Monthly Archives: November 2012
Land Only Part of the Israel-Palestine Equation Now
Tensions between Israel and Palestine have increased over recent weeks to a point now where fears are growing that a major conflict will ensue. Militants had been targeting Israel with rockets and Israel responded by killing a leading Hamas militant. In retaliation for the assassination, Hamas fighters have rocketed the capital of Israel, Tel Aviv while Israeli jets continue to bomb Gaza. Both sides of the conflict have again suffered civilian casualties.
A peaceful end to the conflict again has been shown to be too difficult. On the Palestinian side, terrorism has proved impossible to control, particularly the actions of Hamas who are responsible for the rocket attacks on Israel.
As for Israel it’s been a question of the scale of the response to equally unjustifiable and unforgivable attacks on their people. Huge force has been used against Palestinians by the Israelis and that looks set to continue apace with a military-based incursion appearing likely to be utilised by the administration in conjunction with jets bombing Palestinian areas.
The question of Israeli willingness to negotiate on the land dispute is not an argument that can in any way justify violence on the part of Palestinian terrorists. However, the Israelis must display a real willingness, a readiness to negotiate on a two-state solution.
And so, the cycle of violence, as it has for decades, is set to continue. There is again little will from both the Israelis and Palestinians and their respective overseas supporters to attempt to reach a peaceful and necessary two-state solution.
Again it seems that violent fringe groups are dictating terms over the whole dispute. Any hope of any kind of compromise dashed by extremist elements in the conflict. A problem magnified by illegal settlements has had any hope of a solution pegged on a return to peaceful interactions between Israelis and Palestinians.
At least that is the excuse given. Even when there has been relative peace, negotiations over a solution involving the mutual recognition of Israel and Palestine never really went ahead with any real gusto, any vigour or confidence and belief that both states actually have the right to peacefully coexist.
The problem has proved too difficult not just for Israel and Palestine to resolve on their own, but also for world powers and supranational institutions interested in seeing peace between the two parties.
We have probably passed a point, especially in recent years, where any hope of a lasting peace, a compromise deal that would halt hostilities from all groups with a stake in the conflict, would have been a reasonable assumption. The rise of Islamist groupings in the Middle East over the Arab Spring has surely seen to that.
At the same time, it would be folly to suggest that were the extreme elements of Hamas and Fatah not in existence, that a lasting peace would be able to be established swiftly. This is partly the case for the reason just given but there is also another reason.
It is also the case that extreme elements would still exist within Palestinian circles, but the resistance would be much more muted, though still proving a catalyst for inaction on a territorial compromise.
There will also undoubtedly be elements within Palestinian groups always unhappy with a compromise deal, even one that creates two states with reasonable territorial divisions.
With so many disparate groups and as always the violent ones clouding things, the dispute seems even more inexorable as we head towards much more bloodshed in a very unstable geographic region.
A number of factors are compounding to make even a sensible mutual resolution difficult for all parties to accept without further violence. So, the cycle of violence will continue.
Keating Foreign Policy
Every now and then a former parliamentary leader, minister or MP returns to the airwaves or to our TV screens to comment on issues that they think are important, on policy issues that they can still offer a reasonable opinion on. Some do it more than others as if craving to be back on the national stage in a big way. Some appear to have lucid thoughts, others not so intelligent or in-touch thoughts. Paul Keating is one such man. At times his thoughts on current challenges facing Australia and the world are clearly observable in reality, even on the money, and sometimes his ideas and comments are way off the mark.
The former Prime Minister last night went on Lateline to talk about a speech he was asked to deliver- the Keith Murdoch Oration which was given at the State Library of Victoria. It was a speech called Asia in the New Order: Australia’s Diminishing Sphere of Influence. The oration comes just a short time after the Labor Party released their Australia in the Asian Century White Paper.
In a wide-ranging speech about Australia’s positioning in Australia, both in historic and forward-looking terms, former Prime Minister Keating focused particularly on our relationship with Indonesia and her government based in Jakarta.
Australia’s relationship with Jakarta has been much like a yo-yo. We have had a tough time having to establish and then re-establish firm ties with Indonesia at different times in our mutual political history. Most recently, that cooperation was lost over the East Timor dispute and then clawed back, particularly since the Bali bombings.
Keating’s speech made a number of claims about how Australia should be participating in Asia and with whom that political interaction would offer the best outcomes for Australia.
