This Bills Digest replaces the preliminary Bills Digest published on 3 June 2024 to assist in early consideration of the Bill.

Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 (the Bill) is to amend the Export Control Act 2020 to:

• prohibit the export of live sheep by sea from Australia on and after 1 May 2028
• provide authority for Commonwealth spending to assist individuals, businesses and communities affected by the phasing out of live sheep export.[1]

Background

Overview of Australia’s sheep meat exports

In 2022–23, Australia’s sheep industry contributed a total value of $7.98 billion to the Australian economy through the export of wool, frozen meat and live sheep:

• sheep meat (frozen and chilled) ($4.5 billion)
• wool ($3.4 billion)
• live sheep exports by sea ($76.9 million)
• live sheep exports by air ($8 million).[2]

Most of the sheep industry’s contribution comes from exports of frozen meat and wool. In recent years, live exports account for only about 1% of the total value.[3] The majority of the sheep that are live exported are wethers, while rams and ewes make up a small proportion of the trade.[4]

Figure 1: Western Australia’s live sheep exports by sea have declined in recent years

Source: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, ‘Update from the independent panel consulting on the phase out of live sheep exports by sea’, media release, 27 July 2023.

Western Australia accounts for almost all of Australia’s live sheep exports by sea. However, ‘WA’s live sheep exports have been declining due to many factors and sheep meat exports have been increasing’ as illustrated by Figure 1.[5]

The Middle East is Australia’s largest export market for sheep meat.[6] In spite of higher frozen meat exports to the region in recent years, an Australian Government regulation impact statement from 2020 argued:

Due to cultural preferences however, it is unlikely that frozen and chilled meat would entirely replace live sheep in the short to medium term. This is particularly so during religious festivals where demand for freshly slaughtered meat is likely to remain strong.[7]

Regulatory framework governing Australia’s livestock export trade

The export of live animals by sea voyage could entail significant risks to their health and welfare. To mitigate these risks, the Commonwealth uses its trade and commerce power to regulate the trade in live animals.[8]

Specifically, the Australian Government prescribes the minimum animal health and welfare standards that businesses must adhere to in order to export livestock.[9] These standards are outlined in the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock and the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (see Figure 2).

The Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) aim to ensure animals are fit for sea voyages and transported in conditions that minimise stress and risk of injury. These standards are enforceable under the Export Control Act 2020 and the Export Control (Animals) Rules 2021.[10] The ASEL are regularly reviewed to reflect the best available science and Australia’s alignment with the recommendations put forward by the World Organisation for Animal Health.[11]

The Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) is a regulatory system implemented by the Australian Government that requires licensed exporters to maintain control over the export supply chain. Specifically, the ESCAS requires Australian exporters to have arrangements in place for the humane handling and slaughter of livestock in the importing country. Australia claims to be the only country in the world with this kind of regulatory system (a claim disputed by groups such as Vets Against Live Export).[12]

Businesses that do not comply with the ASEL and ESCAS risk losing their export licence. However, the Department has suspended or cancelled an export licence in only a small number of cases, and there are no publicly reported cases of criminal sanctions being imposed.[13] In the majority of cases where non-compliance has been established, the Department has imposed conditions on the ESCAS or the exporter’s licence.[14]

Figure 2: Australian livestock export roadmap

Source: ‘Live exports and the Australian community: A national survey’, LiveCorp, 8.

The efficacy of both ASEL and ESCAS in improving welfare outcomes for exported animals is disputed.[15] In relation to ESCAS, RSPCA Australia advised:

Despite the existence of ESCAS, there are many examples that demonstrate the lack of control that the Australian Government has over animal welfare outcomes in overseas jurisdictions. As recently as May 2023, Australian sheep were allegedly sold outside the ESCAS with evidence documenting sheep being stuffed into cars, dragged by their limbs, bound by their legs and open mouth panting in temperatures exceeding 40 degrees, and being killed while fully conscious on concrete slabs. Despite evidence of these issues being provided to the regulator ahead of the Festival of Sacrifice, neither it nor the exporters were able to recall those sheep and save them from brutal cruelty, and the matter remains under investigation. ESCAS breaches occur frequently, and extensive evidence gathered over the past few decades shows inhumane slaughter and handling practices in importing countries that are contrary to Australian laws and standards. Between 2012 and 2023 there have been 80 reported ESCAS breaches involving sheep. However, it is not known how many go unreported.[16]

In relation to ASEL, RSPCA Australia advised:

While the ASEL aims to provide a set of minimum animal health and welfare conditions that exporters should adhere to in the live sheep trade, the standards are deficient in protecting sheep welfare. The RSPCA recommends that the full review of the standards should be brought forward from its current schedule of 2026 to occur in 2024-25 to tighten-up multiple deficiencies.

There is ample evidence substantiating the deficiencies of the current ASEL 3.3. This includes the RSPCA’s analysis of Independent Observer (IO) reports which found that activities inconsistent with the ASEL were reported in approximately 70% of journeys. These issues comprised:

• Stocking densities at departure that were greater than the approved load plan and poor loading practices (e.g. reports 238, 57).
• Poor selection of animals including those with pre-existing health issues or injuries (e.g. dog bite wounds, shearing wounds, horns too long making animals unable to reach feed/water) – see reports 31, 219, 213, 218, 200.
• Poor sheep handling either on board or on unloading of the vessel (e.g. report 32, 98, 9).
• Wool length of greater than 25 mm (e.g. report 193, 238).
• Poor management of ill animals on board (e.g. report 211 – unwell sheep hospitalised with otherwise well sheep infected with scabby mouth leading to feed competition, 99 – as reported by the IO “the sick animals would often die without being offered euthanasia”).

