Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Too many animals have died and too many have suffered on the ships of misery for decades. Sheep that have been treated as cargo, not as the living, breathing sentient beings that they are, have suffered for far too long. Governments have facilitated this trade for decades, condemning thousands upon thousands of animals to horrific deaths and unimaginable suffering. In 1966, 67,000 sheep died aboard the Uniceb; in 1980, 40,000 sheep died on the Farid Fares; in 2003, 5½ thousand sheep perished on the MV Cormo Express; in 2014, 4,000 sheep died on the Bader III; in 2017, 3,000 died aboard the Al Messilah; in 2017, 2,400 sheep died on the Awassi Express; and, between 2018 and 2023, more than 6½ thousand sheep deaths have been recorded. These are just some of the horrors of this barbaric trade that we know about. There are many thousands more animals that suffer in extreme heat in cramped, overcrowded and filthy containers and that go hungry and thirsty.

The industry has long tried to hide and downplay the true extent of suffering involved in live sheep export, and the government has aided and abetted the industry for years. To this day, there is little transparency about the suffering on board these ships of misery. It is only thanks to the tireless and courageous efforts of animal welfare advocates, whistleblowers and activists who, time after time, have exposed the cruelty of the industry and the failures of the government that we know the extent of suffering that live exports inflicts on animals. These exposes have brought the need for urgent reform to the fore.

In August 2017 Faisal Ullah, a young 25-year-old Pakistani trainee navigation officer, bravely exposed the calamity that occurred on the Awassi Express. By April 2018, Animals Australia and 60 Minutes helped reveal the sickening image of thousands of live sheep and lambs being cooked alive from heat stress, being crushed to death from overcrowding and having their throats slit by crew members and thrown overboard. Shortly after, in 2018, my Greens led bill to end the long-haul export of live sheep and lambs during the Northern Hemisphere summer passed the Senate. But the then coalition government gagged debate in the House of Representatives.

Over 70 per cent of voyages since 2018 have reported heat stress in sheep while in the equatorial Persian Gulf and Red Sea regions. Yet it took another four years for the government to impose a ban on sheep exports through the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer, only for them to then weaken this ban. Even small improvements to the live exports trade have taken far too long, and sheep have continued to suffer horrendously. There have been dozens of reforms, reviews and inquiries since the industry started, but the cruelty goes on. It is crystal clear that we cannot stop animal cruelty in live exports by getting rid of a few bad apples or tinkering around the edges. Animal torture is absolutely baked into the industry's business model. Time and time again, we have seen that nothing can be done to make live export ships safe for animals. This cruel trade is irredeemable. The only option is to shut it down, and I am so glad that we are here today.

In 2018 I stood in this place and introduced a bill to end the export of live animals for slaughter. I held up a truly gruesome photo of sheep suffering on the Awassi Express, telling the government that the system was broken and the cruel trade must end. Late last year, we were reminded just how broken the system is when the WA government inexplicably dropped its charges of animal cruelty against the Awassi Express operator, Emanuel Exports, a decision that absolutely stinks of political interference and holds no-one accountable for the horrific deaths of 2,400 sheep.

The disasters have continued this year. After more than 9,200 sheep and 3,700 cattle were subjected to torturous heat on the MV Bahijah for eight straight days back in 2018, in January this year a further 16,000 animals were left sweltering through a heatwave off the Western Australian coast on the very same ship. This was after they had already been on the ship for weeks because of the terrible decision to send the ship through a conflict zone. In the end the sheep were stuck on this journey for 72 long days, and hundreds died. The government should never have approved the Bahijah to leave the shores of WA. It is clear that the government is completely held to ransom by exporters that will pursue profit above all else, and that will continue to happen if this trade is allowed to go on.

It is high time to end live export. It was high time back in 2018, when my bill passed the Senate. Now it is beyond time to shut down this industry once and for all. This cruel trade has completely lost its social licence—if it ever actually had one. Independent polling commissioned by my office in June 2023 showed that 85 per cent of Australians supported a phase-out of live sheep exports. In Western Australia, where the majority of the live export industry operates, 71 per cent of people supported the phase-out according to independent polling commissioned by RSPCA Australia in May 2023. This is on top of the petition to end live exports that I tabled in the Senate back in 2018, signed by almost 238,000 people.

The Greens and I have worked alongside incredible animal welfare advocates, activists and the community on this issue for years. I say thank you to them and thank you for the tireless work and support of Australian Alliance for Animals, RSPCA Australia, Stop Live Exports, Animals Australia and Vets Against Live Export, among many others. I particularly want to name some people who are such huge animal advocates and who I have worked with for years: Jed Goodfellow, Bidda Jones, Jo Webb and Lynn Simpson. The pressure from these people, these organisations, the community and the Greens has finally pushed Labor to this day, where we have a bill legislating the end date and a ban to live sheep exports.

Today we will make sure that cruelty to sheep can no longer be fodder for industry profits. Today we will make sure that these ships of misery never sail again. Enough is enough. Across the country, people are also demanding a fast phase-out, and, while I'm so pleased that live sheep exports will end, 1 May 2028 is still too far away. I will be moving a Greens amendment to bring forward the proposed date to 1 May 2026. Otherwise, the risk of too many animals suffering and dying over four years still remains. We also want to make sure that exports start to ramp down and reduce every year till the live export industry ends, so that fewer and fewer sheep are subjected to stress and death.

The government bill also has no measures to ensure that the focus on animal welfare becomes stronger over the next four years and that animal welfare standards don't drop, so I will be moving amendments so that independent observers and a vet are present on all ships and a full Northern Hemisphere summer ban is implemented. The sweltering conditions and extreme heat that animals are subjected to are only going to get much worse as the climate crisis exacerbates and temperatures soar. I hope the government and crossbench will support these amendments. The Greens wholeheartedly support this bill.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the legislation before us, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. This debate has been with me for two decades now. I was in the state parliament of Western Australia with the agriculture minister the Hon. Kim Chance, who was involved in these debates some two decades ago. I have the Hansard from August 2003. Frankly, it's interesting how little the key issues in this debate have changed. He called out the fact that someone in the reporting was not telling the truth. He raised the allegations that had been made about the evidence and the way it was put together for the 60 Minutes report at the time. He said he wouldn't build on those rumours, but he said, 'I hope someone is seeking the facts of the matter.' What was revealed were the extraordinarily high levels of sheep deaths at sea at that time.

I sat on the petitions committee of the WA Legislative Council that looked at the issues way back in 2002. We looked at the Commonwealth and state jurisdictions. We looked at the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act 2002. We looked at actions that the state government could take. We also looked at concerns that the live sheep trade was undermining the more lucrative job-creating processed meat trade. The simple fact is that, in the two decades since that time, the live sheep trade from Western Australia has declined, and processed meat exports from Western Australia and the rest of the country have climbed dramatically.

I'll concede that there will be, frankly, new policy issues that come to the fore that will revisit some other policy debates that we might have had in this place from some time ago, like the fact that our processed meat gets overseas on flights from right around the country, which, for example, would bring to the fore what role Qatar Airways might have in the future in the export of processed meat from Western Australia. These are the kinds of policy issues that I contend will be part of these considerations in the future.

Today I received a text message from a friend of mine who is a wheat and sheep farmer. He said, 'Not every farmer thinks banning live sheep is the wrong way to go.' He's not the only farmer in Western Australia I have spoken to personally from different farming regions around the state who is of that opinion. When you look at the trajectory of the industry, it's little wonder that they think that. They want to see a modernised sheep industry, wool industry and meat-processing industry in Western Australia. These debates have, in their view, gone on for far too long. And in that time too many people have found themselves more and more on the margins of the debate, when actually, as the report from the taskforce reveals, we just want to get on with working with these communities, growing their employment opportunities and improving the viability of the sheep industries in Western Australia.

The simple truth is that, unlike other states, which don't export live sheep, Western Australia has to some extent had its head in the sand on where we're at on this issue, because no other state has this level of dependence on live sheep. But actually it's wrong of me to say 'this level of dependence', because, frankly, Western Australia's sheep and farming industry is not dependent on the live sheep trade—far from it. We know that in 2021-22 the WA flock was 12.4 million head, which was 50 per cent lower than in the early 2000s and dramatically lower than at its peak of 38 million head in 1990.

These are the very time periods I have been talking about. This reduction in sheep numbers occurred long before many of the current live export animal welfare requirements were introduced. Merino sheep make up some 80 per cent of the state's flock, with the remainder being meat-specific breeds, such as the dorper. Our sheep flock has evolved over the past two decades, with more lambs and few wethers, largely in response to the growing demand for lamb to process as sheepmeat. If you look at the industry figures—it's got very little to do with the kind of debate and the legislation that's before us tonight—these numbers really reflect the rise of sheepmeat exports and the drop in live exports across Western Australia.

I support the new jobs that will be in these industries, including meat processing. The Australian meatworkers union has said that, regardless of whether sheep are exported live or processed locally onshore, all the jobs in the supply chain up until that point remain the same. The only difference is that if the truck turns right to the port the live export sheep are loaded with a handful of stockmen, and an Australian vet accompanies them on their journey, but if the truck turns left and takes those animals to a processing facility it will employ some 500 to 800 people directly and many more in the industry.

Other evidence the taskforce heard was that major processors across Western Australia feel confident that they can expand operations and pick up any available animals because of the end of live exports. Roger Fletcher from Fletcher International Exports, which has a processing facility in Albany, has said that the number of live sheep sent overseas every year could be processed in Australia in four days. Fletcher International Exports and local processor WAMMCO have said that their processing facilities over the next couple of years could be used to deal with increased demand.

So let's take a look at the facts in the context of this debate tonight. The live sheep export industry has been in decline for many years. It's shrunk from $415 million in 2002-03, the time that I was just speaking of at the beginning of my remarks, to just $77 million this financial year. Those figures are but a tiny fraction of our overall sheep industry, let alone animal industries in Australia. Over that same period, demand for processed sheepmeat both here and overseas has been rapidly expanding, and we have an enormous opportunity, with the package before us in the parliament tonight, to take our government's commitment, a commitment of $107 million that can now be used to realise growing export market opportunities and growing job opportunities for regional communities around Western Australia. Four point five billion dollars worth of sheepmeat was exported from Australia last year, with our domestic sheepmeat market being worth $3.5 billion. Overall, that's $8 billion, with only $77 million of that in live sheep exports.

Now, with $107 million on the table in our package for Western Australia to build new processing facilities and to work with local industries, we can grow the viability of our farming and sheep industries even more. There's a strong future for the WA sheep industry with more sheepmeat processing creating hundreds of local jobs, a greater benefit to our local economy. We've done the work, and now it's time to get this funding moving and start growing Western Australian jobs.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak, but against the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. I have to say that the irony about the last speaker, Senator Pratt, is that, while she is Western Australian, she is—let's make it very clear—a Labor Western Australian senator standing here in this chamber proudly supporting a bill brought forward by Mr Albanese, the Labor Prime Minister of this country, that will go through this chamber tonight under a guillotine. What an insult to the people in this industry! But, talking about the creation of jobs, I'm a little confused, because when I look at this bill I see that this bill is not about creating jobs. This bill we are debating tonight is about closing down an industry in Western Australia. Quite frankly, Mr Albanese, what an insult this bill is to all Western Australians!

The good news is, though, that we are now less than 12 months from a federal election. In fact, this time next year, Australians will have a new government. So any Western Australian who wants to stand up for Western Australia, is a proud Western Australian and is going to support the sheep industry in Western Australia has a black-and-white decision at the next election. It's going to be there when you get your ballot paper. If you vote for Labor, you vote for the death of the sheep industry in Western Australia. If you vote for the Australian Greens, you also vote for the death of the sheep industry in Western Australia. But, if you vote for the coalition, you vote for a vibrant sheep industry and a vibrant export industry in Western Australia.

What the Albanese government fails to recognise is that the sheep industry has been the backbone of rural towns for over 100 years. It is something that we in Western Australia are so proud of, and it is something that under the Albanese Labor government will soon disappear. But, to add insult to injury, they don't even have the courage to take this bill through the Senate chamber in the normal course of events. That would be to list the bill for debate, to have many people speak on this bill, whether for or against, in this chamber—there are plenty who will be speaking against it—and to then allow a fulsome committee stage so that we are properly able to interrogate the scientific basis for the bringing forward of this legislation, because, as we know, there is no scientific basis for the bringing forward of this legislation, and to work through why such a paltry package has been provided to the industry. Quite frankly, Senator Pratt spoke in glowing terms of the package that has been provided to the industry. What an absolute insult. It clearly shows she has no idea what is going on in Western Australia. Worse than that, as a Western Australian Labor senator, she has shown ignorance tonight in terms of the impact of the closure and the impact of the paltry package that has been provided by the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Albanese.

There are some very basic questions that need to be answered by the Prime Minister in relation to turning his back on Western Australia. Firstly, with this legislation, why do you hate WA farmers so much? Secondly, with this legislation, why are you turning your back on the people of Western Australia? Thirdly, why are you ignoring the tens of thousands of people—in fact, it is now up to 60,000 who have signed the Keep the Sheep petition, and the numbers continue to grow—begging you, Prime Minister, to listen to them?

I acknowledge tonight the presence in the Senate chamber of, all the way from Western Australia, representatives from Keep the Sheep. I apologise on behalf of, in particular, federal Liberal and coalition WA senators for the way that this government is treating you, but, more than that, the insult they are giving you and your industry tonight by not even having the courage to properly debate this in the chamber. We will tonight guillotine this bill, along with a whole lot of others, at 10 pm. The Labor Party don't even have the guts to have a proper committee debate because they know they have no answer to the questions that Western Australians want answered on this bill.

Here's the real kicker in relation to Prime Minister Albanese. This is the question he needs to answer: when Mr Albanese was recently on Western Australian radio, why did he mock the name of this grassroots organisation in Western Australia, Keep the Sheep? As a Western Australian Liberal senator who backs our farmers, our truckies, the industry, the shearers and those who quite frankly keep our state going on a daily basis, let me tell you why it's called Keep the Sheep. It's about keeping the live sheep industry in Western Australia. It is about standing up for the industry which, tonight, along with the Australian Greens you will destroy—and remember, at the next election you also get to say no to the Australian Greens in Western Australia. Despite Mr Albanese mocking its name on Western Australian radio, what Mr Albanese fails to understand is that this is a grassroots campaign. These are mums and dads across Western Australia, and they are the most powerful campaigns. When mums and dads unite, with 60,000 people already signing the petition, it is going to get bigger and bigger in the lead-up to the election. You know this is a campaign that is bigger than politics. Why? Because this campaign is about real people's lives, it is about real people's livelihoods and it is about the fact that a Labor government under Mr Albanese is tonight prepared to vote without a fulsome debate and without a fulsome committee stage to literally end it.

So, Mr Albanese, despite the contempt that you have shown for the Keep the Sheep campaign, the grassroots campaign in WA that currently has over 60,000 signatures, I want to remind you again what this is all about. It is about real people's lives, people who just get up every day and do what we ask them to do. They go to work, undertake their business and then go home at night. They're just good people. It's about keeping the WA truckies on the road. It's about keeping the WA shearers on the tools. It's about keeping the vets in the communities. But more than that, it is about keeping WA communities alive.

In that respect, I want to quote from what the president of the Western Australian Shearing Industry Association said in his opening statement to the House of Representatives inquiry, because it really summed up what this is all about and, more than that, what the local impact is on the ground in Western Australia. He said:

I fear for our local communities. I'm a shearing contractor in a small town of 500 people. I employ 30 staff. I provide housing and meals, so I also employ a cook. I have a payroll of over $2 million … I spend over $100,000 a year in my local IGA. I spend $50,000 on fuel to run my buses and cars … 30 staff spend their money in Lake Grace. They live in the town, with some buying houses … They volunteer and contribute to the community. I'm the largest employer in Lake Grace …

With this legislation, with a vote tonight that will take place under a guillotine, Mr Albanese, federal Labor members from Western Australia—Labor members of the House of Representatives from Western Australia and Labor members of the Senate from Western Australia—and members of the Greens in the Senate from Western Australia are tonight prepared to destroy all of this. That is the face of federal Labor in Western Australia. And the best that this Prime Minister can do is to make a joke about the name of the grassroots campaign.

What is worse is that the so-called transition package is $107 million. As I said, it is a paltry sum on any basis, but it would have been nice tonight to interrogate the basis of the $107 million and find out what they honestly think they're going to get for the $107 million. Let me tell you what it totally underestimates. It totally underestimates the mental health fallout that this decision to end an industry, an entire WA agricultural industry sector, will have on the members of WA rural and regional communities. It happens to be a fact. This has been raised time and time again, but the arguments have fallen on deaf ears. No amount of counselling can soften the damage being done to each and every member of the supply chain, who have seen—this is what the government doesn't actually understand—not only their livelihoods ruined but their reputations sullied, leaving them pigeonholed as animal abusers by an animal welfare lobby hell-bent on ending all livestock production and transportation.

What is worse—and, again, something that Mr Albanese, as the Prime Minister of this country, is prepared to turn his back on in Western Australia, something that he is clearly not prepared to understand—is that the timing of this ban on the industry is appalling. The industry have raised that. They get the talking points back from the Prime Minister when they raise an issue, because there are no legitimate answers to justify what the Australian Labor Party will do tonight. But the Prime Minister refuses to acknowledge that the timing of this ban on the industry is appalling, because WA farmers are currently battling the effects of a very dry autumn. But, again, that means nothing to Mr Albanese.

