animal law conference programme - voiceless program.pdf · • activities intended to foster...

2 2007 Animal Law Conference Sydney

ANIMAL LAW CONFERENCE PROGRAMME

Time Friday 6 July 2007 Time Saturday 7 July 2007

8:30am to 9:00am

Registration

9:00am to 9:05am

Welcome

9:05am to 9:20am

Opening: Senator Andrew Bartlett, Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats How Seriously Do Politicians Take Animal Welfare issues?

9:00am to 9:45am

Speaker: Peter Sankoff, Senior Lecturer in Animal Law at the University of Auckland Getting Back to Basics: Why the Welfare Construct Fails to Protect Animals from Suffering

9:20am to 9:35am

Speaker: Brian Sherman AM, Co-founder and Director of Voiceless, the fund for animals The Role of Lawyers and the Law in the Animal Protection Movement

9:45am to 10:30am

Speaker: Lyn White, Communications Director of Animals Australia Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Laws that are Failing to Protect True Victims.

9:35am to 10:20am

Speaker: Graeme McEwen, Chair of the Barristers Animal Welfare Panel Farm Animals and the Law

10:30am to 10:45am

Morning Tea

10:20am to 11:05am

Speaker: John Mancy, Barrister, Casual Lecturer and Member of the Animal Rights Committee Issues of Standing in Animal Protection Law

10:45am to 11:30am

Speaker: Nichola Donovan, Legal Project Officer & VolunteerCo-ordinator, Lawyers for Animals Australia: Where to From Here - An Overview of Recent Common Law Strategies and Popular Movements to Protect Animals

11:05am to 11:25am

Morning Tea11:30am to 12:30pm

Panel Discussion: Graeme McEwen, Nicolas Patrick and Jessica Wood The Challenges of Pro Bono Animal Representation

11:25am to 12:10pm

Speaker: Katrina Sharman, Corporate Counsel for Voiceless, the fund for animals From Label to Liable: Lifting the Veil on Animal Derived Product Labelling in Australia

12:10pm to 12:55pm

Speaker: Paul O’Donnell, Barrister for the RSPCA Animal Abuse Prosecutions: The Work of the RSPCA

12:55pm to 1:55pm

Lunch

1:55pm to 2:40pm

Speaker: Geoffrey Bloom, Lecturer in Animal Law at the University of NSW and Southern Cross University Past and Recent Theories of the Ethics of Human Treatment of Animals, and Their Uses

2:40pm to 3:25pm

Speaker: Steven White, Lecturer in Animal Law at GriffithUniversity Companion Animals: Members of the Family or Legally Discarded Objects?

3:25pm to 3:45pm

Afternoon Tea

3:45pm to 4:30pm

Speaker: Deidre Bourke, Co-Chair of the Animal Rights Legal Advocacy Network in NZ The Regulation of Animal Experiments in Australasia - How Accountable Are Our Frameworks?

4:30pm to 5:30pm

Panel Discussion: Lyn White, Glenys Oogjes, Paul O’Donnell and Steven Coleman Litigating on Behalf of Animals: Practical Problems and Proven Solutions

5:30pm to 7.30pm

Cocktail Function

2007 Animal Law Conference Sydney 3

Welcome to Australia’s first Animal Law conferenceThe theme of the conference is “The Future of Animal Law in Australia” and our principal aim is to assemble a large network of Animal Law advocates from throughout Australia, as well overseas, with a view to educating each other and exchanging new ideas.

The highlights of the conference will include keynote speakers, thought provoking and stimulating panel sessions (to enable attendees to pose those all important questions) and will be rounded up by a cocktail function to give attendees a real opportunity to meet and share experiences with fellow animal advocates.

About the Committee

The NSW Young Lawyers Animal Rights Committee is comprised of lawyers and law students throughout New South Wales who have a keen interest in animal welfare and laws regulating the treatment of animals.

The Committee was established under the auspices of NSW Young Lawyers, which is a division of the Law Society of New South Wales. Membership of the Committee is voluntary and is open to New South Wales legal practitioners under the age of 36 years and those in their first 5 years of practice. New SouthWales law students are also eligible to join the Committee.

Committee members are represented in all areas of legal practice, including large, medium and small firms as well as in-house roles and in governmentdepartments. What the members of the Committee all share is a desire to use their legal skills to improve the lives of animals.

The general aims of the Committee are:

• to educate ourselves on an ongoing basis about the law and legal issues relating to animals and their welfare;

• to engage in law-related projects on animal welfare issues;

• to raise awareness of law-related animal welfare issues within the legal profession and the wider community;

• to liaise with other relevant organisations and, where possible, support and assist them;

• to lobby for appropriate law reform.

The activities of the Committee are wide ranging and include:

• Making submissions to government on proposed legislative amendments, including proposed changes to codes of practice and other government guidelines. Most recently, the Committee has made submissions on the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Animal Welfare Committee’s draft Guidelines on Minimising Pain, Distress and Suffering in Animals in Research and the revised national Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Pigs.

