Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this

I am delighted to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. This bill, as we know, was originally proposed by Simon Bridges as a member’s bill, and I pay tribute to him. He started this, but now it has become a Government bill, and the Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, is now in charge of the bill.

I was pleased today at the Primary Production Committee to hear the Minister talk about the way that he has taken initiatives to put some more money into animal welfare. I am delighted that he is taking a real interest, particularly now that he has realised, I believe, that our overseas markets are becoming very conscious of environmental and animal welfare issues. I am glad that the Minister is taking a real interest in promoting animal welfare. Hopefully, the Government will be putting some more money into animal welfare in the years to come.

Clearly, this bill arose from those horrible stories that we have seen on TV about footage of kittens being fed to pit bull terriers. A number of dogs have also been shot and killed. We all saw media coverage of those horror stories, and this bill arose as a response to those sorts of incidents of animal cruelty.

From the outset, I say that animal cruelty is not acceptable at all to us on this side of the Chamber, or, clearly, to New Zealanders. Animal cruelty is simply unacceptable anywhere. The issue of animal cruelty has been around for quite some time, and we know that the police, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and the SPCA have been involved in the past in trying to prevent animal cruelty cases, but the resources issue has been there. Over time, the SPCA has handled a large number of cases, rather than the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry or the police. Clearly there has been a problem with the resourcing of the SCPA. For example, we know that in 2008 there were 14,000 complaints received by the SPCA, and only 110 resulted in charges being laid. Of those 110, only 58 people were convicted.

The issue has been bubbling up, and we know that some cases never get reported. But I think the public perception within New Zealand and overseas is that animal abuse is now unacceptable. But, at the same time, prosecution is expensive. It can cost a lot of money. In some cases, it has cost $10,000. Anything we can do to help to promote animal welfare is better, but we need to have resources. I am glad that the Minister has now allocated over $8 million in this Budget, because a lot of those issues are increasing in the public’s perception. I am glad that extra money has been put out there to address those issues. As I said earlier, I am very concerned about some issues on the farm, particularly because we are an agricultural nation. We are dependent on exports, particularly animal exports from dairy farms, such as meat. People in our growing overseas markets, particularly in Asia, are becoming very concerned about some of the news that gets out there.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) Link to this

I rise to speak to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Firstly, I acknowledge officials and fellow Primary Production Committee members, who have helped get us to this stage. I also acknowledge Simon Bridges, the MP for Tauranga, who originated this bill with his original discussion of this matter as a member’s bill. I think we should celebrate the way that the legislation evolved from that idea to being picked up by the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon David Carter. It became a Government bill and was sent to the select committee, which brought another element and view to Mr Bridges’ original intentions, making it fit New Zealand’s primary scene a little bit better with the help of many submitters who came to the committee.

Members will note from the commentary that not much has changed from the bill that arrived at the committee. I will talk about submitters in a minute, but on the whole, most submitters were in favour of the bill, and many submitters thought the bill should have gone even further than the bill before us.

One of the major changes, as we see in the commentary, is that we clarified the notion of ownership. Under the circumstances, we replaced “having custody of animals” with “owning or exercising authority in respect of animals”. Many examples were made, such as when on the farm someone is looking after some animals, or a sharemilker has legal ownership, etc. All those issues were raised by submitters and considered by the committee and officials, and we came to the recommendation of change that we have in the bill before us.

Also, we have increased penalties for contravention of a disqualification order. I will talk about the forfeiture of animals, in particular. The bill had a lot of support from the legal fraternity, and I acknowledge that many of them have offered their services pro bono to help set some of the precedents in cases that may come under this new bill. Forfeiture raised some interesting issues, in that how and when something was forfeited brought about questions of charges of guilt being assumed instead of innocence, or guilty before proven. If an animal was in danger, it could be taken away from someone; from an animal cruelty point of view, that is absolutely fine. Questions and discussions were had as to whether the animal should be taken away because it is in danger; perhaps other animals could be. In the time before that case comes before the courts, we need to ask what is happening to that animal. But from a due process point of view, does the animal’s being taken away imply some kind of guilt or otherwise?

We had quite a few submitters, and on the whole they were very supportive of the bill. Many of them wanted it to go a fair bit further. I acknowledge the Auckland SPCA; there was good strength in the message and suggestions it gave to the committee. Other SPCAs tended to have same message. They wanted a single ill-treatment offence, and we agreed with that. They wanted an animal abuse registry to be set up. That is quite interesting and something for further consideration as this legislation plays out once it is enacted. We have all heard horror stories whereby those who have been convicted or suspected of animal cruelty have a whole lot more going on in their lives, unfortunately potentially impacting on families, children, and their communities. Some of the examples showed that a key indicator of wider abuse was their cruelty to animals, which was quite a revelation to many of the committee members.

Dairy New Zealand and Federated Farmers also made submissions, as we would expect, and they brought in interesting and fair perspectives from the rural sector on-farm. Often animal welfare issues are seen from an urban environment meeting the reality of a rural environment. Sometimes issues happen out there on the farm—down the back, in a drought situation—with the best of intent, where no cruelty has been intended. But we need to make sure that every effort has been made to avoid cruelty to animals. Sometimes circumstances beyond the custodian person’s control, or the owner’s control, can result in some kind of cruelty. Exceptions were made there; Federated Farmers made those points particularly well.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

First of all I want to say that I was delighted to hear the speaker for the Labour Party, Mr Choudhary, saying that Labour now opposes all forms of animal cruelty. So I am looking forward very greatly to hearing that the Labour Party opposes sow crates and battery hen cages. It will be a big step forward in our Parliament. Members of Parliament go on and on about animal cruelty, but many turn a blind eye to the gravest, most serious animal cruelty of all, which, of course, is keeping sows and hens in cages for most of their lives.

