4 Jul 2016

According to NZ law, animals have feelings

From Nights, 7:12 pm on 4 July 2016

Last year a change in New Zealand law acknowledged that that animals are sentient. What does this mean for animal rights, welfare and farming practices? We talk to former vet and animal law expert Ian Robertson.

Read an edited excerpt of their interview below:

How crucial was that word ‘sentient’ in that legislation?

It has the potential to be a real game-changer. The definition of sentient is the capability to feel, to perceive and experience subjectively.

Where we have actually gone to recognising not just that animals can experience pain or distress, but that they experience pain, distress and joy. That changes everything in terms of, do we continue to operate on minimum standards of… does this animal experience pain or distress. If the answer is yes, then the next legal question is, is that pain or distress necessary? If it was a yes to the reasonable or necessary, it could be whatever animal husbandry practice, animal research or whatever treatment, then that was permissible.

But arguably by adding in the word sentient to the law, it elevates that there is now a third part to that test that says, are they experiencing or having a positive psychological experience?

I used to say to my students, nowhere in law in the animal welfare act does it say, is the animal happy? But arguably by adding in sentient, that is the gate that has been opened. There is now potentially a responsibility on people to ensure that their animals are happy.

When did the law come into force? Under the new legislation, has that potential been realised in any way?

In August 2015. There in is the rub. There has been criticism already that because the law hasn’t specifically provided a definition of sentient, then the criticism says, ‘It’s window dressing. It’s political puffery and meant as something merely symbolic.’ And there are all sorts of motivations in that to keep various stake holders happy.

On the other hand it’s well known that a word introduced into law changes the playing field potentially. What this could do in the right hands, particularly advocates of evolved animal welfare standards can say, ‘It’s not just a word, and it’s not just window dressing.’

It’s something that shifts our responsibility, and actually imputes a responsibility to people to ensure that animals in their care have a positive mental, emotional experience. Comfort, pleasure, interests, confidence, those sorts of things.

What was the legal or even philosophical basis for the old laws?

In 1911, there was the Animal Protection Act. In brief, the Animal Protection Act criminalised blatant acts of animal cruelty. It said, this is what you must not do to an animal.

Then in 1999, we moved from the Animal Protection Act to the Animal Welfare Act. The difference was that the new act in 1999 included these protections of animals and saying what you must not do, but it also added a layer of what you must do, saying prevention is better than a cure. It said, you must provide them with adequate food, water and shelter and medical attention, those sorts of things.

The test as to whether that had been fulfilled or not was a two-part test. First of all: did this animal experience pain or distress? If the answer was no, then no harm, no foul, at least through the legal lens anyway. If the answer was yes, then the next part of that test was: is the pain or distress that this animal is experiencing necessary or reasonable? For example if you take your dog to the veterinarian and this animal has an injection, to protect it from various viral diseases or a bacterial infection, then many animals, like people, would not actually prefer to be injected.  However, it’s necessary. In the hands of a veterinarian certain procedures are deemed necessary for the wellbeing of the animal or for society as a whole. That’s essentially where we stayed.

We were at minimums, we agreed that animals should not experience unnecessary pain or distress, either at the animal’s wellbeing or the owner’s wellbeing or society’s wellbeing. It’s a shift on from that. We’ve departed from just assessing things in terms of minimums to elevating things.