. You need go no further than the Young Live Exporters Network, which have shining examples and case studies of men and women from around Australia who are proud to work in the live export industry, who are proud to say that they are very concerned about animal health and welfare standards and who are proud to know that their industry strives every day to improve those standards. We can't rest on our laurels. We did a lot from 2018 to today. We have done an awful lot to improve standards, but that doesn't mean that we're stopping or that the industry will now throw their hands up and go, 'That's it; there's no more to do.' Every day they are working to make sure we continue to have the best record for animal health and wellbeing in the live export industry. The work we have done and the work industry has done on new developments in heat stress management for the live export of sheep should always be considered as it becomes available. This is what I mean when I say industry is constantly striving and working, to the point that we now have the lowest mortality rates in sheep export ever.

When people say the live export industry is in decline, I beg to differ, because in March 2022 the forecast export value for this financial year was $107 million. That's a pretty impressive figure. But that's going to grow to $119 million for the 2022-23 financial year, and that was before any ban was proposed. The northern summer hemisphere trade is important, particularly to Western Australia, where the majority of this annual live export is met. Industry believes live export is key to the preservation of the entire Western Australian sheep industry, and there is a huge demand for those sheep from Western Australia in the Middle East. As I said, this demand is not only on the cultural basis but also on the basis they don't have the cold storage facilities. This is about food security in these nations, this is about food security across the world and it's also about industry security here at home. If the live sheep export industry was shut down then countries with poorer animal welfare standards will fill the void and take Australia's market share.

I implore the chamber not to export our problems, not to push issues offshore and then pretend it doesn't happen but to work with industry and with our trading partners. The other thing that a ban ignores is we have people onshore in our trading markets working with the purchasers of our animals to ensure that our animal welfare standards go from Australia to the ship, to the port where they are exported to and even into the markets because that is our commitment to animal health and welfare. So I implore the chamber: don't export our problems. Don't hide your head in the sand and think that if it's offshore—out of sight, out of mind—it doesn't happen.

We have a responsibility as a trader. We have a responsibility to our international friends and colleagues to make sure that we retain not only the best animal health and wellbeing statistics but also that we do our bit to feed the world and we don't do it ignoring cultural and practical issues.

We will not be supporting this motion in any way, shape or form. I am pleased to hear that nor will the government. I urge the rest of the chamber to not support this disallowance.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I would rise this afternoon to make a few remarks in support of this matter also and to follow Senator Davey, who made it very clear that the coalition will not be supporting this position put by Senator Faruqi and the Australian Greens. I speak as a West Australian senator. This is an agriculture industry very important to the livelihood of Western Australia, Western Australian regional families, Western Australian communities. To quantify that for people, in 2021-22 the industry was worth in excess of $100 million to Western Australia and, in 2022-23, in excess of $110 million, so it makes a sizeable contribution to the welfare and prosperity of our state.

There is a very important point to be made and, indeed, a point to be reiterated—that is, if the position of the Australian Greens is to be supported and is to be upheld, then we have this perverse outcome that countries with poorer animal welfare standards will be lifted and raised in the global trade to fill the void left by the Australian and the West Australian trade. That's a very important point. As Senator Davey remarked, if Australia, and Western Australia in particular, was to leave the live export industry, it does not mean that the trade would get better. In fact, the very, very real outcome would be an industry, a global industry, that has lower standards than currently exist. It's the participation of the Australian live export industry, I believe, that maintains very, very high standards across the world. Indeed, it's the existence and participation of Australian traders that ensure that the highest standards are in fact replicated.

Over the last few years, I think the industry has met and understood the changing community expectations that exist around the live export industry. The trade generates important wealth and income for the Australian economy, supporting thousands of people employed across associated industries throughout rural and regional communities in my home state of Western Australia, in particular. The ongoing success of the trade depends on the very hard work of producers and exporters and their strong and continuing commitment to world standards in regard to animal welfare and their very, very strong endorsement of robust rules that are based on science and evidence.

