18
The Australian Government’s role in the live animal trade: a policy veneer
The trade with Egypt is suspended
1. In February 2006, the Australian Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Peter McGauran suspended the live trade in animals to Egypt. This followed the public outcry generated by the 60 Minutes program exposé of the brutal treatment of cattle prior to slaughter at Cairo’s major abattoir, Bassateen. Video footage broadcast by the program showed cattle subjected by abattoir workers to the slashing of their leg tendons and the stabbing by knife of their eyes in order to render them more amenable to handling and purported Halal slaughter (whilst conscious and otherwise unrestrained). There were media reports too on the abuse of Australian sheep in the lead up to the Eid Al Adha (Feast of Sacrifice) in Cairo, where sheep were shown trussed and loaded into car boots in a region known for soaring temperatures before later having their throats cut by untrained and unskilled private purchasers.
The trade with Egypt is recommenced
2. In October 2006 the Australian Government recommenced live animal exports to Egypt on the basis that two Memoranda of Understanding had been signed by the two governments. The principal one is the MOU on Handling and Slaughter of Australian Live Animals. This MOU requires that international animal welfare guidelines (but not standards) established by the World Animal Health Organisation, known as OIE[1], apply to the handling of Australian livestock, namely, sheep and cattle. In addition, there were some specific handling requirements for Australian cattle, but not for sheep.
3. The OIE guidelines however are lower than the standards prevalent in Australia. For example, no pre-stunning is required before killing. Killing, according to Halal prescription, is by slitting the throat and bleeding out the animal[2].
The hundreds of breaches of the MOU upon the first resumed shipment, and the informal suspension of the trade with Egypt
4. By media release dated 13 February 2007, the Minister acknowledged there had been “some appalling cases of animal cruelty detailed in a report released late last year by animal welfare group Animals Australia”, which report documented eye witness breaches by the hundred of the provisions of the Australia/Egypt MOU[3] arising from the first and only shipment of sheep aboard the Maysora after resumption of the trade to Egypt. Destined originally for Israel, some 40,000 sheep were ultimately unloaded in Egypt. Only some 20,000 or so were sent to the abattoir, a shocking process as it was by reason of uncaring handling and purported Halal[4] killing without pre-stunning. But worse, some 20,000 were sold to private purchasers. As a result, Mr. McGauran wrote to his Egyptian counterpart in March 2007 asking for a report on those alleged breaches. Some four months later, he is yet to receive a reply. As a result, the trade is informally suspended.
The Minister’s response
5. Mr. McGauran in his media release of 13 February 2007 also said that:
“a ban on exports of sheep to Egypt meant someone else would simply take Australia’s place”.
But the Minister is responsible for the welfare of Australian export sheep, which in Australia are required by law to be treated according to certain standards. In Egypt there are none, and no animal welfare laws.
6. In his media release, the Minister continued:
“There are some appalling instances of sheep handling, no doubt about it at all”
And then he added:
“We’re working with Egyptian authorities to better educate the population on how to more humanely handle sheep”.
In reply it can be said that, first, whether by reason of culture or otherwise, the attitude to animals in Egypt or other Middle Eastern countries is entirely at odds to that prevalent in Australia. For a start Australia has animal welfare laws which recognise animals can suffer pain, torment, fear and terror.
The Senate Estimates hearing: the little Australia will or can do
7. Second, Mr. McGauran also said in the media release that:
“... a ban on livestock exports would remove any incentive for Egypt to work with Australia to improve animal handling standards”.[5]
The Estimates hearing before the Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport on 23 May 2007 pointed up in answers provided by Departmental Officer, Mr. Morris, the limited means proffered by any Australian attempt to improve animal handling standards in Egypt, and the almost insuperable difficulties perceived by the Department to be posed by Egyptian sovereignty, and thus tacitly to be posed by Egyptian cultural attitudes to animals.
As to what Australia does to “try to influence the countries in the region to improve their handling conditions and the slaughter/feedlot conditions in those countries”, Mr. Morris continued (and for clarity his answer is interleaved with bullet points):
“We do that through a combination of:
· “the efforts that Dr. Kiran Johar makes in terms of travelling around the region”;
· “the money we put in through the technical cooperation money”;
· “as well as working very closely with industry – Meat & Livestock Australia and LiveCorp, who also allocate money for doing technical cooperation activities and capacity building in the region”.”
Finally Mr. Morris noted:
“It is very much a joint effort between us and industry in terms of trying to improve those standards.”
In this respect, a government is revealed which looks to work in tandem with an industry which has always sought to perpetuate the trade, no matter the welfare consequences[6]. This is the government’s starting point.
8. The role of Dr. Kiran Johar, the person referred to as making efforts in terms of travelling around the region, was described a little earlier in Mr. Morris’ testimony (at page 30 of the transcript) in these terms:
“Mr. Morris: Kiran’s job in the Middle East is pretty much the same as the job of our counsellors all over the world, and that is to represent Australia’s interests and in particular the interests of this portfolio in advancing our market access and other issues in that region. Kiran represents our portfolio and the Australian
Government on agricultural issues throughout the Middle East region. I think he covers about 15 countries. A lot of his work, to be frank, in the last couple of years that he has been there has been very much focused on the live animal issues because of the significance of those issues in the region. He has played a very important role in terms of the negotiations of the Memorandum of Understanding that we have been doing in that region. But his work is not exclusively limited to that. He does pursue meat, horticultural and other issues as they arise.” [emphasis added]
Accordingly, Dr. Johar’s responsibility as Australia’s representative to improve animal handling standards in Egypt is, without the slightest criticism of him, dealt with by him in the course of covering market access and other issues with some 14 or 15 other countries, apart from Egypt, right across the Middle East region. Having regard to the Egyptian Minister’s failure to respond to the Australian Minister’s letter handed over by our Ambassador in Egypt in March 2007, it is difficult to appreciate the Minister’s assertion that:
“... a ban on livestock exports would remove any incentive for Egypt to work with Australia to improve animal handling standards”.
