THE Greens last night released a Federal election policy detailing a five-point plan intended to lead to the phasing-out of live cattle and sheep exports from Australia.
The document claims 150 meat processing plants have closed and 40,000 meatworker jobs have been lost over last 30 years, squarely aligning that trend with the rise in livestock exports.
Claiming the live trade is ‘inherently cruel’, the Greens document suggests Australia can provide a more economically robust and humane alternative to the live trade by boosting boxed meat exports, ‘creating thousands of jobs’ across regional Australia.
The Greens make no secret of the fact they are working with animal activist/liberation groups in the live export policy space.
They have floated a plan that identifies five key issues they say governments should undertake to transition away from the live trade, to support Australia’s domestic meat processing sector:
- Supporting development of new meat processing facilities in northern Australia
- Lobbying for an end to subsidies and tariffs that favour the live export trade in importing countries – and put more resources into promoting boxed meat into markets
- Working with unions and industry to attract and train indigenous & other workers to the meat processing industry
- Re-prioritising R&D investment to transition farmers and sector to domestic processing industry
- Establishing new divisions within Ag Department and Austrade to drive closure of live exports and expansion of boxed meat trade.
“Evidence shows Australia’s minimal live export welfare regulations do not work, with Australia losing any control of conditions once the animals leave our shores,” the policy document says.
“There is overwhelming public demand for humane and accountable treatment of animals and an end to this inherently cruel commercial trade. However Australian governments continue to sanction the cruelty by refusing to change woefully inadequate minimum animal welfare standards and making industries transparent and accountable.”
The Greens claim to be are the only federal parliamentary party to have a specific portfolio responsibility for animal welfare.
“We are deeply committed to improving the welfare and wellbeing of animals, and will continue working with Australia’s animal welfare and rights organisations to achieve this,” they said.
Much of The Greens’ evidence of cruelty flies in the face of generally-accepted views about on-board conditions faced by livestock in transit.
“Long sea voyages are a horrendous experience for stressed and frightened animals, with journeys lasting up to 25-35 days if stopping at various ports. Thousands of cramped animals endure ship motion with its noise and vibrations, high levels of ammonia, lying down in their own urine and faeces, high temperatures and humidity, illness, injuries, exhaustion and malnourishment or starvation when they don’t eat the pellets provided having been grazing in paddocks previously,” the policy document says.
“All these factors add to their already often stressed long journeys from farms to the port. Over 2.1 million sheep have died during the long sea voyage from Australia in the past 10 years alone,” it says.
The Greens claim the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System introduced in 2011 did not work.
“The ESCAS is supposed to make exporters legally accountable for ensuring Australian animals remain within approved supply chains. However there is no government oversight in importing countries and the scheme is self-monitoring. Blatant disregard of regulations by exporters and importers continues, causing suffering for our exported livestock,” they said.
“Between 2011 and 2015 at least 40 legal complaints about horrific treatment of animals were lodged with the Department of Agriculture with over 100 ESCAS breaches lodged in total since 2012. Despite extensive evidence of ongoing breaches and failures no export company has been prosecuted by the government.”
Job losses in processing
The Greens say the live export industry has caused the loss of thousands of jobs as abattoirs in northern Australia had been forced to close.
Previous reports from Western Australia and Queensland had indicated that the live export industry was directly responsible for seriously damaging the meat processing sector, they claimed.
“Despite this, the domestic processing industry is now the largest manufacturing workforce in Australia after the demise of the domestic auto manufacturing, with about 55,000 workers across the industry nationwide, and at least the same number again in ancillary services directly dependent on the meat processing/export sector.”
“With drought across Australian states, the Australian national cattle herd is sitting at its lowest level in 23 years and is predicted to fall even further. This is causing downward pressure on the number of cattle available to domestic processors, with the live export trade poaching those available cattle and further risking local abattoir jobs,” The Green claimed.
“However Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce recently ignored the importance of these Australian workers by announcing he would do everything in his power to grow the live export industry.”
Economic research shows domestic processing of livestock is worth more to the Australian economy per animal than live exports. For example a sheep processed in Australian abattoirs is worth 20pc more to the Australian economy than one exported live.”
The Greens have made a number of unsuccessful attempts (most recently in 2014) to introduce their Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill, which if passed, would end live exports from Australia. It has been soundly defeated each time.
They claim both Labor and the Liberal/National Party support growing the live export trade, despite the trade’s “cruelty and proven damage to Australian jobs.”
ALEC response
The Australian Live Exporters Council issued a brief response this morning:
“We acknowledge the release of the policy but remain disappointed that it has been developed in the absence of any dialogue with the Australian livestock export industry, which includes not only exporters but other stakeholders we work alongside like producers and the livestock transport sector.
It should be noted that the live trade employs over 13,000 people, many in rural and regional Australia where there are few alternative opportunities. It is also one of Australia’s top 10 agricultural exports and its significance goes now beyond just the economic returns to the nation but also to welfare improvements in 21 countries around the world.
