- Comments on the bill
- Much of the evidence received by the Committee during the inquiry related to the Labor Government’s policy to prohibit the export of live sheep by sea by 1 May 2028. This chapter outlines the evidence received in relation to the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 (bill) itself, rather than the policy more generally. Discussions coalesced around two key issues: the prohibition and the transition support package, each of which is detailed below. The Chapter concludes with views expressed in relation to the conduct of the inquiry, the Committee’s comments on these matters, and its recommendations in relation to thebill.
The prohibition
2.2This section outlines evidence received by the Committee in relation to the prohibition on the live export of sheep by sea that would be implemented by the bill. Itexplores community expectations on the matter, economic considerations, thetransition period, as well as consideration of alternative measures.
Community expectations
2.3Evidence differed on the question of whether the bill appropriately responds to community expectations on the issue of the live export of sheep by sea. On the one hand, many submitters and witnesses argued community sentiments in Western Australia (WA) were strongly in support of the continuation of the live sheep export industry. Indeed, as detailed in Chapter 1, the Committee received over 1,100 form letters and campaign emails in favour of the industry being allowed to continue, in addition to individual submissions published on its website (see Appendix B).
2.4Demonstrating the strongly held opposition to the bill among some communities in WA, on 31 May 2024, hundreds of trucks took to the streets of Perth in opposition to the Federal government’s policy to ban live sheep exports by sea. Additionally, a petition by the Keep the Sheep campaign opposing the bill had gathered over 56,000 signatures at the time of publication. The Committee witnessed these sentiments first hand during its public hearing in Muresk, WA on 14 June 2024, at which over 2,000 people attended to express their opinion on the policy. WoolProducers Australia argued this movement ‘challenges the government’s assertion that the industry has lost community support’.
2.5Many submitters also argued animal welfare standards had improved significantly over recent years and were being met or exceeded by the industry. LiveCorp, for example, told the Committee voyage mortality rates for sheep were 81 per cent lower than ten years ago and compared favourably with on-farm mortality.
2.6Dr Holly Ludeman, an onboard compliance officer with Emanuel Exports, told the Committee the industry had ‘adopted continual improvements in animal welfare practices’ and drew the Committee’s attention to ‘significant research’ into animal welfare that had been implemented by exporters over recent years.
2.7Veterinarian, Dr Jane Vaughan, told the Committee mortality rates had come down because of the Northern Hemisphere summer prohibition (see Chapter 1) and regulations allocating additional space for sheep. She insisted, however, that morbidities and stresses remained inherent within the trade. Dr Jed Goodfellow from the Australian Alliance for Animals similarly stated, ‘mortality is an extremely blunt measure and is not a scientifically valid measure of animal welfare’.
2.8The Australian Veterinary Association welcomed the decline in mortality rates, but stated independent observer reports continued to show ‘unacceptable rates of heat stress, inanition and gastrointestinal diseases, as well as breaches of ASEL’.
2.9Opponents of the bill also pointed to an uplift in animal welfare standards in export countries as a result of Australia’s live export trade. The National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) cautioned the bill would ‘end Australia’s uplift of animal welfare standards in the Middle East’. A concerned member of the public, Mr Stephen Meerwald, stated ‘Australia exports our animal welfare standards to our export markets’, and argued local livestock and livestock sourced from other countries had, in some cases, been improved through Australia’s live exports.
2.10On the other hand, Her Worship the Mayor of Freemantle, Ms Hannah Fitzhardinge, expressed support for the bill, telling the Committee, ‘the issue is not the smell of the sheep ships, or the sight of the sheep in trucks… but the fact that our community feels this is an inhumane practice and should be phased out’.
2.11Vets Against Live Export (VALE) argued:
Australia has no ability to regulate animal welfare standards in any other country. Auditing that exists in foreign countries for the Export Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) is not independent or transparent and ESCAS non-compliance is frequently reported.
2.12Dr Vaughan stated she was not aware of any countries that had taken up ASEL or ESCAS regulations; ‘just by being in [the live export trade] it is not necessarily improving animal welfare by other exporters’. Relatedly, the Australian Alliance for Animals noted the Independent Panel on the phase out of live sheep exports by sea considered Australia has the ability to influence global animal welfare standards through diplomatic means, even in the absence of involvement in the live sheep export trade.
