Live export leaders have issued in no uncertain terms the threat of class action and challenges through the World Trade Organisation if the Albanese Government pushes ahead with its controversial plan to ban the sheep trade.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to all our agricultural news
across the nation
or signup to continue reading
The Australian Livestock Exporters Council's submission to the government's live sheep phase-out panel lists pages of evidence-based reasons the industry should not be shut down but its comments around the international trade ramifications, and also around the fundamental inability to compensate, would no doubt be sounding big alarm bells in the Commonwealth's legal circles.
Right now, those legal people are in the midst of negotiating what will likely be a massive compensation bill the taxpayer will have to pay following successful Federal Court legal action against the Gillard Government's six-week ban of the live cattle trade to Indonesia in 2011.
Far from 'coming to the party' on what the phase-out panel has set out to do, the ALEC position, along with the rest of Australia's agriculture bodies, remains strongly opposed to the policy.
The industry supports more than 3000 Western Australians and their families and cannot simply be phased out, ALEC says.
ALEC chair David Galvin said governments need to be able to demonstrate that there is no alternative to a ban, otherwise any such policy is open to challenge through the WTO, not to mention the risks associated with a class action taken by affected parties through the Australian court system.
He also warned: "If the Australian Government ultimately bans the export of livestock, the prospects of negotiating a free trade agreement or comprehensive economic partnership agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council is practically zero.
"Currently, Australian livestock exports enter GCC member states with zero tariffs applied. Frozen, boxed and chilled meat, on the other hand, along with many other agricultural and non-agricultural commodities face significant tariffs at the border. It is the producers of these commodities that will ultimately lose out."
To this point, ALEC put to the panel that it was very much within its scope to consider the international trade ramifications of this policy.
It went on to 'alert the panel that the risks of a WTO challenge and class actions are very real' and said it was incumbent on the panel to advise the minister of such.
"It is clear that WTO laws are largely unsettled on the issue of export bans, particularly if they are discriminatory to trading partners, apply moral judgment or are questionable in necessity," Mr Galvin wrote.
"Such an action places risk on Australia's entire trading reputation which is a cause of palpable concern amongst other agricultural industries particularly," he said.
A ban of the live sheep trade would set an 'appalling precedent, one which alarms the entire agricultural community and one that will have international trade implications now and into the future', according to ALEC.
"All agricultural industries have, at some point, become the target of activist agendas that do not portray our industries truthfully and it would be highly concerning if the Australian Government decided to prioritise activist agendas over the overwhelming evidence of reform and improvement," Mr Galvin wrote.
Activists would not stop at just the live sheep industry and any accession to their agenda undermines all ag industries, he warned.
"It will invariably damage the Australian cattle industry, limiting the avenues for commercial shipments to go to the Middle East," he said.
"No amount of compensation or phased introduction can offset or mitigate the damage this policy will do. The industry cannot be replaced.
"With their control of the main policy levers, governments are the only entities that can supply a good international trading reputation. They must act responsibly and show a commitment to a rules-based international order.
"If the current Australian Government deliberately implements a policy that is known to damage that reputation, to appease domestic interests based on the flimsiest evidence, how can the Australian people and affected Australian companies ever be compensated for that?
"It will take decades to repair the damage, if it can be done at all. Who pays for that?
"Why should taxpayers be forced to repair damage that their elected officials chose to cause?"
ALSO SEE:
Shan Goodwin
Shan Goodwin steers ACM’s national coverage of the beef industry. Shan has worked as a journalist for 30 years, the majority of that with agricultural publications. She spent many years as The Land’s North Coast reporter and has visited beef properties and stations throughout the country and overseas. She treats all breeds equally. Contact 0427686187. E: s.goodwin@austcommunitymedia.com.au
Shan Goodwin steers ACM’s national coverage of the beef industry. Shan has worked as a journalist for 30 years, the majority of that with agricultural publications. She spent many years as The Land’s North Coast reporter and has visited beef properties and stations throughout the country and overseas. She treats all breeds equally. Contact 0427686187. E: s.goodwin@austcommunitymedia.com.au
