A Study of Problematisations in the Live Export Policy Debates

Home , Animal protectionism, Arthur Broome, Bell Taylor, Brodie Lee, Dan Lyons, Dhabihah

ANIMAL CRUELTY, DISCOURSE, AND POWER: A STUDY OF PROBLEMATISATIONS IN THE LIVE EXPORT POLICY DEBATES

Brodie Lee Evans

Bachelor of Arts (Politics, Economy, and Society; Literary Studies) Bachelor of Justice (First Class Honours) Graduate Certificate in Business (Accounting)

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Queensland University of Technology 2018 School of Justice | Faculty of Law

This page intentionally left blank

Statement of Originality

Under the Copyright Act 1968, this thesis must be used only under the normal conditions of scholarly fair dealing. In particular, no results or conclusions should be extracted from it, nor should it be copied or closely paraphrased in whole or in part without the written consent of the author. Proper written acknowledgement should be made for any assistance obtained from this thesis.

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Brodie Evans

QUT Verified Signature

……………………………………………………………………….. Signature

October 2018 ……………………………………………………………………….. Date

Dedication

For Scottie.

Abstract

Since the release of video footage exposing the treatment of animals in the live export industry in 2011, ‘animal cruelty’ has increasingly been a major concern in mainstream Australian discourse. Critiques over the inadequacy of current legal protections afforded to animals have had a significant impact on how we debate animal welfare issues and the solutions to them. The dominant view of ‘animal cruelty’, as expressed in philosophy, ethics, and green criminology research, adopts an oppressor-victim narrative that suggests animals are victims of human oppression due to a ‘speciesist’ ideology fundamental to the treatment of animals in society. While ‘speciesism’ as a theoretical concept has been beneficial in providing insight into the human- animal power dynamic, methodologically it can be a blunt tool providing a blanket explanation for ‘animal cruelty’ that actually prevents a recognition and analysis of the complexities underpinning its governance in policy debates. An emerging body of literature on ethical issues in food systems positions particular groups of humans as ‘victims’ in capitalist food systems due to issues of class, race, gender, religion and culture. This expansion of who is understood to be a ‘victim’ in discussions about the ethics of food raises questions about how human-human power dynamics influence animal cruelty policy debates, and complicate attempts to achieve animal protectionist goals of reducing or eliminating animal use.

iii

This thesis offers a qualitative discourse analysis of public debates surrounding animal cruelty policy, specifically in the live export trade following the 2011 Four Corners documentary titled, “A Bloody Business”.

Using Foucault’s work on discourse, power, and knowledge, this thesis argues that the problematisation of human-centred issues in the live export debate influenced how ‘animal cruelty’ as a discursive object was conceptualised, discussed, and governed. It challenges the common paths of animal activism that often take on the assumption that the way we talk about animal cruelty is because of a belief system of seeing animals subordinate to humans, and therefore requires an awakening or resistance to that indoctrination. Instead of solely focusing on the human-animal dynamic, this thesis refocuses the discussion towards human-centred issues to offer new paths of resistance. It expands understandings of ‘oppressor’ and ‘victim’ in these policy debates and provides an understanding of how human-human power relations shape how

‘animal cruelty’ is problematised and responded to. Human-human power relations are circulating within these debates and extending the targets of intervention and possibilities for action. This suggests there is potential to engage with human-centred problematisations more productively to achieve change for animals.

Key Words

Activism; animal agriculture; animal cruelty; animal rights; animal welfare; discourse; ethics; food security; knowledge; live export; Michel Foucault; morality; oppression; power; problematisation; speciesism; subjects; victim.

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge the Indigenous owners of the land where Queensland

University of Technology (QUT) now stands, where this work was produced. I wish to pay respect to their Elders – past, present and emerging – and acknowledge the important role Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to play within the QUT community. I also wish to acknowledge the important role Indigenous peoples play in Australian rural communities, and hope that Indigenous voices become centred in future policy decisions in

Australia.

I would like to acknowledge support offered by my supervisory team, both past and present, throughout my candidature. Even if we disagreed at times on the topic of animal cruelty, or the best ways to respond to it, your continual encouragement to follow my passion made this project possible. To my principal supervisor, Associate Professor Matthew Ball, thank you for bringing so much expertise to my research. Your influence is clear throughout the pages of this thesis. Thank you for encouraging me to become part of the Foucauldian

Cult. I wonder what would have happened if you had never come to my

Confirmation and asked “Why are you not using Foucault?” Thank you to my associate supervisor, Dr Erin O’Brien, for your support and guidance. We survived the ups and downs of an honours thesis and a PhD thesis together. I am so indebted for your confidence in me that sustained my drive throughout my candidature. Thank you to my associate supervisor, Professor Belinda vi

Carpenter, for providing invaluable advice and pushing me to produce better work. To my former supervisor, Professor Reece Walters, from that initial first meeting, your encouragement to research crimes against animals and to tip my toes into the green criminology pond gave me the much needed confidence to embark on this journey. Additionally, I would like to thank Associate

Professor Barbara Adkins and Dr Carol Richards for your contributions to my confirmation and final seminar respectively, which helped shape my thesis for completion.

For the informal mentoring and friendship, especially in the early stages of my candidature, thank you my fellow law and justice post-graduate students and the C Block Writers Group. Special mention to Dr Amy Gurd, as the PhD struggle was lessened by getting to share this experience with you and knowing it was all possible. To the research support and administration staff at QUT, thank you for the crucial practical support throughout my candidature.

I also want to thank and express my love and appreciation to my family, in particular my partner Jared Evans. I could not have survived this journey without your support and patience. Your continual words of encouragement when I felt like giving up or feeling pessimistic about ever getting to witness change in this world for the better, kept me going. I am so thankful to you, for being the best human with whom I share my life.

Brodie Evans

October, 2018

vii

Table of Contents

Statement of Originality……………...... i Dedication...... ii Abstract ...... iii Key Words ...... v Acknowledgements ...... vi Table of Contents...... viii

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.2 RESEARCH CONTEXT ...... 2 1.3 CASE STUDY: AUSTRALIAN LIVE EXPORT DEBATE ...... 6 1.4 RESEARCH APPROACH ...... 11 1.4.1 Aims and objectives ...... 11 1.4.2 A study of problematisations ...... 13 1.4.3 Research questions ...... 14 1.4.4 Selection of material...... 15 1.5 THESIS AND ARGUMENT STRUCTURE ...... 17 1.6 CONCLUSION ...... 20

CHAPTER TWO: ‘Animal cruelty’ as an object of research ...... 22 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 22 2.2 THE PROBLEM OF ANIMAL CRUELTY ...... 24 2.2.1 Defining animal cruelty ...... 24 2.2.2 Explaining animal cruelty ...... 29 2.3 KEY DISCURSIVE SPACES ...... 38 2.3.1 The legal space...... 39 2.3.2 The industry regulatory space ...... 45 2.3.3 The activist space ...... 49 2.4 GAP IN THE LITERATURE ...... 58 2.4.1 Human-human power dynamics ...... 60 2.5 CONCLUSION ...... 73

CHAPTER THREE: An alternative approach to animal cruelty research 76 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 76 viii

3.2 INFLUENCE OF FOUCAULT ...... 78 3.3 CONCEPTUAL TOOLS ...... 80 3.3.1 Discourse ...... 81 3.3.2 Power ...... 85 3.3.3 Power/Knowledge ...... 90 3.4 FOUCAULDIAN SCHOLARSHIP AND ‘ANIMAL CRUELTY’ ...... 92 3.5 METHODOLOGY ...... 98 3.5.1 Qualitative discourse analysis ...... 99 3.5.2 A study of ‘problematisations’...... 101 3.5.3 A case study approach ...... 104 3.6 METHODS ...... 106 3.6.1 Selection of case study ...... 107 3.6.2 Selection of material ...... 113 3.6.3 Analytical strategies ...... 118 3.6.4 Presentation of findings ...... 123 3.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 124 3.8 LIMITATIONS ...... 127 3.9 CONCLUSION ...... 131

CHAPTER FOUR: Animal-centred problematisations in the live export debates ...... 132 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 132 4.2 TRANSPORT ...... 135 4.2.1 Mortality rates ...... 135 4.2.2 Length of Journey ...... 143 4.3 HANDLING ...... 148 4.3.1 Stress ...... 150 4.3.2 Pain...... 157 4.4 SLAUGHTER ...... 161 4.4.1 ‘Traditional’ slaughter ...... 161 4.4.2 ‘Humane’ slaughter ...... 166 4.5 CONCLUSION ...... 169

CHAPTER FIVE: Human-centred problematisations in the live export debates ...... 175 5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 175 5.2 ECONOMIC INSECURITY OF RURAL AUSTRALIANS ...... 180 5.2.1 Rural Australia and poverty ...... 180 5.2.2 Indigenous Australians ...... 186 5.3 FOOD INSECURITY OF INDONESIA ...... 189

5.3.1 Indonesia and food insecurity ...... 189 5.3.2 Australia’s role and responsibility ...... 193 5.4 INTERNATIONAL TRADE RELATIONS ...... 198 5.5 CONCLUSION ...... 205

CHAPTER SIX: Problematisation-as-power in the live export debates 209 6.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 209 6.2 OBJECTIVES ...... 211 6.3 DIFFERENTIATIONS ...... 214 6.3.1 ‘Rural’ versus ‘urban’ knowledges ...... 215 6.3.2 ‘Rational’ versus ‘radical’ knowledges ...... 218 6.3.3 ‘Civilised’ versus ‘uncivilised’ knowledges ...... 226 6.4 STRATEGIES ...... 230 6.4.1 Making knowledge available ...... 231 6.4.2 Negotiating expertise ...... 234 6.4.3 The role of education ...... 243 6.5 RESISTANCE ...... 248 6.5.1 Resistance to ‘rural’ knowledge ...... 248 6.5.2 Resistance to ‘rational’ knowledge ...... 255 6.5.3 Resistance to ‘civilised’ knowledge ...... 259 6.6 CONCLUSION ...... 265

CHAPTER SEVEN: Conclusion ...... 269 7.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 269 7.2 SHAPING ANIMAL CRUELTY ...... 272 7.3 HIERARCHIES OF DISCOURSE ...... 275 7.4 IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ...... 280

Reference List ...... 285 Appendix A – Data Sources ...... 310 Appendix B – Animal Care and Protection Act (Qld) 2001 [excerpt] ... 313 Appendix C – Restraint Boxes ...... 314

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction

1.1 INTRODUCTION

In 2011, the documentary “A Bloody Business” was broadcast on the

Australian Broadcasting Commission’s (ABC) current affairs program Four

Corners. The investigation led to large media exposure and political pressure on the Australian Government to address ‘animal cruelty’ in the live export industry to Indonesia. Critiques of the inadequacy of current legal protections afforded to animals in each country have had a significant impact on how we debate animal welfare. The dominant view of ‘animal cruelty’ as expressed in philosophy, ethics, and green-criminology research, adopts an oppressor- victim narrative that suggests animals are victims of human oppression due to a belief of human supremacy that is fundamental to the treatment of animals in society. Also found in animal activism, this binary approach to understanding and addressing the human-animal power relationship minimises the complexity surrounding contemporary animal cruelty policy debates, which are often influenced by constructs of ‘victimhood’ for both animals and humans.

This thesis considers the human-human dynamics that are an inevitable, but often overlooked, component of animal cruelty policy debates, utilising a case study approach to undertake a discourse analysis that examines the policy debates surrounding the treatment of animals in the live export industry.

There exists debates over what ‘animal cruelty’ means and how it should be regulated by governments. Therefore this analysis is interested in ‘animal cruelty’, primarily for the purpose of understanding the ways in which human- human relations shape the directions of regulation just as much as human- animal relations. This thesis argues the discursive object of ‘animal cruelty’ is tied to human-centred problems that need to be meaningfully engaged with to understand the ways in which this object is conceptualised, discussed, and governed as a ‘problem’. Informed by Foucault’s work on power and knowledge, ‘problematisation’ is the analytical approach taken to understand the production of these animal-centred and human-centred ‘problems’, and the process of their production (Bacchie 2012, 4). The conclusions drawn from this project suggest a new approach is needed to animal activism and research that considers how ‘animal cruelty’ is shaped through human-human power relations that circulate within animal cruelty policy debates. It offers different paths of resistance than simply pushing back against current human- animal power dynamics and the speciesist ideology that arguably underpins them.

1.2 RESEARCH CONTEXT

Human-animal relations have been the focus and attention of much literature.

The treatment of animals, particularly in the context of animal agriculture and industrial farming, has become a growing ethical concern (Harari 2015). The ethical perspective that it is acceptable to consume animals for food has been challenged in the literature with debates existing over whether this should

remain acceptable or be understood as ‘cruel’. Many prominent researchers have critiqued moral and legal understandings of ‘animal cruelty’ and problematised the human-animal hierarchical dynamic more broadly (see for example Singer 1975; Regan 1983; Francione 1995). The activism aimed at preventing harm towards animals has, thus far, sought to challenge the power dynamics between humans and animals. This approach has focused on ethical frameworks underpinning the treatment of animals and relies upon a binary oppressor-victim narrative to explain why ‘animal cruelty’ occurs and how it needs to be challenged. However, this approach is not sufficient to fully understand the dimensions of human-animal relationships, and how the treatment of animals by humans is governed, as it ignores human-human dynamics that influence understandings and solutions to ‘animal cruelty’.

When focusing on the treatment of animals, researchers have attempted to explain why ‘animal cruelty’ as a behaviour occurs and how it continues to function systemically in society (Singer 1975; Nibert 2003; Garcia 2011;

Sollund 2011). The reasoning often put forth is that speciesist attitudes at an individual and institutional level contribute to the suffering and death of animals. The term ‘speciesism’ was coined by animal ethics philosopher

Richard Dudley Ryder (1975) and made popular by Australian ethicist Peter

Singer in his book Animal Liberation, also published in 1975. Singer (2009a, 6) defines the concept of ‘speciesism’ as “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those members of other species”. This suggests the power dynamic between humans and animals solely functions through an ideology that maintains a hierarchal

relationship between humans and animals. Nibert (2003, 8) compares speciesism to other ideologies such as racism and sexism, which are “socially shared beliefs that legitimate an existing or desired social order”. In this context, animals can be seen as an “oppressed group” (Nibert 2003, 8), with humans acting as ‘oppressors’ responsible for the ‘victimisation’ of animals.

This perspective groups all human individuals into the class of ‘oppressor’, regardless of their individual circumstances, thus ignoring human-human power dynamics where humans may experience the impact of power relations from other humans.

While this oppressor-victim narrative may inspire social change and political activism, the influence of this narrative in creating legal change for the treatment of animals has rarely been successful. Research examining the treatment of animals in a variety of situations including for food consumption, entertainment use, and scientific experiments, often relies on this narrative when critiquing the human-animal dynamic and often reach the same conclusions. While ‘speciesism’ as a theoretical concept can be useful in analysing how certain human behaviour towards animals can be seen as

‘oppressive’, this thesis argues that this method does not adequately describe how power is being performed and ignores alternative ways to be productive in animal activism and research.

There is an underexplored gap in the literature that examines how human- human power dynamics influence animal cruelty policy debates, and how these debates surrounding the treatment of animals may impact these human

inequalities. There has been a growing focus in the wider literature on ethical issues in food systems, with a particular aim to address human-centric values such as public health and food security. This interest has generated fields of research such as ‘food justice’ and ‘food sovereignty’ (which will be discussed further in Chapter Two). By exploring human-human dynamics, these fields of literature position particular groups of humans as ‘victims’ in food systems, largely due to economic and racial inequalities (Gottleib and Joshi 2010; Alkon

2013). There have also been attempts to examine how speciesism may function alongside systems of oppression such as racism and sexism (see for example Adams 1990; Johnson 2011), particularly in the context of capitalist food systems (see for example Nibert 2017). However there is a gap in this literature around how perceptions of this access to food impacts the problematisation of animal cruelty in policy debates, and how policy changes related to the treatment of animals may then impact on the access to food for certain groups of people. In exploring this gap, this research aims to reconsider whose victimisation is being addressed in these policy decisions.

This research thus intends to bring together and contribute to both of these fields of research: food ethics and animal ethics.

An analysis of the production of these ‘problems’ also allows for an analysis of the ‘subjects’ these constructions make available. This research enables an analysis of how particular positions are shaped discursively (such as

Australian farmers), where “human beings are made ‘subjects’” (Foucault

1982, 777) alongside animals. Specifically, this project explores how people are encouraged to take up subject positions relating to human-centred

problems, and how power dynamics between humans influence the way in which ‘animal cruelty’ is conceptualised and governed. A Foucauldian analysis enables this new approach to understanding the problematisation of ‘animal cruelty’ through the consideration of human-human power relations. The purpose of the project therefore is to expand the politics that respond to

‘animal cruelty’ beyond the human-animal dynamic to also include human- human dynamics. This thesis argues that human-human power relations influence the way the treatment of animals by humans is discussed, and draws attention to these dynamics in order to provide an alternative approach to activism and research.

1.3 CASE STUDY: AUSTRALIAN LIVE EXPORT DEBATE

‘Animal cruelty’ as a phenomenon had a resurgence in mainstream political debate in the Australian Parliament in 2011 after the broadcast of video footage on the ABC’s Four Corners program, exposing the treatment of animals in the live export cattle trade from Australia to Indonesia. In particular, the use of restraint boxes to restrict movement of the cattle prior to slaughter and the slaughter methods employed in the Indonesian abattoirs were highlighted as the treatment that was most concerning. Following the airing of the Four

Corners documentary, on 31 May 2011, Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig announced the suspension of live export of cattle to 11 specific Indonesian abattoirs exposed in the footage (Wortherington 2011). Following this, on 8

June 2011, the then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced the full suspension of live export of cattle to Indonesia across all Indonesian abattoirs for a period

of six months until acceptable animal welfare standards in Indonesia could be assured (Coorey and Allard 2011; Lentini 2011; McDonald, Henderson and

Middleton 2011). During these public debates surrounding how the ‘problem’ of ‘animal cruelty’ would be addressed in the live export industry, competing concerns over food security in Indonesia, the economic security of Australia farmers, and the trade relationship between Australia and Indonesia, emerged as priorities for the Australian Government to consider as consequences of a total ban to the live export industry.

This instance in 2011 was not the first time a suspension to the live export trade had occurred. In 2006, the then-Federal Government led by John

Howard suspended the live export trade of sheep to Egypt following a similar televised documentary exposing the industry (Coorey and Allard 2011;

Animals Australia 2007). Despite previous history and growing concerns over the continued presence of ‘animal cruelty’ in the live export industry in 2011, the Australian Government supported the continuation of the trade and remained confident of the industry’s ability to self-regulate. In 2011, the six- month ban on exporting to Indonesia was thus significantly reduced and lifted after one month, allowing the trade to resume, though with new conditions

(Willingham and Allard 2011; ABC News 2011).

Within this one-month time frame, two private members bills were introduced into Parliament seeking a total phase out of the live export industry, both of which ultimately failed to pass. Australian Greens Senator for Western

Australia Rachel Siewert submitted the Live Animal Export (Slaughter)

Prohibition Bill 2011 and Independent Senator for South Australia Nick

Xenophon submitted the Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill

2011. Both of these bills were referred to the Rural Affairs and References

Committee (referred to hereafter as The Committee), which established a

Senate Inquiry to consider the two bills and continuation of the industry. The

Senate Inquiry involved six public hearings and received 429 public submissions to consider as part of their review. The Committee produced a

Senate Inquiry Report which recommended that the two private members bills should not be supported by the Government. The Federal Government agreed with this recommendation. Alongside this report, the Australian Government also commissioned several reviews into the industry that supported the implementation and extension of an Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System

(ESCAS) to deliver improved animal welfare standards and ensure the live export trade continued. This regulatory system requires the industry to be responsible for self-monitoring and reporting instances of animal cruelty within the scope of the regulatory framework.

The first major review of the ESCAS found that there was a continual failure of compliance with the regulations, and that they were inadequate for protecting animal welfare (Butterly 2015). Seven years on, problems with non- compliance and instances of ‘inhumane’ slaughter remain (Wahlquist and

Evershed 2018). Since the election of a Coalition Government at the Federal level under Tony Abbott, and subsequently Malcolm Turnbull, the live export trade has expanded into new international markets including China (Hassan

2016). In 2018, at the time of writing, the live export trade has come under

the attention of the Australian Parliament once again, this time with the export of live sheep to the Middle East (Little and Calcutt 2018). While it is yet to be seen if any substantive changes to the trade will be made in the future, proposals around harsher regulatory changes specific to the trade of live sheep during the northern hemisphere summer are dominating the discussions (ABC

News 2018; AAP 2018; Neals 2018).

Several researchers have criticised the live export industry suggesting the whole industry is “inherently cruel” and that no regulation will change that

(Morfuni 2011, 499; Smietanka 2013, 4). In terms of animal activism, this raises questions about whether the current approaches to activism in this area are failing to achieve animal protectionist goals, and whether an alternative approach that includes human-human dynamics in the discussion surrounding and responding to concerns of ‘animal cruelty’ may be the way forward.

Human-centred problems emerged in the live export debate, creating a conflict in priorities for the Australian Government to consider. The financial security, employment opportunities and mental health of farmers and those employed by the industry impacted by the short-term ban to the trade emerged as a concern in the media (SBS News 2011; O’Brien 2012; Morgan, Stewart and

O’Brien 2011). The economic security of Australian farmers as a consequence of the short-term ban has resulted in ongoing class actions against the

Government (Balogh 2014; Phillips 2014; Bettles 2014), with producers requesting $600 million in compensation (Booth 2017; Bettles 2017).

Furthermore, the animals being exported are part of the larger industry of animal agriculture for human food consumption. Therefore, the issue of live exporting animals not only relates to the ethics of animal use, but also connects with issues of human access to food, particularly when the destination countries in the live export trade usually have less secure food systems.

The tighter restrictions to the industry were put into place as a result of public discourses and consultation, raising questions about how and why particular discourses are taken up by authoritative bodies. In particular, the debate over live export offers a unique opportunity for reflection and investigation into whether human-centred problems impact these prevailing discourses. It is through an examination of different subject positions being produced and different moral concerns being problematised that this research is able to understand how ‘cruelty’ can be deployed to describe harm towards certain humans, and how animal welfare and human welfare are intersecting in these policy debates. This is an important consideration, because an approach that focuses solely on how animals are being ‘oppressed’ by humans ignores an interrogation of the inequalities between humans. This is evident particularly in the context of food production and consumption, which might impact our attitudes towards ‘animal cruelty’ and our approaches to minimising or eradicating the cruel treatment of animals. Instead of viewing human welfare and animal welfare as competing, this case study enables discussion of an alternative approach to animal activism and research that sees potential in resolving animal cruelty issues by turning our attention to human inequalities.

1.4 RESEARCH APPROACH

1.4.1 Aims and objectives

The primary objective of this thesis is to investigate how power is being performed discursively in animal cruelty policy debates. Specifically it seeks to understand how ‘animal cruelty’ as a discursive object is influenced by human-human power relations and the human-centred problematisations they produce. This project does not seek to undermine the argument that a power relation exists between humans and animals that sees animals as mistreated. However, instead of understanding power as something humans have and exercise over animals, this analysis aims to offer a new empirical approach to engaging with animal cruelty discourses by considering human- centred problems and how they shape these policy discussions. This moves away from the common paths of resistance in animal activism that take on the assumption that the way we discuss and govern animal cruelty issues is due to whether we are reproducing (or rejecting) an ethical belief that sees animals as subordinate to humans. This new approach is influenced by the work and ideas of French social theorist Michel Foucault, particularly his concepts of

‘knowledge’ and ‘power’, and how they intersect with ‘discourse’, in order to rethink how ‘animal cruelty’ can be conceptualised and then governed.

Foucault suggests that our understanding of ‘things’ is constructed through interactions of knowledge and power (Dean 1994, 113). Knowledge is

produced and power is exercised through discourses (Foucault 1978). This project aims to consider the oppressor-victim narrative evident in animal cruelty discourses differently, by positioning oppression and victimisation as more complex power relations in the problematisation of ‘animal cruelty’. The aim of this thesis, therefore, is to investigate how human-human power dynamics influence constructions of, and solutions to, ‘animal cruelty’ in various ways.

This thesis also aims to highlight to researchers in this space, how engaging with the methodological tool of ‘problematisations’ that considers both animal-centred and human-centred ‘problems’ may be may be an alternative approach to addressing concerns surrounding the treatment of animals. This is a particular area of concern for animal protection activists and researchers, who may unintentionally reinforce the harm to marginalised communities despite an intention to address harm to animals. Human-centred issues have been identified in animal-focused discussions in the literature (which will be discussed in Chapter Two), however this is often only insofar to justify action on the human-animal dynamic. While some do argue for human-centred, animal-centred, and environment-centred issues to be considered

“interrelated projects that must be fought for as one” (Best 2006), the philosophical debates have largely not extended to the dominant animal activist approaches, which tend be single-issue, especially on a policy level.

This is not to suggest that human-centred ‘victims’ be prioritised and responded to in a way that “eschews activism opposing animal exploitation and continues to justify exploitative practices” (Cudworth 2016, 247). Instead,

activism against animal cruelty may require deeper engagement of human- centred problems as they emerge in contemporary policy debates. This thesis aims to offer animal activists and researchers the tools for alternative strategies of discourse in order to take on an intersectional approach to an intersectional problem.

1.4.2 A study of problematisations

Drawing on a Foucauldian framework, a study of problematisations such as that undertaken here allows for an analysis of “how and why, at specific times and under particular circumstances, certain phenomena are questioned, analysed, classified, and regulated, while others are not” (Deacon 2000, 127).

Historically, discourses surrounding animal cruelty are constantly shifting and dynamic, as are the practices and the way in which human-animal relations are governed (Johnson 2012, 39). Therefore a critique of animal cruelty as a discursive object can enable investigation into why certain acts of cruelty have been positioned as a problem in a specific time, space, and cultural setting.

Further, a study of problematisations enables an analytical approach that considers the diverse array of ‘problems’ that are produced in this context, such as animal cruelty, economic insecurity, food insecurity, and international trade relationships. ‘Problematisation’ is therefore the analytical approach taken to understand the production of these objects as forms of knowledge, and the processes of their production as performances of power.

A study of problematisations also enables an examination of how different solutions have been constructed (Foucault 1983, 422) and different directions of regulation have been taken up by authorities in responses to ‘animal cruelty’. Rose and Miller (1992, 181) write, “The ideals of government are intrinsically linked to the problems around which it circulates, the failings it seeks to rectify, the ills it seeks to cure. Indeed, the history of government might well be written as a history of problematisations” (Rose and Miller 1992,

181). Drawing on this connection between government and problematisations, this approach therefore sees ‘animal cruelty’ as a production of discourse requiring governance. This thesis asks how this production is tied to human-centred problematisations that shape the

“obligations of rulers” (Rose and Miller 1992, 181), influencing its response in policy.

1.4.3 Research questions

To address the aims of the project, this thesis is guided by the following overarching research question:

How is the problematisation of ‘animal cruelty’ influenced by human- human power relations?

In order to answer this overarching research question, the below sub- questions were developed to guide the analysis of the data:

 How is ‘animal cruelty’ shaped and reshaped as a problem in the

discourses around live export?

 What human-centred issues have been problematised within

discourses surrounding the treatment of animals in the live export

trade?

 What subject positions become available in these discourses, and

how do they reproduce human-centred problems?

 What power relations are produced and reproduced by

problematising ‘animal cruelty’ in the discourses around live

export?

1.4.4 Selection of material

The data for this project has been drawn from a range of secondary source documents. The Four Corners documentary brought the treatment of animals into the public consciousness and the subsequent response from the

Australian Government involved several parliamentary proceedings, government statements and responses, and commissioned reports. This variety of forums allowed for diverse statements to be made, differing positions taken, and competing interests debated. Champion (2006, 102) describes qualitative research as “the application of observational techniques and/or the analysis of documents as the primary means of learning about a person or groups and their characteristics”. Therefore, the analysis of secondary source documents related to this case study is a fitting approach to illustrate the range of human-human and human-animal dynamics. The 15

selection of these data sources will be further explained in Chapter Three.

Briefly, however, the data set includes 485 documents as follows:

Broadcast materials

 Transcript of the documentary “A Bloody Business” aired on 30

May 2011 by Four Corners, ABC Online

 Edited interview transcripts from three participants featured in the

documentary provided by Four Corners, ABC Online

Parliamentary proceedings

 Senate Official Hansard transcript, 15 June 2011

 Senate Official Hansard transcript, 20 June 2011

 Six Official Committee Hansard transcripts: Rural Affairs and

Transport References Committee (The Committee) Public Hearings

from 4 August – 20 September, 2011.

Government statements and responses

 Australian Government media release ‘Live animal exports to

Indonesia’ 1 June 2011

 Australian Government announcement of an independent review

into the live trade by Mr Bill Farmer AO (referred to hereafter as the

Farmer Review) released 13 June 2011

 Australian Government response to the Farmer Review and the

IGWG Report.

 Australian Government Response to Senate Inquiry Report released

July 2012

Commissioned reports

 Assessment of the Mark I and IV restraint boxes by Dr Mark Schipp,

Australia’s Chief Veterinary Officer (ACVO), released in August 2011

 Industry Government Working Group (IGWG) on Live Cattle

Exports Report (referred to hereafter as the IGWG Report) released on

26 August 2011

 Report of the Farmer Review released on 31 August 2011

 Senate Inquiry Report by The Committee released in November

2011

 429 Public Submissions received by The Committee

1.5 THESIS AND ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Chapter Two analyses the literature and the scholarly debates, and the variety of positions that emerge regarding the treatment of animals and the human- animal relationship. This review highlights the importance of discourse in shaping understandings of ‘animal cruelty’ as a ‘problem’ requiring governance, and its effects on producing relations of power. Chapter Two establishes how an oppressor-victim narrative emerges in the literature that describes the power relationship between humans and animals. However, these attempts to critique human-animal power relations and advocate on

behalf of animals are limited because they have not sufficiently interrogated how power relationships between humans intersect with discourses about animal cruelty.

In proposing an alternative approach to researching the problem of ‘animal cruelty’, and the discourses which produce its meaning, the concepts of discourse, knowledge, and power from Foucault’s work are relied upon and underpin the methodology and methods driving the analysis of this thesis.

Chapter Three will introduce these conceptual tools and also discuss the attempts other researchers have made in utilising a Foucauldian framework in examining the ‘problem’ of the current treatment of animals. This chapter will argue that these researchers still rely on and reinforce an oppressor- victim narrative when examining the human-animal power dynamic. The chapter therefore suggests an alternative use of Foucault’s conceptual tools – specifically his understanding of ‘problematisations’ – to allow a consideration of human-human dynamics in researching animal cruelty discourses to rethink the way power is being performed discursively. Chapter Three then details the methods employed, specifically discussing why the Australian political debate over the live export trade was selected as the case study and particularly appropriate for analysis. It will demonstrate how discourse analysis was approached, including the analytical strategies utilised. It will also outline the limitations of the study, and discuss how this project approaches these in light of the conclusions drawn.

Chapters Four, Five and Six present the analysis of empirical data. The first findings chapter (Chapter Four) focuses on the human-animal dynamic and the object of ‘animal cruelty’ produced in the discourses. This analysis addresses the first research sub-question, by investigating how ‘animal cruelty’ is shaped and reshaped discursively as a ‘problem’. This unpacks how the human-animal relationship is conceptualised and governed in the policy debates surrounding live export. The second findings chapter (Chapter Five) focuses on the human-centred problems emerging in the live export debate and addresses the second and third research sub-questions. It identifies and analyses three human-centred issues that were problematised in the live export policy debates: the economic insecurity of farmers and rural

Australians; the food insecurity of Indonesia; and the trade relationship between Australian and Indonesia. The final findings chapter (Chapter Six) provides an analysis of how these problematisations and understandings of

‘animal cruelty’ can be seen as performances of power, answering the fourth research sub-question. It details the objectives, differentiations, strategies, and forms of resistance established and performed discursively in live export policy debates, shaping how ‘animal cruelty’ and its solutions are conceptualised and governed.

Chapter Seven provides a summary of the thesis, returning to the research questions and aims of the project. The findings from the thesis demonstrate how human-human power relations are influencing contemporary policy debates about the treatment of animals. Conflicts in human-centred and animal-centred problems, and practices of power, impact on the way people

shape their own understandings of ‘animal cruelty’ and relate to these contemporary issues in the public sphere. These findings offer insight into the ways in which animal advocates may need to engage with and address human- centred issues in order to achieve change for animals. In light of the conclusions drawn, Chapter Seven will explore the potential directions for future research. It will provide an opportunity for those in academia, law, policy making, and political action to reflect on the way they discuss and relate to others and themselves, and draw inspiration for a potential alternative approach to future animal protection activism and research.

1.6 CONCLUSION

This research provides evidence of how human-human power relations influence the way in which we discuss, understand, and govern ‘animal cruelty’, by analysing the public discourses surrounding the treatment of animals in live export policy debates. As discussed previously, this project does not provide an explanation for why animal cruelty occurs, nor does it debate whether or not the live export industry is cruel. Instead, this project offers insight into how human-human and human-animal power dynamics circulate within policy debates about animal cruelty issues. By undertaking this analysis, this thesis provides an alternative analysis of animal cruelty case studies without relying on ‘speciesism’ as a tool or the oppressor-victim narrative that exists in the literature to explain why we talk about and construct solutions to the problem of ‘animal cruelty’ in the way that we do.

This thesis therefore demonstrates that discussions surrounding these

contemporary debates are complex and often influenced by the marginalisation of both animals and humans. Instead of identifying human- centred problems as diversionary tactics or ‘speciesist’ if prioritised, this thesis suggests there is potential to engage with these human-centred problematisations productively to solve animal cruelty issues.

CHAPTER TWO: ‘Animal cruelty’ as an object of research

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides a review of the literature surrounding the treatment of animals, with a specific examination of how ‘animal cruelty’ has been conceptualised and discussed in scholarly work as an object of research. It demonstrates how conflicting ideas shape how ‘animal cruelty’ is described and understood in the literature. There are claims in the research competing for authority over what the term ‘animal cruelty’ means, and several researchers have offered different explanations for why we should be concerned about the treatment of animals more broadly. These descriptions take on diverse forms and this chapter outlines how differing ethical frameworks underpin these competing descriptions. This chapter concludes that there are diverse discourses in the literature shaping differing understandings of ‘animal cruelty’ and problematising it in varying ways.

Furthermore, these descriptions, while diverse, often construct an oppressor- victim narrative to identify and explain the power dynamic between humans and animals. This chapter concludes that this narrative largely overlooks human-human power dynamics and therefore does not allow for an appreciation of the complexities of how power is performed and knowledge is produced in relation to the treatment of animals.

The claim that current anti-cruelty legislation and regulation reinforces an oppressive power relationship of humans over animals is not new, and continues to emerge as a key theme in the literature. Abolitionists, who protest the use of animals in society, oppose current legal understandings of ‘animal cruelty’ and campaign to change the current relationship existing between humans and animals. This chapter demonstrates how this power relationship has been problematised in research and notes that questions over how we should understand and regulate the issue of ‘animal cruelty’ are a persistent debate in the literature. It is argued in this chapter that these philosophical debates, while having success in informing activism, they have had limited success in transformative change in the legal responses to concerns over the treatment of animals in contemporary debates. One argument might be to attribute this lack of success to most people favouring the granting of a lesser moral status to animals. This thesis offers another view that the often singular focus towards seeing animals as the sole victims in these contexts, has shaped these responses.

The second section of this chapter also discusses how the responses in law, industry/regulation, and activism, have been proposed in the literature as institutionalising and reinforcing this oppressive human-animal power dynamic. Contemporary discourses that circulate within these spaces (law, industry/regulation, and activism) further this oppressor-victim narrative.

However, these discursive practices also have unintended consequences for human-human power dynamics including class, geographical, racial, gender,

cultural and religious differences, that have been underexplored in the literature surrounding animal cruelty discourses.

The third section of this chapter considers how these human-human power dynamics may intersect with the problematisation of animal cruelty in the literature reviewed. It will discuss the field of research that examines ethical issues in food systems, which investigates the marginalisation of certain groups through the production and consumption of food. It raises the question of whether this intersection between the marginalisation of humans and animals highlights a need to explore an alternative approach to discussing and researching the treatment of animals, one which moves away from the oppressor(human)-victim(animal) narrative that has dominated academic research into animal cruelty issues. Consequently, this chapter highlights the gap in the literature this project is aiming to address.

2.2 THE PROBLEM OF ANIMAL CRUELTY

2.2.1 Defining animal cruelty

Researchers have problematised animal cruelty by investigating why humans commit animal cruelty, critiquing the way we legislate against it, and through advocacy against current forms of legalised harm. This problematisation is particularly evident in the field of criminology, where animal cruelty is framed within the context of criminality and deviance. In this field, animals are

positioned as victims. However, the literature originally did not start out by centring animal cruelty as solely a problem for animals. While it has drifted dramatically over time, the early research into mistreatment towards animals often focused on why this behaviour is a problem for humans.

One way in which this behaviour towards animals was centred as a human problem was through the understanding of animals as property, which meant that the ‘harm’ of cruelty was committed against their owners through the crime of property damage or theft (South, Brisman and Beirne 2013, 32). In this context, humans were considered the victims from harm caused by other humans. For example, a focus on rural crime has problematised the theft of cattle, also known as ‘cattle rustling’ and ‘cattle duffing’, due to the impact on humans (Harman 1999; Harman 2002; Bunei, Mcelwee and Smith 2016).

Queensland Parliament has in recent times responded to tales of cattle rustling and increased fines for a range of “stock offences” (Wilson 2014).

Another way the treatment of animals was positioned in the literature as a problem for humans was when it was argued that animal abusers also posed a threat to humans because of a relationship between ‘animal cruelty’ and human antisocial and/or criminal behaviour (Ascione 1993; Arluke et al

1999). Commonly referred to as ‘The Link’ (see South, Brisman and Beirne

2013, 33), this research suggests violence towards animals is a precursor and/or correlate to inter-human violence. This focus of research is not concerned so much with harm towards animals but rather problematising the behaviour due to its relationship with subsequent inter-human violence.

Some examples of previous examinations investigating ‘The Link’ include, but are not limited to, research investigating whether there is a relationship between childhood cruelty towards animals and interpersonal aggression

(Ascione 1993; Lockwood and Ascione 1998) or the relation between animal abuse and domestic violence (Ascione and Arkow 1999; Faver and Strand

2003). This body of research, while often providing great insight into why humans should care about the treatment of animals if purely for selfish reasons, often limited itself by not disrupting socially accepted views of

‘animal cruelty’. As a result, this draws focus away from challenging the systemic ‘victimisation’ of animals. Therefore, while there was an acknowledgement of human-centred problems in this animal-focused literature, the aims were not inclusive to fully acknowledging the interests of animals.

One oft-cited definition of animal cruelty in criminology is offered by Ascione

(1993, 228) as “socially unacceptable behaviour that intentionally causes unnecessary pain, suffering, or distress to and/or the death of an animal”. This definition places the onus on societal norms as the determining factor of what is cruel or not. For example, many agricultural practices and hunting are often deemed as socially acceptable and in many instances ‘necessary’, and thus would be excluded until norms change. Gullone (2012, 2) also explored the link between animal cruelty and human antisocial behaviour and aggression and relied upon Ascione’s (1993, 228) understanding of animal cruelty.

Gullone (2012, 2, original emphasis) focused on animal cruelty by specifically examining “individuals who act with the deliberate intention to cause harm to

non-human sentient beings”.1, 2 In their research, Gullone (2012), like Ascione

(1993) and Arluke et al (1999), similarly distinguishes between intentional and unintentional cruelty behaviour and that behaviour conducted on an individual level rather than a national or societal level, such as agricultural practices.

Alternate descriptions of animal cruelty are continually provided in the criminology literature. Another example is Dadds, Turner and McAloon (2002) who also examine the link between animal cruelty and violence towards humans. When examining cruelty to animals with a focus on young children,

Dadds, Turner and McAloon (2002, 365) narrowly define cruelty to animals for the purposes of their paper as “repetitive and proactive behaviour (or pattern of behaviour) intended to cause harm to sentient creatures”. This excludes accidental and single occurrences of behaviour which they consider as expected behaviour from young children. Dadds, Turner and McAloon

(2002) acknowledge the concern for pain and suffering experienced by animals, especially companion animals. However, their focus is on how animal cruelty is undesirable for humans in terms of the psychological effects and

1 ‘Non-human’, is used frequently in the literature as a descriptor for all animals besides humans. It often serves the purpose of defining humans as part of the biological category of kingdom Animalia (see Oxford English Dictionary 2018). This can be challenging to the current status in the law that sees a clear distinction between humans and animals that prescribes different moral worth (Cao 2010, 116). In this thesis, ‘nonhuman’ is edited to ‘non- human’ where included for consistency. However where ‘animal’ is used without the descriptor, it is to be assumed by the reader that this refers to non-human animals. 2 ‘Sentient’ has been described as an adjective for one “that feels or is capable of feeling” (Oxford English Dictionary 2018), or is “responsive to or conscious of sense impressions” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2018), or with “an interest in continuing to live” (Francione, in Francione and Garner 2010, 19-20). Research has explored and established the truth claim of animal sentience (see Duncan 2006; Proctor 2013; Proctor, Carder, and Cornish 2013; Hoole 2017). The Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (AAWS) (2011) further upholds the claim of animal sentience and defines it as “those with a capacity to experience suffering and pleasure.” The AAWS (2011) say, “Sentience is the reason that welfare matters”. 27

relation to future patterns of violence, constructing it as a problem for humans and not a problem just for animals. However, the focus on socially unacceptable behaviour in this body of research often limits the discussion surrounding behaviour that does not challenge the currently acceptable human-animal power relationship, and therefore concern for animals has boundaries.

Dadds, Turner and McAloon (2002) do not specify in their research whether animal cruelty should be understood at an individual level, where it is one individual causing an act of harm compared to, say, a factory farm slaughtering animals for food or a medical institution conducting experiments on animals.

However they do say the behaviour must be repetitive and agree it should be intentional. Meanwhile, Vermeulen and Odendaal’s (1993, 24) definition of the specific type of cruelty of “companion animal abuse” is “the intentional, malicious, or irresponsible, as well as unintentional or ignorant, infliction of physiological and/or psychological pain, suffering, deprivation, and the death of a companion animal by humans”. These differing descriptions of what should be considering within the bounds of ‘animal cruelty’, shape how this term is related to in the literature including the way it is reproduced as a problem to be governed.

Alternative descriptions of the relationship between humans and animals continue to be developed in the fields of criminology, particularly since the

1990s, when studies of animal cruelty and animal abuse shifted from being largely human-centric (South, Brisman and Bierne 2013, 32). South, Brisman

and Bierne (2013, 31) introduce the emerging area of green criminology and describe ‘animal abuse’ as “diverse human actions that contribute to the pain, suffering or death of animals, or that otherwise adversely affect their welfare”.

They argue a green criminology perspective on animal abuse or animal cruelty is “based on a pro-animal agenda that is constructed on some of the insights of animal rights theory and critical criminology” (South, Brisman and Beirne

2013, 33). While a diverse field, this emerging discipline challenges researchers to critically examine why we limit and define some harms to animals as criminal or abusive, or neither (Beirne 2011, 356). Discourses about animal cruelty therefore reproduce or resist normative understandings of animal use. It is because of this concern over animal cruelty as a social problem and seeing animals as victims of crime, that researchers have turned their attention to understanding human-animal relations and why this behaviour continues at an individual and societal level. Consequently, attention to animal cruelty as an object of research has shifted and become predominately researched and understood as an animal-centred problem.

2.2.2 Explaining animal cruelty

Researchers have described and problematised animal cruelty in diverse ways, and their explanations for existing human-animal dynamics also vary widely. Norm Phelps (2013) argues animal cruelty is a “universal crime” and offers the explanation for animal cruelty as: “We enslave and slaughter animals because we enjoy the results and we can get away with it. It is as simple as that”

(Phelps 2013, 23, original emphasis). Our justifications for exploiting and

using animals has been broadly identified in the literature as products of speciesist attitudes. Speciesism is described by Singer (2009a, 6) as “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those members of other species”. It is through this understanding that speciesism is commonly thought as similar to other ideologies such as racism, sexism and homophobia which are legitimised systematically by the controlling groups in society (Nibert 2003, 20).

Taking on the assumption that prejudice and legitimising prejudicial behaviour is unethical, speciesism is therefore considered a problem in this body of literature and constructs animals as victims of this oppressive ideology. Nibert (2003, 8) argues that animals can be defined as an “oppressed group”, as they are not part of the dominant group in society. Nibert (2003, 8) defines an oppressed group as one that shares “physical, cultural or economic characteristics and is subjected, for the economic, political and social gain of a privileged group, to a social system that [institutionalises] its exploitation,

[marginalisation], powerlessness, deprivation or vulnerability to violence”.

Therefore, speciesism is understood as the ideology underpinning human- animal relationships which constructs an oppressor-victim narrative that is prominent in the literature.

While speciesism is identified as driving animal cruelty, researchers explain and utilise this ethical concept in a variety of ways in the literature. There are several ethical frameworks that are identified in the literature that offer explanations for why current harmful practices occur and as justification for

why we should understand animal cruelty differently from what is currently legally permissible. The two prominent ethical perspectives in the literature are utilitarian and rights-based perspectives, along with the less prominent virtue-based perspective, which will be explored in more detail below.

2.2.2.1 Utilitarian-based ethical perspectives

A utilitarian perspective allows for harm of animals if there is a net good or

‘happiness’ for the greatest number of individuals (Singer 2011). Peter Singer

(2011) argues humans should equally consider the interests of animals to justify any harm or suffering to animals caused by humans. Therefore, the net gain of happiness should not be just for humans, but for all species. The alternative would involve calculating decisions in a biased utilitarian approach where the interests of animals are considered subordinate to human interests, and Singer argues this to be speciesist. Singer justifies this approach by challenging the notion that “all humans are equal to each other but also that they are far superior to [non-human] animals” (Singer 2009b, 571). He demonstrates there are some animals superior in their cognitive capacities to some humans, therefore challenging the assumption that animals should be valued as less than humans because of their cognitive abilities. Due to this,

Singer (2009b, 572) argues that “we cannot claim that biological commonality entitles us to a superior status over those who are not members of our species”.

Singer (2009a) provides two clear examples of speciesism in practice where this self-imposed entitlement of superiority is exercised – experiments on animals and rearing animals for food. Both these examples are widely calculated utilising a biased utilitarian approach, where the interests of animals are considered subordinate to human interests. Singer (2009a, 220) claims that the large number of animals which are harmed due to scientific experiments each year in the United States of America, is due to the argument that “humans come first”. Therefore harming animals to find a cure for a human disease, for example, is justified because the life of the human is considered superior to the life of the animal being experimented on. Or, for example, the life of the animal is considered less important than discovering that shampoo in the human eye can hurt. This elevates commercial practices over the ‘rights’ of animals, and Ryder (1985, 78) argues that to many it would seem “logical” to side with animals on this pain/benefit analysis. Singer

(2009a) argues this exercise of superiority is also practiced whenever humans eat animals.

2.2.2.2 Rights-based ethical perspectives

Standing in contrast to the utilitarian approach is rights-based ethical thinking or ‘rights theory’. It is based on the concept of a ‘right holder’, where one has rights which should be protected and not overridden regardless of any good that may result in doing so (Waldau 2011, 66). This approach was most notably discussed by Tom Regan in his book The Case for Animal Rights, published in 1983. Regan (1983, 21) critiqued the utilitarian approach as

justification for harm is only required to consider that “the preferences

(pleasures, etc.) of all affected by the outcome be considered and that equal preferences (pleasures, etc.) be counted equally”. Regan (1983, 21) argues that weighing the good versus the evil is not sufficient, and that instead we must consider that moral agents (human and animals) all have equal inherent value and therefore no harm can be justified on the reasoning that it creates beneficial outcomes for all affected.

This view is also supported by the popular animal ethicist Gary L. Francione who famously argues for an abolitionist approach to animal use. Francione (in

Francione and Garner (eds) 2010, x) argues that “we have no moral justification for using [non-human animals] at all, irrespective of purpose and however “humanely” we treat them, and that we ought to abolish our use of

[non-human animals]”. 3 He argues we should all adhere to veganism and that veganism should be considered a ‘moral baseline’ if we are to provide protection for animal interests and if we are going to recognise their moral personhood (Francione and Garner 2010, 4). Francione is often critical of

Singer because Singer does not practice a strict ethical plant-based diet and argues that animals have no cognisant understanding of what death means or what future life they lose through death, therefore they have no ‘interest’ to live (Francione and Garner 2010, 11). Francione dismisses this argument that death causes no harm to animals and states “if a being is sentient—that is, if

3 ‘Humane’ has been described as “marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2018). This thesis is not concerned with what is ‘humane’ or not in regards to live export and animal cruelty, but how this term is deployed and related to in the discourse. 33

she is perceptually aware—she has an interest in continuing to live, and death is a harm to her” (Francione and Garner 2010, 19-20).

Ryder (2009), also writing about the ethics surrounding the use of animals, challenges the ‘inherent value’ of life that Regan and Francione suggest, and argues that it is the ability to feel pain and suffering that gives an individual the right to moral consideration. Ryder (2009, 87) agrees with Regan’s view that utilitarianism is flawed and disputes “the rightness” that the “wishes or welfare of the majority are taken, as a matter of principle, to outweigh the wishes or welfare of the minority”. Ryder (2009, 89) wishes to bridge the gap between utilitarianism and rights theory by introducing the concept of

‘painism’ and suggesting that we should be “concerned with the intensity of suffering of each individual and not with how many sufferers there are”. As

‘painism’ as a concept suggests different moral consideration based on the ability to feel pain, this understanding of ‘animal cruelty’ can lend itself to regulatory responses that attempt to reduce experiences of pain. This definitional boundary of ‘animal cruelty’ is therefore contested by those who argue for an abolition of animal use due to an inherent ‘right to life’ regardless of feelings experienced. While there are differences between Ryder’s ‘painism’ and Regan’s ‘rights theory’, they agree that no amount of human pleasure should outweigh the suffering or pain experienced by an animal.

