22 Years вЂ“ AustraliaвЂ™s animal welfare laws, industry/government alliances, attitudes and government processes. Glenys Oogjes Executive Director Animal Law Workshop вЂ“ 24 September 2005 Some significant dates/events пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ 1976 Animal Liberation вЂ“ the book- by Peter Singer 1978/79 Animal Liberation вЂ“ the groups, started around Australia focusing on вЂ�factory farmingвЂ™ 1980 AFAS (Australian Federation of Animal Societies) formed with 24 founding societies (spurred by Minister Nixon saying an inquiry into intensive farming would be launched if only he could deal with just a single policy entity) November 16 1983 вЂ“ Senate motion by Don Chipp, to establish a Select Committee on Animal Welfare A Senate Select Inquiry into Animal Welfare, 1983 - 1991 Terms of Ref. to inquire into and report upon: вЂ�The question of animal welfare in Australia, with particular reference to: 1. interstate and overseas commerce in animals; 2. wildlife protection and harvesting; 3. animal experimentation; 4. codes of practice of animal husbandry for all species; and 5. the use of animals in sport.вЂ™ пЃµ A Senate Select Inquiry into Animal Welfare, 1983 - 1991 пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ Aspects of Animal Welfare in the Racing Industry Tabled August 1991 Equine Welfare In Competitive Events Other Than Racing Tabled August 1991 Transport of livestock within Australia Tabled August 1991 Culling of large feral animals in the Northern Territory Tabled June 1991 Intensive livestock production Tabled June 1990 The racing industry - Interim Report Tabled June 1990 Sheep Husbandry Tabled October 1989 Animal Experimentation Tabled 1989 Kangaroos Tabled 1988 Dolphins and whales in captivity Tabled 1985 The export of live sheep from Australia Tabled 1985 http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/history/index.htm SSCAW - recommendations Live export (1985) пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ вЂ� The Committee came to the conclusion that if a decision was to be made on the future of the trade purely on animal welfare grounds, there is enough evidence to stop the trade. The trade is, in many respects, inimical to good animal welfare, and it is not in the interests of the animal to be transported to the Middle East for slaughter. вЂ�The implementation of reforms will help to reduce but not eliminate stress, suffering and risk during transportation of sheep to the Middle East. вЂ�Therefore a long term solution must be sought. The substitution of the sheep meat trade for the live export trade offers such a solution.вЂ™ вЂ�Export of live sheep from AustraliaвЂ™ Report of the SSCAW 1985 SSCAW - recommendations Intensive pig farming (1990) пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ вЂ� It is this CommitteeвЂ™s view that an intensive system is proper if the health of the animals is not affected, if their behaviour is not disturbed, and if their adaptability is not overchargedвЂ™. вЂ�The Committee has considered the dry sow housing question and noting the advantages of stalls and tethers (protection from bullying, close monitoring and control of food intake), believes both to be undesirable means of restraint. вЂ�future trends in housing of the dry sow should be away from individuallyconfined stall systems..вЂ™. вЂ�sow size has increased over the yearsвЂ™ and so recommended that attention should be given to sow stalls and farrowing crates to ensure they вЂ�do not cause suffering due to crampingвЂ™, and that the Pig Code should be revised so that вЂ�stalls and crates reflect the body dimensions of large sowsвЂ™. вЂ�Intensive Livestock ProductionвЂ� Report of SSCAW 1990 And the outcome of a decade of awakening? Many suggested Code changes пЃµ вЂ¦.. New legislation, Codes, exemptionsвЂ¦ Legislation was reviewed in all States from 1985 onwards. All looked to ways to вЂ�exemptвЂ™ intensive farming and other controversial practices from the cruelty provisions of the Acts. The Codes provided the means. E.g. 1992 review started to Qld 1925 Act вЂ“ Drafting instruction stated: вЂ�Obviously, it will be quite some time before Codes can be developed and introduced under the legislation. пЃµ A way must be found to ensure that accepted