The lesson from the live sheep transition mess - By Mark Harvey-Sutton

Eighteen months after the 2025 Federal Election determined the fate of Australia's live sheep export trade, it is encouraging to see that some transition grants are finally beginning to reach people in the supply chain. However, this should not be mistaken for an endorsement of the Federal Government's woefully inadequate transition package.

After an endless procession of consultants, advisers and industry organisations have received their thirty pieces of silver, it is pleasing that some money is finally reaching the people who actually need it. But compensation for a government decision should never be confused with vindication of that decision.

The fundamental problem with the live sheep export ban was always that producers and supply chain participants would bear the greatest burden. Farmers, truck drivers, shearers, livestock agents and regional communities stood to lose the most from dismantling a legitimate, regulated and internationally respected trade.

Nor should we forget our international customers who have relied on Australian livestock exports as part of their food security.

Yet these are precisely the people who appear to have been overlooked throughout much of the transition process.

While a select few were invited to discuss the future of the WA sheep industry, its immediate challenges continued to mount. The WA flock has declined, while some chilled and frozen sheepmeat markets have experienced downturns.

It is a timely reminder of why market diversity matters and why maintaining multiple pathways to customers, including live export, reduces risk for producers.

There is, however, a broader lesson in all of this.

The live sheep export ban has exposed an uncomfortable truth about agricultural advocacy: accommodating poor policy does not protect an industry from its consequences.

Most agricultural representative bodies opposed the ban because they understood what was at stake for producers, regional communities and the broader supply chain. Others chose a different path, seeking to work within a decision they considered inevitable.

Whether motivated by a desire to maintain government relationships, a reluctance to challenge the decision or a belief that cooperation would deliver a better outcome, the result has been the same. The consequences have arrived regardless.

Constructive relationships with government are essential. Effective advocacy requires engagement, access and influence. But there is a fundamental difference between working with government to improve policy and lending legitimacy to decisions that undermine the interests of those you represent.

Industry organisations can maintain productive relationships with government while firmly opposing policies that are wrong. Indeed, that is precisely what effective representation requires.

The lesson from live sheep exports extends well beyond this debate. Agriculture will face future fights over legitimate farming practices, and the fight against the live sheep ban must teach the sector that a seat at the table is valuable only if you are prepared to use it in the interests of those you represent.

Because if maintaining the relationship always takes priority over defending the people you represent, sooner or later you have to ask who that relationship is really serving.