2.2.2.3 Virtue-based ethical perspectives

A third, but less prominent perspective in the literature that suggests a moral framework in considering animals is virtue-based ethics. It does not focus on the rights of an animal but instead concerns itself with the idea of the development of virtuous character traits and therefore a “right way of living” for humans (Waldau 2011, 68). Virtue theorists may agree or disagree on several of these virtues to define what makes a good person, and these virtues may differ historically and culturally. In terms of animal ethics, Waldau (2011,

68) argues that virtue-based ethics could complement caring for animals if the virtues to make a good person are “compassion-intensive”. In this vein, Bekoff

(2010, 21) has a clearly non-speciesist attitude when claiming “compassion easily crosses species lines”. While not self-proclaiming to be a virtue theorist, his book titled The Animal Manifesto (Bekoff 2010, 3) contains calls to the readers to expand our “compassion footprint” to protecting animals. It is from this ethical perspective that the ‘best’ version of ourselves can be seen as being compassionate to all species and not contributing to their suffering through our actions. While this would create benefits to animals, this perspective reframes the focus to humans, not animals. As such, Keith Tester (1992, 78) argues that the development of anti-cruelty legislation has come about through humans becoming moral agents for animals in order to feel “good” about themselves.

In the same vein, religious frameworks offer guidance on what ‘virtuous’ behaviour might be and what is a ‘right way to live’ as humans. Religion and

its role in shaping understandings of acceptable and unacceptable ways to treat animals is another factor which is argued in the literature as influencing human-animal relationships (Linzey 2010, 449; Waldau 2002). This literature review is not going to detail each religious text and their teachings on what is the ethical way to treat animals (for a summary of different religions and their attitudes towards animals, see Bekoff 2009, 449-485; Phillips 2009, 93-104).

However, it is important to acknowledge that some legal systems are historically and/or currently derived from religious principles, and this therefore influences the way a society will treat its members, including animals.

Religions, and their diverse roles in shaping ethical perspectives towards animals, are particularly relevant to this project due to the role of religious restrictions surrounding food production and consumption. To focus on the ideas relevant to this thesis, the ritual animal slaughter practices in Islamic teachings are relevant to the case study under examination. According to

Islam, the unnecessary and unjustifiable killing of animals is considered sinful

(Reyaz 2012), and Islamic teachings mandate that if an animal is to be slaughtered it must be done as humanely as possible (Pointing 2014, 389;

Zoethout 2013, 653). While the Qur’an, the religious text for Islam, does not make it compulsory to eat animals (Reyaz 2012), it does make restrictions in regards to what animals to eat and how they must be killed. In Islam, ‘Halal’ refers to the food and practices that are permitted, while ‘Haram’ refers to those which are forbidden (Pointing 2014, 387). Dhabihah is the ritual slaughter of animals for consumption according to the Qur’an, and commonly

referred to as ‘halal slaughter’ (Foltz 2010, 464). This practice must be performed by a Muslim and requires the animal to be alive, facing Mecca, and the name of Allah must be called upon before cutting the animal’s throat with a sharp knife in one swift cut (Fozdar and Spittles 2014, 79). There are some debates as to what is permitted or forbidden according to the Qur’an, and this includes whether stunning to render the animal unconscious should be completely forbidden throughout the Halal slaughter, or permitted prior to or after the animal’s throat is cut (Pointing 2014, 387; Zoethout 2013, 655).

Stunning refers to the process where the animal is made unconscious prior to slaughter, usually through “electrical stunning, captive-bolt stunning or the use of carbon dioxide gas” (Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to

Animals (RSPCA) 2016). While the Qur’an is open to interpretation in regards to the use of stunning, it does demonstrate that restricting which animals to consume and how they must be slaughtered is an example of how a religious framework can influence human behaviour towards animals and what is understood as animal cruelty. However, as noted by Phillips (2009, 99), while

Westerners often point to the lack of stunning as cruel, “Muslim slaughter can be just as humane as that in Christian countries”. This thesis intends to contribute to this dialogue in the literature, as the case study being examined offers insight into how halal slaughter methods are related to in the conceptualisation of animal cruelty in the live export policy debates in

Australia.

These ethical discussions in the literature offer explanations as to why animal cruelty occurs and also the reasons why it is argued that a speciesist power

dynamic between humans and animals exists. This furthers the oppressor- victim narrative within the literature when problematising animal cruelty.

Each of these ethics-based arguments – utilitarian, rights-based and virtue- based – agrees that animals should be considered when developing an ethical framework for human behaviour. They have each been used by researchers to further the problematisation of our current relationship with animals on a societal level. However, they differ in deciding whether it is because animals have ‘rights’ to be protected, or ‘interests’ to be considered, or because it makes us more ‘virtuous’. Meanwhile, debates exist as to how we should manage the conflict between animal rights and rights to practice religion freely.

These ideas in the literature impact how we discuss the moral status of animals, what is socially constructed as ‘cruel’ behaviour towards animals, and what role competing voices play in constructing these ideas. It is from this perspective that our current relationship with animals is problematised in the literature, and researchers have also sought to identify the structural forces reinforcing this problematic relationship.

2.3 KEY DISCURSIVE SPACES

An extensive review of the socio-legal literature indicates that the responses to animal cruelty as a problem in law, industry/food regulation, and activism, reproduces the unequal power dynamic between humans and animals. This growing body of literature further reinforces the oppressor-victim narrative

by providing an explanation for how the oppression of animals by humans is systemic. This section analyses the literature concerning three key spaces of research: legal; industry/regulation; and activism. It explores how these spaces are thought of as contributing to this oppressor-victim relationship between humans and animals through discourse.

2.3.1 The legal space

The legal space and its influence on the conceptualisation of ‘animal cruelty’ has been the focus of much literature. Legal researchers have analysed the legal discourses framing what animal cruelty means within the bounds of the law, and their effects. The discussion surrounding animals and the law in the literature reviewed centres on two specific themes: those researchers critically examining the current ‘animal welfare’ position of existing animal cruelty laws (see Sankoff 2005; Phillips 2009; Francione 2010); and those researchers arguing whether there is room in the law for ‘animal rights’ (see

Bartlett 2002; Cupp 2009; Smith 2009; Morgan 1999). While many researchers engage in both lines of inquiry, there is debate over whether, instead of strengthening existing ‘animal welfare’ laws (which are often inadequate), ‘animal rights’ should be the focus of legislation in this area. This debate of ‘rights’ versus ‘welfare’ in the literature has led to the argument that legal discourses, which draw from a welfare framework, reinforce the power relationship between humans and animals.

The ethical debate of ‘rights versus welfare’ arises in legal discussions because of the current status of animals in Australian law, as in most of the common law world, where animals do not have rights in so far as they are not ‘rights holders’. Animals are considered in common law as property and have historically been treated as such under Australian property rights laws

(Sankoff and White 2009, 1; Cao 2010, 63). Therefore ‘animal rights’ currently have no place in the law in Australia. Instead, animals are offered some protection under animal welfare legislation, which is regulated at a state level.

Animal welfare legislation protects animals’ interests by imposing constraints and penalties on humans relating to what they can do to animals. Researchers have critiqued this current status of the law, and argued that welfare reform ultimately “becomes a mechanism in the maintenance of [non-human animal] suffering and death” (Wrenn 2015, 4).

A consistent criticism in the literature is a lack of a clear legal definition of what constitutes cruelty, and a question of why some forms of harm are not considered cruel (Beirne 2011, 356). When analysing New Zealand’s Animal

Welfare Act 1999, Sankoff (2009, 13) critiques the legal discourse, arguing its ambiguity creates a situation where the boundaries of what animal cruelty is are open to interpretation. Sankoff’s criticism of the New Zealand legal discourse provides a similar assessment of Australian legislation. For example, the Animal Care and Protection Act (Qld) 2001 (ACPA) has similar language employed which creates ambiguity over what is considered cruel (see

Appendix B). This specific legislation provides no guidance as to the scope of actions that breach the Act. For example, no definition is provided to outline

what is ‘pain’, or what behaviour ‘terrifies’ or ‘worries’. Nor does it detail the definition of ‘inhumane’ as it relates to the legislation, or how quick is ‘quickly’.

Furthermore, no definitions are provided to detail what ‘unjustifiable’,

‘unnecessary’ or ‘unreasonable’ entail. By making these caveats, a person causing ‘pain’ or harm to an animal is not necessarily in breach of the legislation. In Sankoff’s (2009, 13) critique of the wording of the similar New

Zealand legislation, he notes the use of these types of words “import a balancing test, in that they focus not solely on the harm inflicted, but on whether the action causing such harm is justifiable”. White (2003, 280) suggests possible reform should look at the language used such as

‘unnecessary’ and ‘unjustifiable’ and argues that instead of these words being the boundaries for what constitutes an offence, they should be components of a defence where the accused must prove the behaviour was ‘necessary’ and

‘justifiable’.

The criticisms in the literature surrounding the boundaries of what ‘animal cruelty’ should mean are fuelled by the differing ethical and legal perspectives underpinning ‘rights’ versus ‘welfare’. Francione (2010) examines the animal welfare position, which current Australian laws reflect. He argues the current status of law governing human behaviour and obligation towards animals is framed around the notion that animals are less than humans and therefore “it is morally acceptable to use animals as human resources as long as we treat them ‘humanely’ and do not inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering on them”

(Francione 2010, 24). Accepting this animal welfare position in law creates a situation where sanctions for ‘cruel’ and ‘inhumane’ treatment against animals

are imposed on humans, so the animal’s ‘welfare’ is somewhat legally protected. However, Francione (2010) argues that all animals have an

“interest in continuing to live”, and the animal welfare position of the law does not protect this interest while simultaneously prioritising all human interests, furthering a human-biased utilitarian reading of the law.

The lack of shared understanding gives weight to the debate in the literature over whether the current legal regulation is sufficient in preventing and regulating animal cruelty. The notion of granting rights to animals has been significantly critiqued within a legal context. The rights-based ethical perspective can elevate the life and value of animals in direct comparison to the value of humans and has led to arguments for providing ‘personhood’ legal status for animals so that the inherent rights of animals can gain legal protection. Cupp (2009, 33) challenges this argument, suggesting it is problematic in practice both legally and economically, suggesting it will lower the status of humans rather than merely elevating the status of animals. Smith

(2009, 8) similarly argues that elevating animals to have rights on a par with humans “subverts human rights as it undermines our ability to promote human health, prosperity, and well-being”. Smith (2009, 234) justifies this critique of the stance that animals have equal value to humans on the basis of

“human exceptionalism”, whereby humans have moral agency which is

“inherent and exclusive to human nature”. Smith (2009, 232) argues that since no other species is able to comprehend or enforce ‘rights’, animals should not be granted such ‘rights’ in law, but instead ‘animal rights’ should legally be understood as humans having “the highest duties toward animals”.

Another alternative legislative proposal is for humans to be considered

‘guardians’ instead of ‘owners’, and animals being granted status of ‘wards’

(Cao 2010, 85). However, bioethicist Bernard Rollin (2006b, 518) argues that this does not create substantial conceptual change for animals. Further he raises the practical question, “can a seriously overcrowded and stressed legal system manage litigation for billions of animals?” (Rollin 2006b, 519).

Bartlett (2002) disagrees with the argument that there is no room for legal protection of rights for animals but does suggest that changing the law is not the central issue. Bartlett (2002, 170) argues that while it is “admirable” for animal rights activists to campaign for legal reform so that the ‘interest to live’ is protected, the centre of the struggle for animal rights is human morality, which makes achieving legal rights for animals “somewhere between difficult to practically impossible”. Therefore, while Bartlett does not disagree with a place for animal rights in the law, arguably the larger issue is changing society’s deeply entrenched speciesism which currently does not allow for the discussion to ever be productive in protecting animals. Furthermore, Bartlett

(2002, 170) summarises that animal rights activists are perhaps “too hopeful” that providing more legal protection will solve the larger problem of the “cruel and [depersonalised] treatment of others” that many humans engage in.

Similarly, Cudworth (2016, 251) argues “given the investment of states and state-like international organisations in animal agriculture, to place faith in the state as potentially transformational in tackling human species domination is misplaced optimism”. Further to this, is Morgan’s (1999) critique that

providing legal rights to animals will not be the solution to animal cruelty, as it will still need to compete against other human ‘rights’ such as property rights or religious based rights (Morgan 1999). This perspective subsequently prioritises animal cruelty as a problem of ethics, rather than as a problem of law.

Clive Phillips (2015, xii) suggests “consumer choice influences animal management practices far more than legislation” and points to the fact that animals cannot vote as the reasons that politicians often look to other interests in introducing or expanding animal welfare legislation. Phillips (2015, xii) reflects on how animal use in circuses became unpopular in England due to public pressure grounded in animal welfare concerns. This is an example of how industry changes can make legislation changes almost unnecessary.

While no one solution is agreed upon within the literature, these legal and ethical debates surrounding the current legal discourses affecting understandings of animal cruelty also demonstrate there is no shared understanding of how animal cruelty should be defined and used as a term in legal discourse. The only agreed upon assertion in the literature is that some harm to animals is legal and humans have the power to decide what, when and how that harm occurs, thus reinforcing the oppressor(human)-victim(animal) narrative. These legal discourses and the position of animals in the law are significant as they influence how animals are treated in legal and policy debates (Cao 2010, 92). Therefore, the legal space remains a setting where

power is performed, which has implications for the governing of ‘animal cruelty’.

2.3.2 The industry regulatory space

As the law is open to interpretation and allows for harm to animals under certain circumstances, the literature reviewed suggests responses in industry specific regulation provide further opportunities for animal mistreatment to occur. It can be seen in the literature that industry regulation is another space in which power is performed affecting human-animal power dynamics.

Investigations in the literature into legally regulated industries involving animals raise concerns of how discourses surrounding ‘animal cruelty’ affect the treatment of animals in practice.

One example of such research is the investigation of language used in regulating industries involving farm animals. In this vein, Christine Parker

(2013a) has recently examined the use of the term ‘free range’ in egg labelling.

Parker (2013a, 53) notes the definition of free range is “hotly contested”. This is particularly true when the definition is altered in legislation, such as recent changes to the Animal Care and Protection Act (Qld) 2001, which saw the definition of acceptable standards of ‘free range’ go from 1,500 hens per hectare to 10,000, therefore reducing the welfare standards needed to meet what would be considered ‘free range’ (Parker 2013b; Remeikis 2013).

Changing the definition of what ‘free range’ means in law allows a wider spectrum of industrial practices that qualify for ‘free range’ status. This makes

it an industry where standards have changed dramatically. This adds to confusion amongst consumers expecting a certain standard of animal welfare, and concerns about whether they are purchasing a product that involved what they understand to be ‘cruel’. While the intent of labelling may be about responding to consumer desires for better welfare, instead the industry is able to move the definitional boundaries shaping and widening the scope of practices that can fall under ‘non-cruel’ behaviour towards animals.

These effects of language discussed in the literature have real impacts in a variety of spheres, particularly for consumers. In 2009, the Humane Society

International conducted a survey to investigate issues of labelling and consumer demand. Ninety-five percent of respondents indicated they were willing to pay more for ethically produced food, yet only six percent agreed that current labels provide the relevant information needed to make these ethically informed decisions (Humane Society International 2009). A lack of clear understanding of how ‘free’ is ‘free range’, as well as what other labels with respect to eggs mean, such as ‘RSPCA approved’, ‘barn laid’, and ‘organic’, makes it harder to understand which is the ‘cruelty free’ option, or if there even is one. Animals Australia (ca. 2014) provide on their website a table which details some of the ethical concerns relating to the egg industry beyond the issue of ‘free range’, including that across the industry the majority of hens are debeaked, the male chickens are killed at birth, and egg-laying hens are sent to slaughter at approximately 18 months of age. These practices are legal as part of a legally regulated industry, and do not fall within the scope of

‘unnecessary’, ‘unjustifiable’, or ‘unreasonable’ in anti-cruelty legislation in

Australia. They are also not detailed on labelling for consumers to make informed decisions. Therefore, the legal regulation and the industry regulation, through the use of labelling, creates a situation where ‘cruelty’ is unclear in practice and for consumers.

The regulation of ‘animal testing’ – the use of animals in scientific or other research – has also received attention in the literature about the ethics of animal use (Ryder 1975; Ryder 1985; Singer 2009a, 25-94; Rollin 2006a;

Sharman 2006; Cao 2010, 259-281). The regulation of animal experimentation rests largely with self-regulation and industry compliance with the national code of practice, the Australian Code for the Care and use of Animals for

Scientific Purposes (the scientific code) (NHMRC 2013). To ensure animal use is justified, researchers must adhere to the three R’s: replacement; refinement; and reduction (Cao 2010, 261; Sharman 2006, 67). However, Sharman (2006,

67) argues that in practice, these regulatory principles of the scientific code are “often used as shields to justify ongoing experimentation on animals, diverting attention from important moral and scientific inquiries into why animals are being used as test models in the first place”. Cao (2010, 261) points to the Animal Care and Protection Act (Qld) 2001, as an example, which also sees the adherence to the scientific code as a defence against prosecution of cruelty offences. As there is no national legislation in the area of animal testing, nor is the scientific code an enacted piece of legislation, the industry is able to rely on the definitional boundaries and thresholds within the scientific code to justify practices as ‘non-cruel’ behaviour towards animals.

In relation to regulatory discourses, the industries based on the trade of animals have also come under scrutiny in the literature. The trade of animals is of particular interest to this project due to the case study under examination.

In her research, Sollund (2011) critiques the transport of animals in the context of companion animals. Sollund’s (2011) research investigates abduction, trafficking, and suffering of companion animals, in particular parrots, critiquing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species (CITES). CITES is an agreement to regulate the commercial trade of wild animals and plant species, listing 5,000 animal species and 28,000 plant species that are considered endangered to be protected by the 175 nations currently participating in the convention. Sollund (2011, 446) criticises the ability of the convention to prevent harm towards animals, arguing that only prohibiting the trade of animals will stop “injury, damage and cruelty”. But

Sollund (2011) argues the mere existence of the list should be criticised as it is promoting the expectation that consumers have a right to use and exploit non-human species and should only stop if there is a question of sustainability.

Sollund’s (2011, 447) findings indicate that discourses in policy and research that continue to define animals as property and resources to be exploited by humans, “serve to create a physical and social distance to animals, facilitating abuse and exploitation”. This research examining how industry regulatory discourses enable humans to control and permit cruelty towards animals furthers the oppressor-victim narrative that serves to explain the human- animal power relationship.

Research about the trade of animals has also included an examination of regulation and ethics surrounding the live export trade of animals for human consumption (Morfuni 2011; Craig 2012; Smietanka 2013; Phillips 2015). In

Australia, the live export industry is primarily regulated through the

Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act (Cth) 1997 and the Export Control

Act (Cth) 1982. In 2011, the Australian Government implemented a new assurance system known as the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System

(ESCAS) (DAWR 2016). ESCAS (DAWR 2016) is tasked with providing licences to exporters and enforcing compliance with traceability through the supply chain of the international trade of live animals. Questions have arisen regarding the exclusion of breeder stock, who are not covered by this system

(Phillips 2015, 85-86). ESCAS (DAWR 2016) also states that the importing countries must confirm to the World Organisation of Animal Health (OIE) animal welfare recommendations (OIE 2017). However the OIE is “seen as the lowest common denominator for international standards” (Phillips 2015,

107), and they are not mandatory standards or enforceable. This thesis contributes to this discussion in the literature, and examines how policy debates about live export influence and shape these regulatory responses to the ‘problem’ of animal cruelty.

2.3.3 The activist space

Investigations into the relationship between humans and animals in the literature also include examining the animal activist space, including their strategies in affecting legal change. One of the key concerns in this body of

literature involves questions over whether animal activist discourses challenge or reinforce current power dynamics between humans and animals.

This section will first discuss this focus in the literature. It will then explore a key criticism in the literature about the lack of intersectionality in popular animal activism. This provides the possibility to question the usefulness of the oppressor-victim narrative, also reproduced in animal activist discourses, in affecting change on behalf of animals. This body of literature therefore provides critiques of animal activist discourses, and includes discourses about animal activists.

Lyle Munro’s (2006) book, Confronting Cruelty: Moral Orthodoxy and the

Challenge of the Animal Rights Movement, is a sociological analysis which questions why people join the animal rights movement. Through interviews with animal activists, it asks: “Why and how do people campaign on behalf of a species that is not their own?” (Munro 2006, 2). Munro (2006, 2) argues that the animal rights activist movement “challenges people outside the movement to question the moral orthodoxy which underpins our attitudes towards animals, namely, that animals matter, but not as much as humans”.

Furthermore, Munro (2006, 3) suggests the animal rights movement stigmatises the often legalised and ‘legitimate’ practices of farmers, hunters and researchers, constructing them as social problems through language.

Researchers have examined this intersection between animal activism and stigmatising language. For example, John Walls’ (2002) research examines letters to the editor to local newspapers relating to the anti-live export

campaign in the United Kingdom, with a focus on moral outrage through stigmatising language. This stigmatisation is generated through a “specific language of moral outrage” with the protests stigmatising a “social space of a perceived contaminating practice, or moral ‘evil’” (Walls 2002, 1). For example, one letter to the editor accuses the government of “a whitewash to bluff the public into acceptance of this evil trade” (cited in Walls 2002, 6).

Subsequently, Walls argues activist discourses not only problematise animal cruelty as behaviour, but stigmatise those participating in the behaviour as social problems. Walls’ research is of particular relevance to this project, as the case study includes an analysis of a documentary transcript involving animal activists investigating the live export trade, and the subsequent political debates emerging as a result from this activism. Despite Walls’ and

Munro’s findings that the language deployed by animal activists can stigmatise farmers or abattoir workers and position them as ‘social problems’, this activist strategy clearly has not worked in creating large substantiative change in the live export industry.

Further, the literature does not suggest that all animal activists are influenced by the same ethical framework and consequently produce a unified activist discourse. Smith (2009, 15) makes the distinction between “animal rights activists” and “animal welfare activists”, relating this back to the debates in legal discussions around existing animal welfare laws and proposed animal rights laws, as previously mentioned. Competing in philosophies, ‘animal welfare’ activist discourses suggest that humans can benefit from the use of animals so long as the practices are done humanely (Smith 2009, 16; Bourke

2009, 132-133) and therefore their activism could involve challenging industry standards and practices and pressuring governments to enforce or extend existing anti-cruelty legislation, rather than abolishing the practices altogether. Their activism may also consist of encouraging consumers to only eat ‘humanely’ produced meat (see for example Safran Foer 2009). Whereas

Smith (2009, 16) argues, a “true” ‘animal rights activist’ would “reject the idea that animals can ever properly be considered property”. This is supported by

Francione, who as previously mentioned, is critical of the welfarist approach and argues for a complete abolition of all animal use (Francione and Garner

2010). Waldau (2011, 95, original emphasis) argues for a more nuanced understanding of ‘welfare’, as the term has been central to the “original, morals-driven approach to animal rights”. This raises the question of whether quality of welfare should be a ‘right’, alongside other rights such as a right to life, and whether animal cruelty is an animal welfare issue, a rights issue, or both. While a confusing question, this literature does demonstrate that activist discourses are quite diverse and can either challenge or reinforce the current dynamic between humans and animals.

Cupp (2009, 30-31) suggests that the popularity of the term ‘animal rights activists’ to encompass all “advocates for humane treatment of animals” is due to the increase in popularity of rights discourse in society. The expanding rights talk in societal discourse sees extending rights as a vehicle for positive social change and empowerment within social movements (Cupp 2009;

Bourke 2009). This rights paradigm has evolved due to pressure from rights activists with interests from areas including race, gender, age and sexuality,

making it possible to campaign for rights for animals alongside the rights for humans (Francione 1990). In this paradigm, when discussing animal rights, the focus is on “animals as potential bearers of rights rather than on humans as bearers of responsibility for the welfare of animals they control” (Cupp

2009, 31). This extension of the rights discourse surrounding human-animal relationships has shaped the popular labelling of animal rights activists as rights activists.

Contributing to the confusion over what animal activist discourses look like is the representation of animal activists. They are often presented as a homogenous group, particularly in the media. This is often through the adoption of terms such as ‘animal rights activists’ and ‘animal rights movement’ to include animal welfarists, and without any understanding of rights-based theory (Bourke 2009). Bourke (2009, 136) correctly highlights that the fact “that Singer is often viewed as the ‘father’ of the ‘animal rights movement’ despite his explicit rejection of a rights-based approach is evidence of the extent of this confusion”. Animal rights activists can consequently often be broadly defined as people who actively participate in the social movement concerned for the “humane treatment of animals” (Cupp 2009, 31), with the meaning of ‘humane’ open for interpretation.

This is also not to suggest that the only activist discourses surrounding animal cruelty policy debates are pro-animal protection. The animal agriculture industry, for example, also produces activist discourses. John Sorenson (2011) examines “industry propaganda” that aims to shape public discourses about

animal use. Sorenson (2011, 70) argues that “anti-animal rights propaganda” by the industry is an attempt to normalise the behaviour of animal use and exploitation, “while presenting critics as dangerous and irrational”. Sorenson

(2011, 70-71) categorises this propaganda into two activist strategies: positioning the industry as “the real protectors of animals” via welfare discourse; and positioning animal activists as radical “terrorists”, that are anti- human. Will Potter (2009, 671) notes that “corporations and politicians have successfully campaigned to label activists as “eco-terrorists””. Potter’s (2011) book Green is the New Red, offers insight into how animal rights activists are being treated as terrorists in the United States of America, with the FBI using anti-terrorism resources to target animal rights activists. This further demonstrates how industry activism surrounding these issues of animal use, which when supported by the weight of the state, is able to subdue alternative voices.

Further to these discourses labelling animal activists as “eco-terrorists”, discourses about animal activists have also included criticisms over the lack of intersectionality in popular animal activism. In particular, the often used strategy of comparing the plight of animals against speciesism with the plight of ‘people of colour’ 4 against racism has faced criticism from scholars and activists. The intersection of racism and speciesism was explored in depth in

4 ‘People of colour’ often refers to people who are not “white-skinned” (see Oxford English Dictionary 2018). It is an attempt to categorise a group of people with a political designation for those who have faced marginalisation and injustice due to racism and racial inequalities. It has roots in American activism and academia, and often relates to anyone who is black, Native American, Latino, Hispanic, Asian, and Polynesian, in the American context. 54

Marjorie Spiegel’s seminal book, The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal

Slavery. She observes that:

The parallels of experience are numerous. Both humans

and animals share the ability to suffer from restricted

freedom and movement, from the loss of social freedom,

and to experience pain at the loss of a loved one. Both

groups suffer or suffered from their common capacity to

be terrified, by being hunted, tormented, or injured.

Both have been objectified, treated as property rather

than as feeling, self-directed individuals. And both

blacks, under the system of slavery, and animals were

driven to a state of total psychic and physical defeat

(Speigel 1988, 31).

Discussions in the literature often involve comparing racism to speciesism to illustrate how oppression is connected. This comparison often includes examining the history of treating people of colour as ‘sub-human’ and being marginalised by similar discursive practices that marginalise animals.

Comparisons between the treatment of animals, particularly in the context of factory farming, and the Jewish Holocaust have also been made in the literature (see for example Patterson 2002; Sztybel 2006; Painter 2014).

Sztybel (2006, 97) argues the comparison can be made and should be made to

“help us to reflect on the significance of how animals are treated in

contemporary times”. Johnson also discusses this comparison (2011, 204, original emphasis) and states:

We find that Nazi narratives justifying the domination

of human subordinates are strikingly similar to beliefs

about animals that are widely held to this day, beliefs

that humans beings use to justify the exploitation and

killing of [non-human] beings.

Johnson (2011, 211) suggests speciesism can be compared to racism, particularly since the emergence of animal agriculture which “resulted in the construction of a caste system that justified the placement of animals and subordinate human groups (classified as slaves) in service to superordinate human groups”. These parallels, which see animals and humans as ‘slaves’ in food systems, further the argument that their oppression can be compared.

However this strategy of activism has been criticised by scholars and activists.

For example, academic and media sources have criticised the People for

Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for their campaigns that rely on shock value including making comparisons to other marginalised people. Matusitz and Forrester (2013) criticised PETA’s campaigns “Holocaust on Your Plate” and “End Slavery” campaigns. Discussions critiquing the tension between animal rights activism and anti-racism activism exist especially in the activist spaces of vegan people of colour. This can be seen notably through the emergence of activist websites such as blackvegansrock.com,

veganvoicesofcolor.org, vegansofcolor.wordpress.com, and sistahvegan.com, which touch on these tensions. Criticisms exist over whether vegans ought to make comparisons between people of colour and farm animals, and compare the liberation of animals to the slavery abolition movement in the United

States of America (see, for example, Wrenn 2014), especially considering the historic ‘animalisation’ of people of colour (Hund and Mills 2016). An alternative view put forth in scholarly literature is that activists who make these comparisons are not trying to devalue human life but elevate animals, engaging with legal discourses and suggesting that animals should be included in the legal concept of personhood to ensure we are all treated as moral beings

(Johnson 2011, 214). Obviously there are clear contentions surrounding effective activist discourses and ensuring anti-racist and anti-speciesist activist movements consider the aims of each. Sarah K. Woodcock (2015), a prominent American abolitionist vegan activist, who is also a woman of colour, states, “Newsflash: In order for the vegan movement to be successful, we are going to need to win over people of [colour]”. This claim in the literature points to the need to include the effects on human-human dynamics when researching and advocating for proposed solutions to animal cruelty in these policy debates.

These debates in the literature about animal activism regarding labelling, language, and the ‘welfare versus rights’ dualism, further impacts our discussions of animal cruelty issues and how we propose solutions to them.

The literature demonstrates that activist discourses in this space are diverse and can at times challenge or reinforce the current power relationship existing

between humans and animals. The existence of activist discourses in this particular case study, enable an examination into the diverse perspectives surrounding animal cruelty, offering different understandings of what this concept should mean, why it should be seen as a ‘problem’, and what are the possibilities for solutions. Further, tensions in this body of literature suggest activist discourses, and their proposed solutions to animal cruelty, have the potential to impact on dynamics between humans. Discourses about animal activism have challenged the absence of intersectionality of the animal activist social movement. However, while there have been some attempts to not disregard human-centred issues in these discussions, these debates have largely not extended to popular animal activism. This raises questions for what an alternative approach might look like for activism and research that engages deeply with human-human power dynamics that circulate within animal cruelty policy debates.

2.4 GAP IN THE LITERATURE

The literature reviewed above highlights the diverse understandings of

‘animal cruelty’ and explanations for why this behaviour occurs. This chapter has demonstrated how animal cruelty has been problematised in the animal cruelty literature and an oppressor-victim narrative has been routinely reinforced when describing the human-animal power dynamic, which functions through responses in the legal, industry/regulation, and activist spaces. The literature predominantly constructs the issue as firmly a power relationship between humans and animals, rather than also interrogating the

inequalities between humans and how this might impact our treatment of animals and the way we discuss it. How human-human power dynamics influence policy discussions about animal cruelty, and how these discourses surrounding the treatment of animals may reproduce these inequalities between humans, are topics that have clearly been underexplored. This thesis intends to address this gap in the literature by answering the overarching research question: ‘How is the problematisation of ‘animal cruelty’ influenced by human-human power relations?’

This project therefore interrogates the oppressor(human)-victim(animal) narrative in the literature and investigates how human-human power dynamics influence discourses surrounding animal cruelty, and that it is not just human-animal power dynamics that do so. This is of interest because addressing human-animal inequalities may therefore require addressing human-human inequalities. This is not to suggest postponing taking action on human-animal inequalities. Instead, this thesis furthers the argument that an intersectional response to an intersectional problem is required. Cudworth

(2016, 249) argues “the range of differences and similarities in human relations with non-human animals need to be considered in developing a culturally sensitive, intersectional and species-differentiated approach to advocacy”. Further, human-centred issues invite the concern and resistance from animal activists when current solutions involve the use of animals. The below section highlights the literature examining the human-human power dynamics that intersect with the case study under examination in this project, particularly focusing on the literature that explores ethical issues in food

systems (or ‘food ethics’). Food systems and their regulation are key spaces where animals are being governed, and therefore directly relate to animal cruelty debates. It suggests the need for an alternative way to examine the problematisation of ‘animal cruelty’ and the discourses which produce its meaning.

2.4.1 Human-human power dynamics

Human-human power dynamics are heavily discussed in the broader sense in the literature including in the fields of sociology, philosophy, criminology, and law. This wide body of literature examines how certain structures and discourses contribute to human-human dynamics, for example how racism and sexism function, and how these systems of oppression may be seen functioning alongside speciesism. One such approach in the literature that intersects with this project is how food systems impact on power relations.

In her book, Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, Melanie Joy (2010) investigates how our perceptions of animal cruelty change when examining issues involving animals we eat. In this sense, animal cruelty has a cultural context depending on how particular food sources are normalised in a specific culture. For example, in Australia, the thought of breeding a dog for the sole purpose of slaughtering and eating it is not socially acceptable, whereas doing so for a pig or a cow is. Joy (2010, 30) defines this as an ideology called

‘carnism’, which is “the belief system that conditions us to eat certain animals”.

The implication of this is that our speciesist understanding of animal cruelty,

and the way we discuss issues of cruelty, can be further shaped by what we understand as acceptable sources of food. Carnism therefore is a sub-category of speciesism, and provides further explanations for how we justify our treatment of (certain) animals.

Cole and Morgan (2011, 135) further this link between food consumption and speciesism by arguing that “anti-vegan discourse perpetuate and legitimate speciesist social relations”. Their paper discussing ‘vegaphobia’ explores derogatory media discourses of vegans and veganism, reproducing speciesism and furthering the exploitative relationship between humans and animals

(Cole and Morgan 2011). Their research reproduces the claim that speciesism and carnism are ideologies into which we are indoctrinated in, and which we reproduce through speciesist and anti-vegan discursive practices.

Discourses about food are therefore connected to discourses about animals.

However, the way we understand food and ethical perceptions of food are also impacted by our access to food. Laws surrounding food, also known as ‘food law’, are often concerned with human-centric values such as public health, food security, and our environmental sustainability as it pertains to human survival (Linnekin and Leib 2013, 238). These concerns have generated fields of research identified as ‘food justice’ and ‘food sovereignty’ (Clendenning,

Dressler, and Richards 2015). ‘Food justice’ is linked to the US social movements of civil rights and black power, and acknowledges marginalised groups – due to issues of race and class – being disproportionately affected by unjust food systems (Gottlieb and Joshi 2010). Alkon (2013, 295) defines ‘food

justice’ as research exploring “how racial and economic inequalities manifest in the production, distribution, and consumption of food, and the ways that communities and social movements shape and are shaped by these inequalities”. While a connected issue, ‘food sovereignty’ does differ and draws from the works of food scholars and activists. It refers to the global movement that attempts to “reclaim rights and participation in the food system and challenge corporate food regimes” (Clendenning, Dressler, and

Richards 2015). When we study food systems, we can therefore examine those who are marginalised by those systems.

Food discourses in the public sphere produce a ‘master narrative’ surrounding food (Dixon 2014). Dixon (2014, 177) argues this popular narrative is one of

“food-is-a-personal-choice”, which is seen in the works of scholars such as

Michael Pollan (2008) and food documentaries including, but not limited to,

Food, Inc. (Kenner, Pearlstien and Roberts 2008), King Corn (Woolf, Cheney,

Ellis and Miller 2007), and Ingredients (Bates 2009). This master narrative constructs the popular identity of the food consumer who has equal access to nutritious food, and suggests that all we need is knowledge to make ethical choices. This master narrative is further developed through the focus on correct labelling of food (see Parker 2013) and the pressure for consumers to

“vote with their fork”, as previously discussed (Parker 2013; Nestle 2000;

Pollan 2006). Alternatively, Dixon (2014) describes ‘food justice narratives’ as counter stories that tell the lived experience of individuals attempting to nourish themselves, which often challenge the perception of free agency in food choices. Therefore, the way we understand food and ethical perceptions

of food are impacted by inequalities that contribute to the access to food that certain groups of people have.

From these concerns, a ‘right to food’ movement has emerged. Member nations of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) have developed the ‘Right to Food Guidelines’ which provide guidance to

“support the progressive [realisation] of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security” (FAO 2005). While these guidelines briefly mention animals, they do so only in the context that food systems must consider food safety from food-borne diseases (FAO 2005, 19). There is a gap in this literature about ethical issues in food systems that interrogates how this access to food impacts Australian policy debates about animal cruelty, and how changes to animal cruelty policy may then impact food justice and food sovereignty.

Several authors have explored how the mistreatment of animals can be compared to the mistreatment of particular groups of humans today and throughout history. In particular, several comparisons emerge in the literature including the relationship of speciesism to socio-cultural factors such as class, race, gender, and religion (see for example Nibert 2017).

However the way that these power dynamics play out in Australian policy debates regarding the treatment of animals, and whether animal cruelty policy discussions are impacted by and reproduce these human-human power dynamics, remain unexplored. This is becoming an emerging issue in the context of food ethics as “communities and social movements shape and are

shaped by these inequalities” (Alkon 2013, 295). The remainder of this section outlines key debates from the existing literature which discusses potential comparisons and intersections between both human-animal and human- human power dynamics, to provide context to this project. It focuses specifically on the literature that discusses these intersections in the context of food systems, as that forms the focus of the case study examined in this project.

2.4.1.1 Class Inequalities

Comparisons made between how speciesism and classism function emerge from the literature, particularly in the fields of food law and food ethics. ‘Class’ refers to “a group of people sharing the same economic or social status”

(Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2018), with ‘classism’ thus referring to the prejudice of one class over another. Many researchers have examined economic inequalities and classism within global food systems and in food justice movements. Economic inequality is a prominent concern because the

“main cause of hunger is poverty” (Farmar-Bowers, Higgins and Millar 2012,

2) and these rates of poverty are exacerbated in developing countries, including those in military conflict and/or impacted by natural disasters.

In terms of food activist movements and narratives, there is a clear argument that in order to be environmentally sustainable and healthy beings, people should be supporting the production and consumption of local organic food

(Alkon and Agyman 2011, 2). However, these narratives often privilege the

wealthy and ignore economic insecurity amongst those consumers who have an inability to access more expensive food options. Research on the concept of ‘food deserts’ focuses on addressing this pattern of food consumption and unequal access (due to class and geography) to affordable, safe and nutritious food (see for example Wrigley, Warm and Margetts 2003). Research in

Australia has examined associations between food insecurity and economic disadvantage (Farmar-Bowers 2015; Johnson 2015, 127; ABS 2008). The intersections between poverty and poor nutrition and health amongst

Indigenous communities has also been a key focus in research (Gwynn et al

2012; Vos et al 2009; HREOC 2009; AIHW 2008). In this context, there is the potential for those living in poverty and animals to be targets of ethical food movements.

Another way that power is analysed in the context of speciesism and its intersection with classism is in discussions surrounding workers’ treatment in abattoirs. These discussions argue that workers that are often economically disadvantaged such as immigrants, people of colour, and women, are globally marginalised in capitalist food systems alongside animals (Nibert 2014, 3;

Halley 2012, 8). In this context, human workers and animals are both seen as resources with economic value to the owners and therefore can be exploited for profit in the production of food. The focus on abattoir workers in the literature often centres on their labour conditions, including risk of disease, infection, mental health issues, depression, suicide, injury and death (see for example Sundstrup et al 2014; Hutz, Zanon and Brum Neto 2013; Walker et al

2005, 351-353). This issue was also exposed in the book Fast Food Nation by

Eric Schlosser (2001), which focused on minimum-waged workers in the fast food industry in the United States of America. This area of literature demonstrates that we can view animals and some humans as marginalised by food systems. The marginalisation of workers in the animal agriculture sector is relevant to this project as the treatment of Australian farmers and

Indonesian abattoir workers are discussed alongside the treatment of animals within these policy debates about Australia’s responses to animal cruelty in the live export trade.

2.4.1.2 Racial Inequalities

In addition to the marginalisation of people of colour in food systems due to intersections between race and class, proposed solutions to achieving ‘food justice’ and ‘food sovereignty’ have at times been criticised for reproducing racial inequalities. For example, food activist movements that focus on a push for plant-based solutions or organic produce have been criticised for being white centric and ignoring issues of race, which shapes our views of food, access to food, and our views of animals as part of that food source. American researchers, Alison Hope Alkon and Julian Agyman (2011, 3) discuss how our perceptions of food often have a racial context and cultural component influenced from our ancestors. As Alkon and Agyman (2011, 3) argue:

Some were enslaved, transported across the ocean, and

forced to subsist on the overflow from the master’s

table. Others were forcibly sent to state-mandated

boarding schools, in which they were taught to despise,

and even forget, any foods they would [have] previously

[recognised]. And those who have emigrated from

various parts of the global south in the past few

generations may have great-grandmothers who saw the

foods they [recognised] demeaned, or even forbidden,

by those who claimed their lands.

A person’s race, culture, and history are entwined with our animal cruelty laws, particularly in Australia in the case of Indigenous hunting practices. For example, in Queensland, under the ACPA (2001), there is an exemption for animal cruelty laws to apply if the killing is under Aboriginal tradition, Island custom or native title. Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders’ historical and current tradition to hunt turtle and dugong for food, for example, is protected under Australia’s federal Native Title Act (1993) in section 211. The Food and

Agriculture Organisation of the United Nation’s (1996) definition of food security is widely used in the literature and is inclusive of a diet being culturally appropriate. This is reflected in legal frameworks allowing exemptions for Indigenous hunting practices. Researchers have examined people’s “right to decide what we eat” (Coleman 2007) due to generational hunting traditions and how this relates to animal rights issues (see for example

Bronner 2008). This is another example illustrating how race, ethnicity, culture, and animal protection issues are connected, and how animal activist discourses that do not adequately engage with these racial and cultural issues

may be subject to criticism for potentially reproducing these human-human power dynamics.

Racial inequalities are particularly relevant to this project focusing on the live export of animals from Australia to Indonesia, because Indonesia has a population and government that is mostly made up of those who would be considered people of colour in the Australian context. Further, the live export trade employs a large population of Indigenous Australians living in rural

Australia. However, while the literature surrounding intersections between racial inequalities and food systems may be relevant to this case study, especially in regards to discourses surrounding Indigenous Australians, this thesis acknowledges that many Indigenous Australians do not take up this label of ‘people of colour’ and recognise that it “doesn’t do justice to the racialisation and the racism that is very unique in Australia to Indigenous peoples” (Eugenia Flynn, in Pearson 2017). More scholarly research needs to be done to interrogate how discourses of animal cruelty may reinforce these racial and cultural human-human dynamics. While there are researchers examining these intersections within animal activist discourses, the question of how racial and cultural dynamics are impacting on the constructions of animal cruelty produced in public and political discourses is rarely explored in the literature. Further, while the literature exploring ethical issues in food systems have explored how racial inequalities can be reproduced through the production and consumption of food, rarely does this literature reconsider the status quo between humans and animals when suggesting possible interventions to solve this problem.

2.4.1.3 Geographical Inequalities

Building on class and racial inequalities, analysing those marginalised in food systems due to their geographical location allows for further examination of how food ethics and animal ethics can intersect. Mansvelt’s (2005, 1) book,

Geographies of Consumption, establishes that geography matters and that consumption processes are “fabricated differentially and unevenly across space”. The aforementioned research on ‘food deserts’ examines local areas within cities and equal access to food (Wrigley, Warm and Margetts 2003).

Looking more broadly, however, research on geographies of food justice has also examined countries being less food secure than others, and therefore marginalised in global food systems.

Globally, food insecurity has become a growing international concern

(Johnson and Walters 2014, 404). Approximately 870 million people are chronically malnourished in a world that produces above the required amount to feed the current global population (FAO 2012). And this food security crisis is geographically disproportionate with those living in developing countries suffering “periodic or chronic famine and mal-nourishment” (Farmar-Bowers,

Higgins and Millar 2012, 2). International aid and its role in global food security is a part of the puzzle, but not within the scope of this thesis. However, food security literature suggests that a nation’s access to food may influence attitudes towards animals as meat, and the way in which they discuss and regulate ‘animal cruelty’ concerns.

2.4.1.4 Gender Inequalities

Several researchers have examined the relation between the treatment of animals and issues relevant to gender inequality. This has led the way for ecofeminist theory, which is a growing theoretical perspective that has been utilised in green criminology, and which can be described as examining environmental issues through a feminist lens (Gaard 2002; Gaard 2010;

Donovan 2010; Sollund 2013). Relating this to issues surrounding food, Carol

J. Adams’ previous work, The Sexual Politics of Meat (1990, 166), discusses a feminist-vegetarian critical theory arguing that our diets can “either embody or negate feminist principles by the food choices they enact”. Therefore vegetarianism should be a continuation of feminism, with feminism serving as the theory and vegetarianism putting this theory into action (Adams 1990,

167).

In a similar way to racial issues, several researchers have critiqued how animal activism and vegan discourses may reproduce gender based inequalities. Most commonly, the focus has been on PETA’s objectification of women in their animal activist campaigns. Their infamous “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear

Fur” has been criticised by scholars and media sources as contributing to sexism in the public sphere (see for example Deckha 2008; Brown 2014;

Halverson 2012). These researchers have been critical of how vegan activism has not always been intersectional, and can further sexism and racism in society. It is because of these connections between seeing animals and women as marginalised in food structures (Adams 1990; Halley 2012) that animal

activist discourses can be subject to criticism for potentially contributing to these inequalities. Furthermore, PETA has also been criticised for contributing to ‘toxic masculinity’ with their recent campaign that shames men with small penises, which they argue can result from eating chicken flesh (McCrum 2016).

Vegan activist blogger Sean O’Callaghan argues that PETA needs to “save animals without attacking the self-esteem and emotional well-being of humans” (quoted in McCrum 2016). In this particular study of problematisations in live export debates, issues of gender inequality and sexism were not problems that emerged. However, this thesis may potentially contribute to this body of literature by examining the relationship between the problematisation of animal cruelty and human-human power dynamics.

2.4.1.5 Religious Inequalities

The role of religion is relevant to this project, particularly the practice of Halal slaughter of cattle in accordance with the Qu’ran’s teachings. Indonesia’s legal framework is based on Shariah Law, the basic legal system in Islamic communities that is derived from the principles of the Qu’ran. Researchers in the United Kingdom, have argued there is growing hostility towards Shariah

Law (Pointing 2014, 387), and this extends to perceptions of halal foods due to concerns over animal cruelty (Ayyub 2015a). In Ayyub’s (2015a, 2332) research involving interviews with non-Muslims in the United Kingdom,

‘animal welfare’ concerns emerged as a prominent theme in regards to perceptions of Halal foods. Ayyub (2015a) concluded that concerns over the cruelty involved in the Halal methods of slaughter negatively affects non-

Muslim attitudes towards, and understanding of, Halal foods. There exists a conflict between legislating mandatory stunning and maintaining the right to practise religion freely. As the Qu’ran is open to interpretation in regards to stunning, Zoethout (2013, 672) argues “the claim that ritual slaughter is part of the freedom of religion, and is thus untouchable, is an incorrect one” and suggests that we should be open to discussing the potential of religious slaughter practices conceding to the well-being of animals.

The literature suggests that assumptions about religion and food, and the reactions to Halal food, also connect with issues of race. Racism and xenophobia are arguably linked when examining non-Muslims in Western countries and attitudes towards Halal foods, particularly with growing fear towards Muslims and media portrayal of Muslims as terrorists (Gale 2004,

330). A questionnaire survey of non-Muslims in the United Kingdom conducted by Ayyub (2015b, 1239) concluded that “consumer animosity and consumer racism negatively affect willingness to buy Halal food”. Smith’s

(2007, 89) research into activism towards mandatory stunning in Germany on the grounds of animal welfare concerns found that the activist campaigns against Halal slaughter “sometimes contained racist overtones and xenophobic rhetoric”. Therefore discourses surrounding animal cruelty issues in the context of Halal foods can further negative attitudes towards Muslims.

This project intends to analyse how this conflict plays out in public discourses surrounding this case study and whether religion, racial issues and xenophobia contribute to how animal cruelty in the live export trade is problematised and responded to in Australian discourses.

This body of literature about ethical issues in food systems demonstrates that there are growing concerns for how food systems are contributing to processes of marginalisation. There is an underdeveloped research area providing empirical data examining how public discourses surrounding animal cruelty issues intersect with these human-human power dynamics, and how certain groups of humans are impacted by these policy debates. While there are some existing challenges to the oppressor-victim narrative and the human-animal exclusive view of power, the ethical considerations of animal use in the proposed solutions to these human-centred ‘problems’ of food systems are often reinforced or ignored. Thus, further research is needed to investigate how these human-human power dynamics are contributing to the way we discuss and govern issues surrounding the treatment of animals, which will help us to understand how power is being produced in animal cruelty policy debates in more complex ways.

2.5 CONCLUSION

This chapter has explored the literature surrounding the human-animal relationship and the ways in which ‘animal cruelty’ has been investigated as a

‘problem’ in philosophical, ethical, and criminological research. It outlined how the treatment of animals has been constructed as an ethical ‘concern’ in the literature, and how ‘animal cruelty’ has been particularly problematised in the literature as a focus of this concern. It has identified the two prominent ethical frameworks – utilitarian and rights based – that ground the ‘welfare’ 73

versus ‘rights’ debate in ethical, legal, and activist spaces. These were alongside the less prominent ethical perspective of virtue ethics. These ethical perspectives have been drawn upon to highlight how authors have problematised ‘animal cruelty’ in diverse ways and how these ideas impact different descriptions of animal cruelty and the human-animal relationship.

Despite diverse understandings of how animal cruelty should be defined and understood, the literature constructs and reinforces the attitude of animal cruelty as a current problem that needs addressing.

An oppressor-victim narrative has been utilised in the literature when describing the power relationship between humans and animals. This review of the literature has demonstrated that this narrative is further reinforced in responses to animal cruelty in the legal, industry regulation, and activist spaces. The gap this thesis identifies and responds to is the question of how human-human power dynamics are impacted by these discourses, and in turn how animal cruelty is discussed in the public sphere. This project therefore questions how human-human dynamics relate to animal cruelty policy debates, and whether the knowledge and power produced through these discourses can be viewed through an alternative approach rather than relying solely on speciesism as a theoretical tool to analyse discourses surrounding animal cruelty issues.