2.13Dr Lynn Simpson, a veterinarian involved in the live export industry who formerly worked onboard vessels, told the Committee the bill may lead to vessels used to export live sheep by sea from Australia being sold to other export countries that have far shorter voyages but currently have lower animal welfare standards. As such, she speculated the bill could lead to ‘a net global animal welfare benefit’ with safer ships and much shorter voyages being used by the trade.
2.14The RSPCA Australia insisted Australia could play a role in leading global change in animal welfare standards by ending the live export trade, cautioning Australia should not be trying to ‘do cruelty better’.
2.15A significant volume of evidence received by the Committee argued communities across Australia want to see an absolute prohibition on the trade on animal welfare grounds. For example, a concerned individual, Ms Susan Metcalfe, argued:
It is time for Australia to show the world it is serious about moving away from this cruel trade. For the animals involved and for most Australians, the end date cannot come soon enough. We should never as a society prioritise profit over the well-being of any animal, human or non-human.
2.16The Australian Alliance for Animals pointed to a range of reviews into recent incidents within the live export trade, which it claimed confirmed one thing: ‘that live sheep exports to the Middle East are fundamentally incompatible with basic standards of animal welfare’.
2.17In response to these claims, Emanuel Exports Pty told the Committee media coverage of live export tragedies at sea were ‘outlier’ events and ‘not common’. DrLynn Simpson disputed such characterisations, however, stating, ‘these are not outlier events. If we look around the world, these ships have these failures a lot. It’snot just a one-time event’.
2.18RSPCA Australia also argued risks were inherent and insurmountable in the trade in live sheep by sea:
Extremely poor sheep welfare is inherent to the live trade. The inherent issues associated with live sheep export include multiple periods of confinement, handling and a combination of road and sea transport, extreme temperatures, humidity, unfamiliar environments with varied ventilation, high noise and constant movement onboard. The suffering does not end on arrival at oversees ports as sheep can then be held in hot, humid and crowded feedlots for weeks before being slaughtered while fully conscious. The extent of poor welfare cannot be adequately overcome by supply chain adjustments, increased monitoring or legislation. Good sheep welfare is impossible to achieve in the live trade, despite regulatory attempts to do so.
2.19Dr Simpson stated that, in her opinion, inherent risks in the trade meant it could not be ‘fixed or made safe’. She further told the Committee:
It’s my strong opinion that there’s no way this trade can be fixed or managed to provide an acceptable risk to the sheep involved and be financially viable. Mass numbers of sheep cannot be safely and reliably exported long distances by sea without experiencing unnecessary suffering.
2.20RSPCA WA Chair, Ms Lynne Bradshaw, echoed this position, telling the Committee, ‘science shows no amount of regulation can make the trade acceptable’. Dr Suzie Fowler, Chief Science Office, RSPCA Australia, told the Committee regulations are unable to fix all the animal welfare issues associated with live exports due to ‘the cumulative inherent risk that exists with live sheep exports’.
2.21RSPCA Australia argued concern among the Australian community about the export of live sheep ‘has been broad and sustained over many decades’. It detailed the findings of an independent survey conducted within WA which found community sentiment to strongly favour the phasing out of live sheep exports by sea:
Despite the significant volume of media coverage in WA rural media in support of live sheep export, 71% of West Australians support the Australian Government’s policy to phase out live sheep export. The survey also found very similar views across metro and regional WA.
2.22WoolProducers Australia pointed to alternative polling that found community sentiment was broadly favourable (and improving) in relation to the live sheep export trade.
2.23Overall, the Committee received over 6,600 form letters in opposition to the live export of sheep by sea, in addition to a range of submissions published on its website (see Appendix B).
2.24Reflecting these community concerns, a petition to the Standing Committee on Petitions on legislating an end date for live sheep exports within the shortest possible timeframe received 43,758 signatures by the closing date of 31 August 2023. RSPCA Australia described the petition as ‘one of the largest parliamentary e‑petitions for animal welfare in Australian history’.
