In the interests of balanced discussion, please read the following link. http://sl.farmonline.com.au/blogs/farmonline-opinion/a-letter-to-four-corners-from-wellard-rural-exports/2193028.aspx

This details the "other side of the story" - the true nature of what happens to Australian cattle going to export, the millions invested by Australians and Indonesians in improving facilities and practices, and the very real impact that the current ban will have on both Australians connected to the industry, and the Indonesians in the areas around the abbatoirs impacted by the ban. For a country that exports just 30% of Indonesia's cattle use, our countrymen have had a very significant impact on improvement in practices. Instead of condeming them, we need to get the other side of the story out and celebrate the very real improvements that have been made. Needless to say, we wont have any influence if we back out of the market completely.

It is of course the Greens screaming loudest about ending all
live exports. What a great reason for the Indonesians to get out
the machetes and chop down some more of that rainforest, breed
a few more of their own.
Result - Green voters = Orangutan killers. The law of unintended
consequences strikes again

I don't think it's the responsibility of Australians to change abattoir practices anywhere but in Australia. However, by having mandatory animal welfare provisions on Australian-produced livestock we lead by example.

My view, as an omnivorous Australia who doesn't care one way or the other about whether or not Australia has a live export trade, is that the industry (including producers, transporters, exporters, feedlot operators and procesors) is collectively responsible for ensuring that International humane standards are adhered to. If it isn't profitable to conduct the business both humanely and sustainably, it's just not viable. Expecting taxpayers or animal welfare activists to foot the bill is effectively asking us to support an unviable industry.

On the other hand, I fully support the revitalisation of our domestic processing industry, which has been allowed to become moribund while the option remains to sell low-quality beef cheaply overseas, even where we know that large numbers of stock will be treated inhumanely. The mining boom can't last forever, and meat processing could well provide employment for all those semi-skilled workers now currently off making big money as cleaners and drivers in the mines. Temporary workforce shortages can be offset by proper use of 457 visas. The advantages to Australia's long term sustainability are obvious, as would be the revitalisation of many country towns where abattoirs are now sitiing idle.

Indeed, the more I look at this issue, the less I think we need a live exports industry. While it's desirable that the Indonesians lift their game to world standards, it's not Australian taxpayers' responsibility to subsidise an unsustainable industry in order that they do so. Animal Welfare activists should apply pressure directly to Indonesia, and those who profit from the industry should pay for lifting it to minimum standards at least - otherwise it's simply unsustainable.

There can be no justification for mistreating Australian animals in Indonesia or anywhere else. We should not and do not, accept cruelty to animals. An immediate ban on all so called Indonesian abattoirs is a correct immediate response from the Live Cattle Export Industry in Australia.
We could, and we can by taxing live exports, ensure that Australia would only process, freeze and ship packaged meat to other parts of the world. For one thing, it’s a higher value product. But there are some countries where that is said to be impossible for cultural and practical reasons.
We are talking about villages where there is no refrigeration. But meat goes bad just as fast whether it is recently thawed or freshly killed. There was on Four Corners glimpses of good practice, modern stunning and slaughter facilities but there will always be the other side as exemplified by the bulk of the film. We support the government’s decision and it should be extended to ban exports of all Australian livestock. Why do we think we have the right to do anything we choose with any member of the animal kingdom ? We are I believe actively working to improve animal care in the world and we must use our influence in those countries to speed up progress on animal welfare reform. Perhaps the example of refusing to put animals through the stress of the unnecessary excessive handling involved, let alone the cultural attitude to animals, would be a better influence. The suspension of exports should be followed with insistence that animal welfare practices cannot be compromised in any way. These expectations, are not optional, they are integral.
The simple solution is to place a small tax on the exporting of every live animal. The abattoirs in Australia that were closed can be reopened with the recovery of the 40,000 jobs that I believe were lost when the unfortunate decision to permit shipment of live animals was allowed to replace their product.

Indonesia has a responsibility to feed its people so it might just invade Nothhern Australia to capture land to do so. It could also seek other catle markets in South America etc. Indonesis is not subservient to the Australian Greens Government: they are an independent nation with a huge population and army. For Australia to deny them food might be a trigger for agression.

Philo: Beef in a 3rd world country is a top luxury food - nothing to do with feeding the populace. We can still provide it anyway just properly packaged and frozen or cryovaced and properly processed. If you are so frightened you should work harder to overthrow the Greens. They must be allowed to have good ideas occasionally