IN the early 2000s the Australian wool industry committed to phasing out mulesing by 2010, yet all these years later it is still performed on around 70 per cent of Merino sheep nationally. 

It all started when United States-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) launched a brutal campaign against the Australian wool industry. This sparked concerns among international retailers about mulesing. In November 2004, the industry responded by vowing to find a suitable replacement by the end of the decade.  

The following year, Australian Wool Innovation (AWI) filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against PETA over the campaign. The legal battle continued for two years, until the parties reached a compromise. AWI agreed to fast-track the development of surgical mulesing alternatives, with the view of ending the practice by 31 December 2010, and in return the animal activist group temporarily halted its boycotting campaign. 

In the lead up to the deadline, AWI was still adamant it would find a suitable alternative, but after spending millions of dollars trying to come up with practical solutions, it admitted defeat in July 2009.  

The wool body said it was unable to meet the deadline for animal welfare reasons, saying "scientific publications show that without mulesing, the risk of attack of flystrike is 40-100 per cent, and 1-3 per cent with mulesing".  

It added alternative methods of breech wrinkle removal, such as clips and intradermal, were not sufficiently developed to support a wholesale cessation of the procedure by 2010. While progress had been made when it came to genetic research, AWI concluded breeding strategies would take many years to be fully effective.  

According to the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD), mulesing is still performed on around 70 per cent of Merino wool-producing sheep. This estimate is supported by Australian Wool Exchange (AWEX) National Wool Declaration data, which shows less than a quarter of wool bales have come from unmulesed sheep or farms that have ceased the practice altogether.  

ACTIVISTS SET SIGHTS ON LIVE EXPORT

Since the 2010 mulesing deadline, activists appear to have shifted considerable focus towards live export. Given their efforts to end mulesing have not been as effective as they may have hoped, one can't help but wonder if this is a calculated move to take down the Australian wool industry via a back door. And the influence of animal welfare groups should not be underestimated. 

While extremists make up an inconsequential percentage of the population, these organisations receive tens of millions of dollars in donations each year, which gives them significant power to alter public belief. And since public demand sways business and political decisions, the groups can cause irreparable damage to targeted sectors. 

PETA claims it is the largest animal rights organisation in the world, with more than nine million members and supporters globally. The organisation's financial statement shows it received $74.84M USD in contributions last year, spending more than  $14.24m on international grassroots campaigns, $22.19m on public outreach and education and $25.44m on research, investigations and rescue. At more than $111M AUD, this one organisation generates more in contributions each year than the Australian live sheep export industry, so these figures are far from frivolous.

PETA takes immense pride in its anti-wool propaganda and says its Australian affiliate was set up following the success of its campaigns against mulesing in conjunction with "Australians' demand for information on animal protection issues." The Australian group has an entire website dedicated to promoting "how the wool industry harms sheep", which is inaptly named WoolFacts.com.  

In response to the Government's announcement to end live sheep exports by 2028, PETA Australia said "it's no coincidence that Australia is the world's largest exporter of wool and live sheep, as the wool and live-export trades are intertwined."  

And PETA is far from the only welfare group pushing to end mulesing or live exports with Animals Australia. Four Paws and the RSPCA Australia are among the organisations worldwide campaigning against the practice and trade. Collectively, these groups spend tens of millions of dollars a year on campaigns targeting agriculture. 

In the last six years alone, Animals Australia spent $9.51m directly on its "efforts to end live export", in addition to millions spent on public awareness and other anti-farming campaigns. In the 2017/18 fiscal year alone, when its Awassi Express live export footage aired on TV show 60 Minutes, the group spent $4.43m on its anti-live export efforts. It continued the push with a $1.73m spend the following year.  

IMPACT OF ACTIVIST PRESSURE 

PETA's campaign to end mulesing was largely unsuccessful, as were efforts by the industry to find a realistic alternative. However, the entire debacle ignited substantial angst among sheep producers, and arguably, caused permanent damage to the industry.  

In the lead up to 2010 mulesing deadline, wool prices were looking rather ordinary, while high grain prices were becoming increasingly attractive. This coupled with the pressure from animal activists and the threat of no alternative to surgical mulesing, left wool producers considering their options.

