Mandatory Pain Relief for Mulesing: Policy Catching Up with Practice

By any reasonable standard, the case for mandatory pain relief for mulesing is already settled, both practically and ethically. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of Australian wool producers have already moved in this direction, and government policy should now catch up with practice.

WoolProducers recognised this as far back as 2018, and while our organisation is cautious about adding regulatory burden to woolgrowers, it was determined that the benefits of mandating pain relief far outweighed the drawbacks.

That decision was shaped by the realities of supply chains, market expectations, and public perception. Global buyers increasingly scrutinise animal welfare standards, and failure to demonstrate progress risks damaging the reputation, longevity and profitability of the entire industry.

Given there are three registered pain relief products available, covering both pre- and post-procedure application this was an easy decision. By advocating for “pain relief” broadly, WoolProducers struck a balanced position by ensuring animal welfare improvements were demonstrated without forcing producers into the highest-cost, multi-product requirements. This was a practical compromise that promoted uptake rather than resistance.

Government policy posturing also made industry action inevitable, and WoolProducers rightly understood that if governments stepped in without industry backing, producers would lose both political influence and community trust. Subsequent mandates in Victoria (2020) and Tasmania (2023), along with moves in Western Australia and now NSW, have validated that assessment.

Opposition arguments, by contrast, are strikingly weak. Claims that producers should simply “do what they feel is best practice” ignore the fact that industry-wide standards are essential for maintaining credibility. The word ‘mandatory’ provides our customers with confidence that we take animal welfare seriously, far more than can be conveyed by using the term ‘best practice’. This is not a matter of individual preference; it’s about meeting minimum expectations for animal welfare in modern agriculture.

Similarly, fears that regulation represents a “thin edge of the wedge” do not withstand scrutiny. Inspectors already have the authority to enter properties where animal welfare breaches are suspected. Mandatory pain relief does not meaningfully expand surveillance, it simply sets a clear, enforceable baseline for acceptable practice.

Perhaps most puzzling is why resistance persists at all. According to the Sheep Sustainability Framework, more than 88% of Merino producers who mules already use pain relief. In other words, some in industry are effectively arguing over whether to require a standard that nearly nine out of ten producers already meet.

Continuing to defend the 10% that don’t use pain relief risks holding the entire industry back. It reinforces outdated perceptions that wool production is resistant to reform and indifferent to welfare concerns.

Mandatory pain relief is not radical, it is a logical, measured step that aligns regulation with reality, protects market access, and demonstrates that the industry is capable of evolving. Anyone publicly arguing against this is setting industry up for a massive own goal, by handing critics an easy win while undermining confidence in the sector as a whole.

Jo Hall

CEO, WoolProducers Australia