Ostensibly, Mr Keating said that our key strategic relationship in the Asia-Pacific should actually be situated in the Indo-Pacific, specifically with a close geographical neighbour, Indonesia.
Paul Keating has form talking up the need for a close strategic partnership with Indonesia. Just under twenty years ago the former Australian Prime Minister declared that, “no country is more important to Australia than Indonesia. ”
His argument last night with regard to our relationship with Indonesia was based on three main themes, They were that our partnership lacks “structure” and “coherence” and is dominated by “transactional issues”. Those arguments are, for the most part, wrong.
The Australia-Indonesia relationship, though testy at times, has been a firm one for the past decade despite the occasional flash of discontent toward Australia and vice versa.
To say that the bilateral ties between Australia and Indonesia lack structure is false. For one, increasing economic ties with Indonesia is currently on the negotiating table. We are working towards an Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Partnership Agreement and have been since 2010 when it was announced that discussions had commenced.
Australia and Indonesia are also part of regional bodies including the Bali Process, the Indonesia-Australia Annual Leaders’ meeting and APEC where we have the chance to meet on both a multilateral and bilateral basis.
The only regional forum where Australia is missing out on interaction with Indonesia is ASEAN, We are not a member of this grouping and that is one area where Paul Keating is correct to say we could improve on engagement with our region.
Australia-Indonesia ties do not lack coherence either. Coherence cannot be found to be lacking when we have set meetings at which we engage with the Indonesians at both a multilateral and bilateral level. It cannot be said that our regular two-way visits imply a lack of ongoing relations with our northern neighbour.
In terms of transactional issues, the former Prime Minister almost has a point. He talked about specific examples, the live export trade which was temporarily suspended and about the ongoing people movement between Indonesia and Australia.
They are transactional issues but our relationship goes beyond that. At the very least there appears to be a working relationship that has continued between President Yudhoyono and Julia Gillard after being grown by John Howard in particular and then Kevin Rudd.
There are times when we do not get as much as we would like from the Indonesians and they from us, but that is the nature of most relationships, not just with Indonesia. Particularly in the case of Indonesia, there are some things that they just cannot or will not grant us, mostly by virtue of the fact that they are a developing nation.
When talking about military and security power, the regional importance of Indonesia is questionable. They have a weak defence force and even weaker border protection capabilities. Australia, to its credit is trying to provide some assistance in those areas.
Paul Keating is wrong when he talks about needing to pull back from the Australia-US relationship in order to have a stronger friendship with Indonesia. Our relationship has been largely maintained, even grown throughout a period of increased Australian military ties with the United States of America.
The same is true of our relationship with China, despite their initially being some protestations from both the Chinese and the Indonesians when we announced a greater ongoing military presence in the Northern Territory. Those purported tensions appear to no longer be an issue or at least not one to foment great conflict.
Should we dramatically escalate ties with the USA? Perhaps not. However, the purported need to dramatically disengage from one of our ANZUS partners is overstated, even based on an illusion.
It is quite silly of Paul Keating to say that our relationship with Indonesia lacks structure and coherence and is dominated by transactional issues. This is clearly not the case.
Australian Versus US Political Journalism
I was engaged in an interesting conversation last week about politics and media coverage. It was a chat about the way that the media and politicians engage in the to-and-fro of politics and journalism. Well, to be honest, in hindsight it was actually more a case of me listening and my fellow dinner guest imparting his opinion, which I was happy to indulge. But then I thought about it for a while and here I am blogging about it.
Thinking back to last week and being a fan of openness in government, I wish I had chimed in with what I would usually say about the way that journalists and politicians should communicate.
The conversation revolved around the way the US media and politicians interact in the political discourse there. Essentially the idea my family friend put forward was that he likes the way that major politicians in the United States of America interact with the media and that the same formula should be followed here in Australia.
As many of you would know, American politics is dominated by set press conferences and interviews and you will rarely see so-called ‘door-stops’. Come to think of it, I am not actually sure I have ever seen that kind of interview situation, that kind of interrogation used in US politics.
Contrast that with Australia. Random interviews are conducted on doorstops, as politicians emerge from their vehicles, leave church, finish up at events and so on.
Of course Australia also has your stock standard, walk to the lectern, make a statement or announcement and then field questions kind of press conference. There is of course that key difference though and that is we have, as part of our system, the ability to ask questions of our MP’s at just about any time.
Is the way that we as Australians do political journalism without flaws? Certainly not.
A big problem with political journalism in Australia is the apparent lack of understanding and an inability to dissect the policies of our political parties and that is by far the biggest problem with political journalism in Australia.
