This bill became law on Jul 9th, 2024.
Industry, agriculture & resources
The federal government can fund transition supportGovernment funding and assistance for farmers and related businesses as the live sheep trade is phased out. for sheep farmers and supply-chain businesses, including new markets, more Australian processing, and market diversification in the Middle East and North Africa.
Live sheep exports by sea left sheep exposed to welfare risks, especially heat stress, and left producers and supply-chain businesses needing certainty about when the trade would end. The bill bans those exports from 1 May 2028 and lets the CommonwealthThe federal government, which is the level of government the bill gives power to fund transition support. fund and report on transition supportGovernment funding and assistance for farmers and related businesses as the live sheep trade is phased out. while penalties enforce the ban.
Australia already regulated live sheep exports by sea under export law, but repeated evidence of sheep suffering on long hot voyages, election commitments in 2019 and 2022, and a 43,758-signature petition in 2023 built momentum for a fixed end date. The bill responded by setting 1 May 2028 as the nationwide end of the trade, keeping penalties in place for any later export, and authorising transition funding for farmers and supply-chain businesses as the phase-out moved from promise to law in July 2024.
The main criticism was that banning live sheep exports by sea would wipe out jobs, incomes and export markets in Western Australia while doing little or nothing to improve animal welfare, because trade could shift to countries with lower standards. That case was pushed strongly by Coalition MPs and senators and reflected outright opposition rather than a narrow drafting concern, although proposals for extra review and inquiry were defeated.
Andrew Gee MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, some crossbench members; opposed by Liberal Party, Nationals, Katter's Australian Party, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 09 July 2024
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
40 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
The federal government can fund transition supportGovernment funding and assistance for farmers and related businesses as the live sheep trade is phased out. for sheep farmers and supply-chain businesses, including new markets, more Australian processing, and market diversification in the Middle East and North Africa.
The Agriculture Department will have to report each year how much transition funding was paid out and how many grants or payment arrangements were made.
Australia will ban live sheep exports by sea from 1 May 2028, ending that trade nationwide from that date.
The ban only applies to live sheep shipped by sea, so live sheep exports by air and other livestock exports can still continue.
People and companies that export live sheep by sea after the ban starts can face existing criminal offences and civil penaltiesA non-criminal financial penalty that can be imposed if someone exports live sheep by sea after the ban starts. under export law.
(2) This subsection covers the following activities, so far as they relate to preparing for, or adapting or responding to, the phasing out of the export of live sheep by sea:Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Act 2024 final Act text
The Secretary, when preparing the Department’s annual report under section 46 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 for a period, must include the following information in that report:Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Act 2024 final Act text
On and after 1 May 2028, the export from Australian territory of sheep (including the young of that animal) by sea is prohibited.Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Act 2024 final Act text
The prohibition would only apply to the export of live sheep by sea; the export of sheep by air will continue to be permitted. The prohibition would only apply to live sheep, as such, the export of other livestock by sea or air, including live cattle and buffalo, on and after 1 May 2028 will continue to be permitted.Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) explanatory memorandum
The export of sheep by sea on and after 1 May 2028 will be a permanently prohibited export as set out in new section 23A of the Bill. Section 12 will include a new definition of permanently prohibited export as an export that is prohibited by section 23A. The offences and civil penalties in sections 30, 31, 32 and 33 of the Act will apply to the export of sheep by sea on and after 1 May 2028. Section 53 will be amended to include permanently prohibited exports so that it is clear that an application for an exemption to the export of live sheep by sea cannot be made.Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia already regulated live sheep exports by sea under export law, but repeated evidence of sheep suffering on long hot voyages, election commitments in 2019 and 2022, and a 43,758-signature petition in 2023 built momentum for a fixed end date. The bill responded by setting 1 May 2028 as the nationwide end of the trade, keeping penalties in place for any later export, and authorising transition funding for farmers and supply-chain businesses as the phase-out moved from promise to law in July 2024.
Awassi Express footage exposes mass sheep deaths at sea
Parliamentary debate on the bill recalled whistleblower footage from the Awassi Express voyage showing extreme heat stress and more than 2,000 sheep deaths, making animal welfare in the trade a national issue.
Hansard ↗Labor takes elections commitments to phase out live sheep exports by sea
Speakers supporting the bill said Labor went to the 2019 and 2022 federal elections promising to end the trade, turning animal-welfare concerns into a clear policy commitment.
