NSW YOUNG LAWYERS ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE
The Abolitionist speaks with Chair Angela Radich on animal rights and the law in Australia.
Interviewed by C.Vaughan

Angela Radich is Chair of the NSW Young Lawyers Animal Law Committee, a group of lawyers and law students interested in the legal issues associated with animal advocacy. Angela is also a senior associate at a top tier law firm.

Abolitionist: What is the NSW Young Lawyers Animal Law Committee and what do you do?

Angela Radich: The Committee is comprised of lawyers and law students throughout NSW with an interest in animals and the law. The Committee was established in 1997 and is part of NSW Young Lawyers, a division of the Law Society of NSW. We were the first group in Australia to focus on the legal issues associated with animals and our members currently include barristers, government lawyers, in-house counsel and those working in private practice.

The Committee's activities are wide ranging and they include lobbying for law reform.

We have made a significant number of submissions to government on animal welfare matters, including on the National Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals - Pigs, the Guidelines for the Generation, Breeding, Care and Use of Genetically Modified and Cloned Animals for Scientific Purposes, the National Animal Welfare Bill 2005 and most recently the proposed amendments to the Trade Practices Act that would allow the ACCC to take legal action against animal protection groups that speak out on animal welfare issues. We also assist other animal protection organisations with their law reform campaigns, such as CatRescue's campaign for mandatory desexing.

We also seek to educate the public and the legal community about the legal issues affecting animals. For example, this year the Committee was very excited to hold Australia's first Animal Law Conference (which I also speak about further below). The Committee has also produced a brochure for the public on keeping companion animals in strata schemes and we are presently drafting a brochure on bequests to animals.

The Committee also undertakes charitable activities for the benefit of animals, such as our annual Christmas appeal, which involves the collection of items such as pet food, bedding, collars, coats, worming tablets etc… from employees of law firms and members of the public. The items are then donated to a number of animal pounds and shelters, such as the RSPCA, CatRescue, Sydney Dogs and Cats Home and the Sutherland Shire Council Pound.

Unfortunately, the Committee is unable to provide legal advice or assistance with legal proceedings.

What went on at the most recent Animal Law Conference just gone in Sydney?

The conference was a very significant event in the development of animal law, being the first such conference ever held in Australia. It was also a fantastic success. I think that the level of interest in the conference is a very positive sign for the future of animal law in Australia (which was the theme of the conference).

The conference was opened by Senator Andrew Bartlett, Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats, who spoke about how seriously politicians take animal issues. Senator Bartlett suggested that, collectively, the attitudes of politicians towards animal issues have in fact become worse in recent years, despite the growth in the public's interest in animal advocacy.

Brian Sherman AM, Co-founder and Director of Voiceless, the fund for animals, spoke about the role of lawyers and the law in the animal protection movement. He also outlined why Voiceless has chosen to focus its campaigns on factory farming in Australia. We also heard from Katrina Sharman, Corporate Counsel for Voiceless, who spoke about the Voiceless report From label to liable: Lifting the veil on animal derived product labelling in Australia. The Voiceless report highlights the inadequacies in the current legislative regime for the labelling of animal-derived food products in Australia and explores how we can follow the lead of the European Union by empowering consumers to take a personal stand against animal suffering.

Graeme McEwen, Chair of the Barristers Animal Welfare Panel in Victoria, spoke about farm animals and the law. He discussed how Australia's animal protection laws institutionalise widespread animal suffering via the 'codes of practice', compliance with which is a defence or exemption from prosecution under the relevant animal welfare legislation. Graeme also outlined a number of the interesting legal challenges posed by the animal welfare cause, including in the live export context.

John Mancy, a Sydney barrister, casual lecturer and member of the Committee, spoke about issues of standing in animal protection law (that is, the ability of humans to take legal action on behalf of animals). John said that the legal status of animals as property plays a major role in determining the scope of the standing rules and he examined some of the circumstances in which the courts have found animal welfare organisations to have the necessary standing to take legal action.

Paul O'Donnell, barrister for the RSPCA and immediate past president of RSPCA NSW, spoke about animal abuse prosecutions. This included a discussion of the work of the RSPCA inspectorate, the hearing of animal abuse prosecutions and sentencing.

