Lynn MacLaren defends the RSPCA and live export stance

Hon Lynn Maclaren MLC has defended both the RSPCA and her stance on live exports in Parliament following attacks by Liberal MPs.

Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL — Thursday, 11 August 2011]
p56b-56b
Hon Lynn MacLaren

LIVE CATTLE TRADE

Statement

HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan) [5.33 pm]: I appreciate the opportunity to give a member’s
statement tonight because several members commented in their speeches on the budget on live exports, directly
in response to my speech on the budget. I want to take this opportunity to address just four of the points that
were made. Many points have been made about it over the past few days, and there is more to be said. But I want
members to have these points in mind, particularly over the weekend, because there will be a massive rally
opposing live exports in Fremantle on Sunday at 12 o’clock, at which I will have an opportunity to speak, as will
the member for Maylands, Lisa Baker. In fact, the president of the RSPCA, Lynne Bradshaw, will also have an
opportunity to speak at the rally.

I was very shocked today to hear Hon Nigel Hallett call for greater constraints on the RSPCA, particularly
government funding constraints. This verges on silencing dissent. I feel strongly that the RSPCA plays a very
important role in providing a voice for the voiceless and is properly funded by government to fulfil that role.

Any suggestion that it should not be funded by government and that it should shut up about live exports and the
welfare impacts on those animals is entirely unacceptable to me and, I know, to many members on this side of
the house. I hope the honourable member will reconsider his suggestion. In fact, I was also concerned that other
members, including Hon Ken Baston, who is in the chamber now, were supportive of that suggestion. I urge the
government to continue funding the RSPCA, as it plays a very important role in society. I believe that Western
Australians support the decision to increase funding to the RSPCA, as the government has done and as Hon
Brian Ellis articulated in his comments on the budget.

One of the other three points that I want to discuss is food security in Indonesia. As I mentioned in my speech on
the budget, the average intake of red meat by an Indonesian is two kilograms a year. We are not talking about
starving Indonesians. In fact, I attended last night’s launch of Oxfam Australia’s “Grow” campaign, which is
looking at real food security initiatives. Those initiatives include local production, small-scale farming, and
investing in infrastructure such as roads, trucks and storage facilities so that real food can be given to
Indonesians. That is just one group that will benefit from the initiatives that Oxfam is advocating. It is entirely
erroneous to suggest that live exports from Western Australia, or from anywhere in Australia, is a food security
issue. In fact, exporting packaged meat would provide much more food to those countries and also would bring
in those export dollars that Hon Ken Baston was keen to point out. When we talk about packaged meat, we are
talking about real export dollars, and we are also talking about the multiplier effect of employing more
Australians—yes, more Australians—in the pastoral region in locally located abattoirs. That economic argument
should make it clear to everyone on both sides of the house that this is an employment generator and it is a good
welfare move.

I seem to have covered the last two points I wanted to make by merging them all together. I draw members’
attention to the fact that the Australian Greens’ Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill will soon be
debated in the federal Parliament, as will another bill from one of the Independents. I hope that the standard of
debate in the federal Parliament is high and hopefully will be informed by the Senate inquiry. The Senate inquiry
is looking into the particular issue that the member has raised—that is, have Australian exports to those other
countries improved animal welfare conditions? I know—Hon Philip Gardiner has spoken to me about this—that
members believe that there is evidence that animal welfare conditions have improved because of our export
activities.

Unfortunately, the documented evidence that we have seen in recent news reports in both the 60 Minutes and
Four Corners reports have illustrated otherwise. It is therefore fair enough for us to question that in detail. Have
we actually made a difference? The Senate inquiry is looking at that. The terms of reference are to investigate
and report into the role and effectiveness of government and various industry bodies—I am sure Meat and
Livestock Australia is included in that—in improving animal welfare standards in Australia’s live export
markets. Let us get the evidence. Let us talk about this issue based on the evidence, and not just based on
opinions and people’s concern for a small number of people who are benefiting economically from this. Let us
look at that big picture and find out whether we can look after the welfare of animals sustainably, and I assure
members we will have a consensus.