Hansard ↗A 43,758-signature petition calls for Parliament to legislate an end date
The minister's second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues. speech said petition EN5323 asked Parliament to lock the phase-out into law rather than leave the trade's future uncertain.
Hansard ↗Government introduces a bill to end live sheep exports by sea from 1 May 2028
The bill was introduced with a plan to ban live sheep exports by sea, authorise CommonwealthThe federal government, which is the level of government the bill gives power to fund transition support. transition spending, and require annual reporting on that support.
Australian Parliament House ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, clearing the way for the phase-out date and transition package to become law.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. makes the phase-out law
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. turned the bill into an Act, confirming that live sheep exports by sea will end nationally on 1 May 2028 while other livestock exports and live sheep exports by air can continue.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues. moved
Referred to Committee (03/06/2024): House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture; Committee report (21/06/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 89 to 54.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues., meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues. agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues. moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 33 to 30.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues., meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues. agreed to
Recorded vote: 33 to 30.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that banning live sheep exports by sea would wipe out jobs, incomes and export markets in Western Australia while doing little or nothing to improve animal welfare, because trade could shift to countries with lower standards. That case was pushed strongly by Coalition MPs and senators and reflected outright opposition rather than a narrow drafting concern, although proposals for extra review and inquiry were defeated.
Criticism was substantial but concentrated in Coalition and WA-focused opposition.
Economic damage to WA farmers and regional communities
Opponents said the ban would shut down a long-standing Western Australian export trade, cutting farm income and harming jobs, transport, port and supply-chain businesses, with flow-on effects for regional communities and family wellbeing.
Animal welfare could get worse, not better
Critics argued the ban was counterproductive because import demand would not disappear; instead, sheep could be sourced from countries with weaker welfare rules, leaving animals worse off overall than under Australia's regulated trade.
Policy seen as ideological and insufficiently tested
Opponents said the ban was driven more by politics than evidence, arguing the industry had already improved its standards and that Parliament should at least have required a formal inquiry or independent review of the transition, assistance measures and community impacts.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 33 to 30. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and Jacqui Lambie Network.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 33 to 30. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and Jacqui Lambie Network.
Passed 33 to 30. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and Jacqui Lambie Network.
Passed 89 to 54. Support came from Labor, Greens, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Katter's Australian Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Defeated 53 to 89. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Katter's Australian Party. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and Centre Alliance. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a second-reading statement vote in the House, so it tested political support for the ban rather than altering the bill itself.
Defeated 55 to 82. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Katter's Australian Party. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeating the referral motion avoided a further committee inquiry and let the bill continue through the House on the government’s timetable.
Senate
Passed 32 to 31. Support came from Labor and Greens. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and Jacqui Lambie Network. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This let the government move the bill to a vote immediately and blocked further debate on the second-reading stage.
Defeated 31 to 32. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and Jacqui Lambie Network. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a procedural attempt to suspend normal rules so the opposition could advance its handling of the bill, but it failed.
Defeated 29 to 34. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents.
This was a second-reading statement vote, so it tested whether the Senate would formally record opposition to the bill rather than amend the law itself.
Defeated 29 to 34. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents.
This was a second-reading statement vote expressing political opposition and demanding reversal, not a direct change to the bill text.
Defeated 31 to 32. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and Jacqui Lambie Network. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a delay-and-review tactic at the second-reading stage; defeating it allowed the bill to keep moving through the Senate.
Defeated 30 to 33. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and Jacqui Lambie Network. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents.
This would have added a post-enactment review mechanism to the bill; the defeat left the bill without that extra review requirement.
Defeated 10 to 36. Support came from Greens. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents.
This was a substantive amendment package to strengthen and accelerate the phase-out, but it failed and left the bill’s original phase-out settings intact.
Defeated 29 to 34. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents.
This journal entry records the same kind of second-reading political statement vote as the Senate division on the opposition’s 2697 amendment.
Defeated 29 to 34. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents.
This was a second-reading statement vote, not a change to the bill text, and the journal shows the Senate rejected it.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Ms Catherine King supports the bill and says it will phase out live sheep exports by sea from 1 May 2028 in a way that improves sheep welfare and gives industry a clear transition period.
Read in Hansard ↗David Littleproud says the coalition will oppose the bill and would reinstate live sheep exports by sea if it returned to government.
Read in Hansard ↗Tink supports the bill to end live sheep exports by sea, saying the trade has failed on animal welfare, has lost social licence, and is in long-term decline.
