Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

I move, That the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Parliament has a chance tonight to right a terrible wrong, and to end the suffering that millions of factory-farmed animals experience every day of their short and miserable lives so that we can have access to cheap meat and eggs. Parliament also has a chance tonight to respond to the overwhelming desire of New Zealanders to get rid of cruel farming practices, such as sow crates and battery hen cages, by supporting this bill.

Animals have no vote in this Parliament. They have no voice and they cannot vote, so it is up to us to speak on their behalf and to protect them from cruelty and abuse. That is why every member of Parliament in this House tonight has a stark choice to make: whether to vote for the animals, or for the vested interests who want to keep animals in cages indefinitely. That is the stark choice that every MP will make tonight, and regardless of whatever weasel words are said, MPs who vote against my bill will be voting to allow animal cruelty to continue indefinitely.

Public concern about animal welfare has been growing steadily in recent years. New Zealanders were repelled by what they saw on television last year—images of pigs with sores all over their bodies, looking demented, and chewing on bars—and they cannot understand why Parliament has sat on its hands and done nothing since then to stop this cruelty. They certainly will not understand it if Parliament rejects this bill, which would require sow crates and other cruel practices to be phased out within 5 years.

Most people cannot understand, either, why Parliament allows millions of factory-farmed animals to be grievously ill-treated on a daily basis, when we have an Animal Welfare Act that states it is an offence to ill-treat animals. People ask me why, when it is an offence to ill-treat animals, it is not an offence to ill-treat animals by locking them in cages where they cannot even turn round. The answer is that although the Animal Welfare Act has some very good principles, it contains a series of loopholes that exempt the worst cases of animal cruelty in factory farms from having to comply with the Act. These loopholes mean that even though the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee acknowledges that using sow stalls for prolonged periods of time does not meet the obligations of the Act, it can still recommend that sow crates continue by using the “exceptional circumstances” exemption in section 73 of that Act. That explains why we have ended up with an Act that pretends to protect the interests of animals, but that really protects the interests of farmers and animal users; an Act that allows us to get tough on individual acts of cruelty and turn a blind eye to institutional acts of cruelty; an Act that makes it an offence to keep a dog in a cage, but that says it is legitimate, and somehow not cruel, to keep a pig or a hen in a cage; an Act that allows one standard for companion animals and a completely different, and lax, standard for the treatment of farm animals.

My bill removes that contradiction at the core of the Animal Welfare Act and states that any practice that breaches the Act, but that is permitted under the “exceptional circumstances” exemption, must be phased out within 5 years. It also expands the definition of the needs of animals to include having freedom of movement and sufficient space to express normal patterns of behaviour. It gives the Minister the power to amend an animal welfare code if the Minister considers this to be necessary in order to prevent the suffering of any animal.

The Minister will trot out a series of feeble excuses as to why the National Government opposes this bill, but the public will see them for what they are: the feeble excuses of a Government that is casting around for an excuse to try to justify why it pretends it is all in favour of animal welfare, yet will vote to allow some of the worst cases of animal cruelty to continue indefinitely. The Minister will no doubt argue that the survival of the pig and poultry industries will be at risk if we require cruel farming practices to be phased out within 5 years. But he knows that is nonsense. It ignores the facts that 60 percent of pig farmers do not use sow crates, and that free-range producers are booming in New Zealand. While the mainstream pork industry is losing its market share to imported pork, some free-range producers expanded their market share last year by an extraordinary 170 percent. The managing director of Freedom Farms says it is absurd that the pork industry is clinging to cruel farming practices at the very time that consumers are clamouring for meat from animals that have been well treated. “Instead of behaving like King Canute”, he said, “they should be developing a niche for themselves as producers of quality, humanely raised meat.”

Animal welfare is above all an ethical and a moral issue, not an economic one. Some farmers may wish it were otherwise; they may wish it was left up to them to decide whether they considered it to be profitable to treat animals humanely. But the truth is that the reason that people feel passionately about animal welfare is that it is an ethical and a moral issue. Our attitudes to animal welfare, and to this bill, hinge around ethical arguments such as whether we have a right to require highly intelligent animals like pigs to live miserable lives of suffering, just to satisfy our demand for cheap meat, especially when we can farm them well in free-range conditions where they can express normal patterns of behaviour. There is a substantial body of international research that shows that animals experience a huge range of emotions and suffer terribly when they cannot express normal behaviour. That is why I am seeking a conscience vote on this bill. It is incomprehensible and deeply offensive to me that Parliament would allow gambling and shopping hours to be voted on as a conscience issue, but not animal welfare. It is a sure sign that vested interests have won out over the interests of animals yet again.

