Click here to go back to the issue outlines list

2004/02: Should Australia cease exporting live sheep and cattle?



... and don't forget, my friends, your retirement trip includes free accommodation, medical care and food. And I assure you that you'll be delighted by the legendary lands of Arabia. Why, you may never come back!


Related issue outlines: no related issue outlines

Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).

Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis

Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2003 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.

live
sheep





Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald

Sections in this issue outline (in order):
1. What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.

What they said ...
'It is absolutely necessary to find a humane solution in order to avoid the agony of [these sheep], which will remain the disgrace of your country'
Brigitte Bardot, actor and animal rights activist:

'I do share the distress of many people about this and it worries me, but we have to have a sense of proportion'
John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia

The issue at a glance
On September 11 2003 the Sydney Daily Telegraph reported that a shipment of 57,000 Australian sheep was stranded in the Persian Gulf aboard the MV Cormo Express. The shipment had just been rejected by a second Middle Eastern port.
The sheep, which at that time had been in transit for five weeks, were supposed to have been offloaded at the port of Jeddah in Saudi Arabia almost three weeks earlier.
The Cormo Express had been turned away after a Saudi Arabian veterinary surgeon conducted an inspection of the animals. He claimed six per cent of the sheep were infected by the viral disease, scabby mouth - higher than the allowable five per cent threshold.
This prompted the Australian Government to suspend temporarily the live animal trade to Saudi Arabia, worth $195 million in the 2002-03 financial year.
The plight of the animals, which are currently enduring more than 40C temperatures, has led to renewed calls for Australia to end permanently its livestock export trade.

Background
*A brief history of the Australian livestock export industry
(Meat & Livestock Australia Limited (MLA) is a producer-owned company that promotes the Australian red meat industry. Much of the following information is taken, in slightly edited form, from the MLA Internet site.)
Australia is the largest meat and livestock exporter in the world. The Australian meat and livestock industry regularly exports to over 100 countries around the globe.
The majority of meat is exported as either fresh or frozen, with a smaller proportion exported in processed form.
Livestock export is the transportation of live sheep and cattle to overseas ports. Upon arrival, animals are either slaughtered according to local custom, are used to stock local feedlots, or, on a much smaller scale, used as breeding stock.
The vast majority of livestock is destined for ports in South East Asia, North Africa and the Middle East.
Although more sheep than cattle are exported, the greater value per head of cattle has seen this sector of the industry become more financially important. In 1998, a combined total of $400 million was returned to the economy from live sheep and cattle exports.
The livestock export trade exists because of the religious and culinary customs in importing countries. Muslim (Halal) and Jewish (Kosher) traditions both have their own slaughtering methods.
Islamic custom requires that food animals are processed in a specific way according to the Halal tradition. Although abattoirs in Australia are licensed to undertake Halal slaughter, and this meat can be and is exported (87,000 tonnes in 1995/96), many consumers prefer that their sheep and cattle are processed locally. They have a strong, traditional preference for eating freshly killed, or 'wet' meat.
As a result, an extensive cold-chain infrastructure has not developed in these markets. This means that the lack of local refrigeration facilities would make it very difficult for these countries to import frozen carcasses, even if they wished to do so.
The main destinations for Australian livestock are those areas of predominantly Muslim populations of the Middle East, North Africa and South East Asia; and the Jewish State of Israel.
The sheep export industry to the Middle East was Australia's first major livestock export industry. Starting in the 1950s with occasional, small shipments, the trade picked up dramatically in the 1970s. It was the increased disposable income, due to high oil prices, that allowed the Middle East trade to flourish. At the same time, shipping technologies had developed to cater for the mass exportation of livestock.
Exports increased from 990,000 sheep annually in the early 1970s to 5.6 million in 1979/80. The overwhelming destination for live sheep remains the Middle East, accounting for 99 per cent of sheep exports; Jordan, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are the major markets.
The number of exported live cattle grew markedly in the 1990s. South East Asia is the dominant market for beef cattle. An economic boom helped trigger development of this trade in much the same way as the sheep trade to the Middle East. The so-called 'Asian Economic Miracle' of the late 1980s and early 1990s placed more money in the hands of a growing South East Asian population who were developing western food preferences.
Although some cattle destined for South East Asia are for slaughter, most are to stock local feedlots.
Despite its growth, Australia's live export industry, has encountered significant difficulties. In 1989 the Saudis rejected five Australian shipments in two weeks over claims of unacceptable levels of infections. It was more than a decade before the trade resumed under a new code which requires sheep to be vaccinated twice against scabby mouth disease before departure.
One of Australia's worst recent livestock disasters was in 1996 when 67,488 sheep died in a fire on board the ship Uniceb on its way to the Middle East. The most recent major live export livestock losses occurred in July 2002 when 800 cattle died because of excessive heat on the Becrux.
In response to the cattle losses aboard the Becrux and a spate of other incidents, the Government formed an expert committee to improve animal welfare.