Read in Hansard ↗Wilkie supports the bill and says the live sheep export trade is cruel, economically outdated and lacking public support.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
10 speakers · 11 contributions · 10 support
“From the themes to the report, the committee made three recommendations: first, that this bill be passed—it is time; second, the government should consider making additional funding available to support the transition. In my view, following discussions with people like Ms Bonnie Skinner, CEO of Sheep Producers Australia, following the hearings, the focus over the next four years must be on addressing the structural competition deficiencies in Western Australia in order to achieve a fairer price for farmers.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That is exactly what we're doing with the bill before the House. It's exactly why I support it so strongly.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill will bring an end to live sheep export. It's an important reform, and one that we committed to for the last two elections, just as we said we would. So the Labor government are introducing this bill. There's a lot to gain for the whole industry if we do this properly. This bill gives every opportunity to get this right for jobs, for farmers and for Australians.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'm very pleased to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. There are many issues that the people of Macnamara deeply care about, and this has been one where they have advocated for a long, long time. For multiple elections the Labor Party has committed to ending the export of live sheep because of too many incidents of animal cruelty on the way to a very long and hot journey across the world for our sheep.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Today the Albanese Labor government has made the right call to put an end to this cruel and unnecessary trade. We are taking decisive action that is long overdue, and we are doing so in a sensible and reasonable way to ensure impacted communities are well positioned, resilient and ready when the trade ends in 2028.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Today, with this bill, the government is honouring our commitment to end the live sheep export trade. As Benjamin Anderson, Madeline Stewart and Aiden Whitfield, three young people from my electorate, recently told me when they presented me with their petition on this issue, nothing justifies live exports. This bill will prohibit absolutely the export from Australia of live sheep by sea on and after 1 May 2028. This date reflects the recommendations of an independent panel. It provides certainty to farmers, supply chain businesses, the Australian community and trading partners. It will support a more successful transition to onshore value-adding through domestic processing.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Catherine King, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Moved amendment
Ms Catherine King supports the bill and says it will phase out live sheep exports by sea from 1 May 2028 in a way that improves sheep welfare and gives industry a clear transition period. She argues the change reflects community expectations, follows independent consultation, and is backed by support measures for affected producers and supply chains.
“This bill delivers on the Australian government's election commitment—taken to two elections now—to phase out live sheep exports by sea. Phasing out this trade marks a considerable step forward for sheep welfare, reflecting our nation's values of compassion and ethical treatment of animals.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Ms King supports the bill, saying it delivers the government's commitment to end live sheep exports by sea and gives farmers and the supply chain certainty and transition supportGovernment funding and assistance for farmers and related businesses as the live sheep trade is phased out.. She argues the phase-out will improve sheep welfare and help the industry adjust in an orderly way.
“This bill does deliver on a commitment to phase out live sheep exports by sea that this government made to the Australian people at the last election and in fact the election before that. This legislation does provide the certainty to farmers and the community that they have been calling for.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“I conclude with words from Sarah, a Higgins constituent: 'Australia can be a leader in ethical treatment of animals and a role model for the rest of the world. You have shown that your government upholds its commitments and has integrity, and that you do what you say you will do.' Hear, hear! I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I support this bill, and I know that it will build a better future right here in Australia, value-adding to our product.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It is time to phase out live sheep exports.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
20 speakers · 22 contributions · 20 oppose
“Let me make this very clear: the coalition will be opposing this bill. Let me also make this clear: a future coalition government will reinstate this industry. I want to make it very clear to every Western Australian that this coalition, when we are elected, will have the back. We will have faith and confidence in them and the reforms that they've put in place in leading the world in animal welfare standards. We won't cut and run. We won't leave the rest of the world to take up a market that doesn't live up to our animal welfare standards. That's not the Australian way. I make it very clear today that a future coalition government will reinstate the live export of sheep by sea to the Middle East.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I say again to the ministers involved: you don't need to do this. Listen to all the individuals that keep the sheep. Listen to your WA counterparts. Listen to the ones who are directly impacted, because it is they who pay the price. It is not individuals like the member for Macnamara, and I heard his speech just before. If you live in an inner-city seat, you don't see most of this. Some of them will come from regional areas, but they don't live in the world of reality. The reality is that these things take effort and risk. You take the risk, you want the reward. Every single person involved in this supply chain deserves the respect of every individual in this country, because they are providing food for this nation and food for other nations. They are ensuring that we do not have further sovereign risk and further reduction in agricultural production in this nation. I oppose this bill absolutely and wholeheartedly.