Plain language law

New Zealand law explained for everyone

Animal Welfare Act 1999

Use of animals in research, testing, and teaching - Reviews of code holders and animal ethics committees

106: Purpose

You could also call this:

"Checking if animal welfare rules are being followed"

The purpose of an independent review is to check if a code holder and its animal ethics committee are following the rules and standards of the Animal Welfare Act and any other related regulations. You will see that the review looks at how well they are doing this. The reviewer can check how the committee makes its decisions, but they cannot say if the final decision is right or wrong, unless the committee did not follow the rules or made a mistake that affected the decision.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

This page was last updated on

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM51232.

Topics:
Environment and resources > Farming and fishingHealth and wellbeing > Public health
Previous

105: Independent reviews, or

"Regular checks to ensure animal welfare codes are being followed"

Next

107: Period to which independent review relates, or

"What time period an independent review covers"

Part 6Use of animals in research, testing, and teaching
Reviews of code holders and animal ethics committees

106Purpose

  1. The purpose of an independent review is to review compliance by a code holder, and by each animal ethics committee appointed by the code holder, with the requirements and standards of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act and of the code of ethical conduct.

  2. The accredited reviewer is entitled, in relation to an animal ethics committee, to review all aspects of the committee's decision-making process but is not entitled to pass judgment on the validity or appropriateness of the final decision except where failure to comply with the Act or poor process appears to have had a significant bearing on the decision.