Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Watt) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Birmingham) and the Leader of The Nationals in the Senate (Senator McKenzie) today relating to an incident involving a Chinese military jet and to live sheep exports.

In particular, I want to take note of Senator Watt's answer regarding the live export of sheep from my home state of Western Australia. The decision announced on Saturday, with just a few hours notice to the agriculture industry—just a few hours to those farmers who are going to be directly impacted by the ending of this key component of the sheep industry in Western Australia—is a disgrace and a betrayal. It's a betrayal of Western Australian farmers and, in fact, of the state of Western Australia.

Minister Watt tried to ignore the fact that the cat was belled by the Animal Justice Party. He tried to put it to one side and say, 'No, it was already our policy, so what the Animal Justice Party said doesn't matter.' But this is what they said—and I'm going to read it again. The Animal Justice Party posted, after Minister Watt's announcement:

We are proud that the AJP could deliver the knockout blow by demanding the end of live sheep export as a requirement for our preferences at the Dunkley By-election in March.

'Requirement for our preferences at the Dunkley by-election in March.' And guess what? It's not just the Animal Justice Party's statement after Minister Watt's announcement. There's actually proof. There are actually multiple how-to-vote cards. You can see the how-to-vote card from early in the campaign, which has Labor second last or last. Gee! And then you can see the how-to-vote card from after this deal was done, after the sheep farmers of Western Australia were sold out by this Labor government, and guess where that puts the Labor Party? No. 2.

So what the Animal Justice Party have put on their website is the truth, and no matter how Minister Watt obfuscates, no matter how he tries to cover up what this government has done—because the fact is the report was still being considered by government at this time. In fact, the report, which implements a four-year phase-out, was informed by a work commissioned by this government—by Minister Watt's own department—and by a serious consultant in the industry, Episode 3, and what did that serious, analytical look at the industry recommend? It recommended an eight- to 12-year transition because that's what you would need to rebalance a flock on a farm, if you were going to go down this horrendous path. You'd need eight years for those farms—those farming families, some of which have been there five or six generations. You'd need eight to 12 years to transition the flock on those farms—to change their business model. When Minister Watt was doing this dirty deal with the Animal Justice Party behind the scenes for a Melbourne city electorate, what did he come up with? A four-year ban, not enough time to transition flocks, a ridiculous amount of money—a pittance for what this is going to cost the Western Australian agricultural sector.

These are real people's lives. These are real people's businesses. These are multigenerational farming families that have been in this industry for decades. This is not just some abstract change in policy; this is human life. I've spoken to those farmers out on the farm—something that Murray Watt didn't have the guts to do, on Saturday, when he made the announcement. He came to Western Australia, sure. He flew in on a jet, waltzed in to the CPO in the middle of Perth and did a Zoom call, including some of the industry groups, but did he go out into the bush? Did he talk to actual farmers whose livelihoods are directly threatened? This is not some hypothetical. This is real peoples' lives.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This must be the first time that I've heard anyone from the coalition accept the position of the Animal Justice Party. Honestly! The Labor Party went to the last two elections, as Senator Watt said, with a strong commitment to phase out live sheep exports by sea. That's what we said in 2019 and 2022. Those were our commitments.

I know it's hard for those on that side to accept that we follow through with our commitments. When we make a commitment, on we go with it. We work through a process and we deliver our commitments. That's what we do. We tell the Australian people—as hard as some things are to tell people, we tell them what we're going to do and then we follow through, and we talk to people; we do a lot of discussions. We are now delivering on that commitment to the Australian people, and we're providing certainty to farmers and to communities that rely on the trade.

We know that the export of live sheep by sea will end on 1 May 2028, with legislation enacting the phase-out to be introduced in this term of parliament. In this term of parliament, we will introduce that. We've committed, as those opposite know, $107 million to assist the sheep industry with that transition. We recognise that people need help, with transition from live export, to take advantage of the increased demand for Australian sheepmeat right around the world. We have world renowned sheepmeat that can be better delivered by having local jobs here. That's what this means. This means that we will deliver local jobs here. Isn't that what we all are here for? I would have hoped so but, clearly, not on that side.