Geoffrey Bloom, lecturer in animal law at the University of NSW and Southern Cross University, spoke about aligning the ethics and practice of the animal protection movement and the problems with the argument from marginal cases (the argument that higher animals such as primates and dolphins should have the same rights as those enjoyed by marginal humans – i.e. infants and the severely disabled). Geoffrey argued that the argument from marginal cases ignores or denies the moral significance of species membership.

Steven White, lecturer in animal law at Griffith University in Queensland, considered whether companion animals are really members of the family or whether they are just legally discarded objects. He said that while a high proportion of Australians value companion animals as ‘members of the family’, the work of RSPCA shelters and other similar organisations reveals the extent to which companion animals are discarded, often consigned to death. Steven explored the legal nature of the ‘invisibility’ of animals in shelters and assessed suggestions for regulatory reform of our treatment of companion animals.

Deidre Bourke, Co-Chair of the Animal Rights Legal Advocacy Network in New Zealand, spoke about the regulation of animal experiments in Australasia, asking 'how accountable are our frameworks?'. She spoke about the significant problems with the application of the '3 R's' (reduction, refinement and replacement) model which underpins the current process for approving animal experiments, and the severe limitations on the ability of the model to adequately address animal welfare issues.

Peter Sankoff, Senior Lecturer in animal law at Auckland University, explained why the welfare construct fails to protect animals from suffering. He provided an overview of the concept of 'animal welfare', its emergence as a legal construct and the shortcoming of this construct in the modern era.

Nichola Donovan, Legal Project Officer and Volunteer Co-ordinator for Lawyers for Animals in Victoria, gave an overview of recent common law strategies and popular movements to protect animals, asking 'where to from here?'. She discussed whether the animal protection movement should take a leaf out of the human rights history book, examining the way in which change has been achieved in the context of women's rights and child protection.

The conference also included two panel discussions. The first focused on the challenges of litigating on behalf of animals. The second panel discussion focused on the growing area of pro bono representation in animal law matters.

The conference attracted academics, solicitors, barristers, members of government departments and law students from across Australia and we received a lot of positive feedback from the attendees. There has also been a widespread call for a similar conference to be held every year. The conference also attracted significant media attention, with an article published in Lawyers Weekly and I also participated in a number of radio interviews.

We were very fortunate to have been a recipient of a grant from Voiceless, the fund for animals and sponsorship by Animal Liberation NSW, which made the conference possible. The conference was also supported by the City of Sydney.

Why do animals need legal advocates?

It is beyond doubt that animals suffer immensely in our society. It is also clear that lawyers can play a unique role in redressing this mistreatment by applying their particular skills and perspective to work towards an end to that suffering. For example, lawyers can pinpoint exactly what part of the law allows animals to be treated as they are. They can then target those areas and engage in what has been called 'creative lawyering' – i.e. viewing available causes of action in a different way to open up new arguments that may help animals. While such cases may not ultimately be successful, they can assist in drawing public attention to an issue, getting it on the agenda for public discussion. In other instances such cases may succeed and the law may in fact change for the benefit of animals.

Lawyers can also be powerful advocates for animals outside the courtroom. They can speak out to educate the public not only about the widespread animal suffering, but also about how the law fails to protect the majority of animals. While I do not think that lawyers on their own will 'save the day', I think they need to take their place next to ethicists, scientists, veterinarians and others in advocating for changes to the way we interact with animals. Considering the scale of human exploitation of animals there is a definite need for a coordinated effort by the members of various professions, as well as the wider community.

What is your relationship to animal rights and what is your view on the emerging new animal law movement budding yet currently sweeping through the world?

I am vegan and an advocate of animal rights (although in many instances the Committee takes a welfarist approach). I think it's a very promising sign that lawyers around the world are starting to focus on protecting animals. This is definitely a social justice movement whose time has come. But while there are a lot of very positive developments, I think we still have a very long way to go. It may even be that we won't see a great deal of progress in our lifetimes. This makes it very easy to get despondent about the value of our current work. For example, while the Committee's charitable and educational activities are very successful, it can be difficult to point to substantial achievements in law reform, even in animal welfare terms. However, I think that the mere existence of the Committee, and other similar groups, to present a different viewpoint and to speak on behalf of animals, is a significant development in itself. Just 10 years ago there were no animal law groups in Australia, and 5 years ago there were no animal law courses or animal rights lawyers. So, when seen in that light, I think we have come a long way already.

