Event
Date
Description
Lyn White, Communications Director, Animals Australia
24 February 2011 at Manning Clark House
Some 250 million animals have been subjected to live export over the past 30 years. Had any of them been able to tell us what they endured I have no doubt we would not be here this evening. The trade would have ended long ago.
So I do not take the responsibility of speaking on their behalf tonight lightly.
What I am going to convey will present a very different picture to that of Mr Grant. Consecutive federal governments have been prepared to provide the live trade with unquestioned and unconditional support and act pro bono as their PR agency. With respect Allan, the information DAFF provides MPs and the public invariably repeats live export industry figures and defences of the trade and rarely is it independently verified.
One example is the figure of people purportedly employed by the live trade. If the government questioned this employment figure it would recognise that it counts truck drivers who would still be trucking animals to local markets, farmers who have the option of selling to local markets and about 1000 odd sheep dogs who would still be gainfully employed if live export ended.
The real figure of people directly dependent on the live trade would be a few hundred – those employed in exporters’ offices and in feedlots. When employment is obviously a key factor underpinning government policy, a question might be asked why we never hear the government speak of the 45,000 odd jobs lost in the meat processing sector in Australia as a result of live export.
But of course no one doubts the real issue that underpins government support for this trade. Which leads one to ponder at what point in human history, in Australian history, will governments stop defending the commercial abuse of animals on the basis of profits – and recognise that we have an ethical responsibility to not only consider our own interests – but the interests of animals who were born and bred into Australian care.
If you detect a hint of passion in my voice tonight, then it is because I have stood on many occasions in Middle Eastern abattoirs at 2 in the morning watching our animals brutalised. I have followed trucks of Australia sheep in Oman being transported for a further 15 hours in 45 degree temperature and watched these exhausted and heat stressed animals, succumb one by one. I have stood in front of workers in a Dubai market to stop them throwing trussed Australian sheep 3 metres through the air onto trucks like bags of wheat.
And through investigations across seven different countries in the Middle East I have witnessed the damage that Australia’s live export industry has done to the broader cause of animal welfare in the region.
Since 2003 I have conducting investigations on a number of occasions in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Jordan and Egypt. I have been in nearly every slaughterhouse, marketplace and feedlot in those countries.
My level of knowledge of animal handling, slaughter and transport issues in the region is such that I was asked to be the keynote speaker on this subject at an animal welfare conference in Egypt last year.
As a former police officer, I am skilled in investigation techniques and the documenting and preparation of evidence. Evidence documented during my investigations in the Middle East led to amongst other things:
- The WA State government prosecuting a leading live export company for breaching the WA Animal Welfare Act;
- the Federal government suspending the live trade to Egypt;
- the resultant ban on live sheep to Egypt and the implementing of an export control order that restricts cattle to only to be slaughtered at Al Sokhna abattoir in Egypt; and
- the formation of the Princess Alia Foundation in Jordan which is working to improve the lives of animals in the Middle East
My organisation, Animals Australia has been scrutinising the live export trade for decades – and it has been a priority task for me since joining Animals Australia in 2003. The FOI process has been regularly used and inevitably exposed disturbing information. So I am also well positioned to talk to you about the shipboard aspect of live export, the associated standards and the level of enforcement of those standards.
And this is where I will start tonight.
The live export industry and government like to talk about animal mortalities in percentages – and one can understand why. It is far more palatable to suggest that .99 % of animals died in any one year than admit that over 38,000 died.
In 2003, after the Cormo Express incident then Agriculture Minister Warren Truss instigated an review of the live trade which became known as the Keniry review. One of the key findings of this review was that the industry has been self-regulating and that this had to change. Eight years later and there is an abundance of evidence that nothing has changed.
The Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) have been in place since 2004 to regulate the trade yet an examination of high mortality investigation reports since that time that even when clear breaches of the standards are detected, that rarely, if ever, are penalties imposed on exporters by AQIS.
As one experienced onboard vet told me last week – exporters know that they can get away with anything because there are no repercussions from AQIS.
Many of these ‘world’s best standards’ as they are proclaimed by industry and government are not complied with and not enforced, others are impractical and unenforceable.
For example:
5.7 Any livestock identified as being sick or injured must:
(a) be given prompt treatment and if necessary euthanased humanely and without delay
Whilst this sounds like animals will be well cared for the practicalities of identifying them when you have tight stocking densities and 60 to 100,000 animals means that the vast majority of sheep sicken and die unaided.
S.4.8 says that only livestock that are healthy and fit to travel can be loaded.
Sheep that have not adjusted to pellet food at the feedlot are meant to be excluded from export. Despite this, systems have not been put in place to identify these animals. Failing to eat is still a major contributing factor to onboard sheep mortalities each year.
It is also impossible to suggest that the government take the regulating of ASEL seriously when AQIS currently employs only 2.6 veterinarians in WA to check pre-shipment compliance in a state where 2 to 3 million sheep and hundreds of thousands of cattle are loaded each year.
In addition, a key flaw in the current system is that onboard vets whilst reporting to AQIS are paid by the exporter. This leads to an obvious conflict of interest as veterinarians know that if they fulfil their regulatory role and report matters to AQIS they will not be re-employed.
