Chapter 2Key issues
2.1This chapter outlines the views of submitters and witnesses on the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 (the bill) function, which is to expand the office of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports (IGLAE) to that of the proposed Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports (IGAWLAE). While some issues raised by submitters fall outside the scope of the bill, they are relevant to broader considerations of animal welfare policy.
2.2The chapter includes:
a brief introduction to live animal exports in Australia;
the establishment of the IGLAE and the legislative framework;
key issues raised with the bill, including the scope of the reforms, mortality as an indicator of animal welfare, conflicts of interest and qualifications for the inspector-general; and
the committee’s view and recommendation.
Live animal export
2.3Australia is one of the world’s largest exporters of live animals—including cattle, sheep, goats, deer, buffalo and camelids—primarily to destinations in Asia and the Middle East. The value of livestock exported from Australia in 2022 was approximately $1.3 billion. Australia is the world’s fourth largest beef exporter and approximately 70 per cent of Australia’s red meat production is exported.
2.4Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA) stated that the industry employs around 433000 people, representing 1.5 per cent of Australia’s key industry total employment and 29 per cent of Australia’s employment in agricultural production.
2.5According to the Parliamentary Library, as the industry has developed, so too have concerns about animal welfare, particularly since the 1980s. Australia’s geographic location means that the journeys of live animals to northern hemisphere destinations are long and arduous, bringing unavoidable animal welfare challenges.
2.6Director of Policy for the Australian Alliance for Animals (AAA), DrJedGoodfellow, referred to a 2023 Monash University study which found that 90 per cent of Australian survey respondents felt that animal welfare should be protected by the government through legislation. According to DrGoodfellow, 67 per cent of respondents to that survey supported an independent office of animal welfare.
Establishment of the IGLAE
2.7Several key events have brought the issue of live animal exports to national public attention. In 2003, the Cormo Express’ shipload of 57937 sheep bound for Saudi Arabia was rejected because importing authorities claimed that 6 per cent were infected with scabby mouth—a viral disease that can be common among live exports. When the ship unloaded in Eritrea, almost 6000 sheep had died. The then Australian Government suspended live exports to Saudi Arabia, with the trade resuming in 2005.
2.8Subsequently, a 2018 60 Minutes segment revealed that approximately 2400 sheep en route to the Middle East had died from heat stress. This led to the 2018 Review of the Regulatory Capability and Culture of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in the Regulation of Live Animal Exports, by Mr Philip Moss AM (Moss Review), which recommended greater transparency in the live animal export industry and the establishment of an office of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports (IGLAE) through the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Act 2019 (the Act).
2.9The Act was subsequently amended to include two provisions relating to animal welfare.
2.10The inaugural IGLAE, Mr Ross Carter, retired from the position in early 2023. Representatives of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) advised the committee that the position will soon be filled on a temporary basis.
2.11The bill’s proposed expansion to the office of the IGLAE includes monitoring the treatment and mortality rates for live exports to include additional animal welfare objectives for exported livestock. The expansion of the current role of IGLAE to IGAWLAE ensures that the Commonwealth’s regulatory responsibilities for animal welfare in livestock exports will be independently reviewed. As confirmed in evidence to the committee, the IGAWLAE will not be responsible for the development and implementation of animal welfare policies, or how the Commonwealth implements them within the livestock export system. This is a role for DAFF, which is the Commonwealth authority responsible for the development and implementation of animal welfare policies and their inclusion in the livestock export supply chain.
2.12However, the IGAWLAE will play an important role—as it will provide independent oversight that the department, when implementing regulatory policies and requirements along the livestock export supply chain, does so in a manner consistent with the Commonwealth’s regulatory role and with animal welfare outcomes recognised and clearly reported.The IGAWLAE will also be able to recommend that the department amends its regulatory practices, as applicable to animal welfare outcomes, if deficiencies are identified.
Legislative framework
2.13DAFF regulates the export of live animals through the following legislation and legislative instruments:
Export Control Act 2020
Export Control (Animals) Rules 2021
Export Control (Fees and Payments) Rules 2021
Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Northern Hemisphere Summer Prohibition) Rules 2022.
2.14Ms Nicola Hinder, Acting Deputy Secretary, Agriculture Trade Group at DAFF, explained how this works in practice:
Regulation is achieved through the Export Control Act 2020, instruments made under the Export Control Act, and the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock, or ASEL. The ASEL is regularly updated to ensure it’s based on the latest evidence and the latest science. The current ASEL came into effect in November 2021. Minor amendments were made in November2022.
