Laws concerning cruelty to animals are controlled by state governments . Each state has its own prevention of cruelty to animals act. The only areas where the Commonwealth Government makes laws in relation to matters such as quarantine when bringing animals into Australia, exporting animals as in the live sheep and cattle trade, or killing kangaroos for export.
The law relating to animals in South Australia is made up of the act, now called the Animal Welfare Act, and a set of Regulations. Cruelty to animals is an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 1985, which was most recently amended in 2008. You can see a copy of this Act online at the South Australian government site.
The Act sets out a general definition of what constitutes cruelty. It is quite a long document, but article 13 from the 2008 amended act sums up the main definition :
“3) Without limiting the generality of subsection 1) or 2), a person ill treats an animal if the person –
If a person is found guilty of aggravated cruelty according to section 13, the maximum penalty is a fine of $50,000 or 4 years imprisonment, with the maximum penalty for lesser cruelty being $20,000 or 2 years imprisonment. However, if you examine the actual fines and sentences handed down, you’ll see that they are much lower. In addition to fines or imprisonment, a person may be ordered to pay court costs, or to do a certain number of hours of community service. Under section 36 of the Act, a person who is found guilty of an offence may be ordered to surrender their animals to the Crown, and may be prohibited from owning any animals of a particular species in future.
Before any prosecution is undertaken, an RSPCA inspector can issue a person with an Animal Welfare Notice under section 31B of the Act, which orders the person to improve the treatment of animals in specified ways. If the person fails to carry comply with the notice they can be prosecuted.
Even more important than the AWA Act itself are the Regulations incorporated under this Act. The Animal Welfare Regulations 2000 set out more specific conditions for the treatment of particular animals, for example, laying hens or animals during transport. You can see a copy of the Regulations on the South Australian government web site.
The regulations incorporate what are called Model Codes of Practice for the Welfare of Animals. The Codes are written at a national level, but it is up to each state whether or not they wish to incorporate these Codes into their laws.
In South Australia, the following national codes are incorporated into the Regulations, and therefore are declare to be legally enforceable:
To summarise, the law relating to animals includes the:
Intensive industries such as piggeries and battery hen establishments are clearly in breach of section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act. For example, the Act requires that animals be provided with appropriate and adequate exercise. It is common for sows in intensive piggeries to be kept in pens barely larger than their bodies, where exercise is impossible. However, this cruelty is made legally permissible by Codes of Practice and section 43 of the AWA, which states that Codes of Practice override the AWA. The Code of Practice for Pigs allows for extreme confinement of pigs. A person who kept a dog or cat in similar conditions as a battery hen or pig would undoubtedly be prosecuted for a breach of the AWA. The defense provided by section 43 and the cruelty which is institutionalised in the Codes of Practice are the greatest barrier to any real improvement in the welfare of animals in South Australia.
Another problem is that the Codes are worded in such a way that any prosecution is virtually impossible. For example, the Code of Practice for poultry transport states: 5.2.8 “Poultry should not be transported during the hottest part of the day on very hot days…”. However, when a member of the public picked up a chicken that fell off a truck at 1 pm when the temperature in the shade was 37.3°C, nothing was done. The chicken soon died in great distress, probably as a result of heat stress. According to the government’s Office of Animal Welfare, nothing could be done because the Code of Practice says “should” not be transported, not “must” not be transported. The wording of Codes is deliberately vague. The Codes of Practice merely give the impression that the welfare of certain animals is protected, whereas in reality the Codes can be ignored with impunity.
Although animals supposedly have legal protection against cruelty, a lot of animal suffering exists either because of the inadequate ways laws are drafted, or the inadequate way they are enforced. These problems will be discussed under the following headings:
Under the Act, ‘animal’ is defined as any vertebrate, except humans and fish. In other words, it includes all animals with a backbone in the classes of mammal, bird, reptile and amphibian, but not fish.
There is no scientific reason for excluding fish; on the contrary, there is very strong scientific evidence that fish feel pain and fear in much the same way as mammals do. (For more details on this point, go to Fish Feel Pain.)
