Chapter 2
The Bills
Private Senators' Bills
2.1
On 15 June 2011, the Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill
2011 [No. 2] was introduced in the Senate by Senator Rachel Siewert. The Live
Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2] was introduced in
the Senate on 20 June 2011 by Senator Nick Xenophon.
2.2
On 23 June 2011, the Senate jointly referred the Live Animal Export
(Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2] and the Live Animal Export
Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2] to the Senate Rural Affairs and
Transport References Committee (the committee) for inquiry and report.
2.3
The committee conducted the reference inquiry and the bills' inquiry
concurrently.
Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2]
Purpose of the bill
2.4
The Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill [No. 2] (the
Export Restriction Bill) would amend the Australian Meat and Live-stock
Industry Act 1997 (the Act) to prohibit the export of livestock for
slaughter on or after 1 July 2014 and to provide that export licence holders must
ensure all livestock are treated satisfactorily prior to slaughter.
2.5
The Export Restriction Bill would also amend the Export Control Act
1982 to prohibit the export of livestock for slaughter unless the Secretary
is satisfied that the livestock will be treated satisfactorily prior to
slaughter; and to prohibit the export of livestock for slaughter on or after 1
July 2014.[1]
Provisions of the bill
Australian Meat and Live-stock
Industry Act 1977
2.6
Item 1 inserts a definition of 'livestock for slaughter' into section 3
of the Act to ensure that the provisions of the bill apply only to livestock
that are intended to be exported and slaughtered overseas. [2]
2.7
Item 2 inserts a subsection in section 10 of the Act, which notes that
export licenses granted under the Act do not allow for the export of livestock
for slaughter after 1 July 2014. This item sets an end-date on the export of
live animals for slaughter, as supported by Item 5 of this bill, which amends
the Export Control Act 1982 to prohibit the export of livestock for
slaughter after 1 July 2014.
2.8
Item 3 inserts section 16A into the Act to set out additional conditions
which apply in relation to a licence for export of live animals for slaughter.
These conditions provide that an export licence holder must make all reasonable
efforts to ensure that livestock are treated in accordance with the International
Office of Epizootics (OIE) Guidelines from the relevant sections of the current
edition of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, as defined in Item 5 of
this bill. This item also states that if a livestock export licence holder
becomes aware that livestock exported under their licence have not been treated
in accordance with these Guidelines, they must notify the Secretary within 14
days of becoming aware of the breaches.
2.9
Proposed subsection 16A(3) provides that paragraph (1)(a) does not apply
to livestock exported under permission, consent or approval that was issued on
the basis of the transitional arrangements outlined in Item 4 of the bill.
Export Control Act 1982
2.10
Item 4 inserts Part IIB into the Act to impose regulations on the export
of livestock for slaughter between the commencement date and 1 July 2014; to
provide for transitional exemptions to be granted in certain circumstances
where livestock export contracts existed before the commencement date; and to
ban the export of livestock for slaughter unconditionally after 1 July 2014.
Support for the Export Restriction Bill
2.11
The committee received a number of submissions from individuals and
organisations expressing support for the phasing out of the live export
industry over a period of years. Some individuals indicated that whilst their
preference was for an outright ban, they were prepared to support a phasing out
of the industry over a period of three years.[3]
2.12
The Commonwealth and Public Sector Union (CPSU) noted that its members
support legislation to phase out exports of animals for slaughter. The CPSU
argued that many of Australia's live animal export markets "lack
enforceable standards for animal welfare and hygienic production of meat as
well as appropriate inspection systems to enforce the standards".[4]
2.13
A submission received from Pam Ahern, Founder and Director of Edgar's
Mission Farm Sanctuary, expressed strong concerns about animal welfare and
argued that the inherent problem with the live animal trade is that
"Australia is unable to control how its animals are treated once they
arrive in foreign countries".[5]
Ms Ahern argued that the Australian Government should work toward an end date
for all live animal exports within three years. Ms Ahern further argued that a
three year phase out period would allow "farmers time to adjust to the
changing market conditions".[6]
2.14
A submission from veterinarian Dr Linda Fleeman also argued for the
phasing out of the live export trade, based on both animal welfare and economic
grounds. Dr Fleeman believes that the live trade should be phased out and replaced
with a refrigerated meat trade and local processing. She also suggested that
while the industry is being phased out:
... strict regulations with independent Australian government
monitoring, especially at the point of slaughter, need to be in place to
minimise animal cruelty and stress as much as possible.[7]
2.15
Several major animal welfare lobby groups also indicated their support
for this bill.
