Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) | Hansard source

I'm going to talk about the question of the ban on live sheep exports, but before I do I would like to associate myself with Senator Sterle's remarks. I woke up this morning and went to the Korean War Memorial on Anzac Parade, where it had been graffitied with 'River to the sea' and other slogans like 'Free Gaza'. That has no part in Australia, and I think that's what we're talking about here. It is the wrong thing to do. Well said, Senator Sterle.

Senator Sterle, being a Western Australian, would also know that we have many people here from the Keep the Sheep campaign. A question Senator McKenzie asked Minister Watt in question time regarding live sheep exports was very specific: what scientific evidence did we have to ban the live sheep market? We got, I will say—rarely in this place because it is question time, not answer time—an answer to this. We got the answer that it was an election commitment. 'It was an election commitment' is not the most overly scientific program you can use to stop live sheep, but we have to respect that.

Last time we heard that was about the Voice. What was the reason for the Voice referendum? It was an election commitment. So it seems that everything that's unpopular, everything that fails, will not be scientifically backed up, but it will be justified because it was an election commitment. That is the reason they give. So, to all the people who are here and the thousands of farmers we saw blockading in Western Australia—and for the tens of thousands of livelihoods in Western Australia that will be impacted—you need to know that the basis of the evidence for turning your livelihoods upside down, for putting your future in peril, is an election commitment. I would say the clear answer is that, if it is an election commitment, maybe these people should think about their actions at the next election—if that's the scientific measure for why the government changes policy. All those in Western Australia who are blockading, who are donating and who are travelling here to tell us about what will happen to them can certainly make a change through the way they vote. If they do that, we'll make a change in policy.

The answer went further and mentioned that the market has declined over a period of time. The market declined simply because one significant market pulled away; Saudi pulled away from the purchase of these live animals, but they're coming back because of the world-leading standards we put in around sheep health on the boats. They are measured on the way for their panting and breathing rates, their respiratory rates. Sheep will die—I'm not going to pretend they don't—but Australia has put these standards in place. That made things cost a little bit more, but these markets were coming back in. We had Saudi buying. Kuwait came to us and made representations that they wanted to keep buying these sheep and were committed to this because Australia has the best standards, full stop. It's not that we have 'some' of the best standards, and we're not 'around' the best standards; we are the gold standard for live animal exports. This is the culture that these customers and these areas want. They want live sheep; they want freshly slaughtered sheep. They want these things over there.

And it puts at risk a whole lot of other things. At an election before, their commitment was that they wouldn't ban live sheep, and here they are going ahead and doing it. Then, as we go forward, we've heard, 'We won't ban live cattle exports,' but the cattle share the ships and the space. The cattle that go to the Middle East are always on the boats, so that is another industry, another market, that's in danger. At estimates we saw letters from Kuwaiti government backed institutions, the livestock abattoirs, saying that they want to keep this going, that they want to keep the families and the areas going that Senator Brockman mentioned. This is an industry that is world leading and that supplies protein to a very important part of the world. We hear, 'Yes, but that's just a business.' No it's not; it's a government backed business. The real process of these areas is in their dedication to keeping their food security alive, just as we do with our energy security.

There is no scientific reason for this. We've heard that an RSPCA poll gave some numbers—if you want to believe that. I come from a polling background; somehow I got there. I can write a poll that says anything. I can write a poll that gets any result I want. I can write a poll that says that Collingwood's going to win another championship. I can do anything I want with a poll. An RSPCA poll is a push poll. It is not to be trusted, because it is biased data. It goes through there. I could ask a whole lot of questions about sheep welfare, sheep dying at sea, burials at sea, sheep panting, heat and everything like that, and then, after you support it, I could get the answer I want. So let's not pretend. The people here are being run over for an election commitment. I urge them to change their vote, and we will change the policy.