Some declared the end to mulesing would be the final nail in the coffin of their sheep enterprises, just as WA producers have been saying recently in the wake of the Government's live sheep export end date announcement. And the statistics indicate, even though the practice was not banned in the end, the threat was enough to decimate confidence.  

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) farm data shows 14,915 sheep enterprises were lost nationally between 2004 and 2022, with the number of broadacre sheep, sheep-beef and mixed livestock-grain farms dropping 40.6 per cent from 36,739 to 21,824. 

Figure 1:

Furthermore, ABARES' commodity data shows the national sheep flock plunged dramatically in the lead up to the deadline, down 27.71 per cent from 101.12 million head in 2004-05 to 73.1 million in 2010-11 and is expected to dip to just 68.47 million head this financial year. Similarly, wool production dropped 23.25 per cent from 529 kilotonnes (kt) to 406kt over the same period and is forecast to be 413kt in the upcoming year.   

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) puts the decline in wool production and the national sheep flock down to the Millennium drought, which ran from 1997 to 2010. ABS said after a slight recovery from the economic issues brought on by increased use of synthetic fibres, a global over-supply of wool and the collapse of the Reserve Price Scheme in 1991, the Millennium drought caused sheep numbers to drop once more. There was a brief period of reprieve, but another drought between 2017 to 2019 put further pressure on the sector. ABS figures show in 2019-20 wool production dropped to its lowest level since 1923 and the national sheep flock was the smallest it had been since 1904 at 63.5 million head. 

Figure 2:

Live sheep exports have followed suit, with ABARES data showing the numbers have been trending downwards for many years. In 2001-02, 6.53 million live sheep were exported from Australia, dropping to 4.07 million head in 2008-09, and to 676,000 in 2022-23. Notably, there was a considerable drop in the number of live sheep exports following the release of the Awassi Express footage, from 1.98 million head in 2017-18 to 925,000 in 2018-19. This incident kicked off a chain of events, including the northern hemisphere summer moratorium. Similarly, the MV Cormo Express incident in 2003, which led to the suspension of trade to Saudi Arabia and kicked off the Keniry Review, saw live sheep exports from Australia dip substantially.  

Figure 3:

This trend has not been seen globally, therefore Australia's share of the world's live sheep and goat export value has also dropped dramatically over this time. Based on International Trade Centre data, Australia held a 21.4 per cent share of world's sheep/goat live export value in 2010, which plummeted to 2.9 per cent in 2022. It is now the 8th leading exporter of live sheep and goats in the world by value and 5th based on the number of heads exported. 

There are many factors that impact sheep numbers and wool production, including high crop prices, which entice farmers to move away from sheep, drought-induced supply, relationships with trading partners and changes in global demand. However, the actions of animal activists have certainly compounded challenges over the years.

PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO LIVE EXPORTS  

Given the millions of dollars animal welfare groups have sunk into discrediting the live export industry over recent years, community opposition to the trade should hardly be surprising. However, the extent of the opposition is still highly questionable, and attempts by the Government to defend the industry against animal activist accusations appear to be non-existent. 

The Labor Party uses public expectation and animal welfare as key arguments supporting its decision to end the trade. Agriculture minister, Murray Watt, has regularly quoted statistics from 2023 McCrindle Research, which found 71 per cent of West Australians want live sheep exports by sea to end. These figures are based on responses from just 800 people and the research was conducted on behalf of the RSPCA - an organisation that has been vocal in its disapproval of the trade.

The figures are also misleading, as the results showed 38.25 per cent of respondents "definitely" supported the Government's plan to phase out live sheep exports, while 32.88 per cent were only "somewhat" supportive. The poll also asked whether respondents would be more inclined to vote for a candidate who supported the phase out, to which 26.88 per cent said "yes, definitely" and a further 36.13 per cent said "somewhat". Farming, live export and opposition leaders have argued this is the true driver behind Labor's decision to axe the trade.  

Research involving a much larger sample, of over 4000 people, had vastly different results. CSIRO spin out company Voconiq has been conducting surveys on the topic since 2019, finding Australians generally see live exports are an important part of the agricultural sector and for farming communities. Surveys, conducted on behalf of LiveCorp and Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA), also revealed the position on live exports, socially and economically, has improved over the last four years.  Unlike the McCrindle poll, Voconiq's research last year indicated only 29 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed live exports should stop regardless of the impact on farmers. 

