Thanks for the article Siobhan. As a small scale sheep farmer, I regard the live sheep trade as a hideous practice that trashes the industry. While I don't begrudge the case against the live cattle trade getting so much attention at the moment, the live sheep trade is far, far worse for a variety of reasons.

A few comments.

Yes, animal welfare is a state issue. But any state that banned the live export trade would undoubtedly run into the argument that trade is a commonwealth matter. Frankly, I'd love it if my own Tasmanian government banned the live export trade (we don't have such a trade, so it would be more about promoting the Tasmanian brand than actually changing the live export trade) and, in so doing, created a big constitutional fight with the feds. Lots of media coverage about this would be advertising the Tasmanian farm sector could never afford to buy!

I think the idea that the commonwealth Parliament would vote for a live export ban is wishful thinking. In my view, a much more likely option is some kind of cruelty-free branding. The RSPCA's "Freedom Food" program is big in the UK. A similar thing here could stipulate that providing livestock to the live export trade (or even just selling livestock through saleyards, from where they could end up in the live export trade) would disqualify you from the program. Then the RSPCA and Animals Australia could use every example of live export cruelty to promote the cruelty-free alternative - ie use the news for advertising. Some of the big European grocery chains already set high animal welfare standards, without waiting for the parliament to act. So, the system works.

Another issue is that the opposition to live exports is itself divided. A few are vegans who want to impose their choices on the whole community and get rid of livestock. But most are people, including many vegans, who want livestock welfare standards improved. It's the old animal rights vs animal welfare thing. Animal rights activists do not want the end of just the live export trade.

Pig farmers and chook farmers are a bit of a mystery to me, but sheep and cattle farmers do place a high priority on the welfare of their animals (with only rare exceptions). And we are keen to get ever better at it. However, we are concerned that some of the animal welfare activists who have no direct knowledge of farming don't understand that further improvements in livestock welfare will necessarily increase the cost of food. In other words, they want it to happen but won't share in the associated costs. Or, worse, impose higher standards on Aussie farmers and then turn around and buy cheaper imported food from places that have the welfare practices they abhor!

Jeremy Grant (above) has recommended we keep sadists out of the livestock industry. He's dead right. People should not be allowed to own or manage livestock if they have a track record of abuse. Even more, they should have to have taken and passed some kind of exam and practical test to demonstrate they know sufficient about livestock health, nutrition, handling etc. A lot of the work of animal welfare inspectors involves livestock (including horses) owned by hobby farmers who have absolutely no idea what that animal's basic needs are. Those animals suffer greatly - and needlessly - and in great numbers.......

The RSPCA and Animals Australia are doing such a wonderful job over the live export trade. And Lyn White deserves beatification at least. We should be able to convert all their work into the end of the live export trade. I'm convinced that a very aggressive "cruelty free" market assurance program of some kind is far more likely to achieve that than leaning on our federal MPs. But, if you're right. Siobhan, and the political solution happens first, I'd be happy with that!

As a retired sheep and beef farmer I am tired of hysterical and one-sided reporting about the live animal trade. While Ms O'Sullivan points out that conscience votes are reserved for particular categories, I'm sure opponents of the live trade would regard this issue as of equal moral importance to that of abortion , the traditional Conscience vote issue. However why the focus on the live trade but not on other issues of 'necessary suffering' in normal farming practice (such as weaning dairy calves after a couple of days or less, cage laying etc)? The reason must be that most Australians like to eat animal products and don't want them to cost the earth and so support efficient and necessary methods as long as animal husbandry does not involve undue suffering. It is much easier to campaign against the treatment of animals by foreign workers in developing countries- do the campaigners care about the reasons this is so? Not many people would agree that live animal exporting is equivalent to the slave trade .Outpourings about 'torture grief and death' of large numbers of animals on sheep transports are not supported by evidence and totally ignore the important fact that companies involved in the live trade do this to make a profit, which quickly disappears when animals die. Deaths on board are usually rare; vets are on board to supervise and audit the animals' welfare. While many would prefer that all animals exported by Australia are killed here , this ignores the demand for fresh meat in countries where householders do not have refrigerators .It also ignore the economic problems if abbattoirs can only operate seasonally - this is the reason why various abbattoirs have gone broke - trying to keep operating by transporting animals long distances before slaughter, buying in distant markets (in Australia). Clearly the opposition to the live trade will not disappear if all cattle are stunned before slaughter in Indonesia and other Moslem countries , and also in Israel where kosher slaughter demands no stunning, as it does in Australia. The animal liberationists will just find other issues to pursue , though their ability to mobilise support will be dramatically reduced.

This is all very well but are we still all missing the point:
The suffering of the animals occurs while the animal is in Indonesia, when the animal is INDONESIAN if you prefer. Neither the footage, nor the case were related to the 'suffering' in the boat or anything like this.
This is also why this issue can't find any legal/economic solution.
Right now the elephant in the room is for suffering from being ignored !