• Informing the legal profession and the general public of recent developments in the law and recent court decisions regarding animal welfare via the Committee’s website.

• Issuing press releases to call for legislative change, to raise community awareness of issues relating to animals and to promote its activities.

• Writing letters to relevant government Ministers in order to lobby for legislative reform.

• Activities intended to foster interest in, and the development of, Animal Law in Australia, such as its annual Essay Competition and the 2007 Animal Law Conference.

The Committee meets on the last Tuesday of every month at 6.30 pm at the Law Society Building, 170 Phillip Street, Sydney. New members are most welcome to attend a few meetings to see what the Committee is all about before joining.

For further information about the NSW Young Lawyers Animal Rights Committee please visit the Committee’s website at http://arc.younglawyers.com.au or contact Committee Chair, Angela Radich, at [email protected]


Speaker: Senator Andrew Bartlett, Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats

Andrew Bartlett is Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats and Senator for Queensland. He is the party’s national spokesperson on Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Defence, Veterans’ Affairs, Children and Youth Affairs, Animal Welfare, Housing and Environment and Heritage. He was re-elected at the 2001 Federal election and has been in the Senate since 1997 and held many positions within the Democrats prior to that time. Andrew has had extensive involvement in the campaigning process, including time as the Australian Democrats National Campaign Director.

Andrew has degrees in Social Work and Arts from the University of Qld. He has a long involvement in community organisations, including 10 years on the Executive of the Qld Tenants’ Union, as well as groups like Community Aid Abroad and Animal Liberation. He is the past President of the Vegetarian Society of Qld and is on the State Council of the Australian Republican Movement.

Andrew has been an active Senate participant, regularly raising social security, refugee and animal welfare issues.

Contacts:

Phone - 07 3252 7101 Fax – 07 3252 8957 Email – [email protected] Post- Suite 14B1, 421 Brunswick St, Fortitude Valley Qld 4006

How Seriously Do Politicians Take Animal Welfare Issues?

In the past, few people thought that the treatment of individual animals raised an ethical issue worth taking seriously. There were no animal rights or animal liberation organizations. Animal welfare was an issue for cat and dog lovers, best ignored by people with more important things to think about.

Today the situation is very different. Issues about our treatment of animals are often in the news. Animal rights organizations are active around the globe and millions of people worldwide care about animal welfare.

Unfortunately our politicians have lagged behind in support for reform to bring about improvements to the way animals are treated. Indeed, it is plausible to suggest that collectively, attitudes of politicians towards animal welfare issues have got worse. Twenty years ago, there was a Senate Committee dedicated to animal welfare issues which produced a number of considered, cross-party reports following serious examination of a variety of issues. By contrast, the Senate Committee now responsible for this area, the Rural & Regional Affairs Committee, almost never considers animal welfare issues, and when it had animal welfare legislation referred to it in 2005, treated the issue with barely disguised contempt.

This is coupled with the immensely political powerful position of the farming sector. Anything seen as even remotely ‘anti-farmer’ is berated ferociously. Politicians have painted animal welfare advocates and critics as dangerous zealots.

Reasonable animal welfare proposals have been ignored by politicians or dismissed with extremist claims that they would lead to job losses, lost earnings and the complete collapse of industries. Governments of all hues have been captive to the strident anti-regulation posturing of industry, failing to give consideration to the long term context and animal welfare.

The treasurer’s recent suggestion of legislation targeted at taking action against groups such as PETA illustrates the extreme antagonism within the government towards animal welfare issues, not to mention their contempt for basic democratic principles.

Speaker: Brian Sherman AM, Co-founder and Director of Voiceless, the fund for animals

In 2004 Brian was awarded the Order of Australia for service to the community as a philanthropist and benefactor to a range of arts, education, and sporting organisations, and to business and commerce.

Brian was awarded the Entrepreneur of the Year – 2006 Champion of Entrepreneurship award for the Eastern Region in the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year 2006 awards.

He is also Co-founder, Patron and Director of Voiceless, the fund for animals. Voiceless is a non-profit organisation founded by the Sherman Family in 2004 whichis working to promote respect and compassion for animals, increase awareness of the conditions in which they live and take action to protect animals from suffering.

Brian is a member of the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy Sectoral Working Group on Animals used for Work, Sport, Recreation or on Display.

Brian was appointed on 1 January 2001 as President of the Board of Trustees of the Australian Museum. He is a Director and substantial shareholder in Network TEN. He is currently an independent Director of two listed investment companies on the American and Canadian stock exchanges. He is Chairman of Sonic Communications Pty Limited and Pulse International Pty Limited, an advanced payment solutions business.

In 1996, Brian was appointed to the Board of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) as a Director and remained on the board for the duration of the games until the SOCOG board was disbanded in December 2001.

