Lot's Wife Edition 6 2015

14
POLITICS
BY KIRSTI WEISZ
The conflict of interest
plaguing animal welfare laws
Harrowing stories from Australia’s live export trade often
feature in the news or circulate via social media. These
stories, which are usually presented in the form of heartwrenching
images or ear-piercing videos, demonstrate an
incomprehensible level of cruelty.
One of the most recent clips from Vietnam, where
Australian cattle were being slaughtered with
sledgehammers, was deemed ‘too shocking’ to release
publicly.
Shatha Hamade, a live export investigator for Animals
Australia, not only examines the evidence included in the
formal complaints to the Australian government, but also
witnesses the stories first-hand. She goes overseas to
investigate whether exported animals are handled according
to Australia’s regulations.
In one particular investigation in Kuwait, Shatha was
documenting the illegal sale of Australian sheep in a
notorious livestock market. As she stood and documented
two men putting trussed Australian sheep in the back of a
van, she rested her elbow on the boot of a Toyota Camry to
stable her focus. It was a stifling hot day.
It wasn’t what she heard or saw that startled her, but what
she felt. As she leaned on the boot, she felt frantic kicking.
There were sheep stuffed in the boot.
When asked how she handles witnessing animal cruelty,
Shatha said “when you are in the field, you have to keep
reminding yourself that you are there to document their
plight, to give them a voice, so that their suffering will not be
in vain.”
Not too long ago, the Voices for Animals Bill 2015 was
reintroduced into the Senate by Federal Greens Senator Lee
Rhiannon.
The bill proposes to establish an Independent Office of
Animal Welfare that will, among other things, monitor and
implement regulations concerning the live export trade.
Currently, the Department of Agriculture is responsible
for the welfare of animals exported overseas. However, an
inherent conflict of interest exists as the Department is not
only responsible for animal welfare but also for ensuring the
interests of industries that use animals.
The main animal welfare framework that regulates the live
export trade is the Export Supply Chain Assurance System
(ESCAS). It was implemented following the 2011 public outcry
about the systematic cruelty occurring in Indonesia. ESCAS
allow the Department of Agriculture to hold Australian
exporters responsible for breaches such as when the animals
are taken out of the supply chain.
Now, four years later, very little has been done to
penalise exporters or individuals for these breaches
despite continuing cruelty. While blaming the industry for
transgression may not be the ultimate solution, a greater
focus on detecting and preventing breaches is needed.
Animal welfare frameworks are often plagued by this conflict
of interest, whether in the context of food, entertainment or
science. But how can we enshrine an unbiased approach to
animal welfare?
Broadly speaking there are two main philosophical
approaches to regulating animal welfare. The current
approach aims at working within established systems to
improve the treatment of animals because, like humans, they
can experience pain and suffering. It attempts to balance the
interests of animals and humans to ensure the best outcome
is achieved. However, seeing as animals cannot voice their
opinions, it can lead to their exploitation because an industry
which uses animals may sacrifice animal welfare to ensure
productivity.
An alternative approach sees animals as autonomous
beings that are subjects of rights and therefore cannot be
used as a means to our ends. Adopting this perspective
generally rules out the use of animals which means that the
live export trade cannot continue.
Exporting animals overseas not only contributes
financially to Australia, with $1.4 billion revenue since 2013,
but also employs approximately 10,000 people. So banning
the trade is a massive step that may sacrifice the interests of
the industries involved; a step we may not be ready for.
So, what can be done to balance these interests?
Great support has been shown in the 21st century for animal
protection. It is often referred to as the :next social justice
movement.: Having a system that isn’t properly enforced
undermines its purpose. We know the reports from overseas
reveal cruelty and our aim should at least be to alleviate
it. However, instead of rectifying flaws in the system, the
Department reduced the red tape in the processes to lessen
the burden placed on relevant industries.
We may not be able to find anyone who takes a completely
objective view but perhaps an Independent Office for
Animal Welfare - in charge of monitoring and reviewing
these regulations - can provide a voice to the animals most
vulnerable to our systems of law.