Ludwig partially bans live export to Indonesia but fails to follow Saffin's well-grounded lead

The Australian Online 31 May 2011:

caucus erupted after Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig announced a ban on exports to 11 Indonesian abattoirs, which many MPs felt did not go far enough.

About 20 Labor MPs spoke on the issue, with many saying they had been besieged by phone calls after a confronting Four Corners documentary showed graphic images of Australian cattle being whipped, beaten and dismembered in dozens of prolonged and painful slaughters last night.

Backbench MP Janelle Saffin presented a notice of motion to caucus, seconded by fellow MP Kelvin Thomson, proposing a complete ban on live exports to Indonesia to be discussed at the next meeting in a fortnight.

Saffin says no more excuses for live exports

Page MP Janelle Saffin says there are no more excuses for industry, governments or anyone to continue supporting the live export trade.

Following last night’s Four Corners program, Agriculture Minister, Senator Joe Ludwig today called for the complete suspension of live animal exports to the Indonesian facilities identified in the footage gathered by Animals Australia.

Ms Saffin today said she approves the suspension of live animal exports to the Indonesian facilities identified in the Four Corners program.

“Along with other Labor MPs, I met with Minister Ludwig on the live exports issue yesterday, and following today’s Caucus meeting, the Minister announced the action.

“And yes, I have put forward the view that we have a cessation of live exports.

“I first raised the issue in Parliament early last year and this year my private members motion calling for the phasing out of live exports and an increase in chilled and frozen meat exports was debated in Parliament.

“I’ve been leading this debate with colleagues for some time, particularly promoting changes within our Labor party, in terms of policy.

“Like so many people, I could barely watch the footage from Animals Australia that was screen on last night’s Four Corners program. 

“There is now a groundswell of support within the Labor Party to change the practices of live export on the humanitarian grounds, and also because it exports jobs.

“There has been an incredible response to the Four Corners program, and I have had farmers contacting me saying that if this is what’s happening, it has to stop.

“We as Australians have a way of treating animals, and if we export animals we expect those standards to prevail.

“I’ve been told by the Meat and Livestock Association and Livecorp that they operate with best practice, but seeing last night’s program put paid to that.

“I don’t have faith that they, as industry bodies, are looking after those they represent, let alone the public interest.

“We have a responsibility to make sure that animals are treated in the same way that we treat them here.

“Some years ago when confronted by the same scenes of cruelty in Egypt, the trade was stopped almost overnight.

“I am pleased that Minister Ludwig has taken the action he took today,” Ms Saffin said.

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig and the Government, have undertaken the following actions:

-       asked the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to conduct an investigation into the footage

-       announced an independent review to investigate the complete supply chain for live exports up to and including the point of slaughter

-       asked for orders to enforce the suspension of live animal exports to the facilities identified by the evidence provided by RSPCA and Animals Australia

-       the Minister will add further facilities to the list of banned facilities in future, if required

-       Implemented a moratorium on the installation of the restraint boxes, seen being used in the footage. This will apply to the instalment of any new boxes with Commonwealth funds across all global markets and

-       Asked the Chief Veterinary Officer to co-ordinate an independent, scientific assessment of the restraint boxes used in Indonesia.

Media Release, 31 May 2011

Saffin justified over call for more frozen beef exports instead of high level of live exports from Australia

LiveCorp, Meat & Livestock Australia, Cattle Council of Australia and the Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry have been found severely wanting in their attitude to animal welfare with regard to Australia's live animal export industry, given the ABC Four Corners episode A Bloody Business aired on 30 May 2011.

By the same token; these recent revelations have justified NSW North Coast Federal Labor MP for Page, Janelle Saffin, raising concerns about live exports in her 16 March 2010 House of Representatives motion in support of Halal frozen meat exports.

A motion which saw her publicly attacked at the time by the Nationals for Regional Australia's Senator Fiona Nash.

Those having some oversight of the live animal export industry apparently only began to stir over current welfare concerns once they were approached by the Four Corners investigative team and, the Australian beef industry will have no-one to blame but itself for any negative impacts felt by its members.

