Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

I move, That the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee, that the select committee present its final report on or before 30 April 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). Two weeks ago, I announced that the Government would adopt and prioritise a member’s bill being advanced by the member of Parliament for Tauranga, Simon Bridges. This bill seeks to raise the penalties for animal cruelty offences and redefine the way some offences are described. It sends a clear message that serious offending against animals is unacceptable in our society. I would like to thank the member for Tauranga for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House.

This Government considers it vitally important that New Zealand’s animal welfare standards promote better welfare outcomes for animals. Most New Zealanders expect the animals in people’s care to be healthy, comfortable, and properly fed. We expect animals to receive a reasonable standard of humane treatment, and not to suffer unnecessarily. These expectations have been steadily increasing over recent years. Despite this, there has been a disturbing increase in the number and seriousness of animal-cruelty incidents. New Zealanders have been shocked by recent cases, such as the drunk man who twisted the head off the family kitten in front of his family, and the vicious attack on a herd of cattle, where the hindquarters of one cow were hacked off, and another cow received serious slash wounds. People who are capable of such cruelty to animals are also capable of violence to their families and others.

Curbing animal cruelty is a priority for this Government, and this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill sits alongside a range of initiatives I have under way to improve compliance with animal welfare laws. Under the Act as it stands, “wilful ill-treatment” covers the most serious welfare offences. For this offence to apply, it must be proved that a person intended to cause harm. The ill-treatment has to be extremely serious, resulting in permanent disability, death, or destruction of the animal in order to prevent further suffering. The bill will expand the threshold for this offence to include cases where an animal is “seriously injured or impaired”. This will allow prosecutors to handle cases more appropriately where suffering is extreme but the existing criteria for a section 28 wilful ill-treatment offence cannot be met on technical grounds.

The bill also adds a new offence of “reckless ill-treatment” to the Act. This new offence will sit between the existing “wilful ill-treatment” and lesser “ill-treatment” offences. It will apply where it can be proved that a person knew or appreciated that serious harm to an animal could occur, and unreasonably ran the risk. I expect cases will be prosecuted under this new offence when they would otherwise fail to meet the threshold for wilful ill-treatment. Until now there has been no choice but to prosecute these cases on a lesser ill-treatment charge, resulting in inappropriate sentencing and the wrong message being sent to offenders that animal welfare offending is not serious.

I would now like to focus on the main part of the bill—the penalties for animal welfare offences. The existing maximum term of imprisonment for wilful ill-treatment of an animal is 3 years. The bill increases this term to 5 years. This amendment will give a stronger message to potential offenders that animal welfare offending is not acceptable. The fines for wilful ill-treatment will also increase. The maximum fine will double from $50,000 to $100,000 for an individual, and from $250,000 to $500,000 for a body corporate. The penalty for reckless ill-treatment of an animal will be a maximum of 3 years’ imprisonment. In addition, an individual may face fines of up to $75,000 and a body corporate may face fines of up to $350,000 for this type of offending.

There are a range of other neglect and ill-treatment offences in the Act, and the penalties for these offences will also be increased. Penalties for offences such as failure to meet the physical, health, and behavioural needs of an animal; ill-treatment of an animal; and aiding or assisting in animal fighting ventures will be increased in line with the revised penalties for the more serious offences of wilful and reckless ill-treatment. The penalties on conviction of these offences will double—up to 12 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $50,000 for an individual, and a fine not exceeding $250,000 for a body corporate.

This is not a long bill, but I would like to outline some further measures it contains. Under the Act as it stands, persons who are disqualified from owning an animal may apply to the courts to own animals again. They may do so a mere 12 months after the date that they lost the right to own an animal. This is a particular problem in the companion animal area, where disqualified persons regularly reapply to own animals. The bill proposes to enable the court to set a minimum review period of its own choosing. During this period, the disqualified person may not apply for the right to own an animal. If the court does not set a minimum review period, the default period will be 2 years. The bill also proposes to enable the court to order the forfeiture of any or all animals owned by someone convicted of a serious animal-welfare offence where it considers this necessary to protect the welfare of animals owned by an offender.

This bill emphasises that New Zealand society does not tolerate animal-welfare crimes. The Animal Welfare Act is renowned as being progressive and comprehensive legislation. We can be proud that we are judged favourably by our trading partners and the international community. This bill will help to ensure that New Zealand maintains this well-deserved reputation. I commend the bill to the House.

In New Zealand we have always had a close connection, in both a social and an economic sense, with animals. Our economic success is based on animal-derived products. But we are also proud of our ethical approach to the welfare of animals. We care about what happens to them and we get upset when they are mistreated, whether on farms or in homes. So the Labour Party and the Progressive party welcome the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill today, because it toughens up our ability to protect our animals and it makes offenders pay for any mistreatment. But I am not naive about the issues that it addresses. Those whose incomes depend on animals cannot afford to be overly sentimental. They and we grow animals to provide food, both for New Zealanders domestically and for the rest of the world.

