Australia’s live cattle export trade is worth at least $3 billion, employing more than 6,500 Australians directly and indirectly. After a recent, shocking Federal Court ruling, it now deserves all our scorn. The court left Northern Territory cattle producers with few losses to claim. These losses came as a direct consequence of a widely unpopular live export to Indonesia in 2011. This trade is extremely important for Australia. Indonesia takes around 70 per cent of Australia’s live cattle exports.
In a landmark decision in June 2020, Justice Steven Rares ruled that. He found for the complainants that former agriculture minister Joe Ludwig engaged in misfeasance by instating the ban. While the ban was only six weeks long, it crippled businesses and cost the industry hundreds of millions of dollars. A significant percentage of the industry is still grappling with the repercussions of that decision, with hundreds of claimants seeking $510 million in compensation from the Commonwealth.
Background of the Ban
The live cattle export industry has been a staple of Australian agriculture since the 1830s. In 2011, it suffered a crippling blow. ABC’s Four Corners showed harrowing footage that exposed the horrific abuse of Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs. The video showed cattle being kicked, pinned down and slaughtered without stunning beforehand, which sparked widespread outrage.
On June 7, 2011, then-agriculture minister Joe Ludwig acted on this public outcry. It was this experience that led him to announce a ban on live cattle exports to Indonesia. The ban was an immediate response to that shocking footage and was truly focused on raising the industry’s standard for animal welfare. It was both short lived (six weeks) and had economic effects that were widespread and disproportionate.
“I am comfortably satisfied, based on the whole of the evidence, that the minister was recklessly indifferent as to first, the availability of his power to make the ban order in its absolutely prohibitory terms without providing any power of exception and, secondly, as to the injury which the order, when effectual, was calculated to produce,” – Justice Steven Rares
The live export trade with Indonesia recovered after the introduction of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS), which sought to enhance animal welfare standards during transport and slaughter. Despite a rocky start, Indonesia now makes up 70% of Australia’s live cattle exports.
Economic Contributions and Continuing Challenges
The live export trade is crucial to Australia’s economy, bringing in billions of dollars in revenue each year. Just in 2024, live cattle exports are up 13% over last year, reaching 766,044 head. This continuous growth highlights the sector’s adaptability and importance as a cornerstone in lifting up jobs and economic vibrancy within our nation’s rural communities.
Despite this, many producers continue to face economic losses stemming from last year’s disasters. For instance, Emily Brett expressed the emotional toll of the ban on her family’s business:
“We suffered immense financial hardship because of the ban, so much stress, it was overwhelming at times,” – Emily Brett
Producers are not just in this battle for monetary recompense, but are seeking acknowledgment for their continued adversity. David Connolly noted the complexities involved in proving damages in court:
“We deal one-on-one with the people who import our cattle … we know how the customer reacted, but it’s very difficult to prove that in court,” – David Connolly
These hard working producers are up against a daunting set of obstacles. The current campaign to raise animal welfare standards in the live export industry only compounds their difficulties. In fact, critics have stated that long-distance transport of animals to be slaughtered is fundamentally at odds with the tenets of best animal welfare practices.
“The trade is, in many respects, inimical to good animal welfare, and it is not in the interests of the animal to be transported to the Middle East for slaughter,” – Senate report
Legal Developments and Future Prospects
The recent Federal Court ruling has brought renewed focus to the fate of the industry following years of government decisions that proponents say have done irreparable damage. Though producers have been awarded compensation—like the Brett family’s award of nearly $3 million—many others are still waiting with hope for justice. Settlement The possibility of a settlement offer, reportedly of $215 million, has been cited as possible relief for claimants.
As producers continue their fight for compensation and improved animal welfare standards, they are adapting to changing market realities. This new connection between ethical treatment and market power could lead to future trade enforcement actions and regulatory efforts.
“I don’t know what that number might look like – it might look like $300 million, $400 million, or $500 million, but that’s something to be determined down the track,” – David Connolly
As producers continue their fight for compensation and improved animal welfare standards, they are also adapting to changing market realities. The renewed focus on ethical treatment may influence future regulations and trade practices.
