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

While I have the attention of the member for Blair as my seconder, I move the second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Turnbull Government’s failure to protect Australia’s reputation as an exporter of clean, green, safe, high quality and ethically produced food”.

I will read the amendment into the record for the benefit of those participating in the debate. It reads:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Turnbull Government’s failure to protect Australia’s reputation as an exporter of clean, green, safe, high quality and ethically produced food”.

That's a good point from which to start. I've said in this place many times before that Australia's key competitive advantage in agriculture is our representation as a provider of clean, green, safe, high-quality and ethically-produced food. I make the point that those last two words, 'ethically-produced', are becoming more important over time as community exceptions on animal welfare issues grow, not just here in Australia but right around the world, and as people put more value as consumers on the idea that our food is ethically produced. We've seen consumers already being prepared to pay more for eggs and other products which they know have been raised in an ethical way or produced in an ethical way.

So, this is really, really important. And of course if we lose our key competitive advantage as a country, then Australian agriculture will not fulfil the aspirations we hold for it. This is a particularly important issue we are discussing tonight. I think most of my colleagues on both sides would agree that rarely does an issue come along that so agitates the Australian community as have recent events in the live sheep trade. I've been in this place for a very long time and I've seen a number of events do just that. But I think the recent Awassi Express incident, as shown on 60 Minutes, has caused more traffic—email and other correspondence and telephone calls—to members than any other issue I've encountered in this place in my 22 years here. Sure, it has become easier for people to access their members of parliament in more recent years. Obviously more and more people are using email. I do take account of that, but I believe I can confidently say that no other issue in our community has been bigger than this most recent one around live trade.

Before I move to the bill—which, I should say, Labor will support—I should explain the opposition's position on this trade and what future we see for it. I want to begin by saying that there is a big difference between the live cattle trade and the live sheep trade. I know that those opposite—in a foolhardy way, because they only make the community debate more difficult—will say, as sure as night follows day, that it'll be sheep today and cattle tomorrow. If only they understood how damaging that divisive approach to this debate is for the cattle industry. If only they realised that they only risk stimulating a debate in the community about cattle, rather than saying, 'Well, we don't agree with the Labor Party on this issue, but we're very pleased to learn that they have a different view about the cattle trade.' We don't want to have a debate about the cattle trade. We don't want it to be a divisive issue. We don't want that permeating in the community and therefore putting at risk a $2 billion industry in this country.

The cattle trade typically involves shorter voyages into less-harsh climatic conditions. In the cattle trade it's in the interests of both the sellers and the buyers to have those beasts arrive at their destination in good shape, in good health, ready to be fattened for markets in other countries—typically, in this case, Indonesia. In 2011 an event came along that those opposite like to talk about regularly. Whether they're talking about child care or agriculture, they seem to raise it out of some sort of attempt at political gain. But in 2011 we had a big problem. We had shocking cruelty towards animals in Indonesian abattoirs, and we had to do something about it. Quite frankly, the industry didn't give the government of the day much choice. It was a case of do everything or do nothing. So, the Gillard government was really left with no choice but to suspend, for a four-week period, a number of abattoirs in Indonesia.

What came out of that traumatic event was a new assurance scheme, embraced by the industry—out of necessity, because surely no-one can tell me that the industry would have embraced ESCAS, the assurance scheme if the suspension wasn't in place; of course they would not have. But for the all pain of the pause of 2011, it allowed us to put the cattle trade on a sustainable footing, and it's been pretty much incident-free since. There'll always be isolated incidents. There's a report of one today. But I think we can control isolated incidents, and we've proven we are able to do so. Labor recognises that northern producers in particular rely on live exports of cattle, because they can't grow the cattle to slaughter weight; they just don't have the natural resources in the far north of our country to do so. We acknowledge all of these things, and we support the cattle trade on an ongoing basis.

The sheep trade is much different. Its model is broken. The balance and weight of the scientific evidence tells us that you can't pack 50,000 or 60,000 sheep on a vessel for a four-week voyage, into the hottest temperatures, into the highest humidity known to man, and expect not to have breaches of animal welfare expectations. The Australian Veterinary Association, the RSPCA and many others have said that you just can't do it. It doesn't matter how hard you regulate, it doesn't matter how high the penalties are, it doesn't matter how much you threaten the exporters or anyone else along the supply chain, you just can't do it. It's the equivalent of saying, 'You can't leave three dogs in the car in the searing heat while you duck into the supermarket, but you can leave two dogs in the car.' It's not too good for the two dogs that are still in the car. The outcome is the same. It is just too hot and humid for those sheep to survive. I don't want to repeat descriptions of all the terrible scenes we've seen, not only on the Awassi but elsewhere.

