Animal welfare standards meeting ‘breaches caretaker’ convention, say livestock exporters

A government roundtable on animal welfare standards breaches caretaker conventions, livestock exporters claim, pointing to sharp political differences on the issue.

Sheep at feed troughs aboard the MV Merino Express livestock export ship.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

Federal bureaucrats are accused of breaching caretaker conventions by pushing ahead with a “politicised” process to draft potentially contentious new farm animal welfare standards.

The Australian Livestock Exporters Council told The Australian a meeting in Canberra on Tuesday to help develop a new national animal welfare strategy should not be taking place during the election campaign.

Council chief executive Mark Harvey-Sutton said a Coalition government would approach the process very differently, amid anger at activist groups being given an “equal standing”.

He said the contentious nature of the process made it “inappropriate” for work, including Tuesday’s stakeholder “roundtable”, to take place during the campaign.

“There would be a great difference in how this was approached and implemented depending on who is in government,” he said.

“The underpinning ideology that has emanated through a lot of the Labor government’s animal welfare policy – including the live sheep export ban – would demonstrate that is a point of concern.”

He said the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry had rejected his concerns about Tuesday’s meeting breaching caretaker conventions.

It was “unclear” whether the decision to proceed had been made by the solely by department or with input from Agriculture Minister Julie Collins, he said.

“I don’t think we could rule out a direction from the minister saying ‘this should proceed’,” he said.

“I would have thought an apolitical public service would be erring on the side of caution and not doing this during a period when decisions cannot be made.”

DAFF insisted the meeting was in keeping with caretaker conventions. “The roundtable will not bind an incoming government to any action or position,” a spokesman said. “Further engagement will be needed with all Australian agriculture ministers.”

An Albanese government spokeswoman did not respond to the claims of potential ministerial direction, but said Labor “understood the importance” of animal welfare “to the Australian community, the broader agriculture industry, and our international reputation”.

Mr Harvey-Sutton said farmers and exporters supported a national animal welfare strategy, to address a “patchwork” of existing approaches, but were “gravely concerned” about the direction it was heading.

They did not oppose groups such as Animals Australia and the Australian Alliance for Animals being consulted, but were opposed to them having equal standing.

“They should not be the ones driving this policy,” he said. “We have seen, through the live sheep ban, that this government is more than willing to put ideology and politics ahead of evidence and facts – and ahead of the agriculture sector itself.

“The roundtable will have a divide in the room between agricultural groups – who have led Australian agriculture to have the highest animal welfare standards in the world – and activist groups, intent on denigrating and mis­representing the current standards and outcomes in Australian animal welfare.”

The Australian Alliance for Animals said the strategy was “an opportunity for all stakeholders to come together to discuss animal welfare issues in a constructive manner”, and that its members represented “millions of Australians who care about animal welfare”.

“Excluding animal welfare groups from participating in the development of a strategy that is all about animal welfare would be illogical,” said the alliance’s Bidda Jones.

However, Mr Harvey-Sutton said it was “difficult to see how a cohesive and agreeable strategy could be developed or implemented in these circumstances”.