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

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig. I refer the minister to statements attributed to Indonesian minister for agriculture, Suswono, in which he stated, following a meeting with Minister Ludwig on 20 June this year, that future supply of chilled beef and live cattle will be sourced from countries other than Australia. I ask the minister what economic and social impacts will the suspension of live cattle exports have on Australian beef producers and those who rely on the export trade for their income? I also ask the minister: what did he take into account prior to him making the decision to totally suspend the live export trade on 8 June, thus denying Northern cattle producers their livelihoods?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dealing with the last issue first, I took the decision to suspend the trade to Indonesia because of our concerns about animal welfare. It is about ensuring that we put a supply chain assurance in place which ensures the safeguard of animal welfare outcomes.

In terms of the live cattle trade, I do believe it has a strong long-term future. I want to see this trade resumed as quickly as possible, not one day later than it needs to be. It is an important area. The best outcome for the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland, which manage the live animal export industry, is for this trade to get up and running as quickly as possible.

In the short term, the government has provided three types of assistance. Firstly, the government has provided for unem­ployment—in other words, for those people who have been made unemployed as a con­se­quence of the suspension. The government will provide income subsidy assistance for those people who have been affected by the suspension. Secondly, the government has provided assistance to the supply chain, for those people who are onshore in the supply chain, and the industry has provided $5 million for onshore supply. Thirdly, the government has contributed $30 million to assist those hardship cases where the suspension has impacted on businesses and producers in the live animal export industry.

This industry does have a strong and sustainable future, but we do have to get the animal welfare issues right to ensure that it does continue for the longer term. That is the important issue that we both are working cooperatively to resolve. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister advise on what basis the government calculated this $30 million compensation package for the entire live export industry? Does the government seriously believe that $30 million is adequate compensation for a $320 million Australian live export industry? The industry does not want a handout, Mr President; it just wants to get back to normal.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have indicated—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It needs to clean up its act; that's what it needs!

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Back is correct when he identifies the best form of assistance to industry—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is for you to resign!

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators arguing across the chamber do not assist in hearing the answer that is being given.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Back is correct when he identifies that the best thing we can do for industry is to get this industry up and running as quickly as possible, not one day later than it needs to be, but while ensuring that animal welfare outcomes are dealt with. Why? So that we have a sustainable industry for the longer term.

The alternative to that is the opposition's, who simply say that abattoirs are fine and therefore we should recommence the trade. This is the entire point: the industry would not have a safeguard against another incident occurring in two years or four years, which would put this industry again on the back foot. What is important to consider is that we do need to put in the supply chain assurance—that is, the tracking, the transparency and the independent auditing—so that we can safeguard animal welfare outcomes. That is the best form of assistance this industry could get. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that most Northern Australian cattle properties are on leasehold land and that livestock are now effectively worthless, can the minister advise the Senate what security beef producers can offer to banks in seeking loans to help them survive while the minister sorts out the mess that he has created in suspending the live cattle export trade to Indonesia?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reject some of the underlying assertions by Senator Back in that question. I will deal broadly with what the government has done. It has sought to suspend trade so that we can get this industry back up as quickly as possible for the longer term. What the opposition failed to do when they were in government is address how you ensure, through the supply chain, that you continue to meet animal welfare outcomes.

In the interim, we do recognise the impact on local producers in those regions. That is why, to deal with the short term, the government has put together a package which includes three parts. The first is to encourage industry to deal with the onshore supply chain, with a $5 million package for food and watering of cattle, for agistment purposes and for transport. The second, of course, is the income assistance. The third is the $30 million package to provide immediate hardship assistance. (Time expired)