2. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Agriculture
How does he expect New Zealand would benefit from any resumption of the trade in live sheep exports for slaughter in Saudi Arabia?
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) Link to this
New Zealand would benefit economically from the resumption of trade. I do not want to speculate on any specific figure, but I can tell the House that the live animal export trade last year was worth a billion dollars to the Australian economy. It is clear that in these challenging times this trade is a potential—and I emphasis potential—economic opportunity for our farmers.
Is it not the case that at the moment just one Saudi exporter is seeking resumption of the trade; and why would the Government risk ruining New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible agricultural exporter so that a Saudi-owned company can send sheep on a traumatic, 3-week sea journey, only for them to be slaughtered at the end of their nightmare voyage?
The negotiations on continuing the trade with Saudi Arabia began approximately 4 years ago, under the previous Labour Government. No timetable is set for the completion of those negotiations. The fact is that the export of livestock for slaughter will not happen unless this Government is totally satisfied that the highest animal welfare and safety standards are met.
Colin KingVery simply, animal welfare. We inherited these negotiations from the previous Government, and I have made it clear to officials that my overriding concern in even considering this issue is ensuring that the most stringent standards of animal welfare and safety are met, both during transportation and upon arrival. Unless these standards can be absolutely guaranteed, I have no appetite whatsoever for resuming these exports.
How can he possibly guarantee that stringent animal welfare standards will be maintained on a 3-week-long sea journey where up to 70,000 sheep are jammed into pens, and have to endure overcrowded conditions, heat stress, seasickness, exhaustion, and disease, with many dying en route to Saudi Arabia, or, for that matter, on arrival at Saudi Arabia, given that country’s lack of animal welfare laws?
That covers the very point I am making. The Government is demanding extraordinarily high standards of animal welfare and safety before we consider the resumption of live exports. I would be the first to acknowledge that it might be difficult for some countries to meet these conditions. But let me make it very clear: we are not prepared to compromise, and that may mean this trade never resumes.
No. Despite the scaremongering and hysteria of the Greens, absolutely no timetable has been set. The Greens should be ashamed to suggest otherwise. These negotiations have been continuing for 4 years, and no timetable is set for their completion.
Why, when we have longstanding certified halal slaughterhouses in New Zealand, would we even consider sending sheep to the other side of the world to be slaughtered, and would not resumption of the trade inevitably cost jobs and lead to abattoir closures, as has happened in Australia?
There clearly is potential for economic benefit to the New Zealand sheep farmer, if the conditions I have spoken about today can be satisfied.
Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table two documents. One is the company records of Awassi New Zealand Ltd, showing that it is a wholly owned Saudi company.
Mr SPEAKERThe second document is a cartoon in the Weekend Press, dated 28 March 2009, stating “We sacrifice these animals”—