(From previous page)

The Wellington Dominion published on 3 November 1983 an article of three and a half inches by two inches proclaiming "Ethics code protects research animals" and the Evening Post of the same date contained a small item captioned "Laboratory animals to get protection". As we have ascertained in the preamble that (i) no such species exist on the planet and (ii) the word "ethical" can not be used to describe an act or situation which is unethical. It is seen that to perform by force acts of violence upon the bodies of unconsenting laboratory prisoners is unethical (see "moral").

(3.) Public concern

The New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society is concerned at the interpretation of the Amendment (as outlined in Dominion and Evening Post) as affecting or altering a certain change of attitude towards laboratory prisoners which was prior to said publications held by a large section of the public. The Amendment to the Animal Protection Act is the result of a signing of a petition of 120,000 members of an increasingly restless, aroused and concerned public. The devious and inaccurate distortion of word interpretation serves to allay and alleviate that unrest and concern. Had the press releases from the Government been publicised in the Dominion and Evening Post as: "Ethics code protects researchers of animals" and "Researchers of laboratory prisoners to get protection" this would have revealed the truth resulting in a strengthening, rather than a diminishing of public concern.

(4.) Composition of select committee

A brief glance at those comprising the Select Committee reveals a probable total vivisectionist majority (who possibly have interests in stabilising the vivisection industry in New Zealand). An industry which (see 3. above) was becoming unstabilised due to the said growing concern of the public. Philosophers and professionals in the field of animal rights are not seen on this decision-making committee, disregarding that as we fast approach the turn of the century this is a powerful, skilled and growing school of thought . The formation of a vivisectionist committee is shortsighted in the extreme. Hundreds of thousands of individuals are physically involved in, or otherwise supporting an international movement to bring about rights for non-human animals, as their predecessors brought about rights for human children, the abolition of human slavery, the elimination of racial discrimination and rights for human women. In neglecting to involve persons of such philosophical expertise into long-term decision making will hold serious implications (and we have ascertained that legislation will be established for the long-term). Anti-vivisectionists hold a radical criticism of a law which worked without consideration for laboratory prisoners for whom they pass legislation. Further anti-vivisection and animal rightists who hold a minority moral position are in possession of a truth which others would be rationally bound to acknowledge should they have the courage to give the matter adequate thought. It is inevitable that this fast-growing minority will eventually, by subterfuge, rhetoric or force win the day. A cursory glance through any history book will substantiate this prediction.

In a reply to certain NZAVS correspondence the Minister of Education admitted that "there are no rules about dissection/vivisection in Education". As this is an important and relevant area we criticise the absence from the vivisectionist committee of a representative from this department. Neither do we see, on surface a representative of DSIR, another department presumably involved in the vivisection of laboratory prisoners.

(5.) A different way

Relevant to the vivisectionist committee meeting is a remark made on the television programme "Close-Up" of July 1982 when a leading vivisector of laboratory prisoners claimed "There is never enough money for research into alternatives. All money available being necessary for working on animals." (NZAVS substitutes the word alternatives for "a different way" and the word animals for the word "laboratory prisoners"). Nonetheless nothing has been publicised in the proposed Amendment or the Government press releases of the sums of money (if any) being set aside for investigation and recording of "a different way" procedures. This information is totally necessary and relevant both to the public and the Hearing and should have been published prior to any change of legislation based on the continued oppression of laboratory prisoners. As the impending Amendment will bolster, safeguard and secure the vivisectors' niche in the vivisection industry omission of "a different way" facts and figures (if any) is critical to the case.

(6.) Rights for non-human animals

As detailed in (4.) hundreds of thousands of individuals around the globe are now questioning man's moral (or ethical) right to use laboratory prisoners in research procedures. No mention of the word "rights" however appears in the Amendment or the complementary papers (Codes for the Conduct of Experiments: Care and Use of Animals in Research, or the MAF Policy Statement on the Care and Use of Animals in Research), which assumes justification of continuance of using laboratory prisoners. NZAVS assumes from this that the vivisectionists' ethical committees consider that non-human animals do not qualify for "rights" as do their human counter-part animals. If this is the opinion of the New Zealand legislators in this year of 1983 who are forming ethical committees to vivisect laboratory prisoners then it is fair comment to state that said legislators are light-years behind the times. Were they wiser, they would be preparing as we approach the turn of the century for a change of thought and attitude towards non-human animals which (whether said legislators agree or not) is about to sweep the world.

In challenging the Amendment to the Animal Protection Act 1960 (Replacement of 19 (1) (d) exemptions which is to be withdrawn and substituted with all power to ethical committees), the New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society objects to the Amendment being based on the assumption and philosophy that 'might is right'. (Bearing in mind that the ethical committees will consist of practising and non-practising vivisectionists). This being so the placing of unconsenting and unwilling laboratory prisoners in the power of vivisectionists who gain and make capital from use of said laboratory prisoners, is unethical (if we are to adhere to the meaning of the word). The New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society considers this sufficient ground to render the Amendment unethical and therefore invalid. In other words the change of legislation is not a meaningful attempt at reform in the interests of laboratory prisoners but an obvious manoeuvre to stabilise an industry under threat of dangerous public scrutiny. (This at a time when any political party with vision and intelligence would be striving for a dismantling of said vivisection industry.)

The New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society has confined its comments to the manipulation of language, designed to suit their advantage, by vivisectionists. As it (the NZAVS) considers the Amendment invalid without looking further it has not drawn into its submission the many other important aspects of the case. Its representatives as listed are prepared to speak to the vivisectionists' committee or answer questions on these other relevant aspects as stated in this submission, their individual papers to be read in conjunction with this document.

Signed
Bette Overell
New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society
24 November 1983