‘Sheep Are Our Lifeline': Farmer's Daughter Pleads With Albanese Against Live Export Ban
A West Australian sheep farmer's daughter and trainee livestock agent has penned an open letter to newly re-elected Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, urging him to rethink the Labor government's ban on live sheep exports by sea.
Last year, Agriculture Minister Murray Watt announced the ban, which is set to come into place on May 1, 2028.
The government has also allocated a $107 million funding package to support sheep farmers during the transition phase.
Former Opposition Leader Peter Dutton vowed to scrap the ban if elected, but with a second term of Labor government at the helm, Jorj Downsborough is calling on the government to listen.
Downsborough grew up in a farming family, with her great-great-grandfather first clearing and cropping 6,000 hectares of wheat and grazing land in 1923.
The Burracoppin local took to sharing her letter to Albanese publicly on Facebook after an email to the prime minister's office was met with a generic, automatically generated response.
Related Stories
9/30/2024
9/10/2024
'I hail from the small town of Burracoppin, Western Australia. If you look at it on a map, you'd just see a town siding. And if you looked at it on Google Maps, you would see nothing more than an abandoned pub, a string of run-down buildings, and a football oval that gets played on once a year,' Downsborough said.
'But, if you were to ask anyone who lives there, they'd tell you that it is the nucleus of the 70 families that farm within a 35 kilometre radius of that dot on the map—my family being one of them.
'We farm some of the most unforgiving country that was ever cleared for the purpose of agriculture, known as the Yilgarn craton.'
Livelihood Depends on Sheep
The land farmed by Downsborough's family is some of the driest land, with a really 'good year' occurring only once a decade, and an average year about every five.
'What gets us by all those years in between? Yearly, we sell our wether lambs, a line of ewe lambs, our oldest line of mutton, and our wool clip,' she said.
'At a surface level, farming sheep provides us with cashflow—a way to put food on the table, clothes on our backs, pay school fees, water bills, fuel bills and electricity bills.
'From a business perspective, they pay for our shearing contractors, mechanics, fertiliser, chemical, fencing, agronomists and labourers.
'But most importantly from a community perspective, they ensure more people on our school bus run, more people that play local sport and a family-owned farming operation that trades with over 10 local businesses.'
Downsborough said the live sheep business was her family's lifeline.
Sheep in a paddock in Western Australia on April 26, 2025.
Susan Mortimer/The Epoch Times
'Without sheep ingrained in our farm for the last hundred years, we wouldn't still be farming, it's as simple as that. And thousands of farmers are in the same position,' she said.
'Taking away the live export trade takes away our livelihoods.'
Australian sheep farmers say the ban is unfair because the nation has strict animal welfare standards and that Australia's live exports are healthy and sought-after globally.
Downsborough says that without live export trade, many sheep farmers will face the difficulty of decimating their flock numbers to match domestic demand, leaving them reliant upon trying to secure a reasonable price in the local market.
Getting the Message Heard
The intergenerational farmer questioned whether Albanese understood the bans would lead to job losses for shearers, truck drivers, and livestock agents.
'How have we been so misunderstood and why has our message been so fiercely ignored?' she said.
'As an industry, we have established multiple avenues in The Livestock Collective and the Keep the Sheep campaign in hope of educating and giving you insight into what really happens on farm and paddock to plate.'
She urged the newly re-elected leader to contemplate the flow-on effect on the local community reliant on live trade.
'We filled the streets of Perth with trucks, vehicles and banners, pleading for you to see reason, to see our cause, not once, but twice,' she said.
'We even came all the way to Canberra, right to your doorstep. And you wouldn't even hear us out.'
Live sheep exports are in demand in countries that struggle with production or demand live animals for religious slaughter.
In some cases, it is more cost-efficient to transport live animals than to transport prepared cold meat, which the government has suggested as an alternative avenue for export.
The practice of live exports has been a contentious issue among animal rights advocates who argue that long journeys at sea are plagued by high animal mortality rates and distress.
Advocates for banning live exports, such as Animals Australia, also express concern around the lack of control over humane treatment and slaughter once they arrive in a foreign country.
Senator Watt was contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Aukus: Could Trump sink Australia's submarine plans?
