Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present three ministerial statements relating to live animal exports, the global economy and the effectiveness of Australia’s aid program.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to take note of the ministerial statement on live animal exports.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I rise to take note of the ministerial statement tabled on behalf of Senator Ludwig relating to live animal exports. The tabling of this particular report leaves me in absolutely no doubt that this a government that has completely lost its way. I read this report with some concern, and I was genuinely looking for some hope that, after the month that has provided pain at every level of every community and to every family and every business in North Australia, something would have changed—that there would be one single thing that would have changed in their lives that they could look back upon and say, 'Obviously this has changed since the first announcement that we had a month ago.' Sadly, that is not the case.

I was just having a quick glance at the statement. In it Senator Ludwig says:

… I would not wait a day longer than I had to before lifting the suspension.

He then goes on to say:

We had been able to reach agreement with industry about how international standards would be operationalised.

Operationalising international standards is a job that people do every day. It is a very simple process. You have critical control points, you have a set of standards, and someone identifies critical control points in those standards. This only relates to animal welfare and traceability.

But the critical control points in addition to those already in place—and well known by this government—were at the point at which the feedlot already had the standard. The pretty blonde cow with No. 63 in her ear goes through onto the ship, into the feedlot. She has already been traced there so she then gets onto the truck that goes to processing. There is a panel there that does it and that is a standard, so that is a critical control point that they have to go to. They then go the processing facility, the tag comes off and we know that there has been no loss of that animal in that process. The animal is then processed and at the point of processing the ear tag is then deemed to have closed the system. This is not rocket science; it is something that people do every single day.

Senator Ludwig goes on to say:

… we have put in place strict regulatory controls.

Why, in heaven's name, would you have an ISO third-party audited accreditation system and then somehow put in your own regulatory processes—which we have not seen or heard of—unless the minister is just trying to use two lines to look as if they have had some sort of energy in this process? Why would you put in place strict regulatory controls that add third-party auditing when you actually have an international standard being met?

Senator Ludwig goes on to say:

… we had advice that Indonesia was prepared to issue import permits for the importation of live cattle.

This is all a rationalisation about why they opened the trade: we have opened the trade because we have advice from Indonesia that they are prepared to issue import permits for the importation of cattle. I think it would strike almost anybody that one is unlikely to be able to issue an import permit from a country that had a prohibition on export. It would have been a bit difficult for the person who was processing this import. They would be asked: 'Where are you actually getting the cattle from? Australia? That does seem a bit odd, because they have been telling us that they have an export ban.' Saying that somehow this information that Indonesia was prepared to issue import permits was a reason or rationale for why the government changed its mind absolutely beggars belief.

This statement is difficult to follow and understand. Frankly, I do not really understand why the minister put out a statement that provides no further information. It further confuses history; perhaps that is its intent. Senator Ludwig goes on to say:

Last Thursday, 30 June, while in Darwin, the Prime Minister addressed industry saying—

and this would have been very useful for industry; they would have been very gratified to hear this—

"The best thing we can do for the sustained strong future of this industry is get the animal welfare issues right."

That was last Thursday. That would have been big news for industry. Those disconnected families, those people without jobs and those with twice as many cattle as can be taken on the rangelands would have said: 'Well, now it's okay. We have had this wonderful piece of information. We all feel a lot better.'

It is an environmental nightmare, a human tragedy across the Top End of proportions we have certainly not seen in my time in this country. It is a complete meltdown, and that is the advice that they gave them. The Prime Minister is talking about animal welfare issues. Perhaps she was not aware that, as a consequence of the ban, having twice as many cows with the same amount of grass would cause an animal welfare issue. And we have actually quoted this complete debacle in the state. It beggars belief why someone would rush and put out this sort of rubbish.

Senator Ludwig's statement goes on to say:

We have put in place a framework which allows this to occur, and these standards will be public documents.