Starting out in the workforce in the 1950s and 1960s I spent enough time in the freezing works of New Zealand to see a few things that would make me cringe even today—they made me cringe then, I might say. But anyone working with animals or simply owning an animal can and should commit to acting humanely, and most people do. I have to repeat that most people do, because in many ways the publicity given to ill treatment would indicate to some people that there is mass mistreatment of animals in New Zealand, and I do not believe that there is any evidence to support that view.

This bill does not target the overwhelming majority of farmers, producers, and pet owners who work within animal welfare guidelines. It targets the small minority who wilfully, recklessly, or because of psychological impairment mistreat animals. It is not hard to think of recent examples. The Minister of Agriculture mentioned a few. We see on our TV screens starving and neglected animals, which focuses everyone’s mind.

New Zealand’s niche in the world is that we are a pure, clean, and environmentally friendly society. In our markets, consumers are becoming more and more demanding about quality production. They are asking searching questions, as they should, about issues like environmental responsibility. They are asking about animal health and welfare, and the quality standards of our production processes. The future for New Zealand’s primary exports will be in having the best answers to those questions that we can possibly have. There is no future in trying to compete on price alone against emerging low-cost producers. We have to compete by guaranteeing the quality and the value of our food production as a whole. If we do not meet the expectations of our customers, then we face potentially very damaging risks to our export base.

This bill will make the Animal Welfare Act work better. An increase in the penalty from 3 years to 5 years shows that we take cruelty to animals seriously. Introducing a new offence of reckless ill-treatment of animals alongside the existing offence of wilful ill-treatment will help us capture those who might otherwise not have reached the threshold of the offence of wilful ill-treatment. But let us be realistic. There is no point in increasing the penalty if we do not have people on the streets and in the fields to investigate the crime. The Government has already cut front-line staff in areas like biosecurity. When the Hadda beetle was found in Auckland recently, it was not found by a biosecurity staffer; it was found by a man walking his dog in an Auckland park. So how does this Government intend to police animal welfare?

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has exactly five full-time staff to do animal investigations, plus seven contractors. It was thus so when I was Minister of Agriculture. I moved it in the Budget but I never got round to being able to have some more of them. The RSPCA has about 100 staff who investigate animal welfare issues, on whom the Government is heavily dependent to monitor breaches of the Animal Welfare Act. They of course are, in the main, volunteers. The Government pays nothing to their costs, apart from some training costs. In 2008 as Minister of Agriculture, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, I gave the RSPCA a $300,000 one-off grant. But I recognise that it was nowhere near enough, nor has it been consistently funded.

When I was Minister we set up the Fast Forward Fund, which was a partnership between the private sector and the Government to fund research and development. We had over $700 million in the ministry’s accounts, ready to fund research into areas like this—not solely, of course, but it would have been one area. For example, how do we measure animal welfare? It is not always easy measuring how animals feel at any particular moment about their environment; it is awkward at the very least. In 2006 the chairman of the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council, Professor Christopher Wathes, came to New Zealand and asked us how we know whether animal welfare standards are being observed.

When I was Minister, I used to get a huge volume of letters into my office about animal welfare issues, and I know that the current Minister will have the same experience. It was clear to me then, and it still is today, that we have to be leaders in New Zealand not only in animal welfare but in measuring the standards of animal welfare. We have to be leaders in the right techniques as well as in the substantive results of our measuring. The Fast Forward Fund could have helped to deepen our research into animal welfare and therefore improve the market position of our animal-based industries.

I would like to know how the current Government will find the right tools to measure animal welfare now. It got rid of Fast Forward and replaced it with the Primary Growth Partnership. I hope the Primary Growth Partnership addresses this issue. But to date the Primary Growth Partnership has funded precisely no research projects; none. It has only $25 million in the kitty this year to even start.

I support the bill because it is ethically the right thing to do, both for this Parliament and for the industry. But I question how the Government intends to investigate the inevitable increase in complaints. If we have a higher standard, we will have people who are requiring us to meet it. I have not seen anything yet that indicates that the Government has addressed that issue. How will it equip vets, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry staff, or RSPCA investigators to know when an animal is being mistreated, or if it is reported as being mistreated, how will the investigation take place and by whom? That has been a problem we have faced for a very, very long time.

All of us have to recognise the minimal amount of resource that is put into animal welfare issues. It simply is unacceptable and it is not good enough. I do not think anyone in this Parliament would want to defend it. So without that support I fear this bill may end up as more of a window-dressing bill, because it suggests that we are tougher on animal welfare issues without providing the substance that a high-quality animal welfare system in New Zealand will require. In supporting this bill through to a select committee, I certainly give notice to the Government that we will be asking some questions along those lines during the select committee process, and I hope that the Government can give some positive answers.

There are many reasons why the penalties for offending against animals must go up. First and foremost is that the sentences currently being handed down in courts are far too light. Despite us having a major problem in New Zealand, so far under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 less than 3 percent of prosecutions have resulted in imprisonment. The most common penalty is the lowest possible fine. We can state this even more starkly: in the history of this nation fewer than 10 people have been sentenced to prison for animal welfare offending. When we consider the frequency and the cruel and sadistic nature of some of this offending, involving mutilation and torture, less than 3 percent, or less than 10 people in total, is derisory.

