Since the government is obsessed with "ethics", NZAVS points out in its recent submission to Parliament that the Animal Amendment Bill is not only invalid on ethical grounds but that vivisection qualifies for abolition on the ethical argument:

The New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society Submission to the Lands and Agriculture Select Committee on the Animal Amendment Bill will adhere to the use of the Oxford Advanced Dictionary of Current English interpretation of the following words and not the terminology generally applied by vivisectionists (who have vested interests in the application of their individual interpretations of said words).

Animal		"Living thing that can feel and move about."
Alternative		"That which may be used in place of something else."
Laboratory		"Room or building used for scientific experiments, research, testing.."
Laboratory Animal		"No such species according to above publication."
Prison		"Building in which wrongdoers are kept locked up."
Prisoner		"A person (a living thing that can feel and move about see Animal above) which is shut up against its will."
Vivisection		"To operate or experiment on living animals (a living thing that can feel and move about see Animal above) for scientific purpose."
Vivisectionist		"Person who considers vivisection justifiable."
Ethical		"System of moral principles."
Moral		"The distinction between right and wrong."

In its submission the New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society will use the interpretations outlined. That being so, the animals held prisoner in laboratories will be referred to as laboratory prisoners, the members of the select committee ( and we presume that those members consider vivisection justifiable) as vivisectionists, and delegates from the New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society (who consider vivisection not to be justifiable) will be referred to as anti-vivisectionists. As the word "alternative" is generally applied in scientific circles to mean "another way of doing the same job" and as revealed above this is incorrect the word shall be referred to as "a different way".

Representation for the laboratory prisoners

The laboratory prisoners being unable to communicate by written or verbal word their point of view or requirements being excluded from the vivisectionists' committee would, however give no doubt of their wishes should they be given such opportunity (by fleeing for their lives). However their inability to express the human language and the fact that we have failed to learn their language is no basis, according to this Society, for denial of representation (most especially as the discussion will revolve around ethics) . As laboratory prisoners fall into the same category (in the above respects) as human babies, incurably sick humans, mentally enfeebled humans (or human cabbages) etc, who, similarly being incapable of expressing their views would nevertheless be represented by those watching for their interests. Therefore on this ethical and moral basis the anti-vivisectionists listed wish to represent the handicapped and helpless non-human laboratory prisoners' interests:

Preamble

As the result of the vivisectionists' hearing will be irrevocable. That is longstanding and irreplaceable for possibly decades, and as it involves physical violence against the bodies of unconsenting laboratory prisoners (which may be counted in their millions in the long term) and as it involves the expenditure of public money being channelled into the vivisection of those laboratory prisoners without mention or consideration of methods of "a different way", the New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society wishes for the edification of future generations that its following comments be placed on record.

(1.) Inadequate time allowed for preparation of submissions

The Government has had well over a year to decide, formulate and inform the public of the contents and nature of the Animal Protection Amendment Bill. However the amendment is being pushed through with noticeable and suspicious haste, allowing insufficient consideration for certain members of the public (the elderly or infirm, the housebound, absentee holiday-maker, New Zealanders domiciled overseas etc) to prepare and make submissions opposing the amendment.

More important, and possibly contrived, neither do the perpetrators of the amendment give any provision or consideration to organisations working in the interests of laboratory prisoners to draw, through medium of their publications, the attention of their members and supporters to the ambiguity and inadequacy of the proposed amendment for said members and supporters to make submissions to the vivisectionists' committee in time for those submissions to be rendered valid to the hearing. First press release publicising the amendment being made on 3 November 1983 and the final day for acceptance of submissions being 25 November 1983.

(Continued next page)