OPINION: RECENTLY, I had the good fortune to be invited to appear before the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs Inquiry into the Criminal Code Amendment (Animal Protection) Bill 2015.
There were a number of interesting matters that were revealed during the hearing, but one particular submission caught my eye.
During a line of questioning from NSW Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan, the animal rights group Voiceless was asked for its attitude to cattle feedlots.
The Voiceless representative stated that whilst it is primarily concerned with alleviating the suffering of animals in factory farms (though when pressed, he could not define the oft-used pejorative ‘factory farming’), Voiceless had no issue or policy with respect to cattle feedlots.
This frank and pithy response got me thinking – if feedlots are not a problem, what precisely causes animal rights activists so much distress and consternation in relation to the live export industry?
By way of background, if you consider a consignment of live cattle to Indonesia, a standard supply chain basically contains the following steps:
(a) cattle are purchased from a northern cattle producer;
(b) they are trucked to registered premises (essentially a feedlot) for vet inspections and introduction to the feed ration that will be used during their voyage (approximately five days);
(c) they are transported to Indonesia in purpose built live export ships (Darwin to Jakarta takes four days);
(d) upon arrival in Indonesia they are trucked to a feedlot, were they are fed between 60 to 120 days; and
(e) the cattle are transported to an abattoir for processing.
As is clear from the above summary, cattle in an Indonesian supply chain spend more than 80 per cent of their time in feedlots. Therefore, the only remaining areas of concern must relate to the shipping and processing stages of the supply chain.
However, when you drill down into the oft-repeated assertion that the voyages are cruel, it is not difficult to show that these assertions are without foundation when you consider that:
(a) the cattle generally put on weight and arrive at their destination in equal or better condition than when they left Australia. The fact that the cattle put on weight is a good indicator that they have not been subject to stressful or adverse conditions;
(b) from an exporters’ point of view there is a massive incentive in getting the cattle to the destination port in the best possible condition as they are only paid when the cattle leave the ship; and
(c) mortality levels on all voyages must be reported to the Australian government. Since 2009, Department of Agriculture statistics reveal that the mortality rate has never risen above 0.15pc.
With respect to the processing stage, more than 80pc of Indonesia abattoirs handling Australian cattle practice pre-slaughter stunning, and many of these facilities would not look out of place in the Australia context.
So taking a step back, exactly what beef do these groups have with the live export industry?
In reality, opposition to the trade stopped being about animal welfare, cruelty or perceived flaws in the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System framework some time ago.
To the animal rights groups the live export industry has morphed into something more - the Keyser Söze of the animal world – and it has become a rallying point for hand wringing, moral exhibitionists who care not a jot for facts or reality.
You only have to review a couple of Twitter postings from those opposed to the live export industry, and what is immediately apparent is the complete lack of understanding about fundamental aspects of the live export industry.
Anytime you see a party advocating for a closure of the trade and a conversion to a wholly boxed beef trade, it is obvious that you are dealing with someone who has dealt themselves out of the debate, and has no credibility or understanding of the Australian meat production industry.
Further, it seemingly does not matter what improvements have been made in live export supply chains, as it will never be enough for these groups.
Rather than acknowledging the good work undertaken by Meat and Livestock Australia and Australian exporters ‘inside the tent’ in overseas markets, who are clearly acting in the role of positive change agents, animal rights groups would prefer to stop the animal welfare training and acquiesce to an inevitable regression to poor welfare outcomes when Australian oversight is removed.
These groups try to hold the industry to a standard that does not appear anywhere else in civil society, namely one mistake and an entire industry is expected to close. By way of comparison, people drive negligently on our roads every day - sometimes with fatal outcomes – but there is not a subsequent demand for everyone to stop driving cars.
The simple fact of the matter is that whenever you have humans involved in a process, inappropriate conduct may occur. That does not excuse the behaviour, but it is the reality.
The hypocrisy of these groups reached a zenith with Animals Australia recently demanded that Australian exporters must also be responsible for the welfare of non-Australian cattle that are processed through Vietnamese supply chains that handle Australian cattle.
Their breathtaking gall is truly staggering when you consider that the live export industry has stated for years that banning the trade will have an overall detrimental impact on animal welfare in importing countries.
It is often easier to throw brickbats, rather than acknowledge when effective change has been delivered and welfare standards have improved immeasurably.
Such criticism would be easier to accept if it was coming from groups that occupied the moral high ground, but unfortunately they repeatedly show themselves to have no integrity and are prepared to do and say whatever is required to advance their goals.
Trent Thorne is a Queensland-based agribusiness lawyer.