During almost two decades of NZAVS campaigns the vivisection conglomerates, with great stealth and mostly unrecognised, manoeuvred their plot worldwide to establish a world order of unified legislation with a single policy. Using whatever means of duplicity, deception and double-dealing necessary many of the moves like those enacted in Switzerland, were manipulated in Australasia by those holding positions of trust and power in the animal welfare A/V movement. For a glaring example the scene changes to Australia where, in 1983/84 Peter Singer, president of the Australian Federation of Animal Societies, ignoring the evidence of the elite of the scientific community chose a battery of vivisectors as key witnesses and advisers to the Australian Government.

Those chosen by Singer to promote the case of the Australian Federation of Animal Societies to the Australian Senate Select Committee of Inquiry into Animal Experiments in 1984, in the writer's view, constituted the most debased betrayal of animals in Australian anti-vivisection history. The Inquiry precipitated a series of events which culminated, through the endorsement of AFAS policy by affiliation of many of the New Zealand animalistic societies, in AFAS becoming ANZFAS, and thus Australia and New Zealand were linked in a strong pro-vivisection policy. Helpless, NZAVS, New Zealand's only abolitionist organisation watched the drama unfold.

AFAS' appeals to NZAVS to join the affiliation used the drawcard that:

"The reform ensuing from the AFAS Recommendations would act as a pressure point for animal welfare reform overseas, particularly in New Zealand, North America and Europe... Due to the endeavours of AFAS there is much interest by animal societies overseas in the Inquiry. In particular United States' animal societies have made their own considered written submissions to the Committee after having sighted the AFAS Submissions."

The writer was unimpressed by the promise of universal "reform" given by AFAS which chose vivisectors to present the evidence, made no mention of abolition and omitted to criticise the method. Years later in 1993 another link in the chain was formed as the Australia Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching which comprises the advertising/publicity arm of the entire vivisection industry, combined with its counterparts in New Zealand to form ANZCCART. Both ANZFAS, ANZCCART, and the RSPCA all publicise and uphold the policy of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, refinement) which guarantee vivisection's continuance, unhampered.

Directed and produced by principal performer Peter Singer, the cast of the AFAS performance to the Australian Committee of Inquiry into Animal Experiments in March 1984 was as follows:

Prof. Peter Singer, AFAS Chairman.
On 9 October 1991 at a Seminar at the University of NSW Australia, when asked by vivisectors what he thought about the use of pound dogs in experiments, the University's journal Ukiken dated 25 October 1991 quotes Prof. Singer as saying:

"If some good can be obtained from that, the I would say 'why not?'. In an ideal situation, where everyone accepted everyone else's goodwill and had confidence and trust, I would think that kind of experiment could go ahead."

Donald Barnes, U.S.
Former School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks Airforce Base, Texas. On his own admission Barnes tortured primates in barbaric experiments for 16 years before landing a job as Managing Director of the wealthy U.S. National Anti-Vivisection Society. (Which was in 1983 exposed for having "substantial investments" in at least six major companies which carry out extensive tests on animals.)

"There are a lot of alternatives to the use of animals today. I am not naive though to think that there are alternatives to every procedure being done in the laboratory. However I do not think there should be."
- Donald Barnes in evidence to the Senate Select Committee.) (Whilst in Australia SAFE paid for Barnes' side-trip to New Zealand.)

"When the public and the policy-makers have what they consider to be the necessary proof of the present abuse of animals in New Zealand laboratories, alternatives will become a strong reality. I speak for Save Animals From Experiments group."
- Adrienne Hall, Dominion, 13 December 1985.

"Alternatives: alternatives to what?
Are there alternatives to vivisection? Of course not. There are no alternatives to vivisection, because any method intended to replace it should have the same qualities; but it is hard to find anything in biomedical research that is, and always was, more deceptive and misleading than vivisection. So the methods we propose for medical research should be called 'scientific methods'... they are not alternatives."
- Prof. Croce, Vivisection or Science - A Choice To Make, page 21

Richard Ryder, U.K.
For 20 years a vivisector at Cambridge and Edinburgh Universities and at the London Zoo and in various laboratories in the U.S. Then Chairman of the National Council of the British RSPCA, and Chairman of the RSPCA's Animal Experimentation Advisory Committee.

(It was under Ryder's Chairmanship that the RSPCA was revealed by investigators as holding undisclosed investments in eight major pharmaceutical chemical companies which routinely torture animals.)

