• 
• 
• 

You are here: About us » Publications and Resources » Regulatory Impact Statements » Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008 Regulatory Impact Statement

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Regulatory Impact Statement

This Regulatory Impact Statement has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 and the Victorian Guide to Regulation incorporating Guidelines for the Measurement of Changes in Administrative Burden.

This Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) has been prepared to facilitate public consultation on the proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008 (the proposed Regulations). In line with the Victorian Guide to Regulation, the Victorian Government seeks to ensure that proposed regulations are well-targeted, effective and appropriate, and impose the lowest possible burden on Victorian business and the community.

A prime function of the RIS process is to help members of the public comment on proposed statutory rules before they have been finalised. Such public input can provide valuable information and perspectives, and thus improve the overall quality of the regulations. The proposed Regulations are being circulated to key stakeholders and feedback is sought. A copy of the proposed Regulations is provided as an attachment to this RIS.

Public comments and submissions are now invited on the proposed Regulations. All submissions will be treated as public documents. Written comments and submissions should be forwarded by no later than 5:00pm, 17 November 2008 to:

POCTA Regulations Review Bureau of Animal Welfare
Department of Primary Industries
475-485 Mickleham Road
ATTWOOD VIC 3049

or email: animal.welfare@dpi.vic.gov.au

Table of Contents

SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND TO REGULATION

2.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IN VICTORIA

3. RATIONALE FOR REGULATING ANIMAL CRUELTY

3.1 MARKET FAILURE

3.2 NATURE OF LICENSING

4. OBJECTIVE OF THE REGULATIONS

5. COST-BENEFIT METHODOLOGY: ASSESSMENT OF NON-REGULATORY AND REGULATORY OPTIONS

5.1 REGULATORY COSTS

5.2 METHODOLOGY

6. PROTECTION OF ANIMALS

6.1 NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM

6.2 PARTIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS

6.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS - PROTECTION OF ANIMALS

6.4 COMPARISON WITH THE CURRENT REGULATIONS

6.5 BASE CASE

6.6 PROTECTION OF ANIMALS - PROPOSED REGULATIONS

6.7 PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATION

6.8 BANNING LEGHOLD TRAPS AND OTHER DEVICES

6.10 SUMMARY OF FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES

7. RODEOS AND RODEO SCHOOLS − REGULATORY AND NON-REGULATORY OPTIONS

7.1 CONTEXT

7.2 CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

7.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM-RODEOS AND RODEO SCHOOLS

7.4 PARTIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS

7.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS- RODEO AND RODEO SCHOOLS

7.6 COMPARISON WITH THE CURRENT REGULATIONS

7.7 THE BASE CASE

7.8 ASSESSMENT OF REGULATORY AND NON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

7.9 SELF-REGULATION/CODES OF CONDUCT

7.10 NEGATIVE LICENSING

7.11 BANNING RODEO EVENTS

7.12 VARIATION OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS

7.13 SUMMARY OF FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES

7.14. FEES

7.15 ASSESSMENT OF COST AND BENEFITS

7.16 C ALCULATION OF THE P ROPOSED FEES

8. SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES − REGULATORY AND NON-REGULATORY OPTIONS

8.1 CONTEXT

8.2 CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

8.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM

8.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS - SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES

8.5 COMPARISON WITH THE CURRENT REGULATIONS

8.6 PARTIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS

8.7 THE BASE CASE

8.8 ASSESSMENT OF REGULATORY AND NON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

8.9 PROPOSED REGULATIONS

8.10 SELF-REGULATION/CODES OF CONDUCT

8.11 NEGATIVE LICENSING

8.12 VARIATION OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS

8.13 SUMMARY OF FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES

8.14 FEES

9. MACHINERY AND MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS

10. CHANGE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN

11. COMPETITION IMPACTS

12. SMALL BUSINESS IMPACT

13. ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE

14. CONSULTATION

15. EVALUATION

16. CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GLOSSARY

AEC - Animal Ethics Committee
APRA - Australian Professional Rodeo Australia
AVA - Australian Veterinary Association
BAW - Bureau of Animal Welfare
DPI - Department of Primary Industries
NCC - National Competition Council
NCCAW - National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare
NCP - National Competition Policy
POCTA inspector - authorised officers under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986
RSPCA - Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Victoria)
'the Act' - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986
'the current Regulations' - Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Regulations 1997
'the proposed Regulations' - Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Regulations 2008
VCEC - the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission

SUMMARY

Prevention of cruelty to animals is a long standing Victorian Government policy and has been on Victoria's statute books since 1865. These provisions largely reflected earlier British legislation and did not change significantly until the second half of the 20^th century. The 1960s and 1970s witnessed a major shift in community attitudes concerning the treatment of animals. The Protection of Animals Act 1966 (Vic) significantly redrafted the previous legislation and further changes occurred twenty years later when it was repealed and replaced by the current legislation, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (the Act).

Since that time community attitudes have continued to shift towards greater compassion for the welfare of animals, and this has been reflected by the numerous amendments to the Act since 1986. Many of the laws and regulations for the protection of animals are based on increasing scientific knowledge that at least all vertebrate animals (mammals, birds, fish, etc.) and some higher order invertebrate animals can experience suffering from a variety of causes. Examples are pain, discomfort and hunger, as well as fear, anxiety and frustration.

In Victoria, the prevention of cruelty to animals is regulated by the interaction of the Act, the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Regulations 1997 (the current Regulations) and various codes of practice. At the outset, it is important to note that the Act establishes the broad regulatory framework for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and consequently most costs and benefits are attributable to the Act rather than the Regulations. The Regulations prescribe details, processes and procedures to give operational effect to the Act.

The current Regulations are due to expire in December 2008 and are being remade as the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Regulations 2008 (the proposed Regulations). The proposed Regulations broadly fall into three parts. These parts provide regulations for the Protection of Animals; the conduct of Rodeos and Rodeo Schools, and the control of Scientific Procedures. The proposed Regulations contain some significant changes, particularly in relation to the use of traps and the use of electronic devices on animals. In large part, the proposed changes relate to the community's increasing concern that animals should be treated humanely and that any unnecessary suffering must be prevented.

The primary objective of the proposed Regulations is reflected by the purpose of the Act, which is to prevent cruelty to animals and to encourage the considerate treatment of animals. The proposed Regulations seek to achieve these objectives by prescribing conditions for:

• procedures conducted on animals, devices used on animals, implements and methods of capture of animals, and methods and procedures of transport of animals and other related matters;
• rodeo licences, rodeo permits and rodeo school permits;
• persons operating, participating in, or otherwise involved in rodeos and rodeo schools; and
• licences and standards for scientific procedures and breeding carried out by scientific and breeding establishments.

The proposed Regulations also prescribe forms, fees and other matters authorised by the Act.

In Victoria, the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 requires that remade regulatory proposals that impose an 'appreciable economic or social burden on a sector of the public' be formally assessed in a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS). A RIS provides an evaluation framework to assess the costs and benefits of the proposed Regulations. It states the objectives of proposed Regulations, examines the nature and extent of the problem that the proposed Regulations seek to address, explains the effect of the proposed Regulations and assesses the costs and benefits. The RIS also assesses the costs and benefits of feasible alternatives to the proposed Regulations.

While elements of 'market failure' can be identified with respect to the incidence of animal cruelty, the primary argument supporting a case for government intervention relates to achieving social objectives.

Protection of Animals

The proposed Protection of Animal regulations contain some significant changes. The regulation of transportation of animals (Regulation 6), which enhances existing provisions in the legislation, is a new regulation. The possession of animal fighting implements regulation (Regulation 7) strengthens current requirements by also prohibiting the possession of an animal with the intention of causing that animal to fight. The proposed Regulations also introduce a new prohibition on the use of certain mouth pieces on a horse (Regulation 8).

The controls regulating the use of an electronic shock dog collar will be expanded, while the use of electronic shock collars on other animals will be prohibited (Regulation 16). The proposed Regulations will also impose controls on electronic devices (that impart an electric shock) used on animals generally, for example, new controls will be placed on the use of devices such as electric prodders, ejaculators, stunning devices, electro-fishing and electrocution traps (Regulations 13 -18). Electric fences have been included simply to ensure their continued use.

The current Regulations impose specific controls on the use of leghold traps only. Following amendments to the Act last year there is now a requirement to prescribe traps that can be sold, set or used. The proposed Regulations expand the controls on traps to prohibit certain kinds of leghold traps (e.g., traps with a jaw spread of over 15.5 centimetres, traps with serrated steel jaws (Regulation 25)). The proposed Regulations will also control the use of confinement traps, net traps, non-kill snare traps, rodent kill traps, and kill traps and lethal trap devices. They also specify the conditions of use for such traps. Transitional provisions have been included in some circumstances to allow a phase out of some traps.

The costing analysis in this RIS estimates the total quantifiable costs of the proposed Protection of Animals regulations at around $3.5 million over a 10-year period, or approximately $350,000 per annum. These are administrative and compliance costs ($872,602) and government costs ($2,636,364). The administrative costs are borne by sellers of electronic dog collars ($23,061 per annum) and compliance costs ($849,541) are borne by dog owners. These regulations will also impose costs by requiring individuals to change their behaviour (in some instances by prohibiting items) and may require purchasing of new traps or devices. Given the nature of these costs, the behavioural aspects were difficult to quantify in monetary terms, while the absence of data made it difficult to estimate the costs associated with purchasing new traps or devices.

The scientific understanding of an animal's capacity to feel pain has raised the community's expectations concerning the humane treatment of animals. The benefits of the proposed Regulations are therefore associated with the social benefits of the prevention of cruelty to animals and improving animal welfare. There is indirect economic evidence that the community places a high value on the prevention of cruelty to animals.

The animal welfare outcomes of the regulations are balanced against the utility of traps and other devices. The proposed Regulations recognise that traps and other devices can inflict pain and suffering on animals, but some advantages exist overall from the strictly controlled use of such devices, rather than a complete ban on some of these items which could lead to unintended consequences.

Rodeos and Rodeo Schools

The proposed Rodeo and Rodeo School regulations have been significantly redrafted to make them clearer and to improve compliance. Despite significant changes in form, there are very few new requirements. The current rodeo permit provisions contain 23 conditions. Of these, 21 conditions have been redrafted in the proposed Regulations to improve clarity. Similarly, a number of the requirements currently contained in the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Rodeo and Rodeo School Livestock in Victoria have been drawn into the proposed Regulations. The purpose of this consolidation is to draw the various requirements into one regulatory instrument to improve administrative clarity and to ensure effective enforcement.

A new annual licence will be introduced that will lower the administrative burden for rodeo operators conducting multiple events. This will remove the need for operators to apply for a separate permit for each event (licence holders will simply be required to notify DPI of forthcoming event details 28 days prior to the event). The proposed Regulations will also include a new process for veterinary practitioners to notify the rodeo organiser and DPI if they are unable to attend and provide the details about their replacement.

The biggest change in the proposed Regulations is the inclusion of 37 new infringement offences. This change was highlighted by the Minister of Agriculture when the Animals Legislation Amendment (Animal Care) Bill was introduced into Parliament in late 2007. The new penalties are mostly attached to requirements that were previously contained in the permit conditions or in the Code of Practice.

The proposed Rodeo and Rodeo School regulations were examined and assessed for the likely costs on rodeo operators. Regulations imposing administrative and substantive compliance costs were estimated at about $322,000 over a ten-year period, or approximately $32,000 per annum. Therefore, a rodeo operator is likely to incur costs of about $1,000 for each rodeo, which mostly (93 per cent) constitutes the requirement for a veterinarian to be in attendance. Government costs over a 10-year period are in the order of $34,000, providing a total cost of these regulations of approximately $356,000, or around $35,000 per annum.

The proposed rodeo regulations can be viewed as a framework to mitigate or minimise possible incidents of animal cruelty. Given that some sections of the community advocate a ban on rodeos, if the regulations were not in place for this industry the risk of a ban on these events could be high. While the proposed rodeo regulations are relatively prescriptive, this is balanced against the fact that they provide a clear statement of what is expected in respect of compliance with the Act. This increases certainty and reduces potential costs associated with enforcement.

In assessing the level of fees, the tasks associated with administering the licence and permits were examined and processes mapped to establish the cost of staff time in undertaking these activities. The fees in the table below were calculated on a full cost- recovery basis in relation to evaluating and processing rodeo licences and permits. A reassessment of the existing fee levels in accordance with the Cost Recovery Guidelines resulted in a 140 per cent fee increase, albeit from a relatively low base. A new fee category for a Rodeo licence of $510.75 has been determined. As noted above, a rodeo licence will preclude the need to obtain a permit for each event held over a year. Further, the current fees for a rodeo permit include a fee to be paid for subsequent days if the rodeo lasts longer than one day. It is proposed to remove this fee.

Proposed Annual Rodeo Licence, Rodeo and Rodeo School Permit Fees

Regulation	Description	Current Fees ($)	Proposed Fees ($)	Percentage Increase %
104(1)	Rodeo licence	n.a	510.75	n.a
104(2)(a)	Rodeo permit	56.80 (plus 27.20 each day thereafter)	136.20	140
104(3)	Rodeo school permit	28.40	68.10	140

Note: Fees rounded to the nearest 10 cents in accordance with the Monetary Units Act 2004. Fees in the proposed Regulations are expressed in fee units. In the case of a rodeo permit an additional fee was charged per additional day a rodeo occurred.

Scientific Procedures

Scientific procedures refer to where animals undergo physical or psychological procedures for scientific research or teaching purposes in Victoria. Such research or teaching is conducted in the fields of medical, dental, veterinary, agricultural, behavioural, biological, and ecological sciences by licensed institutions including universities, hospitals, government departments of agriculture and the environment, research institutions, and private companies. There are currently 159 licences issued under the regulations (114 scientific procedure premises licences, 34 scientific procedure field work licences, and 11 specified animal breeding licences).

The rationale for regulating scientific research and animal experimentation is well established, and governments have regulated scientific experimentation on animals since the 19^th century. Such regulation seeks to balance the broad benefits to society from research involving animals against animal welfare objectives, by minimising pain and distress, rather than eliminating the use of animals.

Part 3 of the Act relates to Scientific Procedures for animal research. These provisions set up the broad heads of power, while the practical operational details are prescribed by the Regulations. In addition, scientific establishments must operate under the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, the Laboratory Animals Code of Practice, and the Pound Animals Code of Practice, which are made under section 7 of the Act.

While the proposed Regulations have been redrafted to improve their clarity, they are substantially the same as the current Regulations. Aside from minor wording changes, the monthly recording and annual return requirements have not changed, nor have the associated administrative costs.

One change is that under the current Regulations, information concerning 'specified animals' was required to be included in monthly records, but the proposed Regulations will require that all animals held under licences be included in monthly records. In practice, this will not affect licensees. This is because the Australian Code of Practice already requires licensees to "ensure that records of the use and monitoring of animals used for scientific purposes are maintained" (s.3.1.9 of the Australian Code of Practice, 7th Edition 2004), which includes animals of all species. The proposed change will simply draw the current practices under the code into the regulations to clarify the reporting requirements. With respect to the classification of animals, the proposed Regulations will also increase the coverage to include live adult decapod crustaceans (i.e., lobsters, crabs, crayfish).

The proposed Scientific Procedures regulations were examined and assessed for the likely costs they will impose on organisations undertaking scientific procedures. Regulations imposing administrative and substantive compliance costs were estimated to be in the order of $42 million over a 10-year period, or approximately $4.2 million per annum. Government costs associated with administering the proposed Regulations are estimated to be $1.5 million over a 10-year period. The total costs of the proposed Regulations are around $43.5 million over of 10-year period, or approximately $4.3 million per annum. The main benefit of the proposed Regulations is to establish standards to minimise the suffering or distress of animals used in scientific research or teaching. The proposed Regulations also set up a monitoring and reporting regime to ensure compliance.

The proposed fees were calculated by first determining the full cost of processing and monitoring licensees. Such tasks include licence processing, administration, collating annual statistics, auditing licensees, and training and education provided to Animal Ethics Committees. When this cost was determined it was multiplied by 50 per cent, representing the 'public good' aspect of scientific research and education. It is considered that this option strikes an appropriate balance between the positive externalities associated with scientific research and with efficiency and equity arguments that, given organisations' ability to capture private benefits, some cost of the regulated activity should be recovered.

Proposed Scientific Procedures Premises, Field Work and Specified Animals Breeding Licences

Regulation	Description	Current Fees ($)	Proposed Fees ($)	Percentage Increase %
102	Scientific procedures premises licence	649.20	649.20	0
103	Scientific procedures field work licence	649.20	649.20	0
104	Specified animals breeding licence	649.20	649.20	0

Note: Fees rounded to the nearest 10 cents in accordance with the Monetary Units Act 2004. Fees in the proposed Regulations are expressed in fee units.

These fees are set on a partial cost recovery basis, which recover 50 per cent of government costs incurred to process and monitor annual licences. The review of these fees found that the current levels 'on average' do not need to be re-adjusted, and are reset at 57.2 fee units. However, there was one important change. Previously, these fees were calculated based on the number of persons conducting scientific procedures. The rate for a licence for an organisation with 10 or more persons conducting scientific procedures was 57.2 fee units, and for organisations employing less than 10 persons conducting scientific procedures the fee was 38.1 fee units. Following legal advice on the setting of fees it was concluded that there was no ability under the current legislation to split fees based on number of persons conducting scientific procedures. Therefore, the fee category for less than 10 persons was removed. This will affect around 38 organisations, however around 5-10 of the organisations previously required to pay this fee will be exempt if they are a not-for-profit organisation employing 5 or fewer full time equivalent employees.

Alternatives

The RIS also considers and assesses feasible alternatives to the proposed Regulations. These alternatives include self-regulation/industry codes, performance-based regulation, negative licensing, and banning activities or devices. None of the alternatives identified were assessed as superior to the proposed Regulations in terms of the net benefits of meeting the Victorian Government's objectives.

Identification of Restrictions on Competition

The proposed Regulations were considered against a 'competition test' to identify restrictions on competition. It is assessed that the proposed Regulations may impose minor restrictions on competition but the benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs, and the objectives of the proposed Regulations can only be achieved by restricting competition.

Changes in the Administrative Burden

The Reducing the Regulatory Burden initiative commits the Victorian Government to reducing both the administrative and compliance costs of regulation. Accordingly, this RIS uses the Standard Cost Model methodology and the guidelines on the Measurement of Changes in Administrative Burden to inform its cost-benefit analysis and to measure any changes to the administrative costs. Administrative costs are those costs incurred by business to demonstrate compliance with the regulation or to allow government to administer the regulation (e.g., keeping a register or lodging documents with government).

A new administrative burden was identified in relation to retailer records of electronic collar sales. The total cost is relatively minor at around $2,800 per annum. The proposed rodeo licence is likely to result in administrative savings for rodeo operators. Currently, a rodeo operator must apply for a separate permit for each rodeo. The new licence will allow a rodeo operator to conduct multiple rodeos per annum. It is estimated that the administrative cost saving arising from this proposal will be in the order of $550 per annum. The net increase in administrative burden arising from the proposed Regulations is approximately $2,250 per annum, therefore it has been determined that the regulatory changes in the proposed Regulations will not lead to a material change in the administrative burden on Victorian businesses.

Finally, the risk associated with not proceeding with the proposed Regulations is that the effective operation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 would be diminished, thus increasing the risks of the incidence of cruelty to animals.

Conclusion

This Regulatory Impact Statement concludes that:

• the benefits to society of the proposed Regulations exceed the costs;
• the net benefits of the proposed Regulations are greater than those associated with any practicable alternatives;
• the proposed Regulations impose minor restrictions on competition, but the benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs; and
• the proposed Regulations will not lead to a material change in the administrative burden on industry.

Consultation

The prime function of the RIS process is to help members of the public comment on proposed Regulations before they are finalised. Such public input which draws on practical experience can provide valuable information and perspectives, and thus improve the overall quality of regulations. The proposed Regulations are being circulated to key stakeholders and feedback is sought. The Bureau of Animal Welfare (BAW), Department of Primary Industries (DPI), which is responsible for administering the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and current Regulations, welcomes and encourages further feedback on the proposed Regulations.

Notwithstanding the conclusion of this RIS, the DPI welcomes and encourages comments on the proposal. While in no way limiting comments, stakeholders may wish to comment on:

• regulation of pronged collars;
• administrative and compliance issues associated with electronic collars used on dogs;
• use of electronic shock devices on animals;
• any practical difficulties or specific costs associated with the scope, features or conditions of use in relation to traps;
• level of fees and duration of licences;
• whether Animal Ethics Committees should be required to consider all scientific procedures (i.e., whether they should only consider higher impact scientific procedures);
• whether data should be collected on the number of proposals rejected by Animal Ethics Committees in order to better understand the impacts of regulation in this area;
• whether the monthly record keeping requirement for scientific procedures and specified animals breeding licences are unduly burdensome and, if so, suggestions to reduce this burden;
• the inclusion of live adult decapods for purposes of scientific procedures;
• information requirements in the proposed Regulations and any way this could be streamlined;
• any practical difficulties associated with the proposed Regulations;
• any unintended consequences associated with the proposed Regulations

1. INTRODUCTION

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 1997 establish the regulatory framework for the prevention of cruelty to animals in Victoria. The current Regulations will expire in December 2008 and new regulations are proposed.

In Victoria the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 requires that new or remade regulatory proposals that impose an 'appreciable economic or social burden on a sector of the public' be formally assessed in a RIS to ensure that the costs of the proposed regulations are outweighed by the benefits, and that the regulatory proposal is superior to alternative approaches.

It has been assessed that the proposed Regulations impose an 'appreciable burden' and a RIS is required. This RIS formally assesses the proposed Regulations against the requirements in the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 and the Victorian Guide to Regulation¹

The regulatory proposals in this RIS are put forward and assessed in the context of the Victorian Government's policy objectives to reduce the regulatory burden on business and to ensure that the proposed Regulations are well-targeted, effective and appropriate. The Reducing the Regulatory Burden initiative commits the Victorian Government to reducing both the administrative and compliance burdens of regulation.² Accordingly, this RIS uses the Victorian Standard Cost Model methodology to inform the cost-benefit analysis and to measure any changes to the administrative burden.

The assessment framework of this RIS seeks to examine the nature and extent of the problem, state the objectives of the proposed Regulations, explain the effects of the proposed Regulations on various stakeholders and assess their costs and benefits. Practicable alternatives to the proposed Regulations are also considered and assessed. The RIS also examines potential impacts on small business and competition.

The proposed Regulations include fees for a number of licences and permits. The determination of fees in this RIS has been guided by the Victorian Government's Cost Recovery Guidelines, which establishes a whole-of-government framework ensuring that cost-recovery arrangements in Victoria are transparent, efficient, effective and consistent with legislative requirements and government policy.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Historical Context and Background to Regulation

It is worth briefly examining developments over the last two hundred years with respect to society's attitudes towards animal cruelty and regulatory developments. Developments in the United Kingdom are particularly relevant given that in the absence of Victorian statutes, British laws applied until relatively recently. In addition, community attitudes towards animal welfare in Victoria largely mirrored those in the United Kingdom over this period.

Prior to 1800 there was little concept of cruelty towards animals. In fact, cruelty to animals pervaded 18^th century England. Most of the population simply disregarded animal suffering, while a significant proportion positively revelled in it, for example, through bull and bear baiting, cock fighting and throwing, and dog fights.³ Farm animals and animals used for transport also endured harsh conditions by today's standards, while conditions and methods at slaughter yards were notorious for their cruelty.

Attitudes to animal cruelty derived from the religious and moral arguments that animals were created for the pleasure and benefit of humankind. The existing state of science supported this view. It was widely believed that animals had no thoughts or feelings and could therefore not suffer or feel pain. In addition, courts were reluctant to intervene in cases of animal cruelty because animals were simply viewed as private property with which owners could do as they pleased. Centuries of custom and deep-seated social attitudes underpinned these beliefs.⁴

By the end of the 18^th century however, intellectual developments associated with the Enlightenment and other social events began to change these attitudes.⁵ The early 19^th century saw the introduction of bills into parliament in 1800 and 1802 to ban bull baiting, and in 1809 Lord Erskine introduced a bill to prevent malicious and wanton cruelty to animals. Although both of these bills were unsuccessful they marked a fundamental change in attitudes (albeit by a minority) towards animal cruelty.

In 1822 the 'Martin Act' was passed to 'prevent the cruel and improper treatment of cattle' (it also covered horses and sheep). The Martin Act became the first legislation in the world specifically intended to prevent cruelty to animals.⁶Within a short time it was acknowledged that this legislation had "been productive of great diminution of cruelty to animals" and "affected a beneficial change in the manners of the people".⁷Reflecting changing attitudes, in 1824 the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was formed and upon receiving royal patronage in 1840, became the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). In 1835, the year Victoria was settled by Europeans, the 'Pease Act' was passed in the United Kingdom, which prohibited cock and dog fighting and set conditions for animal pounds and established a licensing regime for knackers' yards.⁸

By the 1840s, the principle of regulating to protect animals from cruelty had become firmly established. In 1849 the earlier legislation was repealed and re-enacted in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1849 (UK). In addition to consolidating the previous law, it now became an offence to cruelly beat, ill-treat, over-drive, abuse, or torture any animal, or to cause or procure it to be so treated. This law contained two important changes: it was no longer necessary for the prosecution to establish that a defendant had acted wantonly and cruelly, and liability was also extended to third parties, for example employers and owners who were responsible for encouraging or condoning acts of cruelty. Significantly, this legislation made it an offence to inflict 'unnecessary pain and suffering' on an animal, thus changing the focus from an intent of an action to the outcome. Relevant to the proposed Regulations (see proposed Regulation 6), the 1849 Act was the first legislation to regulate animal transport, making it an offence to convey or carry an animal in or upon any vehicle in such a manner or position that it was caused 'unnecessary pain or suffering'.⁹

Largely mirroring the main provisions of the 1849 Act, in 1865 the Victorian Parliament enacted the Police Offences Statute, which represented the first specific regulatory controls in Victoria regarding animal cruelty. Amongst other things, this legislation specifically prohibited animal fighting and restated the UK provisions in relation to transporting animals. In Victoria, prevention of cruelty to animals provisions continued in the Police Offences Act until 1966 when the Protection of Animals Act 1966 came into effect.

Also relevant to the proposed Regulations (see Part 4: Scientific Procedures), over the second half of the 19^th century vivisection (i.e., performing scientific procedures on live animals) proved to be the most contentious issue involving cruelty to animals.¹⁰ Growing opposition to vivisection resulted in the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 (UK), which made it an offence to perform any experiment on a living animal calculated to give pain, unless it was carried out with a view to advancing physiological knowledge, saving or prolonging life, or alleviating suffering. A regulatory system was established requiring the registration of premises where experiments were carried out and the licensing of personnel undertaking the research. Further restrictions required an animal to be anaesthetised to prevent it feeling pain and if it was seriously injured during the procedure the animal had to be killed.¹¹The provisions in the proposed Regulations relating to scientific procedures echo these earlier laws.

In the early 20^th century the previous animal cruelty laws were repealed and re-enacted in the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (UK). Previous provisions were re-stated and a number of new ones added, for instance, leghold traps for catching hares and rabbits were to be inspected at least once daily. With some exceptions, reform of animal cruelty laws lost momentum over the next 50 years, and it was not until the 1960s that the international community reconsidered animal cruelty and welfare issues.¹²

The 1960s and 1970s witnessed a major shift in community attitudes with respect to the treatment of animals. Consideration now extended to the 'welfare' of an animal in addition to prevention of animal 'cruelty'. While there is obviously some overlap between the 'animal cruelty' and 'animal welfare' concepts, the former is a well-established legal/regulatory concept, whereas animal welfare is a much more recent notion. Prevention of cruelty legislation is generally negative in character, in that it specifies what cannot be done; welfare legislation on the other hand, tends to be positive, prescribing how animals should be treated and cared for.¹³

As noted earlier, it was not until the Enlightenment of the 18^th century that philosophers started to accept the notion that animals have feelings and towards the end of the 19^th century, scientists and philosophers had developed a fairly sophisticated concept of 'animal sentience'. However, little consideration was given to sentience by scientists until the last quarter of the 20^th century, when there was a surge of interest in animal sentience, and animal welfare scientists quickly realised that welfare problems can be better tackled with an understanding of how animals feel.¹⁴Sentient animals are capable of being aware of sensations and emotions, of feeling pain and suffering, and of experiencing a state of well being. Sentient animals are aware of their surroundings and of what happens to them.¹⁵

Many of the laws and regulations for the protection of animals in recent decades are based on increasing scientific knowledge that at least all vertebrate animals (mammals, birds, fish, etc.) can experience suffering from a variety of causes, for example from pain, discomfort and hunger, as well as fear, anxiety and frustration. Reflecting this scientific basis, in 1997 the concept of animal sentience was written into the basic law of the European Union (EU). The legally-binding Protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam recognises that animals are 'sentient beings', and requires the EU and its Member States to 'pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals'.¹⁶

As stated above, Victoria's prevention of cruelty to animals provisions were contained in the Police Offences Acts from 1865 until 1966. These provisions largely replicated the 1822 and 1849 British legislation, and until the middle of the 20^th century the Victorian law contained antiquated provisions such as prohibiting dogs and goats from being draught animals. The Protection of Animals Act 1966 (12 pages) significantly redrafted the previous legislation. Further changes occurred twenty years later when it was repealed and replaced by the current legislation, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986. Since that time community attitudes have continued to shift towards greater compassion for the welfare of animals, and this has been reflected by the numerous amendments to the Act since 1986 (the Act is currently 117 pages).

The purpose of tracing the historical developments of animal cruelty legislation is to demonstrate several key points:

• the rationale for the government to have a role in regulating the treatment of animals is well-established, building on the development in regulatory intervention over two centuries;
• advances in science have increased our understanding of animal sentience; and
• the community increasingly expects that animals should be treated humanely and that any unnecessary suffering must be prevented.

The last two points underpin many of the changes in the proposed Regulations compared to the sunsetting regulations.

2.2 Regulatory Framework in Victoria

2.2.1 Victorian Government Policy

Prevention of cruelty to animals is a long standing government policy and has been on Victoria's statute books since 1865. Victorian Government policy is currently articulated in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986, which was most recently amended in December 2007. In making these amendments, the government noted that they send "a clear message about the Brumby Government's abhorrence of animal cruelty and delivers on a 2006 election commitment to double penalties for animal cruelty offences … cruelty to animals is sickening and we are doubling penalties for offences to serve as a strong deterrent".¹⁷

The stated purpose of the amendments was "to improve the administration and enforcement of animal welfare legislation for more effective management and protection of animals in Victoria".¹⁸Specifically in relation to the Act, the amendments "will increase penalties, improve provisions relating to cruelty offences, inspectors' powers and provisions relating to rodeos ... [and] also make it an offence for a person to set, use or sell a trap that is not of a kind prescribed under the regulations, or not set a trap in accordance with prescribed conditions".¹⁹A number of these amendments are reflected in the proposed Regulations.

More broadly, the Labor Party's 2006 election policy regarding prevention of cruelty to animals stated, "How we treat [animals] says a lot about our values as a community.

Increasingly we are seeing issues around the mistreatment of domestic and companion animals which concern the community".²⁰

Within the Department of Primary Industries (DPI), the Bureau of Animal Welfare's (BAW) role is to improve animal welfare standards and practices in Victoria.²¹It seeks to achieve this by providing for policy development, legislative controls and codes of practice for the welfare of animals, and to protect the community and environment from feral and nuisance dogs and cats. The Bureau also develops and implements programs to promote community awareness on responsible pet ownership, registration and identification of cats and dogs including dangerous dogs and registration of domestic animal businesses.

2.2.2 The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 was assented in May 1986 and represented a complete re-enactment and update of the Protection of Animals Act 1966. In particular new provisions relating to codes of practice, stricter rules in regard to rodeos and provisions regarding animal research were included. The Act establishes the broad regulatory framework for the prevention of animal cruelty in Victoria. The purpose of the Act is to prevent cruelty to animals, encourage the considerate treatment of animals, and to improve the level of community awareness about the prevention of cruelty to animals.²²

The Act aims to ensure adherence to values and behaviours which are accepted by the community. The achievement of the purpose of the Act is assisted by definitions of what constitutes cruelty to animals and applies appropriate penalties. Specifically, the Act:

• defines cruelty with respect to animals and makes it an offence for any person to commit an act of cruelty;
• regulates the conduct of rodeos and rodeo schools;
• authorises persons as inspectors under the Act and other enforcement powers; and
• regulates the carrying out of scientific procedures on animals and the breeding for sale or delivery to scientific establishments of specified animals.

2.2.3 The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 1997 and Codes of Practice

The current Regulations give practical effect to key components of the Act. These include the size of small and large leghold traps, the prohibition of dog and cock fighting implements, pronged collars and certain electronic collars, requirements for certain licences and permits and conditions on these, as well as prescribing certain fees, forms and penalties under the Act. Under the overarching objectives of the Act, the specific objectives of the Regulations are prescriptive in nature and include:

• standards for the protection of animals in certain circumstances;
• conditions for permits to conduct rodeos and operate rodeo schools;
• conditions for licences and standards for scientific procedures and breeding carried out by scientific and breeding establishments; and
• forms, fees and other matters authorised by the Act.

Codes of practice may be made under section 7 of the Act. These codes provide guidance as to the standards of behaviour expected by the community for the treatment of animals and provide information and education as to how to minimise cruelty to animals and enhance their welfare. Codes such as the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, the Laboratory Animals Code of Practice and the Pound Animals Code of Practice are codes made under the Act. While the codes of practice themselves are voluntary in nature, adherence to the standards set out in these provides a defence from prosecution under the Act. Penalties are not specifically attached to breaches of the codes.

However, codes can be made mandatory by attaching compliance to a code as a condition of a licence (e.g., Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes). In the case of the proposed Regulations, a number of items in the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Rodeo and Rodeo School Livestock in Victoria will be included in the regulations and specific penalties will be attached to these regulations. In such cases, levels of compliance and enforcement may be greater and the corresponding costs and benefits associated with the proposal are also likely to be greater.

3. RATIONALE FOR REGULATING ANIMAL CRUELTY

3.1 Market Failure

Economists generally begin from the premise that any economic activity should be free of regulation unless it can be shown that it is subject to 'market failure', which, if left unregulated, will not generate socially efficient outcomes. This is usually taken to be that which maximises the sum of the net benefits of the activity to producers and consumers. In the case of animal cruelty, forms of market failure known as 'information asymmetry', 'agency problems' and 'negative externalities' may be relevant. This can be related to market failures associated with public good aspects of animal welfare and externalities arising from the failure of private decision makers to take full account of the social costs arising from the cruel treatment of animals. Information problems may also cause individuals to behave differently to when they are fully informed.

Given that there is not a well defined market concerning animal welfare, these matters may not be market failures in the strictest sense. The National Competition Policy (NCP) Review of the Act conducted in 1997 found that there are non-economic grounds for government intervention:

"It is clear, however, that the purposes and objectives of the Act go beyond the regulation of business conduct and cannot be assessed simply in terms of market failure. The Act aims to ensure adherence to values and behaviours which are accepted by the community. This is perhaps best reflected in Part 2 of the legislation which explicitly defines what constitutes cruelty to animals and provides appropriate punishment. Similarly the objective of the Regulations is to implement the purposes of the legislation, and obligations imposed under the Regulations indicate the type of activities which frustrate the purpose of the Act."²³

This view of the need for government intervention concurred with a number of submissions to the NCP Review, including that of the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) which suggested that:

"The objective behind legislation for the welfare of animals is not a government response to 'market failure'. It is a reasoned response to concerns about cruelty to animals, and an appreciation of the concept that the way in which a country treats its animals may be taken as a measure of civilisation."²⁴

While elements of 'market failure' can be identified with respect to animal cruelty, the primary argument supporting a case for government intervention relates to achieving social objectives.

3.2 Nature of Licensing

The proposed Regulations provide for certain licences and permits. A licence is a regulatory instrument issued by government to do or own a specific thing. Licences are common in areas where government seeks to reduce risks to individuals and the community by ensuring levels of skill or probity. Examples of such licences include the heavy machinery operator's licence (skill), admission to practice law (skill and probity/ethics) and licence for security personnel (probity). In the case of rodeo operators and scientific establishments, licensing is used to restrict participation in the industry to persons with the requisite skills and ethics in order to minimise risks of animal cruelty. Permits work in a similar manner and are relevant to rodeo events.

4. OBJECTIVE OF THE REGULATIONS

The primary objective of the proposed Regulations is reflected by the purpose of the Act, which, as noted above, is to prevent cruelty to animals and to encourage the considerate treatment of animals. The proposed Regulations seek to achieve these objectives by prescribing conditions for:

• procedures conducted on animals, devices used on animals, implements and methods of capture of animals, and methods and procedures of transport of animals and other related matters;
• rodeo licences, rodeo permits and rodeo school permits;
• persons operating, participating, in or otherwise involved in rodeos and rodeo schools; and
• licences and standards for scientific procedures and breeding carried out by scientific and breeding establishments.

The proposed Regulations also prescribe forms, fees and other matters authorised by the Act.

The proposed Regulations are made under sections 15, 15AB, 17, 32 and 42 of the Act. An extract of the main authorising provision (section 42) is contained in Attachment A.

5. COST-BENEFIT METHODOLOGY: ASSESSMENT OF NONREGULATORY AND REGULATORY OPTIONS

5.1 Regulatory Costs

By their nature, regulations are designed to modify behaviour in order to achieve certain outcomes. This can impose costs known as 'compliance costs'. In simple terms, compliance costs are the costs of complying with regulations. In the context of the Standard Cost Model, these can be divided into 'administrative costs' and 'substantive compliance costs'.²⁵

Administrative costs, often referred to as red tape or administrative burden, are those costs incurred by businesses to demonstrate compliance with the regulation or to allow government to administer the regulation. These costs can include those costs associated with administrative requirements such as record keeping and reporting. In accordance with the requirements under Measurement of Changes in Administrative Burden in the Victorian Guide to Regulation, administrative costs in the RIS are calculated using the Standard Cost Model methodology.²⁶

Substantive compliance costs are those costs that lead directly to the regulated outcomes being sought. These costs are often associated with content-specific regulation and include, for example, buying new equipment or undertaking specified training in order to meet government regulatory requirements. Substantive compliance costs characterise the majority of the costs of the proposed Regulations.

The Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 requires, amongst other things, a RIS to assess the costs and benefits of proposed Regulations. This Act also requires that a RIS identify practicable alternatives to the proposed Regulations and assess their costs and benefits as compared to the proposed Regulations. Conversely, the RIS is not required to identify alternatives which are not feasible or practicable.

The Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 Guidelines (the Premier's Guidelines) are made under section 26 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 and provide assistance in interpreting this legislation. With respect to alternatives to the proposed Regulations, clause 2.04 of the Guidelines states that, "where the authorising Act dictates the form of subordinate legislation required, for example, where the authorising legislation provides for fees to be prescribed by statutory rule, there is no discretion to set those fees by another method" (emphasis added).²⁷This is relevant to the assessment of alternatives to the proposed Regulations because the majority of the proposed Regulations prescribe specific requirements for the purposes of the Act, that is, the Act does not contemplate alternatives to the proposed Regulation. For example, proposed Regulations 99 to 104 simply prescribe the certificates and fees to be completed to comply with elements of the Act, while other regulations prescribe information to be included in applications for licences and permits.