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition have stated, as they should, that we'll reinstate the trade. Here's a clear statement to the people of Western Australia: if you vote for the Labor Party, they will take away one of your major trades because they don't respect you.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I want to touch finally on the Keep the Sheep movement, which has sprung up. I know that many on the other side, particularly those on the east coast, would look at 60,000 sign-ups in the first month—$350,000 raised without a great deal of effort on their behalf—but let me tell you: this movement is a political movement which is gaining strength. It is the proxy for many farmers who are not involved with the live sheep export trade—they might be cattle producers and others—to get behind this and say: 'We have to draw a line in the sand here. If we allow the government to shut down a perfectly legal industry which has done everything that has been asked of it by the regulator, then what industry is next?' Is it cattle? We know that the animal welfare lobby are going after cattle next. They have made that very clear. Is it glyphosate in the cropping program? Is it atrazine in canola programs? So this movement is real. It's going to be effective, and I give it my 100 per cent support. So #keepthesheep.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is a first-class industry. It sets the standard, as the member for Cowper talked about, with our ESCAS, which actually traces our livestock overseas and has led to investment in new abattoirs and better handling practices in other countries. We are the only country that insists on down-chain upskilling of workforce in the handling of stock. Shutting down the Australian export trade will not lessen the numbers of those that actually go on ships around the world. It will just mean they don't come from Australia and they're not treated in an appropriate manner.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It will not be any surprise to anyone who knows I am a farmer that I strongly oppose this bill. I support WA's efforts to Keep the Sheep and I thank every farmer out there working their heart out. And don't forget: no farmers, no food. For goodness sake, Labor, for a change, how about listening to our hard-working common-sense farmers and not just elitist fanatics and activists?”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I will be opposing this legislation, as it is another example of the government once again biting the hand that feeds it. Today, I call on the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, and the minister for agriculture, Murray Watt, to come to Central Queensland, look our graziers in the eye and make the commitment that they will not ban live cattle exports. Keep the sheep, and protect our critical agricultural industries.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition, the Liberal and National parties, argue that the live sheep export ban—that's exports of sheep by sea—will have enormous consequences for local jobs, local communities, local farming families, small and family businesses and the Australian economy. This industry provides jobs, hundreds of jobs, for people who reside in Western Australia. We're going to see many of these people unemployed. We're going to see many of these people leave their communities. This would include farmers, vets, tradespersons and other people that are the backbone of those local communities.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise today to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, and I certainly will not be supporting this bill. We've heard the last two speakers, and their whole speeches were dripping in sanctimony and ideology, but I'm here to offer the real story and the realism. I've been very fortunate to be on two committees in parliament. I'm on the joint agriculture committee and I'm also on the coalition ag committee, so I've had the opportunity to go across to Western Australia, to talk to sheep farmers and to have a good look around. So I don't get my information off the back of a cornflakes packet like some of the people do. I'm a farmer by trade, and I get to be able to see and feel the real story.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Finally, the friends who I met along the way in Wagin in WA last year—they were decent, honest, authentic and genuine folk who genuinely want the best for their industry—have had to leave their farms and come all the way to Canberra on a program called Keep the Sheep. They'll be here on Monday, and I urge everybody, whether you're from the bush or from the city, to get behind these folk, because this is their livelihood. This is their future. This is not only the future of their operation and their children's operation; it also provides food security and sovereignty to our nation. On Monday, Keep the Sheep are in Canberra; get behind them.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I stand with you, I'm sure the farmers in my electorate stand with you, and we will restore this $1 billion trade if we are elected at the next election.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Let's take this back to basics and first principles, and understand what is happening here with this bill, the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. The federal government, the ALP, are shutting down an industry. They are shutting down an industry, and that can send businesses out of business. If their decision shuts a business down they are not giving one dollar of compensation to that business, to that family or to that farmer. In the inquiry I asked the department of agriculture, 'Is any of the money that is allocated for the transition package going to compensation for businesses that are shut down by a government decision, that have to close because of a government decision?' Their answer was no. What precedent does that set for every agricultural business in Australia? What precedent does it set for every business in Australia? That this government is prepared to shut you down, close your business and give you no compensation. That's why the live cattle export industry are worried and why many other businesses and many others in agriculture are worried. We heard testimony after testimony that I will get to about the impact it will have on farmers and on families.