The case for a National Animal Welfare Commission
Over the past several years, the Australian Alliance for Animals has been examining what a modern animal welfare governance system could look like – and what needs to change to get there.
Our Building a Fairer Australia for Animals report sets out the systemic and institutional problems with the current system and solutions for a fairer system. The latest BehaviourWorks survey provided a clearer picture of what Australians expect from governments when it comes to animal welfare governance. And most recently, we commissioned Frontier Economics to examine the economic business case for a National Animal Welfare Commission.
Australians expect independent animal welfare governance
In 2026, we commissioned BehaviourWorks Australia to survey Australians about their views on animal welfare policy and governance. It found that the majority (89%) consider it important for governments to make and enforce laws protecting animals from cruelty and neglect.
Australians also have clear expectations about how decisions affecting animals should be made. They believe the impacts on animals and scientific evidence matter most in decision-making, and 77% agree that final decisions on animal welfare policy should be made by an independent and impartial authority.
These views were also shared broadly across age groups, metropolitan and regional communities, and political party supporters – showing animal welfare is not a fringe issue or confined to one section of the community. Australians expect animal welfare to be treated as a legitimate area of public policy, with laws and standards that reflect contemporary science and community expectations.
- Disagree or strongly disagree: 7.3%
- Neither agree nor disagree: 13.6%
- Agree or strongly agree: 76.8%
- Don't know: 2.3%
Shaw, M. & Borg, K. (2026). Australian Animal Welfare Survey: 2026 Summary Report. BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash University.
The current system is failing
Right now, the same Ministers and Departments responsible for animal welfare, are also responsible for agriculture productivity and industry development, creating an inherent conflict of interest. In many instances, industry priorities outweigh animal welfare considerations.
A fairer system would give animal welfare greater independence and accountability, while also building the expertise and capacity needed to support better decision-making over time.
On a national level, Australia does not have an independent body responsible for leading the development and review of national animal welfare standards. Instead, individual states and territories must volunteer to lead each review.
This makes it difficult to retain specialist knowledge and experience from one review to the next. Governments keep starting from scratch – establishing new processes, coordinating stakeholders, and allocating resources for work that is national in scope. Unsurprisingly, the system is failing to produce outcomes.
Frontier Economics analysis found that developing and implementing a set of national animal welfare standards currently takes around nine years on average. The existing Standards and Guidelines and remaining Model Codes of Practice are, on average, around 20 years old.
| Animal categories | Review commenced | Ministerial endorsement | Implemented in jurisdiction legislation19 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poultry | 2015 | 2023 |
|
| Exhibited animals | 2014 | 2019 |
|
| Livestock at saleyards and depots | 2013 | 2018 |
|
| Sheep | 2012 | 2016 |
|
| Cattle | 2012 | 2016 |
|
| Land transport of livestock | 2007 | 2012 |
|
* States which have partially implemented the Standards and Guidelines
For animals, these delays have real consequences. Outdated standards can allow practices to continue long after they have fallen behind animal welfare science or community expectations. BehaviourWorks also found that 79% of Australians believe animal welfare standards and legislation should be reviewed at least every five years.
A National Animal Welfare Commission could provide the foundation
A National Animal Welfare Commission would create a permanent source of independent animal welfare expertise at the Commonwealth level. The idea for a Commission was first recommended by the Productivity Commission in 2016, after examining shortcomings in the system for developing animal welfare standards.
Its role would include:
Leading the review and development of national Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines
Supporting the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy
Commissioning independent research and scientific reviews
Reporting on state and territory progress on implementing the standards and guidelines.
The Commission would not replace state and territory governments or take over responsibility for enforcing state animal welfare laws. Rather, it would facilitate the process of developing national standards in conjunction with the states and territories. The principles of cooperative federalism and meaningful state and territory involvement are central to the national Commission model.
Federal
Agricultural Ministers Meeting
Responsible for endorsing Standards and Guidelines
AMM oversees the AGSOC
Agricultural Senior Officials Committee
Intergovernmental committee comprising heads of primary industries/agricultural departments
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Regulates live exports
AGSOC elevates matters identified by the AWTG to the AMM
The Commission reviews the performance of DAFF in regulating live exports
Animal Welfare Task Group
Liaise with the Commission and the AGSOC
National Animal Welfare Commission
Oversees the AAWS, reviews and develops Standards and Guidelines and leads scientific research
The AWTG is comprised of representatives from each state and territory
The NAWC reviews state/territory progress on implementing Standards and Guidelines
The AWTG is comprised of representatives from each state and territory
The NAWC reviews state/territory progress on implementing Standards and Guidelines
States and territories
State/territory departments
State and territory departments are responsible for implementing legislation based on the Standards and Guidelines and managing monitoring and enforcement
Enforcement entities
Various enforcement agencies including state and territory RSPCA organisations, police, and departments of agriculture/primary industries enforce their jurisdictions' legislation
Source: Frontier Economics
How does it stack up economically?
Frontier Economics independent business case analysis for a National Animal Welfare Commission found that the benefits would exceed its costs.
Through economies of specialisation, streamlining processes, and reducing duplication, Frontier Economics estimated the Commission could save governments around $3.5 million each year. Further, for every dollar spent, the Commission is estimated to generate $1.33 in quantified benefits – a benefit-cost ratio of 1.33.
Other expected benefits include:
Improved animal welfare outcomes
Greater national consistency
Reduced business compliance costs
Potential benefits to Australia’s international reputation.
Frontier Economics therefore concluded that its economic analysis was likely to understate the full community value of the reform. Governments currently spend considerable time and resources recreating processes for work that needs to happen again and again. A dedicated national institution would allow expertise to be retained, transaction costs to be reduced, and existing resources to be used more efficiently.
Turning shared expectations into meaningful reform for animals
Australia has the community support, scientific knowledge, and expertise needed to build a stronger animal welfare system. The next step is establishing a National Animal Welfare Commission to turn these strengths into consistent, lasting change for millions of animals across Australia.
You can join us in calling for a National Animal Welfare Commission by adding your support to the Fair Go for Animals campaign:
