Right: Australian cattle exported to Qatar to provide the nucleus of a dairy herd, were found by a veterinary technician to have been neglected in her absence and were dying of heatstroke, starvation and thirst.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of banning live animal exports
1. Australian exporters cannot be sure humane slaughtering practices will be followed in importing countries
It has been argued that however humane the protocols developed by Meat and Livestock Australia for the export and slaughter of Australian livestock, Australia's effective control of what happens to these animals in importing countries is limited. There have been other recent examples of Australian livestock being severely mishandled on their arrival in importing countries.
On September 6, 2012 the Agriculture Department was informed that Australian cattle sent to a farm in Qatar were not provided with adequate food, water or shelter. Vet technician Deb Clarke has stated, 'No one had checked the air-conditioning in the calf unit - and it was over 50 degrees heat - and there were dead and dying animals everywhere, and I was just absolutely heartbroken.
Animals were too weak to even stand; they were lying in hot sand. They were frying, literally cooking, and at temperatures of 50-plus degrees they were frying from the inside out. It was shocking.'
It has been noted that even PK Livestock's approved modern abattoir, in Karachi, built to Australian specifications, slaughters animals in ways that many Australians would find distressing. (This was the abattoir the 21,000 sheep which were recently clubbed and stabbed to death were originally intended to go to.)
In an article published in The Australian on November 3, 2012, it was stated, 'While the place is scrupulously clean, a slaughterer still slits the sheeps' throats with a sharp knife before the still-writhing animals are hung by their ankles to be hosed down and drained of blood.
There is no humane stunning. It looks a painful death.'
2. Many animals die in transit
Critics of life animal export note that not only are animals subjected to inhumane slaughter practices. They also argue that the shipping itself often results in unacceptable slaughter and high death rates for the animals.
An article published in The Canberra Times on November 11, 2012, noted that dozens of ships have left Australia in recent years with animals that would suffer unacceptably high rates of traumatic death on board.
Citing government figures, the article notes that 703 sheep died in a consignment from Portland to Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain in June 2011; 1407 sheep died going from Fremantle to Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates in August 2010; 903 sheep died going from Portland to Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates in June 2010; 295 cattle died going from Fremantle to Egypt in February 2010; and 756 sheep died going from Fremantle to Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates in the same time frame.
Statistics suggest that since the improvements instituted last year by Australian government agencies and exporters, the number of onboard livestock deaths has dropped; however, critics note there are still disturbing questions to be answered.
In an article published in The Australian on November 3, 2012, two days before the recent Four Corners report on the same sheep shipment to Pakistan, some disturbing questions were raised. It appears that when the initial destination, Bahrain, refused to take the 21,000 sheep, Australian authorities fast-tracked their own approval procedures to allow the sheep to be sent to Karachi, Pakistan. Critics note that the live transport of sheep and cattle is always problematic and that the scope for accident and mishandling remains great. Sheep and cattle onboard transit ships have to be unloaded if they are to survive. If something occurs to disturb this process, either they will die while still in transit, or they will be deposited at destinations that are not suitable.
3. A system of regulation that allows exporters to detect animal abuse is not enough
It has been claimed that what the revised Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) offers is an opportunity to detect when abuses have occurred rather than to prevent them. Critics claim this is insufficient.
West Australian Labor MP, Melissa Parke, has stated, 'Whether it is breeder cattle in Qatar or cattle sent for slaughter in Indonesia or sheep sent to Kuwait or Pakistan, we've seen profit put before animal welfare and despite all assurances to the contrary, the live export trade continues to stagger from one atrocity to the next. We can't continue to allow this to go on.'
A direct criticism of the operation of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System has been made by Labor MP Kelvin Thompson. Mr Thompson has stated, 'If the system of regulation works, it works in the sense that an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff works, when I believe what is needed is some fencing at the top.
The most secure fencing would be what you might call the New Zealand fence where animals are killed in New Zealand and the meat products exported, but there are other possible types of fencing, such as a requirement for stunning or the introduction of an independent office of animal welfare.'
