Animal welfare standards and Australia's live exports industry to Indonesia: creating an opportunity out of a crisis.

• Published date: 01 January 2013
• Author: Hastreiter, Marie T.
• Date: 01 January 2013

I. INTRODUCTION

In June 2011, ABC TV's Four Corners program aired footage of the outrageous cruelty and living conditions live cattle within the Australian live export industry experience when exported from Australia to Indonesia. (1) Four Corners viewers witnessed Indonesian slaughterhouse workers beating and whipping cattle before slaughtering them and to the horror of many, actually dismembering cattle while they were still conscious. The footage generated significant public outcry, leading the Australian government to suspend the live export of cattle to Indonesia. (2) While animal activists and the general public praised the suspension, the agricultural industry, particularly beef producers, were angered and worried. The industry argued that the government's suspension threatened a $300 million industry, (3) including thousands of Australian jobs. (4) Animal activists have rebutted the agricultural industry's position, arguing that the current live exports industry actually harms, or at least undermines, the Australian agriculture industry. (5) These activists further contend that converting to a processed meat industry would actually benefit Australian live exports farmers. (6) Animal activists cite New Zealand as an example of a country that once had a strong live exports industry but has now nearly banned the practice, while simultaneously preserving farmers' jobs. (7) Experts in the industry worry, however, that the rise in live exports coming from Brazil, Australia's chief competitor, will lower the demand for both Australian live exports and for any Australian substitution products, such as processed meat. (8)

The debate over the live exports industry in Australia is particularly contentious given Australia's preeminent animal welfare standards. Australia is among the world's leaders in the fight to protect animal rights; (9) for instance, Australia has strict standards for animals slaughtered within its borders. (10) Despite its leadership role, Australia still exports thousands of cattle and sheep per year to countries that lack stringent animal welfare standards, especially livestock regulations. (11) Australia has, accordingly, grappled with how to balance economic concerns with animal welfare concerns, (12) resulting in a continuous cycle of Australian live exports trade suspensions followed by resumptions. This continuous cycle exposes an ongoing battle of priorities between parties interested in preserving animal welfare and those that profit from live exports.

This Note will explore whether Australia can remain a leader in the adoption of animal welfare standards while also preserving the viability of Australian farmers' jobs and livelihoods. Part II analyzes the history of the Australian live exports industry and outlines current industry standards and regulations. Parts III and IV discuss New Zealand's live exports industry and how New Zealand's model would work for Australia. Part V analyzes the impact that Brazil's industry could have on Australia, why Australia should implement a live exports policy like New Zealand's and how to accomplish this, and the positive economic impact a ban on the live exports industry would have on Australia's agriculture industry. This Note concludes by encouraging the Australian government to use the recent live exports industry crisis as an impetus for policy change. The Australian government can simultaneously implement an agricultural policy that reflects its stringent animal welfare standards and protects the livelihood of Australian farmers. The Australian government can accomplish this balance by passing legislation that would ban the live exports industry in progressive stages, giving farmers and export markets time to adjust to the ban, and by developing new markets, industries, and substitute exports.

II. AUSTRALIA'S LIVE EXPORTS INDUSTRY

A. History of the Industry

Australia has exported live cattle and sheep, primarily to the Middle East and Southeast Asia, for over thirty years. (13) To meet the growing demands for live cattle in Southeast Asia and live sheep in the Middle East, many Australian livestock farmers turned their focus to live exports production. (14) Farmers failed, however, to maintain the meat processing side of the agriculture industry at the same rate (15) and resulted in Australian farmers' dependence on the live exports industry. (16) Naturally then, the Australian government's decision to suspend live cattle exportation to Indonesia in June 2011 had a devastating impact on Australian farmers. (17)

The suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia was not the first time the Australian government had suspended the trade to an importing country. From 1991 to 2000, the Australian government suspended the exportation of live sheep and cattle to Saudi Arabia after transportation conditions caused hundreds of sheep and cattle to perish from heat stress. (18) In February 2006, the Australian government suspended its live exports to Egypt after the TV program 60 Minutes aired disturbing footage showing the inhumane treatment of exported animals. (19) Australia resumed exporting livestock to Egypt in October 2006 after both countries issued a Memoranda of Understanding ("MOU"). (20) The MOU clarified and reaffirmed the animal welfare standards that demand compliance from all parties to the export chain in order to resume the livestock trade. (21) Immediately after the issuance of the MOU, however, the Australian government reinstated the suspension because industry members breached the MOU during the first shipment following the resumption of trading with Egypt. (22) The exports resumed in November 2008, this time with greater restrictions replacing the MOU. (23)

B. New Regulatory Requirements

The footage that aired on ABC's Four Corners TV program in June 2011 renewed the debate over the humanity of the Australian live exports industry and the adequacy of the industry's regulations. The recurring need to suspend the live exports industry following reports of the industry's inhumane conditions illustrates the inadequacy of the regulatory scheme. (24) The Australian government's decision to suspend live exports to Indonesia in 2011 emphasized Australia's concern for animal welfare. In response, however, Australian officials were uncertain whether the government needed to merely heighten the animal welfare standards or ban the live exports industry altogether. (25) In June 2011, Australia explored both options. (26)

1. Legislation

The Australian Parliament's Greens party has led the movement to pass legislation banning the live exports industry. On June 23, 2011, the Australian Parliament introduced two bills proposing to halt or limit the live exports industry. (27) The Greens introduced The Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2], which sought to amend the Export Control Act of 1982 and completely prohibit the export of livestock for slaughter. (28) The second bill, the Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2], introduced by independent Parliament member Andrew Wilkie, sought to amend the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Act of 1997 to establish a gradual restriction schedule with stricter regulations leading up to the complete prohibition of the trade on July 1, 2014. (29) On August 18, 2011, Parliament defeated both bills. (30)

2. Australia's Animal Welfare Standards

Before Parliament defeated the two bills, Federal Minister for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry ("DAFF") and Senator Joe Ludwig announced that Australia would lift the suspension of live cattle to Indonesia on the condition that exporters proved their compliance with new animal welfare standards. (31) The government established the Industry Governing Working Group ("IGWG") to develop the new regulatory system that the DAFF would oversee. (32) The new standards established the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System ("ESCAS"), which placed a greater emphasis on ensuring that cattle receive humane treatment throughout the entire export chain. (33) The new standards expand upon the pre-existing Australian Standards for Export of Livestock, which required exporters' compliance with the standards as a precondition to receiving certification by DAFF and authorization to resume exportation to Indonesia. (34) In August 2011, the first company received certification to resume exportation in compliance with the new standards. (35)

Although the Australian government has exhibited an intention to transform and improve the industry's regulatory system, neither government backbenchers (36) nor animal activists believe these reforms will prevent future abuses. (37) Additionally, while the new ESCAS requires independent auditors, critics worry that these auditors will, in practice, not truly be independent, as private companies will simply hire livestock industry insiders, as opposed to government officials, to conduct the audits. (38) Indeed, the animal activist group Animals Australia documented video footage of continued breaches of animal welfare in certified Indonesian abattoirs in February 2012. (39) The critics argue that these breaches illustrate that such self-regulation has failed in the past and will continue to falter moving forward. (40)

3. Indonesia's Animal Welfare Standards

Although Indonesia is a member of the World Organization for Animal Health ("OIE"), (41) it lacks both domestic animal welfare standards and legislation to enforce the OIE Guidelines. (42) Examining the realities of the domestic slaughter industry, Indonesia's failure to implement animal welfare standards is apparent. The majority of Indonesian workers that slaughter Australian live exports are unskilled and have never received training on proper slaughtering practices. The few who have received proper training likely received it from Meat and Livestock Australia...