In this RIS, while in many cases the regulatory options are limited by the conditions described above, for completeness a number of regulatory alternatives to the proposed Regulations are assessed.

5.2 Methodology

5.2.1 Discounted Cash Flow

Every effort was made to identify and quantify the costs and benefits imposed by the proposed Regulations. As far as possible, likely costs were identified and a Present Value of the costs was calculated. A discount rate of 3.5 per cent was used over a 10-year period (i.e., the life of regulations in Victoria).²⁸This allows future costs and benefits to be examined in terms of today's dollar value of costs and benefits. The benefits specific to the proposed Regulations proved difficult to quantify in monetary terms, and the assessment was undertaken by considering the magnitude of likely benefits. Assumptions underlying these calculations are contained in Attachment B.

5.2.2 Revealed Preference

This RIS also uses the 'revealed preference' technique to inform the magnitude of likely benefits of the proposed Regulations by identifying consumer responses to animal cruelty matters. Revealed preference techniques involve inferring an implicit price revealed indirectly by examining consumers' behaviour. In this case, consumer expenditure on products or donations to animal welfare organisations provides a proxy of how the community values prevention of cruelty to animals.

5.2.3 Multi-criteria Analysis

Multi-criteria Analysis (MCA) is presented in this RIS as an alternative assessment tool to complement the quantitative analysis. The MCA approach is described in part 5-18 of the Victorian Guide to Regulation. This approach is useful where it is not possible to quantify and assign monetary values to the impacts of a proposed measure (e.g., measures that have social impacts). Furthermore, it represents a convenient way of comparing a range of alternative approaches. This technique requires judgements about how proposals will contribute to a series of criteria that are chosen to reflect the benefits and costs associated with the proposals. A qualitative score is assigned, depending on the impact of the proposal on each of the criteria weightings assigned to each of the criterion, reflecting their relative importance in the policy decision-making process, and an overall score can be derived by multiplying the score assigned to each measure by its weighting and summing the result. If a number of options are being compared, then the option with the highest score would represent the preferred approach. The MCA approach is particularly suitable to animal cruelty issues, because the impacts are largely social in nature.

5.2.4 Structure of the RIS

The following analysis is discussed in three sections, reflecting separate aspects of the proposed Regulations. That is, the sections dealing with Protection of Animals (Section 6), Rodeos and Rodeo Schools (Section 7), and Scientific Procedures (Section 8).

6. PROTECTION OF ANIMALS

6.1 Nature and Extent of the Problem

Part 2 of the proposed Regulations deals with the practical application of some of the general cruelty provisions in the Act by specifying particular requirements and prohibiting certain practices. It is important to emphasise at the outset that to a large degree the Act itself sets out the requirements and offences related to animal cruelty. The nature and extent of the problem addressed by the proposed Regulations is therefore somewhat narrower than the general cruelty problem addressed by the Act. In addition, the counterfactual position is difficult to establish given that legislation has been in place for a long period.

Table 1 below provides an indication of the general extent of animal cruelty by way of cases and charges brought to court by POCTA inspectors, Victoria Police, authorised local government officers, and RSPCA Victoria over the period 2003 to 2007. It should be stressed that this data shows only those incidents in which animal cruelty was detected and charges laid (in many instances individuals receive cautions), and is therefore likely to represent a fraction of all incidents.

Table 1: Cases and Charges under the Act, 2003 - 2007

Year	Cases	Charges resulting from cases
2003	118	449
2004	117	672
2005	87	326
2006	84	298
2007	105	512
Total	511	2,257

Table 2 overleaf illustrates the nature of the charges over the period 2003 to 2007.

Table 2: Description and Number of Charges under the Act, 2003 - 2007

Description of charge	Number
General cruelty	411
Abuse or beat an animal	97
Overcrowd an animal	10
Cause unnecessary pain	406
Convey an animal and cause unnecessary pain	9
Knowingly ride an unfit animal	1
Fail to provide food/drink for an animal	344
Offer an unfit calf for sale	2
Abandonment of an animal usually kept confined	7
Failure to provide treatment for an injured/sick animal	341
Laying bait for an animal containing poison	4
Aggravated cruelty to an animal	486
Possession of an animal when disqualified	26
Keeping premises for animal fights	6
Permit captive animal be killed by a dog	3
Attend an animal fight event - cock fight	17
Fail secure dog on moving vehicle	6
Possession of a small leg hold trap on Crown land	2
Use of a small leghold trap land in an urban area	8
Obstruct an inspector	11
Refusal/failure provide name and address to an inspector	2
Providing false information to an inspector	1
Failure to comply with requirements of inspector	1
Failure to comply with an issued notice	31
Dock a dog's tail*	20
Possess cock fighting implement*	5
Total	2,257

* Data from July 2006 - July 2008

Part 2 of the proposed Regulations deals with the protection of animals specific to the transportation of animals, animal fighting, the use of certain mouthpieces on horses, the use of pronged collars on animals, the use of electronic devices on animals, and traps and the trapping of animals. The following sections provide more detail of the nature and extent of the problems addressed by the proposed Regulations.

6.1.1 Transportation of animals

Transportation of animals is known to cause an animal suffering or distress. Recognising this, regulations concerning the transport of animals have been in place since the 19^th century. Over the ensuing period regulatory controls have further developed and now comprehensively cover a wide range of situations including regulations regarding the transport of animals by road, rail, air and sea.

It is proposed to introduce a new requirement to prohibit the transport of an animal in a confined boot compartment of a vehicle such as a sedan. Transport under such excessive confinement can cause an animal distress and expose it to injuries or dangerous fumes. Car boots are designed to transport luggage or cargo and as such are not ventilated or designed for the carriage of animals. The high incidence detected by the Bureau of Animal Welfare of people transporting live sheep from saleyards in a car boot highlights the need for this regulation. This regulation will not apply to the transport of animals in the passenger area of vehicles or cargo area of station wagons/four-wheel drives where the cargo compartment is part of the same air space as the passenger compartment. It will also not affect animals transported on the tray of a utility where the Act already provides that the animal must be appropriately secured.

It is relevant that section 9(1)(b) of the Act provides that a person is guilty of an offence if they load, crowd or confine an animal where the loading, crowding or confinement of the animal causes, or is likely to cause, unreasonable pain or suffering to the animal. The proposed Regulations give greater certainty to the specific situations of confinement in a car boot.

6.1.2 Possession of dog and cock fighting implements

Dog and cock fighting were banned in the United Kingdom in 1835 and specifically prohibited in Victoria in 1865. The animal cruelty aspects of animal fighting are self-evident.

In 2004 the Victorian Government outlawed the possession of blades and spurs that can be attached to roosters in cockfighting, making it an offence to possess paraphernalia associated with this illegal activity. In announcing these new rules, the Minister for Agriculture said the regulations make it illegal for anyone to possess implements associated with cock fighting, noting that "until now, people had to be caught at a cock fight in order to be prosecuted, which has been difficult to do because the vicious sport is an underground activity. These new regulations mean anyone caught with the implements associated with cock fighting - which include razor sharp blades that can be attached to a bird's head - could be prosecuted. This is a despicable practice and we are keen to give RSPCA inspectors the powers they need to catch and prosecute those involved. There is no valid reason for anyone, other than inspectors or museums, to have in their possession the tools essential to this illegal activity".²⁹

The discovery of a large cockfighting operation in Melbourne was highlighted in a special report in The Age of 23 June 2008. The RSPCA was contacted after 222 game birds and a range of cockfighting paraphernalia were found at a training and breeding facility. The report noted "it was the 38^th reported incidence of cockfighting the RSPCA had received in Victoria alone in the past year".³⁰In the same report, the RSPCA stated that blood sports, involving mostly American pit bull terriers and game birds have become a widespread problem in the state.

A new regulatory requirement will make it an offence to possess an animal with the intention of causing that animal to fight. Evidence of possession of such an animal may include a situation where an animal is found at a fight, but not actually being fought at the time. In addition, evidence may include finding an animal in a vehicle with fighting paraphernalia or at a property with training implements or a fight arena. An animal bearing scars or wounds consistent with injuries sustained during a fight may also constitute evidence. This proposal will improve the ability of inspectors to prevent the cruelty to animals involved in this sport by enabling action before the animal is used in a fight where previously they had to wait until the animal was used. Case Study 1 and Case Study 2 in Attachment C contains recent reports on such activities.

6.1.3 Use of certain mouth pieces on horses

A new requirement will be introduced prohibiting a person from using any mouthpiece on a horse that is twisted, corrugated or has an uneven surface at the point where the device is in contact with the tongue or bars of the horse's mouth. Such mouth pieces can be 'hard' on a horse's mouth and can cause a horse pain or suffering. Many of these mouth pieces have been in existence for over one hundred years (e.g. the Portsmouth military bit³¹). Corrugated and twisted bits are used in situations where a horse will not respond to normal pressure imposed by a regular bit, usually the result of prior bit misuse. By increasing the pain inflicted by the bit on the nerves in the bars of the horse's mouth, the rider is more likely to get a response from the horse. These types of bits are likely to be used in horse driving events by the Western groups (e.g., at rodeo events).

No information is available on the number of twisted or corrugated mouthpieces currently being used. It is understood that major equine equipment retailers do not stock either twisted or corrugated bits, but such bits may be purchased over the internet or from some smaller retailers. It is also likely that there are homemade bits available where regular bits have had wire or other materials added to the rod.

The community's attitude towards the welfare of horses has changed significantly over recent decades (e.g., evidenced by the prohibition on 'horse firing' in Victoria in 2005 and recent calls to ban certain jumps racing events) and this proposal seeks to prohibit implements that can knowingly cause a horse excessive pain or suffering.

6.1.4 Use of pronged collars

The use of pronged collars on an animal is currently prohibited in Victoria. When this regulation was introduced in 2004, the Minister stated that "it has nothing to do with training but a great deal to do with brutality. Most dog training and animal welfare organisations do not support the use of these devices in the legitimate training of dogs".³² Pronged collars have a metal chain with inward facing prongs. When the owner pulls on the leash the prongs pinch the skin, proponents of the collar claim it mimics the nip a mother will give a pup to correct its behaviour.. These collars work on the basis of repetitive aversive corrections and have a high potential for misuse with serious welfare implications.

While pronged collars are currently prohibited in Victoria, there are a small number of dog trainers and owners seeking to have this ban repealed. Under the current ban those affected are mainly persons with large dogs, which they have trouble controlling on a lead or dogs that pull or lunge on the lead. There is general support for a continued ban of these collars, including from the AVA and Dogs Victoria.

6.1.5 Use of electronic collars and certain electronic devices

Electronic collars, sometimes known as shock collars, were developed as a training aid and are fitted with electrodes, which when triggered, deliver short electric shocks to an animal, with the aim of correcting its behaviour. The most common electronic collars are designed for dogs. These collars utilise the principles of operant conditioning mostly as a form of negative reinforcement which seeks to reduce the incidence of undesired behaviours.³³Some models allow the owner to preset the amount and frequency of the shock. Training collars may be triggered by the owner or by an action of the animal (i.e., barking or windsucking).

Another type of electronic collar is the pet containment systems that are used to keep a dog or cat inside the perimeter of a residence without the construction of a physical barrier. These collars deliver an electric shock if an animal attempts to cross the perimeter.

The use of electronic collars is controversial and recent scientific studies suggest that they have negative effects on an animal's welfare and behaviour. For this reason they are banned or their use is restricted in many jurisdictions. A major review of the scientific literature by Casey and Blackwell found that "given the lack of scientific evidence for the efficacy of behavioural modification using shock collars, particularly in the long term, in addition to the potential for mistakes or deliberate abuse and the difficulty in correcting such errors, the widespread use of these devices must be carefully considered. Shock collars are freely available to the general public and are sold with minimal instruction. As their humane use requires a highly skilled user, some authors argue for a licensing system, to restrict the use of electronic collars to experienced trainers and thereby minimise the potential for incorrect use". ³⁴Case Study 3 in Attachment C describes examples of misuse.

Casey and Blackwell concluded that "given the wealth of peer reviewed research currently available on the physiological and behavioural effects of aversive stimuli, such as electrical shocks, on a range of different species, as well as the peer reviewed work done on dogs by Schilder et al, Beerda et al and Christiansen et al, we feel that there is a sufficiently robust scientific argument for the banning of the use of electronic shock collars in dog training".³⁵

Other authors have also found that electronic collars can harm dogs. Schalke argued that there is little doubt that high intensity electrical stimulation causes a physiological stress response in dogs.³⁶Application of initial high intensity shocks has also been found to elicit behavioural responses associated with fear and distress in the dog, including yelping, struggling, biting, freezing, withdrawal, hiding, running to the owner, cowering, trembling, defecation and urination.³⁷In addition, poor timing in the use of electronic collars was found to induce insecurity and extreme states of anxiety in dogs.³⁸

The use of shock collars has already been subjected to bans or controls in a number of countries, and a ban or legislative control of their use is supported by most, if not all, of the major animal welfare organisations. In Victoria, Dogs Victoria remains opposed to electronic dog collars on the grounds that they are not in the best interests of the dog and are generally held to be a least-preferred means of control of a dog.

In Australia, it is illegal to import an electronic collar through Australian Customs, despite widespread availability and varying laws in different states. Electronic collars are illegal to own and use in New South Wales and the ACT. The use of electronic collars is restricted in South Australia and the Northern Territory, though it is not against the law to purchase or own an electronic collar in these states. Currently, there are no laws against purchase, ownership or use of an electronic collar in Queensland, WA or Tasmania. Internationally, they are banned in Denmark, Slovenia, Sweden and Wales, while Austria, Italy and Scotland are also considering introducing bans.

The proposed Regulations will restrict use of these devices to veterinarians, qualified dog trainers or people under the supervision of either. Dogs will be required to be examined by a veterinary practitioner to assess if they are physically and temperamentally suited to such a device.

The use of electronic collars on animals other than dogs, such as cat confinement collars or electronic horse collars, will be prohibited under the proposed Regulations, although some in the community have argued for their continued use.

As with dog confinement collars, cat confinement systems are designed to confine cats to within an invisible boundary. While less scientific research has been conducted on confinement systems, Polsky found that dogs exposed to this type of confinement went on to become aggressive.³⁹With respect to cat confinement collars, there is no research available on their efficacy or welfare outcomes for cats. Cats are notorious for losing or removing collars so the success of such confinement systems is arguably based on the ability to ensure a cat retains its collar and it is therefore questionable as to whether it would be accepted as adequate confinement by authorities. The use of such devices on cats is not supported by peak cat organisations in Victoria.

Electronic collars for horses are designed to inhibit wind-sucking in affected horses, however, their use has been banned by Racing Victoria (along with any device which provides an electric shock to a horse) and is not supported by groups such as the AVA or RSPCA.

The proposed regulations also introduce new requirements for recording the purchaser details of electronic dog collars and for the seller to inform the purchaser of the legal requirements of use. Currently these collars are widely available, despite current federal bans on import, and many people purchase these collars unaware of legislated requirements. Use normally occurs in the home so it is difficult to identify who is using them and whether the use is correctly done and in accordance with the legislation. Incorrectly used these collars have the potential for serious welfare problems for the animal so these new provisions will ensure that users are aware of their legal obligations and allow for enforcement where these obligations are ignored.

It is also proposed to expand the current Regulations to include controls on the use of all electronic devices designed to impart an electric shock to an animal. Most other Australian jurisdictions regulate to some degree the use of such devices (see Table 3).

Electric prodders are used to assist in handling some species of livestock. Studies have shown that minimising the use of electric prodders reduces stress levels in cattle.⁴⁰The use of electric prodders is also strongly discouraged in the Meat Standards Australia beef program, where it states, 'Load cattle quietly, preferably with no use of goads and electric prodders'.⁴¹The use of electric prodders has been considered during the formulation of the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for the Land Transport of Livestock.⁴²In formulating these standards, the use of electric prodders was discussed comprehensively by the Reference Group, which comprised over 30 stakeholders from industry (over 20 peak bodies), government and animal welfare groups. The proposed standard notes that the judicious use of electric prodders as a last resort can be a valuable aid to moving livestock through gateways and races when handling in yards and for loading and unloading transport. Five of the livestock industries support responsible use on some livestock species. Four of these industries - buffalo, camels, deer and pigs only require limited prodder use to help solve movement issues as a last resort after other reasonable actions have been tried and found unsuccessful in a reasonable time frame. The proposed Regulations will adopt these standards. It is worth noting that poles and goads may be used as an alternative to electric prodders, and if incorrectly applied can inflict pain and suffering on animals.

The proposed Regulations will also control the use of electronic ejaculators. Electronic ejaculation is a delicate procedure in which an electronic probe is inserted into the rectum of a male animal (usually bulls). Electronic pulses are delivered through the probe to induce ejaculation in order to collect semen for breeding or research purposes. Modern devices correctly used generally cause minimal discomfort to the animal, however, incorrect use can cause agitation or muscle soreness.⁴³Animal welfare issues or pain associated with electro ejaculation are mostly influenced by operator technique.⁴⁴ Therefore, the proposed Regulations will require an operator to receive prior approval from a veterinarian to undertake this practice on cattle, buffalo or sheep and the procedure must be done by a vet for other species. With animals kept by zoos these are only used by a veterinary practitioner on anaesthetised animals and the regulations will reflect that.

The proposed Regulations also deal with electric fences, electronic stunning devices, and electro-fishing. Electro-fishing uses electricity to stun fish before they are caught. Electro-fishing is a common scientific survey method used to sample fish populations to determine abundance, density, and species composition. Electronic stunning devices are used in the meat industry in the process of slaughtering cattle.

Electric fences are covered under the proposed Regulations, only because they meet the definition of an electronic device, conditions of use are clarified to ensure their use is not prevented under the proposed Regulations. The conditions of use of electronic stunning devices and electro-fishing are currently regulated by other legislation (i.e., the Meat Industry Act 1993 and Fisheries Act 1995 respectively), but are included in the proposed Regulations to avoid possible uncertainty.

Electronic immobilisers have not been prescribed and will therefore be prohibited. These are not generally believed to be used in Victoria. Immobilisers work by a low level electric current being applied to the animal to stimulate the animal's natural nervous system's response to cause muscle constriction. Immobilisers are used to keep animals immobile while husbandry procedures are conducted however their use is controversial and unnecessary under Victorian conditions. AVA policy recommends against the use of these devices unless further research can demonstrate they do not cause pain and suffering. Several different scientific studies have shown that contrary to the manufacturer's claims, these devices are highly aversive and have absolutely no anaesthetic or analgesic effect (Grandin et al.,1986, Passkey 1986, Lambooy 1985)⁴⁵.

Overall, the proposed Regulations regarding electronic devices seek to minimise pain or stress to an animal arising from their usage, while recognising that there are some circumstances in which controlled use of these devices is justifiable. The proposed Regulations also seek to balance these considerations against possible unintended consequences. For example, a complete ban on the use of electric prodders could witness an increase in the use of other objects, which are potentially more harmful to animals.

There is currently no requirement to report the sale of electronic devices used on animals, and it is therefore difficult to ascertain the current use of such devices. It is important to note that most electronic devices covered by the proposed Regulations will not be banned, but usage will be controlled by prescribing the circumstance under which they may be used so as to minimise any potential pain or harm to animals.

Table 3: Animal welfare legislation relating to electronic devices in other Australian jurisdictions

State/Territory	Regulatory Control
ACT	Animal Welfare Act 1992 Electronic devices only if prescribed. Prescribed devices are: ejaculators (cattle and sheep), prods (cattle and pigs) and electric fences (not poultry or domestic animals)
NSW	Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 Electronic devices only if prescribed. Prescribed devices are: ejaculators (conscious cattle and sheep, otherwise anaesthetised animals), prods (cattle, sheep or pigs and horses at rodeos only), immobilisers by vet (cattle), stock grids, fightback lure, electrofishing (licence only), electric collars (dog confinement only), electric fences (not cats or dogs), ping string (dogs and cats) and bird deterrent devices.
NT	Animal Welfare Act 2000 Electronic devices only if prescribed. Prescribed devices are: ejaculators (conscious cattle, buffalo and sheep, otherwise anaesthetised animals), prods (cattle, pigs, buffalo and camels, also horses at rodeos only), immobilisers (cattle, buffalo and crocodiles), stunning devices (abattoirs only) and electric collars (dogs).
QLD	Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 Ability to prescribe prohibited electrical devices but none prescribed.
SA	Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985 Electronic devices only if prescribed. Prescribed devices are: immobilisers (strictly controlled), electronic collars banned and prods (pigs, cattle, buffalo, rodeos but not on face, udder or genitals and used sparingly).
TAS	Animal Welfare Act 1993 Offence to use electronic devices in the course of any sport or public performance or in the training for any sport or public performance. Immobilisers vet use only
WA	Animal Welfare Act 2002 Electronic devices only if prescribed. Prescribed devices are: prods (cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, buffalo or camels also horses at rodeos only), stunning devices (abattoirs only), ejaculators (conscious cattle, buffalo and sheep, otherwise anaesthetised animals), electric collars (dogs only) and immobilisers (cattle only).

6.1.6 Leghold traps and other traps

Internationally and within Australia there is increasing pressure to ensure methods of vertebrate pest control are as humane as possible (taking into account effectiveness and cost-efficiency).

The selling, setting and use of traps in Victoria is regulated at two levels: the main provisions are contained in Part 2 of the Act, while details giving effect to these provisions are prescribed in the Regulations. The Act was amended last year to introduce an offence to sell, set or use a trap unless it is of a kind prescribed. The proposed Regulations set out the traps that can be sold, set or used and specify the conditions of their use. If Regulations regarding traps are not made, all traps would effectively be prohibited.

There are two broad categories of traps: restraining traps and killing traps. The purpose of a restraining trap is to hold the animal until the trap is checked and the animal can be euthanased or released. Restraining traps include leghold traps, non-kill snares, confinement traps (e.g., cage traps) and net traps. Killing traps are designed to cause the death of the animal.

Leghold traps

A leghold trap (also known as a steel jawed leghold trap) has two jaws held open by a trigger mechanism that, when stepped on, close by spring action around the foot or leg, preventing the animal from escaping. In Victoria, leghold traps have predominantly been used to trap rabbits, foxes and wild dogs.⁴⁶ , ⁴⁷

Leghold traps have received a great deal of attention worldwide concerning the negative welfare outcomes from their use. They were banned in the United Kingdom in 1958 and are now banned in at least 80 countries and restriction on the use of many leghold traps will commence in New Zealand by 2011.⁴⁸The main animal welfare concerns are the pain, injury and distress caused by the traps, potential for escape of injured animals, animals suffering if they are held in the trap too long, and the potential for capture of non-target species such as wildlife and companion animals.

Leghold traps cause pain, injury and distress by the pressure of the trap jaws on the captured limb, injuries sustained in trying to escape, and the many other impacts caused by restraint. Injuries include swelling, laceration, dislocations, fractures, amputations and teeth, lip and gum injuries. Physical trauma, self-mutilation, myopathy, starvation, dehydration, hypothermia, hyperthermia, anxiety and fear and ultimately death are endpoints of trapping stress and the consequence of exposure to intense stressors or a combination of stressors. Good welfare outcomes of trapping should seek to prevent or mitigate such consequences.

Animals that are captured unintentionally by traps are commonly referred to as 'nontarget' species. Traps are not target specific, so a wide range of non-target species may be caught. These can include birds (e.g., ravens, magpies, pied currawongs), kangaroos, wallabies, hares, echidnas, goannas, wombats, possums, bandicoots, quolls and sheep.⁴⁹ Different groups of non-target animals suffer different levels of injury and distress. For example: wallabies often experience serious injuries, e.g., dislocations, due to the morphology of their limbs and because they become very agitated when restrained. Goannas (e.g., lace monitors) also suffer from dislocations and can die from hyperthermia. Birds and other small animals may be preyed upon by foxes, cats and wild dogs while caught in traps. Leghold traps set near residential dwellings and in other areas such as public walkways and picnic spots increase the risk of injury to domestic cats and dogs (see Case Study 4 in Attachment C).

There are four types of steel-jawed leghold traps sold in Australia: serrated, smooth, laminated, and padded. These traps come in a range of sizes, which relate to the spread of the jaws, with larger traps used for larger species. Under the current Regulations, large leghold traps are defined as those with a jaw spread of not less than 12 centimetres. They may only be used in certain declared areas in Victoria. Small leghold traps, defined under the current Regulations as having a jaw spread of less than 12 centimetres, currently may not be used on Crown Land or in urban areas, and must be used in accordance with the relevant code of practice, which restricts their use to the trapping of rabbits.⁵⁰

The traps that have been most commonly used during the 20^th century for wild dog control in Australia are serrated (toothed), steel-jawed leghold traps (commonly known as 'Lane's traps'). These traps have a large jaw spread (approximately 21 centimetres) and are sprung by one or two leaf springs.

During the last few years, there has been some replacement of serrated steel-jawed traps with smooth, laminated and padded traps, of various sizes. A smooth steel-jawed trap is basically the same design as a serrated trap, but the jaws are smooth, rather than toothed. Laminated traps are a modification of smooth steel-jawed leghold traps. Additional metal such as steel bar is welded to the jaw, which increases the surface area of the jaw face and distributes and displaces the energy of the spring as it holds the paw of the captured animal. Padded leghold traps are another modification of smooth steel-jawed leghold traps. These traps have rubber pads added to the jaws. Studies have shown that padded leghold traps are the most humane type of leghold trap.⁵¹

Additional modifications to leghold traps include installing additional and/or heavier springs, addition of shock absorbing coil springs and additional swivels in the anchor chain, and offsetting the jaws so there is a gap of a few millimetres between them.

Review of Welfare Outcomes of Leghold Trap Use in Victoria

To assist in the formulation of the proposed Regulations, DPI commissioned the most comprehensive study of its kind on the welfare outcomes of leghold trap use in Victoria. The study sought to identify target and non-target species within Victoria that are susceptible to leghold trapping, describe the welfare impact from the use of such traps, and to review the merits of trap types, actions and strategies that have the best potential to mitigate a range of welfare impacts. Key findings of the Review of Welfare Outcomes of Leg-hold Trap Use in Victoria relevant to the proposed Regulations include:

• The purpose of a restraining trap (or snare) is to reliably capture and hold the animal unharmed with the minimum of stress until the trap is checked and the animal can be euthanased or released. Overall welfare of the target and non-target species from the moment of capture until intervention due to euthanasia, death through other causes or after release from the trap is relevant to the overall and relative humaneness of traps.
• Lane's type traps cause much greater injuries to target and non-target species and are less target-specific than smaller leghold devices. Their relatively greater weight and large jaw spread result in poorer welfare outcomes than other devices. The use of these traps (modified or unmodified) should be discontinued as soon as possible.
• A trap is considered to be more selective if it captures a higher proportion of 'target' species, rather than wildlife, domestic or exotic animals that are incidental to the objectives of the control program. A reduction in the capture of non-target species implies a corresponding reduction in negative welfare impacts that have no beneficial outcome. If few traps are occupied by non-target species, there is a greater potential for the capture of target species.
• Pan tensioning (adjustment of 'trigger' sensitivity) is a proven, practical and inexpensive way to increase target-specificity (by reducing the capture of non-target species that apply less 'trigger force' than the target species) and improve welfare outcomes. It will be most effective if applied to standard trap types and trap setting procedures, based upon empirical studies that seek to understand the most appropriate trigger forces that allow reliable capture of target species and exclusion of non-targets. Regular and standardised assessment of the performance of pan tensioning devices should be undertaken in the normal maintenance of overall trap performance. The use of pan tension systems should be a mandatory requirement for all leghold traps.
• Trap size and jaw spread affects the incidence of non-target captures and is probably an important way to limit capture of macropods and other non-target species. There is no evidence to suggest that canid capture rates and trap efficacy are significantly reduced by using leghold traps that have a reduced jaw area/size. Traps used in Victoria should be limited to trap sizes no greater than a size typically cited as #3 (i.e. 15 cm jaw spread) for wild dogs and #1½ for red foxes (i.e. 13 cm jaw spread) in order to limit non-target captures.
• Padding of leghold trap jaws has been attempted with cloth, plastic or rubber tubing in an ad hoc manner in a number of overseas and Australian studies. This results in less injury than that produced by unmodified devices, but does not offer superior outcomes compared to those associated with commercially available padded traps.
• Laminated leghold traps have been found in some studies to reduce the incidence of trap related injury, when compared to similar non-laminated devices. Currently there is no clear scientific consensus that laminated traps have the potential to deliver better welfare outcomes compared to commercially available padded leghold traps. Lamination of existing leghold traps is unlikely to produce significantly improved welfare benefits compared to padded devices.
• In order to promote current best practice and reliable welfare outcomes, mechanical trap specifications should be established that clearly define minimum performance based attributes. Important trap specifications should include trap size and jaw spread, trap weight, closure speed, impact force, clamping force, jaw offset distances, padding material and pan tension characteristics. Ancillary features used with traps such as the type and number of in-line springs, swivels and anchoring methods should also be specified.
• Centre-anchored chains that attach to the base of traps permit swivels to operate more effectively than chains attached to the side of the trap and probably contribute to better welfare outcomes by reducing torsional resistance; they should be adopted as a standard practice.
• A positive relationship exists between the periods of time held in captivity and the degree of injury and stress. In most countries in the developed world, trap inspection periods of at least once per day are a minimum standard. Nocturnal animals are likely to experience additional stress if held for prolonged periods during the day. In the absence of novel ways to demonstrably improve the welfare of animals held for periods in excess of one day, trap inspection periods should be at least once per day.

Other Jurisdictions

Concerns about the cruelty aspects of leghold traps have led to restrictions or prohibition in various states and territories of Australia. As noted above, large steel-jawed leghold traps (over 12 centimetres across the hinge) are currently banned in Victoria except in certain areas, and smaller leghold traps are banned from certain areas including urban areas and Crown land, and must be used in accordance with the Code of practice for the use of small steel-jawed traps (Victoria). Table 4 shows that with the exception of Queensland, all jurisdictions restrict or ban the use of steel-jawed leghold traps.

Table 4: Animal welfare legislation relating to the use of steel jawed leghold traps in other Australian jurisdictions

State/Territory	Regulatory Control
ACT	Animal Welfare Act 1992 Steel jawed leghold traps are prohibited.
New South Wales	Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 In certain parts of NSW, various steel jawed leghold traps are prohibited (Lane's 'Ace' Rabbit Trap', 'Lane's Dog Trap', 'Lane's Round Jaw Wild Dog Trap', 'Lane's Dingo Trap', 'Oneida No 14 Steel Trap'), as are any traps similar to any of these, unless the jaws of the trap are offset and padded.
Northern Territory	Animal Welfare Act 2000 Steel jawed leghold traps are not permitted to be used without express authority, unless the jaws of the trap are padded.
Queensland	Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 There are no restrictions on steel jawed leghold traps.
South Australia	Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985 Steel jawed leghold traps are only permitted to be used for wild dogs in particular areas. The jaws of the trap must be bound with a cloth steeped in sufficient strychnine to ensure a rapid death of any animal caught in the trap. Steel jawed leghold traps may also be used for a research program approved by an Animal Ethics Committee if the jaws of the trap are sufficiently padded, or the trap has been otherwise modified, so that any animal caught is unlikely to suffer significant injury.
Tasmania	Animal Welfare Act 1993 Steel jawed leghold traps are prohibited. The Minister may grant an exemption.
Western Australia	Animal Welfare Act 2002 Steel jawed leghold traps can be used for wild dog control, as long as the jaws of the trap are bound with cloth containing sufficient strychnine to ensure a rapid death for any animal likely to be caught in the trap. Researchers approved by an Animal Ethics Committee may use steel jawed leghold traps, and landowners and licensed pest controllers may use steel jawed leghold traps for fox control, if the jaws of the trap are sufficiently padded, or the trap has been otherwise modified, so that any animal caught in the trap is unlikely to suffer significant injury. Permits are required to use traps for fox control in metropolitan areas.

Confinement traps (cages, bags, yards, containers, etc)

Traps that confine the whole body of an animal (without gripping any part of it) cause fewer injuries than traps that restrain an animal by a part of its body (e.g. leghold traps). Animals caught in confinement traps such as cage or box traps or yards are not likely to experience significant injuries unless they sustain injuries attempting to escape. However, as with all trapped animals, animals caught in confinement traps will suffer distress. They are also at risk of exposure, thirst, starvation and capture myopathy. If a number of individuals are caught in a yard (e.g., feral horses), animals can suffer fight injuries due to mixing with unfamiliar groups or individuals.⁵²Confinement traps will also capture non-target species but provided the trap is checked regularly these can usually be released without injury.

Confinement traps are constructed from a wide variety of materials and all work on the same principle: an animal enters the trap through an opening, usually attracted by bait, and triggers a device that causes the door or gate to close and lock. Confinement traps vary in size, and their design depends primarily on the target species. They are regarded as one of the most humane traps, provided they are used properly.

Net traps

There are a variety of net traps used for the capture of both pest and wildlife species. The use of mist nets is common for the trapping of bats and birds for research purposes. Mist nets are fine nylon or polyester nets which are suspended between two upright poles; bats and birds fly into the net, become entangled, and remain caught until released. Mist nets require continual monitoring and expert handling of caught animals. ⁵³ Cannon nets are another type of net trap, used for trapping birds, often for research purposes. This type of trap uses small cannons to shoot projectiles, attached to a net, over birds standing in front of the net, thus trapping the birds under the net.⁵⁴

The Ecotrap net trap comprises a flexible metal frame and netting which collapses over the animal when triggered; the trap is soft walled and the frame loses tension as it collapses.⁵⁵The trapped animal is unlikely to be injured but will nonetheless experience distress. As with all traps, regular checking of the trap is required to limit the distress caused by capture, exposure, hunger or thirst. The manufacturer's recommendation is to check the Ecotrap every four hours.

Non-kill snare traps

Neck snares are either made of a wire loop set vertically, so the head of the animal enters the wire loop, or a loop which is thrown over the head of the animal by a spring when set off by a trigger. Triggers are either weight-activated, or, as in the case of the Collarum neck restraint, require the animal to pull a baited trigger. Once triggered, the cable loop tightens around the neck of the animal. Non-kill neck snares such as these have a stop mechanism that prevents the animal from being choked.

Leghold snares are made of a wire loop, placed horizontally and designed to close on an animal's leg, when triggered.

A review of animal welfare standards of mammal killing and restraining traps (Iossa et al, 2007) found that "Few studies have evaluated the humaneness of neck snares in the same way as has been done for leghold snares, leghold traps and box traps. When neck snares are set correctly, serious injuries are purported to be relatively uncommon, though mortality of trapped individuals is higher than with both leghold snares and box traps⁵⁶. One further difficulty in assessing welfare standards of neck and leghold snares stems from certain insidious injuries manifesting themselves days after the release of an individual. Pressure from the wire ligature can damage cellular structures, which can in turn lead to necrosis of tissues and ultimately death in the days following release. Even when neck snares are set and utilised correctly, they commonly catch non-target species and these can have high mortality. Modification of neck snares may increase target specificity and reduce capture of non-target species, but overall the lack of data on the use of snares makes it difficult to assess their welfare impact."

Regarding leghold snares, Iossa et al (2007) reported that "In general, leghold snares appear to have an acceptable effect on welfare, with little target species mortality. However, the same cannot be said for non-target species, which may experience high mortality. One further problem arises from foot swelling; since snares may cause subsequent pressure necrosis, and even temporary limping may have a negative impact on an individual, further work is needed to examine the long-term welfare impact of leghold snares."

Findings of the Review of Welfare Outcomes of Leg-hold Trap Use in Victoria, relevant to leghold snares, are:

• Biochemical indicators of stress in red foxes captured by treadle snares suggest higher levels of muscle damage, activity and dehydration (than those caught in Victor Soft Catch leghold traps). Given relatively low levels of impairment in locomotion using snares, a greater degree of activity may be possible, allowing greater acceleration and momentum and this could be implicated in trauma and stress.⁵⁷
• Treadle snares are reported to require more skill to set than steel jawed leghold traps, can be prone to misfiring and are bulky to transport. International literature suggests that in general, leghold snares are less effective than leghold traps for canid control. Some data suggests that treadle snares cause greater stress to red foxes than other capture devices.⁵⁸

Kill traps (including rodent kill traps)

There are several types of kill traps used in different countries: deadfall traps, spring traps, lethal snares, drowning traps and electrocution traps. Deadfall traps use gravity to kill an animal by crushing its skull, vertebral column or other vital organs. There are two types of spring traps; one has spring-powered bars that kill an animal by crushing a vital region of the body, generally the neck; the other has rotating jaws which have two hinged metal frames that allow a torsion spring to rotate the frames in a scissor-like action. There are two kinds of killing snares: self-locking snares in which an animal pulls against the snare, tightening it until asphyxiation occurs (as opposed to stopped and free-running snares which restrain the animal); and power snares, which also kill by asphyxiation, but use powerful springs to tighten the noose quickly. Drowning traps restrain an animal underwater, and kill by hypoxia-induced death. Finally, less commonly used traps include pitfall traps with water at the bottom, to drown small rodents.⁵⁹

Many of these traps would be considered to cause aggravated cruelty as defined under Section 10 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act 1986. The proposed Regulations specify that a kill trap must cause the animal to become unconscious and insensible within 180 seconds of the animal becoming trapped and must cause the death of the trapped animal while it is unconscious and insensible, or keep the trapped animal unconscious or insensible until it can be killed.

There are some types of kill traps which are considered to be relatively humane, if designed, set and used correctly. For example, rodent electrocution traps and well-designed snap traps usually kill swiftly and with little distress.⁶⁰The design of traps is important - e.g. there are rodent snap traps that have metal spikes on the surface of the trap. These spikes do not increase the effectiveness of the trap, but are very likely to cause unnecessary pain and suffering of trapped animals prior to death. Described as metal-toothed rodent traps, these traps are prohibited under the Australian Capital Territory's Animal Welfare Regulations 2001. In February 2008 the National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare (NCCAW) reviewed its position statement on metal-toothed rodent traps and reaffirmed that these traps cause unnecessary suffering to trapped rodents and their import, manufacture and use in Australia should be prohibited.⁶¹The proposed Regulations will prohibit such traps.

Lethal trap devices

Lethal trap devices are devices attached to traps to hasten the death of captured animals - for the purposes of limiting the pain and distress caused by being trapped. The devices contain a lethal substance, which is ingested by the animal when they bite at the device. Strychnine-impregnated cloth attached to leghold trap jaws is used in some Australian states for this purpose. It is not used in Victoria and is considered to be inhumane. Typical signs of strychnine poisoning include restlessness, nervousness, apprehension and stiffness with muscular twitching that progress to severe tetanic seizures. Violent muscular spasms extend the limbs and curve the neck upwards and backwards; the jaws fix and the eyes protrude. Respiration may stop momentarily during seizures. Frequency of seizures increases and death eventually occurs one to two hours after ingestion due to exhaustion or respiratory failure during a seizure. It is very likely that animals suffer extreme pain during the periods of muscular spasm. Poisoned animals remain fully conscious until near death and death may take up to 24 hours if the dose of strychnine is low.⁶²Initiated by a Victorian scientist, research has commenced on an alternative lethal trap device that causes the rapid and humane death of trapped dogs and foxes. The proposed Regulations allow for the use of lethal trap devices, subject to the Minister's approval.

