Dissenting report from Coalition members

Introduction

1.1The Coalition does not support the ban of live sheep export by sea, and strongly opposes the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Export by Sea) Bill 2024.

1.2The Coalition will reverse this bad Government policy if re-elected.

1.3The Coalition believes any transition package proposed in this Bill will be rejected by WA farmers and industry supply chain participants who believe the Live Sheep Export industry is not only viable, but a growing industry.

1.4We the Coalition Committee members concur with WA industry that this Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Export by Sea) Bill 2024 is an unwarranted intervention by a poorly informed Government.

1.5Australia’s live export industry has the most comprehensive animal welfare standards in the world. The Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) sets out conditions for the export of livestock, and the Export Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS), requires exporters to enforce Australia’s strict animal welfare standards on importing countries.

1.6This means animals being exported from Australia are protected throughout the entire process—from Australian paddocks to point of slaughter in international markets.

1.7As these welfare standards are enforced in the feedlots and slaughterhouses of destination markets, sheep held and processed there are treated the same as our Australian sheep.

1.8Australia truly is exporting the highest animal welfare standards to the world.

1.9Live sheep exporters are already required to comply with a high level of regulation in this sector. This Regulation includes but is not limited to:

• On-board Independent Observers who oversee daily routine monitoring and report throughout the loading, journey and off-loading at destination.
• Reduced stocking densities allowing more freedom of movement and natural behaviours on-board
• Increased ventilation (measured as pen air turnover-PAT)
• Heat management plans to mitigate potential risks
• Mandatory environmental sensor monitoring wet and dry bulb temperatures on every deck, checked regularly and logging daily temperatures and humidity
• Mandatory trigger to report any mortality event of 1% or higher...this has not occurred in recent history.
• Northern Summer moratorium banning the sending of sheep to the Middle East during the warmest periods of the northern hemisphere summer. This has effectively reduced the shipping “year” by 3.5 months
  10. In addition to DAFF regulation, all live sheep export vessels have to comply with regulation by the Australian Marine Safety Authority (AMSA). All vessels operating between Fremantle and the Arabian Gulf are currently undergoing re-fit to meet new AMSA compliance measures requiring the enclosing of decks.
  11. ALEC has indicated the cost of compliance for live animal exporters has been increasing and figures from Livecorp indicate $22M in 2021-22, to a total industry compliance cost of $30.4M in 2023-24.[1]
  12. It is no wonder that there has been a reduction in total shipping volumes in recent history, when Regulation is combined with Australian variables, like drought, floods, and feed shortages; as well as domestic wool, grain and sheep meat prices, and on-shore slaughter capacity.
  13. Add COVID-induced reductions in transport options (air and sea), the Government’s decision to deny Qatar Airways 28 extra flights per week to the Gulf, domestic abattoir worker shortages exacerbated by restricted foreign labour availability...and it’s no wonder the Government believes their much-uttered mantra that the industry is in decline.
  14. However, the live sheep export trade by sea is a rebounding and growing trade that Government chooses to deny at the peril of Australia’s reputation as a valued and reliable trading partner, exporting quality sheep, raised, transported and ultimately processed under world-leading standards of animal welfare.
  15. This Government instead chooses to listen to activists citing historical incidents and push-polled data rather than the sound evidence produced in this Inquiry that shows dramatic and sustained improvements in animal welfare outcomes, through a pro-active and continually evolving supply chain, determined to maintain and exceed expectations.
  16. As for cold-chain capacity being able to step up, the WA Government, both DPIRD[2] and Agriculture Minister Jarvis,[3] together with WA Meat Industry Authority (WAMIA)[4] and individual abattoir owners (both Fletchers, Narrikup[5] and WAMMCO, Katanning[6]) all concurred that this would require considerable investment in processing chain and cold storage infrastructure and enhanced labour force access and infrastructure to house workers. There would also be a requirement for increased air transport capacity.

Process

1.17The Coalition Members of the Committee, firmly believe the House Standing Committee Inquiry into this Bill has all the hallmarks of a rushed and poorly considered effort to avoid scrutiny by the Senate Inquiry promised by Minister Watt[7] and bury a political problem.

1.18This Bill not only abolishes an entire agriculture and trade industry segment, impacting upon the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Australians, but by stealth it ties any assistance through the $107 million transition package funding to the passage of the Bill.

1.19Does this Government seriously think they can bribe a legal, viable sector of the WA agricultural industry into accepting its own demise?

1.20This Bill has generated enormous community concern and has sparked the largest agricultural support rallies seen in 50 years in Australia, with thousands gathering on two separate occasions. On 31 May 2024 a #KeeptheSheep convoy of some 1700 trucks and vehicles conducted a peaceful process throughout the major transport arteries of Perth; and on 14 June 2024 a #Keep the Sheep welcome for House Standing Committee members was conducted along the approaches to Muresk Institute. This was followed by a peaceful rally of some 2000 farmers and industry stakeholders outside the only West Australian Hearing, ironically at the State’s premier tertiary agriculture campus.

1.21Yet the Labor government profess that two Hearings and a 5-day Submission period constitutes a considered Inquiry?

1.22In spite of the extraordinarily short Inquiry period, by the close of the submissions period on 11th June 2024 the Secretariat had received over 13,000 submissions and were completely overwhelmed. By the time the Committee Chairs Draft Report was circulated to Committee Members, on 19th June 2024, less than 600 Submissions had been published on the Committee website. In order to reduce the workload on the Secretariat, 4324 short statements of less than 250 words were completely disregarded, not even added to the count in support of, or against, the Bill. That is 35% of the total volume of submissions that were completely disregarded by the Committee!

1.23Another 1156 Submissions by members of Sheep Producers Australia did not have their lengthy and detailed submissions published on the website, as they were classified as proforma’s having the same weight as the type of “tick-and-flick” campaign proformas mostly associated withactivist campaigns. In short, the Committee Secretariat did not have the time or resources to cope with the overwhelming evidence provided to this Inquiry.

1.24The Committee accepted 15 late submissions, one of which was by a Veterinary group called Livestock Veterinarians Australia, that strongly refuted a significant volume of veterinary evidence to which the Chair’s Report heavily referred in the decision making process, but unfortunately these professional opinions were unable to be considered within the timeframe.

1.25Likewise, Questions on Notice (QoNs) to the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) were not responded to within the allocated timeframe.[8]

1.2652 separate questions (QoNs) from Committee Deputy Chair Mr Wilson were answered with a ‘one size fits all’ DAFF statement.[9] There was no attempt whatsoever by DAFF to answer any of the specific questions asked.

1.27Another set of QoNs lodged by Mr Willcox[10] regarding the modelling around the transition package remained unanswered at COB 20th June 2024.

1.28The dissenting Members of this Committee note that we were given less than 24 hours to respond to the Chair’s Report, only reinforcing the ill-considered haste with which this entire Inquiry has been conducted.

1.29Coalition members of the Committee agree with industry stakeholders that this Inquiry has been a sham, designed to try to give the Labor government political cover for a political decision that is damaging to Western Australia in particular.

1.30The opening statement from David Galvin, Chair, Australian Live Export Council (ALEC)[11] summarised the problems with the current inquiry:

1.31While not intending any disrespect to this committee’s members, and the time they are committing for this inquiry, Minister Watt committed to a Senate Inquiry with hearings in WA during a Senate Estimates hearing on 30 May, only to backflip less than a week later and assign the task to a House of Representative committee instead.

1.32It seems ironic that the Minister can insist that he is keeping his promise to ban live sheep but can’t keep his promise have a Senate Inquiry.

1.33We consider this a ruse to circumvent Senate crossbench scrutiny, and to be a way for the Minister to say he has made good on his statements that he has called an inquiry and held a hearing in WA in a manner the Albanese Government has the capacity to control more tightly.

1.34Whilst this Committee could, if given sufficient time, have conducted a proper inquiry, the conduct of the Labor government has made that impossible.

1.35Given the importance of this issue, not just to sheep producers in WA, but to the whole agriculture sector and beyond, Coalition members of the Committee strongly recommend a thorough and comprehensive Inquiry into this Bill be undertaken through the Senate committee system.

1.36We propose Hearings should be held in regional WA, but also in regional South Australia and the Eastern States, to hear from those impacted by the direct and indirect consequences of the ban. Hearings should be held in Northern Territory to hear from those impacted by the 2011 Labor ban on cattle exports who have lost faith in this Government and do not believe that the live cattle export industry will not be next.

1.37Any such Inquiry should not report before December 2024 to give those impacted sufficient notice to prepare, submit, and appear before such a committee.

Awassi Express Event

1.38The primary catalyst which led to this Bill and subsequent Inquiry was an incident of severe heat stress and high mortality affecting sheep on the Awassi Express livestock vessel back in 2017. This incident was an animal welfare catastrophe acknowledged by all, and sparked immediate industry led mitigative actions and subsequent Government regulatory reforms to ensure no such event would ever occur going forward. To date this has avoided any reportable mortality event, and shipping mortalities have spiralled to less than 0.2%, and low morbidity rates and stress mitigation measures are now the norm.

1.39On 5th May 2022 The Australian newspaper reported on “a leaked statutory declaration, written and signed (9/2/2018) by Animals Australia strategy director Lyn White, (which) discloses details of $US107,710 ($148,000) in various payments made to their star whistleblower Fazal Ullah and his family… It was Mr Ullah’s footage of animal cruelty that in 2018 sparked the federal government to shut down the live export trade over the summer months.”[12]

1.40The average wage for crew members looking after the livestock on vessels is USD200 per month. This payment, if reported accurately, represents 538 months wages for a livestock vessel crewmember.

