National, ACT and NZ First all committed to reverse the ban on live exports. There are a few complexities to this, one is that less than 20% of the public support it. Most of us say we want the ban to remain in place and think it would be a retrograde move, a high risk: bad for the animals, bad for our brand.
https://lnkd.in/gqYXq8u8
Understanding this, the sector (Livestock Export NZ) plans to heavily invest ($1 million) in a major lobbying campaign, a PR pitch to allay public concern. Strategic funding has been set aside for "political lobbying and legal fees", $366,000 for a new "trust and understanding" campaign, $100,000 on media training for advocates... and the development of what they are calling a new 'gold standard' for animal welfare.
https://lnkd.in/gXJuV_Em
To recap: why did we ban live exports?
* The research indicated there was no feasible way to transport animals the distances and lengths of time we need to (we are really far away down here!), while maintaining good animal welfare. Vets working in the area on the boats set out their assessments and concerns: unhygienic conditions, thermal stress, high stocking densities, the injury and death rates on route, the adequacy of flooring and bedding, impacts of weather events, incidents of disease outbreaks and sickness, elevated stress...
*The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, established under the Animal Welfare Act to give independent expert advice, supported a total ban. The NZ Veterinary Association agrees the ban is consistent with what the science say, so does the SPCA. They all raised the issues associated with sending our animals to countries with vastly different conditions, practices and standards. Standards and practices that would be illegal here.
*Of the 3,791 submissions received, the overwhelming majority called for a ban. 91% of the 440 online survey submitters (over 20% of which were farmers) supported a total ban.
It raises interesting questions. What sway should public opinion have? What weight should evidence, research and expert advice have? If people vote for a party and those parties get elected, but people missed the fine print in their policy documents ... or disagreed with specific aspects - should they just have to swallow the whole package and all its the consequences ... for 3 years? How many average kiwis even read those policy documents and knew things like this were coming? And how easily can well resourced lobbyists, able to throw big money into PR campaigns, influence public opinion?
Meanwhile, the UK banned live exports on 20 May and just over the ditch the recent inquiry into live exports has just produced a recommendation: for a ban.
The recent Inquiry into the phase out of live sheep export has now concluded, with the committee recommending that the bill to phase out live sheep export be PASSED!
The last hurdle now is for the bill to be debated in Australian Parliament. As soon as tomorrow, the bill will be debated in the House of Representatives before then going to the senate to be debated and hopefully, passed.
This will mark an historic moment in Australia — a countdown to the day that sheep are no longer subjected to the extreme and prolonged suffering on live export ships, and inevitable terrifying death abroad.
We are so grateful for the many Animals Australia supporters who took the time to write (yet another) submission supporting an end to this cruel trade. Thank you for never wavering in your commitment when these processes are long fought.
We are so close.
Stay tuned — we will keep you updated every step of the way.
Senior Foreign Service Officer at USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
4wA special thanks to the steadfast support of the APHIS office in Seoul for their contribution to this market access. #aphisoverseas.