Definition of animal, question 6

The definition of animal includes cephalopods only where they are “supplied, kept or used for scientific purposes”. This essentially excludes cephalopods kept for the food industry and those in the wild from protections under the Act. Many studies have shown that cephalopods are highly intelligent. Excluding all cephalopods from the Act is inconsistent with the first principle of the Act (section 4); ie Animals are recognised as living beings that can feel, perceive, and experience positive and negative states. 

Principles and objects, question 8

The addition of specific objects to the Act is welcome. However, this section must be strengthened by the addition of  the object “to strengthen powers to identify and investigate those who harm or ill treat animals”.

Definition of ‘harm’ 

The current definition of harm does not address the five freedoms of animal welfare. Specifically, it is now accepted that preventing animals from expressing their natural behaviours produces irreversible psychological damage. The definition of harm therefore must include provision for harm that impairs or damages the psychological well-being of the animal.

The definition of harm must also include a provision that recognises harm done to greyhounds and horses by doping. Currently, the South Australian animal welfare regulatory framework does not provide any legal consequences for doping which causes harm. The Greyhound Australasia Rules are totally inadequate and do not specify penalties for offences. In most cases, suspensions from racing are fully suspended, effectively allowing those in the greyhound racing industry to get away with causing harm to greyhounds. This is an area that must be included in the Animal Welfare Bill in line with the other offence provisions.

The recent review of the SA greyhound racing industry found that Greyhound Racing South Australia Animal Welfare Policy 2021 does not meet community standards. Dogs are kept isolated in kennels and are not provided with opportunities to express their natural behaviours. There is little recognition of the importance of socialisation and breeding and training methods result in prey-driven dogs which are difficult to rehome. A Code of Practice for the Welfare of Greyhounds must be developed by the SA Government in accordance with the SA Animal Welfare Act and enforced. 

Definition of ‘serious harm’

Part (b) of the current definition of “serious harm” is too subjective and does not prevent a person from arbitrarily making the decision that an animal has to be put down, because not doing so is cruel. It also does not specify that euthanasia must be done humanely. In fact the use of the word “destroyed” may have perverse consequences in that a person may use a cruel way to destroy the animal. Therefore, the legislative framework must include criteria that must be met, and evidence provided, that a suitably qualified person, such as a veterinarian made the decision and that the method of euthanasia was humane. Given the animals have no voice it is important that there is mandatory accountability and traceability for such decisions.