In 2009 the SPCA, as it does every year, had no difficulty publishing its annual list of shame—the 50 worst cases of animal cruelty in a year. I warn the House and those people listening that if they are of a sensitive disposition, they should tune out now. Cases in the last 12 months have included a dog beaten with a metal pole before being strangled to death, so that a South Auckland man could prove a point to his fiancée; a cat killed by a Manukau man by a crossbow for eating chicken in the kitchen; a mastiff Labrador in Waitakere that had its mouth and legs tied together by tape and rope, suffered terrible swelling to its mouth and deep scars to its legs, its tongue had to be removed, and it was eventually put down; a Labrador pit bull was dragged 50 metres behind a four-wheel drive vehicle through Napier so that one leg was ground to bone and the rest of its body was a bloody mess; a Jack Russell in Dunedin was partially strangled with chains, then force-fed petrol before being killed with a spade to the head; and a tabby killed in Christchurch that had at least 14 nails hammered into its body and head. In the SPCA list were several cases from my home city, Tauranga, including one where a mutilated cat was found hanging by a piece of string from a street sign. A nail had been rammed into its head and its tail and three paws had been severed. In another case in the same month, in my suburb of Mount Maunganui, three 10-week-old puppies were found dead, tied up in a plastic bag, on the beach. These cases are not unusual or uncommon. Last week I was at the Gisborne SPCA and saw a cat that had its ears snipped off. I thought it was disgusting, yet such cases would barely rate a mention in the SPCA’s annual list of the worst cases.

Animal cruelty occurs all around the country, all year long, every year. Animal cruelty deserves serious punishment, because it is a wrong in and of itself, and because of what it is linked to. Through this law change we as a Parliament, on behalf of the communities we represent, tell judges to toughen up in this area. We instruct the courts to treat animal offending as truly criminal. Animals are sentient beings that are vulnerable to harm from humans. Animal cruelty is clearly linked to human violence and cruelty. An ever-increasing body of research proves that this offending is linked to family and other violence and to the worst psychopathic offending. By treating animal cruelty seriously, we also help to ensure further serious offending is prevented.

Although the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill does respond to ever-increasing public condemnation and a hardening against the evil of animal cruelty, it is about more than that. This bill is required not only because of a recent spate of horrific cases. As I have said, these cases occur all year round, around the country, every year. Although this bill will ensure tougher sentences, it is also about more than simply that. By putting up penalties for animal offending we provide judges with more tools to protect more animals and to ensure offenders are treated more seriously but also get the attention and treatment from agencies that they require so that further serious offending is prevented.

This bill started life as my member’s bill, and it is now a Government bill. That means it has come to Parliament in a timely fashion, but it also means a substantially strengthened law that simplifies and rationalises offences, increases offence penalties across the board, and does more to protect the welfare of animals. If I am frank, there was the possibility that my bill would have had more symbolic than real effect. Our Government bill will certainly do more than that; it will improve the law across the board.

The reasons for this bill in the first place, and now as a substantially strengthened Government bill, deserve mention. Last year, following a week in Parliament, I was at Wellington Airport going home. Anita Killeen, a lawyer who is very involved in the Auckland SPCA, approached me about a law change, and I undertook to look into the issues involved. To me, it is amazing that we live in the kind of country where a person can approach an MP and only a few months later a Government, and, indeed, a Parliament of 122 MPs, is acting decisively. My thanks go out to Anita. She put me in contact with Bob Kerridge of the Auckland SPCA. He gave me invaluable support and advice, as have others in SPCAs around our nation, including the national chief executive officer, Robyn Kippenberger. I thank Bob, Robyn, and all in the SPCA, who work for animals every single day.

As the bill gained publicity, I was inundated and touched by the supportive letters and emails I received from ordinary Kiwis. These people have given me a broader understanding of the issues involved in this area and the deeply affectionate relationship between humans and our animal companions. In mentioning ordinary Kiwis, I cannot go past Amanda Colmore-Williams in Dunedin, who, because of her belief in this issue, set up a group of supporters of my members’ bill on Facebook. She and now over 4,000 supporters online have my sincere appreciation for giving me constant food for thought and encouragement, and for each of their communities pushing for increased penalties for offending against animals.

From the moment I decided I wanted change in this area of law, the Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, has been unfailingly supportive. Since our Prime Minister saw fit to make this change for animals a priority, he has ensured that the initial bill has been substantially strengthened and prioritised. I thank the Prime Minister and David Carter for their leadership.

Finally, I recognise that this is not just a Government acting but also an entire Parliament sending a message. Today we show Kiwis Parliament at its best. We send a message that this sort of offending is abhorrent to society. We tell judges to get serious and toughen up this area, we provide them with the tools to protect more animals, and we help ensure that further serious offending is prevented. I commend this bill to the House.

