Suggested response: I strongly believe that a compelling vision statement should: a) explicitly prioritise the wellbeing and protection of all animals; b) reflect contemporary scientific knowledge and community expectations regarding animal sentience and the ethical treatment of animals; c) declare a future where animal welfare is a fundamental priority, not an afterthought and; d) implement meaningful and independent oversight through the establishment of an Independent Office of Animal Welfare & Protection to remove any real or perceived conflicts of interest.

The proposed vision should paint a vivid picture of the future the renewed AAWS aspires to create – a future where the well-being of all animals is genuinely respected and protected. While the current vision statement outlines the strategy's intended actions, it falls short of articulating a compelling vision for improved animal welfare outcomes. As such, I am concerned that the proposed vision lacks any meaningful reference to improving and protecting the welfare of animals.

The previous AAWS (2010-2014) provided a solid foundation with its goals, objectives, and indicators of success. Building upon this framework and incorporating contemporary scientific knowledge and societal expectations, the renewed AAWS vision should explicitly declare our collective aspiration for a future where animal welfare is not merely an afterthought but a fundamental priority. The 2008 AAWS vision, which aimed “to promote and protect the welfare of all animals in Australia through the development and adoption of sound animal welfare standards and practices”, reflects the kind of clear and purposeful vision statement that the renewed strategy should strive for.

On this basis, I strongly recommend that the proposed vision incorporate this phrasing and propose the following as a revised vision statement: “To create and sustain a compassionate society where the intrinsic value of all animals is recognised, and their welfare is actively promoted and protected through the adoption of robust, science-based standards and practices that minimise suffering and uphold their inherent dignity”.

Suggested response: While I acknowledge that all proposed work streams are crucial for the proper functioning of the renewed AAWS, I have several recommendations to ensure their effectiveness. The Leadership and Coordination stream must prioritise establishing governance structures free from conflicting commercial interests and identify competent personnel to unite jurisdictions and stakeholders under a shared vision. Adequate government funding is essential for the Research and Development stream to encourage impartial, unbiased research devoid of industry influence. A robust national standard-setting framework is imperative for the Standards and Implementation stream, underpinned by independent governance and effective accountability mechanisms. Outreach initiatives under the Education and Communication stream should educate the community and industry on both obligations towards animals and opportunities to improve their welfare. The Reporting and Compliance stream is vital for the AAWS's effective functioning and ensuring states and territories consistently implement agreed-upon standards in a timely manner. Promoting animal welfare to trade partners is paramount for the International Engagement stream, especially during trade agreement negotiations, safeguarding Australia's domestic production standards from being undermined by cheaper imports with lower standards or vice versa, ensuring mutual respect for respective standards.

Suggested response: There are a number of factors impacting animal welfare that relate to all or multiple animal groups. The climate emergency, for example, poses a grave threat to all life on our planet. As the consequences of this crisis expand and intensify, devising meaningful and comprehensive strategies to mitigate its adverse impacts will become an imperative for every sector that involves or affects animals. Failure to address the climate crisis could lead to mass extinctions, population declines, increased zoonotic disease transmission, and immense and avoidable suffering for countless species. Ensuring that animal welfare considerations are integrated into broader societal strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation will also be of increasing importance. This means factoring in the unique needs, vulnerabilities, and challenges faced by different animals when developing climate policies and action plans.

Biosecurity is a key factor that has the potential to impact all animals, not only through the direct consequences of a biosecurity incursion, but also through the measures employed to prevent and respond to such incidents. For example, the recent outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in at least five Victorian poultry farms, to date, has brought into sharp focus the critical importance of biosecurity measures in safeguarding animal welfare. This outbreak, which includes the high pathogenicity H7N3 and H7N9 strains of avian influenza, has led to the killing of hundreds of thousands of birds. Governments and relevant authorities have a responsibility to proactively invest in the necessary technology and infrastructure to enable humane methods of disease control and population management. By doing so, they can avoid resorting to inhumane techniques, such as ventilation shutdown, when biosecurity incursions or disease outbreaks occur.

Habitat destruction, driven by human activities such as urbanisation, deforestation, and unsustainable land use practices, poses a significant threat to animal populations worldwide. In Australia, society’s ever-evolving values, beliefs, and perceptions concerning animals will inevitably shape the trajectory of all sectors that involve or impact animal populations. From agriculture to wildlife conservation and biomedical research, public opinion will profoundly influence the practices, policies, and regulations governing animal welfare. It is crucial that robust mechanisms are established to continuously monitor and analyse these trends, ensuring that the AAWS remains aligned with the prevailing sentiments and expectations of the community. Such a proactive approach is essential to maintain the relevance, credibility, acceptance, and adherence to the AAWS, as well as the industries and sectors it encompasses.

Finally, as human populations expand and encroach on wildlife habitats, conflicts between humans and wildlife increase, often resulting in harm or death to animals. Developing strategies to mitigate and manage human-wildlife conflicts humanely is an important consideration for animal welfare across multiple species. Promoting coexistence between humans and wildlife through non-lethal and humane methods is crucial, rather than resorting to lethal control measures that threaten animal populations, including endangered species.

Suggested response: One of the most significant challenges confronting Australia’s existing animal welfare framework is the near-total absence of independent governance and oversight. These responsibilities currently fall under the portfolio of ministries and departments of agriculture, whose primary mandate is to serve the interests of Australia’s agriculture industries. This arrangement poses a fundamental challenge due to such deeply conflicting interests and priorities. Moreover, the state and territory-based approach results in a patchwork of regulations, allowing for substantial disparities in how animals are treated based on their geographic location within the nation's borders.