1.41Veterinarians with extensive experience travelling on livestock vessels out of Australia recognise that the severe heat stress observed in these filmed images could have been caused by temporary failure of the onboard ventilation system. Such a breakdown need only occur for a few minutes before the heat and humidity became life threatening.

1.42The average percentage of sheep mortalities on all ships to Middle East markets in 2021, 2022 and 2023 was 0.16%. Of 1.696 million sheep exported,1.693 million safely arrived at their ports of discharge.[13]

Community support

1.43The Secretariat has received over 13,000 Submissions to this Inquiry. This alone should speak volumes about the extent of community interest. Although less that 600 of these Submissions were available to view on the Committee website when the Chairs Draft Report was received by Members, the vast majority of individual, business, local government and agricultural peak body submissions indicated they were vehemently opposed to this Bill.

1.44Unfortunately a major cohort of the live export industry community, WA sheep producers took the time to complete often long and detailed personal submissions. The fact that 1156 were considered to be “Pro-forma letters”, means their contributions will never be acknowledged by this Committee or this Government.

1.45The #Keep the Sheep[14] movement represents a grass roots community and stakeholder group, including Farmers, Transporters, Shearers, Stock Agents and Feed Producers and the rural communities they support and who in turn support them. They are “particularly disappointed with the current inquiry consultation process. It is unreasonable to expect community organisations run by volunteers to examine legislation and provide detailed responses within 5 working days, of which most States and Territories were observing a public holiday. We call on Members of the Committee to listen to the voices of the people #Keep the Sheep represents, whose lives will be directly affected by this poorly thought Inquiry into Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024.

1.46On the 31st of May 2024, over 3000 people joined a #KeeptheSheep convoy of 1700 farm vehicles through the CBD of Perth to publicly oppose the Government’s Live Sheep Export ban.

1.47#KeeptheSheep has within 2 short weeks gathered over 50,000 signatories to a petition calling for the ban to be scrapped. This number is significantly more than the 43,000 petitioners cited in the Minister’s Second Reading speech introducing the Bill to Parliament, and, collected in a far shorter timeframe. The Government continues to argue the live sheep trade has ‘lost community support’ based on this one RSPCA-commissioned survey.[15]

1.48When asked recently why he was going ahead with the ban, Senator Watt said the industry had ‘lost community support a long time ago’.

Even surveys conducted in WA, the only state that is doing this now, show that about 70 per cent of Western Australians support this trade being ended.[16]

1.49The survey Mr Watt referred to was commissioned by the RSPCA and conducted by McCrindle research — a New South Wales-based data provider — to gauge the WA public’s opinion on the live sheep trade.

1.50The RSPCA online survey, which ran from May 8 to 11 in 2023, consisted of 800 anonymous respondents sourced by McCrindle’s survey partner, Cint. Respondents included a sample of 350 regional residents, which had a margin of error of 6 per cent, and a sample of 450 metropolitan residents, which had a margin of error of 5 per cent. About 71 per cent of respondents responded with “yes, definitely”, or “yes, somewhat”.

1.51In comparison three separate surveys, conducted by Voconiq, with each consisting of more than 4000 respondents, measured community sentiment towards live sheep exports over three consecutive years (2019-2023). The surveys were compiled in a 2023 report by LiveCorp,[17] which indicated 29 per cent of respondents said live exports should be stopped regardless of the impact on farmers. Forty two per cent disagreed — up 5% from 37% in 2019.

1.52Another key outcome measure for this Voconiq work is the extent to which the Australian community trusts in, and accepts, the live export industry. Trust in the relationship between an industry and community is central to its social licence to operate, or the extent to which it meets the expectations of the Australian community as a whole and is accepted as a legitimate and appropriate industry in this country. For the Voconiq survey:

• Participants Australia-wide were asked to rank their level of trust and acceptance using a 5-point scale, where 1 represented lower trust or acceptance and 5 reflected higher trust or acceptance.
• Trust in the live export industry overall in 2023 was 2.96, and acceptance was 3.01. Around 60%.
• When the data was separated by state, the lowest ranking state for both trust and acceptance was Tasmania (Trust M=2.71; Acceptance M=2.64), and the highest-ranking state was the Northern Territory (Trust M=3.3; Acceptance M= 3.25)
  53. The Australian Live Exporters Council commissioned independent polling which was carried out between 20-27 April 2023:[18]
• while participants certainly held significant concerns about animal welfare in relation to live sheep exports (having encountered issues in the media), most opposed an outright ban. Their opposition was founded almost exclusively on participants’ concerns for the well-being of farmers and regional communities which are dependent on the trade.
• In WA, 55.2% of survey participants indicated they trusted farmers over the Australian Government (15%) and animal welfare groups (12.9%), when it came to information about live exports.
• In Queensland this figure was 63.9% trusting farmers, with comparative figures 11.7% for Government and 9.4% for animal welfare groups.
• Research consisted of

• 4 focus groups (3 in WA, 1 in regional QLD) and
• quantitative surveys in WA (n=1,978) and regional QLD (n=882).
  54. Despite more rigour and from an RDC – the Government is ignoring its own authority established to provide advice (robust).

• No report is available with only raw data provided to the RSPCA from McCrindle.
• The EM cites a petition that had more than 40,000 signatures – yet the #keepthesheep campaign petition secured more than 50,000 signatures within 2 weeks of launching.
  55. Perhaps worthy of note is that of the relatively few named submissions published to date supporting the Governments Bill, the vast majority cite Minister Watt/RSPCA statistics.
  56. We the Coalition believe Minister Watt and DAFF have been cherry-picking RSPCA statistics over those secured through more rigorous and transparent polling methods, such as the CSIRO-spin off research firm Voconiq five-year study into community sentiment around the live export trade or more recent independent polling commissioned by ALEC.

Concerns about evidence from Veterinarians

1.57Everyone concurs mortality rates are outdated measure of voyage success, but they are still used to benchmark against historically recorded data.

1.58Despite the volumes of scientific evidence presented to this Inquiry to the contrary, this Government still refuses to acknowledge that mortality rates on live sheep shipments today are consistently low...with the 2023 average of 0.18% being 81% lower than a decade ago.[19]

1.59A large body of evidence was presented to this Inquiry by Australian Accredited Veterinarians[20][21] stockpersons and animal welfare scientists[22] who have recently travelled on these vessels. They all stated that morbidity measures are constantly assessed, measured and acted upon throughout these voyages. In short, there is no value in a sick, injured or dead sheep.

1.60The Committee heard competing testimonies about the animal welfare on-board vessels, including horrific first-hand evidence presented by live export veterinarian Dr Lynn Simpson,[23] over many voyages between 1999-2011, and Dr Jane Vaughan[24] who had also been on historic voyages under now outdated animal welfare protocols.

1.61The Coalition believes little credence was given to the current factual evidence presented by the Australian Accredited Veterinarians (AAVs) and stockpersons who have comprehensively monitored and recorded shipments, according to best practice animal welfare-centric management protocols that now constitute the routine on-board live export vessels.

1.62On 19th June 2024, Livestock Veterinarians Australia (LVA) a network of veterinarians working within production animal industries provided a comprehensive submission[25] to refute each and every unsubstantiated allegation made each witness who incorrectly asserted that current day live sheep export practices on-vessel are still not providing optimal animal welfare outcomes.

1The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) did not provide supporting evidence to its comments and responses, and these were, at times, speculative and without context...(and) did not consult with veterinarians within its membership with extensive experience in live export in preparing for this public inquiry.

2LVA notes that AVA policy indicates veterinary training and relevant experience should be a prerequisite for assessing and reporting on animal welfare indicators in this setting. That Independent Observers (IO’s) are often not veterinarians nor had relevant training and experience prior to deployment, raises questions regarding the accuracy and veracity of IO reports.

3LVA notes that AVA’s comments that cessation of live export of sheep by sea will result in a global ‘net welfare benefit’ are speculative, fail to follow logical arguments, are unsupported by evidence, and most unlikely to occur.

4LVA refutes RSPCA Australia figures regarding their community sentiment surveys stating public transparency of how the RSPCA commissioned reports were conducted is not readily available.

5LVA refutes certain comments made by Dr Lynn Simpson (who) has not sailed since 2011... and there have been significant improvements that she refuses to acknowledge and the information she presents as current is actually quite historical.

6LVA refutes Dr Jane Vaughan statement on “majority of equatorial crossings resulting in heat stress”...LVA asserts sheep are no longer exported at a time of year that there is risk of cumulative exposure to temperatures at or near the animals Heat Stress Threshold (HST).

7LVA refuted the following comment by Vets Against Live Export (VALE) Dr Sue Foster:[26] industry has spent large amounts of money on looking at welfare indicators. They've been extensively researched by Murdoch University. They've been published by Murdoch University; there are two excellent papers by Renee Willis and colleagues from Murdoch. They could easily be incorporated into shipboard reporting. The point is: they're not. The industry is still relying on mortality.

1.63LVA responded: VALE, RSPCA and other organisations rely heavily on subjective observations made by IO's who are often not veterinarians, either from published summary reports or FOI extraction of full reports. This is because these organisations do not have access to AAV daily and end of voyage reports incorporating LIVEXcollect data collected during voyages. The LIVEXcollect data is used to determine animal welfare indicators and is provided to DAFF directly from the vessel, on a daily basis, affording the regulator monitoring of animal welfare almost in 'real time'.

