LIVESTOCK SLAUGHTER

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:44): I move:

That this house supports the Minister for Agriculture in his endeavours to ensure that all animals slaughtered in Australia are stunned prior to killing.

I understand the opposition wants to insert 'commercial' to ensure that they are commercial slaughterhouses. I do not have a problem with that, but it is up to them to move that amendment. I believe that the Minister for Agriculture is one of the best ministers in this government and I think—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I will take that as an amendment by the opposition—'the best'.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, let that just be noted, that he is excellent.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Members of my family who are not involved in politics but who observe it, have indicated to me that they are very impressed with the performance of the Minister for Agriculture because they believe he listens, acts in a responsible way and actually does things, which is good. So, I was not surprised when the minister came out, encouraging his other ministerial colleagues from around Australia to try to bring about the stunning of animals prior to them being killed in abattoirs in Australia.

We know this is an issue which is of concern to, I believe, the bulk of the population. There are some people in the community—people of the Jewish faith and the Muslim faith—who support, basically, animals not being stunned. I think the Jewish community is much more committed to non-stunning than the Muslim community. Basically, they kill them by cutting their throat and allowing them to bleed to death.

Australia generally has a different standard of behaviour in relation to animal welfare. This was highlighted to me when I was a minister and went to Japan. I went to an official dinner where a fish was on the menu. The fish had had its flesh removed. It was still alive in the centre of the table, packed in ice, with its mouth going up and down.

In Australia, there would be an outcry if you went to a fish restaurant and you had a fish, or any other animal, still alive but had had its flesh removed and was on the centre of the dining room table in a restaurant. So, we do have a different standard, and I think it is appropriate that we do, in the way we care for our animals. That was highlighted recently with what happened in relation to the live animal export trade to Indonesia. I think people have to acknowledge that, in Australia, compared to some other places in the world, we have a different approach to how we treat animals.

I do not believe it is unreasonable to require stunning before an animal is killed. I think it is not an unreasonable thing. In Australia, in a democracy, I think it is appropriate that the majority view prevails and I think there is no doubt that most Australians would expect that animals being slaughtered are stunned prior to their killing.

This motion really is a form of encouragement to the Minister for Agriculture. It will not be easy, because his ministerial colleagues interstate will be subject to lobbying and pressure from the religious minorities in those states who do not want stunning and have indicated that already. I would urge the minister to keep on with this and I know from people in my electorate that their strong view is they want animals treated in a humane way, particularly in relation to them being stunned prior to killing. So, I commend this motion to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:51): I move to amend the motion as follows:

After the words 'all animals slaughtered' insert

'in commercial abattoirs'

I rise to support this motion by the member for Fisher and I note that the live cattle export issue dominated the press several months ago.

It would be easy (and I think it was easy) for some federal Labor politicians to force their agriculture minister, Joe Ludwig, to put an outright ban on live cattle exports to Indonesia. What that does is have a domino effect right down the chain. It does not just affect the farmers: it affects transporters, feedlot operators and even a firm like Johnson's at Kapunda that provides pellets for the live cattle trade. Obviously, it was a very emotive subject.

I want to make one comment: I do not condone the footage that was seen on the ABC of animals that were not being stunned in Indonesia, and the way they were treated. However, I think there are some groups in society—Animals Australia and the RSPCA—that only inflame the situation. There are some things that are said in the public arena that are not quite accurate.

My understanding all along was that there were only about 11 of these abattoirs that did not have stun guns, and some people were indicating to me that none of these abattoirs were using them. I, for one, could not understand why the killing boxes that were being used were being used. They in no way match what I have witnessed at T&R's facility at Murray Bridge, which has a magnificent slaughterhouse and carries out all the proper requirements for killing animals humanely.

I would like to say that the practice of stunning before slaughter is intended to save the animal from unnecessary pain before the actual slaughter by whatever means. Typically in Australia the stunning is carried out with either an electric device or a bolt gun. It renders the animal unconscious and, therefore, unfeeling of pain. However, it is not legally necessary in Australia to stun animals before slaughter.

In Australia, animal slaughter is covered under AS 4696:2007, Australian Standard for the Hygienic Production and Transportation of Meat and Meat Products for Human Consumption. It requires that all animals be rendered unconscious before the actual slaughter occurs but, under that standard, exemptions have been given for ritual or religious slaughter. This exemption allows for the animal to be stuck, severing its oesophagus, trachea, carotid artery and jugular vein in one action with a sharp knife. This requires slaughtermen to be prepared to immediately stun if it becomes apparent that the animal is suffering. It also facilitates bleeding which has other religious and practical purposes.