* What has happened to the live sheep shipment aboard the MV Cormo Express
(Much of the following information is taken in slightly edited form from the Internet site of the Minister for Agriculture. )
A consignment of more than 57,000 sheep purchased by a Saudi Arabian livestock importer, the Hmood Alali Alkhalaf Trading and Transportation company, left Fremantle on 6 August, 2003, aboard a Dutch vessel, the MV Cormo Express.. The consignment arrived in Jeddah on 21 August.
The shipment was inspected by a Saudi Ministry of Agriculture veterinarian who claimed that six per cent of the sheep had a condition - similar to cold sores in humans - called scabby mouth. This is not a condition that can be passed on to humans through consumption of meat. The sheep were vaccinated twice against scabby mouth before leaving Australia and the Australian veterinary surgeon on board the vessel estimated the number of cases of scabby mouth to be 0.35 per cent, well below the 5 per cent accepted level in the specifications for the trade.
When it became clear Saudi authorities would not accept the sheep, the Australian Government cooperated with the Saudi owner of the consignment to find an alternative port at which the sheep could be unloaded.
Australia was hindered by the fact that the sheep were owned by a citizen of another country and were aboard a foreign vessel thousands of kilometres outside Australian waters.
On Wednesday, 24 September 2003, the Saudi importer agreed to have the Australian Government purchase the sheep on behalf of the Australian livestock industry for $4.5 million.
When Australia purchased the consignment it believed that British field commanders in southern Iraq would accept the sheep as food aid. The British subsequently refused the shipment because they were concerned that managing the unloading, slaughter and distribution of meat would divert their resources away from security and military roles.
On September 30 it was announced that the 50,000 sheep stranded in the Persian Gulf would be shipped back to Australia within days unless the Federal Government could negotiate a last-minute deal with British authorities in Iraq.
Meat and animal exporters have raised quarantine concerns about the plan, which comes after failed negotiations with at least 10 countries in the Middle East, Europe, Asia and South America, all of which have refused to take the sheep.
Afghanistan is the only country to offer to take the sheep, but that would involve transporting them 1000 kilometres through Iran, which has not given permission.
It was decided not to slaughter the sheep at sea as this would require significant extra skilled personnel and supplies and would take several weeks to complete. It would be very difficult to undertake such a large-scale slaughter safely and humanely.
It is now estimated that some 6000 sheep have died since the MV Cormo Express left Fremantle.

Internet information
A full list of the 2003 media releases issued by Warren Truss, the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry can be found at http://www.affa.gov.au/ministers/truss/releases/home_wt_releases.html
As of October 1, 2003, this included eight reports on the plight of the animals aboard the Cormo Express.

On September 25, 2003, the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, gave an interview to Neil Mitchell of Radio 3AW. One of the topics dealt with in this interview was the Government's attitude to livestock exports in the light of the rejection of the animals aboard the MV Cormo Express.
A full transcript of this interview can be found at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview494.html

The index to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's Live Animal Export Trade information can be found at http://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=CEE74AA3-35E4-415C-A472807DF7C63DF2
This is an extremely valuable source of information, though it does have a pro industry bias.