1.64This Livestock Veterinarians Australia submission may be an inconvenient truth for this Government but it reinforces that there is no scientific evidence to support this ban.

No scientific evidence for the ban

1.65The Bill states that ‘the measures in the Bill are necessary to protect the welfare of sheep when exported from Australia by sea’.[27]

1.66The Coalition considers there is no scientific evidence that justifies the ban of the live sheep export trade by sea.

1.67When Minister Watt stated in February 2023 that there is ‘certainly the scientific evidence and a range of data is part of the decision-making’ to the phase out of live sheep, the response provided at senate estimates was:

Live sheep exports from Australia peaked in 2001-02 when more than 6.5 million sheep were exported. Since this time the industry has declined by more than 90%. In 2021-22, just 488,000 sheep were exported (data from Australian Bureau of Statistics).

A number of tragedies have occurred since the 1980s:

• 67,000 sheep died on the Uniceb when it caught fire and sunk in the Indian Ocean in 1996.
• More than 5,500 sheep died on the MV Cormo Express when the shipment was rejected from Saudi Arabia in 2003.
• 4,000 sheep died on the Bader 3 when travelling to the Middle East in 2014.
• Around 2,400 sheep died of heat stress on the Awassi Express when travelling from Australia to the Middle East in 2017.

Sheep bound for export continue to have higher mortality rates compared to other animals for live export. In 2021-22, 0.16% (or 722) sheep exported died during transit, compared to 0.07% (or 484) of cattle”.[28]

1.68The Coalition considers it important to respond to evidence provided to ban this industry.

Declining industry

1.69The industry is not in decline. As stated by Livecorp, a Research and Development Corporation ‘the number of sheep exported from Australia in 2023 increased 30 per cent compared to 2022’.[29]

1.70Middle East North African (MENA) countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, have high demand for live sheep imports due to limited growth potential for local production and a preference for local, freshly-slaughtered Halal meat for use in religious observances and daily diets.[30]

1.71The broader region was forecasted to import around five million head of live sheep and goats (136,000 tonnes carcase weight equivalent) in 2022 and is forecast to be around 7.3 million head by 2027.[31]

1.72In 2022–23, the MENA region remained Australia’s top export destination for live sheep, exporting 639,477 head (a 34% year-on-year increase), valued at A$85 million, with Kuwait taking 43% by volume, followed by Israel at 19%, Jordan 13% and Oman 9%.[32]

1.73According to WA Live Exporters Association (WALEA) “Australia currently has at least 4 slaughter sheep health protocols that sitting with the Australian government[33]… Morocco, Iran, Iraq and Indonesia, with Turkey soon to lodge protocols.

It is only because of the delay of the Government that these markets are currently not being serviced... Old markets like Saudi Arabia are now importing Australian sheep again with the potential to import significantly more numbers as market share is regained…As Australian sheep prices become more competitive on the world scale, we are able to re-enter markets such as Qatar and Bahrain again.[34]

1.74John Cunnington (WALEA) referred to DAFF hindering market access protocols: Some of those have been in there (DAFF) for a couple of years. That used to be done backwards and forwards within weeks. It's now taking months and years. You can't tell me that there's not a deliberate go-slow mandate being passed down. You talk about trade declining, but here are trade opportunities to increase. Yes, we've just opened up Saudi, which takes over eight million head a year.”[35]

1.75This assertion is confirmed in a ministerial submission from DAFF to Minister Watt discovered through FoI: “Given the Government’s commitment to the phase out of the live sheep trade by sea, you NOTE that the department intends to cease negotiations of new market protocols where the predominant mode of transport is expected to be by sea”.[36]

1.76WALEA provided the following reasons for decline in sheep numbers exported since 2018:

• WALEA/Industry led moratorium over the Northern Summer shipping period – reducing available shipping months to 8.5 months a year
• Australian Marine Standards Authority (AMSA): Phased out of twin tier vessels – essentially halved the amount of shipping space on some vessels
• ASEL reduced stocking densities to 33% less than previously
• Australia’s own regulation (ESCAS) has disrupted the ability of Australian sheep to compete and led to reduced export, eg: 2011 Saudi stopped receiving shipments due to refusal to adopt ESCAS- formerly a market taking 1 million Australian sheep per year. Saudi Arabia is currently is the biggest importer of live sheep globally, but the broader MENA region was forecasted to import around five million head of live sheep and goats (136,000 tonnes carcase weight equivalent) in 2022 and is forecast to be around 7.3 million head by 2027
• Record high prices for Australian sheep
• WA had some of the strictest COVID laws in the world with livestock vessels being caught up in the process
• Qatar (our second largest market at the time) removed the Government subsidy for imported live sheep from Australia
• Additional regulation that has reduced the type, size and ability to export some sheep.
• Loss of confidence in market due to live sheep phase out.[37]

Number of Tragedies that have occurred

1.77The Coalition notes that there have been no animal welfare incidents since the reforms in 2018.

Higher mortality rates

1.78Shipboard mortality in 2023 was on par with the record lows of 2022 – at 0.17% for sheep. The mortality rate for cattle is 0.05%.

1.79Livecorp indicated ‘if you convert mortality to a daily rate, which allows comparisons with other sectors in the agricultural supply chain, shipboard rates of mortality are favourable with publicly available statistics for Australian farms and other members of the supply chain’.[38]

Industry reform since 2018

1.80Following the highly publicised heat stress events in sheep exported in 2017 the independent review of conditions for the export of sheep to the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer (McCarthy 2018) was undertaken.[39]

1.81The National Farmers’ Federation state ‘In 2017 the incident involving the Awassi Express shocked and disgusted farmers as much as it did the general public. That's why we demanded and embraced sweeping reforms’.[40]

1.82In response to the McCarthy review a range of additional voyage conditions to improve welfare outcomes for exported sheep including increased pen space allowances based on allometric calculations, independent verification of a vessel’s PAT scores, automated watering systems and a heat stress management plan put in place for each voyage came into effect from 7 July 2018.[41]

1.83Taking effect from 1 July 2019, Australian Livestock Exporters Council announced a 3-month moratorium on live sheep exports during June, July and August, and the department implemented an interim prohibition on sheep exports from 1 June to 22 September, pending completion of Regulatory Impact Statement process.[42]

1.84Since 2018, the live sheep export industry and its regulatory framework has undergone significant change and industry continues to commit to continuous improvement.

1.85These reforms include:

• An industry-initiated moratorium on sheep exported during the northern hemisphere summer, which is now part of regulation.
• Increased space available for each animal (up to 38% more than 2017), as outlined in the updated Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock.
• Improved ventilation requirements and independent auditing of ventilation systems.
• Automated environmental monitoring on decks to record deck temperatures.
• Independent government observers on deck, to provide additional assurances, and public reporting.
• A system called LIVEXCollect to ensure there is consistent and comparable data being collected.
• Selection criteria at the farm level and skilled stock handlers and veterinarians also inspect sheep on arrival to quarantine to exclude any animals not suitable for export.
• Sheep are loaded with a minimal amount of wool (shorter than 25mm in length).
• On-job training is regularly provided by exporters and their staff.
• Sheep are often off-loaded at night, and during cooler parts of the day in the Middle East.[43]
  86. These reforms have been done by industry at their own cost.
  87. These changes have delivered exemplary animal welfare performance.Since 2018, there have been no reportable mortality incidents (voyage mortalities exceeding 1%). While mortality isn’t the only measure, it’s objective and the results have been exceptional in recent years. Shipboard mortality in 2023 was on par with the record lows of 2022 – at 0.17% for sheep.

Legislative changes since the 2018 reform

1.88Section 9 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that ‘there have been repeated animal welfare incidents have led to reviews and regulatory changes. This includes amendments in 2022 and 2023…. in relation to the conditions that apply to the export of sheep by sea to the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere Summer’.[44]

1.89The amendments in 2022 and 2023 that section 9 of the Explanatory Memorandum outlines were part of an existing process related to the Regulatory Impact Statement.

In April 2020, the department prepared a Regulatory Impact Statement for the export of export of sheep to, or through, the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer (OBPR ref: 23822). As part of that process, the department undertook to review the regulatory settings after two Northern Hemisphere summers (2020 and 2021) to see whether the regulatory objective had been achieved and whether there was any new science.[45]

1.90The Amendment Rules have been prepared as part of the department’s review into these regulatory settings and reflect the early outcomes of that review.[46]

1.91The 2022 amendments were primarily based on improved climatology data by the Bureau of Meteorology and incorporated feedback received during the public consultation process, which received over 700 submissions.[47] The department had released a draft report titled ‘Review of live sheep exports by sea to, or through, the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer’ for public consultation.[48]

1.92The 2023 amendments were in response to the final report of the ‘Review of live sheep exports by sea to, or through, the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere Summer’ prepared by the Department of Agriculture.[49]

1.93The final report of the review into exports during the Northern Hemisphere Summer concluded:

‘The regulatory settings implemented in 2020 have been effective in reducing the risk of vessels travelling through ambient Wet Bulb Temperatures of 29 Degrees or above…. The review also concluded that the regulatory settings introduced in 2020 have been effective in minimising the risk of heat stress and heat stress mortalities and improving animal welfare outcomes for sheep exported to the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer’.[50]

1.94The 2023 Amendment Rules seek to make further amendments to implement several recommendations in the Final Report, which are based on the updated climate analysis prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology. In preparing the Final Report, the department considered feedback received during the public consultation process.[51]

1.95The Coalition notes the Government did not implement the recommendations to reduce the prohibition period:

The review makes several recommendations to reduce the prohibition period during the Northern Hemisphere summer to certain destinations where heat stress risks are less than previously understood. These recommendations will not be implemented.[52]

1.96The Department indicates during Senate Estimates that they ‘recommended to the Minister that they not be implemented’ due to the phase out of live sheep.[53] This decision by government demonstrates again that the decisions to regulate the live sheep export trade is not based on scientific evidence.