There is, from time-t0-time a problem with the ‘maturity’ of political journalism. There are times when the questions directed at politicians are incredibly stupid or asked in a belligerent manner.
A problem also exists when largely trivial matters dominate the news cycle. This could be due to the fact that there is a lack of policy experience in the media and commentariat, or, as far as the wider journalistic landscape goes, a push in political journalism further towards what makes ratings than to what should be widely known about policy by the general public.
Of course, a general misunderstanding of policy exists within the general public too and even a number of politicians lack policy knowledge, but the latter have the means to articulate their views clearly to the public at their disposal.
Political reporting and journalism in Australia too, despite the more extensive media presence ‘in the field’ does not guarantee the cessation of something that the cynics, or as I like to refer to them in terms of politics, realists, rail against. Unfortunately, never ever will any level of media coverage of politics compel MP’s to answer questions in a truthful manner.
Thankfully, from time-to-time, they will however be caught out in their lies. The best chances of that happening are with an ever-present media like we have in Australia.
In a vibrant liberal democracy, we should be as open as possible and that includes a media with as much opportunity to ask questions as possible even though politicians tend to obfuscate and spin their way through what some describe as ‘answers’ to questions.
This should be the case even if we are uncomfortable at times about the conduct and depth of media coverage devoted to politics.
Tax Will Not Cut the Fat
Denmark has decided in recent days that it will repeal the fat tax introduced over a year ago that is levied on foods with a certain level of fat and above. The Danes have also decided not to go ahead with their planned ‘sugar tax’, an extension of the chocolate tax. The move is a victory for common sense, even though it actually took until the tax was operational for the Danish Government to realise that it was a silly idea that was never going to work.
The Danes love their taxation, they are one of the world’s top taxing nations so of course it was almost inevitable, with a worldwide obesity crisis continuing to grow, that they, or another European nation would be the first country in the world to put a tax on high-fat foods. In the end, the Danes went first with a tax adding 16 kroner per kilogram of saturated fat.
In looking at the results of the tax the Danish political establishment found that their world-leading tax was costly to business, but more importantly, failed to change the eating habit’s of Danes. The levy on saturated fats was also a bureaucratic nightmare, having being levied on all food products containing saturated fats.
The government of Denmark found that part of the reason the tax did not work was because Danes travelled across the border to purchase foods high in fat once the tax was introduced.
The Australian Government and others around the world contemplating placing a tax on saturated fats and high-sugar products must learn from the Danish example. Governments must realise both that a fat or sugar tax will not work in combating obesity and that because such a tax will not work, they would be asking business to take on extra costs for no benefit.
There are a few things that government needs to know about introducing a fat tax and the Danish example might finally make politicians realise those facts.
First and foremost, taxing to change behaviour is a stupid concept. In fact, what a tax attempting to change behaviour is doing a lot of the time is actually taxing stupidity. Common sense cannot and should not be legislated for unless it is in order to prevent harm to others. Eating fatty foods is not a crime against your friend, your neighbours or strangers. Having an unhealthy
A tax on saturated fats or fast food just increases the price of fast food. A tax put on foods that are bad for us will not ever magically make healthy foods more accessible than poor food choices.
Not only that but increasing the cost of foods with saturated fats on any level would make it difficult for low-income earners to be able to afford food. People that are on low incomes are already struggling and do not need to be struggling to eat.
Government also needs to think about why foods high in fat, salt or sugar are increasingly the choice made by Australians in their day-to-day lives. In some cases it is not quite as simple as people willingly choosing the worst food option.
First and foremost, unhealthy foods are cheaper. Fast food and more generally, all foods high in fat, salt and sugar cost much less than fast foods and that has been a reality for a long time,
It must also be recognised that we are getting busier as a nation. People are working longer hours and getting more tired. Consequently, fast and convenient food is an increasingly sought after product and again, that is usually processed, high in fat, salt and sugar.
Subsidising healthy food is an option but it would prove extremely costly and would still not work. Subsidising anything is also something that a government should avoid at any cost.
There is a role for educating people about healthy food choices, starting at an early age to instil the benefits of good food choices. Again though, this is a part solution.
The problem is a difficult one, but as Denmark has shown, taxing eating habits is not the answer.