Glue traps

Glue traps, also known as glueboards or sticky traps, are a type of non-lethal or restraining animal trap. The traps have an extremely sticky non-drying adhesive on one side of a rigid flat surface or shallow tray, so that small animals become stuck by the feet and/or fur when they attempt to cross it.

A scientific review of rodent control methods concluded that glue traps are one of the most inhumane methods of rodent control.⁶³The review's authors assessed the relative humaneness of all rodent control methods, according to the following criteria:

"the degree of pain, discomfort or distress caused, the length of time for which rodents are conscious and displaying clinical signs of poisoning, and the effect on any individual that escapes and survives. A method that causes the minimum number of symptoms before rapidly inducing unconsciousness or death, with no lasting ill effects on surviving animals, would thus be humane; in contrast a method that causes severe and/or prolonged pain or distress, and leaves surviving animals ill or disabled would be judged inhumane."

The authors concluded that glue traps are one of the most inhumane rodent control methods:

"because of the enormous distress these traps cause, even if the trapped animals are found after just a few hours and then humanely dispatched ... rodents are likely to experience pain and distress through being trapped, the physical effects of the adhesive on functioning (e.g. suffocation), and trauma resulting from panic and attempts to escape, such as forceful hair removal, torn skin and broken limbs. After three-five hours, animals have been reported as covered in their own faeces and urine. When boards are collected, animals are also often squealing; one pest control operative even described them as "screaming their heads off". Some rodents also bit through their own limbs to escape."

Prohibiting the use of glue traps was considered in the RIS concerning the proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Prohibition of Glue Trapping) Regulations 2005, which was released for public consultation in August 2005. The RIS can be viewed at http://www.vcec.vic.gov.au/ . Rather than reiterate all of the justification for the proposal to ban glue traps, readers are referred to that document, as well as the following comments. One hundred and fifteen submissions were received during the public comment period; these came from the public, animal welfare and related organisations, businesses that sell glue traps, businesses in which glue traps are used, pest controllers, pest management and related associations and agriculture industry organisations. Many of the submissions supported a total prohibition on glue traps. Regarding submissions from those opposed to the proposed prohibition, the following comments are made:

Private household use

A ban on private/household use and possession of glue traps is advocated because neither improved labelling nor regulations on how glue traps should be used in these situations are likely to result in more frequent checking of traps or more humane disposal of trapped animals. Many people are squeamish about dealing with rodents and therefore, when faced with a live rodent stuck on a glue trap, are likely to resort to less 'confronting' methods of disposal - such as putting trap and rodent in a bin, drowning, or incineration - rather than humanely killing the animal before disposal. In addition, there are a number of cost-effective, readily available alternatives, which are effective in controlling rodents and are more humane than glue traps, e.g. snap traps and curiosity traps.

Agricultural use

Some submissions advocated that farmers should be able to retain access to glue traps. However, there were no reasons given as to why glue traps, as distinct from other rodent control methods in general, are required on farms. Subsequent contact with commodity group experts revealed that rodents were effectively controlled without the use of glue traps and that baiting was by far the most common method of rodent control used.

Dr Robert Corrigan, USA, is an internationally recognised rodent pest control expert. For rodent control in livestock facilities, Dr Corrigan recommends the use of bait stations, with supplementary trapping programs (using snap traps and multiple-catch traps), if required⁶⁴ . He makes no mention of any need to use glue traps in livestock facilities.

No compelling case has been defined for allowing the use of glue traps on farms. Nor was evidence found that glue traps are commonly used on farms in Victoria. It would no doubt be difficult to maintain the sticky surface of glue traps in farm situations, and they would thus be rendered ineffective. (For the control of heavy infestations of mice in agricultural situations (i.e. in the event of mouse plagues), the poison zinc phosphide is permitted.)

Commercial use

The strongest objections to a total ban on glue traps expressed concern about food safety and human health, with many citing a lack of suitable alternatives to glue traps for some situations, particularly in commercial food manufacturing premises.

In his book, Dr Corrigan devotes a chapter to rodent control in the 'Food and Warehousing Industry'. The exterior rodent control programs recommended do not involve the use of glue traps. For the interior programs, where the majority of submissions opposed to a ban imply glue traps are required, Dr Corrigan recommends the use of multiple-catch traps. (A common example of a multiple-catch trap is a box with a hole that an animal will investigate as a potential burrow. A wind-up paddle is triggered by the animal's investigations and sweeps the animal into a holding compartment. These traps can hold more than one animal at a time.) Of relevance to the food safety/human health concerns raised in the submissions, Dr Corrigan writes "Multiple-catch traps are safe - no potentially hazardous baits are used, and they contain the rodents after they have died, thereby reducing the potential for odour and/or fly problems that may occur when bait-poisoned mice die in inaccessible areas." Dr Corrigan's book describes what is practical and effective; that is, he does not exclude methods out of concern over their humaneness. It seems reasonable to conclude that effective rodent control inside food premises can be achieved by the use of multiple-catch traps, without the need to resort to glue traps. Supporting this conclusion was a submission from a pest control manager in favour of the proposed ban on glue traps. Subsequent correspondence with that manager indicated that alternatives are effective in controlling rodents in food premises.

Given the sunsetting of the current Regulations, it was decided to defer a decision on glue traps until the proposed Regulations are made. Only traps prescribed by the new Regulations will be permitted to be sold, set or used. Glue traps are not included as prescribed traps in the proposed Regulations, and therefore would be prohibited.

In February 2008 the National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare (NCCAW) reviewed its position statement on the use of glue traps, and reaffirmed that glue traps cause unnecessary suffering to trapped rodents and their import, manufacture and use in Australia should be prohibited.⁶⁵Consistent with this position, under the Australian Capital Territory's Animal Welfare Regulations 2001, glue traps are prohibited. Glue traps are also prohibited under Tasmania's Animal Welfare Act 1993, although a person may apply to the Minister for an exemption. The New Zealand Government is currently considering a proposal to ban the sale and use of glue traps.⁶⁶The Republic of Ireland has banned glue traps and has taken people to court for the unlawful use of glue traps.⁶⁷

Balancing utility of traps with humane considerations

The animal welfare outcomes concerning the use of traps need to be balanced against the utility of such devices. These reasons may include:

• destruction of pest animals, e.g., to protect the environment and primary producers against stock predation;
• scientific and research purposes, e.g., to study native species
• health and hygiene, e.g., the destruction of rodents
• provision of food, e.g., trapping European rabbits, although this is now a minor activity in Victoria.

As noted above, the scientific understanding of animals' capacity to suffer pain and distress, and the general community's expectations concerning the humane treatment of animals, has increased over recent decades. The proposed controls on the use of traps in the proposed Regulations respond to these concerns.

6.2 Parties Affected by the Proposed Regulations

Parties affected by the proposed regulations include persons that transport animals in a confined boot of a vehicle (e.g., buyers of a small number of animals at a sale yard), some horse owners (i.e., those that currently use corrugated or twisted bits), and some dog owners who contemplate using pronged collars, however, use of these is currently prohibited.

The proposed Regulations will affect the sellers of electronic dog collars (in terms of possible reduced sales and also with respect to the proposed record keeping requirements), and persons who wish to use these collars in terms of costs of veterinary visits and regular reviews of their use. The use of electronic collars on other animals will be prohibited. This may affect some cat owners and horse owners. The proposed Regulations will also impact the sellers of these devices, in particular a Victorian business which manufactures electronic horse 'cribbing' collars. Similarly, the imposition of conditions of use of other electric shock devices may affect primary producers, livestock handlers, animal breeders, artificial insemination companies and zoos.

The controls on use and prohibition of certain traps will affect primary producers, pest controllers (including government pest animal controllers), rabbit trappers, householders with respect to rodents, and scientific researchers. Sellers of these traps will also be affected. Against this, there will be business opportunities for sellers of prescribed traps.

6.3 Description of the Proposed Regulations - Protection of Animals

Division 1 − General Requirements: Regulations 6 to 10

Regulation 6 provides that a person must not place or transport an animal in a confined boot of a vehicle. A confined boot does not include a luggage or cargo area that is open to the passenger cell of a motor vehicle such as a station wagon or SUV.

Regulation 7 provides that a person must not possess or use any dog fighting implement or cock fighting implement. This regulation does not apply to a person who possesses a dog fighting implement or a cock fighting implement for the purpose of displaying it in a museum that is open to the general public, or a POCTA inspector, for the purposes of exercising his or her role under the Act or proposed Regulations. In addition, a person must not possess an animal with the intention of causing that animal to fight.

Regulation 8 provides that a person must not use any mouthpiece on a horse that is twisted, corrugated or that has an uneven surface at the point where the device is in contact with the bars of the horse's mouth.

Regulation 9 prohibits the use of a pronged collar on any animal.

For the purposes of sections 15(1) and 15AB of the Act, Regulation 10 prescribes the kinds of traps that are subject to Part 2 of the proposed Regulations.

Division 2 - Electronic devices used on animals: Regulations 11 to 19

Regulation 11 provides that a person must not use or place on any animal a device that can impart an electric current or shock to the animal, except for circumstances prescribed in regulations 12 to 18.

Regulation 12 provides for the use of electric fences if the electric current travels through a wire and the electric fence is installed so that an animal is able to move away and avoid contact with the wire that is carrying the electric current.

Regulation 13 provides that a person may only use an electric prodder on cattle, goats, or sheep. A person can also use an electric prodder on buffalo, camels or deer in a situation where other permitted means of moving the animal have failed, or on other animals kept under the Zoological Parks and Gardens Act 1995 or regulated or controlled pest animals under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 if the use of the electric prodder on those animals has been approved by a veterinary practitioner. An electric prodder must not be used on any animal less than 3 months of age or on the face, genitals or udder of any animal or in a situation where the animal is unable to move away from the application of the prodder and it must not be used excessively on an animal.

Regulation 14 provides that a person may use an electronic stunning device in accordance with a licence issued under the Meat Industry Act 1993.

Regulation 15 provides that a person may use an electronic ejaculator on cattle, buffalo or sheep with the approval of a veterinary practitioner, or on animals kept under the Zoological Parks and Gardens Act 1995 if the animal is anaesthetised and the procedure done by a veterinary practitioner, or on any other species of animals by a veterinary practitioner or under the direct supervision of a veterinary practitioner.

Regulation 16 prescribes conditions of use for electronic collars. This regulation provides that a person must not put on or use an electronic collar on a dog unless a veterinary practitioner has examined the physical health and temperament of the dog and reasonably believes that the dog is suitable to have an electronic collar used on it. Further, the dog must be over six months of age, the collar must not be left on the dog for more than 12 hours in any 24 hour period, and it must be used in accordance with any instructions for use of the collar provided by the manufacturer.

In addition, the power of the collar must not exceed either 15Ma RMS, or alternatively 100 Ma maximum (reference AS/NZS 60479.1:2002 and AS/NZS 60479.2:2002), the length of the stimulation period must be limited by an automatic safety cut-out, the collar must have variable levels of static stimulation to suit the needs of the animal, the owner and the situation, the collar contacts must have safe, rounded points, and the distance between the collar contact points must not exceed 60 millimetres.

A person must not put on or use an electronic collar on a dog unless the person is a veterinary practitioner, or a person acting under the supervision and written instructions of a veterinary practitioner, or is a qualified dog trainer. The use of the collar where the use is under the supervision and written instructions of a veterinary practitioner or qualified dog trainer must be reviewed by a veterinary practitioner or qualified dog trainer within 6 months of the initial examination by a veterinary practitioner or qualified dog trainer, and at least once every 6 months after the first review.

This regulation also prohibits use of electronic collars on any animal other than a dog.

Regulation 17 provides that a person must not electrofish except as part of a research project approved under a licence granted under Part 3 of the Act.

Regulation 18 provides that an electrocution trap may only be used on rodents and only if the trap complies with regulation 41 and is used in accordance with regulations 42 and 43.

Regulation 19 provides that a person must not sell an electronic collar, unless the person who sells the device maintains a record of the full name of the purchaser or owner, the street address of the purchaser or owner, a contact telephone number or email address (if any) for the purchaser or owner, and the date of sale of the device. Information provided must not be false or misleading. A person must not sell an electronic collar other than one manufactured for use on dogs. In addition, a person must not sell an electronic collar manufactured for use on dogs unless the seller of the device advises the purchaser in writing at the time of sale, of the relevant conditions of use as set out in regulation 16.

Division 3 - Leghold traps: Regulations 20 to 27

Regulation 20 provides that a person must not use a small leghold trap unless it is set or used for the purposes of trapping rabbits and it complies with regulation 21 and it is used in accordance with regulation 22 and 27.

Regulation 21 prescribes the features of small leghold traps. A small leghold trap must have smooth (not serrated) jaws, each jaw of the trap must be padded with commercially manufactured rubber pads designed for the particular trap, the jaws of the trap must be offset so there is a distance of at least 6 millimetres between the metal parts of the jaws when the jaws are closed, and the trap must have a jaw spread of no more than 10 centimetres. In addition, a spring must be placed in the anchor chain of the trap to act as a shock absorber, for the purpose of reducing the chance of injury to the captured limb. The anchor chain of the trap must have a minimum of two swivels with one located at each end of the anchor chain, so that the trap can twist if the animal struggles to escape, and the anchor chain must be attached to the centre of the baseplate of the trap. Traps must have adjustable pan tension so that the pan can be set at tension required for a rabbit to trigger the trap.

Regulation 22 provides that a small leghold trap must not be set or used on Crown land, or in an urban area (unless the land is mainly used for agriculture) without the permission of the Minister, or on any other land, except with the consent of the owner or occupier of the land. A small leghold trap must not be possessed on Crown land.

The requirement to receive consent from the owner or occupier in this and a number of following regulations seeks to ensure that the person in possession of the land is the one who provides consent. Otherwise, cases could arise in which a person seeks consent from a land owner but does not advise a tenant that a trap will be set on the property.

Regulation 23 provides that a person must not use a large leghold trap unless it is used for the purposes of trapping foxes or wild dogs. If it is used for the purposes of trapping foxes, it must comply with regulation 24, and if it is used for the purposes of trapping wild dogs, it must comply with regulation 25. Setting and use must be in accordance with regulations 26 and 27.

Regulation 24 prescribes the features of a large leghold trap used for foxes. Such a trap must have smooth (not serrated) jaws, the jaws of the trap must be padded with commercially manufactured rubber pads designed for the particular trap, the jaws must be offset so there is a distance of at least 6 millimetres between the metal parts of the jaws when the jaws are closed, and the trap must have a jaw spread of between 11 and 14 centimetres. In addition, a spring must be placed in the anchor chain of the trap to act as a shock absorber, for the purpose of reducing the chance of injury to the captured limb. The anchor chain of the trap must have a minimum of two swivels with one located at each end of the anchor chain, so that the trap can twist if the animal struggles to escape, and the anchor chain must be attached to the centre of the baseplate of the trap. Traps must have adjustable pan tension so that the pan can be set at a tension required for a fox to trigger the trap.

Regulation 25 prescribes the features of a large leghold trap to be used for wild dogs. These features are the same as for regulation 24 except that the jaw spread must be between 13 and 15.5 centimetres and the pan can be set at a tension required for a wild dog to trigger the trap.

Regulation 26 provides that a large leghold trap must not be used in any area unless that area has been declared by the Minister under section 15AB(3) of the Act to be an approved area for large leghold traps, and the consent of the owner or occupier of the land or in the case of Crown land, the manager of the land, has been given.

Regulation 27 provides for conditions for setting or use of small and large leghold traps. This regulation requires that a trapped animal must not be left in the trap for more than 24 hours or, in the case of a large leghold trap for wild dogs, as otherwise approved by the Minister. A trapped animal that is a declared pest animal must be humanely destroyed as soon as is reasonably possible, unless it is kept under a permit under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 and can be returned to its owner. If any other animal is captured in the trap; if the animal is uninjured wildlife, it must be released as soon as is reasonably possible, if an uninjured dog or cat, it must be taken to the local council as soon as is reasonably possible. If an uninjured animal, other than wildlife, a dog or a cat, is captured in the trap then it must be taken to an animal shelter or other appropriate animal care facility as soon as is reasonably possible, or if injured, the animal must be taken to a veterinary practitioner for treatment as soon as is reasonably possible or if severely injured, may be humanely destroyed. The trap must be set or used so as to minimise any harm caused to a trapped animal and minimise the risk of catching non-target species. These conditions do not apply in circumstances where the use has been otherwise approved by an Animal Ethics Committee for research approved under licence in accordance with Part 3 of the Act.

Generally, the person who sets the trap will be responsible for the costs of a veterinary practitioner in the situations described above. However, if a third party finds an injured trapped animal and decides to take it to a veterinarian, then they may be responsible for such costs. It is worth noting that veterinarians often treat injured wildlife on a pro bono basis and provide first aid or initial treatment to an owned animal until the owner is located.

Division 4 - Confinement traps: Regulations 28 to 31

Regulation 28 provides that a confinement trap must not be set or used to capture any animal unless the trap complies with regulation 29 and it is set or used in accordance with regulations 30 and 31.⁶⁸

Regulation 29 prescribes the features of confinement traps. A confinement trap must not designed in such a way that it may cause unreasonable pain or suffering to the trapped animal, the trap must not grip any part of the animal's body, and the trap must not contain hooks or other protruding parts that may injure an animal.

Regulation 30 provides that a confinement trap must not be set or used on any land, except with the consent of the owner or occupier of the land, or, in the case of Crown land, the manager of the land.

Regulation 31 prescribes the conditions of use for a confinement trap. If it is used in a non-urban area and the animal is trapped in a cage, enclosure or yard where sufficient food, water and shelter is provided to the trapped animal, the animal must not be left trapped for more than 48 hours. In any other case, the trapped animal must not be left alive in the trap for more than 24 hours. A trapped animal that is a declared pest animal must be humanely destroyed as soon as is reasonably possible unless it is kept under a permit under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 and can be returned to its owner. As with the conditions of use for leghold traps, the proposed Regulations set down the obligations for a trapper who captures a non-target animal. The trap must be set or used so as to minimise any harm to a trapped animal and minimise the risk of catching non-target species. These conditions do not apply in circumstances where the use has been otherwise approved by an Animal Ethics Committee for research approved under licence in accordance with Part 3 of the Act.

Division 5 - Net traps: Regulations 32 to 35

Regulation 32 provides that a net trap must not be set or used to capture any animal unless the trap complies with regulation 33 and it is set or used in accordance with regulations 34 and 35.⁷¹

Regulation 33 provides that a net trap may entangle the animal but must be constructed of materials designed to minimise any injury to the animal. A net trap must not be made of monofilament netting unless the use has been approved by an Animal Ethics Committee for research approved under a licence in accordance with Part 3 of the Act.

Regulation 34 provides that a net trap must not be set or used on any land, except with the consent of the owner or occupier of the land, or, in the case of Crown land, the manager of the land.

Regulation 35 provides conditions for the use of net traps. A net trap that is designed to be triggered by an animal must be checked at least every 4 hours and a net trap that is designed to be triggered by a person or set across the path of an animal such as a bird or bat must not be used unless the trap is constantly monitored. As soon as is reasonably possible after an animal is observed to be trapped or entangled in a net trap, the animal must be removed by a person experienced in handling the target species or under the supervision of such a person. A trapped animal that is a declared pest animal must be humanely destroyed as soon as is reasonably possible unless it is kept under a permit under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 and can be returned to its owner. As with the conditions of use for leghold traps, the proposed Regulations set down the obligations for a trapper who captures a non-target animal. The trap must be set or used so as to minimise any harm to a trapped animal and minimise the risk of catching non-target species. These conditions do not apply in circumstances where the use has been otherwise approved by an Animal Ethics Committee for research approved under licence in accordance with Part 3 of the Act.

Division 6 - Non-kill snare traps: Regulations 36 to 39

Regulation 36 provides for animals for which non-kill snare traps may be set or used. Under this regulation a person must not set or use a non-kill snare trap unless the trap complies with regulation 37 and it is set or used in accordance with regulations 38 and 39 for the purposes of trapping animals that are established pest animals or any other species approved by the Minister; this does not apply where the set or use of the trap is approved by an Animal Ethics Committee for research approved under licence in accordance with Part 3 of the Act.

Regulation 37 prescribes the features of non-kill snare traps. This regulation provides that a non-kill snare trap must not strangle or cut the animal, the trap must include a locking device which prevents it from inhibiting blood flow through the limbs, neck or body of the animal, and it must have a spring placed in the anchor chain to act as a shock absorber to prevent dislocation of the trapped limb or spine of the animal. In addition, the anchor chain of the trap must have a minimum of 2 swivels, with one located at each end of the anchor chain, so that the trap can twist if the animal struggles to escape. If designed to be triggered by an animal stepping on a pan, the trap must have adjustable pan tension so that the pan can be set at a tension required for the target species to trigger the trap.

Regulation 38 prescribes the places where non-kill snare traps may be set or used. That is, a non-kill snare trap must not be set or used in an urban area unless the land is mainly used for agriculture and the set or use of the trap is approved under regulation 39(2), or on any other land unless a person has gained the consent of the owner or occupier of the land or, in the case of Crown land, the manager of the land.

Regulation 39 provides the conditions for the setting or use of non-kill snare traps. This regulation requires that a snare trap must only be set or used with the approval of the Minister and in accordance with any conditions of that approval. A trapped animal must not be left alive in the trap for more than 8 hours. A trapped animal that is a declared pest animal must be humanely destroyed as soon as is reasonably possible unless it is kept under a permit under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 and can be returned to its owner. As with the conditions of use for leghold traps, the proposed Regulations set down the obligations for a trapper who captures a non-target animal. The trap must be set or used so as to minimise any harm to a trapped animal and minimise the risk of catching non-target species. These conditions do not apply in circumstances where the use has been otherwise approved by an Animal Ethics Committee for research approved under licence in accordance with Part 3 of the Act.

Division 7 - Rodent kill traps: Regulations 40 to 43

Regulation 40 provides that a person must not use a rodent kill trap unless it is set or used for the purposes of trapping rodents and it complies with regulation 41 and it is set or used in accordance with regulations 42 and 43.

Regulation 41 prescribes the features of rodent kill traps. These are that a rodent kill trap if jawed, must have smooth, not serrated jaws. The trap must cause the animal to become unconscious and insensible within 180 seconds of the animal becoming trapped, and must cause the death of the trapped animal while it is unconscious and insensible, or keep the trapped animal unconscious or insensible until it can be killed. The trap must not have spikes or serrations which could cause injury to a trapped animal before its death.

Regulation 42 provides that a rodent kill trap must not be set or used on any land or premises except with the consent of the owner or occupier of the land or premises or, in the case of Crown land, the manager of the land.

Regulation 43 provides that a rodent kill trap must be set and used so as to minimise the risk of catching non-target species.

Division 8 - Kill traps: Regulations 44 to 48

Regulation 44 prescribes the animals for which kill traps may be set or used. Under this regulation, a person must not set or use a kill trap unless the trap complies with regulation 45 and it is set or used in accordance with regulations 46 and 47 for the purposes of trapping animals that are established pest animals or any other species approved by the Minister. This does not apply where the use of the trap is approved by an Animal Ethics Committee for research approved under licence in accordance with Part 3 of the Act, or it is a rodent kill trap used in accordance with Division 7.

Regulation 45 prescribes the features of kill traps. A kill trap must cause the animal to become unconscious and insensible within 180 seconds of the animal becoming trapped and must cause the death of the trapped animal while it is unconscious and insensible, or keep the trapped animal unconscious or insensible until it can be killed. The trap must not have spikes or serrations which could cause injury to a trapped animal before its death.

Regulation 46 prescribes places where kill traps may be used. Kill traps must not be set or used on any land except with the consent of the owner or occupier of the land or, in the case of Crown land, the manager of the land.

Regulation 47 prescribes conditions for the setting or use of kill traps. These are that a kill trap, other than a rodent kill trap, must not be set or used unless the use has been approved by the Minister and the use complies with any conditions of that approval.

Regulation 48 provides that a lethal device must not be used with a trap unless the lethal agent used in the device has been approved by the Minister for use on that type of trap and the use complies with any conditions of that approval.

6.4 Comparison with the Current Regulations

The proposed Protection of Animal regulations contain some significant changes. The regulation of transportation of animals (Regulation 6), which enhances existing provisions in the legislation, is a new regulation. The possession of animal fighting implements regulation (Regulation 7) strengthens current requirements by also prohibiting the possession of an animal with the intention of causing that animal to fight. The proposed Regulations also introduce a new prohibition on the use of certain mouth pieces on a horse (Regulation 8). The prohibition of pronged collars is an existing requirement.

The controls regulating the use of an electronic dog collar will be expanded, while the use of electronic collars on other animals will be prohibited (currently there is no regulation controlling the use of electronic collars on animals other than dogs). The proposed Regulations will also impose controls on electronic devices (that are capable of imparting an electric shock) used on animals generally, for example, new controls will be placed on the use of electric prodders, ejaculators, stunning devices and electrofishing. Electric fences will be able to be used as they are currently but immobilisers will be prohibited from use.

Currently the regulations impose specific controls on the definition of small and large leghold traps only; these definitions relate to sections in the Act governing the use of leghold traps. The proposed Regulations will expand the controls on traps significantly. The proposed Regulations will prohibit certain kinds of leghold traps (e.g., large traps with a jaw spread of over 15.5 centimetres, traps with serrated steel jaws). The proposed Regulations will also control the use of confinement traps, net traps, non-kill snare traps, rodent kill traps, and kill traps and lethal trap devices. They will also specify the conditions of use of such traps. Traps not prescribed in the Regulations will be prohibited.

Transitional provisions have been built in to allow the use of large leghold traps with a jaw spread of up to 19 centimetres and laminated traps (extra metal welded to the jaws to increase the surface area of the jaws where they impact on an animal's foot or leg) until the end of 2011. Transitional arrangements allow for the sale of such traps until the end of 2009. Refer to Regulations 106 and 107.

6.5 Base Case

The 'base case' describes the legislative and regulatory position that would exist in the absence of the proposed Regulations. It is necessary to establish this position in order to make a considered assessment of the incremental costs and benefits of the proposed Regulations.

Given that Victoria's prevention of cruelty to animals regulatory regime is established through an interaction of the Act and Regulations, a definitive base case is not easy to establish. For the purpose of this RIS, in the absence of the proposed Regulations, the base case is assumed to be represented by the current controls established by the Act itself (although a view could be put that the Act could not function without the Regulations). Given that the proposed Regulations in Part 2 introduce a number of changes and new proposals, if the regulations were not remade there would be no provision to prohibit animal fighting equipment or pronged collars or to regulate the use of electronic collars. In addition, there would be no general controls on the use of electronic devices which impart a shock to an animal. It is important to note that without regulations prescribing what traps may be sold or used, all traps would be prohibited, as the Act has been amended (to come into effect in December 2008) to permit only prescribed traps to be sold or used. However, codes of practice would operate in the absence of the regulations.

In terms of assessment using the MCA (see below), under the 'base case' each criterion is awarded a score of zero reflecting the default position (i.e., the regulatory position in the absence of the proposed Regulations). For illustrative purposes the base case scenario is assessed and receives a net score of zero. The 'base case' of doing nothing is not, strictly speaking, an alternative.

6.6 Protection of Animals - Proposed Regulations

6.6.1 Costs of the Proposed Regulations

Each of the proposed Regulations was examined for the likely costs they would impose on parties impacted by the proposed Regulations. The costs associated with Regulations 16 and 19, which impose new administrative and compliance costs, were readily quantifiable. These costs relate to new administrative costs attached to the sale and use of electronic dog collars. These costs were assessed using the Standard Cost Model methodology. Data used in the model are based on advice from the Bureau of Animal Welfare and from information provided by the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) Victoria. The costs associated with these regulations were estimated to be around $873,000 over a 10-year period or approximately $87,000 annually. With respect to Regulation 16, compliance costs are incurred by dog owners who will be required to have their dog(s) examined by a veterinarian ($850,000 over a 10-year period), while the administrative costs under Regulation 19 ($23,000 over a 10-year period) will be incurred by the seller of electronic dog collars arising from the requirement to record buyer details and for information to buyers. Detailed calculations are contained in Attachment D. These are summarised in Table 5.

Table 5: Costs Imposed by the Proposed Regulations, 10-Year Assessment Period

Regulation	Description of Regulation	Cost ($'000s)
16	Use of electronic collars - cost to buyer of vet examination	850
19	Sale of electronic collars - cost to seller of recording buyer details and provision of information	23

* Numbers rounded.

For dog owners, this translates to a total of about $87,000 per annum, or $170 per dog (this cost includes expenditure on veterinarian or qualified dog trainer consultations fees and the cost of time forgone in meeting this requirement).

In some cases the proposed Regulations will restrict the use of certain goods (e.g., electronic collar for dogs, padded steel-jawed leghold traps), while in other cases goods will be prohibited from use altogether (e.g., cat confinement collars, electronic horse 'cribbing' collars, serrated steel-jawed traps). These will have an impact on sales of businesses that sell these goods. This impact however proved difficult to quantify given that statistics on the sale of these goods are not collected and the profit margins unknown. On the other hand, businesses will sell newly prescribed traps. Businesses that specialise in the production or sale of these goods will be particularly affected compared to businesses that sell a diversified range of goods. For example, a pet shop that sells cat confinement collars will cease selling these in Victoria, but such sales are likely to contribute to only a small fraction of overall turnover.

The costs associated with the restrictions and controls on the use of traps imposes 'substantive compliance costs', i.e., some users will be required to change current behaviour, while others may be required to purchase new leghold traps if their current traps do not comply with the proposed Regulations.

Currently, large leghold traps such as the Lane's trap, which has a jaw spread of approximately 21 centimetres, are permitted to be used. These traps cost $130 per trap (single retail price, no discount). The proposed Regulations would prohibit the use of these traps, and all leghold traps with a jaw spread greater than 15.5 centimetres. Traps permitted to be used for wild dogs under the proposed Regulations are available for between $44-85 (single retail price, no discount). Leghold traps prescribed under the proposed Regulations as suitable for foxes, and those prescribed as suitable for rabbits cost around $40 each. Replacement rubber pads are available for between $3.50-6 per pair. The cost difference between non-compliant and compliant traps depends on the size of the traps and their features; some non-compliant traps are cheaper, some are more expensive. Transitional arrangements are in place for large leghold traps with a jaw spread up to 19 centimetres and for laminated small and large leghold traps and this will assist in enabling replacement costs to be spread over a few years for users with these traps.

Most trap retailers offer to fit additional items to traps prior to sale, if a trap is not manufactured with those items. This is important to note, as the proposed Regulations will require that traps be sold (not just used) as prescribed in the Regulations. The cost of items that might be added to a trap prior to sale are: $2 for a swivel, $7 for a shock absorbing spring in the anchor chain, $8.50 for a pan tension kit such as the 'Paws-ITrip', and $4 for a base plate with a centre mounted D-ring for attaching the anchor chain. The amount charged by retailers to fit such additional items is in the order of a few dollars.

The proposed Regulations also require that an animal must not be left alive in a leghold trap for more than 24 hours. This requirement is consistent with good trapping practices and is likely to impose minimal costs in many cases. In this regard the Victorian Code of practice for the use of small steel-jawed traps notes that "All small leghold traps set should be checked at least once a day and the number set restricted to a level that allows at least daily inspection of all sets." As noted earlier, this requirement was introduced in the UK in 1911. Daily checking is also recommended in the Review of Welfare Outcomes of Leghold Trap Use in Victoria, and in the various national standard operating procedures for leghold trapping.⁶⁹In the case of trapping wild dogs in remote areas, it may be considered impractical or excessively costly to check traps on a daily basis. The proposed Regulations provide that the Minister may approve alternative inspection times in this situation.

Finally, while difficult to cost, costs may be incurred by persons who trap a non-target animal and the animal is injured; by veterinarians for any pro bono work on wildlife injured in traps; and possibly by an owner of a trapped animal such as a dog or cat. These costs include travel time to a veterinarian, consultation fees and treatment costs.

6.6.2 Government Costs

POCTA inspectors are responsible for enforcing the current Regulations. The current DPI budget for Regulation and Compliance is $86.8 million per annum.⁷⁰This figure funds compliance across the entire portfolio and a best estimate has attributed 0.25 per cent of this figure to the proposed Regulations (this is likely to be conservative, for example, of the 2,257 charges laid from 2003-07, fewer than 30 were attributable to the Regulations). In addition, the Victorian Government provides $1 million funding per annum to the RSPCA to support its inspection services. Similarly, the vast majority of costs can be attributable to the Act rather than the Regulations, however, given the RSPCA's focus on prevention of animal cruelty, 10 per cent of these costs were attributed to enforcing the Regulations. It is also worth noting that the RSPCA and DPI inspectors attend a number of rodeos each year. Attachment D provides details of these estimations along with the calculations. These are summarised in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Government Administration Costs, 10-year Assessment Period

Agency	Cost ($'000s)
DPI regulation and compliance	1,804
RSPCA	832
Total	2,636

* Numbers rounded

Consequently, the cost to the Victorian Government of enforcing the proposed protection of animal regulations has been estimated to be in the order of $2.6 million over a 10-year period, or approximately $260,000 per annum.

6.6.3 Total Costs of the Proposed Regulations

The total quantifiable costs of the proposed Regulations are shown in Table 7 below and are around $3.5 million, or approximately $350,000 per annum.

Table 7: Total Cost of the Proposed Regulations, 10-year Assessment Period

Community/Industry and Government Compliance Costs	Cost ($'000s)
Community/industry	873
Government compliance and enforcement costs	2,636
Total	3,509

* Numbers rounded.

6.6.4 Direct Benefits of the Proposed Regulations

The benefits of the proposed Regulations are associated with the social benefits of the prevention of cruelty to animals and improving animal welfare. The legislative and regulatory requirements arise from community concerns about the way animals are treated. It should be noted that the vast majority of the benefits (and costs) derive from the Act which sets out the general legislative framework.

Notwithstanding the difficulty in placing a monetary value on animal pain or suffering, as a very broad indication, the 'revealed preference' technique may be used to gauge the level of community concern regarding animal cruelty. As a proxy, the high order of value the community places on the welfare of animals is illustrated by the relatively large allocation of public, private and volunteer resources to animal welfare activities at national, state and local levels, including the Bureau of Animal Welfare, the RSPCA and other animal welfare organisations. Further, in respect of a single organisation, RSPCA Victoria, received $17 million from the public in 2007, $21 million in 2005 and $8 million in 2006. ⁷¹

Another assessment tool is MCA. The MCA technique represents a convenient way to assess regulatory proposals and compares a range of alternative approaches through a qualitative assessment by assigning values and weightings to the qualitative costs and benefits. A qualitative score is assigned to the impact of the proposal on a range of criteria. In this case an assigned score of zero (0) represents the 'base case', while a score of plus one hundred (+100) means that the alternative fully achieves the objectives. A score of minus one hundred (-100) means that the proposal does not achieve any of the objectives.

For the purposes of this analysis, three criteria were selected and weighted accordingly. One criterion relates to the objectives of the proposed Regulation: prevention of cruelty to animals and promotion of animal welfare (weighting 70 per cent). This receives a relatively high weighting because it directly relates to the outcome sought by government. The other criteria relate to the effectiveness and efficacy of the regulatory instrument or non-regulatory option (weighting 15 per cent) and to the cost-effectiveness of the proposal (15 per cent). While these criteria are presented separately, in practice there will be some overlap between them. These criteria are used to compare alternatives to the proposed Regulations.

Decision Criteria

An MCA was undertaken with respect to the proposed Regulations. The proposed Regulations impose strict controls on the use of certain devices that have a high risk of resulting in cruelty to animals. In some instances they prohibit the use or possession of certain devices known to inflict unacceptable pain or suffering to an animal. Given the high level of controls over the use of certain devices this criteria receives a relatively high score of 75. The proposed Regulations also have attached a range of penalties, which are enforced by POCTA inspectors (including RSPCA inspectors). Consequently, the compliance criterion is awarded a relatively high score of 75. The costs of the proposed Regulations to stakeholders and government, however, are the most costly compared to the alternatives discussed below and a score of -50 is awarded. Overall, this results in a net score of +56.25, as shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Multi-criteria Analysis Assessment of the proposed Regulations

Criteria	Weighting	Assigned Score	Weighted Score
Prevent cruelty to animals/animal welfare	70	75	52.5
Compliance/efficacy	15	75	11.25
Cost-effectiveness	15	-50	-7.5
Total	100%		+56.25

6.7 Performance-based regulation

Regulation may take the form of prescriptive rules, which focus on the inputs, processes and procedures of a particular activity. One of the main advantages of prescriptive regulation is that it provides certainty and clarity. By setting out requirements in detail, it provides standardised solutions and facilitates straight-forward enforcement.⁷²

However, because of its inflexibility, prescriptive regulation may be unsuitable in certain situations, e.g., where circumstances are subject to change. Performance-based standards specify desired outcomes or objectives, but not the means by which these outcomes/objectives have to be met. The main advantages that performance-based standards have over prescriptive regulation are the greater flexibility afforded to regulated parties in achieving the desired outcomes, and their ability to be used in situations where circumstances may change over time. Nevertheless, they do have some disadvantages. For example, the greater flexibility and freedom offered by performance-based regulations is often cited as a problem for those being regulated as it can lead to uncertainty as to whether the actions they undertake are sufficient to satisfy the standards set by the regulations.⁷³

In the case of the proposed Protection of Animals regulations, performance-based standards could be formulated. A standard or principle could be developed that requires a trap to be set so as to minimise animal suffering. It would then be up to that person to set a trap in accordance with the standard. Such standards or principles could be supported by a code of practice to improve clarity.

It is feasible that codes of practice could be used to set down criteria that may reduce the subjective element of performance-based standards by establishing benchmarks by which performance can be measured. For example, with respect to electronic collars, sales of these devices could be made freely available, but users would be required to adhere to a code of practice, i.e., compliance with such a code would provide a defence against cruelty offences under the Act. Similarly, persons who set or use traps could do so in accordance with a code of practice (e.g., Code of practice for the use of small steel-jawed traps⁷⁴). The broad prescriptive requirements proposed in the Regulations could be removed and a range of penalties could be applied if it could be demonstrated that a person who used a trap or electronic collar did so in a manner that did not minimise negative animal welfare outcomes.

In this regard it is worth noting that elements of the regulations contain performance-based standards (e.g., proposed Regulation 13(2)(d) states that an electric prodder must not be used excessively on an animal, as opposed to prescribing that, for example, it may be used no more than 3 times per minute on any animal).

The fundamental problem with this alternative is that degrees of animal cruelty or suffering are difficult to measure, and establishing feasible performance-based standards would be difficult. While there are general community beliefs concerning animal cruelty, on the individual level and at the margin, cruelty considerations are essentially subjective (i.e., one person's view of cruelty may differ from another's). For this reason, prescriptive regulations are best suited to minimising animal cruelty: such regulations set objective standards and remove uncertainty.