We've always promised a considered and orderly transition. This announcement and the government's package strikes the right balance. It's based on extensive industry and community consultation, and we heard Minister Watt talk about the level of consultation that he has had. Irrespective of what they say on the other side, he is a minister that gets out there and gets his feet dirty, gets dirt on his boots and gets out there and talks to people. He talks to farmers, he talks to the lobby groups, he talks to everyone. He is a very good minister, and that's what he's done. He told us that, and I believe him because that's the way that he works.

We're providing early support to affected sheep farmers, supply chain businesses and communities, particularly in WA. We want to ensure that those affected by the phase-out can build resilience and establish a strong position in advance of the trade ending. That's part of the commitment, to make sure that we assist those people. We are delivering on that.

We also need to think about better sheep welfare outcomes. Phasing out live sheep exports by sea makes another step forward for sheep welfare, and it reflects our nation's values of compassion and the ethical treatment of animals. The package includes $2.6 million to continue to improve sheep welfare standards, to meet community expectations, and for Australia to enhance its engagement in the World Organisation for Animal Health. So this is not just one focus, which is what those on the other side would like you to think about. This is a multifaceted approach that we are taking to phase out an industry that we went to an election on in 2019. We went to the election with that commitment. We went to the election in 2022, which was the election that we won—I know it's hard for those opposite to accept that, but we did—and we are now following through with those commitments. There is every reason to feel optimistic about the future of Australia's sheep industry and those associated with the sector.

The sheepmeat industry is booming, and it has a bright future ahead. Our package will help it to continue to grow. It will create more local jobs. That is what we're about—creating local jobs right here in Australia and particularly in the regions; that's where a lot of these jobs will be created and Aussie sheep products will be grown. But it is not only about growing; it's about value-adding. That's what we want to do here. We want to bring back all those industries that those opposite pushed off our shores and value-add right here in Australia, and provide good, well-paid jobs for Australians to provide security for them and their families into the future.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are two major issues here in regard to the government's policy to phase out live sheep exports. One is: is that a good decision for our country, and for the people of Western Australia in particular? The other is: why has the Labor Party decided this, and what are the motives behind its decision? I will deal with them in a separate order. I will deal with the motives first.

As we've just heard from Senator Brockman, there is strong circumstantial evidence that the Labor Party has adopted this specific policy in a dirty deal, in exchange for preferences in a by-election that occurred in Melbourne, in Victoria—far from the impact of the Western Australian epicentre of the live sheep industry. The Animal Justice Party have put out a statement saying this was a direct result of the discussions they had with the Labor Party on preferences—in particular the shutdown date, against the advice of the government, of a four-year period rather than a 12-year period. The government has provided no justification here, none that I've heard so far—maybe other speakers can, but the minister couldn't. Why has the government chosen a four-year shutdown period, against the advice it was provided, to help and assist those farmers in WA affected by this?

What's the rationale for it? We've got one rationale—the statement of the Animal Justice Party saying, 'This was in exchange for our preferences to help the Labor Party get another member of parliament in the House of Representatives.' All we've got from the Labor Party is, 'We didn't do it; trust us.' That's literally what Senator Urquhart just told us all: 'Trust us. You can trust politicians. They're saying the right thing.' Does anybody buy this? Does anybody believe the bland, basic statements of this minister? Why don't they have a proper rationale for four years rather than 12? It seems the only rationale is they needed preferences, and they decided they would be willing to sell out the jobs of many people in Western Australia to get those votes and preferences for one job over there in the other place. It's an absolute disgrace!

That brings me to the other question. There are thousands of people that will be impacted by this decision. There are the graziers and farmers directly involved in the industry that are already feeling the impacts, with their sheep prices being low. Markets are already moving to other countries because this ban has been announced; that's already having a devastating impact on farm in Western Australia. It's flowing on to eastern Australia as well and it will go to sheep prices through the country, as we saw during the live cattle ban. But there is another group of people that sometimes gets forgotten: the truck drivers, the fencing contractors, the musterers and the helicopter pilots. What happens to them? They lose their jobs, the jobs that the Labor Party used to represent. The Labor Party was founded in my home state, in Queensland, in response to a shearers' strike in Barcaldine. There's still a tree there, the Tree of Knowledge, that you can drive past, where the modern Labor Party was formed to protect the rights and interests of shearers. They don't represent shearers anymore. They don't represent anybody who works in the sheep industry anymore, because they're willing to sell out the job of a truck driver in Western Australia so they can get a few lousy preferences in Melbourne in a by-election. What an absolute joke!