A Broad and National Royal Commission the Only Way
Finally, it seems that a significant national inquiry into what appears to be widespread abuse within the clergy is near. Calls New South Wales has just announced an inquiry and Victoria has already set aside twelve months for an inquiry of their own. But these state-based inquiries are too limited in scope and there is little doubt that the problem crosses state borders. There has been so much focus too on the Catholic Church, the main source of such horrendous allegations, but a broader approach in that sense too is necessary.
Both the New South Wales and Victorian inquiries are incredibly limited. In the case of NSW, announced last week after a Lateline interview with a state police officer, the investigation will be limited to the allegations made by Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox during an interview on the ABC news program. The events in question are limited to a specific region in the state and surround an alleged police cover-up of very disturbing incidents.
In the case of Victoria, their inquiry is wider in scope, but far from a powerful royal commission. Victoria’s sex abuse is being investigated by a parliamentary inquiry but is not limited in scope like the New South Wales’ iteration will be.
The parliamentary inquiry in Victoria covers abuse in all religious and non-government organisations, not just the Catholic Church or a specific region within the state. However, like the newly announced investigation in NSW, the committee inquiring into these matters does not have the extensive power that a royal commission commands.
There really now, more than ever, is a need for a full royal commission into child abuse and it must be a national one. We have passed the point of no return. There is not one option left to deal with a large number of alleged indiscretions except for holding a royal commission.
For some time now those calls have been met with resistance despite a significant number of cases coming to light where there was abuse, mostly within the Catholic Church, but also a wider array of religious and other institutions.
Most of that resistance has come from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the main denomination at the centre of the bulk of the allegations that have been raised in the public domain of abuse and inaction.
Worse still, it is also alleged that there has been a systemic cover-up, the active burying of cases involving incredibly devious acts of sexual depravity and violence against Australian children. All for the maintenance of power.
It is incredibly sad, indeed ridiculous and very concerning that the church believes itself above the law. Child abuse, any abuse is a crime and as such there should be absolutely no tolerance of reports that it is occurring. It absolutely beggars belief that anyone would not report alleged indecency, in favour of dealing with it in-house. Going to police is the one and only option.
Australia’s politicians have been way too slow to act. We have known about a number of cases of abuse and inaction on the part of the church for years and yet, until this year, little had been done anywhere in the country.
It would appear, on the face of it, that our politicians fear the influence of not just the Catholic Church, but also the wider religious movement. But that fear is incredibly ill-founded and terribly misplaced.
Religious movements are no longer anywhere near as powerful as they were. They would like to think they are and the impression of ongoing power remains. The simple fact, however, is that they are not.
In any case, politicians should not fear any real or perceived influence that religion does or does not possess in Australia. The lives of Australian children are far more important than any political benefit. Power should not corrupt to the extent that sexual abuse is ignored by MP’s across the country. Sadly, it just might, at least until the political pressure to act against these allegations becomes too strong.
People are experiencing more hurt suffering in comparative silence. The vast majority who have had acts of sexual violence perpetrated against them would want some form of closure, some acknowledgement that their pain and suffering is real and needs to be dealt with by a proper judicial process, not forgotten about or buried within an organisation.
It is understandable the visceral anger and hatred directed at institutions and the individuals that represent them, for having failed in the basic duties of a citizen, organisationally and individually when it comes to the law. People do deserve much better treatment at the hands of those caring for and providing guidance to impressionable and vulnerable young minds.
Unfortunately, some of those understandably outraged by the actions of the Catholic Church and other religious organisations have called for the tax exempt status of these organisations to be revoked as some form of punishment,
Any kind of remedy must be civil or criminal and should not extend to taking away the tax-free status of religious organisations that still, despite their massive and unjustifiable failings in relation to protection of children within the church, do extensive and helpful charity work.
What is abundantly clear is that a wide-ranging and national inquiry is needed into abuse within the church. The states have either failed to do anything at all or have not gone anywhere near far enough in prosecuting this matter.
A royal commission must now happen and should certainly not be limited to the Catholic Church. All denominations must be examined in a broad inquiry without fear or favour.
Support for the inquiry needs to be across partisan lines. As of this afternoon all political parties, except for the ALP and most Independent MP’s have pledged support for an inquiry. A large and growing number of Labor MP’s have however voiced support for a royal commission.
It would appear that the momentum towards a national inquiry into sex abuse within the church is now inexorable and that can only be a good thing,
Sadly though, a lot of pain has been endured during the unnecessarily slow process.
