Recent comments by: Mary G
"but those countries will probably still find suitable supplies from other countries, less vigilant about animal welfare standards." It's an admission of cruelty, and of Australia joining into lower global animal welfare. Like New Zealand, we should not participate in something that is morally and ethically wrong and unconsciousable. What "other" countries do can be exposed if we withdraw. Governments are to blame for offering lucrative rewards and a financial future in the live export industry, and recklessly supporting it.
"But 70 per cent more food will need to be produced with less arable land and basic resources, like water". There are basic physical and biological limits to how much food the world can produce, and the challenge is to produce more with less! it's assumed that cash and funds, from foreign sources, is the solution. Australia is the driest continent with poor quality soils. Our scientists shouldn't need an injection of foreign funds as we have a history of being great innovators in agriculture.
Germany is the fourth largest economy. The actual size of the economy does not give an indication of per capita wealth, or other social political factors. High population means wealth has to be distributed between more people. It would be false assurance to rely on live exports, or any imported food supplies. They are fragile and subject to many global factors that could leave many people with short food supplies. Food security will be a growing issue in the next decades and polarise nations.
How dare Abbott apologise for banning live exports to Indonesia! This happened because of the horrific atrocities being committed on the cattle sent from Australia. The government is meant to be democratic, and represent the voters. People were shocked and the public demanded the end to the shameful trade. Tony Abbott has forgotten his role, and duty to the electorate. Democracy is being over-ridden by vested interests and huge corporations with monetary powers to quash democracy.
The weak argument that if Australia doesn't supply cattle and sheep to countries supporting our live export, they will source from countries with even lower standards of animal welfare. This is a circular and self-serving notion. Australia should be creating benchmark standards of only exporting frozen foods, and setting precedents. Animals are not inanimate cargo, so their consideration must be paramount. Australia as a developed country must set precedents. Australia is caving into globalizing animal cruelty. Meat is not traditionally the main source of protein in SE Asia anyway.
Government ministers, employees and economists sit in their sterile offices and have little understandings of the whole picture. The drive for "economic growth" at all costs means their policies are abstract, in isolation from reality. On paper, growth can be as infinite as numbers, and it's only policies and technology that must be upgraded and improved. Nature has it's own agenda, its own time-frames and it non-negotiable. There are limits to growth - something that is considered as heresy today! The environment is considered a sub-set of the economy, when it's the contrary.
Other civilizations have been grounded and thwarted by ecological overshoot! Already the planet is in ecological overshoot and under stress from human overpopulation and depletion of arable land - and the threats of mining and climate change. There's limits to growth, and just how much our land can be expected to produce for Asia's swelling populations. It's assumed that science and technology will solve the demands put on agriculture, for the economic benefits. However, Australia's food security can't even be guaranteed.
What would our governments know about food security? The first thing surely would be to protect our prime agricultural land from predators with lots of cash.
With farms going under the hammer to overseas investors, how can we be sure of our own food abundance? Our own population in Australia is burgeoning too, due to immigration rates.
With little more than 6% arable land, the first place to secure our food supplies would be to ensure we maintain and control as much prime land as possible. It's common sense.
Any industry that relies on secrecy and animal cruelty is vulnerable to exposure, and economic disaster. No matter the economic benefits, it cannot morally be based on such horrific animal cruelty.
There are many people now fighting for the survival of live exports, due to being dependent on a flawed and fragile and unsustainable industry.
There needs to be a turn-around, but it's inevitable that people's lives must adapt and change with this industry's decline. What we need is some innovation and creative thinking to replace the live export industry, not keep "flogging a dead horse".
Australia may have one of the least dense population densities in the world, but we are the driest continent and have poor, ancient soils. We are a small nation in a big land area. With global population soaring and causing mayhem and threatening our future, our Governments, due to short-term thinking, are pushing our numbers towards a "big Australia". This is at a time of global shortages of land, soils, food, phosphorus, water and oceans' fish stocks dying. Profiting from land sales is just too attractive, and too lucrative, to resist. We need to change government direction urgently.
The "complacency" on food security is generally not a public concern. Our governments are traditionally given the role of caring for voters and Australian citizens. That's what they are paid to do. It seems that they have been taken over by short-term goals such as profits and the GDP, and population growth. There is no strategic outlook, not holistic national management or accountability any more. The economy transcends all our government's concerns, and the welfare of Australians is last. The environment, food security, climate change, carrying capacity, housing and welfare are all now subservient to the Economy of growth and consumption. We needs a grassroots movement towards a sustainable population and a sustainable and stable economy, not one obsessed by growth. There is a fatalistic attitude that we can't survive for centuries, so it is grab what you can now!
Australia's economy has become skewed and tragically dependent on population growth. It's fatalistic and outside any logic and real-world thinking. With only about 6% arable land in Australia, and the driest continent, we should be concerned, even though we have a relatively "small" population. Economic growth is not necessarily in our interests, or should be the main aim of governments. It should be human-friendly and developed in a framework of food, environmental security, human well-being, a balance with natural resources - and future scenarios.
We have politicians and economists with political power who are are completely oblivious about the realities of shortages and natural resource declines. Skills shortages are considered more relevant and a priority over shortages of essential resources such as food, production, and energy. The absurdity of pushing up our population upwards in our times of all the "peaks" of oil, phosphorus, global population, and climate change. The carbon tax is not a fix-all! Our Environment Minister is also the minister of "sustainable" population, but even then there is no logical thinking or common sen
"The state is prospering, with a population of more than double the 15.5 million it had when the elder Brown, known as Pat, became governor in 1959". Prosperity in monetary terms is shallow comfort with little water and productivity. Megalomania is a big threat to our planet, with people continually wanting more and more wealth, and think our "carrying capacity" is infinite!
This industry operates in remote areas, in darkness, clouded by such contradictory terminology as "humane", "sustainable", a "natural resource" and "pest control". In reality our native kangaroos have been hunted remorsefully, for decades. The problem is the livestock industries who want all the land, water, grasses for their cattle, leaving little for native animals. Queensland Nationals Senator Ron Boswell must adjust the scale of how many people kangaroos can feed! Aborigines only killed and ate the meat at a sustainable, subsistent level, and now it's being promoted overseas.
At least the Animal Justice Party is represented at the Federal Elections, for some sense and compassion for animals in our nation. They are abused, used, slaughtered and not given any protection. We've voted about our own self-interests long enough, and now animals can have our vote!
The three quoted policies of the Animal Justice Party are quite reasonable and should be the norm. They actually did quite well, compared to many of the other micro parties and for their first elections. It's hardly "radical" to be anti-animal cruelty. Most Australians are reasonable people and abhor animal abuse. It's due to the quirky and back-door dealings with other parties for preferences that is causing them to be eliminated unfairly.