Brian was the appointed sole Chairman of SOCOG’s Finance Committee, and was a director of SOCOG’s Cultural Commission for four years.

Brian is heavily involved in numerous charitable projects in Australia and is a major contributor specifically to Arts, Education and Environmental institutions as well asnumerous Australian and Jewish charities.

The Role of Lawyers and the Law in the Animal Protection Movement

Brian will provide delegates with some background information on his organisation and explain why Voiceless has chosen to focus its campaigns on factory farming in Australia. He will also discuss the role the law plays in sanctioning the entrenched and endemic abuse meted out to animals through factory farming systems in this country. Brian will refer to the fact that animal protection is one of the last great social justice movements and that by taking part in this movement, and giving animals a legal voice, the lawyers of today have the capacity to fight against thelaw’s complicity in perpetuating cruelty to animals and transform it into a tool for protecting them.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

Mahatma Gandhi


Speaker: John Mancy, Barrister, Casual Lecturer and Member of the Animal Rights Committee

John Mancy is a Sydney-based barrister, part-time law lecturer, founder and managing editor of Legal Bulletin Service, publisher of a range of legal periodicals.

As a barrister, John has a general practice with a special interest in media law. He has advised and/or appeared in defamation actions and other Supreme Court proceedings in support of the interests of animal welfare.

John was admitted to the New South Wales Bar in 1979. He was a professional journalist (foreign correspondent and war correspondent, radio news editor, television chief-of-staff, newspaper columnist, reporter and sub-editor) for more than 20 years. John briefly studied Veterinary Science at the University of Melbourne.

Issues of Standing in Animal Protection Law

The main function of any “standing” rule is to limit access to the courts. However formulated, one of the standing rule’s functions is to protect people against undue interference with their rights or interests by those with no personal stake in the matter.[1]

A successful challenge to the standing of animal protection applicants to seek equitable remedies, prerogative writs or judicial review of administrative actions effectively renders them as legally powerless as the animals they seek to protect.

The legal status of animals as property plays a major role in determining the scope of standing rules.

Even if animals had rights they obviously could not assert those rights to obtain a remedy without human assistance. And those willing to stand up for the voiceless must show “a special interest in the subject matter of the action’’[2] such as to warrant the grant of the relief claimed. As Gibbs J stressed in the Australian Conservation Foundation case, an emotional or merely intellectual interest would be inadequate to ground standing:

“A person is not interested within the meaning of the rule, unless he is likely to gain some advantage, other than the satisfaction of righting a wrong, upholding a principle or winning a contest, if his action succeeds or to suffer some disadvantage, other than a sense of grievance or a debt for costs, if his action fails.”

This paper looks at circumstances in which courts have applied the “sufficientspecial interest” test favourably to public interest applicants and also considers alternative remedies to achieve the same desired result.

[1] M Aronson & B Dyer, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (2nd ed.) p515.

[2] Australian Conversation Foundation v The Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493, 527, 530

Speaker and Panelist: Graeme McEwen, Chair of the Barristers Animal Welfare Panel

Graeme McEwen is a commercial law barrister, based in Melbourne. He has previously served as president of the Australian and New Zealand Federation of Animal Societies, now known as Animals Australia, (1983-1994) and is a former member of the National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare and former Advisory Director to the World Society for the Protection of Animals.

Graeme appeared a number of times before the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare (1983-1991) and has also appeared as counsel in a number of animal prosecution cases. Graeme was one of the counsel for Laurie Levy in the Levy ‘free speech’ case. He is currently Chair of the Victorian Barristers Animal Welfare Panel (comprising some 90 counsel, including well over 20 silks from the commercial and criminal Bars).

Farm Animals and the Law

Australia’s animal protection laws institutionalize widespread animal suffering. Why? Because they exempt the overwhelming mass of animals from their protection. In most States “codes of practice” – usually favouring the interests of producers over animal welfare – are sanctioned as a defence or exemption from prosecution under the local statute.

For example, the code of accepted farming practice for the welfare of poultry permits the confinement of a battery hen to a floor area about three quarters the size of anA4 sheet of paper. Such enduring close confinement would ordinarily constitute acruelty offence. As such confinement complies with the relevant code of practice,however, the statute does not apply.

As a result, intensively produced animals, such as pigs and poultry, are exempted from the law’s protection. Yet this is where acute suffering occurs daily. And in enormous numbers: about 300,000 sows confined to a gestation stall or farrowingcrate annually; or some 13 million battery hens annually; or some 420 million broiler hens annually. These codes of practice are produced by the self-styled “Animal Welfare Committee” within the Australian Primary Industries Ministerial Council system. The various federal and state departments of agriculture are the principal members of the “Animal Welfare Committee”. Further, often Ministers for Agriculture and their departments are responsible for the administration and enforcement of a state animal protection statute, alternatively, some other department with no sympathy or interest in animal welfare.