Long, though deserving of careful reading, are two reports produced by the Independent Reference Group (one in 2000, another in 2002) each in response to disasters within the industry.
These can be clicked to from http://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=3C9BD081-D5D0-42D4-AEA5ED21D1335867
The IRG was chaired by Dr Gardner Murray, Australia's Chief Veterinary Officer. The other members of the Group are Professor Ivan Caple, Chairman of the National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare (NCCAW), Dr Hugh Wirth, President of RSPCA Australia and Mr Malcolm Foster, the former Chairman of the Red Meat Advisory Council.

The Australian Livestock Export Corporation Ltd (LiveCorp) was established in 1998 as part of a restructuring of institutional arrangements in the Australian meat and livestock industry.
Livecorp is owned, funded and controlled by livestock exporters with the principal function of managing the direction and delivery of industry funded programs and services. Additionally, Livecorp is intended to ensure that the self-regulation policies of the live export industry are implemented.
Livecorp is funded by voluntary contributions from members based on numbers exported.
LiveCorp's home page can be found at http://www.livecorp.com.au/default.asp
A history of the livestock export trade from an industry perspective can be found at http://www.livecorp.com.au/Structure_Trade.asp
A fact sheet outlining the care taken of cattle exported live can be found at http://www.livecorp.com.au/pdf/Live_cattle_facts_sheet.pdf
An overview of the regulations governing live export can be found at http://www.livecorp.com.au/Regulation_Overview.asp

Meat & Livestock Australia Limited (MLA) is a producer-owned company that promotes the Australian red meat industry.
They have a section of their site given over to Livestock Marketing. Scroll down and you will find a section headed 'Exporting to the World'. This gives a detailed history of the development of the live export industry, again from the perspective of the industry itself.
This can be found at http://www.mla.com.au/content.cfm?sid=104

inFARMation is a free Internet site for the rural community that has been operating since 1996. A subsection of the site is given over to livestock news. A full index of livestock news reports, currently including many reports on the situation provoked by the rejection of the animals aboard the MV Cormo Express, can be found at http://www.infarmation.com.au/news/livestock/03/09/default.asp

The Australian animal welfare group, Animals Australia, has given over a significant amount of its Internet site to discussion of Australia's livestock export trade. The organisation is very strongly opposed to the practice.
The index page for this site can be found at http://www.animalsaustralia.org/
The site gives distressingly detailed accounts of slaughtering practices in Israel and a number of Muslim countries. These can be found at http://www.animalsaustralia.org/
The site also has a very useful section in which it outlines and then attempts to counter each of LiveCorp's arguments in favour of the live export trade.
This debate can be found at http://www.animalsaustralia.org/action/livexportexplodingmyths.htm

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) has been opposed to live animal exports for some twenty years.
An index of the society's recent media releases can be found at http://www.rspca.org.au/news_info/release0.asp
As of September 22, 2003, fifteen of these releases had dealt with the live animal export trade.

Arguments in favour of livestock exports
1. Live sheep and cattle exports are economically important to Australian farmers
Live sheep, cattle and goat exports are a major part of Australian farmers' incomes.
They account for an estimated average of 20 per cent of the income earned by livestock producers in Victoria and other eastern states, according to the Victorian Farmers' Federation livestock division president, Simon Ramsay.
For Victorian farmers, the live trade also keeps up prices in the local market. Mr Ramsay has claimed 'Because of the demand for live sheep, the local price is being propped up. Without the live trade, the local price would drop 20 to 30 per cent.'
In other states the dependence on livestock exports is even greater. In Western Australia, the Northern Territory and far western Queensland, there are producers who rely on the live export trade for most of their income.
It has been claimed that during the recent drought the ability to sell stock for export probably saved many Australian farmers from financial disaster. It has further been claimed that the live market is important for many livestock producers, already facing reduced demand in some key markets overseas due to consumers concerns over recent disease incidents.