Following a report published January this year by industry and government, painting a positive picture of conditions in Indonesia, animal welfare campaigners took their own cameras into abattoirs to record the conditions for themselves. That footage reveals that Australian training of the slaughtermen in Indonesia has been grossly inadequate. Animals smash their heads repeatedly on concrete as they struggle against ropes, take minutes to die in agony after repeated often clumsy cuts to the throat. In some cases there is abject and horrifying cruelty - kicking, hitting, eye-gouging and tail-breaking - as workers try to force the cattle to go into the slaughter boxes installed by the Australian industry, with Australian Government support. [Excerpt from transcript of A Bloody Business,30 May 2011]

A Bloody Business video on demand*
* Warning this video contains graphic images

A new YAMBA group. Want to join up?

This group is meant for xxxx brothers with a reasonable level of fitness, where they can be involved in active team sports, like basketball, soccer, flag football, etc.

YAMBA says, "There is clearly a need for a social association for xxxx brothers to simply get out and be active in somewhat high numbers amongst one another on a regular basis, so here it is.

"The group is open to non-xxxx's as well, just don't expect any "beer kickball" games to be scheduled :)"

Read more details of YAMBA here.

Australian Liberal Party supporting the tobacco industry?

British American Tobacco website on 27 May 2011:

We have a clear policy and compliance procedures on political donations, set out in our Group-wide Standards of Business Conduct. Contributions from our companies to political parties and organisations, their officers, elected politicians and candidates for elective office are generally not encouraged.

Such payments can only be made for the purpose of influencing the debate on issues affecting the company or Group and not to achieve any improper business or other advantage (such as to secure a government contract), must not be intended personally to benefit the recipient or his or her family, friends, associates or acquaintances and must be permissible under all applicable laws….

We collate information centrally on contributions to political parties and to individual politicians that are made for the benefit of their party. Payments in 2010 were as follows:

Where there's smoke there's money (2004) in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine in December 2004:

Voting records of 527 members of the 106th U.S. Congress were obtained for 49 tobacco-related bills between 1997 and 2000. Tobacco industry political action committee (PAC) contributions for each member were summed from 1993 to 2000. A cross-sectional, multilevel model was constructed that predicts voting behavior based on amount of contributions, political party, home state, and amount of state tobacco agriculture. The data were analyzed in 2002, 2003, and 2004.....

A total of $6,827,763 was received by the legislators from 17 tobacco industry PACs, an average of $12,956 per member. Senate Republicans received the most money (mean $22,004), while Senate Democrats received the least ($6,057). Republicans voted pro-tobacco 73% of the time and Democrats voted pro-tobacco only 23% of the time (p <0.001). Pro-tobacco voting percentage varied significantly by state (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.27, p <0.001). The amount of PAC money received by a member of Congress was positively associated with voting pro-tobacco (p <0.01), even after controlling for political party, state, and state tobacco farming. For Democrats in Congress who voted pro-tobacco, for every $10,000 contribution they received, they were 9.8% more likely to do so. On the other hand, for Republicans who voted pro-tobacco, for every $10,000 received, they were only 3.5% more likely to do so....

Tobacco industry contributions, political party, and state-level factors influence the voting behavior of Congress members. In the 106th Congress, Republicans voted pro-tobacco over three times as often as Democrats. However, for those Democrats who voted pro-tobacco, the relationship between receiving tobacco industry PAC money and a pro-tobacco vote was stronger than it was for Republicans.

Tobacco funding: time to quit (2010) in The Drum in May 2010:

The Australian Electoral Commission website reports that in recent years both the Philip Morris company and British American Tobacco have been generous donors to the Liberal Party and the National Party. During the year 2008/9 Philip Morris contributed $158,000 to the Liberal and National parties around Australia.o:p>

Tobacco industry donations to the Liberal Party of Australia at national level in 2009-10 according to the Australian Electoral Commission:

British American Tobacco $19,800
Phillip Morris Limited $15,000 and $16,500

Tony Abbott:

2009 - I was a child that was regularly imprisoned in a car with heavy smokers. My parents both smoked heavily when I was a kid. Now has it done me any harm? Well, yes, you be the judge, you be the judge. I mean maybe but for that I would have been six foot six, and I would have had much greater intelligence, who knows.