It is interesting that Mr Choudhary said that this bill originated from the public horror at some terrible cases involving pets that came to the public’s notice recently. It is true that there have been some terrible cases of cruelty to pets—horrific cases. However, I would argue that there has been a far greater outpouring of public disquiet over the expose on Sunday about the conditions that sows and pigs are forced to live in in New Zealand than there has been over those individual cases of cruelty to pets. Yet this bill exempts all forms of institutional cruelty to animals, such as sow crates and battery hen cages.

The 90 million-odd hens that live their lives in cages will not be touched by this bill. We will all go on about animal cruelty and fining people for it, but we will do nothing about the people who keep sows in cages where they cannot turn round and, in fact, suffer far worse things that we saw in the Sunday programme, which exposed the atrocious, inhumane conditions in which they live. All that will remain completely untouched by this wonderful new animal welfare legislation.

I think it is extraordinary that some commentators have said that politicians hate only some forms of animal cruelty, such as cruelty to pets—individual acts of cruelty—but are quite happy to accept institutional acts of cruelty to literally millions of animals in our midst. But it is great to hear that the Labour Party has changed its stance and will now be opposing sow crates and battery hen cages, amongst other things.

It was interesting that a submitter from the Pork Industry Board had the effrontery to turn up to the select committee. In its submission the board said it was shocked by the recent incidences of animal cruelty in New Zealand and that it abhors any incidence of cruelty towards animals. On and on went the submitter, with a completely straight face, talking about the board members’ horror at cruelty to animals. They were apparently oblivious to the fact that most New Zealanders are equally horrified by the cruelty of those pig farmers—and let us be sure that it is only 50 percent of pig farmers who keep sows in crates, in cages, all of their lives.

Federated Farmers also turned up and pointed out with horror that under this bill it was possible that some farmers might be prosecuted for farming activities, and it could potentially expose owners of production animals and farmers to prosecution under this bill. What an outrage! Imagine if this bill exposed farmers to prosecution! Federated Farmers said that the entire new clause about reckless ill-treatment should be thrown out because the worry was that a farmer could be prosecuted for it. That was quite extraordinary.

Basically, Federated Farmers were saying that we should have two laws—a double standard. We should have one law that applies to individual animals—that is, to pets—and we should have another law that applies to farm animals, or what Federated Farmers called production animals. We should, they say, allow any amount of cruelty to production animals if it makes them more efficient producers of meat, but we should be abhorred and outraged if someone treats his or her pet cruelly. This is the double standard that was actively operating in the submission of Federated Farmers.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) Link to this

We are in the Committee stage of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. It is a very appropriate bill to have before the Committee. What stands out quite clearly is that we had a Government for 9 years that did absolutely nothing, so it is a bit rich to hear the oratory from the Opposition that we do not have anything in the way of substance around animal cruelty.

It was appropriate too that we had the Minister of Agriculture and of Forestry in front of us at the Primary Production Committee this morning. He made the point very clearly that three pillars underpin the importance and value of the New Zealand farming industry. They are the quality of our food safety, the way that we look after our environment, and, most important, animal welfare. It is on that basis that we see that Budget 2010 has added another $8.2 million to ensure that New Zealand has robust animal welfare legislation, and that we keep on looking to improve the situation where there are any gaps.

It is worthwhile reflecting on the fact that this bill had its beginnings with the outstanding member for Tauranga, Simon Bridges, who brought the bill forward as a member’s bill. It was then taken over as a Government bill to ensure something was urgently done. We have had a whole decade of lip-service, with no substance delivered from the very poorly informed and poorly connected previous Labour Government. When we look across to the benches on the other side of the Chamber we can understand why we had that, because there was a total failure by Labour to have representation from the primary production sector.

When we look at the bill, we see that it handles matters in a very constructive way. When we took submissions and heard and questioned submitters, we could see clear evidence that because of the way that the legislation is drawn up, there is a big gap between what is achievable and what is desirable. First of all, section 28 of the Act talks about the wilful ill-treatment of animals, and that proved to be an incredibly high threshold to satisfy. More often than not the problem was that it was difficult to prove that there had been wilful intent. So the way that the law will be constructed in the future is that another category will be introduced in new section 28A, “Reckless ill-treatment of animals”. That will be a lot easier to prove, because if a person goes out and performs and behaves in a given way, it will be possible far more often to prove that that person was behaving recklessly. Proving wilful intent is quite an abstract definition, and it is one that can be argued against more often than not.

Just to start and frame the value of this legislation, I say it is very important to put that step in place, because the very substance of this bill is intended to give the law some teeth and to make it enforceable. Very often we hear the judges being criticised in the public domain, but more often than not the reason why they are being criticised is that lawyers look at how they might get the best outcome. Given that a conviction for the wilful ill-treatment of animals probably has a 10 percent chance of being achieved and a 90 percent chance of failure, they then fall right back to the basic charge of ill-treatment of animals. This bill introduces the new category of reckless ill-treatment of animals, which is measured by the very same criteria as for wilful ill-treatment.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

This is my first contribution to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, and I know that is has been the subject of many passionate contributions from members who have animals that are important in their lives. I start by acknowledging Simon Bridges for bringing this bill to the House as a member’s bill, and, for once, I congratulate the Government on picking it up. I am sorry that the previous speaker, Mr King, felt that he had to politicise this matter in his speech. It is a rare occasion when members are in agreement and we all think that something needs to be done, and I was very sorry to hear that. [ Interruption] It was disappointing, that is right.

