AGFORCE

Background

In November 2004 after sustained pressure on wool retailers from the extreme animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 26 wool representative bodies attended a meeting where an agreement to phase out mulesing by 2010 was made. These organisations included:

• National Farmers Federation (NFF)
• State farming organisations - AgForce, NSW Farmers' Federation, Victorian Farmers' Federation, South Australian Farmers Federation, Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, Western Australian Farmers Federation and  Pastoralists and Graziers Association (WA).
• WoolProducers (WPA)
• Sheepmeat Council of Australia (SCA)
• Australian Wool Growers Association (AWGA)
• Australian Association of Stud Merino Breeders (AASMB)
• Australian Superfine Woolgrowers Association (ASWA)
• The Woolmark Company
• Australian Council of Wool Exporters
• Australian Wool Processors Council
• Private Treaty Wool Merchants of Australia
• Australian Live Export Council (ALEC)
• Department of Agriculture, Farming and Fisheries (DAFF)
• Federation of Australian Wool Organisations (FAWO)
• Livecorp
• Australian Wool Testing Authority (AWTA)
• Australian Wool Exchange (AWEX)
• Australian Wool Industries Secretariat

There were no descending votes. AWI and MLA were present at the meeting but abstained from voting, given that they are both Research and Development Corporations (RDCs) bound by Statutory Funding Agreements that prohibit them from entering into agripolitical issues.

Legal action

AWI launched legal action in December 2004 against PETA calling for wool growers, processors and exporters to apply as co-applicants, based on the evidence suggesting PETA was carrying out a campaign of threats and intimidation against international and domestic retailers unless they stopped selling products containing Australian wool. 101 applicants were included in the court case.

PETA were calling for the immediate cessation of the practice of mulesing and the live sheep export trade, alleging that both practices are cruel and caused suffering to sheep.

AWI were seeking an injunction to prevent PETA from continuing its threats and intimidatory tactics on the grounds that it was causing damage to the business of retailers and other participants throughout the wool supply chain.

The court proceedings continued between AWI and PETA, with a vast drain on levies, which included AWI having to pay $48,124.50 to PETA after motions from the original claim were struck out, this lead to wool growers becoming dissatisfied with the way proceedings were unfolding. A full trial was set to commence in October 2007. No figure has been placed on the costs of the court proceedings, but it was estimated that millions of levy payer funds were spent on this.

 However on June 30, 2007, after four days of mediation an agreement was reached where PETA would stop threatening the industry if AWI dropped the law suit.

Current situation

Since then AWI have held their annual director elections which has seen a complete overhaul of board directors who are not in favour of the 2010 phase out.

While levy funds are still being spent on mulesing alternatives, in July 2009 the AWI Chairman, Wally Merriman announced that industry was not going to meet the 2010 deadline. This caused an immediate reaction from both animal rights groups and retailers who saw this as industry reneging on its commitment.

To date, state governments who preside over animal welfare legislation have indicated that mulesing will not be legally banned, however industry must realise that if there is perceived inaction on this issue that government may in fact intervene and impose legislation making surgical mulesing illegal.

Since then a number of state farming organisations have declared that they no longer support this deadline.

AgForce position

AgForce has always supported the decision to phase out mulesing by 2010 and continues to do so, however at a board meeting held in Brisbane in September the board resolved to ‘encourage woolgrowers to phase out mulesing as soon as practical’, in recognition that while there are currently some alternatives available, there isn’t a broad range of options available at this stage.

Growers need to have adopted a breech strike management plan well in advance in the event that mulesing is no longer accepted by supply chain partners.