2010 -

2011 - Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has defended his anti-smoking credentials amid criticism that the Liberal and National parties were influenced by donations from tobacco companies.

The federal government says the fact 97 per cent of British American Tobacco's political donations worldwide last year went to the Liberal and National parties proved the Coalition "on the drip".

Mr Abbott said tobacco companies "wasted their money" if they thought it would influence the Liberal Party and said when he was health minister he helped reduce smoking rates.

Mr Abbott, a former health minister who beefed up the health warnings on cigarette packets, says he is not convinced the plain green packets with graphic health warnings will help reduce smoking. Other Liberals argue tobacco is a legal product and the companies have intellectual rights over their brands.

Obama acting like Nixon - how disappointing

“Two weeks ago, a grand jury meeting in a courtroom in the Eastern District Court of Virginia heard testimony for at least two days from at least three people subpoenaed by federal prosecutors, several sources tell The Huffington Post. The jury has been convened to consider whether to approve the prosecution of WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange. A subpoena delivered to a Manning associate in the Boston area says that prosecutors are investigating "possible violations of federal criminal law involving, but not necessarily limited to, conspiracy to communicate or transmit national defence information in violation of" the Espionage Act, as first reported by Salon's Glenn Greenwald.…… "To the extent that we can find anybody involved in breaking American law who has put at risk the assets and the people that I have described ... they will be held responsible," Attorney General Eric Holder said last November. "They will be held accountable."……The potential prosecution of WikiLeaks and Assange alarms First Amendment advocates, who say that though it might be common for government leakers to be prosecuted, it would be unprecedented for a recipient of classified information to be indicted for espionage……The Nixon administration's effort to halt the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers, for example, led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling that affirmed First Amendment rights. More recently, two lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee were charged with violating the Espionage Act after a Pentagon analyst gave them classified military information about potential attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, but the charges were later dismissed.” {HuffPost Politics on 26^th May 2011}

Moggy Musings [Archived material from Boy the Wonder Cat]

 

An it defies understanding musing: For a few months now a North Coast resident has been busy pretending to be a well-known former NSW Police Commissioner. A couple of my four-legged friends say their owners have received copies of some of his strange epistles which allege wrongdoing on the part of the Local Court. Yuk.

An I swear it's true musing: I was reading over my house slave's shoulder the other day and had to chuckle at one EEFector email displayed on the monitor which made me suspect someone in Frisco had been nibbling on catnip at the end of another long day fighting guvminn intrusion into teh internetz - EFF filed an amicus brief supporting online free speech today, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth Circuit to affirm a permanent injunction blocking a federal law that would violate the First Amendment by imposing penalties on website operators that publish indecent material without also using technological measures to block access by kittens. The Kitten Internet Protection Act of 2008 (KIPA) was passed after the Supreme Court struck down its predecessors, the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA) and the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA). The government had argued that narrowing the law's scope to young felines would make the restrictive law pass constitutional muster. In the district court, EFF successfully argued that the law unduly restricted websites, and that supervision of online activities was best left to Ceiling Cat, not the government.

A Maccas musing: My little canine friend Veronica Lake tells me that McDonalds in Yamba is making itself even more unpopular in that small town by beginning to throw its money around in an effort to squeeze its fast food competitors out of Treelands Drive. Trouble is the other fast food chain franchise it is targeting happens to be run by a young and popular local family. The Westlawn Group doesn't come off too well in this scenario either, as it bumped Subway off its 'Yamba Fair' main road signage in favour of Maccas which isn't even a tenant in its shopping complex. Typical!

A loitering in the halls musing: With prosecution evidence in some disarray in an ongoing Clarence Valley trial, I had to laugh when I heard that one cocky defense barrister solicitor has been heard quietly singing during proceedings; "10 green bottles sitting on the wall and if one green bottle should accidently  fall ..."

Memo from a local pensioner: Onya, Cate & Mick!