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We have said very clearly on this side of the chamber that, if we win the next election, we will reverse this decision. I went to a meeting near where the member for Forrest lives—not in your electorate, Member for Forrest, but in Katanning, a big sheep-producing area in WA. They were sitting there, about 300 or 400 of them, going, 'Look, maybe if somehow we could move the wharf or the export terminal from where the live sheep get exported from out of Perth, maybe if we moved it to a different area'—that would be an issue—'maybe that would change their minds and they'd be more accepting of it.' I said to them, 'Look, unfortunately, it doesn't matter where you do this. It doesn't matter where the terminal is; they hate you. They hate what you do and they do not want you to do what you do. You could have this in a terminal 100 kilometres down the road and they will close you down because they don't respect what you do and don't respect who you are because of what you do.'”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill sets a horrible precedent. Let me tell you and the people of Australia what that precedent is. We have before us an industry, the live sheep industry, which has done every single thing asked of it by government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Yes, just be honest. Maybe the member for Fremantle has an issue with those smelly boats pulling up in his river. I suspect that the people that are having their brunches on the waterfront at Fremantle are offended by sheep trucks coming in and loading up. Everyone has to represent their constituents. That could be the case. But, just from me, I oppose this legislation. Sadly, I've seen this sort of thing happen here before. It always ends badly. It always ends badly for the people of the regions, and it always ends badly for this country as a whole. I oppose it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“At the outset, the opposition will be opposing this. Listening to the debate in the parliament, it's interesting to hear the comments from members that are opposing this position, and those that are supporting it. In stark contrast, those that are supporting it, when you have a look at the geographical footprint of where they live, most of them don't have sheep. Their livelihood is not relying on sheep. In fact, the livelihoods of most of the people who are making a contribution in support of this bill do not rely on any type of livestock. I'm in a partnership. We've got 2,000 cattle—a breeders program in Queensland. I know firsthand the devastating impact that shutting down an export industry had on our industry.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise in opposition to the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. This bill is a slap in the face and a major career- and business-ending piece of legislation. The response in Western Australia of those people concerned is overwhelmingly sad and angry at seeing their livelihoods destroyed.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Melissa Price on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Melissa Price opposes the bill and says it is a political attack on Western Australian farmers and regional communities rather than a justified reform. She argues there is no scientific, economic or animal welfare case for ending live sheep exports by sea and calls for a proper Senate inquiry instead.
“I rise today to speak against the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. The introduction of this bill represents a complete and utter betrayal of Western Australian farmers and regional communities. There is simply no scientific, economic or animal welfare justification for ending the WA live sheep trade. Those opposite are shutting down a valuable Western Australian industry—sadly, for their own political benefit.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Price says the Liberal Party will oppose the bill because it will hurt farmers, regional communities and mental health in Western Australia, and she calls it a destructive ban on live sheep exports. She says she will not support it and that a future coalition government would move to reinstate the industry.
“I'll conclude by reaffirming that the coalition's commitment to the future of Australian agriculture is iron-clad. I will not be supporting this disgraceful and cruel bill. I'm proud to say that we are united on this side of the House. The Liberal Party stands in solidarity with Australian farmers and the agriculture sector in strongly condemning and opposing Labor's destructive policy to shut down live sheep exports. We are committed to upholding the highest standards of animal health and welfare while supporting a lawful and sustainable live export trade. If this bill is passed by the House and Senate, when we are elected to government—in not such a long period of time—we will introduce legislation to reinstate the live sheep export industry. Given the constant attacks on regional Australia, I can only hope that this will occur sooner rather than later.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This is one of the most abhorrent bills that I have seen any government introduce. They don't care about the farmers. They say they care about the welfare of sheep, yet what we'll now see is sheep from countries with no protections. We'll see no welfare protections for the animals on board. It'll be worse than ever. But that's not taken into account because they've achieved what they needed to achieve, and that was the dirty deal with the Greens. It will be forever remembered. God hope that we get back into government, because we will repeal this, and we will work with the Western Australian sheep farmers—all farmers—because they need to be appreciated. We, on this side—the National Party and the LNP—are very grateful for their existence.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Michael McCormack on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
McCormack opposes the bill and says the coalition will reverse it if elected, because he argues the live sheep export trade is safe, properly regulated, and important to farmers and markets. He says the government is shutting the industry down for ideological reasons and without proper consultation.
