Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is a very appropriate bill to be considering, because as a nation we have a huge number of animals. In actual fact, sometimes it is a bit of a joke that New Zealand is known worldwide for having far more animals than humans. We are quite pleased about that, however, because as a nation we have a primary sector economy, and that primary sector economy contributes to a first-class economy. So this bill is indeed timely.

Sadly, there is from time to time outrageous behaviour that does not do anything for New Zealand’s image, and we need, then, to have a structured process of penalties in place for people who mistreat animals. That is what the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill refers to. It brings in a new regime of punishment for people who commit crimes of cruelty against animals. It is worth noting that previously the ultimate crime against an animal was wilful ill-treatment, but there were very, very few occasions when there was a guilty verdict in those cases. That was largely because it was very difficult to show that wilfulness. This bill introduces another category, of reckless ill-treatment. I think that that is very sensible, because reckless behaviour is something that can be quite predictable, and a normal person will understand it.

The bill effectively has two parts to it. There is the regime that sorts out the behaviour of reckless ill-treatment, and there is the aspect that deals with how long a person who is judged to have committed cruelty against an animal is disqualified from owning an animal. The bill also talks about the contravention of a court order that prevents somebody from having an animal.

This bill will attract a significant number of submissions, and we in the Primary Production Committee will welcome them. The committee, I believe, is ideally situated to consider the submissions. We will certainly welcome them, but we encourage those people who submit to do so within the context of the bill. I say that because we have quite a structured process within New Zealand of managing best practice. We have the common-sense behaviour of looking after pets in cities, which is looked after by the SPCA, or the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Then we have the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, which rules and adjudges on what is considered best practice with regard to domesticated animals, like sheep, cattle, chooks, pigs, and so on. So when those submissions come in and we consider them, they will need to be in the context and the scope of the bill.

On the bill’s first reading, the Minister stood up and said that he would like to see it reported back to the House in a timely fashion. That report back will be on 20 April. We need to consider that once we finish this session—tonight or tomorrow, or whenever it is; we are still in urgency—there is a 2-week adjournment. On that basis we will have to be pretty quick in getting those submissions in, because there will be, I am sure, a large public interest in this bill.

The regime of fines has been doubled, effectively. It might be a fair point to make that doubling a fine does not actually remedy a situation. However, I think that it does clearly lay out to the community, and to society as a whole, the value that we put on our loyal, faithful pets, and on those animals that we extract a living from. Effectively, the penalty regime is raised from $125,000 for a body corporate up to $250,000. It sounds like a lot of money, but the point that is of interest to me is that an individual can actually get a prison sentence, but a corporate body just gets a larger fine. Nobody actually comes up for trial for cruelty in the latter case.

There will be a lot of interest, as I have said, in this bill. I trust that those who are submitting on it will do so in the context of the bill, because we are looking at a regime or structure of penalties for cruelty, and on that basis alone I imagine that we will not try to get into a field where we say we should be able to do something or we should not. The debate will be about the aspects of a workable solution, because judges have been criticised for not implementing the law; I have to say that until this bill came along it was virtually impossible for them to do so, because it was so difficult to prove the wilful aspect of ill-treatment. So the introduction of a reckless ill-treatment category will greatly aid the whole process, and I am sure we will see a lot more convictions for those people who should be treated as criminals. Thank you.

It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I first acknowledge Simon Bridges, who initially introduced this bill, which has now been adopted by the Government, to the House. I am delighted to support this bill, after all the horror stories that we have seen on television and heard about, like the killing of 33 dogs, and the kittens fed to pit bulls and filmed—those terrible things that happened to pets.

I say at the outset that Labour members do not accept animal cruelty at all. We are totally against cruelty, not only to pets but also, as I will discuss a little later, to farm animals. As human values and perceptions of pets and their welfare change over time, we need to think about farm animals as well. In 2008, 11,000 complaints were received by the SPCA about animal cruelty. Out of those, only 110 resulted in any charges being laid. Out of those 110 cases, only 58 people were convicted. That shows either that judges or courts do not take the issue of cruelty to animals very seriously, or our values do not cause us to take the issue very seriously.

This bill essentially raises fines from $50,000 to $100,000 and the term of imprisonment from 3 year to 5 years. As the previous speaker, Colin King, said, increasing the penalties will not make a heck of a lot of difference by itself. What really has to happen is for us to put some resources into the issues. For example, 20 years ago one-third of animal welfare cases were dealt with by the police, one-third by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and one-third by the SPCA. Now the SPCA deals with 90 percent of animal cruelty cases. The SPCA needs further resources to make sure that those cases are dealt with properly, and the Government needs to make sure that it supports the SPCA to deal with such cases. The most important thing is to put more resources into dealing with this issue—for example, prosecuting those cases costs thousands of dollars. So there is a need for further resources to make sure that animal welfare is looked after.