Dixon (2014) argues dominant discourses in the public sphere often disguise or erase individual lived experiences of access and consumption of food for nourishment. This reinforces a dominant ‘truth’ about food that places

responsibility for ethical food choices onto the consumer, which is produced through hierarchal discursive practices. In a similar manner, this project addresses the ways in which public discourses found in policy debates produces a dominant ‘truth’ about ‘animal cruelty’. Further, it asks how these discourses suggest we should reflect and respond to this object as a ‘problem’ of government. Additionally, this thesis is interested in how this production of truth shapes and is shaped by power relations between both humans and animals, and between humans and each other. It is through this alternative way of looking at problems of animals, food, and law, that this project offers a different way to analyse how animal cruelty has been discussed beyond the oppressor(human)-victim(animal) narrative that is reinforced in the current literature. As ethical and social justice issues require consistent critique, so do the discourses that produce knowledge and our relation to these truths

(O’Farrell 2005, 54). The next chapter details how an alternative approach to animal cruelty research can be undertaken, by drawing on the work of Michel

Foucault to analyse the problematisations within animal cruelty policy debates surrounding the live export trade. It will introduce the conceptual tools of discourse, power, and knowledge, and explore how these underpin the methodology and inform the methods of this research.

CHAPTER THREE: An alternative approach to animal cruelty research

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The task of this chapter is to provide a detailed description of the methodology and methods utilised in this thesis, as well as the theory and concepts underpinning it. As outlined in the previous chapter, ‘animal cruelty’ has emerged as an object of research and has been conceptualised and discussed via multiple perspectives, sometimes conflicting in nature. Diverse solutions have been proposed to solve the ‘problem’ of ‘animal cruelty’ in society, and these different solutions compete for authority as the way to respond to animal cruelty. However, as shown, these debates in the literature often ignore how this problem, and the proposed solutions to it, relate to human- centred problems. They also ignore how human-human power relations may impact on, and be impacted by, the effectiveness of these solutions posed by authoritative bodies. In order to understand these complexities in animal cruelty policy debates, this project aims to analyse the contemporary issue of live export of animals and explore how human-human power relations influence how ‘animal cruelty’ is conceptualised, discussed, and governed in

Australian policy debates. In an effort to address these aims, the methodology and methods utilised in this project are guided by the overarching research

question: ‘How is the problematisation of ‘animal cruelty’ influenced by human-human power relations?’

This chapter demonstrates first how this alternative approach to research is inspired by the work of Michel Foucault, and introduces the influence of

Foucault on sociological and criminological research. Second, it defines the conceptual tools of discourse, power, and knowledge, which underpin the methodology and inform the approaches taken in this research. Third, it explores the works of scholars who have drawn upon Foucault’s ideas, particularly his work on power, to analyse issues relating to the treatment of animals and human-animal power relations. While these scholars have made significant contributions to Foucauldian scholarship, there is still an assumption within this body of work that ‘animal cruelty’ can be understood, and ultimately addressed, using an oppressor-victim binary between humans and animals. Consequently existing research provides a limited consideration of human-human power relations and their importance in animal cruelty debates. This thesis therefore suggests an alternative approach to a

Foucauldian analysis of animal cruelty discourses through the methodological tool of ‘problematisations’. Guest, MacQueen and Namey (2012, 3) state that

“approaches to qualitative data collection and analysis are numerous, representing a diverse range of epistemological, theoretical, and disciplinary perspectives”. As a result, the remainder of the chapter will build upon this theoretical and conceptual discussion and detail how Foucault’s ideas and concepts compliment the qualitative methodology and methods employed in this project.

The methodology section of this chapter will discuss the suitability of undertaking a qualitative discourse analysis in order to achieve the aims of the project. It then explores Foucault’s understanding of ‘problematisations’ and its effectiveness as a methodological approach to analysing how knowledge is produced and power is performed discursively. It will then explain the suitability of a case study approach to research. This chapter will then discuss the methods employed, specifically discussing: the case study selection; the data collection process; and the analytical strategies utilised. It will detail the methodological research sub-questions asked of the data and how these will be answered in the remainder of the thesis. Finally, this chapter will explore the ethical considerations and limitations that must be taken into account when considering the findings of this analysis.

3.2 INFLUENCE OF FOUCAULT

This project’s methodology and methods are influenced by the work and ideas of French philosopher Michel Foucault, who was born in France in 1926 and died in 1984. Foucault’s work was quite varied, covering a diverse range of research interests (Hoy 1986, 2), and contributing to a variety of disciplines including philosophy, history, sociology, and literary studies (McNay 1994, 1).

Foucault’s Discipline and Punish also had a significant impact on the field of criminology, shaping the way researchers consider constructions of crime and how we punish (Garland 1986, 866). Often referred to as a mixture of an historian and philosopher (Goldstein 1994, 1), Foucault was concerned with

understanding how power inequalities are produced and reproduced in “more subtle and diffuse ways through ostensibly humane and freely adopted social practices” (McNay 1994, 2).

As noted in Chapter Two, there is a dominant way of understanding power that appears within most animal cruelty literature. This is a view of power as involving an oppressor (humans) and a victim (animals), with this power relationship marked by negativity and repression (animal cruelty). From this perspective, power is understood to be controlling and coercive, and a struggle between the ruling, or powerful, class, and the working, or dominated, class

(Marx and Engels 1955). As Marx and Engels (1955, 29) describe in their foundational treatise The Communist Manifesto, “[p]olitical power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class oppressing another”. This oppressor-victim narrative considers speciesism to be an ideology which underpins human’s attitudes and behaviours towards animals. Usually, from this understanding, it is the victim of that binary that is indoctrinated. But when discussing speciesism as an ideology, the oppressors (humans) are the ones being indoctrinated. From a Marxist framework, speciesism can therefore be seen as legitimised and maintained by the ruling class (humans), where the dinner table serves as a site in which passive individuals (meat eaters) are indoctrinated by the ideology of speciesism. However, Foucault rejects these sorts of conceptualisations of power, and specifically the assumptions inherent in the concept of ideology and regarding the passive subject (Kendall and Wickham 1999, 118). Ball (2008, 40) argues “only passive objects can be indoctrinated, and have power exercised upon them”

(original emphasis). In contrast, Foucault allows for the possibilities that all humans produce knowledges, relate to knowledges, and resist knowledges, instead of simply being passive and controlled by a dominating ‘state’ or group.

Rather than viewing power as repressive, Foucault suggests power should be seen as a ‘positive’ force that “underlies all social relations” (McNay 1994, 2-

3). These social practices produce knowledges and ‘truths’, which shape the way people live their lives and consider the lives of others.

This suggests a new way of thinking about these kinds of dynamics that differs from the dominant view, particularly regarding its assumptions about power and knowledge. This thesis is informed by Foucault’s understanding of power as productive, moving away from a ‘dominating’ and ‘dominated’ binary view of power, and the assumptions around speciesism as an ideology. Instead, people’s knowledge of themselves and animals – and thus our assumptions about the treatment of animals – is constructed through discourses, which are produced and shaped through the exercise of power. This project therefore aims to contribute to the large body of literature that draws upon Foucault’s work to understand power relations. The below section will now detail the conceptual tools of discourse, power, and knowledge, which are employed in this thesis.

3.3 CONCEPTUAL TOOLS

A number of key concepts from Foucault’s work influence this research. The three in particular are discourse, knowledge, and power. Foucault’s work in

this area also provides the conceptual tools of ‘objects’ and ‘subjects’ which are employed in the methods of this project. These conceptual tools interrelate and connect with Foucault’s understandings of ‘truth’ and ‘problematisations’.

They will be discussed here in order to understand how they inform the analysis undertaken in this thesis. The following sections will define and explain how these conceptual tools are understood and used in this project.

3.3.1 Discourse

One of the key arguments of this research is that ‘animal cruelty’, as a discursive ‘object’, is constructed and understood through a range of competing discourses, rather than concrete knowledge solely grounded in legal doctrine or industry regulatory frameworks. Examining this discursive process involves establishing what ‘discourse’ means and how it is used in this project. A basic understanding of discourse is one that is “purely linguistic”

(Kendall and Wickham 1999, 35). However a Foucauldian understanding of discourse acknowledges the historical and cultural contexts that generate rules and power relations impacting discursive practices (O’Farrell 2005, 79).

This project relies on Foucault’s broader definition of discourse as “the group of statements that belong to a single system of formation” (Foucault 2002,

121). These statements are organised in a way that is regular and systematic

(Kendall and Wickham 1999, 42). Studying this system of formation enables an interrogation of the historic and cultural contexts underpinning discursive practices, as well as the “rules and structures” producing discursive texts

(Mills 2003, 3; Mills 2004, 6). Therefore, this project sees discourse as more

than language, and discourse analysis is approached as a way to examine how discourses are shaped and produced rather than just the effects of their production.

A Foucauldian inspired discourse analysis allows for an examination of how these discursive practices provide concepts to be “rendered accessible” as objects to be understood (Kendall and Wickham 1999, 28). As an example,

Foucault (1978a) was interested in how ‘sexuality’ had historically been produced as an object of thought. Foucault (1989) argues that this production happens through discursive practices, which defines objects of knowledges, and this influences the way we understand and talk about them. As O’Farrel

(2005, 57) notes:

Foucault argues that there is no necessary neutral and

fixed connection between words and things or between

our knowledge and things. The order of words and the

order of things can only exist in analogous relations. An

order of words may appear the same as an order of

things, but the order of words is using analogy or

mimicry or some other process to produce this effect.

Using sexuality as an example, discourses on sex have the ability to produce knowledge of sexualities (Kendall and Wickham 1999, 34) and this knowledge is exercised discursively (O’Farrell 2006, 79). That is not to say that sexual practices only exist as a product of discourse. Sexual practices may exist and

continue whether we discuss them or not. Rather, it is to suggest that it is through discourse that an object can “enter into the domain of thought”

(Foucault 1983, 421) and that thought can be acted upon. These discourses on sex provide knowledge or ‘truths’ about sex and sexuality, which can then lead to regulating the behaviour through sodomy laws or age of consent laws, for example. Knowledges or ‘truths’ are therefore “central to these activities of government and to the very formation of its objects” (Rose and Miller 1992,

175). As we relate to these truths, it is important to interrogate the discourses producing them.

An analysis of the production of discursive ‘objects’ also allows for an analysis of the ‘subjects’ this construction makes available. This is important to analyse as we can begin to understand how identities and particular types of people are produced, and the ways in which they in turn act upon this knowledge.

Foucault (1982, 777) outlines different ways in which “human beings are made subjects”. One way is through research. For example, when we set out to analyse activist discourses in social inquiry, activists are positioned as subjects. Second, Foucault (1982, 777) sets out to study the “[objectivising] of the subject” whereby a process of division occurs between the subject inside themselves, or between themselves and others. This process occurs in discourse and is taken up by the subject and used to define them. Foucault provides the ‘mad’ and ‘sane’ as examples of a division between subjects. This division can influence practices and how we govern certain subject positions.

The third way Foucault is interested in the subject is the way in which humans turn themselves into subjects, such as where the subject is “tied to his [sic]

own identity by a conscience or self-knowledge” (Foucault 1982, 781). An example of this is when we consider self-labelling of sexualities (such as homosexual or heterosexual, which are constructions of discourse) being tied to one’s own identity.

This project enables an analysis of how particular positions are shaped discursively (such as the Australian public, Australian farmers, Indonesians, animals, and their advocates), with humans becoming ‘subjects’. It also interrogates how divisions occur within and between these subjects, inside themselves and between each other. This objectivising of the subject is a form of power that categorises individuals, and “imposes a law of truth” on them that they are able to relate to, recognise in themselves, and encourage others to recognise in them (Foucault 1982, 781). By examining how knowledge about animal cruelty is produced and reproduced through discourse, we can therefore begin to question how these truths underpin how we relate to animals, ourselves, and each other.

Just as Foucault was not focused on uncovering a universal ‘truth’ of discursive statements about his research topics such as sexuality or madness, this project is not interested in analysing what is ‘true’ about the statements made about animal cruelty in the live export industry. Instead, this project seeks to uncover how knowledge is produced and truth is formed around the topic of animal cruelty in the live export industry. It does so specifically by investigating how various discourses emerge, conflict, and influence the way in which the ‘problem’ of animal cruelty is governed. It analyses how

knowledges of animal-centred and human-centred ‘problems’ are produced discursively as objects through relations of power, and how people relate to these knowledges discursively.

3.3.2 Power

As mentioned earlier, in much research, activism, and social action, power is often thought about from a Marxist perspective. Focusing on human-animal relations, relying on this view of power sees humans as the ruling and

‘oppressive’ class and animals as the powerless, ‘oppressed’ class. Further, it sees individual ‘meat eaters’ as being indoctrinated into a speciesist ideology in line with the dominating ‘state’ or group (humans). As detailed in the literature review (Chapter Two), researchers often rely on this understanding of power and have furthered an oppressor-victim narrative to describe the human-animal power dynamic. However, Foucault moved away from seeing power as the struggle between the powerful and the powerless, and offered an alternative approach to understanding power and the way it produces knowledge. This is useful to this project, as it suggests a new way of doing animal cruelty research is needed to understand the complexities of how power is performed in animal cruelty policy debates and the knowledges they produce.

In an essay titled Truth and Power, Foucault (1977c) was critical of seeing power as negative and simply a form of ‘repression’ and control by the ‘state’ or a group. He argued:

If power were never anything but repressive, if it never

did anything but to say no, do you really think one would

be brought to obey it? What makes power hold good,

what makes it accepted is simply the fact that it doesn’t

only weigh on us as a force that says no, but that it

traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure,

forms of knowledge, produces discourse. It needs to be

considered as a productive network which runs through

the whole social body, much more than as a negative

instance whose function is repression (Foucault 1977c,

119).

Foucault identifies different ways in which power operates depending on the context/setting and his work focused on three major types of power: sovereign power; biopower; and governmental power. These types of power and their deployment in research to understand human-animal relations will be explored in greater detail later in this chapter. While focused on how power is productive, Foucault’s understanding of governmental power is of particular interest for this thesis. Governmental power operates through encouraging people to govern themselves and their own behaviours. ‘Government’, in this instance, is not referring to the political institution, but rather “the way in

which the conduct of individuals or of groups might be directed” (Dreyfus and

Rabinow 1982, 221). While focused on governing oneself, this type of power relies on an understanding of the governance of society including by the state, as individuals are directed to govern themselves in line with the aims of the state (Garland 1997, 175). Garland (1997, 175) states that the effect of this power on others is that “[i]t constructs individuals who are capable of choice and action, shapes them as active subjects, and seeks to align their choices with the objectives of governing authorities”. This project is particularly interested in this type of power, as it sets out to understand how knowledge is produced about ‘animal cruelty’ and how individuals relate to this knowledge, including the ways in which it shapes them as active subjects and influences the way they govern themselves and others.

For example, we can investigate whether consuming animals for food is normalised in policy discussions about animal cruelty, which has the effect of encouraging individuals to govern their dietary practices in line with the aims of the state. This also enables an analysis of how this power might be resisted, and how individuals are shaped as active subjects creating potential division amongst each other including as a ‘meat eater’ or a ‘vegan’. This particular type of power that Foucault discusses is of interest to this project as it moves away from seeing power as something one has and exercises over another in order to dominate, but rather as something that operates in different ways depending on the setting and shows how individuals produce power rather than just being affected by it. It also moves away from seeing meat eaters as being indoctrinated into the ideology of speciesism, and instead explores how

humans are relating to objects of knowledges and actively considering themselves and others.

Furthering this understanding of power being productive, James (2004, 35) notes, “[p]ower produces subjects and what they do, it produces how subjects see themselves and the world, and it produces resistance to itself”. To utilise

Foucault’s concept of power, we must also therefore consider this concept of

‘resistance’. As power relations are characterised by antagonism, Foucault was interested in oppositions, how subjects negotiate these oppositions, and how this process enables us to understand and learn about “specific rationalities” (Foucault 1982, 78). As Foucault (1982, 78) suggests:

For example, to find out what our society means by

sanity, perhaps we should investigate what is

happening in the field of insanity. And what we mean

by legality in the field of illegality. And, in order to

understand what power relations are about, perhaps we

should investigate the forms of resistance and attempts

to dissociate these relations.

The identification of resistance is therefore an integral method in analysing power relations, and the ways people negotiate these relations. Foucault

(1978, 95) argues, “[w]here there is power, there is resistance”, positioning resistance as central to understanding how power is performed. Foucault suggests a methodological approach that sees a focus on resistance as follows:

I would like to suggest another way to go further toward

a new economy of power relations, a way that is more

empirical, more directly related to our present situation,

and one that implies more relations between theory and

practice. It consists in taking the forms of resistance

against different forms of power as a starting point. To

use another metaphor, it consists in using this resistance

as a chemical catalyst so as to bring to light power

relations, locate their position, find out their point of

application and the methods used (Foucault 1982, 780).

When analysing power, we need to therefore understand points of resistance, who is resisting, how they are resisting, and why. This moves away from understanding power as something that one has or does not have. Instead, resistance is a different form of power being exercised. This is not to say that power cannot be negative, or that we should not view the human-animal relationship as a harmful power relation. The existence of resistance also does not guarantee that power relations will be overturned. However, it suggests that we can start to see that no one is ‘powerless’, and that power is performed by everyone, even animals (Kendall and Wickham 1999, 35). Systemic power relations are formed through power being exercised in a way which allows for particular discourses to emerge and succeed in the production and reproduction of particular kinds of knowledge, including alternative knowledges.

However, it is important to note that analysing resistance discursively is not as simplistic as identifying the “dominant” versus the “dominated” discourses

(Foucault 1998, 100; James 2004, 42). As discussed in the literature reviewed in Chapter Two, it is not a simple task to identify ‘animal welfare’ as a discourse for example, nor a simple task to categorise it as an accepted or excluded discourse. This project seeks to uncover who is resisting, and to which practices and discourses, and how this resistance is influenced by human- human and human-animal power dynamics.

3.3.3 Power/Knowledge

One of the ways we can see how power is productive is through Foucault’s work where he analysed power and knowledge together. Power is intrinsically linked to discourse and knowledge, as ‘truth’ is produced and reproduced through discourse, and this ‘truth’ is shaped and upheld through the exercise of power. This intersection between knowledge and power is referred to by Foucault as the knowledge-power nexus, where truths about objects are produced through discourse, and power is excised “through the production of truth” (Foucault 1977b, 93). This is important to conceptualise as people relate to this knowledge and we must, therefore, consider the

“relationship between knowledge and the factors that produce and constrain it” (O’Farrell 2005, 54). This production of knowledge also makes subject positions available that enable human subjects (and animals) to be placed in complex power relations (Foucault 1982, 778). As objects become targets of

governance, subjects are able to govern themselves and others. This project is not just interested in how animal cruelty as an object is constructed in the discourses, but how discourses, and the knowledge produced through them, can be understood as influenced by relations of power including human- animal and human-human social relations.

The knowledge-power nexus is helpful in understanding power relations, how they are produced through discourse, their formation, and the conditions of their production. Foucault (1988, 94-95) writes, “[t]here is no power that is exercised without a series of aims and objectives”. Foucault (1982, 792) discusses multiple examples of objectives including the maintenance of privileges. This can mean the privileging of certain knowledges over others, or the favouring of certain subjects over others. In a study of problematisations, an objective pursued can be the success of the problematisations themselves. These objectives can be maintained and upheld through key differentiations of knowledge and by the strategies of discourse that ensure some knowledges are propagated more than others.

The operation of differentiations produces “particular kinds of knowledge”

(O’Farrell 2005, 42). As previously noted, power relations are characterised by antagonism, and subjects negotiate these oppositions. The privileging and normalisation of certain knowledges is a strategy of discourse, so that “one person’s or one group’s discourse – its definitions, explanations and solutions

– carry little weight in relation to others and therefore have little credibility as

‘knowledge’ or what is seen as ‘right’ and correct’” (Jupp and Norris 1993, 48).

A ‘hierarchy of knowledge’ is produced and upheld by not all discourses having equal power in generating wider knowledge. These differentiations of knowledge can therefore be acted upon strategically as a means to maintain or resist the objectives of the discourse.

This approach to discourse enables an exploration of “the ways in which the use of language is a manifestation of power” (Schmitz 2008, 142). Therefore, a critique of animal cruelty policy debates using a Foucauldian understanding of discourse allows for an analysis of how knowledges about objects and subjects are produced in specific ways, according to specific rules and structures, and can be seen as performances of power. This is a useful way of viewing discourse, power, and knowledge, for this project, as the privileging of

(and resistance to) certain knowledges over others shapes the problematisations produced in the discourses and the solutions that appear possible to, or which are proposed by, authoritative bodies.

3.4 FOUCAULDIAN SCHOLARSHIP AND ‘ANIMAL CRUELTY’

Foucault’s work did not specifically address the relationship between humans and animals. Nevertheless, several researchers have taken ideas from

Foucault’s work on power and applied them to understanding the current treatment of animals. These have included, but are not limited to, research examining this dynamic in the contexts of: agriculture (see Novek 2005;

Wadiwel 2009; Taylor 2013), companion animals (see Palmer 2001), and zoos

(see Chrulew 2011). The overarching viewpoint in this body of research is that the human-animal relationship is a power relationship and this power is produced and reproduced through the ways people regulate this relationship.

Researchers have utilised Foucault’s understanding of power in diverse ways when examining the human-animal relationship. As Palmer (2001, 345) notes,

“a certain amount of creativity is necessary when thinking about Foucault, animals, and power”. However, despite these attempts, this thesis argues that this kind of research fails to move from the traditional view of power as being

‘possessed’ by humans, who serve as the ‘powerful’ class ruling over the class of animals. This thesis argues that further unpacking of Foucault’s ideas of power is needed to consider analysing issues surrounding the treatment of animals using the conceptual lens of Foucault.

Taylor’s (2013) review of Foucauldian scholarship and human-animal relations in the context of animal agriculture suggests that the common approach being used by researchers in this space involves the deployment of one of Foucault’s ‘types’ of power to critique a particular context of animal use.

An example of this critical approach to research is through Foucault’s conceptual tool of sovereign power. Sovereign power was described by

Foucault (1978a) as a form of power that is exercised through the State and this is inclusive, but not limited to, having and/or performing the right to kill.

As rights are often enshrined in law, this level of power is performed and reinforced through legal discourse. Wadiwel (2009, 283) examines the mass slaughter of agricultural animals and describes the power relationship that exists here as being grounded in violence and domination, which is legalised

and protected in law, thereby demonstrating sovereign power. Wadiwel

(2009, 285) suggests that we define the relationship as humans being at war against animals, a war that operates within the bounds of the law.

In understanding Wadiwel’s argument, Taylor (2013, 541) draws upon

Foucault’s (2003) use of sovereign power, noting, “Although sovereign power originates in overt war, it continues in the guise of politics and through the exercise of a law that becomes [naturalised]”. This use of ‘power’ does not deviate too greatly from the traditional or Marxist understanding of power, where power is understood as something the ‘ruling class’ have, located with the ‘state’, and exercised legally over the ‘dominated’ class. Further, by investigating how the power relationship between humans and animals is a form of sovereign power, this research becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where their conclusions are already formed prior to research. While it is useful to analyse how legal discourses and the performance of sovereign power produces and reproduces the power inequality between humans and animals, it does not explain the reasons why the ‘state’ is making these decisions or how these decisions are reached or why people do the killing (Foucault 1978, 103).

In a similar vein, researchers have also drawn upon Foucault’s theoretical concept of biopower to critique how power operates through industry regulatory discourses surrounding legalised industries involving harm towards animals. Unlike sovereign power, which is performed through legal institutions, biopower involves behaviour and knowledge that are constructed as norms within and outside of law (Taylor 2013, 542). Foucault divides

biopower into two categories: regulatory power and disciplinary power.

Regulatory power relates to population levels and ensures “populations adhere to norms such as desired rates of growth, health, and productivity”

(Taylor 2013, 542). Therefore, in order to strengthen the sovereign’s territory, wealth and might, the ‘right to kill’ becomes “the right to kill for the protection, management, and fostering of the population” (Taylor 2013, 542). Meanwhile, disciplinary power operates at the level of the body ensuring bodies adhere to gender and sexual norms, for example (Taylor 2013, 542). It is within this sphere that Foucault (1977) argues that disciplinary power produces ‘docile bodies’. While sovereign power serves to create negative outcomes (violence, death, forbidding behaviour), biopower serves as normalising the “kind of population the state wants to foster and protect” (Taylor 2013; 542).

Several researchers have used Foucault’s understandings of regulatory power

(see Nimmo 2010; Holloway and Morris 2007; Wadiwel 2002) and disciplinary power (see Choppin 2003; Thierman 2010; Palmer 2001) in the context of human-animal relations. Lewis Holloway has focused largely on biopolitical farm practices (Holloway and Morris 2007; Holloway, Morris,

Gilna and Gibbs 2009; Holloway and Morris 2014). One example is the analysis of UK policy documents that focus on genetic techniques for livestock breeding, and how these offer examples of a form of biopower expressed in human-animal relations (Holloway and Morris 2007). By utilising Foucault’s concept of biopower, it is understood that “the lives of non-human animals are considered not for their own sake but only in terms of how they may benefit or endanger those humans about whom the state is concerned” (Taylor 2013;

543). Another example of how biopower is expressed in the context of animal agriculture is the assurance of the slaughter process being conducted and regulated in a manner which produces the best economical outcomes for humans (Wadiwel 2002).

With so little attention to the human-animal relationship by Foucault, these researchers have made a great contribution to Foucauldian scholarship by demonstrating how the different types of power that Foucault discusses can be applied to various sites in society where the treatment of animals has been problematised. Further, it is useful to see how the treatment of animals differs based on context such as zoos, animal agriculture, and companion animals, as it suggests that discourses about animal cruelty may differ depending on the context. However, while this body of work has made strides in moving

Foucauldian research from being solely human-centric, it still views power as something done to animals and does not challenge the assumptions about power in the non-Foucauldian literature. This approach to research does not move away greatly from the critical approach of the non-Foucauldian research, and thus similarly reproduces a binary oppressor(human)- victim(animal) narrative to describe the origins of and solutions to the

‘problem’ of the current human-animal dynamic. There remains an assumption in this literature that suggests the outcomes for animals rest in understanding how power is being performed between humans and animals only.

Arguably the more significant contribution to the literature about the ethics of animal use is the deployment of Foucault’s linkage of power and resistance.

When examining the relationship between humans and animals, Cole (2011) argues identifying power relations can be problematic if they cannot be resisted, with Theirman (2010) arguing that without the possibility of resistance, the relationship between humans and animals is one of domination. Palmer (2001, 350) reviews the literature on animal resistance and concludes that the power relationship between humans and animals varies between settings with “their own instabilities and points of resistance”.

Taylor (2013) continues this review, exploring settings such as slaughterhouses. Taylor disagrees with Cole (2011) and Thierman (2010) who argue that slaughterhouses could potentially be seen as sites for domination.

Instead, many researchers make the claim that even resistance in the slaughterhouse is evident, whether it is by the animal not being completely docile (Novek 2005), or by the existence of human resistance through activism

(Coppin 2003). Coppin (2003) argues that human resistance through activism serves as an effort of resistance to ensure domination over animals is never achieved. While this remains a contested space in the Foucauldian scholarship, the claim that the human-animal relationship is not one entirely of domination and repression is the biggest diversion from the non-

Foucauldian animal ethics literature. It suggests that the dynamic can be described as a power relation with points of resistance, by animals and their advocates. However, the criticism remains that this work does not move beyond discussing the human-animal dynamic and does not consider how human-centred issues may be affected by this resistance.

This thesis therefore argues that current understandings in the literature of human-animal power relations are not sufficient for thinking about the complexities of the conceptualisation and responses to ‘animal cruelty’, and the human-human dynamics that circulate within these debates. To move away from seeing the relationship between humans and animals as one that is solely an oppressor-victim binary, this project intends to draw on Foucault’s concepts of discourse, knowledge and power, by turning the attention to human-human power dynamics and how this offers a deeper understanding of how the governance of ‘animal cruelty’ operates in society. This also might suggest new ways of approaching research and activism relating to the treatment of animals.

3.5 METHODOLOGY

This project undertakes a qualitative discourse analysis of problematisations in the live export policy debates about animal cruelty. This section will explain why a qualitative study of discourse was suitable for this research. It will then detail Foucault’s understanding of the concept of ‘problematisation’, which is used in this project as a methodological tool informing the coding and analysis of the data in order to achieve the aims of the project. This section will then discuss why a case study approach was chosen and its uses.

3.5.1 Qualitative discourse analysis

Qualitative methods are an ideal approach if the data is complex and cannot be easily simplified into numbers for analysis (Richards 2009, 34). This study is focused upon understanding the complexities that underpin the way in which the treatment of animals is understood, and the understandings expressed when people discuss the treatment of animals. A quantitative study would not yield the kind of data that is required to explore this. Guest,

MacQueen and Namey (2012, 5) also note “qualitative methods provide considerable room for an interpretive inquiry”. Qualitative research often suits interpretive inquiry as the approach enables researchers to “make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of meanings people bring to them”

(Denzin and Lincoln 2011, 3). Interpretivism is associated with a diverse range of epistemological approaches including social constructionism, which underpins this research. An epistemology can be described as “a way of understanding and explaining how we know what we know” (Crotty 1998, 3) or an “explanation for why a research problem exists” (Champion 2006, 71).

The epistemological approach informing this thesis is social constructionism, where meaning and definitions are assumed to be constructed (see Schwandt

2000; Burr 2015). Jorgensen and Phillips (2002, 5, original emphasis) note

“in discourse analysis, theory and method are intertwined and researchers must accept the basic philosophical premises in order to use discourse analysis as their method of empirical study”. Therefore this project, in line with conceptual tools discussed previously, assumes that understandings of

‘animal cruelty’ are constructed, rather than inherent or inevitable, and that

this construction is produced discursively. A Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis offers unique insight into this construction.

As a method, discourse analysis involves analysing communication that is either written or verbal (Wetherell, Taylor and Yates 2001, i). The application of a qualitative discourse analysis enables an understanding of how ‘animal cruelty’ is discussed and produced as an object discursively, creating meaning that can be related to in specific ways. Fairclough, Mulderrig and Wodak

(2011, 370) explain how socially influential discourse is, insofar that “every instance of language use makes its own small contribution to reproducing and/or transforming society and culture, including power relations”.

There is no consensus on how to undertake an analysis of discourse. While

Foucault is often cited as an influence, many researchers of discourse do not conduct a ‘Foucauldian discourse analysis’. For example, Wodak’s (2009, 16)

‘Discourse-Historical Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis’ analyses the discursive strategies of inclusion or exclusion via what she refers to as

“knowledge management”, citing the influence of Foucault’s power-knowledge nexus. In contrast, a critical discourse analysis has its origins in and often draws upon, a more Marxist aligned approach to power and ideology

(Fairclough, Mulderrig and Wodak 2011, 360). Fairclough, Mulderrig and

Wodak (2011, 358) note that critical discourse analysis “openly and explicitly positions itself on the side of the dominated and oppressed groups and against dominating groups”. As noted earlier, this project moves away from wanting to analyse discourse with a focus on an oppressor-victim or dominating-

100

dominated binary. It intends to challenge these assumptions about power and knowledge, and thus an analysis of discourse that explicitly uses, and aligns with the assumptions underpinning, Foucault’s conceptual tools is the best approach to this research.

A methodological template for a Foucauldian discourse analysis does not exist, with many researchers attempting to explain its use in empirical research

(Kendall and Wickham 1999; O’Farrell 2005; Schmitz 2008). This project therefore offers one way of doing a Foucauldian analysis of discourse, and argues the use of Foucault’s understanding of ‘problematisations’ provides this deeper understanding of the dynamics and problems that circulate within animal cruelty policy debates.

3.5.2 A study of ‘problematisations’

While ‘problematisation’ can be understood in diverse ways, this project is influenced by Foucault’s understanding of the term. Bacchi (2012, 1) describes how Foucault uses the concept in two distinct ways. First, the term is understood in the context of research, where Foucault suggests a method which involves “thinking problematically” (Foucault 1977a, 185-186, in Bacchi

2012, 1). When employing this method to the analysis of human-animal relations, nothing should be taken for granted or considered inevitable, such as the assumption that the way we view animals is due to a speciesist ideology or an awakening to and rejection of that indoctrination. Instead, it is useful to interrogate these assumptions underpinning how we know what we know.

101

This project does not take the concept of ‘animal cruelty’ to have a fixed and shared understanding, solely grounded in legal doctrine, industry regulation, or activism. Additionally, this project moves away from reproducing an assumed truth claim of ‘animal cruelty’ based on an ethical framework or ideology, or liberation from one, such as speciesism. Instead, this project suggests that knowledge of animal cruelty is produced discursively and the production of this knowledge can be interrogated at “specific times and under specific circumstances” (Deacon 2000, 127). Further, this project disputes the claim that the only power dynamic relevant to how ‘animal cruelty’ should be understood or solved is the human-animal relationship.

Therefore, ‘problematisation’ can be understood as an analytical approach where researchers can examine the production of objects and the process of their production (Bacchi 2012, 4). This understanding of problematisation drives the method of discourse analysis, enabling an analysis of how animal cruelty is produced as a discursive object, what knowledges are produced around this object, what subject positions are made available from these constructions, how these knowledges are limited and upheld, and how this can be seen as an example of being shaped by power exercised through discourse.

The second use of the term ‘problematisation’ that this project draws upon is the ‘process’ in which the object of our research is constructed as a ‘problem’

(Foucault 1984, 115). Foucault (1988, 257) describes this process as:

102

The set of discursive and non-discursive practices that

makes something enter into the play of the true and the

false and constitutes it as an object for thought (whether

under the form of moral reflection, scientific knowledge,

political analysis, etc.).

Investigating the process of the production of objects for consideration, enables the analysis of how ‘animal cruelty’ enters the realm of thought as a problem that needs to be governed. Further, utilising the concept of problematisation enables an examination of how discourses dealing with the treatment of animals also produce knowledge about human-centred

‘problems’ such as food security and economic security. These human- centred problems emerge as objects and create further subject positions available in these discourses. These objects of knowledge also make possible the ‘solutions’ to these problems (which are also constructions of discourse) to be considered. Bacchi (2012, 1) suggests that the study of problematisations “opens up innovative research strategies that make politics, understood as the complex strategic relations that shape lives, visible”. Using ‘problematisation’ in this way facilitates an alternative approach to exploring animal cruelty discourses. It allows researchers to investigate how people are encouraged to reflect and act on animal-centred and human-centred problems in these policy debates about live export, and how this influences the way we relate to these objects and ourselves, and each other.

103

3.5.3 A case study approach

A case study design enables the research on the broader issue of the problematisation of animal cruelty to be narrowed to examining a specific social setting and context for analysis (Campion 2006, 121). The lack of structured design for a Foucauldian discourse analysis allows for flexibility when it comes to analysing data, which makes it suitable for a case study approach as it allows for “adaptability” to specific contexts under investigation

(O’Farrell 2005, 57). One of the key ways in which Foucault’s understanding of power is unique is in the understanding that the production of power and its exercise depends on the setting. This is in contrast to a traditional understanding of power, particularly from a Marxist perspective. Tait (1995,

28) describes one of the characteristics of power derived from Marxist thought as:

…all power is understood as essentially the same,

regardless of the manner of its exercise. It is not

differentiated by its effects, location or point of origin.

The power that slave owners exercised over their slaves

is deemed to be the same power that sovereigns exercise

over their subjects, or the ruling class exercises over the

working class, or even teachers exercise over their

pupils.

104

Instead, a Foucauldian understanding of discourse acknowledges that

“discursive practices operate according to rules which are quite specific to a particular time, space, and cultural setting” (O’Farrell 2005, 79). Therefore, our knowledge of animal cruelty and the way in which we discuss it is constructed and can be influenced by specific events and the how these events generate different knowledges surrounding animal cruelty (Johnson 2012, 2).

In the context of the treatment of animals within the live export debate, this approach suggests ‘animal cruelty’ can be seen as a product of regulated discursive practices that are influenced by events (such as the Four Corners documentary) and the unique context that impacts on how power is being performed in these discussions. Therefore, a case study design that is specific in context provides the best method of analysing ‘animal cruelty’ as a discursive object and its specific problematisation using a Foucauldian lens.

An important benefit of a case study approach to research is the opportunity to provide an in-depth focus of analysis “to illustrate more general social relationships and processes” (Jones 2006 309). While there are some limitations in regards to generalisability (which will be considered later in this chapter in the discussion of limitations), this research does suggest the findings will be of benefit to other cases of animal cruelty policy discussions, research, and activism. As Yin (2018, 38) recommends, a case study should

“shed empirical light on some theoretical concepts or principles”. By drawing on Foucault’s conceptual tools, this case study provides an opportunity to learn from how the problematisation of ‘animal cruelty’ in policy debates can be influenced by human-human power relations. The lessons learned may

105

encourage researchers to move away from the dominant use of ‘speciesism’ as the theoretical concept through which to analyse these wider animal use debates, and lead to greater intersectional insight into the complexities of how power is being performed discursively on matters concerning human-animal power relations. With a focus on a study of ‘problematisations’, this case also offers an example of how human-centred problems may serve as boundaries to animal protectionist ideas and the possible solutions, and thus impact on ways to engage in activism on a variety of issues.

3.6 METHODS

This section will begin by detailing the selection of the case study and then explain the selection of material chosen to generate the data for analysis.

When it comes to an in-depth case study analysis, “random sampling is not typically a viable approach” (Seawright and Gerring 2008, 294). Therefore the data selection process involved purposive modes of sampling of naturally occurring data. The below section will provide an explanation for why the live export trade, and the specific policy debates that occurred following the Four

Corners exposé into the trade in 2011, were chosen for analysis. Following the explanation of the data selection process, this section will then outline the analytical strategies employed in this project. The approach to coding offers an adaptation of Foucault’s guidance on studying practices of power, as detailed in The Subject and Power (Foucault 1982), to an analysis of discursive problematisations. Flyvbjerg (2006, 226) argues, “[t]he choice of method should clearly depend on the problem under study and its circumstances”. The

106

methods employed to study these problematisations were thus selected while keeping the research aims, and what questions were being asked of the data, in mind. This section will also detail how the findings will be presented in the remainder of this thesis.

3.6.1 Selection of case study

The case study selected for this project relates to the policy debates following an exposé into the issue of live export of cattle from Australia to Indonesia in

2011. This case sits within the broader context of animal agriculture for food consumption for humans and the wider problematisation of ‘animal cruelty’.

This is an example of purposive sampling, which “selects information-rich cases for the in-depth study to examine meanings, interpretations, processes and theory” (Liamputtong and Ezzy 2005, 46). Selecting a single issue campaign enables an analysis of an historical snapshot of the policy discussion about animal cruelty. Other case studies were originally considered, including the whaling industry, factory farming, and various racing industries. Jones

(2006, 316) notes the importance of considering the elements that make a case unique when justifying its use in a case study. There were two main reasons why the live export industry was deemed to be a more suitable case study for this research: the public attention it received recently; and its unique context, which allowed for multiple human-human power dynamics to be considered.

Due to this, the case of live export provided an information-rich and recent context in which to examine the problematisation of animal cruelty and how human-centred problems can circulate within these policy debates. These two

107

justifications for this case selection will now be explained in further detail below. This discussion will highlight how the case chosen compares to others in the broader class of animal use by humans as a whole to demonstrate the significance of the findings and how they may be generalised to this field or limited to this unique case.

3.6.1.1 Public attention to the case

The industry entered mainstream public discourse in 2011, after receiving widespread attention following the release of a television documentary entitled “A Bloody Business” featured on the Australian Broadcasting

Corporation’s (ABC) television program Four Corners (Animals Australia

2013a). This documentary presented findings from the investigation carried out by Animals Australia of cattle exported while alive to Indonesia. While many species are involved in live trade (both into and out of Australia), cattle are one of the most commonly exported species (Morfuni 2011, 500) and were the main focus of the public outrage at the time surrounding the live export industry in general. While Animals Australia, the peak animal protectionist organisation in Australia outside of the RSPCA, has carried out many investigations, this particular investigation received the most notoriety.

Arguably, part of this notoriety was due to the element of shock value provided by the documentary footage that showed grueling conditions in Indonesian abattoirs including slaughter methods that were below Australian expectations. Their investigation led to large media exposure and political

108

pressure on the Australian Government to end and/or ensure harsher regulations of the trade.

Animals Australia (2011) note that after the release of their investigation that formed the basis of the Four Corner’s documentary “A Bloody Business”, over

60,000 media articles were published worldwide. The ‘ban live export’ activist campaign subsequently dominated public discourse, especially on-line, and an urgent suspension to the trade was put in place by the Australian Government.

Schoenmaker and Alexander’s (2012, 17) research demonstrates the effectiveness of social media as a “powerful tool” in “forcing” policy change in regards to live export. Following this, two Private Members bills were introduced into parliament to ban live export through a phase out plan. This case therefore gained a lot of public attention, as well as the attention of the

Australian Government.

The attention paid to the live export issue can be compared to other high profile issues of animal treatment such as whaling. However, whaling would not have provided such a useful case study because the whaling industry is already banned in Australia. Therefore the activism against Japan whaling in

Southern waters does not provide the same level of political pressure against

Australian Governments. The level of political discourse is therefore larger on the issue of live export, where the Australian Government has been given the opportunity to legislate to solve the ‘problem’ of animal cruelty in the industry.

This sustained and significant attention has led to the production of volumes of material that make visible the problematisation of ‘animal cruelty’ and the

109

human-human dynamics that circulate within these policy debates, including the material that forms the basis of the data analysed in this project.

3.6.1.2 The unique context of the case

There are several ways in which this case is unique and has significant elements worth learning about, including that: the policy debate resulted in policy changes; a variety of human-centred problems circulated within these discussions about animal cruelty, and; there were a range of diverse actors engaged in the debate. First, selecting a case study that did not result in policy changes would not have yielded the same opportunities for analysis. The

Australian Government did respond to animal cruelty concerns following the airing of the documentary, which then led to policy changes to the industry.

The Australian Government delivered a temporary short-term ban on live export and later introduced the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System

(ESCAS) to ensure the exporters meet bare minimum welfare standards and comply with government regulations to export only to those facilities that are approved (Animals Australia 2012). Alternative possibilities of intervention that were proposed included a transition to a chilled meat trade or attaching standards onto the animal rather than geographical location, so the animal’s welfare would be protected regardless of the local laws in the destination country (Craig 2013). Thus, the fact that this case led to changes enables an examination of how solutions to the ‘problem’ were constructed and which solutions were positioned as the ‘right’ way to govern animal cruelty by authoritative bodies.

110

Second, this particular case study also opens up a line of enquiry where we can investigate how a variety of human-centred problems can circulate within animal cruelty policy debates and influence these discussions. This case study provides an opportunity to analyse human-human power dynamics between classes, geographical locations, religions and cultures. While it is clear from the literature that the ‘problem’ of animal cruelty has been one of predominantly legal and ethical concern over the treatment of animals, this project attempts to move beyond current debates that mostly rely on solely a critique of the human-animal power dynamic. The transport of animals is for the purpose of food consumption for those in the destination country. More often than not, these destination countries have less secure food systems in place and therefore the live export of animals for food contributes to the access to food that citizens in these countries have. This is a unique context, and part of the reason that the issue of live export was a more appropriate case study compared to the alternative ‘problem’ of factory farming in Australia that was also originally considered for this project. While this thesis does not argue that each citizen of Australia has the same access to food as all others, the case study of live export provides a unique dimension that considers global food security issues. This case study therefore allows an investigation into the problematisation of animal cruelty in a way that intersects with human- centred problems, in a unique context that considers a variety of human- human power relations. While this case has some features that are unique in this respect, the analysis offers insight into the wider debate about animal

111

cruelty and how human-centred issues can influence these policy debates and decisions.

Third, another reason that this is a unique case is the range of diverse actors that engage in the debate and are affected by these policy discussions (Phillips

2005). The range of stakeholders communicate a variety of perspectives, from those in the animal agriculture industry who want live export to continue, to those who want the trade to move to a chilled meat export trade. Those outside the animal agriculture industry include policy makers, experts who are called upon to discuss and investigate the trade, media journalists, and animal activists including those within well-known organisations such as Animals

Australia and the RSPCA. The general public is also a diverse group made up of non-industry and non-activist participants, including both meat eaters and non-meat eaters. The case study has a range of different groups/institutions that are typically in opposition to each other. For example, the positioning of industry or farmer discourses are usually at odds with those of animal activists, as they often have competing goals to continue or to end animal usage respectively. This case study therefore enables an examination into instances of conflict, as well as instances of common ground by traditional

‘enemies’ in debates on animal cruelty. Particular knowledges are propagated when they agree on certain issues, in large part because of their traditional opposition.

112

3.6.2 Selection of material

This project analyses selective secondary sources, including written documents and transcripts from verbal communication (see Appendix A). The focus of material is the discourses found in policy debates following the ‘event’ of the documentary “A Bloody Business”, which aired on 30 May 2011 by Four

Corners. The Four Corners documentary highlighted the investigation by

Animals Australia of the live export industry, specifically the live export of cattle to Indonesia. This documentary served as a ‘crisis point’, where the practice of live export was suddenly exposed to great policy debate and emerged as a ‘problem’ in public discourse for the Australian Government to respond to. The aim of data collection for a case study is to “collect a wide range of information about a single ‘case’” (Jones 2006, 315). The data set includes 485 documents linked to the documentary and subsequent policy debates that occurred in the following six months.

Specifically, the data includes the transcript of the documentary, which is available online through the ABC Online website, along with three extended transcripts of interviews featured in the documentary. Quotes from the extended interviews were taken to form parts of the full documentary, and they include context that was not in the final cut of the documentary. Using this material will ensure credibility of the data. These three transcripts are interviews with: Dr Temple Grandin, Professor of Animal Science, Colorado

State University; Professor Ivan Caple, Leader of the Animal Welfare Review

113

Panel; and Cameron Hall, CEO, LiveCorp. These interviews are also accessible online.

The second portion of the data relates to parliamentary proceedings and policy documents. Policy documents are good access points to examine problematisations as “every policy or policy proposal is a prescriptive text, setting out a practice that relies on a particular problematisation” (Bacchi

2012, 4, original emphasis). The data collection relates to policy documents that emerged in the six months following the broadcasting of the documentary, which included the one month temporary ban of the trade that the

Government put in place and then removed. These documents include the two private members bills that were presented to parliament with the goal to end live export. Australian Greens Senator for Western Australia Rachel Siewert submitted the Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011, and

Independent Senator for South Australia Nick Xenophon submitted the Live

Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011. Both these bills were referred to The Committee for consideration. As part of this consideration of the bills, six public hearings were conducted and the official Hansard transcripts of these hearings have been included in the data set. These documents are all available online through the Parliament of Australia website.

The third portion of the data relates to Government statements and responses to commissioned reports released to the public. On 1 June 2011, the day following the airing of the Four Corners documentary, the Department of

114

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 5 distributed a media release about the documentary titled ‘Live animal exports to Indonesia’, which has been included in the data set for analysis. The Australian Government also commissioned several reviews into the industry. Included in the data set is the

Government’s announcement of an independent review into Australia’s live export trade, which was to be known as the Farmer Review. The Government also released responses to the Farmer Review and the Senate Inquiry Report, and these responses are both publically available online and part of the data set.

Alongside the Farmer Review, the Australian Government also established two

Industry Government Working Groups (IGWG) to review the live export regulatory framework. The IGWG Report related to the live cattle portion of the live export trade and was included in this data set. Also included in the data set was the review, which the Australian Government commissioned, into the Mark I and Mark IV slaughter restraint boxes used in Indonesia. This review was undertaken by Australia’s Chief Veterinary Officer, Dr Mark

Schipp. The Committee’s Senate Inquiry Report that summarised the public hearings and submissions and made its conclusions and recommendations for the Australian Government to consider, was also included in the data set. Also included were the 429 submissions to The Committee for consideration in regard to the two private Senator bills. While several of the submissions were

5 At time of the case study under examination, the relevant department was named the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry (21 October 1998 – 18 September 2013). Its successors were the Department of Agriculture (18 September 2013 – 21 September 2015), and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (21 September 2015 – current at time of writing). 115

presented and quoted in the Senate Inquiry Report as part of its recommendations to the Government, the individual submissions were analysed separately. This enables the study to ensure further credibility of the findings, but also provides an opportunity for analysis that investigates how and which certain knowledges are propagated such as by looking at those which do not feature in the report. These review documents are all publically available online through the Australian Government Department of

Agriculture and Water Resources website, where they detail the history of reviews into the live export trade by year (see DAWR 2017).

These data sources therefore represent a sample of different settings where the discussion surrounding this case study took place – a televised documentary, government media releases and statements, parliamentary proceedings with two private members bills submitted into parliament, a

Senate Inquiry in response to the two bills and the related records surrounding it, and several reviews of the industry and the related documents.

Including multiple sources for analysis enables a discussion of the differences and similarities across the ‘forums’, and allow an understanding of which forums make specific knowledges visible and shape how they are seen as authoritative.

It is important to note that, as the selection of material involved purposeful sampling of data relevant to the case, this did involve a process of exclusion.

Media articles and social media content related to the Four Corners documentary and subsequent policy discussion were excluded from the data

116

set. This was partly for “pragmatic reason[s]” (Jones 2006, 317), due to budgetary constraints and timeframes limiting the practicalities involved in widening the scope of the project to include media discourses. This provided a distinct boundary to the case, clearly separating it from the wider social context in which it exists (Denscombe 2010, 56). Doing so also avoided what

Heckenberg (2011, 195-196) refers to as the “data mountain”, where the volume of possible data continues to rise if you do not establish boundaries and know “when to stop”.

The exclusion of media discourse was also linked to the aims of the research, which were specifically not focused on these discourses. Media discourses related to this case have been examined previously (Schoenmaker and

Alexander 2012; Munro 2014; Fozdar and Spittles 2014). For example,

Schoenmaker and Alexander (2012, 17) investigate “how the use of social media to express outrage forced the Australian Government to change its policy” by temporarily banning live exports. Further, Munro’s (2014) paper explores how this media campaign ultimately “failed to permanently ban the trade”, with the Australian Government lifting the ban after just one month.

Fozdar and Spittles (2014) paper also focuses on the media coverage following the Four Corners exposé and explores constructs of “Australian-ness” and its implications for nationalism and rights. This project contributes to these discussions in the literature by providing new context to this case, and asks different questions of the data to provide new understandings of discourses appearing in this policy area.

117

3.6.3 Analytical strategies

In keeping with the methodological approach to analysing problematisations as detailed above, this analysis stage of the project asked the following questions of the data:

 How is ‘animal cruelty’ shaped and reshaped as a problem in the

discourses around live export?

 What human-centred issues have been problematised within

discourses surrounding the treatment of animals in the live export

trade?

 What subject positions become available in these discourses, and

how do they reproduce human-centred problems?