2.16
The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) told the
committee that the Society is fundamentally opposed to live export for
slaughter. The basis for the WSPA's opposition to live export is that Australia
exports livestock to countries that do not meet OIE guidelines and which have
inadequate animal welfare legislation. The WSPA's position is that animals being
transported for slaughter should not be transported beyond the nearest suitable
abattoir. They argue that live exports are inherently cruel due to the long
distances and sheer scale of the industry and that animals are subjected to
"unavoidable and unnecessary suffering during transport and
handling".[8]
2.17
In evidence, WSPA made specific reference to the live sheep trade and
noted that it is not calling for an overnight end to the trade. The group
acknowledged that farmers would need time to make adjustments, and rather than
calling for an immediate end to the trade, suggested a five year phase out
period, which is slightly longer than the three-year period suggested by the
bill.[9]
2.18
The Stop Live Exports Group expressed similar views to WSPA. The group
noted that it does not endorse the live animal export trade in any way. It also
stated its position that, in terms of animal welfare, best practice means
slaughtering animals as close as possible to the place in which they were
raised. The group argued that both Commonwealth and state governments must take
a leadership role and, in partnership with industry and animal welfare
agencies, "develop a road map to phase out live exports and substitute
this with an alternative product".[10]
The group suggested that if the live animal export trade continues:
- stunning must be a non-negotiable aspect of live trade; and
- the Australian Government (not industry) must be responsible for
monitoring and enforcing animal welfare standards.[11]
2.19
In its submission to the committee, RSPCA Australia noted that it has a
policy which opposes the live export of animals for slaughter. The policy is
based on a belief that there are inherent risks associated with transporting
animals over long distances, and the RSPCA argued strongly that animals should
be slaughtered as close as possible to the point of production in Australia,
under Australian conditions.[12]
2.20
RSPCA Australia indicated its support for the phasing out of the live
export trade and noted that:
... a phase out of the live trade will provide producers and
others directly or indirectly involved in the live trade with an opportunity to
adjust their operations to a situation where they no longer have access to that
market. At the same time, we believe that animals being exported in the interim
should have their welfare protected. The Live Animal Export Restriction and
Prohibition Bill 2011 proposes such a way forward. RSPCA Australia gives
the Bill our full support.[13]
2.21
Humane Society International (HSI) expressed disappointment with the
decision by Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries
and Forestry, on 6 July 2011 to repeal the ban on live export of
Australian cattle to Indonesia. HSI also indicated its strong preference for
Australia to work toward a specific end date for all live animal exports.[14]
2.22
The disappointment regarding the Minister's decision to repeal the ban
was echoed by Sentient: The Veterinary Institute for Animal Ethics. The group's
submission expressed the view that the live trade is inherently fraught with
serious animal welfare risks at every stage of the process and argued that
animals should be slaughtered humanely, as close to the point of production as
possible. Sentient noted its fundamental position is to call for a permanent
end to Australia's involvement in the live export trade. However, the group
also indicated its support for the bill – which would result in an end to all
live animal exports by mid-2014.[15]
Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2]
Purpose of the bill
2.23
The Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2] (the
Export Prohibition Bill) would amend the Export Control Act 1982 to
prohibit the export of livestock for slaughter. [16]
Provisions of the bill
2.24
Item 1 inserts a new section 7AA which provides in subsection (1)
definitions of livestock and livestock for slaughter to limit the application
of the section to livestock, as defined in section 3 of the Act as being cattle,
calves, sheep, lambs, goats or other prescribed animals, that are intended to
be exported and slaughtered overseas.[17]
2.25
Proposed subsection 7AA(2) provides that the regulations are taken to
have declared livestock for slaughter as prescribed goods under the Export
Control Act.
2.26
Proposed subsection 7AA(3) provides that the regulations are taken to
have prohibited absolutely the export of livestock for slaughter.