It's an important point that, when I think about the live export trade in Western Australia, I am reminded that the industry has been very alive to changing community expectations. I'm alive to the fact that they have used an evidence based approach to lift standards. In particular, new developments in regard to heat stress management for the live export of sheep should always be considered as they become available, and that is an experience and a practice that the Australian industry does endorse. These amendments take into consideration new data on managing heat stress. The focus on animal welfare has resulted in historically low mortality rates in sheep exported in recent years. Labor have indicated they will ban the live sheep export trade, but not in this term of government. That's a very, very stark warning. It should be an alarm bell for Western Australian agricultural producers that, while Labor has said that they will not ban it, that is not their future position. Labor have indicated that they will ban the live sheep trade at some point in the future, just not in this term.

In June, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry claimed that there was no evidence the animal welfare issues with live exports could be addressed. That's a position that Western Australian senators like myself and, indeed, other members of the Western Australian federal parliamentary party, including Rick Wilson, Slade Brockman, Senator Matt O'Sullivan and others, all agree with and all support. Labor have also indicated that the industry is declining. I invite them to travel across regional Western Australia so they can see for themselves just how important this industry actually is. With those brief remarks, I add my support and my strong endorsement for the success of the Western Australian live export industry and the great work that they do not just in meeting and exceeding community expectations but in rising to the challenge of making sure that the trade is based on the best possible science, is evidence based and is making a really important contribution to Australia's agricultural wealth and the wealth and prosperity of every Western Australian town and family.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make very brief remarks this evening on the disallowance motion that's been put before the Senate tonight by the Australian Greens, echoing the comments that we have heard not just from Senator Dean Smith and Senator Perin Davey but also from Senator Don Farrell.

The motion before us fails to deal with the substance of the policy area which we need to really deal with, which is animal welfare. The point that has been missed by some of the contributors to the debate tonight is that the animal welfare standards in this country are the strongest that we've ever seen. Yes, there have been Senate inquiries and other reports and reviews into animal welfare standards in this country and for good reason, too. We should be using world's best practice, in my opinion, when we export live animals overseas, but we also should do it in a way that supports industry, supports the economy and supports jobs. Many regional jobs are really reliant on this industry. That's not to say that the industry hasn't got issues and has not had times when it needs support in dealing with how we best export, in this case, sheep. We've seen some very distressing footage aired through the media on how some animals have been treated—quite frankly, it's shameful—by those operators who have done the wrong thing and brought great shame to an industry that many people, many workers, rely on for their livelihoods .

If the Senate were to pass this motion it would actually produce worse, not better, outcomes for animal welfare. Earlier this year, in the previous parliament, amendments to the northern summer prohibition rules were made in order to improve the management of heat stress for sheep exported in late May. We heard I think unfair comments earlier this evening, attacking the department, the officials who not only do a fantastic job upholding the rule of law but also have animal welfare close to them; it is central to their job, to make sure that when animals are exported it is done so with the highest standards. But it is also good to see that, at the state and federal level, governments have worked together to address the shonky operators that have given the industry a bad name. It is important that the changes to the northern summer prohibition rules were based not just on science but also on data—updated climatology data that indicated that changes were necessary to reduce the risk of heat stress.

The rules introduced a 10-day conditional prohibition on exports to some Persian Gulf destinations. The rules also imposed additional conditions during the designated period, designed to reduce the risk of heat stress. These include shorter fleece length, maximum sheep weight limits, minimum pen air turnover rates and increased pen space allowances. These actions all strengthen animal welfare based on science and data that we have available to us. That's why I think many of us were surprised when this disallowance motion was brought before the Senate. I think that the Greens, in moving this disallowance motion, really fail to understand the real issue that they're trying to deal with here. We do hear from time to time that they are somehow the champions of animals. As we heard in the contributions from this evening, in looking at animal welfare we need to look at not just one part of the disallowance but the whole disallowance.