 What power relations are produced and reproduced by

problematising ‘animal cruelty’ in the discourses around live

export?

Unlike quantitative analysis that usually initially involves a process of reducing data to numbers, qualitative research involves coding the data into categories or themes so that you can begin to see “patterns and explanations”

(Richards 2009, 94). Richards (2009, 95) argues that qualitative coding in research “should always be for a purpose”, so this project utilised coding strategies which were informed by the research questions guiding the project.

Throughout this coding process, both deductive and inductive coding were 118

employed, such that while the coding was informed by the research questions and the literature, it was not bound by them. The data analysis was completed manually by the principal researcher, and utilised Richards’ (2009) two categories of “topic coding” and “analytical coding” as a starting point to categorising and storing data. Topic coding refers to interpreting the data and categorising passages of discourse into topics (Richards 2009, 100), while analytical coding as a second stage of the process enables further interpretation of the discourse and a “reflection on meaning” being produced

(Richards 2009, 102). The below section will elaborate on this method of analysis and can be divided into two sections informed by the aims of the project: problematisation-as-knowledge; and problematisation-as-power.

3.6.3.1 Problematisation-as-knowledge

In this thesis, ‘Problematisation-as-knowledge’ refers to the discursive practices that produce ‘objects’ as ‘problems’ and the ‘subjects’ that become available through these discourses. Foucault’s work has provided conceptual tools to examine how ‘things’, whether that is an action or phenomena, can be seen and produced as ‘objects’ of thought (Foucault 2002; Deacon 2000). In keeping with this approach, to understand what knowledge is produced from the animal cruelty policy debates about live export, the analysis first involved thematic topic coding of the data and identifying the ‘objects’ that were produced as ‘problems’. Any object or topic about which there was some debate, or which was discussed, was categorised as a ‘problem’. This is

119

informed by the argument that ‘things’ do not exist independent of their ability to be produced through discourse. Categorising statements based on the topics being discussed and the ‘problem’ being produced enabled ease of analysis and presentation of findings. The findings chapters were able to be divided up into the separate ‘problems’ produced as discursive objects, and these were able to be categorised as animal-centred or human-centred. The human-centred ‘problems’ often circulated within these debates in the context of the impacts of ending live export on certain groups of humans.

Once this level of thematic topic coding was achieved, a second stage of analysis involving analytical coding was conducted to explore the subject positions these problematisations offered. The Literature Review (Chapter

Two) created certain expectations for what the research might find, and which subject positions relating to species, class, geography, race, culture and religion might already be differentiated in the discourses. An analysis of these subject positions enabled further reflection on how these ‘problems’ were debated, how definitional boundaries were constructed around these objects, and what truth claims were established about these objects of knowledge.

3.6.3.2 Problematisation-as-power

[T]he analysis, elaboration, and bringing into question of

power relations and the “agonism” between power

relations and the intransitivity of freedom is a permanent

120

political task inherent to all social existence (Foucault

1982, 791-792).

The analysis of what knowledge or ‘truth’ about particular ‘objects’ and

‘subjects’ is produced in discourse provides an opportunity for an analysis of how this production can be seen as a performance of power. Foucault’s (1982,

792) work in The Subject and Power, offered guidance regarding how to employ an analysis of power, which has been taken up by researchers (see for example James 2004). As this project involves a study of discursive problematisations, this thesis offers another slight adaptation from Foucault’s

(1982) work. This analysis of problematisation-as-power considered a number of key elements discussed by Foucault (1982) and involved utilising four stages of analysis: objectives; differentiations; strategies; and resistance.

The first stage of analysis is presented as somewhat higher-order and leads on very clearly from the analytical work on knowledge discussed above. It involved identifying the “types of objectives pursued” within the discourses

(Foucault 1982, 792). The primary objective pursued was the success of the problematisations of the discourses. This success makes visible the ‘truth’ claim of how animal cruelty should be conceptualised and governed. Another type of objective pursued is what Foucault considers the “maintenance of privileges” (Foucault 1982, 792). Therefore, the analysis involved identifying which knowledges were favoured and whose authority maintained in the success of these problematisations.

121

The second and third stages enabled the analysis of how these objectives were upheld. The second stage involved the identification and description of key differentiations constructed in the discourse. These discourses privilege one category over another, encouraging subjects to continue favouring certain knowledges, and thus creating the space for the differentiations to be seen as an exercise of power. The third analytical step focused on the discursive strategies employed to achieve the objectives pursued within the discourses.

Language practices can be used as a means to bring “power relations into being” (Foucault 1982, 792). James (2004) provides an example of how legal jargon can work to this effect. His research explores how legal doctrine and terminology learned at law school is differentiated from non-legal knowledge, and therefore positioned as superior and the most important knowledge to have (James 2004, 71). Similarly, in this project, different discursive strategies of power were employed and these strategies created division and maintained hierarchies of knowledge.

The fourth stage in the analysis involved the identification of forms of resistance in the discourses. As previously noted, resistance is integral in any

Foucauldian analysis of power. As James (2004, 49) observes, this stage of analysis involves “the identification of the various forms of resistance which inevitably arose as a result of its exercise”. This step of analysis thus involved identifying discursive practices of resistance which challenged the objectives of the discourses. In this research, each of the problematisations encountered some form of resistance in the discourses.

122

3.6.4 Presentation of findings

The findings chapters are divided into the above two sections – knowledge and power – and are structured to answer the four research sub-questions.

Drawing upon Foucault’s understanding of these concepts, and their relationship to discourse, the first two findings chapters demonstrate what knowledge is produced in the discourses analysed here, including the objects which are being produced as ‘problems’, and the subject positions that are produced through these problematisations. Chapter Four focuses on the animal-centred problematisations being produced that shape ‘animal cruelty’ as an object, addressing the first research sub-question: ‘How is ‘animal cruelty’ shaped and reshaped as a problem in the discourses around live export?’ Chapter Five focuses on the three human-centred problems which arise within the discourses surrounding the treatment of animals in the live export debate: economic insecurity of Australian farmers and rural Australian communities; Indonesia’s food insecurity; and the international trade relationship between Australia and Indonesia. This analysis aids in answering the second research sub-question of the thesis: ‘What human-centred issues have bene problematised within discourses surrounding the treatment of animals in the live export debate?’ It also addresses the third research sub- question: ‘What subject positions become available in these discourses, and how do they reproduce human-centred problems?’ Finally, Chapter Six provides an analysis of how these problematisations can be seen as practices of power as outlined above, answering the fourth research sub-question:

123

‘What power relations are produced and reproduced by problematising

‘animal cruelty’ in the discourses around live export?’

3.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

In accordance with Queensland University of Technology’s (QUT) value of

“promoting a strong culture of research integrity and ethical research practices” (QUT Office of Research Ethics and Integrity 2015), this project considered the ethical obligations as a researcher and any concerns this may have presented. Attention was given to ensure the research complied with ethical principles of research as per the Australian Code for the Responsible

Conduct of Research (NHMRC 2007). The research was conducted responsibly, with honesty and integrity, providing due reference to other peoples’ material where required. As this project is interested in public discourses situated in an historical policy debate, the data consists of secondary sources that are publically available. This limited the obligations for data retention of primary materials in accordance with the code. The secondary materials were retained in hard copy and electronic copy for the purposes of analysis, and in the event that the documents were no longer publically available online at the time of completion of the research.

Due to there being no direct involvement with humans or animals, no approval from the appropriate university ethics committee was required. However, documents being publically available does not diminish the ethical obligations of researchers (for example, child pornography or copyrighted movies

124

obtained through film piracy can be in the public domain). In a process of

“reflective practice” (Heckenberg 2011, 200), this project remains sensitive to the social context this research is situated within and the ethical considerations this may present. This thesis produces statements about animal cruelty, food security, economic security, religion and culture, within which the researcher takes up a variety of positions of privilege.

Communication of the findings will be disseminated responsibly in accordance with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (NHMRC

2007) and, with this dissemination, it is acknowledged that this thesis produces knowledge shaping the understanding of these animal-centred and human-centred issues.

A discourse analysis does not mean that this thesis escapes these power dynamics. There is an acknowledgement that Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples may be affected by this research, as well as these animal cruelty policy debates and activism. Firstly, ‘Indigenous Australians’ are

“made subjects” (Foucault 1982, 777) in the live export policy debates. The debate imposes a truth on them that categorises Indigenous Australians, particularly those living in rural and remote communities, as individuals who homogenously experience economic insecurity. The discourses found within these policy debates encourage others to recognise this ‘truth’ about

Indigenous Australians, and this research acknowledges that this may also be an effect of the statements made in this analysis. The Australian Code for the

Responsible Conduct of Research (NHMRC 2007, 1.5) establishes that “research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples spans many methodologies

125

and disciplines”. A Foucauldian discourse analysis of selected secondary source policy documents does not escape the possibilities of involving and affecting this community, and acknowledges the role this research may play in how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people see themselves or are recognised by others.

Secondly, this project acknowledges the role that researchers play in upholding the social responsibility of constructing an ethical relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and the research community. This is in accordance with the Values and Ethics: Guidelines for

Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research

(NHMRC 2003) and the Guidelines for Ethical Research in Indigenous Studies

(AIATSIS 2012). A ban to live export and any changes to animal cruelty policy may disproportionately affect Indigenous peoples in Australia, particularly those living in rural communities with a large proportion of employment related to the animal agriculture sector. When these policy changes are proposed or supported by researchers, especially those from non-Indigenous backgrounds who benefit from colonial power, this may contribute to some

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples remaining “mistrustful of the enterprise of research itself” (NHMRC 2003, 1). These sensitivities of research are addressed to some extent by the intentions of the project – to expand the politics about animal cruelty discourses to be inclusive of human-human power relations and increase the understanding of how they are affected by these debates in policy, research, and activism.

126

3.8 LIMITATIONS

Due to the nature of research and approaches to methodology, several limitations were imposed upon this study and taken into account. Debates exist within the research field as to the applicability of terms such as

‘reliability’ and ‘validity’ to qualitative research, which are often the standard of measurement when discussing limitations in quantitative research

(Whittemore, Chase and Mandle 2001; Trochim 2006). This project utilises a criteria of judging qualitative research which includes credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability (Trochim 2006; Richards

2005, 139).

Credibility refers to the believability of the findings from the perspective of the research participants (Trochim 2006). The data involves secondary source documents including: transcripts of a documentary; longer interview transcripts from documentary participants; media release statements;

Hansard transcripts; several reports; and records of senate inquiries. Instead of just conducting an analysis of the documentary transcript or just the published reports, examining multiple sources of data allows for more credibility (Denscombe 2010, 62) in understanding how the participants’ understanding of ‘animal cruelty’ is constructed through discourse. This allows for an analysis of participant’s own statements where available to explain these terms and the contexts with which they are discussed in discourse.

127

The limitations of using transcripts of verbal communication as part of the data set needs to be considered. Any related public events such as public hearings or readings of Bills entered into parliament were not personally attended by the researcher. Instead, the data is naturally occurring data and presents accurate recordings of the proceedings allowing for the discourses to be analysed. The benefits of this are that the transcripts were not affected by personal bias and are not an interpretation but rather an accurate record of what was spoken. This is not to suggest that there are no limitations to this type of data. For one thing, it does not look at how statements were delivered.

A ‘conversation analysis’ of discourse, which this study does not do, considers the importance of non-verbal cues and characteristics which can have a significant aspect of discourse. Therefore, this study misses out on the opportunity to analyse “apparently trivial, but often crucial, pauses and overlaps” (Silverman 2001, 10). It also does not include an analysis of the documentary that considers the visual characteristics including the visuals of the treatment of animals. These decisions regarding scope were considered and, in light of the research aims and questions, they were excluded, as the project is interested primarily in the statements that were made. However, this does suggest possible opportunities for future work.

Transferability refers to whether the conclusions drawn can be generalised to a wider context (Trochim 2006). As previously discussed, using a case study design imposes limitations on the generalisability of the findings (Champion

2006, 121). The methods employed in this project may be replicated by another researcher with a different sample or case study. However, while the

128

conclusions drawn may provide a deeper understanding of how discourses shape our understandings of ‘animal cruelty’, this study does not intend to serve as a comparison or act as a model to be replicated to draw similar conclusions. For example, as this project is focused on policy debates, media discourses were outside the scope and focus of this research. This was an attempt to define a clear boundary for the data set, which can be difficult to do in case study designs (Denscombe 2010, 56). This does create its own limitations for the study in the sense that this project cannot provide an analysis of all the knowledge produced surrounding ‘animal cruelty’ in the public discourses at the time under investigation. It can only provide an analysis relevant to the specific discourses produced in the data set. The public availability of news media articles related to this case study does present opportunities for future research. However, the nature of the project suggests that while the methods may be transferable, the specific findings of problematisations present would likely differ due to the differing discursive practices under examination.

Dependability takes into account changes in the setting in which the research occurs and how these changes could impact the findings (Trochim 2006). Due to a limited timeframe under investigation, the conclusions can be critiqued on the basis of their dependability. However, this project is examining a particular historical and culturally specific context focusing on how discursive practices in this particular setting have produced objects and subjects for thought. In line with what Hans Eysenck (cited in Flyvbjerg 2006, 240) recommends for case study analyses, this project does not set out to examine

129

a specific context “in the hope of proving anything, but rather in the hope of learning something”. It is not intending to suggest that future policy documents or future public discourses in different historical and cultural contexts will produce exactly the same findings. For example, it does not prove that ‘food insecurity’ as a human-centred problem always circulates within animal cruelty policy debates, or live export debates more specifically. Nor does it suggest an analysis of media discourses related to this case study will produce the same findings. If discourse has the ability to change over time, space, and culture, then so does knowledge of animal cruelty as a discursive object. Therefore, this project hopes to provide an opportunity to learn and understand how human-human power relations can circulate within these types of policy debates and can be affected by the governing of animal cruelty, and therefore should be considered in future animal cruelty research and activism.

Confirmability refers to whether the findings could be confirmed or corroborated by another researcher (Trochim 2006). This relates to how multiple researchers may look at a similar text, interpreting it differently and drawing differing conclusions. As explained by van Dijk (2011, 7), “many research projects and groups will focus on only one property of discourse, thereby ignoring its constraints on other levels”. One way that confirmability could be accomplished would be for a secondary person to have access to the collected data and perform an audit on a sample of the findings. However, this project accepts the analytical work represents only one way of reading the data, and recognises that multiple interpretations may be possible. Further,

130

by not focusing on one definition and meaning, this thesis highlights and is working within that tension.

3.9 CONCLUSION

This chapter provided a detailed description of the conceptual tools and methodology that shape the approach to analysis employed in this thesis. It summarised Foucault’s concepts of discourse and power, and their relationship to his understandings of knowledge and truth. In doing so, this chapter demonstrated how Foucault’s understanding of these concepts can be used to interrogate assumptions about the human-animal power relationship, and can offer an alternative approach to animal cruelty research. It then detailed the methodological approach including the benefits of a qualitative analysis of discourse drawing on the tool of ‘problematisation’ to study a specific case study of animal use. The chapter then outlined the methods used in this project including the case study selection, data collection, and data analysis strategies. Finally, this chapter explored the ethical considerations and limitations that need to be taken into account when considering the findings of this analysis. The following three chapters will present the research findings and answer the four research sub-questions asked of the data.

Chapter Four first turns to the animal-centred problematisations produced in the discourses.

131

CHAPTER FOUR: Animal-centred problematisations in the live export debates

4.1 INTRODUCTION

There exists a large body of research examining the human-animal dynamic which has problematised the issue of ‘animal cruelty’ in a variety of ways as discussed in Chapter Two. Ideological contestation over how this concept should be seen and governed abounds, with the literature often debating the best solution to reduce the oppression of animals by humans. The previous chapters have demonstrated that this oppressor-victim narrative describing the human-animal relationship has failed to eradicate animal cruelty, with animal use and death at the hands of humans continuing to be legalised and normalised in Australian society. Any successes at preventing animal cruelty are also debatable, especially when consumer behaviour within Australia cannot affect the live export trade for example. By and large, the animal cruelty literature ignores human-human dynamics relating to food systems and does not examine how these power relations may be influencing animal cruelty policy debates. Therefore, to achieve greater success in animal protection activism and policy, this thesis suggests that the discursive problematisation of ‘animal cruelty’ needs to be understood in a more nuanced way.

132

Applying Foucault’s theoretical understandings of discourse, knowledge, and power (see Chapter Three), this chapter attempts to understand animal- centred problematisations within the policy debates surrounding live export following the 2011 Four Corners exposé into the trade. Chapter Three detailed a methodological approach addressing four key research sub-questions driving the analysis of this project. This chapter explores the first research sub-question: ‘How is ‘animal cruelty’ shaped and reshaped as a problem in the discourses around live export?’ It is an important first step in the analysis, as it establishes how ‘animal cruelty’ is shaped through a human-animal lens before turning to the human-human dynamics circulating within these discussions. Foucault’s work allows for an analysis of ‘animal cruelty’ to move away from the ‘welfare versus rights’ debate that dominates the literature, and offers an alternative approach that enables an examination of how ‘animal cruelty’ is produced discursively and shaped as an object for consideration and government. This approach rejects an objective truth of what is considered cruel to animals. Instead, it opens up an examination of the truth claims suggesting how ‘animal cruelty’ should be understood and which possible solutions are suggested and taken up, and can therefore also be altered.

The analysis of this chapter illustrates that through contesting definitional boundaries shaping what should or should not be considered ‘cruel’, the discourses uphold a truth claim that humans have a duty to the welfare of animals and that ‘animal cruelty’ is a problem for animals requiring a solution.

This is what Matthew Cole (2011) refers to as “animal-centred welfare discourses”, because the problem is centred around the consequences for

133

animals (so it is animal-centred), and it maintains the truth claim that humans have a moral obligation to protect the welfare of an animal but not their life if the death is ‘necessary’. Accordingly, one key term in the debates which framed the discussion and defined what constituted cruelty or not was

‘necessity’. This definitional boundary of ‘necessity’ positioned only certain aspects of the trade as cruel, and these could be regulated more strictly to ensure that the objective of the continuation of the ‘non-cruel’ aspects of the trade were met. Examining these discourses enables insight on the impact of these constructions of ‘necessity’, shaping how animals and their welfare are governed and how possible solutions maintain their success.

This chapter is structured around the three specific components of the live export industry where ‘animal cruelty’ was made visible in the discourses: transportation; handling; and slaughter practices. The ‘transportation’ stage relates to the overseas journey of live cattle en route to Indonesia. The stage of ‘handling’ is identified in this thesis as the period between entering the

Indonesian abattoir and before the slaughter of the cattle. Finally, ‘slaughter practices’ relates to the methods of killing. These three sites shaped how

‘animal cruelty’ was known and understood in different ways. This investigation allows for an understanding of how different groups of people constructed specific targets of government for the Australian Government to consider in its deliberation of the two private members bills seeking to end live export. It will be seen that the way in which ‘animal cruelty’ was problematised suggested solutions that did not require an end to the trade, and instead, the live export trade was positioned as the ‘solution’.

134

4.2 TRANSPORT

The process of transporting live animals overseas in the chain of the live export industry is one which makes the trade unique within the wider

Australian animal agricultural industry. Claims from the literature suggest that this unique stage in the industry marks it as “inherently cruel” and thus it becomes a specific target of intervention for those seeking to address animal cruelty (Morfuni 2011, 449; Smietanka 2013, 4-5). ‘Transport’ was established in the debate as fundamental to the concerns of many people over the treatment of animals, as it singled out the trade as having a unique space for acts of ‘animal cruelty’ to occur. For example, Jess Sackmann, a member of the general public who requested the Australian Government ban the industry, stated that “improving foreign abattoirs will not improve the transport conditions, nor will it reduce the number of animals that suffer and die on ships” (Submission 123). This section will demonstrate how ‘animal cruelty’ was shaped and reshaped as a problem in the policy debates specifically via discussions around mortality rates during the transportation stage of the trade, and discussions around the length of the journey specifically.

4.2.1 Mortality rates

The first way the transportation stage of the live export trade was brought into the field of representation as a target for consideration was through discussions surrounding the death and injury of cattle occurring on the ships

135

en route to Indonesia. The deaths occurring on these ships were highlighted in the Senate Inquiry submissions (see for example submissions 6, 114, 123,

130, 142, 153, 175, 286, 298, 410), earning the label of “ships of death” (see submissions 130, 140). In this way, all oversea transport vessels were homogenised and represented as a site where death frequently occurs, making this a space for cruelty to be ‘seen’.

The industry regulatory framework is worth noting as it demonstrates how this stage of the industry was already a target of government. Many in the policy debates engaged with this framework, which deploys the use of percentages when regulating the acceptability of mortality. According to the

Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) (DAFF 2011, 107), the reportable shipboard mortality level for cattle for journeys greater than 10 days is 1%, and for journeys less than 10 days is 0.5%. ‘Mortality incidents’ that report deaths above accepted levels are required to be reported to the

Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources for investigation to ensure the industry’s commitment to managing ‘unacceptable’ deaths. Moore et al (2015, 339) identified in their research, funded by the industry representatives of MLA and LiveCorp, that a reduction in shipboard mortality rates since 2000 has occurred and that the majority of voyages fall below the accepted mortality levels. In line with this research, in the Four

Corners (2011, 2) documentary, Cameron Hall, CEO of LiveCorp, stated that

“(w)ell above 99 per cent of all animals loaded arrive fit and well into the marketplace destinations”. Similarly, Kelsey Neilson from the Australians

Supporting Beef Farmers (ASBF) organisation, noted in their submission that

136

the mortality rates were “less than 1% and improving all the time”

(Submission 269). Therefore, it was established in the discourses that the

Australian Government should continue considering this aspect of the trade in its regulation and this should be framed around this ‘acceptable’ mortality level.

The policy discussions surrounding sea transportation reproduced animal- centred welfare discourses (Cole 2011) as they acknowledged a claim that the cattle being exported were sentient and this produced ethical concerns over their treatment. 6 Yet, it positioned their inevitable death within the trade as

‘necessary’ and ‘acceptable’, thus departing from an animal rights/liberation perspective (see Regan 1983). A definitional boundary around

(non)acceptable mortality rates en route to Indonesia was established as central to shaping the way in which the transport stage is positioned as cruel or not. There were two contrasting claims suggesting how this definitional boundary should be considered:

1. inherently cruel; or

2. cruel only if defined as such in legislation.

6 As noted in Chapter Two, the literature has established a truth claim of animal sentience, which is also upheld by the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (2011). This thesis does not explore the science of animal sentience. Instead, the analysis highlights when the discourse makes and upholds the claim of animal sentience in order to illustrate how this knowledge shapes the governing of animal cruelty within the live export policy debates.

137

The first claim was identifiable within animal protectionists’ arguments for why the trade should be discontinued. There was a clear perspective that one death is one death too many, disagreeing with the ‘acceptability’ of these mortality rates. This position challenged the assurances the industry provided in how cattle were cared for on overseas transport vessels. Animals Australia’s position was identified that live export should not be supported because

“animals do suffer and die during the journey” (Glenys Oogjes, Executive

Director of Animals Australia, Committee Hansard, 10 August 2011, 21). Lyn

White from Animals Australia argued the current regulatory framework

“projects that suffering and deaths during transport are an acceptable part of daily business” and they arguably should not be (Committee Hansard, 10

August 2011, 11). Similarly, Edgar’s Mission Farm Sanctuary highlighted how the millions of animals that died during sea transportation are considered by the industry as an “acceptable loss”, and argued that this should be reconsidered (Submission 298).

While on the surface, this claim in the debate critiqued the loss of life as the problem, many animal protectionists propagating this truth still engaged with an animal welfare perspective of animal cruelty preserving the status quo between humans and animals. While death was constructed as an indicator of cruelty in these discourses, death in and of itself was not considered cruel.

Those seeking to define ‘animal cruelty’ as inclusive of death on ships were often simultaneously holding the view that this is an acceptable loss of life in

Australian abattoirs, and supported a shift to a chilled meat trade. For example, Animals Australia’s position was reiterated in the Four Corners

138

documentary when Lyn White said, “We should be killing animals here under

Australian conditions, under our control, and then they should only be shipped as meat products, not live animals” (Four Corners 2011, 6). Their argument in support of the intentional killing of animals (domestically in Australia) to reduce the unintentional death of animals on overseas transport vessels failed to gain purchase with industry insiders and the Australian Federal

Government.

Members of the Australian Senate did take up this specific concern for mortality following the Four Corners documentary. Australian Greens Senator

Rachel Siewert’s second reading speech in Parliament, after the presentation of the Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 on 15 June 2011, highlighted the issue of animal cruelty during the transporting process.

Siewert advised that “the cattle travel from northern Australia to Indonesia in ships with 2,000-3,000 head capacity and the trip can take between 5-10 days, with between one and five animals dying during each shipment from injury, heat stress or pneumonia”. Senator Nicholas Xenophon, an Independent

Senator at the time, reported in his second reading speech in Parliament on 20

June 2011, upon presentation of the Live Animal Export Restriction and

Prohibition Bill 2011, that of the 150 million sheep and cattle transported for slaughter overseas over the past thirty years, “more than two million of these animals have died en route”. Therefore, both Senators agreed that the actual overseas transportation of live cattle was a problem, especially due to deaths occurring on board. These statements defined transportation as a target for

139

government, and it appeared that it was necessary to construct this notion of mortality in order to govern this ‘site’ of possible cruelty.

Interestingly, several submissions commented on the industry’s language choices surrounding the reported deaths on these journeys. Barbara Rendall, a member of the general public who claimed to have campaigned against the live export industry for 20 years, noted in her submission that while industry representatives may consider the low morbidity rate of 1% a positive, this

“equates to approximately 1,000 deaths in the case of an average ship load of sheep for instance” (Submission 6). Similarly, Tania Cummings (another member of the general public) noted the use of percentages by the industry serves to downplay the issue because deaths sound better as a small percentage of one rather than thousands of dead cattle (Submission 130). The discursive strategies deployed by the industry to alleviate public perception of live export have been similarly raised by animal protectionist groups such as

Live Export Shame (LES) since the Four Corners documentary aired. LES

(2012) argue the “invented” phrases like ‘World’s best practice’ and ‘World class standards’ are some discursive strategies employed by the industry and the Australian Government to downplay the treatment of animals within the trade. This critique over language by animal protectionists attempts to suggest a new way to consider the acceptability of mortality reflected in the industry regulatory framework. However, this view failed to gain traction with the Australian Government when making these policy decisions about live export.

140

The discourses were successful in establishing the claim that an animal’s welfare on board should be reflected upon in the live export policy debates.

Aside from deaths, specific issues were given consideration in the debates including the stress involved for the animals, overcrowding, lack of ventilation, the presence of faeces and urine increasing morbidity rates, animals thrown overboard if injured or dead, danger to pregnant cattle, and minimal veterinary staff on board (see for examples submissions 6, 130, 134, 140, 279,

298, 354). This concern over animal welfare on board is raised in the literature by Craig (2012, 54), who suggests that “the ratio of five stock workers and one veterinarian charged with the care of 100,000 livestock hardly falls in favour of animal welfare”. Therefore, the treatment of cattle on board was problematised in the discourses, suggesting that ‘unnecessary’ death and harm due to this stage of the trade should be understood as ‘cruelty’.

Conversely, accepted percentages of death and harm were positioned as

‘necessary’ and not cruel.

Despite engaging with the mainstream animal welfare position and establishing that the transportation stage causes harm, injury, and death to animals, the claim that only a zero mortality rate should be accepted as non- cruel was positioned as outside the existing Government-accepted regulation of this aspect of the trade. The challenge to the existing industry regulatory framework failed to gain traction in the discourses. Notably, the original Four

Corners documentary itself excluded the transportation stage and the conditions on board in its problematisation of animal cruelty, impacting on the propagation of this claim. Sarah Ferguson, the reporter for this investigation,

141

explained that this was an intentional choice made in the creation of the documentary. In this exchange with Ferguson and Michael Doyle, the producer for Four Corners, the transportation is noted as not a site for animal cruelty:

Senator Back: So in the actual loading process and on the

ship, did you see or record any evidence of cruelty?

Mr Doyle: No.

Senator Back: Nothing at all that you found untoward?

Mr Doyle: Not in the ship, not in the loading, no.

Ms Ferguson: And we did actually go out of our way to

make that explicit in the program. It is in the opening

few moments of the program.

Mr Doyle: In fact, the script actually makes, in a sense, a

contrast between the orderly process of the loading and

what unfolds later in Indonesia (Committee Hansard, 14

September 2011, 9).

This support from opposing positions between the industry insiders and those aiming to expose the industry, aided in the propagation of ‘the truth’ that the transportation stage of the live export industry is outside the definitional boundary of ‘animal cruelty’ so long as it meets current standards of acceptability. This position was also reproduced by some in the literature. For example, Craig (2012, 54) highlighted while there may be room for improvement including the number of veterinary personnel on board, the

142

heavy regulation of the overseas transport vessels was currently to

‘acceptable’ standards. Instead, Craig argued the ‘problem’ of animal cruelty within the trade is due to what happens to animals once they reach destination countries.

4.2.2 Length of Journey

The length of the journey was also discussed in the policy debates shaping the way in which animal cruelty was understood and related to, including what is non-cruel in the context of ‘necessity’. Several submissions to the Senate

Inquiry highlighted the issue of length of the journeys over sea. The journeys were described in a multitude of ways including “long and arduous” (Barbara

Rendell, Submission 6), a “dreadful experience” (Glenys Lawton, submission

398), and “inherently cruel” (Renate Homburg, Submission 78; Sharon

Rabusin, Submission 142; Committee Hansard, 10 August 2011, 1). When compared to the idea of a chilled meat trade, any journey length was shaped as ‘unnecessary’ by some in the debates (see for example Submission 398). In their submission, the Humane Society International highlighted the chilled meat export event from New Zealand to London on 15 February 1882 by the newly formed Bell-Coleman Mechanical Refrigeration Company (Submission

279a). They argued that “over 125 years later, the cruel and unnecessary long distance transport of live animals for slaughter still exists” (Humane Society

International, Submission 279a, 4). These public discourses were working alongside the legal discourses in framing the transporting site as ‘cruel’, as our legal framework for animal cruelty incorporates the definitional boundary of

143

‘unnecessary harm’ (see for example the Animal Care and Protection Act (Qld)

2001). These arguments also propagated the animal welfare position, which

Francione (201) criticises as not challenging the acceptability of killing animals for food, but rather asserting the moral and legal obligation of humans to treat animals ‘humanely’ in the process.

Statements that countered those wanting a ban to the trade due to this stage of the process positioned sea transportation as ‘necessary’, compared to alternatives which would have an increased risk of injury and death. For example, in terms of the length of journeys, there were attempts to frame the estimated travel time as “relatively short” and therefore humane (See for example submissions 269, 311). Moral justifications of the ‘necessity’ of sea transportation usually took the form of comparisons to road transport within

Australia. For example, in Submissions 311 and 314, it was noted “there is much less danger of accidents on the boats than on the road”. This was echoed by Stephen Meerwald, the Managing Director of Wellard Rural Exports Pty Ltd, who argued “the best welfare outcome for those cull cattle is a 2½ or three day voyage on a vessel with feed and water, as opposed to a three or four day trucking exercise across Australia” (Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 2).

These justifications reproduced animal-centred welfare discourses while representing the live overseas transportation process as honouring Australia’s moral and legal obligation to higher animal welfare standards.

It was pointed out by several of those who sought to maintain live export that

Indonesia is currently the closest slaughterhouse available to the cattle

144

stations in Northern Australia (see for example Submission 418). This worked as an attempt to respond to concerns over the ‘problem’ of overseas transportation by saying the alternative of a road journey in Australia is worse and would be a failure of our moral and legal obligation in reducing

‘unnecessary’ suffering. Similarly, Jamie Burton from Kilto Station recalls taking a friend on one of the boats and noted the friend claimed “racehorses don’t even get treated that well” (Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 55).

Another comparison was made that these boats include a death rate that “is lower than that on a human cruise ship” (Gehan Jayawardhana, Committee

Hansard, 2 September 2011, 16). This minimised the ‘problem’ of overseas transportation as an issue by shifting the moral rationale on which governance was to be based to an alternative problem.

Any domestic transportation involved in the trade was also absent from the

Four Corners documentary. The feedlots in Indonesia were briefly discussed in the documentary, where the cattle reside prior to their domestic transport to the abattoirs. Greg Pankhurst, Director at Juang Jaya Feedlot, was interviewed as an industry insider who had worked in Indonesia for over twenty years. He reported that “feedlotters from around the world come here and say, Greg and Dicky, you have a five star resort here, you have a five star resort for animals” (Four Corners 2011, 10). By being selective of where they send their cattle for slaughter, Pankhurst asserted that treatment of his cattle is good, with any atypical events being outside of his control. Therefore the problem, as produced by the Four Corners documentary and reproduced by many in the following policy debates, was confined to the events occurring

145

within the abattoirs rather than the issue of transportation (domestically or on/during overseas transports).

This was echoed by David Galvin, the General Manager of Indigenous Land

Corporation, who made several observations based on what was reported in the Four Corners documentary. Galvin noted the boat transportation of cattle is “world standard and humane” and this “was depicted on the boats in the

Four Corners program” (Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 39). Galvin continued by commenting that the feedlots in Indonesia also shown in the documentary were a “first-class operation”. These counter discourses from those with insider knowledge asserted that it was just the ‘instances’ of mistreatment within the abattoirs that needed addressing to perfect the whole production line within the live export trade (Committee Hansard, 1 September

2011, 39). These statements therefore re-established that transportation across seas should not be considered inherently cruel, therefore providing no moral rationale for the banning of overseas transportation. Instead, the use of phrasing such as ‘first-class operation’ and ‘five star resort’ for animals reproduced what Cole (2011, 84) refers to as “happy meat” discourses, making this stage “less vulnerable to critical scrutiny”.

Following from the public hearings and the submissions, the Senate Inquiry

Report (2011) discussed the concerns surrounding the issue of transportation for the Australian Government to consider. The report made note of the positions of several animal protectionist groups’ positions on the issue of transportation. It stated the World Society for the Protection of Animals

146

(WSPA) position that the trade is “inherently cruel due to the long distances and the sheer scale of the industry” (Senate Inquiry Report, November 2011,

7). The report stated that the RSPCA assert the transportation over long distances has “inherent risks” (Senate Inquiry Report, November 2011, 8). This was echoed by statements from Animals Australia and Animal Liberation ACT

(Senate Inquiry Report, November 2011, 10). However, the report made it clear that the current alternative arrangements available such as transporting them to other domestic markets was not viable and at the present time created more animal welfare concerns due to the distance involved in travelling by road (see Senate Inquiry Report, November 2011, 82).

Thus, the prevailing truth claim in the Senate Inquiry Report was that it was

‘necessary’ to continue live sea transportation of cattle given the lack of alternatives positioned as viable. Further, the Senate Inquiry Report made it clear in its conclusions that The Committee’s goal was to “preserve this significant trade and the communities it underpins” (Senate Inquiry Report,

November 2011, 90). Therefore, any justifications encouraging further government activity in regards to banning live sea transportation were ignored by The Committee and labelled as ‘dissenting’ in the Senate Inquiry

Report.

Ultimately, the claim that only zero deaths on board would constitute a non- cruel situation was not taken up as an authoritative truth claim by The

Committee or subsequently the Australian Government. Those raising concerns over the standard of acceptable mortality from industry insiders did

147

not persuade the Australian Government to reconsider whether live export was ‘necessary’. Subsequently, the Australian Government took up the industry’s claim and reproduced the definitional boundary of ‘animal cruelty’ which suggested that the transport stage was not inherently ‘cruel’ due to occurrences of injury and death, so long as mortality rates were below an

‘acceptable’ standard and seen in the context of ‘necessity’. These discourses reproduced the dominant understanding of ‘animal cruelty’ in legal discourses, making ‘animal cruelty’ known from an animal welfare perspective where it is “morally acceptable to use animals as human resources so long as we treat them ‘humanely’ and do not inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering on them”

(Francione 2010, 24). Further, these prevailing discourses established that the boundaries of animal cruelty during the transportation phase were in line with existing government legislation, which ensured the trade was maintained.

4.3 HANDLING

The ‘handling’ stage of the industry – the practices in Indonesian abattoirs in the lead up to the killing of the cattle – offered another way of shaping ‘animal cruelty’ as an object to be known, and produced its own set of practices that policed the boundaries over what should or should not be considered cruel.

As this stage is explicitly not about the death of the animal, these policy debates enabled the propagation of the animal welfare position and sought to re- establish the ethical and moral obligation of humans having “the highest duties towards animals” (Smith 2009, 232) but not to the extent that the animal’s

148

“interest in continuing to live” is considered (Francione 2010, 24). Specific handling practices causing stress and pain by slaughtermen prior to death were used primarily by advocates of the ban to argue the industry is ‘cruel’ and needs to be ended by the Australian Government. Those who challenged this solution to the ‘problem’, interestingly, deployed similar animal-centred welfare discourses assisting in the successful problematisation of this stage of the process from farm to food. However, they successfully worked to bring certain abattoirs and abattoir workers into the field of representation, making it possible for them to be targets of ‘improved intervention’ by the Australian

Government through better facilities and training.

It is important to note that ‘stress’ and ‘pain’ can be understood as related or interchangeable in some contexts in the data, and some quotes provided in this analysis refer to both concepts. This reproduced similar understandings to those within legal discourses, such as that contained in Queensland’s anti- cruelty legislation, which defines ‘pain’ as including “distress and mental or physical suffering” (ACPA 2001, 144, emphasis added). In some contexts,

‘stress’ was used to describe mental suffering including experiences of fear, while ‘pain’ was used when describing physical suffering. Both concepts became objects requiring attention and offered ways of shaping how ‘animal cruelty’ should be known and governed.

149

4.3.1 Stress

Stress was specifically highlighted as relevant in the industry regulatory discourses surrounding livestock. For example, the standards that regulate the exporters’ side of the industry states that the land transport of livestock must be “handled in a manner that prevents injury and minimises stress throughout the journey” (DAFF 2011, 39). This focus on reducing stress by

Australian exporters was noted by Mr John Beer, the National President of the

Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association. Beer highlighted the concern over poor ramp facilities that “increases stress on animals. It increases the risk of bruising, the risk of injury and the frequency of having to use a prodder” (Committee Hansard, 10 August 2011, 32).

Stress was mentioned as a concern across all data sources, including the public hearings and commissioned reviews into the trade. It was made further significant by describing how stress is cumulative (see submissions 114, 124,

130, 149, 157) and is increased throughout each stage of the live export process. Two Australian veterinarians, whose submissions to the Senate

Inquiry are the same except for the introductory paragraph, both highlighted the cumulative nature of stress:

Stress is cumulative. From the moment Australian

livestock are loaded onto a truck at a farm, there is

stress. If this is minimised with short transportation and

Australian slaughter then it is acceptable. It is not

150

acceptable to keep adding stress: boat trip, feedlotting,

internal transport in non-specialist vehicle (usually with

no non-slip floors and no facilities for unloading if

transport is prolonged or halted), adverse slaughter

conditions, etc. (Dr Linda Feelman, submission 114, and

Dr Susan Foster, submission 134).

The Four Corners documentary particularly highlighted stress as an important factor contributing to animal cruelty in Indonesian abattoirs and established that stress is visibly detectable. In the documentary, Dr Temple Grandin noted the animals “can get so stressed” throughout the entire slaughter process

(Four Corners 2011, 12). In describing the experience of stress, Dr Bidda Jones described the vocalisation of one particular steer noting “the tongue is coming out, so clearly distressed. You can see from his eyes that he’s distressed. These are all behaviours that are indicative of fear, anxiety, distress” (Four Corners

2011, 6). In these statements, fear in this context was presented as a case of, and effect of, distress. While this might be argued to be open to interpretation in the footage, the documentary relied upon scientific and authoritative knowledge to lend weight to this representation of fear. The documentary stated that “fear circuits in the brains of mammals have been completely mapped. Animals definitely experience fear” (Dr Temple Grandin in Four

Corners 2011, 16).

In the animal ethics literature, Munro (2015, 217), who draws upon what

Boltanski (1999) identifies as “distant suffering”, argues that making suffering

151

of animals visible encourages humans to become indignant, because of the pity they feel. One particular moment was described in detail in the Four Corners documentary alongside footage of cattle watching others in front of them in the slaughter line getting killed and cut up, “until there was only one left”

(Sarah Ferguson in Four Corners 2011, 16). The documentary described the situation as “heartbreaking. A steer [stood] there trembling violently as it watched its mates cut up around it. They were clearly cognisant of what was going on and it was causing them extreme fear” (Lyn White in Four Corners

2011, 16). The documentary thus made animal suffering visible, and contributed to buttressing the truth claim that the animals expressed fear.

This is a strong discursive tactic that encourages empathy from the viewer and plays a significant role in defining this as cruel.

The relationship between stress and the restraint boxes used in the

Indonesian abattoirs (see Appendix C) was also discussed in the data, and consequently this relation became a target for Government. The purpose of a restraint box is to restrict the movements of the animal and to ensure correct positioning for “quick and effective slaughter” (Whittington and Hewitt 2009,

7). As noted in the Four Corners documentary, Meat & Livestock Australia Ltd

(MLA) and LiveCorp commissioned and installed metal restraint boxes to aid in the slaughter process, and this implementation of restraint boxes in overseas markets has received funding and support by the Australian Federal

Government (Four Corners 2011, 7). The documentary included an excerpt from a promotional video by MLA, featuring Jason Hatchett from MLA telling the viewer that the “restraining box takes away all the risk involved when

152

trying to restrain the Australian cattle, making it more efficient, effective, profitable and most of all reducing the stress levels to the cattle” (Four Corners

2011, 9). One slaughterman, Anang Sujana, agreed and told the viewer that

“the box is safer because you can secure the cow in it” (Four Corners 2011, 7).

However, the Four Corners documentary was able to challenge these statements and was successful in singling out the Mark I restraint box as an object of concern and which subsequently led to the Australian Government commissioning a review into both the Mark I and Mark IV Boxes.

Mark Schipp, the Australian Chief Veterinary Officer, carried out the review into the two restraint boxes and compared their appropriateness by their compliance to the OIE guidelines (OIE 2017). Schipp noted the Mark IV box was consistent with the guidelines, however suggested several ways in which the Mark I restraint box caused distress and failed to meet these guidelines (An assessment of the ongoing appropriateness of Mark I and IV restraint boxes

2011, 7). These included: failure to provide a non-slippery floor; failure to avoid equipment exerting excessive pressure, thus causing struggling or vocalisation of animals; failure to reduce noise of air hissing and clanging metal increasing stress levels; failure to ensure equipment has no sharp edges that would harm animals; and failure to use restraining device appropriately and avoid no jerking or sudden movements of device (An assessment of the ongoing appropriateness of Mark I and IV restraint boxes 2011, 4-7). It was therefore suggested that the Mark I restraint box needed to be removed, in order for the non-cruel aspects of the trade to continue.

153

Stress experienced by the cattle throughout the handling stage at Indonesian abattoirs using the Mark I restraint box was also discussed in the submissions to the Senate Inquiry. One submission asserted that “restraint is often one of the most stressful and potentially painful aspects of the slaughter process, and the downfall of these boxes has added to the stress and pain that the cattle are suffering” (Pengilly, general public, submission 113). Jan Kendall, who noted in her submission that she grew up on a dairy/beef farm and her family were farmers for many generations, said that the evidence surrounding the use of

Mark I restraining boxes showed that it “forces animals to fall onto concrete and causes panic, stress, broken legs and smashed jaws” (Submission 214).

Another submission challenged the livestock industry bodies’ role in increasing “significant stress and trauma caused to Australian livestock by funding and designing restraint boxes that significantly harm the mental and physical wellbeing of these animals” (Chantal Teague, general public, submission 120). These examples illustrate how animal-centred welfare discourses were propagated through claims that the handling stage of the industry, particularly handling involving the Mark I restraint box, caused stress to the cattle and that this was cruel and ought to be regulated as such.

In addition, the concerns regarding stress levels experienced by cattle were sometimes engaged with by industry because it had a financial cost as well as an animal welfare cost. Thus, dealing with this impacted directly on other goals they sought to achieve. For example, some submissions noted how the industry was concerned that prices of the meat produced had fallen due to chemical responses from the “stress during the slaughter process” (see

154

submissions 155, 182). These submissions engaged with scientific language as a tool of discourse and power to lend weight to their claims. Mr John

Lachlan MacKinnon, CEO of Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council, noted that stress should be a concern commercially, as:

Obviously an animal that has been treated more

humanely and is able to be processed in the quickest

possible manner with the least amount of stress

obviously yields a lot better from live weight to carcass

weight, and that obviously turned into dollars, or in this

particular case rupiah. This is probably the biggest

driver there possibly can be [of reducing cruelty]

(Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011, 3).

Tony Phillips, who stated his support for ending live export, observed in his submission, “it isn’t any wonder there have been issues of meat quality when the animals are so stressed and terrified” (submission 222). Concerns of meat quality reproduced more human-centric approaches to understanding and defining animal cruelty, where animals were considered a human resource and harm against them was unacceptable if it impacts on humans (Arcari

2017). These statements reproduce a human-centred understanding of animals where they are considered for how they benefit humans and produce the best economic outcomes (Taylor 2013; Wadiwel 2002). Problematising animal cruelty in this way, by viewing it through the levels of profitability and

“meat quality”, furthers a narrative of animal welfare being “win-win” (Cole

155

2011, 87-88). However, this was not typical of the data and, by and large, stress was constructed as a factor impacting negatively on animal’s experiences without regard for how it impacts on humans.

Counter statements did emerge following the Four Corners documentary which did not necessarily produce alternative knowledge that the restraint boxes were a problem, but rather provided a comparison to a ‘crueller’ alternative. This, therefore, suggests another definitional boundary of what should or should not be considered cruel as ‘necessary without viable alternatives’. Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) stated the implementation and use of restraining boxes were an improvement on

“traditional slaughter” methods, and these boxes therefore “eased stress for animals” when compared to alternatives (Submission 213). This was supported by Mr John Francis Armstrong, the Director of Gilnockie station, which exports live cattle to Indonesia. Armstrong questioned the assertions made in the Four Corners documentary by making the argument that the restraint boxes used in the Indonesian abattoirs were designed to ensure no stress or “low-stress” experienced by the cattle (Committee Hansard, 2

September 2011, 18). This comparison to the ‘traditional’ methods still practiced in Indonesian abattoirs and shown in the Four Corners documentary, was a clear theme in the data (further discussed in the next section). However in the context of stress, there was a clear comparison made between the use of the restraint boxes and more traditional methods. By trying to make comparisons to the traditional methods as being more stressful for the cattle in the lead up to their eventual death, these statements were able to challenge

156

the narrative in the documentary that problematised the animal cruelty involved in the use of the Mark I boxes. However, while this counter point may have supported the use of restraint boxes in general compared to traditional methods, it was not successful in minimising the ‘problem’ of the restraint boxes in their current form as one that the Australian Government needed to consider in these policy debates.

4.3.2 Pain

Alongside stress, pain was the other definitional boundary on handling that shaped how animal cruelty was seen and understood in the discourses.

Specifically, behaviours by slaughtermen including the use of water or sticks were deemed as cruel because they were not “necessary” (Cameron Hall in

Four Corners 2011, 7) or “not required” (Professor Ivan Caple in Four Corners

2011, 10). One particular incident was described in order to illustrate the specific behaviours causing pain occurring in the lead up to the death of the animal:

Sarah Ferguson: This white steer has been roped. He slips on

the wet faeces-covered floor and breaks his leg. He slumps

over a stone pylon.

Over 25 minutes the handler goads him to move despite the

broken leg.

Lyn White: At that point he was in a state of collapse and he

should've been slaughtered on the spot. Instead, the worker

157

decided that he would do everything to try and get him to his

feet, to drag him in for slaughter.

Sarah Ferguson: He breaks his tail, gouges deep into his nose

and eye socket.

Lyn White: He would try and get his head away when his

eyes were being gouged. He just couldn't get to his feet

because his leg was broken.

Sarah Ferguson: The stricken animal is kicked – altogether

nine times.

Lyn White: When all else failed they tried to put water up his

nostrils until they finally realised that he wasn't going to get

to his feet and then he suffered the most horrendous death.

(Four Corners 2011, 14).

These behaviours, including slipping, kicking, gouging, and use of water were framed as unnecessary in the documentary and as causing significant injury and pain. These statements therefore suggested how ‘animal cruelty’ should be defined, which was behaviour causing ‘unnecessary’ pain. These reproduce common definitions of animal cruelty in criminological literature, such as by

Ascione (1993, 228), who also draws upon the definitional boundaries of

“socially unacceptable” and “unnecessary pain, suffering, or distress”. While these discourses construct a definitional boundary between necessary and unnecessary pain in order to define what constitutes ‘cruelty’, they stay clear of any suggestion that no pain should be necessary.

158

The Mark I Box was also singled out again, in this context as causing unnecessary pain to the cattle. Temple Grandin, the leading authority on cattle behaviour, suggested any harm caused through the Mark I box was intentional.

Grandin told the viewer in the Four Corners documentary that “you’ve got a box designed to make a cattle fall down. That violates every humane standard there is all around the world” (Four Corners 2011, 11). Grandin’s use of the word “designed” also reproduces the understanding that any pain caused is thus ‘intentional’ and ‘deliberate’ (see for example Gullone 2012; Dadds,

Turner and McAloon 2002). This understanding of ‘cruelty’ as being intentional and unnecessary enabled the discourses to successfully produce the Mark I box as a target for intervention by the Australian Government, however these definitional boundaries were not successfully deployed in other areas of the trade including in the ultimate slaughter of the cattle.

In these ways, the handling stage was successfully problematised with support from a variety of positions and it was shaped by the definitional boundary of

‘necessity’ with regard to stress and pain. As one member of the public who claimed to have been raised on a farm argued, “the export of livestock from

Australia is subjecting our animals to unnecessary stress, culminating in torture prior to their death” (Beeke, submission 258). There were calls for

Australia to “ensure that the animal at the time of slaughter, experiences minimum pain and stress” (Elizabeth Hussain, submission 200 and repeated in submissions 210, 211, 212 and 249). Therefore, there was agreement that pain and stress was only shaped as ‘cruel’ if it was ‘unnecessary’, reproducing dominant legal and industry regulatory discourses of animal cruelty. The

159

Government was thus encouraged to support further training of slaughterman and replacing the Mark I boxes with Mark IV boxes as an “acceptable” alternative to reduce “avoidable suffering” (An assessment of the ongoing appropriateness of Mark I and IV restraint boxes 2011, 5), and these recommendations were taken up by the Government. The Australian

Government had also placed a moratorium on the industry representative groups installing any additional Mark I boxes, and withdrew Commonwealth funds during the review stage (An assessment of the ongoing appropriateness of Mark I and IV restraint boxes 2011, 1).

