13 November 2009
The Hon Kevin Rudd, MP
Prime Minister of Australia
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Prime Minister,
APIMC decision of 6 November to permit ritual slaughter of conscious sheep
without pre-stunning
We refer to our letter of 21 September 2009 and in particular our email or letter of 6
October which included an article published in The Age that day entitled ‘No action on
painful slaughter’.
Federal and state agricultural ministers at a meeting of APIMC last Friday in Perth decided
to permit four Victorian abattoirs to continue to ritually slaughter sheep by cutting their
throats whilst still conscious to fulfil halal and kosher exports to the Middle East.
This was so despite two reports commissioned by the federal department of agriculture, the
Adams-Sheridan Report and the Hemsworth Report, each acknowledging the animals would
remain conscious for up to 20 seconds after their throats were cut, and one report
concluding that the animals would suffer ‘panic and terror’. In this respect, the reports were
consistent with the 2004 review by the European Food Safety Authority, which reviewed all
science on the question.
In 2007 the federal department of agriculture permitted the four abattoirs to carry out such
slaughter. The law had previously required animals to be electrically stunned unconscious
before slaughter. Due to public concern, the then federal minister announced a review of
whether such slaughter was inhumane, leading to the two reports.
As it is, neither Islamic nor kosher principles require ritual slaughter without pre-stunning.
With Islamic principles, for example, the only proscription is the killing of an animal before
its throat is cut, so that penetrative (as against percussive or electrical stunning) is not
permitted: see further the recent article by Princess Alia bint Al Hussein, sister of King
Abdullah II of Jordan, published in The Age http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/societyand-culture/inhumane-slaughter-puts-australias-reputation-at-risk-20091101-hrjw.html.
2
In her article, Princess Alia noted that such a decision as that made by APIMC...will harm Australia’s reputation, will hamper efforts to have stunning more broadly accepted in the
Middle East and could encourage other Middle Eastern importers to request non-stunned meat. This
would be disastrous from an animal welfare perspective as imported Australian halal stunned meat is
undoubtedly the most humanely produced meat available to consumers in the Middle East.’
Further, it is relevant to note that the countries to which non-stunned meat is exported
accept our halal meat from stunned animals.
We ask that you intervene to have this decision recalled.
Put simply, we would contend that either an act is humane or it is not. An inhumane act
cannot be made less so because it is claimed to be carried out in the name of religious faith.
In any event, there is no question here of religious freedom. Rather, regrettably it would
appear that the decision was taken to permit the dollar to prevail over the requirements of
even the most rudimentary welfare. This is all the more surprising when one considers that
only four of Australia’s 74 exporting abattoirs have approval to kill without stunning, and
that no new requests or approvals have been made since August 2007.
In order to obviate any doubt about the impact of such slaughter upon the animal’s welfare,
we will email you next week a very short video of sheep subject to such slaughter taken in
2003 in the Middle East.
The continuance of such slaughter is presumably pursuant to an ‘approved arrangement’
under the Export Control (Meat and Meat Products) Orders 2005, and thus the exercise of federal
power.
This decision sadly points up also the self-evident conflict of interest of departments of
agriculture remaining in charge of animal welfare, and the failure of the federal department
to discharge a role of moral leadership.
The Barristers Animal Welfare Panel comprises some 90 barristers (including some 25 silks
from the criminal and commercial bars), and as a Bar Association of the Victorian Bar
addresses a national agenda. It has an adjunct panel of law firms which includes large
national first tier firms. The Panel is shortly to become a national body representing the
various state Bars.
Yours sincerely,
Graeme McEwen
Chair
Barristers Animal Welfare Panel