Furthermore, the current ASEL does not prescribe:

• Adequate stocking density for sheep…
• Ammonia levels…
• Independent Observer presence on all live sheep voyages to the Middle East.
• Individual assessment of sheep – the prevalent method of assessment of sheep across the live export supply chain is mob-based. This inhibits the effectiveness of regulatory conditions such as wool length, body weight and score.
• Contingency plans for births at each stage of the supply chain – contingency plans should be prescribed in the ASEL not as part of exporter Operational Plans.
• Maximum time allowed at sea – the need for this is evidenced by the recent MV Bahijah situation… which allowed animals to be in transit within the supply chain for approximately four months. Animal welfare science indicates that extended periods of transport compromise animal welfare outcomes.
• Disallowances for export – disallowances should preclude the export of animals into or through known conflict zones, and any re-export of animals after consecutive periods of loading and unloading in Australia (emphasis added).[17]

Previous attempts to ban live sheep exports

As set out in the Parliamentary Library’s live export chronology, the live export trade has been the subject of numerous incidents, investigations and reviews, which have in turn led to public disquiet, regulatory changes and proposals to ban the trade, including through the introduction of a number of Private Members’ Bills into the Parliament.[18]

In April 2018, media outlets aired footage showing approximately 2,400 sheep dying from heat stress and overcrowded conditions on board the vessel Awassi Express, which was operated by Perth-based company Emanuel Exports.[19] The vessel transported more than 63,800 sheep (of which 3.76% died onboard, above the 2% accepted standard) from Western Australia to the Middle East in August 2017.[20] The conditions on board led to animal cruelty charges being laid against Emanuel Exports,[21] but these charges were subsequently discontinued.[22] Emanuel Exports’ licence was cancelled in 2018 and reinstated in 2021.[23]

Following the release of the footage, many animal welfare activists renewed their calls for an end to Australia’s live sheep export trade by sea.[24] The footage also prompted the introduction of Bills by members and senators from various parties, including the Liberal Party, aimed at phasing out long-haul live sheep exports.[25]

The Coalition Government resisted calls to ban the trade,[26] instead announcing reviews into the Department of Agriculture’s regulatory capabilities and culture, as well as the standards for the live sheep trade during the Middle Eastern summer.[27]

In 2019, Australian livestock exporters self-imposed a moratorium or ban on the export of live sheep to the Middle East during summer (June to September in the Northern Hemisphere). Subsequently, the Australian Government has regulated and extended the moratorium. At the time of writing, live sheep exports to, or through, the Middle East are prohibited from leaving Australia between 1 June and 14 September.[28]

Albanese Government’s decision to end live sheep exports

Prior to the 2019 and 2022 federal elections, the Australian Labor Party announced that, if elected, a Labor Government would develop a transition plan to end live sheep export, noting that this could ‘take a number of years’.[29] Recently, animal welfare organisations and the Australian Greens have urged the Albanese Government to honour its election commitment.[30]

On 11 May 2024, Agriculture Minister Murray Watt announced the Albanese Government’s decision to end live sheep exports by sea, set to come into effect from 1 May 2028.[31] The 2028 phase-out date was recommended by an independent panel appointed by Minister Watt to examine the practical aspects of ending live sheep exports.[32] The Government supported most of the recommendations in the Independent Panel Report.[33]

To support the transition from live sheep exports, the Australian Government has allocated a $107 million (over five years, from 2024 to 2029) support package in the 2024–25 federal budget.[34] Specifically, $64.6 million is designated to assist sheep producers and exporting businesses. This involves providing funding for more rural financial counsellors, expanding domestic sheep meat processing capacities, and developing plans to help businesses reorient their operations away from live exports.[35]

Minister Watt has confirmed on numerous occasions that the Government will not ban the live export of cattle. In an address to the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association Annual Conference in 2023, Minister Watt stated:

Like I said at the LIVEXChange conference in November last year, and will continue to say, the Albanese Government strongly supports the live cattle export industry, and we will not be phasing it out. In fact, we want to support the live cattle industry to grow and prosper into the future.[36]

Position of major interest groups

Arguments in favour of the ban

Animal welfare organisations welcome the Government’s announcement to end live sheep exports by sea from 1 May 2028.[37] Proponents of the ban argue it will:

• improve animal welfare
• protect Australia’s international reputation as a country that cares about animal welfare
• reflect community concern
• incentivise economically sustainable alternatives to live sheep exports.

RSPCA Australia, a charity that focuses on animal welfare, argued:

Australia’s international reputation has suffered severely as a result of live sheep export. It’s damaging the perception that people overseas have of Australia as a progressive country that cares about animal welfare and acts ethically and sustainably.

It’s no wonder other countries have put a stop to live export – like the UK, who announced a ban in 2020, and New Zealand, who banned live export for slaughter as long ago as 2007.[38]

In this regard, the Independent Panel Report stated:

The Panel considers that Australia can play an important role in influencing global animal welfare standards up to and beyond the closure of live sheep exports by sea. Australia can contribute to improved global animal welfare standards without participating in the trade, by raising awareness through its diplomatic channels and through international forums and agreements, as it has done on other animal welfare issues …

Animal welfare is of increasing importance to many of Australia’s trading partners… several countries have taken steps to end or limit live exports by sea. The Australia–UK Free Trade Agreement, which entered into force on 31 May 2023, includes a chapter on animal welfare – a first for Australia. The Panel believes that Australia could continue to use bilateral agreements as a forum for discussing and advancing positive animal welfare outcomes.[39]

In relation to animal welfare issues raised by the live sheep trade, RSPCA Australia advised:

The welfare issues inherent to the industry are not ‘old issues’ as industry repeatedly promotes. Sheep welfare issues have existed since the trade began and cannot be adequately addressed through regulation, hence a mandated end to the trade must be legislated as swiftly as possible. Contemporary animal welfare science and recent analysis of animal welfare conditions onboard live export vessels demonstrate that live trade causes extreme suffering for sheep. A 2022 peer reviewed paper summarises the animal welfare issues caused by the trade on the sea voyage alone. These include starvation, ship motion, ammonia exposure, heat stress, stocking density, unhygienic environments from being confined to accumulating faeces throughout the journey, unnatural lighting, scabby mouth and enteric and respiratory infections. In addition, the European Food Safety Authority (2022) referred to many of the same concerns as being specific to live export by sea and found that “transport of sheep in livestock vessels increases risks for the welfare of animals, as they are exposed to additional hazards.” In addition, there are multiple risks that cannot be adequately controlled on board include rough seas, extreme climatic changes, mechanical failures, and geopolitical conflict.[40] [emphasis added]

