In 2003, after being rejected for unloading in Saudi Arabia, 58 000 Australian sheep were stranded for 11 weeks onboard the Cormo Express. This was the worst of a number of serious incidents that served to highlight the risks to animal welfare inherent in the live export trade.

In response to the animal welfare concerns raised by this incident, the then federal Minister for Agriculture announced a review into the livestock-export industry. This review recommended national standards for livestock export that take into account the processes of sourcing, preparing, assembling and transporting animals for export.

From this, the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) were drawn up in 2004. ASEL covers all aspects of livestock export from the initial sourcing of livestock to their disembarkation at a foreign port. ASEL came into effect on 1 July 2005 through the passing of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Export Control) Act 2004. All live export operators were required to implement ASEL by September 2005.

ASEL was  developed to ensure regulation of an industry that had failed demonstrably to regulate itself. It set minimum requirements intended to be enforceable under Australian Commonwealth law. However, there are limits to the Commonwealth’s powers to legislate and enforce animal welfare provisions, so there are limits to the extent ASEL can be enforced. It is referenced under Commonwealth legislation, and is enforced by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS). If the states and territories do not reference ASEL under their legislation, as is currently the case, their agencies can enforce their own relevant legislation, such as a Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, but not ASEL itself.

The RSPCA believes there are substantial problems with the livestock-export trade in general, and with ASEL in particular. Specific problems  include:

• The majority of standards are effectively unenforceable under current legislation.
• Many are not measurable or able to be regulated.
• Exemptions from standards are permitted with no requirement for justification.
• There is an overall lack of transparency, reporting and feedback in the export process.
• Loopholes in ASEL mean that not all animals are covered.

As the main regulatory agency for livestock exports, AQIS generally investigates deaths when they reach 2% of sheep and 1% of cattle. What is not investigated, is whether these animals were first noticed, treated or humanely killed.

Another addition to the complexity of live export regulation is that, while at sea, the Australian Marine Safety Authority (AMSA) is responsible for animal welfare. It uses navigation and marine laws covering: ship design; food and water supplies; maximum number of animals and their stocking density; design of pens; and care of livestock onboard. The laws state the level of animal deaths that exporters must report to AMSA. Once notified, AMSA then reports the deaths to AQIS.

It is obvious there is a maze of regulation types and responsibilities in the Australian live export trade. It is no wonder it is difficult to identify and prosecute breaches relating to the welfare of exported animals.