2. Live sheep and cattle exports make an important contribution to the Australian economy
More than six million sheep and nearly a million cattle are exported from Australia each year. This live export trade is an important element of Australia's sheep and cattle industries.
Domestic red meat consumption is worth $3.5 billion to the Australian industry and the export of carcasses earns $4.4 billion. Live exports earn $1 billion per year. Thus, live exports account for more than a ninth of the livestock sold in Australia each year. They also represent four percent of total farm exports.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has claimed that around 9,000 jobs in rural and regional Australia are dependent on the live export trade.
The Department has also claimed that a recent study estimated that for every job generated in the live export chain, another 1.6 jobs are created. The industry provides jobs for ancillary suppliers and services such as livestock agents, transport operators, exporters, stevedores and shipping companies, feedlot operators, fodder and chemical suppliers, veterinarians, saleyards, stockmen, port authorities, helicopter mustering services, and the finance and insurance sectors

3. There are regulations governing how the animals are treated
The export of live animals from Australia for slaughter overseas is governed by regulations designed to guarantee the welfare of the animals being transported. If the death rate on board a transit vessel carrying sheep is above two percent a formal investigation is automatically conducted. If the death rate among cattle is more than one percent then an investigation will be conducted.
Each ship transporting live animals is required to have a vet on board. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has explained that the vet has five roles: to check the animals' health daily, draft the animals into pens, put down animals that aren't coping, conduct post-mortems and ensure crew are tending to animals.
There are also restrictions on the export of cattle during the northern hemisphere summer months. This is intended to reduce the likelihood of animals suffering heat stress.
In May 2003 new criteria were introduced for the registration of export premises in Australia. These criteria include suitable facilities for the preparation of livestock and enhanced management plans.
At different points there are differing degrees of responsibility and accountability. The sheep industry, for example, is primarily accountable for the selection of animals to be exported. The animals selected must be of a suitable age, size, wool length and heat tolerance to enable them to be successfully transported.
The Government is primarily responsible for negotiating testing protocols that do not require an excessive number of yardings and manipulations which increase stress, and yarding-associated injuries and diseases.

4. Australia has promoted the welfare of animals in the live export trade overseas
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (AFFA) has argued that Australian involvement in the live export trade has resulted in a significant reduction in the distress suffered by animals sold in this manner.
The AFFA claims, 'There have been significant improvements in animal welfare in regards to transportation, handling and slaughter practices in overseas markets.
Ultimately these issues are the responsibility of the country importing the livestock, but the Federal Government and industry are working with countries cooperatively to address welfare concerns and to upgrade their infrastructure for disembarking animals and slaughter facilities.
If Australia ceased supplying these markets, livestock would be sourced from other suppliers where animal welfare is accorded a much lower priority than is the case here.
Our involvement in this trade is influencing change and animal welfare outcomes as a result have improved. Australia will continue to offer support, but we must be sensitive to the cultural differences of our trading partners. We can't seek to impose our values on others.'
The Australian Government has outlined in detail the actions it has taken to promote the welfare of animals exported live. These include convening an Independent Reference Group (IRG) chaired by the Commonwealth Chief Veterinary Officer to recommend improvements.
It has cancelled the export licence of companies that do not meet strict animal welfare requirements, is working through the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) to raise international standards, and has had direct contact with relevant veterinary authorities in overseas markets.
The Australian Government announced on 18 July (2003) a $150,000 joint project with industry to improve animal handling in the Middle East and North Africa.

5. The harm suffered by animals has been exaggerated
It has been claimed that the distress of the sheep aboard the Cormo Express has been exaggerated.
Kevin Shiell, the chief executive officer of LiveCorp has claimed in a letter published in The Age on September 22, 2003, 'Your readers should know there is absolutely nothing wrong with these young, strong Australian sheep. In fact, feedback from the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service-approved vet on board is that they are in excellent condition and have actually gained body weight since leaving Australia.'
It has also been argued that very few live exports encounter problems. This point has been made by Mike Norton, a spokesperson for the Western Australia Farmers Federation. Mr Norton has noted, 'This is one ship out of the 430 ships that have left Australia [in 2003]. We didn't hear anything about the other 429 and that's where the whole thing has been distorted.'
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has claimed that mortality figures for live sheep and cattle exports have trended down over the past 10 years.
In 2002, the overall cattle mortality rate was 0.23 per cent and 1.24 percent for sheep. These figures are well below the level that triggers automatic investigations. In 2002, of the total 492 livestock export voyages, only 24 (4.9 per cent) exceeded the reportable mortality level.
In 35 voyages between 1 January and 30 June 2003, more than 2.3 million sheep were reported as successfully transported to the Middle East and North Africa, with no repeat of the unacceptable mortality experienced during the same period in 2002.
It has also been claimed that slaughtering procedures in importing countries are not unduly distressing for the animals. Yasser Soliman, the president of the Islamic Council of Victoria, has said, 'It [slaughtering] should be quick and done with a very sharp knife. It should be as painless as possible.'