Halal is the Arabic word for 'allowed' and kosher is the Judaic equivalent, meaning 'allowed' or 'approved'. They are usually used with reference to food. Halal killing uses a reversible stunning procedure meaning that, left alone, the animal would fully recover. This satisfies the requirement that the animal be healthy before slaughter.

Kosher killing differs for cattle and sheep. For physiological reasons cattle must be stunned immediately after the stick whereas sheep need only be subsequently stunned if it is apparent that they are suffering—if the stick was not fully effective.

There are three main reasons behind the demand for halal and/or kosher slaughter: the desire to minimise pain and suffering backed by the belief that these methods are less painful for the animal than Western slaughter procedures; dietary considerations; and religious freedom. Bleeding is an important part of halal and kosher slaughter because Jews are not allowed to consume blood and, in the Muslim diet, blood is considered unhealthy and is, therefore, drained.

Jewish and Muslim tradition places great importance on preventing animals from suffering and they believe Western slaughter practices are less humane. In the absence of positive scientific methods of demonstrating pain levels, there is no clear scientific argument to support either point of view. However, if you want to talk humanely, I firmly believe that animals should be stunned prior to killing.

In Holland, a bill has been passed allowing ritual slaughter on the condition that clear scientific evidence be presented within five years, proving that slaughter without pre-stunning causes no unnecessary suffering. The Dutch debate has now become entangled with the moral question of whether science should have precedence over religious freedom. These are some of the issues we have when dealing with some religious groups that want to keep the freedom of not stunning.

Some Australian abattoirs are using halal methods for all their meat products primarily to satisfy export markets but that fact has caused some other Australians to object to having to eat meat (often unmarked) that has been blessed to a god other than their own. Discussions with a facility owner who used to stick before stunning has revealed that he has bowed to the polite request from the Department of Primary Industries and Resources that all abattoir operators, for voluntary compliance, cease the practice of no pre-stunning which might possibly stave off more stringent legislation. These people operate under an exemption, I understand.

I appreciate the consultation with my office of PIRSA's manager of regulatory services who stated that there is no kosher killing in South Australia. Mind you, one abattoir claims to be using the no-stun technique. The PIRSA manager confirmed the department's request for voluntary compliance and was pleased to learn that at least one facility had complied.

I fully support the motion and the amended motion because I think it would be unworkable to think that farmers who may be killing a beast for themselves using a high-powered rifle (which is quick and immediate) could not be expected, in the literal interpretation of this motion, to own a stunning apparatus. This is quite a technical apparatus from what I have witnessed at the T&R abattoir at Murray Bridge.

I thank the minister's office for our discussions when the motion was before the upper house about banning live trade, and I urge the minister to keep up the fight that pre-stunning be fully endorsed.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:00): I rise to indicate my support for the motion as amended by the member for Hammond. It is a sensible, straightforward motion. We are getting that bound up in stupid things in this nation now that I wonder where it is all going to end. Practices that have gone on for decades, whilst they can be reviewed and whilst they should from time to time be changed, are taken on board—and I am not suggesting this is by any stretch of the imagination—by people who really have no practical experience in day-to-day life of how the world goes by.

I think a glaring example of that was earlier this year with the saga of the export cattle business out of Darwin. Not for one moment would I or anyone in this place (in either house) support the stupidity of what was going on in certain slaughterhouses in Indonesia. The information I have—and I can be corrected if necessary—is that this took place some four or five years ago.

Let me tell you that in Australia we practise things properly and we do things properly in relation to slaughtering. However, what took place in the north of Australia was absolutely devastating for the northern cattle industry. I was up in Darwin in August and went down through to Adelaide River and stayed on a cattle property down there to talk to feedlot operators. It just devastated that industry and put families under enormous pressure right across the north of Australia. There is a lack of understanding by people who live in metropolitan areas about just how the practices of rural life go on and how they make a dollar in hard circumstances.

My view is that this is a sensible motion, the amended motion. It was sensible before but it has been made even more sensible by the member for Hammond's amendment. Those of us who slaughter stock regularly for our own use, myself included—in fact, I slaughtered a sheep last weekend.

The Hon. R.B. Such: You'd like to slaughter us.

Mr PENGILLY: No, the government. The reality is that I shot it with a .22, then I cut its throat, then I hung it up. That is the way you do it.

Mr Pegler: You should've stunned it before you shot it.