The model is broken. Now we do understand there are many sheepmeat producers, particularly in Western Australia, who rely heavily on the trade. We do acknowledge that the live sheep trade produces price competition for them. They've got two potential points of sale: they can go to the meat processors in Australia, and if they're not giving them a good deal or the deal they would like then they can go to the live exporter. There is strategic price competition. We acknowledge that. But what is happening in this trade is that the exporters are externalising animal cruelty. They're jamming more and more sheep on ships to make more and more money. They give the farmer a drink, a proportion of that premium, and what happens then? Now our domestic processors are at a disadvantage. We want more sheep processed here in Australia, creating Australian jobs, adding value here. This is good for the Australian economy. And we don't want them in an environment where they face unfair competition because someone's externalising animal welfare breaches, externalising animal cruelty. It's not a good model.

Labor have said if we're elected to government we'll get rid of the summer trade at the first possible opportunity. There are no standards that can be put in place to meet community expectations on that summer trade. There would be probably a five-year period—the number is yet to be settled on, but I expect it to be a five-year period—where we would make a transition to something better. It will be something better for farmers, something better for processors, something better for the economy and, of course, something better for animal welfare standards. We will work with producers. We will work with unions. We will work with processors. We will work with international partners to further develop and expand overseas markets in chilled and frozen lamb and mutton, and of course in red meat more generally. This is Labor's plan.

The government's plan is a little different. The government's plan, if they were being honest in their contributions tonight, is this: rather than be upfront and honest and give the industry certainty about what lies ahead, they're going to drive them out of the industry using economic tools. We know the plan: make the regulations so tough that the trade becomes economically unviable. Where is the accompanying strategic plan for the industry that goes with that? How is this shock to farmers going to be dealt with and cushioned? If we have already started using stocking densities on voyages since the McCarthy review, as the minister asserts, then how is that affecting sheepmeat producers and how will that affect sheepmeat producers in the coming months or years? I haven't heard the government talk about that. I certainly haven't heard the government talk about what it will do to cushion that impact for sheepmeat producers. We've had no conversations in this place about that.

Immediately before the Awassi Express incident was exposed on 60 MinutesI say 'immediately before' because the minister had the benefit of seeing the footage prior to the Sunday night airing—the minister feigned outrage; he swore on our national television screens—swore! He said this was unacceptable. I was delighted to hear him say that. I extended a bipartisan hand and said: 'Look, what we need to do is fix this thing and we need to fix it on a bipartisan basis. It's the best way to get the outcome we're both looking for, and it's the best way to put in place certainty for the industry so that we don't have governments changing hands and, therefore, changing the rules down the track. If the major parties agree on a construct then changes of government won't matter.'

The minister got off to a pretty good start. He, in fact, commissioned four reviews. One was into the ASEL—a review triggered by a former Labor government in 2013 but not pursued by this government until early 2018. He put in place what I think he likes to call a cultural review of the department. The department, of course, is also the regulator. He put in place the McCarthy review into the northern summer trade, which I made reference to. He put in a review of the regulator's conclusions on the Awassi incident.

I remind members that the regulator found no breach with respect to the Awassi incident. Of course, the Australian community were just gobsmacked. Having seen the footage on their televisions on that Sunday night they were simply amazed to learn that the regulator had reviewed the voyage and found no breaches of animal welfare standards. That can mean only one of two things: the animal welfare standards aren't sufficient or the regulator hasn't adequately and appropriately investigated the event.

We still await the review of the Awassi incident. We await that review with great expectations. We ask ourselves two months after the Awassi incident: what has changed? I do acknowledge that out of the McCarthy report new stocking densities have been proposed, as I said earlier. We now have observers on the vessels on voyages. I think we've done something in the area of vets and a few things around ventilation, water troughs et cetera. But the construct all remains the same.

Tonight we debate a bill that imposes new fines and increases current penalties. The opposition will support those changes. Obviously, they will do no harm, but the problem is that we know that historically penalties are very rarely imposed. I suspect that there has been somewhat of a moral hazard here because the regulator looks at the events and wonders whether the heavy fines are proportionate to the crime in its mind. I suspect that increasing fines and penalties might, indeed, make the situation worse.