Economic considerations
2.25A significant amount of evidence received by the Committee claimed the bill would have a negative impact on livelihoods, businesses, and the WA economy, more broadly. For example, the NFF told the Committee it opposed the bill because, in the assessment of the NFF, it was ‘a net negative for the industry’.
2.26The Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association (NTCA) submitted the bill was a ‘brutal attack’ on people and their homes, arguing; ‘Government has provided no guarantee of not causing harm or economic loss, simply that they will assist in mitigating it.’
2.27WoolProducers Australia rejected the idea that producers could shift to other activities:
…suggestions of moving to alternate industries such as cropping, cell- or plant-based protein production as a remedy of the live export ban are also simplistic and ill-informed. Sheep play a vital role in ensuring many Western Australian primary producers have a holistic and sustainable business model. The complimentary nature of sheep production with cattle or cropping enterprises provides producers with the option to remain profitable through diversified income streams.
2.28Cattle Australia told the Committee the bill, by removing live exports as an avenue for farmers to turn-off their sheep, would effectively force farmers to process them through domestic slaughter, thereby removing competition from the market; ‘all prices will go down in that scenario’, it insisted.
2.29Several witnesses warned the bill would undermine investment in the sheep industry. And the NFF cautioned it would set a ‘chilling precedent’ for industry.
2.30The North Eastern Wheatbelt Regional Organisation of Councils (NEWROC) claimed the bill could halve the number of sheep producers in WA, telling the Committee the effect would be to directly remove $128 million from the local economy, with a further cut of $35 million in household expenditure.
2.31In contrast, many other witnesses and submitters argued the bill would have positive economic impacts. Concerned individuals, Michael and Helen Harvey, submitted the bill would create bigger markets for sheep meat as well as lead to jobs and business sustainability. They pointed to shifting preferences in favour of ethically sourced and sustainable products, arguing, ‘Australian exporters can enhance their reputation and access new markets with discerning consumers’.
2.32The Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC) told the Committee there was potential for the domestic processing of additional animals and that the processing industry would grow to meet increased demand, if the volume is there—what it called ‘a big if’, considering returns on processed meat would be below those for live export by sea. AMIC suggested the government consider supporting the industry with additional investment through the Future Made in Australia program.
2.33The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU) told the Committee live exports had caused jobs in the meat processing sector to ‘disappear on the back of boats’ rather than sheep being processed onshore:
Both in Western Australia and in the eastern states, there have been numerous plant closures over the past 40 years, with well over 40 processing establishments in total being closed, and live exports being an important contributor to those closures.
2.34The AMIEU stated local processing created jobs, was good for regional Australia and local communities, and was a ‘major contributor’ to the local and national economy.
2.35The Hon Catherine King MP, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, noted the live sheep export trade amounted to $77 million in 2022–23; 10 per cent of what it had been two decades earlier and under 2 per cent of the overall $4.5 billion Australian lamb and mutton export sector. She argued phasing out live sheep exports would lead to more meat processing carried out in Australia rather than overseas, with the potential to add further value and profits to Australian businesses: ‘it keeps jobs in Australia. It boosts regional development’, she stated.
2.36Relatedly, the bill’s Explanatory Memorandum emphasised the findings of the Independent Panel in relation to opportunities to minimise the impact of the prohibition, and noted, ‘early action by the government is expected to moderate adverse financial impacts’. The Independent Panel’s final report concluded, ‘the WA sheep industry can be profitable and sustainable during the transition period and beyond the end of live sheep exports by sea.’ It also noted, however, that ‘early actions by government will be required to moderate the economic and social consequences of the cessation’.
2.37DAFF told the Committee live exports of sheep by sea accounted for approximately the same number of sheep that were processed across Australia each week. Assuch, sheep could ‘feasibly’ be absorbed by the sector, with appropriate expansion and capital investment, it said. Mr Roger Fletcher, Director, Fletcher International Exports, confirmed it would take around four days to process half a million head of sheep or the number that are exported through live export annually.
2.38DAFF also stated the transition support package (see below) would engage with international markets to ‘broaden and deepen’ opportunities to export sheep products, and told the Committee there were international growth opportunities being projected for the sheep sector. DAFF conveyed there was ‘absolutely a lot of growth [in sheep meet consumption] projected in the world’.
