Most Australians want an independent authority to have the final say on government policy decisions that affect animal welfare. But under our current governance system, animal welfare policy is delegated to Departments and Ministers of Agriculture, who are plagued by conflicts of interest. These institutions have competing responsibilities and economic interests almost always outweigh animal welfare concerns. That's why we're proposing the establishment of an independent National Animal Welfare Commission to oversee a new fair, consistent and transparent process for policy decisions and the creation of national animal welfare standards. If you support the call for a fairer and more independent animal welfare system, join us today at https://lnkd.in/gtzYCsG9 - #animalwelfare #policyreform
Steven McCulloch
6mo
As a final point at least in UK there is very substantial influence on animal welfare policy from leadership ie Prime Minster and their inner circle. Just making this point as though policy decisions are also ‘delegated’ here in UK, there is good evidence for all recent governments of changes in leadership significantly influencing changes in animal welfare policy. Again based on my own work I’ve always considered there is very considerable input from top. My main concern with this has been that a very small number of (elected) decision makers are making policy that affects very large numbers of sentient animals, which is generally far less progressive than what the British public want. And competing, mostly economic, interests are of course at play here, as you state.
Senior Lecturer in Human Animal Studies at University of Winchester
6moAgree with problem of conflicts of interest. But seems a stretch to call for independent commission to have a final say. Is there a model in Australia or elsewhere that this would follow? In UK, commissions ultimately have been/are advisory. And that’s the nature of democratic governance. There are problems here in UK my own research has focused on, but I can’t see how a democratic government would outsource decision making itself, which I assume is what you mean by the ‘final say’? To avoid those conflicts of interests, in theory at least you need a separate government department for animal welfare. But whether that is politically realistic or not, it doesn’t necessarily solve the problem if other more powerful departments have sway over decision making. Ironically, this happened here with Department for International Trade and DEFRA over Australia UK trade agreement.(DEFRA over here has responsibility for both food and farming and animal welfare; these interests were aligned in Australia trade agreement, but DIT opposed restrictions on trade due to welfare)…