What is being proposed by the Greens tonight would just hurt animal welfare standards in this country. It would reduce the standards and also impact the livelihoods of many around this country, particularly from the state of Western Australia, as outlined in the contributions that Senator Smith and others have made this evening. So, I was very surprised to find that we are dealing with this disallowance motion tonight. It is actually quite shocking that we have to deal with something that would override and fail to improve animal welfare standards in this country.

But let's also not give this instrument the chop. Important rules and enforcement mechanisms are contained in this instrument. Presumably the Greens want us to think that if we were to scrap it then the welfare of sheep would just magically improve. But, in reality, this would force the regulator to find new—likely weaker—measures to protect animal welfare. Is this what we want—weaker measures to protect the animals we are trying to export? Well, I don't think we should stand for it—a stunt that not only would waste this chamber's time but, if it were to be successful, also would likely have a detrimental effect.

Are we surprised by the hypocrisy of some here in the Greens? Well, they're trying to act high and mighty for their own political gain while they're actually damaging the cause they claim to be supporting. And I haven't even mentioned the economic pain that would be caused by trying to rip up the live sheep export trade overnight without any consultation. That is something this government has committed to do—to consult the industry, to consult the WA government. That's what a party of government does. We sit down and we talk. We talk to the industry. We talk to those who are concerned about animal welfare standards. We talk to our friends over in Western Australia, the Western Australian government, about the impacts of phasing out this industry.

But we are committed to supporting the regulators to protect animal welfare while we consult with the industry. We cannot just pull the rug out from under the industry. Like any change that responds to concerns from the community, this change has to be made in a way that is sensitive to the impact on individuals and communities that currently rely on the live export of sheep. Careful consultation and a considerate approach might not get as much traction on social media, but good government and sound decision-making is more important than likes and shares.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand with my colleagues tonight to oppose this motion brought forward by the Greens. I am a senator for the Northern Territory. I also represent the concerns of those in the Northern Territory. Make no mistake: when the Greens want to shut down live export of animals they won't stop at sheep. They will move beyond that. Our grave concern is not only for the sheep export traders of Western Australia, who will be the most detrimentally affected by such a motion, but also for the Northern Territory and our vast cattle industry.

The coalition put the work in place to ensure that Australia now has the highest standards for animal welfare in terms of the live export industry. It's the highest standard in the world. What concerns me is the fact that the Greens fail to consider the livelihoods of everyday Australians—those that work hard to ensure that there is food on our tables as well as a strong economy. In the Northern Territory, in excess of 40 per cent of the nation's live cattle export trade goes through the Darwin port, so it is close to me. The latest comprehensive economic assessment completed as part of the Northern Australian beef situation analysis indicated that Northern Australia's cattle industry's estimated economic value is worth approximately $5.03 billion, of which $3.7 billion was attributed to the production at the farm gate level. This is what the Greens propose to put at risk when they put up motions such as the disallowance motion we're debating tonight.

I find it ironic that instead of standing here and debating this I would like to be over in the Great Hall where tonight the AgriFutures Rural Women's Award gala dinner is taking place. I would urge the Greens to go over there and speak to those women farmers who live this. This is their livelihood. This is the way in which they pay for their children's futures and their children's education. This is the way in which they uphold our communities—not just the Western Australian communities and the Territory's communities but also communities right across Australia. That's the way they contribute.

Just recently, the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association released a statement speaking to live export bans, remembering what took place in the Northern Territory. In their statement, they reminisced about the then minister for infrastructure who is now our prime minister, Anthony Albanese, and his comments made on ABC's Q&A in defence of the decision for the live export ban at the time. He stated that it was the right thing to do. I'm glad he has changed his position on this—I am—but if you continue to read their statement, and if you can imagine that, instead of Labor, we're talking of the Greens, it's just as relevant now. These concerns are huge. At the same time as Mr Albanese made these comments, Northern Australia was in turmoil. Members of the NTCA and beef producers across the north had been forced into letting their staff go, bringing their children home from school and university while desperately trying to decide what to do with a business that no longer had a market to sell to. Even before the ban, many of these families were struggling through drought, something the government knew at the time. As the ban continued, trucking companies—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nampijinpa Price, you will be in continuance on this motion.