Non-evidence-based decision-making affecting confidence in Australian agriculture

1.97A decision based on no evidence is not supported by agriculture industries and is creating angst and uncertainty in the industry. Agriculture contributes over $80 billion to the economy, directly employs over 300,000 people[54] and supports regional Australia. A collapse in the agriculture sector will affect all Australians, including consumers as food prices will rise in a cost-of-living crisis.

1.98The media release published by the Minister for Agriculture to mark the introduction of the Bill noted that ‘Trade may continue until 1 May 2028 and Australia’s high animal welfare requirements for live sheep exports remain in place’.[55]

1.99If Australia is demonstrating high animal welfare standards, then why is live sheep exports by sea being banned?

1.100It is not clear to the industry what higher level of animal welfare is required – ‘or what is enough’. Mr Cunnington, Chairman of Western Australia Live Exporters Association indicated ‘if we cannot be told against what metric we’re being shut, a dangerous precedent will be established for not only the live cattle trade but for all agriculture’.[56]

1.101This does set a bad precedent for agriculture in Australia and will create uncertainty and is unfair when an industry does everything that is expected from them, at their own cost, but it didn’t matter. Mr Cunnington states ‘this is an industry that has done everything asked of it and more’.[57]

1.102Cattle Australia also shares this view ‘The bill sets a concerning precedent for all agriculture, particularly livestock export, undermining investor confidence and our international trade relationships. This bill provides no level of surety for the West Australian agricultural 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 on all animal export businesses’.[58]

1.103GrainProducers Australia (GPA) indicates ‘Social licence considerations are a key concern for GPA members, with fears this government ban sets a dangerous precedent which emboldens other extreme activist groups targeting the cropping sector, such as those ideologically oppose the use of fertilisers, pesticides, biotechnology etc. despite these inputs already being heavily regulated and/ or demonstrated to be safe, including with objective (peer-reviewed) scientific evidence’.[59]

Regulatory Impact of the Bill

1.104As part of developing good public policy a Policy Impact Analysis is required for ‘any policy proposal or action of government, with an expectation of compliance, that would result in a more than minor change in behaviour or impact for people, businesses or community organisations’.[60]

1.105The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry submitted to the Office of Impact Analysis on 4 April 2024 a letter stating the Independent Panel report has undertaken a process equivalent to an Impact Analysis.

The Department’s letter also states that “the implementation of this proposal will have a zero net regulatory burden.”[61]

1.106It is unclear how the implementation of the Bill and associated policy would have a zero net regulatory burden, given the impact of businesses as per the next sections in this statement.

1.107In addition, the letter from the Office of Impact Analysis indicates ‘The Impact Analysis Equivalent’ must be included in any Explanatory Memorandum or Statement giving effect to the proposals in the Impact Analysis Equivalent, as stipulated in the User Guide to the Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis’.[62]

1.108The Coalition does not agree the Independent Panel Report, or the Explanatory Memorandum does this appropriately as it does not include the following from the Guide to Policy Impact Analysis:

• Have the benefits and costs of all the proposed options for people, business, and community organisations been clearly analysed in a balanced and objective manner?
• Is the methodology selected to determine the costs and benefits of the proposed options the most appropriate, considering the scale and complexity of the program, and the strengths and limitations of methodologies available?
• Are the regulatory impacts quantified?
• Does the impact analysis show how any significant impacts on the options will be distributed across the community, for example, on gender, age, Indigeneity, disability, regions and small business?
• Does it have a clear implementation and evaluation plan?
  109. The evidence below demonstrates some of the impacts from this Bill and policy, with many of these impacts not supported by a cost benefit analysis.

Impact to the sheep and wool industry for Western Australia and Australia

1.110The Western Australia sheep and wool industry is unique but highly intertwined with the industry in South Australia and on the east coast. Affecting the Western Australian industry will affect the whole Australian industry.

1.111Sheep Producers Australia notes ‘with a focus on merino production, the WA sheep flock plays an important role in sustaining the national flock, ensuring that vital breeding stock is maintained to support periods of rebuilding after drought on both the east and west coasts of Australia…This is critical for the long-term success of not only the Australian sheepmeat industry but also the wool and meat processing sectors.”[63]

1.112Evidence heard from many stakeholders emphasised the importance of the live export market to support competition in the WA sheep industry, and ultimately fair farmgate prices.

1.113Mr Alistair Falconer stated ‘… if we concentrate all our eggs into the abattoir market in WA, that’s reducing competition for our sheep. You’ll end up with a couple of big players…so having this live export outlet is another market that sheep can access’.[64]

1.114Ms Ellen Walker a sheep producer from Brookton stated:

Live export provides market forces, such as a floor price for sheep and an outlet for stock when abattoir spaces are full and the season is unfavourable. By removing this tool from our toolbox, you jeopardise the mental health of sheep producers across the state, especially when seasons are tight.[65]

1.115The most profitable sheep in Western Australian farming systems is a merino for its quality wool.

1.116Mrs Walker indicated that their property is not suitable for cropping but are really good for growing out woolly wethers – ‘we use these areas to grow out our wethers and to reduce the summer fuel load in these non-arable areas. There merino wether grows out beautifully in these areas and has an ideal wool clip, and this then produces an animal that is perfect for export – something we can’t achieve when they’re a lamb’.[66]

1.117Councillor Phillip Blight indicated ‘for the non-farmers, to get a cross-breed lamb, you need a merino ewe. Every merino ewe has a brother, so about four million merino lambs in Western Australia per year means two million merino wethers. They're difficult to grow to size. It's difficult to get to carcass size for lamb. However, they do grow wool and are exactly what the live export trade wants. Demand and supply—without an economic return for that merino wether, the entire industry will collapse’.[67]

1.118Mr Steven Bolt indicated ‘With WA having more than 85 per cent merino make-up of the flock and the Mediterranean climate that we operate under, there is a reason why the merino sheep is predominant in WA. It suits the mixed farming system that we have developed over the last 50 years. The multiple income streams it provides, with our cropping, our wool and our sheep is so important for our lower-rainfall areas of the state, our frost-prone areas of the state and for the high-production sheep-number areas of the state. Every part of WA is different. You cannot put a supply chain in place because we're not all the same. Every business is different. They are structured differently with their turn off. They're structured differently with their cropping enterprise, with their land use and with the land that’s available to them.’[68]

1.119Mr Bolt also indicated ‘The live export is a key pillar within the WA sheep industry, and if we remove it, the whole industry collapses. That is what we're about to witness. Wool production has fallen 8.3 per cent in the last 12 months. As at June this year, AWTA has recorded a 30 per cent reduction in wool bales tested from May 2023 to May 2024. A further 16 per cent drop of wool is forecast to happen over the next 12 months. So that'll be close to a 25 per cent reduction in wool production for WA in just two years as a result of this policy being announced. That equates to $175 million loss already for the WA economy. We've seen a drop of $90 a head in the last two years for trade sheep out of WA, across all classes, as well’.[69]

1.120Wool production is already decreasing. Ms Bindi Murray indicated ‘Right about now, based on the information in front of us, we would suspect that there's going to be a 20,000- to 50,000-bale reduction in the production for the state’.[70]

1.121The ban on live exports for many may mean – no ships no sheep. This has an impact on investments farmers have made buying land for sheep production.

1.122Agronomist from the Southern Dirt Grower Group Mr Courtney Piesse told the inquiry ‘80 per cent of our farmland in my area is probably profitable, and then the remaining 20 per cent is where we would like to run sheep. If we cannot do that profitably where do we sit with the land?... The land either become not used or not used well and not treated properly. As it will not be utilised properly, it might go into disrepair, which is not good for the climate and it’s not good for anyone’.[71]

1.123The economic modelling report emphasises the importance of reallocating land to alternative enterprises like cereal cropping to reduce economic losses.

1.124It is important to note that cropping cannot occur everywhere in Western Australia. Mr Piesse indicated that ‘a lot of the country is not profitable in cropping. They will not make money’.[72]

Impact to other industries

1.125The Bill will not only affect sheep and wool farmers as the live export trade supports many businesses including shearers, feed suppliers, transport companies, veterinarians, exporters and livestock agents. These businesses have either emerged to support the livestock export industry or have grown in response to it and are largely dependent on the trade for their business.

1.126Mr Darren Spencer, President, Western Australia Shearing Industry Association indicated that it will impact the ‘hardworking people of our shearing industry, including shearers, rousies, pressers, cooks, classers and shearing contractors…The live sheep industry provides work outside peak periods and keeps them in the industry. The forecasts have sheep numbers going as low as nine million next year and seven million in 2026. So we’ll lose nearly half our workforce’.[73]

1.127From a cropping perspective there will be less sheep and less demand for pellets for live ship pellets. Mr Alistair Falconer, Chairman Western Australia Grains Group, indicated ‘for any 100% cropping system it is best practice to have a profitable legume in the rotation to ensure a long-term sustainable cropping system. Currently, in WA the only profitable legume…is lupin…A reduction in the sheep flock will negatively affect the demand and price we receive for lupins and increase the reliance on external inputs’.[74]

1.128Mr Ben Sutherland, Vice President Livestock and Rural Transport Association of Western Australia indicated ‘we have repeatedly highlighted the increased transport activity from live sheep export compared to domestic activity, which is sometimes four to five time greater for live export. A loss of 30 to 40 per cent of any business will have an impact on our ability to stay afloat… a reduction in rural transport fleet will have a capacity consequence for other commodities’.[75]

1.129Dr Chris Parker, Chief Executive Officer of Cattle Australia indicated that ‘Cattle are already banned by default by this. I know, because cattle coming out of the south-west of Western Australia—the boats are often dual species—are not being exported and will not be exported because of this sheep ban. So it does not just affect sheep in Western Australia.’[76]

1.130The Coalition note there are many more industries impacted by this ban.

