Animals would be a lot better off if the police did their job properly

Analysis: Rarely a week goes by without an animal welfare story in the media, and rarely is it a positive one. In just the last month, stories about ramshackle animal “sanctuaries”, and undercover video revealing abuse on merino farms has kept Aotearoa New Zealand’s record on animal welfare in the spotlight. The British Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, said our animal welfare standards were “so low they would be illegal in the UK”. We are not used to being the bad guy on the international stage, but when it comes to animal welfare – excepting the ban on greyhound racing – we can and must do better.

A key reason why these stories keep happening is the way we enforce our animal welfare legislation – or rather how we don’t. In New Zealand, three agencies theoretically have the authority to enforce the Animal Welfare Act 1999: the police, the Ministry for Primary Industries and the SPCA. In reality, however, the police often wash their hands of that responsibility, referring calls to the ministry or the SPCA, which both have a formal memorandum of understanding that delegates enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act with regards to agricultural animals to MPI and companion animals to the SPCA.

The inspectors at the SPCA and the ministry work extremely hard under difficult conditions, but there is only so much they can do – there aren’t enough of them. This means they cannot respond effectively to the thousands of complaints they receive, let alone engage in proactive crime prevention.

The investigation and detection of animal welfare offending is thus treated very differently from other crimes. Such under-enforcement compared with the rest of our criminal law is directly linked to resourcing: the SPCA receives only 10 percent of its operating expenses from government funding; the Ministry for Primary Industries spends a fraction of its budget on animal welfare enforcement.

Those who have animal interests at the front of their minds – inspectors on the front line, animal rights activists and hardworking farmers keen to uphold their reputations – have known about this problem for decades. The under-enforcement of animal welfare legislation in this country is so severe that it is undermining the rule of law itself.

My own research with the University of Alberta compared New Zealand and Alberta’s systems, and showed the worst-case scenario of such under-enforcement: systemic failure. In 2019, the Edmonton Humane Society – the equivalent of our SPCA – withdrew from enforcement operations overnight, citing resource constraints and inspector safety.

Animal welfare legislation was consequently meaningless until the government was forced to fill the enforcement gap. The solution that resulted was, however, a phoenix from the ashes: a dedicated animal cruelty investigation unit within the Edmonton City Police. The unit is small, but effective, working with community groups to ensure animal cruelty is properly investigated and laws enforced.

The signal this sends to the community is the reverse of what New Zealand is currently sending: animal welfare is serious and those who are failing animals within their care need to lift their game or face the consequences.

New Zealand does not need to wait for systemic failure to change the way it views and enforces animal welfare legislation. We rely on the good grace and favour of the SPCA to enforce our animal welfare legislation and have done so for almost 150 years. Instead of hoping and assuming that this continues, perhaps the Government should stop free-riding and require the police to exercise their jurisdiction and enforce animal welfare legislation. If Alberta – hardly the poster boy for animal rights – can do it so can we.

Those I have pitched this solution to have labelled it controversial and radical. But stripped back – a shifting of organisational responsibility and slightly more resourcing – it is a relatively modest proposal. That this seems such a drastic shift speaks to a deeper problem: the status of animals within society.

We know animals are sentient: that they are capable of fear, joy and pain. The Animal Welfare Act recognises this in law. It is therefore surprising that despite popular and legal recognition of sentience, the law still considers animals as it has for centuries: as a type of property. Those creatures on your couch are chattel property in the same way your keyboard or coffee mug is property; capable of being bought, sold or even disposed of so long as we do not cause them unnecessary pain and suffering.

This differential is what the philosopher Peter Singer described as “speciesism” 50 years ago, and it is the reason we consistently de-prioritise non-human animals over humans, and some species of animals (livestock) over others (companion animals) despite the fact that their vulnerability is the same.

We really should have a good, hard look at whether 19th century legal classifications are still appropriate today; whether we should resist the speciesism pervasive in all aspects of our society, including the law.

That would be radical, but asking the police to do their job and for society to stop relying on the beneficence of the SPCA is comparatively modest. Either way, the under-enforcement of animal welfare legislation is a problem that is long overdue a solution, and the Edmonton experience shows we continue the status quo at our peril.