Performance-based standards may generate uncertainty because circumstances giving rise to prosecutions may be determined subjectively. This in turn may increase government enforcement costs because the interpretation of such standards may be challenged or determined in the court/tribunal system.

Decision Criteria

An MCA analysis was undertaken with respect to performance-based regulations. As discussed above, performance-based standards can be effective when supported by codes of practice, however, in the case of animal welfare an element of subjectivity may lead to varying treatment of animals. This criterion nevertheless could provide useful standards and a score of 50 is assigned. A problem associated with performance-based standards is that there may be uncertainty regarding what is required. Government enforcement may also not be easy in borderline cases and this may result in difficulties in enforcing the standards. Therefore, a score of 50 is assigned to this criterion. Performance-based standards would be more expensive to administer than the situation covered by the base case, however, less costly than the proposed Regulations and consequently a score of -25 is assigned to this criterion. Overall, this alternative receives a score of +38.75, as shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Multi-criteria Analysis Assessment of Performance-based regulation

Criteria	Weighting	Assigned Score	Weighted Score
Prevent cruelty to animals/animal welfare	70	50	35
Compliance/efficacy	15	50	7.5
Cost-effectiveness	15	-25	-3.75
Total	100%		+38.75

A trade-off associated with prescriptive regulations is that they may stifle innovation. However, with respect to traps, there have been very few fundamental innovations over the past hundred years. The Act requires that only those traps prescribed in the proposed Regulations can be used, thus the regulations are actually a lesser restriction than the base case and, while they prescribe conditions for traps to reduce unnecessary suffering, have been drafted in a way to allow innovation. In the event that the proposed Regulations inadvertently restrict the introduction of a new trap or design, which has superior animal welfare outcomes, the regulations could be amended.

6.8 Banning leghold traps and other devices

The proposed Regulations will prohibit certain devices or implements such as pronged collars, electronic immobilisers, electronic collars for animals other than dogs, and animal fighting paraphernalia. The prohibitions could be extended to other items, for example, by not prescribing them under the Regulations, all leghold traps could be prohibited, and all electronic devices that impart a shock to an animal, such as electronic collars, and electric prodders, could also be banned from use. The benefit of such bans would be to reduce animal cruelty outcomes associated with these devices.

The proposed Regulations recognise that traps and other devices can inflict pain and suffering on animals, but some advantages exist overall from the strictly controlled use of such devices. A ban on these goods could lead to some unintended consequences. For example, wild dog trapping reduces livestock (usually sheep) predation. Single animals have been known to kill more than 30 sheep in a single night. Therefore, a ban on leghold traps may have welfare benefits for wild dogs but may result in significant negative welfare outcomes for livestock. Similarly, the proposed Regulations provide for use of an electronic dog collar under supervised conditions. If these devices were banned, then such dogs might be destroyed. Along these lines, a complete ban on the use of electric prodders could be accompanied by an increased use of other objects, which potentially could be more harmful than the judicious use of electric prodders.

A further problem with banning such items might be to drive such use underground. For example, such goods could be purchased over the internet or from other jurisdictions. (It is acknowledged that this may also be an issue for the proposed Regulations if certain individuals regard the costs of the regulations excessive compared to the chance of being detected.)

Decision Criteria

An MCA assessment was undertaken in relation to banning certain traps (i.e., by not prescribing them in the regulations) or devices. The items covered by the proposed Regulations will be strictly regulated and banning such devices may result in unintended consequences. While such a ban may be effective, it may not deliver superior animal welfare outcomes compared with the proposed Regulations. Therefore, a score of 50 is assigned to the animal welfare criterion. A ban on such items, if properly enforced, would also be relatively efficacious and a relatively high score of 75 is assigned. In terms of cost-effectiveness, a ban would impose costs on sellers and users of goods and would require ongoing monitoring and enforcement. This alternative would result in greater costs as compared to the base case and therefore a score of -25 is assigned. Overall, this alternative receives a net score of +42.5, as shown in Table 10 below.

Table 10: Multi-criteria Analysis Assessment of banning certain devices

Criteria	Weighting	Assigned Score	Weighted Score
Prevent cruelty to animals/animal welfare	70	50	35
Compliance/efficacy	15	75	11.25
Cost-effectiveness	15	-25	-3.75
Total	100%		+42.5

6.9 Variation of the proposed Regulations

In a number of cases, there are no practicable regulatory alternatives other than to alter the scope or extent of the proposed Regulations. A number of the regulations are prescriptive in nature (e.g., a small leghold trap must have a jaw spread of no more than 10 centimetres). The Bureau of Animal Welfare formulated the thresholds, measurements, conditions, etc, in the proposed Regulations by examining best-practice in other jurisdictions, reviewing the scientific literature, drawing on standards in codes of practice, and in consultation with peak bodies, businesses, and other stakeholders. With respect to traps, DPI commissioned a detailed review of the scientific evidence concerning leghold traps and animal welfare outcomes.

It is not intended here to examine the costs and benefits of the large number of possible variations to the proposed Regulations. However this RIS represents another step in the consultation process and the Bureau of Animal Welfare welcomes comments or suggestions with respect to the nature, extent, and likely impacts of the proposed Regulations, and any variations that may improve the overall quality of the proposed Regulations.

With this in mind, stakeholders may wish to comment on the:

• regulation of pronged collars;
• administrative and compliance issues associated with electronic collars used on dogs;
• prohibition of use of electronic collars on animals other than dogs;
• use of electronic shock devices on animals;
• any practical difficulties or specific costs associated with the scope, features or conditions of use in relation to traps; and
• any unintended consequences associated with the proposed Regulations.

6.10 Summary of Feasible Alternatives

In summary, the proposed Regulations impose the greatest level of controls and costs on individuals, but deliver the greatest net benefit as compared to the alternatives. Hence, the proposed Regulations are assessed as the most effective regulatory means to control the use of traps, electronic devices and other items.

The benefits of the proposed Regulations are associated with the social benefits of the prevention of cruelty to animals and improving animal welfare. The legislative and regulatory requirements arise from community concerns about the way animals are treated. The MCA assessment summarised in Table 11 below supports this conclusion. It should be noted that the vast majority of the benefits (and costs) derive from the Act which sets out the general legislative framework.

While relatively inflexible, it is assessed that prescriptive regulations deliver greater clarity and certainty to stakeholders concerning animal cruelty matters. On the other hand, performance-based standards may generate uncertainty because the circumstances giving rise to prosecutions may be determined subjectively. This in turn may also increase government enforcement costs because the interpretation of such standards may be challenged or determined in the court/tribunal system.

The proposed Regulations recognise that traps and other devices can inflict pain and suffering on animals, but some advantages exist overall from the strictly controlled use of such devices, and a complete ban on some of these items could lead to some unintended consequences.

It is noted that a benefit of regulations (i.e., statutory rules) is that they can be changed relatively easily, compared to legislation (a relatively time consuming and costly process) or with voluntarily adopted codes of practice (which may require behavioural change). Should scientific evidence emerge or community standards shift in relation to certain devices covered by the regulations, then these could be further strengthened or the items prohibited.

Table 11: Summary of Multi-criteria Analysis Compared to Regulations

Regulatory Proposal	MCA Assessment
Base case scenario	0
Proposed Regulations	56.25
Performance-based regulations	38.75
Banning certain devices	42.5

The above analysis suggests that:

• the benefits to society of the proposed Regulations are likely to exceed the costs (i.e., there is a net benefit); and
• the net benefits of the proposed Regulations are greater than those associated with any practicable alternative.

7. RODEOS AND RODEO SCHOOLS − REGULATORY AND NONREGULATORY OPTIONS

7.1 Context

A rodeo is defined in the Act to mean an event which includes any exhibition of, or competition in buck-jumping, rough-riding, animal dogging, roping or tying. A rodeo school means any premises used for the training or schooling of persons in buck-jumping, rough-riding, animal dogging, roping or tying. Stock contractors are key industry participants who compete with each other to operate a rodeo which includes supply of livestock, facilities and personnel. The majority of events conducted in Victoria are supplied by Australian Professional Rodeo Association (APRA) accredited contractors.

Rodeos represent a relatively small scale of economic activity in Victoria. There are four main operators, and from 2005 to 2007 an average of 28 rodeos were held annually. A number of these rodeos are important for some small rural communities. Only one or two rodeo schools are conducted each year.

In 1982 during the World Cup Rodeo held in Melbourne, a number of incidents occurred which resulted in a prosecution of the rodeo organiser by the RSPCA. Following these incidents and general concern about the welfare of animals used in rodeos, the Act was redrafted in 1986 and new provisions relating to rodeos and codes of practice were introduced. ⁷⁵

In recent years there have been growing calls from animal welfare groups to impose strict conditions on rodeos or to ban them altogether. For example, the AVA considers that rodeos should only be permitted where there is relevant legislative control to ensure the welfare of the animals involved, and where there is an enforceable code of practice for animal welfare. The AVA considers that such codes of practice should include a requirement for a suitably experienced veterinarian to be involved in the planning of the rodeo and to be present throughout the event. In addition, the AVA endorses the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Rodeo and Rodeo School Livestock in Victoria and encourages its adoption by other states and territories.⁷⁶Animal welfare groups have generally called for a ban on rodeos. ⁷⁷

7.2 Current Regulatory Framework

7.2.1 Victoria

The conduct of rodeos and rodeo events is regulated at several levels: the main provisions are contained in Part 2 of the Act, while details giving effect to these provisions are prescribed in the Regulations. The code of practice made under section 7 of the Act sets out general responsibilities for rodeo operators and participants. In addition, the APRA has formulated a Voluntary Code of Conduct for the Welfare of Rodeo Livestock.

Given the specific nature of rodeos, most of the requirements are prescribed in the Regulations (these are discussed in detail in section 7.5) or are contained in the code of practice. These are of a prescriptive nature and relate to standards for arenas, yard and chute design, and standards for participants and staff in the handling and care of livestock. They also provide a basis for monitoring the welfare of animals at rodeos and rodeo schools.

The Regulations and code of practice seek to ensure that animals used in rodeos and rodeo schools are treated humanely and that a minimum standard is provided for the care and welfare of rodeo livestock. Broadly, the regulatory framework seeks to ensure that proper consideration is given to the health and welfare of animals used in rodeos and rodeo schools, and that events and procedures are designed to prevent cruelty and to minimise the impacts on the welfare of the animals used. The requirements also seek to ensure that people who have responsibilities in the organisation and running of rodeos and rodeo schools should have appropriate training so that the animal welfare needs are met.⁷⁸

7.2.2 Other Jurisdictions

At the Commonwealth level, in 2006 the National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare (NCCAW) developed Standards for the Care and Treatment of Rodeo Livestock. These standards are adopted by some states. Generally, rodeos are regulated by legislation, regulations or codes around Australia. Table 12 below summarises the regulatory arrangements with respect to rodeos in other Australian jurisdictions.

Table 12: Regulatory Arrangements for Rodeos in the States and Territories

State/ Territory	Description of Arrangement	Legal Status
NSW	Rodeo events are conducted in accordance with a Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals Used in Rodeo Events under the NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979	Legally enforceable conditions
QLD	No specific provisions covering the use of animals in rodeos.	Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 applies to general cruelty offences
WA	WA rodeos should be conducted in-principle with the Code of Practice for the Conduct of Rodeos in Western Australia. The WA code is referenced in the Animal Welfare (General) Regulations 2003 provided under Section 25 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 for the purposes of a defence against cruelty under the Act.	Adherence to the code of practice provides a defence against animal cruelty.
SA	A person conducting a rodeo event must obtain a permit issued by the Minister under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2000. A veterinarian must be on site at all times.	Legally enforceable conditions
TAS	A person conducting a rodeo event must do so in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act 1993 and rodeo code of practice.	Legally enforceable conditions
NT	A person conducting a rodeo event must comply with the NCCAW Standards for the Care and Treatment of Rodeo Livestock.	Adherence to the code of practice provides a defence against animal cruelty.
ACT	Rodeos are banned	Prohibition of events

All rodeo operators conducting events in Australia (except in Queensland) are required to adhere to government published rodeo codes of practice. However, this ranges from adherence supported by regulation, which are legally enforceable (e.g., Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania) to 'voluntary' adherence, which provides a defence under animal cruelty legislation (e.g., Northern Territory, Western Australia). Reflecting current community concern, it is worth noting that Tasmania introduced rodeo specific regulations on 29 July 2008.

Unfortunately the other jurisdictions in Australia do not collect data concerning incidents or injuries at rodeos, therefore a statistical comparison of the effectiveness of different regulatory arrangements is not possible.

However, it is relevant to make several observations with respect to Queensland given that it is the only Australian jurisdiction currently without rodeo-specific regulations or codes. First, Queensland is the only jurisdiction that allows 'calf roping', which places these animals at considerable risk of injury given their size and physical development. Second, there is anecdotal evidence of 'hot shotting' (the use of electric prodders to excite an animal) and over use of prods generally (see Case Study 5). Third, since there are no permit requirements, anyone can operate a rodeo in Queensland, including persons with no affiliation to rodeo organisations and therefore there is no obligation to adhere to industry codes. Fourth, perhaps recognising these issues, the Queensland Government is currently developing a codes for types of animal use other than livestock (for example rodeos) and it is likely that these codes will be adopted under the Queensland Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 in the future.⁷⁹

Other than a rodeo permit required in South Australia, there are no licensing or permit requirements in other jurisdictions. Therefore, a rodeo operator from another state would need to apply for a Victorian rodeo permit if they wished to conduct an event in Victoria. The codes in different jurisdictions of practice are broadly similar.

7.3 Nature and Extent of the Problem - Rodeos and Rodeo Schools

7.3.1 Nature of the Problem

Rodeo events such as buck-jumping, rough-riding, animal dogging, and roping or tying are extremely physical activities and have inherent risks associated with possible injuries and potential for causing unreasonable suffering or stress to animals. In addition, if not properly managed, chutes, arenas and equipment have the potential to cause animal injuries. Rodeos also involve the movement and handling of a large number of animals.

The risk of injury also creates a need to have a veterinary practitioner in attendance (similarly, regulations covering boxing and combat sport contests require the attendance of a medical practitioner). The presence of a veterinarian encourages considerate treatment of animals and mitigates the risk of cruelty to animals.⁸⁰It is therefore relevant to note that according to the AVA the requirements of the legislation, including the requirement that a registered veterinary practitioner be in attendance, has reduced the number of complaints about the treatment of animals arising from the conduct of rodeos.⁸¹

As prima facie evidence of a problem, rodeos are banned on animal cruelty grounds in the ACT, United Kingdom and in parts of Europe and the United States.

7.3.2 Extent of the Problem

As noted above, rodeos in Victoria have been regulated since 1986, therefore it is difficult to establish the magnitude of animal injury and distress if there were no regulatory controls in place. In addition, animal injury statistics are not collected on a consolidated basis.

However, the Bureau of Animal Welfare reported that from January 2006 to February 2007, 64 rodeos events were held in Victoria. Of these events, there were 19 rodeos in which injuries or incidents were reported by the veterinarian in attendance. In these events, nine cuts and lacerations were reported as a result of contact with fences, chutes or during transport. There were three reported incidents of minor swelling or tendon injury, and two suspected hock or knee fractures, while one steer wrenched a hock during a roping event. Several animals were withdrawn from events because of prior injuries or condition, and at one rodeo some horses appeared dehydrated.

Over this 12 month period three animals died. One steer and one bull were destroyed following injuries sustained during rodeo events, and a bull died after a bucking event (although the cause of this death was not established). The routine use of an electric prodder on a bucking horse was reported at one rodeo by a veterinarian and concerns have been expressed by POCTA inspectors over excessive use of prods on animals. It is difficult to compare Victorian data to other states because no other state or territory requires injuries or incidents to be reported, and hence no other comparable data exists.

Against this, APRA suggests that rodeo animal injuries are relatively rare. APRA states that a survey conducted in 1994 of APRA rodeos found an overall injury rate of one in 1,405 animals used in competition (an injury rate of 0.072 per cent), while of these the number of injuries requiring veterinary attention was one in every 2,810 animals (an injury rate of 0.036 per cent).⁸²

It is difficult to reconcile the level of incidents reported by the Bureau of Animal Welfare compared to the level of incidents noted in the APRA survey, suffice it to say that the Bureau of Animal Welfare data is relatively recent and is reported by veterinary practitioners.

7.4 Parties Affected by the Proposed Regulations

Parties affected by the proposed Regulations include rodeo organisers, stock contractors, a small number of veterinary practitioners, and more broadly, rodeo spectators. A range of businesses including food, drinks, merchandise, security and other contractors are also indirectly impacted by the proposed Regulations.

7.5 Description of the Proposed Regulations - Rodeos and Rodeo Schools

Part 3 − Rodeos and Rodeo Schools: Regulations 49 to 84

Regulation 49 provides definitions of 'appointed veterinary practitioner', 'approved organisation', 'girth or cinch', 'gullet', 'jerk line', 'neck rope', 'nominated veterinary practitioner', 'paddle rowels', 'rigging', 'rodeo licence holder', 'rodeo permit holder', 'rodeo school permit holder' and 'spur rowel'.

Section 17C(2)(a) of the Act provides that a person must supply the prescribed particulars when applying for a licence to operate a rodeo. Regulation 50 prescribes the information that must be included in such an application: name and contact details of the applicant, the name of the approved organisation that the applicant is accredited with, and the date the form was signed by the applicant. DPI provides applicants with a pro-forma application form.

Section 17C(2)(a) of the Act provides that a person must supply the prescribed particulars when applying for an individual permit in order to operate a rodeo or rodeo school. Regulation 51 prescribes the information that must be included in such an application: name and contact details of the applicant, location of the rodeo or rodeo school, a list of all rodeo or rodeo school events, the start and finish dates of the rodeo or rodeo school, the start and finish times for each day, details of the veterinary practitioner nominated to attend, the name of the approved organisation that the applicant is accredited with, and the date the form was signed by the applicant. In addition, in the case of a rodeo school permit, the applicant must also provide in the application the name of the instructor or instructors nominated for each class of instruction, the name of the nominated instructor in-charge; and the name of the approved organisation that has accredited each instructor.

For the purposes of section 17E(4) of the Act, Regulation 52 prescribes conditions for rodeo licences, rodeo permits and rodeo school permits. Specifically, the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must provide proper and sufficient food, water and shelter for all animals and take responsibility for the management of all animals involved in the rodeo or rodeo school. The licence or permit holder must not provide, use or allow use of a stimulant or hypnotic substance on any animal that is to take part in a rodeo or rodeo school. In relation to venue, the licence or permit holder must ensure that the rodeo arena, rodeo school training area, chute and yard fencing is strong enough to contain animals and be clearly visible to the animals. It must also be constructed in a manner that is not likely to cause injury or harm to any animal and contains no protrusions likely to cause injury or harm to any animal. In addition, the licence or permit holder must ensure that any animal in a chute is immediately released if it becomes caught, tries to jump out more than twice or in any way appears to be in danger of injury or harming itself. Finally, Regulation 52 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must be accredited with an organisation approved by the Minister. Accreditation with an approved organisation requires members to adhere to the organisation's code of conduct.

There is a high risk that if rodeo events are not conducted with appropriate safeguards and controls, animals will be injured. Accreditation with an industry body whose object, amongst other things, is to manage such risks helps to ensure that rodeos and rodeo schools are conducted at an appropriate standard. When risks are high and there is an advantage in involving industry to assist in managing such risks, the government often requires membership of association bodies, e.g., membership for legal practitioners, gun clubs for firearm owners. Requiring membership with an accredited rodeo organisation also removes the need for the government to test competency when a person applies for a licence or permit for a rodeo or rodeo school.

Regulation 53 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must produce the permit or licence to a POCTA inspector on demand once a POCTA inspector has announced that that they are authorised to see the permit or licence and has shown their identification card to the holder of the permit or licence.

Regulation 54 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence must notify the Department Head at least 28 days before a rodeo is operated under the licence of: the date or dates that the rodeo will be held, the start and finish times for each day of the rodeo, the location where the rodeo will be held, the contact details of the nominated veterinary practitioner attending the rodeo, a list of all rodeo events to be held at the rodeo, and the name of the approved organisation with which the licence holder is accredited.

Regulation 55 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must ensure that they, and the nominated veterinary practitioner or appointed veterinary practitioner, attend when any rodeo or rodeo school held under the licence or permit is in progress

Regulation 56 requires that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must accept and implement the instructions of the nominated veterinary practitioner or appointed veterinary practitioner in attendance in relation to any animals used or held in relation to any rodeo or rodeo school held under the licence or permit.

Regulation 57 deals with the duties of a nominated veterinary practitioner. The regulation requires that if a nominated veterinary practitioner is unable to attend the rodeo or rodeo school for which they have been nominated, then that practitioner must, as soon as possible but at least 72 hours prior to the commencement date of the rodeo or rodeo school, appoint another veterinary practitioner to attend and notify the licence or permit holder in writing of the name and address of the appointed veterinary practitioner.

If, within 72 hours of the rodeo or rodeo school taking place, for reason of an emergency, the nominated veterinary practitioner is unable to attend the rodeo or rodeo school, the nominated veterinary practitioner must inform the Department Head that they are unable to attend and also provide the details of the appointed replacement veterinary practitioner as soon as possible.

The duties also require that within 28 days of a rodeo or rodeo school taking place, the veterinary practitioner who attended the event must submit to the Department Head a veterinary report detailing the condition of the animals involved in the rodeo or rodeo school and any injuries sustained. The veterinary practitioner who attended the event must inspect animals before and after a rodeo or rodeo school for which the veterinary practitioner is nominated or appointed.

Regulation 58 provides that upon being notified by the nominated veterinary practitioner under regulation 57(1), the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must notify the Department Head in writing of the name, postal address and contact telephone number of the appointed veterinary practitioner as soon as is reasonably possible but no later than 48 hours prior to the relevant rodeo or rodeo school start date. If the Department Head receives a notification of such an appointment, the Department Head must, at least 24 hours prior to the start of the relevant rodeo or rodeo school, provide written advice of the appointment to the relevant licence or permit holder. If the Department Head receives notification of the appointment of a veterinary practitioner under regulation 57(2) (when the nominated veterinary practitioner is unable to attend due to an emergency), the Department Head must, as soon as possible, provide written advice of the appointment to the relevant licence or permit holder.

DPI needs to be notified of the veterinarian that will be attending the rodeo because they contact the veterinarian and send them information on their responsibilities and legal requirements pertaining to rodeos. It is also important that the veterinarians are experienced to handle these situations and they must be registered in Victoria. These regulations require a greater role by the veterinarian and it is important to ensure they are properly informed of their responsibilities and role in overseeing animal welfare at these events. Additionally, DPI needs to be able to identify the veterinarian so that they can obtain the required report if not provided and so they can be contacted in the event of a complaint about the rodeo or incidents at the rodeo.

Regulation 59 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must not permit animals, other than cattle and horses, to take part in a rodeo or rodeo school held under the licence or permit.

Regulation 60 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must not permit an animal that weighs less than 200 kilograms to take part in a rodeo or rodeo school held under the licence or permit. This threshold was originally included in the Code of Practice so that underweight animals were not used in rodeos, but more generally the minimum weight effectively prohibits 'calf roping'. Calves are more likely to sustain injuries compared to larger, mature animals.

Regulation 61 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must not allow use of horses under three years of age for bucking events held at a rodeo or rodeo school operated under the licence or permit. This age limit is set down because the skeletal system of horses under three years is still developing. Extreme pressure on the skeletal system, such as the activities involved in rodeo events, before the age of three years increases the risk to an unacceptable level of irreparable damage to the horse.

Regulation 62 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must not allow the use of any animal in rodeo or rodeo school event operated under the licence or permit on more than three occasions on any one day, and must not allow use of the same animal for steer wrestling and roping events at a rodeo or rodeo school conducted under the licence or permit.

Regulation 63 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must ensure that all animals used in a rodeo or rodeo school operated under the licence or permit are inspected on the day of the event by the licence/permit holder and the nominated veterinary practitioner or appointed veterinary practitioner before the animals are used in a rodeo or rodeo school.

Regulation 64 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must ensure that all animals used in any rodeo or rodeo school operated under the licence or permit are fit, healthy, without any defects and are suitable for the intended use.

Regulation 65 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must not permit any animal that is lame, sick, injured or has defective eyesight to take part in a rodeo or rodeo school held under the licence or permit, and must ensure that injured animals are isolated from other animals while a rodeo is being operated under the licence or permit unless instructed by the nominated veterinary practitioner or appointed veterinary practitioner.

Regulation 66 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must ensure that a suitable method of transport is available on site at all times for moving injured animals from a rodeo arena during any rodeo or rodeo school operated under the licence or permit.

Regulation 67 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must ensure that, during a rodeo or rodeo school operated under the licence or permit, the means to humanely destroy a seriously injured animal is available on site and a person licensed and qualified to humanely destroy an animal is available at all times.

Regulation 68 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must ensure that cattle and horses are not penned together in the yards and aggressive animals are isolated from other animals during any rodeo or rodeo school operated under the licence or permit.

Regulation 69 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must ensure that a rodeo arena, or the training area at the premises of a rodeo school, is free of rocks, holes and any other obstacles during any rodeo or rodeo school operated under the licence or permit.

Regulation 70 requires the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must ensure that any animal is removed immediately from a rodeo arena or the premises of a rodeo school after completing an event in any rodeo or rodeo school operated under the licence or permit.

Regulation 71 requires that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must ensure that mares with foals at foot or cows with calves at foot are not yarded or used in or at a rodeo or rodeo school conducted under the licence or permit.

Regulation 72 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit while operating a rodeo under the licence or permit must ensure that a neck rope and jerk line is fitted to a horse used for steer roping events to discourage dragging of the steer when the rider dismounts.

Regulation 73 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must ensure that the saddle on a horse used in any rodeo or rodeo school operated under the licence or permit is correctly fitted and has a minimum clearance of 10 centimetres under the gullet of the saddle.

Regulation 74 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must ensure that when fully tightened cinches or girths are used on bucking animals in any rodeo or rodeo school operated under the licence or permit, a person is able to insert one finger between the girth and the animal's body and the front cinch or girth is a minimum of 12 centimetres in width.

Regulation 75 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must ensure, in any rodeo or rodeo school operated under the licence or permit, that pads are placed under the saddles and rigging to protect the animals from abrasion or injury and that the pads extend a minimum of 5 centimetres beyond the saddle or rigging.

Regulation 76 provides that the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must ensure that flank straps and ropes are not tightened more than twice on an animal standing in the chute in any rodeo or rodeo school operated under the licence or permit. In addition, only flank straps which incorporate a quick-release device and are lined to effectively prevent injury or undue discomfort to the animal may be used. Further, the holder of a rodeo licence, rodeo permit or rodeo school permit must ensure horn wraps that protect the ears and base of the horns from rope burns are used on cattle in roping events at a rodeo or rodeo school operated under the licence or permit.

Regulation 77 provides that a person must not use an electric prodder at a rodeo or rodeo school on any animal other than cattle and must do so only on the hip or shoulder of the cattle. A person must not use an electric prodder in the rodeo arena or training area of a rodeo school. A person at a rodeo or rodeo school must not use an electric prodder on cattle in the chute, unless the animal is down in the chute or the animal has refused to leave the chute.

Regulation 78 provides that a person at a rodeo or rodeo school must not use any item when handling animals to strike or poke an animal in a manner or with such force that may cause unreasonable pain or injury to an animal.

Regulation 79 provides that a person at a rodeo or rodeo school must not wear or use paddle rowels or spur rowels that are not free-running when riding a horse, and must not wear or use spur rowels that are incapable of at least half a turn when riding a bull, and must not wear or use spur rowels that are not dulled and at least 3 millimetres in width at the narrowest part and a minimum of 2 centimetres to the point of the rowel.

Regulation 80 provides that a person at a rodeo or rodeo school must not use sharp or cutting objects in a cinch, saddle, girth or flank strap.

Regulation 81 provides that during a rodeo or rodeo school, a person must not pull a roped animal backward off its feet or allow a roped animal to be dragged.

Regulation 82 provides that, while a rodeo or rodeo school is being held, a person must not bring animals other than cattle and horses used for the rodeo or rodeo school into a rodeo arena during an event at the rodeo or into the training area at the premises of the rodeo school.

Regulation 83 provides that a person must not use fireworks at a rodeo while any animal is in the arena. It also prohibits a person from using fireworks at the premises of a rodeo school while the school is being held.

Regulation 84 requires that a person must not be under the influence of alcohol or any other drug if they are to take part in a rodeo or rodeo school or handle animals in the holding yards, chute, rodeo arena or premises of a rodeo or rodeo school.

7.6 Comparison with the Current Regulations

The proposed Regulations have been significantly redrafted to make them clearer and to enhance compliance with the requirements. Despite significant changes in form, there are very few new requirements. The current rodeo permit contains 23 conditions. Of these, 21 conditions have been relocated in the proposed Regulations to improve clarity. Similarly, a number of the requirements currently contained in Code of Practice for the Welfare of Rodeo and Rodeo School Livestock in Victoria have been drawn into the proposed Regulations. The purpose of this consolidation is to draw the various requirements into one regulatory instrument to improve the administrative clarity and to ensure effective enforcement.

The main changes compared to the current Regulations are that definitions have been included to improve the clarity and understanding of the proposed Regulations. Four permit application schedules relating to rodeos and rodeo schools have been removed. The Bureau of Animal Welfare advises that it will develop pro-forma applications in place of these, which will lower applicants' administrative and search costs.

Some of the previous permit requirements were related to the behaviour or actions of individuals but liability was imposed on the permit holder (i.e., under the influence of drugs or alcohol or use of inappropriate spurs). It is considered that in these instances liability should be placed on the individual rather than the permit or licence holder who may have limited control to prevent such conduct.

Further, in terms of lowering administrative costs for rodeo operators conducting multiple events, a new annual licence will be introduced. This will remove the need for operators to apply for a separate permit for each event (licence holders will simply be required to notify DPI of forthcoming event details 28 days prior to the event). Previous permit conditions required that the veterinary practitioner to be named on the permit must be the veterinarian in attendance, this meant that the permit had to be amended if the nominated veterinarian could no longer attend. The proposed Regulations will include a new process for veterinary practitioners in relation to notifying the rodeo organiser and DPI if they are unable to attend and the details concerning their replacement.

The previous requirement of a veterinary practitioner to submit a report to the Bureau of Animal Welfare within seven days following the event is being moved from the Code of Practice into the proposed Regulations, and the reporting time is extended from 7 to 28 days. These reports are vital to assist in the monitoring of rodeos and evaluation of the success of the regulations.

The major change contained in the proposed Regulations is the inclusion of 37 new infringement offences. These changes were highlighted by the Minister of Agriculture when the Animals Legislation Amendment (Animal Care) Bill was introduced Parliament in late 2007. These penalties are mostly attached to requirements that were previously contained in the permit conditions or in the Code of Practice. The previous penalties were considerably larger and contained in the Act. These penalties seek to ensure compliance and effective enforcement without taking what may be regarded as minor non-compliances to court. The level and appropriateness of these penalties were developed with guidance from the Infringement System Oversight Unit, Department of Justice, who provides whole-of-government advice and monitoring for the infringements system in Victorian under the Infringements Act 2006.

Overall, the changes seek to simplify the current regulatory arrangements by placing them in one regulatory instrument and increase compliance by attaching penalties and infringements to a broad range of requirements.

7.7 The Base Case

As noted earlier, in broad terms, the 'base case' describes those laws and regulations currently in place which may cover activities dealt with by the proposed Regulations and their likely effectiveness. In the absence of the proposed Regulations the 'base case' would be represented by the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Rodeo and Rodeo School Livestock in Victoria made under section 7 of the Act and the self-regulatory APRA Voluntary Code of Conduct for the Welfare of Rodeo Livestock. Given that the proposed Regulations prescribe the key operational requirements and standards, the provisions in the Act alone would have no practical effect.

7.8 Assessment of Regulatory and Non-regulatory Alternatives

7.8.1 The Proposed Regulations

Proposed Regulations 49 to 84 were examined and assessed for the likely costs they will impose on rodeo operators. Regulations imposing administrative and substantive compliance costs were calculated using the Standard Cost Model and were estimated to be in the order of $322,000 over a ten-year period, or approximately $32,000 per annum. Table 13 shows these costs (detailed calculations are contained in Attachment E). Therefore, a rodeo operator is likely to incur costs of slightly over $1,000 for each rodeo, of which the requirement for a veterinary practitioner to attend each event contributes to around 93 per cent of these costs.⁸³

Table 13: Administration and Substantive Compliance Costs Imposed by Proposed Rodeo Regulations, 10-Year Assessment Period

Regulation	Description of Regulation	Cost ($'000s)
50,51	Application for a rodeo licence and permits	2
52	Accreditation with approved organisation	16
54	Department to be advised of rodeos or rodeo schools	3
55	Attendance by a veterinary practitioner	300
58	Department to be advised of veterinary practitioner	1
Total		322

* Numbers rounded.

Regulations 59 to 84 relate to the handling of animals, equipment used, and arena conditions. It is difficult to place a monetary value on the costs of these regulations as operators are likely to adopt these practices and conditions in any case. These regulations largely draw upon the industry's own code of practice (which were incorporated into the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Rodeo and Rodeo School Livestock in Victoria), and therefore represent normal industry practices of a well run business.

Consultation with the rodeo industry in Victoria indicates strong support for these requirements, and it is worth noting that the NCP Review of the Act observed that it received no submissions suggesting that the regulations imposed excessive costs. In this respect, the behaviours required by the proposed Regulations are unlikely to have a significant cost impact.⁸⁴

7.8.2 Government Administrative Costs

The Bureau of Animal Welfare provided estimates of the level and number of staff and time taken to process and to administer requirements under the current Regulations (see Attachment F for descriptions of tasks). Table 14 shows these costs over a 10-year period to be in the order of $34,000 (detailed calculations are contained in Attachment E). These costs are relatively low because of the small number of permits issued. It is likely that these costs will decline with the introduction of the rodeo licence.

Table 14: Government Administration Costs, 10-Year Assessment Period

Bureau of Animal Welfare	Cost ($'000s)
Estimated cost of processing and administering licences and permits	34
Total	34

* Numbers rounded

7.8.3 Total Costs of the Proposed Regulations

The total quantifiable costs of the proposed Regulations over a 10-year period are shown in Table 15 and are approximately $356,000, or around $35,000 per annum.

Table 15: Total Cost of the Proposed Regulations, 10-Year Assessment Period

Industry and Government Administrative Costs	Cost ($'000s)
Administrative and compliance costs on rodeo operators	322
Government administrative costs	34
Total	356

* Numbers rounded.

As mentioned above, a large number of the regulations relate to the handling of animals, equipment used, and arena conditions. Typically, when government seeks to modify or change behaviour, affected parties may incur costs. A finding of this RIS is that the proposed Regulations typically mirror industry best practice and as such impose negligible costs. Many of the provisions in the proposed Regulations were derived from rodeo industry codes. Persons that may have considered deviating from the standards in the Regulations would not have been operating at industry best practice.

7.8.4 Benefits of the Proposed Regulations

While the costs are mostly imposed upon the rodeo industry (and ultimately the consumer to the extent that these costs are passed on), the benefits predominantly relate to prevention of cruelty to rodeo livestock and ensuring that animals used in rodeos are appropriately treated. In this regard, the proposed Regulations can be viewed as a framework to mitigate or minimise possible incidents of animal cruelty. There is no agreed methodology on placing a monetary value on pain and suffering of animals. However, the community clearly places a high value on the prevention of cruelty to animals; that is, animals should be treated humanely and where risks are involved they should be managed to an acceptable level. As noted earlier, some sections of the community advocate a ban on rodeos. Were regulations not in place for this industry the risk of a ban on these events would be high.

The proposed Regulations are relatively prescriptive, however, this is balanced against the fact that they provide a clear statement of what is expected in respect of compliance with the Act and thus increase certainty to industry participants and reduce potential costs associated with enforcement.

Given the difficulty in assigning a dollar value to the benefits associated with the proposed Regulations, MCA was used to allow a reasoned comparison with other regulatory alternatives. Four criteria were selected for this assessment: the first represents the overall objective of preventing animal cruelty and managing livestock welfare (weighting 60 per cent); the second concerns the utility of rodeo spectators (20 per cent); the third relates to the effectiveness of the regulatory vehicle and likely compliance (10 per cent); and finally cost-effectiveness of the proposal in terms of industry and governments costs is assessed (10 per cent). The prevention of cruelty/animal welfare receives a relatively high weighting because it reflects the overall government objectives concerning animal cruelty. Rodeo spectator utility represents the 'well-being' or 'happiness' spectators derive from viewing rodeo events. While this criterion does not directly relate to the objectives of prevention of animal cruelty, the proposal and alternatives will impact on rodeo spectators. This may affect other government objectives including those associated with small business, regional activity, cultural diversity and heritage.

In assessing the proposed Regulations, the prevention of cruelty to animals and promotion of animal welfare criterion is assigned a relatively high score of 75 because the current regulatory regime appears to be working effectively in minimising risks to animals (Victoria's regulatory regime is the strictest in Australia). The utility of rodeo spectators is assigned a relatively high score of 75. This is because the regulatory regime provides that rodeos can operate (as opposed to the ACT where they are banned) and helps to ensure that animals are not treated cruelly (presumably a reasonable person would receive 'dis-utility' from viewing spectacles involving cruelty to animals). The proposed Regulations introduce a comprehensive range of penalties for cruelty offence which seek to ensure compliance and permit enforcement (a number of these penalties are currently contained in the Act). Consequently, a relatively high scores of 75 is assigned to this criterion. While assessed as effective in achieving government objectives, the proposed Regulations impose the greatest costs on rodeo operators and government, and a score of -50 is assigned to this criterion. The MCA therefore results in a net score of +62.5 for the proposed Regulations, as shown in Table 16.

Table 16: Multi-criteria Analysis Assessment of the proposed Regulations

Criteria	Weighting	Assigned Score	Weighted Score
Prevent cruelty to animals/animal welfare	60	75	45
Utility of rodeo spectators	20	75	15
Compliance/efficacy	10	75	7.5
Cost-effectiveness	10	-50	-5
Total	100%		+62.5

7.9 Self-regulation/codes of conduct

Self-regulation (or voluntary codes of practice or standards) refers to benchmark actions or procedures, as determined by the particular industry or profession that are generally acceptable within peer groups and the wider society. Under such schemes, the relevant industry is solely responsible for enforcement. Self-regulation usually implies that businesses in an industry or members of a profession have accepted mutual obligations. These obligations are often described in a code or industry standards.

Self-regulation has some potential advantages. As major industry participants often set the industry standards, there is likely to be greater awareness of obligations and compliance may be high. In addition, self-regulation utilises the expertise and experience of those in the industry, and may encourage innovative behaviour of industry participants. The industry may also place pressure on 'rogue players' to lift their performance. Self-regulation also lowers administrative costs for government. In this regard, rodeos held in Queensland are not controlled by government specific regulation and it is understood generally adopt the APRA Voluntary Code of Conduct for the Welfare of Rodeo Livestock.