While using community expectation as an excuse, the Government has also failed to explain why the ban applies to live sheep exports by sea only. Voconiq's research revealed there is no significant difference between attitudes towards live sheep exports specifically versus livestock generally. In fact, when comparing the mean responses across the six questions, respondents to the survey were found to be more accepting of live sheep export conditions compared to conditions for live exports in general. When asked to rate the cost and benefits of the live sheep export industry and the live export industry generally, the research determined there was no significant difference.  

Figure 4:

Even a Digital Edge poll, conducted on behalf of the RSPCA in 2022, indicated there is little difference between live sheep exports and the live export of other animals in the minds of the public. Compared to the McCrindle result of 71 per cent, Digital Edge found 67 per cent of respondents supported ending live animal exports, with no mention of live sheep exports by sea specifically. Animal activist groups certainly don't distinguish a difference between sheep and other animals, and in acknowledging the Government's decision have raised questions about cattle and other live exports. 

Cattle producers are fearful the change is legislation has set a dangerous precedent, which may see all live exports, and potentially other farming trades or practices, banned in the future. However, it is possible Labor has sacrificed the live sheep trade in the hope of distracting animal activists and the public from its other shortcomings, and with the view of protecting far more valuable trades.   

THROWING WA SHEEP PRODUCERS UNDER THE BUS

Minister Watt has continually quoted 2022-23 live sheep export figures when defending the Government's decision to end the trade, palming them off as insignificant at just 0.1 per cent of agricultural exports from Australia.

ABARES data shows live sheep export was valued at $84.9m (freight on board) in the 2022-23 financial year, which does look trivial on paper when compared to the gross production value of $4.49bn for sheep and lamb slaughter, and $3.14bn for wool. This is especially true if you fail to account for the connection between these commodities, which seemingly the Government has. 

By comparison, the live cattle export trade was worth 14 times more than live sheep exports at $1.16bn in 2022-23, while other live animal exports were valued at $210.1m. It is also worth noting live sheep exports account for a smaller percentage of the total value of the sheep, lamb and wool sectors at 1.1 per cent, compared to 5.46 per cent of the beef cattle and dairy industries' value. 

Figure 5:

However, regardless of these figures, which are also based on just one season, the argument totally disregards the fact $84.9m is highly significant to the WA sheep producers who rely on the trade. And particularly during dry seasons. 

When considering the Australian economy at large, it would make sense to protect the $1.16bn live cattle trade, and by extension the beef and dairy industries. In 2022-23 cattle and calves slaughter was valued at $13.93bn, based on ABARES data, while milk was worth $6.08bn. These numbers are certainly not insignificant by any standards. And certainly not to the powerful people with a large slice of the beef pie. 

The question is why would the Government throw WA sheep producers under the bus to distract attention away from these valuable sectors, rather than coming to the sheep and wool industry's defence? And given the Australian live sheep trade was once worth $415m, why hasn't more been done to prevent it slipping in the first place? 

WATT AN ARGUMENT 

Labor argues the proportion of WA sheep turn-off to the live export industry, which dropped from 40 per cent in 2001/2002 to 12 per cent in 2021/22, has not spelled the end of the sheep industry, so neither will the end of live export. However, 14,915 sheep farms lost in the last 20 years, a reduction of 28 million sheep from the national flock, and wool production decline equating to 123kt annually, is surely not insignificant. 

Watt puts the decline in live sheep export numbers down to the "evolution of global food supply chains". He says trading partners buy a lot more processed sheepmeat than live exported sheep, with sheepmeat exports worth $4.5 billion in 2022-23 and the domestic industry worth at additional $3.5 billion. And yet, ABARES statistics show while the gross value of live sheep exports declined by 78.65 per cent over the 20 years, the value of live cattle exports increased by 111.7 per cent and the value of other live animal exports increased by 33.2 per cent. It's also worth noting while the gross value of lamb slaughterings has increased by 238.33 per cent, the increased value in sheep slaughterings has not made up for the drop in live exports, with mutton increasing by $303m and live exports dropping by $314m over the period. 

