Mr Speaker the economic argument is in fact strongly in favour of banning live
animal exports because of the way the trade is cannibalising the processed meat industry at the expense of thousands of Australian jobs.
Not exact matches
Because of you, fewer
animals are subjected to the horrors of live
export today.
Nonetheless, live sales of cattle and sheep are a small slice of Australian meat
exports, in part
because it is easier to slaughter
animals in Australia rather than ship them alive to Asia and the Middle East.
For a start ending all live
animal exports will not destroy our relationship with Indonesia,
because our ties with that country are stronger than critics give them credit for and are certainly strong enough to survive our decision to stop selling it just one form of one particular foodstuff.
The religious dimension of this matter has also been mischievously overcooked by the live
animal export industry,
because the fact is that the overwhelming number of relatively affluent Muslims who tend to consume Australian meat would have no objection to buying that meat so long as it's been processed in an Australian Halal certified abattoir.
So, in Hedley Lomas (Case C - 5 / 94, The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd.) the United Kingdom could not prohibit the
export of live sheep to Spain
because it did not trust the Spanish authorities in applying EU rules on
animal welfare.
Finally, as a matter of economic policy, the
Animal Science Products case highlights the very real harm that occurs when national governments tolerate
export cartels that reduce economic welfare outside their jurisdictions, merely
because domestic economic interests are not directly affected.