Dr Tony Brightling clearly has extensive experience in Australia’s live export trade and is entitled to his views. However he has twice now commented in support of Labor’s malign ban on live sheep exports, which should be addressed and refuted.
Sheep being loaded onto a vessel. Pic: The Livestock Collective
Dr Brightling is correct when he says that live export provides an outlet for surplus sheep. He’s also right when he says that Australian sheep have been a staple food for millions in the Middle East.
Again, he’s right when he acknowledges the raft of changes that were implemented to reduce animal welfare risks and that these changes have increased the commercial costs of servicing these markets.
Absolutely no disagreement so far. But where he goes drastically off course, is when he implies that to remain commercial, the industry needs to (or even wants to) ‘wind back’ animal welfare measures. On this he could not be more wrong.
The only thing the Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council, and our allies in the Keep the Sheep movement want to wind back is a ban that doesn’t recognise the significant changes that have occurred – through industry and government working together. We’ve consistently said that the industry’s highest priority is animal welfare, both because it is the right thing to do, and it makes commercial sense. We know from community sentiment research, undertaken by CSIRO spin off Voconiq, that animal welfare matters to the Australian community. It is the bedrock of trust on which our industry operates.
The Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) makes Australia the only country in the world that indirectly imposes requirements on importing customers. What Dr Brightling misses is that older Australian wool producing Merino sheep have significant value in these markets – greater commercial value than they have at home.
Australian sheep have world-leading genetics and are free from many diseases that sheep suffer from in other countries. They can tolerate heat well and produce better quality and more meat than sheep from competing countries, so attract a higher price… This meat quality is significantly impacted by an animal’s stress levels and welfare, so Australia maintains our competitive advantage through treating animals well throughout the supply chain.
Dr Brightling doesn’t touch on the benefits that the trade brings importing countries, helping them meet their food security needs, improve food safety and subsequently improve the standard of living in these countries. Customers in Middle Eastern countries have invested millions in improving their depots, feedlots and abattoirs with significant help from Australian exporters. When the Australian Government works together with industry – both exporters and importers – we achieve great things. A unilaterally imposed ban puts this cooperation at risk.
Despite Government rhetoric insisting there is ‘opportunity’ in the ban for farmers, the WA Government’s figures indicate that the WA sheep flock has decreased by 25% in the past 12 months.
This speaks to thousands of farmers, and their communities being utterly devastated by the political whim of a government that has taken activist propaganda hook line and sinker. Sheep production in WA is reliant on a strong wool sector, a strong processing sector and a strong live export industry. Together, these competitive market forces create viability in sheep production in the west. Some co-designed talkfests and insignificant financial grants aren’t going to fix the structural damage caused by the removal of a key market.
Markets exist due to demand. In the case of live sheep exports, this market will not die unless deliberately killed by Government. Indeed, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia recently re-opened late last year and since then export volumes have increased and we have real interest from Morocco, Algeria, Turkey, the USA and Indonesia.
The commercial viability of a product, a market or an industry will be determined by the market and the participants in that market. It is not for Dr Brightling, or the government, or any other to state that “There is no realistic prospect of a viable live sheep export trade after 1 May 2028. Time to move on”.
This dismisses the thousands of farmers, truckies, shearers, stockies and agents, who derive a living from the trade and the 100,000 signatories to the Keep the Sheep petition who want to see it continue. It is clear the Albanese Government has clearly underestimated the level of support for the continuation of the live sheep industry.
The facts are that economic conditions can change and there is a pathway to have the ban overturned. As long as this exists then we should pursue it, and ALEC will do so unapologetically.
Author Mark Harvey-Sutton is the CEO of the Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council.
I fully support live sheep export operations. It is just one of a myriad of industries that lefties losers would love to shut down. They are already pushing for the closure of Greyhound racing in WA. In Tasmania they are seeking the closure of salmon farming. They want to stop all mining and exploration. Remember that when they stop these industries they will be moving on to one that you may support, love or earn your livelihood from.
Having sailed on board Livestock vessels from 1982 to 2023 i have witnessed, first hand, substantial progress in the welfare of animals in the transport industry from 1982 to 2023. Over these decades, there have been notable advancements, both on board and ashore, that have greatly improved conditions for animals and the well-being of the crew tasked with their care.
The industry has made remarkable strides to address welfare concerns, with many in the field committed to adhering to evolving standards. From updated regulations to enhanced facilities, those directly involved understand and appreciate the changes that have taken place. These improvements have fostered a safer, more humane environment, benefitting all involved.
However, it is unfortunate that despite these positive developments, pressure from certain advocacy groups has led governments to adopt reactive measures. While the intention to protect animals is shared, some of these groups may lack a comprehensive understanding of the industry’s efforts and advancements, inadvertently influencing decisions that do not reflect the full scope of improvements achieved.
It is my hope that future policies will be based on collaboration with industry experts who have first-hand knowledge and a genuine commitment to animal welfare. By fostering an informed dialogue, we can continue to support and refine the standards that ensure the best care possible
The incompinant labour so called government years ago stuffed up the Northern Territory beef farmers with a ban. They have not paid them back for the compensation they were awarded for proven to be fault. History repeated.
Well if Mr Brightlings main concern is commercial viability the market is telling you it’s extremely viable, otherwise producers wouldn’t support it !!
As per usual political ill informed interference is the root cause of the live ex debacle.
End result will be less production primarily because ignorant federal government is feckless gormless and incompetent.
Well said Mark.
Since this all kicked off the price disparity between West and East hooks pricing has widened significantly beyond freight differential. It also seems no one wants to recognise the animal welfare wins Australia has had.
For sheep welfare internationally these are now all for nothing as the importing countries have reconfigured supply to come from countries that have limited to no control measures. Insular, ill informed policy which is having a massively negative impact on the farms and supply chain in WA.
Mark Harvey-Sutton should have read my articles more carefully before he started typing. I have never said that I support the ban on live sheep exports. This lead assertion in his article is simply untrue.
My sole focus has been the commercial viability of the trade – and I have set out the reasons why I believe that ‘ban or no ban, the trade does not have a future beyond 2028’.
Sheep producers and other service providers to the trade deserve to hear the truth, unfettered by political posturing.
I understand that many people involved with the trade might wish reality were different. My opinion that we have to move on is not a political view, but the result of a cold, hard look at the evidence.
I can assure you I read them very carefully Tony.
If Aus does not supply the live export sheep markets with its well-managed, regulated, and humane ( as far as is humanly possible) animals, then other countries will get the benefits of the market without the animal wellfare responsibilities. Evidence and science should trump emotion, ignorance, and idealism, but there are none so deaf or blind as those who choose to not hear or not see, or both. Derek Newton, Toowoomba.