Sentient, an independent Australian veterinary association dedicated to animal welfare advocacy, advised:

No matter how many strategies are put into place (whether these be heat-stress models, independent observers, reduced stocking densities etc), this trade is and has remained inherently dangerous to the welfare of the animals being exported. No regulations other than a ban can reduce the ongoing mortalities or the extensive and extreme suffering experienced by sheep on live export ships. This is due to a combination of their inherent biology – sheep are highly prone to heat stress, which they experience during live export irrespective of stocking density and can only attempt to regulate by panting or decreasing their food intake – and also to the inevitable risks onboard, which have never been eliminated.[41]

Furthermore, RSPCA Australia asserted that the proposed ban aligns with community concern:

Animal welfare is important to the Australian community, and over the course of this dark history of repeated disasters, the Australian community has turned irrevocably against this outdated practice. Multiple polls, petitions, surveys and public rallies continue to demonstrate the public’s will to see an end to live sheep export — including independent polling that consistently finds around 7 in 10 West Australians support the current government’s policy, a figure that is consistent nationally.[42]

In its submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture’s inquiry into the Bill, RSPCA Australia stated:

The Australian community’s support for an end to live export spans decades and is broad and strong. Sustained community support to end the trade is represented across multiple channels over many years, including by multiple Parliamentary inquiries and independent reports into the trade, several Parliamentary petitions, countless correspondence to Parliamentary representatives, hundreds of public petitions with hundreds of thousands of signatures and countless public rallies. The RSPCA’s most recent Parliamentary petition, with nearly 44,000 signatures secured via a two-step process, is one of the largest parliamentary e-petitions for animal welfare in Australian history.[43]

The organisation also argued that the ban will give certainty to farmers and incentivise them to transition to economically sustainable alternatives:

And it [live sheep export] is literally a dying trade. From up to 4.5 million sheep per year in the early noughties, live export numbers have already plummeted to just over 485,000 in 2022 — and that was with the full support of successive federal governments.

Meanwhile exports of meat from sheep humanely slaughtered in Australia have continued to skyrocket. Australia’s sheep meat exports are now valued at $4.5B — almost 60 times the value of live export ($76.9M). Sheep meat exports also surpassed wool in 2019–2020 as the most valuable export of Australia’s sheep industry. This is where the future lies, and where the Australian Government’s support for producers to move on from live export to these better, more sustainable alternatives is rightly focused.[44] [emphasis original]

Responding to claims by the live export industry that animals are protected by Australian involvement in the live export trade, Australian Alliance for Animals stated:

In Australia, sheep are slaughtered with stunning, even under Halal slaughter for the lamb and mutton export trade. This does not occur in the Middle East where Australian sheep continue to be subjected to slaughter while fully conscious. Slaughter without stunning causes considerable pain and distress in sheep, and there are no reasonable prospects for Middle Eastern abattoirs and Halal authorities to change this practice and accept stunning in the foreseeable future. For these reasons, it is not possible to protect animal welfare within the trade, and accordingly, the only feasible way to prevent these negative outcomes is to phase the trade out in favour of onshore processing.[45]

RSPCA WA stated that ‘fully conscious slaughter, which is prevalent in the Middle East, conflicts with Australian laws, standards and community expectations’.[46] Sentient considers that sheep exported to other countries suffer ‘overt cruelty which our government has never been able to influence’.[47]

Speaking in relation to the 1 May 2028 phase-out date, Animals Australia advised:

While of course we wish it was sooner, we also recognise and respect the responsibility of the Government to consider all who are impacted by this historic decision.[48]

Australian Alliance for Animals advised that while it supported a phase out from 1 May 2026, it ‘accept[s] the Panel’s recommendation [of a 1 May 2028 phase-out date] and the reasoning behind it’.[49]

A number of groups called for additional resources to be provided for regulatory compliance monitoring ‘to minimise the negative animal welfare outcomes between now and the end date’.[50] RSPCA Australia submitted:

Sheep welfare risks will likely become even more prevalent during the phase out period as the market rescinds. Therefore, the RSPCA recommends that additional technology such as CCTV and devices to measure crucial outputs onboard such as ammonia levels and the [wet bulb temperatures] on all decks should be implemented by exporters, and reported to the regulator, during the phase out period. Greater transparency would assist in mitigating non-compliances and further declines in animal welfare standards on board live export vessels.[51]

Arguments against the ban

Thousands of farmers have participated in a ‘Keep the Sheep’ rally to protest the proposed ban on live sheep exports.[52] Many farmers and business groups argue that the ban will:

• hurt rural communities and the Australian economy
• hurt animal welfare internationally because a ban in Australia merely shifts animal welfare responsibilities to other countries that do not uphold Australia’s high animal welfare standards
• set ‘a concerning precedent’ for other livestock trade (e.g., beef cattle exports) that may face similar restrictions in the future
• undermine Australia’s reputation as a reliable trading partner.

The National Farmers’ Federation (NFF), a peak body for farmers, expressed strong opposition to the Bill. The NFF said:

The live sheep export trade makes a critical direct economic contribution to the Western Australian (WA) economy. ACIL Allen reports that over the last decade, the trade has generated an average of $196 million in value annually. The industry also underpins direct employment opportunities, many of which are in regional areas.