Where are the Western Australian senators on that side standing up for their state? Your Premier doesn't support this policy. The Labor Party in WA are against this policy because they know it'll be a hammer blow to the agricultural sector in Western Australia. They're standing up for their state. Where are the Western Australian senators from the Labor Party? Why are they so mute? Why are they patsies, going along with this policy rather than standing up for their state? This is meant to be the states' house. This is meant to be the place where we represent our states. I want to represent farmers around the country, so I'm happy to fight alongside Western Australian farmers, truck drivers and fencing contractors—but where are the Western Australian Labor senators doing the same thing? They are selling out their state. They are selling out the jobs in their state for some preferences in a by-election on the other side of the country.

I don't think the people of Western Australia will forgive this. There are a few similarities between Queenslanders and those in WA, but Western Australians feel more separate from the rest of the country. They will not take kindly, I think, to a government that is seeking to sell out their jobs because of the views and preferences of people on the east coast. That is what is happening. The reason the whole WA industry is being shut down is the particular preferences—uninformed preferences, I should say—of people in our major cities on the east coast. This should be objected to, because we should have decision-making in this country that looks after people in our regions.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It feels like we have found ourselves in a Finding Nemo movie, with those opposite acting like a bunch of Dories with short-term memory loss that have somehow forgotten we went to the last two elections with a commitment to end live sheep export by sea. It is an odd position that we find ourselves in—that in 2024, just because of a by-election in Melbourne, they are saying we have come up with a new policy, forgetting in their short-term memories that we committed to it at the last two elections. It's odd.

But we are now delivering on that commitment to the Australian people and providing certainty for farmers and communities that rely on the trade. The export of live sheep by sea from Australia will end on 1 May in 2028, with legislation enacting the phase-out to be introduced in this term of parliament. We have committed $107 million to assist the sheep industry with the transition away from live export and take advantage of the increased demand for sheepmeat around the world. While Senator Brockman is talking about that being a pittance, do you know what I don't think farmers think is a pittance? The $144 million that the sheep export industry decreased by during their term of government. That's $144 million or 1.5 million head. That is not a pittance. I am sure the sheep farmers will think that is a significant amount. That happened under their watch. While they are getting up and carrying on now, with their short-term memory loss, about the banning of live sheep export by sea, that is a significant amount for sheep farmers in this country.

The Albanese government has committed $107 million for the very orderly transition of the phase-out of the live sheep export by sea and to take advantage of the increased demand for Australian sheepmeat around the world. What that means in real terms is more jobs right here. Those opposite seem to be allergic to thinking about more jobs here. We have always promised an orderly, considered transition. Our process and way forward strikes the right balance, based on extensive industry and community consultation. This comprehensive package will assist farmers to plan and take advantage of existing and emerging opportunities in the value chain, support communities to respond to the change and ensure animal welfare is prioritised throughout the transition.

We are providing early support for affected sheep farmers, supply chain businesses and communities, particularly those in WA. We want to ensure those affected by the phase-out can build resilience and establish a strong position in advance of the trade ending. The Albanese government will work with a range of delivery partners to stand up the transition funding support. There is every reason to feel optimistic about the future of Australia's sheep industry and those associated with the sector. The Australian sheep meat industry is booming and has a bright future ahead. Our package will help it continue to grow, creating more local jobs and Aussie sheep products grown and value-added to right here in Australia. The Albanese government's policy of phasing out live sheep export by sea from Australia marks an important step forward for sheep welfare, reflecting what I would think are our nation's shared values of compassion and ethical treatment of animals. When I say 'we', I would hope that those opposite would share those values too.