While Watt is adamant onshore processing is the answer, without the security of the live export trade, WA farmers have indicated they will cut back their sheep numbers. Not only will this almost certainly contribute to further declines in wool production but will also reduce sheepmeat production. Increases in meat yields have largely offset the decline in the national flock, but production gains cannot be sustained at this rate forever. And this won't just impact WA farmers, processors, exporters, transporters, shearers and rural communities, but also the wider community.  

The histories of other commodities have proven when demand outweighs supply, the domestic market will lose. For example, when a quota fishery model was introduced in Australia, lobster quickly became a luxury item. With the product in short supply, it came down to which market was willing to pay the most and China won. This resulted in 98 per cent of the lobster being sent offshore and domestic retail prices increasing. 

Over the last 20 years, MLA data shows Australian retail lamb prices have already increased by 70.5 per cent, from an annual average of 1058c/kg in 2003-2004 to 1804.02c/kg last financial year. So, what will happen if the supply drops? Will lamb become Australia's next luxury item that families already crippled by the cost of living, simply cannot afford?  

CRUMBLING TO ACTIVIST PRESSURE

Animal welfare organisations have been pushing the Federal Government for years to put an end to a wide range of trades and activities, so how exactly did the live sheep export become the sacrificial lamb?  

When it comes to mulesing, there are logical, economic and constitutional reasons why the Government can't put a stop to the practice. For example, MLA's latest Endemic Disease Economics Update estimates annual cost of flystrike at $323.7m, including $12.5m in treatment and $227.4m in production losses. If mulesing was banned and the prevalence of flystrike was to 40-100 per cent, as predicted by AWI, the impact on the wool and meat industries would be devastating. It's reasonable to conclude the economic risk would be far too great for the Government to play that game, in exchange for a few votes. 

However, even if it was willing to risk destroying the wool industry, and by extension the sheepmeat sector, the Australian Government does not have exclusive power when it comes to animal welfare (other than a few exceptions). Effectively, this means it has limited options for appeasing animal rights activists and the voters who have fallen under their spell.  

Since the states and territories are primarily responsible for animal welfare regulation, to have the laws changed, activists would need to target each state and territory government individually. Getting those jurisdictions to agree is a huge task, so from an extremists' point of view, focusing on what the Federal Government can control makes logical sense. And what is does have the power to change, when it comes to animal welfare, is laws regarding the export of meat products, those in consideration of trading partner requirements and, of course, legislation relating to live animal exports. 

GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO PROTECT INDUSTRY  

In 2007, former politician Peter Costello pushed for changes to the Trade Practices Act to allow the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to act on behalf of companies targeted by secondary boycotts. At the time he told reporters this would give ACCC the power to act on behalf of Australian farmers if somebody tries to boycott their wool and used the incident with PETA as an example of such behaviour.  

"We are going to amend the law so that the ACCC can bring legal action on behalf of all Australian farmers against those that are trying to boycott their wool and boycott their wool on these spurious grounds," Costello said. 

"Mulesing is something that is done because otherwise sheep could suffer flystrike which would be more painful, which would be more exploitative, and to empower the ACCC to look after Australia's farmers against these groups is a benefit to all wool growers in Australia." 

And yet, the Government has failed now to stand with the industry in defending live sheep export and did not even find out the true extent of community opposition. While extremists will never see reason, it's likely the public just need to be educated about how the industry prioritises animal welfare here and overseas, and the significance of the trade to the economy, WA farmers and rural communities, and international markets. 

If Government thinks its decision will appease activists in the long term, rather than fueling their agenda, it is surely mistaken. And if it hopes this gesture will distract voters from the broader issues that impact them personally, such as labour shortages, the cost of living and the housing crisis, it will be bitterly disappointed.  

When Labor inevitably sinks and the coalition reverses the ban, as is currently happening in New Zealand, this futile endeavour to win votes will prove to be an epic waste of taxpayers' money. 

And in the meantime, it is inflicting a great deal of pain on farming families and communities, which have already suffered irreparable damage due to the actions of a highly privileged minority, as the Government stands idly by.