Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his Foreign Minister Steven Smith in their highly expensive campaign for a membership in the United Nations Security Council are advertising Australia as "a principled advocate of human rights for all". This is not true as for instance Australia’s volunteers have no rights in their role as unpaid workers. The only thing they are entitled to, at least in Victoria, is insurance as decreed by the Department of Industry’s Legislative Provision 22 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that defines the agencies for whom they work as employers.

Australia’s volunteer centres can recruit and monitor volunteers but not protect them from the government because volunteers have no legal status. There is no tribunal they can turn to, no Act that lays down the rules how to treat volunteers and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission cannot help them because they are not covered by a treaty. Even if Victoria had an Anti Corruption Commission it could not help volunteers since the Justice Departments, State and Federal, have no jurisdiction over government. A legal loophole allows Governments to legislate their own responsibilities (including the financial) onto volunteers. This happened to the Victorian Wildlife Carers who are obliged to find their own sources and resourcefulness to do the governments work under threat of punishment. If unable to fulfil that role then they are expected to engage helpers for whom they are also responsible.

In the early 80’s I received a permit from the Department, now called Sustainability and Environment, that allowed me to keep a few seagulls with damaged wings that children brought to me after they picked them up off the roadside. They never recovered enough to fend for themselves but were otherwise healthy and quickly became members of the family and lived a happy stress free life.

All was well until a rule appeared on the permit that mentioned the disposal of wildlife like my seagulls. How is one to dispose of them? Is the government expecting me to become an executioner?

In 1989 I was informed of a draft Code of Practise for the operation of wildlife shelters that the Department of Agriculture was commissioned to establish on behalf of the DSE. The Code contained the rule "take responsibility for the humane euthanasia of animals unsuited for rehabilitation". It was endorsed by Melbourne Zoo, Healesville Sanctuary and the R.S.P.C.A. who have to euthanise most injured wildlife, as they lack the resources to rehabilitate the wildlife, and they wanted a law to cover themselves. The Melbourne University also endorsed the code and with so many powerful organisations combined it became too formidable for ordinary folk to challenge. Somewhere in the process the Victorian Police also signed, as least so I was told by the Department of Agriculture.

When I read the Code I trembled with horror and my memories took me back to my childhood, growing up under the Nazis. I was with my Grandmother when she received the news by mail that her daughter had died in a psychiatric hospital (where she had been a patient). "They killed her", Grandmother called out, "if only I had listened to the Nuns". The Nun’s had warned her not to let her daughter go but she trusted the authorities to look after her daughter. That was the beginning of the cleansing that eventually swept through Europe. There were no funerals, there are no graves and nobody said anything. Fear is a powerful silencer. However it is also a strong motivator and it is my fear of having to kill that makes me speak out.

The Nazi regime forced people (such as the doctors in the asylum) to kill against their conscience. If this governmental loophole is allowed to pressure wildlife volunteers then the Australian authorities too are forcing people to kill against their conscience which is against the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

My abhorrence of the unnecessary killing of living things led me to ring the Governor of Victoria the Reverend Dr John David McCaughey. The woman who answered listened patiently then said "don’t let them get away with it – fight them".

That started me off on a trail that led to many places. I turned to the media who took up my case and to every major international animal organisation which also encouraged me to stand up. The Australian Democrats collected hundreds, if not thousands, of signatures and Democrat Senator Sid Spindler rang me personally, alarmed that volunteers should be burdened with laws that are against their conscience and that the unnecessary killing of animals could be extended to unwanted humans.

Sid Spindler pleaded with the Agriculture Minister, Ian Baker, to allow people like myself to keep the birds/animals in question by granting us a special $10 licence, under the supervision of Rangers, who would make sure that the animals were well cared for. Mr Baker responded favourably and on February 19^th 1991, at a meeting in the Burwood R.S.P.C.A hall, the volunteers were informed by two departmental officers of the $10 licence to keep the wildlife in question if they wanted to. It was received with great relief.

Unfortunately my request for minutes of the RSPCA meeting led nowhere.

The only official mentioning of the $10 licence is in the enclosed letter to Senator Spindler from Ian Baker (dated 26^th February, 1991) who was told by his staff that I had ‘confused’ the code with the permit. I had not confused it; I only questioned the legality of the rules of the permit. Since these rules had not been authorised by the minister they appear to be illegal.

I had also turned to the Ombudsman, who was assured by DSE that the codes should be treated as ‘guidelines’, to educate people in their care of wildlife, not as enforceable legislation. In his letter (dated 6^th December 1990) Ombudsman Norman Geschke stated "Mr Foster clearly states that there is no intention by the Department to require shelter operators to kill wildlife but rather to assess injured animals with a view to whether they can be rehabilitated."

This assurance would have ended my campaign, as I was happy with the outcome, however the code was passed by parliament (published in the Government Gazette Sept 30, 1992) WITHOUT the $10 licence thus removing any rights of volunteers to keep animals like my seagulls. Instead there was mention of places such as private zoos, where one could offer wildlife. The problem was that private zoos are not allowed to display disfigured animals and it seems unlikely that the public would want to visit a zoo to see seagulls.