2.15DAFF’s regulation of live animal exports is currently overseen by the IGLAE, including reviewing the performance of functions and exercise of powers by the department in regulating livestock exports under the Export Control Act 2020 and the Export Control (Animals) Rules 2021.
2.16The Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) outlines the minimum animal health and welfare conditions exporters must meet throughout the export journey.
2.17The IGAWLAE would also be able to make recommendations that improve the effectiveness of Commonwealth reporting. Reporting has a broad scope and could include the reporting through the Independent Observer program. Independent Observers are staff members of DAFF, who accompany voyages of livestock exported by sea. The current IGLAE has reviewed the Independent Observer program, including through Review report no. 2019–20/01, and the new IGAWLAE could further review this program.
2.18Regulation of live animal exports in Australia also includes the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS), which seeks to assure animal welfare, control and traceability outcomes for exported feeder and slaughter livestock, from arrival in another country to the point of slaughter.
2.19Under ESCAS, it is the legal responsibility of the exporter to report breaches to DAFF. According to MLA, the industry and public are only made aware of breaches of ASEL when DAFF releases ‘reportable incident information’.
2.20Mr Mark Harvey-Sutton, CEO of the Australian Livestock Exporters Council, told the committee that Australia is the only country in the world that applies instruments such as ESCAS and ASEL for the care of live export animals. He stated that representatives from the European livestock export industry have consulted with their Australian counterparts about implementing such guidelines.
2.21The bill’s proposed expansion of the Inspector-Generals role would insert animal welfare related objects into the Act that would enable monitoring, investigation and reporting on the Australian Government’s implementation of animal welfare and live animal exports legislation and standards, as well as on the development of these standards. The bill also defines the term ‘animal welfare and live animal export legislation and standards’. This is important as the Act currently has a limited definition and role with respect to animal welfare.
2.22The Inspector-General’s role is limited to oversight of processes associated with live animal export only—the current bill does not change this. According to DAFF:
State and territory governments are responsible for animal production and welfare laws and their enforcement. The states and territories set and enforce animal welfare standards through administration of state legislation for animal welfare or the prevention of animal cruelty.
2.23By more clearly defining the role and scope, it would allow the Inspector‑General to be able to review and report on livestock export animal welfare reporting, standards and outcomes, and publish recommendations to the department that seek to improve livestock export animal welfare standards and outcomes. Notably, the current IGLAE has not specifically reviewed how the department develops and implements the ASEL.
2.24According to the EM, an enhanced focus on animal welfare will help to ensure continual improvements in the regulatory practice, performance and culture of the department in its role as the regulator of Australia’s livestock exports, including improvements in the development of the ASEL, which sets the minimum health and welfare requirements for the export of livestock.
Key issues
Scope of the bill
2.25Many submitters commended the bill and the creation of the IGAWLAE as a positive step towards better standards of animal welfare in the live export trade. There was a common view that the bill should be seen as the beginning of a process of comprehensive reform in the industry.
2.26While suggestions that the IGAWLAE should directly monitor animal welfare are outside the scope of this bill, the committee acknowledges that the bill has provided a valuable opportunity to reflect on the office and functions of the IGAWLAE, and those of DAFF, and how affecting meaningful reforms around the treatment of animals in the live export trade might progress in the future.
2.27The AAA commented that during the 2022 federal election, the Australian Labor Party committed to establishing the office of the independent Inspector-General for Animal Welfare. However, the Australian Government’s October 2022 budget indicated that this would be delivered by ‘expanding the functions’ of the current IGLAE.
2.28The AAA noted that the Productivity Commission in 2017 recommended the establishment of a national Animal Welfare Commission to develop national standards and guidelines for animal welfare.
2.29In evidence to the committee, RSPCA Australia praised the proposed widening of the IGLAE’s remit to include assessment of the effectiveness of ASEL for the export and welfare of live animals. While understanding this was outside the scope of the inquiry, RSPCA Australia expressed disappointment that the bill does not go beyond live animal exports welfare:
We don't accept the argument that the federal government remit is narrow, as there are numerous animal welfare issues that are clearly within the responsibility of the federal government. These include all animals that are exported, not just livestock; native animals; the control of introduced animals; and animals used for research on Australian government land… the bill misses an important opportunity to provide independent assessment of where the system can improve and identify areas for efficiency and efficacy via the inspector-general.