Mr PENGILLY: I did stun it properly. It was absolutely stunned. However, the reality is that that is how you go about your business. Likewise when you kill a beast: you shoot the beast and you cut its throat, then you go about dressing it and hanging it up. That is the way things work. This arty-farty airy-fairy view of the world that is held by many now in metropolitan areas—and it is growing in urban areas—shows they have no understanding of the realities of life, and it upsets me.

It is like what is going on at the moment with the debate over free range egg producers. The big companies are in there at the moment trying to alter things to suit themselves better, while the small free range egg producers are going to get hammered if this sort of nonsense takes place, as has been predicted in New South Wales. Hopefully, with a good Liberal government over there it will not get through.

I have free range egg producers in my electorate. I have Tom and Fiona Fryar, for example, on Kangaroo Island who run 70,000 free range chooks. They started with nothing. They started working in slaughterhouses, hanging up skins and shearing. They started with nothing and they now employ 15 to 20 people. They supply an industry which is valuable. Graham and Kathy Barrett are others, the Modras, there are free range egg producers on the Fleurieu Peninsula. They know what they are doing.

It is beholden upon this place to make sensible decisions, in my view, about where we go in the future with decisions such as what has been forecast today. Of course, the honourable member, the member for Morphett knows all about these things as well. He has been a veterinary surgeon for years, although I do not think I want him practising on my cat or dog. But I do urge the house to support the motion of the member for Fisher, and let's get on with it.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:04): I rise to support the amended motion by my colleague the member for Hammond. Obviously, slaughtering animals should be done in the most humane way possible, and as I think I have said before in this house, I have seen halal and kosher slaughtering as a veterinary student. To have witnessed some of the things that were going on in Indonesia disturbed me greatly, and while I am very confident that it is not happening in Australia, we should be making sure that all animals in Australia are stunned.

As the member for Finniss has said—and I have done this on numerous occasions; in fact, I shot a very ill cow the other day—we stun the animals, but usually with a bullet going through their head. That is a very quick way of rendering the animal unconscious, if not killing it outright.

To ensure that the meat is of good quality when the animal is slaughtered, you do not only bleed it out but you also have to ensure that the muscle contractions during the slaughter are not too great, as this will cause blood splash—in other words, blood clots through the meat. You also have to make sure that you are not going to damage the actual structure of the meat in the process. The best way of producing a good-quality product (which is what this is all really about, in addition to making sure that the process is as humane as possible) is by stunning the animal.

The usual frequency is 50 hertz, and this does the job of rendering the animal unconscious for between 30 and 60 seconds. However, if the animal has not been stuck properly and has not been killed during that period, then it can regain consciousness. The low hertz also stops the heart very quickly. There is a much better way of stunning animals that has been developed in New Zealand, and that is using high-frequency stunning.

High-frequency stunning uses frequencies between 1,000 and 2,000 hertz. This reduces the convulsions and muscle contractions during the stunning process, which produces a higher quality of meat and, more importantly for this particular issue of religious slaughter, the heart keeps beating. The animal can be slaughtered and bled out, but because the heart is still beating, this satisfies the religious requirements of both halal and kosher, as I understand it to be from my reading of what is required.

I would encourage all industry in South Australia and, in fact, all over the world—never mind just in South Australia—to ensure that they are doing what they should be doing, and not just what they can, to ensure that all animals slaughtered for human consumption are being stunned prior to slaughter, and slaughtered as quickly and humanely as possible.

The need to ensure that we are able to accommodate religious requirements is something that I am happy to look at, and there are ways of getting around it. People who say that you cannot stun for religious purposes are clearly wrong—just look at the overseas experience. I strongly support this motion, because it is extremely distressing for me to even remember my experiences as a veterinary student, let alone the vision that we saw on the television.

I am a carnivore from way back and I love my meat, but I want that meat to be as tender and appetising as possible, and so I want it to be slaughtered in the most humane way possible to ensure the animal has not suffered and also to have a better quality of product.

With that, I hope that the member for Fisher can support the amended motion.

The Hon. R.B. Such: I do.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:09): Madam Speaker, I support the motion in its amended form. I have probably visited about 30 abattoirs right throughout Australasia, and many of those abattoirs are slaughtering their animals under halal, but they are all doing so in a proper form. Those animals are not suffering, and I think Australia can take a lot of pride in the way in which we look after those animals in the abattoirs. If those animals suffer at all, the quality of our meat deteriorates very rapidly, so all abattoirs take a lot of pride in the fact that they handle those animals in a humane way.

When we hear about sheep having their throats cut and bleeding to death, in actual fact the spinal cord is severed at the same time, so it is exactly the same as stunning the animal. The heart continues to pump the blood out, but it is no different than if the animal had been decapitated. They do not suffer at all.

