Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Jenny Hume is a wheat and livestock producer in northern New South Wales, and has been involved in livestock industries all her life. In 1972 she founded the Goulburn Abattoir and Saleyards Action Group, after seeing cattle dying en masse at the local abattoir from neglect and disease. In 1979 Jenny founded the ACT Branch of Animal Liberation and in 1980 joined the group with the new Federation (ANZFAS), now Animals Australia. She assisted in the drafting of the new ACT Animal Welfare Act, and for some years sat on various Government committees advising on animal welfare issues. Ten years to 1986, as a training officer with the Federal Department of Primary Industry, Jenny was involved in management training for veterinary officers and meat inspectors in export meatworks. Her education was in Asian Studies (ANU) and in Arabic/Islamic Studies, (Lahore University, Pakistan).

This is Jenny's first article for Webdiary and in her own words her "first effort at citizen journalism."

by Jenny Hume 

Since 1980, the multi million dollar live animal export industry has come under increasing pressure from animal welfare groups, and on 26 February the Federal Government suspended the live trade to Egypt on animal welfare grounds.

Routine losses on ships and major disasters at sea continue as the public image of the trade, but it is photographic exposure going beyond mere allegation of cruelty in the importing countries that has now inflamed public opinion and led to that suspension.

Animals Australia (AA), an umbrella organisation representing some 38 groups, recently held a national day of protest against the trade and in late 2005 sent its own investigator (former Adelaide policewoman Lyn White) to the Middle East to examine and report on handling and slaughter methods there. AA was dissatisfied with what it saw as failure over some three years by the Howard Government to investigate the serious concerns it raised over the treatment of animals in the importing countries. Assisted by an experienced investigator from the UK, and by local concerned residents, Lyn visited five Middle East (ME) countries over 16 days and compiled a comprehensive report with video footage. This report can be seen here. [AA advises that much of the video footage is extremely distressing, and should not be shown to children.]

A small but very disturbing section of the footage was aired on 60 Minutes on 26^th February (full transcript here). It was taken at the Bassatin meatworks Cairo, where hundreds of thousands of Australian cattle have been slaughtered over the past decade. High on the list of complaints is the long established practice of preparing some cattle for slaughter by slashing leg tendons and stabbing eyes to disable and disorientate them, before wrestling them to the floor and cutting their throats while they are fully conscious. In Australia animals are by law stunned prior to slaughter.

In a bid to improve slaughter conditions, a restraint box was installed at Bassatin in 2003 by the Australian industry. An Egyptian veterinary officer, acting on information from local colleagues, subsequently told AA that it was not being used and this information was passed on to the Australian Government.

Following the 60 Minutes report, assertions by the Government that the cattle seen being ill-treated were “not Australian” has done nothing to dampen outrage; if anything it has increased it. The animal welfare lobby says that if these practices are taking place at Bassatin or in any other ME meatworks receiving Australian animals live for slaughter, then it is not acceptable to send our animals there.

Is it the Government’s intention to resume sending live animals to Egypt on some understanding that Australian animals will be given special consideration and treated differently? Our Minister was reportedly told that the practices described are illegal in Egypt. He appears to have been misled. AA claims that Egypt has no animal welfare laws to enforce.

The industries involved have argued that if we don’t supply the animals then other countries will. This argument has a long history as a moral sidestep. It is an invitation to race to the bottom in terms of animal welfare.

This is not the first time animal welfare concerns have seen the live export trade disrupted. The trade to Saudi Arabia has been particularly troubled and was suspended for many years. It recommenced and was stopped again for 2 years after the Como Express disaster in 2003. A year earlier, the then minister, Warren Truss, placed a ban on the export of bos taurus cattle (cold climate breeds) out of southern ports into the Persian Gulf summer when some 800 cattle died of heat stress on the MV Becrux.

There is a long list of other disasters over the past 25 years, for example:

1980 – Farid Fares – abandoned on fire 160km off the SA coast; 40,605 sheep died.

1996 – Uniceb - abandoned on fire off coast of Africa; 67,488 sheep died.

1999 – Kalymnian Express – 300 cattle died or were put down after ship met a cyclone.

2003 – Como Express - 5,581 sheep (around 10% of its cargo) died.

On it goes. Occasionally the animals are just not welcome. In Korea several cattle were beaten to death by angry Koreans, fearful that a local cattle industry was threatened by the imports.

The Como Express incident in particular was a public relations disaster for the industry. People around the world became transfixed for nearly three months as 57,000 Australian sheep languished on board a ship with nowhere to go. The ship departed Fremantle on 6 August 2003 for Saudi Arabia, but was denied permission to unload due to claims by Saudi officials of an unacceptable level of scabby mouth disease. As the ship’s cargo of sheep began dying, the Australian Government bought the sheep and then urgently and unsuccessfully scanned the world trying to find another country to take them. Finally, after three months at sea, the surviving sheep were unloaded at Eritrea as a gift by the Australian Government to that country along with a $1M grant and 3000 tonnes of fodder. That got it off the front pages. For further information on this affair see the Government link here.

