14 August 2013 MEDIA STATEMENT RESPONSE TO WSPA POLLING ON LIVESTOCK EXPORTS Today the World Society for the

Protection of Animals (WSPA) has released polling suggesting a majority of Australians will support a candidate who supports a phase out or ban of the livestock export trade. The WSPA research was undertaken as part of an omnibus poll which means it is a poll across a range of unrelated issues from different clients who pay per question. It is not dedicated research project and does not give a considered view of voters attitudes to the livestock export trade. Unlike WSPA, the livestock export sector has a genuine interest in understanding community values on livestock exports, rather than pushing one particular view. Thats why we supported the work of the National Farmers Federation in November 2012 to undertake the most comprehensive and detailed research into public attitudes to livestock exports ever completed. Voters were given real choices, were presented with both sides of the livestock export debate, and were therefore provided with the opportunity to provide a considered response. The NFF poll shows that voters have expectations about animal welfare but understand the importance of the trade to our nation. A summary of the NFF Research found: Live exports simply do not rate as an unprompted issue. Of the 1,000 respondents, not one raised it. When prompted, two thirds of respondents supported continuing the live export trade, rather than banning it or phasing it out and, of these, three quarters held that opinion strongly. When simple arguments for and against continuing or phasing out a ban are proposed, support for continuing the trade increased very marginally. When asked if the trade should be phased out if humane treatment cannot be guaranteed support for this notion climbs momentarily to 65 percent, however the instant any consequences of such a ban are raised, support for the idea of a ban or phase out collapses and support for continuing the trade and working with industry climbs to 69 percent supporting and 21 percent opposing. When asked if they would be pleased or concerned if their MP supported a ban or phase out, 60 percent said they would be concerned and only 22 percent would be pleased. Among all voters, 44 percent said they would definitely or probably vote against their MP were a ban or phase-out implemented only 22% said they would vote for their MP.

With the above said, livestock exports and animal welfare deserve more than a battle of the polls. Polling wont and isnt delivering the improvements to animal welfare on the ground in markets. Rather greater collaboration and cooperation across sectoral interests including WSPA about how we can improve animal welfare in the markets in which we operate is the more responsible choice. With over 10,000 jobs and a contribution of $1.8 billion to GDP at stake, the

debate around livestock exports deserves a far deeper and earnest discussion than a battle of the polls will ever deliver. The livestock export sector understands it must do much more for the community to bring it into its trust and demonstrate that the trade is delivering the welfare outcomes that are expected. Thousands of animal and stock handlers around the world and millions of animals have been beneficiaries of our in market commitment and investment but there is no resting on our laurels with much more work to be done. Ends Alison Penfold (0408 633 026) NFF Research Background In November 2012, Sexton Market Research conducted 1,000 interviews across Australia on behalf of the National Farmers Federation to unearth public attitudes toward livestock exports, and the political ramifications of a phase out or ban. Questions were contextualised within other issues to eliminate bias. 1,000 interviews were conducted in total, consisting of 400 as a national sample and 600 in marginals electorates, specifically Brand, Capricornia, Corangamite, Deakin, Eden Monaro, Greenway, La Trobe, Lingari, Moreton, Page, Petrie and Robertson. The poll found that the collapse of public support and consequent political damage was similar to the real-life situation during the Indonesian live export suspension, where initial support for the suspension due to the poor treatment of animals fell once the human consequences of the suspension became apparent.