Impact to rural communities

1.131WA Local Government Authorities (Shire Councils) and grouped Organisation of Regional Councils in their Submissions and evidence to the Hearings have universally emphasised how the loss of the live sheep export industry would not only diminish local employment opportunities, but have outlined how even a small decrease in the local population affects the viability of their regional communities.

1.132From the local shops, the pub, the bank, the local GP, schools, sporting teams, community groups and volunteer organisations, every individual, every family and every small business is critical to the viability of their community and its services.

1.133The St John Ambulance Narembeen Sub-Centre outlined the concerns of small communities like Narembeen (population 900) struggling with volunteer numbers: “We believe the phase out of this industry threatens to reduce the rural population significantly...Fewer residents means fewer volunteers, compromising our ability to provide timely emergency medical services and putting lives at risk”.[77]

1.134Darren Spencer: President: WA Shearing Industry Association

I fear for our local communities. I'm a shearing contractor in a small town of 500 people. I employ 30 staff. I provide housing and meals, so I also employ a cook. I have a payroll of over $2 million, of which most is spent in Lake Grace. I spend over $100,000 a year in my local IGA. I spend $50,000 on fuel to run my buses and cars that transport the teams each day to and from the farms. These 30 staff spend their money in Lake Grace. They live in the town, with some buying houses, and have families who also work in the area. Their children go to the local school and play for the local footy club. They volunteer and contribute to the community. I'm the largest employer in Lake Grace, and this is common in many small towns throughout WA. For a small town, it doesn't take a decrease of many people for the critical mass to fall below what's necessary to keep a local GP, a hospital, a school, a footy team, a pub and other services in our town. This is the slow death that regional communities are already fighting, without our government contributing to it with bad policy. It doesn't take a lot to kill a small town—and make no mistake: that's exactly what this policy and bill will do.[78]

1.135Shire of Wagin President Phillip Blight: “Many regional towns are at a tipping point. Banning one of the industries that provides employment for the area will have significant human cost. Even a small loss in economic vitality has an outsized impact within small rural communities. The removal of an entire industry in banning the live sheep export without providing a replacement industry is hurtful to the farmers, the local community and the whole of Western Australia.”[79]

1.136North-Eastern Wheatbelt Regional Organisation of Councils (NEWROC) CEO: Carolyn Robinson described the economic analysis NEWROC commissioned into the future of its seven northern Wheatbelt Shires, which have approximately 400, 000 sheep and 180 businesses in the sheep industry: “Not all of them are involved in live export, but live export absolutely benefits all of them.... They each require a shearer, a truckie, a wool buyer, an agent and a rural trader at the minimum. Some of those supporting businesses are in the NEWROC shires, but the majority of them are in the rest of regional WA. When you pull the lever on a policy like this in one area, there is a cause and effect, and it happens in another area. I think, from NEWROC's perspective, we oppose the implementation of the policy because of the negative impact it's going to have on our economy. Over 20 years, it'll be $180 million in seven shires...We expect that when you pull this lever of policy it will reduce the confidence of our sheep producers in the NEWROC, and they will end up exiting the industry...On top of that, it's $35 million in household expenditure from that area.”[80]

1.137Kristy D’Aprile: Shire of Katanning President and spokesperson for the Upper Great Southern alliance of 7 Shire Councils, which commissioned an Econisis Report on the Impact of the Bill on the Upper Great Southern Economy in May 2024:

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

The Report delivers an alarming forecast for the seven shires of the Upper Great Southern region for the next 20 years.. the direct loss to sheep producers and their supply chains will be between $475 million and $791 million...The secondary cost to households and expenditure in the wider community will add a further loss of up to $215 million... economists are predicting that the ban on the live sheep export industry has the potential to impact the Upper Great Southern by up to $1 billion over the next 20 years… the flow will go on to the stock agents, the transport agencies, the shearers, the farm supply stores, the local mechanics, the tyre stores, the cafes, the sporting clubs and the volunteers and soon to schools, hospitals and other vital community amenities. This impact will be broad and, without question, negative.[81]

1.138Shire of Katanning CEO and former CEO Shire of Wyalkatchem: Peter Klein

In the three years that I was at Wyalkatchem, we lost the bank, we lost the butcher, we lost our sole cafe and we lost the football club. Like Wyalkatchem, many of our communities are on a knife's edge. They're at a tipping point. The loss of any activity has community significance in rural WA, and the loss of an industry like the live sheep industry is another matter altogether. Government would want a watertight reason for taking it from us. And, quite simply, it doesn't.[82]

1.139WA Minister for Agriculture and Food: Jackie Jarvis MLC:

The position of the WA Government has been consistent from the start- the phase out of live export will negatively impact WA regional communities and the livelihoods of many. We do not support it.[83]

Impact to relationship with trading partners

1.140The Middle East is an important market not only for live sheep but for other Australian agriculture commodities.

1.141The National Farmers’ Federation state that ‘it runs directly counter to our national interests. We’re turning our backs on crucial Middle Eastern partners who plead for this trade to continue’.[84]

1.142Mr Edwards, Chief Operating Officer, Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd indicated ‘the strong bilateral relations between Australia and these countries, having imported our sheep, run deep, but now all that is on the line, as these countries will certainly be re-evaluating their vital commodity sourcing arrangements with Australia based on their fundamental needs for food security’.[85]

1.143Grain Producers Australia indicated ‘this ban will also have negative impacts on our trading partners in the Middle East who also buy Australian grains, including for feeding stock, and our overall international reputation’.[86]

1.144The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade confirmed that ‘a linkage’ had been made by an unnamed Kuwaiti company between Australia’s grain exports and phasing out of the live sheep trade.[87]

1.145For the 12 months to September 2023, Kuwait imported about 420,000t of Australian wheat and 280,000t of feed barley. This was trade was down on the previous year, when Kuwait imported about 350,000t of wheat, 33,000t of malting barley and 479,000t of feed barley.[88]

Impact to overseas animal welfare

1.146For Australia to ‘cut and run’ from this industry it will lead to negative international animal welfare standards.

1.147Livecorp noted ‘just after ESCAS was introduced the OIE, which is the World Organisation for Animal Health and Welfare said:

(Through live exports) Australia has taken animal welfare improvements to the rest of the world and for this has the OIE's unequivocal support. The live export trade (in Australia) is leading the world in animal welfare and providing benchmarking. Many developing countries (who are OIE signatories) need support and capacity building and the efforts of the live export industry— From Australia— have the full support of the OIE and we are confident that together we can successfully address societal expectations of animal welfare.[89]

1.148Overseas countries have modernised to meet Australia’s standards. Mr Galvin, Chair Australian Live Exporters Council indicated ‘…the Saudi’s have build an abattoir there, at a cost of US$200 million…It’s the same with Kuwait… I think it was about US$150 million.”[90]

1.149It is morally bankrupt of animal activists to value the life of a sheep in one country over Australia.

1.150During the hearings the Animal activist groups were asked about the sinking of Sudanese ship with 15,000 sheep on it that was 40 per cent overloaded and whether animal welfare requirements will improve. There was an avoidance of a direct answer, and when answered indicated as an ‘unfortunate outcome’ and ‘I don’t know if they will lift, but I’m not sure they will lower’.[91]

Impact on the environment and farming systems

1.151The hearings heard that the mixed farming systems in Western Australia suit the environment. Mr Michael Campbell, President, Stud Merino Breeders’ Association of WA indicated – ‘In drought, we can't have a domestic abattoir system that has excess capacity for one or two years in ten when we have excess turn-off. That's why it's important that we have live export, so that at those times we've got the ability to move those animals off farm’.[92]

1.152In addition, Ms Ellen Walker, a sheep producer from Brookton indicated ‘the impact of fewer sheep on the landscape will be dramatic. Currently, four out of my six neighbours are continuous croppers, which means that they've removed fences, rocks and lone trees. There's crop for miles. They don't graze their stubbles, so there is a constant fuel load all summer. With a drying and more volatile climate, there is an increased prevalence of summer thunderstorms, which don't have rain—they have lightning. This exposes me, my business and my community to a greater fire risk. You may not be aware of the Corrigin fires or the Narrogin fires that, a few years ago, ripped through the countryside. It was pasture paddocks where they finally were able to get hold of them. They won't be here without sheep’.[93]

1.153Mr Mark Walter, representative from ASHEEP and BEEF indicated ‘The majority of ASHEEP & BEEF members run mixed farms, running broadacre cropping and livestock enterprises. Livestock can reduce market and production risks for farmers through variable seasons. They are able to reduce herbicide and fertiliser usage by planting legume-based pastures to improve soil fertility, naturally fixing nitrogen into the soil, which benefits the cropping phase the following year. The removal of live export puts these systems at risk”.[94]

Impact on culture and food security

1.154Cultural heritage in our Middle East destination countries is much maligned by the animal welfare lobby, portraying barbaric practices that Neil Smith, Nuffield scholar, farmer and Chair of the Merredin and Districts Farm Improvement Group (MADFIG) tried to refute by sharing his experience on an educational visit to the Middle East just before Eidh:

It was interesting to see families come to a feedlot, choose a sheep, follow it through the abattoir and receive the meat at the other end. They were connected to the sheep, and then they would celebrate with their friends and family for the festival. Little children were educated to understand this connection...Australian sheep were given special treatment compared to all other nations' sheep and livestock for processing, and we should be proud as a nation of what we have achieved. ...I can assure you that these welfare outcomes will be lost if sheep are not allowed to be exported live from Australia.[95]

1.155The live sheep trade underpins the food security of many Middle East nations, in particular the State of Kuwait, which currently receives the highest numbers of live Australian sheep, and with whom Australia has had a long and trusted trade relationship. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Australia maintained the supply of life-sustaining protein in their time of crisis. Kuwaiti’s have never forgotten, and that is why they continue to buy our Australian sheep, despite the increasing cost and regulatory impost.