The coalition, as I understand it, has an ironclad commitment that if we are elected to government we will reinstate the live sheep export industry if Labor succeeds in shutting it down. We will stand up for Western Australians and not turn our back on them. Unlike Labor, our clear commitment under Peter Dutton—he stood there with us at the Wagin Woolorama and stated this—is that under a future coalition government this trade has a bright and promising future. He made it clear that a Peter Dutton led government will always stand shoulder to shoulder with our farmers, our producers and our exporters. As I said, there is a very clear decision at the next election, in Western Australia in particular, on this issue: a vote for Liberal is a vote for the industry; a vote for Labor is a vote against. It's black and white.

Before my time ends, I move my second reading amendment:

Omit all words after "That", substitute "the Senate notes that this legislation, in banning the export of live sheep, is a clear demonstration that Prime Minister Albanese and Western Australian Federal Labor members and senators are turning their backs on the shearers, the truck drivers, the fodder suppliers, the livestock agents, the farmers, the producers and their families—whose livelihoods depend on a vibrant sheep export industry".

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the controversy of the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, it's disappointing that there has not been a Senate inquiry into this bill. This is something I have consistently supported as a good mark of process and as a way to hear from people who will be affected by this ban. I acknowledge consultation that occurred as part of an independent panel and that there was a short inquiry in the House committee. But the Senate is the house of review, and the committee process is absolutely fundamental to our ability as senators to consider important legislation.

In the absence of an inquiry I would like to thank the industry for their constructive engagement. In particular, I'm grateful for the attendance of representatives of impacted industries at a roundtable I held. While a Senate inquiry would have been more appropriate, your input has been valuable and the way you approached the conversation constructive.

Listening to the industries impacted, there is real concern. Farmers in Western Australia have told me they do not feel heard. They have told me they are concerned about their jobs, their livelihoods, their families and their communities. If this bill passes, the transition must be managed carefully. It must be managed in a way that minimises negative impacts on farmers and communities by providing adequate support and resources for farmers to adapt. Significant investment will be needed in infrastructure and processing facilities and to expand the boxed and sheepmeat export trade and, critically, to address some of the very valid concerns about the lack of competition.

We've seen this play out around the country with the supermarkets, and I implore the government to address the concerns raised by farmers in Western Australia about the lack of competition. I fear that the $107 million transitional package will not be sufficient to properly make the transition and that further commitments will be needed from the Labor government. Despite these concerns, I stand in support of this bill.

Ending live sheep exports resonates deeply with many people of the ACT—not all Canberrans but, from my engagement, the vast majority. I thank the many on both sides of this argument who have engaged with me on this issue. I want to thank them for reaching out, having conversations and putting forward their thoughts, concerns and passionate arguments for ending live sheep exports. It is this democratic engagement and advocacy that has been instrumental in shaping my stance on this issue. In particular, I would like to give a shout-out to Aidan, Madeleine and Ben, students from the ANU who I met with on this issue and who, using their own initiative, have galvanised thousands of Canberrans who support the passing of this bill.

The welfare of animals is a real and serious concern. Historically, there have been significant risks to live sheep exports. One particularly distressing event in 2017 saw 2,400 Australian sheep die from extreme heat stress while being live exported by sea. Such conditions are clearly unacceptable, and I do acknowledge the improvements in the industry to address these concerns. I understand there's been a huge amount of work put into that and the relative change in deaths on journeys. But the issues have not disappeared completely. Earlier this year the MV Bahijah, which had 15,000 sheep on board at the time, was ordered to return to Western Australia. This is a reminder that the trade continues to pose a risk to animal welfare.

I want to reiterate my gratitude to the people of the ACT for their advocacy on this issue. I acknowledge that not everyone agrees with this, but on the whole I believe that Canberrans' voices have been heard, and I'll be voting on their behalf in support of this bill.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. First, I wish to quickly address Senator Pocock, who just spoke on this issue. There will be another chance to send this to inquiry, Senator Pocock. I foreshadow that I will be moving a second reading amendment to once again try to have a proper inquiry into this bill. The communities of Western Australia—including the farmers, the shearers and the truckies—deserve no less. I would encourage not just you, Senator Pocock, but all the crossbenchers to vote to refer this bill to inquiry to give those communities a chance to have their concerns heard.

I was sworn into this place in August 2017, in the same month the Awassi Express incident, as it has come to be called, occurred. But my association with the sheep industry in my home state of Western Australia predates that by a long time. Tonight in this chamber I'm wearing my father's watch. It was my father who transitioned our farming business from cattle to sheep in the late 1970s. From that time—from my early teenage years—we were producers of Merino ewes—a self-replacing flock of Merino ewes of the kind that is such a keystone of the Western Australian agricultural system. The self-replacing Merino flock is in-built diversification in a farming system. It provides wool from the ewe. From the ewe you also get prime lamb, which is more often than not slaughtered for the domestic market. But then, for some producers and in some seasonal conditions, it also provides the chance to hold older, less heavy sheep through for the export market.

The Western Australian seasonal conditions relied on that safety valve of the export market. We were a small producer of prime lambs and, whenever we could, we sold prime lambs, because the dollar value was higher. But occasionally, every three or four years, we would have carryover stock. I can remember one thing very clearly from my teenage years and in my 20s when we went to the markets, then at Boyup Brook: if the trade was there, Dad was happy, because if the trade was there, you knew you were going to get a fair price for your sheep. If the export trade was not there, you knew prices were going to be low. If it was only the abattoirs competing for lighter stock and perhaps some of the farmers, you knew prices were going to be low.

The domestic abattoir system in Western Australia will not replace live exports. Anyone who says it will is lying to you. It cannot replace live exports because of seasonal conditions. It cannot replace them because when Western Australia turns off its stock as a result of this policy the flock will shrink in WA. All those effects that we've heard about from earlier speakers—the shrinking of country towns and the elimination of whole industry segments—will take place.

The wool industry, reliant as it is on shearers, is based on this idea of the self-replacing merino flock. That is why we have a wool industry in Western Australia. That's why in the 1960s we were able to ride on the sheep's back. What you are ripping out of communities is that in-built economic diversification, that in-built economic support of communities through the presence of shearing teams, of truck drivers and of support services to the sheep industry that so many towns across the wheat belt of Western Australia rely on. It's like a complex web of interactions: if you cut one strand, everything else will move and shift, and many, many people will suffer. These towns are built on the presence of their truckie buying fuel from the local station, on the shearing team buying food from the IGA, buying fuel from the local petrol station and employing people in the town, and on those people then spending their wages in the town.

Let's go back to 2017 to the month I became a senator—the month that the Awassi Express incident happened. The industry was shocked. The farming community was shocked. There is no doubt about that. The Australian people were shocked. But they should have been even more appalled and shocked by the information that has come to light subsequently that very clearly shows a pattern from the animal activists who set out to destroy this industry. In a statutory declaration from Lyn White, the head of Animals Australia, which has been cited in numerous media articles, there is a clear long pattern of communication with the deckhand involved with the Awassi Express incident. Even though Animals Australia denied that they paid for that footage, there is very clear evidence contained in this statutory declaration that not only did they pay for that footage but they set an expectation of the sort of footage they wanted to see.

I will quote from this statutory declaration. These are Lyn White's own words: 'I asked Mr Ullah whether he had filmed or photographed any of the issues that were of concern to him. He advised me that he had copied some of the photographs and videos from the ship's computer but hadn't thought to take photos himself of the issues that concerned him.' Lyn White went on to say: 'My assessment was that Mr Ullah had not secured the visual evidence needed to support his stated concerns. I had no reason to doubt his firsthand, detailed descriptions of events and issues that concerned him.'

The statutory declaration goes on to set out a long chain of communication by which payments were agreed in return for footage. It is couched in terms of 'payment for the risks he was taking'. But it is very clear that this was cash for cruelty. Mr Ullah, the shiphand concerned, was earning something like US$350 per week. And what are the sums that Lyn White, the head of Animals Australia, describes as being transferred to him, a poor deckhand earning a few hundred US dollars a week? I quote: 'Over the nine months between June 2017 and February 2018, documenting evidence across six Australian shipments, Mr Ullah received US$26,000.' Cash for cruelty! A few pages down and there's another payment totalling $38,000—cash for cruelty! The most shocking thing is that these documents are in the possession of the department of agriculture and nothing has been done about it.

I have another statutory declaration from Mahmood Raza Mazher, another shiphand onboard the Awassi Express. He was a shiphand of the whistleblower. I will quote from his statutory declaration as well. It reads: 'I met Fazal Ullah at the Maritime Academy in 2012. The normal wage for a deck cadet is US$350 per month'—so I misspoke; it was $US350 not a week but per month—'with an additional $50 payable at the end of each voyage.' Mr Mazher goes on to talk about the fact that he was very close friends with this whistleblower, Mr Ullah. He also goes on to talk about how Fazal Ullah was considered to be a poor seaman and how he was in trouble. In fact, he was caught hitting cattle with a stick, so the management company refused him a new contract aboard that ship. He then tried to get his shipmate to procure footage in the same way. I think the key paragraph from this statutory declaration from a fellow deckhand of the whistleblower is this: 'I cannot prove that Fazal Ullah shut off the ventilation system on the ship, but it is my suspicion that is what he did. This is because in similarly hot conditions I did not observe the type of panting and distress that Fazal was able to capture.' It was on Mr Ullah's deck that those sheep died after receiving tens of thousands of dollars from Animals Australia—cash for cruelty.

On the back of this, Labor and the Greens, in an alliance, are shutting down this vital trade for Western Australia, shutting down this important part of the Western Australian agricultural system. It's a system that delivers protein in a highly efficient, highly humane manner, with the highest animal welfare standards in the world. Exiting the market will actually make animal welfare standards fall internationally. It will make animals worse off. It will make communities in my home state of Western Australia worse off. It ignores every skerrick of science, every skerrick of evidence and everything the industry has done to improve over the last 30 years, all on the back of cash for cruelty.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 is intending to end an industry which is based on cash for cruelty—the live sheep export industry. It seeks to amend the Export Control Act to prohibit the export of live sheep by sea on or after 1 May 2028, and that will not be before time. I want to commend the government and those who have worked to bring about this bill, including the countless people from the agricultural industries and the sheep industry, animal activists and millions of ordinary Australians who joined together to not only end the live sheep trade but come up with a comprehensive transition plan for the tiny portion of the industry that is still involved in live sheep exports. It is an example of how you end an industry whose time has come because the values we reflect upon now are not reflected in the industry. It is an example of how you end an industry seen as exploitative and inappropriate. You do so in a way that provides a transition package, a transition scheme, so that the workers in the industry—and that is a very, very small part of the sheep industry—have a future and can transition out of that industry. I think the bill gets that right.

Why are we doing this? We're doing this now because, since the start of the live sheep trade, it's involved extraordinary cruelty to the animals that have been conveyed on these ships which are intrinsically dangerous and cruel to the animals that are conveyed on them. We could look back to pretty much the start of the industry in 1966, when I think more than 60,000 sheep died aboard the Unceb in conditions that are too horrifying to imagine. It continued in the 1980s. We can look at just the last decade. In 2014, 4,000 sheep died on the BADER III in appalling conditions—prolonged heat stress and dehydration. They died after days and days of suffering. Three thousand sheep died in 2017 aboard the Al Messilah and 2,400 died on the Awassi Express. We have seen some images of that and the incredible cruelty and conditions in which those sheep perished. Again, that was over days and days of appalling cruelty, dehydration and extreme heat. No sentient animal should be consciously exposed to that kind of suffering, particularly not on an industrial scale.

More recently, just in January of this year, there were some 16,500 sheep that were left sweltering through an appalling heatwave off the Western Australian coast on the MV Bahijah. That's the same ship that, just in 2018, subjected some 9,000 sheep and more than 3,500 cattle to torturous heat over eight days. In January of this year, again we saw sheep being put on that ship for weeks and weeks and being sent to a conflict zone. It was known that their welfare would likely be seriously prejudiced, and it happened as you could have predicted it: torturous conditions on the ship again in January this year. We know that that kind of torture is intrinsic in the industry, and that's why I'm glad to see the live sheep trade ended.

I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague Senator Faruqi, who in her time in this chamber has been absolutely consistent in her work standing up for animals. It's in part a testament to her work and that of her office that we're here. I want to acknowledge the work of a former Greens senator, Lee Rhiannon, a friend and colleague of mine, who also worked throughout her political career, including in this place, to end live sheep exports. I want to commend the work of organisations like Animals Australia and the millions and millions of Australians who support animal welfare to end this kind of grossly unnecessary industrial cruelty towards animals. Of course, I commend the work of academics such as Jed Goodfellow and his team, who have been making the case—the clear legal and ethical case—for well over a decade to end this cruel industry.

I would note some of the work of former senator Lee Rhiannon, who worked with the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union around the country. Their members not only lose work when sheep are exported live; they understand as well that, with live sheep export, they see the same sheep that they seek to deal with in as prompt and humane a process as possible in their industry being exposed to weeks and weeks of cruelty and torture, and they don't want that to happen. They acknowledge as well there are far more jobs locally if you end the live sheep trade and then we deal with the animals here, with the work and the industry that would be involved for members of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. They acknowledge that this is really exporting jobs as well as cruelty.

So we come to this point in history. Surely we could look at the arc of history and see industries like the whaling industry, which, thank goodness, we've ended in Australia because of the inherent cruelty of it. We can see other industries that have been inherently cruel, and time has moved on and we've finally ended them. It's now clear that we will end the live sheep export trade.

It's hard to quite comprehend why the coalition is so committed to this one small, cruel aspect of an industry, which, with its continuation, reduces the reputation of the entire sheep industry. While ever it's associated with this kind of industrial-level cruelty and torture, that's bad for the broader sheep industry in Australia. It's hard to understand how the coalition haven't joined one and one together and made two and realised this tiny fraction of the industry, through exposing sentient animals to this industrial-scale, unnecessary cruelty, is also damaging to the reputation of the broader sheep industry in Australia. But it seems that the coalition can't lift their eyes above a narrow, short political moment. They seem to want to continue this kind of reputational damage to the sheep industry. Well, more shame on them for doing that.

It's time the industry ended. Yes, we should export protein to rest of the world, but there are plenty of options for exporting protein and our amazing agricultural produce other than relying upon an industry that, at its core, practises industrial cruelty. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) | Link to this | Hansard source

As I rise, I want to foreshadow, on behalf of Senator McKenzie, her amendment on sheet 2695 to the motion for the second reading of the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. I want to address this ridiculous move by the Albanese government. Since the government came to power, we have seen endless examples, small and large, of how those on the other side have no understanding of Australia's pastoral history, no understanding of regional Australia and no understanding of its contribution to the standard of living we have in Australia today. If you recall, on his election the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, said that his desire was to unite Australia, that no-one would be left behind and that no-one would be held back. But, for many living outside our capital cities, that's exactly how we feel. That is an election promise that the Prime Minister has absolutely failed to keep, just like so many other promises.

In regional Australia we have seen infrastructure funds absolutely ripped away and we've seen the decimation of the ag visa scheme and the refusal—week on, week off; month on, month off; and almost year to year—to allow the parliament to scrutinise the impact and economic consequences of 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines, and that's not to mention the wind turbines, including the offshore wind turbines, and the race to renewables and its impact not only on regional Australia but also on your power bills. They have completely decided not to listen to regional Australia.

I remind everyone that, in 2011, it was the Labor government that decided to kill off the live cattle export industry virtually overnight without warning, causing untold havoc across much of northern Australia's cattle industry. Rightly, the Federal Court found that ban invalid. Yet today this Labor government is still refusing to settle the claim and pay out the industry, an industry that is still struggling with the trauma caused by that ban. Today it's the live sheep industry that's in the crosshairs, because this government has decided that that industry will be banned from May 2028.

The government suggested that because it's an industry in decline it can be easily replaced by onshore processing and frozen meat exports. They claim it's an industry that's historically cruel, with unacceptable deaths, but they're completely ignoring the significant animal welfare standards that we put in place after the dreadful events of 2017 and 2018. They also say, 'But we promised it at the last election.' Well, this is clearly one of the only election commitments that this government is going to keep. Shall we talk about the election commitment that they would not tax anyone's superannuation? That was a commitment that Labor could not wait to break. How about their promise to lower inflation and ease the cost-of-living burden, or that wonderful election promise that Labor made on 97 separate occasions to reduce your power bills by $275 per year? We know that was a promise they couldn't keep.

They are promises worth breaking, according to this government. But somehow listening to the concerns of an industry, of regional communities and of their own Labor government in Western Australia, and admitting that on this election commitment you actually got it wrong is clearly not in Labor's DNA. Would it have been had it not been for the unexpected Dunkley by-election, which tied their hands? We've seen all over socials that the real reason for this industry being shut down is not just that it was a federal election commitment but that it was a promise in return for preferences from the Animal Justice Party to buy their votes. Maybe I'm being a little facetious. Maybe it is, as Senator Shoebridge has claimed tonight, because of the hard work of the Greens that we are seeing the death of a whole industry in Western Australia.