I also acknowledge the SPCA and the wonderful work that it does; what an amazing organisation it is. Labour supports this bill, but we have some reservations about it. The main reservation is the issue of having harsher penalties but not having the resources to enforce them, although I know there has been some increase in the Budget around animal welfare and we welcome that. I am really pleased that the SPCA has $8.2 million more from the Budget this year, because, as I said, the organisation does wonderful work. But unfortunately we do not believe that that is enough to really enforce this legislation.

It is very, very difficult for animal cruelty prosecutions to be successful. I believe that about 10 successful prosecutions—[Interruption] Only 0.4 percent of prosecutions result in a conviction. In 2008, 14,011 complaints of animal abuse were received by the SPCA. Only 110 of those resulted in charges being laid, and just 58 resulted in convictions. The longest penalty we have ever seen for animal cruelty was 12 months’ imprisonment, which was later reduced to 10 months.

The other thing that concerns me about this legislation is the responsibility put on the SPCA. It is a wonderful organisation, but every year it still has to rely on public appeals for cash in order to prosecute those who are clearly guilty of animal cruelty. I understand that in July last year the SPCA in Gisborne had to make a public appeal for cash in order to prosecute a case. Six dogs had been starved to the point where they had to eat their own faeces, and sunlight could be seen through their hind legs. [Interruption] I say to the Minister of Police that it is difficult to listen to this, but there are some horrific examples. We are well aware of more recent cases that have been highlighted in the media, and they brought the member Simon Bridges to the point of putting forward a member’s bill. [Interruption] And it was stolen from him by his Government. There have been awful stories.

If I may, I also want to pay one other little tribute—to my cat. Everybody has talked about their pets, so I thought I had better talk about my cat—[Interruption] My hat? No, my cat, Plum. She is a genuine Service and Food Workers Union cat. She was found living under the floor of the Service and Food Workers Union building, but she got the name Plum because she used to hang out in the plum tree that was nearby. She clearly had not been particularly well treated because she thought the plum tree was her place of safety. It took her some time to calm down, when we decided to take her home. But the one thing I regret—and I love my cat; I do not think it can be classified as cruelty—is that we took her to the vet to have her spayed, only to find that she had already been spayed. I have regretted that ever since, and she pays us back. She makes us pay every day.

I also acknowledge the member Sue Kedgley and her comments about farm animals. Those issues are difficult for us to deal with. In my former job as a union official I also looked after people who worked for Tegel Foods, and one sees some pretty disgusting, horrible, and horrendous things in those factories. I do not think it is described as cruelty, but we know that those chickens live in battery farms. I have been to those egg farms, and they are pretty disgusting. I hope that we can have an ongoing dialogue about these things, once this bill is passed.

As I said, it is good that we have some agreement on this bill. We note the statement in the report back from the select committee: “Some of us do not believe that increasing the length of sentences will, by itself, result in a decrease in cases of cruelty to animals,”.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

I am delighted to speak to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Firstly, I acknowledge the member of Parliament for Tauranga, Simon Bridges. He is to be commended for bringing this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to us all. It was then adopted by the excellent Minister of Agriculture, the Hon David Carter. This bill has been applauded throughout New Zealand, so we are delighted at the amount of response it has received. Do members recall that members opposite originally said there was no point in increasing the penalties for animal cruelty? We have to wonder at that, especially when in the next breath the animal rights supporters applaud the Government’s move to increase punishment for animal cruelty. They say that stricter penalties should also be imposed on the owners of dogs that attack. The SPCA national chief executive, Robyn Kippenberger, said the move was long overdue. That has been said many times by members on this side of the Chamber. The person we have to thank for bringing the issue to the Government’s attention is Simon Bridges, the wonderful member of Parliament for Tauranga, who is doing such a sterling job. We are delighted that this bill has progressed so far in the House.

I want to talk a little bit about the bill. We could all talk about our vet experiences with our pets—this is, after all, a wide-ranging debate—and many people in this Parliament would have had some sort of experience with their pet at the vet’s. I am sure it is a bone of contention as to whether taking a cat from its place of residence and forcing it into another home is an act of cruelty, but let us not derogate from the serious intention of the bill, which is to send a very clear message to those New Zealanders who treat animals wilfully and badly. It tells them that much more serious penalties will be imposed on them if they do so, because New Zealanders do not condone such treatment of animals. The definition “wilful ill-treatment of animals” covers the most serious welfare offences. Under the Act, as it stands, it must be proved that a person intended to cause harm and the animal must be permanently disabled, die, or be destroyed to prevent further suffering. So those are serious offences.

This bill expands the threshold for wilful ill-treatment of animals to include cases where an animal is seriously injured or seriously impaired. That will enable more cases of extreme cruelty to be prosecuted under that provision, and penalties will be more serious in accordance with the seriousness of the crime. The SPCA is absolutely applauding this because some of the sentences in cases that have gone to court—for instance, the prison sentence over the case of the kittens—have been declared by the SPCA to be too short. It said the sentence was far too short for the 30-year-old man who was heartless in respect of the serious injuries that led to the death of those kittens. This bill will deal to that and make sure that he is sentenced accordingly.

