Greens leader Richard Di Natale has great expectations of digital technology making farming and meat processing more profitable, but he says it won’t make live exports more acceptable to his party or its supporters.
Addressing a political forum on the digital future for agriculture in Canberra, he said developments such as global positioning system (GPS) technology, drone-guided yield mapping, electronic livestock identification and livestock mating cycle monitors had already advanced farm management notably in the past decade.
The forum, also involving new Independent Senator Derryn Hinch, Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie and Labor’s Dr Andrew Leigh, agreed a technology revolution sweeping agriculture was set to dramatically change the face of the industry in the next 10 years.
Those changes would help make farming safer, smarter, and more efficient, but were also likely to result in further reduced employment openings on farms and in many agricultural service and processing industries.
Senator McKenzie noted optimistically how ear tag sensors would be capable of monitoring fundamental livestock health issues such as body temperature, heart rate and movement and anxiety levels.
Such devices promised to be a boon for the live export market, helping exporters identify stressed or sickening stock before they were loaded or while in transit – well before they might be noticed on ships today.
She said these livestock welfare management assurances and the chance to closely monitor the ethical treatment of stock going overseas should be well received by live export’s critics.
But Senator Di Natale refused to accept any technology benefits would help live export’s case.
“I don’t think there is a technology fit to support the live export argument,” he told the National Farmers Federation Congress debate.
“I do think it offers more opportunities with chilled meat exports.”
Senator Hinch, a strident critic of the live export market for almost 30 years, accepted new technology may assist stock in transit, but “it’s what happens to them when they get there that’s the big issue”, he said.
“I wish the $100 million pledged by Labor and the government to build a new football stadium in Townsville had instead been put towards rebuilding the local abattoir as a highly efficient processing alternative to sending cattle overseas on boats,” he said.
Senator Di Natale also championed more local processing.
He noted abattoirs would provide extra employment in regional areas and new technology could drive down costs (although also it would potentially limit the number of jobs created).
However, Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association’s Tracey Hayes questioned Senator Di Natale and Senator Hynch’s grasp on the reality of the situation.
Australia’s high labor costs ensured processing worked out at about $300 a head - double the average for US abattoirs and almost three times the $70/head cost of running Indonesian meatworks which relied on cattle from Australia.
“How could processing here seriously replace the sustainable beef industry operations which have developed to service overseas markets which seek our live cattle exports?” she asked.
Other questions to the politicians focused on the impact of any live export ban on Indonesia, where local meat production depended on Australian cattle supplies.
Senator Di Natale said the Greens did not apologise for opposing the live trade - the policy was all about animal welfare.
“A lot of people support us, and many of them are farmers,” he said.
“There are increasing markets for chilled processed meat.
“If we can create jobs by servicing those chilled markets and have improved animal welfare outcomes that’s a good thing.”
Senator Hinch wanted live exports phased out gradually so the the impact on Australian producers and our overseas customers would not be felt in one dramatic hit.