|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Dissenting Report – Democrat and Greens Senators
Background
This inquiry was established to look at
a Private Senators Bill – namely the National Animal Welfare Bill 2005,
introduced by Senator Andrew Bartlett. This Bill was an
update of an earlier version, the National Animal Welfare Bill 2003, but
contained some changes made after feedback had been sought from interested
parties, from industry groups to animal welfare organisations.
Like many Private Senators' Bills, the
legislation was introduced with the aim of facilitating community debate and
raising awareness about an issue, rather than with an expectation that it would
be passed.
Despite limited publicity, the Committee
received over 200 submissions, which is an indication of the level of interest
in this issue from the community. While
no public hearings were held, the submissions none the less provide a useful
body of material for people who wish to continue to work on the various issues
raised. Unfortunately, the inquiry did
not explore these issues as fully as it could have. Given that it is not uncommon for government
Ministers to respond to community concerns about animal welfare issues by
labelling those who campaign on such matters as extremists and generally
reinforcing a perception that animal welfare is a fringe issue, it is
particularly disappointing.
This is a decline from the situation 15
years ago, when the Senate Select Committee
on Animal Welfare was concluding its work.
This Committee operated from 1982 until 1991, producing 10 substantive and
influential reports on a range of topics, and helping to bring a greater
awareness and priority to animal welfare issues at the national level. Committee
members engaged in the issues and were able to find many areas of common ground
to produce valuable and important recommendations.
Upon the tabling of the final reports
of the Animal Welfare Committee, Victorian Labor Senator, Barney Cooney said
"This Senate select committee (on
Animal Welfare) has gone on for many years. I think this is because when people
started to look at animal welfare two things happened: firstly, some
concentration was applied to the subject and, secondly, there was a
development. The way people think about animal welfare now is very different
from the way in which they thought about it when this Committee
was first set up."[25]
This comment reflects the benefit of
examining an issue seriously and genuinely, which generally leads to people of
all perspectives recognising there is more common ground than is usually
assumed and that concrete improvements can be made when goodwill and genuine
engagement occur.
On the same occasion, NSW National
Party Senator, David Brownhill, said
"The future of animal welfare is the responsibility of
all of us in the community. We must ensure that the animals and their welfare
are protected in every sphere in which animals are involved. The Committee
has concluded but I believe the work has not. I hope that it will continue
through the rural and regional affairs committee to be set up tomorrow."[26]
This hope of Senator Brownhill has not been borne out, with animal welfare issues rarely
considered by the Committee in any substantive way in the ensuing 15 years.
The legislation
Submissions provided some useful
feedback about ways the legislation could be improved.
Valid concerns were expressed by some
researchers that provisions in the Bill could
lead to an unreasonable impingement on privacy.
There is undoubtedly a need for keeping better track of animal
experimentation in Australia, but that should be focused on tracking the
research, rather than give any appearance of targeting the researchers.
Some submissions also expressed
concerns about a lack of consultation.
The initial legislation was first tabled in 2003 and the updated 2005
version was based on consultations and feedback from industry and community
organisations. Consultation is also a
key purpose of Committee inquiries. Despite
recent actions by the government since gaining control on the Senate to
diminish the role of Senate Committees, the process of Committee
inquiries remains an effective and important consultation mechanism.
Some submissions also expressed concern
that the legislation may lead to severe restrictions or banning of recreational
or other fishing. These concerns seem to
have been fed by an incorrect and misleading media release issued by former
Fisheries Minister, Senator
Ian MacDonald.[27] The legislation does not mention fishing, nor
does the Second Reading Speech. The
suggestion that it would inherently lead to restrictions on fishing is a long
bow to draw, however to remove doubt and the potential for further misleading
claims to be made, it would be advisable to amend the legislation to put this
beyond dispute.
The majority of the Committee
have expressed the view that "the current mechanism provided by the
Australian Animal Welfare Strategy ......... provides the best approach to achieve
improvements in this field." We
have to respectfully disagree with this view.
As many submissions noted, despite the
development of national Codes of Practice in a range of areas, significant
inconsistencies in codification, interpretation and enforcement still exist
between states and territories. There is
also a major lack of resources and political will committed to the issue in
many areas, particularly where meaningful reform has the potential to detract
from the profitability of animal based industries. In some states, the RSPCA is placed in the
invidious position of having to play the role of enforcer and prosecutor,
despite being inadequately resourced and without having the protection of
government backup if they have to cover the costs of an unsuccessful court
case.