The thing that I am really concerned about is not only cruelty to pet animals; as the area of legal practices changes around the world, and the perception about animal cruelty and the treatment of animals changes around the world, we also have to think about farm animals. As I alluded to before, in recent times there has been a lot of talk about cubicle farming and also a debate about 1080, possums, and sow crates. Of course, we have been raising around the world the issue of whaling, and the public is becoming aware of all those issues. Years ago, many moons ago, when I first came to this country—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Many, many moons.

—many moons ago—thousands of lambs died in the snow in wintertime, and I wondered about the way we do farming, when thousands of young animals of 1 and 2 days old were dying in the cold. The issue was whether we were treating our animals the way they should be treated. There is some controversy about cubicle farming in Canterbury.

In one generation the perceptions about animal welfare and cruelty issues have come into our consciousness. We are always now thinking about how we treat these animals—and how we raise farm animals and how they should be treated. I think this is very important as pressure comes on us, particularly from overseas markets where we send our live animals. There has been an issue about live animals going for the haj. There has been an issue about that, and about the likelihood of cruelty to some of these sheep that are sent overseas.

In my view we need to make sure that in the future we have a more comprehensive bill for animal welfare. This amendment bill, in my view, is just part of an ongoing issue rather than a solution. There is a lot of concern from the various animal welfare movements, particularly from the countries that import our live animals. We export meat to some of those markets. The perception is changing. We have to make sure that, over time—soon, I hope—the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Justice, or whoever, brings forward a more comprehensive animal welfare bill, which will make sure that not only our pet animals but also our farm animals are properly treated, and that we fulfil the expectations that are out in the markets to which we export our animals.

As even Government members accept, this bill by itself, by raising imprisonment to 5 years, will not solve the problem. I honestly say, and I am sure that my colleagues on the Primary Production Committee will agree, that this is an interim arrangement. In the longer term we need a comprehensive animal welfare bill so that we can—

💬 Sandra Goudie: There’s nothing “interim” about a law change.

Well, I know it is an important issue, but I think we have to go to the next step. We have to look at other issues that deal particularly with our farm animals, because as the perceptions change in the markets, importing countries will have stringent requirements. As we know, people are now tracing where our meat comes from. Some of these green movements and other similar movements require stronger animal welfare laws and regulations, so we have to follow those.

In a nutshell, I say that I support this bill wholeheartedly, and I agree with the Government and all of the parties that are supporting the bill that it is a useful interim arrangement. But in the long term we have to make sure we have a fully fledged animal welfare bill that can look into the issues concerning farm animals, as well. With those few words, I say thank you and I thank my colleagues.

I am delighted to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I applaud my colleague the Hon David Carter, the Minister of Agriculture, for bringing this bill to the House. It is in support of an initiative of Simon Bridges, the excellent member of Parliament for Tauranga. He is an outstanding young man, who has a fantastic future ahead of him.

This bill has been roundly applauded throughout New Zealand. I will mention some of the key people who have supported it. Bob Kerridge said that “It is time to recognise that cruelty to animals is a social sickness that is as heinous as any act of violence inflicted on fellow humans, and the two are inextricably linked.” That is what Bob Kerridge said. He is the Auckland RSPCA executive officer, he is well known, and he represents the views of many people throughout New Zealand. The next person I will mention is David Jones QC. He said that “This [bill] would add to the effectiveness of animal welfare legislation and bring home to the public that animal cruelty is not acceptable.” This bill is by no means an interim measure. The third key person who has made a comment on this bill is Dr Wayne Ricketts from the Veterinary Association. What did he say? He said that he “backs increasing the maximum penalty for the wilful ill-treatment of animals.” He also said that “Light sentences send the wrong message to society about the responsibility of humans for the welfare of animals.” This bill has been roundly endorsed by a number of people, but many more people support those very same views. The bill was also applauded by Robyn Kippenberger, who is the National Chief Executive of the RSPCA. She said that “the move was long overdue, especially as animal cruelty cases were increasing in number and severity.”

I will outline a couple of these cases. They are very offensive incidents. This is not a very nice story, but I will share it with members, because if this type of person can do this to a kitten, one has to wonder what level of cruelty he might inflict on family and friends around him. Last month in Auckland, a man twisted off the head of a kitten in front of his young children. There was also the case of the man who fed live kittens to his pit bull dog, and the case of the 33 dogs that were shot in a very inhumane way. There was the incident of the dog that was found drowned in Tītahi Bay with a 10 kg weight tied round its neck. These are all heinous crimes against animals. These are serious cases of animal cruelty. By increasing the sentences, we are sending a very clear message, which should in turn help to deter people from acting in this way.

Although we have had a lot of support for the introduction of this bill, the Greens and Labour have been able to find some reason to be dissatisfied. Those members have said that there was no point in increasing the penalties for animal cruelty if no one would enforce them.

