Ludwig, if anyone wants to process all livestock locally, they are free to do so. Buy them, find markets, build meatworks and do it. Nothing stops them. If they can't be bothered, then banning live exports means that the stock simply die in the paddocks, with mass suffering right here in Aus. We see that right now, in Queensland.

The whole live trade issue is a complex one, well above the heads of most people. The campaign against it is largely being driven by the animal liberation movement, as distinct from the animal welfare movement. They are mostly vegans/vegies etc, who think that sentient species should not be eaten. Their common solution is that they think that livestock farmers should give up farming livestock. It is fruitloop stuff, to put it kindly.

Meantime, putting livestock on trucks and carting them 4000 Km at 7$ a Km for the truck, is bad for farmers, bad for livestock and makes no sense at all, when the same livestock can go on a ship, with food and water on tap, 24/7, where they commonly gain weight on their journey.

Yabby far from the first time you confront a person not truly aware of why we have a live export industry.
And this time at least it is a decent bloke.
Animal welfare groups, some here under various names , like to forget live trade or nothing is some customers request.
Dreams of packing houses in far northern our back towns come with the thought employment will flow in huge numbers, and be taken up.
Not so, mining has to import fly in fly out now.
Yes a proposal for one packing house looks likely to go ahead but not suburban dreams of doing the right thing, but profits drive investors both away and toward such investments.
Kevin Thomson will not, ever, lead.
That may be for the best given the Mauling Ludwig, the ex Minister gave the industry.

Dear Ludwig,

I don't know enough about Kelvin Thomson to be able to
comment on him. However, I would have thought that
Anthony Albanese would automatically get the job
being the Deputy. But perhaps he doesn't want the
position? Bill Shorten has thrown his hat into the ring
even though he's denied he was going to,
and we'll see what happens next. I would have thought
that he's associated with the "old" Labor - and that a "fresh"
start would be preferabble. I'm not too enamoured
with this guy because of his past dealings -
But that's just my opinion.

BTW: what do you think about Indonesia wanting to buy
land here in Australia to raise their own cattle?
An I the only one who thinks - why can't they lease the
land instead? This would still give them what they want -
put money in the hands of the farmers, and
provide jobs for this country - but we'd keep our own land -
as we should.

Foxy, "but we'd keep our own land - as we should."

While I agree that foreign ownership of land ought be restricted and many other countries will not allow it in the first place, the problem is that there isn't the venture capital here to develop.

The previous government could have directed taxpayers' $$ into that instead of such failed ventures as home insulation. There will be deaf ears to that I know, but just saying..

The problem is more fundamental than that. If Labor doesn't stand for socialism (old Labor), and it doesn't stand for capitalism (sell-out Labor), what does it stand for apart from cronyism, and just any vocal interest group crying to get its snout in the public trough? "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything". So if people aren't voting for Labor selfishly because they expect some kind of corrupt advantage, then they're doing it because they don't understand that government doesn't create magic benefits by forced redistributions, and all they're doing is supporting a protection racket.

And that describes anyone who vote Labor. They have no principle but only grasping, and endless appeals back to socialism. But no-one can ever defend any socialist theory of any kind without falling into endless circularity, as we see on here non-stop whenever any of them is challenged. The reason is, because it's wrong! If they had any better argument, they'd put it forward!

Contrary to left wing thinking that is limited slogans, there is such a thing as and reality, and logic, and illogic and error. Everything is not just political opinion, and "ideology" and social constructs. You can't just re-fashion the world closer to your hearts' desires by mere threats a.k.a. "policy". And what has Labor got but threats? What are all their claims of social benefits but merely claims of social benefits from threats and thieving? It's not a coincidence that their leaders keep showing themselves smirking incompetent thugs who stand only for their own power - it's because that's all socialism is, all it ever was, and all it ever can be!

WHO CARES what next leader Labor has for the snout-in-the-trough vote, and the unprincipled moron vote?

It could only matter to those who think that force and fraud are the basis of the good society because in the last analysis, if you're not going to respect other people's person or property, force and fraud are all that Labor has on offer.

Got a great idea.

Craig Thompson.

He would make the ideal Labor leader going forward. He stands for everything that Labor stands for, and would maximise the vote for Labor from all those people in the population who stand for the same thing.