By focusing on the handling stage, and specifically shaping the Mark I restraint box as a target for intervention, ‘animal cruelty’ was therefore discussed in a specific way which reproduced the position of mainstream animal-centred welfare understandings of animal treatment. As this stage precedes the actual killing of the animal, this understanding of ‘animal cruelty’ was not challenged in these policy debates. Further, the boundaries upheld in the key discourses on pain and stress were in line with existing legal discourses which shape these caveats to animal cruelty of ‘unnecessary’ and ‘unjustifiable’ stress and harm (Sankoff 2009). Therefore, the cattle’s ability to experience pain and stress was successfully defended as requiring moral and legal consideration from the Australian Government, shaping how ‘animal cruelty’ was to be known and governed.

160

4.4 SLAUGHTER

The third site where ‘animal cruelty’ was made visible and problematised within the discourses surrounding live export was at the point of slaughter.

The slaughter practices utilised in Indonesian abattoirs shown in the Four

Corners documentary differ greatly to the majority of slaughter that occurs in

Australia. They also differ from mainstream understandings of ‘acceptable’ forms of cruelty in Australia. By focusing on the kill methods employed in some of the abattoirs – specifically killing that does not involve pre-stunning – the prevailing discourses were able to successfully reproduce animal-centred understandings of ‘animal cruelty’, which promised consumers that “care and consideration for ‘farmed’ animals” (Cole 2011, 83) was a moral and legal obligation that the Australian Government and industry would uphold.

However, as Cole (2011, 83) argues, these discourses successfully “appease and deflect ethical concerns while facilitating the continued exploitation of

‘farmed’ animals”. As such, debates surrounding the manner in which the cattle were slaughtered enabled the focus to remain on the how rather than the why of animal slaughter. In doing so, the discourses produced and upheld a truth claim that ‘traditional slaughter’ was a cruel method, and ‘humane slaughter’ was a non-cruel method.

4.4.1 ‘Traditional’ slaughter

Debates over stunning brought forward claims about what constituted cruel and non-cruel slaughter in the live export trade. As discussed in Chapter Two,

161

‘stunning’ refers to the process where the animal is made unconscious before slaughter (RSPCA 2015a). The non-stunned kill methods shown in the Four

Corners documentary were often referred to as the “halal kill” (Ken Werriner,

Chairman and CEO of Consolidated Pastoral Company, in Four Corners 2011,

4). ‘Halal’ is used here to describe the slaughter practices that are ‘permitted’ in Islam, as opposed to ‘Haram’ practices, which are forbidden (Pointing 2014,

387). Slaughterman Haji Zainuddin described the process of ‘Halal’ slaughter as “they’re tied up, they have to be laid down facing Mecca and we slaughter them” (Four Corners 2011, 15). These methods were often described as a

‘traditional’ slaughter practice throughout the documentary. This definition was also employed by community members in their parliamentary submissions (see for example, submissions 111, 120, 265, 288, 296, 384). One description of this practice was “the cruel traditional method of Indonesian roping slaughter that trips the animals onto their sides in readiness for the throat cut” (Pamela Gillot, submission 388). Reporter Sarah Ferguson conveyed that “according to religious rules followed here [Indonesia] for hundreds of years, the animal must be alive at the time the throat is cut. For some, that means making the animal unconscious before the killing is wrong”

(Four Corners 2011, 14).

This ‘traditional’ ‘halal kill’ method was produced in the discourses as unsupported or unaccepted by those positioned as ‘Australians’ and ‘non-

Muslims’, in contrast to the acceptance from ‘Indonesians’ and ‘Muslims’

(these subject positions will be discussed in the next chapter). As ‘Halal’ means ‘permitted’ in Islam (Pointing 2014, 387), this was juxtaposed against

162

a level of ‘acceptability’ upheld by mainstream Australian animal-centred welfare discourses. For example, Cameron Hall, CEO of LiveCorp, said he does not “think it’s acceptable for Australian animals to be processed in a traditional manner” (Four Corners 2011, 12). This was similarly framed with calls for slaughter practices in destination countries in the live export trade to “adhere to the same standards for humane slaughter that the domestic market must adhere to” (Michelle Cusworth, submission 126). Similarly, Tony Phillips described the slaughter process and stated, “The tripping method the

Indonesians use to make the cattle fall over onto their side is the least humane way of slaughter and causes the most stress to the animals” (Tony Phillips,

Submission 222). Suzanne Crass from Stop Tasmanian Animal Cruelty also positioned the standards of acceptability as ‘higher’ and noted:

It is clear that stunning is not a priority for exported

animals, and for the Federal Government not to insist

upon it, and make it mandatory, horrifies and sickens us.

Animal advocates are disseminating the distinction

between OIE and Australian standards as widely as

possible both within Australia and internationally, and

for Australia to accept the OIE standards is shameful

(Submission 227).

These statements worked to ‘other’ the kill methods employed in Indonesian abattoirs and create a divide of ‘acceptability’ between Indonesian and

Australian slaughter practices. This is despite halal killing occurring in

163

Australia too, with some abattoirs exempt from any stunning (RSPCA 2017), and stunning not being mandatory according to internationally accepted animal welfare guidelines, with which Australia also complies (OIE 2017).

Whether traditional slaughter was produced as ethically or morally right or wrong in the context of religion was not debated in the Four Corners documentary. Regardless, there was consensus from a variety of subject positions in the policy debates that opposed this kill method, furthering its problematisation as ‘cruel’ mostly due to the speed at which the death was achieved. Dr Bidda Jones, Chief Scientist of the RSPCA, described the process as “terrible” and noted that “over the 49 animals that I’ve looked at, the average is 10 cuts, 10 cuts, and some of them up to 33 cuts” (Four Corners 2011,

8). The length of time it took to die and the pain experienced by the animal during this time was therefore what defined non-stunned kill methods as cruel.

In the literature, Sankoff (2009) critiques this caveat of ‘quickly’, and how it is open to interpretation in legal discourses surrounding ‘animal cruelty’. These statements in the policy debates reproduced this definitional boundary of

‘animal cruelty’, making animal cruelty visible and understood in a way that suggests a non-cruel way to kill an animal within the slaughter of cattle for human consumption. Sarah Ferguson (reporter, in Four Corners 2011, 8) noted that even though training was provided to ensure efficiency, “many animals were still alive minutes after the throat cut”, which goes against the acceptable 30 seconds permitted according to international rules on slaughter.

164

As Dr Bidda Jones’ (Chief Scientist, RSPCA, in Four Corners 2011, 9) noted

“there’s a very, very high likelihood that this is incredibly painful”. Ferguson narrated one particular kill being slaughtered “according to Islamic law”, which was supposed to be the one clean stroke. However this one stroke did not cause death efficiently in practice (Four Corners 2011, 6). White retold the incident, noting the cow “slid off the concrete slab onto the ground, got onto its knees, regained its feet with its throat gaping and blood pouring from its throat. And then it ended up charging towards me with its throat cut. It was just appalling” (Four Corners 2011, 6). The visceral description was a discursive device, making the cattle’s suffering visible in order to evoke empathy from the viewer and establish the understanding that there was an alternative method that was quicker and consequently non-cruel.

This specific ‘traditional’ kill method was not employed in every abattoir shown in the Four Corners documentary, however it was noted that even in the abattoirs that had alternative options implemented (including the Mark I boxes and stunning), the traditional method was still an option for the workers to employ. In reference to the Medan abattoir, which was one of the abattoirs in question, Lyn White from Animals Australia noted “Even if [Mark I] was humane, even if there was stunning there, workers could still have chosen to do what they were doing in that facility and kill animals in a different way out the back” (Four Corners 2011, 13). Therefore the facilities provided and the traditional kill methods were both specifically addressed as problems within the live export industry due to the ‘cruelty’ they caused the animal, producing this site as a target for intervention by the Australian Government. Further,

165

these discourses maintained the truth claim that if it were ‘necessary’ to kill animals, then it must be done so ‘humanely’.

4.4.2 ‘Humane’ slaughter

The definitional boundary constructing what is a ‘non-cruel’ or ‘acceptable’ way to kill was shaped by making ‘humane’ slaughter known through the language surrounding stunning. The debates produced a ‘truth’ claim that the lack of stunning was most notably why animal cruelty was occurring and therefore stunning was not problematised as cruel. This was discursively expressed in several ways in the documentary. For example, Lyn White asserted that “obviously for cattle to even be remotely slaughtered humanely, they need to be stunned unconscious first” (Four Corners 2011, 6). Reporter

Sarah Ferguson reiterated that “short of banning the live cattle trade, the only way to limit the suffering of Australian animals in Indonesia is to insist they are stunned before slaughter” (Four Corners 2011, 14). This position was supported by Ken Warriner, the Chairman and CEO of Consolidated Pastoral

Company, who was positioned as representing the live export industry’s position that “our mentality is we’ve got to get these, you know stunning guns in soon as we can” (Four Corners 2011, 4). This was also supported by Rohan

Sullivan, the President of the Northern Territory’s Cattlemen’s Association, who argued that “we need to be moving towards stunning as, as the, as our ultimate goal” (Four Corners 2011, 5). Therefore, this pro-stunning argument was found in industry, animal protectionist, and media discourses and shaped

166

this definition of a non-cruel slaughter method as attainable through the use of stunning.

A dissenting perspective was shown in the documentary regarding stunning.

Haji Zainuddin, a slaughterman in Indonesia, told the viewer that stunning was

“like torture” compared to the traditional kill methods which were positioned as not cruel by slaughtermen in the documentary (Four Corners 2011, 15).

However, those higher up in the workforce, such as Tampan Sujarwadi,

Director of Z-Beef, noted “the current view is that it doesn’t torture the animal, it just stuns it and technically it doesn’t go against the rules because it doesn’t penetrate the skull” (Four Corners 2011, 15). 7 It was predominantly conveyed in the documentary that stunning was not cruel but instead only problematised in the context whether it met the standards of halal or not. Greg

Pankhurst, the Director of the Juang Jaya Feedlot, suggested that “90 per cent of our animals could be stunned within 18 months to two years, with acceptance by Islamic people, with acceptance by the people who are buying the meat that they are satisfied that that meat is actually halal” (Four Corners

2011, 16). And despite debates surrounding the religious ethics of stunning in accordance to halal (Pointing 2014, 387; Zoethout 2013, 655), it was not problematised as cruel in the documentary. Instead it was constructed as an

7 There are ‘penetrating captive bolt’ and ‘non-penetrating captive bolt’ guns. To very briefly summarise, non-penetrating captive bolt guns allow for a reversible stunning procedure, and therefore arguably there is no intention of “inflicting death on the animal twice” (Al – Furu’min–al-Kafi LilKulini 6:230 (Arabic) – see Masri 1989). Because of this, MLA report that “a large proportion of the Muslim population accepts this form of stunning for Halal slaughter” (Pleiter 2010, 22). However, as the Farmer Review (Independent Review of Australia’s Livestock Export Trade August 2011, 74) noted in the data, “in some countries Islamic authorities allow pre-slaughter stunning, while in others it is not supported”. 167

acceptable way to kill, thus helping to dismiss any discussion about whether the death of the animal itself should be considered within the definitional boundaries of animal cruelty.

Therefore animal cruelty as a discursive object was being produced in a very specific way, and in the context of killing, stunning was an acceptable, non- cruel definitional boundary shaping this object. Instead, the lack of widespread and enforced stunning in the lead up to the death of the cattle was problematised as the concern for the Australian Government to respond to

(see for example submission 126). Sarah Ferguson noted “stunning has been accepted for years in a few large private abattoirs that supply hotels and supermarkets, but not in more than 90 other abattoirs that take Australian cattle” (Four Corners 2011, 14). Therefore slaughterhouses not using stunning methods were brought into the field of representation and this made it possible for them to be targets of interrogation and intervention.

Consequently, this knowledge was seen and engaged with by the Australian

Government who laid out a variety of measures that they intended to act upon.

This included intentions to “encourage” the use of stunning throughout

Indonesian abattoirs and support its inclusion into the international guidelines (OIE 2017), which currently does not include stunning as mandatory (Government Response to Senate Inquiry 2012, 2-3). This analysis therefore illustrates how a truth claim was produced and upheld which framed slaughter as not cruel if the animal was pre-stunned and the slaughter was quick. Anything else was problematised as ‘animal cruelty’ in the discourses.

168

It is therefore evident from this analysis that it was not the death itself which was problematised as cruel, but only the manner in which it was achieved, reshaping how ‘animal cruelty’ was known and responded to in the policy debates. The discourses upheld the claim that live export was not cruel, if

‘humane slaughter’ was achievable. ‘Humane slaughter’ was positioned as achievable so long as it was quick and involved stunning. These definitional debates reproduced an animal-centred welfare perspective which acknowledged the feelings of stress and pain experienced by animals, and the duty of humans to provide high animal welfare standards to protect those feelings. Further, the prevailing discourses maintained that the Australian

Government and the Australian live export industry were committed to ensuring these processes could be improved through the continuation of the trade and Australia’s presence in international markets. Therefore, the claim that live export was ‘inherently cruel’ and needed to be banned was not successfully maintained in these policy debates.

4.5 CONCLUSION

This chapter has illustrated what animal-centred problematisations were produced in the policy debates about live export, and how these problematisations shaped how ‘animal cruelty’ was made visible. This aids in addressing the first research sub-question: ‘How is ‘animal cruelty’ shaped and reshaped as a problem in the discourses around live export?’ The analysis demonstrated that definitional boundaries shaped ‘animal cruelty’ as an object

169

largely through engagement with the concept of ‘necessity’. The Senate Inquiry

Report (November 2011, 90) stated “there can be no compromise around animal welfare”. However the prevailing discourses reproduced normative understandings of the ‘necessary’ compromises needed around ‘acceptable harm’ and ‘acceptable mortality’ regarding the treatment of animals. Animal- centred welfare discourses (Cole 2011) were thus privileged and maintained, which constructed a duty to protect animals from ‘unnecessary’ pain and suffering, but not to protect them from ‘necessary’ death.

Notably, two key truth claims were established and upheld in the prevailing discourses influencing the way the problematisation of ‘animal cruelty’ was related to. First, the sea transportation of live cattle to Indonesia was not considered cruel on the grounds that it was currently necessary without any currently acceptable alternatives. Second, non-stunned slaughter methods were legally ‘acceptable’ according to OIE standards for animal welfare – which does not mandate stunning (OIE 2017) – and currently necessary without any acceptable alternatives enforced in destination markets. In consideration of these claims, the Australian Government was encouraged to respond to these animal-centred problematisations. The industry regulatory framework of ‘acceptable’ mortality rates during oversea transportation of live cattle remained normalised, requiring continual oversight by the

Australian Government. The handling stage became a target for intervention establishing the need for continual improvement to facilities and training, including the removal of the Mark I restraint box. Finally, the recommendations made to, and supported by, the Australian Government in

170

the Farmer Review and the IGWG Report were to ensure the industry continue to send cattle to destination markets that adhere to OIE standards, while forwarding an agenda that has the ultimate goal to influence these markets to roll-out stunning due to a consideration of Australia’s moral obligation towards animals. Ultimately, stunned slaughter was upheld as the ‘humane’ method, however the means through which to achieve this required the continuation of the live export trade rather than its banning. Thus, these policy discussions impacted on the way in which the Australian Government responded to the animal-centred problematisations produced in the discourses.

The discursive truth claims identified above recognised the sentience of animals and propagated the moral and legal obligation of the Australian

Government to address and solve the ‘problem’ of animal cruelty. This finding illustrates that humans were actively positioning animals as potential victims, and producing and upholding a claim of responsibility for humans to reduce this victimisation. This is quite different to the claims in the literature that often assume that the Australian Government and the animal agriculture industry are obfuscating responsibility when it comes to defining and addressing animal cruelty issues. Foucault’s conceptual tools of discourse, knowledge, and power thus enable us to step outside the claim that humans are indoctrinated into a speciesist ideology causing the oppression of animals by humans, and instead see how humans are actively governing themselves and animals through discourse.

171

Importantly however, it was through this process of problematisation-as- knowledge that the definitional boundaries shaping ‘animal cruelty’ in the discourses furthered the normalisation of the death of cattle in food production and consumption, reproducing dominant discourses of animals as meat (Arcari 2017). The truth claim that ‘humane’ slaughter is a possibility and a desirable outcome for animals was taken up as an assumed truth. The use of language such as ‘humane’ which, when combined with ‘slaughter’, arguably served as further “linguistic displacement” (Smith 2002, 54), shaped how the realities of animals in abattoirs was given meaning. Smith (2002, 50) discusses this “ethical distancing” in the context of making what occurs within abattoirs invisible and suggests:

It achieves this through a series of practices and

discourses, including moralistic discourses of “hygiene”

and “humane” slaughter, that enable those outside its

walls to maintain their carnivorous habits whilst

pleading, if challenged, a kind of “diminished

responsibility” – as people who can’t (afford to)

recognise what they are actually responsible for. This

requires the suppression and silencing of the

expressions of animals themselves and the

removal/regulation of personal links between the

animal corpse and human consumer.

172

However animal protectionist individuals and groups, such as Animals

Australia and RSPCA, were not successful in mobilising support for the

Australian Government to ban live export. Instead, the live export industry was positioned as part of the ‘solution’ to improving this problem of animal welfare globally. Upon researching the media discourses surrounding the fallout from the documentary, Munro (2014, 225) argues activist attempts by animal protectionist groups were “based on an emotional appeal that could not be sustained in the absence of a strategy of persuasive, philosophical and ethical argumentation”. Similar conclusions can be drawn from this analysis, however this thesis argues that they were successful in problematising ‘animal cruelty’ and establishing transport, handling, and slaughter stages of the trade as targets for governance as evidenced by the considerable efforts seeking to define these stages as not cruel. Where they differed was in the solutions they offered to these problematisations, including a ban to live export, which were not taken up by the Australian Government. This failure to propagate their claims and solutions was influenced by a range of discursive strategies, which will be discussed later in the analysis of practices of power evidenced within these debates (see Chapter Six).

The findings in this chapter contribute to the animal cruelty literature, particularly supporting the claim from researchers who argue that current discourses focusing on welfare reform are “a mechanism in the maintenance of [non-human animal] suffering and death” (Wrenn 2015, 4). Foucault’s tools of discourse and knowledge, are useful in understanding how knowledge surrounding ‘animal cruelty’ as an object is produced discursively, including

173

shaping understandings and practices that contribute to animal use and death.

However, as the definitional boundary of ‘necessity’ moved and shaped these policy debates, more analytical work needs to be done to understand how knowledge of ‘necessity’ is being produced. The next chapter will illustrate how analysing the human-centred problematisations circulating within these animal cruelty debates allows for this deeper understanding of the problematisation of animal cruelty and provides an alternative lens through which to view the possible solutions constructed.

174

CHAPTER FIVE: Human-centred problematisations in the live export debates

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to present and analyse findings from the data which illustrate how human-centred problems emerge and are shaped as discursive objects to be governed in animal cruelty policy debates. As previously discussed, this thesis argues that the construction of ‘animal cruelty’ as an object of government is influenced by class, racial, geographical, cultural and religious characteristics and dynamics. However these human- human dynamics are under-explored in animal cruelty research. Foucault’s conceptual tools of discourse, knowledge, and power enable us to step outside the oppressor-victim narrative explaining the oppression of animals by humans, and instead see how humans are also being positioned as victims requiring governance in these policy debates. Therefore, the task of this chapter is to investigate what human-human dynamics emerge within the live export policy debates to see how humans are relating to themselves and others through the construct of ‘animal cruelty’. This will aid in answering the second research sub-question of this project: ‘What human-centred issues have been problematised within discourses surrounding the treatment of animals in the live export debate?’

175

Chapter Four demonstrated how ‘animal cruelty’ was shaped as a problem by animal-centred welfare discourses. The implication of this is that ‘animal cruelty’ was problematised as a target for governance due to concerns for animals, however the definitional boundaries shaping this object led to normative understandings of animal as meat being upheld. This chapter establishes how human-centred problematisations allow for ‘animal cruelty’ to be understood in a way which supports the objective of maintaining the importance of the live export trade in reducing both human welfare and animal welfare problems. This discussion identifies three human-centred problems that arose in the live export policy debates including: the economic insecurity of Australian farmers and rural communities; Indonesia’s food insecurity; and the fragility of the international relationship between Australia and Indonesia. These processes of problematisation-as-knowledge have constructed these relations as objects for thought and reflection, and ultimately objects to govern alongside ‘animal cruelty’ in the live export policy debates (Foucault 1983; Foucault 1988, 257).

These problematisations were constructed with little scrutiny and became readily established as ‘truths’ in the debates. This differs to the problematisation of ‘animal cruelty’, which was shaped by significant debates contesting the definitional boundaries constructing how this term was to be understood. As discussed in Chapter Four, debates over ‘definitional boundaries’ became an important strategy of discourse when conceptualising and governing animal-centred problems. However ‘definitional boundaries’

176

were not similarly engaged with when discussing human-centred problems.

‘Food insecurity’, ‘economic insecurity’, and the ‘international trade relationship’ did not receive the same definitional rigor as ‘animal cruelty’, impacting on how these objects were produced and responded to in the policy debates. While resisting discourses emerged to challenge the prioritisation of these human-centred problems or to construct possible solutions to these problems (to be discussed in Chapter Six), there were no alternative knowledges competing for how these objects should be conceptualised.

Identifying these discursive problematisations also highlights subject positions from which people can speak and thus addresses the third research sub-question: ‘What subject positions become available in these discourses and how do they reproduce human-centred problems?’ By expanding the discussion of ‘animal cruelty’ to consider human-centred problems, this chapter argues that different subject positions become visible instead of the simple binary of human-animal subject positions, which dominate in animal cruelty discussions. These new constructs deal with issues of class, geography, cultural and religious differences and challenge ‘victim’ status in these policy debates. This is of interest as ‘victim’ status is usually reserved for animals in animal protection research and activism. In the context of economic insecurity, food insecurity, and trade relations, knowledge around humans failing marginalised groups of humans is furthered in these discourses with people being encouraged to consider and prioritise human-centred problems in animal cruelty policy debates. As a result of these problematisations, both animals and certain humans were able to be positioned as ‘victims’, and

177

humans were able to escape being positioned as ‘oppressors’ due to them working towards solutions to these problems. This therefore departs from the binary oppressor-victim narrative describing human-animal relations reflected in the literature.

Overall, this chapter will argue that during the policy debates surrounding live export in 2011, individuals and representative bodies engaged with new binary subject positions informed by class, geography, cultural and religious dynamics, to encourage the consideration of human-centred problems and support regulation that considers these issues. This contrasts to a narrow focus of only examining live export through a human-animal lens. The live export industry and the Australian Government can be seen as engaging with the ‘truth’ claim positioned as authoritative that live export is ‘necessary’ to reduce harm to economically insecure Australians and food insecure

Indonesians, and to maintain the important trade relationship between

Australia and Indonesia.

To begin, this chapter will first explore the problem of economic insecurity.

This analysis demonstrates how political representatives and industry insiders problematised the economic insecurity of farmers and Australian rural communities more broadly. This discussion establishes binary subject positions of ‘rural’ and ‘urban’, reinforcing a divide between these geographical spaces in how they are affected by food systems and any changes to the live export industry. Following this, the analysis will demonstrate how

Indigenous Australians were highlighted in particular in discourses regarding

178

the economic insecurity of rural Australia. This section will establish the hierarchy of vulnerability that appeared in the problematisation of economic insecurity in the live export policy debates.

The second section of this chapter will demonstrate how food insecurity was problematised in the live export policy debates. Connecting subject positions of ‘Australians’ and ‘food secure’, in contrast to ‘Indonesians’ and ‘food insecure’, are identified. These constructs enable Indonesians to be given

‘victim’ status in the context of food security, suggesting a different way for

Indonesia to be thought about in animal cruelty discussions rather than

‘oppressors’. This section will explore how this geographical divide between

Australia and Indonesia allows live export to be responded to in a different way – as a solution to the marginalisation of certain groups of humans in global food systems.

The final section of this chapter will illustrate how political representatives and industry insiders engage with the issue of the trade relationship between

Australia and Indonesia. The analysis demonstrates how this trade relationship is constructed as fragile, problematising any changes to the live export industry as a threat to this important relationship. This section will highlight how ‘cultural sensitivity’8 emerges as an object for consideration by

8 While this thesis does not examine how different countries and cultures conduct buyer-seller business, ‘cultural sensitivity’ is represented in the literature as necessary in cross-cultural business exchanges, supporting the claim that it is an important object to govern (Voldnes Kvalvik 2017; Skarmeas, Zeriti, and Baltas 2016). In the context of international trade relationships, Voldnes and Kvalvik (2017, 194) identify the importance of “relationship value and cultural sensitivity” when conducting business across borders, particularly if there are cultural, economic, political, and legal differences that offer challenges to the relationship. 179

the Australian Government in balancing Australia’s desire to improve animal welfare standards outside their borders and Indonesia’s sovereignty. This chapter argues that Australians produced and responded to these human- centred problematisations when discussing policy on the live export trade, expanding the constructed meanings of ‘victim’ and vulnerability in the discourses.

5.2 ECONOMIC INSECURITY OF RURAL AUSTRALIANS

5.2.1 Rural Australia and poverty

The data suggests that within the live export debates, individuals and representative bodies engaged with ‘rural poverty’ as a problem in Australia, producing this rural space as homogenous in experiencing economic struggles due to their rurality and the large numbers employed in the agricultural sector.

‘Economic insecurity’ emerged as an object of knowledge through a focus on the financial instability of those dependent on the live export industry in these

Australian rural communities. The independently produced report, known in the debate as the Farmer Review, placed significance on the economic value of the trade, noting its estimation that the industry was responsible for the employment of approximately 10,000 people (Independent Review of

Australia’s Livestock Export Trade, August 2011, x), close to former industry estimations (see Hassall and Associates 2006). This discussion on employment centred on farmers or producers (often used interchangeably in

180

the discourses analysed) and those Australians living in rural communities more broadly.

The statements in the data discussing economic insecurity emphasised the importance of the health and wellbeing of rural Australians and that this was directly related to the stability of their livelihoods. In doing so, these human- centred discourses were able to establish economic insecurity as a moral and legal consideration for the Australian Government, and not only make rural

Australians visible, but make them visible as ‘victims’ of both class and geographical inequalities in current food systems. This knowledge of

‘economic insecurity’ was largely produced by those who prioritised the need to address the financial instability met by rural Australians who would be disproportionately affected by any change to the live export industry (Hassall and Associates 2006, 23-25; Hastreiter 2013, 184).

The Honourable Paul Henderson, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory

Legislative Assembly, addressed this economic effect of a phase out of the live export trade and stated:

The impact on the Northern Territory of the prohibition

of live cattle exports would be to destroy an industry

that is worth over $300 million to our economy, that

employs directly over 1,700 people and indirectly many

thousands more (Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011,

47).

181

The discourses through which economic insecurity was problematised thus produced binary subject positions including ‘economically secure’ versus

‘economically insecure’ and ‘urban’ versus ‘rural’. Such discursive practices create division within and between different subject positions (Foucault 1982,

777). For example, a connection is made within the discourses between the positions of ‘economically insecure’ and ‘rural communities’. One example is from Mr Arthur Heatley, the Chairman of Meat & Livestock Australia, who stressed the economic reliance on the livestock industry from those in rural communities, reporting that in “2007 ABARE found that over 75 per cent of properties in the northern live export zone were partially or completely reliant on live cattle receipts” (Mr Heatley, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011, 18).

‘Rural’ and ‘economic insecurity’ were related to each other through discussions around this lack of diversity of income in rural communities, supporting the truth claim that these rural communities are at greater risk of poverty. The Senate Inquiry Report contributed to this reification of economic insecurity and the subsequent positioning of this object as truth, as it carried more weight in relation to “credibility as ‘knowledge’” (Jupp and Norris 1993,

48) in its consideration by the Australian Government. Chapter Five of the

Senate Inquiry Report (November 2011) focused specifically on the economic impact of the trade for Australia and rural communities in particular. The

Committee highlighted facts presented in Meat & Livestock Australia and

LiveCorp’s joint submission (Submission 315), noting that “the live export

182

industry is the sole source of income for many producers in northern and

Western Australia” (Senate Inquiry Report, November 2011, 66).

Mr Stephen Meerwald, the Managing Director of Wellard Rural Exports Pty

Ltd, also addressed economic insecurity and its connection to the binary of urban/rural and said:

The extent of the impact I think is very well publicised.

It was interesting for us to watch the media turn from

the seven days of feeding frenzy on animal welfare to

what has now been months of the social and economic

impacts in Northern Australia particularly, and the

consequences right throughout communities across the

north. I know that there are hotlines set up for

counselling. There have been a lot of social and financial

controls and their commitments with their banks which

were set up based on the normal northern muster of

cattle and the cash flows that would ensue. So, apart

from the purely logistical impacts of managing what

they do on their properties, the social and economic

consequences were dire and I believe still are

(Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 3).

The health consequences of economic insecurity were also noted when discussing the impacts of the short term suspension on rural communities.

183

The Senate Inquiry Report (November 2011, 72) highlighted the “immediate financial stress” of those affected by the temporary ban of the trade, drawing upon submissions which focused on the ‘stress’ to farmers and rural communities. One example was from John Armstrong, from the Gilnockie

Station in the Northern Territory, who listed “personal financial stress” and

“personal emotional stress” as prominent concerns for producers in the live export trade (Submission 344ss), making them visible as increasingly vulnerable to any change to live export. These statements highlighted the role that the animal agricultural industry can have on poverty reduction and its consequences in rural communities (de Haan et al 2001).

The deployment of the term ‘stress’ when focusing on the welfare of farmers and rural Australians is also interesting to note, due to the use of ‘stress’ in the discourses when discussing animal welfare concerns. The stress experienced by the cattle throughout the handling stage in the live export industry was problematised, and contributed to the way in which ‘animal cruelty’ was made visible (see Chapter 4.3.1). Similarly, the stress experienced by farmers and rural Australians due to issues of economic insecurity aided in constructing both these human-centred and animal-centred subject positions as vulnerable alongside each other, competing for attention and priority.

These debates about economic insecurity established the welfare of those in economically insecure positions as an obligation of the Australian Government to address. Statements came from two senators positioned as having authority in the policy making process during the public hearings, and this positioning

184

of the speakers as authoritative aided in rendering the object as ‘visible’ and requiring action (Kendall and Wickham 1999, 28). Senator Nash suggested a prioritisation of the consequences of the economic insecurity of rural

Australians following the temporary ban, stating “I want to get right down to the human impact of this. What sort of response did you get from people when you had to tell them, ‘Sorry, you haven’t got a job now because of what the government has done’?” (Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011, 31). Senator

Edwards echoed this statement and said “This is exactly where I want to get to: the welfare of people” (Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011, 32). These statements furthered the binary construction of these two subject positions – economically secure versus economically insecure – and a connection between rural communities and economic insecurity. They also engaged with the hierarchy of vulnerability that encouraged consideration for the welfare of people over the welfare of animals.

It is evident that a focus on economic insecurity enabled the economic livelihood of those within and affected by the live export industry to become problematised in the discourses. The economic insecurity of farmers and rural communities was positioned as requiring action by the Australian

Government, which many submissions argued it failed to consider during the short-term ban of live export following the airing of the Four Corners documentary. These claims persisted throughout public hearings and within the various reports. These discourses subsequently produced binary subject positions such as economically secure/insecure and urban/rural, with rural

Australians being positioned as economically insecure due to their financial

185

dependence on the continuation of the trade. This also expands our understanding of ‘victim’ status in animal cruelty policy debates, as this position of victim is usually reserved only for animals. Consequently, this focus on the human-centred problem of economic insecurity in the policy debates established the harm of banning live export on rural Australians.

5.2.2 Indigenous Australians

In addition to rural Australians more broadly, further consideration was also given to Indigenous Australians in rural communities, making them especially visible as ‘victims’ in food systems. This forged both links between the binary of rural and economic insecurity, and the connection between rural space, economic insecurity, and Indigenous peoples. For example, in Senator

Stephen Parry’s motion in parliament, he requested the Australian Senate note

“with concern” the impact on the employment specifically for Indigenous peoples in northern Australia if a total ban to live exports were implemented

(Senator Parry, Hansard, 15 June 2011, 2882). Mr Donald Redman, the

Western Australian Minister for Agriculture and Food, Forestry, and

Corrective Services, also stated:

Of all the pastoral leases up here about one-third are

owned by Indigenous groups. One of the great success

stories about Indigenous engagement up here and self-

determination has been in the pastoral leases. Shutting

the trade is certainly depriving them of jobs and income

186

(Donald Redman, Committee Hansard, 1 September

2011, 7).

The importance placed on Indigenous employment was reiterated by Mr Troy

Setter, the Chief Operating Officer for Australian Agricultural Company Pty Ltd.

He stated that on his properties, they have “Indigenous crews, where people might be the first generation after three generations that are actually involved in meaningful work” (Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011, 29). This significance was echoed by many in their public submissions to the enquiry

(see for example submissions 112, 118, 135, 144, 194, 208, 225, 230, 269, 291,

299). The Indigenous Land Corporation, an independent statutory authority of the Australian Government, also reinforced the importance of the trade in helping to achieve the ILC’s legislated goals, to “deliver economic, social, cultural and environmental benefits for Indigenous peoples through use and improvement of Indigenous-held land” (Submission 303). The economic and social impact of the trade to Indigenous communities was therefore emphasised in discussions around economic insecurity in rural communities.

In the most recent census at the time of the live export policy debates,

Indigenous Australian’s unemployment rates were at 13% compared to non-

Indigenous Australians of 4% (AIHW 2008, 6). More recent research shows that the lower rates of employment for Indigenous Australians is also usually higher for those living in remote areas (ABS 2016). This is also reflected in the international literature on food ethics, where researchers argue that workers in capitalist food systems are often economically disadvantaged, especially

187

those who also experience racial injustice and inequalities (Nibert 2014, 3;

Halley 2012, 8). This representation was supported and propagated further when addressed as a concern in the Senate Inquiry Report (November 2011,

67).

Given the historical and current economic insecurity of Indigenous communities (HREOC 2009; ABS 2016), these policy debates enabled the re- positioning of the live export trade as beneficial and positive to reducing a form of ‘oppression’. There were no counter discourses in the data which resisted the claim that rural Australians, especially Indigenous communities in rural Australia, were disproportionately affected by significant changes to the live export industry. The moral obligation of non-Indigenous Australians towards reducing experiences of inequality by Indigenous Australians was thus produced and upheld in the discourses.

These findings demonstrate that ‘economic insecurity’ was thus problematised in the live export policy debates. This human-centred problem drew attention away from animal cruelty as the only problem that needed responding to, creating a focus on particular groups of humans. The benefit for humans in doing so was establishing a hierarchy of vulnerability towards

Australians most affected by any changes to the live export industry –

Indigenous Australians, Australian farmers, and rural Australians more broadly – over animals. This altered the possible solutions taken up to address

‘animal cruelty’, with live export being positioned as ‘necessary’, thereby

188

influencing the definitional boundaries that shaped what was understood as cruel or not.

5.3 FOOD INSECURITY OF INDONESIA

5.3.1 Indonesia and food insecurity

Along with issues of economic insecurity, the live export trade was also framed as part of a wider humanitarian aid project of providing food to food-insecure countries. The object of ‘food insecurity’ was produced as an international problem and relied on knowledge of global geographical inequalities, which were positioned as authoritative truth claims for Australians to respond to.

Specifically, Indonesia’s inability to meet the demand for cattle to feed their people through its own food production processes was problematised in the policy debates. This problematisation is represented in the literature about ethical issues in food systems, which has established that food security is geographically disproportionately affecting those living in developing countries (Farmar-Bowers, Higgins and Millar 2012).

Senator Bill Heffernan stressed the “global protein task” in the public hearings and stated:

The global food task by 2050, barring a human

catastrophe, is that there will be nine billion people and

189

a billion of those will be unable to feed themselves; 50

per cent of the world's population will be poor of water;

30 per cent of the productive land of Asia, which

includes Indonesia, will go out of production. With two-

thirds of the world's population living there, the food

task will double and 1.6 billion people on the planet will

be displaced. The global protein task is growing as

people, especially in China, get used to the idea of a

different protein source (Committee Hansard, August 10

2011, 7).

Importantly, this human-centred problem of global food insecurity was only discussed by those within the industry and the Australian Government (in the

Parliamentary discourses), as the Four Corners documentary did not position this issue as an area of concern. LiveCorp was one body representing the live export industry, which discussed the issue of food insecurity. Dr Roly Nieper, the Chairman of LiveCorp, argued, “Amid global concerns about food security we are a world-class supplier to export markets with long-term potential for future growth” (Committee Hansard, 14 September 2011, 40). This claim was supported by several past and current members and industry representative bodies (see for example submissions 118, 131, 185, 225, 269). Michael

Thompson from Bunda Station discussed the problem of global food insecurity and stated:

190

A lot of countries are playing to the stacked deck and

they will stay poor forever and a day because the world

ain’t getting any better; it is getting harder. Indonesia

will stay a poor country, unless they can find a shitload

of oil or something…We are a very fortunate country

that does not go hungry. Try and go hungry in your life

and you might change your whole outlook on the

industry (Michael Thompson, Committee Hansard, 1

September 2011, 63).

These discussions produced the distinct but connected binary subject positions of ‘Australians’ and ‘food secure’, in contrast to ‘Indonesians’ and

‘food insecure’. Indonesians were noticeably absent from these Australian live export policy debates, and therefore this binary construct of food secure/insecure was engaged with by Australians only. This shaped

Indonesians in the discourses, who were made visible as ‘victims’ in the context of global food security, offering them a further subject position that is also equated with vulnerability and a lack of power. As Indonesians were often positioned as the cause of animal cruelty in the live export debate, this new

‘victim’ subject position open to Indonesia challenged the oppressor-victim binary between humans and animals by again expanding our use of victim discourse to include those people harmed in global food systems.

Many researchers have recently discussed Australia’s own food insecurity

(Farmer-Bowers, Higgins, and Millar 2012; Lawrence, Richards, and Lyons

191

2013; Farmer-Bowers 2015; Brooke 2016). Approximately 6-10% of

Australians are estimated as being food insecure, which is highest in rural communities and remote Indigenous communities (Brooke 2016, 24).

However, food insecurity amongst Australians was not made visible in the discourses, and it was only problematised in the context of ‘Indonesia’ and other food insecure developing countries. The animal agricultural industry insiders did not position themselves as ‘food insecure’ when describing their own vulnerabilities to economic insecurity (as discussed in section 6.2.1).

Therefore ‘food insecurity’ was only engaged with in the policy debates as a way to shape how ‘Indonesia’ was made knowable, and to further the positioning of the live export trade as significant in addressing this ‘problem’.

The only way in which Australia’s vulnerability to food security was discussed was in terms of being threatened if we do not continue to export cattle to

Indonesia. Not providing cattle to Indonesia was framed as “catastrophic” for

Australia because if foot-and-mouth-disease is introduced to Indonesia from other importing countries, then it will eventually “get into our country and it will wipe the whole industry out” (Mr Haydn Sale, in a private capacity,

Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 78-79). Senator Heffernan provided further authority for this claim in the Senate Inquiry public hearings and mentioned the threat of food-and-mouth disease and the complexity it causes to the concern of food security (Committee Hansard, 10 August 2011, 7).

By engaging with this new victim discourse, Indonesia’s vulnerability to harm in the context of food security was recognised and it established a

192

“responsibility for and responsiveness of others” to consider (Gilson 2016,

72). While discussing a different context of violence in the literature, Gilson

(2011, 308) suggests the importance of responding to vulnerability as it is

“central to undoing not just violence but oppressive social relations in general”. Subsequently, the benefit to this human-centred problematisation of

Indonesia’s food insecurity was that it gave traction to the truth claim that

Australia has a moral obligation to address human victims in global food systems, one which it can do through the live export trade.

5.3.2 Australia’s role and responsibility

The subject positions of ‘Australia’ and ‘Australians’ were brought into the field of representation through statements made about the role Australia plays in global food security. Australia’s moral obligation to addressing food insecurity through the live export industry was upheld in the discourses as justification for the trade to continue. The discourses established live export as a mechanism to reduce the oppression of Indonesians in the context of food insecurity. Australia’s position as a nation to be a leader in these global efforts was noted in the public hearings. For example, Murray Grey from Glenforrie

Station in West Pilbara stated:

We have the potential to not only feed our nation but

feed a good portion of South-East Asia, being in close

proximity to us, whether for live trade or otherwise. I

hope people maintain an awareness of that as the

193

population grows (Committee Hansard, 1 September

2011, 65).

The obligation to provide food to Indonesia was grounded in the knowledge that we are in a privileged position to be able to help, thus normalising this as a moral responsibility in the discourses. Michael Thompson, from Bunda

Station, reinforced this position, and stated “The main game is to keep them fed, keep them happy, because we have a duty of care to the rest of the population of this world” (Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 63). David

Stoate, from Anna Plains Cattle Co. Pty Ltd. similarly stated, “Our produce represents an important source of protein for people in Indonesia and we believe it would be irresponsible for Australia to turn its back on this trade, which provides important social, economic and environmental outcomes for both countries” (Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 52). These industry insiders reinforced the objective of justifying the continuation of the live export trade.

These statements also suggested moral praiseworthiness while drawing on a sense of patriotism, a discursive strategy attempting to prop up the importance of the live export industry and suggest ways that the subject positions of ‘Australia’ and ‘Australians’ should be related to. Jack Burton, from Kilto Station, noted that prior to the Four Corners documentary and the short-term ban, the live export industry “were people who a few months ago were in probably what we considered to be a very honourable, great industry that fed the world and ticked all the boxes” (Committee Hansard, 1 September

194

2011, 55). Similarly, Dr Roly Nieper, the Chairman of LiveCorp, argued, “Our live export industry, we believe, is one Australia can and should be proud of”

(Committee Hansard, 14 September 2011, 40). Michael Thompson, from

Bunda Station, drew on a sense of nationalism and suggested the Australian public should consider what they are asking of from the industry. He stated,

“If the Australian public turned around and said to us, ‘This is it: we’re going to starve Indos [sic], we’re not going to export to the Middle East and we’re going to starve them’…I will because I am an Australian” (Thompson,

Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 64). These statements positioned

Australia as being able to aid in the reduction of oppression through the live export trade, rather than being a cause of such oppression, and suggested the

Australian public should be supportive of these efforts. This strategy of making Australians ‘proud’ due to the provision of a vital food source through the live export trade was also in conflict with the suggestion that Australia should be ‘ashamed’ due to the treatment of animals within the live export trade.

These truth claims of Australia ‘feeding the world’ are over-stated, with

Australia feeding approximately just 61 million people out of the current world population, including Australians, in 2017 (Bellotti 2017). However without being contested in the discourses, these claims were upheld as ‘truths’ and supported by parliamentary voices, aiding in establishing the importance of the live export trade in addressing food insecurity. Donald Redman, the

Western Australian Minister for Agriculture and Food, Forestry, and

Corrective Services noted the longevity and importance of the trade

195

relationship between Australia and Indonesia. He said, “It is interesting to look at Western Australia’s supply of beef. If you do the sums and carry it through, it is the equivalent of feeding about 14 million to 18 million

Indonesians with their average annual intake of beef meat” (Donald Redman,

Committee Hansard, September 1 2011, 8). Statements like Redman’s suggested that providing cattle to Indonesia offers millions of Indonesians a viable source of protein. This lends support to the claim in some research that increased livestock consumption in developing countries is a benefit in reducing protein and micronutrient deficiencies in the region (Delgado et al

2001, 28). However, most research links food security with poverty and not the availability of food.

That the continuation of the live export industry is a moral obligation for

Australia was also propagated through the IGWG Report and the Farmer

Review. The IGWG Report (2011, 5) reinforced that “trade in live animals also provides an important source of protein for many of Australia’s trading partners and assists them in achieving their food security objectives”. The report stressed that any “limitations of supply of live animals from Australia could have important consequences for food security in some countries”

(IGWG Report 2011, 8). The Farmer Review also focused on food security as a significant concern for destination countries and praised Australia’s role in addressing this global issue. The Farmer Review quoted the 2010 report

Australia and Food Security in a Changing World when discussing Australia’s position as “well placed to ease food security pressures”. The report stated:

196

Although Australia accounts for less than three per cent

of global food trade, we are among the net food

exporting countries in the world. While the challenges

around food security are considerable, there are

significant opportunities for Australia to contribute to

global solutions (PMSEIC 2010, 1, quoted in

Independent Review of Australia’s Livestock Export

Trade, August 2011, 11).

The positioning of Indonesia as food insecure, and the positioning of the

Australian live export industry as the only way to address this problem, limited the possible solutions to food insecurity that were visible. By not making food insecurity amongst current Australians visible or examining any current risks to “Australia’s capacity to export food” (see for example Lawrence, Richards and Lyons 2013, 30), the policy debates surrounding live export were consequently shaped in a specific way which resulted in less definitional rigour. Further, meat was the only protein source made visible in these discourses. Referring to animals as a ‘protein source’ and the live export trade between Australia and Indonesia as “the most efficient and complimentary protein production systems in the world” for example (Kelsey Nielson, ASBF

Chairperson, Submission 131), made the animal invisible and normalised an already dominant narrative which accepts meat as necessary and an acceptable source of protein for human survival (Arcari 2017, 69).

197

As this analysis has found, ‘food insecurity’ was a human-centred issue that was successfully problematised within discourses surrounding the treatment of animals in the live export debate. This produced another object to be governed within these animal cruelty policy debates. The new positioning of

Indonesia as food insecure in these discourses enabled Indonesians to be repositioned as ‘victims’. This diverges from the dominant narrative in animal cruelty research that often reserves victim status to animals and sees

Indonesians as causing this oppression in the context of live export. By providing an opportunity for the uptake of ‘food insecure’ as a subject position for Indonesians, this problematisation of food insecurity propagated the claim that live export was ‘necessary’ in addressing this human-centred problem.

5.4 INTERNATIONAL TRADE RELATIONS

In this study, the third human-centred problem identified as an object of government in the discourses was ‘international trade relations’. This was largely due to a view of the fragility of the relationship between Australia and

Indonesia, which was predicted to worsen should the live export trade be dismantled. The relationship between Australia and Indonesia was represented as under threat due to both the short-term suspension of the live export of cattle to selected Indonesian abattoirs, as well as the proposed long- term policy changes to the industry being debated by the Australian parliament. Further, debates over Indonesia’s use of non-stunned slaughter methods of slaughter and its impact on Australia’s decision to export live cattle, enabled ‘cultural sensitivity’ to emerge as an object that needed to be

198

engaged with and considered in order to ensure a stable trade relationship between the two countries.

Through this problematisation, a cluster of associated subject positions emerged including ‘Muslim’ and ‘Islamic’, relating to the legal and cultural foundation of Indonesia. The subject position of ‘Australian’ was positioned as a binary opposition to these constructs, rather than defining the legal and cultural foundation of Australia as secular, multi-faith, or predominantly

Christian, for example. These labels were applied by two members of the general public in their public submissions, with Australia described as a

“secular” nation (submission 297) and as a “Christian society” (submission

275). However these descriptions were not propagated throughout the debates, and instead Australia’s legal and cultural foundation was more commonly related to as simply ‘Australian’. This is an interesting point to note, as this discursive approach established an understanding of Australia’s culture and values that allowed for an ‘othering’ of Indonesians and Muslims as non-

Australian. This is despite a few Australian abattoirs having the licence to perform non-stunned slaughter practices of animals under religious exemptions (RSPCA 2017; Tiplady, Walsh and Phillips 2012, 870), which was not made visible in the discourses. This perceived religious and cultural division between Indonesia and Australia was framed as underpinning the fragility of the trade relationship and positioned as a target for the Australian

Government to consider when making policy decisions surrounding live export and animal cruelty. This problematisation thus helped to justify the

199

continuation of the trade when constructing the possibilities for solving

‘animal cruelty’ concerns.

One of the ways in which ‘division’ occurred between these subject positions

(Foucault 1982, 777-778) was through the identification of cattle as

‘Australian’ and, by implication, not ‘Indonesian’. The identification of the cattle as ‘Australian’ was a consistent discursive practice (see for example submissions 19, 34, 113, 114, 120, 121, 130). Discourses which identified the animals in question as ‘Australian cattle’ or ‘Australian cows’ or ‘our cows’ or

‘our animals’ led to a view that we have an obligation to protect them inside and outside ‘our’ borders. This supports Fozdar and Spittles’ (2014) research following the documentary, which investigated constructs of ‘Australian-ness’ and nationalism in the media discourses surrounding live export. Fozdar and

Spittles (2014, 74) argue that when “animals come to represent nations” a sense of solidarity can be constructed via practices of othering, by creating an

“us” versus “them” mentality.

The idea of Australia as having a moral obligation to ‘Australian cows’ was referenced by many people in their submissions. Ron and Jeneve Barnicoat, producers who are reliant on the live export industry, argued there should be a responsibility by those involved in the live export industry “to ensure that

Australian cattle only go to the approved abattoirs” (Submission 110). The

Four Corners documentary addressed this moral obligation by Australia, and it was continually claimed that Australia has a responsibility to “protect

Australian cattle from unnecessary cruelty” in destination countries (Lucinda

200

Smyth, Submission 116). As it was illustrated in Chapter Four, humans were taking up this claim in the subsequent animal cruelty discourses and positioning animals as possible victims, and thus furthering the view that

Australia had a responsibility to address the ‘problem’.

This claim that Australia has a moral obligation to exported livestock “from birth to slaughter” lends support to research by Katrina Craig (2012, 51). Craig

(2012, 52) argues that the regulation of the welfare of animals is rarely considered a priority in destination countries, and proposes attaching standards to each exported animal rather than the geographical location if the live export trade continues. This obligation is explicitly stated in the data by

Marta Mendiolaza, a member of the general public, in her submission:

We are compromising our moral integrity by the short

economical gain. Australia has an obligation towards

animal welfare. I do not know if Indonesia does, and

there lies the problem. Once our animals are there we

have no control whether they are stunned or not

(Submission 243).

