Fake-farmer push for live export fix risks worsening welfare

IN a speech in 1956, former US President Dwight D. Eisenhower spoke about “synthetic farmers behind Washington desks” who love to tell real farmers what to do and how to do it. “You know, farming looks mighty easy when your plough is a pencil, and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field,” he said.

Some things never change — though those “synthetic farmers” have moved out from behind their ivory tower desks and become far more widespread.

Over the past week, the noise of commentators calling for an immediate ban on live sheep exports has been deafening. The speed of the response has been unprecedented — not just with calls to ban the trade, but in terms of the rapid shifting of political positions.

Joel Fitzgibbon, shadow Minister for Agriculture and for Rural and Regional Australia, announced this week that “a transition away from the live sheep export trade will deliver an outcome better for farmers, the economy and for animal welfare standards”.

Seems some people have learned nothing from the disastrous banning of live cattle exports in 2011.

In introducing her private member’s bill, Liberal MP Sussan Ley said “the arguments that people will get the sheep from somewhere else are untrue. The Middle East are moving towards chilled boxed lamb and mutton”.

Yet the largest importer of Australian live sheep has already indicated his company is looking to find other secure sources of livestock as a result of Australia’s talk of banning the trade. Osama Boodai, chief executive of Al Mawashi in Kuwait, said the livestock trade was a matter of national food security in his country. His company already imports large volumes of chilled and frozen Australian meat. However, these had different markets and would never replace the livestock trade, he said. “A clear example of this is what we have seen in Saudi Arabia, which ceased importing Australian sheep in 2012. They continue to source millions of livestock each year from other regions. Their demand, like ours, is specifically for live sheep,” he said.

Those arguing for a ban say the industry no longer has a social licence. Where does one apply for a social licence? What fees and charges apply? Who sets the criteria and how are they assessed? What recourse is there to appeal an adverse decision? And will they be valid beyond the next edition of the ABC’s Four Corners? These are the great unknowns.

One thing is for sure: parliament won’t get a look-in because the terms and conditions that apply to social licences are not determined by our elected representatives on

the advice of experts but by activists making up rules as they go along.

No one can condone the poor treatment of animals under any circumstances. However, we don’t ban things outright every time there is an unacceptable outcome. Punishing those who have worked hard to meet and even improve standards is both unfair and counter-productive.

The failure has been twofold: the exporter involved, who did not provide conditions that meet acceptable standards; and the regulators, who failed to police the rules. Those responsible should be met with the full force of the law — including lifetime bans and jail terms if that’s what the penalties include.

The better decision on the live sheep trade is surely to put the industry on notice rather than shutting it down, and to hold regulators accountable for enforcing the rules.

However, while rapid action is easier to sell in the 24/7 media cycle, a quick victory for those arguing for a ban on the trade would be a defeat for good policy. On this issue, like others, speed is not the solution. It’s the problem.

The risks inherent in an immediate and outright ban on the trade are huge. There is no transition plan on the table, from any side, for farmers and others who rely on these exports. What is the cost of that transition? Who will pay? As we saw in 2011, such a course of action will be followed by years of bitter argument.

Australian farmers, exporters and shippers have invested huge amounts in improving animal welfare outcomes and we must continue to act as the lead agent for change.

If we ban live exports, the growing international trade will simply move to suppliers in countries with no industry regulators, no animal welfare laws, no oversight, no biosecurity and no way to address any breaches or tragedies when they occur.

That’s a no-win outcome by anyone’s standards.