practices under current legislation do not become illegal in the interim. A practical way of dealing with this problem could be to make a Regulation stating that where a Code of Practice has not been incorporated under this new legislation, acknowledged practices will remain legalвЂ™. [From Corish J.A. of NSW Agriculture вЂ“ Ministerial Review of POCTA, Vol 2 вЂ�Comparative Study of Australasian LegislationвЂ™, Feb. 1993] Codes of Practice вЂ“ how they eventuated [After the development of the poultry Code] Other early Codes were developed as national guidelines by the Commonwealth Bureau of Animal Health after the Australian Agricultural Council (AAC) in 1980 considered the mounting challenges by animal welfare interests to accepted methods of Australian livestock management and animal experimentation. In particular, the Council considered implications for the intensive animal industries and live animal exports with a focus on the conditions of transport of livestock over long distances, aspects of the slaughter of stock, intensive farming practices in the pig and poultry industries and the control of feral animals. [Review of the Model Codes of Practice for the Welfare of Animals, Neumann, February 2005 вЂ“ Unpublished, available from AA]. When documenting the вЂ�agricultural industry viewвЂ™ of Codes, Neumann states вЂ“ вЂ�вЂ¦there is a general concern that involvement of the industries in Code development was based on documenting existing management practices and that compliance would be voluntaryвЂ™. N.B. Model Codes are available from: http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/22/sid/11.htm State adopted Codes may vary slightly from the nationally-determined вЂ�Model CodesвЂ™. Model Codes of Practice for the Welfare of Animals NAME OF CODE Road Transport of Livestock вЂ“ 1983 Rail Transport of Livestock вЂ“ 1983 Sea Transport of Livestock вЂ“ 1987 Air Transport of Livestock вЂ“ 1986 Animals at Saleyards - 1991 Cattle вЂ“ 1992 Domestic Poultry - 1983 Farmed Buffalo -1995 Farmed Ostriches - 2003 Feral Livestock Animals вЂ“ 1991 Husbandry of Captive Bred Emus вЂ“ 1999 Land Transport of Cattle - 1999 Land Transport of Horses - 1997 Land Transport of Pigs - 1997 Land Transport of Poultry вЂ“ 1998 Livestock at Slaughtering Establishments - 2001 The Pig вЂ“ 1983 The Intensive Farming of Rabbits - 1991 The Camel вЂ“ 1997 The Farming of Deer - 1991 The Goat - 1991 The Sheep вЂ“ 1991 REVIEWS ? (now species/specific Codes) Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock 2005 2nd Edition 2004 2nd Edition 1992, 3rd 1995, 4th 2002 Under review Under review (changes to toe cutting!) Under review 2nd Edition 1998, Under review again Under review New Mulesing Appendix Codes document practices to ensure they cannot be prosecuted. Exemptions: Compliance with Codes is effectively an exemption in all jurisdictions вЂ“ but formalized defence clauses occur in пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ NT вЂ“ Section 79 Victoria вЂ“ Section 6 (1) Queensland вЂ“ Section 40 Western Australia вЂ“ Sect 25 SA вЂ“ Sect 43 (and SA alone makes compliance a requirement) The other States/ACT each вЂ�recogniseвЂ™ Codes (gazetted) and thus effectively enable them to be used as an indicator to a magistrate of вЂ�acceptableвЂ™ husbandry standards (NSW, Tas, ACT) What existing Codes allowвЂ¦ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ Castration of вЂ�farm animalsвЂ™ without anaesthetic Cutting the toes off emu chicks (de-clawing) Cutting or grinding the teeth of piglets De-horning of adult cattle Hot iron branding of cattle De-beaking of chickens with a hot iron/wire Transporting cattle can be for up to 48 hours, and up to 30 hours for sheep Giving hens less than the equivalent of an A4 page/space, no perch, no nest Allowing pregnant sows just a cement/metal stall, where they cannot even turn around Allowing sows to give birth and nurse piglets in farrowing crates for another 4 weeks Mulesing sheep (cutting the skin from their behind, with no analgesia) Flank spaying of adult cattle Tail docking of adult (dairy) cattle, lambs, piglets (without pain relief) Raising of meat chickens at about 20 birds per square metre Other Codes? пЃµ Research Code (Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes) вЂ“ regulatory in all jurisdictions пЃµ State/Territory Codes вЂ“ other than livestock (in films, shelters, pet shops etc) пЃµ Rodeos Guidelines (NCCAW) пЃµ Circus Guidelines (NCCAW) Review and updating of Codes вЂ“ very slowlyвЂ¦ Timetable for reviews - Lack of interest? The very first Codes had no indication in them that they were to be reviewed in any particular time frame: пЃµ e.g. 1983 Pig Code states вЂ�The Model Code may be revised to take account of advances in the understanding of animal physiology and behaviour, technological changes in animal husbandry and their relationships to the welfare of animalsвЂ™. Senate inquiry then recommended that the Codes be reviewed every five years вЂ�вЂ�to take account of technological changes, advances in understanding of physiology and behavior of animal to reflect prevailing community attitudes.вЂ™ Intensive Livestock Farming SSCAW 1989. пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ The 1999 Land Transport of Cattle Code suggests it will be reviewed in 5 years, the 2001 Poultry Code says it will be reviewed in 2010, whilst the 2nd edition of the Cattle Code (2004) suggests it too will be reviewed in 2010. Neither the 10 year nor the 5 year review timetable has ever worked. Review and updating of Codes вЂ“ very slowlyвЂ¦ Timetable for reviews вЂ“ пЃµ few resources вЂ“ AWWG (Animal Welfare Working Group) processes haphazard/variable пЃµ very little interest from industries [N.B. the Neumann Report came from a consultancy initiated by AWWG to consider these problems] This lack of funding clearly shows a lack of genuine interest and backing by Governments. A willingness to accept the status quo вЂ“ until there is a need to react! пЃµ пЃµ Govt provides animal users with exemptions that allow acts that cause suffering - yet Govt refuses to force them to the table to reconsider positions. Through nonвЂ“cooperation, industry can delay indefinitely review of codes. And - Even if there were welfare implications/improvements detailed in codes (and there have not been) - codes are not enforceable. State/ TвЂ™try Act Department Responsible NCCAW members AWWG Member AWAC? ACT Animal Welfare Act 1992 Environment ACT Dept of Environment No member Yes (Stat) NSW POCTA 1979 Animal Research Act 1985 Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 NSW Agriculture NSW Agriculture NSW Agriculture Yes (Stat) NT Animal Welfare Act 1999 Dept of Local Government, Housing and Sport Dept of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines Dept of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines Yes (Stat) Qld Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries Yes (Stat) SA POCTA 1985 Dept of Environment and Heritage Dept of Environment and Heritage Dept of Primary Industries and Resources Yes (Stat) Tas Animal Welfare Act 1993 Dept Primary Industries, Water and Environment Dept Primary Industries, Water and Environment Dept Primary Industries, Water and Environment Yes (Stat) (meeting irregularly) Victoria POCTA 1986 Dept of Primary Industries Dept of Primary Industries Dept of Primary Industries Yes (not Stat) Western Australia Animal Welfare Act 2002 Dept of Local Government and Regional Development Dept of Local Government and Regional Development Department of Agriculture No Federal Co-ord roles & import/ export, science funding (NHMRC policy etc) Dept of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry Dept of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry AWWG secretariat вЂ“ PISC/PIMC chairs Yes вЂ“ (not Stat) NCCAW NCCAW вЂ“ Dept of Enviro and Heritage, AVA, NHMRC, Animal Health Aust., ,NFF (x2), AWWG Chair, AA, RSPCA Aust., DAFF secretariat. AWWG - Department reps as above. Plus: -CSIRO member -Animal Health Australia rep. (representing ruraal industry groups Other members Code Development пЃµ Bureau of Animal Health in 1980s пЃµ Animal Welfare Working Group (AWWG) now пЃµ Until 2000 вЂ“ community groups (RSPCA/AA) merely consulted пЃµ Now on вЂ�Writing GroupsвЂ™ Code review examples.. Pig Code review вЂ�Writing GroupвЂ™ 2004/05 вЂ“ membership пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ Vic Dept of PI вЂ“ Chair (AWWG member) SA Dept of PI and Resources (AWWG member) NSW Agriculture (AWWG member) Agriculture WA (AWWG member) Prof John Barnett вЂ“ AWSC DPI Vic Pig Specialist Vet Manager Welfare вЂ“ Australian Pork Ltd (APL) Prime Consulting International (appointed by APL) General Manager APL Research Scientists from QAF вЂ“ Large piggery Quality Control Officer вЂ“ Coles Myer Ltd Animals Australia RSPCA Australia Code review examples.. пЃµ Pig Code review Code review examples.. пЃµ пЃµ Pig Code review - delayed first (from 2003) due to drought and research underwayвЂ¦. That research?? By Dr John Barnett of Animal Welfare Science Centre Sow stall dimensions: 0.6 m wide better than 0.75 m wide stalls based on lower total and free cortisol concentrations reduced responsiveness to ACTH increased immunoresponsiveness 2.2 m long stalls associated with lower stress effects based on lower total and free cortisol concentrations reduced responsiveness to ACTH increased immunoresponsiveness see full ppt re this: http://www.animal-welfare.org.au/comm/download/dimensions.ppt#20 Code review examples пЃµ Pig Code review (2004/5) вЂ“ Writing group, Positions on sow stalls вЂ“ A] Industry proposes that they could economically afford to introduce the capital and management changes to allow for a maximum period of confinement of 10 weeks in each gestation, within a 15 year phase in period . B] AWWG, Research and AVA - In terms of management requirements (pregnancy testing, mating management etc..) there should be a maximum period of confinement of 6 weeks followed by group housing until placed in farrowing crates. A transition period of 5-10 years was discussed to achieve this. C] Animal welfare organisations пЃµ пЃµ RSPCA recommend an immediate ban on the building of new stalls (from introduction of the code), one year after the code is introduced a limit on use of stalls to the first 5-6 weeks of gestation, and in 5-7 years after code introduction a ban on the use of sow stalls. Animals Australia. A total and immediate ban on use of dry sow stalls and current farrowing crate on welfare grounds. Current situation вЂ“ considered by AWWG, and new draft and RIS being drafted for public consultation вЂ“ likely to reflect position B above. Code review examples.. Poultry Code review вЂ“ пЃµ In 2000/2001 a similar Writing Group for the poultry Code. пЃµ Again industry interests вЂ“ both egg industry (x2) and meat chicken industry (x 2) held sway. In this case they would not accept the clear science on a number of issues вЂ“ e.g. Scientific papers say that raising hens on litter and with perches leads to better adjusted hens for barn and free range production (less pecking, fewer floor eggs/better nesting). AA and RSPCA Aust. wanted this to be a recommendation of the Code. The industry insisted that overseas scientific research was not relevant - and they got their way! Code review examples.. пЃµ Mulesing appendix to Sheep Code (2004/5 after announcement of mulesing ban by 2010) вЂ¦.even if there is an important agreement at the Writing Group Stage вЂ“ it can be varied at any stage in the bureaucratic process вЂ“ AWWG AHC PIAHC PISC PIMC (Primary Industries Ministerial Council вЂ“ see http://www.mincos.gov.au/ ) RIS State Legislation/regulation Final Writing Group (March 2005): вЂ�Mulesing must only be done by operators accredited under the National Mulesing Accreditation Program from 31st December 2006вЂ™. But the current intention after AWWG/PISC (not written publicly yet) пЃµ All Mulesing contractors (approx 1000 вЂ“ 1300) will have to be trained and accredited by 31/12/06, but farmers/producers (approx 11,000 -17,000) will only have to be accredited by 31/12/08. пЃµ The full ban on mulesing is to be in place by 1/1/2010. Current attempts to exempt further cruel practices E.g. Emu code re de-clawing (de-toeing)вЂ“ not mentioned in the existing Code New proposed inclusionвЂ¦ 7.3 Declawing 7.3.1 Emus must be kept in facilities where natural aggression is effectively managed. If emus are kept in extensive conditions it may be necessary for emus to be declawed. If this procedure is deemed necessary to reduce aggression and stereotype behaviors which can contribute to social stress and skin damage, it should be carried out by a skilled operator at 3-5 days of age. Declawing must not be carried out on chicks over 5 days old. пЃµ 7.3.2 Declawing