I applaud the Minister for the $8.2 million over 4 years put aside in the Budget to boost animal welfare activities. That is a great move forward. I note that that fact was also recognised by Opposition members, so I hope they continue to recognise its importance and the good work that this Government is doing to address many of the issues that are of concern to New Zealanders—not least animal welfare issues. We are making sure that these very serious offences against animals are dealt with in a much more appropriate way.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this

I am very pleased to rise in support of the Committee stage of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, and to commend Simon Bridges, the MP for Tauranga, for having the initiative to bring this bill forward. I note that it emerged on New Year’s Day this year. It was very strategic timing of the MP to bring it forward at that point. I acknowledge that it has been a past deficiency of members right across the Chamber in that this issue has not come forward, but I note that there have been members opposite critical of that fact who have been here in their second and third terms, and who might themselves have picked up this issue as a member’s bill some considerable time earlier. Labour, of course, supports this bill. We want to see appropriate penalties for the repugnant practices that sometimes are perpetrated on both domestic and farm animals, and this bill goes a long way towards that end.

I acknowledge that in the Primary Production Committee today the Minister said that New Zealand’s clean, green image was very important to New Zealand. It is really the base of our capacity to earn our living as an export nation, and I want to remind him too that animal welfare issues are also one of the measures by which New Zealand will be judged in the international market place. The judgment will always be harsher for us than for other nations, because we are a small nation that does not have some of the clout of bigger nations. The unfair nature of international trade is such that our record has to be better than most, if not all, in respect of things like our environment, and in respect of things like the practices of animal welfare.

I wanted to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Carter, therefore, to outline for us the increases in the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in relation to the farm inspectorate. I think it is acknowledged that some of the issues in respect of animal welfare do indeed incur on farms. I think that a staff of five active inspectors, from a total staff of about seven or eight in the special investigation unit in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, is not sufficient when we are talking about protecting an export base that is reliant upon agriculture and worth many, many billions of dollars. So I would like the Minister to take a call to indicate to us what exactly the increase is in that budget for the ministry.

Although the focus of the bill will have been formulated in response to issues of domestic cruelty, in fact underlying the legislation is the broader issue of animal welfare on farms. Most of our farmers are exemplary in the way that they treat their stock. They have every reason to be so, apart from being genuinely humane New Zealanders, because the better the welfare of the animal, the better the return is for the farmer. It is one of those win-win outcomes.

But we are all conscious, I think, of the situation that emerged on the Crafar farms through last year and into this year. There were definite issues of farm neglect that the Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture identified. I note that as this bill was being adopted by the Minister as a Government bill, there was also a dairy cattle code of welfare being announced and unveiled, after concerns were expressed by quite an eminent agricultural scientist who took photographs of very skinny cows at a Morrinsville saleyards. That prompted two animal welfare investigations, and it led to that code. It took 3 years for that code to come through—I think the Minister might confirm that. As industry leaders like John Luxton, the chair of Dairy NZ, have noted, the new code will strengthen the industry’s international reputation. That is hugely important, because, as I said, we will be judged by our animal welfare issues as much as we are by our environmental record. But that is beyond the scope of this bill today. Dr Dalton said, in one of the stories reporting the Minister’s announcement of this new code, that the new code for animal welfare and dairy cattle should be nailed to every farm gate and be on every milk tanker, so that there could be no question to farmers that they have to take account of all the issues of stockmanship and husbandry of animals they are responsible for.

I am very pleased to see that this bill is coming through. It will be a tool in the tool kit for the Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture in terms of its capacity to deal with animal welfare issues on farms, when they happen from time to time. Probably in most instances those are issues of recklessness, which is a new measure in this bill. Probably very few farmers would ill-treat their animals with any kind of wanton regard, but there are situations where farmers are stressed or unable to cope, and stock are left in back paddocks; obviously, they can suffer a great deal. So I am very keen to hear from the Minister.

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) Link to this

The member Brendon Burns has asked a very genuine question on the resourcing that we now propose for the animal inspectorates, so I will take the opportunity of answering that question. It is one that the Committee certainly needs to be informed of.

I take this opportunity to thank Mr Burns for acknowledging the progress that the National Government has made on animal welfare over the last 18 months. I feel quite comfortable that we can claim that as a Government we have probably made more progress on this vital issue to New Zealand’s reputation than has been made for at least a decade. We have demonstrated that genuine commitment with the largest welfare expenditure increase we have seen in any Budget over the last 10 years—$8.2 million. It was difficult to find in a situation where the fiscal constraints on all Ministers, as we bid in the Budget process, were tight, but we managed to do it.

Mr Burns asked what this budget increase will mean with regard to the number of inspectors we have around the country handling all our production livestock. At this stage we have five, and this increase will allow us to double that number to 10 in the next year. We are providing to then increase that number by a further two in the following year.