1.156Minister’s Watt and Farrell have continually ducked Senate Estimates questions regarding the obvious trade implications the banning of the live sheep export trade by sea may have on our long-standing and trusted trade relationship.

1.157At best they naively believe Kuwait will continue to buy other Australian commodities like wheat and barley and continue to invest their massive sovereign wealth funds in Australia. At worst their blind arrogance in imposing a live export ban based on political expedience will earn them the wrath of a nation who takes the food security of their population extremely seriously.

1.158Likewise, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was once the biggest purchaser of Australian live sheep, but has sustained a trading hiatus of over 11 years since the introduction of ESCAS. Only this year has this trade relationship resumed to a market that previously imported a million Australian sheep per year, and currently imports over 5 million live sheep from elsewhere. It is worth noting that when Saudi Arabia stopped importing our live sheep, they did not substitute these volumes with chilled Australian sheep meat...they simply bought their live sheep from elsewhere.

1.159Likewise the Kuwaiti’s have made it clear they already receive sufficient volumes of chilled Australian sheep meat:

1.160In a March 2023 letter to Agriculture Minister Murray Watt, then Kuwaiti Minister for Commerce and Industry, Mazid Saan Al-Nahedh, apparently stated their “requirement for live sheep cannot be substituted with chilled or frozen meat for our population, and it is not our preference to switch our live sheep source”.[96]

1.161In a September 2023 letter to Minister Watt, Kuwait Minister Mohammed Othman Al-Aiban stated “Our Government and Al-Mawashi will not be lessening its combined stance on the importance we place on live animal imports. They are of considerable relevance to our religious, cultural and social stability, and their availability will always be a constant concern of the Kuwaiti Government.”[97]

1.162And on the 29th February 2024, The Australian newspaper quoted the Kuwait Ambassador to Australia HE Mr Al-Qabandi stating “food security in Kuwait, which also purchases significant amounts of boxed meat from Australia, was underpinned by the supply of live sheep from Australia arriving by sea...it is of utmost importance to preserve and strengthen the sectors that contribute to food security in our region by means of the continuation of livestock and grain exports”.[98]

Mental health issues

1.163The $107M Transition Package announced by this Government acknowledges the seriousness of, yet totally under-estimates, the mental health fallout that the decision to end an entire WA agriculture industry sector will have on the members of WA rural and regional communities.

1.164The live sheep export industry has done all that the Government has asked of it to reform and operate within an ever-tightening regulatory environment.

1.165The dissenting Members of this Committee strongly refute that any amount of counselling can ameliorate the damage being done en-masse to each and every member of the supply chain, their forebears and their future generations who have seen their livelihoods not only ruined, but their reputation sullied, leaving them pigeon-holed as animal abusers, by an animal welfare lobby hell-bent on ending all livestock production and transportation.

1.166As stated by Wool Producers Australia CEO Jo Hall: “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”.[99]

1.167Darren Spencer, President of WA Shearing Industry Association says: “The hardworking people of our shearing industry, including shearers, rousies, pressers, cooks, classers and shearing contractors feel very let down and abandoned by a government who is preferencing the ideological agenda of animal activists over the real-world impacts on hardworking Australians. I fear for our industry. You can't expect to remove one building block out of a finely balanced agri-model and not have serious cascading consequences... I fear for our members and our contractors... I fear for our workers. I fear for shearers like the 14-year-old—who was possibly on the autism spectrum but undiagnosed—who didn't fit into the school system but was able to fit into my shearing crew as a rouseabout. He went on to become a wool presser and then a shearer...He saved enough to purchase his own house and, 36 years later, he's still working for me in Lake Grace, now in his 50s. What are his prospects? What does he transition to?”[100]

1.168Chris Wheatcroft: Rural West Financial Counsellors:

...has seen no suicide of any client in 15 years, although we deal with people going through significant change and stress.

In terms of how you spend the money on mental health...It's about enabling people to sit with someone who can actually work through the actual impact for them, their business and their family...Some of this will impact relationships, children and people's lives in a very deep way.

1.169The other impact is around the values challenge...It is very hard when you've spent your life believing you've done the right thing—raising great stock, putting a lot of energy, care and, for some of the people, love into their animals, believing they've actually got an export industry that works. The ships are good. They believe that. They've put effort into making it work. To be told by others that you actually don't meet a social standard anymore and that you need to stop, is a very deep thing for people.”[101]

1.170Tim Shackleton: Rural Health West:

My comments today concern the mental health of people living in the Wheatbelt region....(which) experiences some of the highest rates of mental health related issues in rural and remote WA. The Wheatbelt has amongst the highest rates of suicide and the lowest levels of access to primary health services. We also know, from a survey conducted by a collaboration of organisations in 2023 called the Pulse of the Wheatbelt, that 70.62 per cent of Wheatbelt respondents to that survey said that they had concerns surrounding their own or others' mental health. At a meeting of the Wheatbelt Human Services Managers Forum held in Northam on 21 May this year, representatives from a range of organisations directly involved in providing services for people who are experiencing emotional distress and/or mental health reported that in the past few months there has been a notable increase in domestic violence, people at risk of suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, and child welfare concerns. It was also noted—although I stress anecdotally—that these increases coincided with the extended dry season and the announcement to end live sheep transport by sea.[102]

The Explanatory Memorandum’s consistency with the Panel’s report

Recommendations

1.171The Explanatory memorandum indicates that it is consistent with the Panel recommendations of the independent panel.[103]

1.172The Independent Panel made 28 recommendations.

• 19 recommendations were supported.
• 2 recommendations were supported in-principle.
• 2 recommendations were supported in-part.
• 5 recommendations were noted.

Recommendation 23 – Review of the transition – supported in part

1.173A key mention in the Panel’s report is the ‘cessation should occur when there is sufficient sheep processing capacity in WA’.[104]

1.174The Panel recommended (23) ‘a review be conducted in 2026 to ensure farm businesses, the WA sheep supply chain and market development are on track to achieve the onshore processing of the WA sheep turn-off expected by the cessation date for live sheep exports… this review should include recommendations for any adjustments needed, any change to the timeline and further actions’.[105]

1.175The Australian Government response ‘support in part’ – by undertaking a stocktake in 2026-27 to see how adapting and progress towards on-shore processing and market development but will not consider a change to the date.

1.176This is not consistent with the Panel’s recommendation.

1.177There are also concerns within the industry – Mr Hutchinson, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Meat Industry Council indicated ‘the reason we remain neutral in this process is that our great concern is the fact that regardless of what happens- and it happens in this industry, and it has happened for more than 200 years- we will get the blame. If things go wrong—if prices aren't paid properly or enough compared with what a producer believes they should be paid—we will get blamed, and governments will disappear; governments will move on. And we will still be left to try to figure this out as we move forward’.[106]

1.178WA Minister for Agriculture and Food: Jackie Jarvis MLC stated, ‘Based on what limited information we have been given it is difficult to see how much actual funding support will be available to increase the onshore sheep holding, transporting and processing capacity in WA’.[107]

Processing capacity

1.179The Explanatory Memorandum states ‘the domestic industry can adapt through increased sheep meat processing in Australia, keeping local jobs and sustaining regional development’.[108]

1.180The Coalition believes there are many uncertainties with the processing sector to ensure competition stays with the sheep and wool sector. Some of these are outlined below.

1.181The Independent Panel report highlighted what they heard with regard to processing:

1.182 There is a current lack of capacity in the WA processing sector. Existing abattoirs are limited by factors such as access to labour, employee accommodation and cold storage capacity both at abattoirs and at ports. There are also concerns about the downward effect on prices paid by processors if live export is removed as a source of competition. The strong view was that exporters in the market put upward pressure on prices being paid by other buyers.[109]

1.183According to Nutrien Ag Solutions submission to the inquiry, ‘the seasonality of this supply identifies potential bottlenecks in the supply chain should the live export trade be removed as a channel of turn-off. During the peak period of WA slaughter (December quarter) slaughter is generally running at maximum processing capacity. If the live export trade was not available as a channel to turn-off sheep, bottlenecks may occur during the peak slaughter period’. For example, the sum of five-year average sheep and lamb slaughter in WA, and live export volumes in December amount to over 500,000 head, while maximum nameplate capacity of the top five processors in WA is calculated at 460,000 head/ month. If live export ceased, a theoretical capacity deficit of approximately 40,000 head would exist in the short-term. In reality the gap may be higher. If we assume these processors can operate at 90% of their nameplate capacity (due to labour or other constraints) the gap would lift to 86,000 head’.[110]

1.184I-Lynn Loo, Acting Chief Executive Officer from WA Meat Industry Authority (WAMIA): indicated

Firstly, I would like to restate for the record the comments outlined in the Hon. Jackie Jarvis's submission to the committee. The Western Australian government does not support the phase out of the live sheep exports by sea. The minister's position is clear that, if this bill is to proceed, there must be adequate assistance provided to support a sustained transition process…

Significant capital investment in Western Australian meat processing capacity is required to enable a smooth transition in the accelerated four-year timeframe outlined in the bill. Over the past 10 days or so, I have consulted with seven of the largest sheep and lamb export abattoirs in Western Australia and one soon-to-be-opened abattoir in Western Australia. In total, these abattoirs identify that capital investments of more than $435 million are required for the expansion of processing capacity in Western Australia.