Animal protection statutes fail also to confer sufficient powers of inspection uponinspectors and, in particular, the vital power to permit random inspection of premises such as a battery hen shed.

Lawyers stand to play a unique role in furthering the animal cause, and in creating greater leverage for the animal movement. Examples of the interesting legal challenges posed by the animal cause will be outlined.

“What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected.”

Chief Seattle of the Duwamish, Suquamish and allied Indian Tribes

“We can judge the heart of man by his treatment of animals.”

Immanuel Kant


Speaker: Katrina Sharman, Corporate Counsel for Voiceless, the fund for animals

Katrina Sharman is the corporate counsel for Voiceless, the fund for animals. Voiceless is a non profit organisation founded by the Sherman Familyin 2004 which is working to promote respect and compassion for animals, increase awareness of the conditions in which they live and take action to protect animals from suffering.

Katrina is a former Senior Associate at Minter Ellison Lawyers and a former Councillor of NSW Young Lawyers Executive Council. She chaired NSW Young Lawyers Animal Rights Committee which was the first group of Australian lawyers to speak out about animallaw issues, for more than five years.

Katrina is a former member of the Animal Research Review Panel (NSW) and the National Health & Medical Research Council, Animal Welfare Committee. In 2006, she was short-listed for the Australian Corporate Lawyers Association In-house Lawyer Young Achiever of the Year. Katrina speaks regularly at animal law conferences and recently presented at the ‘Future of Animal Law Conference’ which was held at Harvard Law School.

From Label to Liable: Lifting the Veil on Animal Derived Product Labelling in Australia

In the last few decades, the world has experienced an unseen food revolution which has transformed the lives of billions of farm animals raised for food production each year. The bulk of popular products such as pork, chicken and eggs are now sourced from animals who spend their lives behind closed doors in factory farms, confinedin cages of steel, to satisfy the demands of consumers who are largely unaware of the pain and suffering behind their food choices.

Things however are about to change; in recent times, animal protection has become an international social justice movement. The veil of secrecy which has concealed factory farming from the public eye is being lifted. Consumers everywhere are waking up to the fact that the emotional and physiological complexity of farm animals has been largely overlooked in the pursuit of a process designed to carry them from ‘factory to fork’ with maximum efficiency and minimum welfare.

According to the European Union, increased awareness has prompted a ‘seismic shift’ in public attitudes toward farm animals[1]. This consumer wave, which is manifested by an explosion in demand for free-range, organic, vegetarian and vegan foods, has also reached Australia.

The development of an ethical food movement is a crucial step in addressing the institutionalised suffering of animals; however it promises little meaningful relief for farm animals unless it is accompanied by a legislative regime which enables consumers to make animal-friendly choices.

This presentation, which is based on From Label to Liable, a report recently released by Voiceless, examines the current legislative regime for the labelling of animal-derived food products in Australia. It highlights the inadequacies in our existing laws and explores how Australia can follow the lead of the European Union by empowering consumers to take a personal stand against animal suffering with each dollar they spend at the supermarket.

[1] Commission of the European Communities, Commission Working Document on a Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010, 23 January 2006, 11

Speaker and Panelist: Paul O’Donnell, Barrister for the RSPCA

Paul is the immediate past President of the Royal Society for the prevention of Cruelty to Animals NSW. He continues to sit on the Board of Directors of the RSPCA and has been an active member of that organisation for many years. After admission as a solicitor, he worked in the prosecution section of the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor’s Office (later to become the Commonwealth DPP).He then practised Criminal Law in the private profession before being called to the Bar. Since becoming a Barrister, he has practised almost exclusively in the field of criminal law. He is regularly briefed by a number ofprosecution authorities, and also continues to do general criminal defence work. For the last 10 years, he has regularly appeared for the RSPCA in its complex prosecutions and appeals. Significant first instance cases in which he has appearedinclude the prosecutions of a former NSW State Premier; the National Parks and Wildlife Service; Qantas; cases involving the live animal exports; and prosecutions against farmers. He has appeared for the RSPCA in appellate matters up to the High Court level and was Counsel for the RSCPA in the Supreme Court appeal of Bell v Gunter.

Animal Abuse Prosecutions: The Work of the RSPCA

1. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1979 (POCTA) standing

• RSPCA status as an “approved charitable organisation” under section 34B of POCTA

2. The investigation of animal cruelty offences

• the work of the RSPCA inspectorate

• powers of entry, search and seizure under Part 2A of POCTA

• commencement of prosecutions

• penalty notices

• latent ambiguity

• service of the prosecution brief

• interim disposal

3. The hearing

• proofs - “act of cruelty”; “act of aggravated cruelty”; “veterinary treatment” - see Glass v Crowley NSW CCA 15/12/92

• Mens Rea - see Bell v Gunter NSW Supreme Court 24 October 1997 per Dowd J

4. Sentence and ancillary orders

• professional costs - see Criminal Procedure Act; EPA v Taylor [No 4] [2002] NSWLEC 59; Temmingh’s Case [2003] NSWSC 598

• moiety of fines under section 122 of the Fines Act

• prohibition orders

• sections 9 and 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act “super bonds”

• section 30A expenses

‘When it comes to having a central nervous system, and the ability to feel pain, hunger, and thirst, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.’