This cultural division between the two countries was reinforced when discussing how Indonesian animal welfare standards were threatening

Australia’s reputation for promoting high animal welfare standards. Dr J. D. G.

Goldman and C. Collier Harris stated in their submission to the Senate Inquiry,

“[b]y allowing such cruelty to be perpetuated upon Australian cattle in

201

Indonesia and upon sheep in ships and in the Middle East, Australia gets the reputation as a country that is cruel to animals” (Submission 181). The Four

Corners documentary noted that the reputation of Indonesian slaughter practices had “fallen well short of what any reasonable person might expect in the process of slaughtering animals for food” (O’Brien in Four Corners 2011,

1). This supports Hastreiter’s (2013, 182) argument in the literature that the live export debate was “particularly contentious” given Australia’s animal welfare standards, which are very strict within its own borders, and its leadership position on the treatment of animals internationally.

The uptake of this patriotic position of ‘Australian’, and the country’s commitment to animal welfare beyond our borders, was argued in the debates by many industry insiders and the government as only being maintained through strong international trade relations and an understanding of the cultural sensitivities at play. This assisted in upholding the claim that live export could be seen as an opportunity for Australia to address animal welfare concerns internationally, positioning Australia and the live export trade as playing a role in reducing animal cruelty globally. In the discourses surrounding live export, a truth claim was established by the prevailing discourses that Indonesians have a right to practice their culture and religion freely without interference from exporting countries, and Australia must be sensitive to this right when making policy decisions that aim to improve on animal welfare in destination markets.

202

This right to practice religion freely was discussed within the context of non- stunned slaughter practices, often described as Halal slaughter in these debates. In the recommendations offered in the Farmer Review, it was asserted that “Australia cannot regulate extraterritorially” and that “moves to impose stunning could be expected to lead to disruption of trade with some countries” (Independent Review of Australia’s Livestock Export Trade, August

2011, 89). Similarly, the IGWG Report (2011, 14) stated that “trading partners who have a dependence on the import of Australian cattle for their food security or to meet economic development, religious or cultural requirements will be particularly sensitive to any real or perceived threats to the future of the trade”. While Phillips (2005, 56o) optimistically suggests that there may be a possibility that the live export trade may “unite Muslim and Christian peoples of the world”, the discussion on trade relationships in this case study further reproduced this religious and cultural division and problematised it.

The cultural, political, and legal differences between Australia and Indonesia lend support to Voldnes and Kvalvik’s (2017) argument of the importance of

‘cultural sensitivity’ when conducting and regulating business with emerging countries. In the Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA) submission to the Senate

Inquiry, MLA noted the important connection between livestock and religious and cultural practices in Islamic cultures that arguably need to be taken into consideration in policy debates around live export. On the proposed policy of moving from a live export trade to a chilled-meat trade, MLA stated:

203

Livestock have had an important role in Middle East

culture for thousands of years. Eid al Adha, which

commemorates Abraham sacrificing a ram to God in

place of his son, is one of the major Islamic festivals (and

is one of the five pillars of Islam) involving livestock –

usually sheep, camels or goats. It is a significant time for

Muslims, one of reflection, thanksgiving and sharing

with the poor and less fortunate (Submission 315).

These religious and cultural human-human dynamics suggest a need for balancing Australia’s obligations toward animal welfare and Indonesia’s right to practice religion freely. MLA claimed, “Islamic countries will fulfil their livestock requirements from other countries if they cannot source stock from

Australia” (Submission 319). The implication is that Australia would not be able to play a role in animal welfare standards in those markets where they are no longer involved. And if the aim was to improve animal welfare standards to reduce ‘animal cruelty’, as demonstrated in Chapter Four, the approach needed to consider the “sensitivity in some countries” towards the suggestion that Australia “might be seeking to mandate its own standards overseas” (Independent Review of Australia’s Livestock Export Trade, August

2011, 71). Therefore, the alternative policy changes, which would allow the trade to continue but with further Australian oversight, were positioned as requiring delicacy and cultural sensitivity towards Indonesia.

204

It is evident that the ‘international trade relationship’ between Indonesia and

Australia was problematised within the discourses surrounding the treatment of animals in the live export policy debates. This human-centred problem established ‘cultural sensitivity’ as a necessary component within the live export trade and enabled the importance of this relationship to be shaped as an object for consideration in the proposed policy changes to live export.

Within these discourses, Indonesia was positioned as a victim of their sovereignty being threatened, and Australia was positioned as a victim of their reputation being threatened. This demonstrates how both countries were framed as vulnerable to external pressures. This once again highlights another way in which humans were engaging with the concepts of ‘victim’ and

‘vulnerability’ as positions to take up, positions often reserved for animals in animal cruelty policy debates and research. Consequently, this problematisation influenced the definitional boundary of ‘necessity’, shaping how non-stunned slaughter practices were to be seen and related to in the proposed solutions to ‘animal cruelty’ (as discussed in Chapter 4.4.1).

5.5 CONCLUSION

This chapter explored the human-human dynamics that circulated within the animal cruelty policy debates in Australia in 2011, with regard to live export.

It answered the second research sub-question: ‘What human-centred issues have been problematised within the discourses surrounding the treatment of animals in the live export trade?’ By examining statements where there was some debate relating to human-human dynamics, this chapter identified and

205

analysed three human-centred problematisations produced in the discourses: the economic insecurity of rural Australians; the food insecurity of Indonesia; and the fragility of the international trade relationship between the Australia and Indonesia. These problematisations were taken up as objectives of government when making decisions on the proposed policy changes to the live export trade. This analysis diverted from the narrow focus on the human- animal power relation that is dominant in the animal cruelty literature.

This chapter identified the ‘truth’ claim, produced at the intersection of power and knowledge, that Australia has a moral and legal obligation to address these human-centred problems. This has demonstrated that the Australian animal agricultural sector (and the live export trade more specifically) is positioned as a necessary ‘solution’ to the human-centred problems circulating within animal cruelty debates. This conclusion has important implications for animal cruelty researchers, as these human-centred problems are prioritised as moral and legal governmental obligations, even though they potentially conflict.

This chapter also identified how these problematisations produce binary subject positions to be engaged with, answering the third research sub- question of this project. More specifically, in the problematisation of economic insecurity, subject positions of economically secure/insecure were produced.

These positions worked alongside urban/rural subject positions, which enabled the position of ‘economically insecure, rural Australian’ to be taken up as a governmental target. In the problematisation of food insecurity, the binary subject positions of food secure/insecure and Australian/Indonesian

206

were produced, with connections made in the discourses of ‘food insecure

Indonesians’ and ‘food secure Australians’. In the problematisation of international trade relations, the subject positions of Muslim/non-Muslim were produced, which positioned Indonesians as vulnerable to a threat to their cultural and religious autonomy because of Australia’s determination to address animal welfare standards beyond their borders. This shaped

Australia’s moral and legal obligations in these discourses by reproducing these human-centred ‘problems’ as objects for government and justifying intervention.

These three human-centred problematisations enabled the positioning of new

‘victims’ to arise in the discourses, challenging the dominant narrative in animal cruelty literature, which positions humans as oppressors and animals as the sole victims. While, from an animal rights perspective (Regan 1983), the view that humans are oppressors may still be taken up by some in the debates, this chapter provides an alternative story. Instead of seeing humans as indoctrinated into a speciesist ideology informing their communication,

Foucault provides us the tools to see how humans are actively engaging with animal-centred and human-centred problems, expanding the positions of

‘victim’ and ‘oppressor’ in complex ways. This is important to understand, as people are relating to this knowledge and governing ‘animal cruelty’ with consideration of these truth claims.

The claim that individuals and nations are marginalised in food systems through class, geography, race, culture and religion, is not a new finding for

207

researchers who have examined ethical issues in food systems. However, this lens of analysis is absent from much animal cruelty research, despite these human-human dynamics arising in animal cruelty policy debates. In order to understand how ‘animal cruelty’ is being produced, understood, and governed, we need to understand how human-human dynamics intersect and shape these policy discussions and decisions. Further, this chapter suggests that it is necessary to rethink how ‘victim’ status is engaged with in animal cruelty research, by engaging with research and policy about ethics in food systems.

These findings suggest a more complex approach is needed to understand how

‘vulnerability’ is conceptualised and related to in the discourses within animal cruelty policy debates.

Chapter Six, the final findings chapter, will expand on this analysis by demonstrating how these problematisations and their solutions were achieved through discursive practices of power. It will address the final research sub-question: ‘What power relations were produced and reproduced by problematising ‘animal cruelty’ in the discourses around live export?’ It develops these ideas further, reinforcing the importance of recognising how human-human and human-animal power relations are intersecting in these animal cruelty policy debates.

208

CHAPTER SIX: Problematisation-as- power in the live export debates

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to explore how the problematisations established in the discourses explained in the previous chapters were produced and perpetuated through practices of power. This analysis explores how these policy debates enable power relations to be brought into existence, which shape how these problematisations are responded to in law and policy.

As this thesis has demonstrated how human-centred problematisations were successful in becoming visible in the live export debate, it is important to give further attention to the human-human power relations if they are the barriers that limit how effectively animal protectionist goals can be met. This chapter therefore aids in answering the fourth and final research sub-question of this thesis: ‘What power relations were produced and reproduced by problematising ‘animal cruelty’ in the discourses around live export?’

Foucault (1982, 792) identifies a number of essential elements to consider when undertaking an analysis of power relations. Drawing inspiration from

Foucault’s (1982) work, this analysis of problematisation-as-power is achieved in four stages, by focusing on the objectives, differentiations of knowledge, and strategies of discourses, as well as the resistance to them.

209

Foucault’s conceptual tools of discourse, knowledge, and power, enable us to depart from simply investigating how animals are dominated by humans, and instead see which discourses dominate others, and which discursive strategies enable the successful propagation of knowledge over others in animal cruelty policy debates. This is not to deny the existence of negative treatment of animals by humans. However, there is more to the power relation and the maintenance of these relations than is often considered in animal cruelty research. Analysing how certain knowledges are privileged in policy debates provides further insight into how the “moral justifications” for intervention were intended to be acted upon (Rose and Miller 1992, 175). Foucault (1988,

94-95) writes, “[there] is no power that is exercised without a series of aims and objectives”, and this chapter will demonstrate how the primary objective of the continuation of the live export trade was maintained through differentiations of knowledge and strategies of discourse, and how these were resisted.

To begin, this chapter will first recognise the objectives of the discourses. The second section will identify and analyse the differentiations of knowledge established in the discourses. These differentiations include the antagonism between rural/urban, rational/radical, and civilised/uncivilised knowledges that shaped the problematisations of the discourses. The third section will analyse the discursive strategies utilised to maintain the objectives of the discourses, and these included: the commissioning and consideration of certain assessments into the trade; the negotiation and establishment of expertise; and maintaining the role of education. Finally, this chapter will

210

demonstrate the ways in which these objectives, differentiations of knowledge, and strategies of discourses were resisted. This analysis of power enables an understanding of how ‘animal cruelty’ gained a particular meaning and how it was positioned as requiring moral and legal consideration in the policy debates about live export.

6.2 OBJECTIVES

In an analysis of power relations, the objectives of the discourses must be

“established concretely” (Foucault 1982, 792). In these policy debates the objectives included: the success of the problematisations themselves; the maintenance of the ‘necessity’ of live export to address these problematisations; and the enhancement of the status of ‘farmer’ in the discourses. Power was exercised with the purpose of achieving these objectives.

The first objective sought in the discourses was the successful problematisations of both animal-centred and human-centred issues (as identified in Chapters Four and Five), and to construct these issues as objects of government. This produced moral justifications that encouraged intervention (Rose and Miller 1992, 175), including justifying the prioritisation of human-centred concerns in these animal cruelty debates. Mr

David Inall, Chief Executive Office of Cattle Council of Australia, summarised these three human-centred priorities to The Committee and stated:

211

You are dealing with a group of people who are

committed to feeding their family and committed to

providing meat to the Indonesian population. The

business case between our two countries in this trade is

absolutely rock solid and I think now we have a great

task ahead of us to rebuild that relationship (Committee

Hansard, August 4 2011, 57).

This accomplishment of human-centred problematisations enabled ‘animal cruelty’ as a discursive object to be discussed and known in specific ways.

‘Animal cruelty’ was produced as a concern through animal-centred welfare discourses, which enabled the success of its problematisation. However, these types of discourses assisted in maintaining the status quo between humans and animals, and normalising the slaughter of animals by humans for food

(Cole 2011). ‘Animal cruelty’ was produced through the mechanism of

‘definitional boundaries’ shaping how this term should be given meaning, and thereby ultimately becoming known as an object requiring moral and legal consideration in a way which upheld current mainstream understandings of animals as meat.

Through these problematisations, maintaining the ‘necessity’ of the live export trade when pursuing possible interventions was the second and primary objective upheld in the discourses. This objective was “pursued by those who

[acted] upon the actions of others” (Foucault 1982, 792). The discourses that were able to be positioned as authoritative shaped which ‘solutions’ were

212

pursued and ultimately taken up by the Australian Government when making policy decisions about live export. Specifically, support for the continuation of the live export trade with increased training, facilities, and oversight, was the primary aim sought in these discourses. This was upheld by the Australian

Federal Government’s official response to the Senate Inquiry Report, which disagreed with any ‘dissenting’ views advocating the phase out of the industry by assuring:

The Government is committed to supporting the

continuation of the livestock export trade while

ensuring the welfare of Australian animals and will,

therefore, not be supporting the passage of the bill

(Australian Government Response July 2012, 9).

The third objective pursued in the discourses was the protection of the identity of ‘farmer’, as the most important member of the community who “feeds the population of the world” (Submission 359). Statements were made in the debate calling for support of farmers and their vital duty to the “future of the food bowl of Australia” (Mr Paul Blore, the Director of Outback Helicopter

Airwork, Committee Hansard, August 4 2011, 39). The successful problematisation of ‘economic insecurity’ resulted in the status of ‘farmer’ being established as a key role in ensuring the economic security to rural communities. Similarly, the other human-centred problematisations of the discourses ensured ‘farmers’ were perceived by others as integral to Indonesia achieving food security and to the maintenance of the important trade

213

relationship between Australia and Indonesia. The achievement of this objective helped to facilitate the achievement of the second objective; the

‘farmer’ position became praiseworthy and essential for the “global food task”

(Senator Heffernan, Committee Hansard, August 10 2011, 6-7), and in doing so propagated the discourses that supported the continuation of the live export trade and animal agriculture more broadly. The remainder of this chapter will demonstrate how these objectives of the discourses were upheld once power relations became known and engaged with.

6.3 DIFFERENTIATIONS

Examining differentiations is beneficial in understanding how power is exercised as it enables an examination of how knowledges are divided, constructed, and privileged (James 2004, 47). As detailed in Chapter Five, different subject positions were produced in the live export policy debates and they were often constructed as homogenous inside themselves. For example, divisions were constructed between farmers in rural communities and those living in urban cities who do not produce the food which they consume. This then led to all rural subjects being homogenously constructed as economically insecure. An understanding of ‘differentiations’ enables us to see how division between knowledges was made available and subjects were able to favour and propagate certain knowledge over others. “Every relationship of power puts into operation differentiations” (Foucault 1982, 792) and these differentiations produced a hierarchy of knowledge that created the space for certain truth claims to be positioned as authoritative (Jupp and Norris 1993,

214

48). The below analysis explores the three key differentiations of knowledge identified in these debates: rural/urban; rational/radical; and civilised/uncivilised.

6.3.1 ‘Rural’ versus ‘urban’ knowledges

The differentiation between ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ knowledge in the discourses shaped how power was exercised and which knowledge was privileged and normalised in relation to ‘economic insecurity’. When analysing which knowledges were produced in discourses and which knowledges were privileged and normalised, we can understand how language can be seen as a

“manifestation of power” (Schmitz 2008, 142). By relying on the assumed truth division between rural and urban, the discourses privileged ‘rural’ knowledge and reproduced the importance of rural space and the Australian farmer identity. This privileging of rural knowledge shaped both the problematisation of economic insecurity and the solutions to this problem.

This differentiation and hierarchy established between ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ knowledge, enabled the reproduction of the image of the “sunburnt stockman”

(Bourke and Lockie 2001, 8) and the “rural battler” (Bell 2005, 176) to be upheld as a national identity worth protecting due to its significance to the

Australian ‘way of life’, including our diets. Bell (2005, 276) argues this rural

‘battler’ image is a “myth” in contemporary Australia, yet it “is politically significant in a highly urbanised society, coming to terms with real and imagined crises in rural places”. This rural-urban differential was upheld by

215

those who sought to problematise ‘economic insecurity’ and maintain the objective of the discourses, which was to ensure the sustainability the

Australian animal agriculture sector including the live export trade.

As previously identified in Chapter Five, the ‘economically insecure’ and the

‘rural’ were produced as connected subject positions, along with ‘Indigenous’.

The discourses subsequently favoured the statements of those with lived experience in the live export trade from rural and remote communities in

Australia affected by the industry suspension. Their knowledge and experiences were considered ‘true’ while ‘urban’ or ‘city’ (used interchangeably in the data) knowledges were marginalised as ‘false’.

Subsequently there was a differentiation between those who have ‘rural’ knowledge and those who do not, with the privileging of the former’s knowledge in a hierarchy of power: ‘Aussie farmers’ have this knowledge and

‘city dwellers’ do not. This hierarchy of knowledge subsequently contributed to the propagation of discourses which problematised economic insecurity and its relation to rural farmers.

Senators Nash and Adams both discussed this differentiation in the public hearings, normalising the rural knowledge produced in the discourses.

Senator Nash stressed the need to “educate people in the cities” about the impact on the short-term suspension and the “human impact” of the industry in rural Australia (Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011, 39). Nash suggested we have a “city-country divide” where “there is this gap between city and country that has pretty much led to the situation that we have got. A lot of city people

216

just did not understand the ramifications of what was happening” (Committee

Hansard, 1 September 2011, 65). Senator Adams agreed with Senator Nash that “they still don’t [understand]” (Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011,

65). These statements suggest those in urban cities were positioned as being to blame for the economic insecurity that Australian farmers and Indigenous

Australians faced in rural communities during and after the short-term ban.

This shaped how rural life was made visible in the discourses, pushing against a romanticised version of ‘the bush’ and instead relying on an image of the working farmer identity, struggling to survive due to the harsh conditions of the “rural economy” (Williams 1973, 47).

Mr Paul Blore, the Director of Outback Helicopter Airwork, argued that we need to sell the idea of rural life to city people, stating:

They need to understand where their eggs come from

and where their beef comes from, because a lot of these

kids in the cities do not even know where it comes from.

They just think it comes in a package (Committee

Hansard, 4 August 2011, 39).

The knowledge that people living in urban cities in Australia do not know where ‘their’ food comes from was a common thread in the debates, reinforcing the authenticity of rural knowledge as ‘truth’. Mrs Elisia Archer, the President of the Shire of Derby/West Kimberly similarly reiterated “the trouble is that people sometimes forget where their meat comes from. They

217

think it comes in a plastic packet” (Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011, 51).

This furthered the view that ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ knowledges are different and hierarchal in their access to truth, by privileging farmers and those involved in the industry as experts. This hierarchy of knowledge shaped the meaning of

‘economic insecurity’ as constructed in the discourses, and also impacted on how the live export industry was produced as a solution to this human-centred problem.

6.3.2 ‘Rational’ versus ‘radical’ knowledges

The discourses also established a differentiation between ‘rationalism’ and

‘radicalism’, specifically when discussing animal consumption and food security. The position that it is not acceptable to consume animals for food was one set of such discourses which can be considered ‘radical’.

Subsequently, the ‘rational’ person sees animals as an appropriate food source and essential, whereas the ‘radical’ person is someone who wishes to change global food systems via a shift to a plant-based diet due to animal protectionist goals. The privileging of the ‘rational’ view normalised certain knowledges, giving this view credibility (Jupp and Norris 1993, 48). The ‘radical’ position, often attributed to animal protectionist groups such as Animals Australia, was discussed by one member of the general public as “pushing an extreme animal liberation agenda that does not meet mainstream opinions, expectation and lifestyle” (Larry Graham, Submission 128). Consuming animals for food was normalised in the discourses and its essential role in the global food security context was shaped and accepted as ‘true’ in this hierarchy of knowledge.

218

Smith (2002, 54) refers to the discursive practices which seek to normalise the consumption of animals for human food, such as calling a cow “beef”, as

“linguistic displacement”. Mr Troy Setter, the Chief Operating Officer for the

Australian Agricultural Company Pty Ltd, affirmed the organisation’s commitment to ensuring animal cruelty does not occur, and noted “We embrace individual animal identification and we trace our cattle from DNA to dinner” (Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011, 29). Cows become synonymous with food in statements like this, with their life serving the purpose of dying for a human’s “dinner”. A similar sentiment was produced by Ken Warriner, the Chairman and CEO or Consolidated Pastoral Company, who, when discussing the Brahman breed of cattle, remarked, “she’s got plenty of meat, plenty of room to hang meat off her” (Four Corners 2011, 3). Despite personifying the animal by applying pronouns, the animal’s flesh and skin is reduced to ‘meat’ as a form of linguistic displacement and almost a suggestion that it is something that farmers put on the animal rather than take from the animal.

By producing and maintaining a truth claim that meat is necessary and acceptable for humans to consume, it becomes more possible for the live export trade to be morally justified. This shapes the problematisation of

‘animal cruelty’ and suggests the moral concern for animals should be understood and taken up in a specific way. In the live export case, this reflects the current legal discourses which seeks to protect an animal’s ‘welfare’, not

219

their life, and allows for legal harm or pain if it is deemed ‘necessary’ (see for example ACPA 2001). The alternative position, which claims that no harm or death of an animal for human interests should be permissible, is positioned as

‘false’ in the discourses.

This ‘rational’ discourse established that it is acceptable to ensure the ‘humane slaughter’ of animals when dealing with these competing moral concerns. For example, Senator Gallacher noted “a tremendous number of people in

Australia…[are] calling for humane treatment and humane slaughter, and no- one disputes that” (Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011, 33). This phrasing of

‘humane slaughter’ was employed frequently in the parliamentary submissions furthering the normalisation and, indeed, acceptability of animal slaughter (see for example, submissions 11, 104, 126, 140, 155). The Senate

Inquiry Report (November 2011, 90) ultimately agreed with Dr Temple

Grandin’s position that “using animals for food is an ethical thing to do, but we’ve got to do it right”. It was thus positioned as ‘rational’ to advocate against

‘inhumane’ slaughter methods, rather than the slaughter itself.

The ‘rational’ knowledge therefore established a moral difference between humans and animals, which aided in upholding the objectives of the discourses. Several public submissions argued that it was unacceptable to challenge the ethics of animal consumption for food. This positioned the radical as ‘extreme’ and an infringement on the rights of the majority to continue eating meat (see submissions 128, 160, 230). The People Against

Live Exports (PALE) and the Australian Muslim Animal Welfare Association

220

NSW (AMAWA) both stated that “it is detrimental to animals to lobby against people eating meat” (repeated in Submission 263, 1; Submission 237, 1;

Submission 245, 2). With support of this position coming from animal protectionist groups such as PALE and AMAWA, this provided further credibility to the ‘rational’ view that saw the consumption of animals for food as acceptable.

The discourses maintained the claim that animal welfare reform is the logical approach to animal cruelty issues positioning this knowledge as a rational compromise (a similar argument made by Phelps (2013)). The effect of this was that the animal welfare position on the moral and legal consideration of animals was disguised as politically neutral and ‘rational’, being perpetuated by animal protectionist groups, industry bodies, farmers, the general public, and the Australian Government. In contrast, the ‘radical’ position, which seeks to end all animal use by humans, was positioned as not authoritative or representative. This differentiation is explicitly made visible by PALE and

AMAWA for example, who argued:

A clear distinction also needs to be made between the

views and representation from genuine animal welfare

minded mainstream people versus the extreme and less

representative views from animal rights and animal

liberation groups (Antje Sruthmann, CEO of PALE,

Submission 263, 1; Ismail Fredericks, AMAWA,

221

Submission 237, 1-2; Dr Hussain, Treasurer of AMAWA,

Submisson 245, 2).

The antagonism between the two knowledges was therefore not ignored in the debates. Some individuals highlighted the two differing perspectives to maintain the ‘rationality’ of the animal welfare position and its relevance to the live export issue. For example, Tanya Cummings, a member of the general public who described herself as not an “animal rights activist” but an “animal welfare advocate”, asserted:

This issue has always been and remains an animal

welfare issue. The people supporting a ban on the live

export trade are animal welfare advocates. After the

initial horror and chest beating by the media had died

down, the media seemed to turn more to supporting the

livestock producers and began to describe the pro-ban

side as “animal rights activists”. This labelling, together

with “mung bean munchers” and “tree huggers” used by

the livestock and other pro-live export supporters, has

been devised to discredit the approximately 300,000

Australians that now demand a cessation to the trade,

and try to paint them as sentimental extremists, hippies

and city slickers – all of which terms are used insultingly

on social media pages where the two camps meet to

222

verbally slug it out. What they have attempted to do is

divert attention away from the real issue, that of cruelty

and animal welfare, and on to dietary preferences and a

matter of “rights” for animals. This is not what this is

about. It is about animal welfare (Submission 130,

original emphasis).

There was a clear message being produced here that killing animals for food should not be incorporated into what we understand to be ‘cruelty’, which was positioned as ‘extreme’ and ‘radical’, because we should be legally allowed to continue to eat animals. This was echoed by Sally-Anne Witherspoon, a grazier co-running a cattle breeding operation on Cape York and other North

Queensland areas with her husband, who urged The Committee to “not be too swayed by the radical “green” elements in politics whose ultimate agenda is to stop the consumption of all animal proteins and to turn us all into vegans”

(Submission 230).

Animals Australia were consistently positioned as furthering ‘radical’ knowledge. Their ‘agenda’ was argued to be “to stop all animal production for human consumption, turning all humans into vegans” (Jim and Pam McGregor,

Submission 160). Sheep producer Michael Trant pleaded with The Committee to “not be fooled by Animals Australia’s agenda. They are an animal rights group, not a welfare group. Their agenda is to end livestock production, not just export” (Submission 152). This was supported by Jo-Anne Bloomfield, a

Northern Territory Pastoralist, who questioned the motives of Animals

223

Australia encouraging veganism, not because of a health choice, but in order to protest against “animal farming” due to a “guilt laden [conscience]”

(Submission 226). Lyn White from Animals Australia was explicitly questioned by The Committee regarding this perception of their ‘radical’ position, in the following interaction:

Senator Heffernan: A lot of your passionate supporters

actually want to end the killing of animals. Is that your

position?

Lyn White: Our position as an organisation is about

improving animal welfare and preventing cruelty. Our

position on this trade has always been to work towards

replacing–

Senator Heffernan: But my question is: do you want to

end the killing of animals?

Lyn White: Does our organisation want to end the killing

of animals? Our organisation wants to end animal

cruelty.

Senator Heffernan: So you are not in favour, as some of

your supporters are, of ending the practice of killing

animals?

Lyn White: Part of what we do is to provide information

to allow people to make informed choices in regard to

protecting animals from cruelty.

224

Senator Heffernan: Are you dodging the question? Do

you, Lyn White, want to end the killing of animals–not

Animals Australia?

Lyn White: What I want to do is protect animals from

cruelty.

Senator Heffernan: This is double-dutch. (Committee

Hansard, 10 August 2011, 12-13)

The questioning highlighted the Senator’s concern for simultaneously ensuring that live export continues, AND animal cruelty is ended, if we consider that killing animals is cruel. While the question was posed, the prevailing answer positioned as ‘rational’ consistently reproduced the dominant understanding of animals as meat in Australia, and those in positions of authority did not advocate for the end of killing animals for food on the grounds of it being ‘cruel’.

The public hearings did not discuss or investigate the merits of a plant-based

(vegan) approach to global food security and how it could be implemented.9

The ‘radical’ knowledges were not presented in any of the Government- commissioned reports, and these alternative knowledges appeared only in the resisting discourses of public submissions. Within the prevailing discourses taken up in the Senate Inquiry Report, there was a noticeable absence of a plant-based solution to Indonesian food insecurity. Therefore, no

9 For an informative introduction to this area see Andersen and Kuhn (2015) or the proposed diet shifts suggested by Ranaganthan et al (2016). 225

authoritative bodies propagated this ‘radical’ knowledge. It was through the binary positioning of these two viewpoints, that one was made more visible than the other. This resulted in the importance of the live export trade being privileged and normalised in the discourses. A meat-based solution to food security was produced as ‘rational’ knowledge and constructed as an aim of the live export industry and Australian Federal Government when justifying the continuation of the trade.

6.3.3 ‘Civilised’ versus ‘uncivilised’ knowledges

The discourses surrounding Australia’s and Indonesia’s relationship also established a key differentiation between ‘civilised’ and ‘uncivilised’ knowledges. This differentiation, as it appeared in the discourses, was driven by a division between those who have ‘knowledge’ on animal cruelty and those who do not, and those whose legal framework is grounded in a secular understanding of animal cruelty, and those who rely on a religious understanding. As previously identified in Chapter Five, the discourses established that the live export trade relationship allows Australia to play a role in enhancing animal welfare standards in Indonesia, and ending the live export trade was positioned as threatening Australia’s role in achieving this.

Part of establishing this truth claim was differentiating between those who have knowledge of these animal welfare standards and those who do not.

Dr. J. D. G. Goldman and C. Collier Harris reinforced in their submission that

“the test of a civilised society is the way it treats its animals” (Submission 181).

226

Several submissions made references to Australia as a ‘civilised country’ (see submissions 143, 162, 388, 92ss), with Indonesia placed in opposition, conducting ‘barbaric’ behaviour towards animals (see submissions 15, 116,

125, 130, 175). In Maia Cowell’s submission, it was stated that “it is

‘unAustralian’ to let this barbaric and third world practice to continue with

‘our’ sheep/cattle” (Submission 03). This binary between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is continually reinforced in the discourses and positioned Australia as a morally superior country due to its ‘civilised’ understanding of ‘acceptable’ treatment of animals.

There were clear differentiations being made between Australia and Indonesia that positioned Indonesia as an inferior country and suggested its religious- based laws and practices are incompatible with the views of a progressive and secular Australian public. This differentiation was produced discursively through a focus on the non-stunned kill methods employed in Indonesian abattoirs to ensure the killing is Halal. Ayyub’s (2014a, 2332) research demonstrated that “animal welfare concerns negatively affect the perception of non-Muslims towards Halal foods”. The discourses analysed support this claim, with opposition towards non-stunned slaughter methods under the banner of ritualised Halal slaughter reinforcing a differentiation between those who ‘believe’ in a higher standard of animal treatment and those who do not (see for example submissions 25, 06, 216, 293).

This focus on religious beliefs underpinning animal slaughter practices in

Indonesia suggests that Australia is more ‘developed’ because of its animal

227

welfare laws and practices, despite the legality of non-stunned slaughter practices in Australia. In the Four Corners documentary, Dr Temple Grandin exemplifies this division when she expressed that it is “clearly absolutely not acceptable for a developed country to be sending those cattle in there” (Four

Corners 2011, 17). Grandin’s quotes were propagated throughout the debate

(see Committee Hansard, 2 September 2011, 20; Committee Hansard, 14

September 2011, 26; submissions 120 and 181). In her own submission, Dr

Temple Grandin again reinforced this binary positioning of Australia and

Indonesia and stated “when cattle are being brought in from a modern developed country, such as Australia, the standards should be higher”

(Submission 411).

There were statements that produce the truth claim that higher standards of animal treatment are a ‘Western’ notion. Meerwald noted that destination countries such as Indonesia need to “take up a Western view of animal welfare” (Stephen Meerwald, Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 5). This concept of ‘Western’ values was echoed by the Pastoralists and Graziers

Association of WA (Inc) (PGA) who stated their organisation represents “the majority of progressive Western Australian meat” (Submission 194, 2). The discourses produce the knowledge that ‘West is best’ when it comes to animal welfare underpinned by a commitment to humane animal treatment standards rather than to religious standards. Self-identified animal welfare advocate Tania Cummings argued that Indonesian schools “serve to promote the types of cultural attitudes that deny animal welfare concerns” (Submission

130). These discourses enable “psychological and territorial distance between

228

the West and Islam” (Thomas and Selimovic 2014, 333), reinforcing this differentiation between civilised and uncivilised societies and knowledges.

Mrs Jaydee Govias, a member of the general Australian public, reinforced this differentiation in her submission, arguing that Australia should give up trying to have a relationship with Muslim countries that are “entrenched with inherent, cruel and primitive practices in the name of religion” and with “all their problems and savagery” as compared to Western countries such as

Australia (Submission 12). Govias suggested The Committee not “lower this country to 3rd world level” (Submission 12). Justifying non-stunned slaughter practices was repeatedly criticised in the public submissions. For example, animal activist Suzanne Crass from Stop Tasmanian Animal Cruelty, argued that “citing ‘religious’ conventions as an excuse is disgraceful” (Submission

227). These statements reproduced the view that, “‘in the global West’, the racialised ‘Muslim other’ has become the prominent ‘folk devil’ of our time”

(Poynting and Morgan 2012, 1). This was reinforced with the ‘West’, whiteness, and secularism being privileged as ‘progressive’ and ‘civilised’ in the discourses.

Robyn Dunlop, a member of the general public, argued in her submission,

“Without being racist, we have all seen how violent some of these Countries’

(sic) cultures are towards their own peoples – this is a fact!” (Submission 14, original emphasis). A clear differentiation was thus upheld between Australia and Indonesia, based on ‘civility’ and this division was shaped by understandings of culture and race. While there were differing opinions on

229

how these knowledges should be acted upon (such as no longer exporting live cattle to these destination markets), there was consensus that “we owe it to ourselves as a civilized (sic) nation with compassionate values to do everything that we can to ensure that our cattle…die in the most humane way possible” (Jennifer Lynne Spencer, general public, Submission 171).

The analysis here has offered a way of viewing how different kinds of knowledges were constructed, privileged, and marginalised in these policy debates about animal cruelty and live export. An understanding of

‘differentiations’ enables us to see that when one knowledge dominates another, statements are shaped into categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’. Rural knowledge dominating urban knowledge thus influenced what truth claims were produced and maintained in the problematisation of ‘economic insecurity’, for example. Further, these differentiations shaped how subjects could see themselves, such as having rural knowledge or not, and how they related to each other because of this division. Through favouring certain knowledges, subjects were encouraged to work to achieve the successful problematisations established in the discourses to provide justification for the continuation of the live export trade as the ‘solution’ to these ‘problems’.

6.4 STRATEGIES

This section explores the “means of bringing power relations into being” in the live export policy debates (Foucault 1982, 792, original emphasis). The strategies were “employed to attain a certain end” (Foucault 1982, 793),

230

insofar that they enabled power to be exercised in order to achieve the objectives of the discourses, specifically to ensure the success of the problematisations as justifications for the continuation of the live export trade.

The below analysis identifies the three key mechanisms by which the discourses exercised power and produced possibilities for action, and these included: the commissioning and consideration of certain assessments into the trade; the negotiation and establishment of expertise; and conceptualising and maintaining the role of education

6.4.1 Making knowledge available

The inquiries and reports commissioned by the Federal Government provided a platform for knowledges to be produced and made available. The ‘choice’ in which knowledges were upheld as ‘true’ may have been “conscious or unconscious, willing or unwilling” (James 2004, 28). However, the choices enabling certain reports to be conducted and released shaped what discourses could be considered authoritative and what knowledges were placed in a less authoritative position. Specifically, the consideration given to animal welfare in the live export policy debates shaped the problematisation of ‘animal cruelty’, while also providing a platform for ‘rational’ and ‘civilised’ knowledges to have “greater explanatory power” (James 2004, 28).

One Government-commissioned report involved an assessment of the restraint boxes uses in the Indonesian abattoirs to restrain cattle before slaughter (see Appendix C). The assessment involved examining the use of the

231

restraint boxes and whether they adhered to OIE standards of animal welfare

(An assessment of the ongoing appropriateness of Mark I and IV restraint boxes

2011). This assessment provided a platform for the ‘handling’ aspect of the industry to be reproduced as a target for government. The Farmer Review was tasked by the Federal Government to examine the current supply chain systems used in the markets to which Australia exports live animals. It aimed to “contribute to the design and application of new safeguards for animal welfare” (Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, Press Release, Mr Bill Farmer AO to conduct independent view into live export trade 2011, 1) . Similarly, the

Industry Government Working Group on Live Cattle Exports (IGWG), set up by the Federal Government, was asked to investigate the potential of, and implementation process for, the new supply chain framework (IGWG Report

2011, 7). The IGWG examined whether the proposed supply chain framework met the four key principles:

1. meets OIE standards for animal welfare;

2. enables animals to be effectively traced or accounted

for by exporters within a supply chain through to

slaughter;

3. has appropriate reporting and accountability; and

4. is independently verified and audited (IGWG Report

2011, 7).

By focusing on the treatment of the animals and how they were being slaughtered, animal cruelty was shaped in a specific way which privileged a

232

‘rational’ understanding of animal use and reproduced moral and legal considerations for their welfare. The Farmer Review examining current supply chains and the IGWG examining a proposed new supply chain in line with international welfare standards, shaped the ‘solution’ to the problem of animal cruelty, which involved maintaining the live export trade with greater restrictions and oversight. This provides further weight to arguments made by Wrenn (2015, 4) in the animal ethics literature who suggests that animal welfare reform becomes a “mechanism” which works to maintain the current status quo where animals suffer and die for human interest.

The RSPCA also conducted a review of the industry and recommended a phase-out plan of the industry and put forth their arguments to The Committee when tabling that report (Committee Hansard, August 10 2011). However the

RSPCA review was not commissioned by the Australian Federal Government nor was it mentioned as being taken into consideration when developing the new ESCAS framework, which they detail as being “informed” by the Farmer

Review and IGWG Report (Government Response 2012, 2). The implication of this is that the RSPCA were not being made visible as an authoritative speaker and their claims were not being allocated equal visibility. The Committee did not take the suggestions by the RSPCA to ban live export on board in their recommendations to the Australian Federal Government, instead reproducing the truth claim that the live export trade was necessary and must continue

(Senate Inquiry Report 2011). Therefore, the only reviews that were commissioned by the Australian Federal Government were those which resulted in recommendations upholding the objectives of the discourses. This

233

shaped what knowledges were made available, and how they were perceived by others and given meaning.

6.4.2 Negotiating expertise

Rose and Miller (1992, 175) argue that the governance of objects is

“intrinsically linked to the activities of expertise”. The analysis in this section illustrates the ways in which particular power dynamics shape how expertise is positioned and can be recognised. Several strategies of power were identified as crucial to the privileging of rural knowledge, including the use of animal agricultural jargon and establishing rural expertise on the concepts of economic insecurity and food insecurity. The strategies maintained the authority of the claims made from ‘rural knowledge’, and marginalised those in the discourses who do not have this knowledge. This knowledge was understood to develop through lived experience within the industry.

Experience-as-expertise was thus recognised as something which could not simply be taught or learnt. Further, the expertise of animal protectionists who resisted the objectives of the discourses were positioned as ‘false’ through statements which aimed to discredit their trustworthiness. This establishment of expertise aided in producing a trusting relationship between those wanting to maintain the live export industry and the Australian Government who were tasked to legislate for or against it.

234

7.3.2.1 Establishing ‘rural’ expertise

Discussions around the economic stability of the industry and the viability of local abattoirs as an alternative to live export, enabled a space for the negotiation of expertise. The ‘rural’ knowledge on this issue relied on animal agricultural jargon relating to the type of breeds of cattle specifically bred for the live export industry. These discourses shaped the space in which the live export debate could take place, marginalising ‘urban’ knowledge. One example from the debate comes from Mr David Warriner, the Vice-President of the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association who stated:

Genetics was developed, and the brahman breed came

along and therefore livestock productivity increased

profoundly. When that came along, we moved in

towards the live export markets, and that is why we are

where we are. We had demand for that brahman type

animal. The southern markets do not need that animal.

They do not want it. The meat quality associated with

brahmans is not as good as the British breeds of the

southern pastures. I was just talking to Rohan earlier on:

you get to your Jap ox bullocks at 600 kilos and you are

there at about 2 ½ years so they are growing at 200 kilos

a year. Our cattle take about 4 ½ years to get to that

weight. Even if they did, this would still be very, very slab

sided. There would be no finish on them and they would

235

be basically going into a US cow market. It is not a viable

proposition to grow those cattle up here to 600 kilos. It

takes you far too long. You are just not going to do it

viably so that is why the live export trade developed as

it did (Mr Warriner, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011,

11).

The use of particular concepts and words exclusive to the animal agriculture sector thus privileged those with ‘rural’ knowledge, “preserving their authority and status” (James 2014, 78). The Bos indicus cattle is another example of terminology used by those with rural knowledge in their discussions around the necessity of the live export trade. Mr Arthur Heatley, the Chairman of Meat & Livestock Australia, noted that the “trade provides a natural market for Bos indicus cattle raised in the northern tropical climate conditions” (Mr Heatley, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011, 18). This breed of cattle and this rural knowledge about how it can relate to the economic stability of these rural communities was also commented on by Mr Andrew

John Simpson, the Policy Director of Cattle from AgForce. When questioned about the ability for the northern producers to produce cattle to be sold for the southern Australian domestic market, Mr Simpson stated:

Over the past two decades we have seen the genetic

make-up of these herds being predominately Bos

indicus…when bringing a Bos indicus animal into, for

example, an EU type market, Japanese market or

236

American market it needs to be either fed up on grain to

a greater weight of 250 kilograms with 50 kilograms

either side to say a range of 300 kilograms to 400

kilograms and marry that into international markets at

the moment is a very hard call. One of the fights that we

have is that you may only see one, two or four cuts out

of that animal being delivered into realistically primal

prices. The rest of it has to be downgraded into a

manufacturing base which then rolls back into that

producer’s farmgate price. That has a huge effect on his

cash receipt profile (Mr Simpson, Committee Hansard, 10

August 2011, 26).

In the context of food security, rural knowledge was also positioned as expert knowledge with an understanding of cattle related disease. It was claimed in the discourses that “Australian cattle are preferred due to their disease-free status and superior quality” (IGWG Report 2011, 7). The issue of foot and mouth disease was raised in the IGWG Report and in the public hearings. Some industry representatives claimed that if we do not provide a source of beef then Indonesia will source cattle from other countries that have diseased stock

(see Committee Hansard, 10 August 2011, 29; Committee Hansard, 1

September 2011, 10). This was argued by Gigi Robertson, a beef producer, who stated:

237

Australia is an island and because of this we have been

able to keep our herds free of most of the crippling

diseases that affect other herds in the world. This is why

it is so important to be able to offer disease free livestock

to nations who would otherwise not be able to access

them. Also our superior genetics will improve bloodlines

to help assist developing nations in feeding their

growing populations (Submission 185).

‘Rural’ knowledge was made visible as providing expertise on global food security, without the need for a scientist or academic in that field of research to make or support its claims. Similarly, having those involved in the industry report on the economic viability of the industry or a shift to a chilled meat trade, instead of having an economist provide a report for example, normalised ‘rural’ knowledge as expert knowledge when presenting this information in the public senate hearings. The Farmer Review made note of industry submissions and rural expertise, highlighting the selected breeding that had occurred in Australia that is desired by importing markets

(Independent Review of Australia’s Livestock Export Trade, August 2011, 54).

Further, referencing statements made by rural subjects using this jargon in the

Senate Inquiry Report (November 2011, 11; 69) helped to maintain the authority of the industry insiders. The implication of this was that rural knowledge was perceived to equate to expertise, enabling the uptake of industry insiders’ claims as truths.

238

7.3.2.2 The (un)trustworthiness of Four Corners and Animals

Australia

Another strategy identified in the negotiation of expertise involved discrediting the trustworthiness of those with ‘urban’ knowledge, especially those perceived as animal protectionists, with the aim of marginalising their claims and any attempts to gain a position of authority. As an example, the authenticity of the footage shown in the Four Corners documentary was heavily discussed in the policy debates. Mr John Francis Armstrong, the

Director of the Gilnockie Station, was one person who voiced such concerns.

Armstrong argued that most of the footage “seemed fabricated and solicited” and suggested that some of the footage was “paid for” (Committee Hansard, 2

September 2011, 20-21). Senator Chris Back questioned Lyn White from

Animals Australia directly regarding the authenticity of the footage

(Committee Hansard, 10 August 2011, 20). Back asked White whether she was aware of what the driver was doing while she was collecting one specific piece of evidence due to a report which he received that “the driver was out in the yard stirring up the animals” (Committee Hansard, 10 August 2011, 20). White denied the allegation, stating there was no yard in the back of that facility and the accused behaviour “simply did not occur” (Committee Hansard, 10 August

2011, 20). This doubt from The Committee over whether the footage was a true account of what happened in the abattoir was not an isolated instance in the debate.

239

Senator Ian MacDonald questioned the trustworthiness of Four Corners directly when interrogating Mr Michael Doyle, Ms Sarah Anne Ferguson, and

Mr Alan Sunderland from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)

(Committee Hansard, 14 September 2011, 21). McDonald scrutinised their claims of authority by bringing up a previous project, Lords of the Forest, by

Four Corners, where they had to present a correction of the facts to demonstrate that their evidence has not always been accurate (Committee

Hansard, 14 September 2011, 21). Questioning the trustworthiness of the documentary footage and those who obtained the footage served to invalidate the claims made by those wanting to end live export.

Professor Ivan William Caple, a Veterinary Practitioner, who was often called upon as an animal welfare expert into the live export trade, also challenged the authenticity of the footage when questioned by The Committee (Committee

Hansard, 14 September 2011, 34-37). First, he did this by explicitly stating “I do not trust video. The only video I trust is what I take myself” (Caple,

Committee Hansard, 14 September 2011, 34). Second, Caple argued the footage was doctored due to the sound of bellowing heard that he believed was edited in postproduction. Bellowing refers to emitting “a hollow, loud, animal cry, as a bull or cow” (Macquarie Dictionary 2017). His argument was grounded in the previous witnessing of bellowing by cattle slaughtered in the abattoirs in Indonesia where only one out of 29 animals vocalised a bellow compared to the 54 per cent that bellowed in the Four Corners footage

(Committee Hansard, 14 September 2011, 35). Caple stated “Unless someone was there, independently assessing what was really going on and recording,

240

video image by itself is not adequate” (Committee Hansard, 14 September

2011, 35). This justification for doubt over the authenticity made it clear that bellowing can occur, but that it was not widespread enough to account for what was presented in the footage and therefore it must have been falsified.

Caple similarly discounted the RSPCA review into the live export trade for relying on the Animals Australia video footage. In the public hearing, Caple asserted:

I noted that RSPCA Australia tabled a report when they

met with the Senate committee at a hearing on 10

August. This has been circulated by RSPCA Australia.

This report does include an analysis of video footage

provided by Animals Australia. I think the type of

analysis presented in this report by RSPCA Australian

certainly would not meet the standard required for

investigations conducted by registered veterinary

practitioners. The authenticity of the video footage was

not ascertained. The RSPCA Australia report does not

appear to be peer reviewed or submitted for publication

in a peer review journal. Until that report has really

been put through that process I am fairly sceptical as to

the observations and conclusions made in it (Committee

Hansard, 14 September 2011, 33).

241

Like Four Corners and Animals Australia, the RSPCA were thus similarly positioned as animal protectionists with ‘radical’ knowledge, which Caple resisted as not authoritative and as lacking in expertise. This served to shape the claims made by these organisations as ‘false’.

The power relation between industry insiders versus outsiders was further brought into play by those with ‘rural’ knowledge saying they had “firsthand” accounts of Indonesian slaughter practices which were not in line with the practices shown in the Four Corners documentary. This assisted in establishing the construct of experience-as-expertise. For example, after

Professor Caple’s audit of the industry in March 2010, he stated, “We did not see any of the cruelty that was shown on the ABC Four Corners program”

(Committee Hansard, 14 September 2011, 33), an assertion that he repeated multiple times. Mr Cameron Hall, from LiveCorp, supported this claim and stated, “At no time have I witnessed the type of cruelty that was seen in that footage” (Committee Hansard, 14 September 2011, 42).

Alongside Caple and Hall, several livestock industry representatives noted they had not witnessed the type of cruelty that was documented by Four

Corners. Mr John Lachlan MacKinnon, the CEO of the Australian Livestock

Exporters’ Council, maintained that the cruelty shown in the Four Corners documentary was “not the norm—far from it” (Committee Hansard, 4 August

2011, 1). This was supported by Mr Don Heatley, Meat & Livestock Australia

(Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011, 21) and Mr Troy Setter, Australian

Agricultural Company Pty Ltd, (Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011, 29). These

242

views – that the animal cruelty present in the footage had not been witnessed on the ground by the industry – was highlighted in the Senate Inquiry Report

(November 2011, 53-54), lending further authority to these claims. These statements were not successful in detracting from the successful problematisation of the animal-centred welfare concerns within the ‘handling’ and ‘slaughter’ stages. However, they were able to successfully negotiate expertise in the discourses, by positioning those wanting to end live export as not experts or ‘independent’ and their knowledge as ‘false’. This strategy of discourse maintained the objective of ensuring the continuation of the live export trade.

6.4.3 The role of education

Every educational system is a political means of

maintaining or of modifying the appropriation of

discourse, with the knowledge and the powers it carries

with it (Foucault 1972, 227).

Another strategy employed to maintain the objectives of the discourses was to assert Australia’s role of ‘educator’, with the live export industry as a mechanism to make ‘civilised’ knowledge accessible to Indonesia. Education through the live export industry was not seen as simply an attempt to circulate knowledge on animal welfare standards, but to bring Indonesia into line with an Australian way of “thinking”. Ball (2017, 2) argues that “what we call education is a complex of power relations concerned with the manufacture

243

and management of individuals and the population—a key space of regulation”. The discourses shaped the live export industry as a space for education and the management of Indonesians, bringing the power relation between ‘civilised’ and ‘uncivilised’ into play.

In the context of ensuring humane slaughter is being conducted, Mr Kurt

Elezovich, from Country Downs Station and a member of the Western

Australian Beef Council, reinforced the role of education and stated, “It is that old theory where everyone thinks you just throw money at something. You have to educate people” (Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 31).

Elezovich was critical of any solution that was simply “build a box” or “stun it” and instead argued “it comes down to training and that kind of education”

(Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 31). Raelene Hall, who indicated they worked in the Australian cattle industry, provided further support for the

‘educator’ role Australians play and stated, “We need to discuss, educate, assist and encourage improvements for all animals in countries we export to”

(Submission 188).