Animal cruelty is animal cruelty, whether it happens to a pig or a dog. We cannot in good conscience, as a Parliament, get tough on individual acts of cruelty to animals while ignoring the more serious cases of institutional abuse. We cannot have one law for companion animals and another law for farm animals. We cannot pretend that it is not cruel to keep a pig or a hen in a cage, when it would be illegal and in breach of the Act to keep a cat or a dog in a cage.

I have been inside factory farms—numerous factory farms. I have seen for myself the pain and the agony that sows experience when they are locked inside cages, either desperate with boredom or screaming in agony. I have seen with my own eyes pigs lying motionless in their cages, chewing on the bars in deranged frustration. I have tried to take a cross-party group of MPs to visit pig farms, to see for themselves the suffering that sows endure in sow crates, but the pork industry has refused to allow our visit.

I believe that every MP in this House would like to see an end to the use of the sow crate and the battery hen cage, and that the only reason some MPs are voting against this bill is that their party whips are demanding that they do so. I would like to thank Labour, the Māori Party, United Future, the Progressive party, and Chris Carter for supporting my bill. And I would like to say to MPs who oppose this bill that their vote will be a conscience issue whether or not they like it, and it will be something that they will have to live with for a very long time.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) Link to this

I do not know whether anyone in this House could argue against some of the points that Sue Kedgley put up in her debate on this bill against cruelty to animals. I know that she is genuine in her desire to see an end to cruelty to animals whatever form it takes, but from time to time—and I know it is sometimes challenging—one has to inject a few facts into the debate about farming systems, why they have evolved in the way they have, and what the member is railing against.

The Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill has a genuinely admirable objective: to see an end to all cruelty to all animals. I stand here as a farmer, as someone who has been working with animals all my life, from the time I was old enough to walk. There is no logic whatsoever from a commercial point of view, from an animal welfare point of view, from a profit point of view, or from whatever angle one wants to consider, for being cruel to the very animals that provide one with a livelihood. It is as dumb as destroying the environment one farms in. Those two things are totally irreconcilable with farming; one cannot destroy the environment one farms in and one cannot bring about damage or harm, or inflict pain or other such on the livestock that provide an income.

I have a lot of sympathy with the argument that the member is raising, but the officials have told us that if this bill were to pass, the unintended consequences—in terms of the independent advice that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee would be able to provide to the Minister—are such that the bill would have an absolutely opposite effect to what the member desires to see. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is an independent group that provides advice to the Minister, regardless of the Minister’s political persuasion. It is a real irony, I have to say, that throughout most of the 9 years of the previous Labour Government supported by the Green Party, no changes were made to the Animal Welfare Act, but in the first 12 months of this National Government, substantial changes to legislation came to the Primary Production Committee, which the member was a part of, and those changes were brought about. In addition, those changes were supported by substantial increases in funding for SPCA officers and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry staff to conduct inspections relating to animal welfare issues.

The issue the member raises around sow crates is highly contentious, very, very emotive, and needs to be addressed, and I do not know of anybody, including those in the pork industry, who would argue against that. The member herself made the point that, commercially, New Zealanders are making that decision; all customers worldwide are making that decision. We do, unfortunately, have to compete in an international market place to sell products, and it is a fact that cheaper pork products have been imported into New Zealand from places that do not have the same high animal welfare standards that we do. That is not an excuse to allow cruelty, but it is a commercial reality in this argument.