We have possession of clear evidence that exporters pressure veterinarians to reduce numbers in their mortality reports.
One therefore is left to wonder what the real number of animals that suffer and die on live export vessels is, but you can be sure that 2.5 million suggested total over the last 30 years is not in any way reflective of the true figure.
There is extensive evidence available that this is an industry that is still self-regulating and is a law unto itself.
Economics
The live export industry and government presents the live trade as being critical to Australia’s economy. This is not true. The live trade is not even worth a fifth of the value of chilled meat exports from Australia and is less than half the value of wine exports from Australia. Last year, Australia’s chilled and frozen meat trade to the Middle East was worth around 40 million dollars more than live exports to the region and is growing significantly each year. Some 3.8 million ‘sheep’ were accepted in carcass form showing the willingness of the Middle East to accept chilled imports.
When Bahrain, a major market for Australian sheep, was unable to import enough live Australian sheep due to drought, it increased its imports of Australian chilled meat.
Refrigeration is no longer an issue in most importing countries – many of which are some of the richest in the world. In poorer countries such as Jordan, the meat from the vast majority of Australian animals killed in the country is distributed chilled from a central outlet in Amman.
The Middle East is now the largest market for Australian prime lamb and mutton. The full potential of Australian chilled meat exports to the region will never be known whilst Australia is prepared to supply live animals. Despite industry claims, there is no obvious alternative supply of live animals of the type, size and price required by importing nations to replace Australian livestock.
Two major economic reports commissioned by the RSPCA and World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), present a different picture to that routinely supplied by the industry:
The reports by respected Independent economists, ACIL Tasman, revealed the following
- that live sheep exports are actually costing jobs and stifling our meat processing sector
- that contrary to industry claims, farmers don’t need live sheep exports and in fact many are already moving into other, more lucrative areas;
- that live sheep exports do not underpin the price of sheepmeat domestically;
- and phasing out the trade would have a modest impact on farmers and the economy.
- And that a sheep processed domestically is worth 20% more to the Australian economy than one exported live due to the capacity to add value in Australia.
The full reports can be made available to you.
A government cannot give any industry or trade its total support without also then being held accountable in resultant outcomes.
One of those outcomes, in ethical and animal welfare terms, was unforgiveable and in itself should have ended government support of the live export trade. I speak of Egypt.
When in 2001 then LiveCorp CEO Kevin Shiell admitted that the live trade had exported over 1 million cattle into Egypt in the full knowledge that they would be subjected to unimaginable brutality in Bassateen abattoir – the government should have ended the industry then and there and condemned those involved in the harshest possible terms.
Instead in the following years we heard platitudes from government regarding industry improvements none better than: in 2005, then Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran, said Bassateen is a good example where Australia’s involvement in the live trade has allowed us to influence change and improve animal welfare conditions in the Middle East.
Shortly after Minister McGauran released that statement I travelled to Egypt. I have described Bassateen abattoir as like entering the underworld. Terrified dying animals screaming in fear and pain filled five large open slaughterhalls. My two Egyptian colleagues who drove us to the facility were too afraid to leave the car knowing the reputation of those who working in Bassateen for depravity and violence.
Laughing and leering slaughtermen covered in blood were brutally wielding their long knifes like status symbols.
Over the next 90 minutes we witnessed and covertly filmed some of the most barbaric slaughter practices ever documented including the stabbing of eyes and slashing of tendons of cattle to disable them.
I observed in horror knowing that Australia had been exporting animals to be slaughtered at this facility for over a decade – all the while with Peter McGauran’s words ringing in my ears. Here was a clear example of the live trade’s ability to improve animal welfare conditions.
In fact what was in front of me was a clear example of the failure of government to call this industry to account independently investigating their claims.
Just think for a moment - were it not for this investigation - the live trade would still would be exporting animals to be killed in Bassateen abattoir. This is not a trade worthy of government support.
The government and live export industry claim that animal welfare is a priority. But let me put this projection of caring into perspective for you immediately. Australia’s live export industry have exported to the Middle East for over 30 years with full government support. It has only been since 2003, the year that Animals Australia first started exposing cruel treatment in the region, treatment that they had been fully aware of for decades, that the government and industry have shown any ‘interest’ in animal welfare in the region – and that is because it is now in their ‘interest’ to do so with the Australian public calling for this trade to end.
If you care about animal welfare you do not load animals onto ships, send them out into the open ocean where there are inherent risks that can never be overcome, and transport them halfway around the world only to be slaughtered in countries that have no laws to protect animals from cruelty.
If you care about animal welfare you do not defend a trade in which tens of thousands of animals die enroute each year as part of routine operations.
If 30,000 animals died enroute to abattoirs in Australia each year those responsible would be prosecuted for cruelty. The only reason why live export continues is that the resultant animal suffering is out of reach of state laws and out of the sight of the Australian community – either onboard vessels or in countries 10,000 kms away.
Government spending
As you’ve heard, the current government has committed 1.6 million dollars in funding over a 3 year period to animal welfare improvements in the Middle East and SE Asia.