It was the industry that did the work. I was over in Indonesia last weekend. I was talking to industry; I was looking at how they did it. I did not see any government officials over there doing the work. 'We put the framework in place.' What Labor has done has created a complete human disaster across the Top End. Now they are saying, 'Oops, sorry about that,' and are going to somehow take the credit for fixing it. This is emblematic of this government. The only time they appear to try to tell you they have done something well is to say: 'Look, we've fixed it. Pink batts? Sorry about that; no, we've got another program. You're supposed to clap.' In respect of the disaster with the school halls debacle, Building the Education Revolution, they say: 'Oh, by the way, the media says we have invested in all this stuff. We'll fix it.' They are absolute rocket scientists at fixing disasters of their own making, and this is another one.

Right from day one, we were pretty pleasant about it; we said, 'Look, the thing you need to do is to reverse this decision. You made a reasonable decision on day one.' The decision made on day one was to say: 'Look, there are obviously places these cattle do not need to go to. You can only send them to places where we are assured that the animals will be treated to a standard.' Those standards were there then. Those inline processes were there then. All they had to do was lift the ban, and that is the only thing they did not do for a full month. Of course, they have waved the magic wand; it is all fine now! There are just a couple of things missing. An important one, of course, is those cattle. Now, where do we put them? They are probably in the back paddock.

I have driven down some of these fencelines and they are 100 kilometres long in one paddock. These are enormous places. This is an extensive enterprise. This is not intensive farming. You do not whistle up the sheepdog and go round the back paddock and squirrel them onto the truck. This is an enormous undertaking, and they are doing it for the second time. They have already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in getting these cattle to the point where they are, and suddenly they are told: 'Sorry about that, guys. Just go back to square one.' Do they think they are going to keep the cattle in a pen? You cannot do that. There is not any fodder. They have done the right thing in looking after the animals, and they have released them back onto the rangeland. We have to get the cattle back. I have had numbers of very sad and tragic calls from people trying to find work in pretty tough conditions. The trucks are still sitting there; it is pretty hard to start the truck without the driver, as Mr Sterle will attest. Some of them have gone to the mines. Some of them are looking for other work. I can tell you that, when someone moves from driving a truck with cattle and makes the decision to go to the mines, sometimes it is pretty hard to get them back.

And that is the other thing, of course: we have that bit of water between us. So we are going to need the odd ship. I tell you what: it is going to take more than a sheepdog to find those. They have gone to other parts of the world to ply their trade in different places with different cattle to our market. These ships are not going to arrive like that. So they are on the phone now saying, 'Sorry about that.' The Australian government are not making those calls. It is the exporters saying: 'I wonder where those ships went. If you can possibly come back. I know it's a bit embarrassing; this government does that a bit.'

The other thing is how the markets are going. Every day last year we exported 15,000 head of cattle. This is a fresh-meat market, and there is a process. What is going to happen now is that every ship that did not sail—every day that went past—was another 15,000 head that will not leave our range­lands and will not arrive in the marketplace.

And of course there is the relationship with Indonesia. I am completely embarrassed when a Third World, developing country refers to Australia as a sovereign risk, very irresponsible. That is what they have said. (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today because I wish to make comments supporting the statement by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry , Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should be embarrassed.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I congratulate you on your promotion. I stand to make a comment and all of a sudden I hear the mouth from the west going off. It did not take him long!

I made a contribution yesterday and I want to reiterate what I was talking about. I am one of those senators who are so glad to see the ban lifted. I said yesterday, in support of Senator Scullion and in support of my colleagues from Western Australia Senator Back and Senator Adams, that this $330 million industry is so darn vital to the north of our country that I would hate to think where we would be without it. I also said yesterday and reiterate that some 500,000 head of cattle went out last year but it is the thousands and thousands of jobs in the Top End of Australia, particularly in my state of Western Australia, in the Northern Territory and in Queensland—it is to a lesser extent in some of the other states—without which the north of Australia could not survive on tourism alone. There are bits of mining here and there; that is quite right.