“The coalition will reverse this ridiculous, insane decision. We will reinstate the live export industry when next we are elected to government and hopefully that will be at the next election.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
McCormack opposes the bill and says Labor has sacrificed WA sheep producers and regional communities for political deals and activist pressure. He argues the live sheep export industry should be restored, not ended.
“In government, we will absolutely restore this important industry. Unlike those opposite, we will always support our farmers and always back our farmers. And we very much back our WA sheep farmers. It's a disgrace!”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“The Greens welcome the government's decision to ban live sheep exports from 1 May 2028 and to fund a package to help farmers and communities transition out of the industry.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
8 speakers · 9 contributions · 7 support · 1 oppose
“With all of that said, having looked at the evidence available to this point in time and listening to the community in its broadest sense, I do stand to support this legislation because I believe we can pursue higher ethical standards when developing government policy. At the same time, though, my community has also called to ensure that those regional communities, particularly those in Western Australia, who have clearly articulated what they need to navigate the closure of this industry, must be supported.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I applaud the government for pushing through with this; I know it isn't easy. Yes, I want the ban to be in place sooner and, yes, I do want to shut down the life beef cattle export trade. I do—and I'll turn my mind do that now and keep campaigning on that. It is a difficult policy area for reform, so I will applaud the government. And I won't be moving any amendments, even though I'd like to see a shutdown sooner than four years.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I will support this bill; it's a good start, but it's clear that there's a lot more work to be done to balance animal safety and welfare, and to prevent cruelty within live export industries—particularly the growing challenge from heat that we'll see as the world warms with the climate crisis. I absolutely support ensuring that communities which are being asked to change can do so with the support of government through packages that adequately meet the needs that they face.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“At its heart, this issue comes down to economics and livelihoods versus values and animal rights. This is not an argument where one side can convince the other. Those against the industry believe that the slaughter of sheep should happen as close to the farm gate as possible to reduce stress. Farmers who stand to lose financially believe this is a politically populist decision driven by the eastern states. As we know, in 2018, the ALP announced that it would phase out the live sheep export industry. It was a pre-election promise for the 2019 and 2022 elections. It is an ALP platform issue and I'm not going to argue against this position. I understand the animal rights concerns and I'm equally concerned by the stories of animal suffering. I've seen the figures that show the live sheep export market has been declining and sheepmeat exports have been increasing, so I will be supporting this bill before the House which will end live sheep exports by sea by 1 May 2028.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I am pleased that under this bill the export of live sheep will be phased out by 1 May 2028. I am also pleased by the recognition of support needed for those adversely affected by the transition of this industry. That's because, while I support this bill, I do acknowledge that people's livelihoods are affected by this bill and that many farmers, particularly in WA, will need to adjust their businesses or leave the industry entirely—and this is hard.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Regulation has failed. In my view and the view of the RSPCA, that's because it is not possible to humanely transport thousands of sheep, packed together, halfway around the world through equatorial heat for three weeks and sometimes longer. So it has to stop, and that's why I'm supporting this bill to end the export of live sheep. I would prefer to see a quicker timetable than May 2028, but I understand why the minister has proposed this timeline.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Andrew Gee on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Andrew Gee says he will oppose the bill because he does not think ending live sheep exports by sea is in Australia's farmers' interests or the national interest. He argues the ban will worsen animal welfare by handing trade to countries with weaker standards and will harm regional communities.
“I will be opposing the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 as I don't believe this ban is in the interests of Australia's farmers or in our national interest. One of the key reasons given for this ban is animal welfare, but it ignores the huge improvements and reforms that the industry has made. These improvements have been transformational.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Andrew Gee opposes the bill because he says it will hurt farmers, rural workers and Australia’s trade relationships, and he argues the agricultural sector strongly rejects the ban. He urges the House to vote against it.
“The agriculture sector does an extraordinary amount of heavy lifting for our economy and also for our national prosperity. The ag sector and farmers around Australia oppose this ban and they oppose this bill, and that's why I'm opposing it too. I urge all members of this House to oppose it as well.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“In closing, I do support the bill, but I think the government's transition package needs to be looked at very carefully and in partnership with those that will be affected, because we need to make sure that those rural and regional communities have the ability to thrive.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 89 to 54.
Second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues. agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues., meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 33 to 30.
Second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues. agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second readingThe stage where Parliament decides whether it agrees with a bill in principle before detailed debate continues., meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 33 to 30.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture; Committee report (21/06/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (3 June 2024): House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture; Committee report (21 June 2024)
APH bill page notes
