‘Done deal’: Consultation on new animal welfare laws a sham

Farmers, fishers and hunters calls to amend a radical new animal welfare bill before it becomes law are set to be ignored.

Farmers face legal challenges to traditional practices and new licensing regimes if the Allan Government’s Animal Care and Protection Bill goes through without major amendments.

The Victorian government’s consultation on its draft Animal Care and Protection Bill appears to be a sham, with a key government source allegedly telling stakeholders Cabinet has already signed off on the Bill as a “done deal”.

It means submissions lodged with the government this week by the Victorian Farmers Federation, hunting, fishing and other lobby groups, calling for amendments to the draft Bill, are useless.

Agriculture Minister Ros Spence. Picture: Yuri Kouzmin

Agriculture Minister Ros Spence previously stated “the release of an exposure draft for industry and public feedback is a critical step to making sure the laws get the balance right”.

But outdoor recreation groups claim one of the government’s top bureaucrats has told them they were “not going to change the Bill from here” and “it’s a done deal”, as Cabinet had already signed off on it.

The Weekly Times understands concerns were raised by the government’s own agencies over how consultation on the most radical reforms to animal welfare laws in 37 years has been ignored. The laws will impose penalties and even prison time for breaches of mandatory animal care requirements.

Consultation on the bill is already shrouded in controversy, after it was revealed it was drafted late last year in partnership with at least eight animal welfare groups and just one farmer – Victorian Farmers Federation vice-president and egg producer Danyel Cucinotta.

Ms Cucinotta warned the bill in its current form was “too broad and could give rise to animal activists making legal challenges to have the legislation reinterpreted”.

She said the government was also giving itself the power to “slap a licence on every farm animal across the state”.

When told of lobby groups’ concerns that the Bill was a “done deal”, Ms Spence’s office said “all feedback received on the draft Bill will be thoroughly considered and will help to inform the final Bill prior to being introduced to parliament”.

But anglers have already hit a brick wall on seeking amendments to the Bill, which in its current form forces fishing club competitions to comply with a raft of new animal welfare and care requirements.

“I think the Greens and animal libbers wrote the Bill,” VRFish chairman Rob Loats said.

Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (Victoria) hunting development manager David Laird said: “The premise of the Bill is that hunting is an inherently cruel activity that can only exist by exception, which we reject.”

“This is a platform that animal activists will use to try and shut down hunting in the courts.”

Hunters’ concerns appear to be justified, with Victoria’s Animal Justice Party publishing a template for submissions that opposes any exceptions and exemptions.

AJP MP Georgie Purcell said the party wanted bans on mulesing, tail docking, castration without pain relief, sow stalls and shock collars, which “could end up in the regs”.

In its submission the VFF states it “believes the draft Bill creates the unnecessary and unreasonable risk of encouraging third-party litigation against the government and against people responsible for the care and protection of animals”.

“Animal activist groups, with their proven intention and means, may seek judicial review or other civil action through the courts in an attempt to alter laws and bring about the cessation of certain animal production activities,” the VFF stated.

“This is due to subjective and ambiguous language found in the draft Bill which invite legal interpretation through the courts.”

The VFF has called for a raft of amendments to the Bill, including:

MORE clearly defining the Clause 17(2) care requirements to minimise the risk of legal uncertainty and misinterpretation, specifying that the regulations provide detailed care requirements for specific species and/or activity involving animals.

REMOVING the definition of intensive environment in the draft Bill, as there is no standard by which intensive environments can be measured, particularly with regard to animal welfare.

IMPRISONMENT should be removed as a penalty option from Clauses 18, 19 and 20 (duty to meet care requirements) and Clause 36 for offences relating to restricted procedures – such as those undertaken by a veterinarian.

REMOVE the power of the government to create licences on a whim, requiring any new regime to be subject to direct parliamentary oversight.

ACTIONS taken by farmers and others in compliance with the Act, regulations, and guidelines should be considered a valid defence to any offence, which requires amendments to Clauses 18, 19 and 20.