Out of that $435 million, 48.6 per cent will go towards increasing chilling and freezing capacity; 23 per cent will go towards upgrading boning room infrastructure and equipment to allow value-adding to carcases; 7.9 per cent will go towards upgrading or building a rendering facility to manage waste; 6.45 per cent will go towards improving wastewater treatment; 6.43 per cent to upgrade processing infrastructure itself; and 7.71 per cent to go towards miscellaneous infrastructure….The $64.6 million allocated to support the entire sheep supply chain in Western Australia does not come close to the capital investment required by these eight abattoirs’.[111]

1.185Ms Loo also discussed investment would be required in:

• feedlots to smooth out supply, due to seasonality in turnoff of sheep.
• Freight and logistics- more air and sea transportation will be required.
• Support required for accommodation of employees in supply chain.[112]
  186. Mr Fletcher, Director Fletcher International outlined the following Issues/Challenges for processors:

The type of sheep changes a little bit—we'd probably go to more meat sheep, to a degree… The next change would be our feedlots and getting cover over our feedlots, so that we can carry them through the winter… Then, on the processing side, we asked the government that we should always have the ability to bring employees in from overseas. Western Australia is different to all the other states. It's got a high mining capacity, and that takes up a lot of employees, which puts more pressure on us to bring in, for six months, a team of employees that can do the processing when everyone in Western Australia wants to move their livestock through.[113]

1.187Dr Heggaton, Chief Executive Officer, WA Meat Marketing Co-operative outlined the following issues/challenges for processors:

̵We have been overbooked this last 18 months. We can't handle the supply that's been put in front of us and we have had a very long waiting list… Our board has signed off on a $50 million upgrade to increase our capacity by about 500,000 head… There are 2½ million people in Western Australia as opposed to 22½ million in the eastern states. A lot more domestic product goes into the local market over there (East), whereas we (WA) are dependent on money from export, whether it be through live or boxed. The situation's probably always been tighter here. The price has always traditionally been significantly better in the eastern states, hence why a lot of sheep go from west to east.[114]

Recommendation 7 - Market competition

1.188The Independent Panel recommendation 7 is ‘Market integrity and competition should be strengthened through the entire WA sheep supply chain. This could include close monitoring by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, WA Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety and WA Meat Industry Authority, and promotion of existing price transparency tools’.[115]

1.189The Australian Government response supported this in-principle (where it is an Australian Government responsibility). The Australian Government response highlights the role of the ACCC in consumer law, the reviews underway including the Inquiry into Australia’s supermarkets, the review of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, the Treasurer’s Competition Review, MLA’s role in price transparency and looking to work with WA Government to monitor competition issues throughout the transition.

1.190This response does not seem to address the Panel’s recommendation and the Australian Government creating an economic environment where one market has been taken out of existence.

1.191 Australia indicate in their closing statement – ‘…the critical question that has not yet been answered is how to provide producers with the same level of farmgate competition that they currently have to ensure the industry remains viable into the future’.[116]

1.192This remains a considerable concern.

Recommendation 6 – Airfreight – Noted

1.193The Independent Panel recommended – ‘Governments should look for ways to increase air freight capacity for sheep products from WA, including consideration of time-limited assistance for air freight costs’.[117]

1.194This recommendation was noted by the Australian Government.[118]

1.195Part of building the sheep meat export market is to have access to airfreight.

Recommendation 22 – Announce the ban date in 2023

1.196The Panel recommended an announcement should be made in 2023 stating when the live sheep exports by sea will occur, along with the initiatives to build confidence and kickstart investment and change activities and to publicly release the report and research commissioned.[119]

1.197The Australian Government response NOTES this recommendation and indicates it has developed a ‘transition plan’, including support measures for the sheep industry supply chain and communities.

1.198The ban was not announced in 2023 and it is currently at least 6 months behind.

Recommendation 24 – early action

1.199The Australian Government should fund and commence implementation of early actions as soon as practicable to restore confidence in the WA sheep industry and drive a quick and strong adaptation to the end of live sheep exports by sea. The priorities for early action by the first half of 2024 are:

• Farm business planning (recommendation 1)
• Processing and cold storage infrastructure (recommendation 4)
• Market opportunities (recommendation 14).[120]
  200. The Australian Government response indicates ‘the government is taking early action to provide transition support now to incentivise planning, investment in the sheep production supply chain and market development activities to facilitate a planned and orderly transition’.[121]
  201. No action has been undertaken and is again behind in timeframes.

Recommendation 25 - Local, place-based partnership

1.202The Independent Panel recommended – ‘The Australian and WA governments should establish a group to co-design the development and delivery of transition activities including projects in the affected regions to stimulate regional economies and support local communities’.[122]

1.203The WA agriculture minister Jackie Jarvis stated that Minister Watt's decision over live exports has 'not been in the interest of WA' and that 'it is difficult to see how we can work collaboratively'.[123]

1.204Although the Australian Government response supported the recommendation, it also indicated it would ‘welcome the WA Government’s partnership in delivering support to WA sheep industry participants’,[124] so it is hard to see how this recommendation will be met.

Transition Action Group and Advocate

1.205The Independent Panel indicates that ‘a Transition Action Group should be established to provide advice on the implementation of transition activities, aside from early actions that should not be delayed’.[125] It is not clear if the Australian Government will form such a group.

1.206In addition, the Independent Panel indicates, ‘DAFF as the lead agency, in collaboration with the WA Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development and the Transition Action Group, should prepare a transition implementation plan within the first half of 2024 that:

• details support initiatives
• confirms implementation partners
• describes key performance indicators to track transition performance over time, with mitigation actions to keep the transition on track’.[126]
  207. Again, it was not clear if the Australian Government will meet the panel’s sentiment.
  208. The Australian Government did support putting in place a Transition Advocate, which is yet to be put in place.
  209. The Coalition Committee members believe it would be appropriate for any Transition Action Group or Transition Advocate to be based in WA.

Independent Panel report and Australian Government response

Consultation process of the Panel

1.210The Office of Impact Assessment includes consideration of – ‘does it demonstrate meaningful consultation has been undertaken and that the views of affected stakeholder groups have been considered’.

1.211The Explanatory Memorandum states that the ‘independent panel undertook face-to-face consultations across Australia as well as virtual forums with more than 2,000 people and received more than 4,100 written submissions’.[127]

1.212Yet the National Farmers’ Federation state – ‘we’ve had to fight each step of the way for producers to have a fair hearing with the independent panel. We saw the industry’s advice to the panel go unheeded in its final report. Then we saw the Minister go even further, rejecting key elements of that panel’s advice, to adopt a plan even more radical than that of the panel’.[128]

1.213On the 25 August 2023 the Independent Panel chairman sought an extension to the September 30 deadline to 31 October 2023, and while taking three weeks to respond Minister Watt did not give them the full prescribed time requested.[129]

Timing of the Ban – 2028

1.214The Explanatory Memorandum state ‘The set date in 2028 takes into account the need to provide certainty for individuals, businesses and communities in the sheep industry and supply chain to make on-farm management decisions or diversity investments in a planned and timely manner’.[130]

1.215The Economic Modelling supporting the Independent Panel by Episode 3 (Director Matt Dalgleish) recommended an 8–12-year transition was needed for the industry to adjust to life without the live trade on farm.

This allows for appropriate times to change the actual flock and change genetics within the target flock to target a different market to move away from that live market…it takes quite a bit of time to run through that process. And you’ve got in the supply chain, you’ve got increased feed lotting capacity, to get past some of the climatic factors that WA farmers face that are different to the southeastern states in terms of availability of feed. SO that needs to be done. And that obviously it takes time to ..go from a greenfields, feed loading sties…to get that up and running or to expand existing ones would also require council permits and the like to expand cold storage and abattoir capacity to get the right methods in place to get access to the staff.[131]

1.216Mr Nicholas Ruddenklau from ASHEEP and BEEF states – ‘so the period we’ve got to deal with here is just way too short to be able to pivot in an industry where you take five months gestation for the animal and the animal takes 12 months to grow up. If you multiply that out by a couple of generations, it very easily gets to five years before you’ve made any imprint’.[132]

1.217Sheep Producers Australia indicate ‘less than four years is not enough time for sheep producers to adjust their productions 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 sheepmeat’.[133]

1.218The Australian Government response to the Panel report indicates – ‘The Australian Government recognises the importance of a planned and orderly transition away from live sheep exports by sea’.[134]

1.219Given the evidence and the economic modelling supporting the panel the Coalition believes this will not be the case. Apart from not supporting the ban at all, this short time frame will have a devastating economic impact on farmers, associated businesses and communities, and on their mental health.

