Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) that Australia has the most stringent and effective live animal welfare regulatory system in the world that is underpinned by the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System;

(b) recent alleged breaches of Australian's animal welfare standards in the live export sector; and

(c) the Government's:

  (i) abolition of the position of Inspector General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports; and

  (ii) failure to increase regulatory and supervisory resources to keep pace with growth in trade; and

(2) calls on the Government to build public confidence and to protect the sustainability of the live export sector by:

(a) appointing an independent Inspector General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports; and

(b) providing quarterly ministerial reports to the Parliament on:

  (i) any new markets;

  (ii) the number of head exported;

  (iii) any allegations of breaches of animal welfare standards and investigations undertaken; and

  (iv) any sanctions or other action taken against those who have breached or should have prevented breaches of Australia's animal welfare standards.

Recent reports of unacceptable abuse of Australian cattle in other countries remind us how difficult a task it is to maintain in other, and often developing, countries the animal welfare standards Australians justifiably demand. But it is a task worthy of our continuing efforts. There are two very good reasons. Firstly, our live trade exports are providing much needed protein in markets which would otherwise be filled by those not so committed to animal welfare standards. Secondly, it is a trade which is critical to Australia's economy, earning around $1.5 billion in foreign exchange each year while maintaining the livelihoods of hundreds of producer families.

Each year Australia sends around thee million cattle and sheep to 26 countries to meet the food needs of their people. I am often asked why we don't slaughter the animals here in Australia. That, it is suggested, would surely mean adding value and creating jobs here. It would also, it is argued, give us total control over the treatment of the cattle and sheep. To find the answer to that question, we need to first understand that for many reasons there is a market for live animals begging to be filled, ranging from cultural preferences through to logistical and infrastructure issues, including refrigeration. Further, in some markets, including Indonesia, the buyers are looking for lighter cattle which they can fatten and add value to in their quite efficient feedlots. If we do not fill these markets, some other country with lower animal welfare standards surely will. That is the demand side, but what about supply? Here, there are at least three key points.

Firstly, cattlemen in Australia's far north do not have the feed and conditions to grow cattle all the way to slaughter weight at this time. Without the live trade industry, producers in the far north would not be viable. Secondly, climatic issues like the north's wet season and transport difficulties make slaughter, storage and transport to port difficult. Having said that, new abattoirs are emerging in our far north, and I certainly welcome that. Thirdly, the live trade sector provides producers with alternative selling options, bringing competition to the equation and often better prices for producers. Australia's live trade sector is feeding the globe's growing population in a food constrained world. It is creating wealth and jobs here and raising handling and slaughter standards elsewhere. It is also putting pressure on exporters from other countries, and the importers they deal with, to raise their own standards.

Can Australians have confidence in our industry? That, more than anything else, is what this parliamentary motion is all about: building public confidence. We have the world's best animal welfare standards. The positive outcome of the regrettable 2011 live export pause was the introduction of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance Scheme, otherwise known as ESCAS. This regulatory regime forces exporters to show they have a plan to treat the animals humanely and provides a monitoring and auditing system all the way from port to abattoir.

Heavier sanctions and penalties can be applied for breaches of ESCAS. They range from financial penalties, the suspension of an export licence, the cancellation of a licence or indeed imprisonment. It also provides exporters with incentives to do the right thing, because breaches tend to bring more oversight, regulatory burden, more regulatory delays and more cost. It is also worth remembering that incidents like higher than acceptable mortality rates on a voyage result in significant additional costs for exporters. It is in their interest to deliver the goods to the other end in good shape.

Despite the robustness of our regulatory system, reports of animal mistreatment continue to emerge. These events undermine public support for the trade, and this motion puts forward some initiatives designed to maintain and build upon that support.

I have learnt that one of the things which undermines the sector's image is a lack of publicly available information about alleged breaches, action taken and sanctions imposed. That is why I want the minister to, in the future, regularly report to the parliament, and it is why Labor wants the Abbott government to revive our plans to establish an independent inspector-general for animal welfare and live animal exports.

The minister's report will place on the public record any easy to access and understandable account of the state of the sector, any animal welfare incidents and how they have been dealt with. As an independent statutory officer overseeing of the work of the department, the inspector-general will be critical to building and maintaining public trust. Labor also wants the government to provide reassurance that the resourcing of the animal welfare system is keeping pace with growth in the sector.

No system can ever guarantee an incident-free industry, nor can we expect it to. But we have a responsibility in this place to ensure the system is the best it possibly can be and that people can have confidence in it. The motion is about transparency and accountability and in the interest of the community and the sector alike. I urge the government to embrace it.

See this speech in context