However, under self-regulatory arrangements enforcement or disciplinary processes run the risk of not being effective or transparent. Self-regulation is typically suitable for cases where the problem to be addressed has a low-risk or is of low impact.⁸⁵In this regard, Victoria Police has argued that, "it is necessary in this instance to legislate to control behaviour. Other less intrusive methods of regulating behaviour, such as codes of conduct or education, have in the past proven ineffective in controlling the abuse of animals".⁸⁶

The costs associated with this proposal are negligible. This is because detailed codes of conduct/practice have already been formulated, i.e., the APRA Voluntary Code of Conduct for the Welfare of Rodeo Livestock and the NCCAW Standards for the Care and Treatment of Rodeo Livestock.

Decision Criteria

Table 17: Multi-criteria Analysis Assessment of Self-Regulation/Codes of Conduct

Criteria	Weighting	Assigned Score	Weighted Score
Prevent cruelty to animals/animal welfare	60	50	30
Utility of rodeo spectators	20	75	15
Compliance/efficacy	10	50	5
Cost-effectiveness	10	-25	-2.5
Total	100%		47.5

The prevention of cruelty to animals and promotion of animal welfare criterion receives a relatively high score of 50. This is because the industry has developed a code practice which has wide acceptance, and this code has been largely reflected in government codes. Utility of rodeo spectators is awarded a relatively high score of 75 (this score has been adopted in other options because it is assumed that aside from banning rodeos, the overall regulatory regime will not have a significant effect on the 'well-being' of spectators). Compliance with codes is likely to relatively effective given that the current government is well-accepted by the industry. Therefore, a score of 50 is assigned to this criterion. Given that codes currently exist, costs associated with this option are likely to be minimal. Nevertheless, there would be costs associated with monitoring, updating and communicating a code of conduct. This criterion therefore is assigned a score of -25 to reflect to minor costs. Overall, this option received a net score of +47.5, as shown in Table 17.

7.10 Negative Licensing

Negative licensing is designed to ensure that individuals or businesses, who have demonstrated by their prior action that they are incompetent or irresponsible, are precluded from operating in a particular industry in the case of rodeos. For example, a person convicted of breaching the Act could be prohibited from engaging in the industry. This approach ensures that the most serious offenders are removed from the industry without, at the same time, placing an undue burden of licensing/registration on the entire industry. Such an approach could be assessed against performance-based criteria set down by government and/or industry.

The advantage of this approach is that those with a poor track record of breaching the Act could be either barred from the industry or closely monitored. The main disadvantage of this alternative is that some participants may be able to operate undetected or act inappropriately before they are detected. Given the potential risks associated with rodeos, it may be unacceptable that animals sustain injuries or even death before noncomplying operators are identified. On this point, negative licensing regimes tend to be reactive rather than proactive.

A negative licensing regime would be less costly to the government than the current costs of administering the proposed Regulations, but may involve a higher level of monitoring and possible litigation costs (e.g., a banned participant might challenge a decision in the courts or VCAT).

Table 18: Multi-criteria Analysis Assessment of Negative Licensing

Criteria	Weighting	Assigned Score	Weighted Score
Prevent cruelty to animals/animal welfare	60	50	30.0
Utility of rodeo spectators	20	75	15.0
Compliance/efficacy	10	50	5.0
Cost-effectiveness	10	-50	-5.0
Total	100%		+45.0

Negative licensing regimes are essentially reactive and an operator would have had to demonstrate serial neglect before being banned or restricted (it is worth noting that negative licensing regimes are rarely used in situations where high impacts or risks are involved). Consequently, the prevention of cruelty to animals and animal welfare criterion is assigned a score of 50, which is above the base case but below the proposed regulations. A score of 75 is assigned for the utility of rodeo spectators (as discussed above, aside from a complete ban of rodeos it is assumed that a different regulatory option would deliver a broadly consistent consumer experience). If rigorously enforced against industry or government benchmarks, this alternative may deliver benefits above the base case, however, repeated offences may need to be detected before sanctions could be applied, and therefore compliance receives a score of 50. Finally, negative licensing will impose costs on the industry and government but lower costs than the proposed Regulations, and receives a score of -50. Consequently, this alternative resulted in a net score of +45.0, as shown in Table 18.

7.11 Banning Rodeo Events

Proponents of rodeos contend that rodeos provide a legitimate form of sport and entertainment in which participants display a range of traditional recreational and stock handling skills. They argue that the activities are not cruel and that injuries are rare. Alternatively, opponents argue that rodeos are "nothing more than a blatant exhibition of animal abuse". ⁸⁷ As noted above, rodeos are banned in the ACT and in a number of countries.

A RIS is required to assess alternative regulatory or non-regulatory options that are practicable. An alternative to the proposed Regulations could be to prohibit certain rodeo activities or to ban rodeos in Victoria altogether. The Victorian Government's current policy does not include banning rodeos because it considers that the proposed regulatory option provides protection for the welfare of animals and minimises the risk of injury and death for the animals.

That said, for illustrative purposes two views can be put forward concerning the banning of rodeos. The first is that banning rodeos may contribute broadly to the government's prevention of cruelty to animal objectives. The second view is that given that the Victorian Government currently provides a regulatory framework, which manages the conduct of rodeos and minimises associated risks. In fact, Tourism Victoria actively promotes a number of rodeos in regional Victoria (e.g., Tourism Victoria describes a rodeo as "an exciting event for horse lovers as it is full of local colour, cowboys and provides an old fashioned good time for the whole family"⁸⁸).

The costs associated with banning rodeos in Victoria would include the direct economic loss to those associated with rodeos (e.g., operators, stock contractors, competitors, catering and drinks businesses, etc, however, any net loss to the Victorian economy would depend on how such expenditure was re-directed) and cultural/social loss (e.g., many rodeo spectators have a strong cultural affiliation for Victoria's pastoral and equine history). Given that no economic impact studies have assessed the contribution of rodeos to the Victorian economy it is difficult to estimate this cost in monetary terms (although such activity is likely to be relatively minor compared to other events). A ban may also disproportionately impact certain regional towns (e.g., Merrijig, Omeo, Lang Lang). Rodeos are also popular with some sections of the community and such a ban would diminish the utility (i.e. happiness/well-being) of these persons. The cultural aspects associated with rodeos cannot be quantified, but it is worth noting that most jurisdictions that have banned rodeos do not have a strong pastoral or cowboy/stockman heritage. Further, any such ban may also run the risk that rodeos could be conducted illicitly without any form of control.

The principle benefit of banning rodeos would be in terms of reducing injuries and harms to rodeo livestock. As with the costs, these benefits are difficult to quantify in monetary terms.

Table 19: Multi-criteria Analysis Assessment of Banning Rodeo Events

Criteria	Weighting	Assigned Score	Weighted Score
Prevent cruelty to animals/animal welfare	60	100	60
Utility of rodeo spectators	20	-100	-20
Compliance/efficacy	10	100	10
Cost-effectiveness	10	75	7.5
Total	100%		+57.5

In terms of animal cruelty and welfare objectives, the banning of rodeos in Victoria would achieve a maximum score of 100. Alternatively, a ban would result in a score of 100 for Victorian spectators (spectators could however view rodeos in other jurisdictions, but this would result in a leakage, albeit minor, of consumer spending to other jurisdictions). A complete ban would prevent public rodeo events, so in terms of compliance this criterion receives a score of 100 (although there is a possibility that illicit unregulated events could occur on a smaller scale). This option receives a high score of 75 for cost effectiveness as it would require a once off legislative amendment. Overall, this alternative receives a net score of +57.5 (Table 19).

7.12 Variation of the proposed Regulations

In some instances, there are no practicable regulatory alternatives other than to alter the scope or extent of the proposed Regulations. It is not intended here to examine the costs and benefits of the large number of possible variations of the proposed Regulations, however this RIS represents another step in the consultation process and the Bureau of Animal Welfare welcomes comments or suggestions with respect to the nature, extent, and likely impacts of the proposed Regulations, and any variations that may improve the overall quality of the proposed Regulations.

With respect to the reporting requirements of veterinary practitioners, veterinarians also report on other areas of concern in relation to the animals at the rodeo which assists DPI to evaluate the effectiveness of regulations and to identify potential issues. The requirement to report on rodeos, even where no incidents are reported is not considers onerous (involving around a total of 15-20 'nil return' rodeo per annum). Veterinarians are paid for the preparation of these reports in their overall fee per event (i.e., noted as $1,200). DPI considers that if continuous reporting was not required that this would risk under reporting of actual incidents.

That said, stakeholders may wish to comment on the:

• information requirements in the proposed Regulations and any way these could be streamlined;
• level of fees and duration of licences;
• any practical difficulties associated with the proposed Regulations.

7.13 Summary of Feasible Alternatives

In summary, the proposed Regulations impose the greatest level of controls and costs on industry participants, but deliver the greatest net benefit as compared to the alternatives. Hence, the proposed Regulations are assessed as the most effective regulatory means to control the animal welfare risks associated with animal handling and rodeos.

The quantifiable costs of the proposed Regulations are estimated to be around $35,000 per annum, or slightly in excess of $1,000 per rodeo event. It is worth reiterating that the NCP Review of the Act observed that it received no submissions suggesting that the legislation imposed excessive costs. In this respect, to a considerable degree the behaviours required by the Act are not such as to have a significant cost impact. This is because many rodeo operators will already be complying with the required standards which are industry best practice and it will only be the minority that will be affected.

The benefits of the proposed Regulations predominantly relate to managing the risks associated with possible harm or distress to animals. While the alternative regulatory options were less costly, their capacity to meet government objectives (mostly in relation to ensuring compliance) was such that they could not be considered superior options. The MCA summarised in Table 20 below of the alternatives supports this assessment.

Table 20: Summary of Multi-criteria Analysis Compared to Regulations

Regulatory Proposal	MCA Assessment
Base case scenario	0
Proposed Regulations	62.5
Self Regulation/Co-regulation	47.5
Negative licensing	45.0
Ban of rodeos	57.5

It is noted that the proposal to ban rodeos receives a relatively high score, mostly attributable to it satisfying animal welfare objectives. Given that there have been calls to ban rodeos, and this has actually occurred in the ACT, the controls provided by the proposed Regulations appear to be the most effective way of minimising the risks of harm to animals, while taking into account spectator utility. Without these controls there is a likelihood that the calls to ban rodeos would receive greater support in the community.

Therefore, the above analysis finds that:

• the benefits to society of the proposed Regulations are likely to exceed the costs (i.e., there is a net benefit); and
• the net benefits of the proposed Regulations are greater than those associated with any practicable alternative.

7.14 Fees

7.14.1 Principles of Fee Setting

In September 2007 the Victorian Government released its Cost Recovery Guidelines (the Guidelines) to clarify its policy principles underpinning cost-recovery arrangements.⁸⁹ The Guidelines establish a whole-of-government framework thereby ensuring that cost-recovery arrangements in Victoria are transparent, efficient, effective and consistent with legislative requirements and government policy. These Guidelines are guided by the principle that properly designed cost-recovery arrangements can deliver both equity and efficiency benefits to the community; however poorly designed arrangements may create inappropriate incentives, and could potentially undermine the achievement of other government objectives.

Cost-recovery may be defined as the recuperation of the costs of government-provided or funded products, services or activities that, at least in part, provide private benefits to individuals, entities or groups, or reflect the costs imposed by their actions. The Guidelines apply to cost-recovery arrangements of government departments and general government agencies and include the recovery of the costs incurred by government in administering regulation (e.g., registration, licensing, issuing of permits, monitoring compliance, investigations, enforcement activity, etc).

As stated in the Guidelines, general government policy is that regulatory fees and user charges should generally be set on a full cost-recovery basis, however if it is determined that full cost-recovery is not consistent with other policy objectives of the government, then it may not be appropriate to introduce a full cost-recovery regime. Consideration may be given to a regime of partial cost-recovery (if it can be demonstrated that a lower than full cost-recovery does not jeopardise other objectives) and/or rely on other funding sources (e.g., general taxation) to finance the government activity.

7.14.2 Discussion of Cost-recovery Options

When designed and implemented appropriately, the adoption of cost-recovery has the potential to advance efficiency and equity objectives. However, the Guidelines note that "efficiency and equity considerations may need to be balanced against each other in determining the appropriate form of cost-recovery".⁹⁰

As mentioned above, while the Victorian Government's general policy is that fees should be set on a full cost-recovery basis, there are nevertheless situations where it may be desirable to recover at less than full cost, or not to recover at all. These include circumstances where social policy or equity considerations are considered to outweigh the efficiency objectives associated with full cost-recovery, and/or where full cost- recovery might adversely affect the achievement of other government policy objectives. Therefore the feasible fees options considered were:

• Option A - full cost-recovery (relevant fee based on 100 per cent of the average costs (both direct and indirect)) of processing rodeo licence and permit fees;
• Option B - partial cost-recovery;
• Option C - zero cost-recovery (this option is similar to the 'base case' because if the proposed fee regulations are not remade then no fees would be prescribed).

A Multi-criteria Analysis (MCA) was used to assess the preferred fee option in relation to rodeo licence and permit fees. Reflecting the Victorian Government's Cost Recovery Guidelines, the criteria used was:

• Efficient - fees set at a level to promote the efficient allocation of resources;
• Effective - fees set at a level to achieve the government's policy objective; and
• Equitable − fees set at a level to promote the sharing of costs and benefits across society.

Accordingly, the 'efficiency' and 'effectiveness' criteria were each assigned a weighting of 35 per cent reflecting their overall importance in achieving the government's policy objectives in relation to fee setting, while the 'equity' and criterion was assigned a weighting of 30 per cent.

7.14.3 Option A - Full Cost-recovery

The Cost Recovery Guidelines state that the general government policy is that regulatory fees and user charges should be set on a full cost-recovery basis. In this case, full costs represent the value of all the resources used or consumed in the provision of rodeo licensing, monitoring and compliance services.

A departure from full cost-recovery would result in the Victorian community providing a small subsidy to the industry. However, full cost-recovery may deter some individuals from participating in the industry if the perceived benefits of fees do not outweigh the fee costs. Given that full cost-recovery is the most economically efficient option for fee levels and fully achieves the government's objective on efficiency grounds, a maximum score of 100 is assigned to this criterion.

In terms of 'effectiveness', if fee levels are set too high it may result in non-compliance or drive elements of the industry 'underground'. There is a risk that this could jeopardise the government's policy objective in terms of minimising injuries or cruelty to livestock. However, given that the fees are relatively low, non-compliance is unlikely and consequently, a score of 75 is assigned to this criterion.

A lower score of 50 is assigned to the equity criterion because the fees are not based on a person's or business's ability to pay (known as 'vertical equity'), however, as stated, given that the fees are relatively low, equity concerns are not a large factor. This results in a net score of +76.25, as shown in Table 21.

Table 21: Multi-criteria Analysis Assessment of Option A

Criteria	Weighting	Assigned Score	Weighted Score
Efficient	35	100	35.00
Effective	35	75	26.25
Equitable	30	50	15.00
Total	100%		+76.25

* Numbers rounded

7.14.4 Option B - Partial Cost-recovery

Partial cost-recovery seeks to balance the efficiency objective against the equity objective, while ensuring that the government's overall policy objectives are not jeopardised.

The efficiency criterion is positive because industry participants would still make a contribution towards the funding of the regulation of rodeo management. However, given that this departs from the government's general policy of full cost-recovery, a score of 25 is assigned (this relates to the cost of the Bureau of Animal Welfare's administrative function). The effectiveness and equity criteria receive scores of 75 because a lower rate of fees is likely to encourage compliance, while lower fees may assist small operators. This results in an MCA score of +57.5, as shown in Table 22.

Table 22: Multi-criteria Analysis Assessment of Option B

Criteria	Weighting	Assigned Score	Weighted Score
Efficient	35	25	8.75
Effective	35	75	26.25
Equitable	30	75	22.5
Total			+57.5

* Numbers rounded

7.14.5 Zero Cost Recovery - The 'Base Case'

If no fees were recovered this situation would be similar to the 'base case'. That is, if the regulations were not re-made then no fees would be prescribed. Rodeo events do not fit the typical characteristics of a 'public good', such as a public park or educational facility. That is, the benefits of a rodeo licence or permit accrue to licensees and are 'excludable' from other members of society (i.e., only those holding a licence or permit may conduct a rodeo event). Given that zero-cost recovery approximates the 'base case', scores of zero are assigned against the criteria, resulting in a net score of zero (Table 23).

Table 23: Multi-criteria Analysis Assessment of Option C

Criteria	Weighting	Assigned Score	Weighted Score
Efficient	35	0	0.00
Effective	35	0	0.0
Equitable	30	0	0.0
Total			0.0

* Numbers rounded

7.15 Assessment of Costs and Benefits

The MCA in Table 24 shows that Fee Option A (full cost-recovery) is the superior option, principally because the efficiency criterion receives a high score. Rodeos are operated on a commercial basis and the financial benefits of holding a rodeo under a rodeo licence or permit accrue to licensees. Effectiveness in terms of compliance is also likely to be high given the relatively low level of the fees. Similarly, equity considerations were not assessed as a significant factor given the relatively affordable levels of the fees. It is also important to note that the proposed rodeo licence will result in savings for rodeo operators that hold a number of rodeos each year because an annual licence will replace the current arrangement which requires operators to apply for a new permit for each rodeo.

Table 24: Summary of Multi-criteria Analysis of Rodeo Fee Options

Regulatory Proposal	MCA Assessment
Option A: Full cost-recovery	+76.25
Option B: Partial cost-recovery	+57.50
Option C: Zero recovery	0.00

* Numbers rounded

The major economic impact of regulatory fees is that they add to the cost of rodeo operators. At the margin, this may deter certain persons from participating in the rodeo industry, however given the relatively low rate of the proposed fees this is unlikely. The key benefit of collecting fees is that they recover the cost from the direct beneficiary of the regulated activity. Table 25 below summarises the benefits and costs associated with the proposed fees.

Table 25: Benefits and Costs of the Fees

Benefits	Costs
Cost-recovery from the direct beneficiaries of the regulation. Fee levels in line with government policy, and promotes efficiency and equity. Reduces calls on consolidated revenue.	Increase costs for rodeo operators and spectators Processing costs for the government. May potentially discourage some from the rodeo industry.

7.16 Calculation of the Proposed Fees

The fees in Table 26 were calculated on a full cost-recovery basis in relation to evaluating and processing rodeo licences and permits. A reassessment of the fee levels in accordance with the Cost Recovery Guidelines resulted in a 140 per cent fee increase, albeit from a relatively low base. Further, the current fees for a rodeo permit include a fee to be paid for subsequent days if the rodeo lasts longer than one day. It is proposed to remove this fee. Detailed cost calculations are contained in Attachment F.

It is important to note that the fee calculations do not include enforcement activity. This is because POCTA inspectors (including RSPCA inspectors) are funded separately with respect to undertaking enforcement and inspection activities under the Act generally and these costs would be incurred in any case. That said, to the extent that inspectors attend rodeos, other DPI or RSPCA activities would be forgone (although this is likely to be small given that there are only around 28 rodeos held per annum and that inspectors attend only a proportion of these).

In assessing the fees, the tasks associated with the licence and permits were examined and processes mapped to establish the cost of staff time in undertaking these activities. For example, the tasks required to process a rodeo permit include facilitating lodgement of applications, review and assessment of the application, preparation and issuing of permit, despatch of the permit, contact and dispatch of information to nominated veterinary practitioner, recording any changes of a nominated veterinarian, and recording of rodeo reports (see Attachment F for a detailed schedule of administrative tasks). These tasks are undertaken by a VPS grade 3 staff member.

Table 26: Proposed Rodeo Licence, Rodeo and Rodeo School Permit Fees⁹¹

Regulation	Description	Current Fees ($)	Proposed Fees ($)	Percentage Increase %
104(1)	Rodeo licence	n.a	510.75	n.a
104(2)(a)	Rodeo permit	56.80 (plus 27.20 each day thereafter)	136.20	140
104(3)	Rodeo school permit	28.40	68.10	140

Note: Fees rounded to the nearest 10 cents in accordance with the Monetary Units Act 2004. Fees in the proposed Regulations are expressed in fee units. In the case of a rodeo permit an additional fee was charged per additional day a rodeo occurred.

8. SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES − REGULATORY AND NONREGULATORY OPTIONS

8.1 Context

Scientific research or teaching refers to where animals undergo physical or psychological procedure for scientific research or teaching purposes in Victoria. Such research or teaching is conducted in the fields of medical, dental, veterinary, agricultural, behavioural, biological, and ecological sciences by licensed institutions including universities, hospitals, government departments of agriculture and the environment, research institutions, and private companies.⁹²There are currently 159 licences issued under the regulations (114 scientific procedure premises licences, 34 scientific procedure field work licences, and 11 specified animal breeding licences). In 2006 in Victoria, 1,125,487 animals (mammals, birds and reptiles above the mid-point in the gestational cycle, or fish and amphibians capable of independent feeding⁹³) were reported to be involved in scientific research or teaching.

In 2006, approximately 40 per cent of animals were subjected to procedures with minimal or no impact, being merely 'observed'. A further 30 per cent had a 'minor procedure', equating to injections or blood sampling. Four per cent had minor operations under full anaesthetic such as a biopsy. Of the remaining 26 per cent, less than 0.04 per cent were in the high impact category 'death as an endpoint', where the animals were killed but not humanely euthanased. Such procedures require approval from the Minister.⁹⁴ Attachment G contains details of the 'impact categories' and examples of procedures under which animals were tested in 2006 in Victoria.⁹⁵

Types of research that animals are used for can include studies to improve knowledge and understanding in: fundamental biology/physiology, human and animal diseases, zoonotic diseases (diseases that can pass from animals to humans and vice versa), environmental monitoring/ecology, domestic animal management and production, wildlife management and production, vertebrate pest management, production of biological products, xenotransplantation (transplantation of living organs from one species to another), development of surgical, remedial and diagnostic techniques, education, training, and regulatory product testing of vaccines, chemicals, and new drug compounds. Victoria does not currently have any scientific procedures licences issued to cosmetic companies.

The reason why animals that undergo minor procedures are euthanased differs from case to case, and institutions are not required to report these in annual returns. In general, however, there is a tendency for institutions to decide that animals that have undergone a set of procedures should not ethically be subjected to any further scientific use that may cause the same animal any further potential pain, suffering, distress or harm. In addition, many feel that research animals may not be ideal candidates for re-homing. For these reasons many animals are often humanely euthanased rather than re-used or re-homed after use on a scientific procedure. In 2006, around 55 per cent of such animals were humanely euthanased.

Under the Act and Regulations, prior to an animal being used for research or teaching, an Animal Ethics Committee must be convinced that the animal use is justified. The considerations are assessed by weighing the predicted scientific or educational value of the projects against the potential effects on the welfare of the animals. Part of this decision is a consideration as to whether the least number of animals necessary are to be used, whether any pain or discomfort is minimised, and whether animals are sufficiently replaced by non-animal alternatives.⁹⁶

The purpose of an Animal Ethics Committee is to ensure there is a group of persons from a wide range of backgrounds to provide ongoing oversight and control over any animal that is being used, or being held for future use, for research or teaching. Generally, each institution has its own Animal Ethics Committee, however a single Animal Ethics Committee may serve a number of smaller research or teaching institutions with similar areas of research.

An Animal Ethics Committee must comply with the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (Australian Code of Practice). Its main functions are to approve, monitor and make recommendations to ensure the wellbeing of animals in programs of scientific procedures, breeding and other matters and practices relating to the care and welfare of animals held for the purposes of a licence. These are achieved by focussing on the justification of the project, procedures on the animals, number of animals, the likely cost-benefit of the project, the premises at which a scientific procedure is to be carried out, and the persons who will be involved and responsible for carrying these procedures out.

Other duties imposed on Animal Ethics Committees by the Australian Code of Practice include oversight of: training and competence of investigators and teachers; providing input on operational matters within the animal facility that relate to animal welfare; dealing with any unexpected adverse incidents in animals used and/or matters of noncompliance; monitoring the acquisition and transport of any animals used under the licence; withdrawing approval for projects as appropriate; authorising emergency euthanasia of any animal; and assessing annual progress reports and final reports for approved projects. Animal Ethics Committees are generally set up and/or maintained by the regulated parties themselves, and the costs associated with Animal Ethics Committees are borne by the licensee.

The constitution of an Animal Ethics Committee is as stipulated by the Australian Code of Practice, which mandates the inclusion of the following persons: a Chairperson; a veterinarian with experience relevant to the activities of the institution; a suitably qualified person with a higher research degree with substantial recent experience in the use of animals in scientific and teaching activities (e.g., a scientific researcher); a person with demonstrable commitment to and experience in furthering the welfare of animals who is independent of the institution (e.g., RSPCA member); and a lay person who is both independent of the institution and who has never been involved with the use of animals in scientific and teaching activities. Meetings must be held a minimum of four times a year. In any meeting where decisions are to be made, a quorum must be reached and the number of persons who are independent of the institution must always constitute more than one third of the voting persons present. In addition, the Australian Code of Practice recommends that a person responsible for the care of the animals within the institution, and that persons with specific expertise be invited to provide advice to particular projects as appropriate. DPI records the information of Animal Ethic Committee members, as required in the Australian Code of Practice and this information is referred to at times of auditing to ensure compliance with the Code.

DPI does not collect information on the number of procedures that are rejected because this is currently not a reporting requirement. However, DPI audits reveal that some institutions keep this information of their own accord. It could be expected that reasons for rejecting a proposal would vary widely between Animal Ethics Committees and would largely depend on the nature of the animal research conducted by the institution.

In a broader context, scientific research and teaching involving animals is important because it has led to some of the most significant medical advances and scientific discoveries over the last century. These discoveries include insulin treatment for diabetes, the development of antibiotics, vaccines for chicken pox, cholera, influenza, measles, mumps, tuberculosis, polio and whooping cough. Other medications, including the development of penicillin, painkillers and chemotherapy, as well as medical devices such as pacemakers, artificial hearts and valves and artificial hips and knees, were also made possible by medical research involving animals. Veterinary science also benefits from research involving animals.⁹⁷

8.2 Current Regulatory Framework

8.2.1 Victoria

Part 3 of the Act relates to scientific procedures for animal research. These provisions set up the broad heads of power, while the practical operational details are prescribed by the Regulations (Part 4 of the proposed Regulations). In addition, scientific establishments must operate under the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, the Laboratory Animals Code of Practice, and the Pound Animals Code of Practice, which are made under section 7 of the Act.

8.2.2 Other Jurisdictions

There are some minor differences between the licensing or registration arrangements in Victoria compared to other jurisdictions. For instance, the exemption under the Wildlife Act 1975 means that in Victoria there is an exemption for licensing under Part 3 with respect to any procedures on wildlife species which involve no more than "collecting, taking, banding and marking within the meaning of and in accordance with the Wildlife Act 1975".

Aside from that, the regulatory arrangements across all jurisdictions are similar. These arrangements include requiring all persons or institutions which use animals for scientific procedures to be licensed or registered with the state or territory government. They must comply with the Australian Code of Practice when conducting such work, and must have an Animal Ethics Committee to oversee and approve all such work as required by the Code.

8.3 Nature and Extent of the Problem

The rationale for regulating scientific research and animal experimentation is well established, and as noted earlier, governments have regulated scientific experimentation on animals since the 19^th century. Such regulation seeks to balance the broad benefits to society from research involving animals with animal welfare objectives, by minimising pain and distress, rather than eliminating the use of animals. Given the long history of regulatory controls of scientific establishments it is difficult to establish the counter-factual position. That is, the extent of the problem in the absence of regulations.

Support for the regulatory approach to the use of animals in research is evidenced in the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare's report on animal experimentation in Australia which stated that "institutions and government have responsibility to ensure that animal experimentation is conducted humanely in accordance with approved rules and guidelines. By fulfilling this responsibility and by keeping the public informed of the extent and nature of animal experimentation, public disquiet should be kept to a minimum".⁹⁸

In Victoria, over one million animals were held under scientific procedures licences in 2006. The community considers it is important that these animals are treated humanely and that any pain or distress is minimised. This concern is observed by the level of community contributions to animal welfare causes and organisations such as the RSPCA and consumer preference for humanely produced products.

In addition, currently all first world nations, supported by community expectations, regulate the conditions and treatment of animals used in research and teaching associated with scientific procedures. The paramount reason for this is to ensure that any unnecessary pain and suffering experienced by animals is minimised.

There are also other reasons why regulating these procedures is important. Firstly, it ensures the scientific validity of any findings, since research conducted in conditions of poor animal welfare, poor ethical oversight or uncontrolled conditions can invalidate scientific findings due to confounding factors. Secondly, for animal research findings to be internationally recognised and to be considered for publication in reputable peer reviewed scientific journals, animal researchers are commonly required to demonstrate that they adhered to local laws that govern the standards of animal use, welfare and ethics, and that these standards were of a level that is consistent with those local to the country of the publication body. Finally, in a global environment increasingly concerned with animal welfare issues, unethical or cruel treatment of animals used in scientific procedures could potentially raise trade issues.

There is evidence that for those jurisdictions that do not regulate scientific procedures, the welfare outcomes for animals are significantly worse compared to jurisdictions that regulate such practices (see Case Study 6 in Attachment C). However, in the absence of regulation it is possible that some companies would voluntarily adopt high standards for reputational reasons. However, where such testing is for a third party or as part of pure research there may be no such constraints. More generally, the nature of scientific procedures or experimentation does not lend itself to public observation or scrutiny, therefore cruel or unethical treatment may be difficult to detect.

8.4 Description of the Proposed Regulations - Scientific Procedures

Part 4 - Scientific Procedures: Regulations 85 to 97

Part 4 of the proposed Regulations deals with the licensing of persons or premises in which scientific procedures are carried out on animals. Broadly, regulations in this part relate to applications for a scientific procedures premises licence, a scientific procedures field work licence, a specified animals breeding licence, conditions on these licences, and regulations relating to the standard of premises. The regulations also prescribe procedures for notifying DPI in relation to changes of persons or committees on a licence. The regulations also require monthly records to be kept and an annual return to be lodged with DPI.

Division 1 - Definition of a nominee and Scientific Procedures Premises Licences

Regulation 85 defines 'nominee' meaning a person nominated under section 26(2) of the Act, which requires a person who occupies premises at which scientific procedures are carried out to nominate a person to be responsible for any procedures carried out on those premises.

Regulation 86 prescribes the particulars for an application for the issue or renewal of a scientific procedures premises licence. These particulars include: the name and address of the applicant and evidence of body corporate status if the applicant is not a natural person, and the name, title, address, telephone, email address (if any), fax contact details (if any) and employment position of the nominee. In addition, this regulation requires a declaration by the person nominated for the purposes of section 26(2) of the Act that they consent to the nomination.

The names, qualifications and relevant experience of the members of each Animal Ethics Committee to be nominated for the licence must also be provided in the application. The recording of qualifications is intended to ensure that each person has the appropriate background to enable compliance with the different categories of Animal Ethics Committees members as required by the Australian Code of Practice. Specifically Category A members require a veterinary qualification, while Category B members must have a suitable qualification with a higher research degree with substantial experience in the use of animals for scientific purposes. For the other categories, it is not as necessary. However, for Category D members (lay person) it helps to ascertain that they have not been involved in the use of animals for scientific purposes. If more than one Animal Ethics Committee is nominated for the licence, each committee's proposed functions and responsibilities under the licence must be specified.

The name and location of the scientific premises at which it is intended to carry out scientific procedures must also be provided in the application.

Licences are issued under section 31 of the Act for a period of not more than three years. Applicants are given the option of obtaining licences for one, two or three periods.

Regulation 87 prescribes conditions on a scientific procedures premises licence. All scientific procedures must be carried out in accordance with the Australian Code of Practice, the Laboratory Animals Code of Practice and the Pound Animals Code of Practice. This regulation also prescribes conditions regarding the nomination, membership and functions of Animal Ethics Committees, obligations as to persons acting under the licence, and sources of the animals used under the licence. This regulation also prescribes conditions under which laboratory animals must be housed and cared for, and constraints on scientific procedures which involve the death of an animal or eye irritancy.

It is generally accepted both by the public and the research community both locally and internationally that scientific procedures that assess irritancy of any agent or compound on conscious animals (i.e., without use of a terminal anaesthesia) are inhumane and constitute cruelty. Therefore, given that the eye is a sensitive organ, the proposed Regulation provides that a person must not carry out any scientific procedure involving the eye of an animal to determine the irritancy of a chemical or biological agent unless carried out under terminal anaesthesia. This seeks to minimise any pain and suffering the animal may experience. Such testing (sometimes known as the Draize eye test) is controversial and there have been calls by animal welfare groups world-wide to ban such testing.

If a place at which the licence holder proposes that a scientific procedure be carried out under the licence is not specified in the licence, the licence holder must notify the Department Head of the proposal to use the place and set out in the notice a description of the place, the procedure or program of procedures to be carried out at the place, and the animals proposed to be used in the procedure or program of procedures. This notification must be given no later than 14 days after the licence holder has first obtained approval for use of the place for the carrying out of the procedure or program of procedures from the Animal Ethics Committee nominated by the licence holder as responsible. The place is taken to be specified in the licence if the Department Head, on receiving the notice, so advises the licence holder.

The licence holder must ensure that a record is kept, on a monthly basis, of any scientific procedures or program of scientific procedures carried out during the month, as well as recording the number and species of animals held at any place or premises at which scientific procedures are carried out under the licence on the first working day of each month. The following most also be included in the records: the place where each such animal was bred (which, in the case of animals bred outside Australia, must include the name and address of the supplier), the number and species of animals held which were destroyed without being used in scientific procedures and the date of their destruction, the number and species of live animals held which were removed from the premises during the month, and the date of each animal's removal and destination.

If the licence holder wishes to change the person nominated for the licence to be responsible for the obligations and requirements in respect of the licence, the licence holder must do so, in writing, to the Department Head, setting out the required details.

Regulation 88 provides for minimum standards for scientific premises. The licence holder and nominee of a scientific premises procedures licence must ensure that the facilities used for housing or handling animals for the purposes of the licence are clean and kept in good order and repair, and the equipment used with animals for the purposes of the licence is clean and kept in good order and repair.

Division 2 - Scientific procedures field work licence

Regulation 89 deals with applications for the issue or renewal of a scientific procedures field work licence. For the purposes of sections 32B and 32J(2) of the Act, the prescribed particulars for an application for the issue or renewal of a scientific procedures field work licence are: the name and address of the applicant and evidence of body corporate status if the applicant is not a natural person. The name, title, address, telephone, email address (if any), fax contact details (if any) and employment position of a natural person proposed to be responsible for the obligations and requirements in respect of the licence must be provided, as must a declaration by that person that they consent to the nomination.

The names, qualifications and relevant experience of the members of each Animal Ethics Committee to be nominated for the licence must be provided. If more than one Animal Ethics Committee is nominated for the licence, each committee's proposed functions and responsibilities under the licence must be specified.

Licences are issued under section 32C of the Act for a period of not more than three years. Applicants are given the option of obtaining licences for one, two or three periods.

Regulation 90 imposes conditions on scientific procedures field work licences. These conditions are the substantially similar to the conditions imposed on scientific procedure premises licences set out in Regulation 87.

Regulation 91 provides for minimum standards for fieldwork. The regulation requires that a licence holder must ensure that only places in which facilities used for housing or handling animals for the purposes of the licence are clean and kept in good order and repair may be used. In addition, the equipment used with animals held for the purposes of the licence must be clean and kept in good order and repair.

Division 3 - Specified animals breeding licence

Regulation 92 prescribes details for application for the issue or renewal of a specified animals breeding licence. For the purposes of sections 32F(2) and 32J(2) of the Act, the prescribed particulars for an application for the issue or renewal of a specified animals breeding licence are: the name and address of the applicant and evidence of body corporate status if the applicant is not a natural person. The name, title, address, telephone, email address (if any), fax contact details (if any) and employment position of a natural person proposed to be responsible for the obligations and requirements in respect of the licence must be provided, as must a declaration by that person that they consent to the nomination.

The names, qualifications and relevant experience of the members of each Animal Ethics Committee to be nominated for the licence must be provided. If more than one Animal Ethics Committee is nominated for the licence, each committee's proposed functions and responsibilities under the licence must be specified. The name and location of the premises at which the breeding of specified animals and any practices which are necessary for the breeding, sale and delivery of specified animals will be carried out, must also be provided in the application.

Licences are issued under section 32G of the Act for a period of not more than three years. Applicants are given the option of obtaining licences for one, two or three periods.

Regulation 93 imposes conditions on specified animals breeding licences, for the purposes of section 32H of the Act. These conditions include that all breeding of specified animals and related practices, which may involved the surgical, medical or physical treatment or extraction or derivation of tissues, material or substance from the bodies of specified animals, may only be conducted if they are necessary for the breeding, sale, and delivery of specified animals, and they are carried out in accordance with the Australian Code of Practice and the Laboratory Animals Code of Practice.

The regulation prescribes conditions for the nomination, membership and functions of Animal Ethics Committees relating to the licence, and obligations as to persons acting under the licence.

The regulation prescribes the sources from which specified animals used for breeding may be obtained. The regulation also provides that the husbandry and care of animals kept for the purposes of the licence must be carried out in accordance with the Australian Code of Practice and the Laboratory Animals Code of Practice. All animal housing, facilities and equipment used for the purposes of the licence must also comply with these codes.

The licence holder must ensure that a record is kept, on a monthly basis, of: any breeding or practice which is necessary to be carried out for the breeding, sale, and delivery of specified animals, the number and species of specified animals at the premises on the first working day of each month, the number and species of specified animals sold or delivered to each scientific premises, and the number and species of specified animals held for the purposes of the licences which were destroyed and the date of, and reason for, their destruction.

If the licence holder wishes to change the person nominated for the licence to be responsible for the obligations and requirements in respect of the licence, the licence holder must do so, in writing, to the Department Head, setting out the required details.

Regulation 94 prescribes minimum standards for premises specified in a specified animals breeding licence. A licence holder must ensure that only premises in which the facilities used for housing or handling animals are clean and kept in good order and repair are used for the purposes of the licence, and that the equipment used for animals undergoing any breeding or practices necessary for the breeding, sale and delivery of specified animals is clean and kept in good order and repair.

Division 4 - Records, returns and other requirements

Regulation 95 requires the completion of annual returns and specifies the details to be included in such returns. The licence holder of a scientific procedures premises licence, scientific procedures field work licence or a specified animals breeding licence must, on or before 31 March in each year, forward to the Department Head a return detailing the animals used in scientific procedures carried out under that licence or specified animals bred under that licence during the 12 months ending on 31 December in the previous year, or if no animals were used in scientific procedures under the licence, a statement to that effect.

A return must specify the name of the licence holder, the type of animals, the source of the animals, the procedure or breeding option for the animals, the overall purpose of the project or breeding, the impact of the project on the animals used, particular procedures used during the project or breeding, the benefit of the project or breeding to humans or animals, the number of animals used, the number of animals that died, and that number of animals that were humanely killed during the project or breeding program. For scientific procedures premises licences or scientific procedures field work licences, a return must also specify the project number given to the project by the relevant Animal Ethics Committee and the date the project was approved by that committee.