People can now study Animal Law in Universities in Australia. Please tell us what you know about this Angela.

The emergence of animal law courses in Australia is very recent in comparison to countries such as the United States, where animal law has been taught for some time. There are now over 80 animal law courses being taught in the United States, including at Ivy League law schools, such as Harvard. Animal law courses are also being taught in the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand.

Australia's first animal law course commenced at the University of NSW in February 2005. It was designed to be accessible to those without a legal background and covered topics such as the status of animals as property, live animal exports, the use of animals for scientific purposes and the agricultural use of animals. Similar courses are now springing up around the country, including at Southern Cross University, University of Wollongong and Griffith University, largely in response to student demand (it is encouraging to note that there are now a significant number of students studying law specifically so they can help protect animals).

The rapid growth in animal law courses in Australia is a very positive development and I think that such courses will help animal law gain increased legitimacy as a distinct legal discipline in Australia. This will then have other flow on effects and may also provide support for the inclusion of animal law matters in the pro bono programs of large law firms.

The NSW Young Lawyers Animal Law Committee’s has called for the reversal of the decision to permit the use of rimfire rifles to cull Tasmanian wallabies. What does this involve?

The Committee's campaign has been somewhat more limited than calling for a complete ban on the use of rimfire rifles to cull Tasmanian wallabies, although that is something we are presently looking at. Our present campaign involves lobbying Malcolm Turnbull, the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, for the reversal of the decision made by his predecessor, Senator Ian Campbell, to approve two wildlife trade management plans. Those plans permit the export of products of Tasmanian wallabies (i.e. Pademelons and Bennett's Wallabies) killed by shooters using rimfire rifles. So the decision of the Minister does not authorise the commercial killing of the animals per se – rather it impose a framework for the killing in relation to the export of the products of those animals. In this case the products are the skins of the animals, which are exported to Asia and Italy for the production of clothing and other fur items.

The use of rimfire rifles is permitted by the Animal Welfare Standard for the Hunting of Wallabies of Tasmania which was partially adopted by the management plans approved by Senator Campbell. As I understand it, the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries and Water continued to pressure the Commonwealth Department to permit the use of rimfire rifles in the face of expert veterinary opinion against them and in the knowledge that the Commonwealth's current Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos does not permit their use.

The Committee's campaign was prompted by a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm Senator Campbell's decision to approve the management plans. Senator Campbell's decision had been challenged by the Wildlife Protection Association of Australia Inc. (WPAA), a Queensland group founded with the assistance of Steve and Terri Irwin. The WPAA submitted that rimfire rifles are too inaccurate and unreliable, with inaccurate shots often smashing the animal's jaw, rather than hitting the brain, leaving it to die in agony over a period of many days of thirst, starvation and infection. However the AAT was satisfied that the management plans promote the humane treatment of wallabies.

Following the AAT's decision the Committee was contacted by an expert witness who gave evidence for the WPAA at the AAT hearing. He expressed concerns regarding the AAT's decision, providing us with evidence that was before the AAT indicating that, amongst other things, 18% of shots fired from rimfire rifles (almost 1 in 5) miss the animal entirely and the wounding rate of rimfire rifles is three times that of centrefire rifles. The national Code of Practice requires that animals must suffer a sudden and painless death by a shot to the brain. It states that a centrefire rifle must be used because with "a centrefire rifle a sudden and painless death is consistently achieved by the projectile striking the brain of the target animal".

The Committee responded to the AAT's decision by issuing a press release calling on the Minister to reverse his decision to approve the management plans. In particular, the Committee said that it appears that the only rationale for the use of rimfire rifles is the cost of the ammunition, which is approximately one fifth of the cost of centrefire ammunition.

We also wrote a letter to the Minister further detailing the legal basis for our call for the reversal of his decision. In particular we said that under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) the Minister must not declare a wildlife trade management plan unless the Minister is satisfied that the plan is consistent with the humane treatment of wildlife. The Committee submitted that the approval of the management plans therefore does not appear to be permitted by the Act.

