|New Zealand - Anmal Welfare - New Zealand Code for Meat Chickens||The purpose of this code is to set out the minimum standard of care that owners of meat chickens (broilers) and persons who are in charge of them must achieve order to meet their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (the Act). The minimum standards in this code have a legal effect under the Act (see Appendix II: Legislative Requirements). Example indicators do not have a legal effect but can be used to demonstrate whether minimum standards are being met. This code also includes information and recommended best practices which are intended to encourage all those responsible for implementing the code to adopt a standard of husbandry, care and handling exceeding that required by minimum standards.||Administrative|
|Five Years of the New Animal Welfare Regime: Lessons Learned from New Zealand's Decision to Modernize Its Animal Welfare Legislation||Peter Sankoff||11 Animal L. 7 (2005)||
In 1999, New Zealand took an ambitious step to update its animal welfare legislation. The new law included a limited provision to protect Great Apes from scientific experimentation that was heralded internationally as a huge step forward for animals. The Author suggests, however, that New Zealand’s other animals have not fared nearly as well under the new law, and that the notion of New Zealand as the “animal friendly” nation implied by its treatment of primates is more about perception than reality. This article explores the New Zealand experience, and suggests lessons that can be drawn from the modernization of its animal welfare legislation.
|THE ANIMAL RIGHTS DEBATE AND THE EXPANSION OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE: IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE LAW PROTECTING ANIMALS TO SIMULTANEOUSLY FAIL AND SUCCEED?||Peter Sankoff||18 Animal L. 281 (2012)||
This Article uses the theory of deliberative democracy, as developed by Jürgen Habermas and others, to suggest that public discourse is essential to encouraging democratic change in animal welfare law. The author examines the legal regimes of Canada and New Zealand to determine which country better facilitates a public dialogue about the treatment of animals. The Article concludes that, while Canada has a number of laws that ostensibly protect animals, New Zealand’s regime is much better at creating the public discourse required to meaningfully advance animal protection. The author does not suggest that New Zealand’s regime is perfect; rather, New Zealand’s model is preferable to Canada’s because it allows the public to meaningfully engage in laws affecting animals at regular intervals. In Canada, generating discussion in government about animal welfare is too often left to the whim of legislators. Due to New Zealand’s model of encouraging and requiring public discourse, its protection laws have begun to surpass those of Canada, and there is reason to believe this will continue. Encouraging public discourse about our assumptions about animals fosters hope for meaningful progress in their lives.
|A Step at a Time: New Zealands Progress Towards Hominid Rights||Rowan Taylor||7 Animal L. 35 (2001)||
Mr. Taylor writes about the Great Ape Project's campaign to win fundamental rights for all hominids with New Zealand's Animal Welfare Act. While the Act was a significant step in the struggle for hominids' rights, larger steps, including a Nonhuman Hominid Protection Bill, will soon follow.