In addition, the holder of a scientific procedures premises licence, scientific procedures field work licence or a specified animals breeding licence must send to the Department Head, with the return, a declaration verifying the facts contained in the return, and a statement of the total number of projects approved by an Animal Ethics Committee under that licence.

Regulation 96 provides the requirements for return of records. The holder of a scientific procedures premises licence, scientific procedures field work licence or specified animals breeding licence must keep all records required to be kept under the licence for 4 years and must send them to the Department Head if the licence holder ceases to hold that licence during that period.

Regulation 97 provides requirements for variation to a licence or licence condition. For the purposes of section 32M of the Act, the prescribed particulars for an application to vary a licence or licence condition are the type of licence, the name and address of the licence holder, and a description of the proposed variation.

8.5 Comparison with the Current Regulations

While the proposed Regulations have been redrafted to improve their clarity, they are substantially similar to the current Regulations. Aside from minor wording changes, the administrative costs associated with the monthly recording and annual return requirements have not changed.

One change is that under the current Regulations information concerning 'specified animals' was required to be included in monthly records. The proposed Regulations will require all animals held under licences to be included in monthly records. In practice, this will not affect licensees. This is because the Australian Code of Practice (this code is made mandatory because it is included as a condition on a licence) currently requires licensees to include all animal held under the licence in monthly records. The proposed change will simply draw the current practices under the code into the regulations to clarify the reporting requirements.

With respect to the classification of animals, the proposed Regulations will increase the coverage to include live adult decapods crustaceans (i.e., lobsters, crabs, crayfish). As noted earlier, science has increased the understanding of animal sentience. Relatively recent developments include a greater understanding of pain felt by higher order invertebrates. It is now commonly accepted that decapods are sensible to pain, and "the case for protecting these animals would appear to be substantial".⁹⁹An estimate is that this new requirement might affect around five licensees, and of these decapods are likely to make up a small proportion of animals held overall because the proposed Regulations will only apply to live, adult crustaceans of the decapoda order, specifically only lobsters, crabs and crayfish. Initially, a stakeholder raised concerns about this proposal, however, these concerns appeared allayed when it was explained that the proposal did not apply to all decapods.

8.6 Parties Affected by the Proposed Regulations

The parties affected by the proposed Regulations (i.e., the 159 licence holders) are organisations that use animals for research and teaching, and include academic institutions (e.g., universities, TAFEs, agricultural colleges and other tertiary institutions), hospitals, industry/private companies (e.g., pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies), government departments, wildlife and conservation groups, zoos and schools. In addition, the regulations will affect members on Animal Ethics Committees.

8.7 The Base Case

As noted earlier, the 'base case' describes the legislative and regulatory position that would be in place in the absence of the proposed Regulations. Given that the regulatory regime controlling scientific procedures is determined through an interaction of the regulations and the Act, a definitive base case is not easy to establish. One view is that no scientific procedures would be permitted to be conducted in Victoria. This is because the Act broadly establishes the heads of power for scientific procedures, while the operational details are prescribed by the regulations. However, without the regulations the Act would have little or no practical effect. For example, the Act prohibits a person from undertaking a scientific procedure without a licence, and in the absence of the regulations no licences could be issued. Therefore, for the purposes of this RIS it is assumed that scientific procedures could be undertaken to the extent that they did not breach the general provisions of the Act, i.e., low impact procedures such as observing an animal could be undertaken, but institutions undertaking higher impact procedures could not be performed. With respect to costs, under this base case there would be no requirement to keep records or establish Animal Ethics Committees, and no fees would be prescribed. However, codes of practice established by the Act may provide a defence under the Act against animal cruelty charges.

However, the Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes would form part of the base case, and it could expected that 'voluntary' compliance with the code would be relatively high (e.g., reputational reasons, acceptance of research in other jurisdictions, as part of funding conditions, etc.)

In terms of assessment using the MCA, under the 'base case' each criterion is awarded a score of zero reflecting the default position (i.e., the regulatory position in the absence of the proposed Regulations).

8.8 Assessment of Regulatory and Non-regulatory Alternatives

As noted earlier, clause 2.04 of the Premier's Guidelines states that, "where the authorising Act dictates the form of subordinate legislation required, for example, where the authorising legislation provides for fees to be prescribed by statutory rule, there is no discretion to set those fees by another method".¹⁰⁰This is relevant in the assessment of alternatives in this section because the majority of the proposed Regulations prescribe specific requirements for the purposes of the Act; that is, the Act does not contemplate alternatives to the proposed Regulations. Nevertheless, a number of alternatives have been examined.

8.9 Proposed Regulations

8.9.1 Costs of the Proposed Regulations

Proposed Regulations 85 to 97 were examined and assessed for the likely costs they will impose on organisations undertaking scientific procedures. Regulations imposing administrative and substantive compliance costs were calculated using the Standard Cost Model and were estimated to be in the order of $43 million over a ten-year period, or approximately $4.3 million per annum. These calculations are considered extremely conservative. For example, the cost calculations for the monthly record keeping requirements attribute the entire cost to the proposed Regulations. It could be reasonably argued that only a proportion of this should be allocated to the proposed Regulations given that organisation would normally keep records and best practice would be to adhere to the Australian Code of Practice. Table 27 below summaries these costs (detailed calculations and assumptions are contained in Attachment H).

Table 27: Costs Imposed by the Proposed Scientific Procedures Regulations, 10-Year Assessment Period

Regulation	Description of Regulation	Cost ($'000s)
87, 90, 93	Requirements for Animal Ethics Committees	3,536
86, 89, 92	Application for scientific procedures and specified animals breeding licences	62
87, 90, 93	Monthly record keeping requirements	29,885
95, 96	Submission of annual return	8583
87, 90, 91, 93	Change of details notification requirements	57
Total		42,123

* Numbers rounded.

Anecdotally, it is highly unlikely that the current costs deter institutions from obtaining a scientific procedures and/or breeding of specified animals licence in order to enable scientific procedures to be performed, since the Bureau of Animal Welfare has rarely had such feedback of this nature. For commercial research organisations some proportion of these costs are likely to be passed on to clients who request the work. Therefore, the cost of compliance is unlikely to deter entry into the industry.

The most likely type of regulated parties for which compliance costs may provide a barrier are those groups who undertake work for personal interest or as a hobby, e.g., wildlife interest groups. However the exemption from the Act provided by the Wildlife Act 1975 for persons performing animal work which involves no more than "collecting, taking, banding and marking within the meaning of and in accordance with the Wildlife Act 1975" assists with this to a large extent.

Given that the regulation of scientific procedures are substantially similar across Australian jurisdictions, Victoria is unlikely to be placed at a competitive disadvantage and is therefore unlikely to lose scientific investment to other states or territories.

As noted earlier, a condition placed on licences requires licensees to comply with the Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes, effectively making the code mandatory. The Code sets down general principles for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes, guidelines for the responsibilities of institutions and their Animal Ethics Committees, responsibilities of investigators and teachers, the acquisition and care of animals in breeding and holding facilities, wildlife studies (including the use of traps), and general principles for the use of animals in teaching This RIS acknowledges that mandatory compliance will impose costs on institutions that, in its absence, could choose to undertake practices contrary to the guidelines set out in the Code.

The costs imposed by this Code are difficult to quantify for a number of reasons. Firstly, the practices set out in the Code, which was introduced in 1969, now represent common practice in industry. Secondly, the Act and proposed Regulations together cover many of the guidelines in the Code (e.g. Animal Ethics Committees, regulations relating to clean and well-kept premises, use of traps, general cruelty provisions of the Act). Thirdly, the majority of institutions that use animals in scientific procedures, in both Victoria and across all Australian jurisdictions, rely on funding by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), including universities and large research institutions, which conduct the majority of animal work carried out in Victoria. It is a mandatory condition of NHMRC funding that recipients comply with the Australian Code of Practice when using animals for scientific procedures.

In addition, the Australian Code of Practice is also endorsed by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council and applies across all States and Territory of Australia. Since its introduction in 1969, the Code has been updated by a national writing group, which consists of animal welfare groups, industry representatives, animal users/stakeholder representatives, the NHMRC and state and territory regulators. For this reason, it is highly likely that Victorian scientific establishments would 'voluntarily' adhere to the standards in the Code, otherwise the standard of procedures undertaken in Victoria may be inconsistent with other jurisdictions.

In terms of international reputation, the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and countries which belong to the European Union all have similar mandatory codes to the Australian Code of Practice. For animal research findings to be internationally recognised and considered scientifically valid, animal researchers are required to demonstrate that they adhered to local laws that govern the standards of animal use, welfare and ethics, and that these standards were of a level that is consistent with those local to the country before research findings can be published in international scientific journals.

For these reasons the incorporation of the Australian Code of Practice in to the proposed Regulations should impose only incremental costs (although these costs are difficult to quantify), and does not impose restriction on Victorian researchers' ability to compete in the field of scientific research, both in relation to other Australian jurisdictions and internationally. This assessment was confirmed in the NCP review of the Act in which it noted that the Code "does not impose significant costs on scientific establishments".¹⁰¹

It should also be noted that licensees would incur costs when they submit proposals to Animal Ethic Committees. These costs proved difficult to quantify because data is not collected on the number of submissions or on the length of time or complexity of proposals. Moreover, the costs of such proposals are likely to be incremental in nature because it is likely that these would have been developed in any case as part of the 'business case' within an organisation.

Finally, the inclusion of decapods as animals regulated under licences will impose an incremental cost on scientific establishments holding these animals. Such establishments will be required keep records and seek approval from an Animal Ethics Committee prior to undertaking scientific procedures. As discussed above, the overall impact of this proposal is likely to be incremental given the small number of licensees affected, and given that most of these institutions are likely to already keep records and have an Animal Ethics Committee.

8.9.2 Government Administrative Costs

The Bureau of Animal Welfare provided estimates of the number and levels of staff involved in processing and administering requirements under Part 3 of the current Regulations. These activities include processing licences, maintaining databases and filing systems, compiling annual statistics, conducting audits and providing training and education to Animal Ethics Committees (see Attachment I for further details). The costs of administering the proposed Regulations would essentially be the same. Table 28 shows these costs over a 10-year period to be in the order of $1.6 million (detailed calculations are contained in Attachment H).

Table 28: Government Administration Costs, 10-Year Assessment Period

Agency	Cost ($'000s)
Bureau of Animal Welfare	1,600
Total	1,600

* Numbers rounded

8.9.3 Indirect Costs - Trade-off between Research and Animal Welfare

This RIS identified two types of impacts associated with the proposed Regulations, which involve trade-offs between scientific research/advances in knowledge and animal welfare.

First, given that an aim of the proposed Regulations is to minimise pain or distress to research animals and that the regulations impose costs, such costs may deter certain types of research or prevent some research where costs are a deciding factor. Research not undertaken as a result of these costs may reduce the scale and scope of scientific advances.

Second, there is an argument concerning animal rights versus scientific research. Animal rights advocates argue that experimentation on animals is unjustifiable under any circumstances, while the opposing view is that scientific research involving animals can result in significant advances which provide greater and broader benefits to humans and other animals. Alternatively stated, it could be argued that a complete ban on using animals for scientific procedures would maximise animal welfare outcomes but would significantly constrain branches of scientific research, while no regulation of animal experimentation may promote scientific advances but deliver poor animal welfare outcomes. The proposed Regulations seek to strike an appropriate balance between animal welfare and scientific research.

8.9.4 Total Costs of the Proposed Regulations

Therefore, the total costs of the proposed Regulations are shown in Table 29 below and are around $43.7 million over a 10-year period, or approximately 4.3 million per annum.

Table 29: Total Cost of the Proposed Part 4 of the Regulations, 10-Year Assessment Period

Industry and Government Administrative Costs	Cost ($'000s)
Costs imposed on licensees	42,100
Government administrative costs	1,600
Total	43,700

* Numbers rounded.

8.9.5 Direct Benefits of the Proposed Regulations

The main benefit of the proposed Regulations is to establish standards to minimise suffering or distress of animals used in scientific research or teaching. The proposed Regulations also set up a monitoring and reporting regime to ensure compliance.

While there is no agreed methodology concerning placing a dollar value on an animal's pain and suffering, as noted above, broad guidance as to the dollar value the community places on animal welfare is evidenced by consumer behaviour. As an illustration, the example of free range eggs is used given that eggs are intrinsically homogenous products (however, consumers may perceive other health or dietary benefits associated with free range eggs). The gross value of eggs produced in Victoria for the year ending 30 June 2005 has been estimated to be $92 million.¹⁰²It is also estimated that 15 per cent of eggs (23 per cent by value) sold at a retail level are from a free range source and 6 per cent are from barn systems.¹⁰³These eggs can be 50 per cent, or even 100 per cent, more expensive than cage laid eggs. This premium, perhaps around $5 to $10 million per annum, represents the extrinsic value consumers place on eggs produced using 'humane' production methods. Other examples could be used to illustrate this point, e.g., premiums on free range chicken or pork or preferences by some consumers for some cosmetic products tested 'animal free'.

Decision Criteria

To assist with the comparison of alternatives to the proposed Regulations, a MCA assessment was undertaken. Four criteria were selected relevant to the objectives of the Act in relation to scientific procedures. A relatively high weighting of 60 is assigned to the prevention of cruelty to animals and animal welfare criterion given that this is the overarching objective of the proposed Regulations. Given that the base case would significantly curtail scientific research and experimentation on animals, a criterion related to scientific advances or increased scientific knowledge is included. This criterion is assigned a weighting of 20. The other criteria relate to the effectiveness of the regulatory vehicle and likely compliance (10 per cent) and cost-effectiveness of the proposal in terms of industry and government costs is assessed (10 per cent). The first two criteria relate to the objectives of the regulations (the objective's 'ends'), while the third and fourth criteria assess the efficacy of the regulatory vehicle (the 'means' of achieving the objectives).

With respect to the prevention of cruelty to animals and animal welfare criteria, a score of 75 is awarded given the strict controls imposed on the use of animals. The proposed Regulations also permit animals to be used in scientific procedures (under certain conditions) and therefore a score of 50 is assigned. Despite the constraints on animal research imposed by the proposed Regulations, this score is assigned because the regulatory framework established by the regulations allows research undertaken in Victoria to be recognised in other jurisdictions and internationally, as well as providing a similar regulatory benchmark to allow for scientific validity of research findings. In addition, Commonwealth NHMRC funding depends on adherence to the Australian Code of Practice, and in the absence of this framework Victorian institutions may find it difficult to attract funding, precluding some institutions from conducting research.

Given the reporting and audit requirements under the proposed Regulations compliance is likely to be high (previous audit experience confirms this assessment). Consequently, a score of 75 is assigned to the compliance criterion. The proposed regime establishes detailed reporting and monitoring requirements and imposes considerable administrative and compliance costs on licensees, therefore a score of -75 is assigned to this criterion. This assessment results in a net score of +52.5, as shown in Table 30.

Table 30: Multi-criteria Analysis Assessment of the proposed Regulations

Criteria	Weighting	Assigned Score	Weighted Score
Prevent cruelty to animals/animal welfare	60	75	45
Scientific advances/increasing knowledge	20	50	10
Compliance/efficacy	10	50	5
Cost-effectiveness	10	-75	-7.5
Total	100%		+52.5

8.10 Self-regulation/codes of conduct

Self-regulation (or voluntary codes of practice or standards) refers to benchmark actions or procedures, as determined by the particular industry or profession that are generally acceptable within peer groups and the wider society. The relevant industry is solely responsible for enforcement. Self-regulation usually implies that businesses in an industry or members of a profession have accepted mutual obligations. These obligations are often described in a code or industry standards.

The key advantage of self-regulation is that as major industry participants often set the industry standards, there may be greater awareness of obligations and compliance may be high. In addition, self-regulation utilises the expertise and experience of those in the industry, and may encourage innovative behaviour of industry participants. Self-regulation also lowers administrative costs for government.

As discussed earlier in establishing a base case, there are a number of existing codes that industry participants could voluntarily adopt. These codes include the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, the Laboratory Animals Code of Practice, and the Pound Animals Code of Practice (currently those codes are made compulsory as a licence condition).

Under self-regulatory arrangements enforcement or disciplinary processes may not be transparent to the general public. Self-regulation is typically suitable for cases where the problem to be addressed has a low-risk or is of low impact, and where events are widely observed, so that breaches are publicly noted.¹⁰⁴In the case of scientific procedures or breeding establishments it would be extremely difficult to detect breaches of the codes. In addition, voluntary codes are typically suited to industries governed by a peak body, which can apply sanctions or can exclude members (e.g., the legal profession, real estate industry). Overall, the main disadvantage of this alternative relates to ensuring compliance.

Decision Criteria

The costs of this alternative would be minimal given that codes of practice already exist. The government could incur some advertising or communication costs if it chose to promote these codes. While the industry is familiar with these codes and the majority would be likely to adhere to such codes, non-compliance by a small minority could cause considerable animal suffering. It is worth noting that while the broad community expects government to regulate such activities, some sections have called for a partial or complete ban on animal experimentation (e.g., the Australian Association for Humane Research, Animal Liberation Victoria).

An MCA assessment was undertaken of this alternative, resulting in a score of +40, as shown in Table 31. Following the standards set out in voluntary codes would deliver positive animal welfare outcomes, however the assigned score of 25 is not as high as the proposed Regulations because the regulations include additional requirements which are enforceable. In terms of scientific advances, given that there may be less controls (but possibly a high incidence of animal cruelty), this may result in further discoveries. Therefore a relatively high score of 75 is assigned against the scientific advances/increased knowledge criterion. As noted above, a problem with voluntary codes is ensuring compliance. There is no peak body with a wide coverage of licensees as is the case for, say, the legal or accounting profession. Such bodies can apply sanctions or expel non-complying members. Given these factors, a relatively low score of 25 is assigned to the compliance/efficacy criterion. One advantage of voluntary or industry codes is that they are generally less costly to implement than other regulatory options. Consequently, a relatively high score of 75 is assigned to the cost-effectiveness criterion.

Table 31: Multi-criteria Analysis Assessment of Voluntary Codes

Criteria	Weighting	Assigned Score	Weighted Score
Prevent cruelty to animals/animal welfare	60	25	15
Scientific advances/increasing knowledge	20	75	15
Compliance/efficacy	10	25	2.5
Cost-effectiveness	10	75	7.5
Total	100%		+40.0

8.11 Negative Licensing

Negative licensing is designed to ensure that individuals or businesses, who have demonstrated by their prior action that they are incompetent or irresponsible, are precluded from operating in a particular industry. For example, a person convicted of breaching the Act could be prohibited from engaging in the industry (in this case scientific experiments). This approach ensures that the most serious offenders are removed from the industry without, at the same time, placing an undue burden of licensing/registration on the entire industry. Such an approach could be assessed against performance-based criteria set down by the government or industry.

Decision Criteria

The advantage of this approach is that those with a poor track record of breaching the Act could be either barred from the industry or closely monitored. The main disadvantage of this alternative is that some participants may be able to operate undetected or act inappropriately before they are detected. That is, such a regime is generally reactive and multiple acts of animal cruelty may have occurred before they are detected.

Negative licensing regimes are essentially reactive and a licensee would have had to demonstrate serial neglect before being banned or restricted (it is worth noting that negative licensing regimes are rarely used in situations where high impacts or risks are involved). Consequently, the prevention of cruelty to animals and animal welfare criterion is assigned a score of 50, which is above the base case but below the proposed Regulations. A score of 75 is assigned for advancing scientific knowledge, which implies a level of non-compliance and attendant negative animal welfare outcomes. If rigorously enforced against industry or government benchmarks, this alternative may deliver benefits above the base case, however, repeated offences may need to be detected before sanctions could be applied, and therefore compliance receives a score of 50. Finally, negative licensing will impose costs on the industry and government but lower costs than the proposed Regulations, and receives a score of -25. Consequently, this alternative resulted in a net score of +40.0, as shown in Table 32.

A negative licensing regime could impose annual costs on the government in the order of $225,000 in order to monitor and audit scientific establishments (this would require some form of registration scheme to allow enforcement officers to identify such establishments).¹⁰⁵

Table 32: Multi-criteria Analysis Assessment of Negative Licensing

Criteria	Weighting	Assigned Score	Weighted Score
Prevent cruelty to animals/animal welfare	60	50	30
Scientific advances/increasing knowledge	20	50	10
Compliance/efficacy	10	25	2.5
Cost-effectiveness	10	-25	-2.5
Total	100%		+40.0

8.12 Variation of the proposed Regulations

Sometimes there are no practicable regulatory alternatives other than to alter the scope or extent of the proposed Regulations. It is not intended here to examine the costs and benefits of the large number of possible variations of the proposed Regulations, however two options which impose relatively high administrative costs on licensees are discussed below.

8.12.1 Streamlining of Procedures by Animal Ethic Committees

An option to potentially reduce the number of meetings and hence costs could be to limit matters considered by Animal Ethics Committees to higher impact research or experiments. For example, simply observing animals would not require approval by an Animal Ethics Committee.

As noted earlier, Animal Ethics Committees, through their constitutions require members from a wide range of backgrounds (e.g., a veterinarian, scientist, a person with demonstrable commitment to and experience in furthering the welfare of animals who is independent of the institution, and a lay person who is independent of the institution and has never been involved in the use of animals for scientific purposes). These arrangements help to ensure that decisions made regarding the use of animals in scientific procedures are balanced and reflect the views of the general public. By requiring Animal Ethics Committees to assess all scientific procedures it ensures that no procedures are approved unless they are deemed by such a group of persons to be justifiable and that the potential benefits/objectives are substantial enough to outweigh the potential costs (e.g., distress, pain, etc). These arrangements help to ensure that the views of society are represented and that any decisions made take these views into account. Not requiring Animal Ethics Committees to assess all such procedures would effectively disempower all sections of the public from being able to be represented in this decision making process and oversight, which is undesirable. Further the requirement to assess all proposed procedures helps to ensure compliance. For example, an organisation may choose to not submit a proposal to an Animal Ethics Committee because it considers that the procedure has a low impact.

Such an option would also require a change to the legislation. The Act defines a "scientific procedure". Any procedure that falls within this definition is required by Part 3 of the Act to be carried out under a scientific procedures licence. This in turn requires Animal Ethics Committee oversight as described in the Australian Code of Practice. Given that the Act does not currently permit any distinction between minor or major procedures, any change to the current approach would require legislative amendments. Additionally, there is a national drive towards a consistent approach across the states and territories. At present all states and territories require compliance with the Australian Code of Practice (and hence Animal Ethics Committee oversight of scientific procedures), it would therefore be inconsistent for Victoria to consider distinguishing between Animal Ethics Committee requirements for minor and major procedures.

8.12.2 Options for Record Keeping

Consideration could be given to keeping records on a less frequent basis and/or by removing some of the data required to be recorded.

Records are required to be kept on a monthly basis as a means of setting a minimum required standard in routine record keeping. In practice most institutions would keep records more regularly than this but this has been set based on what is considered a reasonable and realistic minimum requirement. The number of procedures carried out is not necessarily a good basis for deciding whether records can be updated more or less frequently because it is important for licence holders to be accountable by keeping accurate up to date records.

This RIS represents another step in the consultation process and the Bureau of Animal Welfare welcomes comments or suggestions with respect to the nature, extent, and likely impacts of the proposed Regulations, and any variations that may improve the overall quality of the proposed Regulations.

With this in mind, stakeholders may wish to comment on:

• whether the monthly record keeping requirement is unduly burdensome and, if so, suggestions to reduce this burden;
• the information requirements in the proposed Regulations and any way this could be streamlined;
• the duration of licences;
• any practical difficulties associated with the proposed Regulations.

8.13 Summary of Feasible Alternatives

The proposed Regulations are assessed as the most effective regulatory means to control the risks associated with possible animal cruelty or distress of those animals held under scientific licences. Regulations imposing administrative and substantive compliance costs were estimated to be in the order of $43 million over a ten-year period, or approximately $4.3 million per annum. The main benefit of the proposed Regulations is to establish standards to minimise suffering or distress of animals used in scientific research or teaching. In summary, the proposed Regulations impose the greatest level of controls and costs on industry participants, but deliver greater net benefit compared to the alternatives. It is also worth recalling that the proposed Regulations reflect standards in other Australian and international jurisdictions.

The NCP Review of the Act observed that it received no submissions suggesting that the legislation imposed excessive costs. In this respect the review noted that 'to a considerable degree the behaviours the Act proscribes and requirements are not such as to have a significant cost impact. Many in business will already be complying with the required standards and it will only be the minority that will be affected'.¹⁰⁶

The main issues associated with voluntary codes or a negative licensing regime were to do with compliance. These alternatives would not deliver the level of animal welfare outcomes demanded by the community. This conclusion is supported by the MCA assessment in Table 33 below.

Table 33: Summary of Multi-criteria Analysis Compared to Regulations

Regulatory Proposal	MCA Assessment
Base case scenario	0.0
Proposed Regulations	52.5
Voluntary Code	40.0
Negative licensing	40.0

The greatest costs associated with the proposed Regulations are the cost associated with establishing and running Animal Ethics Committees and the administrative costs licensees incur to comply with the record keeping requirements. Options that vary these requirements are discussed above but for practical reasons were not considered superior to the proposed Regulations.

Based on the above analysis:

• the benefits to society of the proposed Regulations are likely to significantly exceed the costs (i.e. there is a net benefit); and
• the net benefits of the proposed Regulations are greater than those associated with any practicable alternative.

8.14 Fees

The Victorian Government principles of fee setting contained in the Cost Recovery Guidelines are discussed above in section 7.14.1. In addition, section 7.14.2 examines cost-recovery options, which include full cost-recovery, partial cost-recovery, and zero-cost-recovery. While the general government policy is that regulatory fees and user charges should be set on a full cost-recovery basis, if it is determined that full cost- recovery is not consistent with other policy objectives of the government, then it may not be appropriate to introduce a full cost-recovery regime. Consideration may be given to a regime of partial cost-recovery (if it can be demonstrated that a lower than full cost- recovery does not jeopardise other objectives) and/or to rely on other funding sources (e.g., general taxation) to finance the government activity.

A Multi-criteria Analysis (criteria defined in section 7.14.2) was used to assess the preferred fee options in relation to processing and administering a scientific procedures premises licence, scientific procedures field work licence and specified animals breeding licence.

8.14.1 Fees for Schools and Small Wildlife Groups

The Cost Recovery Guidelines state that there may be situations where 'public good' arguments justify zero cost-recovery. Typically such situations relate to areas where the government wishes to encourage 'over consumption' of goods such as the arts or education. These goods often have wider benefits or positive externalities for the community as a whole. In this regard, some schools keep animals for educational purposes (e.g., animals used for biology or science subjects). Such schools are subject to the Act and are required to obtain a scientific procedures premises or field work licence. In addition, there are a number of small wildlife groups that conduct research on a not for-profit basis, for example, in the interests of studying a species for preservation or conservation reasons. Such activities can provide benefits to the broader community, and given the not-for-profit nature of these groups the government does not wish to discourage these activities by providing a cost barrier.

An MCA assessment was conducted for fee options noted above and summarised in Table 34 below. It is noted that the scores are relatively close for all options. This partly reflects the relatively low level of fees and small number of institutions involved. The full cost-recovery option is assigned a relatively high score on efficiency grounds, but lower scores for effectiveness and equity. This results in an overall score of +51.25.

Partial cost-recovery (assumed to be 50 per cent of costs) received a score of 50 for each criterion. This is because this fee option balances efficiency, effectiveness and equity considerations and partially achieves the objectives of each criterion. This results in a score of +50.00.

The zero cost-recovery option is assigned a score of 25 for efficiency, but is assigned relatively high scores of 75 and 65 for the effectiveness and equity criteria. Consequently, a score of +54.50 is recorded.

The zero cost-recovery option is preferred given the small number of institutions involved and the public good benefits associated with education. This option also does not necessarily represent a cost to the Victorian taxpayer (i.e., it is a transfer). If full cost-recovery applied, the Victorian Government would need to provide additional funding to educational institutions. While such a grants program would be possible, it is considered that the zero cost-recovery option (an effective exemption) is administratively simpler. Finally, at the margin, a zero fee may also encourage less well-off schools to access fields of science and education that full cost-recovery fees may discourage.

Table 34: Multi-criteria Analysis Assessment of Fees Options for Schools and Small Wildlife Groups

Criteria	Weighting	Assigned Score	Weighted Score
Option A - Full Cost Recovery
Efficient	35	75	26.25
Effective	35	50	17.50
Equitable	30	25	7.50
Total			51.25
Option B - Partial Cost Recovery
Efficient	35	50	17.50
Effective	35	50	17.50
Equitable	30	50	15.00
Total			50.00
Option C - Zero Cost Recovery
Efficient	35	25	8.75
Effective	35	75	26.25
Equitable	30	65	19.50
Total			54.50

Therefore, given the public good and equity grounds, the proposed fees for a registered school within the meaning of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 or at a children's service within the meaning of the Children's Services Act 1996, or for a not-for-profit organisation employing 5 or fewer full time equivalent staff is set at zero (the latter is a new fee category).

8.14.2 Scientific Procedures and Specified Animals Breeding Licence Fees

Organisations such as universities, hospitals, government departments of agriculture and the environment, research institutions, and private companies that undertake scientific procedures are often run on a commercial or semi-commercial basis. In the case of government departments, universities or public hospitals there can be competitive neutrality reasons for charging fees. The public good and positive externality arguments associated with scientific research are discussed above, and this may justify a departure from the general principle of full cost recovery. However, given that these organisations may be able to capture private benefits, there is not a strong case for zero cost recovery. To assess this option, an MCA was undertaken on the basis of 50 per cent cost recovery.

Full cost recovery receives a net score of +60.0. The efficiency criterion receives a score of 100 given that this is the government's general principle for setting fees. It is also assessed that the fee level is such that it will not promote non-compliance and will thus be reasonably effective, and a score of 50 is assigned against this criterion. In terms of equity, the fees are not set on an organisation's ability to pay (noting that the current regulations differentiated between smaller and larger employing establishments). Accordingly, a score of 25 is assigned to this criterion.

The partial cost recovery option was assessed and awarded a net score of +67.5. The efficiency criterion receives a relatively high score of 75 given that licensees are contributing to the costs of the regulated service. In assigning this score, the public good benefits are also taken into account. In terms of effectiveness, partial cost recovery should assist in compliance by making the licences more affordable, particularly for smaller organisations. The equity criterion is assigned a score of 50 given that partial cost recovery will make licences more affordable for smaller organisations.

The zero cost recovery option was assessed and received a net score of +48.75. In terms of efficiency, this criterion receives a score of zero. This is because no costs at all would be recovered and this situation approximates the 'base case'. The effectiveness criterion is assigned a score of 75 because zero fees would not provide a financial barrier for organisations. The equity criterion is assigned a relatively high score of 75. This criterion does not receive 100 because equity refers to economic transfers between groups, and the Victorian taxpayer would be required to fully subsidise these licences, recognising that organisations can capture private benefits from activities carried under licences.

Table 35 below summaries the MCA assessments and suggests that Option B, the partial cost-recovery option is preferred. It is considered that this options strikes an appropriate balance between the positive externalities associated with scientific research and with efficiency and equity arguments that given organisations' ability to capture private benefits, some cost of the regulated activity should be recovered.

Table 35: Multi-criteria Analysis Assessment of Fees Options for Scientific Procedures Licences

Criteria	Weighting	Assigned Score	Weighted Score
Option A - Full Cost Recovery
Efficient	35	100	35.00
Effective	35	50	17.50
Equitable	30	25	7.50
Total			60.00
Option B - Partial Cost Recovery
Efficient	35	75	26.25
Effective	35	75	26.25
Equitable	30	50	15.00
Total			67.50
Option C - Zero Cost Recovery
Efficient	35	0	0.00
Effective	35	75	26.25
Equitable	30	75	22.50
Total			48.75

8.14.3 Calculation of Fees

The proposed fees were calculated by first determining the full cost of processing and monitoring licensees. Such tasks include licence processing, administration, collating annual statistics, auditing licensees, and training and education provided to Animal Ethics Committees. When this cost was determined it was multiplied by 50 per cent, representing the 'public good' aspect of scientific research and education. Attachment I contains detailed calculations.

Table 36: Proposed Scientific Procedures Premises, Field Work and Specified Animals Breeding Licences¹⁰⁷

Regulation	Description	Current Fees ($)	Proposed Fees ($)	Percentage Increase %
102	Scientific procedures premises licence	649.20	649.20	0
103	Scientific procedures field work licence	649.20	649.20	0
104	Specified animals breeding licence	649.20	649.20	0

Note: Fees rounded to the nearest 10 cents in accordance with the Monetary Units Act 2004. Fees in the proposed Regulations are expressed in fee units.

These fees are set on a partial cost recovery basis, which recover 50 per cent of government costs incurred to process and monitor annual licences. The review of these fees found that the current levels 'on average' do not need to be re-adjusted, and are reset at 57.2 fee units (Table 36). However, there was one important change. Previously, these fees were calculated based on the number of persons conducting scientific procedures. The rate for a licence for an organisation with 10 or more persons conducting scientific procedures was 57.2 fee units, and for organisations with less than 10 persons conducting scientific procedures the fee was 38.1 fee units. Legal advice was received that the current Act provisions did not allow for fees set in such a way, so the proposed Regulations contain only one fee. This will affect around 38 organisations, however around 5-10 of organisations previously required to pay this fee will be exempt if they are a not-for-profit organisation with 5 or fewer full time equivalent staff.

9. MACHINERY AND MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS

Regulations 1 to 5 are machinery regulations, regulation 98 defines a 'not-for-profit' organisation, regulations 99 to 100 prescribe forms, regulations 101 to 104 prescribe fees, regulations 105 prescribes infringement offences and regulations 106 and 107 prescribe transitional matters relating to traps. It is assessed that of themselves, these regulations do not impose costs on business or the community. The financial cost imposed by fees in relation to rodeos and scientific licences are assessed separately above.

Part 1 - Preliminary: Regulations 1 to 5

Proposed Regulations 1 to 5 are machinery in nature and set out the objectives (see section 4), authorising provision, commencement date and provides definitions. Regulation 1 sets out the objectives of the proposed Regulations. Regulation 2 provides the authorising provisions of the Act under which the proposed Regulations are made. Regulation 3 sets down the commencement date for the proposed Regulations, which is 16 December 2008. Regulation 4 revokes the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 1997 and thirteen amending regulations. Regulation 5 provides definitions for 'Animal Ethics Committee', 'Australian Code of Practice', 'bar', 'confinement trap', 'controlled pest animal', 'Crown land', 'declared pest animal', 'electrocution trap', 'electrofish', 'electronic collar', 'established pest animal', 'humanely destroy', 'jaw spread', 'kill trap', 'Laboratory Animals Code of Practice', 'laminated', 'large leghold trap', 'lethal trap device', 'net trap', 'non-kill snare trap', 'padded', 'pan tension', 'Pound Animals Code of Practice', 'pronged collar', 'qualified dog trainer', 'regulated pest animal', 'restricted pest animal', 'rodent', 'rodent kill trap', 'small leghold trap', 'the Act', 'urban area', 'veterinary practitioner', and 'wild dog'.

Part 4 - Miscellaneous 98 to 107

Regulation 98 provides a definition for 'not-for-profit' organisation for the purposes of scientific procedures licence fees.

Regulation 99 specifies the form of identification certificates for the purposes of section 19(1) of the Act. The form of an identification certificate issued to a general inspector must be in the form of that contained in Schedule 2, and an identification certificate issued to a specialist inspector must be in the form in Schedule 3. For the purposes of section 35(4) of the Act, an identification certificate issued to an authorised officer must be in the form in Schedule 4.

For the purposes of section 35(7)(b) of the Act, Regulation 100 specifies that an order for the destruction, treatment, housing or feeding of animals must be in the form of Schedule 5.

For the purposes of section 17C(2)(b) of the Act, Regulation 101 sets out the fees for a rodeo licence (45 fee units), a rodeo permit (12 fee units), and a rodeo school permit (6 fee units).

For the purposes of sections 30(2)(b) and 32J(2)(b) of the Act, Regulation 102 sets out the annual fees for a scientific procedures premises licence. No fees are imposed in the case of a licence for scientific procedures undertaken by or at a registered school within the meaning of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 or at a children's service within the meaning of the Children's Services Act 1996, or for a not-for-profit organisation employing 5 or less full time equivalent employees. For other organisations the fee for a scientific procedures premises licence is 57.2 fee units for each year or part of a year. These fees also apply for renewal of licences.

For the purposes of section 32B(2)(b) and 32J(2)(b) of the Act, Regulation 103 sets out the annual fees for a scientific procedures field work licence. No fees are imposed in the case of a licence for scientific procedures undertaken by or at a registered school within the meaning of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 or at a children's service within the meaning of the Children's Services Act 1996, or for a not-for-profit organisation employing 5 or less full time equivalent employees. For other organisations the fee for a scientific procedures field work licence is 57.2 fee units for each year or part of a year. These fees also apply for renewal of licences.

For the purpose of section 32F(2)(b) of the Act, Regulation 104 prescribes the fee for the issue of a specified animals breeding licence, for each year or part of a year, which is 57.2 fee units. This fee also applies for annual renewals.

For the purposes of sections 37A(1)(b) and 37A(3) of the Act, Regulation 105 provides that infringement offences and the corresponding penalties are set out in Schedule 6 of the Regulations.

Regulations 106 is a transitional provision relating to the sale of traps. The regulation provides that for the purposes of section 15(1) of the Act, the following traps are prescribed kinds of traps: a small leghold trap with laminated jaws (despite regulation 21(b)); a large leghold trap with laminated jaws (despite regulations 24(b) and 25(b)); and a large leghold trap with a jaw spread of between 13 and 19 centimetres that is to be set or used for the purposes of trapping wild dogs (despite regulation 25(d)). This regulation expires on 31 December 2009.

Regulation 107 is a transitional provision relating to the set or use of traps. The regulation provides that for the purposes of section 15AB(1) of the Act, the following traps are prescribed kinds of traps: a small leghold trap with laminated jaws (despite regulation 21(b)); a large leghold trap with laminated jaws (despite regulations 24(b) and 25(b)); and a large leghold trap with a jaw spread of between 13 and 19 centimetres that is to be set or used for the purposes of trapping wild dogs (despite regulation 25(d)). This regulation expires on 31 December 2011.

10. CHANGE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN

The Reducing the Regulatory Burden initiative commits the Victorian Government to reducing both the administrative and compliance costs of regulation. Accordingly, this RIS uses the Standard Cost Model methodology and Measurement of Changes in Administrative Burden to inform its cost-benefit analysis and to measure any changes to the administrative costs. For the purposes of the measurement of change in the administrative burden, the existing burden forms the base case against which the change is measured.

Administrative costs are those costs incurred by business to demonstrate compliance with the regulation or to allow government to administer the regulation (e.g., keeping a register or lodging documents with government). The SCM is used solely to measure the administrative costs of regulation. It is not used to measure substantive compliance costs. For example, the requirement to have a dog examined by a veterinarian is a substantive compliance cost. Similarly, costs to government of administering and enforcing the proposed Regulations were not subject to the SCM assessment.

However, a new administrative requirement was identified relating to retailer records of electronic collars sales. Table 37 shows that the additional administrative burden is relatively minor at around $2,800 per annum (see Attachment J for calculations).

