Van Dairy: ongoing government and industry failures revealed.
Reports surfacing from the Van Dairy company relating to animal welfare and environmental issues come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the ongoing failings of this company, the dairy industry, and the state Liberal government.
CW: this article contains images and descriptions of cruelty to animals.
On April 9 2020, images and reports were released by The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald regarding Australia’s oldest and largest dairy farm, Van Dairy Ltd. With their head offices located in Smithton, Van Dairy owns over 20 individual farms in Tasmania’s north-west, comprising of roughly 30 000 individual cows used in milking cycles. Acquired in 2016 by Chinese corporation Moon Lake, the company has been beset by numerous scandal relating to animal welfare, environment, and operations since the controversial approval of the buy-out by then federal treasurer Scott Morrison (now Australia’s prime minister).
The latest reports reveal that the Tasmanian Dairy Industry Authority found that 83% of of Van Dairy’s farms failed to meet effluent codes of practice. Increases in herd sizes of up to 60% paired with a failure to upgrade infrastructure, as well as unqualified staff undertaking work on the systems has led to the risk of the fouling of waterways by dairy farm effluent. The current operations manager is reportedly lacking in the appropriate skills necessary to assist farm managers.
Images of emaciated cows and dead calves in bins were provided to media outlets. One whistleblower stated cows were sometimes not fed for days on some farms, that the provision of water was inadequate, and that calves had been shot due to malnutrition. A cow was found to have drowned in an effluent pond but was left undiscovered due to overgrown vegetation, and others showed ongoing symptoms of mastitis.
Fonterra, Van Dairy’s biggest buyer, has declined to cease their relationship with the company.
This is not the first time allegations of animal cruelty have been levelled at the company. In 2019, a right to information report by the Tasmanian Greens revealed claims that tails of cows were broken due to rough handling, that some cows were subjected to eye gouging, and illegal drugs were used to induce calving. Overcrowding on farms was also reported, and calves were allegedly killed on farm with claw hammers. 20 staff members publicly aired their concerns for animal welfare; a state Liberal government spokesperson claimed that after inspections were carried out in June no issues were found.
According to a recent statement by Van Dairy, the company “adopts accepted and standard animal husbandry practices” on their farms.
It would be easy to dismiss the issues that are manifestly prevalent at Van Dairy farms as being the result of Chinese ownership, tapping into a culture of Sinophobia that seeks to differentiate between what occurs in Australia and what occurs overseas on a moral level founded in racism. But the ongoing situation is entirely as a result of the failures of industry bodies and government to adequately oversee and prosecute allegations of animal cruelty when they occur in an industrial context.
In April 2018, Malcolm Caufield quit his role on the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee as an advisor to the state Tasmanian government. Triggered by the deaths of sixteen ponies used by national polo identity Andrew Williams aboard the Spirit of Tasmania, Caulfield’s resignation was ultimately as a result of ongoing concerns over underlying issues and problems relating to the enforcement of animal welfare laws in Tasmania. Caulfield claimed that the committee was routinely “kept in the dark” by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and Environment (DPIWPE), and that committee recommendations were ignored.
Compounding matters, in 2020 the Community and Public Sector Union released the results of a survey answered by over a quarter of DPIPWE staff. Over 46% of respondents stated they felt “morally compromised” at work in what they had been asked to do or prevented from doing. 17.5% felt their advice had been appropriately acted upon. Other issues raised by respondents included a lack of transparency in decision making, unmanageable workloads, expert advice from staff ignored, and the increasing politicisation of the department.
Within this context, it must be asked whether the state Liberal government has acted in a manner that has swept the ongoing issues at Van Dairy under the proverbial carpet and allowed the documented animal and environmental abuses to continue. Green’s spokesperson for agriculture and rural affairs Peter Whish-Wilson stated: “It is the sheer incompetence of the state and federal Liberal Governments that has resulted in these devastating animal and environmental reports, and landed one of our most iconic dairy farms in this disaster.” Van Dairy is a product of government failings to adequately enforce animal welfare and environmental policies where big industry and wealthy corporations are concerned.
However, there is a bigger picture to consider here. So long as other animals are considered products or units of production, their rights will continue to be placed as secondary to the demands of industries that are increasingly propped up by government funding and policy. In the 2019/2020 financial period, industry lobby group Dairy Australia were the recipients of $21 857 000 of government funding; these taxpayer monies form part of the matched contribution program that sees subsidies paid to match producer levies paid to Dairy Australia for the purposes of increasing production and consumption of dairy products in Australia and overseas. Of the total Dairy Australia revenue, 55% was invested in the Profitable Dairy Farms Pre-Farmgate strategic priority. Animal welfare was included along with animal health and fertility, which combined received 3% of said strategic funding. This indicates the low priority Dairy Australia considers animal welfare to be, and that its consideration is purely in terms of profitability; animal rights are disregarded by the industry in their entirety.
In 2016, Animal Liberation Tasmania supplied DPIPWE with video from two Tasmanian slaughterhouses, Gretna Meatworks in the state’s south and Tasmanian Quality Meats (TQM)at Cressy. This footage from Gretna revealed numerous animal welfare breaches, including the slaughter of a dairy cow with a recently broken leg who was forced to stand then lie in her own blood and the blood of other animals for over 45 minutes. The stunning process failed multiple times and workers eventually cut into her throat as she consciously responded, until her head was eventually severed from her body. At TQM calves discarded as wastage by the Tasmanian dairy industry were documented in the slaughter pens, most barely a week old; the following day they were thrown and hit onto the kill line before being slaughtered by staff who laughed as the killing took place. Investigations by DPIPWE (under the Liberal government) were dropped, and both facilities continue to kill unchecked. Were staff at DPIPWE encouraged to “compromise” their morals in these cases? We will never know.
What we do know, however, is that the production of dairy negates the rights of the animals used by the industry. Animal welfare policies still encourage the exploitation of animal lives and bodies for profit. Whether a dairy kills calves on site with claw hammers or sends them to slaughterhouses, whether calves are permitted a day or a month with their mothers, or if retired cows are slaughtered immediately or not, there is no right or ethical way to use another’s body for personal gain. And exploitation invariably results in abuses, irrespective of whether those abuses are legal, illegal, socially accepted or otherwise.
The occurrences at Van Dairy are not a simple matter of animal welfare breaches; they are the logical conclusion of an ideology that views other animals as property and as units of production. They are the logical conclusion of the corrupt relationships between industry, lobby groups, and government, which result in the average taxpayer paying subsidies to support industrial policies of exploitation. And these ongoing reports highlight the disastrous consequences for animals and the environment that result from industry and government collusion in the promotion of animal agricultural interests.
Irrespective of what action is (or fails to be) taken against Van Dairy, we know the truth of the dairy industry and the corruption of corporate government. As consumers we must remove ourselves from this cycle of exploitation and abuse, whilst exercising our powers as voters to send a clear message to politicians on these issues. As the Tasmanian state election looms, I would encourage people to contact their local and state representatives to let them know that the ongoing issues at Van Dairy will be an election issue, and to investigate candidate profiles that are best positioned for decisive action to be taken on the issues of animal rights as a whole.
More than ever, we need to hold these industries and the government to account for their failings.
