The benefits of a 'direct action' approach … on Cattle exports to Indonesia

A few brief thoughts on the policy challenges implied by the Government’s moratorium on live cattle exports to Indonesia:

• Needless to say, the visual images obtained by 4 Corners ‘Bloody Business’ episode are horrific, distressing and irrefutable proof that the current trajectory of the Australian livestock export industry’s attempts to improve slaughtering standards in Indonesia is one of failure.
• If the inhumane practices are as widespread in Indonesian abbatoirs as suggested on 4 corners, then a moratorium is an appropriate response.  This should theoretically allow Indonesian abbatoirs that are up to standard to apply for exemptions and to resume the importation of Australian cattle.
• Andrew Wilkie and Nick Xenaphon’s desire to implement a permanent ban on the exportation of live cattle, supported by Getup and the RSPCA is, I’m sure, well-intentioned, but it also implies that Indonesians will forever be incapable of treating animals in a manner deemed acceptable within Australia.  This strikes me as a fairly pejorative judgement that doesn’t accommodate the complexities of the disparity in living standards between the world’s tenth richest state (PPP per capita) and the world’s 122nd ‘richest’ state. While the wealth gap is certainly not an excuse for animal cruelty, developing a sensibility for animal welfare is something that traditionally comes with being a highly developed economy (something that Indonesia definitely is not) and, however untrue it may be, this whole issue is at risk of being seen as a case of ‘Rich white country knows better’. I simply reject the notion that Indonesians are incapable of installing the appropriate stunning equipment and slaughtering procedures that are used in Australia
• So, what to do?
• The solution to me seems to be fairly clear – the slaughtering standards in Indonesian abattoirs are currently beyond despicable and need to be rectified. Also, we can’t directly impose regulation in Indonesia meaning anything we do in Australia is really just fiddling around the edges and will fail in tackling the source of the problem. So, rather than looking to policies that smack of ‘punishing’ the Indonesian livestock industry that are likely to incense the Indonesians, while simultaneously forking over 100s of millions of dollars in subsidies to Australian farmers for lost exporting revenue (for an interminably long period), a much more cost effective solution is likely to be that of directly upgrading Indonesian abattoirs with a combined investment program from the Australian federal government, Australian livestock exporters and, where possible, the Indonesian beef industry.  This could likely be achieved in a relatively short period of time (up to a year), ensuring a prompt return to australian exports. Such a scheme would also mean a year or two of directly employing Australian/Australian trained personnel directly in the abattoirs to oversee the slaughtering process. The program could even be included in Australia’s aid budget and/or in order to wave off likely objections from the opposition, could be arranged such that some percentage of revenue taken in by the upgraded abattoirs is used to pay off the (ideally interest-free) loan.
• This strikes me as a much more cooperative and sensible solution, which is probably why it will never see the light of day.
• Finally, With regards to the broader debate about banning all live exports of livestock…there is probably a case to be made for extreme distances such as Egypt, but Indonesia is literally only a couple of hours by boat … I’m sure this is still too much for some but it seems no worse to me than driving cattle by road-train across the outback.