I want to talk about the Kimberley. That is a part of the world where—unlike you, Senator Cormann, or you, Mr Deputy President, though I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—I made my living from 1979 through to 1991. I still have a very long affiliation with the Kimberley, in particular through my connections and my work with the Kimberley Aboriginal Pastoralists Association. As I said yesterday, Mr Doodie Lawford from Bohemia Downs, who represents 22 Aboriginal pastoral leases, said that without the opportunity of the live export trade he did not know where they would be. They proudly employ Aboriginal boys as stockmen through Doodie Lawford and KAPA, who for years have invested in training Aboriginal boys to get them out of some of the sad situations they find themselves in in some of our Kimberley towns like Fitzroy, Broome, Derby, Wyndham and Kununurra, to give them the opportunity to follow in the footsteps of their grandfathers. There is such pride in watching them do that. So when the ban was put on, after those shocking images that we saw on Four Corners that evening, it worried me to think where these boys would end up if we did not have a live export trade.

I go back to one of the greatest prime ministers we had in this country: the Right Hon. RJ Hawke. When Prime Minister Hawke took the initiative and had the deter­mina­tion to give our Aboriginal traditional owners the opportunity not only to work their country but own their country; self-determine and make a decent, honest living; live in country and do the things they want to do; and pass on their language, law and culture to their young ones; what a wonderful opportunity there was through pastoralism. So I take offence when I find those on the opposite side bagging us because we have endeavoured to do whatever we could to get this industry back on its feet.

Let us make no mistake: the ban had to be put on. But, as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly and as the honourable Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig, has said, not one day longer would we take than needed to get this industry up and running again. And here we have Senator Scullion, who I still believe is a very honourable representative of the Northern Territory pastoral industry, stand­ing here condemning and bagging us. Does he want us to put a ban back on and stop the industry again? We know that the industry will not kick off and be exporting cattle tonight; but, for crying out loud, we actually now have a system where we will have full traceability. We will have auditing on the ground, which I know Senator Back and I have discussed. Senator Back and I work very closely. We are not on the same side of the political fence, but we both have decency in our DNA. There you go, Senator Back; you owe me one! But what we have discussed is having this sort of thing on the ground where we have accountability and traceability so we know where our cattle are going. I think it is a darn good start that that ban has been lifted, and I want to do everything I can in supporting the minister, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, who worked day and night to get this industry back up and running. So I can go back up to the Kimberley next week, where I will be, and I will be on one of those Aboriginal pastoral leases, at Doon Doon. I will be talking to the traditional owners at Doon Doon, and I will be getting their concerns. I have to tell you: I am in Doon Doon every year at least once and, if there were not a live export trade, those poor devils would have absolutely nothing. They would have no chance of jobs, no chance of a decent living and no chance of self-respect.

So I do take offence when I hear the opposition condemning us for actually acting, and I also take offence when I find out that Animals Australia and the RSPCA, as I said yesterday, had held those images for at least one month before the images were aired on the Four Corners program; they gave them to Senator Coonan. Through you, Mr Deputy President, I do not condemn Senator Coonan. Senator Coonan is a very decent person, and she would have been alarmed at those images. But when I find out that those animal representative bodies, who I have supported—the RSPCA in particular, who were always welcome in my office until now—held those images so they could build up, in their words as reported by Colin Bettles, political ammunition and political angst, they should stand condemned too. The truth of the matter is that those people are not honourable. Those people do not care about our northern pastoral industry. They do not care about our Aboriginal pastoralists. They do not care about those Aboriginal boys with dreams in their eyes of following their grandfathers' footsteps to become stockmen. If those groups had their way, those Aboriginal people would live under a tree peacefully and we would not have to put up with them. So they stand condemned in my view.