Support for the Export Prohibition Bill
2.27
The committee received a considerable number of submissions from individuals
calling for an immediate and complete ban on live exports.[18]
A number of these submissions expressed concerns regarding animal welfare
issues and at the same time were critical of industry bodies such as MLA and
LiveCorp.
2.28
The views expressed by Ms Suzanne Lawton-Clark were typical of the views
expressed by a number of submitters:
The industry bodies, Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) and
Livecorp, whom the farmers have been paying to ensure satisfactory welfare
standards, have failed to provide any welfare standards at all. And
furthermore, have received warnings on a number of occasions regarding concerns
surrounding this. MLA and Livecorp have failed the farmers, the Australian
community, and most of all the animals they are supposed to be 'managing' and
caring for, while continuing to make enormous profits, part of which could have
been re-invested into ensuring vastly improved welfare standards.[19]
2.29
Several animal rights and animal welfare organisations also supported an
immediate ban on live animal exports.[20]
2.30
Animals Australia was one major lobby group which indicated support for
the Export Prohibition Bill. The group oppose live animal export on animal
welfare grounds and argued strongly that Australia should ban the practice
outright.[21]
Our concerns relate to the additional handling and transport
of animals in Australia, the arduous shipboard journeys and the handling and
slaughter issues in importing countries – countries where there are no adequate
legal or other protection for our animals.[22]
2.31
Animal Liberation ACT also support a complete ban on live exports. The
group argued that the suffering of animals begins before the animals even leave
Australia and that the transportation of animals to live export markets
overseas results in serious negative animal welfare outcomes. It was further
argued that:
... the only way to ensure adequate animal welfare standards
for Australian farm animals exported live from Australia is to stop exporting
them. The trade must simply be banned – forever.[23]
Opposition to the bills
Northern Australia – the importance
of the live export trade
2.32
The committee received a large number of submissions from individuals,
organisations and key stakeholders in support of the live export trade. In
expressing their support, submitters stressed the importance of live export to
cattle producers – particularly those in both the Northern Territory and Western
Australia.[24]
It was further argued by some that any negative impacts in these states will also
have a negative impact on the Australian beef industry generally.[25]
2.33
Mr Rohan Sullivan, President of the Northern Territory Cattlemen's
Association (NTCA) described the live export industry as vital to the future
prospects of the cattle industry in northern Australia, particularly the
Northern Territory. Mr Sullivan also told the committee that:
Our industry manages around 44 per cent of the NT's land
mass, turns off around 600,000 head of cattle per year that is worth over $300
million at the farm gate, employs around 2,000 people directly and underpins
the rural economy of the Northern Territory. The cattle industry provides one
of the few avenues for employment for Indigenous people in remote and rural NT.[26]
2.34
At the committee's hearing in Darwin, Mr Setter, AACo, also told the
committee that northern Australia is reliant on live export. Mr Setter
explained that the soil, rain and the grass systems in northern Australia are
particularly suitable to the running of breeding cattle which are then finished
on quality, higher energy feeds in Indonesia[27].
Mr Setter argued that Northern Territory cattle have been bred specifically for
the live export trade and that:
There are no other viable options for Northern Territory
cattle, with generations of breeding high-content Brahman cattle with carcass
weights that suit the Indonesian market. It would take at last 10 years to get
a composite cross going through Northern Australia if we had to change our
breed. We would be looking at over 10 years to do that. The Australian producer
does not have time.[28]
2.35
Mr Kelsey Nielson, from Two Rivers Station in Boulia, argued that the
trade in live cattle between northern Australia and Indonesia is a "fine
example of the optimum use of challenging landscapes which maximises economic,
environmental and social outcomes".[29]
Mr Neilson outlined the complementary nature of Australia's relationship with
Indonesia in the following way:
- northern Australia's large areas of land are suitable for
breeding large numbers of cattle, but not for finishing cattle to
specifications for processing;
- northern cattle producers have adapted and developed their herds
to maximise fertility and production, and minimise environmental impacts (by
being able to turn off large numbers of young cattle in a season);
- the supply of young cattle perfectly meets Indonesia's requirements;
and
- Indonesia has a plentiful supply of fodder and an abundance of
low-cost labour which allows them to grow cattle out at a very low cost
(meaning they benefit from having an industry, employment and a vital protein
source).[30]
2.36
The committee received a number of submissions from both individuals and
farming families, outlining the impact a permanent ban on live exports would
have - not only on individuals and organisations, but also on families,
businesses and communities. [31]
2.37
In his submission, Mr Tom Stockwell, a cattle producer from Katherine noted
that the beef industry in north-western Australia developed as a direct result
of the live export industry. Mr Stockwell also argued that:
The massive investment in beef production in NW Australia,
the improvements in communities, land management and development are
inextricably linked and due almost entirely to the special relationship of
production potential, geographical location and demographics that the Top End
of Australia and Indonesia share.