The recent brutal slaughter of 21,000 Australian sheep has been offered as demonstrating the complete inadequacy of the current regulatory system
When the sheep were off-loaded, the company Wellard issued a media statement on September 6, 2012, stating, 'The sheep have been discharged into a state of the art, modern, Australian-designed supply chain, which is ESCAS compliant and meets World Animal Health Organisation standards.'
The company also said it would provide oversight, together with Australian Government accredited vets. They claimed, 'Importantly, the livestock were discharged into a supply chain which was as good, if not better, than the market we had originally intended to supply to.' The absolute failure of these assurances has been seen by many as demonstrating the inadequacy of the regulatory system.
Critics maintain that the current system is an inadequate compromise designed to allow the live export trade to continue and not putting sufficient pressure on importers to amend their practices.
4. The economic impacts of ending livestock exports are not as great as has been claimed
It has been claimed that the economic consequences of ending livestock exports have been exaggerated.
In an opinion piece published in The Canberra Times on November 11, 20012, it was noted that 'At the height of the cattle export crisis in June last year the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences concluded that the economy-wide impact of suspending the live trade to Indonesia was likely to be negligible, but the regional impact in northern Australia would be more significant.'
According to the ABS, live cattle exports were worth $203 million in the first six months of this year and $464 million for the whole of the previous year. The live sheep trade was worth $169 million in the first six months of this year and $325 million in the previous year. These figures have been used to suggest that in the context of the Australian economy as a whole, the profits to be derived from livestock exports are small.
It has also been noted that from an economic point of view live animal exports may actually be harming Australian agriculture.
This point has been made by Clive Phillips in an opinion piece published in The Conversation on October 8, 2012. Dr Phillips believes the inevitable uncertainty surrounding live exports is to the detriment of the industry. Dr Phillips argues, 'Temporary bans on live cattle and sheep export have undermined confidence in the industry, driving property prices down and diminishing banks' willingness to lend for long-term improvement. If the industry wants to avoid death by a thousand cuts, it must act now to phase out live export.
A phasing out of export of livestock for meat over the next ten years or so may be a necessity for a viable industry in the long term. It would require careful preparation and arrangements for compensation for those adversely affected.'
Additionally it has been claimed that there are many importing nations which would happily receive frozen carcasses from Australia. Those who put this argument maintain that the issue is at least as much a problem with a lack of processing facilities in northern Australia. They note it is not merely that many countries either would not accept or are not prepared to transport frozen carcasses shipped from Australia. Rather, it is claimed, northern Australia does not have sufficient local facilities to slaughter and freeze sheep and cattle for export.
A recent study by economic consultancy ACIL Tasman, commissioned by the World Society for the Protection of Animals, claims that profits for some northern cattle producers could double if large-scale processing plants were established in northern Australia.
Opponents of the livestock export trade note that phasing in the replacement of this trade with domestic processing would reduce the loss of income from abolition of the live trade. Paul Malone, a member of the lobby group, Corangamite Against Live Animal Exports, has stated, 'There is no question that there would be a cost in doing this. But it is a price that must be paid.'
5. Australia's live export policy creates the problem it claims to address
It has been claimed that it is not reasonable for Australian exporters to claim that their regulatory practices are reducing animal suffering. Critics note that if Australia did not export live animals there would be no opportunity for these livestock to suffer.
This point has been made by Siobhan O'Sullivan in an opinion piece published in The Conversation on November 6, 2012. Ms O'Sullivan argues, 'While it might be true that as a result of the latest Four Corners program Australia will play a role in teaching Pakistani workers how to carry out large-scale animal slaughter more humanely (although no such agreement has been reached); and while it may also be true that as a result of Australian live exports to Indonesia Australia has been able to improve slaughter methods for Australian cattle in that country, isn't it also true that at best the only thing Australian exporters are doing is attempting to resolve problems that they generate in the first place?'
Ms Sullivan went on to argue, 'Aren't all these welfare problems a result of the very fact that Australian animals are being exported live, half way around the world? If that observation is correct then the "improving welfare in receiving countries" defence is a Catch 22. Live exports generate the welfare problems that exporters are solving via the live export trade.'
In response to the claim that if Australia did not supply this market, others would, critics note that Australia is the largest single supplier of livestock in the world. These critics maintain that were Australia to stop supplying these animals they could not be readily replaced by other nations.