involves the removal of the distal or last phalengeal (bony part of the toe) joint using sharp clean sheep mulesing shears, beak trimming machine or other suitable device, angled to retain the bottom part of the last phalanx within the foot pad. Declawing by either of these methods will minimise the risk of both acute and chronic pain resulting from tissue and nerve damage. RIS discussion пЃµ Declawing emu chicks is an issue arousing some controversy. The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation funded a study by Flinders University and the South Australian Research & Development Institute into the value of declawing farmed emus. The study concluded that declawing does not harm the well-being of the emus and that behavioural data suggests that declawing can reduce aggression. This reduction of aggression has a positive effect on social structure and also leads to less damage of emu skin which is one of the industryвЂ™s valuable products. Many farms already use this practice and those that donвЂ™t need to, do not use it. Compliance with (cruel) Codes? Examples of non-compliance пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ The NSW Contractors Association has apparently surveyed sheep at saleyards and noted that between 60-80% of sheep have been incorrectly mulesed (radical mules or crooked tails through unskilled jobs). Tail docking of whole herds of dairy cows is still common in some areas (usually the wetter areas) including in Victoria (Source: survey by Barnett of Victorian Institute of Animals Science, DPI) Farmers have commented that teeth grinding of sheep continues (e.g. to AWAC), and some have said it is widespread Anecdotal reports of pigs being transported for between 60-70 hours (across the Nullabor) when 48 hours is the maximum (Source: government officer comments at the Victorian AWAC and at NCCAW). Recent comprehensive documentation (by Animals Angels) of sheep transport between WA feedlots and live export ships, showing injured and downed animals, and over loaded trucks arriving regularly at the wharf (in contravention of the WA transport Code and the new Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock). Provisional results from the APL producer survey indicate that 44% of dry sow stalls currently in use in Australia are narrower than the recommended width and 37% are shorter than the recommended length. Other Exemptions Legislative Exemptions NSW пЃµ 9 Confined animals to be exercised пЃµ (1) A person in charge of an animal which is confined shall not fail to provide the animal with adequate exercise. пЃµ (1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person in charge of an animal if the animal is: (a) a stock animal other than a horse, or (b) an animal of a species which is usually kept in captivity by means of a cage. And вЂ“ Sect 24 вЂ“ where surgical mutilations are listed and thus exempted. Victoria Exemptions for things done under the Catchment and Land Protection Act, Meat Industry Act, Wildlife Act, recreational fishing done in accord with the Fisheries Act. WA п‚· Defence - (a) the animal is stock of a kind that is ordinarily left to roam at large on a pastoral property and to fend for itself; Tasmania пЃµ Regulations in Tasmania to allow battery farms after a win in Tassie in 1993 by Pam Clarke Advisory Structures пЃµ Animal Welfare Advisory Committees (AWACs) пЃµ Purpose - to advise the Minister on current issues and upgrades in regards to COPs and legislation. пЃµ Members of AWACs Usually 2 animal welfare representatives, companion animal person, Vet rep, 2 FF reps, animals in research вЂ“ environment department plus primary industries. How often to they meet?