It is suggested that the cessation of the live sheep export trade will mean onshore processing jobs for Australians. I think the opposite is the more likely scenario, because, while the live export market only represents a very small portion of the total market, what it also represents is flexibility and choice for our sheep producers. The market for live export of culled sheep provides an economic floor for producers who would otherwise lose that source of on-farm income. There is very little demand in Australia for mutton, although may I recommend it to anyone watching on at home because it is a very tasty meat. When seasonal conditions demand reduced numbers, the alternative offshore market is highly valued.

We've got to remember that Labor is saying that we'll just sell more boxed meat overseas—by some miracle—but that is not the case. We know—and we've seen it in the past—when our industry is closed, in the countries where, for cultural or religious reasons as well as for reasons of lacking proper infrastructure such as chilling facilities, fresh killed meat is in high demand and preferable, frozen and chilled meat will never entirely replace that live market. We know, when our industry is closed, these countries won't come knocking on our door for chilled or frozen boxed meat. No. They will seek live sheep and go knocking on the door of Brazil or Argentina or South Africa—countries that don't have the same stringent animal welfare requirements that we have from farm gate all the way to the abattoirs overseas. We have very strong animal welfare requirements. What we will see is the reverse of what the Greens are claiming this bill will result in. We will see lower animal welfare standards across the world. At the same time, we will see a negative impact on our industry.

Despite the minister promising through Senate estimates a Senate inquiry, we had the somewhat farcical, truncated House of Representatives inquiry which went for just over two weeks with only two public hearings. There was not enough time to go through the more than 1,300 submissions that were received—many coming from farmers and people directly impacted by what this cut will mean. RSM, a noted accountancy firm with over 2,000 farming clients in regional Western Australia, submitted to that inquiry:

Government has a responsibility to ensure that no Australian is worse off or left behind. However, should this policy be implemented, we believe this is what will occur for thousands of Australians in Western Australia.

We've also seen Xavier Martin, the president of NSW Farmers, join an industry walkout on the minister over this issue at a National Press Club function. Mr Martin said:

Live sheep exports by sea from Western Australia have a positive effect on the sheep industry, including markets in New South Wales and … phasing out exports of live sheep by sea will have negative flow-on impacts to producers across Australia …

As I live on a merino and commercial sheep property, I share from the east coast the concerns of what the impact of shutting down live sheep export from Western Australia will have. Marleys Transport, located in the Hope Valley in Western Australia, transports animal feed for live export ships and said that the end of the industry will mean a loss of approximately $700,000 per year. Another truckie, Ben Sutherland, said just today on Sky News that he will lose about 30 per cent of his bottom line. He made the point that it doesn't just hit him. It hits his family. It hits his footy club. It hits the IGA. It hits the whole community.

But we know Labor don't care about regional communities, because we've seen it. The very same arguments have been made time and time again, with the cuts to water through the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and through this government's rush to buybacks, because this government takes a simplistic approach to many issues that face regional Australia. Rather than actually doing the hard work of finding out what regional Australia needs and what it can do to support industry to build economic viability in the regions, this government says, 'Just cut it. Just cut the water. Just cut live sheep export.'

They hide behind outdated data and anecdotes, yet they don't apply the same concern to the data and anecdotes about windmills and the damage they have on native birds or ocean wind factories and what damage they may have on migrating whale species. They remain silent on the data that shows hundreds of hectares of native land being cleared for windmills, irrespective of whether it's koala habitat or whether there will be other loss of biodiversity. They don't have the same reliance on that data. It is no secret that, after this, their next target will be live beef export and the many other animal husbandry industries across regional Australia, because that's the dirty deal that they've done in siding more with the Animal Justice Party and the Greens than with the people in regional Australia.

The dissenting report to the House of Representatives inquiry set out very clearly the importance of this industry and called the legislation 'an unwarranted intervention by a poorly informed government'. It highlighted the comprehensive animal welfare standards. Despite this, this government continues to insult sheep producers and the whole industry by claiming they are cruel. I've not met a sheep farmer who lives up to that terminology. This government cannot help kicking regional and rural Australia. We, as do most thinking Australians, maintain that good agricultural policy must be driven by science, facts and solid evidence, not by extreme activist agendas. We must see this legislation defeated.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Keep the sheep! Keep humans! We need to stop this live export ban. There are no grounds for it. We've seen a truncated, sham inquiry. The Labor Party has not gone out and listened. They're just pushing the Greens ideology to get the Greens voters' preferences in inner-city electorates. What about the effect on the human environment: the devastation to local communities and to people overseas who need food and good animal protein?

The Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 amends the Export Control Act 2020 to prohibit the export of live sheep by sea from Australia on 1 May 2028. The bill also includes money to paper over the cracks—the devastation that this measure will cause to rural and regional communities—for a limited period. That money is going to be made available only under severe limits. One would have thought that providing that money anyway, to assist in an orderly transition in a suitable timeframe, would have made more sense. Then, again, sense has no place in the feelings driven policy development from the Albanese Labor government—political, not economic—regardless of the impact on humans.

As it stands, the $107 million fund is little compensation for an industry that generates $120 million a year directly and hundreds of millions more in flow-on effects to rural communities. Of the money, $60 million will be used to lay the groundwork for the next round of the government's plan, which is to eliminate live cattle exports. Specifically, the mechanism is the specious animal welfare argument, including welfare of animals in transport. Sheep and cattle welfare during transport will be used as an excuse to limit the movement of animals.

Who benefits substantially from that trade? It's not the Aboriginal communities in remote areas of Australia who currently support themselves raising cattle and then need to transport their cattle a long distance to get them to market. This transport welfare measure will remove the opportunity for Aboriginal communities to support themselves, in turn making those communities reliant—dependent—on government handouts. Aboriginal communities are heavily represented in red meat production. In areas of Western Australia, they will be devastated by the loss of this trade. The industry is attracting homeless from the cities, coming bush in search of work and accommodation.

What a high price everyday Australians in rural areas are paying for the dirty deal from the Labor government for preferences from animal welfare groups and the Greens. Labor can't, and doesn't, deny this dirty deal. The announcement of Labor's policy on live animal exports came not from Labor but from one of the animal welfare groups. This bill lets city activists pat themselves on the back while ignoring the animal and human suffering caused by this ill-informed and poorly consulted bill resulting from a sham, partial inquiry that didn't consult everyone.

While the government talks about the bill being a product of consultation, the process was one of working backward from the desired outcome: how can we be seen to get this outcome? The correct process, according to the Office of Impact Analysis, is to conduct 'meaningful consultation that considers the views of affected stakeholders'. That's not what happened. As I said, it was a sham inquiry in the lower house. The National Farmers Federation submitted to the committee that they had to fight each step of the way for producers to have a fair hearing with the independent panel. The National Farmers Federation saw the industry's advice to the panel go unheeded in the final report. What was the point?

Then we saw the minister go even further, rejecting key elements of the panel's advice and adopting even more radical ideas than the panel itself had recommended. Welcome to government under the Labor Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese MP! Ideology and dodgy preference deals with ill-informed fanatics is how the Labor Party rolls. To hell with the human devastation! Look good; don't do good.

The entire consultation and parliamentary process is a mockery of due process. It's an indictment of those in this chamber who go along with this sham for reasons that escape me. The Greens, of course, want to cause more hardship among the red meat industry with their amendment from Senator Faruqi, which, if successful, would bring implementation of this bill forward to 2026. I'll bet that's the deal done between the Greens and the Labor Party: to bring it forward to 2026 and set immediate limits to export.

Sheep have a five-month gestation and need to grow for seven months before export. This means that sheep that are under gestation now will not be able to be exported under the Greens amendment unless markets can be found at the last minute. The parent animals were bred specifically for the export trade, and these will be bound for the abattoir. Meat contracts are let out years ahead because of the breeding cycle, so the sale of these animals is not likely. In fact, the cull has already started, with prices as low as 50c a kilogram through the saleyards in Western Australia, and many lots are unsold, causing farmers to leave unsold animals at the saleyards for euthanasia. Perhaps city senators like Senator Faruqi and Senator Tyrrell, who is in support, can come over to Western Australia, help with the cull, look these farmers in the eye and look these sheep in the eye.

The idea that this bill and the Greens amendment is predicated on humane treatment of animals is Orwellian doublespeak. It will have the reverse effect. Rural communities are being hollowed out as a result of the policies of the Labor-Greens government. The endgame is to move protein consumption to lab-grown meat owned by Prime Minister Albanese's friends Bill Gates and BlackRock's Larry Fink, whom the Prime Minister has met with during this parliamentary term. Farmers have no place in the Labor-Greens vision of a dystopian world of fake meats and fake food. This bill denies the truth that live sheep exports suffer a loss of life at exactly the same levels as animals in the field, if not better. The object of this bill is not the welfare of animals; it's an ideological objection to a diet that includes red meat—ideology over humanity. And what of the land currently under grazing? Well, I'm sure the climate carpetbaggers are already out in the bush measuring up for solar panels. Beautiful countryside will be covered in silicon cancer, and somehow this is environmentally friendly? The Labor-Greens government is not fit to govern.

I want to pass on some personal thoughts from Senator Pauline Hanson, who was in Western Australia recently to listen. The farmers spontaneously invited her to speak off the back of a truck. As Pauline does and as I do, she did so. The farmers mentioned the independent study that was done—no deaths on ships. Of course, other senators have mentioned the MV Awassi Express, on which was perpetrated the cash-for-cruelty scam: hundreds of thousands of dollars apparently paid to a foreign stockman from a developing nation to treat animals cruelly, to kill an industry—and that's what Labor did. They fell for it, killing an industry. The damage to farmers, communities and the nation is already done. There are 100,000 sheep especially bred for the live export overseas market and not suitable for the local market, as I've said. The market for live sheep is already down because overseas buyers are looking elsewhere. They know what's coming from this government. They've seen the socialists operating, and they're seeking other suppliers. It hurts farmers across the whole of Australia, because, for example, Tasmanian sheep farmers are sending sheep to WA to make up shipments.

Remember the Gillard Labor government's cattle export ban? It belted the whole of Australia's beef grazing industry—the whole country. It had effects everywhere, because of the flow-on. Farmers told Senator Hanson in Western Australia recently, 'We'll have to shoot the animals we especially bred.' She told me about the look in their eyes—shattered by the waste of the animals they cared for. Communities over there are worried about farmers' mental health. If the government has any humanity, it won't force the farmers to shoot their own animals; the government can kill the sheep.

Here's a question for government. The European Union is the world's biggest exporter of sheep, not Australia. What free trade agreements has Australia signed with the European Union? Has this Albanese Labor government done an agreement with the European Union? We've all seen so-called free trade. It's not fair trade at all. It hurts our country. We've seen that from both sides of the uniparty, Labor and the Liberal-Nationals. As I've said, the real reason for shutting down this export industry is to get Greens' votes and preferences in inner-city eastern electorates.

I want to talk briefly about why I'm very pro human, and I've spoken about it many times. I need to counter 80 years of anti-human propaganda, especially that of the last 60 years since the Club of Rome got into bed together with the United Nations and then the World Economic Forum, all to control people, to control property and to transfer wealth. There are three or four main assumptions that this anti-human campaign propagates. Firstly, they say humans don't care. We'll talk about that in a minute. They say we're greedy, rapacious, uncaring and irresponsible—we just don't care.

Secondly, they say humans are destroying our planet when, in fact, the reverse is true. They say civilisation is the environment's enemy. They say civilisation and the environment are mutually exclusive. I'll address that in a minute. They say civilisation and the environment are incompatible, so we need to cease development—because that's what they want: they want to stop human development. Senior leaders of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, including the late Maurice Strong, have said that. They want to deindustrialise Western civilisation. They say our duty is to protect our planet. They say nothing about humans. They imply that humans need to be sacrificed for that.

Here's the reality to counter 80 years of bull. These are observations. Everyone in this chamber right now and everyone watching on TV is here because someone cared. When a foal is born to a mare, it pops out of the mare, struggles for about 20 minutes and then starts cantering and put its head down and starts grazing with the herd. When every one of us, as humans, was born, we were completely helpless. The fact that anyone is in this room or watching means they are alive and that they were cared for. We are completely helpless for a number of years. Whether our parents were good or bad or whatever, the fact that you exist means that humans care. Humans care, and they're based on care. The most caring humans got to propagate.

Here's the second thing. Visit any country in the world and you'll see that developed continents have a lower impact on the environment than the undeveloped continents. For example, a person in a remote, undeveloped area of Africa will defecate in the creek because he or she is too busy scrounging for their child's next meal. Yet what we do is mine black rock called coal and red rock called iron ire, and we make steel, build dams, build water pipelines and get sanitation and water to our communities. Developed nations have less impact on the natural environment. That means human civilisation and the natural environment are mutually dependent. We all know that our civilisation won't have a future if we don't protect the environment. It's also clear that the environment has no future if we don't develop and civilise. That is clear, yet we're told the opposite.

Our duty is to enable humans to flourish. Right throughout history, every generation has taken care of the younger generation and tried to make a better world for its younger generation. When we develop our country and civilise, we actually protect the environment. Our goal is not to protect the environment. Our goal is to protect humans and to civilise—for humans to flourish and civilise. That's why I'm very proud about speaking about our species.

I also want to say that we need to have an aim to restore our country and our planet for humans to abound, thrive and flourish. The goal is for humans to thrive. Farming is essential for civilisation. Farming needs to be protected. Thomas Jefferson said, 'For cities to exist, we need farms; for farms to exist, we don't need cities.' As I mentioned briefly, the objective here is cultured lab meat. That's one of the globalist aims of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. Humans need real meat, animal fat. Who knew that the Greens were helping to sell cancerous cultured meat grown in slop in a bioreactor? People just want to be left alone to get on with their lives and to get the government the hell out of our lives. Humans deserve food here and overseas— (Time expired)

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. I approach this debate tonight with real regret and dismay. There have been a number of issues throughout this term of government that have caused great concern, but there have only been a couple of times where we've stood in here and debated an issue that has particularly affected the people in Western Australia. This is one of those moments.

The other moment that I can think of was the first bill, if my recollection serves me right, that the Albanese government brought into this place: the bill for the abolition of the cashless debit card. That was brought in due to an ideology and to appeal to votes in parts of the country other than those parts where the cashless debit card was in operation. Of course, I'm talking about the electorates of Durack and O'Connor, Grey in South Australia and Hinkler in Queensland. These are all seats that the coalition won, of course, but, due to votes in the inner-city parts of New South Wales and Victoria, in particular, the then opposition were committed to see the repeal of the cashless debit card. I've been to the Goldfields and the Kimberley, and I've seen firsthand the result of the abolition of the CDC. We've seen that these communities are now torn apart.

I raise that to suggest that, right here, where we're debating the removal of the ability for farmers to export their product—the sheep that they have raised—Labor are being led by that same ideology and, indeed, by that same inner-city short-sighted mindset that is all about votes in inner-city seats here on the east coast. Between 80 per cent and 90 per cent, and sometimes close to 100 per cent, of live sheep exports come out of Western Australia, and here we have a situation where this government has, because of interests in other parts of the country, given in and made decisions without any science or knowledge.

We hear the minister say, 'This was an election commitment.' Explain to me why Rick Wilson, the member for O'Connor, won his seat. Why did the member for Durack, Melissa Price, win her seat? Those are two key electorates in Western Australia where the vast majority of these sheep farms are in operation. Why did they win their seats? We know that due to the interests of animal activist parties—like we saw in the Dunkley by-election, where just a couple of per cent was traded off, and sometimes even less than that, to get some preference deals—the Labor Party and Mr Albanese chose to go with those preference deals and those interests rather than engaging with the farmers in Western Australia, where this is going to have the biggest impact. It is a great shame that that is occurring.

Like I said, when we saw the abolition of the cashless debit card, we had the debate here—I've got that same feeling right now: a really empty feeling. It's a real feeling of despair. I feel that as a Western Australian. Imagine how farmers are feeling right now. A few of them have come over here today as a last-ditch effort to try to implore this government to pump the brakes, to stop and to listen, but the government are not doing so. We've seen a guillotine in this debate. For those following along at home, it means that the government has decided that there is not going to be a proper debate in this place. They're going to cut it off in just two hours and say, 'This debate will end, and we'll have a vote.'

I say to the crossbench: this is an opportunity for you to pause and not allow this government to abuse the conventions of this place. Normally, a guillotine is reserved for non-controversial legislation or bills that are absolutely essential to get through in a timely way. Well, this is not one of those. Clearly, it's not. They just want to get this off the books, dealt with and done. They know that in Western Australia this stinks. They know that in Western Australia this issue matters to people, whether they're in the country areas or, indeed, in the city. Western Australians know this trade is vital to the livelihood and the future of farming in Western Australia.

