Animal welfare & Australian politics

I avoid making political comments. To me voting is a private matter, and soapboxing too often just alienates those with opposing views on one hand and preaches to the choir on the other. And the personal vitriol that is thrown around is disgusting (‘play the ball, not the man’, should be the mantra for everyone).

But seeing so many people in the bush who think the recent voting in of a Labor government is a good thing – that couldn’t pass without comment.

Because every vote for Australia’s Labor party is a vote for increased animal cruelty.


Here’s why:

Albo recently wavered over live export. The reason? Pressure from the Greens (behind the scenes). Why pressure from the Greens, aren’t they about free fang doctors and electric cars for all, so they can drive to the local farmer’s market and chow down on undercooked organic veg? Because animal rights zealots have attached themselves to the Greens, and they’ve attached themselves to Labor.

Why will banning live export increase animal cruelty?

Australia is the ONLY country on the planet that has invested – and millions, over years – on improving animal welfare in the receiving countries. This is industry money, not government/taxpayer money. It has been spent on a range of things from abattoirs to an exchange program. For example – Indonesians working in the cattle industry there, coming to Australia to work on northern cattle stations. Not just educational but fabulous bridge building between our countries; with Australians learning more about Indonesia too.

The Australian live export industry is like every other industry, not perfect, but our live export industry is best practice world leading.

If Australia is not exporting stock then the buying countries will increase purchases from 2 countries I won’t mention, where animal welfare standards are many years behind Australia’s. These 2 countries don’t invest a cent on ensuring their stock are well looked after, let alone on improving animal welfare of locally bred animals. They export their livestock anywhere, no strings attached. So – Labor & Greens voters have effectively voted for increased animal cruelty – because they are hell bent on shutting down Australia’s live export trade. The animals that will suffer just won’t be Australian born livestock. The ‘out of sight, out of mind – not our problem’ hypocrisy is abhorrent and makes me sick. It’s the classic NIMBY equivalent of ‘don’t plant & harvest trees here, lets import from SE Asia & elsewhere & turn a blind eye to social impacts & environmental management’.

Regarding thirty five points on this Greens website page listing their ‘Animals Policy’ – some are already a thing, just stated to make farmers sound barbaric (no Australian livestock owner or manager tolerates cruelty, anywhere or any time). Other points on this list sound innocuous but translated by Animals Australia, Peta, RSPCA etc actually mean: no more livestock industries in Australia. At the extreme end – no more horse riding, domestic pets or working animals such as guide dogs and sniffer dogs. Sounds so far fetched it’s bizarre? These aims are all stated in their docs online when you go for a simple dig around.

And the other thing – the other livestock export countries have some stock diseases that aren’t present in Australia, so landing them into a nearby northern country increases the risk of devastating livestock health consequences here.

Unfortunately the media tends to give people what they want – simple. It’s a lot more work to think consequences through, do research to join the dots and ponder moral dilemmas. Will Animals Australia head over to the countries that import stock from other countries? No, because they’ve even stated publicly that they only care about Australian livestock.

PS – re the Green’s website page listing their ‘Animals Policy’ as a photographer – my hot tip is – AS SOON AS you see anything appear with a ‘cute & fluffy’ pic, you know they’re aiming for your emotions not logic. You’re being blinded. That means there are weaknesses in what they are saying.

Tags: ,