Cattle v the Crown: Is There a Place for the Commonwealth as Animal Welfare Guardian
![handle is hein.journals/qland34 and id is 371 raw text is:
CATTLE V THE CROWN: IS THERE A PLACE FOR THE
COMMONWEALTH AS ANIMAL WELFARE GUARDIAN?
BRENDAN WALKER-MUNRO*
I INTRODUCTION
We rely on animals for the provision of foodstuffs, material goods, domestic and
commercial labour, and medical and cosmetic experimentation. Yet despite the many
obvious ways that animals interact with the human sphere there is little to no regulation
of animal welfare or their interests at the Commonwealth level. As our population
grows so too does the economic and social value of animals - in the words of Andrew
Thelander back in 1991 'animals have already contributed more to [Australia] than all
the breweries and football teams put together'.2
This paper will seek to examine whether there is a need for a Commonwealth
guardianship framework for animal welfare. It will examine the current tensions in the
existing framework between international, national and State laws, as well as conduct a
comparative analysis of the cases for and against federalist intervention. It will then be
proposed that the current situation requires Commonwealth intervention to establish a
guardianship model of animal welfare law based on internationally and socially
recognised principles, with a concomitant expansion of the rules of standing enabling
representation of animals before the Courts by litigation guardians, in a similar model
to that used for children and the mentally ill.
II THE LAW AS IT WAS, AND THE LAW AS IT IS
Given that our laws develop from our philosophy3 'animal welfare' should be
properly distinguished from 'animal rights'. Animal welfare recognises humanity as an
apex predator, and that our society is dependent on animals for food, sport,
entertainment and science - our use of animals is morally justifiable so long as it
occurs 'humanely'.' Animal rights on the other hand dictates a far more abolitionist
philosophy that requires that society must cease all use of animals, regardless of
purpose.' Dr Hugh Wirth, former President of the RSPCA, said:
The general media, and thus a great number of people in the community, believe that
animal welfare and animal rights are synonymous terms and are therefore
interchangeable. This view is simply wrong... humans may make use of animals for
companionship, work, pleasure and food and fibre production, provided all animals are
Manager, Revenue Assurance & Integrity Office of Liquor, Gaming & Racing, NSW
Department of Justice.
Steven White, 'Animals and the Law: A New Legal Frontier?' (2005) 29(1) Melbourne
University Law Review 298.
2 Andrew Thelander, 'Positive Concepts in Legislative Reform' (Paper presented at the Animal
Welfare Conference, Brisbane, 8-9 June 1991) 21.
3 Jerrold Tannenbaum, 'Animals and the law: property, cruelty, rights' (1995) 62 Social Research
539, 575.
4 bid, 576.
Cass Sunstein, 'Introduction: What Are Animal Rights?' Cass R Sunstein and Martha C
Nussbaum (eds), Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (Oxford University Press,
2004) 4-5.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/qland34&div=23&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Cattle v the Crown: Is There a Place for the Commonwealth as Animal Welfare Guardian
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most