14. Transition package $107 million

1.220The Bill will enable the payments and grants for the activities for the transition package. This includes activities to assist sheep producers and sheep supply chain businesses by taking up interstate or international markets for sheep products; developing greater sheep processing capacity in Australia; activities to enhance demand in interstate and international markets; activities to explore or develop opportunities to diversity markets for Australian agriculture and food in the Middle East and North African region.[135]

1.221The Government has committed $107 million to enable an orderly and well-planned transition away from the trade.

1.222During the hearings all of the affected industries that mentioned the transition package indicated it was grossly inadequate. Sheep Producers Australia indicated ‘the transition package is inadequate, and it is inadequate to meet the stated objectives of the Albanese government to grow onshore processing and increase the value of WA sheep production. If this bill and the policy proceed, the package needs to be revisited to comply with the government's own announced terms’.[136]

1.223It is not clear how the funding $107 million was determined.

1.224Ms Bindi Murray, Founding Member of The Livestock Collective indicated ‘My rough calculation over a five-year period is that we will need about $100 million in support for processors; $100 million for supply chain businesses, to plan and improve infrastructure; $20 million for market development; $15 million for airfreight in WA; $10 million for community support, development and mental health; and $10 million for exit payments. That's $255 million already, and I've left it to the government to estimate and fund their costs of implementation. I can show you the envelope that I used to work those numbers out; however, I'm yet to see the envelope used by the government in their calculations’.[137]

1.225A number of Questions on Notice were provided by Mr Andrew Willcox MP to understand the transition package but at the time of drafting the answers had not been provided.

Conclusion

1.226This Bill is not supported

1.227A comprehensive inquiry into this Bill be undertaken by the relevant Senate Committee, to hear from ALL impacted communities in Western Australia, members the industry, those in the supply chain, radical animal activists, and considering all the costs and benefits of the impacts and the Bill, not reporting before December 2024.

Footnotes

[1]LiveCorp - Economic analysis of regulation in the livestock export industry

[2]Submission 211

[3]Submission 72

[4]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 36-41

[5]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 50-53

[6]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 51-55

[7]Senate Budget Estimates Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport Committee, 30 May 2024, Hansard p. 35

[8]Questions on Notice, Mr Rick Wilson MP

[9]DAFF response to Mr Wilson QoN’s

[10]Questions on Notice, Mr Andrew Willcox MP

[11]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 17

[12]Activists hid live sheep export footage payments | The Australian

[13]Submission 49: Dr Chris Back, Veterinarian and former Senator for WA 2009-2017

[14]Submission 207: #Keepthesheep

[15]Murray Watt continues to defend live export ban with an RSPCA survey – despite Voconiq’s three-year study | Countryman

[16]https://www.countryman.com.au/countryman/news/murray-watt-continues-to-defend-live-export-ban-with-an-rspca-survey-despite-voconiqs-three-year-study-c-14973771

[17]LiveCorp - Live exports and the Australian community 2019-2023

[18]Submission 218

[19]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p24 Red Meat Advisory Council, Alistair James

[20]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard P42-43 Dr Holly Ludeman

[21]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard P23-24 Dr Adrian Baker

[22]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard P25 Dr Renee Willis PhD

[23]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard P43-44 Dr Lynn Simpson

[24]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard P44-45 Dr Jane Vaughan

[25]Submission 655, Livestock Veterinarians Australia

[26]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard P45 Dr Sue Foster

[27]Explanatory Memorandum, Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, p. 1

[28]Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, Answers to Questions on Notice, SQ23-000268

[29]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 17

[30]mena_2023-mla-mi-market-snapshot_150424.pdf

[31]mena_2023-mla-mi-market-snapshot_150424.pdf

[32]Source: DAFF, S&P Global MI Global Trade Atlas (GTA)

[33]Submission 157

[34]Submission 157

[35]Submission 157

[36]LEX-29913

[37]Submission 157

[38]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 18

[39]mccarthy-report.pdf (agriculture.gov.au)

[40]House of Representatives, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 7

[41]Review of live sheep exports by sea to, or through, the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer (agriculture.gov.au)

[42]Review of live sheep exports by sea to, or through, the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer (agriculture.gov.au)

[43]Snapshot_-_changes_to_sheep_exports_FINAL2_web.pdf (ctfassets.net)

[44]Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, Explanatory Memorandum, Page 5

[45]Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Northern Hemisphere Summer Prohibition) Rules 2022, Explanatory Memorandum, p. 3

[46]Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Northern Hemisphere Summer Prohibition) Rules 2022, Explanatory Memorandum, p. 3

[47]Federal Register of Legislation - Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Northern Hemisphere Summer Prohibition) Rules 2022

[48]Northern Hemisphere summer review - DAFF (agriculture.gov.au) The draft report was not available on the Department’s website

[49]Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Northern Hemisphere Summer Conditions) Rules 2023, p. 1

[50]Review of live sheep exports by sea to, or through, the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer (agriculture.gov.au), p. vii

[51]Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Northern Hemisphere Summer Conditions) Rules 2023, Explanatory Statement, p. 2

[52]Northern Hemisphere summer review - DAFF (agriculture.gov.au)

[53]Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Monday 7 November 2022, Hansard, p.126.

[54]Includes fisheries and forestry Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing | Jobs and Skills Australia

[55]Legislation to end live sheep exports introduced | Ministers (agriculture.gov.au)

[56]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 3

[57]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 3

[58]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 26

[59]GrainProducers Australia, Submission 138, p. 4

[60]user-guide-to-the-australian-government-guide-to-policy-impact-analysis.docx (live.com)

[61]Certification Letter_1.pdf (pmc.gov.au)

[62]OIA Acknowledgement Letter.docx (live.com)

[63]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 24

[64]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 18

[65]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 33

[66]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 33

[67]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 60

[68]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 21

[69]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 22

[70]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 23

[71]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 14

[72]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 19

[73]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 5

[74]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 11

[75]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 4

[76]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 40

[77]Submission 87

[78]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p 5-6 Darren Spencer, WASIA

[79]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p 57 Cr Phillip Blight, Shire of Wagin

[80]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p 57-58 Carolyn Robinson, NEWROC

[81]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p58 Cr Kristy D’Aprile, Shire of Katanning

[82]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p 59, Peter Klien, Shire of Katanning

[83]Submission 72, WA Minister for Agriculture, Jackie Jarvis MLC

[84]NFF condemns Government’s shock timeline for live sheep phase-out - National Farmers' Federation

[85]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 43

[86]GrainProducers Australia, Submission 138, p. 3

[87]Grain sales to Kuwait tip into live sheep ban discussions - Grain Central

[88]Grain sales to Kuwait tip into live sheep ban discussions - Grain Central

[89]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 18

[90]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 19

[91]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 56

[92]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 9

[93]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 34

[94]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 12

[95]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 23-14 Neil Smith, MADFIG

[96]Live sheep trade: Kuwait says trade vital as farmers turn on Albanese (afr.com)

[97]Kuwait pens concerns to agriculture minister | Farm Weekly | WA

[98]Kuwait’s ambassador to Australia wants the live sheep export trade to remain. | The Australian

[99]Submission 48 Wool Producers Australia, Jo Hall

[100]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p5-6 Darren Spencer, WASIA

[101]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p30 Chris Wheatcroft, Rural West

[102]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p31 Tim Shackleton, Rural Health West

[103]Explanatory Memorandum, page 1

[104]3. AGR195.1123 Independent panel report_v9.3.pdf (agriculture.gov.au), p. 4

[105]3. AGR195.1123 Independent panel report_v9.3.pdf (agriculture.gov.au), p. 7

[106]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 36

[107]Submission 72, p. 2

[108]Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, Explanatory Memorandum, p.11 Explanatory memorandum (aph.gov.au)

[109]3. AGR195.1123 Independent panel report_v9.3.pdf (agriculture.gov.au), p.194

[110]Submission 201, p. 7

[111]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 36

[112]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 37

[113]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 51

[114]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 51

[115]3. AGR195.1123 Independent panel report_v9.3.pdf (agriculture.gov.au), p.5

[116]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 12

[117]3. AGR195.1123 Independent panel report_v9.3.pdf (agriculture.gov.au), p. 5

[118]Report template (agriculture.gov.au), p.10

[119]3. AGR195.1123 Independent panel report_v9.3.pdf (agriculture.gov.au), p.186

[120]Independent Panel Report, Phase out of live sheep exports by sea, October 2023, p. 186

[121]Report template (agriculture.gov.au), p.29

[122]3. AGR195.1123 Independent panel report_v9.3.pdf (agriculture.gov.au), p. 8

[123]State Agriculture Minister Jackie Jarvis blasts Murray Watt over live sheep export ban in scathing letter | The West Australian

[124]Report template (agriculture.gov.au), p.29

[125]3. AGR195.1123 Independent panel report_v9.3.pdf (agriculture.gov.au), p.183

[126]3. AGR195.1123 Independent panel report_v9.3.pdf (agriculture.gov.au), p. 184

[127]Explanatory memorandum (aph.gov.au), p.5

[128]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 7

[129]Murray Watt defends live export response delay | Farm Weekly | WA

[130]Explanatory Memorandum, Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, p. 1

[131]ABC Country Hour WA, 14 May 2024

[132]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 15

[133]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 25

[134]Report template (agriculture.gov.au)

[135]Explanatory Memorandum, Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, p. 23

[136]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Wednesday 12 June 2024, Hansard, p. 20

[137]House of Representatives Agriculture Committee, Friday 14 June 2024, Hansard, p. 43