Australia’s Subordinate Animal Welfare Legislation
Animal welfare in Australia consists of primary and secondary legislation. Secondary or “subordinate” laws are given power under a primary statute. Animal welfare statutes outline issues like animal cruelty, while subordinate laws detail more specific, everyday interactions between humans and animals.
Subordinate laws, in the form of “regulations” and “codes of practice,” make up the majority of laws within Australia’s animal welfare legal system. A regulation clarifies in detail its overarching statute, while codes are guidance documents written for animal industries that list “acceptable” uses of animals. In terms of hierarchy, statutes are the most important, followed by regulations and codes. Codes can either be compulsory (legally enforceable and of a higher weight) or voluntary.
A statute is passed by parliament, while the development of subordinate laws is less transparent. For example, the authors of this paper argue that animal industries can strongly influence the decision-making process involved in the development of codes. This suggests that codes are based on an animal’s worth to humans rather than their sentient abilities. Although subordinate laws are passed more quickly than statutes, they are often older and may be outdated.
In the 1980s, the Model Codes of Practice was developed to introduce national consistency to farmed animal practices in Australia. However, it was adopted differently by the eight states and territories. The federal government made a second attempt at uniformity with the development of the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines in 2016. However, these authors point out that the state-based approach to regulating animal welfare remains inconsistent, which confuses the public, makes it hard to gather consistent national data, and weakens the nation’s unified effort to protect animals.
This paper outlines a state-by-state comparison of the scope of animal welfare protections detailed in subordinate legislation. The researchers previously compared animal welfare statutes across Australia; this analysis is intended to provide a more complete picture of the animal welfare law framework by including subordinate laws. It is also meant to help other scholars and practitioners identify relevant legal documents related to animal welfare.
Using targeted search strategies from the eight state-based animal welfare statutes, the authors identified 201 pieces of subordinate legislation (mostly codes) addressing companion, farmed, wild/exotic, and entertainment animals. These laws equate to 96% of all laws within Australia’s animal welfare framework; less than 4% of laws are primary statutes.
The results showed that states and territories differ in their approaches to implementing and enforcing secondary animal welfare laws. For example, welfare standards for animals in transport have been accepted by all jurisdictions, while welfare standards for animals raised for meat have been accepted by half. Sheep welfare standards have been accepted by 37.5%, and auction standards have been accepted by 25%. Note that Queensland and Victoria have the highest number of voluntary codes, which the authors say is concerning considering they are dominant farmed animal producers.
However, the eight states and territories give the most legal weight to similar welfare issues. Of all codes included for analysis, those related to farmed animals are most common. Unfortunately, 60% of those codes are considered voluntary. However, pig and bird farming and animal transport standards are strongly enforced across the board. The authors note that banning battery cages and gestation crates are important issues for the Australian and global public, which suggests that jurisdictions may respond to public pressure and global trends.
The authors believe that the lack of uniformity across states and territories is likely accounted for by local differences and needs. For example, farmed animal production differs vastly across the country. The highest producers of cow, bird, and pig meat had the most comprehensive scope of subordinate legislation protecting these industries. Australia adheres to the theory of federalism, which argues that each state and territory is unique and therefore a uniform approach may work against local interests.
The authors point out that their review is not a comprehensive list of all subordinate laws pertaining to animals and their welfare in Australia, only the areas that each jurisdiction regulates under their primary animal welfare statutes. In other words, some laws relating to animal issues could fall under different statutes and were thus excluded by the authors.
The authors believe that a national database detailing Australia’s subordinate animal welfare laws could help advocates and researchers understand why states differ in their regulations. Such a database would also provide transparency in the development of subordinate laws. The authors argue that it should be available online and written in accessible language to enable animal industries to understand what’s expected of them. Advocates in Australia can lobby government officials to create this federal database, which may also reduce the number of out-of-date codes of practice and create national uniformity in animal protection.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12182437