What you haven’t been told is that this and previous government funding has been allocated and spent without input from animal welfare professionals – which is why we have cattle restraint boxes being installed that are considered inhumane by leading international slaughter experts – one of which the government was forced to spend $200,000 to replace after I filmed it in operation in Jordan.
You’ve seen pictures tonight which look impressive if you don’t know the full picture. Similarly this million dollar investment in animal welfare is designed to sound impressive and does to the uninformed in the community – but it in no way addresses the inherent problem that animals face in the Middle East and South East Asia.
It is not money that is needed in the Middle East – it is an ethical awakening as to our responsibilities to animals – but how can we even suggest that this should occur – when the example that Australia’s live trade inherently sets is that animals are nothing more than chattels to be traded and slaughtered for profit.
One of the most disturbing aspects of conducting these investigations has been to witness that local people believe that Australia approves of how they treat animals. Why wouldn’t they when we have been prepared to supply millions of animals for decades? Not only are we not influencing change, the live export trade has actively reinforced local beliefs that their current cruel treatment of animals is acceptable.
Animal welfare in Middle Eastern countries will only improve when legislation is passed to prevent cruel treatment and practices. But there is no incentive whatsoever for countries to pass and enforce such legislation whilst a country such as Australia is willing to supply animals regardless of how brutally they will be treated.
Onselling
There is no doubt that exported animals in the Middle East are at greatest risk when they are onsold to individual buyers which occurs all year round.
For the past 7 years I have been in the Middle East for the Festival of Sacrifice which is the peak time of onselling and therefore the peak time of suffering. It was evidence that I documented in Egypt during the Festival of Sacrifice in 2006 that led to the government banning the export of sheep to Egypt and to implement an Export Control Order which restricts cattle exported to Egypt to only be slaughtered at one internationally controlled facility.
As similar abuses of animals had been documented in other countries, Animals Australia wrote to our former Agriculture Minister Burke on a number of occasions proposing that ‘closed systems’ such as the government put in place in Egypt.
And it is within the power of government to do so. The Export Control Act and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act provides the government with legally effective mechanisms, mechanisms that is already in effect in regard to Egypt, to impose conditions on exporters as to which facilities animals can be supplied to.
Despite the Egypt precedent, and despite this being an obvious step that the government could take to reduce the risks animals faced, our proposal was rejected.
We have been exporting to Kuwait for over 30 years and this is still happening. Similar appalling treatment led to the Federal government banning the live sheep trade to Egypt – so why are we still exporting to Kuwait and other nations.
The government is writing to Australians concerned by this footage saying that the majority of Australian livestock are processed in abattoirs in the Middle East. However, in abattoirs throughout the region, (with the exception of Jordan where Animals Australia has been working) Australian animals have their throats cut whilst fully conscious. This is not a practice deemed humane by animal welfare scientists. Even with a skilled throat cut cattle can remain conscious of what they are enduring for up to 2 minutes and sheep for up to 20 seconds - suffering unnecessary pain and terror.
If it is wrong to slash tendons of a conscious animal – a practice which forced the government to act on Egypt – surely it is equally wrong and unacceptable to slash the throat of a conscious animal.
OIE
Whilst there are animal welfare, economic and ethical arguments for an end to the live trade there is also an indisputable international obligation that demands our government take immediate action.
Australia is a member country of the OIE – the World Organisation for Animal Health - the only intergovernmental body that exists to improve animal welfare internationally.
Australia and all importing countries in the Middle East are signatories to the OIE which has established basic guidelines for the handling, transport and slaughter of animals. To be effective the OIE relies upon countries requiring compliance with these animal welfare guidelines before bilateral trade agreements are signed. The vast majority of the treatment I have witnessed in other Middle Eastern countries, breaches OIE guidelines. By supplying animals to countries that are not complying with OIE welfare guidelines, Australia is actively undermining the ability of OIE to improve animal welfare internationally.
Conclusion
I started this presentation by saying that if animals subject to live export were able to tell us what they endured – that the live trade would have ended long ago.
But we shouldn’t need them to tell us. Transporting animals long distances overseas only to slaughtered will never be logical or acceptable in animal welfare terms. Knowingly supplying animals to cruel treatment, treatment that is unacceptable in one’s own country is immoral – there is no other word for it. We are abandoning them, and we are abandoning our ethical principles.
Ending live export has nothing to do with animal rights – it has everything to do with addressing human wrongs.
Animals Australia and the RSPCA are calling on the government to announce an ‘end date’ to live export. And in the interim period, to take immediate action to protect Australian animals from the worst abuses by implementing closed systems.
I have not a shadow of a doubt this is a trade that will be condemned by history. The Gillard government has the choice of either being remembered as a government that supported the live trade – or celebrated in history as the government that acted to end it.
Ending live animal export has nothing to do with animal rights; it has everything to do with addressing human wrongs. The greatest ethical test that we are ever going to face is how we treat the living beings who are at human mercy.
Only affirmative government action will ensure that thousands of Australia animals are not subjected to brutal treatment in the Middle East in 2011. But only by Australia ending live animal export will we send the right message to the Middle East – a message that desperately needs to be heard in the region – that animals and their welfare matters.