|
Tuesday 22 February 2000,
National Convention Centre, Canberra
Each year RSPCA Australia conducts a
one-day Seminar to examine a topical subject relating to
animal welfare. The 2000 Seminar adopted the turning point
of the new millennium as its theme to discuss the future
development of national animal welfare policies and
legislation in Australia.
The 2000 Seminar, chaired by
Professor Ivan Caple (Chairman of the National
Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare), examined the
effectiveness of current practice and present ideas for
future directions in terms of protecting the welfare of
animals in agriculture, science, in the home and the wild.
The aim of the RSPCA Australia
Scientific Seminars is to bring together animal welfarists
and others involved with animals to discuss issues of
mutual concern, to seek solutions and to advance the
welfare of animals. The Seminars are designed to cover a
broad spectrum of opinion, encourage audience
participation and have a reputation for provoking lively
and constructive debate.
Summaries of talks
RSPCA
Australia introduction and background
Dr Bidda Jones, Scientific Officer, RSPCA Australia
The advent of the new millennium
provides us with an obvious opportunity to pause and
assess the status of animal welfare in Australia, and
speculate on what progress may be made in the future. This
paper introduces the theme of today’s Seminar and
outlines two important emerging issues affecting animal
welfare in Australia in the years ahead.
The history of animal welfare in
Australia is reflected in the development of the RSPCA
movement which began, and is still based, at the state and
territory level. RSPCA Australia is the federal body of
the RSPCA and exists to ensure that it has a national
focus, however each state and territory body retains its
autonomy. Differences in the function of these member
Societies are due partly to differences in legislation
between states and territories and partly to underlying
demographic, cultural, political, climatic, and
geographical differences.
The protection of animals in
Australia is provided via the various state and territory
Animal Welfare, or Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Acts,
and their accompanying regulations. This legislation
varies considerably between states and territories in its
detail, penalties, and enforcement provisions. In addition
there are also some major differences between states and
territories in other laws and regulations affecting
animals. These are discussed with examples from the areas
of companion animals, feral animals, agriculture, and the
protection of wildlife.
The second part of this paper
discusses how the development of a national approach to
animal welfare in Australia is likely to be significantly
affected by two emerging issues. These are: the increasing
power of supermarkets and consumers as a force in
dictating animal welfare standards, and the influence of
the World Trade Organisation on national and international
standards in animal welfare.
There is increasing consumer demand
in Australia for transparency in the food production
industry. Consumers expect to be able to make informed
choices based on methods of food production such as the
use of genetically modified foods, the use of chemicals,
and the way in which food animals are reared. Australia
has yet to fully realise the force of supermarkets and
consumers, however examples from Europe can provide a
taste of things to come.
Australia, along with many other
nations, has adopted legislation to protect animals from
cruelty and unsustainable exploitation. Such legislation
often has implications for trade. In many fields it is
almost impossible to adopt measures to increase protection
for animals that are economically neutral for producers
and consumers. As a result, the progress of animal welfare
is being seriously threatened by the World Trade
Organisation, even when measures to protect animals are
motivated by genuine concerns and not to gain domestic
trade advantages. Australia should support the development
of an international trading system that will allow
consumers and policy makers to make product choices on the
basis of animal welfare concerns, while ensuring that we,
and other countries, can maintain and raise welfare
standards without suffering a competitive disadvantage.
Animal
welfare legislation for the future - what scope is there
for a national approach?
Neil Dwyer, Senior Associate, Corrs Chambers Westgarth,
Lawyers
Introduction
This paper raises threshold legal
questions requiring consideration by the RSPCA (or similar
interests) if it seeks to bring about universal animal
welfare legislation throughout Australia. The paper
identifies a significant constitutional difficulty at
Commonwealth level but suggests a more administratively
and politically complex legal option may be available on a
State by State basis.
Options
There are two basis paths from which
to choose:
Considerations
There is a basic difficulty in the
first option because the Constitution (s. 51) gives the
Commonwealth Parliament specific (therefore limited)
powers. There is no such thing as an "animal
welfare" power. To pursue this option, it would be
necessary to enact a law providing for animal welfare but
which law could also be characterised as a valid law under
an existing head of power. The scope is limited but there
may be possibilities under the external affairs power (s.
51(xxix)) if there is an appropriate treaty or under the
trade and commerce power (s. 51(i)). There may be other
options such as referral of powers by States (s. 51
(xxxvii)) or use of the incidental power (s. 51(xxxix)).
In summary, my conclusion is that this option would be
legally very difficult to pursue.
The second option is, legally, the
potentially simpler one although politically and
administratively problematical. If the political will for
uniform legislation existed across the nation it would be
achievable. There are, however, inherent legal
difficulties arising from the fact that each jurisdiction
has its own Courts system and there could be no certainty
that identical words will be interpreted identically by
judges. It may, however, be possible to set up a truly
national scheme such as that which supports the
Corporations Law. This brings us back to political will.
Though not legal issues, there will
be questions such as whether basic definitions and minimum
standards of animal welfare will be agreed on by all
jurisdictions. There is also a broad policy issue for
bodies such as the RSPCA of how extensive the scope of a
proposed national approach should be.