вЂ¦Should meet at least quarterly How effective are they? Totally dependent upon the Minister and political issues. E.g. NSW AWAC recommended a ban on duckshooting and got it in 1995. Queensland in one of its first acts (only commenced last year) recommended duckshooting be banned and got it last month. Victoria вЂ“ the largest duckshooting State вЂ“ its AWAC has recommended a ban on duckshooting in each of 1993, 1995, 2000, and 2003 вЂ“ but no Minister has decided to ban it. пЃµ пЃµ Again, the existence of AWACвЂ™s provide the perception that the issue of animal welfare is being addressed seriously by governments. Advisory Structures (cont) пЃµ пЃµ National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare вЂ“ advises the federal Minister for Agriculture, currently Minister McGauran. Examples of advice takenвЂ¦. Glue traps, Australian Animal Welfare Strategy, Animal Care Statements into slaughterhouses, National guidelines вЂ“ circuses, rodeos, national statistics for research harmonisation, fishing guidelines etc Blocks in place once advances look likelyвЂ¦ ACT battery hen legislation вЂ“ phase out and labelling, problem with Competition Principles AgreementвЂ¦ пЃµ Without the agreement of all States they could not proceed with the will of the people. (background вЂ“ see AA website re history: http://www.animalsaustralia.org/default2.asp?idL1=1272&idL2=1281&idL3=1589 ) And the Productivity CommissionвЂ™s report: http://www.pc.gov.au/study/batthen/index.html пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ WTO requirements Essential to the WTOвЂ™s interpretation of fair trade is that a country cannot effectively refuse to import a product that was manufactured in a way that was detrimental or in any way harmful to animals, people or the environment. In practice, if a nation chooses not to import a product because of an unacceptable production method, that country must either ban the import of the product entirely or accept every import of the product, regardless of production method. In practice, this means that an egg produced by a hen kept in a battery cage is seen as no different from an egg produced by a hen kept in free range conditions. local producers then tend to resist moves to improve animal welfare legislation вЂ“ concerned their increased costs will make them uncompetititive. Government вЂ“ Industry alliances пЃµ Agriculture ministers -MinistersвЂ™ conflict of interest. Four of the 8 State and Territory Ministers are Agriculture ministers, plus the federal Minister McGauran. In a general sense their вЂ�stakeholdersвЂ™ or вЂ�clientsвЂ™ are the agricultural industries, and the promotion of their product. пЃµ Live export support вЂ“ Hassall vs Heilbron economic reports The government (and industry) continues to quote from an economic report by Hassall Pty Ltd.. At the time the Chairman of LiveCorp Peter Frawley was on the board of Hassall Pty Ltd. The Hassall report says 9,000 Australian jobs dependent upon live export. [Hassall report commissioned by Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd for Livecorp, completed July 2000] пЃµ But вЂ“ Heilbron says - if the sheep and cattle currently (1999/2000) exported live were instead processed in Australia, a further approximately $1.5 billion would be added to AustraliaвЂ™s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), around $250 million more in household income and around 10,500 full time jobs would be created. [S G Heilbron report вЂ�Impact of the Live Animal Export Sector on the Australian Meat Processing IndustryвЂ™ commissioned by вЂ�Australian Meat Processor Corporation LimitedвЂ™ вЂ“ April 2000 ] [Both reports available from AA] Government вЂ“ Industry alliances пЃµ McGauran Quote re PETA вЂ“ The Federal Government says it will not support the agreement between Australian Woolgrowers Association and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), for an end to mulesing. PETA has promised to end its call for a boycott of Australian wool if the industry supports the agreement. But the Federal Agriculture Minister, Peter McGauran, says the Australian industry should stop negotiating with the group and concentrate on reassuring its customers. "PETA should not be elevated to this level of importance, where they seem to have some form of veto over the marketing legitimacy of Australian grown wool," Mr McGauran said. "PETA is irrational, it is implacably opposed to the Australian wool industry and consequently they can't be dealt with." ABC news report 25/8/05 The challenge ahead пЃµ пЃµ пЃµ A huge barrier to change has been, and is, the industry-Government alliance. Exemptions and cruel practices allowed by existence and content of codes вЂ“ and must be challenged. The opportunity is now in all our hands to capitalise on the surge in community concern and interest (and consumer power).