2.30The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) also commented on the ‘restricted scope’ of the proposed IGAWLAE role:
We feel that a broader independent office or commission to coordinate national animal welfare policy reform for all animals is needed, not just those subjected to live export … People say we're a world leader in animal welfare; we're not. We are falling behind.
2.31Dr Goodfellow expressed regret that the bill is limited to live animal exports, saying:
Most of the proposed functions under the bill could be carried out now by the current [IGLAE]. In this respect, we see that the bill is more about rebranding than it is about substantive reform.
2.32Dr Goodfellow said the expansion of the IGLAE’s remit to include reviewing the effectiveness of ASEL represented:
[A] very, very small step … At a time when Australia is facing increasing international pressure from trade partners to lift its animal welfare standards and strengthen its assurances, limiting the scope of the inspector-general to live exports alone seems like a significant missed opportunity.
2.33Stop Live Exports proposed a separation of powers between animal welfare and live animal exports:
[O]versight on the welfare of animals involved in the live export trade should be the responsibility of a dedicated Inspector-General for Animal Welfare. This responsibility should not fall to the [IGLAE], who already has responsibility for improving regulatory practices in the industry and ensuring more accountability from regulations and livestock export officials.
2.34Other witnesses suggested any expansion of the IGLAE’s office should include clearer oversight of specific animal welfare issues, including:
consideration of the potential conflict of interest posed by standards of animal welfare being followed by the people who profit from the live animal export trade;
current reporting requirements lack the ability to track if there are repeated incidents at an abattoir, from a transporter or an individual producer or farmer to identify systemic animal welfare issues;
animal welfare enforcement is underfunded and under-resourced, prohibiting proactive monitoring, and relies on whistleblowers and complaints to draw attention to problems, and
prioritising high risk issues including long-haul voyages, journeys during the northern hemisphere summer, mortalities and conditions at destinations and slaughter standards at destinations.
2.35The AAA argued:
At a time when Australia is facing increasing international pressure from trade partners to lift its animal welfare standards and strengthen its assurances, limiting the scope of the IGAWLAE in such a way would be a missed opportunity.
2.36DAFF representatives acknowledged the limitations of the bill, stating that the only ‘substantial addition’ to the IGLAE’s remit is reviewing the effectiveness of the ASEL’. However, they argued that expanding the role to include other aspects of animal welfare such as wildlife trade would be inappropriate, particularly as ‘inspectors-general don’t cut across portfolios.’
2.37The bill defines the IGAWLAE’s role within the public service is as a regulator only, monitoring the conduct of public officials in the industry, with no direct responsibility for animal welfare.
2.38MLA representatives pointed out that even industry stakeholders have little control over animal welfare, with ‘no power or authority in cases of compromised animal wellbeing throughout the [international] supply chain’. MLA stated that it ‘plays no role in the auditing or enforcement of animal welfare standards and guidelines and is not responsible for setting welfare policy’.
Mortality as an indicator of animal welfare
2.39Under current ASEL guidelines, exporters must notify DAFF when a voyage’s animal mortality rate reaches the notifiable mortality level. ASEL also must report every six months to Parliament including information on the number of mortalities of livestock on sea voyages and actions taken for voyages above the notifiable mortality level.
2.40The Moss Review noted that using mortality rates and acceptable thresholds of animal deaths in transit ‘fails to recognise the suffering of animals on the voyage who survive the journey’.
2.41DAFF argued that these issues are not under the purview of the IGAWLAE, noting that issues of animal welfare are:
… from a regulatory point of view, a policy matter that is best dealt with in another act … Inspectors-general roles are to assess the conduct of public officials, so forming policy views around animal sentience would be a matter for a government to determine in another piece of primary legislation.
Conflicts of interest
2.42The bill states that the IGAWLAE would be independent and have complete discretion in the performance of their functions and the exercise of their powers. DAFF told the committee that, like the IGLAE, the IGAWLAE would be obliged to declare any conflicts of interest.
2.43RSPCA Australia and AAA indicated they supported a specific requirement in the bill that the Inspector-General disclose any interests that conflict with the performance of their duties.
2.44However, The AVA was concerned about a possible conflict of interest within the IGLAE’s position, as the office is part of DAFF and staffed by DAFF employees.