6. Protestors are putting the welfare of exported animals at risk
Kevin Shiell, the chief executive officer of LiveCorp has claimed in a letter published in The Age on September 22, 2003, 'Unfortunately, negative media and irresponsible speculation
is leading the international market to think that there is something wrong with our sheep. This is absolutely counterproductive and seriously hindering our efforts in securing the best possible welfare outcome for these animals.'
According to this line of argument, the more protests and media attention is generated around the plight of the animals aboard the Cormo Express, the less likely it is that any country in the Middle East or elsewhere will be prepared to accept them.
It has further been argued that local protests against the live export trade may well jaundice importing nations and make them more likely to reject shipments on arrival. Protests may, therefore, increase the likelihood that other shiploads of sheep and cattle will be refused in the way those aboard the Cormo Express have been and suffer a similarly extended period at sea.

7. Some concerns about the wellbeing of live exports are disproportionate
There are those who claim that protestors championing the 'rights' and welfare of animals exported live are being excessive.
According to this line of argument domestic livestock are breed for human consumption and use. They are primarily a commodity and though they should be handled as humanely as the situation allows, if there is an unexpected difficulty which prevents their unloading, this, though unfortunate, is not a reason to call the whole trade into question.
This view has been put forcefully by New South Wales State Labor MP, Peter Black. Mr Black has stated, 'People have a poetic view about animals - particularly sheep. They are for wearing or eating. Full stop.'
A similar view was put somewhat less bluntly by the Australian Prime Minister, Mr John Howard. In a radio interview with 3AW's Neil Mitchell, conducted on September 25, 2003, Mr Howard stated, 'Well we have to be ... realistic ... slaughtering is slaughtering and we all are very heavy meat consumers, or most of us, and I think we have to avoid suggestions of hypocrisy ...
It is a valuable trade for this country and whilst we should always endeavour to have the most humane conditions, we, after all, do breed animals for consumption. We shouldn't, I repeat we should not, only have a sense of proportion but also avoid hypocrisy.'

Arguments opposing livestock exports
1. Livestock exports subject animals to unacceptable distress
The animal welfare group, Animals Australia, has claimed 'The majority of deaths recorded in the live sheep trade occur during the sea voyage. Of these deaths, 47 per cent are by starvation ...despite the feedlotting period prior to loading ...older sheep and those animals coming from green pastures are less likely to switch successfully to the pellet diet and so many starve. The rest of the deaths are due to salmonellosis - mostly aggravated by inadequate feed intake (12.2 per cent).'
Animals Australia has also claimed, 'After the sheep ship has arrived at its destination, and is stationary with air flow at a minimum, high temperatures and humidity take their toll, particularly where unloading occurs at several ports, or where inadequate facilities slow the unloading rate.'
Similar points have been made by Cem Akin of 'People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals'. Mr Akin has claimed, 'During transport to other continents ... studies have shown that sheep routinely die from starvation, dehydration, suffocation caused by overcrowding during feeding times, and untreated illnesses, including pneumonia.'
Where shipments are delayed, often because they have been rejected on arrival by the nation to which they were to be sold, the distress of the animals is significantly increased. In the case of the sheep being transported on the Cormo Express, animals are reported to have endured temperatures of over 40C. Some 6000 are now reported to have died. This is well over seven percent of the original shipment.