Any policy that seeks to close down an important industry like ours should come after significant and extensive consultation with affected parties. This has not occurred, but the door remains open should the Greens wish to engage with ALEC. We would like to have the opportunity to share with them the journey that the trade is on to improve welfare, that progress is being made but that we acknowledge we still have more work to do.”
Click here to read the Greens policy document in full.
what planet are these so called experts on - typical of the greens
I take animal welfare very seriously, Mr. Hugh Winwood-Smith.
So do the Cattlemen and Cattlewomen of Australia: as do the Exporters, Veterinarians, MLA, the Government, and every other Stakeholder in this Supply-Chain.
To do, or even think otherwise is both stupid, and uneconomic in both approach and outcome.
Please consider for a moment, if you will, that there have been some very emotive imagery portrayed in past news stories; and that whilst sensational and about driving a certain agenda, are not now, nor ever were, representative of the live-ex industry when taken as a whole.
Let me assure you that the Stockmen and Stockwomen who nurse the animals, would be the first to shout-out if there were a problem on the boats transporting these cattle.
Also, the animal husbandry practices and outcomes for these animals once they arrive at their destination, are of a very high standard; even by Australian benchmarks, as many operations are run by Australians and Australian trained Stockmen.
If you want to see the big picture, either go see for yourself, and/or go speak to the employees who work in the industry: because the reason they do so is because they love working with animals and love to see them happy and content. A stressed animal upsets everyone!
The stories you read and hear about, whilst regrettable, they do not at all represent the attitude of the industry, nor the behaviour of a few operators at the very small end of the abattoir section.
The truth is, we all judge people by our own standards, and everyone else comes up short! However, judge we will, regardless.
But please do it from a position of knowledge and respect; rather than ignorance.
It is always better to ask the right questions of the right people; rather than listening to self-interested, ignorant bigots, who are also driving an agenda for other self-interested parties, and the wrong policy direction for the profitability of the northern pastoral industry, and the very hard working people whose skill and enterprise has raised the living standards and standing of the cattle industry in northern Australia.
Thank you for listening, and I hope for more rational debate on this matter in the future.
Live-ex of cattle from Australia is both humane, and an economic outcome!
Some very cool headed and rational comments above, which is nice to see. I am one of these city slickers who is not struggling for money (though technically my income is extremely low, I'm just not a rabid consumer of material possessions), so I will provide an alternative perspective.
What concerns me is that all these comments are about economics, and very little of it is about welfare. People are opposed to live export because of the poor welfare outcomes for the animals, and when all you respond with is economic arguments, you simply sound as if welfare doesn't matter to you. Continuing to send animals into those abattoirs in Indonesia was inexcusable. Was the complete ban an over-reaction? Perhaps. Are cattle still experiencing poor outcomes under ESCAS? Absolutely, yes. ESCAS is failing. It's not a rigorous system that can guarantee the welfare of exported animals. There have been hundreds of investigations of breeches of the supply chain (this is publicly available information) and these investigations yield little results, and so far no penalties have resulted for those that have failed to maintain the supply chain. The system has no teeth, while I'm sure it does impose a genuine burden on the business side of things, it still fails to achieve it's goals effectively, and there doesn't seem to be any willingness from the government or the industry to make it stringent enough to be genuinely effective. The very act of exporting these animals is inhumane in the eyes of many. Animals crammed together in a boat with little room to move for extended periods is not acceptable to those that actually care about animal welfare, and you can't just dismiss that as the fanciful ideas of city slickers. Those that sold slaves made the argument that if slavery was abolished, it would have negative economic effects for them. Those "city slickers" that didn't keep slaves objected on welfare grounds. Unfortunately, arguments that focus purely on economics seem all to similar to that situation.
This should be a debate about animals welfare. And the difference between those at the "coal face" versus those observers from outside isn't just that the former is effected economically and the latter is not. That is one difference, but it's not the only difference. I suggest to you that another important difference is how much a person values the welfare of an animal when improving that animals welfare has the potential to hurt their wallet versus improving that animals welfare not hurting their wallet. There is an inherent conflict of interest between welfare outcomes and economic outcomes. Not completely, to some extent they are aligned, you cannot have zero welfare and still produce good quality animals, but you can produce good quality animals (from a food perspective) with welfare standards that are still very poor and lead to significant prolonged suffering. And that is why people do not put as much weight in the views of those that profit from the use of animals as perhaps many of you think they should.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that just because someone did not grow up on a farm that their perspective on animal welfare is misguided. There is a huge discrepancy between the way society treats companion animals (cats and dogs) and farmed animals. Farmed animals experience a level of suffering that would see your pet dog confiscated from you by the RSPCA were you to subject it to similar treatment. Cows, sheep, pigs, they are just as intelligent, even more so in some cases, than cats and dogs. People in the city interact with animals every day, we have pets, we have possums, and many birds, living in our trees and in many cases in our homes. Many of us have spent time on farms, and interacted with the animals that are farmed in agriculture. Science tells us that animals of sufficient brain complexity are sentient, and capable of emotion, and suffering, and pain. The conflict here is between those that value the welfare of animals, irrespective of whether they are pets, wildlife or farmed animals, and those that see farmed animals as somehow different, as simply economic units, who don't deserve to be treated with the same level of respect and care as the family dog.