Other issues
2.39Some proponents of the bill argued the prohibition implemented through the bill would improve Australia’s international reputation that they argued had suffered as a result of animal welfare issues related to the live export of sheep by sea. Others supported the bill on the basis that the ban would improve environmental sustainability of the sheep industry. Mr Michael and Helen Harvey, for example, submitted:
Processed meat exports can reduce the carbon footprint associated with live transportation. By shipping processed products rather than live animals, we minimise greenhouse gas emissions and decrease the environmental impact of the supply chain.
2.40Mr Michael & Helen Harvey concluded, ‘Australia can position itself as a global leader in ethical and environmentally conscious agriculture while reaping the economic benefits of value-added exports’.
2.41In opposition to the bill, WoolProducers Australia submitted recent polling had pointed to views that the live sheep export trade supported overseas nutrition.
2.42Submitters also cautioned the bill would have mental health consequences on producers and those involved in the industry. WoolProducers Australia argued:
The mental health impacts of the decision to ban live exports cannot be overstated. As a cohort, primary producers are already overrepresented in suicide rates as compared to the general public, a responsible government should be developing policies to reduce this incidence, not making decisions that add further stress.
Consideration of alternative measures
2.43Several witnesses argued regulations and related reforms within the sector had significantly improved animal welfare on live export vessels, insisting that banning the trade was therefore unnecessary (see above). However, RSPCA Australia submitted regulatory improvements had not adequately addressed sheep welfare issues:
Despite multiple regulatory changes and attempts to improve sheep welfare in live export, no amount of regulation can adequately address existing sheep welfare issues.
2.44RSPCA Australia further insisted animal welfare issues associated with the live export of sheep by sea were ‘inherent to the trade’, arguing ‘regulatory attempts cannot raise standards to an acceptable level’.
2.45Australian Alliance for Animals argued inherent problems remain within the industry, despite a series of reforms. It conceded mortality rates had declined since new regulations were introduced, but insisted mortality rates were a poor measure of animal welfare:
Mortality is not a scientifically valid measure of animal welfare. Mortality rates only record the number of sheep that die, which is of limited utility to welfare assessment and not consistent with contemporary animal welfare science, nor community expectations.
2.46DAFF noted the Independent Panel had considered alternatives to the absolute prohibition of the trade, including expansion of the Northern Hemisphere summer prohibition and the introduction of quotas or caps. Little evidence was received by the Committee on these options. The Independent Panel, however, concluded an expansion of the summer prohibition would alter production planning and risk peak offload points. Further, it concluded the introduction of caps and quotas would be complex and costly to design, legislate, communicate, and administer. It therefore identified a legislated prohibition as providing the most effective policy option whilst providing clarity, certainty and transparency.
2.47DAFF also argued legislation was the most effective approach to banning the live export of sheep. It submitted the absolute prohibition that would be enacted through the bill provides certainty, transparency, and accountability for the policy:
This is the most robust approach and provides accountability and transparency by enabling Parliamentary debate and provides the opportunity for referral to and scrutiny by Parliamentary committees if considered appropriate by the Parliament. Primary legislation would also provide the greatest level of certainty.
2.48DAFF further submitted certainty was ‘critical’ to the effectiveness of the bill:
Certainty is a pillar of the government’s transition plan… A clear end date enables those involved in the live sheep export by sea, including producers, the supply chain and trading partners, to plan their adjustment and act in advance of the end of the trade. The government’s transition plan also recognises the need for certainty in managing the mental wellbeing impacts from the decision.
2.49Finally, DAFF pointed to the importance of providing industry with certainty that current regulations would remain and that no caps or quotas would be introduced during the phase out.
Transition support package
2.50This section outlines evidence in relation to the transition support package as well as the quantum and priorities of the package.
Transition period
2.51Submitters and witnesses were divided on the question of the duration of the transition period. Some opponents of the measure argued it was too short to enable the WA sheep industry to properly transition away from live export by sea. Sheep Producers Australia, for example, stated:
Less than four years is not enough time for sheep producers to adjust their production systems, nor is it sufficient for processor capacity development, the growth of airfreight or sea freight capability and the expansion of new offshore markets for sheep meat.
