Environment & energy | Australia

16 May 2022

Debate about live animal exports has largely been missing in the 2022 federal election campaign, despite many Australians wanting the practice to end, Serrin Rutledge-Prior and Tara Ward write.

In 2011, a Four Corners exposé of the treatment of Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs shocked the nation and resulted in the Julia Gillard-led government imposing a temporary ban on the live export of cattle to Indonesia. Later exposés revealed the sweltering, overcrowded conditions to which sheep exported to Middle Eastern destinations in the summer months are subject.

These conditions, the serious welfare concerns about the animals’ treatment once they arrive at their destination, plus World Health Organization scientists’ warning of the potential for the live export trade to play a role in zoonotic disease outbreaks, present ongoing issues in animal welfare policy in Australia.

Despite this, the issue of live animal exports has barely been on the agenda in this federal election campaign, even though certain restrictions on the export of sheep to the Middle East in the hot northern hemisphere summer have quietly been relaxed.

For example, just last month the bans on the export of sheep to Qatar in May and to or through the Red Sea during the first weeks of June were lifted. The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment noted that consultation with the public and ‘updated climatology information’ played a role in the decision.

However, earlier this year the RSPCA found that eight in 10 Australians were opposed to the relaxing of these rules, and in 2018 found that three in four people want live exports to end.

In the 2022 election campaign, the Greens, some independent candidates, and several minor and micro-parties have indicated their support for a ban on the live export trade.

On the conservative side of politics, it is perhaps not surprising that the Coalition has not drawn attention to the recent relaxation of export rules so close to the election, given that graphic images of live exports hold the potential to turn off undecided voters.

Despite not releasing an official policy statement, there is little doubt over the Nationals’ stance on the matter.

What is more surprising is the Australian Labor Party’s refusal to commit to a stance on the issue of live exports until just over two weeks from election day.

Not so long ago, former Labor leader Bill Shorten said that live sheep exports were ‘too cruel to continue’, and the party has also supported a number of legislative efforts to phase out the live sheep trade in the past decade.

More on this: Podcast: Australian species on the brink

This election, Labor initially only revealed its position privately to an animal protection organisation, the Australian Alliance for Animals, which then published a policy scorecard on a number of animal-related issues.

It wasn’t until the Australian Alliance for Animals’ scorecard showed Labor as providing ‘partial support’ for phasing out the export of live sheep that the party attempted to outline its position to major media outlets.

However, what resulted was policy confusion. The party was initially unwilling to outline a timeline for phasing out the trade. Then conflicting quotes from key party figures on the issue seemed to cast doubt on whether the party was committed to a ban at all.

Labor’s decision to make an announcement on live export this late in the election campaign, and then to confuse the electorate with mixed messages about its policy, is disappointing. In order to make informed choices about this issue (an issue about which people on both sides of the argument feel strongly), voters need to be provided with clear, accessible, and timely information about where the parties stand.

This is especially important given the record numbers of Australians pre-polling and postal voting in recent years, who might have voted differently if they had access to this information earlier.

Considering the ethical, animal welfare, environmental, economic, and health concerns surrounding live animal exports, it is disheartening that discussion about the practice has been largely absent in the lead-up to the 2022 election.

Ahead of the controversial live sheep exports scheduled to resume in May and June, there must be a renewed sense of urgency to end this cruel practice. Ending it has the support of the Australian community, and it shouldn’t have to take more distressing footage of animals in abhorrent conditions for policymakers to act.

This piece is published as part of Policy Forum’s new feature section – In Focus: Australia’s policy future – which brings you policy analysis and ideas that go beyond the sound bites.

Back to Top
Join the APP Society

2 Responses

  1. Katrina Love says:

    The messages weren’t mixed – they were just misinterpreted and misreported by media. Albanese was asked by a journalist if they would put a timeline on the current policy to end the live sheep trade. His answer was “no, we won’t; our policy’s changed”, meaning “no we won’t put a timeline on it” and “our policy has changed from the 2019 policy to end live sheep exports, which had a five-year timeline”.

    This was somehow miscomprehended by Tony Seabrook (never the brightest bulb in the tanning bed) to mean that the WA Labor Premier’s assertion that he now supports the live sheep trade as he’s happy that the regulations in place are working (he clearly hasn’t read any Independent Observers’ reports) had scared off the wannabe Prime Minister and he had backflipped on the idea. Tony thought “no we won’t” and “our policy has changed” meant “no we won’t end the trade (because of Mark McGowan’s stance)” and “our policy’s changed” meant that the current policy had changed from ending the trade to not ending it.

    This lack of comprehension was then shared on air by 6PR’s Liam Bartlett.

    Lord only knows how The West Australian screwed up with their headline “Federal election 2022: Anthony Albanese reveals Federal Labor backflip on live export ban” when he hadn’t, but… it IS The West Australian.

    Granted, Labor could have come out with a clarification, clarifying that they had NOT backflipped, they WERE still committed to ending the trade and HERE is our Animal Welfare platform that says as much

  2. Grace Pavone says:

    This cruel industry needs more public scrutiny and scaled down/phased out.
    Processing can be done in Australia where transport is less and under strict/monitored Australian standards in slaughterhouses. Countries insisting on live animals can be ‘talked around’ to accepting carcasses.
    Respectfully, thank you.

Back to Top

Press Ctrl+C to copy