2. The slaughtering methods used in many importing countries are inhumane
More than six million sheep and nearly a million cattle are exported from Australia each year. About 99 per cent of them go to Muslim countries whose interpretation of religious law means the animals will be killed by having their throats cut to allow them to bleed to death. It has been claimed that this means they remain almost fully conscious for between 10 and 30 seconds, before losing consciousness and ultimately dying.
Yossi Wolson is an Israeli attorney and a committee member of an animal welfare group, 'Anonymous for Animal Rights'. He has met many shipments of Australian animals arriving in Aqaba through Jordan and into Israel. He has documented the conditions animals endure during transport and slaughter. The following is Mr Wolson's account of the slaughter of cattle in an Israeli abattoir .
'The animal must be fully conscious when the throat is cut. The process is long.
The animal is pulled into a restraining box where its legs are shackled. Then, pulled by the shackles, it is thrown on its back and its legs and body are pulled upwards. The animal's screams as it lies suspended by the legs on its back give some idea of its absolute fear. This shackling process can take many minutes.
The abattoir's workers arrange the screaming animal for the slaughter man - pouring water on the neck and into the mouth. They straighten the shackles, restraining the head. The sharp cut that comes then is not the end of it. The animal continues to struggle and gasp for air for some time while the blood is pouring and the body is dragged upwards and moved to be processed.'
In Australia a number of animal welfare groups have protested against the methods used to slaughter animals shipped live. The RSPCA's national president, Hugh Wirth, has noted that in Australia an animal's brain is stunned before it is killed. This does not happen in the Middle East.
Mr Wirth has said, 'We certainly have been pointing out to the federal Government in the last two years that the killing of cattle and sheep, in the Middle East in particular, is not humane ...'

3. The economic importance of live exports has been exaggerated
In 1981 John Auty was a veterinary surgeon working for what was then known as the Federal Department of Primary Industry. This was at the beginning of the live sheep export trade and he had the title of assistant director of the Bureau of Animal Health.
Mr Auty has watched the development of live export trade closely and is of the belief that its economic importance to farmers has been exaggerated. Mr Auty claims, 'Most of the sheep exported are fine wool merinos. With the wool shortage and prices high, if farmers kept them an extra year or two and then sold them to the local abattoirs, they would more than make up the price difference with the wool.'
It has also been claimed that if the animals were slaughtered in Australia, this would have significant advantages for the Australian economy. This point has been made by Mr Tom Hannan, federal secretary of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union in a letter published in The Age on October 1, 2003. Mr Hannan argues, 'Since the 1970s the meatworkers' union has opposed the live export trade on the basis of its destruction of Australian jobs... and the decimation of the meat processing industry. Since that time, at least 25 export meatworks have closed in Australia, and more are still closing at the present time.
It is estimated that the 6.6 million sheep exported last year, mostly to the Middle East, equates to 2500 full-time jobs had these sheep been processed in Australia. If one such job sustains seven jobs in the wider regional community, that means some 17,000 jobs are lost due to this trade.
Processing plants are these days located in regional areas and the loss of jobs in these areas, some where the processing plant is the major or the only employer in the town, is catastrophic for both workers and the community. At Altona in Victoria, around 800 jobs were lost when that plant closed two years ago, and the situation is the same in the other states.'

4. The animals should be slaughtered within Australia
It has been argued that animals could be slaughtered in a manner that is both humane and in accord with Middle Eastern cultural requirements. Australian Muslims in conjunction with the RSPCA and the meat industry have examined the Koran and found it acceptable for the animals to first be stunned before the ritual slaughter takes place. That is what currently happens in the production of helal meat meant for both export and domestic consumption.
It has further been claimed that this humane, yet culturally acceptable, slaughter could take place within Australia. This claim has been made by Mr Tom Hannan, federal secretary of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union in a letter published in The Age on October 1, 2003.
Mr Hannan claims, 'The Australian meat processing industry is able to slaughter animals to the requirements of some 80 countries around the world, and has done so for many years. The slaughter procedures in Australia are carried out, by regulation, in the most humane way possible. Australian meat workers - including halal slaughterers - are fully trained to carry out their tasks and to ensure humane handling of animals from the arrival at the works right through the procedure.
All meat processors exporting to the Middle East employ halal accredited slaughterers who operate to the Islamic religious requirements.'

