Editorial: Risks of trade in live sheep far too great

Opinion

David Carter had to move swiftly into damage control this week after he signalled the Government's intention to end the six-year moratorium on live sheep exports. One day the Agriculture Minister was talking of an "opportunity". The next he was stressing that the trade would not resume "unless strict animal-welfare standards are met and New Zealand's reputation as a responsible exporter is maintained". His circumspection was warranted. Indeed, there would have to be very good reason for this country to risk its reputation as a responsible agricultural exporter by restarting live exports to Saudi Arabia. Mr Carter has offered none.

He seemed particularly irked by the Green Party's claim that the trade could resume as early as June. There was not, he said, a planned timeline. But it can be taken for granted that the Saudis want exports to start late this year, in time for the Haj pilgrimage season, when live animals are sacrificially slaughtered. The pressure for a resumption was highlighted last July when, during a visit here, the Saudi Agriculture Minister asked for the kingdom to be exempted from the ban on live sheep shipments. In Mr Carter, the Saudis appear to have found a receptive ear.

The minister has gone to great lengths to offer assurances that any trade will involve "the highest animal welfare and animal safety standards". But the stark fact is that not only can these not be guaranteed but that the history of this trade is one of cruelty and incompetence. Even Australia, the world's largest exporter of live sheep and cattle, has seen fit to suspend shipments for substantial periods over the past decade following reports that provided graphic

evidence of the animals' painful experiences and inhumane treatment after disembarkation. The hiatuses were imposed despite the fact that 12,000 jobs in rural Australia are estimated to depend on the live shipments.

New Zealand stopped livestock exports to Saudi Arabia after what Mr Carter refers to as the Cormo Express "incident". During that Australian ship's horrific 11-week journey, 5000 sheep died and a further 43,000 spent two months sailing the Gulf after it was refused permission to unload. The minister says New Zealand wants special provision to guarantee the offloading of sheep to prevent a repeat of that episode, and to restrict trade to the supply of commercial slaughterhouses.

Including such aspects in negotiations with the Saudis is worthy. Supporters of the live shipments would doubtless insist it is part of a process of helping to improve welfare standards in such destinations. But that is vacuous. Furthermore, any bilateral arrangements are likely to have a flimsy underpinning. Once any ship not registered here has left New Zealand waters, this country's laws and edicts become essentially meaningless. Tellingly, the ambit of the 1999 Animal Welfare Act, which theoretically captures the trade, has never been legally tested.

Most compellingly, participation in a trade with such inherent cruelty sends a message that New Zealand approves of such practices. Even without further Cormo Expresses, its resumption would sully this country's reputation for high-quality agricultural standards. Certainly, Australia's claim to lead the world in this area has been severely tarnished.

There has been no great demand from New Zealand farmers for the trade to resume. They have not been harmed unduly by its cessation. Therefore, there seems little reason to act. The major impetus has come from the Saudis and a Napier company majority-owned by Saudi interests. If we really want to try to influence Saudi Arabia's animal-welfare practices, we would turn them down.