Australia's defence minister woke up to a nightmare earlier this week - and it's one that has been looming ever since the United States re-elected Donald Trump as president in November. A landmark trilateral agreement between the US, UK and Australia - which would give the latter cutting-edge nuclear submarine technology in exchange for more help policing China in the Asia-Pacific - was under review. The White House said on Thursday it wanted to make sure the so-called Aukus pact was "aligned with the president's America First agenda". It's the latest move from Washington that challenges its long-standing friendship with Canberra, sparking fears Down Under that, as conflict heats up around the globe, Australia may be left standing without its greatest ally. "I don't think any Australian should feel that our ally is fully committed to our security at this moment," says Sam Roggeveen, who leads the security programme at Australia's Lowy Institute think tank. On paper, Australia is the clear beneficiary of the Aukus agreement, worth £176bn ($239bn; A$368bn). The technology underpinning the pact belongs to the US, and the UK already has it, along with their own nuclear-powered subs. But those that are being jointly designed and built by the three countries will be an improvement. For Australia, this represents a pivotal upgrade to military capabilities. The new submarine model will be able to operate further and faster than the country's existing diesel-engine fleet, and allow it to carry out long-range strikes against enemies for the first time. It is a big deal for the US to share what has been described as the "crown jewel" of its defence technology, and no small thing for the UK to hand over engine blueprints either. But arming Australia has historically been viewed by Washington and Downing Street as essential to preserving peace in the Asia-Pacific region, which is far from their own. It's about putting their technology and hardware in the right place, experts say. But when the Aukus agreement was signed in 2021, all three countries had very different leaders - Joe Biden in the US, Boris Johnson in the UK and Scott Morrison in Australia. Today, when viewed through the increasingly isolationist lens Trump is using to examine his country's global ties, some argue the US has far less to gain from the pact. Under Secretary of Defence Policy Elbridge Colby, a previous critic of Aukus, will lead the White House review into the agreement, with a Pentagon official telling the BBC the process was to ensure it meets "common sense, America First criteria". Two of the criteria they cite are telling. One is a demand that allies "step up fully to do their part for collective defence". The other is a purported need to ensure that the US arms industry is adequately meeting the country's own needs first. The Trump administration has consistently expressed frustration at allies, including Australia, who they believe aren't pulling their weight with defence spending. They also say America is struggling to produce enough nuclear-powered submarines for its own forces. "Why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it?" Colby himself had said last year. The Australian government, however, is presenting a calm front. It's only natural for a new administration to reassess the decisions of its predecessor, officials say, noting that the new UK Labor government had a review of Aukus last year too. "I'm very confident this is going to happen," Defence Minister Richard Marles said of the pact, in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). But there's little doubt the review would be causing some early jolts of panic in Canberra. "I think angst has been inseparable from Aukus since its beginning… The review itself is not alarming. It's just everything else," Euan Graham, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, tells the BBC. There is growing concern across Australia that America cannot be relied upon. "[President Donald Trump's] behaviour, over these first months of this term, I don't think should fill any observer with confidence about America's commitment to its allies," Mr Roggeveen says. "Trump has said, for instance, that Ukraine is mainly Europe's problem because they are separated by a big, beautiful ocean. Well of course, there's a big, beautiful ocean separating America from Asia too." Washington's decision to slap large tariffs on Australian goods earlier this year did not inspire confidence either, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese saying it was clearly "not the act of a friend". Albanese has stayed quiet on the Aukus review so far, likely holding his breath for a face-to-face meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week. This is a chat he's still desperately trying to get the US president to agree to. But several former prime ministers have rushed to give their two cents. Scott Morrison, the conservative leader who negotiated the Aukus pact in 2021, said the review should not be "over-interpreted" and scoffed at the suggestion another country could meet Australia's security needs. "The notion… is honestly delusional," he told ABC radio. Malcolm Turnbull, who was behind the French submarine contract that Morrison dramatically tore up in favour of Aukus, said Australia needs to "wake up", realise it's a "bad deal" which the US could renege on at any point, and make other plans before it is too late. Meanwhile, Paul Keating, a famously sharp-tongued advocate for closer ties with China, said this "might very well be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself". "Aukus will be shown for what it always has been: a deal hurriedly scribbled on the back of an envelope by Scott Morrison, along with the vacuous British blowhard Boris Johnson and the confused President Joe Biden." The whiff of US indecision over Aukus feeds into long-term criticism in some quarters that Australia is becoming too reliant on the country. Calling for Australia's own inquiry, the Greens, the country's third-largest political party, said: "We need an independent defence and foreign policy, that does not require us to bend our will and shovel wealth to an increasingly erratic and reckless Trump USA." There's every chance the US turns around in a few weeks and recommits to the pact. At the end of the day, Australia is buying up to five nuclear-powered submarines at a huge expense, helping keep Americans employed. And the US has plenty of time - just under a decade - to sort out their supply issues and provide them. "[The US] also benefit from the wider aspects of Aukus - all three parties get to lift their boat jointly by having a more interoperable defence technology and ecosystem," Mr Graham adds. Even so, the anxiety the review has injected into the relationship is going to be hard to erase completely – and has only inflamed disagreements over Aukus in Australia. But there's also a possibility Trump does want to rewrite the deal. "I can easily see a future in which we don't get the Virginia class boats," Mr Roggeveen says, referring to the interim submarines. That would potentially leave Australia with its increasingly outdated fleet for another two decades, vulnerable while the new models are being designed and built. What happens in the event the US does leave the Aukus alliance completely? At this juncture, few are sounding that alarm. The broad view is that, for the US, countering China and keeping the Pacific in their sphere of influence is still crucial. Mr Roggeveen, though, says that when it comes to potential conflict in the Pacific, the US hasn't been putting their money where its mouth is for years. "China's been engaged in the biggest build-up of military power of any country since the end of the Cold War and the United States' position in Asia basically hasn't changed," he says. If the US leaves, Aukus could very well become an awkward Auk – but could the UK realistically offer enough for Australia to sustain the agreement? And if the whole thing falls apart and Australia is left without submarines, who else could it turn to? France feels like an unlikely saviour, given the previous row there, but Australia does have options, Mr Roggeveen says: "This wouldn't be the end of the world for Australian defence." Australia is "geographically blessed", he says, and with "a reasonable defence budget and a good strategy" could sufficiently deter China, even without submarines. "There's this phrase you hear occasionally, that the danger is on our doorstep. Well, it's a big doorstep if that is true… Beijing is closer to Berlin than it is to Sydney." "There is this mental block in Australia and also this emotional block - a fear of abandonment, this idea that we can't defend ourselves alone. But we absolutely can if we have to." What is Aukus, the submarine deal between Australia, the UK and US? Submarine deal sends powerful message to China The laidback Australian city key to countering China Donald Trump is looming over Australia's election
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
The L.A. Distortion Effect
One hallmark of our current moment is that when an event happens, there is little collective agreement on even basic facts. This, despite there being more documentary evidence than ever before in history: Information is abundant, yet consensus is elusive. The ICE protests in Los Angeles over the past week offer an especially relevant example of this phenomenon. What has transpired is fairly clear: A series of ICE raids and arrests late last week prompted protests in select areas of the city, namely downtown, near a federal building where ICE has offices, and around City Hall and the Metropolitan Detention Center. There have been other protests south of there, around a Home Depot in Paramount, where Border Patrol agents gathered last week. The majority of these protests have been civil ('I mostly saw clergy sit-ins and Tejano bands,' The American Prospect 's David Dayen wrote). There has been some looting and property destruction. 'One group of vandals summoned several Waymo self-driving cars to the street next to the plaza where the city was founded and set them ablaze,' my colleague Nick Miroff, who has been present at the demonstrations, wrote. As is common in modern protests, there has also been ample viral footage from news organizations showing militarized police responding aggressively in encounters, sometimes without provocation. In one well-circulated clip, an officer in riot gear fires a nonlethal round directly at an Australian television correspondent carrying a microphone while on air; another piece of footage shot from above shows a police officer on horseback trampling a protester on the ground. All of these dynamics are familiar in the post-Ferguson era of protest. What you are witnessing is a news event distributed and consumed through a constellation of different still images and video clips, all filmed from different perspectives and presented by individuals and organizations with different agendas. It is a buffet of