After its approval by Parliament, this Code was declared ENFORCEABLE (as explained in the letter from John Stivala, manager of FOI, dated 16 Jan, 1996). This effectively took away the codes ‘guideline’ status due to a clause in the 1975 Wildlife Act. There is no mention of the 1975 Wildlife act in the code which meant that no one would think to check it. In fact when I rang the Department of Agriculture they had no idea that this was enforceable.

I made further investigations to clarify this point but no one seemed to know anything about it. I contacted the minister, Barry Pullen, who had originally finalised the code. By the time I contacted him he was in opposition and ceased to have the power to do anything about it. When he realised that the unnecessary euthanasia rule caused undue stress to carers he offered to amend the euthanasia rule if the Labour Party was returned to power. I then wrote to Barry Pullens’ successor, Mark Birrell, who responded by confirming that the code was a guideline. This didn’t help to clarify the situation as it was still in contradiction with the 1975 Wildlife Act. My further complaints to the Ombudsman achieved nothing because he told me he had no further power to intervene after it was passed by parliament.

After the authorisation of the code I contacted as many State and Federal politicians as I thought could help with the situation, including Mr Beazley (who appealed for dignity for all Australians after Pauline Hanson’s maiden speech) and John Howard (who praised volunteers as the backbone of the nation in one of his Australia Day speeches) but nobody wants to have anything to do with the case. Nobody wants to be burdened with the questions it would raise once it has been brought to the attention of the public. How far can the exploitation of volunteers be taken: to Federal government, to Local government, the entire community? Can anybody who does something for nothing be treated like the Victorian Wildlife Carers? How do we protect volunteers?

A few years later boxes with pigeons were left on my porch with their wings clipped and a note attached asking me to look after them as the registered shelters were ordered by DSE to kill all non-native birds in their care. By that time I had handed in my permit and was therefore no longer under the direct control of DSE who could not force me to kill the pigeons as it is not general law in Victoria. The order for permit holders to kill exotic birds caused distress and bewilderment but was confirmed by a woman (Von Walsh) who did the paperwork for the RSPCA. Ms Walsh dropped a copy of a letter ordering the RSPCA to kill animals into my letterbox but it had no date or letter head (letter attached). There is no evidence that it had been authorised by the minister.

The pigeons that were left on my doorstep eventually attracted others such as racing pigeons (who were lost), some whose home had been destroyed and juniors that their parents had left behind. As I had not been prepared for such a number of pigeons I had no proper housing for them. Fortunately a young relative from Germany arrived and when she saw the difficulties in which I found myself she urged the sale of our old family home in Germany so I could use my share to solve the problem. Since that time I have spent well over $20,000 on housing and feed and the pigeons are here for all the world to see. They are witness to the confusion caused by departmental orders leaving the public stuck between a rock and a hard place not knowing what is legal and what is not. Carers cannot be expected to be desensitised, to just kill in cold blood, but what can they do when the department seems to have unrestricted power over them?

When the Chinese-born Lord Mayor of Melbourne, John So, brought someone out from the United Kingdom to help build a pigeon loft for the city he showed he was a man of warmth but also one who was capable of translating his feelings into actions. He deservedly became the world’s most loved Mayor. Ghandi said, "One can measure the greatness and the moral progress of a nation by looking at how it treats its animals". By this measurement, unlike John So, the state of Victoria is not doing very well.

I contacted the state government authorities about the illegality of this rule but rather than revoking the rule they incorporated it into the "Revised Code of Practice for the Welfare of Wildlife during Rehabilitation" (booklet written by The State of Victoria, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, 2001). This new code contains the order to Euthanise wildlife eight times as well as the actual Euthanasia clause written on page six of the booklet.

In the above section of the code it encourages the use of a veterinarian to perform the euthanasia. Vets, however, cannot be forced to Euthanise animals and if they refuse to, or are unavailable, the carers are left to their own devices. Not only are volunteer carers forced to kill (unlike veterinarians) but even more disturbing is that carers have to find their own methods of euthanasia without the use of barbiturates.

My repeated requests for information, regarding the appropriate methods of euthanising animals, have been ignored. If carers methods are considered to be cruel then they can be prosecuted, but if the authorities cannot supply clear instructions on how to humanely euthanise animals how are carers expected to know what to do. Enforceable laws have to be exact in details. For example speed limits are clear. You are not required to find out the details yourself.

I have never questioned euthanasia for very sick or badly injured animals. They must be put out of their misery as quickly and humanely as possible. Vets would never refuse to euthanise an animal under these circumstances. If the code allowed euthanasia to be optional this would have given the carers some choice in the running of the shelter and dignity for themselves and the animals.

