Australians’ Beliefs About Animal Welfare Policy Decisions

In Australia, as with many countries around the world, responsibility for developing animal welfare policy and legislation is delegated to government departments and ministers that are responsible for agriculture policy. This can lead to problematic conflicts of interest resulting in policy and legislative decisions that routinely prioritize economic interests to the detriment of animal welfare, affecting billions of animals. It can also have consequences for democratic principles, as such arrangements often lead to the citizenry’s concerns about animal welfare being excluded or ignored. 

Various studies have demonstrated that animal welfare laws and policies fall below the expectations of the community. However, there are limited data on whether the processes and governance arrangements that produce such outcomes are meeting public expectations. 

The Australian Alliance for Animals recently commissioned the leading behavior change research institute, BehaviourWorks Australia, to conduct a nationally representative survey exploring Australian attitudes and beliefs about animals and the way policy decisions that affect them are made. The survey explored questions around who should be involved in the policy process, what factors should be considered, and who should have final decision-making authority. 

The findings reveal a significant gap between the Australian public’s expectations about the way animal welfare policy should be developed and current policy processes. Key findings and their implications for the policy framework are outlined below.

Current Beliefs About Animal Sentience

Many Australians believe that animals are sentient. Companion animals were judged by most as sentient (90% for dogs, 87% for cats), followed by other mammals (82% for cattle, 80% for sheep and pigs), birds (81%), lizards (62%), octopuses (61%), frogs (61%), other sea animals (57% for fishes, 54% for lobsters) and finally insects. Insects were the only animal group where a minority of respondents rated them as sentient (39%).

There is strong support for the idea that the law should require that all sentient animals are provided with good animal welfare, as 86% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed.

What Role Should Government Play?

The majority of Australians believe the government should protect animal welfare through legislation (87% agreed/strongly agreed).

A strong majority of Australians (80.5%) agreed or strongly agreed that the final say on government policy decisions that affect animal welfare should be made by an independent and impartial authority.

Over two-thirds of Australians (68%) believe that an independent office of animal welfare should be in charge of policy decisions that affect animal welfare, rather than government bodies responsible for agriculture policy (22%).

Who Should Be Involved In Policy Decisions?

The majority of Australians trust animal welfare groups (e.g., RSPCA, Animals Australia) and researchers and practitioners (e.g., scientists, veterinarians) the most when it comes to animal welfare (69% for both categories). The next most trusted groups are government representatives (31%) and consumer protection groups (31%). The groups Australians trust the least when it comes to animal welfare are industries that use animals for commercial purposes (21%), retailers (12%), and political parties (12%).

The levels of trust in the above groups correlate well with who Australians believe should have the most say in policy decisions that affect animal welfare. Australians think animal welfare groups and researchers and practitioners should have the most say (72% and 75% respectively). Only 44% of Australians think government representatives should have the most say on animal welfare policy decisions. A minority of Australians think industries that use animals (19%), political parties (10%), or retailers (6%) should have the most say.

What Factors Should Be Considered?

Most Australians (80%) think the impact on animals should be the most important factor in government policy decisions that affect animal welfare. The next most important factor is scientific knowledge and evidence (66%). Over half of Australians (57%) think the impact on industries or businesses should matter the least.

Most Australians (58%) think that decision-makers should consider animal suffering and give it equal weight (46%), or more weight (12%), than human suffering when making decisions that affect animal welfare. A minority of Australians (28%) think animal suffering should be given less weight than human suffering, and 5% think animal suffering should only be considered when it affects human suffering.

Is Australia Meeting These Expectations?

The survey data show that Australians overwhelmingly recognize animals as sentient beings and expect the law to provide for good standards of welfare. When it comes to the policymaking process, Australians have the greatest trust in animal welfare groups and scientists, and they place the most weight upon the impacts on animals in the decision-making process. Australians also value independence and impartiality, and they support policy processes being overseen by an independent animal welfare body ahead of agriculture departments.

However, Australia’s current animal welfare policy arrangements fail to meet these expectations. The sentience of animals is rarely recognized explicitly, and large numbers of sentient animals are excluded from the protective reach of Australia’s animal welfare laws by virtue of wide-ranging exemptions and defenses. The views of animal welfare groups and scientists in the policymaking process, and its impacts on animals, are routinely subordinated to those of industry and economic impacts. 

This is facilitated by the fact that the system is overseen by entities with conflicting objectives, including state and territory departments of agriculture and ministers for agriculture. For further analysis of these and other deficiencies, see our animal welfare policy barometer.

Implications & Where To Go Next

These findings point to a democratic deficiency in Australia’s animal welfare policy processes. Not only do Australia’s animal welfare laws and policies fall below community expectations, but so too do the processes and governance arrangements that produce them. 

This is unlikely to be unique to Australia. Animal welfare policy processes in many parts of the world have been captured by vested interests for too long. This has resulted in billions of animals suffering poorer states of welfare than they otherwise would have under more independent, impartial, and science-based approaches to animal welfare policymaking.

When campaigning for animal welfare policies, it may help to raise awareness of inadequate policy processes and unfair governance arrangements. Messages centered around meeting public expectations and upholding democratic principles may be more persuasive than using only animal welfare and rights messages.

For these reasons, we have ensured that this survey can be replicated in other jurisdictions and over time. Survey materials and data have been made available via open access so that other researchers and groups working in animal welfare can adapt and extend the survey work.

The Australian Alliance for Animals, a new collaborative body consisting of six of Australia’s leading animal protection organizations, will be using the data from this survey to support its #FairGoForAnimals reform platform. The reform platform proposes a new framework for creating a modern and contemporary animal welfare governance system that better represents the interests of animals and fulfills the community’s expectations. It is currently endorsed by 26 local and international animal protection groups. If you would like to add your organization’s support, please visit: www.fairgoforanimals.org.au.

The online Qualtrics survey of 1,029 Australian adults, representative of the broader Australian population by age, gender, state or territory, and location (metro vs. regional), was conducted in February-March 2023. 

A detailed technical report that includes responses to every survey question is available here.