violence, celebration, confusion, and sensationalism. Consumed in aggregate, it might provide an accurate representation of the proceedings: a tense, potentially dangerous, but still contained response by a community to a brutal federal immigration crackdown. Unfortunately, very few people consume media this way. And so the protests follow the choose-your-own-adventure quality of a fractured media ecosystem, where, depending on the prism one chooses, what's happening in L.A. varies considerably. Anyone is capable of cherry-picking media to suit their arguments, of course, and social media has always narrowed the aperture of news events to fit particular viewpoints. Regardless of ideology, dramatic perspectives succeed on platforms. It is possible that one's impression of the protests would be incorrectly skewed if informed only by Bluesky commentators, MSNBC guests, or self-proclaimed rational centrists. The right, for example, has mocked the idea of 'mostly peaceful protests' as ludicrous when juxtaposed with video of what they see as evidence to the contrary. It's likely that my grasp of the events and their politics are shaped by decades of algorithmic social-media consumption. Yet the situation in L.A. only further clarifies the asymmetries among media ecosystems. This is not an even playing field. The right-wing media complex has a disproportionate presence and is populated by extreme personalities who have no problem embracing nonsense AI imagery and flagrantly untrue reporting that fits their agenda. Here you will find a loosely affiliated network of streamers, influencers, alternative social networks, extremely online vice presidents, and Fox News personalities who appear invested in portraying the L.A. protests as a full-blown insurrection. To follow these reports is to believe that people are not protesting but rioting throughout the city. In this alternate reality, the whole of Los Angeles is a bona fide war zone. (It is not, despite President Donald Trump's wildly disproportionate response, which includes deploying hundreds of U.S. Marines to the area and federalizing thousands of National Guard members.) I spent the better part of the week drinking from this particular firehose, reading X and Truth Social posts and watching videos from Rumble. On these platforms, the protests are less a news event than a justification for the authoritarian use of force. Nearly every image or video contains selectively chosen visuals of burning cars or Mexican flags unfurling in a smog of tear gas, and they're cycled on repeat to create a sense of overwhelming chaos. They have titles such as 'CIVIL WAR ALERT' and 'DEMOCRATS STOKE WW3!' All of this incendiary messaging is assisted by generative-AI images of postapocalyptic, smoldering city streets—pure propaganda to fill the gap between reality and the world as the MAGA faithful wish to see it. I've written before about how the internet has obliterated the monoculture, empowering individuals to cocoon themselves in alternate realities despite confounding evidence—it is a machine that justifies any belief. This is not a new phenomenon, but the problem is getting worse as media ecosystems mature and adjust to new technologies. On Tuesday, one of the top results for one user's TikTok search for Los Angeles curfew was an AI-generated video rotating through slop images of a looted city under lockdown. Even to the untrained eye, the images were easily identifiable as AI-rendered (the word curfew came out looking like ciuftew). Still, it's not clear that this matters to the people consuming and sharing the bogus footage. Even though such reality-fracturing has become a load-bearing feature of our information environment, the result is disturbing: Some percentage of Americans believes that one of the country's largest cities is now a hellscape, when, in fact, almost all residents of Los Angeles are going about their normal lives. On platforms such as Bluesky and Instagram, I've seen L.A. residents sharing pictures of themselves going about their day-to-day lives—taking out the trash, going to the farmers' market—and lots of pictures of the city's unmistakable skyline against the backdrop of a beautiful summer day. These are earnest efforts to show the city as it is (fine)—an attempt to wrest control of a narrative, albeit one that is actually based in truth. Yet it's hard to imagine any of this reaching the eyes of the people who participate in the opposing ecosystem, and even if it did, it's unclear whether it would matter. As I documented in October, after Hurricanes Helene and Milton destroyed parts of the United States, AI-generated images were used by Trump supporters 'to convey whatever partisan message suits the moment, regardless of truth.' In the cinematic universe of right-wing media, the L.A. ICE protests are a sequel of sorts to the Black Lives Matter protests of the summer of 2020. It doesn't matter that the size and scope have been different in Los Angeles (at present, the L.A. protests do not, for instance, resemble the 100-plus nights of demonstrations and clashes between protesters and police that took place in Portland, Oregon, in 2020): Influencers and broadcasters on the right have seized on the association with those previous protests, insinuating that this next installment, like all sequels, will be a bigger and bolder spectacle. Politicians are running the sequel playbook—Senator Tom Cotton, who wrote a rightly criticized New York Times op-ed in 2020 urging Trump to 'Send in the Troops' to quash BLM