There have been times when I have found seagulls with minor injuries that are being pecked by the other seagulls (it is the nature of birds to ostracise and even attack other birds when they are injured or helpless). Once returned to health these birds often refuse to return for fear of being attacked again or because they are too old to fend for themselves. By caring for them I am breaking the law as I no longer have a permit and am left with two legal options. The first is to leave them there alone and helpless and to suffer until their miserable end. The second is to hand them over to someone with a wildlife carer’s permit who would be legally bound to kill them. Neither of these options is acceptable to me.

Killing seems to have become the accepted norm by DSE. In the mid 80’s they wanted to poison 90,000 seagulls on Mud Island an international bird sanctuary where they had formed a colony. The minister, Joan Kirner, ordered the cull of eggs instead. This is a method that had been used on various bird species in other countries for years where eggs are replaced with artificial substitutes or taken away. Volunteers were ready with a boat to help but the officers did not let them on the island, refused to follow Mrs Kirner’s order and left the birds to breed to plague proportions.

The seagulls do enormous damage to property, other wildlife and fish stock and the flocks have become so huge they could bring down a jetliner. Now they are poisoned by the thousands. Such is the mentality of the department under whose control the wildlife carers are placed.

Eventually I sent a report, and the relevant documents, to John Thwaites the then Minister for Environment. In his letter (dated 19 May, 2003) he made no mention of any of the points I had made or of the documents I had submitted. This gave me the suspicion that he either did not see my report or he was indifferent to the backroom dealing that took place in order to get the code through parliament. The letter mentioned a penalty (of up to $5000) which legitimised the standing of the code as enforceable law.

It is disturbing to see the development of what started as a code (introduced only as a guideline) to what has become fully formed legislation requiring volunteers to kill animals if they hold a wildlife carers permit. It seems carers may be fined up to $5000 for NOT killing wildlife and they can also be fined for KILLING wildlife (if their methods are considered cruel) under Victorian law.

The evidence I gathered and the documents I collected are easily dismissed with the claim that ‘extensive community consultation’ has been conducted. That may be the case but community consultations are mostly assessed and finalised without independent observers and often backed by government controlled, dependant, funded or subsidised establishments such as Melbourne Zoo, Healesville Sanctuary, Melbourne University and the RSPCA. The RSPCA in particular depend on the government for their wildlife permit, prosecution rights, tax exemptions and to a lesser degree subsidies and has, or at least did have, two government agents on their committee.

Michael Barnard (The Age 2.10.1990) states that "Bad law, or even vehicles for bad law, should always be regarded with suspicion. There can be little doubt that the potential for misuse is there." We should have a healthy suspicion for these laws as not only are they disrespectful to animals and unfair to carers but there is no guarantee that the same rules, that have been inflicted on wildlife carers, cannot be used on humans and their carers in the future and to do away with the old, infirm and mentally unsound.

In the 2003 landmark ruling by the Victorian Supreme Court Justice Stewart Morris decreed that the artificial feeding of a terminally ill woman was medical treatment and could be legally withdrawn. I am not aware of a political revolt that changed that decision. When is a person terminally ill? Who orders the denial or withdrawal of medical treatment? And who has to watch as the patient dies a lingering death? There are known cases where, due to lack of resources, doctors had to choose between saving patients who had the support of their relatives and others who had no one to help them. The law puts us in a precarious position. It denies us assistance if we want to end our lives and does not protect us if we choose to live.

I wish I could share Mr Rudd’s enthusiasm for Australia as a ‘principled advocate of human rights for all’. The reality as I have experienced it is that this is not the case and I believe that Australia should get its own house in order before it dictates to the rest of the world.

Over the years I wrote to several groups and asked their opinion on the lack of legal status for volunteers. The Catholic Commission for Justice Development and Peace came to the conclusion that the rights of volunteers do fall through the net. The Salvation Army’s investigations into the rights of volunteers led to a dead end. The Office of the Attorney General (In their letter dated 20 Dec, 2000) stated that "This Government has also established human rights initiatives including the Attorney-General’s Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) Forum on Human Rights. The Forum provides a regular opportunity for the Attorney-General to consult with a range of NGO’s on human rights issues." Despite their claims they did not encourage further communication and showed no more interest in my case.

As I am reflecting on the past I remember that after Senator Spindler’s retirement from politics the Australian Democrats were no longer interested in my case and the only political party that supported me was the One Nation Party.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission said that they were unable to help me but suggested that I seek legal advice. Now I ask why an old-age pensioner should challenge the government on laws that are unclear when politicians are the ones who are elected and paid to protect their citizens, including its volunteers without whom the country could not function.

It takes more than glossy brochures to convince the world of a nation’s integrity and Australia’s record is nothing to brag about. Our world is built on the suffering of the native people. Our compulsory preferential voting system is the least democratic and most manipulative in the democratic world. We have no basic human rights in our constitution and our volunteers can be exploited in the most shameful manner. The last referendum was lost to the Republican movement under the slogan ‘would you trust a politician’. Fine words and spin proved to be no substitute for a wholesome diet of justice and a fair go.

Written by Helen Hilton and Authorised by Pat Loy, State Secretary, One Nation (Victorian Division), PO Box 439, Seaford, Victoria 3198