Mr Turnbull responded to our letter seeking to justify the decision to allow the use of rimfire rifles on the basis of human safety (as the projectiles fired from centrefile rifles travel further than those fired from rimfire rifles). The Committee has now written a further letter to Mr Turnbull pointing out the legal requirement that a person must always ensure that rifles are discharged into a safe background. We also noted that as a practical matter when killing wallabies shooters fire from a vehicle down onto the wallabies. As a result, the projectile (whether fired from a rimfire rifle or a centrefire rifle) simply continues on into the ground behind the animal. We said that it is therefore apparent that issues of human safety cannot justify the use of rimfire rifles in favour of centrefire rifles, as the same safety requirements apply to both weapons. We are presently awaiting a response from the Minister.

The Committee is particularly concerned by the decision to allow the use of rimfire rifles under the management plans, as its impact may be more widespread that first appears. In the management plans it is stated that the Commonwealth's Code of Practice is currently under review and the issue of rimfire rifles is being considered in the review. It therefore seems there is a risk that the Code of Practice may be amended to permit the use of rimfire rifles throughout Australia, not just in Tasmania. The Committee is presently considering this aspect also.

The Committee has also been assisting CatRescue in calling for mandatory desexing of all cats and dogs. How is this progressing?

I must say first of all that CatRescue are amazing! They work extremely hard to save the lives of cats and kittens that would otherwise be euthanised, become 'feral' or die as the result of treatable diseases. They are passionate about their animal rescue and re-homing work and their passion and energy are extremely contagious.

CatRescue are also passionate about their campaign for the mandatory desexing of cats and dogs in NSW, as they see the results of failure to desex everyday. It is currently estimated that as many as 200,000 unwanted companion animals are killed in Australia each year. A significant number of these animals are the unwanted offspring of undesexed animals. CatRescue's proposed amendments to the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) would require the mandatory desexing of all cats and dogs in New South Wales that are not registered for breeding purposes or medically unable to be desexed. It is proposed that subsidies be made available for low income pet owners to assist with the cost of desexing.

The CatRescue campaign has attracted a substantial amount of media attention, with large feature articles published in both the Sydney Morning Herald and online magazine Girl.com, and coverage of the campaign broadcast on the national television breakfast program Sunrise. The campaign was extremely well run. In particular CatRescue undertook a significant amount of consultation with key stakeholders (such as council rangers) before undertaking their campaign. A motion in favour of mandatory desexing was ultimately passed at the NSW Local Government Association conference in late October 2006.

The proposal for amendments to the Companion Animals Act is now before Kerry Hickey, the NSW Minister for Local Government. In support of their campaign CatRescue have recently established 'Fern's Mandatory Desexing Party' running Fern the cat against John Howard in the upcoming election. They have also been collecting signatures on a petition for mandatory desexing and the target number of signatures has now been reached. CatRescue are now preparing a final submission to the NSW Government in support of their proposal.

What's behind the Greyhound and the Pepsi Max Dollars or Dog Competition?

The Pepsi Max 'Dollars or the Dog?' competition was launched by Cadbury Schweppes in September 2006. There were 28 daily prize winners who were given the option of accepting a $5,000 cash prize or to 'own' a racing greyhound for six months. Those who chose 'the dog', so to speak, then had the opportunity to race it at Wentworth Park, with the overall competition winner receiving $100,000.

The Committee believed that the competition promoted the cruel and exploitative greyhound racing industry and we issued a press release seeking to publicly raise the animal welfare issues surrounding the industry. I must say that at the time I began looking at this issue I was greatly assisted by your interview with Raven from Greyhound Action International, where I read that greyhound racing has been banned in South Africa and six states of the Unites States in recognition of the fact that it is an inherently cruel 'sport'.

Greyhound racing, as with most forms of animal racing, involves the breeding of large numbers of animals so that the fastest may be selected for the racetrack. Those dogs that are too slow, that fail to chase the lure or who are 'retired' are discarded by the industry in large numbers. While a small percentage of unwanted dogs are adopted, thousands of others are not so lucky. At best, those dogs that cannot be re-homed are euthanised, joining the tens of thousands of other unwanted companion animals killed each year. Dogs that are less fortunate may be beaten to death by their owners or even buried alive with their ears cut off to avoid identification of their owners by their ear tattooing.