I’m a pensioner who barely scrapes by when compared with the ruling elite in this Lucky Country. I don’t smoke, drink or gamble on lottery tickets anymore. But as all I have is my pension I can’t do much more than cover rent, food and utility bills every fortnight anyway.

The Murdoch press tells me that I’m upset with Cate Blanchett and Michael Caton because they have come out in support of a carbon price: Cate Blanchett has sparked outrage in the community with her decision to front an advertising campaign promoting the Federal Government's controversial carbon tax.
The millionaire Hollywood actor has been accused of being out of touch by spruiking the benefits of the tax that she can afford to pay, unlike many already hard-up Australians.

WRONG! I fully support carbon pricing even though it will bite into my income in much the same way as the GST does. At least Gillard is offering to compensate me. Howard gave me not so much as a brass farthing when he introduced the “never ever” GST.

Upriver Bill
Northern Rivers

Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents. Email ncvguestpeak at gmail dot com to submit comment for consideration.

No wonder the Americans are annoyed with Pakistan

When a U.S. combat team entered Pakistan and assassinated Osama bin Laden, the long-held suspicion that the Al Qaeda leader had been hiding in that country was confirmed.

After having given literally billions to the Pakistan Government to fight terrorism (and with millions unaccounted for) it must have been galling for the Obama Administration to suspect that members of either this government or its military knew where he was all along.

All that money goes some way to explaining America’s sense of entitlement when it unlawfully breached Pakistan sovereignty and lessens the impact of Pakistan’s outrage.

From Wikileaks Cablegate a U.S. diplomatic cable dated 14 December 2007 and originally sent from a building approximately 49kms from Abbottabad:

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ISLAMABAD 005266 SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/14/2017 TAGS: PINR PK PREL PTERSUBJECT: PAKISTAN: FIXING COALITION SUPPORT FUNDING REF: A. ISLAMABAD 4817 ¶B. ISLAMABAD 4369 Classified By: Anne W. Patterson, Reasons 1.4 (b), (d) ¶1. (U) This is an action request, see Para 12. ¶2. (C)

SUMMARY. Since 2002, the USG has reimbursed Pakistan over 5.3 billion USD for support to U.S. operations using Coalition Support Funds (CSF). When pending claims are processed, that figure will likely exceed 5.6 billion USD. The CSF authorizing legislation was written soon after 9/11; six years down the road, we need Pakistan to more vigorously engage in the war on terror, but CSF is not working the way it should. CSF is not reaching those parts of the GoP that are shouldering the load in GWOT operations. Two clear examples of the problem are helicopter readiness and medical support to the Frontier Corps. The readiness of Pakistan's helicopter fleet is poor. Despite giving the GoP 55 USD million for helicopter operations over seven months, only 2 to 6 Pakistani Cobras are fully mission capable at a time they desperately need air power to fight spreading militancy. Additionally, we have processed or will process reimbursement requests for 100 million USD over the year to support medical operations, but the Frontier Corps still does not receive basic medevac support. Another consequence of the current system is political. It fuels the internal argument that the USG is "paying" Pakistan to fight a U.S. war - this at a time when the Pakistanis need to accept the direct threat to their own security and sovereignty posed by al-Qaida, Taliban and extremist forces.

¶3. (C) Post has worked extensively with the GoP to increase GoP transparency and accountability. What we have discovered is that we are receiving reimbursement requests for barbed wire and air defense radar systems that have no or marginal impact on the GWOT. We recognize the legal and political sensitivities involved in developing a new approach, but the program, as it is currently being implemented, simply is not meeting U.S. or Pakistan counter-terrorism objectives. This message outlines several ways forward. In the meantime, DOD or CENTCOM should undertake an audit or program review of CSF. END SUMMARY. TARGETING CSF FUNDING TOWARD PAKISTAN AND U.S. STRATEGIC GOALS

