Farmers need federal welfare laws: AFI

The AFI’s bold suggestion is one of six key recommendations made in a new research report; Designing Balanced and Effective Farm Animal Welfare Policies for Australia.

The 99-page report was compiled by AFI research analyst Gaétane Potard and is set to be released next week to coincide with a high-level animal welfare policy forum in Canberra.

The document raises major concerns about the expanding misalignment between media and activist-driven community perceptions of animal welfare standards and real on-farm practices, underpinned by objective science.

It contains three case studies on the live export industry, the pork industry’s use of sow stalls, and on layer hens and eggs, with a focus on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and views of “free range” labelling.

The study cites an escalating community and political debate over farm animal welfare standards which has seen various sectors scrutinised in recent times including: cattle slaughter practices in live exports; anti-wool campaigns in the sheep industry; and the dairy industry’s management of bobby calves.

It says the pork industry has also been the subject of continuing campaigns by activists, “who have invaded piggeries in an attempt to obtain images of suffering pigs”.

“It can be argued that this debate and related policy decisions are being driven more by those with a philosophical opposition to livestock farming, or by emotive reactions to graphic images, rather than any scientific or objective understanding of what constitutes the appropriate welfare of farm animals,” the report says.

AFI executive director Mick Keogh said the misconceptions that “undoubtedly exist” about farm animal welfare standards in the Australian community can have “significant implications” which influence policy processes.

That in turn can impact the profitability of livestock farms as recent events have demonstrated, he said, referring to hasty decisions like the 2011 Indonesian live cattle export suspension.

“Achieving improvements in both the perceptions and the reality of farm animal welfare in Australia will be extremely difficult, unless significant structural change occurs to the way these issues are managed,” he said.

“The current piecemeal, State and industry-based approach lacks cohesion, consistency, and objective scientific underpinning and is in need of significant reform if it is to serve both the industry and the community.”

The AFI’s leading recommendation called for a National Farm Animal Welfare Act incorporating “clear guiding principles that underpin decision-making in relation to animal welfare in Australia, consistent with international standards”.

“The legislation should also establish an advisory council, relevant committees and implement an enforcement system based on national standards and guidelines,” it recommended.

Mr Keogh said the AFI report was timely given Liberal Senator Chris Back's proposed anti-trespass laws. He said Senator Back’s Bill was a response to the continuing attacks being made on the welfare status of farm animals in Australia by activist groups - but in some respects the legislation is “attacking the symptoms of a problem, rather than the cause”.

“The attacks by activists - and more importantly the media and consumer attention they achieve - are symptomatic of a farm animal welfare system that is haphazard, is based on State-by-State legislation and regulations, subject to random decisions by groups such as major retailers, and in relation to which the farm sector has very limited engagement or influence,” he said.

“The result is a livestock sector that is continually on the defensive and which is unable to demonstrate to the community or to the international marketplace the generally high animal welfare standards associated with livestock production in Australia.”

Mr Keogh said market opportunities presented by recent free trade agreements concluded by the Coalition government would be better secured if Australian livestock industries could position their product as superior to other sources – including in areas like animal welfare.

“This is not possible under the current fragmented and disjointed policy system,” he said.

The report also highlights that the current approach to animal welfare policy in Australia is not producing good outcomes for livestock, or for the livestock industries, Mr Keogh said.

He said animal welfare standards are being set State-by-State, and by organisations such as supermarkets, with little reference to the rapidly advancing science associated with animal welfare.

The current confusion surrounding the definition of free range is a case in point, he said. The absence of common national standards, supported by science, has led to the ACCC and individual States imposing different and conflicting standards, which result in consumer confusion.

“The report recommends that the best way for the livestock industries to regain a leadership role in this issue is for the establishment of a national legislative framework, which is structured in a way that will ensure that science has a central role in determining what standards are put in place,” Mr Keogh said.

Mr Keogh said the AFI’s role was to conduct evidence-based research and make the results of that research available to industry and policymakers.

He said it was up to industry advocacy groups, including farm organisations, to consider the research outcomes and if they support it, to lobby governments and have it implemented.

“However, given the opportunities that are becoming available in higher-value international markets, it is to be hoped that the industry will recognise the value of taking the recommended approach,” he said.

The reports second-ranked recommendation called for a better differentiation between farm animal welfare and animal cruelty.

Mr Keogh said animal cruelty refers to acts by individuals that intentionally or deliberately result in harm to individual animals.

He said the vast majority of animal cruelty offences committed in Australia involve non-farmed animals which are prosecuted under State law.

Farm animal welfare, on the other hand, concerns the impacts of farming practices on livestock populations and the desire to optimise livestock production by ensuring livestock are free from stress and pain, he said.

“Animal cruelty is about preventing the mistreatment of individual animals, whereas animal welfare is about improving the wellbeing of farm animals as a whole,” he said.

“One requires an approach not unlike that taken in response to criminal acts, whereas the other requires cooperation and collaboration between farmers, scientists and policymakers to encourage farmers to optimise the wellbeing of their animals from a productive perspective.

“Animal welfare will not and cannot be achieved through threat of penalties, or through regulations that are narrowly focused and do not consider all aspects of the wellbeing of farm animals.”

The report also says the “mistrust of the independence of RSPCA inspectors” is an issue often raised by the farm sector.

“National and state RSPCA groups are often involved in media campaigns advocating for animal rights and welfare, as well as campaigning for stronger standards of farm animal welfare,” it said.

“Some members of the farm sector are concerned that livestock officers may have a direct interest in toughening their judgment on some farm animal welfare cases in order to serve the interests of their organisation.

“The RSPCA has been facing this potential conflict for a long time and endeavours to maintain a separation between their inspecting duties and their advocacy mission and most inspectors have been willing to maintain an attitude of high legitimacy towards farmers.”

Designing Balanced and Effective Farm Animal Welfare Policies for Australia