Those who were listening earlier would have heard Senator Brockman deliver his speech. I commend his speech, and I'm pleased to be joined by Senator Brockman, who is right next to me now. Senator Brockman very clearly and articulately laid out the reason why this trade must continue and why it is unique to Western Australia. We hear contributions by those opposite and by those down there among the unicorn farmers, the Greens, who talk about how the rest of the country has moved on from this trade, so let's just bring it on. We heard a contribution earlier from Senator Shoebridge. He said, 'We could see the abolition of this, and one day we'll look back on this as we did the whaling industry and thank God that that's gone.' Senator Brockman outlined how the climate in Western Australia is unique and different to that of the east coast and how that trade enables a quick shrinking of the flock to deal with the pressures that might be on a particular farm or, indeed, across a whole region due to the vagaries of the climate. It enables those producers to sustain their farms and their industry. But they won't be able to do that under this government.

When I first came into this place, my family was a farming family. When I heard about the live sheep exports, there was the Awassi Express incident and there was great concern in the community. So I took it upon myself to see for myself exactly what happens in this industry. I arranged to go to the feedlot in Mundijong, just south of where I live. I met the vet and the people working there. I saw the sheep there. They would go there for a period of time. I think it was about a week. They would get accustomed to the food they were going to have on board the ship. Every animal was checked by a vet. Any animal that had too much wool on it was sheared. It was to make sure that they were suitable and ready to go on that voyage. Then I went to the port at Fremantle, and I went on board one of the ships and saw the ventilation that had been installed. They had gone to great lengths because the government had asked them to. They did everything the government asked to ensure those welfare standards were in place.

We have a situation where these companies, these exporters, have done everything that the government has asked them to do, yet it's not good enough for Mr Albanese. He wants to appeal to inner-city interests, particularly over here on the east coast. Western Australians see straight through this, because they remember the campaign before the last election. They remember the billboards. They remember the corflutes that were up at every polling booth. The Prime Minister, the then opposition leader, Mr Albanese, said, 'Put WA first: vote Labor.' It was on every polling booth. We saw ads on television, saying, 'Put WA first: vote Labor.' They even had the campaign office for the country there in Western Australia. They even held their national campaign launch in Western Australia. Of course, Western Australians did. They voted for them overwhelmingly, particularly in the city. There was no mention of a live sheep export ban. That certainly wasn't mentioned in any of their campaign launches. It wasn't on any of the billboards or on any corflutes plastered around polling booths. But they did say, 'Put WA first: vote Labor.' They are making an absolute mockery of that campaign with this legislation and by guillotining this debate here tonight.

What does it mean to guillotine? It means we're not able to have a committee stage. What is that? That's an important time for this Senate as the house of review to be able to question the minister about the elements and clauses of a bill, and, indeed, we would be able to ask about this support package that is coming. There are lots of questions to be asked. We are hearing from farmers and producers that it's a pittance, that it's not going to meet the need, that it's insufficient to support them in the way they need. They're going to guillotine the debate and at 10 o'clock tonight we're voting. We are not going to have any committee stage on this bill.

Like I said, there have been many moments when I have been disappointed in this government, but there have been a few moments when I have actually had this sick feeling and this sense of exasperation, and that includes right now. That's because this government has turned its back on Western Australia. They are not listening to the people of Western Australia. They're not listening to the farmers, the producers or the families. We are talking about generational farmers. We are talking about producers that have been producing sheep for generations. I was at the Wagin Woolorama, and we saw people come up and sign the petition. There were generations of people that came through. We saw elderly, parents and young people coming and signing this petition not just for themselves but for future generations as well. They know that their livelihood is going to be stolen and taken away by this bill and this government.

There is no-one more responsible for that than the Prime Minister himself. Mr Albanese is responsible for this. He says he's a great friend of Western Australia. All he does, frankly, is land his jet, his Airbus, on the deck in WA, refuel his plane and then jet off again overseas. He counts that as a visit to Western Australia. He counts that as a visit and getting to understand Western Australia. The truth is that he doesn't understand it. Labor are going to pay at the next election. In the new seat of Bullwinkel, guess what's going to happen there? They are going to get slaughtered there and in Tangney. Mr Lim, I hope you're listening. Why don't you stand up for Western Australia and stand up for the people? There are a lot of retirees and a lot of people who own farms that live in that part of the electorate. There is residual support for farmers. It doesn't matter if they're young or old, people love farmers. Guess what? Labor are going to pay for it in all those seats—Pearce, Swan and Hasluck. They have turned their backs on Western Australia.

Kate Chaney, the member for Curtin, was for this bill, but because of the feedback she got out on the ground and no doubt in the polls that she's seen, like I have seen, she knows that this stinks and is going to impact her. So, all of a sudden, she changed her mind and voted against this bill in the House. Why don't Labor senators here in this place do the right thing or, at the very least, support the second reading amendment that's been foreshadowed by Senator Brockman to refer this to a committee? Government, get feedback from farmers, at the very least, about the legitimacy and the efficiency of your support package, because it's not enough. You are going to pay because of your approach.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Finally, after years of campaigning, years of whistleblowing and years of community activism—in fact, after decades of all of those things—we're going to set a date to ban live sheep export, and of course we're going fund a package to help farmers and communities in the transition. Change is constant; that is a condition of humanity, but sensible governments and parliaments acknowledge that we need to change, and we'll help people through those changes and support them through transitions. Whether it's the change we inevitably need to have as we respond to the breakdown of the planet's climate or the change we inevitably need to have to reduce the suffering of animals—which this legislation, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, will do—we need to help people through the transition.

The Greens have for decades campaigned against live animal exports. We've introduced legislation into this place on more than one occasion to ban live exports, and, finally, after voting against it for far too long, the Labor Party is now finally accepting that a ban is necessary, and we acknowledge that. But 2028 is far too far in the future for a ban to happen, and unfortunately tens of thousands of animals will continue to suffer until then. As folks have already heard from other Greens senators in this place, we intend to introduce amendments to ensure that the industry doesn't ramp up exports before the ban and to try our best to protect sheep until that ban comes into place.

The Greens have fought live export for decades, and we've done it for one very simple reason: animals are sentient beings. They deserve to lead a dignified life and they deserve to lead a life free of suffering. What we need to understand is that, whether it be horses, greyhounds or sheep, animals should not be subjected to suffering, torture or a loss of dignity just to underpin somebody's business model. Animals suffer. They feel pain. Animals are aware of their existence. It's on us not just to make decisions that we won't inflict pain and suffering on animals; it's on us to do everything we can to make sure that they can lead a dignified life.

Animals may not have a voice to come into this place and argue for their own rights and their own interests. They may not have a voice to come into this place and argue that they should be treated humanely. They may not have a voice to come into this place and argue that they should have a life free from suffering inflicted by humans for profit. They may not have a voice to argue those things, but that's what the Greens are here to do: to give voice to those arguments.

The history of live export is replete with the most horrendous animal suffering. Major party governments, the establishment parties in this place, have facilitated the live export trade for many decades. They have condemned many, many tens of thousands of animals to horrific deaths, and many hundreds of thousands of innocent sentient animals have been condemned to long periods of suffering. In 1966, 67,000 sheep died on one vessel alone, the Uniceb. In 1980, 40,000 sheep died on another single vessel. In 2003, over 5,000 sheep died on the MV Cormo Express. In 2014, 4,000 sheep died on another vessel. In 2017, 3,000 sheep died on another vessel and, again, on a separate vessel in 2017, another 2,400 animals died.

These are horrendous figures just on their own, but sheer mortality numbers do not tell the story. Live export is a business model for profit built on the suffering of innocent animals—animals that are sentient beings that feel suffering, just like we all do, and that are aware of their existence, just as we are all aware of our existence. Like horses, greyhounds and a whole range of other species, animals that are subjected to the live export trade have suffering deliberately inflicted on them so that some small number of humans can make a profit. It's not acceptable; it's never been acceptable; it never should have been acceptable. This parliament should never have allowed it, and there is shame on everyone—the establishment politicians in particular, who voted for it time after time over the decades when they were given the opportunity to do the right thing.

I can't let my time speaking on this legislation go past without reflecting on Senator O'Sullivan's contribution that we just heard. I've heard some weird and wacky reasons for supporting the live export trade over my time in politics, but Senator O'Sullivan's argument, boiled down, is this: some farmers overstock their farms. They make bad decisions. Then, when it becomes apparent they've overstocked their farms, they need to inflict suffering on animals in order to get them out of the bad decisions they've made, and it's the animals that are going to suffer for the bad decisions that human farmers have made. I know that it would be only a small number of farmers that Senator O'Sullivan is referring to, but, believe me, that's what his argument boiled down to in the end.

Of course, there's never a good reason to torture an animal, and making a dollar is certainly not a good reason to torture an animal. We've seen dozens of reviews, inquiries and reforms on live exports, but the cruelty has continued and, tragically, the cruelty will continue for years, even after this legislation is passed. We know Australians overwhelmingly do not support live export. They do not support it. Poll after poll shows that as many as 85 per cent of Australians do not support live export. I often say, when you hear numbers that high in a poll, that if you polled support for breathing you'd only get 90 per cent. That is pretty much as high as you get in a poll, 85 per cent. But some polls have shown that that is the level of opposition to live export in this country.

The establishment parties have run interference for this cruel, barbaric practice for far too long. The industry has done everything it can to hide the extent of suffering, and Labor and the LNP governments over the decades have enabled that to occur. It's thanks to brave whistleblowers, courageous activists and hundreds of thousands of Australians who have campaigned so hard that an end to this cruelty has been brought about. This vote today will be a vote that's made possible by those people.

I've sat in on a lot of prominent votes in my time in politics. A lot of votes I've made I'm really proud of. But this vote tonight is a vote for the whistleblowers, a vote for the animal rights activists, a vote for the millions of Australians who do not support live exports and ultimately a vote for animals—those beautiful sentient beings that are aware of their surroundings and who have as much right as we do to lead a dignified life free of suffering; it is a vote for those animals. It will be as profound a vote as I have ever participated in during my time in politics. Those animals may not have a voice to come into this place and argue for their rights, but today a majority of this Senate and therefore a majority of the parliament is going to give voice to the voiceless and we're going to do something for them. That, for me, and I'm sure for many other senators, will be a proud moment.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it's about the third or fourth time I've been in this chamber today, and I've said nothing good about Labor, and I won't be saying anything good about Labor in this debate either. Labor and their coalition partners, the Greens, and probably Senators Pocock, Tyrrell and Thorpe, are at war with Australian farmers. The union labour movement has always hated Australian farmers, but in the Albanese government and the extremist Greens, the unions have some especially useful patsies who are happy to attack Australian farmers regardless of the consequences. The war is being fought on several fronts. We are debating live sheep exports now, but let's talk about the other fronts in this war first.

In the Murray-Darling Basin, where 40 per cent of our food is produced, Labor and the Greens have increased the scope of water buybacks, which have already devastated river communities. Labor and the Greens are relishing the opportunity to take more water from irrigators and more jobs and services from communities in the basin. They're engineering the demise of these irrigation industries and the communities they support. Labor's reckless pursuit of its renewables disaster is also a major threat to farmers. Not only does this ongoing trainwreck of a policy cost our farmers in higher electricity prices; the enormous geographic footprint of renewables technology threatens the destruction of productive agricultural land that has been farmed for generations. Climate change ideology has also been the driver of attempts to store waste carbon dioxide in the Great Artesian Basin. This has the potential to contaminate groundwater that is relied upon for almost $13 billion worth of primarily agricultural production.

Perhaps the most dangerous attack on our farmers has come in the form of Labor's appalling industrial relations legislation, backed by Senators David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie. It is a direct attack on farmers' ability to hire casual employees. It forces on farmers retrenchment liabilities that will completely compromise their requirements for labour flexibility and also make it much harder for farmers to secure loans. Farmers who supply larger businesses will also be forced into erroneous climate reporting—yet more red tape getting in their way.

Finally, we come to Labor's legislation to destroy farms and regional jobs by ending live sheep exports from Australia, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. This won't stop sheep being exported by about another 100 countries, none of which do it to the same animal welfare standards as Australia. Our longstanding customers who have made it very clear they want Australia to continue live sheep exports will just source live sheep from other countries with lower standards. As we've learned from the animal rights extremists that have pushed Labor into this bill, this is just the first step towards destroying Australia's livestock industry and ending meat consumption. Labor says this bill meets an election promise. Well, let me remind Labor of some other promises: reducing electricity bills by $275; 1.2 million houses, of which not a single one has been built, despite $35 million spent so far in administration costs; and passing on the full stage 3 tax cuts. There have been all these promises but no results. Now you say it was an election promise.

Animal rights extremists actually think 8.1 billion human beings alive today—and up to 11 billion by the end of the century—can survive solely on plants and bugs for nutrition. That proves how stupid they are. They also think that ending livestock production will mean the end of animals dying in order to feed people, but it won't. Indeed, it's been proven that more animals are killed to support plant based agriculture than to support animal agriculture. According to the University of New South Wales, about 25 times as many animals die to produce a kilogram of protein from wheat as die to produce a kilogram of protein from beef. The hypocrisy of these animal rights extremists goes even further. Many of the plants they want us to exclusively eat rely on animal products for fertiliser and crop protection.

Civilisation itself would not exist today had early human beings not learned to farm animals instead of risking death or injury hunting them in the wild. Everything we are today rests on the foundation of animal agriculture. It's undeniable. There are many regional communities and farming businesses whose foundation is live sheep exports. This industry has supported communities in Western Australia since live exports first began in 1845. Australia has ridden on the sheep's back for more than two centuries. We have the best wool and lamb producers on this planet, in addition to having the highest animal welfare standards on the globe in the live sheep export industry. This is the world-leading industry that Labor and the Greens want to destroy with this bill.

I joined a few thousand Western Australian sheep producers and their supporters as they gathered in Avon Valley a couple of weeks ago. Farmers, workers, truckies and residents of regional communities came together in force to send the message that this legislation must not pass. Their livelihoods and way of life are at stake, and Labor does not care.

I listened to Senator McKim say here today that they only want to make money out of it. I've never heard anything so ridiculous in all my life. This is a food source, people. I'm sure McKim's had a piece of pork, goat or steak in his mouth at some time in his life. Now he's denying the fact of sheep, talking as if they're human beings. They're not human beings. It is a food source—a necessary food source. I for one don't want to spend the rest of my life eating bloody bugs, which you're trying to promote to people as the way to go. I've never heard anything so ridiculous in all my life.

I listened to Senator Faruqi and others going on about this all being about care and attention, going back to the 1980s. How ridiculous! Yes, there were issues, but the 1980s were 40 years ago. So you have to drag that up to justify passing this bill to stop live sheep exports? Senator Watt mentioned, on the floor today, a report about the health of the sheep. I read a report when I was over in Western Australia that stated that 12 Independents said there was no problem with it. Sheep were not dying on the ships because of poor health conditions. That was not the reason for it. That is not the case for this.

Labor's agriculture minister, Senator Watt, said everything will be fine because there's a transition package worth $107 million funded by taxpayers. This is a drop in the ocean that will help no-one. The industry that has generated almost $200 million a year over the past decade will still be lost. No amount of money can replace the hard work and sweat of sheep producers, but Labor does not care.

The National Farmers Federation has made other impacts of this legislation very clear. It harms Australia's reputation for quality food exports in key markets. The short timeline for the ban and Labor's pathetic transition package spell catastrophe for the industry, as does consigning sheep from other countries to live export practices Australia banned more than a decade ago. That's right. A massive effort and expense has been incurred this past decade to ensure Australian live sheep exports set the global benchmark for animal welfare both on ships and at the destination. Sheep are more likely to die of natural causes or from weather, feral predators or disease in an Australian paddock than on an Australian live export ship.

If you're really serious about these sheep, go and ask some of the farmers that find their lambs with their eyes pecked out because of the crows—but the crows are protected! Yet you're worrying about the sheep. What about the foxes and wild dogs? You're a bunch of bleeding hearts here, aren't you? You really are. You'd get rid of these animals that are killing the live sheep if you were really worried about them. How pathetic. Crows, foxes, wild dogs and pigs all prey on lambs.

All of this effort and expense has been wasted, and this anti-farming Labor government, supported by their coalition partners, the Greens, think a paltry $107 million from taxpayers is appropriate compensation. It isn't. One Nation absolutely oppose this legislation because we stand with regional communities and Australia's farmers.

The government will have to fund the slaughter of sheep. I'll tell you why. When I was over in WA I got to talk to the farmers. One farmer said to me, 'They don't understand. North of Geraldton there are about 100,000 sheep and they're purely bred for the market.' They're male sheep. He said, 'They can't be sold on the local market. We're going to be stuck with the sheep, and we'll have to slaughter them.' I spoke to another farmer, a fifth-generation young farmer, who was there with his father. The look on his face showed he was devastated. Tears were in his eyes. That was his whole life. But he knew.

If you know these farmers and understand them, you know they really care about their animals. Very few people in the farming sector don't look after their animals, whether it's cows, pigs, goats or whatever. The fact is that these farmers are losing their livelihoods. Do you care about that? Have you really thought about this? You're affecting the farmers, the truckies and the shearers. They will find a loss of income to their communities, so these communities will be ruined. It's just devastating, especially hearing about it when speaking to some of these farmers.

I'll tell you what I want to see from this government that's dead set on stopping this live sheep export. The farmers told me they're stuck with these sheep that are now down to $20 a head. The last shipload they exported was last November. So you've done the damage already. You've put out the message. Around the world, countries are looking for other markets to supply their sheep. But you just don't seem to care. You don't get it. You don't understand at all. You've destroyed the dairy farmers.