This kind of educative role was not positioned as solely the responsibility of the Australian Government. Instead the whole of the Australian live export industry was positioned as homogenous in having access to ‘civilised’ knowledge, and as able to ‘educate’ on animal welfare. Donald Redman, the

Minister for Agriculture and Food, Forestry, Corrective Services, Western

Australia, suggested “it is a whole-of-industry and whole-of-government issue.

It is not something that I think we should be putting on anyone’s particular

244

plate. We all have a responsibility” (Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011,

9). Many within the live export industry agreed, including Phillip Hams, from the West Kimberley Primary Industry Association, who supported this and stated, “I think that governments both federal and state have a role to play. I would say that we all have a role to play in our way” (Committee Hansard, 1

September 2011, 58).

Scott Hansen, Managing Director of MLA, reinforced the role of industry and the Australian Government in educating destination markets, and asserted:

Obviously MLA will have its role as a service provider to

the industry, but a key role is going to need to be played

by the Australian government in dialogue with those

local governments, just to reinforce the intent and the

commitment to improving animal welfare as a result of

these rule changes, because they will come under

pressure within these marketplaces (Committee

Hansard, 20 September 2011, 4).

It was in this context of education that the abattoir could be seen as a classroom – a structure making power relations known (Foucault 1979). The industry representatives claimed authority in these spaces and placed

Indonesian slaughterman as subordinates needing further training. In

LiveCorp and MLA’s joint submission to the inquiry, they stated they had

“witnessed many examples of poor handling practices (Submission 315, vii).

245

Hall reiterated this to The Committee and stated that he had been aware of

“poor handling practices and poor handling techniques” (Committee Hansard,

14 September 2011, 42). The discursive strategy of replacing the term

“cruelty” or “abuse” with “poor handling” shapes all the aspects of the problem, from how the animals are treated to how the humans are trained. Another example of this discursive strategy is from Mr Stephen Meerwald, Wellard

Rural Exporters Pty Ltd, who reiterated that they were aware of “poor handling and incompetence” but not “abhorrent cruelty” (Committee Hansard,

1 September 211, 4; also quoted in Senate Inquiry Report, November 2011, 44).

As a result of these discourses, Indonesians were positioned as individuals requiring ‘training’ in animal welfare and slaughter practices, with the industry insiders and the Australian Government as the ‘educators’, and the live export industry being created as the space where this education should take place.

The threat of a ban on live export reinforced the need for Indonesians to comply with Australian animal welfare standards and further encouraged the dominance of ‘civilised’ knowledge over ‘uncivilised’ knowledge. Mr Peter

Kane, the Chairman of Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council, justified the significance of ‘educating’ Indonesians and argued, “If the Australian industry were to withdraw from global markets, animal welfare standards would certainly decline” (Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011, 1). This power relation between the ‘civilised’ and ‘uncivilised’ was further reinforced through the absence of Indonesians and the Indonesian Government in these policy debates to counter these claims and this positioning. Through the shaping of

246

the live export industry as a mechanism for education, we can therefore see how power relations were maintained and how subjects were being encouraged (Dreyfus and Rabinow 1982, 221) to maintain the objective of justifying the continuation of the trade.

This analysis has demonstrated the means by which power was utilised and maintained in discourses to create possibilities for action. Foucault’s tools of analysis provided an opportunity to investigate how people were actively making “a field of possibilities in which several ways of behaving, several reactions and diverse comportments [could be realised]” (Foucault 1982,

790). Making certain knowledges more visible than others, enabled differentiations to be established, and created the space for particular knowledges to be privileged and/or marginalised. Discursive strategies which constructed understandings of ‘expertise’, suggested subjects take up certain knowledges as authoritative, and enhanced specific roles, such as farmers, who had these knowledges. Finally, particular sites of the trade (especially the

‘handling’ and ‘slaughter’ stages) were positioned as spaces for education, and suggested subjects contested and claimed authority of these spaces. This analysis has therefore demonstrated how power relations were bought into play and how they were exercised to successfully problematise objects of government and thus justify continuation of the trade. Importantly, given that

Foucault’s insistence that power cannot be exercised without resistance, this work also opens up space for an analysis of how these power relations were resisted.

247

6.5 RESISTANCE

A discourse analysis of power is incomplete without examining practices of resistance. As Foucault (1978, 95) argued, “where there is power, there is resistance”, with resistance being integral to the exercise of power. Identifying resisting discourses and analysing the ways in which they are successful or marginalised, highlights how subjects are actively propagating certain knowledges and resisting alternative knowledges, rather than being indoctrinated into a speciesist understanding of animal cruelty and subconsciously perpetuating it through discourse. An analysis of resistance therefore enables insight into how individuals are actively shaping and contesting the way that objects and subjects are constructed, creating possibilities for action, and governing themselves and others in the process.

This section analyses strategies of resistance identified in the discourses, including: resistance to ‘rural’ knowledge; resistance to ‘rational’ knowledge; and resistance to ‘civilised’ knowledge.

6.5.1 Resistance to ‘rural’ knowledge

Resistance to the privileging of rural knowledge in the discourses occurred in two prominent forms: criticism that ‘rural’ knowledge was not expert knowledge; and criticism that the knowledge was not objective and ‘true’, given that those speaking authoritatively would also benefit from the continuation of the industry. These resisting discourses were successful in the

248

production of alternative knowledges, which provided different possibilities of conduct (Foucault 1982, 789). However, ultimately this resistance to rural knowledge did not prevail in undermining the authoritative position held by rural knowledge.

One way in which ‘rural’ knowledge was resisted was by discussing alternatives to ‘rural’ knowledge on the issue of how we should address the problem of economic insecurity of farmers and rural Australians. In the second reading speech of the Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill

2011, Senator Rachel Siewert from the Australian Greens referenced an ACIL

Tasman report from 2009 and suggested “the phasing out of live sheep exports would have minimal impact on farmers” (Senator Siewert, Hansard, 15 June

2011, 2881). Siewert shared the findings of a report commissioned in 2010, stating that “Live exports compete with and undermine Australia’s domestic beef industry leading to lost processing opportunities in Australia” (Senator

Siewert, Hansard, 15 June 2011, 2881). Siewert argued that the loss of the live export trade would lead to growth in local livestock jobs in rural communities and thus maintain the economic stability of farmers.

These claims were supported by several people in the public submissions to

The Committee, arguing that the live export trade costs local jobs and a phasing out of the live export trade would create employment opportunities

(see for example submissions 181, 265, 305, 333). Independent Senator Nick

Xenophon, in his second reading speech of the Live Animal Export Restriction

249

and Prohibition Bill 2011, argued for a shift to a chilled meat trade and referred to the Australian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (AMIEU) findings, noting:

[In] the last twenty years, some 150 meat processing

plants have closed, at the cost of approximately 40,000

jobs. The AMIEU says that this is directly attributable to

the live export trade (Senator Xenophon, Hansard, 20

June 2011, 3271).

The Senate Inquiry Report mentioned the criticism that the live export trade had negative economic impacts on the domestic beef industry, and considered the feasibility and support for re-establishing abattoirs in Northern Australia.

Interestingly, there was a clear emphasis in these resisting discourses on the creation of Australian jobs and the issue of economic insecurity for those impacted by the instability of the industry. Thus, they did not challenge the binary subject positions established through the problematisation of

‘economic insecurity’. The Senate Inquiry Report referred to Mr Rod Botica’s submission (see submission 34), stating:

A number of submitters advocated government

investment in re-establishing meat processing facilities

in northern Australia. Mr Rod Botica argued that access

to processing facilities in Broome, Derby and Wyndham

would provide a market for northern cattle producers,

support Australian jobs and guarantee best practice

250

slaughter standards (Senate Inquiry Report, November

2011, 83).

However these claims to the possibility of success of an alternative chilled meat trade were not taken up as authoritative truths. Those positioned with rural knowledge expressed the lack of economic viability of remote abattoirs compared to the opportunity for greater profit by the live export trade. Mr

Rohan Sullivan, the President of the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s

Association, argued that the northern abattoirs “were closing down long before the live export trade really got going”, and that there were other factors involved including higher wages in Australia, marketing issues, and the seasonal nature of the animal agricultural sector (Committee Hansard, 4

August 2011, 11). The counter arguments from industry insiders reinforced rural knowledge and marginalised resisting discourses.

Most producers did not support the creation of local abattoirs, identifying their lack of profitability when compared to live export, especially without further government funding. Senator Sterle dismissed this possibility and stated

“Governments, both state and federal, have made it clear that it is not an option for them to run abattoirs” (Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 71). Mr

Haydn Sale, attending the public hearing in a private capacity, reiterated that a complete move to a chilled-meat trade and local processing would not happen due to its lack of profitability and stated:

251

The reason abattoirs do not exist in the north is that the

live export trade pays more money. That, in the end, is

what happens. If we were to have no export trade, we

would go back to what the market rate would supply in

Australia, which, for us, would be around 80c or 90c a

kilo. None of us can survive on that. So it is not a choice

of whether we want to do that. The fact is that we cannot

survive on that. There is no possible way that we can get

past this. There is a very good option for an abattoir—in

parallel, as you say, with the export jobs—for animals

that do not fit the spec. But, basically, those export cattle

at that higher price keep our businesses viable. For

anyone who was in the beef industry up here before the

live export trade started, it was a pretty tough gig, and it

still is today. It is a very, very low-margin business. So

the idea that abattoirs can be built up here and solve the

problem is naïve, because none of us will survive on it

(Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 71).

Rather than justifying the current status quo because it is more profitable, such statements position the live export trade as essential to farmers’ “survival”.

And ultimately this is supported in the conclusion of the Senate Inquiry Report, which stated:

252

The committee is not persuaded that phasing out of the

live export industry will reinvigorate the domestic

processing sector. The committee considers that there

is more to be gained from working to understand and

strengthen the complementary relationship between

the two industries (Senate Inquiry Report, November

2011, 87).

While providing alternative knowledge on economic insecurity and creating the space for different possibilities for outcomes to be acted upon, the resisting discourses could not be positioned as authoritative. Instead, the knowledges from those within the industry and rural communities prevailed. As such, this upheld the objective of maintaining the ‘necessity’ of the live export trade, in order to address the ‘problem’ of economic insecurity of rural Australians.

Other resisting discourses challenged the expertise of farmers on the live export industry. Given that their role ends at the point at which the cattle leave

Australian shores, farmers are geographically distanced from knowing about the treatment of animals in Indonesia. While this challenge to their authoritative knowledge mostly came from animal activists outside the industry, farmers themselves furthered this geographical divide of knowledge, thus distancing themselves from any wrong-doing in Indonesian slaughterhouse. For example, Mr Murray Grey, from Glenflorrie Station in

West Pilbara, rejected the positioning of Australian cattle producers as

“guilty”, and stated:

253

There is a growing feeling that we have been tarred as

guilty. The ban has put the image into people’s heads

that we as producers are guilty of something that I do

not think we are guilty of. It was not us there beating

these animals. We did not even know that this sort of

thing was happening yet because of the ban the

perception in the minds of people was that we knew, it

was our fault and that we are guilty. I think that is wrong

(Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 65).

With the objective to minimise the criminal responsibility of farmers, this distancing also challenged the authoritative positioning of rural knowledge on the overall live export industry. By constructing Australian farmers’ knowledge as having limited scope, this undermined the privileging of their knowledge in the discourses. However, while these resisting discourses might be persuasive in discussions around animal-centred problems in Indonesia, they were not successful in undermining the privilege of rural knowledge shaping the problematisation of economic insecurity in Australia.

Therefore, despite resistance, mostly from those outside of the industry, the economic insecurity of rural communities, through threats to the live export industry, was positioned as a priority by the Australian Government. These discourses of economic insecurity served to challenge the narrative of animal cruelty that would see producers/farmers as oppressors in the human-animal

254

dynamic. This narrative of economic insecurity was informed by the importance of animal agriculture in Australia’s economy, and the privileging of the ‘farmer’ identity and rural knowledge. These discourses legitimised the knowledge of producers, through the use of animal agricultural jargon and the privileging of lived ‘rural’ experience as the ‘truth’. Ultimately, those who benefited from the continuation of the trade saw success in preserving the trade through the maintenance and privileging of rural knowledge.

6.5.2 Resistance to ‘rational’ knowledge

In the discourses surrounding food insecurity, counter discourses emerged which produced alternative knowledge to the ‘rational’ position. However, this resistance came largely from animal protectionists outside the industry, which were differentiated as ‘radical’, undermining their success. For example, Animal Liberation ACT challenged the necessity of the live export of cattle as a solution to food insecurity in their public submission, stating:

One of the weakest arguments used to justify the live

export trade is that it is necessary to provide protein to

poverty stricken citizens of other countries. Yet millions

of people around the world from across the socio-

economic spectrum live happy and healthy lives on plant

protein (including most of ALACT’s members and

supporters). The ludicrous suggestion that the live

export industry is necessary because it provides poor

255

people in other countries with protein is also completely

unsustainable in this age of global warming. Animal

agriculture is one of the largest contributors to global

warming, as revealed in the Food and Agriculture

Organisation of the United Nations’ recent report

entitled Livestock’s Long Shadow (2006). The world

needs to be looking for alternatives to animal protein,

not making more of it (Submission 107).

This criticism was also made by the general public in the public submissions to The Committee. For example, in their submission, Chantal Teague stated,

“It is a false assumption that these people are relying on Australian meat to survive” and noted that due to the lack of refrigeration in the communities, most Indonesians only consume meat rarely (Submission 120). Phillips (2015,

73) notes that according to reports, 60% of Indonesian households owned at least one refrigerator in 2011. However, the widespread lack of refrigeration in Indonesia was propagated as a truth claim in the policy debates. Engaging with this claim, Teague also brought attention to the organisation Food for Life

Global, which provides plant-based foods that do not require refrigeration such as vegetables, grains and legumes, to food insecure communities

(Submission 120). This radical position served as a form of ‘resistance’ to the power exercised from those positioned as ‘rational’ (Coppin 2003) and offered a different possibility of intervention. However, it failed to gain traction in the discourses.

256

Another strategy identified within resisting discourses, was to focus on the distribution of food in Indonesia. It was asserted in the discourses that the demand for protein by Indonesia also exists in the context of a class divide, with the upper class only driving the demand for more beef. As Mr Luke

Bowen stated:

We also know that Indonesia [has] a high demand for

protein. That demand is increasing. It is increasing at

the upper end of the market, which is the high-end

premium product that comes out of southern Australia,

and it is increasing in the wet markets. The economic

drivers in Indonesia are driving that demand for protein

(Mr Bowen, Northern Territory Cattleman’s

Association, Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011, 15).

This resistance in the discourses challenged the authority of the industry and their understanding of the best way to address long-term food security in

Indonesia. Mr Luke Bowen was critical of the live export industry using the problem of global food insecurity as justification for the continuation of the trade: after all, “they are in this business to make money” (Mr Bowen,

Committee Hansard, 4 August 2011, 13). However, these issues of the distribution of food and class-related concerns embedded in food security in

Indonesia were not addressed in public hearings or the Senate Inquiry Report.

Instead, in the section on “Impact on Indonesia” in the Senate Inquiry Report,

257

the submission of Mr David Michael (whose affiliations, if present, were not stated in his submission) was noted. It said:

The impact of the Australian ban and any plan to

process cattle in Australia will be felt most by the

poorest of the poor. These people will be unlikely to buy

processed meat from Australia which will require

refrigeration and be much more expensive. They may

be able to source meat protein from other live cattle

exported into Indonesia but costs are again likely to be

higher with extra transport and quarantine restrictions

constraining access. Against this background it’s likely

that supply based interventions in the trade of live cattle

from Australia to Indonesia will have an adverse impact

on living standards of the poor in Indonesia and

increase malnutrition and death rates. Australia needs

to be aware of this impact (Submission 22, 1, also

quoted in Senate Inquiry Report 2011, 43).

The inclusion of this submission in the Senate Inquiry Report and the omission of Mr Bowen’s alternate knowledge, contributed to ensuring that some discourses were rendered visible and maintained and others were not.

Resistant knowledges produced in the discourses were not successfully taken up as ‘truth’. Therefore, despite resistance, the discourses upheld the ‘truth’ claims that Indonesia is not a food secure country, that global food insecurity

258

is an international problem, and that Indonesians are ‘victims’ of their marginalisation in food systems. That Australia is in a position to help solve this global food security challenge through our ability to provide quality disease-free stock is a truth claim maintained in the discourses, and subsequently constructed as a moral justification to maintain the live export trade.

6.5.3 Resistance to ‘civilised’ knowledge

The construction of Australia as ‘civilised’ and ‘educators’ in the area of animal welfare was challenged through several resisting discourses. While some voices maintained that the Australian Government should be culturally sensitive when trying to influence the standards of Indonesia (see Senator

Nash, Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 5; Mr Rob Gillam, President of

Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA Inc, Committee Hansard, 1

September 2011, 27), there were resisting discourses that challenged the importance of maintaining the relationship between the two countries at the expense of animals. Curlewis argued, “Habit or culture is not a good enough reason to inflict such cruelty” and questioned “why should we pander to nations whose welfare standards aren’t where they should be?” (Colleen

Curlewis, Submission 177). Similarly, Four Corners reporter Sarah Ferguson questioned, “Why should the animals suffer while we help Indonesia get its act together on stunning?” (Four Corners 2011, 5). Ferguson reiterated this point in the public hearings and reinforced that this issue of waiting for Indonesia to

“get its act together” is the “absolute ethical core of this” (Committee Hansard,

259

14 September 2011, 22). These resisting discourses suggested that to be considered ‘civilised’, there should be less concern on the balance of human- human dynamics including religious and cultural differences, and more focus on the animals in the live export trade.

There were some who challenged the knowledge that Australians, particularly the industry and the Australian Government, can affect change in Indonesia.

In doing so, these discourses challenged action from Australians in taking on the role of ‘educator’. One way this was argued was by asserting past failures to improve animal welfare. For example, in their public submission, Antje

Struthman stated, “Wouldn’t it be at least fair to say that MLA and LiveCorp utterly failed a Steer that was cut 33 [times] – by not providing the slaughterman at least with one or two razor-sharp knives?” (Submission 305). Sarah

Ferguson reinforced this resistance to the claim that Australia could act as capable ‘educators’ in Indonesia. On the issue of a particular abattoir shown in the video footage, Ferguson suggested the presence of MLA would not prevent animal cruelty. Ferguson stated that MLA “allowed that abattoir to continue to operate in the way that it had. It was an abattoir that was well- known to Meat & Livestock Australia. They had been there earlier that year”

(Sarah Ferguson, Four Corners reporter, Committee Hansard, 14 September

2011, 12).

The use of the restraint boxes to restrain cattle during slaughter was also used as evidence for this claim that industry insiders should not be positioned in the role as ‘educator’. The Four Corners documentary established the part

260

played by both the industry and the Federal Government in the implementation and failure of these restraint boxes. The documentary stated,

“In 2000 the industry groups Meat & Livestock Australia and LiveCorp commissioned the design of a metal restraining box. Using levies from cattle farmers they installed 109 of these across Indonesia. Since 2004 the project has also been funded by the Federal Government” (Four Corners 2011, 7). Dr

Temple Grandin, advisor to the industry on cattle behaviour, expressed outrage that Australians provided the restraint boxes used in the Indonesian abattoirs and said, “The thing that shocked me is a developed country built these really horrible facilities” (Four Corners 2011, 17). This resistance challenged the differentiation established in the discourses between ‘civilised’ and ‘uncivilised’ knowledges and undermined the strategy of asserting

Australia’s role as an ‘educator’ on animal welfare. Instead, the discourses attempted to shift the positioning of the industry representatives and construct them as not ‘civilised’ and in fact needing education on animal welfare matters themselves.

The trust in the Australian Government to meet its objectives of increased animal welfare standards in destination countries was challenged in the policy debates, encouraging alternative outcomes to be considered. The

Government’s non-action prior to the release of the footage in the Four Corners documentary was questioned by Senator Ian MacDonald, who asked, “was anything done beforehand? This was all known about before the Four Corners program. The Government was very quick to act after the Four Corners

261

program” (Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 26). Carol Slater, in their submission, asserted:

The government has been shown this horrendous

footage for years so I now know that it can no longer be

trusted to do the right thing. The government has been

incapable of ensuring welfare standards in their export

markets to an acceptable level. Myself and other

Australians can no longer put our faith in the

government to do so (Submission 236).

Senator Siewert discussed the lack of progress made in destination markets to also resist the claims that the live export trade allows Australia to play a role in enhancing animal welfare standards in Indonesia. For example, when questioning Mr Stephen Meerwald, Managing Director of Wellard Rural

Exports Pty Ltd, Siewert stated, “It seems to me that we only get these major changes, these great improvements, when this issue is exposed. Why haven’t the industry and MLA made sure that those dramatic steps have been taken without the exposure going on?” (Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011, 4).

This line of questioning was utilised again by Senator Siewert when questioning Mr Andrew James Stewart, the Agency Principal, Landmark,

Broome:

The fact is we only ever see changes in animal welfare

standards when substandard conditions are exposed.

262

There have been a number of episodes, including in

Egypt. Why didn’t the industry foresee this happening

and why hasn’t the industry been more proactive with

dealing with it (Committee Hansard, 1 September 2011,

19)?

These statements challenged the view that the industry had played a positive role in destination markets and highlighted their lack of success in achieving animal welfare outcomes over a decade. This also attempted to position past failures as indicators of their ability to do so in the future. In light of this, in his submission, Tom Toren called on the Australian Government to follow New

Zealand’s choice to “do the right thing, so as not to be complicit in any more cruelty” (Submission 218, 2). Toren considered all of Australia, including our elected officials, as “guilty” and “complicit” and reiterated that “Australia must absolutely accept full responsibility not only for our wrong actions but also, as a nation, for the lack of action that has gone on for so many years” (Submission

218, 2). These resisting discourses challenged the objectives in the discourses, in which the live export trade was upheld as the ‘solution’ to animal cruelty.

However, ultimately they were unable to be positioned as authoritative, and alternative outcomes were not taken up by policy makers.

Resistance to Australia’s positive role in animal welfare standards came from those outside the industry, and also through the shifting of blame from the industry to the Australian government. However, despite such resistance, these knowledges only achieved further support for the claim that Australia

263

must do more, and not less, thus maintaining the objectives of the discourses.

Despite pleas to “do the right thing” and ban live export (see for example submissions 151, 176, 191, 218, 236, 274, 280), The Committee recommended that the two bills not be passed. The Australian Government agreed with this recommendation and reinforced their position as “committed to supporting the continuation of the livestock export trade and […], therefore, not […] support […] the passage of the bill” (Australian Government Response, July

2012, 4). The discourses maintained Australia’s reputation of partnering with international markets and improving the treatment of animals globally, by participating in these markets, while still respecting and maintaining cultural sensitivity regarding Indonesia’s sovereignty.

All of the discourses problematising ‘animal cruelty’ and the human-centred issues that would emerge from a live export ban (see Chapters Four and Five), produced their own resistance. This analysis has demonstrated how these resisting discourses were productive in providing different possibilities for action and outcomes in these policy debates. It is worth noting from a

Foucauldian perspective of power that the persistence of animal protectionists in creating forms of resistance ensured that the ‘domination’ of animals and the ‘domination’ of ‘radical’ knowledge of animal protectionism was never fully accomplished. Instead, alternative knowledges and constructive solutions were made constantly visible. Ultimately, however these alternative knowledges or their objectives failed to be taken up by authoritative bodies, including the Australian Federal Government. While unsuccessful in encouraging the uptake of alternative actions and interventions, the presence

264

of resistance highlights how these power relations can be challenged going forward in the activism against live export. This suggests future activism on behalf of animals needs to rethink how these human-centred ‘problems’ that circulate within these policy debates are engaged with.

6.6 CONCLUSION

This chapter has examined how the animal-centred and human-centred problematisations in the live export debate were achieved through practices of power. By drawing upon Foucault’s (1982) framework to analyse power, this analysis has demonstrated the ways in which human-human and human- animal power relations were brought into existence through these live export policy debates. These power relations worked to encourage individuals to construct objects and subjects, governing themselves and others in an effort to maintain the objectives of the discourses, including primarily the continuation of the live export trade. The objectives were achieved through a variety of practices of power: through differentiations of knowledge; privileging specific knowledge over others; propagating knowledge; and ensuring specific claims were maintained and taken up as truths. ‘Rural’ knowledge was privileged over ‘urban’ knowledge, ‘rational’ knowledge was privileged over the ‘radical’, and ‘civilised’ knowledge was privileged over the ‘uncivilised’. Through a range of discursive practices, these authoritative discourses undermined any resistance aiming to persuade the Australian Government to ban live export.

Decision makers demonstrated support for the prevailing ‘truth’ claims in the discourses, ensuring the ultimate success of these problematisations.

265

This analysis provides a different way of thinking than the dominant approach taken by many in animal cruelty research, which often focuses solely on the human-animal power dynamic and the effects of legal and ethical frameworks underpinning the treatment of animals. These researchers often further an oppressor-victim narrative to describe the human-animal power dynamic and explain the treatment of animals by humans. This narrative largely relies on an understanding that humans are indoctrinated into a ‘speciesist’ ideology that requires liberation in order to realise an objective ‘truth’ on ‘animal cruelty’ and lead to the removal of cruel practices. The analysis provided here suggests an alternative approach, as the dominant approach has largely been unsuccessful thus far in ending animal use and death at the hands of humans.

Also, it ignores how humans may be marginalised in the production and consumption of food. However, by drawing on Foucault’s understanding of power and knowledge, this analysis has demonstrated a new approach that allows for an expansion of the understandings of the power relations at play in animal cruelty policy discussions and how they produce, and are reproduced, through discursive problematisations.

The findings of this thesis have illustrated that the problematisation of animal cruelty is not simply shaped by human-animal power relations and a speciesist

‘ideology’ determining thought and behaviour. Instead, discursive practices occurring as a result of relations of power and knowledge offer various subject positions (depending on class, geographical, racial, religious and cultural differences) with which people can engage, and through which they can

266

govern themselves and others. The oppressor-victim narrative produced in animal cruelty literature describing the human-animal dynamic was challenged in the live export debate, with different subject positions taking up

‘victim’ status. For example, farmers and rural Australians, including

Indigenous Australians, were positioned as victims of economic insecurity.

Indonesians were positioned as victims of food insecurity and their sovereignty. It was in animal cruelty debates surrounding the live export industry, that we can therefore see humans actively working to achieve equity in the production and consumption of food.

In addition, this analysis lends further support to claims in the Foucauldian literature that animals via their advocates are not removed from power

(Coppin 2003; Taylor 2013). Animal protectionists actively contributed to the construction of objects and subjects, including the definitional boundaries that shape them. It is through the discursive practices that create power relations between people, that possibilities for action were produced, including actions of resistance. While the resisting discourses in this case study were unable to successfully achieve and maintain their authority on behalf of animals, this analysis demonstrates that the discursive constructs of ‘animal cruelty’ and the human-centred issues can be resisted and can be altered. For example, there is potential in engaging with human-centred problems with more scrutiny, including contesting the ‘definitional boundaries’ shaping ‘food insecurity’ for example. Or, there may be potential to address food insecurity outside of policy debates about animal cruelty, and encourage intervention that would push alternatives to animals as meat as a ‘rational’ option for

267

consideration. On the basis of these human-human power dynamics, it may be necessary then to engage differently in points of resistance in animal cruelty policy debates and activism to create different possibilities of conduct to alter these power relations.

268

CHAPTER SEVEN: Conclusion

[T]here are always possibilities of changing the situation.

We cannot jump outside the situation, and there is no

point from which you are free from all power relations.

But you can always change it (Foucault 1984, 167).

7.1 INTRODUCTION

At the time of writing, exporting live cattle from Australia for slaughter in

Indonesia remains a legal trade. Issues of non-compliance and continual instances of ‘inhumane’ slaughter occurring in destination markets remain despite new restrictions introduced designed to protect animal welfare throughout the supply chain (Wahlquist and Evershed 2018). Further, animals are still slaughtered domestically for human food consumption within

Australia. While Australians seem united in the belief that ‘animal cruelty’ is wrong and should be punished, the status quo between humans and animals is normalised in public discourses with regard to the treatment of animals.

This contributes to how ‘animal cruelty’ is understood and related to. Animal activists and researchers have sought to garner public support and stoke moral outrage over animal cruelty, including within the live export trade.

Their efforts in problematising ‘animal cruelty’ and disrupting the live export trade have, at times, been successful. However, their proposed solutions of

269

permanently banning live export and the slaughter of animals for food have not been taken up by authoritative bodies such as the Australian Government.

This project grew out of a concern that current approaches which often focus solely on the oppressive dynamic between humans and animals have not been effective in creating substantive legislative change to protect animals from suffering and death. This thesis set out to explore whether the dominance of the oppressor-victim narrative produced in the literature misses an opportunity to engage with human-centred problems constantly arising in policy debates, and thus impacting directly on how knowledge and power are performed and intersect within these debates. As the review of the literature in Chapter Two demonstrated, these human-human dynamics have been acknowledged as intersecting with animal-centred issues and there have been calls for intersectionality from activists on an individual level. However, they are often not meaningfully engaged with in popular animal activism, especially on a policy level. Yet, there is an emerging area of research about ethical issues in food systems that explores how certain people are marginalised in food production and access due to socio-cultural issues such as class, gender, race, and religion. This thesis therefore sought to provide an empirical analysis that brought together these fields of research, by investigating how understandings of ‘victim’ and ‘oppressor’ may be produced in more complex ways in policy debates surrounding live export.

The primary objective of this thesis was to investigate the complex ways

Australian policy debates about the treatment of animals shape how ‘animal

270

cruelty’ as a ‘problem’ is conceptualised, discussed, and governed. Rather than seeing power as something humans have, and exercise over animals, this research analysed how power is performed discursively, and how it is shaped by human-human power relations. Humans are inevitably caught up and implicated in our attempts to understand, define, and respond to animal cruelty. They are even painted as ‘victims’ in the variety of discourses that have shaped our understandings and policy responses. This thesis therefore sought to challenge the assumption that the way we discuss and respond to animal cruelty concerns is influenced by whether we are reproducing (or rejecting) a

‘speciesist’ ideology between humans and animals. By utilising Foucault’s conceptual tools of discourse, knowledge, and power, an examination of

‘animal cruelty’ in the context of live export enabled a discursive analysis of the role of human-centred issues and their effects on the governing of animal cruelty.

To achieve these aims, this thesis was guided by the following overarching research question:

How is the problematisation of ‘animal cruelty’ influenced by human- human power relations?

In order to address this question, the following research sub-questions were developed and answered by the analysis:

271

 How was ‘animal cruelty’ shaped and reshaped as a problem in the

discourses around live export?

 What human-centred issues were problematised within discourses

surrounding the treatment of animals in the live export trade?

 What subject positions became available in these discourses, and

how did they reproduce human-centred problems?

 What power relations were produced and reproduced by

problematising ‘animal cruelty’ in the discourses around live

export?

The remainder of this chapter will explore the key empirical findings and contributions of this thesis. It will also consider the implications of this research and make suggestions for future research and activism in this space.

7.2 SHAPING ANIMAL CRUELTY

‘Animal cruelty’ emerged in the discourses and was shaped and reshaped as a problem requiring governance in specific ways. By analysing three particular sites where instances of animal mistreatment were made visible – transport, handling, and slaughter methods – this thesis illustrated how particular definitional boundaries shaped how animal cruelty was to be seen and understood in the live export policy debates. In particular, animal-centred welfare discourses shaped this problematisation and reinforced common understandings of the ‘necessity’ of animals as meat. This was in line with the

272

current legislative framework of animal cruelty in Australia, and this definitional boundary of ‘necessity’ shaped the intervention surrounding each of these three sites. ‘Humane’ slaughter was upheld as an acceptable standard and a reduction in animal cruelty was maintained as achievable through the improvements of training and facilities provided by the Australian live export industry, and through improved international standards advocated by the

Australian Government. The live export trade was thus positioned as a solution to improve the lives of animals and address concerns over the treatment of animals in other countries.

The analysis also identified the human-centred ‘problems’ which circulated within these debates and influenced how ‘animal cruelty’ was shaped. With discussions often focusing on the impact of ending live export on humans, it became possible to identify three human-centred problematisations in the discourses: the economic insecurity of rural Australians; the food insecurity of

Indonesia; and the fragility of the international trade relationship between

Australia and Indonesia. These problematisations successfully became objects for the Australian Government to relate to and consider in policy discussions about animal welfare. These human-centred ‘problems’ were less scrutinised and less open to definitional rigour in the debates, compared to the debates over what was considered ‘animal cruelty’. This contributed to the success of their problematisation and shaped how they were prioritised alongside animal welfare concerns.

273

These human-centred problematisations also made new subject positions available in these discourses. In the problematisation of economic insecurity, subject positions of economically secure/insecure were produced. These positions worked alongside urban/rural and Indigenous/non-Indigenous subject positions, which enabled a hierarchy of vulnerability to be established.

In the problematisation of food insecurity, the binary subject positions of food secure/insecure and Australian/Indonesian were produced, with connections made in the discourses between ‘food insecure Indonesians’ and ‘food secure

Australians’. In the problematisation of international trade relations, the subject positions of Muslim/non-Muslim were produced, which positioned

Indonesians as vulnerable to a threat to their cultural and religious autonomy.

Subsequently, Australia was also positioned as vulnerable to this external pressure, with their reputation of high animal welfare standards positioned as at risk. These new constructs dealt with issues of class, geography, cultural and religious differences, and challenged the positioning of animals as the only victims in these live export policy debates. This is a status usually reserved for animals in animal cruelty research and activism. By drawing on Foucault’s conceptual tools of discourse and knowledge, this case illustrated how human- centred issues created opportunities for different groups to take up positions of ‘vulnerability’. Therefore, understandings of ‘oppression’ and ‘victimisation’ were being related to in more complex ways than through the oppressor- victim binary between ‘human’ and ‘animal’.

This research demonstrated how animal-centred and human-centred problems were shaped as objects to govern by the Australian Government

274

when responding to the proposed policy changes to the live export trade. This method of analysis allowed for a more nuanced understanding of how ‘animal cruelty’ was shaped in the Australian policy debates about live export in 2011.

Through these problematisations, the Australian animal agricultural sector

(and the live export trade more specifically) was positioned as the ‘solution’, and thus it became ‘necessary’ for it to be maintained.

7.3 HIERARCHIES OF DISCOURSE

To understand how this problematisation of ‘animal cruelty’ was achieved, this thesis provided a detailed analysis of how these discourses could be seen as practices of power. By invoking Foucault’s (1982) work on power, this analysis of problematisation-as-power was achieved in four stages, including by analysing: objectives; differentiations; strategies; and resistance. The objectives produced and upheld in the discourses were to successfully problematise animal-centred and human-centred problematisations, and encourage and justify moral intervention to maintain the ‘necessity’ of the live export trade as a response to these ‘problems’. Further, an objective of the discourses was to ensure the ‘farmer’ identity was perceived by others as an essential and heroic position, integral to responding to these problematisations. These objectives were maintained through differentiations of knowledge and strategies of discourse, while also being resisted.

An analysis of ‘differentiations’ provided insight into how division between knowledges were made available and subjects were then able to favour and

275

propagate certain knowledges over others. First, the differentiations of knowledge which saw ‘rural’ knowledge privileged over ‘urban’ knowledge, shaped how the object of economic insecurity was seen. The discourses favoured the statements of those financially dependent on the industry and impacted by these regulatory decisions. Their knowledge and experiences were considered ‘true’, while ‘urban’ or ‘city’ knowledges were marginalised as ‘false’. Therefore, the truth claim that the live export trade is essential for the livelihood and health of rural Australians (including Australian farmers and Indigenous communities), was positioned as knowledge for the Australian

Government to act upon.

Second, a differentiation between ‘rationalism’ and ‘radicalism’ was established, specifically when discussing the ‘problem’ of food insecurity. The claim that it is not acceptable to consume animals for food was one set of such statements which were positioned as ‘radical’ knowledge. Subsequently the

‘rational’ person sees animals as an appropriate food source and essential, whereas the ‘radical’ person is someone who wishes to change global food systems via a shift to a plant-based diet due to the treatment of animals. The dominant understanding of animals as meat was normalised in the debates and its essential role in the global food security context was positioned as ‘true’ in this hierarchy of knowledge. There was a noticeable absence of discussion about the merits of a plant-based solution to Indonesia’s food insecurity in the policy debates. It was through the binary positioning of these two viewpoints, where one was made visible and the other invisible, that the importance of the live export trade was maintained. A meat-based solution to food security was

276

produced as ‘rational’ and constructed as an aim of the Australian Government when governing the treatment of animals.

Third, the debates about Australia’s and Indonesia’s trade relationship established a key differentiation between ‘civilised’ and ‘uncivilised’ knowledges. This differentiation was driven by an antagonism between those who have ‘knowledge’ on animal cruelty and those who do not, and those whose legal framework appears to be grounded in a secular understanding of animal cruelty and those who appear to rely on a religious understanding. The discourses established that the live export trade relationship allows Australia to play a role in enhancing animal welfare standards in Indonesia, and ending the live export trade was positioned as threatening Australia’s role in achieving this. Part of establishing this truth claim was differentiating between those who have knowledge of these animal welfare standards and those who do not.

Through an analysis of differentiations, this thesis demonstrated how certain knowledges dominated others, and how truth claims were shaped into categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’ in the live export policy debates. These differentiations shaped how subjects could see themselves, such as having rural knowledge or not, and how they related to each other because of this division. Through favouring certain knowledges, subjects were encouraged to work to achieve the successful problematisations established in the discourses.

277

These hierarchies of discourses were then engaged with and reproduced through a variety of strategies of discourse, including: making certain knowledges more accessible than others; negotiating and establishing expertise; and through discussions around the role of education. The commissioning of specific assessments of the industry, with a focus on animal welfare concerns, contributed to the debates about how animals were being slaughtered. This shaped ‘animal cruelty’ in a way which privileged a ‘rational’ understanding of animal use and their interests. In doing so, the solutions proposed and accepted to address the concern for animals involved maintaining the live export trade of cattle with greater restrictions and oversight. The establishment of rural expertise aided in the effectiveness of this outcome, and produced a trusting relationship between those wanting to maintain the live export industry and the Australian Government who were tasked to legislate for it. This analysis of discursive strategies saw the positioning of the industry insiders and the Australian Government as the

‘educators’ of animal welfare in destination markets, and the live export industry the space where this education should take place. These strategies of discourse therefore upheld the objective to maintain the ‘necessity’ of the live export trade with improved facilitators, training, and oversight.

Any resisting discourses which aimed to challenge the objectives and persuade the Australian Government to ban live export were undermined, and failed to be positioned as authoritative. Resistance to the privileging of rural knowledge involved criticising its positioning as ‘expert’ knowledge and that it was not objective and ‘true’, given that those speaking authoritatively would

278

also benefit from the continuation of the industry. In the statements about food insecurity, counter discourses emerged which produced alternative knowledge to the ‘rational’ position, particularly contesting the necessity of the live export of cattle as a solution to food insecurity in Indonesia. The construction of Australia as ‘civilised’ and ‘educators’ in the area of animal welfare was also challenged, including by arguing against the importance of maintaining the relationship between the two countries at the expense of animals. There were also some who questioned the claim that Australians, particularly the industry and the Australian Government, have the capability to affect change in Indonesia. These resisting discourses achieved success in providing different possibilities for action. However, they were ultimately unsuccessful in encouraging the uptake of alternative actions and interventions in this case.

It is important to note that the persistence of these forms of resistance ensured the human-animal relationship was not one of domination. Instead, the objectives of the discourses were resisted, alternative knowledges were engaged with, and different solutions were made visible and were responded to. The presence of resistance highlights how these power relations can be resisted and can be altered in future activism against live export and the wider treatment of animals. By creating a greater understanding of how previous solutions to animal cruelty concerns have been produced and achieved success, it allows us to interrogate our assumptions about the best way to achieve animal protection goals in the future.

279

7.4 IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

With the future of animal activism in mind, this thesis charts the specific human-centric barriers in place for animal protectionists campaigning to dismantle live export. Importantly, these barriers are rarely acknowledged and responded to, and if they are acknowledged, any discussion about their importance is often considered as not the domain for animal activists. As this analysis has demonstrated, live export is currently represented as a key component of addressing economic insecurity and food insecurity, and maintaining international trade relationships. This has implications for the oppressor-victim narrative in animal activist discourses, and demands a rethink and extension of these positions in order to solve animal cruelty concerns. There are a complex array of discourses and positions intersecting in attempts to address animal cruelty concerns. The continual appearance of human-centred problems in these debates should cause activists to consider, and reconsider, their understanding and engagement with the victims (and how ‘victim’ is defined) in current food systems. Perhaps activism could be more collaborative between different human-focused activist organisations, or with those humans who are marginalised in the production and consumption of food, with an aim to be more intersectional in their approach if they are to garner more support and challenge understandings of the

‘necessity’ of the live export trade and of animal slaughter more broadly.

Beyond these new approaches to animal activism, this thesis has significant implications for future research in this area, as it has modelled a new way of

280

undertaking animal cruelty research and demonstrated how Foucault’s conceptual tools of discourse, knowledge, and power, can be used to examine issues of animal cruelty with an expanded understanding of how power is being performed discursively. Animal cruelty research should move beyond the oppressor-victim narrative that shapes understandings of the human- animal power dynamic and constructs of ‘animal cruelty’. While ‘speciesism’ as a concept has been beneficial in providing insight into the human-animal power dynamic, methodologically it can be a blunt tool providing a blanket explanation for ‘animal cruelty’ that actually prevents a recognition and analysis of the complexities underpinning its governance in policy debates.

Further, these findings offer a theoretical and methodological approach to bridge the gap between animal ethics research and food ethics research. This research indicates a need to examine the problematisations of food security, economic security, and cultural sensitivity in public discourses and policy debates by those interested in justice and ethics in food systems. More work needs to be done in examining the decision-making process in policy involving global food security and food systems, and how they shape understandings of

‘necessity’ in regards to the treatment of animals. More collaborative work between food ethics and animal ethics researchers would be beneficial in understanding how human-human and human-animal power dynamics are intersecting in food production, access, and consumption. It is suggested that further insight into these human-centred problems and further research into proposed solutions that step outside the ‘necessity’ of live export, could

281

improve the legislative framework currently governing live export, and animal cruelty more broadly, in Australia.

It is important to recognise that this thesis had a specific scope with a single case study, and could not explore all contexts in which these dynamics exist.

This case study should be treated as a stepping stone, with further opportunities to employ a similar methodological approach to other animal use case studies. Several industries involving the slaughter of animals for food may provide insight into how human-human dynamics intersect, including: the Japanese Whaling industry, which provides whale meat for human food consumption; or the Canadian seal hunt, which provides food and clothing for humans, especially for the Inuit population. It would be interesting to see how

‘cultural sensitivity’ is engaged with in these discourses and whether certain groups of humans are taking up ‘victim’ status in discourses surrounding these practices, contributing to understandings of ‘animal cruelty’ in those contexts.

Further, it is important to acknowledge that this project selected a very specific set of data which focused on discourses in the public realm related to specific policy documents. There exists an opportunity to do a similar analysis examining media discourses, both news media and social media, as well as by conducting interviews with insiders and outsiders of the live export industry.

This would provide an even wider understanding of how humans are engaging with these new subject positions to understand how they are relating to themselves, each other, and animals.

282

In summary, this thesis has provided a discourse analysis of public debates surrounding animal cruelty policy relevant to the live export trade in 2011. It challenged the common approaches of animal activists and researchers that focus on the ethical belief that sees animals as subordinate to humans, furthering an oppressor-victim binary narrative between humans and animals. Instead, this thesis offered a new empirical approach to critiquing the problematisation of ‘animal cruelty’, and the discourses which produce its meaning, by analysing these discourses through the lens of human-human relations. This project illustrated how power was performed discursively in the policy debates surrounding live export, influenced by class, geographical, cultural and religious dynamics. This expands understandings of ‘oppressor’ and ‘victim’ in these policy debates. The findings from this thesis thus provide an understanding of how human-human power relations influence policy debates about the treatment of animals, shaping how ‘animal cruelty’ is understood and governed. This offers different paths of resistance than simply pushing back against current human-animal dynamics. Human-human relations are circulating within these debates and extending the targets of intervention and possibilities for action. This suggests there is potential to engage with human-centred problematisations to productively solve animal cruelty issues.

In April 2018, in the concluding months of writing this thesis, live export re- entered mainstream public discourses after an exposé by Animals Australia involving the live export of sheep from Western Australia to the Middle East was released via Channel 9’s current affairs program 60 Minutes (Little &

283

Calcutt 2018). In response, we have seen one company have their licence to export suspended (Bourke 2018) and one company voluntarily halt trade in the summer months while reviewing its future commercial viability (Mochan and Gubana 2018). However, it is not yet clear whether this recent footage of

‘animal cruelty’ will result in any substantive legislative changes to the industry, with the current Australian Federal Government indicating that they will not end the live export trade (Gratton 2018). As animal use and treatment continues to be problematised in ethical and legal discussions, there needs to be a new way of debating these issues. This thesis suggests a possible direction for such debates, and new tools to use in these struggles.

284

Reference List

ABC News. 2011. “Government lifts live cattle export ban.” July 6, 2011. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-06/government-lifts-live- cattle-export-ban/2784790

———. 2018. “David Littleproud announces sweeping changes to the live sheep exports after review.” Last updated June 15, 2018. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-17/david-littleproud- announces-changes-to-live-exports/9770632

Adams, Carol J. 1990. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York: Continuum.

Alkon, Alison Hope. 2013. “The socio-nature of local organic food.” Antipode 45(3): 663-680. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01056.x

Alkon, Alison Hope and Julian Agyman. 2011. Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability, e-book. Cambridge: MIT Press. Accessed February 2, 2016. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/qut/detail.action?docID=10513544

Andersen, Kip and Keegan Kuhn. 2015. The Sustainability Secret. California: Insight Editions.

Animal Care and Protection Act (Qld). 2001.

Animals Australia. 2007. “Investigation – Egypt 2006.” Accessed February 22, 2016. http://www.banliveexport.com/investigations/egypt-2006.php

———. 2011. “Stories from Indonesia.” Last modified May 30, 2011. http://www.banliveexport.com/videos/stories-from-indonesia.php

———. 2012. “Live export is getting harder – with your help!” Last modified September 08, 2012. http://www.banliveexport.com/features/live- export-getting-harder.php

———. ca. 2013. “Live export investigations.” Accessed May 07, 2013. http://www.banliveexport.com/investigations/

———. ca. 2014. “Making sense of egg labels.” Accessed October 10, 2014. http://www.makeitpossible.com/guides/egg-labels.php

Arcari, Paula. 2017. “Normalised, human-centric discourses of meat and animals in climate change, sustainability and food security literature.”

285

Agriculture and Human Values 34(1): 69-86. DOI: 10.1007/s10460-016- 9697-0.

Arluke, Arnold, Jack Levin, Carter Luke, and Frank Ascione. 1999. “The relationship of animal abuse to violence and other forms of antisocial behaviour.” J Interpers Violence 14: 963. DOI: 10.1177/088626 099014009004

Ascione, Frank. R. 1993. “Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for developmental psychopathology.” Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the Interactions of People & Animals 6(4): 226-247.

Ascione, Frank R. And Phil Arkow. 2002. Child Abuse, Domestic Violence and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of Compassion for Prevention and Intervention. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (AAWS) and National Implementation Plan 2010-2014. 2011. Commonwealth of Australia. Last reviewed July 14, 2016. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/animal/welfare/aaws/australian- animal-welfare-strategy-aaws-and-national-implementation-plan- 2010-14

Australian Associated Press (AAP). 2018. “Coalition, Labor at odds over sheep export.” News.com.au, June 14, 2018. https://www.news.com.au/ national/breaking-news/animal-group-launch-livestock-legal- action/news-story/01baa9059b39a21a3a9656bfbde88d67

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2008. “Overweight and Obesity in Adults, Australia 2004-2005, Socioeconomic Characteristics.” Accessed 29 December, 2015. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/ Latestproducts/4719.0Main%20Features32004-05?opendocument& tabname=Summary&prodno=4719.0&issue=2004-05&num=&view=

———. 2016. “National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, 2014-2015.” Accessed January 8, 2018. http://www.abs.gov.au/ AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4714.0Main+Features100012014-15

Australian Federal Parliament. 2011. “Record of proceedings (Hansard).” Accessed 28 April, 2015. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_ Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transp ort/Completed_inquiries/2010-12/liveexports2011/hearings/index

Australian Government Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). 2011. “Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) (version 2.3). 2011.” Accessed April 13, 2018. http://www.agriculture.

286

gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/animal-plant/animal-welfare/ standards/version2-3/australian-standards-v2.3.pdf

Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR). 2016. “Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS)”. Law reviewed, November 02, 2016. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/ export/controlled-goods/live-animals/livestock/information- exporters-industry/escas

———. 2017. “History of the trade and reviews.” Last reviewed August 01, 2017. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/controlled-goods/live- animals/livestock/history#reviews-in-2011

Australian Human Rights Commission. (AHRC). 2016. “Social Justice and Native Title Report 2016.” Accessed January 8, 2018. https://www. humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/AHRC_S JNTR_2016.pdf

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS). 2012. “Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies: Second Edition.” Accessed May 27, 2018. https://aiatsis.gov.au/ sites/default/files/docs/research-and-guides/ethics/gerais.pdf

Australian Institute for Health and Welfare (AIHW). 2008. “The Health and Welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.” Accessed January 8, 2018. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/9b239 e26-6e93-4c94-bfb1-fdc9e28aa06e/hwaatsip08.pdf.aspx?inline=true

Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act (Cth). 1997.

Ayyub, Rana Muhammad. 2015a. “Exploring perceptions of non-Muslims towards Halal foods in UK.” British Food Journal 117(9): 2328-2343. DOI: 10.1108/BFJ-07-2014-0257

———. 2015b. “An empirical investigation of ethnic food consumption: A perspective of majority ethnic group.” British Food Journal 117(4): 1239- 1225. DOI: 10-1108/BJ-12-2013-0373.

Bacchi, Carol. 2012. “Why study problematizations? Making politics visible.” Open Journal of Political Science 2(1): 1-8.

Ball, Matthew. 2008. A ‘deleterious’ effect?: Australian legal education and the production of the legal identity. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology.

Ball, Stephen. 1990. Foucault and Education: Disciplines and Knowledge, London: Routledge.