I acknowledge the member who has just spoken and his initiative, I suppose, to bring to the House a bill that will receive the support of Labour and, I am sure, the vast majority of the members in the House. However, before we rush away and pat ourselves on the back and say how good we are to protect the animals of this country, we should think carefully about some of the principles involved in the process of what we are trying to do here.

There is no doubt that we all want to protect animals in this country. The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill brings into place penalties for what we will call the wilful ill-treatment of animals. No one wants to see that kind of treatment, particularly in a country that is built on its reputation for, competency in, and compassion for animal management. Through our farming systems and in our domestic situations we have always appreciated, utilised, and protected animals that need our protection. It is the job of this House to protect those animals. We will pass this legislation and hopefully maintain our reputation in the world as a country that upholds the high standards of animal welfare, because, as my colleague Mr Anderton said, we need to be able to sell food with integrity to the world.

But in considering this legislation, we are going through an interesting process. Firstly, the bill assumes that increasing penalties will change behaviour. We cannot guarantee that. We are effectively doubling the penalties for the ill-treatment of animals, and that should be so. However, as has been pointed out, the policing of the existing law, or the new one we will bring into place, will be the key issue if we are to see a change of behaviour. We need to ensure that a change of behaviour occurs, and there is no doubt about that. The reality is that the ill-treatment of animals is connected to the ill-treatment of humans and to abuse; it has been well documented. Preventing the ill-treatment of animals is crucial for any fair and just society, in the same way that we do not want to see the ill-treatment of our fellow human beings, either.

I cannot help but reflect on a situation in the House, about 2 years ago, when we struggled as a Parliament to condone the hitting of people. Many people in this House stood up and made bizarre statements like: “We should uphold the right to hit a child.” Yet, quite rightfully, we are all condemning the unjust hitting of animals, and we should do. Let us not get too ecstatic about this. The bill doubles the penalties for ill-treating animals, but we should think back and ask why so many people objected to penalties for ill-treating children. I cannot understand the hypocrisy of this Parliament—which, for the most part, can make wise and just decisions—in introducing this bill, which Labour supports, yet not too long ago in this House we could not condemn the ill-treatment of children.

💬 David Garrett: Because smacking’s not ill-treatment.

I tell Mr Garrett that I would not say too much about this. I think we should just reflect on that, and move on.

No one in this House wants to see the ill-treatment of animals or humans who are not able to defend themselves, and that is what we are addressing with this legislation. Let us remind ourselves that it takes more than increased penalties and the quick introduction of a populist bill—because most of New Zealand thinks it is right—to address the issue. Sometimes we do not always make the best judgments.

It is important that the Government backs this change in legislation with better policing. It is not sufficient to have only five people throughout the country to monitor and ensure that this new legislation is upheld. Doubling penalties without proper policing will not change behaviour.

We are a country dependent upon the wise management and the good welfare of our animals. There will, no doubt, be points raised in this debate about the treatment of hens, the treatment of sows, or, possibly, the treatment of cows. We rely on the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, and I think the process is sound for an agricultural nation. My experience as a Minister in dealing with that group of people was a good one. They are very fair people and they uphold the highest standards of ethics in terms of animal welfare and management. They have to address the difficult issues of the balance between economic parameters around animal management and the ethical parameters around animal welfare. I think they do a good job and I do not want to bring those issues into the debate, although I am sure they will be raised.

I think it is important to say to the judges who will be dealing with this new legislation that they have had the tools in front of them for some time to impose higher penalties, but they have not always used them. It is not for me to make judgment on their judgments, but they should perhaps look at the situation and get the message that we cannot tolerate the kinds of animal welfare abuse that we have seen in recent times.

Perhaps it is a reflection of the pressure on society, on individuals, and on families whose reaction is to take it out on animals. If that is the case, then we have an obligation to assist them. It is not just about giving a handout or being namby-pamby, but we need to get in and give clear direction that that kind of behaviour should not be tolerated. That is done through the courts, but it is also done earlier on through the support systems and social networks that we have.

I applaud the passage of this legislation, because it will effectively protect animals that are unable to protect themselves. The question I ask the Government is whether it will guarantee the protection of people throughout this country who are unable to protect themselves. For example, there are victims of accidents in this country who are currently on accident compensation, and who are facing the possibility of removal from the accident compensation client list, which means the removal of their income and their means of existence, because the Minister for ACC wants to balance his books. I expect the National Party to come back and make adjustments to the legislation, and to tell the Minister for ACC that it is not right that he should punish people who are unable to protect themselves. It not right that he will not ensure they have some form of income because they have been injured through no fault of their own. So let us not get too righteous about what a wonderful place Parliament is and how good the National Government is in introducing animal welfare legislation when, at the same time—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Today.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR:—throughout this country today, there are people who are not being looked after. I know that down in my electorate on the 20th, on a Saturday, 20 people who are supported in their existence by accident compensation payments will be appearing before someone employed by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to cut the list down. Those 20 people will stand before that reviewer and are likely to be totally exposed to the reality of receiving no income. Those people, who have not been able to protect their income, have not been looked after by this Government. I acknowledge that this legislation protects animals that are unable to protect themselves, but let us be consistent here. I want to see from the National Government just as much care and compassion for people in this country as it is currently showing for animals.

