9. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this
to the Minister of Agriculture
Is he satisfied with the level of his ministry’s animal welfare resources; if so, why?
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) Link to this
No; as I said in the estimates debate, I am not satisfied, but the present budget of between $2.5 million and $3 million for animal welfare will be, I am sure, added to incrementally over successive Budgets.
Does the Minister think it acceptable that there are only five Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry animal welfare investigators across New Zealand dealing with 50 million head of livestock, which is one officer for every 10 million animals; if so, why?
No, I do not think it is adequate, but I find it strange to have a question from the National Party on this matter, our having heard from National members that they want the bureaucracy of the Government to be cut drastically, and that they want the tax revenue that the Government receives to be cut drastically. Every day in this House I hear from Mr Carter that National wants more animal welfare staff, I hear from Mr Ardern that National wants more biosecurity workers, I hear from Mr Carter that National wants more policy analysts, and I hear from Nathan Guy that National wants more officials who can stop poisonous trees from growing over farmers’ fences, but, actually, National members would not have any money to do any of that—in fact, they would get rid of most of the bureaucrats we already have. I do not know how that works.
Does the Minister agree with the comment of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry investigations manager, Greg Reid, that animal welfare resources in New Zealand are “chaotic” and “running from bushfire to bushfire”; if so, what is the Minister going to do to fix that problem?
No; I do not agree with that official. I think that on my watch—nearly 3 years now—he is the second Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry official who has had a bad day at the office.
Why did the Minister tell the Primary Production Committee last year that he was deeply concerned about the lack of resources for animal welfare, and why did he promise at that select committee hearing to significantly up the funding, when in this year’s Budget he managed to get—and he is No. 3 in Cabinet—only an additional $68,000?
Hon Dr Michael CullenHere they go again! More money from less! That is good. Yes, I did not get more than an extra $68,000 for animal welfare. What I did get was $700 million for an agricultural research and development project. The member says what about the $68,000, and forgets about the $700 million. It is a bit like the biblical quote about seeing the splinter in somebody else’s eye but ignoring the beam in one’s own! In addition, we gave the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) $300,000. We got $23.3 million in the Budget for a National Animal Identification and Tracing system, which will protect our agricultural sector from being blocked out of important markets all around the world. I am sorry that we got only $700 million, plus $23 million, plus $300,000, and missed out in getting only an extra $68,000 for animal welfare! I think it very unlikely that Mr Carter will ever get anywhere near the Cabinet table again, because even his own colleagues must be underwhelmed by the kind of question he asks in this House.
Madam Speaker—[ Interruption] Back to welfare! Following the serious drought of last summer and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s saying in this week’s New Zealand Farmers Weekly that some livestock are currently “heading towards starvation”, what responsibility does the Minister take for the massive under-resourcing of a core role of his ministry?
I am not going to take any responsibility for the drought. Presumably, Mr Carter will take responsibility for droughts, floods, and pestilence of all kinds; he speaks to a higher authority, obviously, than I do, and he has more control over those matters! But what I will say is that for the first time in the history of New Zealand agriculture a national committee including all stakeholders in the industry—veterinarians, farmers, and everyone else—was commissioned, and met, and planned to deal with the drought in ways that the National Government had never done. Every single stakeholder in the agricultural sector in New Zealand has congratulated the Government on the way that it handled the drought. And I might—no, I will not; I will have the charity of silence about the comments those people have made about the performance of the National spokesperson on agriculture.
When the Minister stated in a speech in April of this year: “We should search for how best to ensure we meet acceptable levels of animal welfare.”, did he have in mind giving each welfare officer a greater workload than 10 million livestock to look after?
The welfare officials in the ministry, backed by the SPCA across New Zealand, do a magnificent job. But in times of adverse weather events like drought, and a downturn in the income of some people in, say, the beef and sheep industry—which we have had—stress becomes a huge factor in the way in which some farmers cope, or do not cope, as the case may be. If Mr Carter wants to luxuriate in the fact that a few farmers have gone down under stress, and some of their animals have paid the price for it, then he can do that; I am not joining him.
Hon Pete HodgsonCan the Minister confirm that during the 1990s animal welfare in this country was in a pretty serious state because the legislation was so old and decrepit; that, year after year, the previous National Government refused to introduce updated animal welfare legislation, even though it had been written; and that there was no movement until I introduced a member’s bill, at which time National members finally came to the party and we gave ourselves the legislation we have today?
I can confirm all of those facts, and I can further confirm that New Zealand is recognised as an international leader in the area of animal welfare. New Zealand’s work on codes of practice and its moves towards improved minimum standards are developments well in advance of the situation in most of our international trading partners. If Mr Carter does not know that, then he knows as little as I suspect he knows—as always.