Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, I commend the member for Hunter for bringing this motion to the chamber. Once again, Australians are confronted with images of Australian cattle being brutally killed; once again, footage is from an approved overseas facility; once again, the livestock export company LSS is a party in the supply chain; and, once again, the evidence mounts that Australia cannot ensure the humane treatment of animals once they leave Australia.

What is additionally disturbing about the latest image from an Israeli abattoir is that Israel is an advanced economy and the abattoir at the centre of the allegations is a large, modern facility. It is also obvious from the person who revealed the cruelty that this was not an isolated incident. It was normal practice, and the horrific treatment would have continued had not the cruelty been exposed. This appeared to be everyday practice that authorities, auditors, inspectors, agents and others who are parties to Australia's Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System should have known about. It is difficult to believe that they did not. This latest event highlights a secondary matter, and that is that kosher slaughter does not live up to the claims that it is not cruel.

I understand from my colleague the member for Melbourne Ports that, following the footage of cruelty, some abattoir employees were dismissed, the abattoir was temporarily closed and the Israeli government is set to substantially increase penalties for acts of animal cruelty. I welcome those responses; however, if authorities seemed oblivious to the cruelty in the past, it does not fill me with confidence about the future, nor does the response from the Abbott government or the Minister for Agriculture reassure me. The Abbott government has shown little interest in animal welfare, which it treats as an unnecessary inconvenience to the live export trade. When it came into office, the first decision it made was to abolish the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and then cut $2.3 million of funding for the live animal export business assistance program. It also flippantly dismissed Labor's proposal to appoint an inspector-general of animal welfare and live animal exports. Why? Because it did not want any additional oversight of the live export trade. The appointment of an inspector-general of animal welfare and live animal exports would have been a step in the right direction. Better still would be the establishment of a federal office of animal welfare that is independent of the agriculture minister and not conflicted by simultaneously being responsible for promoting meat exports and for animal welfare. Only then will the Australian community have confidence in Australia's animal welfare system.

I also reiterate a concern I raised when I spoke about animal welfare only two weeks ago. That is my concern about the process where auditors are being appointed by the export companies and where industry is forewarned prior to an inspection taking place. That is a process that cannot be relied on. If the process cannot be relied on, animals should not leave Australia, and the focus and effort should be on exporting Australian processed meat. The live export trade accounts for seven per cent of Australia's meat exports. I accept that is a reasonable value to this country, but I also accept that most of our meat leaves this country once it is processed. I also note that New Zealand has managed well without live exports since 2006, and nine years later it does not appear that there is any intention of ever resuming the trade in that country.

I know that the response from the industry has been that Australia's presence in the live export trade is raising animal welfare standards. With the latest revelations from Israel, those responses are far from convincing. As I said earlier, the best response would be to establish an independent office of animal welfare. I certainly support the member for Hunter's motion in this respect. At the very least, the government should be providing information back to this parliament on a regular basis with respect to the number of incidents that are reported to the government, what measures are being taken to ensure that those incidents do not continue, and what other actions and penalties are being applied to those who quite wilfully and deliberately breach the ESCAS conditions that we have put in place.

I also accept that the ESCAS conditions introduced by Labor have made a difference, but we can do better still. If we do, that will give the community confidence to support the Australian cattle and meat growers of this country, irrespective of whether the cattle and sheep are processed here in Australia or exported overseas. As I have said time and time again, our ability to control standards once the animals leave Australia is indeed limited.

See this speech in context