Against this cost, the proposed rodeo licence is likely to result in administrative savings for rodeo operators. Currently, a rodeo operator must apply for a separate permit for each rodeo. The new licence will allow a rodeo operator to conduct multiple rodeos per annum. It is estimated that the saving arising from this proposal will be in the order of $550 per annum (see Attachment J for calculations).

Therefore, the net increase in administrative burden arising from the proposed Regulations is approximately $2,250 per annum.

Table 37: Standard Cost Model Assessment of Proposed Regulations - New Administrative Costs Imposed on Business (p.a)

Regulation	Description	Annual Costs ($)
Regulation 19	Retailer records of electronic collars sales and provision of conditions of use.	2,800
Regulation 50	Less savings from rodeo licences	(550)
Total		2,250

Since there is a net increase in the administrative burden with respect to the proposed Regulations, which is less than the figure of $250,000 per annum advised by the VCEC as being the indicative threshold for materiality, in accordance with the Guidelines issued by the Treasurer, Measurement of Changes in Administrative Burden, it has been determined that the regulatory changes in the proposed Regulations will not lead to a material change in the administrative burden on business organisations in Victoria (see Attachment K for Statement of No Material Impact).

11. COMPETITION IMPACTS

The guiding principle in assessing competition impacts is that regulations should not restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated that the benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs, and that the objectives of the regulations can only be achieved by restricting competition.

The 'competition test' is used to assess the proposed Rules against any possible restrictions on competition. The test asks whether the proposed Rules:

• allow only one participant to supply a product or service;
• require producers to sell to a single participant;
• limit the number of producers of goods and services to less than four;
• limit the output of an industry or individual producers;
• discourage entry by new persons into an occupation or prompts exit by existing providers;
• impose restrictions on firms entering or exiting a market;
• introduce controls that reduce the number of participants in a market;
• affect the ability of businesses to innovate, adopt new technology, or respond to the changing demands of consumers;
• impose higher costs on a particular class or type of products or services;
• lock consumers into particular service providers, or make it more difficult for them to move between service providers; and/or
• impose restrictions that reduce range or price or service quality options that are available in the marketplace.

In 1997 the Department of Natural Resources and Environment conducted a National Competition Council Policy Review of the Act and current Regulations.¹⁰⁸The Review followed the process established in the National Competition Policy Guidelines and was conducted as a Model 4 Review. That is:

• the relevant market was defined and the legislative framework was described;
• restrictions on competition were identified;
• the relationship between the identified restrictions and objectives of the legislation and regulations were assessed; and
• alternative means of achieving the objectives without restricting competition were developed and cost-benefit analysis was conducted for the existing situation and the alternatives.

The Review also assessed the Regulations against clause 5 of the National Competition Policy Guidelines, which states that the guiding principle is that legislation (including Acts, enactments, ordinances or regulations) should not restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated that:

(a) the benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs; and

(b) the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by restricting competition.

The Review concluded that the Provisions of the Act, regulations and codes of practice are necessary to achieve the objectives of the legislation and that they do not significantly impact on competition, with one exception. The Review recommended reform to the provisions requiring accreditation exclusively by the Australian Professional Rodeo Association (APRA) for stock contractors and rodeo school instructors - subsequently adopted by the government. The National Competition Council certified this review as complying with the NCP requirements. This review was conducted in relation to the current Regulations, which are substantially similar to the proposed Regulations. It is therefore assumed that the proposed Regulations comply with the NCP requirements

However, the current Regulations contain a number of reforms through amending regulations, which considerably improved the administration and efficiency of the regulatory regime. While the proposed Regulations introduce a number of additional requirements (e.g. prescribing conditions of use of traps), it is considered that these changes do not alter the assessment made in the NCP Review.

It is assessed that the proposed Regulations may impose minor restrictions on competition but:

• the benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs; and
• the objectives of the proposed Regulations can only be achieved by restricting competition.

12. SMALL BUSINESS IMPACT

The Victorian Guide to Regulation provides a definitive guide to developing regulation in Victoria within the context of the government's vision of well-targeted, effective and appropriate regulation. As noted earlier, all new regulatory proposals that have significant impacts on business must be thoroughly assessed to ensure the benefits to the community outweigh the costs and that the best option is considered. In addition, a special assessment of the impact of the proposed Regulations on small businesses is recommended, recognising that the compliance burden often falls disproportionately on that sector of the economy. ¹⁰⁹ , ¹¹⁰

Data was sought from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Small Business Victoria on the proportion of small to large businesses affected by the proposed Regulations. Unfortunately, such data does not exist. Anecdotally, however, discussions suggested that most businesses impacted by the proposed Regulations are small businesses.

Part 2 (Protection of Animals) of the proposed Regulations will impose conditions on the use of traps and electronic collars used on dogs and other electric shock devices, and will prohibit the use of electronic immobilisers, pronged collars and electronic collars used on other animals, for example, cat confinement collars and electronic collars used on horses. Pet shops, animal product suppliers and stock and station agents, many of which are small businesses, may at the margin experience reduced sales in these items. Similarly, it is anticipated that the new requirement to record details of the sale of electronic collars for use on dogs will predominantly fall on pet shops and animal product suppliers. The prohibition on horse electronic collars will significantly impact one small business that manufactures such collars.

Part 3 (Rodeo and Rodeo Schools) of the proposed Regulations broadly regulates the conduct of the rodeo industry in Victoria. This industry almost entirely consists of small business or individuals, therefore the impact of the proposed regulations will fall almost entirely on small businesses (e.g., rodeo organisers, stock contractors). The costs imposed by the proposed Regulations are relatively small and affect only a small number of businesses.

Part 4 (Scientific Procedures) of the proposed Regulations affects organisations such as universities, hospitals, government departments of agriculture and the environment, research institutions, and private companies. These institutions are generally medium to larger-sized organisations, and only around 24 per cent of the 159 licensed organisations (or approximately 38 organisations) employ ten staff or less. The proposed Regulations therefore will only impact on a relatively small proportion of smaller scientific establishments.

13. ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE

Enforcement of the Act and Regulations is undertaken by Victoria Police, 'authorised officers' in the Department of Primary Industries, 'authorised officers' from local governments, and 'authorised officers' from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Victoria. Tables 1 and 2 above show that enforcement activities from 2003 to 2007 have resulted in 511 cases leading to 2,257 charges.

There are eight infringement offences in the current Regulations. To improve the effectiveness of enforcement and compliance 69 new infringement offences have been included in the proposed Regulations, predominantly in Part 2 (Protection of Animals) and Part 3 (Rodeo and Rodeo Schools). However many of the rodeo infringement offences were previously covered by an Act offence for not complying with the conditions of permit and thus actually have a reduced penalty. Increasing penalties and improved enforcement is stated Victorian Government policy. These are summarised in Schedule 6 of the proposed Regulations. Aside from Regulation 67 (humanely destroying an injured rodeo animal: 3 penalty units), all infringement penalties in the proposed Regulations are either 1 or 2 penalty units (i.e., $113 or $227)¹¹¹.

These infringement offences and penalty levels were developed in consultation with the Infringements System Oversight Unit within the Department of Justice against the Attorney-General's Guidelines to the Infringements Act 2006.

14. CONSULTATION

Consultation with a broad range of stakeholders was undertaken to inform the development of the proposed Regulations.

At the commencement of the preparation of the review of the current Regulations the following organisations (listed in alphabetical order) were sent a letter notifying them that the current Regulations were under review and inviting comments:

• Animals Australia
• Australian Veterinary Association (Victorian Division);
• Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC)
• Cat Protection Society
• Dairy Australia
• Dogs Victoria
• Domestic Animal Management Implementation Committee (DAMIC)
• Local Government Professionals Inc (LGPro)
• Racing Victoria (RV)
• RSPCA Victoria
• Municipal Association of Victoria
• Scientific Procedure Licence Holders
• The Lost Dogs' Home
• Victorian Local Governance Association
• Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF)
• Victorian Horse Council (VHC)
• Victoria Police

Following the introduction of the Animals Legislation Amendment (Animal Care) Act 2007 which contained a number of amendments to the Act, major stakeholders were again consulted and asked to comment on proposed changes to the current Regulations. Stakeholders contacted were: RSPCA, AVA (Vic Division), VFF, Animals Australia, major horse organisations (Racing Victoria, Australian Harness Racing Council, Australian Horse Industry Council), AWAC, Dogs Victoria, The Lost Dogs' Home, Cat Protection Society, scientific procedures licence holders and Victorian Advocates for Animals.

A Victorian rodeo operator was contacted and provided advice on the Code of Practice, cost of a veterinary practitioner, and general functioning of the regulations. In addition, Animals Australia made representations to ban the use of electric prodders at rodeos. While the proposed Regulations will not completely ban electric prodders from rodeo events, the regulations will provide for strict controls on their use. APRA and major Victorian rodeo operators have been notified of the proposed fee increases.

A number of stakeholders were consulted on the development of the trap regulations, including DPI's Invasive Plants and Animals Branch, DPI's Landscape Protection Branch, DPI's Fisheries Division, the Department of Sustainability and Environment (Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services Branch), Parks Victoria, Government and non-Government vertebrate pest research scientists, commercial trappers (and RSPCA, as mentioned above).

In addition, a number of organisations were consulted either formally or informally on individual or select regulations which impact on their area of interest or business. These include: Dogs Victoria, Feline Control Council Victoria, Governing Council of the Cat Fancy Victoria, Cat Protection Society, rodeo operators, Innotek, equine experts, Genetics Australia and Zoos Victoria.

Within the Victorian Public Service, Victoria Police, DSE's Wildlife and Fisheries groups, and the Infringements System Oversight Unit within the Department of Justice were consulted.

This RIS represents another step in the consultation process and DPI welcomes comments or suggestions with respect to the nature, extent, and likely impacts of the proposed Regulations, and any variations that may improve the overall quality of the proposed Regulations.

The Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 requires that the public be given at least 28 days to provide comments or submissions regarding the proposed Regulations. Given time constraints, the consultation period for this RIS will be 28 days, with written comments required by no later than 5.00pm, 17 November 2008.

15. EVALUATION

The Bureau of Animal Welfare has oversight of the proposed Regulations and will closely monitor the implementation of the new Regulations, detecting any deficiencies. Specifically, the Bureau of Animal Welfare has indicated that it will:

• audit reporting from retailers and inspectors on the accuracy of data recorded in relation to purchasers of electronic dog collars through feedback from inspectors;
• evaluate the new rodeo licence by measuring uptake of licences and consequential decrease in permits;
• evaluate scientific licensing changes by documenting number of organisations affected by the changed fee structure (i.e., removing the less than 10 researchers option) and the introduction of nil fees for not-for-profit organisations and whether that has been set appropriately.
• evaluate the effectiveness of the regulations by monitoring prosecutions under the new Regulations compared to the existing.

In addition, Victoria's Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) is an advisory group that provides advice to the Minister for Agriculture on animal welfare policy, strategies and programs to facilitate effective application of the regulatory controls that affect the welfare of animals. As part of its general duties, AWAC will monitor the implementation of the new measures in the proposed Regulations.

Further, pursuant to section 8 of the of the Financial Management Act 1994, and regulation 16 of the Financial Management Regulations 2004, under Direction 3.4 the Chief Financial Officer will annually review the level of fees.

16. CONCLUSION

This Regulatory Impact Statement concludes that:

• the likely magnitude of the benefits to society of the proposed Regulations exceed the costs;
• the net benefits of the proposed Regulations are greater than those associated with any practicable alternative;
• the proposed Regulations may impose minor restrictions on competition, but the benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs; and
• the proposed Regulations will not lead to a material increase in the administrative burden on industry.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Animal Health Australia, 2008, (Draft) Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for the Land Transport of Livestock: Public Consultation Response Action Plan

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Cat. 7503.0 1988-2003, Agriculture Australia

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Cat. 1321.0, Small Business in Australia

Australian Labor Party, Policy for the 2006 Victorian Election: Caring for Pets in Our Community

Blackwell, E. and Casey, R., n.d., The use of shock collars and their impact on the welfare of dogs: A review of the current literature, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science University of Bristol

Broom, D. M., 2007, Cognitive ability and sentience: Which aquatic animals should be protected, Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 2007, vol. 75, n 2

Corrigan, R. M, 2001, Rodent Control: A Practical Guide for Pest Management Professionals, GIE Media, Cleveland, USA

Department of Natural Resources and Environment, 1997, National Competition Policy Review of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986, prepared by KPMG Management Consulting, Melbourne

Department of Primary Industries, 2001, Code of practice for the use of small steel-jawed traps, AG0010, ISSN 1329-8062

Department of Primary Industries, 2005, Agricultural Notes: Code of Practice for Rodeo and Rodeo School Livestock in Victoria, AG0303, ISSN 1329-8062

Department of Primary Industries, Biosecurity Victoria: Business Plan 2007/08

Department of Treasury and Finance, 2007, 2^nd ed, Victorian Guide to Regulation incorporating: Guidelines made under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 and Guidelines for the measurement of changes in administrative burden, Melbourne

Department of Treasury and Finance, 2007, Cost Recovery Guidelines: Incorporating the information formerly published in the Guidelines for Setting fees and User-Charges Imposed by Departments and Central Government Agencies, Melbourne

Duncan, I., 2006, 'The changing concept of animal sentience', Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 100 , Issue 1 - 2

Edwards, L., 'Animal Fight Clubs', The Age, 23 June 2008

Grandin, T., 1998, Review: Reducing Handling Stress Improves Both Productivity and Welfare, The Professional Animal Scientist, Volume 14, Number 1, March 1998 Hansard UK, House of Commons, 27 Apr 2007: Column 1157

Iossa, G., Soulsbury, C.D., and Harris, S., 2007, Mammal trapping: a review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps, Animal Welfare, 2007, 16: 335-352, ISSN 0962-7286

Mason, G. and Littin K. 2003, The Humaneness of Rodent Pest Control, Animal Welfare, 2003, 12: 1-37.

Meat Standards Australia: MSA03 MSA Requirements for handling cattle

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (NZ), 2008, Proposal to prohibit the sale and use of rodent glueboard traps, Biosecurity New Zealand Discussion Paper: 2008/06, ISBN 9780-478-32170-8 (Print), ISBN 978-0-478-32171-5 (Online)

Nocturnal Wildlife Research, 2008, Review of Welfare Outcomes of Leg-hold Trap Use in Victoria, September 2008

NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2005, Standard operating procedure: Trapping of wild dogs using padded-jaw traps, Ref Code: DOG001

NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2005, Standard Operating Procedures - Cattle collection of semen (electro-ejaculation), Ref Code: CAT13

NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2005, Model code of practice for the humane control of feral horses, Ref Cod: HORCOP

NSW Department of Primary Industries, NSW, 2005, Humane pest animal control: Codes of Practice and Standard Operating Procedures

NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2005, Standard operating procedure: Trapping of pest birds, Ref Code: BIR002

NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2007, Standard operating procedure: Live capture of pest animals used in research, Ref Code: RES001

Palmer, C.W., 2005, Welfare aspects of theriogenology: Investigating alternatives to electroejaculation of bulls, Theriogenology, 2005, vol. 64, n 3, pp. 469-479

Polsky, R.H., 2000, Can aggression be elicited through electronic pet containment systems, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 3: 345-357

Radford, M., 2001, Animal Welfare Law in Britain: Regulation and Responsibility, Oxford University Press

RSPCA Victoria, 2008, Media Release: RSPCA says rodeos should be banned, 28 April

Schalke, E., Stichnoth, J. and Jones-Baade, R., 2005, Stress symptoms caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs (Canis familiaris) in everyday life situations. Current Issues and Research in Veterinary Behavioural Medicine: Papers presented at the 5th International Veterinary Behaviour meeting. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, Indiana

Schalke, E. Stichnoth, J., Ott, S. & Jones-Baade, R., 2007, Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations, Applied Animal Behaviour Science 105

Stuart Barr et al., 2007, 'Nociception or pain in a decapod crustacean?', Animal Behaviour, doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.07.004

Tortora, D.F., 1982, Understanding Electronic Dog Training Part 1, Canine Practice, 9 (2), pp. 17-22

VicHansard, Statement of Compatibility, Animal Legislation Amendment (Animal Care) Bill, Assembly, 11 October 2007, p. 3524

VicHansard, Second Reading Speech, Animal Legislation Amendment (Animal Care) Bill, Assembly, 11 October 2007, p. 3528

Victorian Government Media Release, Minister for Agriculture, New Rules to Protect Chickens, Dogs and Horses, 21 June 2004

Victorian Government Media Release, Minister for Agriculture, Tougher Penalties for Animal Cruelty under New Laws, 10 October 2007

Victorian Government, 2006, Reducing the Regulatory Burden: The Victorian Government's Plan to Reduce Red Tape

Victorian Government, 2007, Small Business Regulatory Impact Assessment Manual, Melbourne, April 2007

Victorian Government Budget 2008-09, Budget Paper 3 - Service Delivery

Internet

Animal Liberation Victoria: http://www.alv.org.au/issues/stoprodeo.php

Attorney-General's Guidelines to the Infringements Act 2006: http://www.mfb.vic.gov.au/asset/PDF/AG%20InfringementsAct2006.pdf

Australian Professional Rodeo Association, Animal Welfare: http://www.prorodeo.asn.au/Animals.htm

Australian Veterinary Association, Policy Compendium 15.4 - Rodeos: http://avacms.eseries.hengesystems.com.au/

Compassion In World Farming, What is animal sentience and why does it matter?:

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/animal_sentience/default.aspx

Compassion In World Farming, Sentience In Practice: Policy, Legislation and Ethical Perspectives: http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/animal_sentience/practice/default.aspx

Department of Primary Industries, Egg Production

Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (Queensland), Animal Welfare Codes: http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/animalwelfare/15516.html#adopted

History of Animal Testing, Medical and Veterinary Advances: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_animal_testing.

National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare, Position Statement: Rodent Traps - glueboards and gels, metal-toothed traps: http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-planthealth/welfare/nccaw/guidelines/pest/rodent-traps

Pro-Test: http://www.pro-test.org.uk/facts.php?lt=c

Restraint of Livestock: http://www.grandin.com/references/abdlps.html

'Roche acts against illegal glue traps'. Media release by Mr Dick Roche, T.D., Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Republic of Ireland, 3 April 2006: http://www.environ.ie/en/Heritage/NationalParksandWildlife/News/MainBody,16109,en. htm

RSPCA Victoria, Annual Reports 2005, 2006, 2007: http://www.rspcavic.org/about_us/annual_report.htm

Shock Collars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bark_collar

Tourism Victoria, Media Bulletin, March 2008: http://www.tourism.vic.gov.au/piecesofvictoria/march_2008/index.php?page=diary

Victorian Public Service Agreement 2006: http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/hr/empconditions/VPS_salary_rates.pdf

Victorian Wader Study Group website: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~vwsg/about.html

Legislative Instruments

Animals Legislation Amendment (Animal Care) Act 2007 Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 Financial Management Act 1994 Monetary Units Act 2004 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 Protection of Animals Act 1966 Subordinate Legislation Act 1994

Victorian Government Gazette, No. S66, 14 March 2008, Monetary Units Act 2004: Notice Under Section 6, Fixing the Value of a Fee Unit and a Penalty Unit

Wildlife Act 1975 Zoological Parks and Gardens Act 1995

Attachment A

AUTHORISING PROVISION - PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1986

PART 4 - MISCELLANEOUS

42. Regulations

(1) The Governor in Council may make regulations for or with respect to any of the following matters

1. prescribing forms (including the form of an identification certificate of an inspector or specialist inspector (as defined in section 8) or an authorized officer (as defined in section 25) and the form of orders to be issued by authorized officers requiring the destruction, treatment, housing or feeding of any animal) and fees;
   • the nature, dimensions and features of traps;
   • the use of traps;
   • the purposes for which and the places in which traps may be used;
2. traps, including but not limited to the following:
3. the conditions under which animals may be kept in captivity, including the sizes of enclosures and cages;
   • granting or issuing licences or permits; or
   • conditions on licences or permits; or
   • applications for licences or permits;
4. rodeo licences, rodeo school permits and rodeo permits, including, but not limited to -
   • participate in; or
   • conduct or operate; or
   • assist in the conduct or operation of; or
   • are otherwise involved in- rodeos or rodeo schools;
5. (A) the conduct of rodeos or the operation of rodeo schools, including, but not limited to obligations imposed on persons who -
6. applications for and the grant of licences under Part 3, including requirements to be satisfied before the grant of such licences;
   • facilities and equipment at; and
   • scientific procedures to be carried out at-
     any premises to which a licence granted under Part 3 applies; and (eb) conditions on licences granted under Part 3;
7. (A) standards for -
8. (B) the particulars to be contained in any records, reports or returns for the purposes of this Act and the intervals at which a copy of any such record, report or return must be sent to the Department Head;
9. regulating the lighting, ventilation, air temperature, cleaning, drainage, water supply, maintenance and management of any premises to which a licence granted under Part 3 applies and the cleansing and maintenance of all fixtures, appliances, instruments and utensils at or any other things connected or used with those things at any premises to which a licence granted under Part 3 applies;
10. the minimum requirements for the training, experience and academic qualifications of a person in charge of any premises to which a licence granted under Part 3 applies;
11. membership of animal ethics committees and the operation of such committees;
12. prohibiting absolutely or in part certain scientific procedures or imposing conditions on or regulating the carrying out of the whole or part of any such procedures;
    • purposes for the purposes of paragraph (f); and
    • any or any type of procedure, test, experiment, inquiry, investigation or study for the purposes of paragraph (j)- of the definition of scientific procedure in section 3;
13. prescribing-
    • any medical or veterinary procedure conducted on animals; or
    • any method of capture of animals; or
    • any method or procedure of transport of animals-that may cause injury, suffering or distress to animals;
14. (A) prohibiting or regulating-
15. (B) prohibiting or regulating the possession or use of any implement, device or thing that may cause injury, suffering or distress in an animal;
16. generally prescribing any matter or thing required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed or necessary to be prescribed to give effect to this Act.

(2) The regulations-

1. may be of general or limited application; and
2. may differ according to differences in time, place or circumstance; and
3. may impose penalties not exceeding 20 penalty units for a contravention of or an offence under the regulations; and
   • the provisions of any document, code, standard, rule, specification or method formulated, issued, prescribed or published by any authority or body whether as formulated, issued, prescribed or published at the time the regulations are made, or at any time before then; or
   • the provisions of any Act of the Commonwealth or of another State or of a Territory or the provisions of any subordinate instrument under any such Act, whether as in force at a particular time or from time to time; and
4. may apply, adopt or incorporate (with or without modification)-
5. may leave any matter or thing to be from time to time determined, applied, dispensed with or regulated by the Minister; and
6. may confer powers or impose duties in connexion with the regulations on the Minister.

(3) The regulations do not apply to any act or practice with respect to the farming, transport, sale or killing of any farm animal if that act or practice is carried out in accordance with a Code of Practice.

Attachment B

ASSUMPTIONS

1. The discount rate used in this RIS is 3.5 per cent. In doing so, the BIA adopts the rate published in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C.3, p. C-9)
2. The cost of an applicant's time used to calculate 'administrative costs' is $54.55 per hour, which is based on the methodology contained in the Victorian Guide to Regulation in relation to valuing staff time (Section C.2.1, p, C-5).
   • Salary levels were determined using the mid-point salaries levels from 1 October 2008 within grades for Victorian Public Service staff (see: The Victorian Public Service Agreement 2006 -http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/)
   • These salaries were grossed-up to allow for labour on-costs and overhead oncosts. The on-cost factors were obtained from the Victorian Guide to Regulation in relation to valuing staff time (Section C.2.1, p, C-5), and were: on-cost multiplier (1.165) and the overhead cost multiplier (1.5), providing a gross-up factor of 1.75 (i.e. 1.165 x 1.5 = 1.75).
   • Average hours worked per annum was based on the methodology contained in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (see p. C-5) in relation to valuing staff time, and estimated at 1,804 hours per annum (i.e. 44 weeks worked multiplied by 41 hours per week).
   • Annual gross-up salaries were divided by the number of estimated hours worked to obtain a notional hourly rate and this was divided by 60 to obtain a salary rate per minute.
   • The salary rate per minute was multiplied by the time taken to process relevant licences.
3. For the purpose of calculating the administrative costs associated with processing licences and permits the following approach was taken:

Attachment C

CASE STUDIES

Case Study 1: Animal Fighting - Cockfighting

Cockfighting

In cockfighting the natural spurs of roosters are sawn off and long sharp blades are attached before a fight. Bred for aggression from English and Asian species, the roosters will peck and lash each other after being thrown together in a makeshift arena or pit. The blades often become embedded during fights and handlers have to separate the birds. Both birds will receive deep wounds to the chest and back from the long blades and even the winner will often die from its injuries or be killed afterwards. Bouts can last up to 20 minutes. Large numbers of birds will be killed or maimed during training.

Source: The Age, Animal Fight Clubs, by Lorna Edwards, 23 June 2008

Men to be charged with cruelty to animals

Police have arrested two men after breaking up an illegal cock fighting ring in Keysborough this afternoon. Springvale Police received an anonymous phone call around 1pm alerting them to the fight which was soon to take place at a residential property in Festival Crescent.

Police swooped on the premises soon afterwards and arrested the pair who reside there. RSPCA staff accompanied police and discovered a dead bird and about 40 other birds, some of which were injured. The birds were then rescued from the property. The men, both aged in their 30s, are expected to be charged with cruelty to animals and other offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act relating to cock fighting.

Victoria Police Media Release, 20 August 2006, Senior Constable Karla Dennis

Foul deeds: illegal cockfights raking in millions

It is a cruel sport in which birds tear each other apart - and it shows no signs of going away. The group gathered round, their attention focused on a makeshift arena, out of sight of the road, thousands of dollars wagered, waiting for the fight to begin … the fight would last only a few minutes before they tore each other apart.

Both birds stood to suffer up to 30 puncture wounds, about as many as a bird could take before it succumbed.

Police and RSPCA inspectors know that in a sport worth millions of dollars, involving interstate trafficking in roosters and cockfighting paraphernalia, with up to 100 spectators at each event, it is happening all over the country. A senior RSPCA inspector in Victoria, Allie Jalbert, said there was clear evidence of trafficking between states, including NSW. Many participants travelled with their fighting stock to the events. Implements for cockfighting were sometimes intercepted in the mail. Ben Johns, chief inspector for the RSPCA in South Australia, said that like his state counterparts he would be surprised if it was not more prevalent. He was aware of an alleged traffic where Victorian birds fought in South Australia.

Edited extract from Sydney Morning Herald, Foul deeds: illegal cockfights raking in millions by Malcolm Brown, 19 January 2008

Case Study 2: Dog Fighting

Dog fighting

American pit bull terriers are the breed of choice for dogfights, although mastiffs, dobermans and rottweilers are also used. Fighting dogs are often pumped up on anabolic steroids and sometimes trained on treadmills to increase their endurance. Stolen dogs of all breeds are sacrificed as bait to fighting dogs during training to increase their savagery. During a match both dogs will often be horribly mauled, the battle ending when one dog overpowers the other and goes for the throat, destroying the carotid artery. These fights to death can be very quick or last up to half an hour. Dog fights have been held in Victoria in disused silos, paddocks, truck trailers or suburban garages where the walls are painted black to hide the blood.

Source: The Age, Animal Fight Clubs, by Lorna Edwards, 23 June 2008

Dog corpses found in park

The discovery of pit bull terrier corpses in a Melbourne park has saddened RSPCA staff who said it was gruesome and "a despicable act". Two dogs were found in Reservoir with multiple punctures, stab wounds and one had a slit throat. The RSPCA said the animals most likely had been victims of a dog fighting syndicate. The organization has investigated eight dog fighting incidents in Victoria in the past year. RSPCA inspector Allie Jalbert said the perpetrators continued to get away with it because of the criminal elements involved and secrecy. "It's all underground," she said.

Source: Sunday Herald Sun, Dog corpses found in park, by Eleni Hale, 29 June 2008

Case Study 3: Misuse of Electronic Dog Collars

Misuse of Electronic Dog Collars

A local government is investigating a case [June 2007] under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 in which an electronic collar was worn by a dog and sustained injuries, which had to be attended to by a veterinarian. The prongs of the collar had caused an injury to the dog's neck so that the electronic shock would have been applied to an open wound.

The local government officer further mentioned that in the past three months there has been at least six dogs coming through its pound that have been wearing electronic collars. Of these dogs, two had collars that were so tight the council officer could not get his finger between the collar and the neck.

Source: Report to Bureau of Animal Welfare

Case Study 4: Leghold Traps

Trap confiscated

On Wednesday this week [June 2008] at around 4.30pm a young woman walking her dog noticed a dog yelping and found it about three metres off the path caught in a rabbit trap. Police were called and they freed the dog, which required veterinary care, and confiscated the trap.

Source: Castlemaine Mail, 20 June 2008, Trap confiscated

Case Study 5: Rodeos in Queensland

Queensland rodeo row ramps up

The State Government is ignoring "blatant proof" of animal cruelty at rodeos, animal rights groups say. Animals Australia executive Wendy Parsons and Jeanie Walker, who runs anti-rodeo website http://www.norodeo.org, compiled video recordings of animals "being seriously mistreated" at rodeos, including one at Warwick, Queensland. The pair say all rodeos should be banned.

They hope the footage will encourage the Government to drop its support of the Mount Isa Rodeo, which will start on Friday. Ms Parsons said her footage, sent to Premier Anna Bligh, included horses with broken legs or spinal injuries, an injured horse being dragged onto a float to be destroyed and 'obviously distressed' horses trying to escape chutes or slamming into fences. Ms Walker's footage shows: Cowboys repeatedly kicking a collapsed horse, electric cattle prods being used on a horse that was 'too terrified' to leave the chute to enter the arena, and a horse being punched in the head.

"Event organisers advise that the rodeo operates under an international code of practice accepted by the Australian Professional Rodeo Association [APRA]," Ms Bligh said. "It has strict rules of safety for riders and animals."

Ms Parsons said all her footage had been shot at APRA-approved rodeos. Ms Walker said: "I went to the APRA-approved Warwick rodeo and it was the most horrific event I've ever seen." "Every animal welfare organisation in the world, including the RSPCA here, wants rodeos banned."

Source: Edited extract Sun Herald, 'Queensland rodeo row ramps up', by Kate Dennehy, 4 August 2008

Case Study 6: No Regulation of Scientific Establishments

South Africa's Shame

Unscrupulous animal experimentation could tarnish South Africa's international image irreparably. Animal experimentation in South Africa is in the state of lawlessness. No laws govern animal health and well-being in research laboratories and no laws govern the nature of experiments carried out on them. Says Neil Fraser, senior inspector for the NSPCA: 'South Africa is becoming the ideal environment for uncontrolled animal experimentation to take place'.

The NSPCA's recent Media Release on Animal Experimentation in South Africa, reveals that:

• In the year 2000, there were 17 facilities in this country which used laboratory animals.
• In the same year, 245,582 rats, mice and guinea pigs were bred for research.
• In some institutions, ''poor management and atrocious facilities' led to unacceptably high mortality rates
• South African experimental facilities did not conform to international standards and not with the Good Laboratory Practice and International standards.
• In-house codes of ethics were either outdated or inadequate.

'There are serious animal welfare problems inherent which must be tackled as a matter of urgency,' says Fraser. 'Of particular concern is that it is very appealing to researchers in Europe. The stringent requirements with which researchers have to comply in order to experiment on animals in Europe, is making South Africa a very soft option. It's much easier for them to do their research here and coupled with the weak Rand, it's cheaper too.' 'We have to get proper legislation into effect in line with international standards, before the shame of animal misery tarnishes our image irreparably'.

Source: Animal Voice, 6 July 2006: http://www.animal-voice.org/

Attachment D

COST CALCULATION THE PROPOSED PROTECTION OF ANIMALS REGULATIONS

Summary of Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008 - Protection of Animals (Discounted 10-Year Period - Rate 3.5%)

Costs Imposed on Business and Individuals
Regulation	Description	Type of Cost	Discounted Cost
Regulation 16	Conditions of use of electric dog collars	Compliance	$849,541
Regulations 19	Recording of sales of electric dog collars	Administrative	$23,061
		Sub-total	$872,602
Costs Imposed on Government
Agency
Department of Primary Industries - POCTA inspectors (including RSPCA inspectors)		Sub-total	$2,636,364
		Total	$3,508,966
		Annual Cost	$350,897

 

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Price		Quantity			Administrative Cost
Regulations 16 - Electric collar conditions of use
Regulation	Tariff 1	Time 2	Population 3	Frequency 4
Regulation 16 - Examination by veterinary practitioner	47.60		500	2	47,600
Regulation 16 - Cost of time associated with visit to a veterinarian	54.55	1	500	2	54,550
				Total	$102,150
Discounted (10-Years)
Year	Administrative Cost ($)				Discounted Administrative Cost ($)5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	$102,150 $102,150 $102,150 $102,150 $102,150 $102,150 $102,150 $102,150 $102,150 $102,150				$98,696 $95,358 $92,133 $89,018 $86,008 $83,099 $80,289 $77,574 $74,951 $72,416
				Total	$849,541

 

Notes:

1. The cost of an dog owner's time used to calculate 'administrative costs' is $54.55 per hour, which is based on the methodology contained in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C2.1, p. C-5). The Australian Veterinary Association Victoria provided survey advice that the cost of a standard consultation at a metropolitan vet is $47.60.
2. It is estimated that the time taken for a person to visit a veterinarian will be 1 hour.
3. The number of electric collars proved difficult the estimate given no data is currently collected on their sales. Given the conditions imposed by Regulation 16, the sale of 500 units per annum is considered a conservative estimate.
4. It is asumed that a dog owner will consult with a veterinarian on two occasions.
5. The discount rate used in this RIS is 3.5 per cent. In doing so, the RIS adopts the rate published in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C.3, p. C-9).

 

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Price		Quantity			Administrative Cost
Regulations 19 - Recording of sale of electric collars
Regulation	Tariff 1	Time 2	Population 3	Frequency
Regulation 19(1) - Record of sales	54.55	0.08	500	1	2,273
Regulation 19(4) - Provision of information	1.00		500	1	500
				Total	$2,773
Discounted (10-Years)	Business
Year	Administrative Cost ($)				Discounted Cost ($)4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	$2,773 $2,773 $2,773 $2,773 $2,773 $2,773 $2,773 $2,773 $2,773 $2,773				$2,679 $2,589 $2,501 $2,416 $2,335 $2,256 $2,179 $2,106 $2,035 $1,966
				Total	$23,061

Notes:

1. The cost of a retailer's time used to calculate 'administrative costs' is $54.55 per hour, which is based on the methodology contained in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C2.1, p. C-5). Provision of information (i.e. conditions of use) costs consist of a photocopied page.
2. A desktop exercise provides an estimate of 5 minutes to collect the required details.
3. The number of electric collars proved difficult the estimate given no data is currently collected on their sales. Given the conditions imposed by Regulation 17, the sale of 500 units per annum is considered a conservative estimate.
4. The discount rate used in this RIS is 3.5 per cent. In doing so, the RIS adopts the rate published in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C.3, p. C-9)

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Victorian Government Administrative Costs			Enforcement Cost
Agency - Department of Primary Industries	Total Enforcement Costs 1	Attribution to Regulations 2
POCTA Authorised Officers	86,800,000	Estimated 0.25% attributable to the Regulations	217,000
RSPCA	1,000,000	Estimated 10% attributable to the Regulations	100,000
		Total	317,000
Discounted (10-Years)	DPI
Year	Administrative Cost ($)		Discounted Administrative Cost ($)3
1	$317,000		$306,280
2	$317,000		$295,923
3	$317,000		$285,916
4	$317,000		$276,247
5	$317,000		$266,905
6	$317,000		$257,880
7	$317,000		$249,159
8	$317,000		$240,733
9	$317,000		$232,593
10	$317,000		$224,727
			$2,636,364

Note:

1. Regulation ands Compliance costs for DPI in 2008-09 are budgeted to be 86.8 million. Budget Paper 3 - Service Delivery, p. 218. The Victorian Government currently provides funding of $1 million per annum to support the RSPCA's inspection services.
2. The attribution of compliance costs to the proposed Regulations was extremely difficult to estimate and are based on discussions with BAW.

