Recent comments by: Paul Cox
It is not only in rural Australia that the RSPCA has suffered reputational damage. The RSPCA has to decide if it is an animal rights org or an animal welfare one. When you allay yourself to extreme fringe groups as the RSPCA has done the goodwill built up in over a century soon dissipates. Australians dislike and distrust extremism from wherever it comes.
A great shame Ms Bradshaw did not take questions from the floor, I am certain there would have been some tough ones for her to answer.
Some in the ag sector want to bring AA to the table. IMO this is lunacy. ARA's will settle for nothing less than the end of the livestock industries. Some producers who challenge ARA's are told by others to stop being confrontational. Some are personally attacked by soc media "gurus" who insist all in ag play by their rules and who if dissent is shown accuse blunt speakers of bullying and bring in sycophants to back their demands. In itself that really is bullying. The battle for true AW must include marginalising the ARA's, if it does not the situation will end up costing industries hugely.
As usual Colin Bettles has his finger on the pulse of rural Australia. At least Joel Fitzgibbon can see the reality but how many other ALP pollies can see past their internal issues to what actually matters to not just rural Australia but the vast majority?
Animals Australia an animal charity when they do not spend a cent on Animal welfare?
Come on folks get a grip on reality. It has been shown time & time again they will lie, manipulate & use any method to advance their agenda in spite of the truth. The time has arrived when they will be held to account for their actions. They should be as accountable as the industries they damage are but no dissent shall be tolerated from the likes of the (falsely) morally superior activists. Middle Australia is waking up to the tactics of Animals Australia and they don't like it. Let the light shine in.
The combined voices of Australian agriculture & the urban based supporters of it can, given the right membership models & platforms to communicate the facts outweigh the ill informed anti primary production groups such as Get Up, PeTA, Animals Australia etc. Finlay and Talbot remain the right people to drive these much needed reforms through to completion. There is power in numbers. Politicans understand numbers and given platforms producers can retake their role as the primary educators of urban consumers as to facts rather than allowing the RSPCA etc to make money from "approved" products
This sort of platform is vital if the ag spheres ever hope to combat the advantage groups opposed to aspects of ag, such as Animals Australia, PETA etc currently have. They have a real world impact. Submissions re the Animal Protection Bill show the views some have & the easier it is for farmers & supporters to garner info & effectively communicate with each other & the broader community the better The online spaces will not replace traditional lobbying but without it ag has been behind the 8 ball in trying to combat the false assertions of groups determined to attack it. Well done Simon & NFF.
The more potential buyers producers have the better the potential return. It is not the only factor or even the prime one, but it is very important. Why is it that the likes of Teys oppose live export? It is not for the betterment of the industry as a whole. With the danger of an ALP government in Queensland placing further restrictions on the livestock industries it is a character challenging time to even think about further investment in the sector. Does the ACCC come close to understanding the realities of the red meat industries?
A further example of Animals Australia being in it for genuine Animal welfare. The more extreme the statements of people like Mr Wilkie the more Australians will support the live export and livestock industries. Facts win out in the long term not shrill rhetoric based on emotive & spurious reasoning. Reason & nuance are not the forte of the animal rights fringe. A quick look at some of the comments on this site demonstrates that fact.
Reform in this area is long overdue. As a consumer it is far too often impossible to make an informed choice. Try asking where your ham or bacon originates from at the delis of the duopoly. I have & yet never been provided with an answer.
Coles for example demands certain standards of Australian pork producers which it does not of overseas producers. Marketing gimmicks over transparency at a cost to both Australian producers and consumers is the norm. Sow stall free? Not if it is from foreign pork and that is the point. We as consumers need more information to make our own informed choices.
Those that suggest live export can be replaced by processing in Australia are ignorant on many fronts. Cost of processing in Australia makes it unaffordable for many of the destination markets. Lack of slaughter slots, the ignorance of the benefits it brings to places like Lampung are just a few of the many reasons why such statements show a lack of knowledge of our live export industries. Australian live export is worlds best practice. With a mortality rate of 0.14% of Australian cattle live exports & the millions invested in education & training in destination markets, it will remain so.
The stupidity of Joe Ludwig in establishing the ban is the definition of a knee jerk reaction. The acquiescence of then PM Ms Gillard will forever be a black mark on her record. In financial terms it ruined people. Sadly some involved in live export took their own life. While some peak bodies have learned a lot from the way that debacle was handled from an industry perspective too many have not and still believe that not commenting in the public arena on ARA campaigns is the best policy. Those in peak bodies that think that should get out of the job of representing livestock producers.
Taxpayer, Australian farmers are the 2nd least subsidised in the OECD. Runs at a rate of 4% in Australia. Many other industries have far larger subsidies.
Perhaps if the RSPCA stopped running campaigns with Animals Australia, sharing resources, press officers & thought through issues before issuing things like the 2012 cattle industry position paper they may be taken with more trust. If they do not make money from their accreditation programmes why do they refuse to release the financials of them? Coles refuses to give details as does the RSPCA. Look at some of the social media accounts of RSPCA staff and you will soon see where the sympathies of many of them lie. So many of them have an anti farming bias it taints the entire organisation.
