Hi Bronwyn

Have you yet viewed the following relevant document "How to Comment?" I haven't opened the contents, however, I plan to select the briefest and simplest method to respond. Any response, complying with their terms of reference, will be better than none. I intend to raise additional questions in a separate email. That way they will not be able to ignore or disqualify my main submission.

http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au/How%20to%20comment.htm

The deeper one reflects on this issue the more dismayed one becomes, particularly on realising that Australia is one of the very few Western nations which do not have a National Animal Welfare Act.

I wonder which standards the vivisectionists operate under in Australia when they're mutilating live, conscious animals in their laboratories?

Hi all
PALE, thanks for starting this thread, it is really important that the public makes an effort on this.

The quick look I've had a chance to have so far at the document indicates that it is all about benefits for producers/transporters etc etc and little to do with animal welfare. One thing that jumped out at me is a part where the standard for transport has been weakened. I'm away from home at present so I don't have the exact details, but where it was quite specific about the animal/s having to be able to stand comfortably in terms of headroom, that has been weakened. One important point that has to be raised also is MAXIMUM JOURNEY TIMES. Sheep can be deprived of water for up to 36 hours and cattle up to 48 hours - longer if the truckie doesn't think they are distressed (yeah, right).

These are animals who need huge amounts of water daily, and more so in hot weather conditions. At present, no-one monitors journey lengths/rest stops. I heard of one truckload of sheep from WA to Adelaide took well over 60 hours non-stop and when it did stop Police had to be called to shoot some of the sheep. That was quite recently too.

So please everyone, please try to submit something. And remember to make your submission specific to your areas of concern (i.e. headings, issues, conclusions).

Cheers
Nicky

Dickie

Thank you for the useful links and info.

Will certainly be writing.

Cheers

I have written about this issue to government as well (some time ago) and like dickie tend to be pessimistic about any real change in the development of a National Animal Welfare Act that will address live animal exports and which is legally enforceable.

Live animal exports have to be made illegal and when you read statements like this on DAFF website at http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/export-trade :

"The Australian Government supports the livestock export trade. It is a valuable and legitimate trade..."

that you realise what an uphill but not unwinnable battle this will be. The government needs to support a policy banning live animal exports pure and simple, guidelines that are not enforceable are useless. Pale has already indicated that Halal certified abbatoirs established in Australia could produce chilled meat to these markets.

In that link there is reference to "post-arrival animal welfare concerns" raised with the Middle East. This is nothing but spin and rhetoric. Australia has no jurisdiction or legal right to dictate to another government on these practices and years of cultural behaviour will not change overnight.

Pelican,

I'm struggling with the logic in live-exports needing to be made illegal just because the Australian govt supports it. Surely "It is a valuable and legitimate trade..." is not grounds for dismissal either.
Just who is going to make it illegal other than govt, and on what grounds?

daff go on to say:

"Australia leads the world in animal welfare practices. The Australian Government does not tolerate cruelty towards animals and will not compromise on animal welfare standards. Our ongoing involvement in this trade provides an opportunity to influence animal welfare conditions in importing countries."

Some focus should fall upon that last line.

rojo

Not sure how you interpreted that. I did not mean to imply that live exports be made illegal because the government supports it (as a reason in and of itself) but that it 'should' be illegal only because of the cruelty aspect. My sentence was referring to the uphill battle faced to ban live exports given that the government currently supports this policy.

The government has made some changes to the life of animals on these ships such as the requirement for a vet to travel onboard. This does not reduce the impact of the journey on animals nor any post-arrival cruelty over which we have no jursidiction or control. We can talk to the Middle East

I would argue with the statement that Australia leads the world on animal welfare - these are just bureaucratic gloss words that don't mean anything. Where is the evidence that we lead the world on animal welfare. We might at the domestic level (cats, dogs etc) but certainly not in the area of battery chickens and live exports.

Even if Australia did 'lead' the world in this arena, it does not mean we cannot do better or that current practices are not cruel.