demonstrations, wrote another op-ed, this time for The Wall Street Journal, with the headline 'Send in the Troops, for Real.' (For transparency's sake, I should note that I worked for the Times opinion desk when the Cotton op-ed was published and publicly objected to it at the time.) There is a sequel vibe to so much of the Trump administration's second term. The administration's policies are more extreme, and there's a brazenness to the whole affair—nobody's even trying to justify the plot (or, in this case, cover up the corruption and dubious legality of the government's deportation regime). All of us, Trump supporters very much included, are treated as a captive audience, forced to watch whether we like it or not. This feeling has naturally trickled down to much of the discourse and news around Trump's second presidency, which feels (and generally is) direr, angrier, more intractable. The distortions are everywhere: People mainlining fascistic AI slop are occupying an alternate reality. But even those of us who understand the complexity of the protests are forced to live in our own bifurcated reality, one where, even as the internet shows us fresh horrors every hour, life outside these feeds may be continuing in ways that feel familiar and boring. We are living through the regime of a budding authoritarian—the emergency is here, now—yet our cities are not yet on fire in the way that many shock jocks say they are. The only way out of this mess begins with resisting the distortions. In many cases, the first step is to state things plainly. Los Angeles is not a lawless, postapocalyptic war zone. The right to protest is constitutionally protected, and protests have the potential to become violent—consider how Trump is attempting to use the force of the state to silence dissent against his administration. There are thousands more peaceful demonstrations scheduled nationally this weekend. The tools that promised to empower us, connect us, and bring us closer to the truth are instead doing the opposite. A meaningful percentage of American citizens appears to have dissociated from reality. In fact, many of them seem to like it that way.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
National Portrait Gallery director resigns after Trump tried firing her
National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet is resigning from her post two weeks after President Trump tried to fire her and accused her of being 'highly partisan' and supportive of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts. 'We are grateful to Kim for leading the National Portrait Gallery with passion and creativity for 12 years. Throughout her tenure, she has reimagined and reshaped the impact and storytelling of portraiture,' Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III said Friday morning in an internal memo, which was obtained by The Hill. Bunch said Sajet, an Australian native and the first woman to helm the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, made 'lasting contributions to the Institution, including the expansion of the national collection with key acquisitions—such as the earliest known daguerreotype of First Lady Dolley Madison, dating back to 1846.' The internal memo included statements from Sajet, who is also a citizen of the Netherlands, expressing that it has been 'the honor of a lifetime' to head the gallery. 'This was not an easy decision, but I believe it is the right one. From the very beginning, my guiding principle has been to put the museum first. Today, I believe that stepping aside is the best way to serve the institution I hold so deeply in my heart,' Sajet said. 'The role of a museum director has never been about one individual—it is a shared mission, driven by the passion, creativity, and dedication of an extraordinary team.' Sajet's resignation came two weeks after Trump said he was terminating the National Portrait Gallery director, arguing she is a partisan actor and a 'strong supporter' of DEI initiatives, 'which is totally inappropriate for her position.' The White House has pointed to Sajet's political contributions to Democratic lawmakers and party groups. Sajet has dished out donations to former President Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, EMILY's List — a PAC that works on electing female Democratic candidates — the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and others, according to Federal Election Commission filings. On Monday, the Smithsonian said it holds authority over personnel decisions. 'The board is entrusted with the governance and independence of the Institution, and the board appoints a Secretary to manage the Institution,' it said in a statement. 'All personnel decisions are made by and subject to the direction of the Secretary, with oversight by the Board. Lonnie G. Bunch, the Secretary, has the support of the Board of Regents in his authority and management of the Smithsonian.' Bunch wrote in the memo that Kevin Gover, the under secretary for museums and culture, will work as the next acting director. 'On day one, President Trump made clear that there is no place for dangerous anti-American ideology in our government and institutions. In align with this objective, he ordered the termination of Kim Sajet,' White House spokesperson David Ingle told The Hill in an emailed statement Friday. 'The Trump Administration is committed to restoring American greatness and celebrating our nation's proud history,' Ingle added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