I was lucky enough to spend some time at the Fieldays yesterday. I went on to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry stand at one stage and I was able to talk to one of the animal inspectors. The point he was excited about was that the substantial increase in resourcing to the inspectorate would give these guys the opportunity to be substantially more proactive within our rural communities, and they will actually be able to go to farmers before they are in trouble to help them through perhaps an adverse weather event. I personally think that for too long the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has had to focus, because of the constraint of resources imposed on it by the previous Labour Government, on being effectively the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

I am pleased that the inspectorate sees the opportunity with this substantial increase in resources for the animal welfare inspectorate to actually get out there and be more proactive in our communities. It is fair to acknowledge that some of our farmers, as they have struggled to improve their productivity and their profitability, have taken some of the farming systems far closer to the limit. As we acknowledged at the Primary Production Committee this morning, we are going to see more extreme weather events associated with climate change, which means that farmers have to build into their farming systems a little more cushion for events like that.

Those are the numbers for Mr Burns. The animal inspectorate will rise from five people currently to 10 for the first year. It is our intention to add a further two in the year after that.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I spoke in its first reading and acknowledged Simon Bridges’ work. I do so again and I also acknowledge the Government for picking up this bill.

I genuinely recognise the fact that resources have been put into this area. Despite what the MP for Coromandel said, earlier comments from this side of the Chamber were around the fact that although people were pleased to see the changes put forward, they were worried that without additional resourcing, this was going to be only window dressing. The Government has come to the party and put in some additional resourcing over the next 4 years for animal welfare and law enforcement, so I acknowledge that and say that it is certainly an improvement.

I acknowledge the people who submitted to the Primary Production Committee on this bill. There were quite a small number of submissions, actually—17—but I assume, and I think with some good grounds, that that is because there was general support in the community for what is contained in the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I acknowledge those people who took the time to submit, and I recognise, as we do from time to time, that our select committee process in New Zealand is a very good process. It is an opportunity to improve legislation. In fact, the select committee made a number of recommendations on the bill that improve it further. Three main areas of improvement are disqualifying people from ownership as well as custody of animals, increasing penalties for the contravention of the disqualification order, and enforcing the forfeiture of animals. Those are some of the improvements.

I think that when I spoke on the first reading I talked about the important role that animals play in our lives. People have categorised those roles as domestic animals or farm animals. I acknowledge the contribution of Sue Kedgley and her ongoing work in this area. I think it is critically important that, as a country that makes so much of its foreign earnings from animals and primary production, we are always vigilant, and assess whether the farming techniques and other animal handling techniques in this country are satisfactory. We should, as my colleague Damien O’Connor said in his contribution, aim to be the best in the world. In fact, that is expected from New Zealand.

I was fortunate enough, prior to coming to Parliament, to be a member of the Food and Beverage Sector Taskforce the previous Government set up. We looked at the important role that food and beverages played for the New Zealand economy, and at the requirements that customers globally were putting on countries like New Zealand. These customers were both supermarket chains—which are very, very powerful corporate bodies indeed—and individual customers in the countries we exported to. We were given the example of the requirements of Japanese customers. They wanted to know that our lambs grew up happily in nice paddocks in New Zealand, and that they could be traced from birth until they were served on plates in Japan, and through everything that happened in between. That may sound a strange thing for them to want, but that was the requirement they had. All along that chain, people wanted to know that the animal welfare elements were treated properly. Indeed, there were also other requirements on us as a country. So there are economic reasons, as well as the fact that it is the right thing to do, for us to be concerned about the treatment of our farm animals as well as our domestic animals.

I gave many examples of the role that domestic animals play in our lives not just as pets but, in fact, in a whole range of circumstances—for example, in health and in therapeutic situations. I heard recently that there are now programmes in prisons about prisoners dealing with animals. Many humans have a particularly strong emotional response to animals. Of course, the people who abuse and mistreat animals are committing a crime of violence, just like abusing and ill-treating another person. They are often parts of the same spectrum, so children who abuse animals often go on to abuse other humans.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

I will start, because I omitted to do so the first time, by congratulating Simon Bridges on originating the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. In particular I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture because not only did he pick up this bill but he has added in the single most important clause, which is the new clause concerning the reckless ill-treatment of animals. Furthermore, he has indeed increased the budget for the resourcing of inspectors.

The bill began its life really just to extend sentences for animal cruelty, but the reality is that that will not result in reduced numbers of prosecutions for breaches of animal welfare. The legislation already permits 3-year jail sentences, yet we have rarely had anybody jailed. In fact, I think that only 10 people have ever been jailed in New Zealand history for breaches of animal welfare, and nobody has ever yet been jailed for a 3-year sentence. Most, like the farmer Mark Spitz, who slowly starved to death a number of his cattle, received some hours of community service, so let us not delude ourselves into thinking that by adding more years to sentences, we will reduce the number of prosecutions.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this

I acknowledge some very thoughtful contributions to this debate in the Committee stage of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Carol Beaumont’s contribution, I thought, was very good. I acknowledge the point she made that there were only 17 submissions to the Primary Production Committee on the bill. Like her, I think perhaps that does not signify a lack of interest in this bill, but rightly shows a view out there in the community that we are doing something about animal welfare, and doing something good. I also acknowledge Sue Kedgley’s contribution, which again was a very thoughtful one. I acknowledge her advocacy for animals for some time now in this Parliament.

I will not rehearse the arguments in favour of this bill. I did that in its first reading, and I have also done so in other places, but I just say that I think this bill shows Parliament at its best. It shows us uniting on an issue, for the most part without trying to score political points, and I think that is a wonderful thing, indeed.