We will get this industry up and running. It is up and running. We have a system now that we did not have before. Quite rightly, I do not believe one Australian could sit back and condone the practices that were seen on that footage shot in Indonesia in those abattoirs. It made me feel sick. But I want to also stress this, Mr Acting Deputy President—sorry, Mr Deputy President. I am so glad of your promotion; I really am. It is coming through my head, because you and I came into the Senate at the same time and, again, I am so proud of that. Unfortunately, there is no other alternative for our northern pastoral industry. There are all these myths around that we could go back to the good old days and open the abattoirs again in Port Hedland, in Broome, in Derby, in Wyndham and in Kununurra. I say this clearly: I would much rather see a boxed meat market. I would much rather see Australian abattoirs employing Australians—Australian jobs. I could not think of anything better. There is no market for that. There is no demand for a frozen meat market to Indonesia. We are talking about some 2,000-odd islands out there. We are talking about abattoirs—wet abattoirs—that do not even have access to electricity, so they do not have freezers. They do not have Coles and Woolworths on every corner where they can walk in and buy their cuts. Unfortunately for us, that is our market. But it is our responsibility to put in a decent system of accountability, traceability and auditing, and that is what the minister has done.

I want to congratulate the minister. It has been a horrific time for him. It has been a horrific time for our producers, our truckies, our stockmen and our rural businesses that rely on the northern live export trade—our truck owners, our tyre fitters, our electricians, the mechanics and everyone who services those industries in the Top End of Australia. Without that industry—well, I do not even want to go there. So the minister must stand congratulated. It is in the best interests of Australians. The opposition should be standing alongside us. The oppo­sition should be working with us and should congratulate us. We should congratulate the industry for taking that step forward, and we should congratulate people like Mr Paul Holmes a Court—I think it is Paul, but I am sorry if it is not; it might be Peter—who has said clearly to his clients that not one of his cattle will go to an abattoir unless it is stunned. He has made that decision, and I urge all Australian cattle producers to follow his lead.

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

I rise to take note of the ministerial statement of Senator Ludwig, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. He is to be acknowledged for the fact that this suspension has been lifted as of last evening. Some of the comments made by previous speakers—Senator Scullion and Senator Sterle—are certainly acknowledged. The tragedy is that there never was a need to completely suspend the trade. On 3 June this year I circulated very widely a media release; I will quote from parts of it. I called for immediate action to improve animal welfare practices in Indonesian abattoirs and to restore confidence to the Australian public—producers and, of course, the wider community. But I went on to say that we should not do anything at all to ban the export of live animals to Indonesia, because it would pose significant risks to biosecurity, marketing and diplomatic relations. Regrettably, my predictions were true.

In his statement, the minister has made the observation:

Following the provision of the footage—

that is the ABC footage—

the Government moved to suspend supply of Australian livestock to the featured abattoirs …

The coalition strongly supported the minister at that time to that extent and, had he stopped at that point, he would have continued to enjoy that support. But, despite the advice given to him by people who know the industry, who understand well the animal welfare and other implications and who understand well the outrage of the community—quite rightly—at the footage we saw, regrettably he took that step of completely suspending the trade, placing Australian producers, Australian supporters of the industry and the welfare of animals in the north of Australia at risk and, of course, not only severely damaging the diplomatic relations we have with Indonesia as a favoured neighbour but also placing at risk the supply of much-needed protein for the community there.

There is a lesson here for everybody in this parliament, and the lesson is one of not jumping to a quick conclusion based on tele­vision footage and social media reactions. I will not speak in this place at this time about the fairness, the bias or the validity of that ABC footage; that is for another time in this place. What I will, however, comment on is the severity of the reaction which forced this government to act. Let me comment by way of contrast that the same program, Four Corners, only this Monday evening ran an horrific series of footage on the atrocities visited upon women in Sri Lanka by both sides of their political movement in recent times, the sort of footage vastly worse, surely, addressed upon human beings. I will not relay what has been put to me of that footage, but what has been the outcry around the Australian community in the last 72 hours to that footage? Practically nil; yet the terrible footage we saw of the absolutely unquestioned cruelty visited upon those animals in Indonesia led to an email campaign where I received hundreds of thousands of emails.