What we saw happening in Indonesia was absolutely disgusting and I would never ever condone anybody handling an animal in that form or in that manner. I must say that the meat off those animals would be absolutely terrible, because the pH levels would go up extremely high and the meat would be as tough and stringy as you would ever get. I certainly support this motion.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:11): I just want to commend and say I support the amendment, and also the mover, the member for Fisher. I recognise that the word 'commercial' would also be the same as a licensed abattoir. There would be no difference in that terminology, I would have thought. I did not watch that thing on TV, because I could not. I switched it off. It was horrific. That sort of thing does not need to be shown on television. It is never pleasant seeing an animal being killed, but I am sorry, we are meat-eaters in this country and that is what has to happen.

We butchered our own meat on the farm for many years. We do not any more, because I am never there to do it and the new generation just don't, so we have it done at a small country abattoir. I think this is commonsense and I think in this country, where we are very much civilised, that this halal killing should not be tolerated; it is just grossly cruel. I commend both the member for Fisher and the member for Hammond.

The SPEAKER: Minister.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Energy, Minister for the Northern Suburbs) (12:12): The government—

Mr Pengilly: Premier.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Thanks, Michael. With help like that I will go absolutely nowhere!

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Yes. The government accepts the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. We are actually talking about on-farm slaughter; we are not talking about savage backyard operations. To put this in context, what the member for Fisher's motion is referring to is a proposition that I have in front of the primary industry ministerial council, which is asking the council to make a decision on the imposition of pre-stunning for both cattle and sheep.

To put this in a broader context and give some understanding of why I have arrived at the position at which I have, the morning after the Four Corners program I caught up with Malcolm Jackman, the CE of Elders, in Currie Street. I am a former Elders executive and I had approached Malcolm to serve on the Agribusiness Council and we had arranged to have a bit of a discussion as to what the purview of the council would be.

Malcolm was obviously distressed by what he had seen and also about the possible consequences for Elders. Elders is the largest exporter and importer of cattle into Indonesia and Malcolm's view was why should Elders be penalised? It had complete control over supply chain, including sourcing and feedlotting in Australia and transport to Indonesia (it owns its own vessel); it owns the abattoirs in Indonesia and it pre-stuns.

Malcolm was concerned that Elders, as members on the opposition benches would be aware, is not travelling as it ought. Malcolm has a major challenge in restoring to financial health what is, I think, one of South Australia's major commercial icons. I would hate to see anything impact on Elders in a commercially adverse sense. I transmitted that to the federal minister on numerous occasions. I also alerted my interstate counterparts to the imperative to get this trade back in operation sooner rather than later. I was concerned that we were going to lose the Indonesian trade. I was very much concerned about what message it would be sending to the Indonesian political elite, in terms of this nation's ability to give them food security surety.

It is the most densely populated nation on the face of the earth. You cannot close down a major source of protein into that society at short notice and expect them somehow to muddle through. There were major issues at play and I think it could have been handled a hell of a lot better than it was. My view is that the trade should not have been suspended, and that those companies such as Elders—and there are two or three others that manage the trade in a highly responsible manner—should have been allowed to continue to operate.

I had a discussion with the Chief Executive of PIRSA who alerted me to the fact that two major scientific studies had been done for the ministerial council on the issue of pre-stunning and that I ought to have a look at them. I subsequently read them. I found it quite harrowing reading and, as a young boy, I had a reasonable amount of on-farm experience. My mother is off a property at Snowtown, I assisted my uncle in the slaughtering of sheep, my grandmother did the dressing, I know what it is all about, but reading the two scientific reports left me with a great sense of unease. These two reports had been requested well in advance of the Indonesian experience.

The first report 'Specifying the Risks to Animal Welfare Associated with Livestock Slaughter without Induced Insensibility' prepared by David B. Adams and Alan D. Sheridan, whom, I understand are senior officers with the federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, was signed off by the council in November 2008. From that flowed the stipulation that, with halal and kosher killing of large beasts, there must be immediate post-stunning as soon as the throat is cut. There have to be two slaughtermen present and the animal has to be immediately stunned.

That recommendation and, ultimately, that protocol, was put in place because it was determined that the suffering experienced by a large animal who does not become unconscious for several minutes is totally unacceptable in a humane and civilised society. Referring to the traditional halal and kosher methods of slaughter, the study highlighted the fact that, when this particular practice was undertaken several thousands of years ago in relation to the Jewish religion, the animals were generally much smaller. The amount of muscle, flesh and skin around the neck was nowhere as impenetrable a barrier as it is today. The report compared the neck of a steer with boot leather and pointed out that it is a fairly difficult act to hack your way through leather on a shoe or a boot.

