WeRise · Policy platform

Animal Welfare

Mercy, with Teeth

Animal welfare should reflect evidence about animals’ capacity to feel and suffer. WeRise supports legally enforceable welfare standards, phased elimination of high-harm industries, and public investment in alternatives.

WR-PF04

In development

Key findings

Australian states and territories have primary responsibility for animal-welfare law and enforcement. ^[1]
The UK’s 2022 sentience legislation established an Animal Sentience Committee to scrutinise government policy. ^[2]
EU rules have prohibited conventional, non-enriched cages for laying hens since 2012; enriched cages remain permitted. ^[3]
Australia has legislated to end live sheep exports by sea from 1 May 2028. This is not a ban on every live-animal export. ^[4]

Part 01

The Case for Change

Why Animal Welfare matters

Cruelty should not hide inside custom

The fact that a practice is old, profitable or legal does not make it defensible.

Australia’s animal-welfare laws and enforcement are primarily the responsibility of states and territories. National standards are developed for implementation through those jurisdictions, while the Commonwealth has responsibilities involving international trade. ^[1] WeRise argues that this division of responsibility needs stronger coordination, independent inspection and clearer public accountability. Recognition of sentience is one way of making welfare a more explicit consideration in public decisions, as the UK’s Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 illustrates. ^[2]

The argument that tradition justifies harm is circular: it states that a practice is acceptable because it has always been done, without asking whether it should continue. WeRise’s criticism is that industry custom can normalise practices that should instead be tested against animal-welfare evidence and public scrutiny. WeRise holds that policy should reflect the evidence on animal cognition and the community’s evolving moral expectations, not the administrative inertia of previous decades.

Part 02

Evidence and Experience

Animal Welfare: what other countries show

International examples show different ways to make animal welfare part of law and administration. They do not establish that every reform is costless or that another country’s system can be copied wholesale.

United Kingdom

The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 created an Animal Sentience Committee. Its reports consider whether government policy has given due regard to effects on animal welfare. This example concerns the specific scrutiny mechanism established by the 2022 Act. ^[2]

New Zealand

New Zealand prohibited livestock exports by sea from April 2023. MPI’s guidance also describes work towards reinstating exports for breeding with strengthened requirements. The example shows why comparisons must distinguish slaughter from breeding and record policy changes over time. ^[5]

European Union

EU laying-hen rules have prohibited non-enriched cages since 1 January 2012, while allowing enriched cages and non-cage systems. That distinction matters: a ban on conventional cages does not mean that all cages have been eliminated. ^[3]

Netherlands

Dutch government guidance describes rules for animal housing, husbandry, transport and slaughter, with supervision by the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority. These are examples of standards and oversight, not proof that all welfare problems have been solved. ^[6]

WeRise’s proposal is to combine enforceable standards with a funded transition. The Australian design needs its own cost estimates, consultation and outcome measures; examples overseas are starting points for comparison, not substitutes for that work.

Part 03

Costs and Trade-offs

The cost of Animal Welfare

Fund the transition and test the costs

Cost estimates are provisional; detailed modelling is required before finalisation.

Item	Amount	Note
National Animal Welfare Inspectorate	To be modelled	Note: Replaces patchwork state enforcement with a properly resourced national body, independent of industry funding. Covers farm, companion-animal, racing and wildlife sectors.
Greyhound Racing Phase-Out Fund	To be modelled	Note: Funded transition for trainers, kennel workers and rehoming of dogs. Transition planning should draw on the NSW 2016 inquiry, current workforce evidence and independently verified rehoming requirements. ^[7]
Farm Animal Welfare Transition Grants	To be modelled	Note: Capital grants and low-interest loans for producers converting from battery cages, sow stalls and feedlot systems to higher-welfare equivalents. Potential offsets need separate evidence and modelling.
Cultivated Protein R&D Fund	To be modelled	Note: Public-interest investment in cultivated meat and precision fermentation research, with commercialisation milestones. Its potential to reduce animal use, production costs and environmental impacts needs testing rather than assuming commercial success. FSANZ permitted cell-cultured quail as a food in June 2025; that approval does not establish the viability of all cultivated-protein products. ^[8]
Captive Animal Sanctuary & Rehoming Fund	To be modelled	Note: Supports accredited sanctuaries for animals exiting racing, entertainment and research industries. Addresses the welfare gap created by phase-outs.

The strongest objections to Animal Welfare

Farmers will be forced off the land.

WeRise proposes transition grants and loan facilities for producers converting to higher-welfare systems; not punitive bans without support. Phased timelines give the industry time to adapt, and the proposed transition should be tested for its effects on welfare, producer viability and regional employment.

This is the government interfering in people’s plates.

These reforms address production conditions and industry regulation; not what people eat. EU laying-hen rules distinguish conventional cages, which are prohibited, from enriched cages, which remain permitted. ^[3] The policy is about the floor of acceptable cruelty, not consumer preference.

Greyhound racing supports regional jobs.

The Greyhound Phase-Out Fund is specifically designed to support workers and communities in that transition. Employment and regional impacts need current evidence. The relevant 2016 greyhound inquiry was in NSW. ^[7] WeRise’s position is that employment concerns require a funded transition rather than acceptance of ongoing cruelty.

Live export is vital to our trade relationships.

Great Britain legislated in 2024 to prohibit specified live-livestock exports for slaughter and fattening. ^[9] Australia’s legislated phase-out concerns live sheep exports by sea from May 2028. ^[4] A wider Australian ban remains a WeRise proposal; its trade and economic effects require assessment. A phased ban with a funded transition gives industry time to shift product mix and build refrigerated supply chains.

Part 04

The Australian Design

How Animal Welfare would work in Australia

Raise the floor, end the worst, build the alternatives

WeRise proposes a suite of interlocking reforms. First, national sentience legislation, drawing on the UK model, establishing a legal duty to consider animal welfare in all relevant policy decisions. Second, a National Animal Welfare Inspectorate replacing fragmented state enforcement, with jurisdiction across farming, companion animals, racing and wildlife industries. Third, a legislated phase-out of greyhound racing within five years, with a funded transition package for workers and dogs. Fourth, mandatory phase-out of battery cages and sow stalls within three years, with capital grants for producers converting to higher-welfare systems. Fifth, a ban on live animal export for slaughter, phased out within two years. Sixth, a Cultivated Protein R&D Fund investing in public-interest research into low-cruelty protein alternatives.

These reforms do not require Australia to become vegan. They require Australia to stop pretending that cruelty at industrial scale is a neutral administrative matter rather than a policy choice.

These are WeRise proposals, not a description of legislation already in force. A national approach would need a workable division of responsibilities with states and territories. The existing live-sheep phase-out has a different scope and timetable from the broader ban proposed here. ^[1] ^[4]

Part 05

People and Transition

Who Animal Welfare reform would affect

The proposed reforms would affect farmed animals, racing animals, captive wildlife, companion animals, research animals and animals used in public display. Transition planning also needs to include farmers, trainers, workers, rescuers, veterinarians, consumers and regional communities.

WeRise’s proposed grants, research funding, sanctuary support and rehoming measures are intended to accompany stronger welfare rules. Their design needs consultation with affected communities, animal-care professionals and enforcement agencies, with clear responsibilities for the animals leaving an industry. Costs, workforce effects and capacity to provide ongoing care must be assessed before a phase-out is implemented.

Notes

Sources and Supporting Documents

Record

Revision History

14 October 2026: restored the public sections from the existing policy record, added primary-source links and corrected international comparisons and the jurisdiction of the 2016 greyhound inquiry. Proposed reforms remain proposals; costs remain unmodelled.