The 2004 Keniry Inquiry reviewed the trade following the Como Express affair, and noted that the trade is inherently “risky” for the animals. (Full Report here). In 1985, nearly twenty years earlier, the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare under the chairmanship of the late (Labor) Senator George Georges, concluded in its report The Export of Live Sheep from Australia that:

If a decision were to be made on the future of the trade purely on animal welfare grounds, there is enough evidence to stop the trade. The trade is, in many respects, inimical to good animal welfare, and it is not in the interests of the animal to be transported to the Middle East for slaughter. (Full report here.)

That committee, recognising the economic implications of stopping the trade, went on to recommend that the trade be phased out and replaced with the chilled meat trade. The Federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) reports that in 2005 the chilled meat trade to major Muslim markets was around $310M while live exports to the same market were around $557M. There have been halal accredited meatworks in Australia for decades, which ends the argument that the live trade must continue due to religious requirements. Lack of refrigeration is clearly not a problem.

But industry and successive state and federal governments have over 25 years resisted all attempts by the welfare movement to have the trade stopped, citing primarily the economic benefits to Australia. However the processed meat trade in 2005 (DAFF figures) now accounts for $5.9 billion compared to only around $700 million for the live exports.

Attempts to improve animal welfare outcomes are on going, both through regulation and research. Mortality rates have declined in 25 years overall but are still high in terms of actual numbers. AA reports that, despite 2005 being the first year of the full operation of the new ‘Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock’, sheep mortalities rose from 28,000 in 2004, to 35,000 sheep in 2005 with only 13,000 additional animals being shipped. It is sobering to note that 7,529 of those 13,000 died. It is hard to see the economics in the increase in the trade in that year, particularly when weighed against the increased animal suffering.

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority is required to collect data from ships’ masters on deaths, which are then tabled in both Houses of Federal Parliament every six months. The death figures for the period 2000-2005 are here, and in summary are:

Industry prefers to talk of these losses in terms of trends and percentages, in other words. 322,222 dead sheep represent 1.1% of the total shipped in those six years. The animal welfare groups talk in terms of number of animals that actually died, and point to the obvious suffering involved. Sanitising euphemisms are preferred by the industry and government. Deaths are due to ‘ventilation failure’, ‘shy feeding syndrome’, and ‘inanition’ rather than suffocation, heat exhaustion, starvation and injury.

But let us have another look at that loss rate of 1.1%. Many farmers experience that rate in the course of the average year. If you keep animals, you’ll lose animals, as the old saying goes. But a typical voyage to the ME takes 16 days. A 1.1% loss of stock over 16 days corresponds to an annual rate of 25%! No pastoralist would accept that.

It is this reality of the trade that has led to a court case in WA and which may have longer term ramifications for the industry.

Major disasters can be explained away as tragic incidents, as the occasional but regrettable one off, and public concern is dismissed with the assertion that these incidents do not reflect the trade as a whole. But the routine losses that saw 35,000 dead sheep in 2005 do reflect the trade as a whole, and are not so easily swept aside. Selecting an “industry typical” shipment for investigation, AA sent its investigator Lyn White to Kuwait in November 2003 to meet the MV Al Kuwait with its cargo of some 100,000 Australian sheep and to compile a report in regard to them.

As a result of that investigation and the evidence it put forward, AA sought to have the matter investigated by the WA Police for the purpose of laying charges under the WA Animal Welfare Act (2002). But over the next two years the complaint by AA took some interesting legal twists and turns. The Police advised AA to take the matter to the RSPCA as the more appropriate body to investigate. AA at first complied, but then back tracked, asking the RSPCA not to investigate its complaint. This followed the ABC Four Corners expose 'Blind Eye' on 22 June 2004 in which it was suggested that the RSPCA had been stacked. Some members of its board were said to be personally involved in the industry, and might have a conflict of interest in the matter. The transcript is here.

With the RSPCA ruled out, AA now took its complaint to the Director General of the Department of Local Government and Regional Development, which has responsibility for the Animal Welfare Act in WA. But in 2005, seeing itself up against a legal and bureaucratic brick wall, it then took the unusual step of seeking from the WA Supreme Court a Writ of Mandamus, which it says is “a rarely used legal remedy whereby the court has the power to make an order in circumstances where there is a public duty to act, and there has been a failure to perform that public duty.” The Court granted an ‘order nisi’ and listed the matter for hearing. The action was withdrawn when the WA State Solicitor advised AA the WA Police would now be investigating the matter on behalf of the Government.

On 10 November 2005, two years after the Al Kuwait had unloaded its cargo of sheep, the WA Minister for Local Government and Regional Development issued here the following statement:

As a result of an investigation carried out by the State Solicitor’s Office and the Western Australian Police, charges were laid against export company Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd and two of its directors on 9 November 2005, alleging a breach of the Animal Welfare Act 2002. The charges occurred as a result of a complaint made by Animals Australia, an animal welfare lobby group. The allegations will be spelled out in court and I do not intend to add to that at this stage.

