Cornflower recommends that we "could take advantage of our business relationship with the importer to feed in some educational stuff where it shoe-horns in with what veterinarians in that country are trying to do."

Australia, well-known for its barbarism, does not have the right to meddle in and moralise over other nations' barbaric treatment of animals which is no more heinous than the ones perpetrated by our own farmers.

The violent history of farmed animals in Australia include the spaying of meat cows where the pitiful animal is incarcerated in a "crush", their flanks slit open and their ovaries lopped off. The luckier cows may only have to endure the Willis Drop Technique where the "skilled" operator shoves his hand up the cow's vagina and with his mechanical tools, cuts the cow's ovaries off. These animals are not afforded the benefit of a painkiller nor are they anaesthetised.

It doesn't end there. There are many other cruel practices before these poor critters are forced to endure additional barbaric treatments, inflicted by the Middle Easterners.

The influential but arrogant pastoralists and graziers associations and farmers' federations need to be reminded that it is I and millions of other taxpayers who continually bale their industries when they put their hands out. Our hard earned taxes prop them up during cyclones, droughts, dry season assistance, transport assistance, etcetera and now the "native forest schemes." It matters not to them that their imprudent farming practices in this arid land have created ecological devastation and I know of no other industry which is offered this mulititude of tax concessions.

The export of our animals must cease immediately.

The proactive strategy of the 457 Temporary Visa programme is now available and meat slaughering houses in SA have seized the opportunity to employ many skilled labourers from overseas.

Interestingly, the largest sheep exporters (WA) remain silent over the potential to resurrect abattoirs with the aid of the 457 Temporary Visa programme.

But then greed is not a criminal offence and the barbaric cost saving practices, perpetrated by farmers in this country, are legal.

Some interesting arguments. Yabby is never far away with his/her totally myopic support of "not sending farmers broke" at whatever cost to the suffering animals. Rhian, if you want to make grand statements quoting Peter Singer, you should include all the facts, not just what sensationalizes what you want to say. Singer in fact made the point that a severely brain damaged infant would suffer less than a member of the ape family; the point being about the level of consciousness.
Another distinction also should be made. Human animals generally have more to do with getting themselves into the predicaments that they do than do non-human animals, and have more control over getting themselves out of them. Non-human animals are completely at our mercy, and with that goes a responsibility not to torture them.
As for veterinarians in the Middle East working to improve animal welfare: Meat and Livestock Australia's OWN veterinarian in the Middle East, Nigel Brown, was quoted extensively in Middle Eastern (but not Australian) newspapers in mid-2006 saying that sheep LIKE to be hog-tied and thrown into the boots of cars in searing heat; it makes them feel safe. Those of you who are till falling for the "culture" and "no refrigeration" propaganda, view the material at Animals Australia's website. Not a religious observance to be seen.
And Australia does in fact export dogs - failed greyhounds - to Korea in the full knowledge of what is likely to happen to them. But what is the difference? An animal is an animal, be it sheep, cow, pig or dog.
As for "Countrygal"'s assertions about meat quality - please spare us,. If you are using dogs to hunt other animals, including rabbits, not only should you be ashamed of yourself, you are most likely breaking the animal welfare laws in whatever state you are in, and therefore should be arrested. It is also against the law in this country to slaughter an animnal without first stunning it..
Nicky

"Yabby is never far away with his/her totally myopic support of "not sending farmers broke" at whatever cost to the suffering animals."

Nicky, thats just your claim, not my claim. Fact is that rough and
tumble sheep are quite different to your pet poochie poo. But as
few animal libbers have ever worked with livestock, they just don't
know the difference.

Fact is that standards on sheep ships are now very high. Fact is
that most sheep going to the Middle East are slaughtered in abattoirs,
some even with stun guns, thanks to Aussie farmers. The millions
of $ annually spent by Aussie farmers in the Middle East, is making
a difference. What are animal libbers spending in the Middle East
to change things?

I see that a leading Saudi importer, who used to be involved in the
live sheep trade, gave that up when standards became too hard.They
now import Sudanese cattle and live sheep from China. Don't those
animals matter to you? Why just Aussie animals? I've made suggestions
about how to use Islam to improve animal welfare in
the Middle East. So far no takers that I know of.