The proof is in the pudding. Donations to Animals Australia are in decline. Live export is being restored & the truth is reaching middle Australia. The more facts that everyday Australians learn the more they support our livestock and live export industries. Claims made that over 75% of people would support parties that oppose live export at the last election were shown to be as silly as it looked at the time. The more the ARA types rant, the less relevant they become & the more average people see them for what they are. This report highlights the facts, not the lies they try to spin.
Full marks to Mr Baxter for standing up for himself. He knew he had done nothing wrong and despite the vitriol he continued to stand fast. I am sorry it has caused him such stress in his life.
The case does demonstrate the lengths extremists will go to & the damage they inflict upon others in the pursuit of their cause. Be it anti GM protestors or Animal Rights extremists. People are far too often just collateral damage in the unrelenting wars they wage.
Some of the comments on the very detailed Bettles story with Mr Baxters lawyer after the verdict demonstrated a terrible bloody mindedness
The entire area of charitable status needs a close look. To my mind far too many organisations abuse the right to it. Why should the taxpayer subsidise groups who do no actual charity work?
If rationalisation was ever needed it is in this area. I nominate Animals Australia as top of the list for removal of status as a charity. Not one cent of their 3.15 million budget is spent on actual animal welfare but taxpayers continue to support it. Something for Senator Sinodinis to look at. Perhaps a journo should ask him the question.
World Animal Protection needs to get its own house in order before taking the high moral ground. They were forced to withdraw comments and apologise after making false assumptions & assertions during the Dave Hughes episode.
"Petty bio security incidents" have the very real potential to cost Australia billions in a short time frame and 100's of billions long term as well as destroying entire industries and the economy of vast areas of Australia. By using the profile of Depp Barnaby Joyce has in one step raised this issue of national importance to a level of prominence amongst urban dwellers never seen in my lifetime. If you think he was unaware of the type of reaction his statement would get and the flack he would cop, you are naive. Well done Barnaby. You use what you can use to get your issues out a BIG audience
Where within the bill is there any imposition of freedom of speech?
The answer is that there is none.
Far too many have not read the bill or the explanatory notes and are assuming that what the animal rights industry has been asserted is accurate. It isn't.
Mr Thornes submission is one of the most outstanding yet published by the Committee. It details fact after fact and debunks the assertions of various Animals rights industry bodies in a comprehensive fashion. Few of the submissions published which oppose the bill contain anything other than regurgitated ARA propaganda. The Animal rights industry is now on the back foot thanks to the facts now being front and centre of the debate. Well done Mr Thorne. I urge everyone to read his submission.
The ignorance of the RSPCA as to the vital role live export plays within the livestock sectors in several ways is proof of their lack of competence in this field. The assertion by Ms Neil that the live export trade “will always, by its very nature, put profit before animal welfare" is absolute proof that large parts of the RSPCA have moved from an animal welfare stance to an animal rights one. The hypocrisy of the RSPCA in attacking the need for profit when they make money off the backs of producers with "RSPCA approved" poultry etc is so clear that a ten year old can see it.
Oh Dear, the usual rabid types come out with the casuistry which demonstrates my points rather well. Submissions which fail to address the proposed legislation mean nothing. That is where the vast majority of submissions have failed. 50 or so words repeating the false assertions of the animal rights industry will have zero impact. It is not quantity but quality which will be taken seriously. The community supports our animal industries. This will increase with innovations soon to come in the ag representation sector. ARA's will find themselves even further marginalised & irrelevant.
Reading the submissions it is clear that those who know the reality support the bill. The vast majority of submissions though are short and from people who clearly have not read the bill or if they have they do not understand it. If the deluded want to think that submissions which don't address the substance of the bill will impact on the Committees recommendations they are in for a rude awakening I would suggest. It is becoming clear that ARA groups & supporters have jumped the shark. Pressure can do that to the ill prepared & ill informed. Read some comments on articles on this bill for proof
The assumptions being made by some are breath taking. The assertions as to what is "clearly" happening are a conspiracy theory extraordinaire. Quite a few who have posted here claim to have knowledge of a particular submission. How if it has not been published in one form or another?
More and more evidence of panic taking hold amongst some. Perhaps the end of lucrative fund raising campaigns to support their well funded industry being in sight is clouding rational thought.
Soon we will have some claiming to be the daughter or son of Anastasia.
Without doubt Barnaby is the best retail pollie in Australia. Those who think he is an irrational bumpkin can't see beyond the often stage managed sound bites designed to appeal to his core support base whilst at the same time often breaking through to a much wider audience to get the core message across. His Depp dogs comments were BRILLIANT. Sure he was amongst some ridiculed for them but now bio security is known about by millions more than before. You don't need to agree with Barnaby 100% to know that he is the best chance the Nationals have had for generations to get major things done.