2.52Sheep Producers Australia emphasised that the Independent Panel had found a longer transition timeframe would be beneficial for industry.
2.53On the other hand, some submitters argued the transition period should be far shorter than the nearly-four years provided for by this bill. VALE argued, ‘the time-frame of 4 years is too long to satisfy animal welfare concerns’. Ms Susan Metcalfe also told the Committee she had ‘serious concerns that the four year transition period will mean continued suffering for many thousands of sheep and that there will be a decreased focus on animal welfare during this period’.
2.54RSPCA Australia told the Committee it would prefer an earlier end date:
We would prefer an earlier end date given the extreme suffering that sheep experience in live trade… The RSPCA remains concerned about the ongoing risks to sheep welfare during the phase out period.
2.55Whilst RSPCA Australia accepted the bill’s transition period enabled the sheep industry to adapt to the ban, it called for additional regulatory controls through updates to the Export Control (Animals) Rules and the ASEL to mitigate ongoing risks to sheep welfare during the transition period, including additional onboard monitoring technology, mandatory independent observers onboard live sheep voyages, and expediting a full update to the ASEL.
2.56RSPCA Australia emphasised the need for certainty that the bill provides on both improved animal welfare grounds as well as for Australian producers. It argued:
A mandated end date via legislation is essential to overcome the inherent animal welfare issues and exporter’s ongoing resistance to voluntarily transition to more sustainable and publicly acceptable alternatives.
2.57RSPCA Australia further noted the legislated end date would enable sheep producers and industry stakeholders to invest in appropriate planning and would motivate stakeholders to engage in the transition process supported by the Federal government.
2.58Minister King argued the transition period, in which all sheep live exports would end by 1 May 2028, was based on extensive consultations and ‘strikes the right balance’ between community expectations and industry considerations. She insisted the bill was necessary for sheep welfare, but noted the need for ‘an orderly transition’ to minimise the impact on industry.
2.59On this matter, DAFF submitted:
The choice of 2028 reflects the recommendation of the panel that observed this timeframe balances the varied stakeholder interests and steps required for change.
2.60The bills’ Explanatory Memorandum further noted the transition period takes into consideration the need to provide certainty for stakeholders and affected communities, and ‘provides adequate time for an orderly transition while not creating unintended negative animal welfare outcomes’.
2.61DAFF noted the Independent Panel had considered a range of transition timelines, concluding:
- a shorter timeframe (to 2025) would risk ‘a disorderly transition and exacerbate animal welfare or human wellbeing concerns’;
- a long transition period (to 2033) would reduce incentives to transition and would ‘likely create a greater expectation that the policy will be revised’; and
- a medium timeframe (to 2028) would balance the need to afford industry time to transition whilst also providing sufficient impetus for it to do so.
- DAFF summarised the Independent Panel’s conclusion in relation to the phase out as follows:
The date selected by the panel, in its view, balances all the factors it considered in its consultations and expert evidence evaluation. The government has agreed that the date strikes an appropriate balance’.
2.63Ms Tina Hutchison, Deputy Secretary, DAFF, told the Committee the transition period ‘balances the interests of the government in ceasing the trade but equally the opportunity for people to adjust’.
2.64Sheep Producers Australia noted with concern that, whilst the Federal government had accepted a review into the progress of the phase out (the stocktake, see Chapter1), the Federal government did not accept that the review would consider adjusting the transition deadline. As a consequence, Sheep Producers Australia warned the bill was like ‘asking producers to scale Mount Everest without a safety rope’.
Quantum and priorities
2.65Some submitters supported the measures contained in the transition support package. For example, Australian Alliance for Animals submitted that processing sheep within Australia protects animal welfare and adds value to domestic supply chains. It argued the transition support package was therefore necessary to support farmers and industry to make this transition whilst meeting community animal welfare expectations.
2.66RSPCA Australia emphasised the importance of support for farmers’ mental health and community programs:
Research highlights that poor mental health amongst farmers can lead to poorer animal welfare outcomes. Programs designed to address farmer wellbeing, and initiatives intended to safeguard animal welfare, have also been shown to assist both people and animals.