I want to share with this House a very brief story, a personal story, about how sow crates were developed in the first place. As a young lad I was invited to a sporting event in the sport that I was pretty competitive in. I never had the funding to go to such events—my father was a sharemilker of limited means—so it was decided that as a fund-raising option I would raise a couple of pigs to a porker level and sell them to the meat company for profit to pay for my sporting trip. I got two small piglets from the same litter. I got them because they were small and not able to compete with the rest of the litter for their mother. I reared those piglets to within 3 weeks of when they could be sold off for profit, but the male of the couple attacked the female, injured her to the point that she was unable to be salvaged, and she had to be put down. They were in a free-range environment; they were living in luxury. If there was ever a pig heaven, they were in it. They were being fed twice a day by a very dedicated farmer who was farming them for profit and they were living in the lap of luxury. One pig attacked the other and that pig had to be put down as a result of the injuries. It was devastating for me because I had spent so much time raising the pigs to that point. The reality is that I should have separated them. They should have been contained. They should not have been able to be free range in the way that they were—for their own protection. Sow crates have evolved from the circumstance that pigs will injure themselves. Animal welfare is actually the reason why they were developed.

I do not think that any member would condone what we have seen in some of the media coverage of the battery-type farming systems that the member spoke of. I do not think that there is a single person with any type of compassion towards animals who would condone that. But the irony of the debate is this: the founder of Kathmandu has decided, with the money she has made from that enterprise, to develop a campaign against animal cruelty, but in the very television campaign shots I saw, she had a beautiful Labrador dog in a townhouse or an inner-city apartment. Tell me that it is not cruel to keep a Labrador in an inner-city apartment. No one would see that as cruel; it is normal, it is perfectly OK. The cruellest thing that someone could do to a dog designed and bred to roam and exercise is to lock it up in an inner-city apartment. Yet across the world that is perfectly OK and perfectly normal. That dog cannot show its normal animal behaviour in an inner-city apartment. Some of those dogs are so obese, so unexercised, and so unhealthy, and yet that is perfectly OK. Society has normalised that. That is fine. That is OK. But if we design something in a farming or commercial sense that allows animals to be contained in some way, then that is deemed to be cruel and should not be allowed. As we look to find a way forward through some of these issues in a way that is sensible, humane, and in the best interests of the animals, we should at least be consistent in the argument.

SPCA officers tell me that the worst cruelty they ever see to animals is on lifestyle blocks. People decide that it would be good to go out into the country, buy a little bit of land, have a few sheep, have a few animals, have a horse. Then they decide to go away on their normal summer holiday and they forget about the animals. That is the worst type of animal abuse that SPCA officers report back to me. Those officers are genuine about animal protection, of course; others are on a political crusade against agricultural farming and have a different view. In the case of animal welfare, I think we need to be consistent.

In response to this bill, I say that National is doing more for animal welfare than the previous Government did in its whole time in office, including with the support of the Green Party throughout that whole time. We will continue to work constructively with the industries involved to ensure that animal welfare is No. 1. It is absolutely in our best interests to do that, because we are an agricultural export nation that has to uphold the highest standards for us to be sustainable going forward, in terms of both our production systems and our economic survival.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

I truly regret that so quickly this debate has been trivialised by the previous speaker, Shane Ardern, who likened the inhumane cruelty that pigs and hens are subjected to under the industrial farming practices we are talking about tonight to the plight of an overweight Labrador living in a luxury apartment. I regret that the debate has been so trivialised so quickly.

Labour is proud to stand alongside our Green colleagues tonight to support, in particular, Sue Kedgley, who has brought the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill to the House. For a long time, Sue Kedgley has been a leader on these issues, and her commitment to this cause is appreciated by many, many New Zealanders who care about this issue.

I want to acknowledge the campaign that has been run by SAFE, Save Animals From Exploitation, and Hans Kriek, who has mobilised people to send thousands of letters and postcards to members of Parliament asking that we support this bill. The campaign to stop pigs being kept in crates and to stop hens being kept in battery cages looks to me like a campaign whose time has come. I believe that New Zealanders are ready to support change in this area.

The campaign has been helped particularly in recent times by Mike King, the former poster boy for the pork industry, who has since opened his eyes and turned against very inhumane farming practices. He has been awakened to the realities of the shocking farming practices that were shown on the television screens of New Zealanders. I think that caused a sea change in public awareness and strength of feeling on this issue. With the help of Mike King, the campaign exposed horrific abuse of animals in the pork and egg industries.