I will also just address the concerns raised in the select committee’s report on the bill. It raised a couple of concerns, one of which Sue Kedgley raised today in the Chamber. I will just go through them. Firstly, there is the concern that there are only five full-time Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry inspectors in New Zealand to undertake prosecutions for animal cruelty, and there are insufficient resources, the report says, to pursue all cases of cruelty, with 92 percent of complaints being made to the SPCA. That was the concern of some members on the committee. I think it is a valid concern. I have consistently said, in relation to that, that good work is being done by pro bono prosecution panels—or at least one panel established in Auckland, with the very best lawyers on it. That goes at least some way towards addressing that concern, because the real expense is in taking the court cases. So it is good that first-class lawyers are taking those cases on for free.

I think the other thing that we can say, of course, is what the Minister has said—and he is to be heartily congratulated, in tight times, on finding an extra $8.2 million of funding over 4 years to boost animal welfare activities. Around $5 million of that is going into animal welfare enforcement and compliance; he has gone through the breakdown of some of that. Perhaps that is not the entire answer, but I think it is nevertheless a robust answer to that concern.

The other thing that concerned some members on the committee was a disbelief, if you like, that increasing the length of sentences would, by itself, result in a decrease in the number of cases of cruelty to animals, especially since only 10 people have ever been jailed in New Zealand as a result of animal cruelty charges. Again, that is a valid concern—only 10 people ever jailed. I say to the Committee that the fact that we have had only 10 people go to jail for that is all the more reason to pass this bill, and to do something so that when those cases come to court they are treated with the appropriate severity and seriousness. I make the point that when this bill—and I accept Sue Kedgley’s point that it was a much more modest bill when it was my member’s bill—was drafted, I was simply trying to send a message to the judiciary to toughen up its game and treat this issue more seriously.

I actually think there are good, strong signs that that is occurring. I know these are early days and the bill has not even been passed, but my understanding is that since this bill’s introduction there have been a couple more cases of imprisonment for animal cruelty. Certainly I am aware of the one reported in the New Zealand Herald on 26 May under the headline “Farmer jailed for cruelty to thousands of chickens”. It states: “An Auckland poultry farmer has been jailed for a year for causing suffering to thousands of animals kept in what were described as filthy and inhumane conditions.” My point to the House is that I think sending 10 people to jail in this country for animal cruelty is an indictment, but my view is that we are seeing signs of that number going up.

STUART NASH (Labour) Link to this

It is good to be able to clarify a rumour that went around. I had heard that the Government took the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill off Mr Bridges, who has just resumed his seat, because it did not think he was quite ready to take this bill through its passage in the House, so they gave it to Mr David Carter, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Forestry. But if I am wrong, and that is not the reason the Government took the bill off Mr Bridges, then I apologise, because I thought that was the reason. To anyone else who thought that was the reason, I say that it is obviously not right, at all. However, I must admit I heard Mr Bridges speak on National Radio about this bill, when it was introduced. I thought he spoke OK, but not as well as he does on television. He was OK. But, then again, it is very difficult to sound bad when one is talking about a bill that addresses the serious issue of animal cruelty. Obviously we are all supporting this bill, but there is one point on which I would disagree with Mr Bridges. He said that this bill represents Parliament at its best. We all agree on this issue, but I think Parliament is at its best when it is dealing with the issues that affect New Zealanders—poor New Zealanders. There is $8 million provided against cruelty for animals and that is great, but how about $13 million for Adult and Community Education courses? I think that would have gone a long way to alleviating some of the problems we have in society.

One of the points I would like to bring up, and it follows on from my colleague Carol Beaumont’s points, is that there is often a very strong link between animal cruelty and other much more insidious types of cruelty. I would like to read something. As we all know, tackling animal cruelty can have a beneficial impact upon society, which is the reason why we are passing this bill. But there is a very strong link between the cruel treatment of animals and the abuse of humans. A 1997 survey by the Humane Society of the United States showed that 50 of the largest shelters for battered women in the United States found that 85 percent of women and 63 percent of children entering shelters discussed incidents of pet abuse in the family. That is a pretty insidious statistic. We all hear of these statistics around Guy Fawkes Night, for example, when wayward children, misinformed children, or whoever, have attached firecrackers to animals, or have inflicted cruelty on animals, and it is just dreadful. It is time to send a very, very clear message to New Zealanders. This is one of the things that Parliament can do, by passing this legislation. I am aware that only 10 people have gone to jail for offences of cruelty to animals, and the incidence of successful prosecutions is quite low. But passing a bill like this sends a very clear message that society will just not tolerate this type of behaviour any longer. It is unacceptable.

The main aim of this bill, obviously, is to amend the Animal Welfare Act 1999, but it introduces the new offence of reckless ill-treatment of animals. What does reckless ill-treatment mean? Section 28A, inserted by clause 5, provides that a person recklessly ill-treats an animal if that treatment results in “(a) the animal is permanently disabled; or (b) the animal dies; or (c) the pain or distress caused to the animal is so great that it is necessary to destroy the animal in order to end its suffering; or (d) the animal is seriously injured or impaired.” It is a sad indictment on society that we are passing a bill like this in the first place. Sue Kedgley talked about cruelty to farm animals, as did Carol Beaumont. I think that people can differentiate between farm animals and family pets. However, I also believe that pictures of cruelty to any types of animals that are flashed across our TV screens draw gasps of horror from ordinary New Zealanders, whether they are pictures of an emaciated cow, a horse that has come from a Crafar farm, or a dog that has been fed a bunch of kittens. It is something that strikes a nerve with New Zealanders. This cruelty is just downright insidious.