5. The industry cannot be sufficiently regulated to remove cruelty
It has been argued that the intrinsic nature of the trade, the factors outside regulatory control and the effect of the profit motive mean that the live export of animals can never be genuinely humane.
The RSPCA's national president, Dr Hugh Wirth, has claimed, 'There are stages of export from the time the animals are collected on the farm, the transport from the farm to an assembly feed lot near the vessels, then there is the time they spend on the vessel, and that includes the conditions within. They are then exposed to being unloaded and transported in the country of receipt and, finally, there is the method of slaughter. Now what the RSPCA is saying is that there are systemic failures in all of those stages which leads to cruelty.'
The RSPCA has threatened to end all cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture over the issue. Dr With has said, 'Up to date we have said that the trade should be banned across the board but we would be willing to work with government to try and get incremental improvement. Now we've got to ask whether that has been all worthwhile.'
John Auty (a veterinary surgeon who worked for what was then known as the Federal Department of Primary Industry at the beginning of the live sheep export trade) has claimed, 'The industry gets into trouble because it does stupid things. They are always trying to cut corners; it is the nature of the business. For example, they say they vaccinate all the sheep they send for export. I have heard claims that some operators vaccinated 10,000 sheep a day. One extreme case I heard was that 60,000 sheep were vaccinated in one day.
Operating at that speed they are going to miss some. Is it any wonder that ship loads are turning up and being rejected because they are diseased?'
It has further been claimed that the conflict between the profit motive and the welfare of the animals is shown in the employment of veterinary surgeons who are paid by the exporting companies. Dr Wirth has claimed, 'They might have vets on ships, but the vets are the employees of the companies and they have a clear conflict of interest.'

6. The live export industry has a problematic history
The animal welfare group, Animals Australia, has claimed that between 1989 and 1991, 11 live sheep shipments were rejected by Saudi Arabia. Finally, in January 1991, the then Minister for Primary Industries, John Kerin halted the trade. Over 600,000 sheep on those ships that were turned away suffered much-extended journeys, the longest of which was four months on the water.
Official statistics are available for only 9 of the 11 ships rejected over this time. These indicate that of 602,035 sheep loaded, 37,179 sheep died in transit. This represents a 6.17 percent morality rate for the animals exported. This is more than three times the now acceptable mortality rates for the trade.
It has been claimed that even after several reviews and attempted reforms of the live export industry conditions for the animals remain unacceptable for a variety of reasons. This point has been made by animal rights advocate Professor Peter Singer. Professor Singer has claimed, 'Every year or two, there is another major scandal ... The federal minister says that he will implement reforms, but then ... the same thing, or something worse, happens again.'
An analysis written by Michelle Grattan and published in The Age on September 24, 2003, noted that during seven voyages conducted in 2002 the morality rates were 8.5 percent, 44 percent, 2 percent, 11 percent, 3 percent, 7 percent, 2 percent and 4 percent.

7. Australia has no control over whether shipped animals will be accepted by importing nations
The current protocols allow that an importing nation can reject either cattle or sheep if the animals forming the shipment have an infection rate of above five percent.
However, Australia has no control over the criteria importing nations use when determining if an animal is infected. In the current crisis surrounding the animals aboard the Cormo Express, a Saudi veterinarian claimed that 6 percent of the animals had scabby mouth disease. The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service has disputed this claim. It has said that an approved Australian veterinary surgeon had found only 0.35 percent of the shipment was infected.
The federal Trade Minister, Mark Vaile, has said, '... it is purely an issue of sanitary ... protocols and the way those inspections are undertaken and the criteria adhered to.'
There have been some suggestions that the rejection of the animals on health grounds is a ruse and that Saudi Arabia had already negotiated to buy sheep from another source before rejecting the Australian shipment.
Disputes of this nature have occurred before and Australia has had no success in affecting the selection criteria applied by Middle Eastern veterinary surgeons. Between 1989 and 1991, 11 live sheep ships were rejected by Saudi Arabia. During these 18 months, many attempts were made by the live export industry and the Australian Government to agree on adequate veterinary protocol with Saudi Arabia to overcome the rejections. These attempts failed.