Following the images that were shown on TV, we heard promises from the National Government that it would make a review of the pig welfare code a top priority, and the Minister of Agriculture said it in this House. But, almost 18 months later, the National Government is still dragging its feet, and pigs continue to be subjected to the most inhumane treatment. I say that that is unforgivable.

Labour supports this bill. We believe that the maltreatment of animals this bill seeks to address is completely unacceptable and reflects poorly on our society. Secondly, we believe that these industries must capture the high-value high end of the markets that they are in. That means high ethical standards in raising animals and in the egg-laying industry. The best-quality New Zealand beef and lamb is sold in high-end outlets throughout the world to some of the richest and most discerning consumers. One of the principal selling points of New Zealand beef and lamb internationally is that our beef and lamb are free range. That is an incredibly important part of the New Zealand brand. It has huge economic value for our nation, and it is high time that the egg-laying industry and the pork industry follow the beef and lamb industry and protect the brand.

It is time that Parliament changed the outdated and unethical farming practices that are allowed and perpetuated by the loophole in the Animal Welfare Act that allows practices that are deemed to be inconsistent with the principal provisions in the Act. The loophole allows those practices to continue in perpetuity under the guise of those practices being so-called exceptional circumstances. That is wrong. Sue Kedgley’s bill seeks to close that loophole and require those practices to be phased out within 5 years. That is the right thing to do. It is the right thing ethically and it is the right thing economically for our farming industry.

The bill also clarifies practices that breach key sections of the principal Act. In line with international best practice, it clarifies the definition of “physical, health, and behavioural needs” to include animals having freedom of movement to express normal patterns of behaviour such as being able to turn round and walk about. That minimal requirement should be part of our definition of ethical farming practices.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) Link to this

It is with a fairly heavy heart that one takes a call on the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill, because we appreciate that on balance New Zealand is judged as being a country that is a primary-producing economy and there is an expectation in the general public’s mind that we have a high level of animal welfare. Although we do that, we know that presently there are campaigns being run to improve those practices. There is no doubt in my mind that at the appropriate time, as viewed by those organisations that are accountable to their members and back to citizens in New Zealand and globally, we will change those practices.

As this bill stands, it has a number of fundamental flaws. The principal part of it amends section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act. Clause 5, “Definition of physical, health, and behavioural needs”, inserts in section 4: “ ‘(ca) freedom of movement that must not be restricted in such a way as to cause suffering or injury,”—we can live with that; that sounds perfectly understandable and in the right direction—“and includes having sufficient space to display normal patterns of behaviour such as being able to turn around easily and walking:’.” That is where I personally have great difficulty, because although we are talking about pigs and chickens in the popular context, we are also talking about a broad range of animal farming.

I have only to think about my background, my experience in sheep farming, and the things we do in the best interests of lamb survival to ensure that we can mother a lamb on to a ewe that will not take its lamb. We will immobilise the ewe, in as careful a manner as possible, so that that lamb can suckle its mother and build up the strength to survive. That in itself is often the difference between profitability and loss. One could say: “Well, we don’t care. We want animals to have rights.” I accept that. There is even a practice to get a piece of string, put it around the front foot of a ewe, and tie it low down to the fence—especially two-tooth ewes, young sheep that have not really developed a mothering intuitiveness and nurturing. We tie them up for a day or two and make sure they have water—

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this

I regret to say that we see crocodile tears from the members opposite when it comes to issues of animal welfare. They are selective about what they choose to act on. About 18 months ago we saw the Sunday programme that exposed the appalling treatment that pigs are exposed to in sow crates. There was harrowing footage on our TV screens and graphic images of pigs in absolute squalor and distress. Those are not just my words in describing it; the Prime Minister, for one, said he found those scenes “very, very disturbing”. The Minister of Agriculture said that he found the scenes distressing. There was a promise that there would be an urgent review of the animal welfare code, yet here we are 18 months later and nothing has been done. Nothing has been done in respect of that code and making it work for animals.

Meanwhile, at the beginning of last year Simon Bridges introduced a member’s bill dealing with domestic animals, which the Government chose to adopt as a Government bill, the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. It was sped through Parliament as a Government bill, with all the support that that entails, because it was a very popular measure with many New Zealanders. But the Government sits on its hands in respect of pig welfare, having said how distressed it was.