2.67The Committee also received evidence that the transition support package was insufficient to meet the transition needs of industry. WoolProducers Australia, for example, described the $107 million appropriation as ‘inadequate to support farmers, processing capacity, and rural businesses’. NEWROC similarly told the Committee the bill was ‘certainly not enough’.
2.68Sheep Producers Australia also described the package as ‘inadequate to meet the stated objectives of the Albanese government to grow onshore processing and increase the value of WA sheep production’. Whilst Ms Joanne Hall, Chief Executive Officer, WoolProducers Australia, called the $107 million package ‘an insult’ to the sector.
2.69The Australian Livestock Exporters Association highlighted that there was ‘zero money for live exporters’ in the current package, warning the Committee the bill would drive exporters out of business.
2.70The NTCA submitted the transition support package was ‘conspicuously less’ than similar support offered to other sectors.
2.71DAFF acknowledged the WA Government had declined at this stage to join up and support the transition support package but emphasised that the Federal Government was open to discussing a future partnership agreement with the state. DAFF also told the Committee, as a result, that ‘the package has been designed to be a Commonwealth delivered package’.
2.72DAFF emphasised that the $107 million transition support package was not intended as compensation for the impact of the bill or as a proxy for the value of the trade in the live export of sheep by sea. Rather, DAFF stated:
The government’s package is a transition package, so the position is that there is a healthy sheep industry in WA at the end of the transition period. So it’s about transitioning that proportion of the market that currently produces sheep for export and transitioning all the various elements… it’s about assisting in the transition across the entire supply chain.
2.73DAFF also told the Committee the package design drew on evidence gathered from the Independent Panel on how best to transition the sector.
2.74When asked about its level of confidence that the transition support package would protect industry, DAFF responded:
… it’s very difficult to indicate how any one individual will respond given their particular circumstances. The independent panel certainly has a view that there is a long-term, healthy sheep industry that’s viable in Western Australia, with a different mix than is currently there. The [transition support] package has been designed… in such a way as to enable people to access different types of things depending on their circumstances …
Inquiry process
2.75NTCA criticised the inquiry process for a lack of substantive and robust policy and legislative discussions in favour of what it called a ‘Potemkin village of due process and public oversight’. The NFF also criticised the conduct of the inquiry, stating:
We’ve been granted just four business days to provide our thoughts to this panel. Our members in Western Australia have been given only seven days notice to walk away from their businesses to attend the Muresk hearing. If you wanted to design a process to dismiss and marginalise our members—who are the people affected by this policy—this would be it’.
2.76The Australian Livestock Export Council told the Committee it expected the inquiry to be ‘a complete waste of time’, with the recommendation to pass the bill a ‘fait accompli’.
2.77DAFF noted that 1 May 2028, the date on which the prohibition would take effect if the legislation were to pass, would mark ten years from the date on which the Labor government’s policy was first announced.
Committee comment
2.78The Committee acknowledges the strongly-held positions of community members on both sides of the policy debate around the prohibition of the live export of sheep by sea. Evidence received during this inquiry underscores that deep concerns remain in relation to the impact this bill may have on livelihoods, businesses, and rural communities across WA. However, it is also evident that broader community expectations in relation to animal welfare cannot be met if the live export of sheep by sea is allowed to continue. The Committee considers that an inherent risk remains to animal welfare if the trade is allowed to continue. As such, the Committee welcomes the bill and notes that it effectively establishes an absolute and permanent prohibition on the export of live sheep by sea on or by 1 May 2028.
2.79The Committee noted strong community opposition to the bill, as evident in submissions to this inquiry, in the evidence received during public hearings, and in events such as the community mobilisation in Muresk and other local rallies in WA. The Committee was moved by the authentic and compelling concerns shared by farmers, producers, and communities. It was nevertheless evident to the Committee that opposition to the bill represents a minority position across the country; and within WA as well. Indeed, an overwhelming majority of submissions received during this inquiry expressed strong support for the bill on animal welfare grounds. Ultimately, the Committee was persuaded that the live export of sheep by sea presents inherent risks to animal welfare that can only be reduced—and never fully overcome—by regulation. As such, the Committee considers the bill, and the prohibition to which it gives effect, accords with community expectations on this matter.