How can it be that fines haven't been imposed? How can it be that breaches in the sheep trade continue to emerge? How can it be that the Awassi incident wasn't in any way a breach? I put it to the House that it's all about culture. Culture in any industry and within any regulator is all important to outcomes. Of course, when you have a minister who sends a very clear message to the sector and to the regulator that it should have pretty much a free pass, an unconditional pass, to continue the trade no matter the circumstances, then these are the sorts of outcomes you can expect.

I remind the House, even though I've highlighted this point before, that in its first four years of government the Abbott and Turnbull governments did 10 things to retard our efforts on animal welfare. Remember that I started my contribution by saying that the community expectations on these matters are exponentially on the rise. The best way you protect the industry is by responding to those community concerns by putting appropriate safeguards in place. That's how you protect the industry. That's how you put it on a sustainable footing. That's how you build for it a social licence. But, no, the new government ignored both industry and animal welfare group warnings on systemic failures, delayed the review of the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock—the ASEL I was talking about—and rejected Labor's commitment to review ESCAS. Labor put ESCAS in place. We thought by 2016 it might be due for a bit of a relook and a bit of a refresh. I thought that was a reasonable thing to do, but both the government and the NFF on the day said, 'Oh, no, we couldn't support that. We couldn't support a review of the auditing system. We couldn't do that.' They abolished Labor's inspector-general of animal welfare.

As the minister in September 2013, I announced the Labor government would put in place the Independent Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. That seemed a very reasonable thing to do. Why did we do that? It was because we could see community concern rising again about live exports, and we thought it was an opportunity to help both the sheep and cattle sectors to build on that social licence. We were able to say to people, 'That's okay. We've got a statutory independent officer looking at these things.' As we know, rightly or wrongly, the department is often accused of having a conflict of interest. People argue that the department can't be both the regulator and a promoter of the export trade. Its inherent goal in life is to export more Australian produce.

Now, we don't need to resolve that argument tonight, but we do need to concede that people need to have confidence in the system and be able to see that there's an independent statutory officer looking over the regulator, checking that it's properly investigating breaches of the standards and taking appropriate action imposing appropriate sanctions, et cetera. But this government rejected that. I appointed an interim inspector-general, but he or she had to be consolidated by legislation. The election came along, the Labor Party lost, Barnaby Joyce just let it go through the keeper and the inspector-general was no more.

I gave notice today of a private member's bill, which I will introduce in the next sitting fortnight. I'll be inviting members opposite to join with me in supporting that bill. It does no harm. There's no regulatory burden, necessarily, on the sector and particularly not the farming sector. The inspector-general looks over the regulator. Let me give you an example of something else: we have the Inspector-General of Biosecurity. I've never heard anyone complain about the red tape involved there. In fact, the recent IGAB review into biosecurity demonstrates what great work the Inspector-General of Biosecurity does. He or she doesn't just look over the regulator; he or she also looks at what's happening in the process of looking over the regulator. When the white spot disease outbreak came along in Queensland, the inspector-general not only checked that the regulator had done a proper job of investigating why we had that outbreak but also made recommendations about how we might make sure it doesn't happen again. It seems like a pretty sensible thing to do. It sounds to me like something the industry should be welcoming of.

Sadly, when we announced that we would reinstate the inspector-general during the 2016 election campaign, the National Farmers' Federation rejected it out of hand. They said, 'Unacceptable. It's regulation, red tape and a terrible thing. We can't have that.' I bet they wish they now had it. I bet they wish they had an inspector-general before the Awassi Express came along. I'd like to think we wouldn't have had an Awassi Express if we had the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. I'm pretty confident, actually, that if we had that inspector-general then we wouldn't have had an Awassi Express.

I proposed that the minister give regular reports to parliament about live exports. It's a pretty simple thing to do: in quarterly reports, how many were exported this fiscal or calendar year, how incidents there were, how many alleged breaches and what the regulator did about it. This government couldn't accept that. They didn't think that was a good idea—nor did the National Farmers' Federation. They abolished the Australian Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, they defunded the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy, they abolished the animal welfare unit within the Department of Agriculture and they allowed exemptions from animal welfare standards without review or sunsetting clauses.

Now, the member for Gippsland knows a little bit about this. We now know that sometime last year—I think it may have been in September; I'm not sure now—Wellard Rural Exports, one of the live exporters, wrote to the member for Gippsland when he was the minister for transport.

See this speech in context