Another example of the disparity that the Government shows in respect of animal welfare came about a year ago, when there were reports that 18,000 cows would be farmed above Lake Ōhau if the application was approved. We would have seen those cows kept in factory farming conditions for up to 8 months of the year—8 months of the year! Such was the concern of the Government that again the Prime Minister—

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) Link to this

A dictionary definition of the word “conscience” is “the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or motives, impelling one toward the right action to follow”. There is no question that the issue of animal welfare is a question of conscience.

I accept what my colleague Sue Kedgley says. She believes that every member of this House, in their own conscience, in their own mind, knows that the right thing to do is to vote for this bill and end these barbaric practices. Unfortunately, that imperative tonight conflicts with a principle that the Government has used in its own political management of this Parliament, and that is that when the House debates members’ bills from Opposition members, the Government decides, for political reasons, not to give oxygen to the Opposition, and routinely vote those members’ bills down.

I ask the Government—whoever is in charge of the Government’s votes tonight; whoever has the opportunity to change the direction the Government has given to its members—to please consider all those New Zealanders who have seen documentaries on television about barbaric practices in chicken farming and about sow crate practices and who have been appalled by those practices overseas and in this country. I ask the Government to consider the view of New Zealanders when they learn that the Government tonight had the opportunity to act on those issues but chose not to, and instead chose to act in its own political interest. I also await with interest what possible reason the ACT Party could have for voting against this bill tonight.

In some ways I feel sorry for Shane Ardern and Colin King, who were given the responsibility to speak against this bill tonight. We are, I have to say, still completely mystified about whether the Government holds any rational objections to this bill. Mr Ardern spoke at the beginning of his speech about there being no economic point of view that would justify animal cruelty. In actual fact, animal cruelty occurs precisely because of the economic interest some farmers have in short-term economic gain. Practices like the battery farming of hens and the use of sow crates in pig farming enable farmers to carry more stock in a small area. It is entirely about short-term economic interest; that is the justification for the animal cruelty that is used. Mr Ardern breathtakingly argued in favour of sow crates. He ignored the reality that many farmers who practise free-range pig farming and free-range hen farming have found completely acceptable and viable ways of doing that and making a profit. No sensible reason has been advanced by Shane Ardern.

Mr Ardern also talked about advice that the Government had on inadvertent consequences of the bill, and, of course, there has been no detail or explanation in respect of that. That is precisely the kind of thing that a select committee inquiry could sort out. Colin King talked about the definition of freedom of movement, and he brought up some minor quibbles about that definition. That, again, is something that a select committee could deal with. We heard a pathetic argument about Labradors in houses, and we also heard Colin King talk about restrictions on the mobility of ewes for several days, which is a complete red herring. It is totally outside the scope of this bill, and it has nothing to do with section 73 of the principal Act.

I have been exposed to the sow crate experience, and it is a totally cruel experience. I take on board the Prime Minister’s comment that he is very, very distressed by this practice and that the Government may consider doing something about it. Tonight the Government has the opportunity to do something about these barbaric practices. It will be judged by its refusal to do so.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this

The last few years have been pretty tough for funny man Mike King. The descendant of Te Māhurehure has been through his fair share of life experiences. He endured a serious motorbike accident at Christmas in 2007; suffered a massive stroke in 2007, which led to temporary paralysis and loss of speech; and then a year later underwent a major heart operation to correct an irregular heartbeat. But the Christmas Eve disaster of 2008 capped them all. After 7 years of successfully retaining a high-profile celebrity role with the New Zealand Pork Industry Board he was suddenly dismissed from his position. But it was not the sudden sacking that shocked King; it was the sickening sight of pigs screaming and froth pouring out of their mouths that utterly appalled him.

Up until that point Mike King was known as “Mister Pork”. He had been commissioned by the New Zealand Pork Industry Board to encourage New Zealanders to eat more pork, and he had been pretty successful—under his watch, pork sales soared. That is when SAFE entered the fray, sending him information about factory farming of pigs in New Zealand, so he started asking questions, to investigate for himself how pigs were reared for pork, bacon, and ham. He searched the Net, he viewed footage taken by Open Rescue, and he eventually arranged a secret farm visit to see for himself. His recollection of that experience makes disturbing reading. The North Island intensive piggery he visited included a shed crammed full of 50 to 60 large pregnant sows. He spoke of the noise as deafening, the smell as overpowering, and in his own words said: “I just walked around, looking at these beautiful animals, huge animals, wedged in these cages. You look into their eyes and they were either despairing, terrified, lost … it was absolutely harrowing”. This story is all the evidence the Māori Party needs to support this bill.