Dickie, virtually zilch subsidies go to WA farmers, they paddle their
own canoes, are even taxed heavily all the way to the ports, when
they try to export products. Farming directly and indirectly
employs 1.6 million, so Aus still rides on that sheeps back to
quite a degree.

457 visas to the meat industry were stopped exactly because of
union complaints about SA processors. As of two weeks ago,
the CEO of one WA processor told me that they could not bring
in 457 workers into WA at the present time, which was a huge
problem. I'm assuming that he is far better informed then you are
about the WA situation.

Nicky, plenty of hobby farmers and other country people kill their
own sheep for meat. How many own a stun gun?

Nicky,

Singer is quite sensationalist enough by himself, he doesn't need others to do it for him. I actually rather like his writing, it's thought-provoking and he's prepared to follow his logic to its conclusions where others would shy away. Above all, he makes us face the inconsistency and partiality of our moralities. But I usually don't agree with him. Here - in his own words - are some quotes that highlight areas I disagree with.

"When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. … The total view treats infants as replaceable, in much the same way as it treats a non-self-conscious animal."

"There is no ethical basis for elevating membership of one particular species into a morally crucial characteristic. From an ethical point of view, we all stand on an equal footing -- whether we stand on two feet, or four, or none at all."

"Since neither a newborn infant nor a fish is a person, the wrongness of killing such beings is not as great as the wrongness of killing a person."

"If [an] experimenter would not be prepared to use a human infant, then his readiness to use nonhuman animals reveals an unjustifiable form of discrimination on the basis of species, since adult apes, monkeys, dogs, eats, rats, and other mammals are more aware of what is happening to them, more self-directing, and, so far as we can tell, at least as sensitive to pain as a human infant."

Singer is sometimes called a nazi for these positions, and while that's wrong and unfair, in my view there is a kernel of commonality between Singer's hierarchy of life values based on a scale of personhood and the concept of "life unworthy of life".

Rhian – I look at things from the viewpoint of minimising suffering, both animal and human. I consider acts such as Saddam Hussein's execution or the Japanese slaughter of dolphins as inhumane, unnecessary, and a sign of weakness.

I guess this as a point of difference between Nazism and Singer's philosophy, in that the Nazi's considered it the natural order for the strong and inferior to destroy the weak and inferior, whereas Singer is more concerned with using your resources to maximise the quality of life. I seem to remember a comparison between the amount required to save a child's life in the developed world, where the saved child would very likely be severely disabled, and the number of children in the developing world that the same amount could save, with the saved children not having disability. Yet it seems to be the frog/disabled child comparison that gets mentioned. Perhaps you might consider what creatures humans are descended from before proffering a comparative value for life. For example, how would you value the life form from which all humanity descended? And if another intelligent creature populates the planet in the distant future, from which organism will it descend? Is it more likely to descend from a frog or a severely disabled child?

An aside on the value society places on the disabled is being played out in the German High Court, with a brother and sister arguing for their right to a sexual relationship. One argument is that the law against incest is to prevent the birth of disabled children (two of the siblings' four children are severely disabled). Does such interpretation amount to eugenics?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6424337.stm

The Australian Meat Industry Council has been negotiating with the Immigration and Mulicultural Affairs Department since last June, to enact an additional formal Labour Agreement.

The additional agreement will prevent confusion over duties for overseas' workers, where allegations of exploitation have been made. It appears that a misunderstanding was the main factor, though the outcomes are not yet available.

The original agreement allowed these workers to be employed only as slaughterers. Once the second agreement is finalised and the work descriptions clarified, then workers can be employed in other sections of the industry including the boning and slicing divisions.

Employers will have the benefit of not one, but two formal agreements.

I have associates in the building industry in WA who have joined the 457 Temporary Visa programme where they are very satisfied with the work ethics of their overseas employees. As a result, one builder I spoke to claims he now has 32 projects underway.

Despite one poster's attempt to mislead readers, the 457 Temporary Visa programme is alive and well in WA and the inclusion of the meat slaughtering industry into the WA programme should be imminent, unless of course, the bully boys in the sheep export industry use their influence to prevent it.

The resurrection of the abattoir industry, in the not too distant future, will be a valid reason to cancel the ignominious trade of sending our live animals offshore for slaughter.

And we who must suffer those who make an animal's life hell on earth, are heartened by Emerson's quotation:

"But in the mud and scum of things, there always, always something sings."