Ingrid Newkirk


Speaker: Geoffrey Bloom, Lecturer in Animal Law at the University of NSW and Southern Cross University

Geoff Bloom taught Australia’s first animal lawcourse in 2005, at the University of New South Wales, where he is an adjunct lecturer. He now also teaches animal law at Southern Cross University. Geoff’s interest in animal law developed from working at animal shelters in India and London, and his membership of Lawyers for Animal Welfare in London.

Geoff runs his own legal practice, Geoffrey Bloom & Associates, providing legal and policy services to the health industry and to animal-related industries.

Past and Recent Theories of the Ethics of Human Treatment of Animals, and their Uses

If we want to respond properly to the morally relevant interests of animals, we need to identify those interests and give them their proper weight.

Singer’s utilitarian ethical theory is the most simple and still the most politically powerful theory of the ethics of human treatment of animals going. It is particularly applicable to what most people regard as the most important problem with contemporary animal industries, the pain and suffering caused to animals in factory farming, and argues that this is a morally sufficient reason to stop virtually all animalindustry practices. Subsequent theories of animal rights, proposed by Regan, Francione and Wise, focus on the right to dignity of animals. Fewer people are persuaded by the call of the right to dignity and it has a less direct connection to the central problem of factory farming.

Later theorists again, including Anderson, Mackinnon and Nussbaum, have sought to broaden out the animal ethical agenda, by asserting the moral importance of interests ignored or downplayed by utilitarians and rights theorists. These interests include interests that do not mirror human interests, and interests of the environment. These later theorists offer an alternative to the reductionism of the earlier theories. They point the way to a broadening of the agenda for our ethical concerns about animal issues.

As a matter of political strategy, and at this relatively early stage in the public and political debate about animal issues, the most effective argument for change may still be Singer’s simple utilitarian argument. It is important however that the animal protection movement develop other and broader ethical theories to reflect the depthand complexity of the reality of animals and their interests.

Speaker: Steven White, Lecturer in Animal Law at Griffith University,BSc (Hons) Melb, LLB (Hons) MPSectMgt Griff

Steven joined Griffith Law School in 2003 after aperiod of practice with national law firm MallesonsStephen Jaques. Previously, Steven has worked as an associate to Justice Bill Pincus of the Queensland Court of Appeal and as an adviser to a Senator of the federal Parliament. Steven is a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Steven’s research interests lie in the areas of animals and the law, public law and regulation. He is currently enrolled in a PhD, researching the area of animal welfare regulation in Australia. He taught a course on animal law in February 2007, one of the first such courses to be conducted inthe country.

Companion Animals: Members of the Family or Legally Discarded Objects?

Drawing on the recent empirical and analytical work of sociologist Adrian Franklin, the contemporary relationship between humans and companion animals will be explored. Franklin establishes that a high proportion of Australians value companion animals as ‘members of the family’. Despite our expressed affection for companion animals, the work of RSPCA shelters and other similar organisations reveals the extent to which companion animals are discarded, often consigned to death. Ethicists Bernard and Michael Rollin argue that the work of animal shelters serves to make the problem of unwanted companion animals ‘invisible’, relieving us of responsibility for their fate. This paper explores the legal nature of this ‘invisibility’, drawing on Queensland animal welfare legislation and the status of animals as property. It also assesses suggestions for regulatory reform of our treatment of companion animals, in particular that a person should be properly ‘licensed’ before being permitted to acquire a companion animal.

“I have learned from an early age to abjure the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.”

Leonardo Da Vinci

“...It seems to me of great importance to teach our children respect for life. Towards this end, experiments on living animals in classrooms should be stopped. To encourage cruelty--in the name of science--can only destroy the finer emotions of affectionand sympathy and breed an unfeeling callousness in the young towards suffering in all living creatures.”

Eleanor Roosevelt (circa 1961)


Speaker: Deidre Bourke, Co-Chair of the Animal Rights Legal Advocacy Network in New Zealand

Deidre Bourke is the founder and Chair of the Animal Rights Legal Advocacy Network (ARLAN), a New Zealand based organisation made up of legal professionals that works to promote and protect the interests of animals.

Deidre has degrees in anthropology, biology and law, and has been involved in the animal rights movement in New Zealand since 1989. In 2005 Deidre graduated with an LL.M (First Class Honours) from the University of Auckland. Her Masters thesis examined the regulation of animal use for research, testing and teaching purposes under New Zealand’s Animal Welfare Act 1999.