But there are, of course, many more such stories that could be told that describe the physical and mental cruelty meted out to animals in the name of profits. The Māori Party supports this bill to prevent a small but savage group of farmers who keep their animals in inhuman conditions from being able to carry on such practices. The bill will create an immediate disincentive for the use of sow crates by some pig farmers, and for the use of battery hen cages on certain chicken farms. We really commend Sue Kedgley for this very significant bill, which we hope will pass unopposed through this House tonight and be a fitting legacy of her work in Parliament.

The key purpose of the bill is to clarify that certain practices, although permitted by a code of animal welfare, breach key sections of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and must be phased out within 5 years. We are interested in why these offenders are given a 5-year reprieve to carry on with such harrowing practices for so long before this bill kicks in. The Māori Party is committed to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy, safe, and intact for everyone—including future generations—and that certainly includes animal welfare.

I have to say how impressed I am with the endorsement from some of our finest Māori celebrities: Mike King; Tammy Davis, one of the stars of Outrageous Fortune; and the filmmaker, writer, and actor Taika Waititi. I want to leave members with the views of Mr Waititi, which the Māori Party certainly endorses. “It’s not necessarily a question of what you eat, but rather where that food comes from. We like to show off our “clean, green” image to the international community but we still engage in many disgraceful practices that make me embarrassed to be a Kiwi.”

One of the most disturbing assumptions surrounding cruelty towards animals is the view that people know no better. We utterly reject this notion. For example, we know that there are many time-tried techniques that can protect the welfare of laying hens. There is ample evidence around the behavioural requirements of hens that demonstrates the importance of innate behaviour such as wing flapping, nest building, dust bathing, preening, or even walking—all actions ruled out in a battery hen environment.

The Māori Party opposes the use of cruel cages to restrict the movements of so-called battery hens. We oppose the inhumane treatment of pigs in New Zealand, and we totally support this bill.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this

I am delighted to speak on the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill. I feel quite disappointed tonight to see the chairman of our Primary Production Committee, Shane Ardern, who is a very conscientious person—I have a lot of respect for him as an MP and as the chair of the committee—vote against this bill, which he will do for the sake of his party. I would have expected somebody like him, who I know is against animal cruelty, to be for this bill. Shane Ardern is a farmer, and I have a lot of time for him. He raises animals like he would children, and I know he has a lot of respect for them. I am really disappointed that tonight, I suppose for the sake of his party, he has to—

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

I am pleased to speak on the first reading of the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Animal Welfare Act to phase out the exception in section 73 that allows, in exceptional circumstances, practices that do not meet best practice as set out in that Act. There is no doubt the intentions of this bill are admirable and laudable. However, National is reviewing fully the Animal Welfare Act next year. This will be done in a very systematic, comprehensive, and thorough way.

Animal welfare is a priority for this Government. We passed the Animal Welfare Amendment Act to increase penalties for animal cruelty and abuse. The Government has delivered the biggest boost in Government funding for animal welfare over recent years. It equates to an extra $8.2 million over 4 years. The Government has doubled the number of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry animal welfare enforcement officers. We have also developed and introduced major new codes regarding animal welfare.

No one in this House supports animal cruelty. No one would want to see any animal suffer. This is a well-intentioned bill but National will not be supporting it. There will be a major review of the Act next year, and it will be thorough and systematic.

The Government is also concerned about unintended consequences. The officials advise that this bill could undermine the ability of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to offer independent expert advice on animal welfare matters to the Minister. It has also been pointed out that it could empower the Minister to revoke or amend a code of welfare unilaterally, without seeking independent advice from that committee. It could end up leaving politicians to develop animal welfare policy, rather than the experts, when clearly it should be the experts. There are other unintended consequences as well.