When considering the importance of the trade, due consideration must be given to its demonstrable interconnectedness with the broader sheep and wool industries. For example, as outlined by research undertaken by consultancy Mecardo, the live sheep trade provides additional price competition for sheep producers for specific sale classes, underpinning local prices…

The live sheep trade also plays a role in the WA wool industry. In many cases, the live trade provides a viable marketing option, or at the very least price competition, for merino flocks that would not meet the specifications for domestic slaughter…

The proposed policy [to ban live sheep exports] will undoubtedly impact regional communities, who are reliant upon a thriving agricultural sector to attract long-term residents and sustain broader regional businesses. Consequently, this will have an adverse impact on social and economic outcomes and will inevitably undermine long-term investment in regional communities.[53] [emphasis added]

Many beef cattle farmers are concerned that the proposed ban on live sheep exports could set a precedent and potentially lead to similar restrictions on cattle exports in the future.[54] The NFF advised:

The policy [to ban live sheep exports] will have direct impacts on the live cattle export industry and cattle sector in general. Many practical implications arise that will put pressure on live cattle exporters. For example, many live export vessels currently operate multi-species configurations, which cannot be simply reconfigured in the absence of ovine haulage. Additionally, a number of live export enterprises exist as multi-species exporters, with their enduring viability linked to a diversified business model.

Beyond the more practical impacts on cattle exporters, should the policy be implemented, it is only logical that fears exist for the future of the live cattle trade. While the Government may purport to have no intent on closing out the trade, it is important to recognise the context driving the sectors’ cynicism towards this claim.

The Australian cattle industry saw the live cattle trade shut in 2011 with disastrous effects. Despite the courts delivering a ruling in the industry’s favour, they await – over a decade on – the receipt of their justly-owed compensation. Moreover, this industry is so regularly beset by extreme anti-agriculture activists. These groups make no such distinction between wanting to see the cessation of the live sheep and cattle trades. While assurances may be given by the Minister of the day regarding the cattle trade, the most enduring commitment that could be made to the live cattle trade, and cattle industry more broadly, would be not to proceed with the sheep export phase-out.[55] [emphasis added]

Cattle Australia, a national peak body for cattle producers, also voiced its concerns:

The Bill sets a concerning precedent for all of agriculture and particularly livestock export, undermining investor confidence and our international trade relationships. This Bill provides no level of surety for the West Australian agriculture industry, but instead increases the sovereign risk to all export of live animals as it changes fundamentally the basis of prohibition and increases complexity and risk, therefore impacting all animal export businesses.[56]

In relation to community sentiment about the ban, the NFF argued:

Anti-agriculture activists have loudly claimed the industry cannot demonstrate any level of community support. This is evidently false…

I implore the Committee [House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture] to look closely at the activities and support behind the ‘Keep the Sheep’ campaign. A grassroots movement born to take action against the live sheep export ban, the campaign’s petition has over 50,000 signatures. On Friday the 31st of May 2024, we also saw hundreds of vehicles convey in Perth in protest of the ban. This campaign has been backed by farmers, agribusinesses and communities from across the country, and only continues to grow in support. This is persuasive evidence that community sentiment on this issue is not as straightforward as the government continues to promote.[57]

The NFF expressed disappointment about the proposed 1 May 2028 phase-out date and the Government’s $107 million transition support package:

The NFF is incredibly disappointed in the phase-out timeline the government seeks to implement through this Bill. Under four years is not enough time to allow sheep farmers to adjust their production methods to pursue new or diversified regimes. The NFF also sees that this timeframe is clearly insufficient to assure the requisite processor capacity development, growth of airfreight or sea freight capability and the expansion of new offshore markets for sheepmeat.

The NFF sees the government’s proposed transition support package, empowered by this Bill, in a similar light. The package is inadequate to responsibly and efficiently mitigate adverse impacts on Western Australian producers, agribusinesses and workers along the entire supply chain.[58]

As noted, some of the funding from the Australian Government’s $107 million support package is allocated to expand domestic sheep meat processing capacities to help live sheep farmers transition.[59] The NFF argued the industry cannot process the sheep in Australia because domestic processing facilities are already at capacity and the industry struggles to find more workers.[60]

The Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council (ALEC) claimed ending live sheep exports will undermine Australia’s international trade and the prospect of signing a trade agreement with Middle Eastern countries:

Governments need to be able to demonstrate that there is no alternative to a ban, otherwise, any such policy is open to challenge through the World Trade Organisation (WTO), not to mention the risks associated with a class action taken by affected parties through the Australian court system.

If the Australian Government ultimately bans the export of livestock, the prospects of negotiating a free trade agreement or comprehensive economic partnership agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are practically zero.[61]

In September 2023, Kuwaiti government officials urged the Australian Government to reconsider its proposed ban on the live sheep export trade. They argued Australian sheep exports are crucial to food security in the Middle East.[62]

Policy position of non-government parties/independents

Coalition

The Coalition opposes the ban on live sheep exports. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton warned the export ban will have ‘enormous consequences’ for rural communities and jobs.[63] He claimed:

It’s [Labor’s policy] going to have a huge detrimental effect, here in WA, on the economy, and on those farmers and those local communities.

Why is the Prime Minister doing this? Because he wants to win Greens’ votes in inner-city Sydney and Melbourne. The Prime Minister abandons WA, abandons outer suburbs, abandons regional areas because his number one priority is to try and hold those seats against the Greens. There are many farmers who will go broke, and that’s not something we will stand for.[64]

In his second reading speech for the Bill, Leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud announced:

I make it very clear today that a future coalition government will reinstate the live export of sheep by sea to the Middle East.[65]

On several occasions, Mr Littleproud argued Australia’s livestock export industry is underpinned by the highest standard of animal welfare and record-low mortality rates.[66] As such, he reasoned that ending Australia’s live sheep export could lead to poorer animal welfare outcomes globally:

There is no scientific or economic reason why this trade should stop. In fact, what you are going to see by Australia shutting down the live sheep export industry is the senseless and horrific deaths of millions of sheep from around the world, from the markets that take up our place—countries like Ethiopia, Sudan, South Africa …

