Introduction:
For some time, Animal Care Australia has remained steadfast on our position that the real animal welfare experts are found among those that interact with animals on a regular basis. This in itself has continually been challenged by animal rights rhetoric and the misleading premise that those who own or work with animals cannot have the animals’ best interests in mind at all times and the fact they are ‘using’ the animals is in itself a conflict of interest. If this were true then the cases of animal cruelty would be blocking the halls of court houses across the nation.
If the estimates are true then, across Australia, there are over 28 million pets across almost 7 million households, 12 million animals involved within research, the many thousands of animals in our zoos and other educational exhibits, the unknown number of native animals in our habitats which include some 250 species of native mammals, 550 species of land and aquatic birds, 680 species of reptiles, 190 species of frogs, and more than 2,000 species of marine and freshwater fish and an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 species, about 100,000 of which have been described. Of course, there are also the millions of animals within the agricultural industry, with an estimated six hundred million killed annually for food.
Oversight of the interactions we have across the many different animals above falls within a number of different ministerial portfolios. Primarily, environment, agriculture, and local government, but it varies from state to state.
Animal Care Australia does not see a conflict of interest – rather the responsibility of ensuring the continued improvement of animal welfare outcomes requires its own authority that sits separately to those Ministers and is the first point of operational review for the animal welfare of these millions of animals.
Progress in scientific knowledge and animal welfare, and advances in technology, tend to influence community values, and far too often these influences are inserted into the political arena without the necessary and appropriate time to assess any unforeseen circumstances all the while being touted as improving animal welfare. This is why it is vital to remove political influence without removing the ability to assess the advances in real time.
An Animal Welfare Commission and Commissioner will provide an avenue for all aspects to be maintained, reviewed and evaluated without the interference of political agendas, the rhetorical ideology of animal rights/protection activists or the favouring to avoid change within the animal keeping community.
The Animal Welfare Commission will create a single over-arching body responsible for and improving animal welfare outcomes throughout the state. Its ability to advise the ministers of the various government bodies and to have full oversight of the enforcement of animal welfare legislation will provide a level of independence no longer reliant on the whims of any one government minister or department while having the capacity to consult with stakeholders and the public alike.
One organisation coordinating and improving animal welfare with oversight will re-prioritise animal welfare to the level that society expects.
An Animal Welfare Commission Advisory Council
To assist the Animal Welfare Commissioner in functioning, the creation of an Animal Welfare Commission Advisory Council (AWCAC) is proposed.
To support the structure of the AWCAC, Animal Care Australia has taken lead from the finding of the Commonwealth Productivity Commission’s inquiry into the regulation of Australian agriculture, which stated:
“Representing the interests of the industry that a government department is tasked with addressing is not of itself a concern, it is consistent with its objective. However, issues can arise when that department is also responsible for implementing a regulation that has broader community interests that may conflict with those of the industry.”
Animal Care Australia notes ‘the interests of the industry is not of itself a concern’ but ensuring the ‘broader community interests’ can be addressed is achieved by including representation from all elements of the animal keeping community, including industry.
Positions on the AWCAC will be filled through an expression of interest process promoted throughout the respective industries and animal keeping communities.
Animal Care Australia has paid particular attention to current ‘Welfare Advisory Councils’ and recognises the differences in their structure and recruitment processes. Many of the advisory councils appear restrictive or self-serving for the existing government rather than being truly representative of the animal keeping community.
Ideological infiltrations from organisations with limited or no real-life animal keeping experience appear to have hoodwinked governments into believing their ideologies are reflective of community expectation when in fact they are not.
Education, Compliance and Enforcement
Prosecution under animal welfare legislation is the final step in preventing animal cruelty, and more often than not comes ‘after the horse bolted.’
Prevention is the best approach to maintaining and improving animal welfare. ‘Prevention is better than the cure’
Education is the best means of prevention. ‘Education creates greater awareness which sets socially accepted benchmarks.’
The inclusion of education is not only absent from most legislation and sufficient funding to implement educational material is rarely included in budget allocations for animal welfare. This is the greatest failure of all governments.
When ensuring compliance with animal welfare legislation is being maintained there is often an unawareness or lack of understanding from the animal owner, and again, education is the means to improving the animal welfare outcomes.
To address this Animal Care Australia is separating the education and compliance aspects from the enforcement and prosecution.
Education will be carried out by Animal Welfare Officers. While animal cruelty will be investigated by Senior Animal Welfare Officers, with the Animal Welfare Commission determining those cases that require prosecution and following through with prosecuting.
There is a precedent for this approach in some States where prosecutions are now either approved by the department and/or are completed by the Department of Public Prosecutions. This also provides for a separate set of eyes reviewing the case that are external to that of the current inspectorate.
Currently in most States it is the charitable organisation that is investigating, fining/charging a person, and prosecuting and/or determining the guilt and punishment of an alleged cruelty offence. This is possible because the case is controlled by the inspector, the veterinarian, the prosecutor, and the primary witnesses who are all employed by the charitable organisation.
For reasons solely focused on economic motives governments have for far too long have allowed this situation to exist by granting enforcement powers under ministerial memorandums of understanding to the charitable organisations. Placing money ahead of animal welfare. This is no longer acceptable.