Animal
welfare policy and legislation in practice: examples from
the old and the new
Ian Cowie, Director, Local Government Development,
Department of Local Government, Western Australia
Western Australia currently operates under a Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act which was passed in 1920. As we
reach a new millennium, this legislation is in need of
significant revision to ensure it reflects today’s
attitudes and beliefs.
The talk will address a number of
specific deficiencies and weaknesses associated with the
1920 legislation, such as the limited number of animal
species which are covered by the Act and the limited types
of enforcement option available.
It will also identify the process
followed in Western Australia to develop a new Animal
Welfare Bill to replace the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act. This Bill was introduced into the Western
Australian Parliament in late 1999. Key proposals within
the Bill will be outlined, including a substantial
increase in the level of penalties and the broadening of
the legislation to cover the use of animals for scientific
purposes.
Comparisons will then be made
between the RSPCA’s model Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act and the Western Australian Bill. There are a
number of differences between the two and the reasons
behind the Bill’s departure from the model will be
explained.
The political process associated
with the development of legislation will also be analysed.
This process will differ between States and Territories
because of different political structures and over time as
the composition of the political parties changes.
In Western Australia, the Upper
House, called the Legislative Council, is not controlled
by a single party or coalition. Instead, minor parties and
an independent hold the balance of power. The implications
of this situation for the Western Australian Animal
Welfare Bill will be considered.
The
Welfare of Animals in Agriculture
Malcolm Foster, immediate past President Australian Lot
Feeders’ Association
The primary role for animals in
agriculture is for the production of food and fibre. The
demand for animal protein is increasing and this trend
will continue as development increases throughout the
World. This growing demand for animal protein will come
from intensive production systems rather than extensive
ones due to factors of efficiency and environmental
sustainability.
The concept of animal welfare as a
consideration in its own right, unrelated to an animal’s
productivity or value did not enter into the early
management of animals in agriculture. The early radical
approaches of some animal liberation groups incensed
farmers who already considered they were taking a
responsible approach to the animals in their care. This
conflict set back the cause of animal welfare groups
genuinely interested in improving the welfare of animals
in agriculture.
In the early 1980’s the Australian
Agricultural Council, set up a sub committee on animal
welfare whose role was to develop model codes of practice
for the welfare of animals in agriculture. Because
industry associations had been involved in the formulation
of the codes, there was for the first time, a level of
ownership and responsibility accepted by them.
The real breakthrough with respect
to industry becoming involved in setting and policing
animal welfare standards came in the early 1990’s with
the introduction of quality assurance to agriculture. The
feedlot industry was one of the leaders in this field and
others are now following including the live export
industry. Incorporating appropriate animal welfare
considerations as part of quality assurance procedures
ensures animal welfare become a part of day to day
management. These quality assurance schemes are third
party audited to ensure compliance.
The future direction proposed is for
a co-regulation model where State and Federal legislation
supports these industry quality assurance schemes. The
legislative backing supports industry efforts at self
regulation and at the same time protects the interests of
the community should the industry scheme fail to provide
adequate control
Animal welfare standards should be
set jointly by industry and animal welfare groups. These
standards need to be scientifically based and not coloured
by human values and perceptions. These standards should
then be incorporated in codes of practice that form the
basis of the industry quality assurance schemes. This will
effectively place the responsibility for appropriate
animal welfare practices, where it belongs, firmly in the
hands of individual farmers and the industry organisations
that represent them.
Setting
and enforcing animal welfare standards for native animal
management
Dr Martin Denny, Mount King Ecological Surveys
Too often the management of native
animals has involved approaches that result from an ‘out
of sight, out of mind’ mentality. Controlling native
(and feral) animal populations when they have been
designated as pests can involve measures that may include
inhumane elements. Taking the case of macropods (kangaroos
and wallabies), there have been numerous measures used
over the last 200 years that can only described as cruel.
These include kangaroo and wallaby drives, the use of
dogs, battues, poisoning, ‘pig-sticking’ and
deliberate shooting to maim. Although laws prevent many of
these measures and the Code of Practice for the Humane
Shooting of Kangaroos has set out guidelines for the
harvesting industry, there are still instances of inhumane
practices accepted under the guise of ‘pest
management’. Often there is a demonization of a species
that can lead to actions that would otherwise be condemned
by society. Examples of this approach to animal management
will be described and will include the use of poisons such
as 1080, the legal culling of wallabies and possums in
Tasmania, the use of the Finlayson Trough and the ‘shoot
and let lie’ component of current management programmes.
Incorporating
animal welfare concerns into pest (feral) animal control
programs
Clyde McGaw, Policy Officer (Pest Animals), Land
Protection, Department of Natural Resources, Locked Bag
40, Coorparoo Delivery Centre Qld 4151, email: clyde.mcgaw@dnr.qld.gov.au
In this presentation I will describe
how animal welfare has been, is and could be further
incorporated in vertebrate pest control activities. I will
rely on my Queensland experiences to provide examples on
how this might be achieved.
The incorporation of animal welfare
concerns into vertebrate pest control programs can and has
taken many forms ie legislation, policy, codes/guidelines.
