Animal Care and Protection Bill (Draft) - Victoria

Scope, Transparency, and Public Accountability

This submission is provided as both a formal response and a public education statement regarding the current draft of the Animal Care and Protection Bill (Exposure Draft). With a focus on Farmed animals.

We make it clear that this paper is based on the draft Bill as it currently stands.

At the time of writing, there has been no transparent public explanation of how prior consultation submissions have been acknowledged, assessed, or incorporated into any revised or final version of the Bill.

While the Victorian Government has undertaken a public consultation process, there has been no clear reporting on the outcomes of that process, no indication of which concerns have been accepted or rejected, and no visibility of how stakeholder input will influence the final legislation. This lack of transparency raises a fundamental issue of public accountability.

If consultation is to be meaningful, the public must be shown how their submissions have been taken seriously and reflected in legislative change.

At present, that transparency is absent. We therefore join the broader community in calling for the Bill to be brought forward in its revised form, with clear demonstration of how public submissions have been incorporated and full visibility of any changes made as a result of consultation.

Confidence in the Consultation Process

While we are calling for the revised Bill to be brought forward as a matter of urgency, we must also state clearly that we have limited confidence that the public consultation process has been, or will be, meaningfully reflected in the final Draft.

This concern is grounded in the structure and content of the current draft bill itself, which already reflects many of the systemic failures outlined in this paper.

It is further reinforced by the absence of transparent reporting on consultation outcomes, and the clear disconnect between community expectations and the provisions contained within the draft Bill.

There is also growing concern, based on public statements and stakeholder communications, that industry bodies have been given direct access to review and influence the development of the final draft, while animal advocates, welfare experts, and the broader public have not been afforded the same level of visibility or engagement. This creates the perception of an unequal and opaque consultation process.

As a result, there is a legitimate concern that any final version of the Bill may continue to prioritise industry interests over the concerns raised through the public consultation process. If this occurs, the outcome will be a continuation of existing systemic failures and a missed opportunity for genuine, progressive reform.

Position on the Current Draft

Based on the draft in its current form, we consider it deeply concerning that such a framework has been presented as progressive reform, despite containing significant structural weaknesses and regulatory gaps.

In our assessment, the current draft does not represent meaningful reform and risks weakening protections for farm animals. In fact, when considered against the current Animal Welfare Act, the draft has the potential to produce outcomes that are worse for farm animals by removing defined protections and replacing them with uncertainty and discretion.

Purpose of This Paper

This paper has been prepared to clearly identify the failures within the current draft, highlight the risks associated with its structure, outline the amendments required for any future version, and ensure that the public understands the implications of this legislation.

Removal of Codes Without Replacement

The repeal of the existing Act effectively removes the current Code of Practice framework. However, the Bill does not codify any equivalent standards into the Act, nor does it define clear welfare thresholds or triggers for farm animals.

Instead, it defers all meaningful welfare protections to future regulations and Ministerial processes, leaving the actual rules undefined at the time of potential legislative approval. This creates a legislative vacuum in which protections are removed upfront, but not replaced in law.

Reliance on Undefined Future Standards

The Bill repeatedly relies on compliance with regulations under the Act as a defence to offences. This structure makes it clear that the substantive welfare standards will be developed after the Act is passed, without prior parliamentary scrutiny or legal certainty.

In practice, this framework is likely to default to the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines. These standards are widely recognised as minimum baseline documents, characterised by ambiguous “should” clauses, undefined terminology, and a reliance on concepts such as “standard farming practice” that lack enforceable definition.

Ministerial Powers and Industry Influence

The Bill grants the Minister broad powers to approve industry arrangements regulating animal care, and to declare that provisions of the Act or regulations do not apply in those circumstances.

This creates a system in which industry-developed frameworks can override legal protections, and compliance with those frameworks can be used as a defence to what would otherwise be considered acts of cruelty. The result is a system that enables effective self-regulation by industry and significantly undermines independent oversight.

Worse Than the Current Framework

Under the current system, Codes of Practice provide at least a defined reference point for acceptable conduct, even if they are flawed.

Under this Bill, those Codes are effectively removed, no equivalent standards are embedded in legislation, and protections are deferred to future instruments that can be altered without full scrutiny. This represents a weakening of protections rather than an improvement.

Required Amendments

It is critical that all animal welfare standards intended to operate under the Act are drafted, publicly released, and subject to scrutiny prior to the passage of the legislation. Core protections must be codified directly into the Act, made legally binding, and enforceable without reliance on external instruments.

Ministerial powers must be strictly limited to prevent unilateral exemption of industries or the overriding of offences without parliamentary oversight. Victoria must retain the ability to implement stronger, independent standards that exceed national baselines, particularly in high-risk sectors such as sheep production, transport, and saleyards.

National Standards Must Be Reformed Prior to Adoption

If national standards are to underpin this framework, they must not be adopted in their current form.

The Victorian Labor Government must formally and urgently request the amendment of national animal welfare standards, particularly given their alignment with a Federal Labor Government. This must occur within a clear, time-bound and transparent process, with defined milestones and public accountability.

The Bill must include explicit assurance that national standards will be reviewed and strengthened within a defined timeframe, and that Victoria will adopt those reformed standards in full once finalised.

Without this process, there will be a lag period in which outdated and inadequate standards remain in effect, and during which the treatment of farm animals will continue to stagnate or worsen.

If national standards continue to be shaped by industry influence rather than independent, science-based and welfare-focused outcomes, they will remain weak, ambiguous, and ineffective. Any legislation relying on them will therefore be fundamentally compromised.

Closing Position

This Bill risks creating a system in which welfare protections are undefined, standards are written after the fact, and industry influence is structurally embedded.

The removal of existing Codes of Practice, without enforceable legislative replacement, represents a step backwards for animal welfare in Victoria.

Animal welfare law must provide certainty, enforceability, and independence, not discretion, delay, and ambiguity.

Animal welfare legislation must be built on clarity, accountability, and genuine intent to improve outcomes for animals.

Until that occurs, this Bill represents no real reform and risks entrenching the very failures it claims to address.