For us there is no going back. The alternatives are not
sustainable. Unless the recovery from the Live Export Suspension is managed
efficiently and quickly, the suspension of trade will have changed our district
community from vibrant to unviable in a matter of months. There are no happy
endings in that for people, for cattle or for country.[32]
2.38
Mrs Moira Lanzarin, a cattle producer from Mataranka indicated that her
family business leases Numul Numul Station from the local Aboriginal
Corporation. Mrs Lanzarin argued that if the live export market is not resumed
it would also put the Corporation's future at risk:
The Numul Numul Aboriginal Corporation is again a family
unit, doing their utmost to stay connected and in touch with their land and
keep healthy and strong. Without their annual lease payments from the station
it is possible that these good people, (4 generations – 3 elders, 6 daughters,
5 son-in-laws, lots of grandchildren, great grandchildren plus nephew and
nieces) will need to move into the larger communities or towns. Putting
additional pressure on those services and being at the mercy of ready access to
alcohol and other potential abuses.[33]
2.39
The impact of a ban on Indigenous employment and training opportunities
was also raised by the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC). The ILC's submission
concluded that:
Any proposal to close the trade completely in coming years
would have a catastrophic effect on Indigenous employment and training numbers
in the pastoral industry. Income to pay wages, statutory fees and bills and to
buy food and fuel etc will also be severely impacted. The cumulative effect of
all of the above factors in this submission leads the ILC to conclude that this
would make all Indigenous-operated live export cattle properties economically
unsustainable.[34]
2.40
Mr Larry Graham, a former member of the Western Australian Legislative
Assembly, summarised his position on the bills by telling the committee that
legislation should only be passed when there is a pressing need for it and when
it is in the national interest. Mr Graham argued that in the case of live
export:
... there is no justifiable reason for the Australian
Parliament to continue the knee jerk reaction and pass these bills. To do so is
to punish the producers, transporters and abattoirs that operate at or above
set standards; and to disadvantage all those who depend on this industry for
their financial welfare and food.[35]
Does banning live exports address
animal welfare concerns?
2.41
The committee received evidence from individuals, farming families, key
stakeholder groups and organisations associated with the live export industry
expressing concern about animal welfare issues, particularly the mistreatment
of the animals shown in the Four Corners footage.[36]
However, many of these individuals and organisations questioned whether banning
the live export trade would address animal welfare concerns.
2.42
In evidence, Mr Rohan Sullivan, told the committee that the images of
cruelty and mistreatment shown [on Four Corners] were as unacceptable to
the NTCA as they were to the general public. Mr Sullivan also argued that:
... the response to this should be to fix up the problems,
not shut the industry down, undoing all the good work that has been done in
shipping, road transport and feedlots, penalising those who have made
investments in developing slaughter facilities and animal handling which is
world standard, and throwing an entire industry, including the people, families
and businesses that serve and depend on it, to the wolves.[37]
2.43
In addition to outlining their family's reliance on the live export
trade, Mr Ron and Ms Jeneve Barnicoat expressed concerns about the cruelty
shown in the Four Corners program:
My husband and I, with the help of our son and his family,
run a small property that relies on the live export market for 75% of our
income. Our eldest daughter is married to a Grazier whose family also rely to a
large extent on the export market. Our youngest daughter is married to a
Livestock Agent whom relies on the export trade for about 70% of his business.
Most of our grandchildren have expectations of entering the workforce in some
way related to the beef industry. If the live export doesn't continue, three
generations of this family and their extended families will be affected.
