|
|
|
|
Ban Live Export
Why Ban Live Exports from Australia? Over 2 million animals have died terrible deaths on the substandard ships on which they are transported. This does not account for those who die during transport to the ships, in feedlots and through brutal handling and trauma. The main causes of death are:
Numerous cattle carriers were condemned by Animals Angels, a leading European animal welfare group [2], which stated that at least two should be made "illegal". The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service have launched major investigations into "excessive mortalities" in numerous instances, but most reports are unavailable because the government accords the live export industry protection under "commercial in confidence" provisions. In a further attempt to sanitize its activities, the live export industry and its shippers have simply changed the names of the ships with the most horrific records; the "Cormo Express" for example, is now the "Merino Express", the "Corriedale Express" is now the "Kenoz" and the "Temburong" is now the "Angus Express". All three have been subject to three major enquiries in recent years. (See liveexportshame.com). Government Support for a Cruel Industry The cruelty facts have been exposed on three occasions by "Sixty Minutes", and the mortality statistics, video footage of suffering, dying and dead animals, photographic evidence and statistics bear testimony to the misery, cruelty and greed associated with the live export trade. The appalling cruelty and animal suffering are widely known, but have to date been insufficient grounds for governments to ban the trade. This is in spite of a Senate Select Committee recommendation back in the 1980's stating that on animal welfare grounds alone, the trade should be stopped. Numerous later enquiries expressing major concerns regarding the welfare of exported animals, and containing fundamental recommendations, have been ignored by successive governments, including the last one chaired by Dr John Keniry. So the argument, much as it should be so, cannot be won on the grounds of cruelty alone.
A further report commissioned by the Western Australian government has brought more bad news for governments supporting the cruel live export trade. Professor Lindner, a leading agricultural science academic has highlighted the fact that the degree of governmental intervention in favour of the live export trade is instrumental in forcing up the prices of local meat, by subsidising the AQIS inspection fees in the live export trade to the level of about $400,000 a year, while charging local abattoirs each a similar amount - in Western Australia alone [4]. It appears also that the government's often re-iterated propaganda about Saudi Arabia and other countries requiring live animals for processing is not in fact necessarily the case. During the embargo on the live export trade to Saudi Arabia in the 1990's, frozen/chilled meat exports in fact tripled [5]. Further evidence has been presented that live animals were exported to the United Arab Emirates, processed there, and exported on to Saudi Arabia. The Heilbron Report further states that the claims that we are dealing with poor countries which lack refrigeration are flawed, to say the least. This was apparent in the latest "Sixty Minutes" broadcast, showing animals hog-tied with wire, and being thrown into expensive cars, illustrating that these are in fact quite wealthy countries. And there was no semblance of "religious slaughter" shown in the appalling abattoir footage. Ban Live Exports Now AACT seeks to ban the live export industry because of its cruelty. If animal slaughter MUST happen, it must be as humane as possible, and be carried out as close as possible to where the animals are raised. It must be under strict regulation and NOT BY MEANS OF LIVE EXPORTS. Under no circumstances should animals be exported under horrific conditions to countries where they are handled and slaughtered with such inhumanity, savagery and brutality.
More Information Haven't seen enough? More photos For further information, please visit the following websites:
Or contact AACT on 0408 970 359.
|
| AACT Now Please help AACT to have live exports banned from Tasmania. Write to:-
Print and send our form letter to Roberts Limited protesting their involvement in Tasmania's live export trade: To help the national movement against live exports, please write to:
Please also contact your local State and Federal Members of Parliament and tell them you will not vote for a party which supports the live export trade. |
Updated 1 July 2008 |
Against Animal Cruelty Tasmania, Level 2, 191 Liverpool Street, Hobart, Tasmania, 7005
Email: info@aact.org.au Tel: 0408 970 359
 |
© Against Animal Cruelty Tasmania (AACT), 2005-2010
For
many years, a number of animal welfare organizations, unions, political
parties and individuals have been fighting the cruel practices associated
with the live export trade and seeking to have the industry banned. AACT
has been fighting the trade with a number of activities, including rallies
and demonstrations in Devonport in January 2004 and February 2005 during
loadings of the "Al Shuwaikh" for Kuwait. AACT has also held
demonstrations outside the offices of the Roberts group in Hobart and
Launceston.
Research
has now indicated that the ships used to transport live animals are sadly
substandard. Nearly all are 20 years old or more, with substantial "detention"
records in Australian ports for "defects" often to do with fire damper
systems, holes and corrosion in structures, inadequate "minimum safe manning"
and inadequate certification of Masters and/or Officers
[1].
But
two recent reports have come to light which detail the role of governments
in distorting the "profitability" figures associated with the live export
trade. The report by S.G Heilbron "Impact of the Live Animal Export Sector
on the Australian Meat Processing Industry" [3]
indicates that live exports could be costing Australia around $1.5m in
lost GDP (Gross Domestic Product), around $2.7m in lost household income,
and around 10,500 in lost jobs (the AMIEU puts that figure closer to 20,000
jobs). There is the associated factor of fragmented communities resulting
from these job losses.