Deidre’s areas of legal specialisation are in human rights, environmental, public and animal law. She is co-author of “The Right to Self-Determination” chapter 19 in Tim McBrides New Zealand Civil Rights Handbook and currently tutors public law at Auckland University’s Faculty of Law. Since 2006 Deidre has also taught courses on Using the Official Information Act, and Writing Submissions on Bills forthe University’s Centre for Continuing Education. She has a particular interest in public law and regulatory theory and has made a number of submissions on New Zealand’s Codes of Welfare including those regulating circuses, zoos, layer hens, pigs and broiler chickens.

Deidre has experience working within a number of non-profit organisations. Shewas editor of ‘Vegan Voice” the magazine of the New Zealand Vegan Society from 1997-1999, and has served on the Executive Committee of several groups including the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties (2000-2002), SAFE (2003-2006) and was President of the Environmental Law Centre (2001). Deidre has also acted as national contact for a variety of international organisations including the Cetacean Freedom Network (1997-98) and InterNICHE (2000-2007). She is currently a United Nations Representative (Geneva office) for Sirius Global Animal Organisation. Deidre plansto pursue doctorate studies in animal law in 2007.

The Regulation of Animal Experiments in Australasia – How Accountable Are Our Frameworks?

Over 6 million animals are used for research, testing or teaching purposes in Australasia each year. Animal experimentation is a highly emotive and controversial issue which raises significant animal welfare issues. For this reason it is importantthat the system regulating this use is robust and contains sufficient protections toensure that welfare concerns can be properly addressed and considered.

My presentation will examine the adequacy of the current regulatory environment as well as and how the interests of animals are currently taken into account within this framework. In Australasia the model used to regulate animal experiments can be described as one of ‘enforced self regulation’. Such systems divest a large degree of control and trust with industry groups so it is important that appropriate checks and balances exist to ensure other interests are represented and that there is sufficientaccountability.

Various mechanisms have been put in place to achieve this, including reporting requirements and the participation of laypersons on institutional Animal Ethics Committees. The effectiveness of current oversight and accountability mechanisms will be examined and compared with those in other jurisdictions such as England and the United States.

Secondly, the processes involved in approving animal experiments, and more specifically, how the interests of animals are taken into account in this process willbe considered. A model known as the 3 R’s approach underpins current systems. This model aims to ensure that where possible animal use is replaced with non-sentient alternatives, reduced and continually refined. However there are significantproblems with how this model is applied and severe limitations on its ability to adequately address animal welfare issues. In addition the public’s understanding of the concept of ‘replacement’ is very different to that employed by the scientificcommunity and in the 3 R’s model.

Speaker: Peter Sankoff, Senior Lecturer in Animal Law at the University of Auckland

Peter Sankoff is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Auckland, Faculty of Law, where he has taught animal law, criminal law and evidence since 2001. Peter graduated with a B.A. (Broadcast Journalism) from Concordia University in 1992, a J.D. from the University of Toronto in 1996, and an LL.M. from Osgoode Hall Law School in 2005. Peter has also worked as a law clerk for Madame Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé at the Supreme Court of Canada and for the Canadian federal government as an advisor on human rights matters involving criminal justice.

From 2002-2006, Peter was the Co-Chair of the Executive Committee of the Animal Rights Legal Advocacy Network (ARLAN), a New Zealand group of lawyers and law students working on animal welfare issues, and also the editor of the ARLAN Report, a short journal discussing topics relating to animals and the law. Peter regularly gives seminars, comments in the media and publishes articles on animal law issues. In 2006, he taught the first permanent undergraduate animal law courseever offered in New Zealand. Later that year, with David Favre of Michigan State, he co-taught the country’s first post-graduate course as well. In addition to his animallaw work, Peter is also the author of two books and numerous articles on human rights, criminal procedure and evidence.

In 2007, Peter won a $15000 grant from Voiceless, the fund for animals (with Steven White of Griffith Law School) to produce a workshop entitled Animal Lawin Australasia: A New Dialogue. From this workshop will emerge the first book onanimal law ever written in the Southern Hemisphere, expected in late 2008. To learn more about this and other aspects of Peter’s work, visit: www.lawstaff.auckland.ac.nz/~psan009.

Getting Back to Basics: Why the Welfare Construct Fails to Protect Animals from Suffering

This seminar is an attempt to provide an overview of the concept at the core of most Animal Law courses: animal welfare. The goal is to give listeners a basic understanding of the issues at the heart of the existing debate on how best to create a world for animals in which their legal interests matter, and also to show how useful animal law courses can be in advancing this debate. It will consider the emergence of animal welfare as a legal construct and consider some of the shortcomings of this construct in the modern era.

“The question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor, ‘Can they talk?’ But ‘Can they suffer?’”