Australian ex-racing greyhounds are also exported to countries such as China, Vietnam and Korea. In such countries the greyhound racing industry is relatively undeveloped, and unwanted animals may ultimately end up in dog meat markets, suffering horrendous cruelty before being eaten. Unwanted racing dogs are also used for research and teaching by bodies such as universities where, amongst other things, they are injected with chemicals whilst still alive to preserve their bodies for later dissection. There are chilling accounts of these practices by Queensland veterinary science students.

An article on our objections to the competition was published in Lawyer2B, a lawyers magazine. I also had interviews with two major newspapers who indicated they would be doing a story on the issue, however nothing eventuated in this regard (I am unsure of the reasons why).

In addition to its press release, the Committee wrote letters to Cadbury Schweppes, PepsiCo Australia Holdings and DMG Radio Australia (who runs the Nova radio stations, which promoted the competition and ran their own complementary 'dishlickers' competition) expressing our concerns and calling for an end to the competition. The responses we received varied, but were all unsatisfactory due to their reliance on greyhound racing industry rhetoric.

We received no response at all from PepsiCo Australia Holdings. Apparently missing the point, Cadbury Schweppes responded that "at no time will the greyhounds be owned or cared for by the promotional winners". It also said that Greyhound Racing Victoria, "operates a strict Code of Conduct in accordance with national guidelines that ensures the welfare of the animals", and it referred to the greyhound adoption programs that work to re-home ex-racing dogs.

We responded to Cadbury Schweppes' letter, querying how the Greyhound Racing Victoria Code of Practice ensures the welfare of animals exported to Asia or those used in medical research and teaching once their racing career ends (if it ever began). We also noted that the Greyhound Adoption Program (NSW) Inc. website states that they "do not have the resources to retrieve the many Greyhounds surrendered to council pounds and vet clinics across NSW and ACT each year" and that they are unable to re-home every retired greyhound "because of the sheer numbers involved". We received no response to our letter.

DMG Radio Australia provided a better response, but again it was predicated on an acceptance of the claims made by the greyhound racing industry to protect itself from criticism. While they agreed that the practices we described are unacceptable in the extreme, they said that they understand the various racing authorities have condemned the practices and taken or initiated steps to extinguish them. They also referred to the racing industry codes of conduct and the "Adopt-a-Dog" programs. We again responded along the lines of our letter to Cadbury Schweppes, and again we received no response.

While we were unable to bring an end to the competition, it did provide a good opportunity to publicise the animal welfare issues associated with the greyhound racing industry. We also hope that in the future the companies in question will give animal protection issues greater consideration when developing their promotions.

How do you see animal rights progressing within Australia?

I think that the animal protection movement will become increasingly mainstream in the same way that the environmental and other social justice movements have ultimately gained widespread acceptance. Lawyers may help this process by joining others in advocating on behalf of animals, both in the courts and in the public domain.

Why did you get involved in animal law and animal rights?

I felt compelled to act when I came across the Animal Liberation Queensland (ALQ) website (I was then living in Brisbane). Disturbed by what I read and saw on the website I decided to go vegetarian and to also join ALQ. At that time a member of ALQ put me in touch with the Committee. I then realised that lawyers can play a very important role in protecting animals. When I later moved to Sydney I was able to join the Committee and I was a member for about a year before becoming Chair. Both as a member of the Committee and as Chair I have had the opportunity to work on a huge range of interesting and important issues affecting animals.

How will today’s non-meat eating animal rights lawyer affect tomorrow’s judges, magistrates and other lawyers?

I think such lawyers (and also law students) will have an impact in a number of different ways. Firstly, and most directly, they will themselves become tomorrow's judges and magistrates (not to mention academics, policy makers and others who can bring about change). They can also play an important role by simply getting animal law cases before the courts, building the case law in the area, and ensuring that the critical issues are discussed, debated and tested in the courts. Such lawyers can also have a more indirect influence, for example by writing articles and holding seminars/conferences on animal law issues, helping put them on the agenda and in the minds of decision-makers. They can also talk to their colleagues about the legal issues facing animals, whether that be at a firm morning tea or in a more formal setting, which may also have flow on effects.