On 11 February 2015 Senator Dr Chris Back, a former veterinarian turned oil-magnate, introduced the Criminal Code Amendment (Animal Protection) Bill 2015.

The purpose of the Bill, according to the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanied it, is to “minimise unnecessary delays in the reporting of malicious cruelty to animals.”  Curiously, however, the criminal offences which the Bill seeks to add to the Criminal Code are all directed at individuals who either become aware of “malicious animal cruelty” and do not immediately report it to the police, or who interfere in the operations of an “animal enterprise”, rather than any person involved in carrying out malicious animal cruelty.

Although disguised as a Bill to promote stronger policing and prevention of animal cruelty, the provisions of the Bill are aimed at stopping animal rights groups from obtaining photos or video footage of animal cruelty or mistreatment, and subsequently using that material in public campaigns against the businesses concerned.  Similar laws have been pased in the United States, known as ‘ag-gag’ laws (read more here).  Under this Bill, individuals could face penalties from a fine of $5,100 for failing to report acts that they believe are “malicious animal cruelty” to the Police within one business day, to life imprisonment for damaging property belonging to a person connected to an animal enterprise with the intention of interferring with that animal enterprise.

Much discussion of ag-gag laws has followed the Animals Australia and Four Corners expose on the use of live baiting practices in the Victorian, New South Wales and Queensland greyhound racing industries. (Read more on this here.)

Senator Back has said his Bill would have seen such live baiting practices investigated by the authorities sooner, becuase the journalists investigating the live baiting offences would have been compelled to provide their material to the authorities.  The counter argument is that ag-gag laws would have a significant chilling effect on the ability of independent organisations to investigate animal cruelty practices.  Such public scrutiny is arguably needed most in industries where the statutory bodies designed to regulate the industry repeatedly turn a blind eye to breaches of the law (the greyhound racing and live export industries are good examples).

The Criminal Code Amendment (Animal Protection) Bill 2015 is currently before the Senate.

Voiceless, an Australian animal protection institute, has released a comprehensive report on the Australia dairy industry titled The Life of the Dairy Cow.

The report shines an informed and considered light on the impacts of an industry that few people think about.  For most Australians, consuming milk and dairy products is a daily activity carried out for life.  Few people stop to consider where dairy milk comes from, how it is produced, or even why humans drink so much cows milk.  It is something we learn from a young age and never think to question.

The Voiceless report provides a detailed examination of the welfare of dairy cows and the ethics of standard dairy industry practices.  Key areas of concern are the continuous cycle of pregnancy and birthing, the separation of calfs from their mothers, the slaughter of newborn calfs, and the animal husbandry practices of dairy farmers.

Given the Australian dairy industry is the third largest agricultural sector in Australia, with a combined farm, manufacturing and export value of $13 billion, the Voiceless report raises important considerations that are ever-present in balancing the welfare and rights of animals with the commercialisation of farming.

A copy of the Voiceless report can be found here.

In a landmark decision that has gained world-wide attention, an Argentinian Court has ordered a Buenos Aires Zoo to release Sandra, a 29 year old Sumatran Orangutan, on the basis that she has the legal status of a non-human person and the right not to have her liberty arbirtarily deprived.   The proceeding was brought on Sandra’s behalf by the Association of Officials and Lawyers for Animal Rights who filed a habeas corpus petition (typically used to challenge the legality of a person’s detention or imprisonment) and argued that Sandra should not be treated as an object because of her intelligence and complex ways of thinking.

Sandra had lived her whole live in captivity.  However, the Court agreed that Sandra, as a sentient and intelligent animal with capacity to reason and feel emotions, should be afforded the basic rights of a non-human person, and ordered the Zoo to release Sandra to a sanctuary in Brazil.

This is a great development in animal rights law, and a prime example of how dedicated legal advocacy can directly improve the welfare of animals.

Few details are yet available, and Lawyers for Animals will be keeping an eye out for English translations of the judgement, and whether the Buenos Aires Zoo appeals the decision.

For more details, see the news articles published by the ABC, Reuters, and The Independent.