You would not listen to me about that farm gate price. You supported me when you were in opposition but you don't now that you're in government. You're all talk and no action. That's the Labor Party. That's the Greens as well. You're all talk and no action. When you get there, the true colours shine through. What do you think those farmers over there will do? Where do you think your $107 million will go to prop up these communities? I'll tell you: nowhere. If these farmers have to shoot their sheep, you'll pay for it—not out of your $107 million. You'll supply the shooters and the bullets. If you don't, you'll put many of these farmers through mental health issues, which will have an impact on these communities. Have you thought about that? No, you haven't, because you couldn't care less. That's the damage that will be done.

This legislation is not about animal welfare, so it forces me to wonder if Labor have done some dirty backroom deal with another country to stop us competing in live exports in exchange for something else. Think about that, and I want the farmers out there to think about it. To the sheep farmers and workers, truckies and regional communities they support, I say this: don't give up hope. The coalition is opposing this legislation, just like they opposed the knee-jerk ban on live cattle exports over a decade ago, and that was overturned. If they remain true to their word, there is hope this ban could be repealed.

I will stay true to my word. There is also hope that this government will be thrown out of this place after the next election. Then, I hope this stupid ban will be repealed and we'll get some common sense and support our farming sector. I support live sheep exports.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese government's policy to end live sheep exports by sea is blatantly ideological, reckless, shameless and, most particularly, driven by an anti-Western Australian agricultural sentiment inside the heart of this Labor government. I say this as a Western Australian, an Australian and a senator. It is why I must join with others in the coalition in calling out this poor policy, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024.

Along with the rest of the federal coalition, I condemn and oppose Labor's destructive policy to shut down live sheep exports by sea. I remind our farming communities across Western Australia and the agricultural sector more broadly that the coalition stands in strong solidarity with you. Rest assured, the coalition will reverse Labor's misguided decision and reinstate the live sheep export industry when it's elected to government. I encourage people to maintain hope, because hope only requires one action: to change the government.

The Albanese government's policy is not based on data or evidence, as good agricultural policy should be. Instead, this is the manifestation of an activist agenda, as we heard in the contribution from Senator McKim just a moment ago. It is an activist agenda that is hurting innocent people, their families and their rural communities. Labor's actions carry ongoing consequences for Australian agriculture. It's not an overstatement to say that, right now, no agricultural industry in this country can consider itself safe after having watched this government and this policy. If we allow this policy to be implemented, it sets a precedent for any lawful agricultural industry to be impacted when it suits this Labor government to do so. Our farmers are now right to ask: which industry will be next and when?

It's no surprise that peak industry bodies in the agricultural sector are unanimous in their opposition to this Labor folly. In September 2023, 23 peak groups co-signed a letter to the Prime Minister urging the Albanese government to reconsider this policy. This is an important element, because those of us familiar with agricultural politics know that it is not common—it is actually uncommon—for agricultural industries to speak with a united voice. But speaking with a united voice were the Australian Livestock Exporters Council, the National Farmers Federation, WAFarmers, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, Sheep Producers Australia, Wool Producers Australia, Cattle Australia, Grain Producers Australia, Australian Dairy Farmers, the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association, the New South Wales Farmers Association, the Queensland Livestock Exporters Association, Livestock SA, the Victorian Farmers Federation and the Livestock Collective. They are all speaking with one voice against this ruinous Labor policy.

There was the unprecedented mass walkout during Minister's Watt's keynote address at this year's agricultural industry budget breakfast. In the same month, the National Farmers Federation passed a motion of no confidence in the Albanese government, citing the live export ban as a key and critical factor. On 31 March, an almost 1,300-strong convoy, involving an estimated 3,000 farmers and hundreds of livestock trucks, stormed major roads during peak hour in Perth's CBD as part of the Keep the Sheep campaign. It was WA's biggest agricultural protest in living memory. On 14 June, thousands of farmers protested at Muresk, near Northam, when the House committee inquiry held its public hearing in Western Australia. I was there myself. I saw it and heard it for myself. I saw the anger and anxiety that Labor is causing regional communities across my home state of Western Australia. Since it was announced, a petition launched by Keep the Sheep has received more than 60,000 signatures, thousands more than the RSPCA petition cited by the Albanese government that garnered just 43,000 signatures last August. These are the voices of Australian agriculture. So why does this Labor government refuse to listen to them?

The government has made a strategic error. It thinks that the low population of WA's regional communities means there will be little or no political fallout for it in Western Australia. That's wrong. The decision by Kate Chaney, the member for Curtin, to change her position and support the interests of WA's regional communities is the most powerful demonstration of opposition to this ban—that it's not a regional opposition but a statewide opposition. And the Labor government will feel the full wrath of this—and on other issues—at the coming election. It deserves to be punished. Labor said with great clarity at the last election, in May 2022, that it would stand up for WA. There can be no greater demonstration of how the government has decided not to stand up for WA than this issue.

Federal Labor chooses to ignore the voices of WA Labor. The Albanese government's policy to end live sheep exports has caused a rift with the WA state Labor government, which is also publicly opposed. Premier Roger Cook has labelled the policy as unnecessary. He noted, 'They believe the welfare arrangements that are in place, the checks and balances that have been put in place as a result of the reforms, have been sufficient.' It appears the relationship between WA's agriculture minister, Jackie Jarvis, and the federal agriculture minister, Senator Watt, is now in tatters. Ms Jarvis has rightly observed that the live export ban is not in the interests of Western Australia. She said, 'It is difficult to see how we can work collaboratively.' In fact, she flew into Canberra last week in an attempt to convince her own party to dump the ban, making it clear that the WA Labor Party will continue to fight for WA's state farmers—meaning the WA Labor government will choose to fight against its federal Labor government counterpart. It says a great deal about the effort and advocacy and fighting capability of both Premier Roger Cook and the agriculture minister, Jackie Jarvis, that they have failed to hold their own party accountable here in Canberra.

WA federal Labor MPs should be taking notice, as well as a stand, because the state of Western Australia is who they are supposed to represent. They have been blindly negligent, both in the House of Representatives and, I suspect, in the next few hours here in the Senate, in consciously choosing to put the interests of Western Australia last—to put the interests of Western Australian regional communities behind the interests of the Australian Labor Party. The political and electoral consequences for WA Labor and federal Labor in Western Australia are real, and they will be very visible when we head to the polls later this year.

Speaking of impact, Labor's policy to shut down the live sheep export industry fails entirely to acknowledge the key importance of this sector to our state and beyond. The live sheep trade employs thousands of Western Australians and supports their many communities—shearers, truck drivers, fodder suppliers, livestock agents, farmers, producers, and the list goes on. It's also not simply a matter of economics. Labor's policy disregards the psychological and social welfare of WA farming communities. The hardship is real. The anxiety has never been felt at this level before. They are disappointed that the people they've elected to represent them in Canberra have chosen not to.

Labor senators in this place who represent the whole state of Western Australia, including regional communities, should hold their heads in shame. The mental health impact has been real and, unfortunately, it will be horrific. Indeed, I know, from many interactions with constituents, that this is already, sadly, the case. Labor's transition package acknowledges the seriousness of this issue but totally underestimates its scale and impact. The reality is, though, that no amount of counselling can soften the blow to each and every person whose livelihood has been put at risk by federal Labor. They have been shamed by activists as animal abusers, yet they really are responsible operators.

It's made all the worse when you consider that these communities and workforces have taken extensive steps, over many years already, to improve animal welfare standards. Since 2018, the live sheep export industry and its regulatory framework have undergone significant and positive change. These reforms include an industry initiated moratorium on sheep being exported during a Northern Hemisphere summer; increased space available for each animal; improved ventilation requirements; independent government observers, to provide additional assurances; skilled stock handlers; veterinarians to inspect sheep on arrival and to quarantine and exclude any animals not suitable for export and travel; sheep loaded with a minimum amount of wool; and sheep often offloaded at night or during cooler parts of the day when in the Middle East.

These reforms were necessary and they have been successful. They have maintained Australia's high standards of international animal welfare. The evidence speaks for itself. There have been no reportable mortality incidents since 2018. While mortality isn't the only measure, it cannot be denied that the results have been exceptional in recent years. They compare favourably to domestic extensive and intensive livestock operations as well as to domestic transport. Australia is also the only country in the world that insists that every facility that receives our livestock, such as feedlots and abattoirs, must first meet Australian regulations.

By contrast, Labor's blinkered approach will inevitably lead to much poorer levels of international animal welfare. If Australia doesn't export live sheep, its existing trade partners will source alternatives from countries that do not share our world-leading commitment to good animal welfare practices. This is what is so perverse about this government's policy. The fact is that animal welfare standards across the globe will be diminished, not improved, by the decision to deny Australian participation in that trade.

Of course, why was it that the Labor government decided not to give rural and regional voices a credible parliamentary inquiry? The inquiry process on this particular matter has done nothing to deliver the necessary transparency or truth on this important trade. It is because their truth—the truth of regional communities across Western Australia—is an inconvenient one for the Albanese government.

On 3 June 2024, Minister Watt instructed the Standing Committee on Agriculture in the House of Representatives to consider the bill and provide a report by 21 June 2024. That's a space of less than three weeks. Only one week was given for public submissions, and there were only two public hearings. The timeframe added insult to injury. Despite this, by the close of the submission period, over 13,000 submissions had been received in opposition to the government's policy. But, of course, it was not possible for the committee to consider all these submissions, and many went completely disregarded. It sounded loud and clear to those hardworking people and communities that made a submission that this Labor government doesn't care. So this inquiry, which is so important to so many, has been an appalling sham, and it demonstrated an appalling contempt for all those impacted.

Further compounding this, on 27 June the Albanese government voted against referring this bill to a comprehensive Senate inquiry for the scrutiny that it deserved. It was quite a remarkable feature to see senators in this place, Labor senators and Greens senators and others, deny the Senate the opportunity for its own inquiry, instead leaning only on the House of Representatives and on an independent taskforce report. The idea that Australian senators would deny themselves the opportunity to test these issues for themselves was just unbelievable.

But, as I have said, there is cause for hope. All that is needed to maintain hope is to change the government, and you change the government by voting against Labor in seats like Cowan and Pearce and Tangney and Hasluck and voting against the Labor Party in the Australian Senate when you vote for senators.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. This is terrible policy you're introducing. It is absolutely terrible policy that the Labor government is introducing with the support of the Greens. It really is hard to fathom that you're introducing policy which will have such an onerous negative impact on thousands of people in Western Australia, will cost this country hundreds of millions of dollars in exports and will actually have a negative impact on the welfare of animals. It really is hard to fathom.

The live sheep export industry will continue. The only change will be that it won't continue with Australia's participation. So the country which has been a world leader in introducing humanitarian welfare checks and balances in relation to the welfare of the sheep, the animals that are the subject of this trade, is going to be stopped from participating in the trade, so the world standards are going to fall because we no longer participate in the trade. It's madness—absolute madness!

The first issue I'd like to talk about is process and transparency. As my friend and colleague Senator David Smith said, the process in relation to the introduction of this bill has been an absolute travesty. The minister obtained an independent panel report in March 2023 and then sat on it until 25 October 2023. For six months, he sat on it. It took six months to release the report. And then there's been a bastardisation of a committee process. The reference to the committee in the other place occurred on 3 June, and they had to report by 21 June. For six months, the minister sat on the report. The committee could have been meeting during that six-month period. A committee of this place could have had three months to consider the impacts on affected communities. But this Senate was deprived of that opportunity because the minister sat on the report for six months and then had the gall to refer it to a committee in the other place on 3 June and give them until 21 June to report.

The committee started its work on Tuesday 4 June and therefore had 13 business days to complete its inquiry— in the context where it had received 668 submissions. I went on the committee's website this afternoon and had a look at it. There are pages and pages of submissions. It was physically impossible for the people participating in that bastardisation of a committee process to read the submissions from affected Australians. It's an absolute travesty. Then there were only two public hearings, for a total of 12 hours. I looked at the agenda for the public hearings. Some of them had five sets of witnesses who had all of one hour to contribute to the public hearing. Again, that's a bastardisation of the process. I don't even know why you bothered really. It's an absolute insult. 'Tick a box,' as my friend Senator Canavan says. Then you voted against the Senate inquiry on 27 June. We're meant to be the House of review, but you deprived the Senate of that opportunity.

I also note that, in relation to the committee process that took place in the House of Representatives, the committee accepted 15 late submissions, one of which was by a veterinary group called Livestock Veterinarians Australia, which strongly refuted a significant volume of veterinary evidence to which the chair's report heavily referred in the decision-making process. But their professional opinions—from the veterinarians intimately involved in this trade—could not be taken into account because of the timeframes. It's disgraceful.

Questions on notice for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry were not responded to within the allocated timeframe. I can't blame the public servants. They were given an impossible timeframe in which to respond. That's at the feet of the minister. To the extent that there are officers here or listening to the debate: I don't attribute any blame to you. I'm sure you did your best given an impossible burden by the minister. Fifty-two separate questions from committee deputy chair, Mr Rick Wilson, were answered with a one-size-fits-all statement. There was no attempt whatsoever to answer the specific questions that were asked. It was an absolute travesty of a process.

Dissenting members of the committee were given less than 24 hours to respond to the chair's report. Again, that's at the minister's feet. There were 13 business days to complete a report in relation to such a contested area of policy. That's absolutely disgraceful. In my view the process has been undertaken in bad faith with absolute contempt for the processes of this Australian parliament. It's absolutely disgraceful.

The second issue I want to refer to is the impact on trade. This is about food security for the destination markets. It's also about respect for culture. I want to quote Mr Neil Smith, who's chair of the Merredin and Districts Farm Improvement Group, who shared his experience on an educational visit to the Middle East, when people of the Middle East actually went to participate in the process of acquiring their meat for the purposes of celebrating Eid. This is what he said:

It was interesting to see families come to a feedlot, choose a sheep, follow it through the abattoir and receive the meat at the other end. They were connected to the sheep, and then they would celebrate with their friends and family for the festival. Little children were educated to understand this connection …

…   …   …

Australian sheep were given special treatment compared to all other nations' sheep and livestock for processing, and we should be proud as a nation of what we have achieved. But I can assure you that these welfare outcomes will be lost if sheep are not allowed to be exported live from Australia.

So these markets aren't going to accept boxed meat or chilled meat from Australia. This is a fantasy. It's part of their culture to go and follow the process as the live sheep are imported into the markets—the destinations. It's an absolute fantasy that they're going to import chilled sheep or boxed sheep—chilled or frozen meat. How do we know this? They've told us! In a March 2023 letter to agriculture minister, Senator Watt, the then Kuwaiti Minister of Commerce and Industry said:

The requirement for live sheep cannot be substituted with chilled or frozen meat for our population. It's not our preference to switch our live sheep source.

They're not going to change from acquiring live sheep. All we're doing is punishing an Australian industry which is doing the right thing. Absolutely mad! Where are they going to get the live sheep from? I had a look at the figures for exporters in 2023. Live sheep exports from the EU were 2.9 million; Romania, 2.3 million; Spain, 1.45 million; Jordan, 1.3 million; Namibia, 542,000; Portugal, 501,000; and Georgia, 456,000. There are countries that will fill the export gap. All we are doing is punishing our own people and doing nothing for animal welfare. It will go backwards, because we've been world leaders.

This will have a huge negative impact on our fellow Australians, those in regional Western Australia in particular. There are more than 3,000 people directly employed by this industry: shearers, truck drivers, suppliers, farmers and producers, and there's also the impact on the towns. It's a $1 billion industry. Senator Watt had the gall to come in here earlier today and say the industry was unsuccessful, yet I'm looking at figures that say 380,000 animals were exported in 2022 and it increased to 654,000 in 2023. And we actually had the prospect of Saudi Arabia, once again, taking live sheep from Australia. This is an industry that potentially could boom. Absolutely disgraceful! Let me use the rest of my time to read quotes from those who will be most impacted.

In my first speech in this place, I spoke about parliaments and governments making decisions at the behest of activists and punishing regional communities. The activists come in here and they advocate for certain outcomes. They're not going to be negatively impacted by this policy. They're the not ones negatively impacted; it's the regional communities in Western Australia who will suffer. This is an awful example of that phenomenon. So I want to use the rest of my time to quote from the people who are going to be impacted. Shire of Wagin president, Phil Bright, said:

Many regional towns are at a tipping point. Banning one of the industries that provides employment for the area will have significant human cost. Even a small loss in economic vitality has an outsized impact on small, rural communities.

The North Eastern Wheatbelt Regional Organisation of Councils CEO, Caroline Robertson, said:

Not all of them are involved in live export, but live export absolutely benefits all of them. … They each require a shearer, truckie, a wool buyer, an agent and a rural trader at the minimum. Some of those supporting businesses are in the NEWROC shires, but the majority of them are in the rest of regional WA. When you pull the lever on a policy like this in one area, there is a cause and effect, and it happens in another area. … Over 20 years, it'll be $180 million in seven shires.

Kristy D'Aprile, of another shire, said:

The Upper Great Southern has 2.6 million sheep—and 1,927 small businesses, including growers …All of their livelihoods are intrinsically tied to the agricultural industry and sheep.