Jeremy Bentham


Speaker: Nichola Donovan, Legal Project Officer and Volunteer Co-ordinator, Lawyers for Animals

In March 2007, Nichola commenced part-time work as the Legal Project Officer and VolunteerCo-ordinator of Lawyers for Animals Inc., based in Melbourne. She has been a member of this organisation since its inception, in 2005. In her current role she is attempting to educate governments and the public in relation to animal welfare concerns in Australia, so that they may make informed and (hopefully) ethical choices. Her position is presently funded by the Victoria Law Foundation.

Nichola completed an Arts degree at Monash University in 1992, majoring in Philosophy and History. It was during this period that Prof. Peter Singer’s arguments against speciesism helped her to better understand her own innate affinity withanimals. Nichola went on to study law at La Trobe University, where she was able to follow her interest in human rights, though no animal law subjects were offered. She also pursued international travel opportunities before being admitted to practise in Victoria in late-1998. After a couple of years primarily practising in mass torts, Nichola found an ideal challenge at the Refugee & Immigration Legal Centre, where she worked for almost 7 years as a human rights lawyer. She perceives a parallel between the gradual development of human rights law and the future development of animal welfare law.‘Australia: where to from here?

Australia: Where to From Here - An Overview of Recent Common Law Strategies and Popular Movements to Protect Animals

Throughout Australia, in recent years, the near absence of parliamentary law reform to protect animals from serious harm has been a cause for lament and national shame. So, should we be taking a leaf out of the human rights history book? Nichola will explore recent ‘test’ cases from around the world that have sought to push the legal boundaries on animal rights. She will also examine the success of popular – sometimes even consumer-driven – movements for animal welfare reform. All in a bid to answer that critical question: “where to from here?”

Speaker and Panelist: Lyn White, Communications Director of Animals Australia

Lyn is the Communication Director for national animal protection organisation Animals Australia.

For 20 years Lyn served with the South Australian Police Force. In 2001 she resigned from policing to work full-time with leading South East Asian animal welfare organisation the Animals Asia Foundation, assisting with animal cruelty investigations in Vietnam and China, whilst raising awareness and funds for AAF’s work in Australia. During this time Lyn’s work and life was featured on ABC’s Australian Story.

In 2003 Lyn was invited to work with Animals Australia. In the past four years she has conducted three investigations in the Middle East into the treatment of Australian exported animals. Evidence and footage obtained during these investigations has led to the benchmark prosecution of leading live export company Emanuel for breaching the WA Animal Welfare Act, two 60 Minutes programs highlighting the barbaric treatment of Australian animals in importing countries, and a first-evergovernment initiated suspension of the live export trade (to Egypt) on animal welfare grounds.

Lyn’s work on behalf of Animals Australia has also been featured on the ABC’s Landline and Today Tonight on the Seven Network and she was recently profiled inThe Bulletin in the Lunch with Juanita Phillips series.

Footage covertly obtained by Lyn and her UK based partner in Cairo’s notorious Bassateen abattoir – recognized as one of the brutal abattoirs in the world - has been shown on Egyptian television and discussed in the Egyptian media, exposing for the first time the barbaric slaughter practices and extreme animal cruelty inEgyptian slaughterhouses.

Lyn’s interest in the law and the representation of victims established during her policing career has led her to be a vocal and passionate advocate for the need for law reform in animal welfare statutes in Australia.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Laws That Are Failing to Protect True Victims

This address, based on personal insights gained during a 20-year policing career and as an animal advocate/cruelty investigator, will examine the very different legal approaches taken to human and animal victims, and identify the underpinning factors that lead to acts of violence and cruelty against humans and animals.

Examples will be provided to illustrate that current animal ‘protection’ laws actively encourage undesirable elements of human behaviour that society has determined are immoral and for which human laws exist to prevent.

The presentation will examine the factors that have assisted legislators to pass laws that permit animal cruelty; that discriminate in their protection on the basis of species and the type of animal ‘use’, and which financially reward those responsiblefor animal suffering. It will be argued that the reform of animal welfare laws firstrequires the human attitudes on which the existing animal laws have been based to be understood and addressed.

Examples will be provided in support of this position and of where, even on those rare occasions where laws exist to protect animals and evidence exists to support a prosecution, the quest for justice is still highly likely to be obstructed. “I don’t think that people who are for animal

testing are uncompassionate, I think that they are uneducated.”