A pet is part of the family; let us be honest about this. Some members have stood up and talked about their pets. My partner Sarah’s cat, Mozzarella, gets treated better than I do, at times. It eats steak; I get mince. There is no doubt who rules the couch, if not the roost, in our house. I know that on occasion these pictures of animal cruelty are flashed up on the TV screens—

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this

We may have to add a late amendment to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to allow animal names, such as Mozzarella, to fall under the category of animal cruelty. I do not know how any self-respecting animal could walk around with that name.

I am happy to take a call in the Committee stage of this bill. Like members who have spoken before me, I congratulate Simon Bridges on bringing this legislation to the House. It is a little sad that, like a third-former who has had his lunch money stolen, the Hon David Carter came down to the Chamber, took the bill off him, and is now touting it as his own. But I am pleased to see Simon Bridges taking a call on this bill. My colleague Stuart Nash referred to the comment Mr Bridges made about this being Parliament at its best. I agree that it is always nice when we all agree on legislation. But maybe he was not here to hear the speeches made by Colin King and Sandra Goudie. They decided to use their time to attack the Opposition. It is nice to see Sandra Goudie onside; I believe that she agreed to support the bill once she was reassured that mangroves are not animals. Once that was explained to her, she was fine. But it was disappointing, because we all agree that this is good legislation, and we are all pleased to see it before the Committee.

We have all been frustrated by the fact that higher penalties are in the Act, but they have not been used by the courts; the courts have gone with very low penalties. I agree with Mr Bridges. I hope the courts take notice that Parliament is speaking with one voice on this issue. We want to see tougher penalties for animal cruelty, we acknowledge the link between animal cruelty and other forms of violence in our society, and we want to see the penalties significantly increased for offences under the Animal Welfare Act.

I notice that the “Minister for iPads”, Maurice Williamson, is in the chair, and I hope he is prepared to take a call and answer some of the questions that have been raised around the resourcing of this Act. It does not matter how tough the penalties we put in place are if they are not adequately resourced. This has been a big issue in the past, and it is good that there is another $8 million in the Budget for the policing of animal welfare legislation. But members on this side of the Chamber would quite like to see the $40 million that went to private schools also go towards other initiatives such as the policing of animal welfare. It is good that the Minister was able to find more money in a tight Budget, but the Government made some choices in the Budget that would not have been Labour’s priority. More money could have come to this important area.

When we look over history, we see that 20 years ago one-third of animal abuse prosecutions were taken by the police—one-third. Today, the SPCA has to take 90 percent of the prosecutions. As members have said, they have to look for pro bono work. Often when the court awards them money to pay for costs, it barely even begins to cover the costs of taking a prosecution. It is good that extra money has gone towards animal welfare, but I hope that this area will be watched very carefully. We need to see the number of animal welfare complaints that go on to prosecutions increase dramatically from the 0.4 percent that they are at today. Only 0.4 percent of animal welfare complaints go on to prosecution. Governments of all stripes over the past 20 years have to take responsibility for that, and that is why Labour is also supporting this legislation through the Committee of the whole House today.

I have some questions for the Minister regarding, in particular, the distinction between wilful ill-treatment of animals and reckless ill-treatment of animals, which are in new sections 28 and 28A in the bill. I acknowledge the comments that were made by Sue Kedgley that these sections will make it easier, we hope, to get the prosecutions because it no longer has to be proved that someone intended to do it. I sincerely hope that we do not see a huge differential between convictions that happen under those two separate categories. I hope we do not see that people who go in for wilful ill-treatment of animals get treated significantly worse and have significantly harsher penalties than those under reckless ill-treatment of animals. The prosecution may be taken under reckless ill-treatment only because one cannot prove that it was a wilful act; it may well have been a wilful act. If the SPCA, the police, or whoever is taking the case is not able to absolutely prove it was wilful, then obviously the offender will go in for reckless ill-treatment, but that does not mean that it was not significantly worse. It does not mean that the act was not wilful.

Although there will always be that difference, I hope we do not see a dramatic widening or a huge chasm between those two, where people who get prosecuted under reckless ill-treatment of animals get off really lightly and people who end up getting charged under wilful ill-treatment are worse off. That is the situation we have now. It is very difficult to get any kind of prosecution for people when it cannot be proved that the act was wilful.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) Link to this

I am very pleased, along with my colleagues, to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I also acknowledge Simon Bridge’s creativity in bringing this bill to the House initially, and in many ways the bill has increased its weight by having been converted to a Government bill. A number of very tragic, high-profile cases have recently brought renewed attention to the whole issue of animal cruelty. There has been a case of kittens being fed to dogs and cases of dogs being dragged behind cars, and there have been some issues on farms where cattle have been allowed, more or less, to starve.

When this legislation was being discussed and thought through, I was very surprised at the degree to which the SPCA has taken the lead in trying to bring to the courts offenders who have committed inhumane acts against animals. I acknowledge its contribution. It was a surprise to me that 90 percent of all animal welfare cases have been headed by the SPCA. Again, I think that has heightened the attention being brought to bear on the difficulty of prosecuting these cases. The fact that only 10 people have ever been jailed for cruelty against animals is, quite frankly, extraordinary, given that so many offenders have been brought to light even in the short space of time in which attention has been paid to this issue recently. I think it is high time that we both toughen up the penalties and make it much easier for prosecutions to be taken against those who are offending.