Nevertheless, at present fish have no legal protection whatsoever. For example:
All these actions are cruel because they cause great pain and fear, but the law does not protect fish. According to sub-section 13.3(f) of the Act, live baiting would be illegal if done to any other vertebrate because a person is causing one animal to be killed or injured by another. The cruelty of live baiting is well illustrated in this description from “The Australian Magazine” (16/2/1991, p9):
” Kept alive by having salt water pumped through their gills, they have hooks stitched to the top of their heads by means of a sack needle passed through the eye socket. Then, with mouths sewn shut, they are towed behind the boats at a steady five knots. Sometimes they stay alive all day. If they begin to skitter in panic across the surface, observers know that something big is closing in. “
In spite of the pain and panic, this activity is legal because fish are excluded from the Act.
Although duck shooting is still legal, it inevitably results in cruelty and breaches of the Animal Welfare Act. According to section 13.3(g) of the Act, it is an offence to kill an animal in a manner which causes unnecessary pain. Section 13.3(h) of the Act states that it is an offence to fail to kill an animal as rapidly as possible. (Go to Duck Shooting for detailed evidence of the cruelty involved in this so-called sport.)
Thousands of ducks each year are not killed instantly when hit by one or more of the over 100 pellets fired with each shotgun blast. There are then several possible scenarios:
CSIRO and National Parks and Wildlife Service have X-rayed thousands of ducks caught in the wild before duck season . Depending on the species of duck, between 10% and 15% of all birds have shotgun pellets embedded in their flesh from previous shoots. Bearing in mind that many injured ducks were either killed by shooters or died of their wounds, this figure of 10% to 15% surviving with pellets shows that vast numbers of ducks are wounded and suffer unnecessary pain as a result of duck shooting.
When ducks are wounded and subsequently die or are killed, sections 13.3(g) and 13.3(h) of the Act are breached, because an animal is being killed in a manner that causes unnecessary pain and is not killed as rapidly as possible. When a duck is only wounded, sections 13.3(a) is breached, because the shooter is unreasonably causing unnecessary pain. However, no-one is ever charged with cruelty during duck shooting; breaches of the Act are conveniently neglected while this cruel “sport” continues to be legal.
Specific guidelines covering animals in laboratories are contained in the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. Any proposal to use animals for research or teaching has to be submitted to an Animal Experimentation Ethics Committee, which is supposed to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements of the code of practice. You can download publications relating to animals used in experiments, including the Code of Practice, from the NHMRC web site.
The Code of Practice gives the impression that experiments are only allowed to go ahead if they are really important, and there are definitely no alternatives to using animals. Unfortunately this is not the reality. The following are some general requirements of the Code:
“1.2 Projects using animals may be performed only after a decision has been made that they are justified, weighing the predicted scientific or educational value of the projects against the potential effects on the welfare of the animals.
1.8 Techniques that totally or partially replace the use of animals for scientific purposes must be sought and used wherever possible.
6.1.1 Animals are not to be used for teaching activities unless there are no suitable alternatives for achieving all of the educational objectives.”
According to these guidelines, Ethics Committees should be asking: Is this project worth doing? Will it provide information important enough to justify causing harm to animals? Has the researcher/teacher looked for non-animal alternatives?
Although these questions are required by the Code of Practice, they are rarely asked. There is a strong assumption that all research is useful and worth doing, but this is not the case, especially not when it causes harm to animals . This is not what the Code of Practice intends.
Clear examples of available alternatives not being used occur in the area of teaching. It is unbelievable that Ethics Committees are still approving animals for dissection when there are so many alternatives that are demonstrably at least as good. The same applies in many other areas of teaching. In spite of the evidence, Ethics Committees continue to approve animals for teaching merely on the say-so of teachers, without asking for evidence that they are necessary or that there are no alternatives.
In 2008, permission was still be given for the University of Queensland to kill pound dogs for the training of veterinary surgeons. Universities such as Sydney and Murdoch train vets without using such harmful methods. Many universities in the US train vets without killing dogs.
Another example of alternatives not being used highlights many of the problems in this area. For several years Animal Liberation tried to stop the use of mice to produce monoclonal antibodies. This painful procedure was banned in several European countries in the early 1990s because there is a good alternative method. However, Ethics Committees in Australia continued to approve the use of mice. Researchers confidently asserted that the new alternatives didn’t work, but made criticisms only relevant to a method developed in 1975 ! It was clear that they had made no effort to keep up with new technologies. Fortunately NH&MRC stepped in and proposed that it is was no longer acceptable for Ethics Committees to routinely approve the use of mice for this purpose.
Both the antibody and the teaching examples show that:
These factors result in the Code of Practice not being implemented.
