Animal welfare reforms
wide-ranging, flexible

NEW Zealand supports a well-established animal population, both domestic and wild. The first immigrants brought them here - as a source of food, to farm, for use in sport and recreation, for pest control and as pets. Today, the largest group is still farm animals.

Within any community there's a range of views about the use of animals, ranging from people opposed to the use of animals for any purpose to those opposed to any restrictions.

The new Animal Welfare Act, which became law on January 1, 2000, has endeavoured to balance the different perspectives by upholding high animal welfare standards, while recognising the practicalities surrounding the use of animals for food and fibre, work, companionship, research and sport.

This is an important task in a country where half of our export earnings are derived from farmed animals and their products.

All production and companion animals are covered by the Act. The legislation sees the culmination of 10 years of consultation, research and policy development. While New Zealand has always had balanced and comprehensive legislation covering the protection of animals, any changes to the law have been incremental rather than revolutionary.

This year, the Animals Protection Act 1960 would have turned 40 years old. For its time, this legislation was among the most far reaching of its type. It made it an offence to witness arranged animal fighting, widened the power of inspectors and shifted the enforcement responsibility from the Police to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. About four decades later, the Act was considered outdated and unable to meet the expectations of New Zealanders and international consumers, for whom practices taken for granted for years are now subject to rigorous public scrutiny.

"New practices, advances in scientific knowledge and changing societal values meant a review of the law was needed, says David Bayvel, MAF's Director of Animal Welfare. "Live sheep shipments, tail docking of dairy cattle, de-velveting of deer and pest control methods have all attracted international attention.

"As a consequence, New Zealand needs to continually be active on animal welfare matters if risks to trade are to be managed. We have to constantly justify the way we manage animals and develop animal welfare practices that meet or exceed changing consumer and public expectations," said Dr Bayvel.

Broadly, the Animals Protection Act 1960 emphasised punishing acts of cruelty towards animals. All those provisions have been carried over to the new Act; the emphasis has lifted to one of prevention rather than punishment. The new Act contains some major initiatives that have, until now, not received statutory recognition, such as the use of codes of welfare and the philosophy of the "five freedoms".

The definition of an "animal" has also been significantly widened. It now includes most animals capable of feeling pain, whether domesticated or wild. It excludes animals like shellfish and insects. It does, however, include fish, lobsters, crayfish, crabs and octopus.

During the Select Committee review, it was the issues of the great apes and tail docking of dogs that received most of the public attention. For most of us, neither of these two issues was of major significance. However, the Act is significant for anyone caring for animals, using animals for recreation, farming animals, or owning a pet.

The Act details the obligations of care animal owners or guardians have towards their animals. The Act does not assume an ownership link - the relationship between the person and the animal may be transient, such as, for example, those transporting animals around the country.

The onus is on the owner or guardian to ensure that the physical, behavioural and health needs of animals are met. These are defined internationally as the "Five freedoms".

These are: proper and sufficient food and water, adequate shelter, the opportunity to display normal patterns of behaviour, physical handling in a manner that minimises the likelihood of unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress, and protection from and rapid diagnosis of any significant injury or disease.

"The ultimate aim of the Act is to ensure that New Zealand maintains high animal welfare standards. The legislation makes a clear statement to New Zealanders and the rest of the world that animals in New Zealand have a right to expect proper and sufficient care," said Dr Beyvel.

Other areas covered by the Act include trapping animals, animals used in research, teaching and testing, and surgical procedures.

Provisions relating to the use of animals in research, testing and teaching are more comprehensive and detailed than in the previous Act, along with greater accountability when undertaking research involving animals. Those wanting to use animals in research, testing and teaching must have an approved code of ethical conduct that sets out the procedures and policies that an organisation and its animal ethics committee must follow.

The Act does not impose regulatory controls on hunting, fishing and pest control. It does, however, prohibit or restrict the sale and rise of certain types of traps. The Act requires traps set for the purpose of capturing an animal alive to be inspected. Inspection of kill traps is not required as it can reasonably be expected that the trapped animal be killed instantly.

The Act protects the welfare of animals that are being exported from New Zealand by ship or aircraft by ensuring that the risks faced by such animals during the journey are minimised.

Those wishing to export animals are required to obtain an animal welfare export certificate, unless exempted. Animals, such as cats and dogs, sheep and horses, travelling less than six hours from New Zealand are exempted from requiring a certificate.

The Act uses codes of welfare to provide detailed minimum standards of care towards animals. Codes can be amended easily and quickly in response to changing practice, scientific knowledge or public attitudes.

They can also provide information of an educational or explanatory nature that would be inappropriate in legislation.