The glaring lack of independent and impartial oversight in Australia's animal welfare system not only harms the animals it alleges to protect, but also the very foundations of our democratic society itself. By failing to establish a transparent and accountable governance structure, the currently fragmented system effectively silences the voice of the public, whose overwhelming sentiment favours robust legal protections for the welfare of all sentient animals. Numerous studies have consistently demonstrated a consensus among Australians – like me, they believe that the law should mandate the provision of good welfare for all animals capable of experiencing suffering. This moral imperative, grounded in sound scientific evidence, resonates deeply with the public conscience, with an overwhelming majority agreeing that critical decisions should be made by an independent authority, not Ministers or Departments of Agriculture and related information should be publicly transparent and accessible.

As such, another significant challenge to achieving an effective animal welfare system in Australia is the stark divide between the public's expectations and the patently inadequate safeguards provided by the existing framework. Allowing this gap to grow by refusing to acknowledge and address the systemic shortcomings and public concerns will cause confidence and trust in the system to further decline. Developing a cohesive national strategy that balances the needs of diverse stakeholders while harmonising fragmented state and territory approaches is paramount to restoring faith in the nation's commitment to animal welfare.

Suggested response: While the Discussion Paper correctly identifies some key challenges, there are a number of additional issues that have not been listed that must be addressed. For example, a major concern is the prevalence of conflicts of interest within Australia's animal welfare system. The industries that profit from animal use often have significant and direct influence over the development and enforcement of welfare standards and of concern, many receive vast amounts of public money to undertake their work. Such regulatory capture creates an inherent conflict of interest. Independent oversight and decision-making free from industry bias is crucial to ensure animal welfare is prioritised over commercial interests. 

Furthermore, many species, including fish, crustaceans, and most animals prescribed as ‘pest’ species, are completely exempt from animal welfare legislation, leaving them vulnerable to cruel treatment with no legal recourse. While native species like kangaroos are ostensibly "protected", this protection can be removed to allow for commercial harvesting, making the kangaroo industry the largest land-based animal slaughter industry in the world. A robust animal welfare system should extend basic protections to all sentient creatures capable of experiencing suffering. Similarly, many standard industry practices, such as mulesing or the use of sow stalls, battery cages, and lethal control programs are exempted from animal cruelty laws despite causing profound suffering. Welfare standards should be based solely on the latest scientific evidence on animal sentience and suffering, without concessions for commercial interests.

Even where animal welfare laws exist, they are often weakly enforced with penalties that fail to act as an effective deterrent against cruelty and neglect. Stronger enforcement mechanisms and meaningful penalties for violations are needed to uphold animal welfare standards. Addressing these systemic deficiencies by removing conflicts of interest, extending legal protections to all sentient species, strengthening enforcement, and closing loopholes in welfare standards is essential for a truly ethical and effective national animal welfare strategy.

Suggested response: I strongly believe that the most significant opportunity for Australia’s animal welfare system is the establishment of a national Animal Welfare Commission. This initiative is supported by the Productivity Commission, which recommended the creation of an independent statutory body to manage animal welfare policy and enforcement nationwide. The 2022 Review of the Independent Poultry Welfare Panel, commissioned by the Department of Agriculture, also highlighted the potential benefits of this approach.

The 2022 Review emphasised the effectiveness of existing national commissions and authorities, such as the National Transport Commission, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. While establishing these models can require considerable costs, these can be mitigated by the efficiencies gained through a centralised process. For example, the development of national poultry standards cost the government over $1.5 million. An Animal Welfare Commission would streamline standards development and leverage internal expertise.

A national Animal Welfare Commission would also unify the fragmented current system, ensuring consistent, high standards based on the latest scientific evidence. It would streamline policy development, eliminating the need for multiple ad hoc reviews and saving costs in the long term. The commission would also enhance community engagement, involving various stakeholders in policy-making and addressing neglected areas of animal welfare. Moreover, a centralised commission would promote transparency and accountability, building public and international trust in Australia's animal welfare standards. This transparency is crucial for maintaining Australia’s reputation, which is increasingly important in the global marketplace.

Without a national Animal Welfare Commission, it is crucial for the AAWS to ensure independence and transparency in its governance. This can be achieved by forming an independent, expert-based advisory council to oversee the implementation of the strategy and by publicly reporting on its activities and progress.

Suggested response: The renewed AAWS presents several key opportunities to improve the nation's animal welfare system that have not been identified in the Discussion Paper.

The AAWS provides an avenue to eliminate current exemptions and extend basic legal protections against cruelty to all sentient animals, including fish, crustaceans, and species currently excluded from welfare laws, such as ‘pest’ species, thereby aligning Australia with the latest scientific evidence on animal sentience.

To address conflicts of interest, the strategy should mandate the establishment of an independent statutory body to oversee animal welfare policy and enforcement, free from industry influence, helping ensure decisions prioritise animal wellbeing over commercial considerations.

Rather than exempting standard industry practices known to cause suffering, such as mulesing and the use of sow stalls and battery cages, the renewed AAWS offers an opportunity to set firm timelines for phasing out these inherently cruel practices based on the current scientific consensus around animal sentience.

Stronger enforcement mechanisms, such as increasing inspections and raising penalties for violations to meaningful levels capable of acting as a deterrent, could be incorporated to ensure animal welfare standards are consistently upheld and applied across jurisdictions.

Additionally, the renewal of the AAWS allows for positioning animal welfare as a core ethical consideration that is prioritised alongside other policy areas, such as biosecurity and productivity, rather than treated as a secondary concern. By seizing these opportunities, the renewed AAWS can address systemic shortcomings, align with contemporary science and social values, and establish a genuinely robust national framework for protecting all sentient animals.