Live export panel set to phase out State’s sheep trade, then realised it didn’t have a WA representative

Just one person was going to oversee how and when to phase out live sheep exports before the Federal Government expanded its advisors to a panel of three and then realised it didn’t have any representative from WA, emails between bureaucrats reveal. The sole person would have been a former public servant, someone from industry or an independent candidate who had connections with Government and stakeholder engagement skills. But finding an industry person willing to be “seen” as supporting the ban became a struggle for the Federal Agriculture Department. And after nearly a month of searching for panel members, public servants realised they didn’t have anyone from WA slated to help with the consultation, despite the huge impact on the State’s farmers, who are responsible for 80 per cent of the $92 million national trade. Agriculture Minister Murray Watt, a Queensland Senator, announced in March the appointment of a four-person panel to oversee Labor’s planned phase-out of live sheep exports. It is led by former Murray Darling Basin Authority boss and senior public servant Phillip Glyde and includes prominent WA agriculture expert Sue Middleton, retired Northern Territory MP Warren Snowdon, and former RSPCA head Heather Neil. The West Australian has obtained documents under Freedom of Information laws that show the Albanese Government was planning to have just one independent person to be “the face of the phase-out” before making it a three-person panel “to ensure the full spectrum of views” could be considered. “I consider this collective group of individuals possess the appropriate skills and experience, would bring diverse views and the ability to approach the task pragmatically, and would deliver an appropriate gender balance and geographical spread,” said an Agriculture Department official in an email on December 22. “I, however, register this suggested composition does not have a WA-based member. In my assessment, an acceptance of both perceived and real conflicts will be required if (name redacted) desires a WA-based member.” Two weeks later, another email listed four potential candidates from WA. “If (name redacted) is to be considered, I would strongly recommend a deeper assessment of both perceived and real conflicts of interest — noting that he has been a strong advocate in the past for live sheep exports and he is also a sheep producer,” the email on January 5 read. “I think that it would also be prudent for (name redacted) to consider discussing the potential WA candidates (or any others) with Senator (name redacted).” In a text message sent on December 6, a Department official admitted it would be difficult to find an industry expert to run the consultation given the lack of support from farmers for Labor’s 2022 election policy to end live exports. “The challenge is finding an industry person willing to be ‘seen’ as supportive of the phase-out,” the text read. “I wonder whether (name redacted) might know of someone that fits that category that your office could enquire about? I suspect she’d be one of the few people who would know who from the sector would be supportive and willing to be part of it.” The wages of the four panellists are set to cost taxpayers nearly $1 million over 10 months as they consult with industry and provide a report by September 30. The daily rate for a panel member is $1388 and $1541 for the chair, which comes to $912,800 for the 160 days they are expected to be needed, with documents flagging the possibility of an extension. The Federal Budget last month put the cost of the live sheep export ban — including wages, advertising, IT, legal, admin, training, travel, expert analysis, regulation impact statement and ABARES fees — at $5.6 million over the next two years. There has been criticism so far over the lack of consultation with the entire agricultural community with the panel copping flak for only meeting in-person with “targeted” industry leaders before holding public virtual forums. This is despite a department email in January stating agricultural officials had already reached out to WA’s industry stakeholders to “introduce themselves” and that “strong engagement” would occur with State representatives as part of the consultation process.