Utilising approved charitable organisations is a direct conflict of interest. This is especially true when consideration is given to the inclusion of the organisations during legislative reviews provided by government in determining the powers, functionality, and liability of the approved charitable organisations.
Animal Care Australia has strongly affirmed the enforcement and prosecuting of animal welfare legislation must be carried out by government employees. In order to ensure even greater accountability, we now place employment and accountability directly under the Animal Welfare Commission and it’s Office.
The Commission appoints Senior Animal Welfare Officers who are responsible for all cases leading up to prosecuting and also overseeing Animal Welfare Officers. Our Senior Animal Welfare Officers are the replacement for ‘inspectors’ under current systems.
They are not the prosecutors as they are the witnesses for the prosecution.
Animal Welfare Officers are located within each Local Government Area and within the animal industries listed in Section 5(1) of our proposed Act (found in this attachment) They may be full time or part time (including as part of other duties) or shared between adjoining Councils or industry facilities. For example, a Local Council Ranger may be appointed as an Animal Welfare Officer. Their primary role is education, whether that is in response to a local complaint or carrying out compliance inspections, etc.
At the point where an Animal Welfare Officer believes there is a cruelty case that is beyond educational change or the issuing of a ‘directive to rectify’ then they must call for the involvement of a Senior Animal Welfare Officer.
Funding
The funding of these roles is shared. Senior Animal Welfare Officers will be employed by the Commission while Animal Welfare Officers will be funded by Local Government or the other animal industry organisations.
Funding for the training in both positions would initially be provided by government with the view to Animal Welfare Officer training being built into future expenses of the relevant organisations.
This separation of positions and responsibilities will provide for a greater representation of animal welfare officers right across the state, particularly given most will be located in the majority of local councils – expanding the animal welfare footprint.
The responsibility of state Police Forces would not change and they would continue to be an authority to respond to and enforce animal welfare Acts. This also allows for Animal Welfare Officers or Senior Animal Welfare Officers to be provided with support should circumstances become dangerous or require some level of force.
Prosecuting
The Animal Welfare Commission is responsible for approving and conducting prosecutions. The Commissioner must ensure Senior Animal Welfare and Animal Welfare Officers have no other involvement in the prosecution outside of being the witness.
This may be by utilsing the Department of Public Prosecutions or by engaging other entities to prosecute on the Commission’s behalf.
Additional positions
Animal Care Australia recognises this is a large responsibility for a Commissioner, and accordingly there is provision for the appointment of Assistant Commissioners. There is also nothing preventing the continued position of Chief Animal Welfare Officer. The responsibilities of the daily functions of the Commission would be delegated to these positions.
We envisage the Animal Welfare Commission establishing its own separate office where these positions along with the necessary administrative staff would be located.
Supporting and caring for the animals
Supporting and caring for the animals that are the victims or have been seized is a vital component tat currently sees many animals suffer unnecessarily. Primarily because there is a closed-mindedness around who should be caring for animals once they are seized.
Animal Care Australia recognises there is an ‘ease’ within the current arrangements where the approved charitable organisations are taking on the responsibility and costs of providing medical treatment and shelter for the animals that they seize.
Animal Care providers
While there is nothing preventing the above arrangement to continue, Animal Care Australia also notes there are many other organisations, shelters and professionals that are equally capable of providing the necessary care for the animals. This would allow for greater species specific needs to be met, such as, horse rescuers taking on horses, rehoming groups for the animals deemed suitable for rehoming, professional animal training and behaviour organisations taking on dogs, cats, etc, native wildlife carers assisting when needed and of most importance, the need for foster carers to accommodate the animals’ needs during the lengthy waiting time for court hearings.
Most of these already have access to existing veterinary services and the veterinary practitioners could be compensated for their time. Equally this care can be met through existing arrangements between Council Pounds and their veterinary practitioners. The fact that our Animal Welfare Officers will be predominantly located with Council regions means they will know the local arrangements, professionals, and organisations to call upon.
All of these animal care providers would be recruited and issued a memorandum of understanding or contract via an expression of interest process with the local Animal Welfare Officers, Council and the Animal Welfare Commission making the final determination on the suitability of each Carer/Service. Trial periods can be included to ensure appropriate animal care is being provided and service suitability is being met before longer-term agreements are made.
The animal care providers would benefit from this arrangement as it directly meets their purpose of existence and would provide solid grounds for their charitable status or additional fundraising.
Regulation and Accountability of animal care providers
For a long time now governments and animal welfare organisations have recognised that rescues, shelters and alike require greater regulation and accountability. This system not only provides relevance to this but it also provides direct access to the organisations and services for oversight by the Animal Welfare Commission, and the government agency currently responsible.
The Animal Welfare Commission – one organisation with oversight, coordinating and improving animal welfare that will re-prioritise animal welfare to the level that society expects.
The Animal Welfare Commission – one organisation with oversight, coordinating and improving animal welfare that will re-prioritise animal welfare to the level that society expects.
Click the link to read our Draft Act for the Animal Welfare Commission