The WoolProducers Australia CEO, Jo Hall, said:

The mental health impacts of the decision to ban live exports cannot be overstated. As a cohort, primary producers are already overrepresented in suicide rates as compared to the general public, a responsible government should be developing policies to reduce this incidence, not making decisions that add further stress.

Darren Spencer, President of the WA Shearing Industry Association, said:

The hardworking people of our shearing industry, including shearers, rousies, pressers, cooks, classers and shearing contractors feel very let down and abandoned by a government who is preferencing the ideological agenda of animal activists over the real-world impacts on hardworking Australians.

Let me read that again:

… abandoned by a government—

This Labor government, with the support of the Greens, or, in fact, which is being driven by the Greens on this ideological madness—

who is preferencing the ideological agenda of animal activists over the real-world impacts on hardworking Australians. I fear for our industry. You can't expect to remove one building block out of a finely balanced agri model and not have serious cascading consequences.

…   …   …

I fear for our members and our contractors.

…   …   …

I fear for our workers.

…   …   …

I fear for shearers like the 14-year-old—who was possibly on the autism spectrum but undiagnosed—who didn't fit into the school system but was able to fit into my shearing crew as a rouseabout. He went on to become a wool presser and then a shearer.

…   …   …

He saved enough to purchase his own house and, 36 years later, he's still working for me in Lake Grace, now in his 50s. What are his prospects? What does he transition to?'

Chris Wheatcroft from Rural West, financial counsellors, said they have seen 'no suicide of any client in 15 years, although we deal with people going through significant change and stress'. He also said: ' In terms of how you spend the money on mental health, it's about enabling people to sit with someone who can actually work through the actual impact for them.' There are pages of this in the dissenting report of the abbreviated committee processes—pages and pages of this, people from the community who are going to be impacted by this awful policy decision.

Another shire CEO said:

In the three years that I was at Wyalkatchem, we lost the bank, we lost the butcher, we lost our sole cafe and we lost the football club … many of our communities are on a knife's edge. They're at a tipping point. The loss of any activity has community significance in rural WA, and the loss of an industry like the live sheep industry is another matter altogether.

Even the WA Minister for Agriculture and Food—one of your own, the Labor minister in the state—said: 'The position of the WA government has been consistent from the start. The phase-out of live export will negatively impact WA regional communities and the livelihoods of many. We do not support it.'

If this bill is passed, it will be a millstone around the neck of the Australian Labor Party in Western Australia and other regional communities until the next election.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight is a potentially historic night in the short history of our Commonwealth, because, in our 123-year history as the Commonwealth of Australia, I don't believe we have ever banned the export of a farming product, until tonight. This is an extremely historic night. As my learned colleague Senator Scarr has pointed out, we're going to do so without a Senate inquiry, without a committee stage to ask questions of the minister and without an opportunity to debate amendments to this bill, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. You can only hazard a guess that the government is doing this because it is ashamed that it will go down in history as the first government to criminalise farming in this nation. Potentially, after tonight, if you have the temerity to grow some food for people to eat around the world and if you export that food to others, you will be designated a criminal by this government. This government is criminalising farming, making farmers who are just trying to feed the world into criminals.

This is not about regulations. It would be fair enough if there were regulations around, making sure we protect animals and the environment. All states and territories and the federal government have regulations on that, but this is not about that; this is just a straight-out ban. It doesn't matter what you. It doesn't matter how high a water mark you reach; you'll be banned. You'll be a criminal for farming in this nation. It's a shocking day for a proud farming nation like Australia.

As I said, we have introduced regulation changes to farming, many times, and many of those regulatory changes have had the effect of some farmers going out of business not a whole industry. I can't find a situation where we've banned a whole industry. I thought we might have done that to the tobacco industry, but, when I looked at it, in fact, we just removed subsidies and imposed tariffs and effectively the tobacco industry became uneconomic. So we have made those sorts of changes in the past.

Another reason the government might be ashamed and doing this dirty deal late at night to sweep through these historic once-in-a-century changes to our laws is that any reasonable look at the assistance the government's offering to shut down a whole industry is clearly inadequate and, in fact, a complete insult to our nation's farmers. A few weeks ago this government put aside, in the budget, $107 million to shut down an entire industry. But, when you read the fine print, only $64 million of that goes directly to farmers. The rest employs bureaucrats and does a lot of other things that probably won't amount to much. So there's $64 million directly to farmers to shut down an entire industry. The government gave no rationale at Senate estimates as to why and how it calculated the precise figure of $64.6 million. There's no stated rationale behind it. It looks inadequate, on the gross numbers. There are about 4,000 farmers in Australia that engage in the live sheep industry. So that $64 million amounts to $16,000 per farmer—to be exact, $16,150 per farmer. That's an insult.

Imagine if someone came along and shut down your business and said, 'I'll put you out of a job. You'll no longer be in the industry you trained for and you're skilled in. We're shutting it down. You won't have a job anymore. But here's $16,000. Don't spend it all at once.' That's what this government has done. Even if you take the higher figure, the $107 million, it's still only $26,000. It's nothing. When you compare this to many of the other adjustment packages that governments have done in the past, it's a total insult.

It's unclear how the government came up with this. Take, for example, the dairy industry, which had major changes made to it around 20 years ago. Twenty years ago there was a highly regulated dairy industry across Australia. There were different regulations in different states. There were, in effect, restrictions on the trade of milk between states. That helped protect the industry. We had a much larger dairy industry in my home state of Queensland. But in the 2000s those regulations were progressively removed—largely at the state level, not the federal level. It wasn't even a federal decision or change to regulations. All governments recognised the heartache that would be imposed on many dairy farmers from these changes.

In total—keep in mind the figures—there's $64 million for live sheep exports. Twenty years ago, the Australian government put aside $1.3 billion to help the dairy industry. That was around 2005. There was $1.287 billion, to be precise, for the dairy industry. I checked ABARES' figures. In 2003, when this process kicked off, there were apparently 11,239 dairy farmers in Australia. So that $1.3 billion amounted to $114,000 per dairy farmer. These guys are offering $16,000 to shut down the whole industry. The dairy package wasn't shutting down milk production; it was just some regulatory changes that would put thousands of those dairy farmers out of a job. On average, they received $114,000. Obviously, those who went out of business would have received many multiples more than that, because not all 11,000 got out of their livelihood. It's a total insult.

How does the government come up with these figures? It would be nice to ask some questions about this in a committee stage, which we would normally do on normal legislation, let alone a one-in-123-years piece of legislation that has never been done before in our Commonwealth. The government had very few answers to all of this in Senate estimates.

For the record, I should briefly add figures for the packages to other industries. These figures came from the Productivity Commission report that was done in 2010-11. They calculated the assistance to various industries from the mid-nineties to that time. The sugar industry over those years received $480 million. Again, we weren't shutting it down or anything; we were just changing some tariffs and opening up trade. For the fisheries industry, it was $462 million. For forestry, it was $215 million. These are all in dollar terms that are 20 years or so old, so you'd add at least 50 per cent to them because of inflation. All of them are higher than this one, which does a much more radical thing than any of those changes a generation ago.

The government have very few answers here. You would think one thing the government would do before they shut down an industry is work out: if we are going to shut down this particular business in live sheep exports for farmers, how many farmers might go out of business and how many of them might decide that they won't farm anymore? That might help us calculate the assistance we might need. I asked the government how many of these 4,000 businesses it thinks will just pack up sticks and say: 'Okay. That's it, I can't farm anymore. I can't make this a viable business.' Or, 'I don't want to reskill as a cropping person or a cattle person.'

I don't think the government quite understands the agricultural industry, or the Labor Party seems to struggle with it. They're not farmers. They do different things. Very different skill sets are required to work with cattle, to work with crops and to work with sheep. Even within the sheep industry there are different skill sets needed for wool compared to meat sheep, and many farmers who might be in their 50s or 60s or even younger might think: 'I don't want to reskill into a whole new trade. I might get out of this business now that this has been shut down on me.'

When I put to the government, 'How many do you think will go out of business?' the answer was, 'We don't have those figures, Senator.' Yet I was then able to pull up a government commissioned report by Episode 3 in Senate estimates, and in that report they'd done surveys of farmers to work out how many would potentially leave. Episode 3 said that when they surveyed the industry, 44 per cent of sheep producers were intending to leave the sheep farming industry. Another survey by the sheep producers themselves found it was 14 per cent. There's a bit of variance there, but either of those figures is a lot of people going out of business. That's thousands of farmers facing the end of their livelihoods. The government didn't even know those figures.

It's not just the farmers, though there is an understandable focus on the farmers. They are at the front lines of the impact of what we're doing tonight, so we're criminalising their industry, making them feel like criminals in their own country just for having the temerity to grow food. It's not just them in the supply chain. There are truck drivers that come and pick up the sheep to take them to the port. There are fencing contractors on the farms. There are also shearers in the wool industry, which we're not shutting down, but, if we shut down one part of the sheep industry here, there is evidence in these lengthy reports the government commissioned which no one seems to have read—the minister hadn't read them—that the shearing industry will be affected as well because some will get out of sheep farming completely. Some of their sheep would have gone to live exports and some would have been shorn, but now there'll be fewer sheep shorn according to this government commissioned study by Episode 3, which calculated this.

In that study it found that 40 per cent of truck drivers said they would exit the industry. The government comes in here constantly and says it's in favour of workers and it believes in supporting the working class in this country. These are truck drivers, and 40 per cent want to go out of business. There's nothing in the assistance packages for them at all. They're not even getting the $16,000. What are they going to get? They get put out on the streets. Some of these truck drivers will own their trucks, so it's not just their job they're losing but their capital equipment, or it could be a loan to the bank they probably won't be able to service. What happens to them? Are they going to be bailed out? No. They're just going to be left to pick up the pieces, all because the government has done a political deal here with its friends in the Greens to rush this through.

You've got to wonder why they're doing this. We don't actually even need this legislation. The government has all the power to end this anyway. They don't need to push this through parliament. Why are they going through this hassle? They're obviously not doing the inquiry, and they want to rush it through. There's legislation called the Export Control Act, which they could use tomorrow to issue a ministerial declaration which would ban the export of live sheep or whatever they like. We've got constitutional powers to do this, and there are powers in the Export Control Act to do these things. Why aren't they doing that? It might have something to do with the fact that the last time the Labor Party used the Export Control Act and used ministerial discretion to ban the export of live cattle—as I said, there was no legislation then, so this is an historic night—it was found that that government decision was completely negligent and did not go through the proper processes. The taxpayer is now on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars or possibly billions of dollars in compensation, which the government is dragging its heel on. It's amazing that they're shutting down another live farming industry before they've even compensated the farmers for their last complete debacle in trying to shut down live cattle, now more than 13 years ago.

Perhaps the rationale for rushing this legislation through is that this decision won't be justiciable—it won't go through the courts—and the farmers can't take any action against the government if it's passed through parliament. If it had been a ministerial decision then the minister would have been held to account through our court processes. We have a minister who is rushing from any accountability—from parliamentary accountability, from judicial accountability and from any accountability to the people—because the Labor Party are ashamed of what they're doing. I know many people in the Labor Party are ashamed that they're criminalising farming and putting truck drivers out of a job. It's a shameful day for the Australian Labor Party when they're teaming up with the radical activists in the Greens to shut down the farming industry in this country.

When you look at it, we don't prohibit that much stuff at the moment. I was surprised by the list of what we prohibit. I'll quickly read it out. We prohibit biological agents; certain chemical compounds; defence and strategic goods; human body fluids; nuclear material; precursor materials; prescription medicines; native animals; cat and dog fur products; counterfeit credit cards—fair enough; cultural heritage goods; rough diamonds; endangered animal species; firearms; hazardous waste; ozone-depleting substances; pesticides; pornography; radioactive substances; exports to sanctioned countries; security-sensitive ammonium nitrate; suicide devices; viable material derived from human embryo clones; and toothfish, which is an endangered species itself. That's it. That's what we ban. And now we're going to add to that list farmers growing food! They're also going to be on the very special prohibited list thanks to this government and its deal with the Greens. We now know that this government is not on the side of Australian farmers.

The problem with this legislation is that it will send a chill through all productive industries in this country. Your industry can be shut down due to an election result and an election deal. That's what has been done. The government has done a preferences deal with the Animal Justice Party and the Greens party. They've done a deal to shut down your industry, and they've done so without even basic, adequate compensation, as I've gone through. What's to stop them doing this to any industry in the country? Does every industry have to watch election results to know whether its business is still viable in this country? That is no basis to build a productive economy. That is no basis to encourage people to invest in this country, to grow businesses and to take a stake in this nation. This is a shameful day in our nation's history. For the first time tonight, potentially, we will criminalise a farming activity, and we should all be embarrassed about that.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call Senator Liddle, I remind senators about not wearing apparel with signs that can be read on the front.

Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence) | Link to this | Hansard source

What's mutton? Mutton is not likely to be found in slick city restaurants or supermarkets in Marrickville or the CBD of Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. I asked a few people this week if they knew what mutton was, and I got a lot of blank faces. This bill, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, is to appease inner-city interests, without any regard for the impact in Western Australia or for the Australian sheep industry generally outside that state's borders.

Mutton is intensely red meat with a strong flavour. It's sheepmeat from an animal that is older than a year—ideally, around three years. Australia produces about 170,000 carcass-weight tonnes of mutton, compared to 540,000 carcass-weight tonnes of lamb, so there is much more appetite for lamb—much, much more. What happens under this ban to all that excess mutton meat, when Australians I've spoken to are not even aware what mutton is, let alone having it on the menu tonight?

Australians love their lamb. It's lamb—tough, tender or trimmed—that you will find at your local supermarket or butcher, not mutton, because Australians consume about six kilograms of sheepmeat per person per year. It's a different story, though, if you live in Afghanistan, Algeria or the Middle East, including Syria. In those places, they relish a meal of mutton, which makes up the great bulk of Australia's live sheep exports. What will happen to those merino sheep, bred for the insatiable clothing industry for their fleece until it's no longer a viable option to sell the fleece? What then happens to those mature animals with this ban? Some could end up as pet food, but most will just be destroyed, and it will be farmers who bear the loss and the cost.

Australia's first live sheep exports were from Western Australia to Mauritius and Singapore in 1845. Last year, live sheep exports by sea increased by 22 per cent, or 177,000 head, to nearly 600,000 head. That's not an industry in decline on any measure. This ban, this transformation of the industry, has been without consideration or regard for the implications for the whole sheep industry, not just for Western Australia. Those who know the industry—the farmers, the feedlots, the breeders and the towns that support the industry's workforce—know that this ban will be devastating and will change their lives and their towns forever.

The Australian sheep-farming industry is worth more than $6 billion a year. It comprises nearly 20,000 agricultural businesses that employ people and contribute to gross state product and gross domestic product. My home state of South Australia accounts for about 15 per cent of the nation's 70 million-plus flock of sheep. I spoke with one of South Australia's largest sheep farmers, who runs some 150,000 head of sheep on his 130-year-old family property—generations of people who know the sheep industry. For them, this is not just about money; it's their livelihood, and it has broader implications over the border. I'd listen to them rather than the Australian Greens and the Albanese government, whose only engagement with sheepmeat is at the supermarket or the dinner table.

But what do I know about sheep? Not much now, but in a previous life I had to know how to shear one, muster it and do all the stuff to them that's needed to take care of them. That was a long time ago, so I don't pretend to be an expert, but I know enough to know what I don't know and when to ask more—much more, much, much more. That's why I asked some stakeholders in the industry with decades of intergenerational knowledge. It's the least one should do when you are shutting them down—their lives, their farms and their businesses. I heard that removing the export option for farmers can only have a negative impact on livestock prices across Australia more broadly as supply increases. There's been something like this before, I heard, though related to mulesing, where Australian growers told their customers what they had to buy. It didn't work then. It came today with a warning that this approach is a recipe for disaster. One farmer said that he had no confidence this would have the impact that it is intended to have, because its ignorant architects haven't thought this through.

Yet again, this overpromising, underdelivering Albanese government is acting without looking at the whole picture. Of all its promises, this is the one it should have broken because it will break sheep farmers. You can't ban live sheep exports and not consider the impacts outside the farm gate and at the state border or the impacts not just at the export point but at the import point. Have the implications for those countries who currently rely on this trade even been explored or understood? The industry has undergone significant change and done what has been asked of it. This will do nothing to change demand. The demand will simply be met by others.

It is crucial to recognise that the live sheep export industry employs shearers, truck drivers, fodder suppliers, livestock agents, producers and maritime workers. All of these areas, the workers within them and their families are affected by this bill. For towns to flourish, they need commercial sectors to flourish, and the removal of a billion-dollar industry is an antithesis to this goal. Without the sheep export industry, schools in those regional towns will slip into decline. There's not been proper consultation with anyone who is directly affected by this, despite the significant impact of this enormous change. There will be an impact on transport businesses, agricultural supply businesses and grain stores, to name just a few.

Why so much secrecy when those most affected engage in the debate? The Albanese government only published 668 of the 13,000 contributions that were provided to the committee. It was a sham consultation. It left hundreds of submissions from members of Sheep Producers Australia, a significant opposition group, unpublished, never to see the light of day. So much for the Prime Minister's pledge for greater transparency in government and leaving no-one behind! You left a whole industry behind.