Today is something of a red-letter day for animal welfare, but it has to be said that for 10 years, until now, there has been a stony silence in this House about animal cruelty. For 10 years the major parties in Parliament have ignored the pleas and petitions of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to put an end to the worst cases of animal abuse—namely sow crates and battery hen cages. For 10 years when I have raised issues of animal cruelty in this House, MPs have cracked jokes, rolled their eyes, and seemed unable to take the issue seriously. So it is great to sit here and listen to MPs speaking thoughtfully about animal welfare, particularly the previous speaker, Damien O’Connor.

I congratulate Simon Bridges and David Carter on bringing the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to the House. The Green Party supports the bill, in particular the introduction of the reckless ill-treatment charge, which is new, and the other provisions that will, hopefully, make it easier for the SPCA and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry inspectors to take prosecutions for animal abuse. We will put forward amendments at the select committee to strengthen some of the other provisions in the bill.

I have to say at the outset that we are deeply disappointed that this bill is so narrow in its scope and addresses only a tiny proportion of the cases of animal abuse in New Zealand. We are disappointed, too, that the bill does nothing to amend the loopholes in the Act that allow hundreds of thousands of animals to suffer on a daily basis—for example, pigs in sow crates and battery hens. Simon Bridges said that this bill will improve the law across the board. Sadly, it does not. It deals only with individual acts of cruelty against animals and it turns a blind eye to institutional cruelty against animals, which comprises the overwhelming majority of cases of animal cruelty in New Zealand.

As a Parliament we cannot in good conscience get tough on individual acts of cruelty to animals while ignoring even more serious cases of institutional abuse. The Minister of Agriculture and Simon Bridges have read out examples of individual cases of abuse. They have said that New Zealanders are increasingly shocked by these individual cases of cruelty to animals, and that is true. But New Zealanders were even more shocked by Mike King’s expose of the conditions of pigs in New Zealand. Butt what has happened? Nothing has happened. The pig welfare code that was promised last year still has not materialised, so let us put this bill into perspective.

As animal welfare lawyer Peter Sankoff observed wryly in a recent blog, politicians “only hate some kinds of animal cruelty, and are perfectly happy to promote other types.” It is vital, if we are not to be accused of hypocrisy, that we demonstrate that this Parliament cares about all forms of animal cruelty, not just some, by widening the scope of this bill and ensuring that tougher sentences apply to all people who abuse animals, not just some.

The Green Party supports the increase in penalties for ill-treatment, because this is one of the most common types of offence. But, like Labour members, we want to make it clear that increasing the maximum length of a sentence from, say, 3 years to 5 years will not reduce the incidence of animal abuse in New Zealand. The reality is—and it has been pointed out—that people found guilty of animal cruelty are very, very rarely jailed in New Zealand. There have been only 10 such cases, even though the legislation already permits 3-year jail sentences. In fact, 10 years ago Parliament increased the sentences from 3 months to 3 years, but sentences for animal abuse have not gone up. Not long ago a farmer, Mark Spitz, ignored repeated warnings from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and slowly starved a number of his cattle to death, yet he received only 250 hours of community service and a fine. That case is typical. I quote Peter Sankoff again. He said that raising sentences is “the easiest thing Parliament can do, and sadly, it’s a reflex action”. It is designed to distract us from the real problems of animal cruelty. He said: “It makes for nice yelling, though (Let’s raise penalties! Let’s send those bastards to jail!).”

If this Parliament is committed to reducing animal abuse, we must look at the wider issues. One of them has been touched on: why are there so few inspectors investigating incidents of animal cruelty, why are there so few prosecutions, and why is the funding for animal welfare and prosecutions so pitiful in New Zealand? The truth is that there is very little point in increasing the penalties for animal cruelty crimes if the enforcement authorities are so under-resourced that few prosecutions are ever made. This is the reality; this is the truth.

This bill will raise expectations, as previous speakers have said, and unless there is a huge increase in resources and funding for more inspectors, it will be, as Jim Anderton suggested, window dressing. We also need to address the issue of why the Government does not enforce the Animal Welfare Act properly. Why do we have only five full-time Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry inspectors, even though there are more than 100 million animals in New Zealand? Why does the ministry prosecute only 1.85 percent of the complaints it receives? Why has the Government effectively abdicated its duty to monitor animal welfare to inspectors from a charitable organisation—the SPCA—60 percent of whose inspectors are volunteers, many of whom work part time, and whose work is seriously hampered by the fact that they do not even have full police powers of prosecution?

Why does the Government not properly fund prosecutions of animal welfare breaches, instead of relying on the public to donate to the SPCA? Why does it not fund the SPCA properly? Why has it basically abdicated all its work to the SPCA, which is so cash-strapped that it does not carry out any random inspections and cannot afford to undertake prosecutions that would be expensive.