PETA member Brown


Panelist: Jessica Wood, Senior Solicitor, Environmental Defender’s OfficeNew South Wales Ltd The Challenges of Pro Bono Animal Representation

Jessica is the principal solicitor of the Northern Rivers branch of the Environmental Defender’s Office. Jessica has been with the EDO since2003 and has worked as an environmental lawyer since 2000. During her time at the EDO she has worked on a number of cases seeking better protection for biodiversity and endangered species. In 2005 Jessica acted for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Humane Society International and the RSPCA Australia in proceedings in the Federal Court in an attempt to stop the import of 8 Asian elephants into Australia by Taronga and Melbourne Zoos. Whilst the Tribunal upheld the import permits granted to the zoos by the federal environment Minister, the case was a success because it resulted in better conditions and requirements for ongoing monitoring to improve the welfare of the elephants in the zoos. Jessica is currently acting for the Humane Society International in Federal Court proceedings against a Japanese whaling company seeking a declaration that whaling in Australian waters adjacent to Australia’s Antarctic Territory is a breach of Australian law and injunction to prevent the whaling from continuing. Jessica is also acting for the Nature Conservation Council in part-heard proceedings in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal seeking fishing closures in NSW waters for theprotection of the critically endangered Grey nurse shark.

Panelist: Glenys Oogjes BBSc , Executive Director of Animals Australia Litigating on Behalf of Animals: Practical Problems and Proven Solutions

Glenys Oogjes is the Executive Director of Animals Australia – a peak animal protection charity representing more than 40 animal groups.

Glenys completed a Behavioural Science degree and, since the 1980s, has worked as an animal advocate – first on a voluntary basis, and thenwith the fledgling Australian Federation of Animal Societies (now Animals Australia). She was instrumental in the lobby effort to establish the first-ever ‘Senate StandingCommittee on Animal Welfare in Australia’ in 1983, and with submissions to it over its ‘nine-year and 10-report’ life.

Glenys is a member of numerous committees including the National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare – advising the federal Minister for Agriculture, a number of institutional Animals Ethics Committees, the ‘Code Liaison Group’ which determines the national policy and Code relating to animal in research, she is a long-standing member of the Victorian Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, and represents the animal view on many special purpose Government-initiated review and writing groups.

Animals Australia also campaigns, both politically and publicly, for substantial reform to current laws and community practices – most notably in recent years the live export issue, intensive farming (particularly battery hens and pig confinement),commercial wildlife exploitation, inhumane feral animal control, and the list goes on. Glenys is one of the most experienced animal welfare spokespeople in Australia and through her work with Animals Australia strives to bring significant and permanentimprovements to the treatment of animals in this country.

Panelist: Steve Coleman, Deputy CEO RSPCA NSW, MBA, Grad Dip of Inv Mgt Litigating on Behalf of Animals: Practical Problems and Proven Solutions

Steven is currently the Deputy CEO of RSPCA NSW. In this role he currently manages a portfolio that consists of fundraising, marketing, education and media. Steven also sits on a variety of animal welfare committees throughout NSW representing the views of the organisation. Steven also assists with the financial management ofRSPCA’s $29 million recurrent budget that enables the 360 staff to fulfill their rolesthroughout the organisation across the state.

Steven has been with the organisation for some 16 years and commenced employment as an Inspector. He was subsequently promoted to the position of Deputy Chief Inspector and then Chief Inspector, managing 30 cruelty law enforcement officers throughout NSW. Throughout that period, Steven has been involved inthousands of cruelty complaint investigations throughout the state relating to many species of animals.

Steven studied a Graduate Diploma of Investigations Mgt in 2000 from the Charles Sturt University and graduated from the Sydney Graduate School of Mgt in September 2006 with a Masters of Business Administration.

Panelist: Nicolas Patrick, National Pro Bono Director, DLA Phillips Fox The Challenges of Pro Bono Animal Representation

Nicolas is the National Pro Bono Director at DLA Phillips Fox. In his role as Pro Bono Director, Nicolas is responsible for the establishment, development and on-going operation of the firm’spro bono program. DLA Phillips Fox has recently acted in a pro bono capacity for a number of animal protection organisations including the Humane Society, the Wildlife Protection Association of Australia, Voiceless, the Cat Protection Society, the Bonobo Conservation Initiative and Animal Liberation Australia.

Nicolas is the NSW Convenor of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights and is a Director and Chairman of Redfern Legal Centre which has recently established the Pro-bono Animal Law Service (PALS). PALS will act as a referral service for animal protection matters which require pro bono legal assistance.

PALS works with the legal profession to identify the public interest nature of animal protection matters and will work with not-for-profit and non-governmentorganisations working in the area of animal protection to identify strategic matters which meet existing criteria for pro bono assistance and which may be suitable for referral to pro bono service providers.

The communities’ genuine concern to ensure that animals are protected from cruel and inhumane treatment has manifested in public policy articulated through legislation which already provides a level of protection for animals.

PALS will work with peak animal protection non-government organisations which have a legitimate interest in monitoring compliance with existing animal protection mechanisms and in advocating in relation to proposed changes to animal protection regulation.

PALS will seek to ensure that organisations with a substantial knowledge and a legitimate interest in the area of animal protection are able to participate in and contribute to the formulation of legislative and regulatory frameworks as they develop.


NOTES

“I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and give the wrong answers.”

Stephen Fry


http://arc.younglawyers.com.au

animal law conference programme - voiceless program.pdf · • activities intended to foster...

Documents