There is also a lack of interest and
focus at national level on those areas where the Commonwealth does have
legislative responsibility for animal welfare, such as live exports and imports
of native, exotic and domestic animals, along with oversight areas such as
funding used for experimentation on animals.
While the legislation still needs refinement,
it provides a mechanism for addressing these inadequacies which has a greater
chance of achieving worthwhile and necessary improvements than the limited,
piecemeal gains which have occurred at state and territory level.
The Senate Select Committee
on Animal Welfare played a significant role in advancing our nation's
performance in reducing animal cruelty, reflecting significant community
concerns of the time. Since then, the
community concern has not diminished, but the political will and levels of
interest have. Most of the significant
improvements in animal welfare practices in recent times have come as a result
of community-based publicity campaigns, often targeted at a specific practice
or industry.
There have been a number of positive changes
in the animal welfare area in recent years.
While some do not yet go far enough, the changes in procedures in the
live sheep and cattle trade, the decision by the wool industry to stop mulesing
of sheep by 2010, the ban on the import of cat and dog fur, the increase in
cage sizes for egg-laying hens and the reduction in duck and quail shooting in
many states have all resulted from community campaigns, rather than leadership
at the political level.
Animal based industries are
understandably uneasy about being targeted by publicity or consumer driven
campaigns portraying their industry in a bad light. Such campaigns can cause economic harm to an
industry, and can be a blunt instrument to use.
By failing to engage genuinely and
meaningfully with the community to make real advancements in animal welfare in Australia, governments are vacating the field and leaving it to the
community to have to continue to undertake actions that will generate the
necessary public and political pressure.
This situation is less than ideal, as it inevitably results in a
piecemeal focus on individual issues, rather than a comprehensive and
consistent overarching approach. It can also lead to community friction and
antagonism that would otherwise be unnecessary.
However, in the absence of genuine
political engagement or interest from the major political parties at federal
level or in many states, there is little alternative.
Wider Social Implications
While there is still a widespread
tendency to consider animal welfare as simply an issue of compassion towards
other creatures, it is worth noting the growing body of evidence which shows a
direct link between human cruelty towards animals and human violence towards
other human beings.
The submission from Associate Professor Eleonora
Gullone from Monash University stated that “research has consistently shown that deriving
pleasure from killing or causing suffering to other sentient beings is
predictive of low empathy levels.”[28]
If we continue to treat animal welfare
issues as being disconnected from other social issues, and worthy of only
selective and sporadic attention, it not only means more animal suffering, but
also means a lost opportunity to reduce human suffering.
As Assoc Professor Gullone says, “as a society, we have much to gain from appropriately acknowledging the
damaging effects of tolerating animal cruelty behaviours.”
Selective morality
At the recent meeting of the
International Whaling Commission (IWC) in St Kitts and Nevis, Australia's Environment Minister, Senator Ian Campbell, released a report based on Greenpeace video footage of the
killing of 12 whales. He was quoted as saying "I don't think anyone could
describe it as anything other than absolutely inhumane" [29] He was
also quoted as saying it was "quite disgusting", a 'horrendous
thing" "it is absolutely abysmal, it is wrong and it has to
stop." [30]All are comments we
agree with.
Unfortunately, the impression that has
been reinforced by this inquiry is one of selective and inconsistent concern
about inhumane treatment of animals.
Cruelty to whales is seen and proclaimed around the world to be barbaric
and totally inexcusable, but cruelty to other animals is either ignored, dismissed
or seen as a necessary component of maintaining profitable industries.
Unless there is a significant change in
attitude and action from Australian governments and some industries, the moral
stance of our nation's campaign against the cruelty of the whale slaughter is
dramatically undermined.
Recommendation
- That the legislation not proceed
without further amendments being made to take into account concerns outlined in
submissions to this Inquiry.
- That further efforts be made to
achiever stronger and more consistent animal welfare standards and enforcement
at national level.
Andrew Bartlett
Senator for Queensland
Rachel Siewert
Senator
for Western Australia
Christine Milne
Senator for Tasmania
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
|