They were saying that 1,000 or 2,000 years ago, the technology that we have available to us today was not available, the animals were smaller, and the throughput was virtually negligible. The killing of a steer or a sheep was something that was done infrequently and it was done well. Today we have large numbers of animals being slaughtered, and there is an increased risk of things not being done as they ought. I think I saw a figure that indicated that 10 to 15 per cent of acts of slaughter do not go according to the manner in which they should.

What was acceptable and probably what was the only method available at the time cannot now be supported. We now have the science, we now have the technology and we now have the knowledge to prevent what is an act that imposes on larger animals considerable and unendurable pain, a period of complete and utter panic and terror, and, as a civilised society, we ought not to be countenancing that type of behaviour. The larger animals were dealt with in the November 2008 report.

PIMIC then moved on to sheep and goats and commissioned a further body of work—'A Scientific Comment on the Welfare of Sheep Slaughtered without Stunning'—by Professor Hemsworth from the Animal Welfare Science Centre in Victoria and Professor David Mellor of the Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre in New Zealand.

They came to a similar conclusion in relation to sheep, that, in some instances, a sheep can be conscious up to something like 14 seconds. The act of slitting the throat is painful in its most severe sense. The animal then has to endure in the last 12 to 14 seconds of its life a terror that none of us would like to experience; and, again, it is not the type of act that we as a humane and civilised society ought to countenance.

What I have said to the ministerial council is that we have commissioned the science. It is before us, let us bite the bullet on this. It is unequivocal and let us measure up to the responsibility that has been invested in us by the electorate in each of our respective states and at the commonwealth level and act on the science that we have requested.

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (12:22): I will speak just briefly because, unfortunately, the minister did not have time to touch on it. I do not disagree with the amended motion. I certainly agreed with the original motion, and I do not disagree with the amended one. I just wonder how this will cover people in metropolitan backyards, in their sheds, who slaughter animals.

Ms Chapman: It is illegal.

Mrs GERAGHTY: I know, but they do, and we try to have those matters dealt with. I just put on notice that, probably, we might want to pay a little bit of attention to that, because, over the years, I have had a number of constituents make complaints about a number of properties—but one in particular—which slaughter animals in the shed. You could hear the distress of the animal; and, indeed, they very kindly ran the blood out into the gutter. It is quite tacky but it does go on. I just put that on the record.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:23): I will be brief. I thank members for what, I believe, will be their support, and I thank the member for Hammond for his amendment; I think that it does clarify the situation with respect to commercial abattoirs. I think that any member who is in touch with their electorate would know that animal welfare is a big issue. It is not exclusive to women, but women, in contacting my office, express very strong views about this.

I think it is important not only, obviously, for the welfare of the animals, but if you want to sell meat the community will not buy meat if they feel that the animals are being subjected to any cruelty. So, there is an important vested interest for people raising animals and selling meat to ensure that the animals are treated humanely, because, once you get that emotional backlash, that industry will suffer in terms of reduced sales.

I give a quick example in my own case. Many years ago—I think I was a teenager—I became aware of how some calves were slaughtered in a Hills abattoir; not done properly but by some people there acting outside the guidelines. They walked up to this group of calves and just slashed their throats where they stood, or tried to. As a result of that I do not eat veal, and I do not ever intend to; I was so appalled by the way those calves were treated that it put me off eating veal, probably forever. Likewise, our family used to kill chooks, and that has also had an impact, because if it is not done properly then, as I said, there is a long-lasting negative impact and it puts you off eating certain things.

It is an important industry. I am a meat eater; that is the way I was brought up. I guess a lot of what we eat is determined by the psychology of our mind; that is, if you were brought up a vegetarian you will probably be a vegetarian and if you were brought up as a carnivore you will be that way inclined. It is a big industry and an important one, and people enjoy and need to eat meat. Some would argue that you do not need to but, overall, I think there is a good argument that you do.

I conclude by pointing out that in South Australia we have some very good operators. There is T&R Meat. Chris Thomas is part of the T (Thomas) in T&R—I actually used to babysit his children years ago—and he has done very well, with his family. I think it is Darren now, the son, who is running T&R Meat—

Mr Brock interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Now I'm being blamed for my babysitting! It is an important industry that employs a lot of people, and it is a very important export industry as well. It is important that we do things the correct way, the humane way, and I am pleased that members in this place will support the motion.

Amendment carried; motion as amended passed.