2.80Further, the Committee considers the bill to be consistent with the approach taken in similar jurisdictions over recent years. It also notes the burden of regulating the industry will be lifted by implementing the prohibition.
2.81The Committee noted calls for the bill to provide for a ministerial exemption to the prohibition, for example in times of war or famine, but considers such provisions to be counter to the animal welfare concerns underpinning the legislation as well as impractical, given the necessary transition the industry must make away from live exports by sea.
2.82In relation to the transition support package, the Committee considers the package established through the bill to be timely and comprehensive. In particular, the Committee welcomes the Federal government’s commitment to begin spending immediately in the upcoming 2024–25 financial year to support the sector’s transition.
2.83The Committee acknowledges concerns raised by some submitters and witnesses that the transition period may present challenges for some producers and businesses. However, given the limited size of the live sheep export market relative to the broader industry, the Committee is persuaded that the negative effects of the transition can be effectively mitigated with well-targeted assistance. Further, the Committee considers the support package, if properly implemented, has the potential to strengthen segments of the WA economy and presents opportunities for WA businesses and livelihoods in some sectors—particularly in terms of onshore processing, packaging, and frozen exports.
2.84The Committee welcomes provisions within the bill to support the psychosocial wellbeing of those who may be affected by the bill. The Committee also welcomes the stocktake slated for 2026 and expects the Federal government to address and fully fund any significant gaps identified through this process to minimise any negative effects on industry and communities.
2.85The Committee was disappointed that broadly, witnesses and submitters critical of the bill failed to engage constructively with the design of the transition support package. Whilst opposition to the policy was well noted, the Committee considers it to be in the interest of industry to advise on additional or alternative measures the Federal government could consider in support of the phase out. With this in mind, the Committee considers it likely that additional funding needs will emerge as the phase out progresses. As such, it recommends the Federal government consider appropriating additional funds in the future to support the transition, particularly in response to any gaps that may become apparent during the 2026 stocktake.
2.86The Committee notes with disappointment the lack of participation by the WAgovernment in the design and implementation of the transition support package. The Committee acknowledges the state government’s position that the bill is not in the interests of the state, but nevertheless considers it to be in the interests of industry and communities across the state for the WA government to support implementation of the package. As such, the Committee welcomes the Federal government’s commitment to seek opportunities to engage the State government in the future and the Committee encourages the WA government to reconsider its position on this matter.
2.87Moreover, the Committee acknowledges the limited time afforded to the community and stakeholders to contribute to this inquiry and wishes to acknowledge those who were nevertheless able to submit, appear as witnesses, and express their views. However, the Committee notes this bill gives effect to Labor’s long-standing policy—taken to two Federal elections. The Committee also notes the extensive and exhaustive consultations conducted by the Independent Panel, in which over 2,000 individuals were consulted, nearly 100 stakeholder meetings held, and more than 800 submissions received. The Committee is therefore convinced that adequate opportunities have been afforded to key stakeholders.
2.88Finally, the Committee acknowledges that some stakeholders will be disappointed not to see their individual contributions or names listed in this report or on the Committee’s website. The Committee recognises it is vital that stakeholders be given the opportunity to contribute to the inquiry, comment on the bill being examined, and that as great a range of views be heard as is possible. It is the Committee’s view that the criteria used to process contributions to the inquiry, as detailed in Chapter 1, did not detract from capturing the opinions and sentiments expressed by stakeholders on this important issue. While more personal stories, views, and opinions could not be made available on the Committee’s website, these contributions are captured and reflected in the broader analysis of contributions that express support for and against the bill.
2.89In light of the above matters, the Committee recommends that the bill be passed.
2.90The Committee recommends that the bill be passed.
2.91The Committee recommends that the Australian Government considers making additional funding available to support the transition, potentially through the 2026 stocktake of industry progress.
2.92The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continues to seek opportunities to work with the Western Australian Government to refine and implement the transition support package.
Ms Meryl Swanson MP
Chair
20 June 2024