I will describe how they can and have already been
incorporated into these and discus how codes or guidelines
can be used to provide positive outcomes and recognise the
other issues related to vertebrate pest management.
There is general consensus that
pests need to be controlled. This consensus is in
legislation and policy of both pest control and animal
welfare agencies, but these are framed in very broad
terms. Complication arises at the practitioner and law
enforcer level as this broad and sometimes obscure
legislation and policy makes it difficult for these people
to go about their business confidently.
It is at the practitioner and law
enforcer level that codes or guidelines will provide the
greatest benefit.
The management of pests must take
into consideration many issues, one of which is animal
welfare. The production of codes or guidelines will aid in
the decision making process in choosing and using a
control method and aid in the consideration of animal
welfare relative with the other issues.
A national
perspective on protecting the welfare of research animals.
Refinements to the system: eight legal frameworks and one
Code
Dr Mike Calford, Chair Animal Welfare Committee of the
NHMRC (and Division of Psychology, Australian National
University)
Legislation associated with animal
welfare operates separately in Australia’s eight states
and territories. However, with regard to animal
experimentation the various systems are aligned by
adoption of a common code - the Australian code of
practice for the care and use of animals for scientific
purposes. The mechanism of adoption of this Code varies
but it is mostly as a regulation associated with a
legislative act. The fundamental principle of the Code is
that each institution that undertakes animal-based
experimentation is required to set up an ethics committee
(AEC) which considers research protocols for pre-approval.
An important aspect of the Code is the specification that
AECs must consist of at least 1/3 membership combined from
the categories of lay-persons and animal-welfarists. Those
who have served as animal-welfarist members should be
pleased that their input has brought about many
demonstrable refinements in experimental techniques and in
animal housing. In addition, they should know that their
influence on other committee members and on the scientists
who submit protocols has brought about a recognition and
knowledge of animal welfare issues amongst Australian
biomedical researchers which is unequalled in other
countries. A byproduct of the system, is that Australian
biomedical researchers have direct and frequent contact
with animal welfarists. Aside from the formal contact, the
informal aspects of this interaction have been quite
influential. My own observation (from ethics sessions at
international meetings and the like) is that the younger
generation (in particular) of Australian biomedical
scientists show an understanding of, and a respect for,
the views of animal welfarists to a far greater extent
than do their American, European or Asian counterparts. It
is thus a great pity that this influence and interaction
is under threat as some sections of our major animal
welfare organisations have withdrawn (or threatened to
withdraw) support for their members to sit on AECs. The
general view of the NHMRC has been to take the concerns of
these organizations very seriously and examine whether
there are problems with the Code and AEC system which need
to be changed. Our assessment is that the system mostly
works exceptionally well. However, instances where it is
not working well are difficult to detect and have the
potential to damage the overall effectiveness of the
system. In only one State is there both a legislative
framework and sufficient resources for extensive reviewing
of the operation of the Code in institutions. Where
detailed reviews are not undertaken the NHMRC favours the
introduction of formal 3-yearly reviews. The details of
the review proposal will be presented at the meeting.
Development
of a National Animal Welfare Strategy
Dean Merrilees (Animal Health Programs and Welfare
Branch, National Office of Plant and Animal Health, AFFA)
The aim of this presentation is to
outline the reasons for developing a national animal
welfare strategy, the aims of such a strategy, the form it
will take and the process being followed to develop it.
The presentation will provide an
overview of the Australian animal welfare scene, ie
community concerns and expectations, the processes for
setting animal welfare standards, the processes for
dealing with animal welfare problems and the role of
bodies such as the National Consultative Committee for
Animal Welfare (NCCAW).
The strategy will recognise the
fundamental point that animal welfare concerns the humane
use and care of animals, it is something everyone should
be interested in, it is not the preserve of those who
oppose the eating of meat or have particular agendas.
Australia is seen to have
contemporary and comprehensive animal welfare legislation
and standards and good mechanisms to involve industry,
animal welfare bodies and governments in improving that
legislation and those standards. Australia, however, has
not done well in communicating these facts domestically
and overseas.
NCCAW has strongly endorsed the
development of a national animal welfare strategy to
address market access and trade issues and to address the
need for:
-
animal welfare standards to be
evidence and scientific based
-
international benchmarking of
animal welfare outcomes
-
better communication of
Australian animal welfare initiatives and policies.
Anticipated benefits of a
national strategy include:
-
efficient and effective use of
resources
-
the process of developing a
strategy will itself improve communication, awareness
and broad ownership
-
facilitation of international
debate and negotiation
-
integration of animal welfare
standards and industry QA initiatives
-
avoid discrimination against
Australian products.
Development of the strategy is being
coordinated by the National Office of Animal and Plant
Health and will involve extensive consultation with
community groups, industry and a wide range of government
bodies. The aim is to complete the development process in
time for submission of a strategic plan, an 8 to 10 page
document, for endorsement at the August 2000 meeting of
the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of
Australia and New Zealand.
This project is supported by the Commonwealth
Government through a grant-in-aid administered by the
Department of Finance and Administration |