The Farmers Weekly pointed out a few years ago that the animal welfare team in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is emaciated. Greg Reid stated, in 2008: “The reality is at the moment we are so thin on the ground and we are running from bushfire to bushfire. A lot of what the public see is just the surface of it—it’s quite chaotic.” In other words, the Government-funded welfare inspectorate budget is so pitiful that it is delegating this work to a charity that does not get funding.

Unless we deal with this issue, the bill will be simply window dressing. Unfortunately, the bill does not deal directly with anything to improve the inadequate system of monitoring and enforcement, but we will seek to amend this at the select committee. The reality is that people, and, indeed, probably judges, perceive animal welfare offences as a different kind of crime from other crimes, so we would like to see guidelines added to the Act to help judges decide on the seriousness of an offence and, therefore, the appropriate length of the sentence.

We are pleased with the clause that provides that offenders can have all their animals removed, not just the ones that were ill-treated, and we agree with a few other aspects of the bill. But we think it is critical that we strengthen the provisions relating to the abuse of farm animals, not just companion animals. Most prosecutions for the abuse of farm animals are taken under sections 12, 13, and 14 of the Act, not section 28, so we would like to see a similar strengthening of provisions around section 12 of the Act.

The Minister has said, finally, that all acts of cruelty are unacceptable to this Parliament. This is music to my ears. Many speakers here have made similar comments. I therefore look forward to the Minister finally acting on issues such as the banning of sow crates and battery-hen cages, because if he does not, the public will see this as a complete double standard. The public will see that we are getting tough on some aspects of animal cruelty while ignoring others.

The former Minister of Agriculture, Jim Anderton, said that our Animal Welfare Act is renowned as progressive by our trading partners. I can assure members that it is not renowned as progressive by most people who care about animal welfare in New Zealand.

I rise to voice my support and that of the ACT Party for the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I congratulate Simon Bridges on bringing this bill to Parliament initially, and National on adopting it as a Government bill. It is clearly sound legislation. It increases the punishment for those who abuse animals, both individuals and corporate, and brings in a new offence of reckless ill-treatment to catch those who have undeservedly escaped punishment in the past.

Like most members who are planning to speak on this bill, I imagine, I have in my notes a list of sickening examples, but frankly I was personally sickened after hearing Mr Bridges’ examples, so I will not add to them. We do not need any more horrible, sickening examples.

As an MP green in experience if not orientation, I was saddened to find Mr O’Connor unable to resist a little jab by comparing the abuse of animals to the smacking of children. Well, I will explain it for Mr O’Connor. I will explain why so many people in this House and throughout the country—87 percent of them in a referendum—voted against what has been passed here. It is because chastising a child with a hand is not abuse—that is why—and 87 percent of people understand that. It is a shame he had to make that linkage.

As we have already heard, the bill increases the maximum penalty from 3 years’ imprisonment to 5 years’. That is a good idea. I think everyone across the House agrees that it appears the current sentences deter nobody, as there is a range of opinion as to what we should do to stop this from happening.

I was interested and slightly amused to hear even the Green Party members make remarks about judges not enforcing the penalties that are already available. Ms Kedgley said that it was a red-letter day in this Parliament. I have been here for only 15 months, but it is indeed a red-letter day when the Greens are supporting not only a law and order bill—a first in my time here—but, lo and behold, one that increases imprisonment. It is a red-letter day, indeed.

What this bill is doing—and I will be a bit more blunt than my urbane colleague Simon Bridges—is sending a very clear signal and message to the judiciary that this Parliament, this House of Representatives of the people of New Zealand, is unhappy with the level of sentencing. As I think every speaker has noted thus far, the penalties have been there, but I think Mr Bridges said that 10 people in the entire history of this country have been imprisoned for animal cruelty. The judges are being given a clear signal today, and they will get it again at the second and third readings: increase the sentences.

💬 Sue Kedgley: That will solve everything!

No, it will not solve everything at all, and I will get on to that in a minute. But if the judges do not get the message, we can amend the legislation again because this Parliament makes the law in this country, not those in that monstrosity across Lambton Quay. This Parliament makes the law; the judges apply it. If they are sent a signal from this place and they do not get it, then mandatory sentences are around the corner. That is part of the reason for the “three strikes” bill. The judges have not got it, so we are sending a message. Today we are sending a message on animal cruelty.

I am going to change direction a little, but before I do so I want to make it very clear that my remarks from here on in do not in any way seek to diminish the evil that is animal cruelty. I repeat that I was sickened by Mr Bridges’ examples, so I have left mine on paper rather than verbalising them.

It has been noted by many that there is a clear link between animal cruelty and cruelty to humans. Many studies have shown that serious cruelty in childhood is predictive of human cruelty later in life. A 1985 study of violent male offenders reported far higher rates of what the study termed as substantial cruelty to animals than a comparison group of non-jailed men. In 1998, an assessment of sexual homicide convicts showed 36 percent of those men abused animals during childhood, 46 percent during adolescence, and 36 percent again as adults. I refer to a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—PETA—article entitled “Animal Abuse and Human Abuse: Partners in Crime”. The article refers to the FBI profiles of some of America’s worst criminals. Invariably their histories contain disgusting acts of mutilation on cats and dogs of the kind that Mr Bridges has outlined. I am very well aware, as many members will be, that we have criminals here with similar histories.