There are a couple of important things to draw out, in my remaining time, about the phasing out of live sheep exports. The first is that this is delivering on the government's commitment. That's something that we do, on this side of the chamber—we deliver on our commitments. I don't think those opposite are familiar with that. The other really important fact in all of this conversation is that live sheep exports by sea are a small proportion of our sheep exports. Australia is one of the largest exporters of sheepmeat and wool, yet live sheep exports are only around one per cent. It means more Australian sheepmeat processing and better sheep welfare outcomes. It's supporting industry and individuals to adjust. And government will continue to support the live cattle industry.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answer to the first question in question time, concerning the dangerous interception of an Australian Seahawk helicopter by a Chinese J-10 fighter which took place on 4 May. For those not familiar with the circumstances, this Seahawk helicopter, deployed from HMAS Hobart, was patrolling international waterways and airspace in the Yellow Sea, in the enforcement of UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea—an authorised operation. What happened was: a PLA J-10 fighter dropped flares in the pathway of this helicopter, endangering the crew and forcing this crew to take evasive action.

When this incident came to light on 7 May, the Prime Minister was asked about it and he said, on a number of occasions, that Australia had raised the incident or would raise the incident at all levels with the Chinese government and, importantly, that Australia would be making the strongest representations possible. We here in the coalition support this, because endangering the lives of our service personnel is incredibly serious—especially and particularly when they are operating in, enforcing, a UN Security Council sanctioned operation in clear international waters.

When something like this happens, the playbook is pretty clear: you would call in the ambassador of the foreign country; you would expect the Prime Minister to contact his counterpart; you would expect the foreign minister and the defence minister to contact their counterparts. If you want to see an example of this, just look at how the Australian government reacted—quite appropriately, I'd add—to the tragic death of World Central Kitchen aid worker Zomi Frankcom in Israel a few weeks ago. When that incident came to light, Prime Minister Albanese spoke to the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, by phone. Penny Wong, the foreign minister, spoke to her Israeli counterpart by phone. The Israeli ambassador in Canberra was called in by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and asked to give an explanation. And the defence minister and the foreign minister wrote a joint letter to their counterparts. In fact, Australia went further and appointed a former chief of the defence staff, Mark Binskin, as a special adviser to investigate it.

Now, though there was no loss of life with this incident involving the Seahawk helicopter, that is really more by good fortune than by design. And, whereas Israel apologised, quite rightly, for the tragic killing of Zomi Frankcom, China has been unapologetic about this incident and has refused to account for its behaviour.

So, in these circumstances, you would think that Australia would be doing what the Prime Minister said—making representations at all levels and not being shy to make the strongest representation possible. But, as we heard in the response to the question from Senator Birmingham, it is not clear which Australian ministers have sought calls with their counterparts and whether any such calls have taken place.

We understand that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has made contact with China's ambassador, but it doesn't appear that he was called in, and I think we are also led to assume, by the answer given by Senator Wong, that in fact no contact has been made between the Australian Prime Minister and either the Premier or China's President, and no contact has been had between the foreign minister and the defence minister and their counterparts in China. And the question that that poses is: 'Have these calls been sought, or is Australia in fact not making representations at all levels and not taking this incident seriously?' or, 'Have these calls been sought and has China been refusing to take them?' in which case the Australian public deserve to know whether that is in fact the case, because this government has put an inordinate amount of emphasis on 'stabilisation of the relationship with China'.

Stabilisation in and of itself is not a bad thing, but stabilisation must be there to serve the national interest. If our national interests are being subordinated, if our punches are being pulled and if we are hesitant to raise issues at the highest level because of our concern about the balance in the relationship, then all we are doing in this relationship is giving all the leverage to the other side. That is the risk with this sort of approach from this government.

We saw this before, of course, when there was a dangerous incident at sea involving Australian naval divers who were injured by a sonic blast deployed by a nearby Chinese destroyer. Again, these naval divers were in international waters, and, at the time, the Prime Minister failed to raise the issue directly with China's president, despite being in San Francisco at the time. We need clear answers from the government about how they are protecting Australian service personnel in these dangerous times.

Question agreed to.