We have reformed this industry to be the best in the world… we can stay and continue to ensure that we influence and lead the world with the best animal welfare standards in the world not just in the shipment but also in the processing of sheep in these countries.[67]

Citing a research report conducted by Episode Three Ltd, Western Australian Senator Slade Brockman said:

It [the report] recommended an eight- to 12-year transition because that's what you would need to rebalance a flock on a farm, if you were going to go down this horrendous path. You’d need eight years for those farms—those farming families, some of which have been there five or six generations. You’d need eight to 12 years to transition the flock on those farms—to change their business model … A four-year ban, not enough time to transition flocks, a ridiculous amount of money—a pittance for what this is going to cost the Western Australian agricultural sector.[68] [emphasis added]

Australian Greens

The Australian Greens support the ban but argue that it should occur sooner. On 28 February 2024, Senator Mehreen Faruqi introduced a Private Senator’s Bill in the Parliament.[69] The Private Senator’s Bill proposes to ban live sheep exports by sea from Australian territory on and after 1 May 2026. Senator Faruqi said:

There is no time to waste. Labor must urgently legislate the date to end live sheep export if they are serious about keeping their promise to end this trade in misery. No more delay after delay, excuse after excuse, while more animals continue to suffer and die …[70]

Independents and members of minor parties

Independent member Andrew Wilkie has long opposed live export and has introduced a number of Bills seeking to ban the trade.[71] Mr Wilkie welcomed the introduction of the Bill, stating:

The live sheep export industry is worth less than $100 million and is a tiny fraction of Australia’s $8 billion sheep industry. The $107 million government assistance package will help farmers to adjust their farm mix and associated industries to refocus their work. There will be expanded opportunities for meat processing in Australia, and for exporters of chilled and frozen lamb and mutton. And the ban will enhance Australia’s reputation as an ethical food producer and leader in animal welfare.

It is disappointing that the trade will continue until 2028, there will be no cap on the number of sheep that can be exported until that time, and there is no ban on beef cattle exports. However, credit should be given to the Government for what is perhaps the biggest single reform in animal welfare in Australia’s history. It was always the case that the only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade.[72]

Allegra Spender supports a ban on live sheep exports, stating at the time of the Government’s announcement of the proposed timeframe:

It’s long been time to end this cruel practice and for months I’ve been advocating to the Minister on behalf of our community.

This is an important step forward for animal welfare - but there’s more that needs to be done.

I will be pushing for stronger animal welfare measures to be put in place during the phase out period and will continue to make your voice heard.[73]

Other independents and minor party members do not appear to have commented on the Bill but have expressed positions on live export. Rebekha Sharkie of the Centre Alliance has previously introduced Private Member’s Bills to ban the long-haul live export of sheep.[74]

Independent Zoe Daniel advises ‘[e]vidence shows that heat stress coupled with lengthy and crowded journeys has a cruel impact on the animals being exported. For this reason I believe that the live animal export trade should be wound up’.[75] Dr Sophie Scamps has previously expressed support for ending live sheep export stating:

According to Pegasus Economics, the Australian live sheep export industry is in structural decline, with exports down 70 per cent since 2018. Rather than propping up this declining industry, Australia should focus on investing in our onshore processing sector. This is both more humane for livestock and better economically for Australia, with the potential to add jobs and millions of dollars to local farming communities.[76]

Zali Steggall states ‘I believe it is our moral and ethical responsibility to bring an end to live animal exports. The science on heat stress and associated issues in the live animal trade is clear, showing the devastating impact on these animals’.[77] Ms Steggall seconded Mr Wilkie’s Live Animal Export Prohibition (Ending Cruelty) Bill 2020.

In debate in the House of Representatives in February 2024 on a motion moved by Mr Wilkie on the situation on the MV Bahijah livestock vessel, Kylea Tink stated:

Australia’s live export industry has demonstrated time and time again its willingness to condemn animals to extreme risk of suffering and death in the name of profits, and we have an opportunity to counter this right now. In 2019 the Labor Party committed to phasing out live sheep exports over five years but, since coming to power, the government has done nothing and we're yet to see a commitment to the time line … We must hold the government to account to deliver on their promise to phase out live sheep exports.[78]

Independent Kate Chaney’s website provides:

I have consistently stated that if the Government continues on its stated path to end live sheep export, the industry, including farming families and rural communities, will need to be provided with an appropriate transition period. I will continue to ensure Western Australians interests are considered in this process.[79]

Bob Katter, of Katter’s Australian Party opposes the proposed ban on live sheep export, stating:

Whether sheep are put into abattoirs in Australia or overseas would seem to be totally irrelevant. Why anyone would choose this is an ideological fashion statement heaven would only know. It is an ideological fashion statement and the result of this [fashion statement] will not be of any benefit to the sheep, but it will completely destroy what is left of the sheep and wool industry in Australia.[80]

Speaking in relation to the 2017–18 Awassi Express incident, Senator Pauline Hanson of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party said:

All Australians are appalled by the deaths and treatment of some sheep being transported overseas, none more than sheep farmers themselves, but we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Live exports bring in billions of dollars a year to our economy. Yet the Greens and Labor have not given proper consideration to those farmers, communities and the workers who rely on the income derived from the live sheep export industry.[81]

Committee consideration

On 3 June 2024, Agriculture Minister Murray Watt requested the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture (chaired by Labor Member Meryl Swanson) to conduct an inquiry into the Bill and produce an advisory report by 21 June 2024.[82]

Mr Littleproud criticised the short timeframe of the inquiry:

Labor’s committee cannot possibly investigate the consequences into the phasing out of the live sheep export trade in such a short timeframe… This is another example of Labor treating our farmers with contempt.[83]

On 30 May 2024, Mr Littleproud moved a motion to refer the Bill to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture for reporting by 8 October 2024. The motion was defeated.[84]

At the time of writing this Bills Digest the Standing Committee on Agriculture had received 659 submissions.

Key policy issues

Policy issue 1: How would the ban affect farmers in Western Australia?