Further implications
The live export trade will not be halted. The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, appears to have put the matter beyond any doubt. 'I believe they [live exports] should continue' he has stated. 'It's a valuable trade for this country and whilst we should always endeavour to have the most humane conditions, we after all do breed animals for consumption.'
The Prime Minister further commented to a radio talkback caller to ABC Radio Brisbane, on September 19, 2003,'You do have to have some regard to the livelihood of the people who are involved in the trade and it is a valuable trade.'
Jobs do not always win out over other concerns, but when the jobs that stand to be lost and the livelihoods that stand to be threatened are in rural electorates then the Government is unlikely to do anything that would put them at jeopardy.
It is likely, however, that there will be another round of reforms. On September 30, 2003, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry renewed his assurance that there would be a careful investigation into the circumstances surrounding this unfortunate occurrence. The Minister stated, 'I have already indicated that there will be a full investigation into the circumstances surrounding this incident as soon as possible and the results of the investigation will be made public.'
Michelle Grattan, in an article published in The Age on September 27, 2003, stated, 'Obviously licences need to be tighter, so that greater responsibility is on the buyer to have livestock landed. And there should be government-to-government agreements to ensure some independent arbitration when the health status of animals is disputed.'
It would be very helpful to know from a genuinely independent source, if the sheep rejected by the Saudi veterinary surgeon had a 6 percent or a 0.35 percent infection rate with scabby mouth. Neither the Saudi vet nor the company employed vet aboard the Cormo Express can be easily accepted as independent.
It would also be very interesting to know if Australian vaccination practices are a sloppy as some critics have claimed and thus if an infection rate of 6 percent is indeed possible.
None of this, however, addresses the fundamental issue. Our Government is prepared to accept slaughter practices conducted in the Middle East that would be illegal in Australia. It is also prepared to accept transport conditions that even with stringent regulation can readily go awry and lead to large numbers of dead and severely distressed animals.
There can be little doubt that in the final analysis export dollars and Australian jobs take precedence over animal welfare. As the Prime Minister has shrewdly implied if animal welfare were a determining priority most Australians would not be such 'very heavy meat consumers'.
However it is difficult not to sympathise with the view put by Tony O'Brien in a letter published in The Age on Oct 1, 2003. Mr O'Brien observes, 'The ongoing debate over live sheep exports has raised the issue of whether animals have rights. This is a difficult philosophical and moral question. What is much less debatable is the proposition that [cultural differences aside] people who treat animals decently are usually far better human beings than those who don't.'

Sources
Herald-Sun, September 15, page 2, news item, `Ship's sheep to be given away'
Herald-Sun, September 24, page 4, news item by L McIlveen, `Iraq deal hope for ship sheep'.
Herald-Sun, September 25, page 5, news item by Gardiner and McIlveen, `Suspect freighter blocked'.
Herald-Sun, September 16, page 14, news item by A Rehn, `PM should save sheep'.
Herald-Sun, September 19, page 24, news item by Rehn and Bain, `Sheep ship docks'.
Herald-Sun, September 18, page 28, news item by A Rehn, `Plea to donate or kill sheep'.
Herald-Sun, September 22, page 10, news item by L McIlveen, `Sheep ship running out of fodder'.
Herald-Sun, September 22, page 20, editorial, `Sheep of shame'.
Herald-Sun, September 15, page 2, news item, `Ship's sheep to be given away'

The Age, September 25, page 14, editorial, `Getting sheep ships in shape'.
The Age, September 24, page 13, comment by M Grattan, `Sheep onboard a national shame'.
The Age, September 22, page 5, news item by A Crabb, `"Mystery" sheep ship found off Dubai'.
The Age, September 25, page 2, background information on Islamic Halal butchery of sheep (with boxed information on live sheep trade) by C Nader, `Ritual slaughter that dates back to biblical days'.
The Age, September 25, page 1, news item by A Crabb et al, `Live animal trade sails into rough waters'.
The Age, 22/9/03 page 12 letter from Kevin Shiell, 'Sheep at sea are in good nick'
The Age, 24/9/03 page 12 letter from Inta Broze, 'These sheep have suffered enough'
The Age, 24/9/03 page 12 letter from Alan Ross, 'A rotten business'

The Australian, September 15, page 8, cartoon.
The Australian, 15/9/03 page 8, three letters under the heading, 'Global horror at ship of sheep'