287

———. 2017. Foucault as Educator. London: Springer. ProQuest Ebook Central. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-50302-8

Balough, Stefanie. 2014. “Cattlemen muster for class action over live export ban.” The Australian, October 28, 2014. http://www.theaustralian. com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/cattlemen-muster-for-class- action-over-live-export-ban/news-story/f9c1e28f45760abeb877a0c50 77b4d7e

Barford, Vanessa. 2014. “The rise of the part-time vegans.” BBC News Magazine. February 17, 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine- 25644903.

Bartlett, Steven J. 2002. “Roots of human resistance to animal rights: psychological and conceptual blocks.” Animal law 8: 143-167.

Bates, Robert. 2009. Ingredients. Directed by Robert Bates. Produced by Brian Kimmel. United States of America: Optic Nerve Productions. Documentary.

Beirne, Piers. 2006. “For a nonspeciesist criminology: animal abuse as an object of study.” Criminology 37(1): 117-148. Accessed February 07, 2013. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1999.tb00481.x

———. 2007. “Animal rights, animal abuse and green criminology.” In Issues in Green Criminology: Confronting Harms Against Environments, Humanity and Other Animals, edited by Piers Beirne and Nigel South, 55- 83. Cullompton: Willan.

———. 2009. Confronting animal abuse: Law, criminology and human-animal relationships. United States of America: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

———. 2011. “Animal abuse and criminology: Introduction to a special issue.” Crime Law and Social Change 55(5): 349-357. DOI: 10.1007/s10611- 011-9306-5.

Bekoff, Marc. 2009. Encyclopedia or Animal Rights and Animal Welfare: Second Edition, edited by Marc Bekoff, e-book, Greenwood Press. Accessed 22 January, 2016. http://QUT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx? p=617357

———. 2010. The Animal Manifesto: Six Reasons for Expanding our Compassion Footprint. United States of America: New World Library.

Bell, Sarah. 2005. “The wheatbelt in contemporary rural mythology.” Rural Society 15(2): 176-190. DOI: 10.5172/rsj.351.15.2.176.

288

Bellotti, Bill. 2017. “How many people can Australia feed?” The Conversation, July 13, 2017. https://theconversation.com/how-many-people-can- australia-feed-76460

Best, Steven. 2006. “Rethinking revolution: Animal liberation, human liberation, and the future of the left.” The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy 2(3). Accessed 01 October, 2018. https://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol2/vol2_no3_Best_ret hinking_revolution.htm

Bettles, Colin. 2014. “New live ex class action claim.” FarmOnline, November 6, 2014. https://www.farmonline.com.au/story/3381326/new-live-ex- class-action-claim.

———. 2017. “Indonesian live cattle class action claim trial reaches satisfactory adjournment.” FarmOnline, August 2, 2017. https://www. farmonline.com.au/story/4827633/cattle-ban-case-reaches- satisfactory-adjournment/

Bjorkdahl, Kristian. 2012. “The rhetorical making of a crime called speciesism: the reception of ‘Animal Liberation.’” In Eco-Global Crimes: Contemporary Problems and Future Challenges, edited by Rune Ellefsen, Rahgnhild Sollund and Guri Larsen. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. E-book, accessed March 05 2013. http://qut.eblib.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/patron/ FullRecord.aspx?p=1028883&echo=1&userid=TSMP1JmcBJLEiuKiAViw tQ%3d%3d&tstamp=1362523041&id=96DB40E92359C7BEB43A4EAB 9B03F955ACEFD176

Black, Jason Edward. 2003. “Extending the rights of personhood, voice, and life to sensate others: A homology of right to life and animal rights rhetoric.” Communication Quarterly 51(3): 312-331.

Blanchett, Jessica and Bruno Zeller 2012. “No winners in the suspension of the livestock trade with Indonesia.” University of Notre Dame. Australia Law Review 14(14): 55-81.

Boltanski, L. 1999. Distant Suffering: Morality, Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Booth, Meredith. 2017. “Cattle producers seek $600m in court action over live export ban.” The Australian, July 16, 2017. http://www.theaustralian. com.au/national-affairs/cattle-producers-seek-660m-in-court-action- over-live-export-ban/news-story/c0f5b36c391adbf790e102c8ee63d9 ae

Bourke, Deidre. 2009. “Chapter 6: The use and misuse of ‘rights talk’ by the animal rights movement.” In Animal Law in Australasia, edited by Peter Sankoff and Steven White, 128-150. Sydney: Federation Press.

289

Bourke, Latika. 2018. “Emanuel Exports licence suspended over new alleged live export breaches.” Sydney Morning Herald, June 22, 2018. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/emanuel-exports-licence- suspended-over-new-alleged-live-export-breaches-20180622- p4zn7h.html

Bourke, Lisa and Stewart Lockie. 2001. “Chapter 1 Rural Australia: An Introduction.” In Rurality Bites: The social and environmental transformation of rural Australia, edited by Stewart Lockie and Lisa Bourke, 1-13. Annadale: Pluto Press.

Bronner, Simon J. 2008. Killing Tradition: Inside Hunting and Animal Rights Controversies. United States of America: University Press of Kentucky. http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/j.ctt2jcfrp

Brooke, Fiona. 2016. “Food security in Australia.” The Australian Journal of Rural Health 24(3): 220. DOI: 10.1111/ajr.12308.

Brown, Victoria L. 2014. “No topic is taboo”: PETA’s post-feminist pivot to human centric imagery. Masters Thesis, Colorado State University.

Bunei, Emmanuel K., Gerard Mcelwee, and Robert Smith. 2016. “From bush to butchery: cattle rustling as an entrepreneurial process in Kenya.” Society and Business Review 11(1): 46-61.

Burr, Vivien. 2015. Social Constructionism: Third Edition. New York: Routledge.

Butterley, Nick. 2015. “System fails to stem live export abuse.” The West Australian, January 22, 2015. https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/ a/26062170/system-fails-to-stem-live-export-abuse/

Cao, Deborah. 2010. Animal Law in Australia and New Zealand. Sydney: Thomson Reuters.

Carey, Lindsay B. and Christopher Newell 2007. “Abortion and Health Care Chapliancy in Australia.” Journal of religion and health 46(2): 315-332.

Carson, B., T Dunbar, R Chenhall, and R Bailie (eds). 2007. Social Determinants of Indigenous Health. New South Wales: Allen & Unwin.

Chalk, Lisa 2013. “Finding common ground.” Farm Weekly, July 03, 2013. http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/agriculture/general/opinion/fi nding-common-ground/2660337.aspx?storypage=0

Champion, D.J. 2006. Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

290

Chrulew, Matthew. 2011. “Managing love and death at the zoo: The biopolitics of endangered species preservation.” Australian Humanities Review 50 (May 2011): 1.

Cinalli, Manlio and Marco Giugni. 2013. “Political opportunities, citizenship models and political claim-making over Islam.” Ethnicities 13(2): 147- 164. DOI: 10.1177/1468796812470896.

Clendennig, Jessica, Wolfram H. Dressler, and Carol Richards. 2016. “Food justice or food sovereignty? Understanding the rise of urban food movements in the USA.” Agriculture and Human Values 33(1): 165-177. DOI: 10.1007/s10460-015-9625-8.

Cole, Matthew. 2011. “From ‘animal machines’ to ‘happy meat’? Foucault’s ideas of disciplinary and pastoral power applied to ‘animal-centred’ welfare discourse.” Animals 1(1): 83-101. DOI: 10.3390/ani1010083.

Cole, Matthew and Karen Morgan 2011. “Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK national newspapers.” The British Journal of Sociology 62(1): 134-153. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01348.x

Coleman, Joseph. 2007. “Japan’s whalers defend their right to hunt.” Los Angeles Times, November 18, 2007. Associated Press. November 18, 2007. http://articles.latimes/2007/nov/18/news/adfg-whale18.

Coorey, Phillip and Tom Allard. 2011. “Live cattle ban to stay.” Sydney Morning Herald, June 8, 2011. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/ animals/live-cattle-ban-to-stay-20110607-1fr8b.html

Coppin, D. 2003. “Foucauldian hog futures: The birth of mega-hog farms.” The Sociological Quarterly 44(4): 597-616.

Craig, Katrina J. 2013. “Beefing up the standard: The ramifications of Australia’s regulation of live export and suggestions for reform.” Macquarie Law Journal (11) 2013: 51-76.

Cravens, Mary Jean. 2009. “Men in the animal rights movement.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Chicago. ProQuest (UMI 3380683).

Crotty, Michael. 1998. The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London: Sage Publications.

Cudworth, Erika. 2016. “A sociology of other animals: analysis, advocacy, intervention.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 36(3/4): 242-257. DOI: 10.1108/IJSSP-04-2015-0040.

Cupp, Richard L. Jr. 2009. "Moving beyond animal rights: a legal/contractualist critique." The San Diego Law Review 46(1): 27-84.

291

Dadds, Mark R, Cynthia M Turner and John McAloon. 2002. “Developmental Links between Cruelty to Animals and Human Violence.” The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 35(3): 363-382.

De Haan, Cornelis, Tjaart Schillhorn van Veen, Brian Brandenburg, Jerome Gautheir, Francois Le Gall, Robin Mearns, and Michel Simeon. 2001. Livestock development: Implications for rural poverty, the environment, and global food security. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Accessed January 10, 2018. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/14006.

Deacon, R. 2000. “Theory as practice: Foucault’s concept of problematisation.” Telos, Winter 2000: 127-142.

Dean, Mitchell. 1994. Critical and Effective Histories: Foucault’s Methods and Historical Sociology. London: Routledge.

Deckha, Maneesha. 2008. “Disturbing images: PETA and the feminist ethics of animal advocacy.” Ethics and the Environment 13(2): 35-76.

Delgado, Christopher, Mark Rosegrant, Henning Steinfeld, Simeon Ehui, and Claude Courbois. 2001. “Livestock to 2020: The next food revolution.” Outlook on Agriculture 30(1): 27-29.

Denscombe, Martyn. 2010. The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects: Fourth Edition. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

Denzin, Norman K. and Yovnna S. Lincoln 2011. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research: Forth Edition, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln. California: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Dixon, Jane. 2014. “The public health contribution to the discursive struggles surrounding food security and food sovereignty.” Dialogues in Human Geography 4(2): 200-205. DOI: 10.1177/2043820614537157.

Donovan, Josephine. 1990. “Animal rights and Feminist Theory.” Signs 15(2): 350-375.

Duncan, J.H. 2006. “The changing concept of animal sentience.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100(1–2): 11-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04. 001.

Dreyfus, Hubert L. and Paul Rabinow. 1982. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. United Kingdom: The Harvester Press.

Export Control Act (Cth). 1982.

292

Fairclough, Norman, Jane Mulderrig, and Ruth Wodak. 2011. “Chapter Seventeen: Critical Discourse Analysis.” In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, edited by Teun A van Dijk, 357-378. London: Sage Publications. DOI: 10.4135/9781446289068.n1.

Farmer-Bowers, Quentin. 2015. “Finding ways to improve Australia’s food security situation.” Agriculture 2015, 5: 286-312. DOI: 10.3390/agriculture5020286.

Farmar-Bowers, Quentin, and Vaughan Higgins and Joanne Millar. 2012. Food Security in Australia: Challenges and Prospects for the Future. Boston: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4914-4484-8.

Faver, Catherine A. and Elizabeth B. Strang. “Domestic violence and animal cruelty.” In Journal of Social Work Education 39(2): 237-253. DOI: 10.1080/10437797.2003.10779134.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2006. “Five misunderstandings about case study research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219-245.

Foltz, Richard C. 2010. “Religion and Animals: Islam.” In Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare: Second Edition, edited by Marc Bekoff. Santa Barbara: EBC-CLIO, LLC, Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. Accessed 22 January, 2016. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qut /detail.action?docID=617357.

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). 1996. “Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action, (13-17th November 1996).” Accessed June 11, 2018. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.HTM

———. 2005. “Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realisation of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of national Food Security.” Accessed June 11, 2018. http://www.fao.org/3/a-y7937e.pdf

———. 2012. “Globally Almost 870 million Chronically Undernourished – New Hunger Report.” October 9, 2012. Accessed April 5, 2016. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/161819/icode/

Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York: Pantheon.

———. 1977a. Discipline and Punish: Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.

———. 1977b. “Two Lectures.” In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, edited by C. Gordon (1980), 78-107. New York: Pantheon Books.

293

———. 1977c. “Truth and Power.” In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, edited by C. Gordon (1980), 109-133. New York: Pantheon Books.

———. 1978. History of Sexuality: An Introduction. New York: Vintage.

———. 1982. “The Subject and Power.” Critical Inquiry 8(4): 777-795. Accessed April 20, 2018. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343197?origin =JSTOR-pdf

———. 1983. “Problematics.” In Foucault Live: Interviews, 1966-84, edited by S. Lotringer, 416-422. New York: Semiotexte.

———. 1984. “Sex, power, and the politics of identity.” In Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth (Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984: Volume 1), edited by Paul Rabinow (1994), 163-173. New York: The New Press.

———. 1988. “The concern for truth.” In Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings 1977-1984, edited by L. Kritzman, 225- 267. New York: Routledge.

———. 1998. The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality 1. United Kingdom: Penguin Books.

———. 2002. The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.

———. 2003. “Society Must Be Defended.” Lectures at the Collège de France. New York: Picador.

Fozdar, Farida and Brian Spittles. 2014. “Of cows and men: Nationalism and Australian cow making.” The Australian Journal of Anthropology 25(1): 73-90. DOI: 10.1111/taja.12067.

Francione, Gary. 1990. “The importance of access to animal care and committees: A primer for activists.” Animals Agenda 10(7): 44-47.

———. 1995. Animals, Property and the Law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

———. 2010. “Animal welfare and the moral value of nonhuman animals.” Law, Culture and the Humanities 6(1): 24-36. DOI: 10.1177/1743872109348989.

Francione, Gary L. and Robert Garner. 2010. Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation. Columbia University Press. ISBN: 9780231526692

Gaard, Greta. 2002. “Vegetarian Ecofeminism.” Frontiers 23(3): 117-122.

294

———. 2010. “Living Interconnections with Animals and Nature.” In Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature, edited by Greta Gaard, e-book, accessed March 04 2013, http://qut.eblib.com.au.ezp01. library.qut.edu.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=585150

Gaarder, Emily. 2013. “Evading responsibility for green harm: State-corporate exploitation of race, class, and gender inequality.” In Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology, edited by Nigel South and Avi Brisman, 272-281. Abingodn, Oxon: Routledge.

Gale, Peter. 2004. “The refugee crisis and fear: Populist politics and media discourse.” Journal of Sociology, 40(4): 321-340.

Garcia, Christine L. 2011. “Isn’t justice supposed to be blind?: Practicing animal law.” In Sister species: women, animals and social justice, edited by Lisa A. Kemmerer, 141-151. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Garland, David. 1986. “Foucault’s Discipline and Punish: An Exposition and Critique.” American Bar Foundation Research Journal. 1986 (4): 847-880.

———. 1997. “‘Governmentality’ and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology.” Theoretical Criminology 1(2): 173-214. DOI: 10.1177/1362480697001002002.

Gilson, Erinn Cunniff. 2011. “Vulnerability, ignorance, and oppression.” Hypatia 26(2): 308-332.

———.2016. “Vulnerability and victimization: Rethinking key concepts in feminist discourses on sexual violence.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 42(1): 71-98.

Goldstien, Jan. 1994. Foucault and the Writing of History, edited by Jan Goldstien. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Gottlieb, Robert and Anupama Joshi. 2010. Food Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gratton, Michelle. 2018. “Gratton on Friday: Live sheep exports tarnish Australia’s reputation and should be stopped.” The Conversation, April 12, 2018. https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-live-sheep- exports-tarnish-australias-reputation-and-should-be-stopped- 94935?utm_medium=amptwitter&utm_source=twitter

Guest, Greg, Kathleen M. MacQueen, and Emily E. Namey. 2012. Applied Thematic Analysis. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Gullone, Eleonora. 2012. Animal Cruelty, Antisocial Behaviur, and Aggression. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

295

Gwynn, Josephine D, Victoria M Flood, Catherine A D’Este, John R Attia, Nicole Turner, Janine Cochrane, Jimmy-Chun-Yu Louie, and John H Wiggers. 2012. “Poor food and nutrient intake among Indigenous and non- Indigenous rural Australian children.” BMC Pediatrics (2012): 12. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2431-12-12.

Halley, Jean O’Malley. 2012. The Parallel Lives of Women and Cows: Meat Markets. New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Halverson, Nic. 2012. “PETA’s ‘Porn’ Site Now Live.” Discovery News, June 7, 2012. http://news.discovery.com/tech/peta-porn-site-live-120607.htm

Harari, Yuval Noah. 2015. “Industrial farming is one of the worst crimes in history.” The Guardian, September 25, 2015. http://www. theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/25/industrial-farming-one-worst- crimes-history-ethical-question

Harding, Ann. 2002. “Recent trends in income and wealth inequality.” Ecodate 16(2): 4-5. Accessed January 8, 2018. http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/ login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthT ype=ip,sso&db=afh&AN=7305188&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Harman, Alan. 1999. “Combating rural crime.” Law & Order 57(6): 103-106.

———. 2002. “International: New South Wales anti-rustling campaign.” Law & Order 50(9): 214-216.

Hassall and Associates. 2006. The Live Export Industry: Value, Outlook and Contribution to the Economy. Meat & Livestock Australia Ltd: Sydney.

Hassan, Toni. 2016. “Arguments for live export trade ring hollow.” Sydney Morning Herald, March 31, 2016. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/ arguments-for-live-export-trade-ring-hollow-20160331- gnuss0.html#ixzz44W04QJZj

Hastreiter, Marie T. 2013. ‘Animal welfare standards and Australia’s live export industry to Indonesia: creating an opportunity out of a crisis.” Washington University Global Studies Law Review 12(1): 181-203.

Heckenberg, Diane. 2011. “What makes a good case study and what is it good for?” In Qualitative Criminology: Stories from the Field, edited by Lorana Bartels and Kelly Richards, 190-202. New South Wales: Hawkins Press.

Holloway, Lewis and Carol Morris. 2007. “Exploring biopower in the regulation of farm animal bodies: genetic policy interventions in UK livestock.” Genomics, Society and Policy 3(2): 82-98.

296

———. 2014. “Viewing animal bodies: truths, practical aesthetics and ethical considerability in UK livestock breeding.” Social & Cultural Geography 15(1): 1-22. DOI: 10.1080/14649365.2013.851264.

Holloway, Lewis, Carol Morris, Ben Gilna, and David Gibbs. 2009. “Biopower, genetics and livestock breeding: (re)constituting animal populations and heterogeneous biosocial activities.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 34(3): 394-407.

Holt-Giménez, Eric. 2012. “We already grow enough food for 10 billion people…and still can’t end hunger.” Common Dreams, May 8, 2012. http://commondreams.org/views/2012/05/08/we-already-grow- enough-food-10-billion-people-and-still-cant-end-hunger

Hook, Derek. 2001. “Discourse, knowledge, materiality, history: Foucault and discourse analysis.” Theory Psychology (2001) 11: 521-547. DOI: 10.1177/0959354301114006.

Hoole, Jan. 2017. “Here’s what the science says about animal sentience.” The Conversation, November 24, 2017. https://theconversation.com/heres- what-the-science-says-about-animal-sentience-88047

Hoy, David Couzens. 1986. Foucault: A Critical Reader. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). 2009. “Social Justice Report 2008.” Accessed January 8, 2018. https://www. humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/social_justice/sj_repor t/sjreport08/downloads/SJR_2008_full.pdf

Humane Society International. 2009. “The Results of HSI's Consumer Survey Are In.” Accessed October 1, 2014. http://www.hsi.org.au/ index.php?catID=650

Hund, Wulf D. and Charles W. Mills. 2016. “Comparing black people to monkeys has a long, dark simian history.” The Conversation, February 29, 2016. http://theconversation.com/comparing-black-people-to-monk eys-has-a-long-dark-simian-history-55102

Hutz, Claudio Simon, Christian Zanon, and Hermindo Brum Neto. 2013. “Adverse working conditions and mental illness in poultry slaughterhouses in Southern Brazil.” Psicologia, Reflexão e Crítica 26(2): 296-304. DOI: 10.1590/S0102-79722013000200009.

James, Nickolas. 2004. Power-Knowledge and Critique in Australian Legal Education 1987-2003. PhD Thesis, Queensland University of Technology.

297

Johnson, Hope. 2015. “Eating for health and the environment: Australian regulatory responses for dietary change.” QUT Law Review 15(2): 122- 129. DOI: 10.5204/qutlr.v15i2.587.

Johnson, Hope and Reece Walters. 2014. “Food security.” In Handbook of Security: Second Edition, edited by Martin Gill, 404-427. London: Palgrave McMillan.

Johnson, Lisa. 2012. Power, Knowledge, Animals. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Johnson, Victoria. 2011. “Everyday rituals of the master race: fascism, stratification, and the fluidity of “animal” domination.” In Critical Theory and Animal Liberation, edited by John Sanbonmatsu, 203-215. United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield Publishes, Inc.

Jones, Glenda. 2006. “Other research methods.” In Research Methods: An Australian Perspective, edited by M Walter, 307-342. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Jorgensen, Marianne and Louise J. Phillips. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. SAGE Publications Ltd. London. DOI: 10.4135/ 9781849208871.

Joy, Melanie. 2010. Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows. San Francisco: Conari Press.

Jupp, Victor and Clive Norris. 1993. “Traditions in documentary analysis.” In Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice, edited by Martyn Hammersley, 37-51. London: Sage.

Kendall, Gavin and Gary Wickham. 1999. Using Foucault’s Methods. London: Sage Publications.

Kenner, Robert, Elise Pearlstein, and Kim Roberts. 2008. Food, Inc. Directed by Robert Kenner. Produced by Robert Kenner and Elise Pearlstein. United States of America: Magnolia Pictures. Documentary.

Lawrence, Geoffrey, Carol Richards, and Kristen Lyons. 2013. “Food security in Australia in an era of neoliberalism, productivism and climate change.” Journal of Rural Studies (0743-0167), 29: 30-39. DOI: 10.1016/ j.jrurstud. 2011.12.005.

Lentini, Rosemarie. 2011. “Julia Gillard halts live cattle exports to Indonesia.” Daily Telegraph, June 8, 2011. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ news/national/julia-gillard-halts-live-cattle-exports-to-indonesia/ story-e6freuzr-1226071356883

298

Liamputtong, Pranee and Douglas Ezzy. 2005. Qualitative Research Methods: Second Edition. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Linnekin, Baylen J. and Emily Broad Leib. 2013. “Chapter 22: Food and Law.” In Routledge International Handbook of Food Studies, edited by Ken Albala. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Little, Liz and Lane Calcutt. 2018. “60 Minutes uncovers disturbing video from live sheet export vessel.” 9News, April 9, 2018. https://www.9news. com.au/national/2018/04/08/21/06/60-minutes-live-export-sheep- vessel

Live Export Shame (LES). 2012. “World Best Practice in Live Export – just what dose this mean?” Accessed February 21, 2018. http://www. liveexportshame.com/worlds_best_practice.htm

Lockwood, Randall and Frank R. Ascione. 1998. Cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence: Readings in research and application, edited by R Lockwood and F.R. Ascione. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Lloyd, Rachel, Otto Hellwig and Ann Harding. 2000. “Regional divide?: A study of incomes in regional Australia.” Australasian Journal of Regional Studies 6(3): 271-292.

Macquarie Dictionary. 2017. Macmillan Publishers Australia. Accessed June 4, 2018. https://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1955. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Appleton.

Mansvelt, Juliana. 2005. Geographies of Consumption. London: Sage Publications.

Masri, Imam al-Hafix B.A. 1989. Animals in Islam. UK: Athene Trust.

Matusitz, Jonathan and Maya Forrester. 2013. “PETA making social noise: A perspective on shock advertising.” Portuguese Journal of Social Science 12(1): 85-100. DOI: 10.1386/pjss.12.1.85_1

McCrum, Kristie. 2016. ““Eating chicken can make your kid’s d*** small”: Animal charity slammed over ‘body shaming’ campaign.” The Mirror, April 4, 2016. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/eating- chicken-can-make-your-7687548

McDonald, Susan and Anna Henderson and Alison Middleton. 2011. “Industry hit hard by live export ban.” ABC, June 9, 2011. http://www. abc.net.au/news/2011-06-08/industry-hit-hard-by-live-export- ban/2750768

299

McNay, Lois. 1994. Foucault: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.

MeKonnen, Mesfin M. and Arjen Y. Hoekstra. 2012. “A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products.” Ecosystems (2012) 15: 401- 415. DOI: 10.1007/s10021-011-9517-8.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 2018. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Accessed April 9, 2018. https://www.merriam-webster.com/

Mills, Sara. 2004. Discourse. London: Routledge.

———. 2013. Michel Foucault. London: Routledge.

Mochan, Kit and Benjamin Gubana. 2018. “Live ex company’s decision to halt northern summer trade descends into political slanging match.” ABC News, June 21, 2018. http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-06- 21/live-ex-decision-halt-northern-summer-descends-political- stoush/9891538?sf192238770=1&smid=ABCRural- Twitter_Organic&WT.tsrc=Twitter_Organic

Moore SJ, B Madlin, G Norman, and NR Perkins. 2015. “Risk factors for mortality in cattle during live export from Australia by sea.” Australian Veterinary Journal 93(10): 339-348.

Morfuni, Laura. 2011. “Pain for profit: An analysis of the live export trade.” Deakin Law Review 16(2): 497-538.

Morgan, Bronwen. 1999. “Oh reason not the need: Rights and other imperfect alternatives for those without a voice.” Law and Society Inquiry 24(1): 295-318.

Morgan, Myles, Phoebe Stewart and Kristy O’Brien. 2011. “Indigenous graziers sinking under export ban.” ABC News, June 10, 2011. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-10/indigenous-graziers- sinking-under-export-ban/2753990

Munro, Lyle. 2006. Confronting Cruelty: Moral Orthodoxy and the Challenge of the Animal Rights Movement. Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers. Accessed February 01 2013. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/qut/ docDetail.action?docID=10171689

———. 2015. “The live animal export controversy in Australia: A moral crusade made for the mass media.” Social Movement Studies 14(2): 214- 229. DOI: 10.1080/14742837.2013.874524.

National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC). 2003. “Values and Ethics: Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research.” Australian Government. Accessed May 27,

300

2018. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attach ments/e52.pdf

———. 2007. “Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.” Australian Government. Accessed May 27, 2018. https://www. nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/research/research-integrity/r39_ australian_code_responsible_conduct_research_150811.pdf

———. 2013. “Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes: 8th Edition.” Australian Government. Accessed June 11, 2018. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/ea 28_code_care_use_animals_131209.pdf

Native Title Act (Commonwealth). 1993.

Neales, Sue. 2018. “Live sheep export challenge”. The Australian, June 15, 2018. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign- affairs/live-sheep-export-challenge/news- story/463bba1e323ea5a210136c8a857e7aaa

Nestle, Marion. 2000. “Ethical dilemmas in choosing a healthy diet: vote with your fork!” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 59(4): 619-629.

Nibert, David. 2003. “Humans and other animals: Sociology’s moral and intellectual challenge.” The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23(3): 5-25.

———. 2014. “Animals, immigrants, and profits: Slaughterhouses and the political economy of oppression.” In Critical Animal Studies: Thinking the Unthinkable, edited by John Sorenson, 3-18. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.

———. 2017. Animal Oppression and Capitalism. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, LLC.

Novek, Joel. 2005. “Pigs and people: Sociological perspectives on the discipline of nonhuman animals in intensive confinement.” Society and Animals 13(3): 221-244. DOI: 10.1163/1568530054927771.

O’Brien, Kristy. 2012. “Politicians link suicides to cattle export ban.” ABC News, September 12, 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-12/ politicians-link-suicides-to-cattle-export-ban/4256526

O’Farrell, Clare. 2005. Michel Foucault. London: Sage.

Oxford English Dictionary. 2018. Oxford University Press. Accessed June 4, 2018. http://www.oed.com.

301

Painter, Corinne. 2014. “The analogy between the Holocaust and factory farming: a defense.” Journal of Critical Animal Studies 12(1): 33-62.

Palmer, Clare. 2001. “Taming the wild profusion of existing things’? A study of Foucault, power and human/animal relationships.” Environmental Ethics 23(4): 339-358.

Parker, Christine. 2013a. “Voting with your fork? Industrial free-range eggs and the regulatory construction of consumer choice.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2013 649: 52-73. DOI: 10.1177/0002716213487303.

———. 2013b. “The truth about free range eggs is tough to crack.” The Conversation, 4 August 2013. https://theconversation.com/the-truth- about-free-range-eggs-is-tough-to-crack-16661

Patterson, Charles. 2002. Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust. New York: Lantern Books.

Patton, M. Q. 1980. Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Pearson, Luke. 2017. “Who identifies as a person of colour in Australia?” ABC News, Last updated 1 December, 2017. http://www.abc.net.au/news/ 2017-12-01/who-identifies-as-poc-in-australia/9200288

Peggs, Kay. 2013. “The ‘animal-advocacy agenda’: exploring sociology for non- human animals.” The Sociological Review 16: 591-606. DOI: 10.1111/1467-954X.12065.

Pellow, David N. 2013. “Environmental justice, animal rights, and total liberation: From conflict and distance to points of common focus.” In Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology, edited by Nigel South and Avi Brisman, 272-281. Abingodn, Oxon: Routledge.

Phelps, Norm. 2013. Changing the Game: Why the Battle for Animal Liberation Is So Hard and How We Can Win It. New York: Lantern Books.

Phillips, C. J. C. 2005. “Ethical perspectives of the Australian live export trade.” Australian Veterinary Journal 83(9): 558-562. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751- 0813.2005.tb13336.x.

———. 2009. The Welfare of Animals: The Silent Majority. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9219-0.

———. 2014. “The sands are shifting after live export class action.” ABC News: The Drum. October 29, 2014. Accessed February 24, 2016. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-29/phillips-the-sands-are- shifting-after-live-export-class-action/5849560

302

———. 2015. The Animal Trade. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: CABI. DOI:10.1079/9781780643137.0000.

Pleiter, Helmut. 2010. Review of Stunning and Halal Slaughter. Meat % Livestock Australia Ltd. Accessed April 9, 2018. http://www .livecorp.com.au/LC/files/98/98780c7e-2e95-4e45-98d9- 74ff85c50281.pdf

Pointing, John. 2014 “Strict liability food law and Halal slaughter.” The Journal of Criminal Law 78(5): 387-391. DOI: 10.1350/jcla.2014.78.5.940

Pollan, Michael. 2006. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin Press.

———. 2008. In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto. New York: Penguin Press.

Potter, Will. 2009. “The green scare.” Vermont Law Review 33(4): 671-687.

———. 2011. Green is the New Red: An Insider’s Account of a Social Movement Under Siege. San Francisco: City Lights Books.

Poynting, Scott and George Morgan. 2012. “Introduction: the transnational folk devil.” In Global Islamophobia: Muslims and Moral Panic in the West, edited by Scott Poynting and George Morgan, 1-14, Farnham: Ashgate.

Proctor, Helen. 2012. “Animal sentience: Where are we and where are we heading?” Animals 2012, 2(4): 628-639. DOI: 10.3390/ani2040628.

Proctor, Helen, Gemma Carder, and Amelia R. Cornish. 2013. “Searching for animal sentience: A systematic review of the scientific literature.” Animals 2013, 3(3): 8982-906. DOI: 10.3390/ani3030882.

QUT Office of Research Ethics and Integrity. 2015. “Research Integrity.” Last modified October 12, 2015. http://www.orei.qut.edu.au/integrity/

Ranganathan, Janet and Daniel Vennard, Richard Waite, Tim Sarchinger, Patrice Dumas, and Brian Lipinski. 2016. “Shifting diets: Towards a sustainable food future.” In International Food Policy Research Institute. 2016. 2016 Global Food Policy Report. Washington, DC: The International Food Policy Research Institute. 67-80.

Regan, Thomas. 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. United States of America: University of California Press.

Remeikis, Amy. 2013. “RSPCA ‘not consulted’ on free range chicken move.” Brisbane Times. August 2, 2013. Accessed January 28, 2016. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/rspca-not-consulted- on-free-range-chicken-move-20130801-2r25a.html

303

Reyaz, Aiman. 2012. “Animal Welfare in Islam.” Southasia 16(10): 49-50.

Rollin, Bernard E. 2006a. Animal Rights and Human Morality. NY: Prometheus Books.

———. 2006b. “An ethicist’s commentary on raising the legal status of animals.” Canadian Veterinary Journal (0008-5286), 47(6): 518-520.

Rose, Nikolas and Peter Miller 1992. “Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government.” The British Journal of Sociology 43(2): 173- 205. DOI:10.2307/591464.

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). 2016. “How are animals stunned prior to slaughter.” Last modified May 25, 2016. http://kb.rspca.org.au/How-are-animals-stunned-prior-to- slaughter_622.html

———. 2017. “What is Halal slaughter in Australia?” Last modified April 18, 2017. http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-Halal-slaughter-in-Australia_ 116.html

Ryder, Richard Dudley. 1975. Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Research. Davis-Poynter.

———. 1985. “Speciesism in the laboratory.” In In Defense of Animals, edited by Peter Singer, 77-88. New York: Basil Blackwell.

———. 2009. “Painism versus utilitarianism.” Think 21(8): 85-89. The Royal Institute of Philosophy. DOI: 10.1017/S1477175608000420.

Safron Foer, Jonathan. 2009. Eating Animals. New York: Little, Brown.

Sankoff, Peter. 2005. “Five years of the “new” animal welfare regime: Lessons learned from New Zealand’s decision to modernise its animal welfare legislation.” Animal Law 11: 7.

———. 2009. “The welfare paradigm: Making the world a better place for animals?” In Animal Law in Australasia, edited by Peter Sankoff and Steven White, 7-34. Sydney: The Federation Press.

Sankoff, Peter and Steven White (eds) 2009. Animal Law in Australasia. Sydney: The Federation Press.

SBS News. 2011. “Mental health fears for cattle farmers.” Last modified August 26, 2013. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2011/07/05/mental- health-fears-cattle-farmers

304

Schlosser, Eric. 2001. Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal. London: Penguin.

Schmitz, Thomas A. 2008 “Michel Foucault and discourse analysis,” in Modern Literature Theory and Ancient Texts: an Introduction, 140-158. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Schoenmaker, Sharon and Donald Alexander. 2012. “Live cattle trade – the case of an online crisis.” Social Alternatives 31(2): 17-21.

Schwandt, Thomas A. 2000. “Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry.” In The Handbook of Qualitative Research: Second Edition, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 189-213. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Seawright, Jason and John Gerring. 2008. “Case selection techniques in case study research.” Political Research Quarterly 61(2): 294-308. DOI: 10.1177/1065912907313077.

Sharman, Katrina. 2006. “Opening the laboratory door: national and international legal responsibilities for the use of animals in scientific research – an Australian perspective.” Journal of Animal Law 2: 67-85.

Singer, Peter. 1975. Animal Liberation. United States of America: HarperCollins Publishers.

———. 2009a. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement: Updated Edition. United States of America: HarperCollins Publishers.

———.2009b. “Speciesism and moral status.” Metaphilosophy 40(3-4): 567- 581. DOI: 10-1111/j.1467-9973.2009.01608.x

———. 2011. Practical Ethics: Third Edition. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press

Skarmeas, Dionysis, Athina Zeriti, and George Baltas. 2016. “Relationship value: Drivers and outcomes in international marketing channels.” Journal of International Marketing 24(1): 22-40. DOI: 10.1509 /jim.15.0065.

Smietanka, Anastasia. 2013. “Live export: A cruel and risky industry.” Issues 103 (June 2013): 4-6.

Smith, David. 2007. “‘Cruelty of the world kind’: Religious slaughter, xenophobia, and the German Greens.” Central European History 40(1): 89-115. DOI: 10-1017/S0008938907000295.

305

Smith, Mick. 2002. “The ‘ethical’ space of the abattoir: On the (in)human(e) slaughter of other animals.” Human Ecology Forum 9(2): 49-58.

Smith, Wesley J. 2009. A Rat Is a Pig Is Dog Is as Boy: The Human cost of the Animal Rights Movement. New York: Encounter Books.

Sollund, Ragnhild. 2011. “Expressions of speciesism: the effects of keeping companion animals on animal abuse, animal trafficking, and species decline.” Crime Law Soc Change 55 (5):437-451. DOI: 10.1007/s10611- 011-9296-3.

———. 2013. “The victimization of women, children and non-human species through trafficking and trade: Crimes understood through an ecofeminist perspective.” In Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology, edited by Nigel South and Avi Brisman, 317-330. Abingodn, Oxon: Routledge.

Sorenson, John. 2011. “The myth of “animal rights terrorism.” The Brock Review 12(1): 69-99.

South, Nigel, Avi Brisman and Piers Beirne. 2013. “A guide to green criminology.” In Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology, edited by Nigel South and Avi Brisman, 27-42. Abingodn, Oxon: Routledge.

Stableford, Dylan. 2012. “Does this PETA ad featuring a woman in a neckbrace promote veganism or violence?” YahooNews, February 13, 2012. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/does-peta-ad-featuring-young- pantsless-woman-neckbrace-222920818.html

Stark, Greg. 2010. “Review of mark three and development of mark four cattle restraining box.” Sydney, NSW: Meat & Livestock Australia. Accessed June 20, 2018. http://www.livecorp.com.au/LC/files/af/afe7761f-a5b4- 45ba-953e-17f6a18b1a8e.pdf

Steinfeld, Henning, Pierre Gerber, Tom Wassenaar, Vincent Castel, Mauricio Rosales, and Cees de Haan. 2006. “Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options”, The Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). Accessed April 27, 2018. http:// www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

Stephens, Kate, Natalie Poyhonen, and Paula Tapiolas. 2013. “Live export ban a 'disaster' for northern Australia.” ABC Online, May 06, 2013. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-06/live-export-ban-a-disaster- for-northern-australia/4671318

Sundstrup, Emil and Markus D. Jakobsen, Kenneth Jay, Mikkel Brandt, and Lars L. Andersen. 2014. “High intensity physical exercise and pain in the neck

306

and upper limb among slaughterhouse workers: Cross-sectional study”. BioMed Research International (2014), Article ID 218546, 5 pages. DOI: 10.1155/2014/218546.

Sztybel, David. 2006. “Can the treatment of animals be compared to the Holocaust?” Ethics and the Environment 11(1): 97-132, 140.

Taylor, Chloe. 2013. “Foucault and critical animal studies: Genealogies of agricultural power.” Philosophy Compass 8/6 (2013): 539-551. DOI: 10.1111/phc3.12046. Tester, Keith. 1991. Animals and Society: The Humanity of Animal Rights. London: Routledge.

Thierman, Stephen. 2010. “Apparatuses of animality: Foucault goes to a slaughterhouse.” Foucault Studies 9: 89-110.

Tiplady, Catherine M., and Deborah-Anne B. Walsh and Clive J.C. Phillips 2013. “Public response to media coverage of animal cruelty.” Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics 26(4): 869-885. DOI: 10.1007/ s10806-012-9412-0.

Trochim, W. M. K. 2006. “Qualitative Validity.” Research Methods: Knowledge Base. Accessed July 15, 2013. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net /kb/qualval.php

Van Dijk. Teun, A. 2011. “Introduction: The Study of Discourse.” In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, edited by Teun A. van Dijk, 1-7. London: Sage Publications. DOI: 10.4135/9781446289068.n1.

Vermeulen, Hannelie and Joahannes S.J. Odendaal. 1993. “Proposed typology of companion animal abuse.” Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the Interactions of People & Animals 6(4): 248-257.

Voldnes, GØril and Ingrid Kvalvik. 2017. “Interfirm relationships in emerging markets: The importance of relationships and cultural sensitivity.” Journal of East-West Business 23(2): 194-214. DOI: 10.1080/ 10669868.2017.1280110.

Vos, Theo, Bridget Barker, Stephen Begg, Lucy Stanley, and Alan D Lopez. 2009. “Burden of disease and injury in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples: The Indigenous health gap.” Int J Epidemiol 38(2): 470-7. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyn240.

Wadiwel, Dinesh Joseph. 2009. “The war against animals: Domination, law and sovereignty.” Griffith Law Review 18(2): 283-297.

Wahlquist, Call. 2018. “Live exports review: animal welfare groups criticise vet’s appointment.” The Guardian, April 23, 2018. https://www.

307

theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/live-exports-review-animal- welfare-groups-criticise-vets-appointment

Wahlquist, Calla and Nick Evershed. 2018. “Australia promised to fix live export after hammer slaughter video. It hasn’t.” The Guardian, April 13, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/13/weak-rules- fail-to-stop-inhumane-slaughter-of-australian-animals- overseas?CMP=share_btn_tw

Waldau, Paul. 2002. The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals. American Academy of Religion Academy Series. New York: Oxford University Press.

———. 2011. Animal Rights: What Everyone Needs to Know. United States of America: Oxford University Press.

Walker, Polly and Pamela Rhubart-Berg, Shawn McKenzie, Kristin Kelling, and Robert S. Lawrence. 2005. “Public health implications of meat production and consumption.” Public Health Nutrition 8(4): 348-356. DOI: 10.1079/PHN2005727.

Walls, John. 2002. “The campaign against ‘live exports’ in the UK: Animal protectionism, the stigmatisation of place and the language of moral outrage.” Sociological Research Outline 7(1).

Wetherell, Margret and Stephanie Taylor and Simeon Yates. 2001. Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. London: Sage Publications.

White, Steven. 2003. “Legislating for animal welfare: Making the interests of animals count.” Alternative Law Journal 28(6): 277-281.

Whittemore, Robin, Susan K. Chase and Carol Lynn Mandle. 2001. “Validity in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Health Research, 11(4): 522-537. DOI: 10.1177/104973201129119299.

Whittington, Paul and Leisha Hewitt. 2009. “Review of the Mark I, II and III cattle restraining boxes.” Sydney, NSW: Meat & Livestock Australia. Accessed June 20, 2018. http://www.livecorp.com.au/LC/files/ df/df946719-d861-4e9b-a03c-eecd76749f78.pdf

Williams, Raymond. 1973. The Country and the City. London: Chatto and Windus

Willingham, Richard and Tom Allard. 2011. “Month-long live cattle ban to Indonesia lifted.” Sydney Morning Herald, July 7, 2011. http://www.smh. com.au/national/monthlong-live-cattle-ban-to-indonesia-lifted- 20110706-1h2lw.html

308

Wilson, Rae. 2014. “Cattle rustling just got harder in Queensland.” Sunshine Coast Daily, April 04, 2014. https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com. au/news/cattle-rustling-just-harder-in-queensland/2219280/

Wodak, Ruth. The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/9780230316539.

Woolf, Arron and Ian Cheney, Curt Ellis and Jeffrey K. Miller. 2007. King Corn. Directed by Aaron Woolf. Produced by Aaron Woolf, Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis. United States of America: Mosaic Films. Documentary.

World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). 2017. “Chapter 7 – Animal Welfare.” In Terrestrial Animal Health Code: Twenty-Sixth Edition. OIE, Paris, France. Accessed June 11, 2018. http://www.oie.int/en/standard- setting/terrestrial-code/access-online/

Wortherington, Anne. 2011. “Live exports to shamed abattoirs suspended.” ABC News. Last modified 1 June 2011. http://www.abc.net.au/news/ 2011-05-31/live-exports-to-shamed-abattoirs-suspended/2738896

Wrenn, Corey Lee. 2014. “Abolition then and now: tactical comparisons between the human rights movement and the modern nonhuman animal rights movement in the United States.” Journal of Agricultural Environmental Ethics 27(2): 177-200. DOI: 10.1007/s10806-013-9458- 7.

———. 2015. A Rational Approach to Animal Rights: Extensions in Abolitionist Theory. United Kingdom: Palgrave Limited.

Wrigley, Neil, Daniel Warm, and Barrie Margetts. 2003. “Deprivation, diet, and food-retail access: findings from the Leeds “food deserts” study.” Environment and Planning A 35(1): 151-188.

Yates, Roger. 2007. “Debating ‘animal rights’ online: The movement- countermovement dialectic revisited.” In Issues in Green Criminology: Confronting Harms Against Environments, Humanity and Other Animals, edited by Piers Beirne and Nigel South, 140-157. Cullompton: Willan.

Yin, Robert K. 2018. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods: Sixth Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Zoethout, Carla M. 2013. “Ritual slaughter and the freedom of religion: Some reflections on a stunning matter.” Human Rights Quarterly 35(3): 651- 672,815.

309

Appendix A – Data Sources

Broadcast materials

Four Corners. 2011. “A Bloody Business.” ABC Online. May 30, 2011. Transcript. Last Updated September 20, 2017. http://www.abc.net.au/ 4corners/4c-full-program-bloody-business/8961434

Four Corners. 2011. “Interview – Dr Temple Grandin.” ABC Online. May 30, 2011. Transcript. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/ content/2011/s3230885.htm

Four Corners. 2011. “Interview – Professor Ivan Caple.” ABC Online. May 30, 2011. Transcript. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/ content/2011/s3230575.htm

Four Corners. 2011. “Interview – Cameron Hall.” ABC Online. May 30, 2011. Transcript. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/ content/2011/s3230842.htm

Parliamentary proceedings

Commonwealth of Australia. 2011. “Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2].” Hansard. June 15, 2011. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id% 3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fs831%22

Commonwealth of Australia. 2011. “Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2].” Hansard. June 20, 2011. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id% 3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fs830%22

Commonwealth of Australia. 2011. “Inquiry into the animal welfare standards in Australia’s live export markets – Public hearings, media release and transcripts.” Transcripts August 4, 2011 – September 20, 2011. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/ Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed_inquiries/20 10-12/liveexports2011/hearings/index

Government statements and responses

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Cth). “Live animal exports to Indonesia.” Media Release DAFF11/011D. June 1, 2011. Accessed January 1,

310

2014. http://daff.gov.au/about/media-centre/dept-releases/2011/live_ animal_exports_indonesia

Hon. Joe Ludwig, Minister for Agricultural, Fisheries and Forestry. 2011. “Mr Bill Farmer AO to conduct independent review into live export trade.” Media Release DAFF11/177LJ. June 13, 2011. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id% 3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F863501%22

Commonwealth of Australia. 2011. “Australian Government response to the Independent Review of Australia’s Livestock Export Trade (Farmer Review).” Last Reviewed February 25, 2015. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/controlled-goods/live-animals/ livestock/about/history/response-to-the-independent-review

Commonwealth of Australia. 2011.”Australian Government response to findings of Industry Government Working Group (IGWG) on Live Cattle Exports.” Last Reviewed February 25, 2015. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/controlled-goods/live-animals/ livestock/about/history/response-to-the-independent-review

Commonwealth of Australia. 2012. “Australian Government response to Senate Inquiry – Animal welfare standards in Australia’s live export markets and Live Animal Export Bills.” July 2012. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/co mpleted_inquiries/2010-12/live_exports_2011/govt_response/govt_ response.ashx

Commissioned reviews and reports

Schipp, Dr Mark. 2011. “An assessment of the ongoing appropriateness of Mark I and IV restraint boxes.” August 2011. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/Style%20Library/Images/DAFF/__data/asse ts/pdffile/0006/2401692/assessment-restraint-boxes.pdf

Industry Government Working Group (IGWG) on Live Cattle Exports. 2011. “Report to Australian Government Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Fostery.” Commonwealth of Australia. August 26, 2011. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/Style%20Library/Images/DAFF/ __data/assets/pdffile/0003/2136207/industry-government-working-group- on-live-cattle-exports-v2.2-20-Aug-2011.pdf

Farmer, Bill AO. 2011. “Independent review of Australia’s livestock export trade (Farmer Review).” Commonwealth of Australia. August 31, 2011. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/Style%20Library/ Images/DAFF/__data/assets/pdffile/0007/2401693/indep-review-aust- livestock-export-trade.pdf

311

Senate Standing Committees on Rural Affairs and Transport. 2011. “Animal welfare standards in Australia's live export markets Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2] Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2].” (Senate Inquiry Report). Commonwealth of Australia. November 23, 2011. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://www.aph.gov. au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs _and_Transport/Completed_inquiries/2010- 12/liveexports2011/report/index

Parliament of Australia. 2011. “Submissions received by the Committee.” Submissions 1 – 429. Accessed April 20, 2016. http://www.aph.gov.au/ Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_an d_Transport/Completed_inquiries/2010-12/liveexports2011/submissions

312

Appendix B – Animal Care and Protection Act (Qld) 2001 [excerpt]

18 Animal cruelty prohibited (1)A person must not be cruel to an animal. Maximum penalty—2000 penalty units or 3 years imprisonment. Note— This provision is an executive liability provision—see section 209 . (2)Without limiting subsection (1), a person is taken to be cruel to an animal if the person does any of the following to the animal— (a)causes it pain that, in the circumstances, is unjustifiable, unnecessary or unreasonable; (b)beats it so as to cause the animal pain; (c)abuses, terrifies, torments or worries it; (d)overdrives, overrides or overworks it; (e)uses on the animal an electrical device prescribed under a regulation; (f)confines or transports it— (i)without appropriate preparation, including, for example, appropriate food, rest, shelter or water; or (ii)when it is unfit for the confinement or transport; or (iii)in a way that is inappropriate for the animal’s welfare; or Examples for subparagraph (iii)— •placing the animal, during the confinement or transport, with too few or too many other animals or with a species of animal with which it is incompatible •not providing the animal with appropriate spells (iv)in an unsuitable container or vehicle; (g)kills it in a way that— (i)is inhumane; or (ii)causes it not to die quickly; or (iii)causes it to die in unreasonable pain; (h)unjustifiably, unnecessarily or unreasonably— (i)injures or wounds it; or (ii)overcrowds or overloads it.

313

Appendix C – Restraint Boxes

This thesis involves discussions related to ‘restraint boxes’, specifically the Mark I and Mark IV restraint boxes used to restrict movement of cattle and ensure their correct positioning for slaughter. The below images were included in a Government-commissioned report, prepared by Mark Schipp (An assessment of the ongoing appropriateness of Mark I and IV restraint boxes 2011), which was part of the data set for this project. These images were located by Schipp from previous industry reports by Whittington and Hewitt (2009) and Stark (2010).

Above: Mark I restraint boxes showing lower plinth height (left figure) and a box with a raised plinth (right figure).

Above: Completed manual Mark IV restraint box (left figure) and testing hydraulic Mark IV restraint box (right figure).

314