Regrettably, I was able to confirm only this morning that an email apparently sent to me by one of my relations in fact was false—it was a fraud. I rang him and said, 'Rex, it is unusual: if you had that degree of interest and concern, knowing that we are related and that I have been in this game of 40 years, I would have thought you might have called me.' He said, 'Chris, I am outraged at the reaction that occurred in the first place that actually caused the suspension of the whole trade.' He also comes from an agricultural background. How many more of those emails were fraudulent? It was an absolute disgrace.

I certainly do acknowledge the minister has now moved to this position whereby the trade will reopen. The point I want to make is that, with proper consultation with the industry and with Indonesian interests, we need never have suspended the trade to those abattoirs that do already meet and, indeed, exceed OIE international animal health requirements—and I speak of some managed by Indonesians, some managed by Australians.

The traceability to which the minister has referred in his document is quite correct. Australia, unknown to others, leads the world already in national livestock identification. We are the only country to have it. You might say, 'Well, why aren't the pastoral cattle already identified in the scheme?' The reason is that, quite simply, it was a scheme designed so that, if somebody had an adverse reaction to meat they had purchased from a retailer yesterday or the day before, that meat could be followed right back to the farm of origin. That was the purpose for which we brought the NLIS into place. But when it was brought in the northern pastoral industry went to govern­ment and said: 'Look, our calves are born on the station, they grow, they go from the station to the port, from the port to the feedlot in Indonesia and then to the abattoir. We believe that there is no need for an NLIS association with our cattle.' That was agreed upon. The point to be made now is that the Australian industry is so well versed we have already got in place the only international NLIS. To fill that gap and complete that loop always was an easy task.

One of the comments I made in my release on 3 June was the need for an:

... independent assessment by competent people to review the welfare and management standards in Indonesian abattoirs, including those processing Australian cattle ...

That 'was essential' as was the reporting back to the Australian community. I am pleased that the minister has acknowledged the contribution of the Australian Veterinary Association, with whom the minister and his department have worked closely to achieve what was announced last night. I have long maintained that well-experienced veterinar­ians are the very people to be able to satisfy interests here in Australia, the community, producers and others. He has announced that it will be audited by international independ­ent audit agencies. I am very happy with that process. I make the point simply that it was not necessary to close the trade down to achieve that outcome.

What is the impact of closing down the trade? Animals are not like a mine site. If the price of gold or iron ore is not right, you can just leave the minerals in the ground. Animals are not like a production line of motor cars. If something adverse occurs, if there is an interruption in supply or a problem with labour or a problem with power, you can just turn off the switch, close the doors and everybody goes home. Even an airline, dare I say, with an animal related name like Tiger—regrettable and all as that is, and I hope for everybody's sake that safety issues can be addressed and that that airline can start flying again—does not require daily feeding. The planes are not out there growing, they are not out there repro­ducing and they are not out there having calves like the cows in the range lands are at this very moment. That is a lesson that is surely learnt for the future. We cannot have a circumstance in a livestock related enterprise where we just close it down with no consultation with producers, with exporters, with those involved in the supply chain and particularly with our end market.

I have made the point before, and my colleague Senator Scullion has made it also, that we are now going to see overstocking on the rangelands. We are not going to get back to exporting 500,000 or 600,000 cattle a year. We are going to see overgrazing on the rangelands. This year's calves are going to be competing with last year's calves, which should be on ships and which should be going to Indonesia.

I make the point again that the properties we are speaking about are leasehold proper­ties in which the pastoralist has no equity. He cannot go to the bank and use his pastoral lease as collateral. It is questionable now what the value of his livestock is. Therefore, if these pastoralists have to walk off their properties, regrettably they will walk off them with absolutely nothing.

I conclude my comments with the Indo­nesian relationship—one, as I pointed out yesterday, that has been built up over many years and one in which the Indonesians have built up confidence in us. I hope that they will not see the events of the last five weeks as being irreparable. I hope they will see that we have invested heavily with them over time, that we have walked beside them over time and that we want to continue walking beside them over time to once again become a reliable supplier of product, of protein, of expertise and of shared technology. I hope we never have the circumstance again in which Australia is an unreliable supplier.

Question agreed to.