Senator NASH (11:12 AM) —As a New South Wales farmer, I find it absolutely incredible that the Democrats and the Greens have such a naive and simplistic view of this whole issue. I cannot agree more with my colleagues who spoke previously, Senator Ferris and Senator Adams. If Senator Bartlett is so concerned about this industry and so concerned about this issue, why would he be moving to disallow an order that is there to improve the industry? It makes no sense and I completely agree with my colleagues’ comments earlier.

The live export trade earns around $750 million a year. We supply cattle, sheep and goats to some 30 destinations throughout the world, predominantly in the Middle East and South-East Asian countries. The live export trade increases competition and provides a viable alternative market for our cattle, sheep and goat industries that could not be serviced otherwise. Certainly as a farmer I am very aware of this, as are many thousands of farmers across this nation. Those who seek to shut down this industry, such as the Democrats and Greens in this place, refuse to work proactively to improve the industry in the national interest. I note Senator Bartlett said in this place on 20 June this year that the live export industry is:

He said:

All I can say, Senator Bartlett, is that the facts say it very differently. Since 2000, mortality rates throughout the industry have significantly improved. Across the board the mortality rate for cattle, sheep and goats has at least halved. I think perhaps these particular facts might be of interest. For cattle voyages of less than 10 days duration, the number of shipments with reportable mortalities has dropped from 12 in 2000 to three in 2004. This year, I am advised, there have no reported incidents to date—hardly ‘now grows worse with every passing day’. For cattle voyages of 10 days duration or more, there were just nine voyages with reportable mortalities in 2000. This year, I am advised there have been no reported incidents to date. Again, a situation that is hardly growing worse with every passing day. I am advised also that sheep voyages with reportable mortalities have fallen from eight in 2002 to none last year. The average mortality for goats has also halved in recent years.

The Australian live export industry operates within a regime of strict standards and conducts itself in a manner that provides the least impact on the livestock. Last year, the government increased live export regulatory control, as those sitting on the other side of the chamber would know. New Australian standards were introduced on 1 December 2004. Competency of licence holders is now assessed directly by government. Export licence holders are required to meet the new standards to obtain approval to export each consignment of livestock. This government has also signed memorandums of understanding, MOUs, with the major Middle East importers of Australian livestock: Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. These MOUs detail the conditions under which livestock is exported. They include a provision that, in the event of a dispute concerning health, the animals will be unloaded into a quarantine station within 36 hours rather than left on the vessel. We all want to see improvement in this industry, and we are seeing it.

Despite the views of some in this place, this government maintains its commitment to supporting this vital industry. This support is balanced by ensuring that the live export industry is held to high standards of animal welfare. This government is committed to working with the live export industry to continue to improve practices and reduce the mortality rate on livestock voyages.

Senator Bartlett said earlier that it was costing Australian jobs. I beg to differ. The Australian live export industry provides an estimated 9,000 jobs in rural and regional Australia—rural and regional communities like the one I come from where jobs are so very important. Supporting those jobs is what we do. According to LiveCorp and Meat and Livestock Australia, for every job generated in the live export chain another 1½ jobs are created—jobs for ancillary suppliers and services such as livestock agents, transport operators, exporters, stevedores and shipping companies. Live export also benefits feedlot operators, fodder and chemicals suppliers, veterinarians, saleyards, stockmen, port authorities, helicopter mustering services and the finance and insurance sectors. These are all the people who live out in the regions of this country of ours.

Senator Bartlett might say there is no need for live export, but I can certainly remind the senator that demand certainly exists in the global marketplace for livestock. It is fanciful for him to say that, if Australia stopped its live export trade, it would be taken up by Australian export meats. The demand for live animals is quite different from the demand for meat. If we stop live exports, our supply would most certainly be replaced by other countries in the region who have minimal desire or ability to effect animal handling changes. I ask Senator Bartlett this: would he prefer to see live exports supplied by another country which may not operate on the same strict basis as Australia? Would he like to see 9,000 jobs permanently lost from the Australian work force? How would he suggest that we make up the almost $750 million shortfall to the Australian economy in lost export earnings? We have MOUs with our major Middle East importers of Australian livestock, we have improved animal welfare and we have improvements in this government’s legislative requirements to ensure better operation of the industry—all contributing to improving this industry, which is so vital to farmers and so vital to this nation as a whole.