So we have to ask ourselves why some people commit animal cruelty in the first place. A 2001 report from the United States Department of Justice collated a number of theories analysing the link between child abuse, animal cruelty, and violent crime. The report said that those children who suffered physical and sexual abuse were far more likely to dish out the same treatment to animals. As I have said, this leads to violent and sexual crime later in life. That link is clear. There is no dispute as far as I am aware.

So how does that happen? Yesterday I wrote on my website about a member of the underclass, a gang member called Hulio Ataria, who was convicted of murder. The fellow murdered a young man coming to the aid of a woman being beaten by another gang member. The mother of the accused, or prisoner, as he is now, was expelled from court on an earlier occasion for barking like a dog—a somewhat ironic link to this bill. Barking like a dog, for those who are not aware of it, is a symbol of solidarity, support, and approbation for the values the Mongrel Mob represents. It is hardly surprising that Hulio Ataria, raised by such a wonderful role model who has been generously supported by the taxpayer through the welfare system, turned out the way he did. If someone raises a child like an animal, do not be surprised if that child becomes one.

A few months ago we had a Drivers of Crime summit next door, and, unsurprisingly perhaps, there was widespread agreement on just what those drivers were: child abuse, alcohol abuse, spousal abuse, neglect, and lack of education. But everyone skirted around what we should do about it. No one wanted to face the reality that the Hulio Atarias of this country have been dragged up by people like the dog-barking mother who are members of the long-term welfare culture crossing two or three generations. Those people populate our gangs, and they are responsible for a great deal of our heinous crimes against both humans and animals. I agree with others in this respect: the causes of crime must be addressed to prevent future crime.

However, it is on the causes that we differ. I say, and the ACT Party says, that welfarism is a major cause of crime. The welfare system is broken and it must be fixed. We ignore this at our peril. This bill, as Ms Kedgley and others have said, cannot fix everything; it is not a silver bullet. As others have said, including Ms Kedgley, increasing the penalty in itself will not make any difference either. But I find it sadly ironic that the Green Party co-leader signed a Paw Justice petition calling for longer jail terms for animal abusers. That is the only time in my 15 months here that that party has supported any measure that increased imprisonment. I understand it has as its philosophy that imprisonment is completely useless. So it is very interesting that the party has one standard for animals and a lower standard for the treatment of people. I find that confusing and inconsistent. The Green members’ stance is welcome, of course, on this bill but I invite them to consider their stance on future bills affecting people.

I will close by repeating something I said earlier. Parliament today is sending, and will send, a message to judges. I ask them to listen to it; otherwise Parliament will take some more measures.

As uri of Ngāti Kōata I have grown up in a tradition in which the concept of respecting and caring for animal life is second nature. Our iwi is the kaitiaki or guardian of the tuatara of Takapourewa or Stephens Island. It is our humble duty and obligation to take every precaution necessary to care for and protect from harm these incredible living fossils. So the concept of introducing legislation to prevent the wilful ill treatment and neglect of animals is consistent with my own tribal values and belief.

I hasten to suggest that the sacred status of tuatara is not the only example of an animal being revered and respected by tangata whenua. In part of my tribal rohe on Rangitoto ki te Tonga, otherwise known as D’Urville Island, the spotted brown kiwi occupies a special status as well. In another aspect of the significance of the animal kingdom for Te Ao Māori, kaitiaki manifest in animal form continue as living realities for whānau, hapū, and iwi. Such kaitiaki include the kiwi, kurī, ruru, and tuatara. The parāora or whale also features prominently as an animal revered by hapū and iwi. The practice of whale riding—highlighted in the movie based on Witi Ihimaera’s novel—was a common theme in Māori oral histories. The Whale Rider retells the traditions of Paikea, but there are other notable whale riders, including Te Tahi-o-te-Rangi, an ancestor of the Mātaatua tribes, and Tunui, a tohunga of Hawke’s Bay, who was seen riding his pet whale Ruamano on his way to Cape Kidnappers.

Our history is rich with stories of the great affection that Māori had for animals, including pet kākā, eels, and shags. In fact, Kupe had a pet shag whose remains are seen today at Te Aumiti, the narrow pass between the Mainland and Rangitoto known as French Pass. Kurī, the humble dog, was known as a great companion even back to the days of the explorer Kupe. In other stories, horses are described as extraordinary, some describing them as taniwha or supernatural creatures. One chief from Tūhoe, Te Maitaranui, describes these new beasts as “kurī waha tangata”—people-carrying dogs. For Ngāti Porou there is a particularly strong association with what are commonly known as the Nāti horses, those versatile horses that travel over stony grounds or through water and bush without faltering. And, of course, for Ngāti Tūwharetoa, the association with the wild Kaimanawa horses is so powerful that there has even been a claim lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal to prevent them from being culled.