The Five-Year Backflip
Senator Stephen Conroy, the Minister for Communications in the Gillard Government yesterday announced that the Labor Party would not be pursuing a mandatory internet filter. The very proposal put forward by Senator Conroy back when Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister had always been a political problem for Stephen Conroy and now it has been resolved, but not without all that now unnecessary political pain.
Luckily for the Labor Senator, debate over the proposed mandatory filter has been absent from the headlines for some time. All the while, Conroy was still working behind the scenes with telecommunications companies on a solution to the complex issue
But was taking all this time really necessary?
In the first instance, the strong opposition to a mandatory filter should have been a big enough sign for the Minister of Communications to consider looking at other avenues for arriving at the same, or a similar outcome. Instead, the government decided to continue pursue a policy that has proved a long and drawn out problem.
The backflip performed by Senator Conroy has to be one of the longest backward steps taken by a minister that appears way out of his depth not just in the narrow area of internet regulation, but also his broader portfolio responsibilities.
After 5 years of both pontificating about the filter and working behind the scenes to achieve an outcome, Minister Conroy announced that instead of a mandatory internet filter, he had reached an agreement with internet service providers to block sites listed on Interpol’s ‘worst of’ database. That means that approximately 1400 websites monitored by Interpol will, once the policy is implemented, not be able to be accessed from Australian computers.
This seems like a much more sensible outcome, a much smarter approach than an Australia-wide internet filter which would have been much more widespread and at the same time a very secretive process with the list of blocked websites hidden from the public view.
It is very interesting how Mr Conroy has shifted from pushing a policy of wider censorship of the internet in a secretive manner, with no published list of banned materials for public oversight, to a narrower policy of just combating access to child abuse websites.
The fact that the new policy is limited to child abuse material is a victory for common sense with concerns around the barring of a wider array of websites actually amounting the censorship.
The problem with the previous policy was not so much about what would be blocked, but the fact that we would actually never know what the government would be blocking and even why.
At the same time, the ALP need to be careful that they do not think they can combat child pornography and exploitation material just by blocking websites.
As Shadow Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull made clear in an interview today, “[the filter] would have been quite ineffective in the battle against child pornography because people who trade child pornography and other material of that kind do so through peer-to-peer networks, they’re not posting it up on websites.”
Stephen Conroy and his party can now breathe a little easier, with a needlessly prolonged problem finally off the table, but the embarrassment will be experienced for a little while yet. Luckily, in the scheme of things, this issue probably has not leaked votes for the ALP.
It has, however, exposed a poor minister.
The Costings Fetish and What it May Mean
Australian politics is undoubtedly at a strange place. Since the 2010 election when Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her Labor Government scraped into the power with the support of the Greens and three Independent MP’s, all the usual hostilities have ramped up. Some new battles have even been established too. Much of this can be put down to one simple factor and that is the vicinity of power to the two political leaders. The Labor Party are just holding onto power, only just and the Liberal and National Party coalition still look very close to taking power at the 2013 election despite narrowing poll margins.
Of all the interesting and at times absurd events fomented by the fragile state of play, one of the most interesting has been the growing desire and outward protestations from the ALP , particularly over recent weeks and months, for the Coalition to cost their policies and do so now.
There are always calls from incumbent governments, it is true, for opposition parties to release and cost their policies as early as possible. Why would governments not want to do that? Were that to occur, to be common practice, it would certainly help the reigning political party or coalition to construct a strategy to rip apart the figures.
It has come to light this week that a relatively unusual event has occurred in Australian politics. The Gillard Government, it was revealed, asked Treasury to cost three existing Coalition policies. That analysis found that those three policies would come at a cost of $4.57 billion to businesses in the first year of a Coalition Government from 2013.
As was mentioned before, governments seeking costings in a rather energetic way has always been a bit of a thing. But now it appears to have developed into a fetish. Rarely before have the calls been so relentless and so vocal. Again, that mostly goes down to the thirst for either maintaining or gaining power, a hunger that both sides of politics have at the present time.
Really though, it is completely stupid to be asking, to be demanding that opposition parties release their policies so far out from the election. If the budget state is uncertain and your party have announced, or have a well-entrenched focus on achieving a particular budget outcome, then it would be folly to release your costed policies so far out from the election.
It is almost without doubt that the Coalition will either drop outright or alter, either in part or dramatically, their existing policies. You could almost be sure that the paid parental leave scheme will be different to the existing policy. The rhetoric around that policy has shifted and talk about it from the Coalition is no longer a priority, almost to the point of no words being uttered willingly about the proposed scheme.