It has been mentioned, and I think that it is perhaps worth mentioning again, that there is a link between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans, in that one can extend to the other. In the bill’s earlier readings, one or two of my colleagues have mentioned the research from the Humane Society of the United States, where, in 50 of the largest shelters, 85 percent of the women and 63 percent of the children reported animal abuse in their homes. There is no doubt that abuse flows, in a sense, from one to the other.

I will also touch on the point my colleague Carol Beaumont mentioned, which is the economic case for this legislation. KPMG released a report about 6 weeks ago that looked at New Zealand’s agriculture and asked where it would be in 5 or 10 years’ time. There is no doubt that the demand for our agriculture, which is certainly in our high-protein products, will grow, but so will the supply of those sorts of products from other countries. The report stated very categorically—and this is very important, I think—that the point of difference New Zealand will have in competing against cheaper prices is the fact that not only are our animal products clean and green but also our animals have been treated ethically. They will have been able to wander around outside, rather than being cooped up in a small stall inside a barn. That will give us the point of difference to set us apart, and it will guarantee both that we have a market in Europe and the United States and that we will be able to sell our produce at higher prices.

It is important, therefore, that we can stand up and say that the products that we produce for people to consume are from animals that have been ethically treated, well treated, and humanely treated. Our animals will not have been cooped up in small stalls as, no doubt, animals from many of the other countries will have been. For that reason, I mention that although Federated Farmers spoke in favour of this bill, they said in their submission that they wanted the part of the legislation making the reckless ill-treatment of animals an offence to be relaxed.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

I am taking a call on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I did not intend to but I am afraid that I cannot sit here and not do so, given the sanctimonious warbling from the other side and the familiar sound from the Greens. I refer to the references that Mr Nash made. Almost word for word, he repeated my leader’s speech on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. He said that the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill sends a message that this kind of conduct simply will not be tolerated, and he is right; that is what it is for. That is why we are voting to increase penalties.

But members on that side of the Chamber did not see fit to support having increased penalties for hurting humans. In my 18 months in the House, this is the first time that the Greens have supported anything that increases sentencing. Ms Kedgley, in response to an interjection, has just said that they are doing that only because there is a new section, inserted by new clause 5, introducing the charges of wilful ill-treatment and reckless ill-treatment of animals. If that is the case, Ms Kedgley, then you should be supporting that clause and voting against the clauses to increase sentencing, because you have claimed in this Chamber, time and time again, that there is no connection—

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

I will perhaps make one last intervention. I probably should not try to respond to the previous speaker, David Garrett, but I will make a number of comments. The point that I and others have tried to make is that if the member looks at the facts, he would see that only 10 people in the history of New Zealand have ever been jailed for animal cruelty. Furthermore, for the past 10 years, we have had 3-year jail sentences to give to people who have been prosecuted for animal cruelty, but barely anyone has gone to jail, and certainly nobody has gone to jail for the full 3 years. If we look at the facts, we see that simply adding yet more sentences will not result in greater prosecutions.

I have already pointed out that the best thing that the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill does, and why we are very pleased to support it, is that it makes it easier to prosecute. It introduces a new category that makes it easier to prosecute, for which reason we are extremely pleased to support this bill. Furthermore, we are pleased that the Government has seen fit to increase the number of inspectors. The simple fact is that it does not matter how many years we say we will put people into jail for, if there are only five inspectors in New Zealand able to bring about prosecutions, virtually nobody will ever be prosecuted. That has been the reality.

It is good that at last we are addressing the issue seriously. We are doubling the number of inspectors who will be able to bring about prosecutions, and we are giving some greater support to the SPCA, which does valiant work. It takes 90 percent of the prosecutions, even though 60 percent of its workers are volunteers and at least 50 percent of them work only part-time. Against all the odds, the SPCA has to scratch around and have cake stalls to raise funds. It is the only enforcement agency in New Zealand that is a charitable organisation and has to run around baking cakes, etc., to try to pay for itself. We hope that the SPCA will be better supported in its valiant work as a result of the new Budget initiative made by the Minister of Agriculture.

The real issue we should be addressing, and which I have talked about, is the fact that there is a double standard in New Zealand. This bill reinforces that double standard. It addresses individual acts of cruelty and completely ignores and turns a blind eye to the serious animal cruelty that takes place through institutional cruelty to animals.

I will mention one further matter in this debate. One submitter argued that veterinarians should be obliged to report suspected cases of animal abuse. He said that this would be an incredibly effective way of monitoring animal abuse and that it would make the legislation much more effective. I thought that it was a very interesting proposal. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry rejected the submitter’s proposal. It said that under the code of conduct vets were already supposed to do this. But then it pointed out that the problem is that even though veterinarians are supposed to intervene when they become aware of animals suffering, and are supposed to report the case to the ministry, the fact is that they are not legally protected from the potential consequences of making an animal welfare complaint about a client.

I think that we ought to look at that issue. The reality is that if veterinarians did what their code suggests, which is to take action if they see animals suffering unreasonably, then veterinarians would be leading the campaign to get rid of sow crates and battery hen cages in New Zealand. Instead of being completely silent and complicit in this issue, veterinarians would be leading the charge. The problem is, I guess, that if a veterinarian pointed out some of the reality of what happens to sows locked up in cages, he or she would have no legal protection, as the ministry points out. I presume that client capture is the reason why so many veterinarians are silent about these practices.