There are major contradictions between the Codes and Article 13 of the Act, and when there is a contradiction it is the Code of Practice not the Act which prevails. As Article 43 of the Act states:
“Nothing in this Act renders unlawful anything done in accordance with a prescribed code of practice relating to animals.”
So, if the Act says that it is an offence to fail to provide adequate and appropriate exercise, but the Codes of Practice say it is acceptable to keep pigs in confined spaces where exercise is impossible, then it is legal to keep pigs in confined spaces. The Code of Practice allows pigs to be kept permanently in the following conditions:
Abnormal behaviour and increased levels of lameness and bone problems show that this confinement and lack of exercise cause suffering. (For more detailed information on these points, go to Intensive piggeries .) So, if you happen to be a dog, the law makes sure that you receive adequate exercise, but if you’re unlucky enough to be a pig or a fowl you don’t have this luxury because the Codes of Practice override the protection offered by the Act.
According to the SA Animal Welfare Regulations (2000), it is an offence to cut off the tail of dogs, cattle or horses, and to clip the ears of any animal. However, according to the Code of Practice, it is legal to cut off the tails of piglets, to cut notches in their ears for identification, to clip teeth and to castrate males, all without any pain relief. If you did any of this to a dog, you would be prosecuted.
You can download (in pdf format) copies of the Codes of Practice relating to farm animals from the CSIRO site if you click on the link and type “Model Codes of Practice” into the search box on the left.
Farm animals and any animal labeled a “pest” are particularly poorly protected by the law. For example:
The fact is that dogs and cats (pets) are fairly well covered by the law, but other animals are not nearly so well served. Human profit and convenience are placed before the prevention of cruelty.
Charges of cruelty to an animal can only be laid by an Inspector under the Act. All police officers are automatically Inspectors, while others are appointed by the Minister responsible for animal welfare on the recommendation of the RSPCA. Some, but not all Inspectors are employees of the RSPCA. While police sometimes investigate cases in the country, they generally prefer to leave this area to the RSPCA.
The problem is that the RSPCA is a charity, running an animal shelter and a marine rescue centre. It is a large financial burden to also have to employ Inspectors to gather evidence, and to meet costs associated with court cases. Imagine if a charity caring for abused children also had to prosecute the abusers, or if a charity helping road accident victims also had to prosecute drunk and negligent drivers. It doesn’t make sense, yet this is the case with animal cruelty. Crimes against animals should be prosecuted in the same way as crimes against humans.
Part of the problem is that the RSPCA only has a limited number of full-time Inspectors for the whole of South Australia, although there are also a number of honorary (unpaid) Inspectors as well. This shortage of Inspectors limits the number and type of inspections that can be carried out. The RSPCA tends to focus on straight-forward breaches of the law by individuals, such as someone not feeding their dog or horse properly, or someone conducting dog or cock fights. What the RSPCA hasn’t done is systematically inspect businesses where large numbers of animals are kept, such as pig or poultry sheds.
According to the latest amendment of the AWA Act (2008), inspectors can carry out routine inspections of animal sheds if they give “reasonable notice of the proposed inspection”. It is not clear what constitutes “reasonable” notice. In the past, RSPCA inspectors gave farmers several days notice when a complaint was made, giving the farmers time to clean sheds, fix outstanding problems and dispose of sick and injured animals. It remains to be seen whether the RSPCA has the will and the means to carry out useful routine inspections to ensure all animals are treated according to the law.
There is also a problem of accountability when a private charity enforces a public law. According to the latest amendment of the AWA Act (2008), when someone reports a breach of the law, the investigating inspector must tell the person what action was taken in response to the report (43A). However, if the person is not happy about the action taken, it is not clear what more they can do. In contrast, if I am unhappy about treatment received from police officers or the way officers carried out their job, there is an official channel for complaints. Such complaints will be investigated by the Police Complaints Authority and the person complaining will receive a written report. If I make complaints to government authorities, I can use Freedom or Information legislation to get relevant documents or make a complaint to the ombudsman if I am not satisfied. These channels are not available in the case of the RSPCA. So, a whole area of the law (cruelty to animals) is not open to public scrutiny because it is being enforced by a private charity.
If the State government is serious about enforcing its own Animal Welfare Act, then it must make available sufficient funds to employ more inspectors. It must also take on the responsibility of prosecuting people charged with cruelty, because a charity can’t be expected to take on major court cases, which can be drawn-out and costly. It must improve processes of accountability in enforcing the law relating to animals.