Not only that, but the Opposition would surely be considering a number of cuts to existing government programs. That’s a hallmark of Liberal administrations.
An interesting thought does come to mind when thinking about the reasons for the Gillard Government seeking and then leaking costings of Liberal Party policies.
The possibility of a March election has been raised in the last week or so in response to a rush on the part of the Labor Party to get legislation through the parliament before it rises for the Christmas break.
Of course, running up to an election, as a government, you might want to look like you are getting things done, even though to some, too much government is a very bad thing. Australians though, on the whole, while they hate their government, whatever the political complexion, they tend to want, or rely on its intervention.
And so the recent suggestion of the Coalition has some weight. An early poll probably will not eventuate, but the thought must not be discounted.
Really, the most likely reason for the politicisation of Treasury is the thirst for more political blood. Surely the Gillard Government is itching for more momentum, to capitalise on recent movements.
It is the job of the Coalition to release their final suite of policies close enough to the election to put them in the context of the fiscal position but far enough out from the polls so that the public get a good look.
Now is too far out, despite what the Labor Party and sections of the media will have you believe.
The Stupidity of the Ban Mentality
Overnight we again saw distressing scenes of animal cruelty on our television. This time it was truly horrific scenes of barbarity towards sheep which ended up in Pakistan after being diverted from Bahrain which There is nothing pleasant about the way the animals were treated. Nobody could in any way excuse or justify the treatment of the Australian livestock by Pakistani officials. Of course the sheep were bound to be killed either way, but the reasons given and methods deployed were at the same time dubious, ugly, abhorrent and disgusting.
Predictably of course, the live export ban lobby have again found fuel for the fire that they want to build in order to see the entire industry destroyed. The extra oxygen is again fanning the flames and the advocacy groups involved will not stop until the industry has been reduced to smouldering ashes.
But is this a reasonable move? Is this something that should logically occur as a response to this incident? To any given incident which makes people question the trade?
The reality is that the reaction, as far as continued calls for a complete and permanent cessation of live exports, is a woeful overreaction with little or no understanding of the real world of policy-making. The repeated calls also lack reason.
Thankfully, this time, Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig and the Labor Government actually made a rational and reasonable decision. This time there was not and there will not be a knee-jerk reaction from an out-of-touch government pandering to the chosen few because they feel slightly uncomfortable about the headlines live exports have generated.
That seems to be the new test. The ‘discomfort test’, it would appear, is the new threshold for banning a whole industry in response to what are undoubtedly horrific scenes.
Back in the real world, we realise that isolated incidents do not make a bad industry. We realise that while there have now been a few documented incidents and disturbing ones at that, that those occasions do not represent the industry as a whole.
Let’s think about the proposition for a minute. The proposition that says banning a whole industry is a smart and justified response to limited wrongdoing across a specific industry.
Imagine if we followed this suggestion through to its logical conclusion. Any industry where there is any hint of wrongdoing, no matter how limited, where there are examples of events of an illegal, abhorrent or unpopular nature should be cut down and eliminated.
Not quite so sensible an idea now is it? How many industries would be left if this was the case? Probably none.
We would be stupid, indeed naive to believe that any amount of regulation, any number of checks and balances could eliminate all inappropriate behaviour in any industry. However, banning something in response to reprehensible actions is not the answer.
Some in the ban live exports camp will say we could replace the live expert trade with the slaughter and preparation of livestock in Australian abattoirs and some of course do not want us to be eating meat at all. Those advocating the latter should be ignored. They are well and truly in the minority and should not be trying to push their beliefs on the vast majority of people.
Those protesters pushing for the killing and preparation of livestock in Australia for export in place of sending live animals to overseas nations have a point, at least in theory.
We could create an extensive slaughter industry in the north of Australia. Jobs would be created and more money would be rolling in domestically from the livestock trade. Sounds good right?
The trouble is that in reality, if we were to travel down that avenue, slaughtering and preparing all meat for export onshore, we would almost certainly strike a problem.
If we were pursue a policy like this we would almost undoubtedly experience a drop in demand for our product. Some countries would surely be more cautious about accepting our meat trade if we were responsible for the whole slaughter and preparation process.
Then there is the small matter of local slaughterhouses occasionally slipping up and making mistakes. Yes, there would be better oversight if meat-processing was located here but it would be a mistake to believe we could eradicate all issues.
All this seems like an unnecessary price to pay. Animal rights lobbyists should be advocating punishment for wrongdoing but not calling for a complete ban of the trade.
aussiepollies 