Henry Spira, U.S.
Then Coordinator of the Animal Rights International Coalitions:

"I want to abolish the use of animals as much as anyone else, but I say, let's do today what we can do today and then do no more tomorrow down the line... The concept of the three Rs, Reduction, Replacement, Refinement - is also applicable."

Judith Hampson, U.K.
As Scientific Officer of the RSPCA advocated at the European parliament in Strasbourg, which investigated vivisection in order to create unified European policy, that cats should be bred specially for vivisection. With a degree in biology and psychology from the University of Leicester, Hampson helped produce the Animals Scientific Procedures Act 1986 (which promoted by Clive Hollands of the then Scottish Society for the Prevention of Vivisection, for which he was rewarded with a position of "Consultant" to the British Ministry of Agriculture) which legalised animal tortures hitherto banned under previous legislation of a hundred years earlier. (Whilst in Australia Hampson was a guest of one of Australia's leading vivisectors, Dr Margaret Rose.)

"Medical science has gained a great deal from experiments on animals and will continue to do so. So what can be achieved by demanding abolition of animal experiments, or even of all painful experiments? In my view, very little. I believe that we have to accept that some painful experiments will continue."
- Judith Hampson, writing in the Fall 1981 issue of the RSPCA Journal.

Dr DeWayne H. Walker
(at time of AFAS Recommendations) Director of the Animal Resources Centre, Western Australia. Gave evidence from the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) and the Canadian Council of Animal Care (CCAC). Submitted that Australia adopt a similar uniform law.

Graduate Veterinarian, University of Minnesota, 1968; Residency Laboratory Animal Medicine and Surgery, School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB , Texas, 1972-73; Master Degree Laboratory Animal Medicine Texas A&M University, Texas, 1971-73; Board Certified Diplomate, American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine, 1975, Consultant to U.S.

"Self-regulation by peers is only effective if it is accountable to higher bodies who tabulate and consider inspection reports, generate and revise guidelines, perform periodic reviews of the inspection sites and represent the ultimate arbitration authority and decision-maker in difficult assessments... such a high Body does not exist to date in Australia."

"It is my opinion that the average citizen inclusive of the open-minded anti-vivisectionist will continue to accept the use of animals in research if they are satisfied that safe-guards (checks and balances) exist in the research system. The biggest mistake that the scientific community can make is to stick their heads in the sand and assume that the animal welfare issue is a passing trend. It is not, and the increasingly complex animal welfare laws introduced in the rest of the world testify to the fact that legislative trends will swing to the anti-vivisection side if animal users are passive. The Australian Government can pacify its general public, at least for several years to come, by actively pursuing legislation which benefits animal rights without binding research efforts... I believe the legislation to be a public pacifier and a moral necessary of the nation."

Bernard E. Rollin U.S.
Prof. of Philosophy and Bio-physics at the College of Veterinary Medicine of Colorado State University, USA Rollin's books were submitted by AFAS as evidence in which he "suggests the following tests for all categories" (of experiments):

"That the benefit to humans (or to humans and animals), clearly outweighs the pain and suffering experienced by the experimental animals... If a proposed experiment meets the test so that the test may be performed, the animal's potential for living its life according to its nature and other interest should be protected regardless of cost. Thus if an animal is infected with a disease which produces pain, the animal should be given analgesics."

Understandably the investigative committee recommended that:

"everyone concerned should read Rollin's books before implementing legislation".

Readers who have co-operated with the writer by persevering thus far into this report obviously have more powers of comprehension and perception than is expected from readers of fairy stories and comic strips. They will also have sufficient intelligence to be outraged and exploding with anger, not only because AFAS chose vivisectors to present evidence to this important and unique Committee, which was ostensibly set up to help animals and not the furtherance of the vivisection establishment, but because it presented the phoney recommendations as summarised below:

• The setting up of ethics committees to decide which experiments are ethical and which are unethical.
• The provision of anaesthesia for experiments likely to cause pain.
• Accommodation, food and social contact be provided appropriate for the satisfaction of the behavioural and physical needs of the animals.
• The establishment of a system of keeping computer records of experiments involving live animals in order that they not be unnecessarily repeated.
• Labelling of cosmetics to indicate whether they were tested on animals.
• That animals used in experiments be obtained from special breeding centres licensed under the system.
• A system of random inspection of laboratories by suitably qualified inspectors.

The writer emphasises that NZAVS is concerned solely with the AFAS policy on animal experiments. The Federation's policy on other issues having no relevance in this record.