Question details
Testing on rats
Substantive question
My question is for the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture. 109 rats provided by Monash were recently used in a new study testing non-fatal strangulation on rats to study human intimate partner violence. The Alfred medical research and education precinct animal ethics committee approved the violent strangling, the following days of testing and the ultimate killing of the rats. The neurological and physiological systems of rats differ so significantly from humans that the study even states it is not appropriate to make direct comparisons between the human and rodent datasets. It also ignores the psychological complexities and dynamics of human strangulation events. Will the minister ban this horrific strangulation test in the animal care and protection bill to ensure this unscientific and cruel experiment is not conducted in Victoria again?
Supplementary question
Thank you, Minister, for referring that on. On top of the strangulation test, forced swim tests are still being used on rats in Victoria, where they are trapped in cylinders of water with no escape and timed for the duration that they can keep their heads above water. The animals are observed desperately looking for an escape while petrified. This is still continuing despite its relevance to the study of human depression being disproven. New South Wales, in recognition of its severe cruelty, recently banned it. Will the minister follow in their footsteps and ban forced swim tests in Victoria?
Substantive question - verbal response
I thank Ms Purcell for her question and her ongoing advocacy in this area. I will refer this matter to the relevant minister.
Supplementary question - verbal response
I thank Ms Purcell for her supplementary question. That of course will also be referred to the relevant minister and will receive a response as per the standing orders.
*****
The President ordered a written response for both questions - due 24 February 2025.
The President (on 4 March 2025) ordered a further written response for the substantive question - due 6 March 2025.
Written response
I thank the Member for her question.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (POCTA Act) provides a regulatory framework for the ethical use of animals for research. Under the POCTA Act, the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (department) grants scientific licences that are subject to conditions, including compliance with the Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes. The Australian code also places responsibility for oversight of research animals with an institutional Animal Ethics Committee (AEC).
Under the POCTA Act, scientific procedures involving the use of animals in research must be approved by an AEC. Before giving their approval, the AEC must be convinced that the animal use is justified, ethically acceptable and scientifically valuable, and that there is no scientifically valid, non-animal alternative. Each of the licences issued in Victoria has nominated an AEC to weigh the scientific value of the projects against the potential effects on the welfare of the animals. AECs have a legal obligation to refuse to approve any project they consider unjustified or lacking scientific merit.
Many animal experiments have been replaced by alternative methods, for example the banning in 2021 of animal testing for cosmetic ingredients. The Australian Government, through the Commonwealth Minister of Health, implemented the ban on the use of animals for cosmetic testing, with the assistance of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
Unfortunately, not all research methods that currently involve animals can be replaced by alternative methods at this time, but it is an ongoing endeavour. The NHMRC released a statement on the forced swim test in rodent models, Statement on the forced swim test in rodent models | NHMRC. It clarifies the expectations of the NHMRC with respect to the use of the forced swim test in rodents in NHMRC-funded research; this may also be used by research funded from other sources.
This Statement highlights the scientific, welfare and ethical concerns associated with the forced swim test in rodent models, and provides guidance on when the use of this procedure cannot be justified in accordance with the Australian code. This statement was released to the medical research sector in December 2023. Any concerns with Animal Ethics Committees should be raised with their relevant institution. Alternatively, complaints may be made to Animal Welfare Victoria which investigate as required.
The Hon. Ros Spence MP
Minister for Agriculture
24/2/25
Written response
I thank the Member for her question.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (POCTA Act) provides a regulatory framework for the ethical use of animals for research. Under the POCTA Act, the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (department) grants scientific licences that are subject to conditions, including compliance with the Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes. The Australian code also places responsibility for oversight of research animals with an institutional Animal Ethics Committee (AEC).
Under the POCTA Act, scientific procedures involving the use of animals in research must be approved by an AEC. Before giving their approval, the AEC must be convinced that use of an animal is justified, ethically acceptable and scientifically valuable, and that there is no scientifically valid, non-animal alternative. Each of the licences issued in Victoria has nominated an AEC to weigh the scientific value of the projects against the potential effects on the welfare of the animals. AECs have a legal obligation to refuse to approve any project they consider unjustified or lacking scientific merit.
Many animal experiments have been replaced by alternative methods, for example the banning in 2021 of animal testing for cosmetic ingredients. The Australian Government, through the Commonwealth Minister of Health, implemented the ban on the use of animals for cosmetic testing, with the assistance of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
Unfortunately, not all research methods that currently involve animals can be replaced by alternative methods at this time, but it is an ongoing endeavour. The NHMRC released a statement on the forced swim test in rodent models, Statement on the forced swim test in rodent models | NHMRC. It clarifies the expectations of the NHMRC with respect to the use of the forced swim test in rodents in NHMRC-funded research; this may also be used by research funded from other sources.
This Statement highlights the scientific, welfare and ethical concerns associated with the forced swim test in rodent models and provides guidance on when the use of this procedure cannot be justified in accordance with the Australian code. This statement was released to the medical research sector in December 2023. Any concerns with Animal Ethics Committees should be raised with their relevant institution. Alternatively, complaints may be made to Animal Welfare Victoria which investigate as required.
A similar approach to that in place in the current POCTA Act, in relation to the regulation of scientific procedures, is proposed to be included in the new Animal Care and Protection Bill.
The regulations supporting any new Act would provide an opportunity to further refine the specific requirements for scientific procedures, including potentially limiting or prohibiting certain procedures if this was identified as warranted and feasible. Consideration would need to be given to consistency with relevant national standards or codes, as well as maintaining the critical role of Animal Ethics Committees.
Regulations for the Animal Care and Protection Bill would be developed once a new Act was passed by Parliament and would involve extensive consultation and impact assessments.
The Hon. Ros Spence MP
Minister for Agriculture
10/3/25
6 March 2025
20 February 2025
25 February 2025
11 March 2025