Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I rise to speak to the report to the parliament on livestock mortalities during exports by sea for the period of July 2014 to December 2014. I want to place on record yet again, as I always do, the excellent record that has been reported here by the Department of Agriculture. I would like to read into the Hansard the statistics. For cattle, 99.9 per cent of 644,000 cattle leaving Australia between July and December arrived safely at their destinations. Less than 0.1 per cent of those cattle died at sea. Let me put that into some perspective. An equivalent number of cattle on the range lands in the north of Australia would have a mortality rate of about five times that which occurs at sea. So 99.9 per cent of the consignment arrived. When it came to sheep during that six-month period, the statistic was 0.8 per cent of 1.1 million sheep.

The point to be made here when one considers the actual live weight of the consignment itself arriving in our destination markets overseas is that particularly sheep and young stock gain weight on the voyage. I know this from my experience as a livestock veterinarian in the 1980s. Consignments can actually gain weight. It must be one of the very few instances where not only do products which leave Australia arrive in excellent condition but the buyer gets more than 100 per cent of what they paid for.

It is equally interesting that, of those consignments of sheep, there was not one single solitary shipment in which the number of mortalities on board during the journey required a particular special appraisal. In other words, the losses were so low right across the board that one was not needed. It is interesting to reflect on the human comparator because people often say, '0.1 per cent of cattle die and 0.8 per cent of sheep die.' It might be of interest to the wider community to know that human beings in Australia die at the rate of 0.6 per cent. That is actually six times higher than the mortality rate of the cattle on these ships.

I also want to reflect on the importance of Australia as an exporter of both meat products and live animal export products. We have an enviable reputation. In fact, we have the most enviable reputation in the world when it comes to the quality of the livestock that we send to our overseas markets. More importantly—and I do want people to understand this—we are the only country in the world of the 109 countries that export live animals for production purposes that invests time, people, money and resources into improving animal welfare standards in our target markets. We are the only country that has training programs in place for people in the markets in which we operate.

Time does not permit me to go through them today, but many people here in the chamber are aware of the instances I have given in which the welfare has been improved of not only Australian bred and supplied animals as a result of our intervention but also locally bred animals and animals that have arrived from other markets when they are put through the supply chains that Australia has led and been involved in. Those markets enjoy the improved animal welfare standards as a result of the Australian intervention.

In the few seconds I have left I want to simply remind those listening that it is not either a meat or a live export trade. Over time this has been demonstrated again and again. Most recently in Indonesia in 2011, when we lost the live export trade, the supply of meat halved. When we lost the live export trade to Saudi Arabia in the 1980s, we lost the meat trade as well. They are different but complementary markets. I conclude by again congratulating the trade on the excellence of these statistics and the department for their report.