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

i

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

………………………………………………………………………..

Signature

October 2018

………………………………………………………………………..

Date

QUT Verified Signature

ii

Dedication

For Scottie.

iii

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.

iv

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.

v

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.

vi

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

vii

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

viii

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

ix

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

x

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

1

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.

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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)

8

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

9

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).

10

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.

11

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

12

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,

13

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.

14

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:

15

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

16

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.

17

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

18

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.

19

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

20

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

21

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.

22

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.

23

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,

24

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

25

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.

26

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

27

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”.

28

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

29

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

30

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

31

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”.

32

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

33

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.

34

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.

35

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

36

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

37

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

38

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

39

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.

40

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

41

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

42

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”.

43

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

44

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

45

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

46

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

47

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.

48

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.

49

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

50

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

51

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

52

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,

53

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

54

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.

55

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

56

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,

57

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

58

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

59

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

60

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,

61

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

62

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

63

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

64

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

65

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

66

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

67

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

68

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.

69

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.

70

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

71

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-

72

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.

73

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’

74

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

75

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.

76

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

77

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.

78

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

79

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”

80

(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

81

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

82

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

83

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]

84

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

85

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.

86

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

87

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

88

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:

89

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.

90

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

91

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).

92

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

93

(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

94

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

95

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;

96

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.

97

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.

98

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.

99

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

100

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-

101

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.

102

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:

103

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.

104

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.

105

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

106

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

107

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

108

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

109

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

110

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.

111

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

112

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.

113

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

114

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

115

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).

116

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

117

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.

118

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

119

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

120

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

121

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.

122

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.

123

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:

124

‘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

125

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

126

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.

127

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.

128

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

129

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

130

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,

131

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.

132

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.

133

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

134

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’.

135

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

136

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

137

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.

138

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

139

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

140

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.

141

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,

142

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

143

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

144

‘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

145

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

146

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

147

(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

148

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

149

“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.

150

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

151

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

152

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

153

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.

154

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

155

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

156

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

157

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

158

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.

159

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

160

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.

161

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,

162

‘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

163

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

164

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.

165

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,

166

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

167

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”.

168

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.

169

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

170

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

171

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.

172

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.

173

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

174

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.

175

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?’

176

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’

177

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

178

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

179

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.

180

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

181

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).

182

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

183

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.

184

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

185

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

186

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

187

(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

188

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

189

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

190

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:

191

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

192

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

193

“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

194

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

195

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

196

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:

197

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).

198

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

199

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

200

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

201

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

202

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.

203

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:

204

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.

205

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

206

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

207

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

208

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.

209

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.

210

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

211

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:

212

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

213

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

214

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,

215

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

216

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

217

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

218

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.

219

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

220

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

221

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,

222

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

223

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

224

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.

225

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).

226

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).

227

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

228

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

229

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

230

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),

231

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

232

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

233

‘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

234

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.

235

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

236

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

237

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:

238

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.

239

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.

240

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,

241

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).

242

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

243

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

244

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

245

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).

246

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

247

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.

248

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

249

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

250

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

251

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:

252

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:

253

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:

254

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

255

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

256

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.

257

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,

258

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

259

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,

260

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 slaughter-

man 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

261

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

262

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.

263

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

264

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

265

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.

266

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

267

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

268

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.

269

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

270

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

271

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:

272

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

273

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.

274

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

275

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

276

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

277

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.

278

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

279

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.

280

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

281

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

282

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.

283

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 &

284

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.

285

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.”

286

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/abs@.nsf/ 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/abs@.nsf/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_Transport/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.

287

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_SJNTR_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.

288

———. 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.

289

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_rethinking_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=TSMP1JmcBJLEiuKiAViwtQ%3d%3d&tstamp=1362523041&id=96DB40E92359C7BEB43A4EAB9B03F955ACEFD176

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.

290

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/finding-common-ground/2660337.aspx?storypage=0

Champion, D.J. 2006. Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology.

New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

291

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.

292

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.

293

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.

294

———. 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.

295

———. 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.

296

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&AuthType=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.

297

———. 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_report/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.

298

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

299

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

300

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,

301

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/ea28_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.

302

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

303

———. 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

304

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

305

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.

306

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

307

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.

308

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

309

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.

310

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/2010-12/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,

311

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/completed_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/assets/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

312

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_and_Transport/Completed_inquiries/2010-12/liveexports2011/submissions

313

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.

314

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).