Attachment E

COST CALCULATION FOR THE PROPOSED RODEO REGULATIONS

Summary of Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008 - Rodeos and Rodeo Schools (Discounted 10-Year Period - Rate 3.5%)

Costs Imposed on Business and Individuals
Regulation	Description	Type of Cost	Discounted Cost
Regulation 50, 51 Regulation 52(e) Regulation 54 Regulation 55 Regulation 58	Applications for rodeo licence and permit Accreditation with an approved organisation Department to be advised of rodeo Rodeo events that must be attended by a veterinary practitioner Department to be advised of appointed veterinary practitioner	Administrative Compliance Administrative Compliance Administrative	$2,495 $15,644 $3,403 $299,398 $1,217
		Sub-total	$322,156
Costs Imposed on Government
Agency
Department of Primary Industries - Bureau of animal welfare			$38,463
		Sub-total	$38,463
		Total	$360,619
		Annual Cost	$36,062

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Price		Quantity			Administrative Cost4
Regulations 50 and 51 - Rodeo licences and permits
Regulation	Tariff 1	Time 2	Population	Frequency 3
50 - Application for a rodeo licence	54.55	0.50	4	1	109
51 - Application for an individual rodeo school permit	54.55	0.50	1	2	55
51 - Application for an individual rodeo permit	54.55	0.50	5	1	136
				Total	$300
Discounted (10-Years)
Year	Administrative Cost ($)				Discounted Administrative Cost ($)4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	$300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300				$290 $280 $271 $261 $253 $244 $236 $228 $220 $213
				Total	$2,495

 

Notes:

1. The cost of an applicant's time used to calculate 'administrative costs' is $54.55 per hour, which is based on the methodology contained in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C2.1, p. C-5).
2. Desk top exercise on the advice of DPI.
3. Rodeo licences are being introduced and it is estimated that 4 licences will be issued. Around one or two rodeo schools are conducted annually. Over the past three years, the following rodeos were held: 2005 − 30; 2006 − 29; and 2007 − 26. Therefore around 28 rodeos are held annually. Given the rodeo licences will replace a number of individual permits, it is assumed that 5 individual permits will be issued annually.
4. The discount rate used in this RIS is 3.5 per cent. In doing so, the RIS adopts the rate published in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C.3, p. C-9)

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Price		Quantity			Administrative Cost
Regulation 52 - Accreditation with an approved organisation
Regulation	Tariff 1	Time	Population 2	Frequency 3
Accreditation with an approved organisation	209.00		9	1	1,881
				Total	$1,881
Discounted (10-Years)
Year	Administrative Cost ($)				Discounted Administrative Cost ($)4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	$1,881 $1,881 $1,881 $1,881 $1,881 $1,881 $1,881 $1,881 $1,881 $1,881				$1,817 $1,756 $1,697 $1,639 $1,584 $1,530 $1,478 $1,428 $1,380 $1,333
				Total	$15,644

 

Notes:

1. Tariff advised by Australian Professional Rodeo Association.
2. There are four major operators in Victoria and it is conservatively estimated that there a five smaller operators.
3. Frequency advised by Australian Professional Rodeo Association.
4. The discount rate used in this RIS is 3.5 per cent. In doing so, the RIS adopts the rate published in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C.3, p. C-9)

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Price		Quantity			Administrative Cost
Regulation 54 - Department to be advised of rodeo or rodeo school
Regulation	Tariff 1	Time	Population 2	Frequency 3
Letter providing details of rodeo1	54.55	0.25		30	409
				Total	$409
Discounted (10-Years)
Year	Administrative Cost ($)				Discounted Administrative Cost ($)5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	$409 $409 $409 $409 $409 $409 $409 $409 $409 $409				$395 $382 $369 $357 $344 $333 $322 $311 $300 $290
				Total	$3,403

 

Notes:

1. Notification is assumed to be in writing, however advice may be provided over the telephone.
2. The cost of an applicant's time used to calculate 'administrative costs' is $54.55 per hour, which is based on the methodology contained in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C2.1, p. C-5).
3. A desktop exercise provides an estimated time of 15 minutes to provide the prescribed details.
4. It is estimated that 28 rodeos and 2 rodeo schools will be held by licencees.
5. The discount rate used in this RIS is 3.5 per cent. In doing so, the RIS adopts the rate published in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C.3, p. C-9)

 

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Price		Quantity			Administrative Cost
Regulation 55 - Rodeo events that must be attended by a veterinary practitioner
Regulation	Tariff 1	Time	Population 2	Frequency 3
Attendance of veterinary practitioner	1200			30	36,000
				Total	$36,000
Discounted (10-Years)
Year	Administrative Cost ($)				Discounted Administrative Cost ($)3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	$36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000				$34,783 $33,606 $32,470 $31,372 $30,311 $29,286 $28,296 $27,339 $26,414 $25,521
				Total	$299,398

 

Notes:

1. Tariff advised by industry stakeholder. This cost incorporates duties performs by a veterinary practitioner under proposed regulations 57 and 63.
2. Assumes a total 30 rodeos/rodeo schools will be held annually.
3. The discount rate used in this RIS is 3.5 per cent. In doing so, the RIS adopts the rate published in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C.3, p. C-9)

 

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Price		Quantity			Administrative Cost
Regulation 58 - Department to be advised of appointed veterinary practitioner
Regulation	Tariff 1	Time	Population 2	Frequency 3
Advice in writing to the Department	54.55	0.25		10	136
Notification by email or fax	1.00			10	10
					$146
Discounted (10-Years)
Year	Administrative Cost ($)				Discounted Administrative Cost ($)4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	$146 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146 $146				$141 $137 $132 $128 $123 $119 $115 $111 $107 $104
				Total	$1,217

Notes:

1. The cost of a rodeo organiser's time used to calculate 'administrative costs' is $54.55 per hour, which is based on the methodology contained in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C2.1, p. C-5).
2. A desktop exercise provides an estimated time of 15 minutes to provide the prescribed details.
3. Such notifications occur in about a quarter of rodeo. Therefore, a conservative frequency of 10 was selected..
4. The discount rate used in this RIS is 3.5 per cent. In doing so, the RIS adopts the rate published in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C.3, p. C-9)

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Victorian Government Administrative Costs			Administrative Cost
Agency - Department of Primary Industries	Tariff 1	Time (hours) 2
Processing and administration of rodeo licences and permits	54.41	75	4,081
		Total	4,081
Discounted (10-Years)	DPI
Year	Administrative Cost ($)		Discounted Administrative Cost ($)3
1	$4,081		$3,943
2	$4,081		$3,809
3	$4,081		$3,681
4	$4,081		$3,556
5	$4,081		$3,436
6	$4,081		$3,320
7	$4,081		$3,207
8	$4,081		$3,099
9	$4,081		$2,994
10	$4,081		$2,893
			$33,938

Note:

1. VPS3 Salary (1 October 2008) is $56,086, multiplied by 1.75 to allow for labour on-cost, which provides a total of $98,151. This provides an hourly rate of $54.41
2. Time taken for processing and administration advised by DPI.

Attachment F

FEE CALCULATION FOR RODEOS AND RODEO SCHOOLS

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Average Cost of Rodeo Permit
Activity	Tariff 1	Time (minutes) 2	Cost
Facilitating lodgement of applications	0.91	10	9
Review of Application	0.91	45	41
Preparation and issuing of permit	0.91	45	41
Issue permit	0.91	25	23
Change of nominated veterinarian	0.91	5	4
Recording of rodeo and rodeo report	0.91	20	18
		Total	136.20
		Fee Units	12.0

Salary Cost Calculation	VPS3
VPS3 Salary (1 October 2008)	56,086
On-costs (VCEC gross up factor - 1.75)	42,065
Total annual salary cost	98,151
Total salary per minute	0.91

 

Facilitating lodgement of applications:

• Forward application form to inquirer (also available on web also)

Review of Application:

• Check applicant has completed applications form correctly, if not follow up with applicant
• Detailed check of supporting documentation
• Process fee

Preparation and issuing of permit:

• Create permit
• Check for authority to issue
• Permit to appropriate person for signing

Despatch permit:

• Despatch letter, permit and relevant documents to applicant
• Despatch letter and relevant forms and documents for attending veterinarian
• Fax copy to relevant authorities
• Copy to file and update database

Change of nominated veterinarian (if required):

• Process notification of change of veterinarian
• Create written approval for change
• Approval for signing by appropriate person
• Despatch written approval to permit/licence holder
• Copy to file and update database

Recording of rodeo and rodeo report:

• Ensure all documents copied onto file and database kept updated
• Acknowledge veterinarian report
• Follow up report if not received within 28 days
• Forward copy of report to inspectors if any non-compliance issues raised by report
• Record any injuries or fatalities on database
• File report

 

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Average Cost of Rodeo Licence
Activity	Tariff 1	Time (minutes) 2	Cost
Facilitating lodgement of applications	0.91	10	9
Review of Application	0.91	135	122
Preparation and issuing of licence	0.91	120	109
Issue licence	0.91	60	54
Licence notifications of rodeo	0.91	60	54
Change of nominated veterinarian	0.91	60	54
Recording of rodeo and rodeo report	0.91	120	108
		Total	510.75
		Fee Units	45.0

Salary Cost Calculation	VPS3
VPS3 Salary (1 October 2008)	56,086
On-costs (VCEC gross up factor - 1.75)	42,065
Total annual salary cost	98,151
Total salary per minute	0.91

 

Facilitating lodgement of applications:

• Forward application form to inquirer (also available on web)

Review of Application:

• Check applicant has completed applications form correctly
• Process fee or chase up if not provided
• Detailed check of supporting documentation

Preparation and issuing of licence:

• Create licence
• Check for authority to issue
• Permit to appropriate person for signing

For Licence:

• Despatch letter, licence and relevant documents to applicant
• Copy to file and update database

Licence notifications of rodeo:

• Acknowledge notification with licence holder
• Despatch letter and relevant forms and documents for attending veterinarian
• Fax copy to relevant authorities
• Copy to file and update database

Change of nominated veterinarian (if required):

• Process notification of change of veterinarian
• Create written approval for change
• Approval for signing by appropriate person
• Despatch written approval to permit/licence holder
• Copy to file and update database

Recording of rodeo and rodeo report:

• Ensure all documents copied onto file and database kept updated
• Acknowledge veterinarian report
• Follow up report if not received within 28 days
• Forward copy of report to inspectors if any non-compliance issues raised by report
• Record any injuries or fatalities on database
• File report

 

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Average Cost of Rodeo School Permit
Activity	Tariff 1	Time (minutes) 2	Cost
Facilitating lodgement of applications	0.91	10	9
Review of Application	0.91	20	18
Preparation and issuing of permit	0.91	20	18
Issue licence	0.91	15	14
Record keeping	0.91	10	9
		Total	68.10
		Fee Units	6.00

Salary Cost Calculation	VPS3
VPS3 Salary (1 October 2008)	56,086
On-costs (VCEC gross up factor - 1.75)	42,065
Total annual salary cost	98,151
Total salary per minute	0.91

 

Facilitating lodgement of applications:

• Forward application form to inquirer (also available on web)

Review of Application:

• Check applicant has completed applications form correctly
• Process fee or chase up if not provided
• Detailed check of supporting documentation

Preparation and issuing of permit:

• Create permit
• Check for authority to issue
• Permit to appropriate person for signing

Record keeping

• Copy to file and update database

 

PERCENTAGE OF ANIMALS USED: IMPACT CATEGORIES, 2006

Impact category	Percentage
Observation involving minor interference	39.62%
Animal unconscious without recovery	12.90%
Minor conscious intervention	29.48%
Minor operative procedure with recovery	3.95%
Major operative with recovery	3.53%
Minor physiological challenge	4.59%
Major physiological challenge	5.90%
Death as end point	0.03%

Examples of procedures by impact category

Impact category	Examples of procedures
Observation involving minor interference	Wildlife studies involving repeated spotlighting or intrusion into groups of animals or nursing animals Feeding trial, such as Digestible Energy determination of feed in a balanced diet Behavioural or growth study with minor environmental manipulation Teaching of normal, non-invasive husbandry such as handling, grooming, etc Production of products, such as hormones or drugs, in milk or eggs from genetically modified animals that are subject to normal husbandry procedures only
Animal unconscious without recovery	Animals (including fish) in laboratory killed painlessly for dissection, biochemical analysis, etc Teaching surgical techniques on live, anaesthetised patients that are not allowed to recover following the procedure
Minor conscious intervention	Ear notching (preferred for reduced impact), tail tipping and toe clipping (discouraged on welfare grounds) for identification of new line GM animals Injections, blood sampling in conscious animal Minor dietary or environmental deprivation or manipulation, such as feeding nutrient-deficient diets for short periods Trapping and release as used in species impact studies, etc Trapping and humane euthanasia for collection of specimens Stomach tubing, branding, disbudding, shearing, etc Capture, tagging and release of fish
Minor operative procedure with recovery	Biopsies or blood sampling under anaesthesia or sedation Cannulations under anaesthesia or sedation Sedation/anaesthesia for relocation, examination or injections/blood sampling Field capture using chemical restraint methods
Major operative with recovery	Orthopaedic surgery Abdominal or thoracic surgery Transplant surgery Mulesing, surgical castration without anaesthesia Surgery under anaesthesia for implantation of telemetry tags
Minor physiological challenge	Minor infection, minor or moderate phenotypic modification, early oncogenesis Arthritis studies with pain alleviation. Prolonged deficient diets, induction of metabolic disease. Polyclonal antibody production Antiserum production
Major physiological challenge	Major infection, major phenotypic modification, oncogenesis without pain alleviation Arthritis studies with no pain alleviation, uncontrolled metabolic disease Isolation or environmental deprivation for extended periods Monoclonal antibody raising in mice (discouraged - alternatives are available)
Death as end point	Toxicity testing (LD50, LC50) Testing of antivenoms Fatal disease progression

Attachment H

COST CALCULATION FOR THE PROPOSED SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES REGULATIONS

Summary of Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008 Scientific Procedures (Discounted 10-Year Period Rate 3.5%)

Costs Imposed on Business and Individuals
Regulation	Description	Type of Cost	Discounted Cost
Regulation 87, 90, 93 Regulations 86, 89, 92 Regulation 87, 90, 93 Regulation 95 Regulation 87,90, 91, 93	Animal Ethics Committees Application for scientific procedures and specified animals breeding licences Monthly records kept by scientific procedures and specified animals breeding licencees Submission of Annual Return Notification requirements	Compliance/financial Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative	$3,536,387 $62,261 $29,885,154 $8,583,367 $56,779
		Sub-total	$42,123,947
Costs Imposed on Government
Agency
Department of Primary Industries - Bureau of Animal Welfare		Sub-total	$898,242
		Total	$43,022,190
		Annual Cost	$4,302,219

 

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Price		Quantity			Administrative Cost
Regulations 87, 90, 93 - Animal Ethics Committees
Regulation	Tariff 1	Time	Population 2	Frequency 3
Regulation 87, 90, 93 - Animal Ethics Committees	186.50		380	6	425,220
				Total	$425,220
Discounted (10-Years)
Year	Administrative Cost ($)				Discounted Administrative Cost ($)4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	$425,220 $425,220 $425,220 $425,220 $425,220 $425,220 $425,220 $425,220 $425,220 $425,220				$410,841 $396,947 $383,524 $370,555 $358,024 $345,917 $334,219 $322,917 $311,997 $301,446
				Total	$3,536,387

 

Notes:

1. The Bureau of Animal Welfare recommend a sitting fee payment of between $150-$291 for the chair $130-$226 for members. A weighted average based on a five member committee provides an estimated tariff of $186.50
2. There are 76 AECs. The number of persons in a Committee generally range from 4 to 8. Therefore, an average number of 5 has been assumed, reflecting that not every person will be able to attend each committee.
3. Four AEC meetings are required to be held each year. Given that some AECs meet more than the minimum, an average of six AEC meetings is used for the purpose of these calculations.
4. The discount rate used in this RIS is 3.5 per cent. In doing so, the RIS adopts the rate published in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C.3, p. C-9)

 

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Price		Quantity			Administrative Cost
Regulations 86, 89, 92 - Application for scientific procedures and specified animals breeding licences
Regulation	Tariff 1	Time	Population 2	Frequency 3
Regulation 86 - Application for the issue or renewal of a scientific procedures premises licence	94.17	0.50	114	1	5,368
Regulation 89 - Application for the issue or renewal of a scientific procedures field work licence	94.17	0.50	34	1	1,601
Regulation 92 - Application for the issue or renewal of a specified animals breeding licence	94.17	0.50	11	1	518
				Total	$7,486
Discounted (10-Years)
Year	Administrative Cost ($)				Discounted Administrative Cost ($)5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	$7,486 $7,486 $7,486 $7,486 $7,486 $7,486 $7,486 $7,486 $7,486 $7,486				$7,233 $6,989 $6,752 $6,524 $6,303 $6,090 $5,884 $5,685 $5,493 $5,307
				Total	$62,261

Notes:

1. As a proxy for the cost for an applicant's time, the Casual Hourly Rate for a VPSG6 of $53.81 is multiplied for the suggested VCEC overhead gross-up factor of 1.75 based on the methodology contained in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C2.1, p. C-5). This provides an hourly estimate of $94.17.
2. Desk top exercise on the advice of DPI.
3. Numbers of registered organisations in 2007. These numbers have been stable over recent years.
4. Licences may be renewed for one, two or three years. The be conservatively it is assumed that renewal occurs annually.
5. The discount rate used in this RIS is 3.5 per cent. In doing so, the RIS adopts the rate published in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C.3, p. C-9)

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Price		Quantity			Administrative Cost
Regulations 87, 90, 93 - Monthly records
Regulation	Tariff 1	Time	Population 2	Frequency 3
Regulation 87(21) - Monthly records (scientific procedures premises licence)	94.17	20	114	12	2,576,423
Regulation 90(17) - Monthly records (scientific procedures field work licence)	94.17	20	34	12	768,407
Regulation 93(15) -Monthly records (specified animals breeding licence)	94.17	20	11	12	248,602
				Total	$3,593,432
Discounted (10-Years)
Year	Administrative Cost ($)				Discounted Administrative Cost ($)5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	$3,593,432 $3,593,432 $3,593,432 $3,593,432 $3,593,432 $3,593,432 $3,593,432 $3,593,432 $3,593,432 $3,593,432				$3,471,915 $3,354,507 $3,241,070 $3,131,468 $3,025,573 $2,923,259 $2,824,405 $2,728,894 $2,636,612 $2,547,451
				Total	$29,885,154

Notes:

1. As a proxy for the cost for an applicant's time, the Casual Hourly Rate for a VPSG6 of $53.81 is multiplied for the suggested VCEC overhead gross-up factor of 1.75 based on the methodology contained in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C2.1, p. C-5).
2. Time is based on consultation with DPI and informed by stakeholder information. In general terms licencees were categorised as small/low complexity (25 per cent), medium size facilities (55 per cent) or large establishments with large numbers of animals and research programs (20 per cent). DPI is in regular contact with licensees and estimates that small, medium and large establishments spend around 10 hours, 20 hours and 30 hours respectively preparing monthly reports, which provides a weighted average estimate of approximately 20 hours.
3. Data provided by Bureau of Animal Welfare.
4. Monthly returns results in a frequency of 12.
5. The discount rate used in this RIS is 3.5 per cent. In doing so, the RIS adopts the rate published in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C.3, p. C-9)

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Price		Quantity			Administrative Cost
Regulation 95 - Submission of Annual Return
Regulation	Tariff 1	Time	Population 2	Frequency 3
Scientific procedures premises licence	94.17	75	114	1	805,132
Scientific procedures field work licence	94.17	60	34	1	192,102
Specified animals breeding licence	94.17	30	11	1	31,075
Regulation 96 - Return of records	94.17	20		2	3,767
				Total	$1,032,076
Discounted (10-Years)
Year	Administrative Cost ($)				Discounted Administrative Cost ($)5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	$1,032,076 $1,032,076 $1,032,076 $1,032,076 $1,032,076 $1,032,076 $1,032,076 $1,032,076 $1,032,076 $1,032,076				$997,175 $963,454 $930,873 $899,394 $868,980 $839,594 $811,202 $783,770 $757,266 $731,658
				Total	$8,583,367

Notes:

1. As a proxy for the cost for an applicant's time, the Casual Hourly Rate for a VPSG6 of $53.81 is multiplied for the suggested VCEC overhead gross-up factor of 1.75 based on the methodology contained in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C2.1, p. C-5). This provides an hourly estimate of $94.17.
2. Based on stakeholder consultation, an average of the hours taken for a small, medium and large scientific establishment to complete annual returns was estimated. The estimates for small (30 hours), medium (60 hours) and large (75 hours) are best estimates but are considered to be conservative.
3. Data provided by Bureau of Animal Welfare.
4. Bureau of Animal Welfare advise to the return of records is a rare occurrence, therefore two cases annually are assumed.
5. The discount rate used in this RIS is 3.5 per cent. In doing so, the RIS adopts the rate published in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C.3, p. C-9)

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Price		Quantity			Administrative Cost
Regulations 87, 90, 91, 96 - Notification requirements
Regulation	Tariff 1	Time	Population 2	Frequency 3
Regulation 87 (6), (7), (11), (12), (22) - scientific procedures premises licence	94.17	0.50		65	3060
Regulation 90 (6), (7), (18) - scientific procedures field work licence	94.17	0.50		30	1413
Regulation 91 (19)	94.17	0.50		15	706
Regulation 93 (6), (7), (16) - specified animals breeding licence	94.17	0.50		35	1648
					$6,827
Discounted (10-Years)
Year	Administrative Cost ($)				Discounted Administrative Cost ($)4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	$6,827 $6,827 $6,827 $6,827 $6,827 $6,827 $6,827 $6,827 $6,827 $6,827				$6,596 $6,373 $6,158 $5,949 $5,748 $5,554 $5,366 $5,185 $5,009 $4,840
				Total	$56,779

Notes:

1. As a proxy for the cost for an applicant's time, the Casual Hourly Rate for a VPSG6 of $53.81 is multiplied for the suggested VCEC overhead gross-up factor of 1.75 based on the methodology contained in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C2.1, p. C-5). This provides an hourly estimate of $94.17.
2. Notification may be made by way of telephone or fax.
3. Figures provided by the Bureau of Animal Welfare.
4. The discount rate used in this RIS is 3.5 per cent. In doing so, the RIS adopts the rate published in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C.3, p. C-9)

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Victorian Government Administrative Costs - Bureau of Animal Welfare			Administrative Cost
Bureau of Animal Welfare Officers	Tariff 1	Time (% of duties) 2
VPSG3	56,086	85%	47,673
VPSG4	66,296	60%	39,778
VPSG6	102,776	20%	20,555
		Total	108,006
Discounted (10-Years)	DPI
Year	Administrative Cost ($)	Discounted Administrative Cost ($)3
1	$108,006	$104,354
2	$108,006	$100,825
3	$108,006	$97,415
4	$108,006	$94,121
5	$108,006	$90,938
6	$108,006	$87,863
7	$108,006	$84,892
8	$108,006	$82,021
9	$108,006	$79,247
10	$108,006	$76,567
		$898,242

Note:

1. Mid-point salaries for Victorian Public Service Staff from 1 October 2008
2. Percentage of time taken for processing and administering the Act of Part 3 of the regulations advised by Bureau of Animal Welfare.

FEE CALCULATION FOR THE PROPOSED SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES FEES

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008
Average cost of Scientific Procedures and Specified Animals Breeding Licences

Task	Salaries (hours) ($)	Average time taken per application (hours)	Average labour cost ($)
Administration	$31.63	2.50	$79.08
General file maintenance
Database maintenance
Letter and email notification
Website development
Licence processing	$31.63	1.00	$31.63
Receipt and application and AEC checking
Finance submissions
Licence creation and database updating
Licence checking and authorisation
Annual statistics	$31.63	2.00	$63.26
Notification and follow up of returns
Data entry
Data analysis
Report generation and circulation
Evaluation of system
Database development
Ministerial/reporting	$55.42	0.17	$9.48
Auditing
External auditors - visits	$74.00	3.75	$277.50
Internal auditor - visits	$55.42	3.00	$166.26
Licensing officer admin & organisation	$31.63	0.50	$15.82
PVO reporting and follow ups	$55.42	0.50	$27.71
Training & Education of AECs	$55.42	1.00	$55.42
(Free annual seminar & other workshops)	$31.63	0.50	$15.82
Subtotal		14.92	$741.96
Plus labour on-costs (multiplied by 1.75)			$1,298.43
Partial cost recovery 50 per cent			$649.22
Fee units			57.20

 

Notes:

1. Hourly VPS Grade Salaries from 1 October 2008: VPS3 - 31.63, VPS6 - 55.42. The hourly rate for an auditor is 75 per hour.
2. Salaries are multiplied for the suggested VCEC overhead gross-up factor of 1.75 based on the methodology contained in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C2.1, p. C-5).

Attachment J

STANDARD COST MODEL CALCULATIONS - MEASURING INCREASES IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN

Costs Imposed by the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

Price		Quantity			Administrative Cost
Regulation 19 - Record of sale of electric collars
Regulation	Tariff 1	Time	Population 2	Frequency 3
Regulation 19 -Record of sales	54.55	0.08		500	2273
Regulation 19 - Provision of information	1.00			500	500
				Total	$2,773

 

Notes:

1. The cost of a retailer's time used to calculate 'administrative costs' is $54.55 per hour, which is based on the methodology contained in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C2.1, p. C-5). Provision of information (i.e. conditions of use) costs consist of a photocopied page.
2. A desktop exercise provides an estimate of 5 minutes to collect the required details.
3. The number of electronic collars proved difficult the estimate given no data is currently collected on their sales. Given the conditions imposed by Regulation 16, the sale of 500 units per annum is considered a conservative estimate.

Standard Cost Model Assessment of the Proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008

New Administrative Saving for Business					Administrative Cost
Rodeo Licences
Regulation 50	Tariff 1	Time	Population 2	Frequency 3
Application for a rodeo licence	54.55	0.50	4	5	546
				Total	$546

 

Notes:

1. The cost of an applicant's time used to calculate 'administrative costs' is $54.55 per hour, which is based on the methodology contained in the Victorian Guide to Regulation (Section C2.1, p. C-5).
2. Desk top exercise on the advice of DPI.
3. Given that there are four major rodeo operators in Victoria, it is assumed that each will apply for a new rodeo licence.
4. It is assumed that licencees would hold 6 rodeos per annum. Therefore they will no longer be required to complete an additional five rodeo permit applications.

Attachment K

STATEMENT OF NO MATERIAL IMPACT

Administrative Burden Statement

In accordance with the Victorian Guide to Regulation − Measurement of Changes in Administrative Burden issued by the Treasurer in April 2007, it has been determined that the regulatory costs imposed by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008 (the proposed Regulations) will not lead to a material change in the administrative burden on business or not-for-profit organisations in Victoria.

This assessment is based on calculations made using the Victorian Standard Cost Model, which estimates the increase of administrative costs under the proposed Regulations on business to be in the order of $2,800 per annum. These costs relate to a new requirement for sellers of electronic collars to record details of the buyer.

Against this cost, the proposed rodeo licence is likely to result administrative in savings for rodeo operators. Currently, a rodeo operator must apply for a separate permit for each rodeo. The new licence will allow a rodeo operator to conduct multiple rodeos per annum. It is estimated that the saving arising from this proposal will be in the order of $550 per annum.

Therefore, the net increase in administrative burden arising from the proposed Regulations is approximately $2,250 per annum.

The additional administrative cost is considerably less than the figure of $250,000 per annum advised by the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission as being the indicative threshold for materiality.

Footnotes

¹ Department of Treasury and Finance, 2007, 2^nd ed, Victorian Guide to Regulation incorporating: Guidelines made under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 and Guidelines for the Measurement of Changes in Administrative Burden, Melbourne

² Victorian Government, 2006, Reducing the Regulatory Burden: The Victorian Government's Plan to Reduce Red Tape, pp. 2−3

³ Radford, M., 2001, Animal Welfare Law in Britain: Regulation and Responsibility, Oxford University Press, p. 3

⁴ ibid., pp. 17 - 19: Writing in 1796, John Lawrence was the first to put forward comprehensive arguments that animal cruelty should be regulated by the state as a matter of public policy. In his 700 page treatise he "propose[d] that the Rights of Beasts be formally acknowledged by the state, and that a law be framed upon the principle, to guard and protect them from flagrant and wanton cruelty, whether committed by their owners or others".

^{4 5} ibid., pp. 34 - 37

⁶ ibid., p. 39

⁷ ibid., p. 51

⁸ ibid., pp. 44 - 45

⁹ ibid., p. 63

¹⁰ ibid., p. 71

¹¹ loc. cit.

¹² ibid., pp. 88 - 89

¹³ ibid., p. 6

¹⁴ Duncan, I., 2006, The changing concept of animal sentience, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 100 , Issue 1 - 2 , Pages 11 - 19

¹⁵ Compassion In World Farming, What is animal sentience and why does it matter? : http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/animal_sentience/default.aspx

¹⁶ Compassion In World Farming, Sentience In Practice: Policy, Legislation and Ethical Perspectives: http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/animal_sentience/practice/default.aspx

¹⁷ Victorian Government Media Release from the Minister for Agriculture, Tougher Penalties for Animal Cruelty under New Laws, 10 October 2007

¹⁸ VicHansard, Statement of Compatibility, Animal Legislation Amendment (Animal Care) Bill, Assembly, 11 October 2007, p. 3524

¹⁹ VicHansard, Second Reading Speech, Animal Legislation Amendment (Animal Care) Bill, Assembly, 11 October 2007, p. 3528

²⁰ Australian Labor Party, Policy for the 2006 Victorian Election: Caring for Pets in our Community, p. 2

²¹ Department of Primary Industries, Biosecurity Victoria: Business Plan 2007/08, p. 3

²² Section 1 (Purpose) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986

²³ Department of Natural Resources and Environment, 1997, National Competition Policy Review of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986, prepared by KPMG Management Consulting, Melbourne, p. 6. The methodology adopted in this Review assessed the costs and benefits in accordance with sub-clause 1(3) of the Competition Principles Agreement and Guidelines - Review of Legislative Restrictions on Competition. This report is not publicly available.

²⁴ ibid., p. 6. This quote is reminiscent of the famous statement by Mahatma Gandhi that, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

²⁵ Department of Treasury and Finance (2007), ibid., p. F−7

²⁶ Standard Cost Model Formula - Administrative Cost = (tariff x time) x (population x frequency)

²⁷ Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 Guidelines, Revised 2007, Section 2.04

²⁸ Department of Treasury and Finance (2007), ibid., p. C-9

²⁹ Victorian Government Media Release, Minister for Agriculture, New Rules to Protect Chickens, Dogs and Horses, 21 June 2004

³⁰ Edwards, L, 'Animal Fight Clubs', The Age, 23 June 2008

³¹ The Portsmouth military bit used by the Australian Light Horse is 'reversible'. The proposed Regulations will not prohibit the use of these, provided that the corrugated side of the mouth piece is not used.

³²Victorian Government Media Release, ibid., 21 June 2004

³³ Shock Collars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bark_collar

³⁴ Blackwell, E. and Casey, R., The use of shock collars and their impact on the welfare of dogs: A review of the current literature, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science University of Bristol. See: http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlblob&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id& blobtable=RSPCABlob&blobwhere=1138718966544&ssbinary=true

³⁵ Quoted in Hansard UK, House of Commons, 27 Apr 2007 : Column 1157

³⁶ Schalke, E., Stichnoth, J. and Jones-Baade, R. (2005) Stress symptoms caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs (Canis familiaris) in everyday life situations. Current Issues and Research in Veterinary Behavioural Medicine: Papers presented at the 5th International Veterinary Behaviour meeting. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, Indiana

³⁷ Tortora, D.F. (1982a). Understanding Electronic Dog Training Part 1. Canine Practice, 9 (2), 17-22

³⁸ Schalke, E.; Stichnoth, J.; Ott, S. & Jones-Baade, R., 2007, "Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations", Applied Animal Behaviour Science 105

³⁹ Polsky, R.H., 2000, "Can aggression be elicited through electronic pet containment systems", Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 3: 345-357.

⁴⁰ Grandin, T., 1998, Review: Reducing Handling Stress Improves Both Productivity and Welfare, The Professional Animal Scientist, Volume 14, Number 1, March 1998

⁴¹ MSA (2004) Meat Standards Australia: MSA03 MSA Requirements for handling cattle

⁴² Animal Health Australia, 2008, (Draft) Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for the Land Transport of Livestock: Public Consultation Response Action Plan

⁴³ NSW Department of Primary Industries, Standard Operating Procedures - Cattle collection of semen (electro-ejaculation), Ref Code: CAT13

⁴⁴ Palmer, C.W., 2005, Welfare aspects of theriogenology: Investigating alternatives to electroejaculation of bulls, Theriogenology, 2005, vol. 64, n 3, pp. 469-479

⁴⁵ Restraint of Livestock: http://www.grandin.com/references/abdlps.html

⁴⁶ Across Australia, wild dogs are believed to cost $A66.3 million per annum in lost agricultural production and control effort and are a much more significant predator of livestock than foxes.

⁴⁷ 'Wild dogs' include feral dogs, dogs run wild, dingoes and their hybrids.

⁴⁸ Nocturnal Wildlife Research, Review of Welfare Outcomes of Leg-hold Trap Use in Victoria, September 2008, p. 6

⁴⁹ NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2005, Standard operating procedure: Trapping of wild dogs using padded-jaw traps

⁵⁰ Department of Primary Industries, Victoria, 2001, Code of practice for the use of small steel-jawed traps, AG0010, ISSN 1329-8062

⁵¹ Nocturnal Wildlife Research, 2008, ibid., pp. 7 - 8

⁵² NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2005, Model code of practice for the humane control of feral horses

⁵³ NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2005, Standard operating procedure: Trapping of pest birds

⁵⁴ Victorian Wader Study Group website: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~vwsg/about.html

⁵⁵ NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2007, Standard operating procedure: Live capture of pest animals used in research

⁵⁶ Iossa et al, 2007, Mammal trapping: a review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps, Animal Welfare 16: 335-352.

⁵⁷ Nocturnal Wildlife Research, 2008, ibid., p. 73

⁵⁸ ibid., p. 90

⁵⁹ Iossa et al, 2007, Mammal trapping: a review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps, Animal Welfare 16: 335-352.

⁶⁰ Mason, G and Littin, K, 2003, The Humaneness of Rodent Pest Control, Animal Welfare 2003, 12: 1-37.

⁶¹ National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare, Position Statement: Rodent Traps - glueboards and gels, metal-toothed traps: http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-planthealth/welfare/nccaw/guidelines/pest/rodent-traps

⁶² Nocturnal Wildlife Research, 2008, Welfare Outcomes of Leg-hold Trap Use in Victoria: A Review, October, p. 82 and Department of Primary Industries, NSW, 2005, Standard Operating Procedure: Trapping of wild dogs using padded-jaw traps

⁶³ Mason, G. and Littin, K. 2003, ibid.

⁶⁴ Corrigan, R. M., 2001. Rodent Control: A Practical Guide for Pest Management Professionals, GIE Media, Cleveland, USA

⁶⁵ National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare, ibid

⁶⁶ Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (NZ), 2008, Proposal to prohibit the sale and use of rodent glueboard traps, Biosecurity New Zealand Discussion paper: 2008/06, ISBN 978-0-478-32170-8 (Print), ISBN 978-0-478-32171-5 (Online)

⁶⁷ 'Roche acts against illegal glue traps'. Media release by Mr Dick Roche, T.D., Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Republic of Ireland, 3 April 2006. http://www.environ.ie/en/Heritage/NationalParksandWildlife/News/MainBody,16109,en.htm

⁶⁸ Section 3 of the Act defines an 'animal' as a live member of a vertebrate species including any fish or amphibian, or reptile, bird or mammal (other than any human being or any reptile, bird or other mammal that is below the normal mid-point of gestation or incubation for the particular class of reptile, bird or mammal) or a live adult decapod crustacean, that is a lobster; a crab; or a crayfish.

⁶⁹ NSW Department of Primary Industries, NSW, 2005, Humane pest animal control: Codes of Practice and Standard Operating Procedures

⁷⁰ Victorian Government Budget 2008-09, Budget Paper 3 - Service Delivery, p. 218

⁷¹ RSPCA Annual Reports: http://www.rspcavic.org/about_us/annual_report.htm

⁷² Department of Treasury and Finance, 2007, ibid., p. 3-8

⁷³ loc cit., p. 3-9

⁷⁴ Department of Primary Industries, Bureau of Animal Welfare 2001, Code of practice for the use of small steel-jawed traps, AG0010, ISSN 1329-8062

⁷⁵ DNRE, 1997, ibid.

⁷⁶ Australian Veterinary Association, Policy Compendium 15.4 - Rodeos: http://avacms.eseries.hengesystems.com.au/

⁷⁷ For example, the RSPCA believes "that all animals must be treated humanely and is opposed to rodeos for the abuse and high risk of injury to animals … the RSPCA will continue to urge government to have rodeos banned". RSPCA Victoria, 2008, Media Release: RSPCA says rodeos should be banned, 28 April 2008

⁷⁸ Department of Primary Industries, 2005, Agricultural Notes: Code of Practice for Rodeo and Rodeo School Livestock in Victoria, AG0303, ISSN 1329-8062

⁷⁹ Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (Queensland): http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/animalwelfare/15516.html#adopted

⁸⁰ DNRE, 2007, ibid., p. 25

⁸¹ idem.

⁸² Australian Professional Rodeo Association, Animal Welfare: http://www.prorodeo.asn.au/Animals.htm

⁸³ Note that this figure represents a discounted average.

⁸⁴ DNRE, 1997, ibid., p. 16

⁸⁵ Department of Treasury and Finance, 2007, ibid., B−1 p. 129

⁸⁶ DNRE, 1997, ibid., p. 17

⁸⁷ Animal Liberation Victoria: http://www.alv.org.au/issues/stoprodeo.php

⁸⁸ Tourism Victoria, Media Bulletin, March 2008: http://www.tourism.vic.gov.au/piecesofvictoria/march_2008/index.php?page=diary

⁸⁹ Department of Treasury and Finance, 2007, Cost Recovery Guidelines: Incorporating the information formerly published in the Guidelines for Setting fees and User-Charges Imposed by Departments and Central Government Agencies, Melbourne

⁹⁰ ibid., p. 5

⁹¹ A fee unit for the financial year commencing 1 July 2008 is $11.35. See Victorian Government Gazette, No. S66, 14 March 2008

⁹² Department of Primary Industries, Animal Use Data accessed on 26 August 2008: http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/

⁹³ Thirty-four per cent were mice, rats, rabbits or guinea pigs, 29 per cent were agricultural animals (including poultry), 25 per cent were fish, 0.1 per cent were cats and dogs. The remainder (12 per cent) is made up of a large variety of species, none of which feature in any great number.

⁹⁴ The costs of Death as End Point (DAEP) approvals involve the submitting of an application and the obtaining of Animal Ethics Committee approval for the application. There is no monetary cost to the regulated party for submitting a DAEP application for consideration by the Department. Therefore there is little additional cost to the regulated party. For government, since the recent delegation by the Minister to the Executive Director of Biosecurity Victoria of the power to approve DAEP, the cost in terms of time and effort required of the Minister for approving DAEP applications has substantially decreased. The main cost is time of the Principal Veterinary Officer in considering the application to determine the appropriate recommendation to provide to the EDBV, and the time and effort required from the EDBV to consider the PVO's recommendation. In general there are fewer than 10 DAEP applications per year so the time spent is not substantial. The additional oversight and awareness this system allows and provides for the Government regarding such substantially severe scientific procedures far outweighs the costs delineated above.

⁹⁵ idem.

⁹⁶ idem.

⁹⁷ History of Animal Testing, Medical and Veterinary Advances: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_animal_testing . Also see the Pro-Test website, noting that 71 of the Nobel Prizes for Medicine won in the last 103 years were awarded to scientists who used animals in their research: see http://www.pro-test.org.uk/facts.php?lt=c

⁹⁸ DNRE, ibid., p. 30

⁹⁹ Broom, D. M, 2007, Cognitive ability and sentience: Which aquatic animals should be protected, Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 2007, vol. 75, n^o 2 (98 p.). Also see Stuart Barr et al., 2007, Nociception or pain in a decapod crustacean?, Animal Behaviour, doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.07.004 for evidence that decapods feel pain. However, a study by Lauritz S. Sømme, Sentience and Pain in Invertebrates (2005), reporting to the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety was more equivocal. Nevertheless, this study concluded that "A definite answer to pain in invertebrates may be difficult to find. In the meantime, efforts should be made to maintain these animals in the most appropriate way during handling and confinement, giving them the benefit of doubt in situations that have a potential to cause pain and stress."

¹⁰⁰ Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 Guidelines, Revised 2007, Section 2.04

¹⁰¹ DNRE, 1997, ibid., p. 33

¹⁰² ABS Cat. 7503.0 1988-2003, Agriculture Australia

¹⁰³ Department of Primary Industries, Egg Production http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nrenfa.nsf/FID/E34949CCE088666CCA256CDF00193648?OpenDocument

¹⁰⁴ Department of Treasury and Finance, 2007, ibid., B−1 p. 129

¹⁰⁵ Two full-time equivalent VPS4 ($64,365) and labour on-costs and overheads (VCEC gross-up factor 1.75) provides a cost of around $225,000 per annum.

¹⁰⁶ DNRE, 1997, ibid., p.16

¹⁰⁷ A fee unit for the financial year commencing 1 July 2008 is $11.35. See Victorian Government Gazette, No. S66, 14 March 2008

^{108 DNRE, 1997, ibid., p 17}

¹⁰⁹ Victorian Government, 2007, Small Business Regulatory Impact Assessment Manual, Melbourne, April 2007

¹¹⁰ The ABS defines a small business as a business employing less than 20 people. ABS Cat. 1321.0 Small Business in Australia

¹¹¹ Rounded to the nearest dollar. See section 7(4) of the Monetary Units Act 2004.