Assessing the Uniformity in Australian Animal Protection Law: A Statutory Comparison
Animal welfare is not included in the Australian Constitution, rendering it a residual power of the states and territories. Commentators have suggested that inconsistencies exist between the state and territory statutes, and that a uniform approach would be beneficial. However, there has been no com...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2020-12-01
|
| Series: | Animals |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/1/35 |
| _version_ | 1797543446005678080 |
|---|---|
| author | Rochelle Morton Michelle L. Hebart Rachel A. Ankeny Alexandra L. Whittaker |
| author_facet | Rochelle Morton Michelle L. Hebart Rachel A. Ankeny Alexandra L. Whittaker |
| author_sort | Rochelle Morton |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Animal welfare is not included in the Australian Constitution, rendering it a residual power of the states and territories. Commentators have suggested that inconsistencies exist between the state and territory statutes, and that a uniform approach would be beneficial. However, there has been no comprehensive assessment of the nature or extent of these purported inconsistencies. This review addresses this gap by providing a state-by-state comparison of animal protection statutes based on key provisions. Utilizing systematic review methodology, every current Australian statute with an enforceable protection provision relating to animal welfare was identified. A total of 436 statutes were examined, with 42 statutes being included in the detailed analysis. The comparison showed that animal protection laws are generally consistent between each Australian jurisdiction and were found to have similar shortcomings, notably including lack of a consistent definition of ‘animal’ and reliance on forms of legal punishment to promote animal welfare which have questionable effectiveness. It is argued that there is a need for attention to definitions of key terms and future consideration of alternative forms of penalties, but that a uniform federal approach may not be necessary to address these shortcomings. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T13:44:41Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-902475782a124f6ebe840d4f039bf132 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2076-2615 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T13:44:41Z |
| publishDate | 2020-12-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Animals |
| spelling | doaj.art-902475782a124f6ebe840d4f039bf1322023-11-21T02:41:42ZengMDPI AGAnimals2076-26152020-12-011113510.3390/ani11010035Assessing the Uniformity in Australian Animal Protection Law: A Statutory ComparisonRochelle Morton0Michelle L. Hebart1Rachel A. Ankeny2Alexandra L. Whittaker3School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, AustraliaSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, AustraliaSchool of Humanities, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, AustraliaSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, AustraliaAnimal welfare is not included in the Australian Constitution, rendering it a residual power of the states and territories. Commentators have suggested that inconsistencies exist between the state and territory statutes, and that a uniform approach would be beneficial. However, there has been no comprehensive assessment of the nature or extent of these purported inconsistencies. This review addresses this gap by providing a state-by-state comparison of animal protection statutes based on key provisions. Utilizing systematic review methodology, every current Australian statute with an enforceable protection provision relating to animal welfare was identified. A total of 436 statutes were examined, with 42 statutes being included in the detailed analysis. The comparison showed that animal protection laws are generally consistent between each Australian jurisdiction and were found to have similar shortcomings, notably including lack of a consistent definition of ‘animal’ and reliance on forms of legal punishment to promote animal welfare which have questionable effectiveness. It is argued that there is a need for attention to definitions of key terms and future consideration of alternative forms of penalties, but that a uniform federal approach may not be necessary to address these shortcomings.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/1/35animal welfare legislationanimal crueltylaw enforcementAustraliaenforcement gap |
| spellingShingle | Rochelle Morton Michelle L. Hebart Rachel A. Ankeny Alexandra L. Whittaker Assessing the Uniformity in Australian Animal Protection Law: A Statutory Comparison Animals animal welfare legislation animal cruelty law enforcement Australia enforcement gap |
| title | Assessing the Uniformity in Australian Animal Protection Law: A Statutory Comparison |
| title_full | Assessing the Uniformity in Australian Animal Protection Law: A Statutory Comparison |
| title_fullStr | Assessing the Uniformity in Australian Animal Protection Law: A Statutory Comparison |
| title_full_unstemmed | Assessing the Uniformity in Australian Animal Protection Law: A Statutory Comparison |
| title_short | Assessing the Uniformity in Australian Animal Protection Law: A Statutory Comparison |
| title_sort | assessing the uniformity in australian animal protection law a statutory comparison |
| topic | animal welfare legislation animal cruelty law enforcement Australia enforcement gap |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/1/35 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rochellemorton assessingtheuniformityinaustraliananimalprotectionlawastatutorycomparison AT michellelhebart assessingtheuniformityinaustraliananimalprotectionlawastatutorycomparison AT rachelaankeny assessingtheuniformityinaustraliananimalprotectionlawastatutorycomparison AT alexandralwhittaker assessingtheuniformityinaustraliananimalprotectionlawastatutorycomparison |