Research Methods in Legal Studies and Political ScienceFinal Assessment| |
SUBJECT CO-ORDINATOR: Dr.Raul Sanchez Urribarri12th June 2012| |
In recognition of the failures of Australian Political Leaders in allowing Live Animal Export out of Australia without appropriate handling standards, this research proposal will focus on the comparison between the Australian and New Zealand Meat Export Economy. Through this fully-developed research plan, my aim is to answer the following question:
"Live Export is both cruel and inhumane, judging by the history of two very similar countries New Zealand and Australia, How is New Zealand exporting chilled meat yet Australia does not? What issues need to be addressed to change current Australian legislation?"
By changing current legislation, the Australian government will have the ability to impose the following: •Stop livestock being manhandled once they leave Australian shores. •Introducing a standard for slaughter, ensuring the future of the Australian Meat Industry. •Revisiting volume numbers and journey durations on Livestock ships and suggest possible alternatives.
During the last 30 years Australia has sent more than 150 million sheep and cattle overseas to be slaughtered. The main countries currently importing Australian livestock are the Middle East and Europe. Animals Australia has estimated that livestock ships can carry up to 100,000 animals for voyages lasting up to three weeks. Issues of starvation, heat stress, and illness are all major concerns. Media reports showing video footage confirm that Australian livestock are badly mistreated in international slaughterhouses. In 2012, the National Bureau of Statistics conducted a survey, questioning the public about their view on Live export. The following results were noted: •79% of Australians would like to see the export industry phased out. •Improvements to Australian regional employment thus putting Australian farmers at an advantage for economic growth.
"The question is not, can they reason? nor, can they talk? But rather, "can they suffer? A very valid point which has been taken from the article "Confined to a process: The pre-emptive strike of livestock care standards board in farm animal welfare regulation" by Lindsay Vick. In this article the author discusses Livestock Care Standards which are an innovation in animal welfare regulation in the United States. Standards relating to animal gestation and the use of battery cages in Ohio as well as a standard for stall sizes for all calves. This proves to be "a good compromise between the wishes of the agricultural industry and animal advocates". Ultimately these farms are where live export originates. Such changes is legislation mean that the United States actively support animal welfare. If these standards can be upheld in the United States then why not in Australia?
Further on if we were to compare this article to "The validity, construction and application of Animal Welfare" we see a very similar discussion arise. Changes to the Animal Welfare Act are discussed where by amendments to the act have been made to secure the proper treatment of animals intended for the use in research facilities, exhibition purposes or for the use as pets. This amendment also includes the trade and transportation of animals and covers not only the United States but many other states whereby this law will need to be upheld. Punishment for an animal being mistreated is up to a $5000 fine or 1 year imprisonment. Concluding reading this article it is difficult not to ask why Australia cannot change its legislation to include the trade of Australian Livestock.
In the third article by Stacy A Norwicki, "On the Lamb: toward Nation Animal Abuser Registry" it again reiterates the need punishment, for perpetrators of animal abuse. The article suggests that as many as 631 felonies...