The evidence regarding the potential impacts of the ban is highly contested.[85] This is because the economic modelling provided by various stakeholders is underpinned by different data inputs and sheep pricing assumptions.[86] Sheep meat prices are prone to fluctuation due to shifts in global demand and competitive market conditions.

Consequently, it is difficult to provide a definitive conclusion regarding the potential impacts of the ban. Pages 54–61 of the Independent Panel Report summarised the main findings presented by various stakeholders, and most estimates acknowledge the ban will result in a financial loss for the WA industry.

According to Samuel Birrell, Deputy Nationals Whip, the live sheep export industry employs more than 3,500 people in WA.[87] This employment figure likely encompasses direct on-farm jobs as well as positions within the broader supply chain.[88] Figure 3 below shows some common roles involved in the live sheep export supply chain.

Figure 3: Jobs along the live sheep export supply chain

Source: DAFF, Independent Panel Report: Phase Out of Live Sheep Exports by Sea, 50.

There are concerns about income certainty, business viability, job losses and flow-on effects to communities if the live sheep export trade ends.[89] Live sheep exporters and farmers may need transitional support to switch to other roles in the agricultural sector. Alternative opportunities in the sector include domestic meat processing, frozen meat exports, wool production, dairy sheep production and agritourism.

According to modelling provided by the WA Government, the ban could result in annual losses exceeding $123 million for the industry and reduce 690 full-time equivalent jobs along the supply chain.[90] Specifically, the WA Government believes the ban will cause a financial loss of $123 million a year if sheep farmers do not successfully transition to other roles, or $22 million a year if farmers turn to crop production.[91] The WA Premier Roger Cook is reported as stating the Federal Government’s $107 million transition support package for the industry is ‘not good enough’.[92]

According to a report commissioned by Meat and Livestock Australia (an industry peak body), if Australia were to cease its live sheep export trade, Middle Eastern countries are likely to increase their imports of live sheep from other nations rather than switching to Australian frozen sheep meat.[93] Consequently, this preference for live imports could pose challenges for Australian sheep farmers and exporters who might consider transitioning to frozen meat exports as an alternative.

On the other hand, analysis provided by Pegasus Economics (a Canberra-based consultancy firm) claims that ending live exports could increase employment in the WA meat processing sector by 350 full-time equivalent employees and deliver a net benefit for the broader sheep industry.[94] Pegasus Economics argues meat processing is labour intensive and likely to employ more people than the live sheep export industry. As such, total employment in WA could increase if sheep destined for live exports are processed in Australia.[95]

In relation to the potential impacts of the live sheep export ban on cattle producers, the Independent Panel Report said:

The Panel recognises that the end of the live sheep export trade means some cattle exporters will need to find alternative transport options, but notes that there are currently single-species voyages …

The Panel believes that it is important that exporters of other live export species, notably the live cattle industry, are not required to offset the revenue losses arising from ending live sheep exports by sea. Instead, the government should ensure that the regulator is sufficiently funded until the trade ceases. This funding will support the regulator to at least maintain, but preferably increase, its service levels, enforcement activity and focus on animal welfare outcomes. The Panel also notes that fees and charges for other livestock exports will need to be reassessed once live sheep exports by sea cease, given that the sheep trade will no longer be part of paying for fixed regulatory costs.[96]

Policy issue 2: What reforms did Australia’s live sheep export industry undergo since the 2017–18 Awassi Express incident?

As discussed earlier, Mr David Littleproud believes ending Australia’s live sheep export could lead to poorer animal welfare outcomes globally because other countries with less rigorous animal welfare standards will replace Australian exports.[97] He claims Australia’s livestock export industry is underpinned by the highest standard of animal welfare and record-low mortality rates.[98]

Judging by the annual mortality rate for sheep exported by sea, Australia’s live sheep export industry has seen significant improvements since 2017.

In 2017, a total of 1,741,314 sheep were exported by sea from Australia. The annual mortality rate for all sheep exported by sea in 2017 was 0.71% (12,377 sheep died on board).[99] For comparison, in 2023 a total of 632,399 sheep were exported by sea from Australia. The annual mortality rate for all sheep exported by sea in 2023 was 0.18% (1,164 sheep died on board).[100]

The decrease in the total number of sheep exported and the mortality rate can be partly attributed to:

• the moratorium on the export of live sheep to the Middle East during the northern summer
• lower numbers being carried on each ship for other parts of the year.[101]

The Australian Government launches investigations into animal mortalities when they surpass certain thresholds. Prior to the high-profile exposure of the 2017–18 Awassi Express incident, the Government would investigate sheep mortality rates above 2% and cattle mortality rates above 1% in relation to long-haul sea voyages.[102]

Following a review of the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock, the notifiable mortality rates were decreased to 1% for sheep and 0.5% for cattle.[103] For example, on a ship carrying 70,000 sheep, the exporter must notify the Government if more than 700 sheep died on board.[104] The Australian Government also publishes 6-monthly statistics on mortality rates for all livestock exports.

In relation to a reliance on mortality rates, RSPCA Australia advised:

Industry continues to declare that the live trade’s sheep welfare issues have been addressed because there has been a reduction in sheep mortality rates on live export voyages. However, mortality rates are widely considered a blunt measure of animal welfare outcomes. Rather, mortality rates are indicative of extremely poor welfare in the sheep population. Just because the sheep do not die does not mean they have not suffered extensively. Illness, injury, infection, disease and pain all lead to poor animal welfare outcomes for sheep.[105]

Dr Bidda Jones AM (animal welfare scientist, co-founder and Director of Strategy for the Australian Alliance for Animals, Honorary Affiliate at the University of Sydney School of Veterinary Science, and previously Chief Science and Strategy Officer for RSPCA Australia) advised:

I am aware of claims from industry proponents that the welfare issues associated with live sheep exports have now been ‘fixed’, as mortality rates during recent voyages have fallen. This is at best, misleading, and at worst, untrue. The reason fewer sheep are dying is because they are no longer permitted to be exported during the [northern hemisphere] NH summer and avoiding death does not equate to good welfare. Sheep continue to be inevitably stressed during live export by sea due to close confinement with unfamiliar animals, handling, loading, adapting to a pelleted diet, lack of space, weather and climate extremes and, once in importing countries, poor conditions and handling, and the intense pain of unstunned slaughter. Even during a period when the industry has been under the closest scrutiny, exporters have demonstrated that they cannot prevent suffering, with heat stress continuing to be recorded in over 60% of voyages to the Middle East between 2018 to 2023.[106]

The Australian Government has also implemented other policy measures to reform the livestock export industry.[107] These measures include:

• requirement for departmental observers (also known as Independent Observers) to accompany certain live export voyages to monitor on-board conditions[108]
• introduction of a ‘whistleblower hotline’ that allows individuals within the industry to report poor animal welfare practices without fear of repercussions[109]
• update to the Heat Stress Risk Assessment (HSRA) model that is used in determining the conditions under which sheep are transported by sea; the revised HSRA model shifts the focus from preventing sheep mortality to actively avoiding heat stress, which is a more proactive approach to animal welfare.[110]

In relation to Independent Observers (IOs), RSPCA Australia advised:

… the RSPCA’s recent analysis on IO reports found that there were no IOs onboard 70% of the live sheep export journeys between April 2018 and May 2023. That is, only 53 of a reported 172 journeys that were carrying live sheep had an IO on board. It is imperative that IOs are present on all live sheep export journeys during the phase out period to provide greater independent oversight and community and regulatory assurance.[111] [emphasis added]

In relation to heat stress, RSPCA Australia observed:

Despite industry’s claims of improved animal welfare beyond reduced mortality rates, no evidence has been provided to substantiate this. Exporters may very well be able to measure a sheep’s panting score on export vessels, which denotes the animal’s respiratory rate and provides an indicator of heat stress, yet there is little that can be done to relieve the animal of that condition. This was highlighted in the final report by the Heat Stress Risk Assessment Technical Reference Panel in 2019 - “once a loaded ship is en route and meets conditions where the ambient [wet bulb temperature] WBT exceeds the threshold at which mortality increases, apart from changing route to seek cooler conditions, there is relatively little that can be done to alleviate heat stress to the sheep on board”.[112]

While the recommendations set forth by the World Organisation for Animal Health provide a global framework aimed at ensuring the humane treatment of animals during transport, different countries implement the international guidelines based on local contexts.

There is limited information comparing Australia’s livestock welfare standards with those of other countries. A 2023 research report commissioned by the United States Department of Agriculture claims ‘Australia is considered to have the highest standards of live sheep exports of any nation in the world’.[113]

As discussed, Australia is the only country in the world that has the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) in place, which requires exporters to have arrangements in place for the humane handling and slaughter of livestock in the importing country.[114] However, as explored above, the efficacy of ESCAS in achieving animal welfare outcomes outside Australia is disputed by some groups.[115]

Animal welfare organisations also pointed out countries that have already implemented a complete or partial ban of livestock exports by sea include New Zealand[116] and the United Kingdom.[117]

Policy issue 3: What is the public sentiment regarding the live export industry?

Public sentiment regarding the ban is influenced by stakeholder lobbying and media coverage of the issue. Furthermore, how survey questions are framed, the locations where the polling is conducted, and the characteristics of the sample population can also significantly affect respondents’ answers, potentially leading to varying degrees of support for the ban.

According to 2023 polling commissioned by the RSCPA Australia, 71% of Western Australians support the Australian Government’s policy to phase out live sheep export by sea. This includes 72% of people in metropolitan areas, and 69% in rural and regional Western Australia.[118] The question posed to those surveyed was:

The Federal Government is planning to phase out live sheep exports from Australia by sea (you can read more here). Do you support this policy?

Senator Mehreen Faruqi said polling commissioned by her office found 85% of Australians support a phase-out of live sheep export by sea.[119]

On the other hand, 2023 polling commissioned by LiveCorp (an industry-funded research organisation) shows only 29% of Australians agree or strongly agree with the following statement (see Figure 4):

Australia should stop the export of live animals to overseas markets, regardless of the impacts on Australian farmers.[120]

Figure 4: public sentiment survey commissioned by LiveCorp

Source: LiveCorp, ‘Live exports and the Australian community 2019–2023’, Research report, 10.

LiveCorp’s polling indicated that the percentage of people who agree or strongly agree with the statement has steadily declined since the survey’s inception in 2019.[121] LiveCorp highlighted that public trust in the live export industry has increased modestly since 2019, possibly because the industry is perceived to be ‘willing to change its practices in response to community concerns’.[122]

The polling also indicated most Australians agree that the live export industry delivers economic benefit for regional communities, and the industry is seen to provide important alternative markets for Australian farmers.[123] As such, LiveCorp advised:

In general, live exports are seen by Australians as an important part of the agriculture sector, and important for farming communities. The position of live exports, socially and economically, has improved over the last four years.[124]

The ABC speculated there could be a geographical divide in opinions regarding the phase out of live sheep exports.[125] Rural communities in Western Australia, especially those that are financially affected by the ban, may be more likely to oppose it.[126]

Financial implications

The financial impacts of ending the trade of live sheep by sea were considered by the independent panel engaged to undertake consultation on how and when the trade might end. The panel noted the scale of impact of the policy was dependent on the actions taken by supply chain participants to move away from the trade.[127]

As discussed above, to support the transition from live sheep exports, the Australian Government has allocated $107 million (over five years, from 2024 to 2029) in the 2024–25 federal budget.[128]

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[129]

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

At the time of writing, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights had not considered the Bill.

