WHAT is the rush?
This is the question being asked by many producers, exporters, peak bodies and advocacy groups in Western Australia about the consultation timeline for the live sheep export phase-out.
One very real possibility - that would undoubtedly be devastating - would be if this rushed timeline could point to the minister trying to register this phase-out before the next election.
Even though Federal Agriculture minister Murray Watt has stated the phase-out would not occur in this term of parliament, there has been no other guarantees given about when it was slated to commence - it is not a stretch to contemplate the announcement occurring during the election campaign to bolster the public vote.
Time or lack thereof has been one of the most discussed factors surrounding this issue from the outset with "rushed" becoming a regular observation from all involved.
READ MORE:
The reaction to last week's poorly organised consultation meetings has been well documented with the panel admitting fault for not going about the process correctly, causing widespread dissent and calling into question the sincerity of the whole undertaking on the part of the government if it can't even provide proper consideration to those in the firing line.
Even with the very short notice, the confusion surrounding who was able to attend and the ridiculous timing coinciding with seeding and school holidays - more than 1000 attendees still made it to the nine locations - Esperance was added to the program late on Thursday for Friday morning.
At the same time as producers and community members were addressing the panel, the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) was simultaneously holding its Members' Council meeting on the other side of the country in Canberra, where it pledged unanimous support for the live sheep export industry in WA.
The NFF Members' Council brought together the key industry bodies representing farmers, including all State farming groups and commodity organisations from all sectors to set industry policy.
The reversal of the live sheep trade phase-out policy was high on the agenda, with Labor senators Mr Watt and Tim Ayres, along with independent senator David Pocock attending.
"We appreciate the senators' willingness to engage in very frank and honest conversations directly with our members," said NFF president Fiona Simson.
She said the entire agriculture industry remained united and steadfast in its opposition to the phase-out of live sheep exports, with attendees reiterating this red line issue with ministers Watt and Ayres.
"Our members from every industry - and every part of the country - remain gravely concerned about this policy," Ms Simson said.
"We heard both ministers talk about growing trade and using evidence to drive the future of agriculture in Australia.
"We'll continue to call on the government to back up their rhetoric and provide evidence for their decisions.
"Every part of the farm sector is nervous that a government could fall victim to the ideology and misinformation of radical activists rather than back farmers and simply act on the evidence."
Mr Watt answered questions at the NFF meeting and was quoted by a source to have said the WA producer groups were meant to get the information out to their members and attributing blame for the misunderstandings on the consultation meetings to the grower groups, saying they misunderstood what the meetings were about - leaving many attendees at the NFF meeting shocked, considering the panel's admissions.
Mr Watt said if people had been unable to attend the live sheep export consultations, they still had until Wednesday, May 31, to put in their online submissions.
As pointed out by York producer Peter Boyle, farmers are busy seeding and finding the time to thoroughly and effectively put together a submission is not easy.
Mr Boyle asked ask if the submission process could be extended to June 30, but this was rejected by the panel.
Imposing more pressure on an already tight timeline, Mr Watt highlighted his belief that everyone had the right to put a submission into the panel and that the online submission process was always going to be the primary way in which people would participate in this process.
He went as far as to encourage everyone in Australia who had a view on the live sheep export trade to complete a submission.
The problem with this is the majority of Australians live in the cities and have little or no understanding of the trade they are making uninformed choices about - their statements will just bog the panel down in terms of volume and not provide informative content.
It again highlights the lack of respect being given to the producers who live regionally, because due to the unfair and very real imbalance of power due to population numbers, they have very little influence over a debate that directly involves their livelihoods, families and communities.
Well-known animal advocate, Macquarie University animal law lecturer and Animals Alliance (AA) and RSPCA member Jed Goodfellow, has tweeted the link to the Animals Australia website as this now has a link to the phaseout panel submissions page.
Many in the industry are worried about the possibility of thousands of submissions being completed by people who have no idea what phasing out the industry will mean.
This seemed to be at the crux of the timing issue, with panel chairman Peter Glyde having already said the September 30 deadline for the committee's report was not allowing a lot of time to adequately cover the issue.
Australian Livestock Exporters Council of Australia chief executive officer Mark Harvey-Sutton said it was definitely a waste of resources and time to have submissions that were not related to industry stakeholders included.
He was also blindsided by the call for tender for detailed economic and agronomic impact assessment submission from industry experts, referring to consultancy firms.
"The whole panel process has been so disorganised, it is not funny," Mr Harvey-Sutton said.
"I don't know what their next plans are and I don't think anyone in industry understands what the next phase of the consultation involves.
"This request for tender for an economic report was a surprise to me, but I also think that the timeframes that have been put around this report are extremely unrealistic.
"I am just back to thinking why the rush?
"That economic report is due not long after submissions are due.
"Again it does lend itself to the notion this policy will be pushed through for the next election."
The general consensus in relation to the timeline given to the panel and industry stakeholders to consult, plan, submit, process and eventually implement this policy is ridiculously short according to many who have attended the consultation meetings, as well as other industry members.
Normally, if a policy of this calibre was to go before Senate estimates committee or it was being prepared for a presentation to government, you would allow for a minimum of a year or possibly 18 months for the preparation from start to finish.
The independent panel members final report is scheduled for release late this year or early next, with the September 30 deadline in place for them to compile their evidence.
The process only began on March 3.
Industry stakeholders and producers have until the end of next month to complete online submissions, with
those who were unable to attend the consultation meetings, being virtual via an online platform, at a disadvantage as the dates of the next round of meetings have not yet been confirmed and are at best less than four weeks from the deadline.
The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries live sheep export phase-out webpage states that public virtual forums are to be held in May.
Mr Harvey-Sutton said producers, exporters and all live sheep export industry members are urged to put in their submissions for their voice to be heard.
"What the panel needs to consider is informed and genuine submissions," he said.
"They need to consider the policy and not the phase-out."