Will Mr Turnbull get further than Longreach?
As important & nice a place as it is, it would be great if a PM visited places like Cloncurry, Boulia or Hughenden. Barnaby Joyce knows these towns and regions and I am sure he could introduce the PM to many people there who could easily educate the PM as to the myriad of issues facing remote and rural Queensland. It goes way beyond drought and disaster relief. The data drought is real & is having a huge impact on service delivery in many fields. Health, education and engagement with the broader Australian community to name a few.
So much of what Craig Davis says is on the mark. While some peak bodies do a great job of engagement with the wider community too many are hamstrung by governing models which belong in the last century. If you don't engage, if you don't rebut the falsehoods, groups which at their heart are anti farming gain traction and use the available media coverage for their agenda. Too often the heavy lifting on issues such as the PETA campaigns are left to passionate individuals rather than industry having basically pre prepared responses ready to go. It is not rocket science.
A 269 tatoo or brand qualifies the person upon whom it is on as an expert in all aspects of animal welfare.
The comment above is clearly not from someone who has ever served. The assertions & assumptions within it are false. Everyone of them. The last sentence is as wrong as it gets. It is most certainly not an affront to me so by definition that sentence is wrong. By asserting absolutes you open yourself to ridicule. "all who fought for freedom" Fair dinkum get a grip on your faux moral superiority complex. ANZAC values at the core are about looking after your mates.
Further proof that Australian live export is worlds best practice & delivering improved animal welfare outcomes. Those who oppose the trade will not be happy with 98% ESCAS compliance or a 99% positive animal welfare outcome. They will never be satisfied. Luckily live export is on such a sound footing now that it will endure in the long term. Those that oppose it are no longer relevant. The vast majority support live export. The fringe may jump up & down as much as they like but that is the truth. Well done to all those who have made ESCAS the roaring success that it is.
Yet another instance of where Senator Backs proposed Ag protection laws and the NSW bio security bill will be very good things. If you have genuine footage, give it to the proper people quickly. If you place animals in danger, pay the price for those acts be you a producer or an activist. Activists are not above the law. How long until we see physical harm come to people in the livestock industries as a result of the frenzy of hatred being whipped up by some organisations and their more extreme supporters?
Instances of property damage and threats against producers are becoming more prevalent.
I suggest Emmanuel Giuffre actually read what Senator Back has said. There is NO attempt to silence anyone. If she or anyone else has footage which purports to show malicious cruelty to animals they must provide that footage to the relevant authority in a timely fashion.
If their purpose was truly altruistic they would have no issues with that requirement.
Sadly the actuality is that so very many of the so called exposes of animal cruelty are exposed as false. A further truth is the often unsubstantiated footage is held onto for an extended time until it is used for fund raising.
Given the recent rhetoric of Animals Australia & people who support them such as Andrew Wilkie it would not be a surprise if a "lone wolf" supporter has taken their words such as"'we are done playing nice" & "evil death cult" as an invitation to perpetrate such dangerous acts.
The frequency of acts of intimidation and harm to property & equipment is increasing in proportion to the decrease in the effectiveness of activists in the political sphere where they have been marginalized.
I expect that as the pressure increases on activists these types of attacks, verbal & physical will increase
Well said Senator McKenzie. Given the Greens ag policy at the last election amounted to little more than support for farmers markets it is amazing they have the hide to think for one moment that anyone in ag would take anything they say on the subject seriously. Every livestock producer I know has animal welfare as their top priority. Peak bodies need to be better prepared to take on the ARA industry with plans in place and ready to go for the inevitable ongoing ideologically driven and often financially driven, disingenuous attacks, far too often based on ill informed misconceptions.
The ill informed or disingenuous often trot out lines about Australian jobs & or profits being sent overseas. Australian slaughter costs are far higher than in live export markets. That also assumes Live export does not cost Australian jobs, it creates more of them with the added bonus of helping often impoverished places such as Lampung, vastly improve their standards of living and animal handling & welfare practices. It is not an either or situation, live ex or boxed meat. They are both important parts of a vital industry.
Activists never acknowledge the bio security risks they subject the animals to when they trespass. These risks are real and pose a huge danger. Nor do they accept the harm often caused by their actions to the animals by the distress of having unknown intruders in their midst. Some admit their agenda in ending all human use of animals but many dress it as being an animal welfare issue.I wonder how many of the activists refuse any and all medications tested on animals. If they truly had the courage of their convictions they would refuse such medications even if it cost their own life.
Along with the tax status of various so called Animal Rights orgs and the use of drones this is right at the top of the list of easily fixed problems for livestock producers. Extremists will go to any lengths to further their agenda. Accountability should go both ways. If a producer breaks the law they pay one way or another, so should the extremists. There must be consequences for reprehensible actions which have and continue to have adverse impacts on people going about their lawful business let alone the bio security and animal welfare aspects of these illegal activities.