Key provisions

Prohibiting live sheep exports

Item 9 of the Bill inserts proposed section 23A into the Export Control Act so that on and after
1 May 2028, the export from Australian territory of sheep by sea is prohibited.[130] Item 2 of the Bill inserts the definition of a permanently prohibited export into section 12 of the Export Control Act. The effect of the new definition is that the export from Australian territory of sheep by sea is permanently prohibited in line with proposed section 23A (that is, on and after 1 May 2028). Item 5 of the Bill amends the simplified outline at section 22 in Part 1 of Chapter 2 of the Export Control Act to put beyond doubt that on and after 1 May 2028, sheep are prohibited from being exported from Australian territory by sea.

Extension of offences and civil penalties

Items 10–18 of the Bill make consequential amendments to sections 30–33 of the Export Control Act so that existing offences and civil penalty provisions apply if a permanently prohibited export is exported. For example, subsection 30(1) of the Export Control Act as amended by item 11 will provide that a person contravenes this subsection if the person exports goods that are permanently prohibited exports. A person who contravenes the prohibition commits an offence. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 8 years or 480 penalty units, or both.

Under the Crimes (Amount of Penalty Unit) Instrument 2023, a penalty unit is currently equivalent to $313. The Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024 proposes to increase the value of a penalty unit to $330 from 1 July 2024. This means that the maximum financial penalty for the offence is $150,240 for an individual ($158,400 should the Omnibus Bill be enacted) or $751,200 for a body corporate ($792,000 should the Omnibus Bill be enacted).[131]

In the alternative, subsection 30(4) of the Export Control Act provides that a person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection 30(1). In that case, the maximum civil penalty is 960 penalty units—currently equivalent to $300,480 ($316,800 should the Omnibus Bill be enacted) for an individual or $1,502,400 for a body corporate ($1,584,000 should the Omnibus Bill be enacted).[132]

Assistance measures

Arrangements and grants

Item 21 of the Bill inserts proposed Division 6A—Assistance in relation to the phasing out of the export of live sheep by sea into Part 6 of Chapter 11 of the Export Control Act. According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill the amendment will:

… provide authority for Commonwealth spending to assist individuals, businesses and communities in relation to preparing for, or adapting or responding to the phasing out of the export of live sheep by sea, including sheep producers and sheep supply chain businesses.[133]

Within new Division 6A, proposed subsection 424A(1) empowers the Minister, on behalf of the Commonwealth to make, vary or administer an arrangement for the making of payments by the Commonwealth or to make, vary or administer a grant of financial assistance in relation to certain activities.

Those activities are set out in proposed subsection 424A(2) being:

• activities to assist sheep producers and sheep supply chain businesses to prepare for, or adapt or respond to, that phasing out by taking up interstate or international market opportunities for Australian sheep products
• activities to assist businesses to prepare for, or adapt or respond to, that phasing out by developing greater sheep processing capacity in Australia for the purposes of taking up interstate or international market opportunities for Australian sheep products
• activities to enhance demand in interstate or international markets for Australian sheep products and to explore opportunities to support the maintenance and development of those markets
• activities to explore or develop opportunities to diversify markets for Australian agriculture and food in the Middle East and North African region.

Importantly, the relevant activity must relate to preparing for, or adapting or responding to, the phasing out of the export of live sheep by sea.

In his announcement for the Federal Government’s $107 million transition support package, Agriculture Minister Watt said:

Transition support is focused on helping affected individuals, businesses and communities to plan for, respond and adjust to the phase out.

Importantly, it will be available to help all parts of the sheep industry supply chain, from farmers, to truckies, to shearers and processors.[134]

The range of activities set out in the proposed subsection 424A(2) is limited, with the first 3 of the 4 categories confining the provision of financial assistance to activities related to ‘sheep products’. The fourth category relates to activities relating to ‘markets for Australian agriculture and food in the Middle East and North African region’. It appears that the transition support package is intended to primarily assist those who remain within the broader sheep meat processing sector. Additionally, it appears that people looking to exit the agricultural sector altogether will not be eligible to access the support package.

Modelling provided by the WA Government in a submission to the Independent Panel set out 2 scenarios examining the impact of the proposed ban. One of these scenarios (Scenario B) assumed that sheep farmers do not reallocate land previously used for sheep grazing to another enterprise. The second scenario (Scenario C) assumed that ‘farmers change their land use on the 400,000 hectares of land that was previously grazed to grow a combination of wheat, barley, and canola’.[135]

Under Scenario C the potential economic and job-loss impacts of the ban would be significantly reduced.[136] However, transitioning to wheat, barley and/or canola production appears to fall outside the scope of proposed subsection 424A(2), except where this could be regarded as an activity to ‘explore or develop opportunities to diversify markets for Australian agriculture and food in the Middle East and North African region’. A transition to growing crops for other international markets, or the domestic market, would appear to be outside the scope of the financial assistance package.

Proposed subsections 424A(3) and (4) provide that an arrangement or grant (respectively) may provide for the Commonwealth to reimburse, or partly reimburse, costs or expenses.

Proposed section 424C operates so that the Department’s annual report must include information about the total of the amounts paid in under arrangements or grants of financial assistance made by the Minister under new section 424A and the total number of such arrangements or grants in the period covered by the annual report.[137]

Programs

Under proposed subsection 424E(1) the Minister may, by legislative instrument, prescribe one or more programs in relation to preparing for, or adapting or responding to, the phasing out of the export of live sheep by sea, including in relation to the expenditure of Commonwealth money under such programs. The legislative instrument must specify the legislative power of the Parliament in respect of which the instrument is made: proposed subsection 424E(3).

Concluding comments

The phase out of live sheep exports by sea is a highly contentious issue that elicits strong opinions from stakeholders. Balancing animal welfare protection with the economic concerns of rural communities presents a complex challenge.

On one hand, there is a strong demand by the Australian public for higher standards of animal treatment, reflecting a shift towards greater ethical considerations in international trade practices. On the other, the live sheep export trade can be a major source of employment and income, especially in rural Western Australia where the industry is predominantly based. How effectively the Australian Government supports rural communities in their transition away from live sheep exports will be crucial in determining public support for the Bill.