English Oral on Live Export - Help, Please!

[Poet]

Hey ya'll,
Playing a bit of a devil's advocate for this one, and I was hoping someone could take the time to critique it for me? It's a first draft, I'd love any feedback you've got. Thanks so much!

here it is! Rip it apart, please <3

Live export.
Two words to spark a controversial debate. The sale and movement of cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats and camels. Left to suffer heat stress in cramped and sickening environments, voyages can go for weeks before the animals are finally let out of their confines. Australia rakes in about 1.3 billion dollars annually from this industry – however, is that really something we should pride ourselves in?
You’ve seen the debate, the pictures and probably the petitions. The trampled newborns. The sheep, choking in their wool. Dead animals rotting in the heat, buried in the dung of their pen-mates. The casual cruelty these animals are subjected to is horrifying and nauseating. And the point? We, the proud Australian people, are sending our livestock to their gruesome executions. Fresh meat, cargo shipped for maximum profit. Cold. And cruel.
I, for one, believe that Australians should treat their livestock as more than a commodity. Although live export is a positive for the Australian economy, the cruelty these animals are put through is absolutely unacceptable… However, this is not to say that we should throw away the industry as an option entirely – we merely have to enforce guidelines and animal welfare acts. 

The Awassi Express was the first livestock carrier exposed to the public eye in what became an international scandal. What occurred on the 2017 trip to Egypt was, in the words of Nationals MP David Littleproud, ‘disgusting’ and ‘disgraceful’. In that voyage alone, a reported 2,400 sheep perished in the heat. Australia was in uproar, demanding the trade be abolished and harsh penalties meted out to industry workers and the Emmanuel Company, owners of the ship.

But this did not occur. Why? Because politicians know that although the treatment of livestock on this ship was unacceptable, the live export industry serves 50 countries in dire need of the protein and fresh meat our country provides. Thousands of Australians, and millions worldwide, work in this industry to support themselves and their families. This isn’t just one tree we’re chopping down – if we judge the whole industry on a single company, we’ll risk taking out the whole forest.

Let’s face the facts of the situation – the meat export industry cannot replace live export. Nothing can. Despite the most vehement denials and opinions, impoverished people in places such as Egypt, India and Saudi Arabia don’t have the resources to store and preserve meats. In hot climates and hours of travel, the meat would spoil. This is why live export is so heavily relied upon, because a live animal means fresh meat. It might sound like cold logic, but try to put yourself in the shoes of these people, these communities, that rely on Australia to give them the iron and protein in their diet to fill their stomachs each day. To help them survive.

“But, Poet,” you argue. “People don’t need meat to survive. There’s a lot of vegetarians out there getting along just fine!” And, yes, there are. People can go their whole lives without meat and not know what they’re missing. But while this may be true, a large slice of the world’s population can’t get enough protein from just vegetables, and eventually need to eat meat. The typical vegetarian has to eat more food, more regularly, to gain equal performance to an omnivore. In the harsh conditions of poverty, meat is a valuable asset. This isn’t about morals – this is about survival.

Australia, as a country, is one of the most livable in the world. Egypt is ranked 121st out of 140 countries on the Herald Sun’s liveability list, falling well below national health standards. Saudi Arabia is ranked 118th, and India at 110th. These countries, including the 47 others we ship to, need aid in the form of Australia’s live export industry – who are we to deny them the livestock they need to stave off starvation? Australia is one of the most prolific exporters in the world – without our care, these countries would suffer.

This is why it is vital we continue to support the welfare of these nations and their people through the live export industry – however, changes must be made to the treatment of the livestock both on and off of these ships. The decent treatment of Australian animals is imperative, both to the pride of our country and the value of these animals once they reach their destination. We are sending them to their deaths; the least exporters can do is to make it a comfortable and dignified journey.

So, back to the original question – is live export something Australians should pride themselves in? The answer is no. At least, not what it is right now. However, we should see importance in the rapport we create through our provision. While not priding ourselves in the national shame that is the abuse of Australian livestock, we can view the delivery of a vital food source as something worth continuing the industry for. Especially when corrections are made and welfare acts enforced.
Not all exporters are like that of the Emmanuel Company – with these improvements, live export will one day be something Australia can be proud of.

Thank you.

Side note: I was told I shouldn't do a formal introduction, that 'hi, my name is...' is not a captivating beginning, even after the hook. So - should I, or shouldn't I? Thanks again! <3

[OZLexico]

I agree that you can introduce your topic with more impact than "Hi, I'm going to discuss live exports ..."  However, your main arguments should be clearer and this could be done by consolidating the ideas you've spread over sections of approx 3 "paragraphs."  Your first main point is that this export trade is pretty ugly in practice but it is a big income earner.  You've got lots of emotive language here but its a bit too spread out. If you're assuming that this is familiar to your audience you're not going to keep them engaged with the more challenging part of your presentation -they'll be thinking you are only dealing with animal cruelty issues. Perhaps you could balance out the nasty cruelty with some brief description of well regulated live export conditions on the ships(?) rather than just passing it off with non-specific terms like "enforced guidelines and "animal welfare acts". You want your audience to believe that live exports can be conducted in a cruelty free manner. Your second main point is about the contradictory stance of politicians who are appalled but do not ban live exports. This needs more exploration - you could research this and look back to the export ban under PM Gillard and the financial difficulties this caused for farmers who raise animals specifically for the export trade. Given this example, current politicians would be unwilling to risk support for a total ban and are more likely to favour enforcement of tougher regulations for humane treatment of live animal exports. This would further support your view that live exports should not be abandoned. Your third main point is a bit messy - I think you are confusing "aid" with "trade", you imply that they don't have fridges in Saudi Arabia and that meat protein = survival. If Australia withdraws from live exports, other countries (USA, Argentina) will increase their participation in this market and the economic benefits to Australia would be lost. Value added chilled meat could replace live exports but this is dependent on the existence of export abattoirs (you could research this too). If you want to highlight the health benefits that live export meat provides, perhaps you could reflect on the dumping of 2,400 dead sheep at sea as an image of waste, not just cruelty and neglect - the meat those animals could have provided for people has gone to feed the sharks instead!