Live export panel faces unhappy WA sheep producers

This was the second meeting of the day, following one at Moora in the morning.

The four-person panel was formed after the Federal government recently said it planned to end the live sheep trade, should it be re-elected in the next term of government.

With the very short notice provided to many in the room, it was very telling that almost 100 producers and industry members put aside their busy seeding schedules or holidays away and drove from New Norcia, Brookton, Quairading, Tammin, Gidgegannup and locally to show their support for the live sheep export industry.

Unfortunately the confusion surrounding whether it was a public or invitation-only meeting and in some cases the just one hour's notice, did limit who was able to make it.

It is widely acknowledged that the consultation process has been flawed from the outset, with the first round of meetings being offered to peak industry bodies including exporters and livestock agents/companies, via email with a week or less to prepare for the meetings.

This second round of meetings has raised more ire given the even shorter time frame and confusion with growers and panel chairman Philip Glyde admitted the mistake was on their end.

"We have stuffed up the consultation process," Mr Glyde said.

"What we intended to do and what we are continuing to do is try to meet with as wide a range of stakeholders and people as we can."

READ MORE:

The miscommunication deepened after comments from Mr Glyde at the morning meeting in Moora suggested the meetings were never meant to be public.

So how exactly is this a public consultation process, as for all intents and purposes producers are the public and members of the industry this policy affects on a grand scale?

The information on the current round of consultation meetings was given to some grower groups and the meeting locations were set up last week.

Farm Weekly understands the York Town Hall was booked last Wednesday, however speaking to locals, none of them had heard about the meeting until either late the previous evening or the actual morning of the meeting.

The grower groups did not include WAFarmers, as it was only made aware via an email from the department after 8pm on the evening prior to the first two meetings, rather grower groups referred to organisations that have a much smaller membership than WAFarmers and the Pastoralists and Graziers' Association of WA.

Mr Glyde explained how the panel and department had come to decide that grower groups were the next in line for the consultation sessions.

"One of the things we thought about when coming out, having done some consultation with peak bodies, the representative bodies in Perth a couple of weeks ago, was that we needed to hear from the real people in the game, the people who are actually doing it," Mr Glyde said.

"So we were very keen to come out to communities to hear from you about what is going on."

He said they were conscious it was a busy time of year with seeding underway and said they could not expect people to drive hundreds of kilometres or take time out of their business for the sessions - putting the onus back onto the grower groups.

"One way we thought of that was bound to get out was to talk to the grower groups," he said.

"We deliberately didn't make a public statement because we didn't think this was the way to go."

Mr Glyde acknowledged the backlash they had received at the earlier Moora meeting over this and apologised to those who only found out via Facebook and only had a matter of hours to process and organise.

"All I can say is I am sorry, we were trying to make sure we consulted in an appropriate way," he said.

"For those who don't get a chance to have a say or don't get the opportunity to say what they want, we are having a series of virtual meetings to try to get to the people who can't get to a meeting like this for whatever reason.

"We are going to have those meetings around the middle of May and we will be putting those dates in that communication to you."

The meeting itself highlighted the human element of the industry and the grassroots, undeniable impact the policy would have on individuals, families and entire communities.

The emotion in the room was palpable, evidenced in the passionate speeches and very personal stories and statements made.

The common thread was opposition to the policy and the desire to see it nullified.

The reactions from the panel for the most part were sympathetic to the voiced concerns and personal impacts, Mr Glyde made a statement that hinted at him not being fully in support of the policy himself.

In a reaction to producers stating the live export trade was legal and compliant to all the regulations that been placed upon it, Mr Glyde supported this sentiment and threw shade at the government decision on implementing the policy to phase out the live sheep exports by sea.

"The government, in its wisdom, has made a decision this election commitment to stop something, to change something that has been perfectly legal," Mr Glyde said.

Attendees agreed with this statement but remain vigilant in their desire to see the policy abolished and will not stand back and let an integral part of Western Australia's agricultural industry be unfairly targeted and shut down without just cause.

The fact remains that the government, through the live sheep export phase-out panel, is asking producers and industry stakeholders to provide a solution to a problem that the government has created, which threatens the very businesses and livelihoods of producers and the live sheep export industry as a whole.

To add insult to injury, producers are being told they are not the experts on their own businesses, rather the government intends to hire experts to assist in providing the information the panel requires to put together the submission.

The parameters the panel has been given in relation to its consultation and subsequent report, are:

How the government should phase out live sheep exports by sea?

The time frame to implement the phase out.

How the phase out will impact exporters, farmers and other businesses across the supply chain?

Support and adjustment options for those impacted by the phase out.

Opportunities, including options to expand domestic processing and increase sheep meat exports.

"We will never have the knowledge of all the people that live and work in the industry, " Mr Glyde said.

"The way we get that is by consulting with people who are in the industry, who live in the towns and are part of the communities that support the industries.

"We get that information also from experts, we have consultancies that we have just put out to tender to try to get some of that information, so what we can do is present that to the government, to the minister - this is the impact of the decision you are going to make."

The question raised post-meeting among producers was, who are these expert that will be consulting?

Just like the panel are paid by the government to do their job, more money will be spent, or wasted in the view of many growers, to have farm consultants give facts and figures based on their client databases.

As there are concerns that some of these clients are the very same people who are sitting in these consultation meetings opposed to the policy, it is a move that also begs the question - are not growers and exporters etc experts in an industry they have been involved with their entire lives and that their business relies on?

Producers and industry are fighting against a policy that is already both mentally and economically affecting them and it has not even been put into practice yet.

Attendees spoke on the fact that within the few weeks since the announcement of the policy the price of sheep per head had more than halved in some cases and this was just the beginning.

The meeting came to a somewhat abrupt end when panel member and former RSPCA chief executive officer Heather Neil was asked a question by an attendee and noted that in her opinion, the live export industry was never going to survive long-term.