I make the point again that the law needs to be drafted carefully, thoroughly, and methodically. The principal Act will be reviewed thoroughly next year. This is a well-intentioned bill. No one wants to see animals suffer. The Government does support animal welfare, but we will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this

I rise tonight to speak on Sue Kedgley’s Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill. Every person in this House who votes against this bill is voting in favour of animal cruelty. This bill is about 122 people and whether they have a conscience—that is what this bill is about. This is about whether 122 people will vote for animal cruelty or against animal cruelty.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

I start by acknowledging, as Phil Twyford did, the members of Save Animals from Exploitation, the SPCA, and all the hundreds of New Zealanders who took the trouble to contact MPs, to email MPs, and to write to MPs pleading with them to support the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill. They will be desperately disappointed that Government members, who claim to support animal welfare, will tonight be voting against this bill.

I predicted that feeble excuses would be trotted out tonight to try to justify the fact that Government members are voting for the vested interests that want to keep animals in cages, and not voting for the animals. But I did not realise how feeble the excuses would be. I was astonished to hear, for example, that one of the reasons was that the Minister would have powers under this bill to override the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. The Minister of Agriculture has spent the last 2 years complaining that he does not have the power to change the pig code, that it is up to the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, and that there is nothing he can do as he does not have the powers. So we have come up with this bill and we have given him the powers to amend the Act. But he says he is opposing this bill because it would give him the powers to amend the pig code, which is what every New Zealander wants the Minister to do. How feeble is that?

There was another feeble excuse; I think it was left to poor Dr Jackie Blue. I know that in her heart of hearts she wants to get rid of sow crates. She felt sick in her stomach having to stand up and make these feeble excuses. In fact, we now know why National was so adamantly opposed to allowing a conscience vote on this bill. Government members knew that if a conscience vote was held on this bill, every member of this Parliament, apart from the few who are completely beholden to vested interests, would vote for it. They would vote to support the animals, and not to support the vested interests. The Government was desperate not to allow a conscience vote on this bill, which is all about conscience issues and ethical and moral issues, because it knew that its members would support it, instead of supporting the vested interests, namely the Pork Industry Board and the Poultry Board, which do not want this bill.

Colin King gave another feeble excuse. He said we should leave it to the experts and the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to decide what is best. I can tell members that New Zealanders are sick of listening to the so-called experts. As my colleague said, the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and others are cruelty experts—experts in justifying continued animal cruelty. New Zealanders are sick of listening to those officials. They want this Parliament to act to end animal cruelty.

My bill gives Parliament the opportunity to do this. It gives Parliament the opportunity to phase out sow crates, and to respond to public opinion. Members of the public will be shocked to learn that National and the ACT Party have opposed this bill. I tell those members not to come up with their weasel words about how they support animal welfare and how they have increased the budget. This bill is the litmus test of whether members of this Parliament support an end to animal cruelty, whether they support animals, or whether they support the vested interests. Frankly, it is a travesty, and I hope that the MPs who vote against this bill can live with their conscience. I hope that members of the public who have implored MPs to vote for this bill will remember the actions of members tonight when it comes to the next election. Thank you.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave under Standing Order 140 to have a personal vote following a party vote. The Standing Orders, as you will know, specify that a personal vote may be held following a party vote if a member requests one—which I am doing—and if the Speaker considers that the decision on the party vote was close and that a personal vote may make a material difference to the result. I believe that if a personal vote was held, it would make a very material difference to the vote, and I therefore request under Standing Order 140 that a personal vote be held.

Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) Link to this

Ever since that Standing Order was brought to the House, it has been well known that there has to be very clear evidence to the Speaker that there is some issue around the votes cast by the whips before the Speaker would consider having a personal vote. There is no clear evidence that there would be any change if a personal vote was held. Speakers have ruled on this on quite a number of occasions, while I have been here, over those years. I suggest that, given that there is no evidence, there is no reason for you to declare a personal vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this

I do not need any more assistance on this. The Hon John Carter has set out the position very clearly. The whips have authority to cast votes on behalf of the parties. I accept, as I and the House must always accept, the honesty and integrity of the whips. The whips have cast their votes. The vote stands, and in my opinion the request does not meet the test on two counts: firstly, the vote was not particularly close; and, secondly, no material reason has been given to show that there would be any difference. The vote stands, and we will now call on the next order of the day.