2.45RSPCA Australia told the committee that it is important for staff of the IGAWLAE to be completely independent:
For an independent office to have oversight of how that is managed and regulated is critically important for our international reputation. It's important to the Australian public as well.
Qualifications of the IGAWLAE
2.46Submissions from animal right groups highlighted the lack of prescribed qualifications for the office of the IGAWLAE. The AAA and RSPCA Australia noted the importance of a requirement that the Inspector-General have animal welfare qualifications, and that a veterinary science degree is not necessarily the same as animal welfare expertise.
2.47The AAA told the committee that ‘a veterinary degree on its own is not a qualification in animal welfare, nor is it the only pathway to understanding animal welfare’.
2.48RSPCA Australia contended that if the scope of the inspector-general is to cover animal welfare specifically, ‘then that office absolutely needs to have expertise in animal welfare science’. It argued that IGAWLAE should have ‘practical experience working directly with animals or research in animal welfare science’ and should ‘hold qualifications in one or more of agricultural science, animal law, or veterinary science’.
2.49The AVA noted that the Australian and New Zealand College of VeterinaryScientists has an established fellowship program in animal welfare science and ethics. The AAA also noted that officers of the Inspector-General should have post‑graduate qualifications in animal welfare science, law or policy, such as an Masters of Science in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law, be a member of the Animal Welfare Chapter of the Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists (MANZCVS (Animal Welfare)) or hold other higher degree research qualifications in animal welfare.
2.50Proposed amendments to the bill suggested that the IGAWLAE should have expertise in at least one of the following fields: animal welfare science; animal welfare law; and/or animal welfare policy.
2.51However, Mr Harvey-Sutton warned against the IGAWLAE needing specific qualifications or experience, noting that the inaugural IGLAE did not have veterinary qualifications:
I think it's critically important, if you're looking at skills, not to be too specific in one sense, because you don't want to overprescribe and narrow the field of expertise that could come in and administer this, but we should also remember it's a regulatory function. Mr Ross Carter was a regulatory expert, and that was very effective, so we would also just add that the inspector-general should have very good regulatory expertise.
2.52DAFF added that the bill specifies that the IGAWLAE may engage providers of specialist knowledge to assist in the performance of their functions, ‘including on animal welfare issues, if additional or specific insight is required’.
Recognising animal sentience
2.53Submissions from animal welfare groups emphasised the importance of recognising animal sentience in law. A proposed amendment to the bill seeks to amend the objects of the Act to include recognition of the sentience and intrinsic value of animals and the duty of care people have to ensure the physical and mental welfare of animals in their charge.
2.54AAA argued that:
The sentience of animals is the underlying basis for why animal welfare matters, and its recognition is already consistent with existing Australian government policy under the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and now in some of our free trade agreements, notably the UK free trade agreement.
2.55DAFF argued that:
Sentience—being the ability for animals to have emotions and feelings—is, from a regulatory point of view, a policy matter that is best dealt with in another act. It’s not something that an inspector-general should have a policy view about. Inspectors-general roles are to assess the conduct of public officials, so forming policy views around animal sentience would be a matter for a government to determine in another piece of primary legislation.
Committee view
2.56The committee notes the robust exchange of ideas surrounding this bill and thanks all contributors and participants.
2.57The committee appreciates that the reforms in this bill do not address some of the broader concerns that submitters have with live animal exports, such as the use of mortality as an indicator of animal welfare. These issues are outside the scope of the bill and the role of the Inspector-General and are best discussed in other forums.
2.58The committee has considered concerns raised about possible conflicts of interest due to the administrative arrangements for the role, and the question of mandatory qualifications for the Inspector-General. The committee is assured that the bill contains provisions to ensure the independence of the office and its work. We also agree it is not beneficial to be prescriptive about the necessary qualifications for the Inspector-General. The office will be able to engage specialists in any area where expertise is required.
2.59The committee agrees with submitters and witnesses who said the bill is a positive step in increasing awareness of animal welfare issues in the live export trade through the creation of the IGAWLAE.
2.60The committee also notes that, under this expanded role, the Inspector-General will provide an independent layer of oversight over Australia’s animal welfare export standards. This will help provide assurance that Australia’s livestock exports will continue to be underpinned by high standards and the best available science.
2.61The committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill.
Senator Glenn Sterle
Chair