Live export ban: a failure of leadership

Like many, I was sickened by the ABC's Four Corners report on cruelty to animals footage in Indonesian abattoirs. [warning: video footage is very distressing].

From a leadership point of view, the decision is obvious: stop the cruelty now. It's the humane thing to do.

If only leadership decisions were that black and white. Unfortunately not. And that's where the reactionary blanket ban by Minister Joe Ludwig and the Australian Government is an example of leadership failure.

Let's consider the relevant points:

• Animal cruelty at some Indonesian abattoirs is unacceptable and unnecessary. Agreed.
• Everything ought to be done to eradicate this treatment. Agreed.
• There are cultural differences in slaughter. Traditional halal slaughter requires slitting of the throat of a live animal. It is believed that a cut with a sharp knife is the most painless process of slaughter. The translation of this theory into mass-production practice has been warped into torturous processes. Agreed.
• Some halal practitioners don't believe in stunning animals first because it is not seen as halal. (Animals need to be lain down and faced towards Mecca). Getting Indonesian processes to change their practises will be difficult from a cultural and financial point of view. Agreed.
• Livestock Australian businesses knew about the conditions in Indonesia and did nothing. Not quite - Meat and Livestock Australia and Livecorp have been working on changing cultural beliefs, conditions, and practises in Indonesia.
• Stopping all trade to Indonesia is the right thing to do to force movement on this issue. Maybe. Maybe not.

Let's consider the consequences of this decision:

• A ban of the trade now strands thousands of cattle which if they gain 1kg, will no longer be accepted in Indonesia for slaughter. Where do these cattle now go? This is what many businesses are trying to sort out. They may end up being shipped south east in Australia to other abattoirs. 
• If these animals are shipped south then the market will be flooded, and prices will crash - affecting many southern Australian businesses.
• There are no Aussie abattoirs for export in the top end within 2500kms - it would bankrupt many northern end businesses.
• And with the sudden drop in supply in Indonesia, people who live on $2 per day will now have to contend with the potential of soaring prices. 

It's called the domino effect.

And it may not even have any effect on the methodology of slaughter in Indonesia.

Questions for consideration


Should animal welfare take precedence over economic sustainability of businesses and communities? I've been to northern Australia and seen first hand the remote communities that rely on this trade. The blanket ban will crush their business, and cause long-term ripple effects in already susceptible and fragile communities.

Does it really have to come down to animals versus people?

So where does the moral responsibility lie?

With the Indonesian slaughterhouse workers? Yes. The torture and mistreatment is not acceptable - in any culture.

But what about the slaughterhouse providers who believe they are doing the right thing according to God's law? How do you say to them, "Australian values are more important than Indonesian ones"?

Changing values - even what appears to be such an obvious black-and-white issue of torture - is not easy. It takes education, persistence, and commitment. And a deep-seated belief that YOUR values are indeed better than someone else's - values and beliefs that have evolved over thousands of years, upheld by millions.

And what of the Australian businesses and organisations who have either been turning a blind eye or using a 'good enough' approach? They have to settle with their own consciences with this one. Some businesses have already pulled their cattle from various abattoirs. Still others ship only to abattoirs in Indonesia where the conditions and methodologies are to international humane standards, set up Australians and managed by ex-pats.

The blanket ban has prevented even the businesses that are doing the right thing from shipping their animals overseas.


The decision looks good - it appears to be taking the high moral ground. But it's punishing those who are doing the right thing as well those who aren't.

So why else does a vegetarian who has been meat-free for 26 years come to disagree with the blanket cattle ban?


I've been to a feedlot this year (where cattle are sent pre-slaughter to fatten up). I was nervous beforehand - worried about seeing distressed and tortured animals. What I saw was the complete opposite. The cattle were the happiest animals I have ever seen. Content, well-treated, peaceful even.

The feedlot staff love the animals and look after them. There is not the callous, disassociated attitude I expected.

Plus distressed cattle release adrenalin in to the flesh which apparently makes the meat tough and yucky to eat. More incentive for the process to be humane.

And then they take them for slaughter and eat the meat.

This part I still find weird. That's the vegetarian part of me that just can't take the leap to eating dead flesh. I do eat fish however, so I too, am no moral saint.

The real issue however is the ban does not solve the problem. Indonesian abattoirs will continue to slaughter the animals the way they have been doing. Maybe with some financial pressure change might come. But this is basically a clash of cultural values. A moral impasse. There is deeper work to do than just economic blackmail.

Here is the leadership failure:
The government's knee-jerk reaction - the blanket ban - without full and due consideration of all knock-on effects of the decision and without supporting businesses who are managing the trade in a humane way. Those businesses are being affected too and not being supported for their ethical decisions.

So what should we do?

As a deliberate creation practitioner, when faced with massive contrast (contrast: something I loathe and find deeply distressing) I know that the only solution is to focus on what I DO want (not on what I don't).

• I want the humane treatment of all animals -whether to be harvested for food, or as pets, or as service animals.
• I want all businesses involved in animal flesh production to treat their animals with care, respect, and dignity - in all parts of the rearing and harvesting.
• I want all businesses to maintain their own moral compass and make decisions based on that, rather than on metrics.
• I want my government to show proactive big-thinking leadership - to accept and manage complexity of international values system, alongside animal welfare and economics.

We all want a better, more peaceful world. It starts with acknowledging the wrong thing when we see it,  and move immediately to what we want instead.

This is not about a witch hunt; this is about leadership in shades of grey where our moral code is challenged. It's not easy. But we can do better.