And it can only be wondered how Dr. Johar may discharge the all but overwhelming task of securing meaningful improvements in the handling of animals, whether across the region, or just alone in Egypt.[7]
The purported “monitoring” of future shipments
9. Further, asked by Senator O’Brien (at page 35 of the transcript) as to what is proposed for monitoring future shipments, Mr. Morris said:
“For cattle, we have a commitment in place that we will, for the first few shipments at least, if not beyond that, monitor very closely – that is, we will have people on the ground on arrival of those cattle to make sure that the new arrangements, particularly the specific ones for cattle, are being adhered to so that we can be assured that those measures are being met. We will do that at least for the first couple of shipments and then we will have to make a judgment as to whether we need to continue to do that in the future or whether we can rely on the systems in place.” [emphasis added]
The abandonment of sheep to private slaughter
10. Senator O’Brien then enquired about sheep, to which Mr. Morris responded:
“In light of the reports that came out of the previous shipment [meaning here the Mysora shipment], I think we are going to have a look at what the Egyptians come back to us with and then we will have to make an assessment on how we manage that in the future. I should say, though, that because some of the sheep go to slaughter in an abattoir and some go to the private system they are fundamentally much more difficult to track and monitor than the cattle. There is always going to be much greater difficulty in monitoring what happens to the sheep than what will happen to the cattle.” [emphasis added]
11. Senator O’Brien then asked whether it was possible for Australia to only permit the export of sheep for slaughter in acceptable facilities, as Australia did for cattle (at pages 35-6 of the transcript)[8]. Mr. Morris responded:
“That would be quite difficult, given the traditional marketing and trade patterns into that region. It would start to raise issues not just about Egypt but potentially about other countries as well, so in making a decision along those lines we would have to take into account what happens more generally in other parts of the world and consider the precedent that might set.” [emphasis added]
Asked by Senator O’Brien whether Mr. Morris was saying that the issues about home slaughter would probably be the same in all of the markets, Mr. Morris responded:
“There could be some issues in other markets; that is right.”[9]
What the Estimates hearing transcript points up
12. In summary then, the transcript so far points up that, despite the cultural attitude in Egypt historically to animals and, for that matter, across the Middle East, the Australian Government is prepared to only monitor at least “the first couple of shipments” of cattle under the MOU with Egypt, including the additional specific handling requirements of cattle agreed. This hardly equates to the long-term challenge of improving treatment of Australian export animals in Egypt. Nor, it seems, is this challenge to be addressed other than on a short-term basis. Certainly, whether short-term or long-term, it is not to be seriously addressed with the resources and the commitment such an enormous challenge would dictate, assuming for this purpose that it can be addressed.
13. More fundamentally, the Minister says he only seeks (in some undefined degree) to “improve” animal handling methods, and for Egypt’s population to “more humanely handle sheep”. He does not seek to secure humane outcomes as such. Yet the Australian Government otherwise proclaims in the context of the ‘live animal export trade’ that:
“The 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”[10].
14. As to sheep, Mr. Morris’ testimony exposed the reluctance to suggest the prohibition of home or private slaughter (by way of only authorising export to Egypt of sheep bound for abattoir slaughter). The reason given went simply to the precedent it may set for trade with other countries in the region. The focus then is plainly on the dollar only, not welfare. Abattoir slaughter is agreed for cattle, but not for sheep. No intention exists on the part of the Australian Government to only authorise export of sheep which are bound for abattoir slaughter, despite the very substantial numbers and barbarity of private handling and slaughter. It is difficult to see on what basis this distinction in permissible treatment of two species of livestock is explicable other than by reference to money. That said, the manner of abattoir slaughter is brutal.
The acknowledgement in the Estimates hearing of the difficulty posed by the importing country’s sovereignty once animals are unloaded
15. Asked about this by Senator O’Brien, Mr. Morris responded (at page 36 of the transcript), inter alia:
“Our approach generally in the region has been to ensure that the welfare of the animals is protected right up to the point of unloading and then to work with the governments in the region in terms of issues beyond the point of unloading. When it is the responsibility of the governments in those countries for the animal welfare generally in those countries, it is difficult for us to make demands on them which we do not have the power to enforce. Egypt is the somewhat unusual situation where we’ve gone one step further because of the problems that were raised there and we’ve sought to put additional requirements in place. But generally that is something that is very difficult to do in most countries because it goes beyond the powers we have to control those issues.” [emphasis added]
It is thus plain that the Australian Government’s endeavours to improve the manner of treatment of Australian live cattle or sheep is an empty gesture, and that it all but acknowledges it is unlikely to produce improvements in the face of the importing country’s sovereignty.