AA advises that the matter is next listed for mention in April 2006. This case is the first of its kind against the industry and will clearly be watched very closely by industry, governments and the animal welfare movement. The allegations are that the export company breached Section 19 of the WA Animal Welfare Act (2002), which makes it illegal to:

Be cruel to an animal 19 (1); to transport an animal in a way that causes, or is likely to cause, it unnecessary harm, 19 (3) (a); to confine and animal in a way that causes, or is likely to cause, it unnecessary harm 19 (3) (b); and to not provide proper food 19 (3) (d).

The ramifications of any successful prosecution of this kind arising out of a ‘routine’ shipment are patent. It would be most surprising if the corporate hat was not being sent around.

Animals Australia is now mounting a major publicity campaign against the industry; claims to have been overwhelmed in the public response to the Bassatin affair and has collected over 130 000 signatures on a petition to the Federal Government. In response, the industry reportedly intends to mount its own million-dollar campaign.

Formerly known as the Australian and New Zealand Federation of Animal Societies, (ANZFAS), Animals Australia is often accused by industry of being a radical group.

It was founded in 1980 under the chairmanship of the Australian philosopher Professor Peter Singer. Singer’s book Animal Liberation (1976) spawned the animal liberation movement in Australia and overseas, with formal groups springing up in most Australian States. But the Animals Australia federation in fact comprises a diverse group from Animal Liberation to the Cat Protection Society, the Wildlife societies and several Humane societies. Its radical image results from its focus on contentious issues such as use of animals in research, intensive livestock farming, slaughterhouse practices, livestock transportation, feral and native animal culling, duck shooting, circuses, rodeos and of course the live export industry. These are issues that have brought it into conflict with groups that have an interest in those activities. Its policies on many of these issues do not vary from those of RSPCA Australia, though the two organisations do not always see eye to eye on how to implement those policies.

At its inaugural meeting in 1980, the organisation’s first policy became the abolition of the live animal export trade. Fresh in the public mind was the Farid Fares, the ship that burned at sea with its cargo of 40,605 live sheep. 21 years and 2.5 million dead sheep (during boarding, shipping and unloading) later, the trade goes on. So does the opposition to it. But the opposition now extends beyond the wharves and the sea, right to the floors of the slaughterhouses of the world.

The first question facing Australians is whether certain economic considerations should lead us to accept the suffering and death of large numbers of animals at sea. It was known 25 years ago that the trade was “inimical to animal welfare”, and that has not changed. There is probably no way that one can ship animals live across the world, particularly on long sea journeys, and not have large numbers of them suffer and die on the voyage. Live cattle on a ship in rough seas presents a particularly disturbing picture, as the on board stockman’s report here regarding the cattle on the cyclone battered Kalymnian Express shows.

The second question is whether for the same reason Australia should send its animals to be slaughtered in countries with no effective animal welfare laws and long entrenched practices that are abhorrent to us. In 25 years Australia has not seen fit to demand that the importing countries first demonstrate that the animals will be handled, transported inland, looked after in feedlots and slaughtered to the same standards that are required in Australia. In other words it has not insisted that the trade be predicated on good animal welfare practice in those countries, many of them rich in both resources and national incomes. In failing to do that it has failed in its moral duty and as a consequence the industry and government will constantly be putting out fires, trying to defend the indefensible.

The government and the industry suggest that the continuance of the trade places Australia in a position where it can improve animal welfare outcomes, not only for its own animals, but also for all animals in those countries. This is a morally bankrupt attempt to find a way around the current ban. If it was true, then after 25 years one would not have expected Animals Australia to be able to document such abuses.

I have not sought to address the economic fallout of the loss of the live export trade. As Animals Australia says, “When something is wrong, no amount of profit will make it right”. I have little sympathy for any of the exporting companies. They knew what the animal welfare problems were, and that they could probably never be fully resolved, and yet went on investing millions of dollars in the trade’s continuance. Had they gone down the path recommended in 1985, adjustment to a different type of trade would by now have been accomplished, but instead, they failed to seize the day.

I do however as a farmer myself have some sympathy for those among us who find themselves economic hostages to a trade that the majority of Australians find abhorrent. But we too must share some of the tarnish, for our industry leaders have not been pro-active in the past 25 years in seeking to have our livestock slaughtered in Australia. Instead we have seen abattoirs close all over the country, with long distances now being travelled by animals to the remaining meatworks, at ever increasing cost to the animals the consumers, and to the farmers. We, through our leaders’ failure, also failed to seize the day.

It was not just animal liberationalists who first demonstrated in the 1980s against the live export trade. They were joined by worried meatworkers: a strange alliance. The live export industry simply cannot talk of jobs gained without acknowledging jobs lost and exported. The development of the chilled meat trade would have not only retained jobs in Australia, it would have created more.

The live export industry is in heavy seas and the pressure on it from the animal welfare movement will continue to grow, as will the cost of trying to defend it. But it is never too late to change. Other industries have had to, and I personally will not be sorry to see the last livestock ship sent to the scrap yard. In that I know I am not alone.