I share some of these stories with the House as a way of setting the scene for the changes we are today debating to the Animal Welfare Act proposed by the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill—in particular, the drive to increase the penalties for offences involving wilful harm and reckless cruelty to animals. Our history helps to provide us with guidance about how to consider issues such as the welfare of animals. Although the recent media portrayal of this type of offending has demonstrated just how horrifying some of these incidents have been, it is always useful to have a broader context from which to respond. The history of Māori experience with animals tells us that ill treatment and neglect not only was unknown but would be considered grossly inappropriate. That is why the Māori Party remains concerned about the use of 1080 poison to condemn possums to a truly cruel and painful death. How do we measure animal welfare? Why are pests are allowed to be treated in a different way to pets?

There is another aspect to the wilful treatment of animals that I feel duty-bound to bring to this House—that is, the known association between cruelty to animals and human violence, which has been referred to by previous speakers. In 2002 a Child, Youth and Family supervisor in Ōtara, Briar Humphrey, conducted a 3-month sabbatical project resulting in the paper Child Welfare / Animal Welfare—a Discussion Document. In her project Ms Humphrey explored aspects of the animal welfare sector’s relationship with child welfare in Auckland in cooperation with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Auckland. During the course of her study she spoke with animal welfare trainers, managers, and front-line staff and concluded that child protection social workers could learn much from animal welfare professionals working in the same communities, and often in the same homes. In her conclusions Ms Humphrey suggested that child protection social workers should include consideration of family pets in their assessments of abusive and neglectful families.

The study demonstrates that the link between the treatment of pets and the children’s attachments to animals often spoke volumes about the children and the family. In essence, children and young persons who are violent and cruel to animals needed immediate help. I think this is another really important dimension to the debate, as it makes it explicit that people convicted of violent crimes are often also predisposed to the cruel treatment of animals. I think it is also worthy of comment to observe that there are successful models of child and animal welfare agency cooperation throughout the United States and the United Kingdom.

Coming back more particularly to this bill, the Māori Party supports the provisions that enable a court to disqualify a person from having custody of animals and to order forfeiture of animals to the Crown or to an approved organisation in the case of an offence being proven. We need to be able to demonstrate that the threshold of acceptance of any form of violence reflects the serious attitude we have to ill treatment and neglect. We must set the bar high, showing in our actions that we have no tolerance for violence or abuse of any kind. As an electorate MP, I know only too well the horrific levels of violence amongst our communities. As a Māori woman, I know that our women are substantially overrepresented in Women’s Refuge statistics. Our women receive higher levels of medical treatment for abuse, and experience more severe abuse than other groups of women. In fact, I have recently learnt that Māori women between 15 and 24 years of age are seven times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of an assault than are Pākehā women.

This crisis of circumstance must occupy all of our attention within the House. I particularly acknowledge the work that my colleague Tariana Turia has been doing with the Māori reference group on family violence. Its report on how to eliminate family violence within the whānau, E Tu Whānau Ora, is a wonderful resource that can help us to take actions to restore peace across our communities. But our attitude to violence across the wider community is also critical in stemming the tide, and that is why bills such as this are so critical. The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill provides us with an opportunity to understand the links between cruelty to animals and other types of violence. It establishes a threshold of behaviour that rejects the ill treatment and neglect of animals, and creates a public standard that encourages us to act with compassion, care, and respect to all forms of life, including animals. For all these reasons, we support the bill.

I am delighted to be able to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. In doing so I must first of all congratulate my colleague Simon Bridges, the MP for Tauranga; the Hon David Carter, the Minister of Agriculture; and, of course, the National-led Government on doing something meaningful, after a period of 10 years, on the issue of animal welfare.

We have heard a range of debate, and I am delighted to see the agreement here around the House. Although we do have agreement, I venture to say that if we were to decide on animal welfare at the extremes of the situation, we would find that our views would be considerably divided. I make that point, because when we look at animals we see that we have different regimes of treatment. I was just thinking that many of us would have a cat inside the house, and we would not like to have our cat outside the house. Some of us have our dogs inside the house; others would not have their dogs in the house.

I have also heard today that judges are the problem, but I am of the view that this bill improves the law. The problem has not been entirely with judges. The problem has been in what somebody taking a prosecution faced, in that a very high threshold had to be met. That high threshold meant that going for a prosecution often meant the prosecutor failed. So for the very point of being able to get a conviction, prosecutors settled for the lesser of the penalties—that is, for the ill-treatment of animals as an offence. That often made things look very, very distorted. In principle, the threshold to show there was wilful ill-treatment of animals was set too high. So to get a conviction at any level there was an attempt to go for the penalty for the ill-treatment of animals, which was a lot less serious. The penalties were not progressive enough and, on that basis, this bill is very, very clever; it introduces another category: the category of reckless ill-treatment. I believe that that is very important, and something that should not be overlooked. I am sure that as we go through this bill in the select committee, and as we consider submissions, there will be situations that take issue with that.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.