None of us condone the cruelty that was shown on the Four
Corners program, however I believe that the majority of the abattoirs in
Indonesia that process Australian cattle are of a higher standard than those
shown in this program. The Australian Government should have continued to allow
export to those abattoirs owned by Australian companies or others that were up
to the standards of abattoirs in Australia.[38]
2.44
Dr Tony Hayne, a Northern Territory veterinarian and cattle producer,
expressed frustration with what he sees as a lack of leadership from MLA, and
suggests that producers have been let down by an organisation to which they
have been contributing a substantial amount in levies.[39]
As a veterinarian, Dr Hayne also expressed concerns about what would happen if
Australia were to step out of the Indonesian live export trade:
... our place will be taken by countries that do not have the
checks and balances currently involved in Australia. These cattle will also be
forced to undertake a much longer and more treacherous sea voyage under far
less stringent welfare conditions than we impose on our much shorter voyage.
This will surely lead to a lowering of welfare standards, and increased
suffering for animals from those countries that take our place. The countries
that are preparing to take our place also have much lower animal health
standards than we maintain, including the presence of "Foot and Mouth
disease". At the moment by exporting our animals to Indonesia we are
effectively maintaining a "Foot and Mouth disease" buffer, for all of
Australia.[40]
2.45
Professor Ivan Caple provided a submission on behalf of the Independent
Panel which conducted an assessment of the welfare of Australian cattle in
Indonesia in March 2010.[41]
The submission noted the Panel's view that:
... banning the export of cattle as proposed in the two draft
bills would not lead to improvements in the welfare of cattle in Indonesia, or
in any other country which imports Australian livestock.[42]
Impact on Indonesia
2.46
A submission to the inquiry by Mr David Michael asked the committee to
consider the impact of a permanent ban on consumers in target markets such as
Indonesia:
The impact of the Australian ban and any plan to process
cattle in Australia will be felt most by the poorest of the poor. These people
will be unlikely to buy processed meat from Australia which will require
refrigeration and be much more expensive. They may be able to source meat
protein from other live cattle imported into Indonesia but costs are again
likely to be higher with extra transport and quarantine restrictions
constraining access. Against this background it's likely that supply based
interventions in the trade of live cattle from Australia to Indonesia will have
an adverse impact on living standards of the poor in Indonesia and increase
malnutrition and death rates. Australia needs to be aware of this impact.[43]
Committee view
2.47
The committee acknowledges the concerns raised by submitters and
witnesses in relation to the issue of animal welfare in the live export
industry. The committee also notes the evidence provided by individuals,
farming families and organisations associated with the live export industry. A
number of these submitters also raise specific concerns about the treatment of
animals shown in the Four Corners footage.
2.48
The committee notes that there has been some criticism levelled at the
live export industry – particularly what is seen as a lack of leadership from
MLA and LiveCorp. At the same time, the committee was provided with evidence from
industry representatives who made it clear that the practices shown were unacceptable
and in no way condoned by the industry.
2.49
The committee recognises that more work is needed in overseas markets to
continue to work toward improved animal welfare outcomes. Whilst the Australian
Government should have an increased role in the oversight of the industry, federal
and state governments need to work with the industry itself, which is best
placed to continue to work toward the more practical improvements that are
required to ensure animal welfare standards are met and maintained.
2.50
A number of industry representatives told the committee that they in
fact had been working with their trading partners in a number of countries and
that there had been significant improvements in animal welfare over the past
decade.
2.51
The committee acknowledges that the live export trade is an industry of
vital importance to cattle producers and small businesses and provides much
needed employment – particularly in some of the more remote areas of the
Northern Territory and Western Australia. In addition, evidence to the
committee demonstrated that producers have been encouraged to breed animals
specifically for the live export trade.
2.52
The committee also acknowledges evidence which outlined the time, effort
and financial outlay of producers to establish profitable enterprises – which
fit perfectly with the conditions in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and
Queensland and which meet the needs of Indonesia in very specific ways. In
particular, by providing a "value-adding" opportunity in Indonesian feedlots
and by providing Indonesia with access to a low-cost source of protein.
Recommendation 1
2.53 The committee recommends that the Live Animal Export (Slaughter)
Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2] and the Live Animal Export Restriction and
Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2] not be passed.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page