In question time, Minister Watt continually references the independent panel consultations, but the terms of reference specifically precluded any discussion on the policy itself. How's that transparency? Instead, it acted as if the ban was a foregone conclusion, asking not whether to phase out live exports but how to phase out live exports. That's not community consultation. That's not transparent. It's a joke: a sick joke at the expense of the farmers, and they're not laughing. The joke's on them. An inquiry that wasn't rushed in the Senate, the house of review, would have been an important step towards understanding these impacts on the community and those most affected.

We've already seen in the other place the impact of proper community feedback on this bill—even a little community feedback. Independent member for Curtin, Kate Chaney, was in support of the bill when it was first raised in the House. But after meeting with stakeholders in her electorate and hearing the grievances of the tens of thousands of farmers negatively impacted by this ban, she changed her mind and voted against the bill. It was disappointing to see the government refuse to interact with the community like Ms Chaney has. Yet again, the Albanese government is acting with its blinkers on and not actually talking to those directly impacted by this bill.

A 40-year veterinarian with extensive live animal export experience, whose last voyage was in November 2023, stated in his inquiry submission that he was 'disgusted by the lies and deceitful tactics used by those with little or no firsthand experience or knowledge of the live sheep export industry who are trying to shut it down'. He says the reforms made have resulted in the industry's current performance not losing but gaining the social licence to continue operating. It has done the work.

This does nothing but continue the Labor Party's prolonged attacked on the Australian farmer. The Labor Party and Australian Greens have real form on this. Last year, the Albanese Labor government pushed the water buybacks bill through the Senate. Ultimately, opposition to live sheep exports is an ideological obsession of the Labor Party. When they were last in government, under Prime Ministers Gillard and Rudd, the Labor Party forced legislation through parliament suspending the cattle trade with Indonesia. It took the coalition government lifting this ban for the agricultural sector to return to its full capacity. Don't get it wrong: the Albanese Labor government are not pushing this bill to protect the welfare of sheep; they're pushing this bill to further advance their attack on Australian farmers and to curry serious favour with the Australian Greens, their coalition.

I echo the sentiment of the coalition's second reading amendment: ending live sheep exports is shortsighted. The bill maligns the Australian livestock industry. It neglects to admit that Australia has the highest standards of animal welfare in the world. To do this won't change demand. The demand will just be served by others. Any productive, successful, viable, long-term industry in Australia might be next.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the very important Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 tonight. It is another example of how the Labor Party's attempting to destroy primary production in this country and our agricultural sector. It goes without saying that Australia basically made its wealth on the back of the sheep industry—first with wool, then meat. As someone who grew up on a western Queensland sheep station of 150,000 acres with 10,000 sheep, in the glory days of wool, this is something that's very close to my heart. I spent many school holidays and many weekends either out in a 20,000-acre paddock on the back of a motorbike with four kelpies behind a big mob of sheep or in the sheep yards, rounding up and getting the sheep ready to be shorn. On many occasions, as the sheep got older, we would sell the sheep off to market.

There is no doubt that working with livestock is a tough industry. if you're not used to it, it may appear, from the outside looking in, that it's a brutal industry. But that is not true at all. The sheep are beasts of burden, effectively, and this is a fact of life. Unfortunately, it's a fact of life that I think too many of our children aren't exposed to today, in terms of understanding the birds and the bees and how the world actually works.

One of my best mates, who I grew up with, is a long-term vet who has worked for what was Australian quarantine. He's worked in abattoirs all his life, and he's travelled on many ships over to the Middle East. As he said, they are fed better and looked after better on those ships than they are in the paddock. We know that LiveCorp themselves said that the death rate on those ships is half the death rate of sheep in the actual paddocks, so I can see no real reason why the Labor Party feels the need to shut this industry down.

Over time, as these poorer countries get better electricity and better refrigeration and better freezers, I'm sure this industry will slowly decline over the years. We have seen that over the last decades. As the standard of living has increased in poorer countries, more and more households can afford freezers. But, until such time as they have freezers, they are still going to be buying sheep or butchered meat from a butcher to take home and cook that night. That is just the way it is in many poorer countries. Until the time that these countries are able to actually freeze meat, there is no reason to destroy an industry that is perfectly capable of standing on its own two feet if the Labor government would just get out of their lives.

We are talking about the lives of thousands and thousands of farmers and hundreds and hundreds of towns and all the related people who make a living off the farmers in those industries. Particularly in Western Australia, but even out in my hometown of Chinchilla and further west, there are still thousands of sheep out there. There are not as many as there used to be, I might add, thanks to the dingoes and the decline in the wool price on a relative basis, but it is still a viable industry, and it's one that we should maintain. If we turn our backs on the sheep industry in this country, we turn our backs on our own history, heritage and culture and, most importantly, on the livelihoods of hardworking Australians who deserve a fair go.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. I can't agree with much of the conclusion Senator Rennick just reached, but I do appreciate very much his reflections on the value of farming life and the value of agriculture from a community and a family perspective. It's a long time since I've been engaged in farming activity, but I did as a kid. I did through most of my adolescent life, not in the sheep industry but in the cattle industry. I too share Senator Rennick's—I don't think it's unfair to say—romantic view about how important that kind of life is and what that means for families—the kind of hard work that farming families engage in, particularly on family farms. And I agree with him that many more young people should be exposed to hard work on farms, fencing and working with livestock in particular, because it is an honourable life to be engaged in farming.

I don't agree with Senator Rennick's conclusions about the future of live exports of sheep from our west coast. I can't agree with him on that subject. Some of my disagreement with that is founded in my experience of what decent animal management practices are and what proper animal husbandry is, and it is informed by my engagement with people in the farming community who have a very different view to Senator Rennick's about the future of the live export industry for sheep. There is a strong view in the farming community, no matter what our colleagues in the National Party say, about decent animal husbandry practices. That's the truth. It's not a universal view, but there is strong disagreement across the agricultural sector about whether or not this industry should have a future.

I was sitting in my office reluctant to contribute to this debate, but then I heard Senator Canavan's contribution. There I was, sitting down with my feet up, and he said: 'Why do industries have to watch election results to see if their business is still viable? That's no basis to build a productive economy. That's no basis to encourage people to invest, to build a business and to take a stake in this nation.' That's what he said. What extraordinary hypocrisy! Obviously, the Labor Party has been not just to one election on this issue but to a second election on this issue, where we won government.

I'll get to the hypocrisy, Senator Canavan. Don't you worry about that!

I'll just build up to it over a little bit of time, Senator Canavan. But I do assert that the Labor Party won government with the very clear understanding in the community amongst not just people who strongly supported a ban on live exports but also people in the suburbs and the regions who understood exactly what it was that the Labor Party stood for. In fact, we recorded a historically high vote in the state of Western Australia. The truth is that this policy remains popular, despite all of the carry-on and the misrepresentations of those opposite. It's an industry that is in strong decline and has been declining more strongly every year. The reason I say it's hypocrisy is that this comes from the same government, informed by previous iterations of Senator Canavan's old pals at the previous Productivity Commission, that pushed the car industry out of Australia. The then government shut the car industry down. They closed the industry, and 40,000 people lost their jobs.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

You're unbelievable. You're an idiot.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) | Link to this | Hansard source

You might scoff at 40,000 people in Melbourne's and Adelaide's outer suburbs—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, could you resume your seat for just one moment. Senator Ciccone.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard Senator Canavan refer to Senator Ayres as an idiot, and I think he should withdraw that comment.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Raff!

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

He's not an idiot.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Canavan, would you withdraw your comment?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly Raff doesn't want live sheep exports to end. I know he doesn't, so he's happy to repeat the epithet. But I will withdraw.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, that's enough heckling.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Let's have some order in here.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm grateful as always for Senator Ciccone's support, but I have been called far, far worse things, I can assure you! But a whole industry—it was not a small industry; it was a very big industry that was consequential for Australia's future—was closed down, and they laughed it off. For them, it was an article of faith to force those manufacturing jobs offshore. When we look over our shoulder, we see there was no electoral mandate. They never went to the people of Victoria and South Australia and said: 'Guess what? We think it would be a good idea if we shut your industry down.' So, looking over your shoulder, you see that's what happened in the past.

What about the future? They have this idea that industry shouldn't have to consider what approach future governments might have, when they have this catastrophe over there for our energy sector, the 'disinvestment Dutton show' that is determined to drive investment in our energy sector offshore. And they want to complain that this government went to not one but two elections very, very clear about what it was that we would do. And of course the energy sector is utterly consequential for the future of this country. So we are—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. Senator Canavan and Senator O'Sullivan, I've called you to order a number of times. Will you please keep this in some semblance of order?

Senator Canavan, that is enough. Senator Ayres, please continue.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) | Link to this | Hansard source

Honestly, the slogan that these characters run around Western Australia with is 'keep the sheep'. It is the most dishonest slogan I've ever heard. It doesn't say 'protect the live export trade', because nobody supports that proposition. It was tested in a focus group; it is fake, utterly fake.

We are a government—this may be an utterly foreign concept—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. This debate is getting out of hand. I've called you to order a number of times. We'll listen to Senator Ayres's contribution—

Senator McKenzie! Senator Ayres, please continue.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) | Link to this | Hansard source

It may be a novel concept to those on the other side of this argument that an opposition should construct a policy, should receive a mandate and should implement and do what it said that it would do. I know this is a foreign concept to those opposite. It's not something that they ever did in government, but this is a government that does what it says that it was going to do. And we have worked through our election program in a systematic way, and you know what? Australians want governments that do what they say they are going to do.

When you look at the merits of the arguments that are put for this errant campaign, what was see is an industry in decline. In 2014-15, 2.1 million sheep were exported by sea at a value of $224 million; in 2021-22, 475,000 sheep were exported by sea at a value of $80 million—a complete collapse during the period that the opposition was in government. And what support did they offer this industry—that they now say is an utterly core principle for them to protect? Nothing. What did the previous government do to assist this industry to deal with the social licence values that have so utterly collapsed? Nothing. There was no contribution. Live exports by sea decreased by $144 million over that period and by over 1½ million head.

The Leader of the Nationals, Mr Littleproud, has said that the coalition partnership is contingent on the reinstatement of the live sheep export trade. That's what's really going on here. It's an opposition that, in government, utterly failed to support this sector. It completely failed to assist them to transition to value adding onshore or to more exports of boxed meat offshore. That is what people in country towns need. It's more decent jobs in our meat-processing sector. There was no effort from the previous government in that regard, and now there has been a sustained performance over a couple of weeks on that issue.

The truth is it's an industry that is in terminal decline. The proposition that this government offers is a serious and substantial package to ensure that the industry is able to work through the difficult issues of transition and value adding and all of the other issues that confront them. The alternative is a continued terminal decline and continued zero support from government. This is a government that will support the agricultural sector, even when times are tough and even when there is disagreement. We will work in partnership with the sector to get things done.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) | Link to this | Hansard source

It's now my honour to close out the debate on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, prior to us moving to a series of votes on something that has been discussed in this country for a very long time.

Let's be very clear regarding what this debate is about. It's about implementing an election commitment that Labor took to the last two elections—nothing more, nothing less. We're in this curious situation where members of the opposition are calling for this government to abandon an election commitment, something we've never seen an opposition do before. We fully intend to deliver this commitment by passing this legislation tonight. We went to the last two federal elections committing to phase out live sheep exports by sea. Today, by passing this legislation—as I hope we soon will do—we will be delivering on our election commitment to the Australian people by bringing the export of live sheep by sea to an end on 1 May 2028.

In doing this, we won't just be delivering an election commitment; we will be delivering a substantial reform for animal welfare in Australia that many thousands of people have sought for a long, long time and that is widely supported across the Australian community. But what we'll also be doing is assisting the sheep industry in Western Australia, which is the only state that continues to export live sheep by sea. We'll be supporting that industry to transition towards a stronger future based on more value adding, more onshore processing and more jobs for Western Australians. This policy is about keeping jobs in Western Australia rather than sending those jobs offshore. In doing so, we will be putting forward a strong future for the Western Australian sheep industry.

I recognise that, as with pretty much everything we debate in this chamber, this is not a policy that is supported by 100 per cent of Australians or 100 per cent of Western Australians. At all times while carrying this reform through the government and through the parliament, I have sought to be respectful of the fact that there are different views on this. Today I met again with representatives of the sheep industry in Western Australia, many of whom are sheep farmers themselves or those involved in the supply chain like shearers and truckies. I think that brings it to about 14 meetings I've now had with representatives of the sheep industry in Western Australia, including sheep farmers themselves. At all times I have dealt with all parties in this debate respectfully, agreeing to meet with them and listen to them, and being really honest with them about what can be done and what can't be done. From the very first meeting that I've had with those groups, I've made very clear that we have every intention of delivering our election commitment but that we would listen to them and work with them on how we would implement that commitment. I've made that offer again today.

As I said, I recognise that this policy is not supported by every single member of the sheep industry or every single Australian, but I repeat the point that this is a commitment that was taken to not just one but two elections and was endorsed by the Australian people and the Western Australian people at the last federal election. It continues to have widespread support, with the latest surveys that I've seen demonstrating that even in Western Australia—the one state which continues to export live sheep by sea—our policy of phasing out this industry retains the support of about 70 per cent of Western Australians. So this does have widespread support in Western Australia, just as it does in Australia. I understand that those opposite—and we'll come to their record—don't support this and want to stop this from happening. This is a policy that Australians have voted for and that is still supported by about 70 per cent of Western Australians.

I want to put on record again my thanks to the members of the independent panel we appointed early last year to consider and provide advice to the government on how and when we should implement this election commitment. I invite anyone interested in this issue to have a look at their report and look at the government's response to that panel's report. By and large, we've accepted pretty much all of the recommendations that the panel made, including their recommendation that we should phase out this industry once and for all on 1 May 2028. In addition, this government recognises that this will be a significant adjustment for many people in the sheep industry in Western Australia. That's why we have put on the table a $107 million transition package funded by every taxpayer in Australia. Let's remember, we're talking about an industry that brought in $77 million last year. We're putting in $107 million of taxpayer funds, with every taxpayer in Australia contributing towards an industry that has been in decline for 20 years.

I'll come to what's happened in the past and the decline and the lack of assistance that's been provided to this industry in the past. Before doing so, I think a few facts need to be put on the record again about this industry, because, if you listen to the National Party and the Liberal Party, you would think that we are talking about the backbone of Western Australia's agricultural sector. As important as this sector is to those involved in it, we are talking about a tiny fraction of the Western Australian agriculture industry as a whole. In 2022-23, live sheep exports by sea represented less than one per cent of the total value of Australia's sheep exports. In 2022-23, live sheep exports by sea from Australia were worth $77 million, while sheepmeat exports reached $4.5 billion in 2021-22.

We hear a lot from the National Party and the Liberal Party about how much they care about this industry and how it needs to stay in place and how they're the biggest supporters of the industry. What the National Party and the Liberal Party don't want to admit is that this industry plummeted in size and in importance to the Western Australian agricultural sector when they were in government. I mentioned in question time today that in 2014-15, Australia exported 2.1 million sheep by sea at a value of $224 million.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie!

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) | Link to this | Hansard source

By the end of the former government, that number had fallen from 2.1 million sheep being exported in 2014-15 to 475,000 sheep being exported in 2021-22. So these people who want to characterise themselves as the defenders of the sheep industry were the very people who saw an 80 per cent fall in the number of sheep being exported by sea while they were in office.

The truth is that this industry has been in decline for about 20 years. At the very same time, what has been going through the roof? It is the export of sheepmeat. You may not be aware of this, but exports of sheepmeat are part of the agriculture sector as well. People who work meat processing are part of the agriculture supply chain. That is the part of this industry that has been going through the roof, with the potential to grow further.

We know that there's a lot of hypocrisy on display here. I did remind the chamber during question time today that Labor is not alone in supporting the end of the live sheep export industry. We do know that the now Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Ms Sussan Ley, introduced a private member's bill in 2018 seeking to ban the trade, stating:

The live sheep trade is in terminal decline …

…   …   …

Unfortunately this is an industry with an operating model built on the suffering of animals.

Those were the words of the deputy Liberal leader only about four years ago. Of course, she was backed in by now Senator Henderson, who was then a member of the House of Representatives.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie!

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) | Link to this | Hansard source

They both said:

… the sensible path for both sides of the debate is to construct a carefully considered transition to ending the trade permanently …

…   …   …

… what we both believe—

This is Sussan Ley and Sarah Henderson, now Senator Henderson—

is an inevitable and permanent ceasing of all live sheep exports to the Middle East.

So it's not just Labor who is supporting this, although we do support this because we can see the opportunity for the sheep industry in more value-adding and more job creation in Western Australia. We're not going to be hypocrites like the National Party and the Liberal Party, who try to pretend that they're the friends of farmers and who try to pretend that they're sticking up for a trade that fell by 80 percent on their watch when they were in government and for which they provided not one cent in transition support, compared to a Labor government that is providing $107 million.

