Dissenting Report
Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No.2) 2004
In my view, the proposed amendments to
the Australian Meat and Live-stock
Industry Act 1997 (AMLI Act) contained in this legislation do nothing to
address the longstanding and serious concerns about the live animal export
trade. Given that the legislation is
part of the response to the recommendations of the Keniry inquiry which was
established in an effort to address widespread community concerns about the
industry, this is unsatisfactory.
Under the Bill, funds normally disbursed
to the Meat and Live-stock Australia (MLA) will be diverted specifically to
LiveCorp, which promotes the further expansion of live export trade. LiveCorp is not only being handed a life-line,
it is also being given an opportunity to exert even greater influence in
matters related to the industry.
In addition to the intrinsic cruelty to
animals involved in the live sheep and cattle trade, in my view there is clear
evidence that the trade directly costs jobs in Australia.
If there was any genuine intent to get
better animal welfare outcomes in the livestock industries, attempts would be
made to develop economically viable alternatives to live exports. There is an existing trade in processed and
frozen meat which is much larger in value than live exports, yet nothing is
being done to further develop this as alternative, despite it clearly being a
viable alternative.
The support for LiveCorp extending its
role and responsibilities to that of the live-export industry’s research and
development body seems incongruous under the circumstances; particularly
considering the number of previous attempts made to improve the performance of
the industry.
The Australian Democrats do support the
notion of compulsory fees for the purposes of
research and development on animal welfare issues while the trade continues, as
long as this is not done as an alternative to better developing viable
alternatives to the industry. However,
it is completely inappropriate for any portion of the levy being directed into
marketing of any type.
I fail to see how spending
more to market and promote an industry that has major animal welfare problems
can do anything to reduce those problems.
Given the industry's long standing record of denying animal welfare
problems and only acting on these matters whenever an incident occurs which
highlights the clear cruelty involved, it is hard to see how extra marketing
funds would be used for anything other than PR exercises to counter the bad
publicity that is inevitably going to continue occurring.
Whilst spending money from
an industry levy on research & development may appear to have more
validity, I have little confidence there is any real likelihood of this
spending involving any significant or meaningful focus on animal welfare
matters.
From the evidence presented
to the Senate Committee,
there has clearly been no real effort made by industry to date consult with
animal welfare groups about the development of the guidelines for determining
how the research and development funds would be spent. There has also clearly been no meaningful
attempt to involve animal welfare groups in the formulation of this legislation
or its application. The very limited
time which peak groups such as the RSPCA and Animals Australia had to do a
submission for this Committee
inquiry and their consequential inability to give evidence at the public
hearing reinforced the simple fact that there is still no serious recognition
of the innate cruelty involved in this trade.
The level of public concern at this cruelty is clearly large and
continuing. It will not go away or be
mollified by being ignored or by just responding with a better funded marketing
and PR campaign.
In
addition to full accountability and transparency of the imposition and
collation of such fees, I believe any monies raised by the levy should only be
used in the following ways:
- to enable research to be undertaken into animal
welfare and animal health issues, and that these issues are central to all
industry funded research and development;
- that the scientific merits
of every proposed research and development project be examined to ensure
improved animal welfare is its core goal, and that the progress of
individual research and development projects be assessed to ensure the
funds are being well utilised;
- to facilitate the establishment of an advisory group
which includes at least two animal welfare representatives, to have input
into the type of research undertaken using the R&D funds collected
from industry;
- an annual audit be conducted of the entire research
and development process to ensure its complying with the spirit and
intention of the Keniry Report; and
- production and publication of annual reports and any
completed papers in relation to research and development.
The Australian Democrats view the
welfare and health of the animals in the livestock export trade as being
fundamental to the imposition and collation of compulsory levies, and urge the
Senate to support amendments on this basis.
Senator
Andrew Bartlett
Australian
Democrats