¶4. (C) U.S. Public Law 109-289 (2206) authorizes CSF to reimburse Pakistan for logistical, military and other support provided to U.S. military operations. Under this authorization, the U.S. has reimbursed Pakistan 5.3 billion USD since 2002. When pending claims are processed, the total CSF reimbursement to Pakistan will exceed 5.6 billion USD. Pakistan receives nearly 90 percent of total CSF worldwide. While the December 8, 2003 guidance provided by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) on parameters for reimbursements is broad, there have been multiple instances in which Post is confident funds have been diverted and that reimbursed claims figures have been seriously inflated. A few examples: -- HELICOPTER READINESS. Pakistan received 55 million USD for helicopter operations from July 2006 to February 2007; however, Post estimates that as few as 3 Cobra Helicopters were fully mission capable as recently as 10 weeks ago. Post is confident Army Aviation Command never received the 55 million. -- MEDEVAC ASSISTANCE TO FRONTIER CORPS. The Pakistan Army claimed 99 million USD over past 12 months for medical operations and the U.S. has paid or is in process of paying all/all submitted medical claims. Yet, despite providing this plus fully funding 235 million USD CSF lease assistance for 26 new Bell 412 helicopters, the Inspector General of the Frontier Corps has repeatedly requested U.S. assistance in providing assets for medevac, obviously unaware of the resources the U.S. has provided. --RADAR MAINTENANCE: Between August 2006 and July 2007, Pakistan submitted claims for almost 70 million USD in ADA Radar Maintenance, although there is no enemy air threat related to the war on terror. --BARBED WIRE: Between August 2006 and July 2007, we received a claim for 26 million USD in barbed wire and pickets. While these items are no doubt helpful in protecting outposts, the claim figures are highly suspect.

¶5. (C) Ambassador, the Office of Defense Representative and DOD officials have repeatedly raised CSF disbursement and other problems with the Prime Minister, Ministry of Finance and key military officials but have not received satisfactory responses. In fact, recent correspondence from Pakistan leadership argues for additional funding to support increased operations.

¶6. (C) CSF reimbursement funds go directly into Pakistan,s general treasury -- from there we have no visibility on their final destination or application. And we are not alone - based on our conversations with GoP officials, from President Musharraf down to the average Pakistani private, no one in Pakistan seems to have a clear grasp of the amount of US military reimbursement assistance actually provided.

¶7. (C) The CSF authorization legislation was drafted soon after 9/11. Six years down the road, we still need Pakistan to engage more vigorously in the fight against extremism, but it is clear we also need to do a better job of making sure our monies are targeted to meet our counter-terrorism objectives. POTENTIAL APPROACHES TO CSF REFORM

¶8. (C) Potential options to address CSF issues include the following: (1) Stop approving Pakistan's CSF reimbursement requests until we receive adequate assurances on disbursement; (2) Earmark CSF monies for specific areas: maintenance, support, etc.; (3) Create a CSF "trust fund" that would allow the USG to control reimbursement and to obligate some funds for specific needs; or (4) Convert CSF into a direct cash transfer program.

¶9. (C) Option 1 would lead to a major political clash and damage our military to military relationship, just as we have the potential for greater cooperation under Chief of Army Staff General Kayani's leadership. This would undermine the very purpose of CSF--to encourage the GoP to continue fighting militant extremism. The Taliban, al Qaida and Islamic extremists represent a clear and growing danger to U.S. and Pakistani security and to regional stability. As allies with forces in the region, we have a responsibility to strengthen and focus our assistance to improve their security forces' capabilities.

¶10. (C) We understand DOD has determined Options 2, 3 and 4 would require asking Congress to amend the authorizing legislation. Post could attempt to persuade Pakistan to concur with establishment of some form of "trust" mechanism - pointing out the alternative may be a severe reduction or loss of funding if Congress continues to see insufficient transparency and accountability. In any event, a new approach is urgently required. We believe some variation of Options 3 and 4, which allow the USG to earmark at least some CSF monies for those Pakistani military elements of vital interest to us (helicopters, special forces and Frontier Corps), is the most logical and efficient approach. CSF AUDIT/PROGRAM REVIEW

¶11. (C) Post repeats that we do not have visibility over the destination of CSF funds. Accordingly, Post would welcome an audit or program review of the CSF process by CENTCOM or by DOD. ACTION REQUEST

¶12. (C) Action Request: Post would appreciate a front-channel response to the options proposed in para 8 and the proposal for an audit/review. PATTERSON