Enough of the hypocrisy from the Nationals and the Liberals. We need to get on with a reform that was voted on by the Australian people at the last election, that is supported by about 70 per cent of the Western Australian public and that will be an improvement to animal welfare while creating hundreds of new jobs in Western Australia.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Wong?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just wondering if Senator McKenzie could possibly just let up for one or two seconds during the debate.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, I have called you, and I would ask for silence for the remainder of the time. Minister Watt.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) | Link to this | Hansard source

It's time to implement our election commitment. It's time to move this trade from live exports to onshore processing. It's time to pass this legislation.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister Watt. The time for debate on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 and other bills has expired.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill without limitation of time.

Colleagues, what can I say? Minister Watt has just said it all. Tonight, the Australian Labor Party say they'll deliver an election commitment. Guess what? We, on this side of the chamber, say you will close down an industry in Western Australia. You will turn your back on Western Australians, including the truckies, the farmers and the shearers. But you don't care because, despite 60,000 people signing the Keep the Sheep petition and despite the thousands and thousands of jobs that will soon—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash, resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, not only have I called you to order but you are now interjecting on your own leader. You can come to order, you can leave the chamber or you can seek the call. Please continue, Senator Cash.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, there are thousands and thousands of jobs that Senator Watt tonight has officially said are all over. They are no more. Senator Watt says it is an election commitment that the Australian Labor Party are delivering on.

Isn't it interesting, though, that, even though it's an election commitment and they claim that they have the right to deliver on the end of this industry in Western Australia, they still don't have the guts to have it properly scrutinised by the Australian Senate? What we just hit at 10 o'clock was, of course, the end of the debate, and when we say 'the end of the debate' what we mean is that we've just hit a guillotine. Why have we hit a guillotine? Because the Australian Labor Party knows that this is not playing out well at the moment in Western Australia.

So they give you a choice. You can have some speeches in the second reading debate tonight and then we hit the guillotine and—guess what—it's all over. Why don't you have the guts to allow an actual committee stage on this bill tonight? What are you hiding from the people of, in particular, Western Australia? What is it that you don't want to tell them? That you don't have an evidence base in relation to the decision that you have just made? That you know that over 60,000 people have signed the Keep the Sheep petition to keep this industry going in Western Australia? You know that the people of Western Australia do not want this bill to go through tonight. But none of that matters to the Australian Labor Party.

The good news for voters is that this time next year—guess what—we will have gone to an election, and I can assure you that in Western Australia we will be making it very, very clear to people that they have a black and white decision to make. If you believe in Western Australia, in the farmers, in the shearers, in the truckies and in those people who wake up every single day and keep our state going, you get to vote for the coalition. It is as simple as that. It is a binary decision. Either you want to back Western Australia and vote for the coalition or—and the 'or' is Mr Albanese, the Australian Labor Party and all of those senators, including the Labor senators from Western Australia, and Labor members of the House of Representatives who have turned their backs on Western Australia.

Mr Albanese likes to tell people that he is a great friend of our state. Guess what, Mr Albanese: actions speak louder than words. It doesn't matter what Minister Watt said in his summing-up speech tonight. The fact of the matter is that that, with the support of the Australian Greens, this bill will shortly go through the Senate chamber, and it goes through the Senate chamber under a guillotine, because the Australian Labor Party, quite frankly, don't have the guts to answer questions on this bill. Why don't they want a committee stage? Perhaps if they had a committee stage they might actually be shown for what they are—a government that quite frankly puts the word 'transparency' to shame, despite what they said prior to the election.

What did Senator Birmingham say when we were once again in this situation a little while ago? What were we promised by Mr Albanese? What were we promised by Senator Wong? What were we promised by the Australian Labor Party? And of course, prior to the election, what did they promise Australians? Well, they promised Australians a lot, but one of the things they promised was greater accountability. And tonight, once again, those words promised prior to the election, 'greater accountability', are about to be trashed. That is a great shame. The only people tonight who are not going to benefit are the people of Western Australia. But a very clear decision can soon be made. A vote for Peter Dutton is a vote for the industry; a vote for Anthony Albanese is not.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) | Link to this | Hansard source

These are more delaying tactics from an opposition that has sought at every stage to delay debate and delay the delivery of an election commitment that the Australian people voted for. That's what going on here tonight. Let's be very clear about what we're debating. We're debating something that the Labor Party took to the last two federal elections and won the last federal election on. It wasn't that long ago that Senator Henderson was actually supporting us on it. We can go back and have a look at those quotes from Senator Henderson. I think she described it as an 'immoral trade'. I think those were her words. It wasn't that long ago that Senator Henderson was actually going much further in her language than anyone in the Labor Party has ever done.

So what we're debating here tonight, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, is a piece of legislation to deliver an election commitment that was voted for by the Australian people and that Western Australians largely supported at the last federal election. It then went through months of consultation through an independent panel of four people appointed by the government, who provided advice to the government on it. It then went to a House of Representatives inquiry with two hearings, one of which was in Canberra and one of which was in Western Australia. It was then debated and passed in the House of Representatives, and it is now here in the Senate. For anyone in this chamber, particularly those on the other side of this chamber, to argue—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Order! Order on my left. I just had Senator Cash on her feet, and every single senator in this place respected her right to be listened to in silence. I now have the minister on his feet, and you will listen in respectful silence or choose to leave the chamber. Minister, please continue.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, this is just more delaying tactics from an opposition that isn't prepared to respect the result of the last election and isn't prepared to respect the work of the independent panel that we appointed to undertake some consultation across Western Australia. The panel met with hundreds of people across Western Australia, took thousands of submissions from across Western Australia and provided advice to the government on how we should deliver this election commitment. That's what this legislation is about. We've got an opposition that continues to refuse to accept the result of the last election, where the Australian people actually voted for us to do this.

They're also not prepared to accept a $107 million transition package that the people of Australia are committing to through their government. I remind you that under the last government we saw the number of live sheep exported by sea fall by 80 per cent in the life of the last government with not a cent of assistance being provided by that government to assist this industry to transition. In contrast, this government listened to the words of the industry when it said that it needs support to make this transition—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Once again, I call senators on my left to order. You are to listen with respect and in silence. Minister, please continue.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) | Link to this | Hansard source

What we should do is get on and debate this legislation and pass this legislation to deliver and implement the election commitment. What we've been doing all day is debating this legislation here and—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Watt, please resume your seat.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Senator McKenzie, resume your seat. I have Senator O'Sullivan on his feet, but I had just sat the minister down, and I asked for silence. You all acted disrespectfully and ignored me. Senator O'Sullivan, were you on a point of order?

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Minister Watt.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) | Link to this | Hansard source

We should be passing this legislation tonight. It's legislation that was supported at the last election by the Australian people. It's been to a House of Representatives inquiry. It's had months of consultation. We should pass the legislation, and I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the closure motion moved by Minister Watt be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the suspension motion, as moved by Senator Cash, be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, I will now put the question before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bills listed in that resolution. The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Cash on sheet 2697 be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition on sheet 2695 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

Omit all words after "That", substitute "the Senate:

(a) criticises the Government for imposing its reckless and ideological decision to shut down Australia's live sheep export industry by sea;

(b) recognises that:

(i) Australia's live sheep export industry employs more than 3,000 people in Western Australia, including shearers, truck drivers, fodder suppliers, livestock agents, farmers and producers,

(ii) these workers now face the prospect of losing their job, and families that are struggling under financial stress may now face a difficult decision to leave their rural towns and communities,

(iii) this industry has delivered comprehensive reforms which have secured exemplary animal welfare outcomes, and

(iv) Australia has the highest standards of animal welfare in the world;

(c) further criticises the Government for the mismanagement and lack of consultation on this policy to end live sheep exports with farmers, sheep producers and impacted communities;

(d) acknowledges that this policy is widely and strongly opposed across the agriculture sector;

(e) expresses concern that if the live sheep export industry is banned, alternatives will be sourced from countries that do not share Australia's animal welfare standards, resulting in perverse international animal welfare outcomes; and

(f) calls on the Government to immediately reverse its policy to shut down this industry".

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition on sheet 2698 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

Omit all words after "That", substitute "the bill be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 September 2024".

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill be now read a second time.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2699 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

(1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Independent review

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider:

(a) the operation and effectiveness of the independent panel that was appointed to consult with stakeholders on how and when the Government should phase-out live sheep exports by sea; and

(b) the operation and effectiveness of Division 6A of Part 6 of Chapter 11 of the Export Control Act 2020 (relating to assistance in relation to the phasing out of the export of live sheep by sea); and

(c) whether any rural, regional, remote or Indigenous communities are adversely affected or worse off as a result of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(3) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of 3 months after this Act commences.

(4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 12 months of the commencement of the review.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

The question is that the amendment on sheet 2699 be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Greens amendments on sheet 2641 revised be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 19), omit "1 May 2028", substitute "1 May 2026".

(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (line 9), omit "1 May 2028", substitute "1 May 2026".

(3) Page 11 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Quotas for the live export of sheep

Part 1 — Amendments to the Export Control Act 2020

Export Control Act 2020

1 At the end of subsection 376(1)

Add:

; (e) Subsection 424AA(2).

2 Subsection 381(1) (after table item 76)

Add:

3 At the end of Division 6 of Part 6 of Chapter 11

Add:

424AA Allocation for export of sheep

Total allocation

(1) The total allocation for the export of sheep by sea is:

(a) for the period beginning on the commencement of Schedule 2 to the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Act 2024 and ending on 31 May 2025—400,000 sheep;

(b) for the period beginning on 1 June 2025 and ending on 30 April 2026—200,000 sheep.

Application for individual allocation

(2) If the holder of an export licence to carry out export operations in relation to livestock intends to export one or more consignments of sheep during a period referred to in subsection (1) they may apply to the Secretary under this section for an allocation (an individual allocation) for that period.

Note: Section 379 sets out requirements for applications.

Secretary must give individual allocation to applicant

(3) If the Secretary receives an application under subsection (2), the Secretary must give the holder of the export licence an individual allocation for the intended export.

Note 1: The allocation may be zero sheep.

Note 2: A decision to give an individual allocation is a reviewable decision (see Part 2 of Chapter 11) and the Secretary must give the person written notice of the decision (see section 382).

(4) The Secretary must, to the extent practicable, give a greater individual allocation to exporters whose animal health and welfare record does not raise concerns, or in relation to whom the Secretary does not have reasonable grounds to believe that any future export of the exporter will raise animal health and welfare concerns, than to other exporters.

Note: The Secretary is not required to deal with applications under subsection (2) in the order in which the applications are received by the Secretary.

(5) In considering whether animal welfare concerns may exist under subsection (4), the Secretary must have regard to the following:

(a) if the holder of the export licence who made the application has previously exported sheep from Australia—the animal health and welfare record of the holder;

(b) any other matter relevant to the health and welfare of sheep;

(c) any other matter the Secretary considers relevant;

(d) any other matter prescribed by the rules.

Variation of individual allocation

(6) The Secretary may vary the individual allocation given to a person under subsection (3).

Note: A decision to vary an individual allocation is a reviewable decision (see Part 2 of Chapter 11) and the Secretary must give the person written notice of the decision (see section 382).

(7) In considering whether it is necessary to vary an individual allocation, the Secretary must have regard to the matters prescribed by the rules.

Total number of sheep in individual allocations cannot exceed total allocation

(8) The number of sheep included in the total number of individual allocations given by the Secretary under subsection (3) for a period cannot exceed the total allocation for that period.

Obligation of holder of individual allocation

(9) A person who has been given an individual allocation for a period under subsection (3) must not export more than the total number of sheep included in that allocation during that period.

Holder of export licence must comply with this section

(10) An export licence to carry out export operations in relation to livestock is subject to the condition that the holder of the licence must comply with this section.

Note 1: The holder of an export licence may commit an offence or be liable to a civil penalty if a condition of the licence is contravened (see section 217).

Note 2: An export licence may be suspended or revoked if a condition of the licence is contravened (see sections 205 and 212).

Part 2 — Amendments to the Export Control (Animals) Rules 2021

Export Control (Animals) Rules 2021

4 Section 2-3 (after table item 4)

Insert:

5 Section 2-7

After "applies in relation to prescribed livestock", insert ", other than sheep,".

6 Before paragraph 7-1(2)(a)

Insert:

(aa) if the export permit is for a consignment of sheep by sea—an individual allocation for the relevant period has been received from the Secretary under subsection 424AA(3) of the Act.

7 After subsection 8-3(1)

Insert:

(1A) A notice of intention to export a consignment of sheep by sea may not be given if the person who intends to export the consignment has not received an individual allocation from the Secretary under subsection 424AA(3) of the Act.

Part 3 — Application and transitional provisions

8 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments of the Export Control Act 2020 and the Export Control (Animals) Rules 2021 made by this Schedule apply in relation to:

(a) an export licence to carry out export operations in relation to livestock that is in force on or after the commencement of this item, whether the licence was granted before, on or after that commencement; and

(b) an act or omission occurring on or after the commencement of this item.

9 Transitional rules

(1) The Secretary may, by legislative instrument, make rules for or in relation to matters of a transitional nature (including provision for any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments or repeals made by this Act.

(2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:

(a) create an offence or civil penalty;

(b) provide powers of:

(i) arrest or detention; or

(ii) entry, search or seizure;

(c) impose a tax;

(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act;

(e) directly amend the text of this Act.

(3) Subsection 12(2) (retrospective application of legislative instruments) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to rules made for the purposes of this item.

(4) Page 11 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — Secretary's approved export programs for the live export of sheep

Part 1 — Amendments

Export Control Act 2020

1 After subsection 311

Insert:

311A Approvals of programs of export operations for export of sheep

Secretary's obligation to ensure certain exports covered by approved export program

(1) The Secretary must ensure that every export, or intended export, of sheep by sea is covered by a program of export operations to be carried out by an authorised officer and an accredited veterinarian for the purpose of ensuring the health and welfare of the sheep.

(2) Without limiting the export operations that may be carried out in a program referred to in subsection (1), those export operations must:

(a) be carried out in a manner that is objective, independent, fair and accurate; and

(b) include:

(i) monitoring the health and welfare of sheep;

(ii) examining, testing or treating sheep;

(iii) keeping records of the implementation of the program;

(iv) making declarations attesting to the completion of the requirements of the program; and

(v) public reporting on the implementation and completion of the program.

Program may be undertaken within or outside Australian territory

(3) A program of export operations referred to in subsection (1) may be undertaken within or outside Australian territory.

Expiry date

(4) The Secretary may, if the Secretary considers it appropriate, set an expiry date for an approved export program referred to in subsection (1).

(5) An export program referred to in subsection (1) remains in force:

(a) if there is an expiry date for the export program—until that expiry date unless the program is revoked; or

(b) if there is no expiry date for the program—until the program is revoked.

Secretary may vary approved export program

(6) The Secretary may vary an approved export program referred to in subsection (1) if the Secretary is satisfied that the approved export program, as proposed to be varied, is for the purpose of ensuring the health and welfare of the sheep in the course of export operations to which the approved export program relates.

(7) If the Secretary varies an approved export program under subsection (6), the Secretary must, in writing, notify the exporters to whose export operations the approved export program relates.

(8) The notice under subsection (7) must state:

(a) details of the variation; and

(b) the day the variation takes effect.

Secretary may approve more than one approved export program

(9) The Secretary may approve more than one program of export operations to be carried out in relation to sheep to be exported by sea by a person.

Part 2 — Application and transitional provisions

2 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments of the Export Control Act 2020 and the Export Control (Animals) Rules 2021 made by this Schedule apply in relation to:

(a) an export licence to carry out export operations in relation to livestock that is in force on or after the commencement of this item, whether the licence was granted before, on or after that commencement; and

(b) an act or omission occurring on or after the commencement of this item.

3 Transitional rules

(1) The Secretary may, by legislative instrument, make rules for or in relation to matters of a transitional nature (including provision for any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments or repeals made by this Act.

(2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:

(a) create an offence or civil penalty;

(b) provide powers of:

(i) arrest or detention; or

(ii) entry, search or seizure;

(c) impose a tax;

(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act.

(5) Page 11 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Northern summer trade prohibition

Part 1 — Amendments

Export Control (Animals) Rules 2021

1 Subdivision B of Division 4 of Part 2 of Chapter 6

Repeal the Subdivision, substitute:

Subdivision B — Prohibition on export to specific places

6-12 Sheep must not be exported to the Northern Hemisphere between 1 May and 31 October

A consignment of sheep must not be exported to the Northern Hemisphere by sea on a vessel that leaves an Australian port between 1 May in a year and 31 October in that year.

2 Subdivision C of Division 4 of Part 2 of Chapter 6

Repeal the Subdivision.

Part 2 — Application and transitional provisions

3 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments of the Export Control Act 2020 and the Export Control (Animals) Rules 2021 made by this Schedule apply in relation to:

(a) an export licence to carry out export operations in relation to livestock that is in force on or after the commencement of this item, whether the licence was granted before, on or after that commencement; and

(b) an act or omission occurring on or after the commencement of this item.

4 Transitional rules

(1) The Secretary may, by legislative instrument, make rules for or in relation to matters of a transitional nature (including provision for any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments or repeals made by this Act.

(2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:

(a) create an offence or civil penalty;

(b) provide powers of:

(i) arrest or detention; or

(ii) entry, search or seizure;

(c) impose a tax;

(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act;

(e) directly amend the text of this Act.

(3) Subsection 12(2) (retrospective application of legislative instruments) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to rules made for the purposes of this item.