While farmers continue to view farmed animals as somehow different and not deserving of high welfare standards, then city slickers, who are unencumbered by the financial conflict of interest that farmers have, will be at odds with them. Thus, strong opposition to live export will not be going anywhere any time soon.
There's no difference between a cow and dog that should justify valuing the welfare of one more or less than the other. If you think there is, then I would suggest that you simply aren't educated on the relevant biological sciences.
Or, is it a case of self-interested Candidates and the policy-making arm, deciding to tell well-meaning, but ignorant people what they want to hear in the lead-up to the election; but pay lip-service only to it thereafter?
Food for thought?
Maybe I am too cynical ...
These people are obviously serious; but are they realistic?
I think a history lesson is in order; rather than 'through the past darkly'.
This is another obvious case of misplaced enthusiasm, and another very good reason why Governments should stay away from running a business.
Greens, go ask the people who live on the coal face, the Cattlemen and their Families who take the risks each day.
Ask, and you may understand!
Stop being prescriptive, especially when you do not understand.
I believe, though I do not know for certain, that most meat works did not close through competition (as most cattle coming from the areas where live trade are sourced, are 'store' cattle, usually purchased by re-stockers and fatteners, prior to being sent to meatworks). But because they were caught in a cost squeeze from union demands for unrealistic wage increases.
These wage rises, due to the ebb and flow of seasons and markets, may then have led the business to become economic.
I think that besides technological efficiency gains leading to less man-power being required on the abattoir and boning-room floor, most other job-losses may have been caused by the meatworker's union demanding pay-rises and other tangible benefits from the operating company, that may have then lost their buffer when an internal or external shock came along.
Also, Greens, go and ask the meat works owners themselves, including Vesteys as to why they closed the Darwin abattoir, and JBS as to why they closed King Island, or McDonalds as to why they closed some operations in Northern NSW.
It would be interesting reading anyway, regardless of purpose.
The main thing to remember is that cattle that go North are usually not suited to Southern abattoirs at that point, without further value adding, and that boxed beef may suit us with a refrigerator, but that combined with religious beliefs says Asian markets prefer it freshly killed that day.
Get real Greens!
I manage a beef cattle property in North West Queensland, our company directly employs an average of 14 full time staff, Our business sells cattle into many different markets including live export. We understand that there are individuals and groups of Australians who wish to stop live export for many different reasons, from animal welfare to local employment, their concerns are real and we acknowledge them. We also understand the voting power which is created when groups of people who have no money to loose from an industry's demise slander that industry to create public interest against that industry in a bid to gain sympathy votes. If this agenda is pushed by anti live export groups to the extent that the public wish for it to cease, then an alternate market must firstly be created for all of the animals which are produced in Northern Australia and supply live export. If not, we will see another collapse of the entire Australian cattle market as it happened after the 2011 ban by Joe Ludwig and the Gillard government. Most Australian cattle producers cannot cope with this financially a second time.
The Live Export industry should not be used as a vote changer, if it is, the entire Australian economy will suffer yet another setback when sustaining and creating jobs is a priority.
The live export of Australian cattle allows millions of people in our neighboring countries to eat meat protein to their diet.
Live export became increasingly necessary after most of the major meat processing companies left the north of Australia and consolidated they're activities closer to year round cattle supplies supported by either feedlots, farming or irrigation. When most of the northern meatworks shut it was mainly due to the short, seasonal and unreliable supply of slaughter type cattle and to a lesser extent the shortage of labour, again mainly due to the lack of a constant, year round work. These problems still exist today and will not change until we can sustain a supply of slaughter ready animals . If we are to ship out less live product, and more boxed product, we will need more feedlots and more farmed and irrigated pasture to provide a steady supply of the type cattle which will allow a northern meat works to operate through the seasonal lows.
Into the future, meat processing and live export can work side by side to provide food and jobs in Australia and for our neighbours. The Australian Government along with live export industry are now facilitating continually improving animal welfare outcomes for all animals throughout the developing countries which we supply through ESCAS.
My message to those who are seeking to stop live export is, if you want this to happen to provide jobs for meat workers then put in some capital to get the meat works and cattle feeding industry needed up and running in northern Australia first before you destroy the only viable market which most northern Australian cattle producers currently need to survive economically.
Green voters are typically higher income and able to indulge in visions of fantasy, such as a renewably energised Australia. They are happy to pay more for their power and their food in general (they can afford to do so) and don't give a stuff about both the cost of both living and the cost of making a living for the rest of us. I was a bit of a green as a youngster - all the trees, you know - but I outgrew it. Now I want a future for my grandchildren and hypocritical parties such as the greens have no future for them, except the penury their policies will bring. I wish they would throw themselves under a bus.
what planet do these clowns come from!!!
The dunny door would be better fitting!