Animal welfare is a long-established pillar of environmental politics. And its link to environmentalism is inextricable; animals are an integral part of the natural world. The close association is not simply an ecological one though; it also stems from shared ideological foundations. Concern for animals, like concern for the environment, is part of a post-materialistic world-view that attributes ‘value’ to more than just consumerism and economic growth. That is, it derives from an approach to welfare that does not assume absolute primacy of human wellbeing.

In Australia, on many measures of animal welfare, our community is beginning to reject harsh cruelty, instead choosing humane alternatives where possible. The sale of free-range eggs, for example, has increased substantially in the last couple of years, and now accounts for over a quarter of the market. Free-range meats such as chicken and pork are also increasingly popular. Objectively cruel sports such as calf-roping are being phased out in some states, and membership of animal protection organisations continues to flourish. And the ‘Animals Matter to Me’ campaign, which seeks to establish a UN charter on animal welfare, has collected almost 2 million signatures globally.

But despite these signs of growing community concern, the Australian government has not demonstrated strong leadership on animal welfare matters, so that it remains for now a grassroots issue. And it isn’t just the government that has been slow to read the writing on the wall – many Australian businesses lag behind their international counterparts when it comes to their treatment of animals.

The highly publicised international boycotts of Australian wool in opposition to mulesing should have rung all the warning bells Australian businesses require. Many wool manufacturers will not purchase Australian wool from mulesed sheep because their clients reject the notion that a sheep should have to undergo a surgical procedure, without pain relief, so they can enjoy a new suit. Yet some Australian wool growers have shown little interest in self-reform. Instead of rising to meet emergent animal welfare standards, some wool growers have focused their energies on fighting animal advocates. This tactic has been a miserable failure, probably because animal advocates and the wider community are singing from the same song-sheet on this issue. In the public consciousness, this kind of animal cruelty is no longer acceptable.

Another recent example of an Australian industry not facing up to changing community standards is the debate over the use of whips in horse racing. In late 2008, Australian jockeys tried to stop the Australian Racing Board from introducing new regulations to curtail the use of whips in professional horse racing. The Racing Board defended the change by arguing that jockeys would soon become accustomed to the new rules, and that the new standards would bring Australia in line with European racing. If European jockeys can moderate their whip use, they argued, why can’t Australian jockeys do likewise?

And the examples don’t end there. At the same time that Australia was importing more elephants into its small urban zoos in Sydney and Melbourne, San Francisco Zoo was phasing out its elephant exhibition, citing an inability to meet patron expectations as the reason for its decision. In 2000, a meeting of the Commonwealth ministers for agriculture rejected a ban on battery cages in Australia; meanwhile, the battery cage is being phased out in Europe, as are sow stalls and other highly confined agricultural systems. And in the US, businesses such as Burger King and McDonald’s voluntarily undertake regular animal welfare audits.

In an increasingly globalised community, things can’t stay this way. It seems highly unlikely that animal welfare standards will continue to rise in Europe and North America, yet remain unchanged in Australia. As wool growers quickly discovered, when Australia lags behind the rest of the world, international trade is jeopardised. That is the reality that all Australian businesses must confront. It isn’t a case of ‘compassion before profits’; it’s the fact that ‘without compassion there will be no profits’.

Even if the Australian government is reluctant to step in and enhance animal welfare, its constituents will demand it soon enough. So, doesn’t it make sense for Australian businesses to lead, rather than begrudgingly follow?

Dr Siobhan O’Sullivan is a Political Scientist from the University of Melbourne specialising in public policy guiding employment and animal welfare reform.

Where do you stand?

Add comment (1)  |  Trackback  |  Follow comments (RSS)  |  More by Dr Siobhan O'Sullivan