Well, of course the penalties will be enforced, but those members say there is no point in increasing the penalties. [Interruption] That is what they said. They are aware that extra funding will be put in and that there are people there to enforce the penalties. If those members were aware of what was going on, they would know that lawyers are working pro bono to bring animal cruelty cases to court for conviction. I applaud those lawyers. I think it is a fantastic step in the right direction. I understand that other lawyers are looking to take up the challenge of doing pro bono work on animal cruelty cases so that people who commit the kinds of offences I have described—twisting off the head of a kitten in front of children—will be charged, taken to court, and be convicted. Under this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill those offenders will receive the sentences they rightly deserve, which are more stringent than the sentences currently in place. This bill will send a very, very strong message.

The purpose of the bill is to increase the sentences for these horrifying incidents. In relation to wilful ill-treatment, it raises the penalties for animal cruelty and neglect offences, and it changes the way in which some offences are described. The offence of wilful ill-treatment of animals covers the most serious welfare offences. Under the Act as it stands, it must be proved that a person intended to cause harm, and the animal must be permanently disabled, die, or be destroyed to prevent further suffering. This bill expands the threshold for this offence to include cases where an animal is seriously injured or impaired. That will enable more cases of extreme cruelty to be prosecuted under this offence. An animal is seriously injured or impaired if the injury or impairment involves prolonged pain and suffering, substantial risk of death, loss of a body part, or permanent or prolonged loss of a bodily function, or requires treatment by, or under the supervision of, a veterinarian.

The maximum penalty for wilful ill-treatment of animals will increase to 5 years’ imprisonment. The maximum will be 5 years, and if that is not a deterrent to people who inflict cruelty upon animals, I do not know what is. There is also a fine, and the maximum will double to $100,000 for an individual and $500,000 for a body corporate. If that does not send a very strong message that good, caring, solid Kiwi New Zealanders who have animals in their care and look after them properly expect others to do the same, then I do not know what will. Animals need to be cared for in a robust way. They need to be housed, fed, and watered. Dogs need to be taken for walks. We expect all of those sorts of things to occur. Every animal requires a different type of care, but we except animals to receive the optimal care available.

This bill creates a new offence of reckless ill-treatment of animals. This new offence 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 of that happening. It is expected that cases would be prosecuted under this new offence when they otherwise failed to meet the threshold for wilful ill-treatment. Until now there has been no choice but to prosecute these cases under a lesser ill-treatment charge, which resulted in inappropriate sentencing and the wrong message being sent to offenders that animal welfare offending is not serious. That is the great thing about this bill; we are sending a very clear message, and it has been roundly endorsed throughout New Zealand. The penalties for this offence will be a maximum of 3 years’ imprisonment, and fines may be imposed of up to $75,000 for an individual or $350,000 for a body corporate.

There are other offences. The court may disqualify a person from having custody of animals, and may order the forfeiture of animals.

Those are some of the key points of this bill. Most New Zealanders expect people to care for the animals in their charge. They want them to be healthy, comfortable, and properly fed, and to have a reasonable standard of care and humane treatment. They expect that they will not suffer unnecessarily. This bill is a great step forward. It is not an interim measure. It will provide outcomes and will act as a strong deterrent to anyone ill-treating animals.

I, too, rise to speak in support of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the contribution of Simon Bridges to bringing this bill to the House, although it has now become a Government bill that is supported by all parties.

The timing of this bill has probably been forced along as a result of the huge public outcry following some high-profile animal abuse cases. It is fair to say that most New Zealanders treat animals humanely, whether in a farming context or a domestic context, but animal abuse cases are still too common, and they are not isolated. I happened to be looking at some of my local community newspapers, and I am holding up an example I found headed: “Family pet may have been thrown off bridge”. These sorts of things are sickening. I will not recite a big litany of cases; I, too, have seen the SPCA’s list of terrible cases. I think that when most of us hear of these cases we are sickened and disgusted by the sort of treatment that is meted out to animals, both domestic pets and farming animals. As we all know in this House, those animals cannot defend themselves and cannot speak on their own behalf, so it is up to us to do so.

I will not read out the main provisions of the bill, as the previous speaker, Sandra Goudie, has done that. The basic points in the bill are, first of all, to increase penalties for some existing offences, such as for wilful and reckless ill treatment and other ill treatment offences, while putting in place a new offence of reckless ill treatment. There are two provisions in the bill that I think are very important and very useful. One is the strengthening of the provision disqualifying a person from having custody of animals, and the other is the strengthening of the provision relating to the forfeiture of animals. Those provisions are very useful contributions to the tool box of things that we can do in response to the abuse of animals. I certainly think it is important that we are sending a message to New Zealanders about the view of this Parliament, which is that we need to be tough on people who abuse animals.

The relationship between animals and people is really important; I will talk a little about it. Other speakers—Jim Anderton, Damien O’Connor, Sue Kedgley, and others—have spoken about the economic importance of animals to this country and about the importance of ensuring that we treat those animals appropriately because we should, but also because there is a requirement that animals be treated humanely in order for us to be able to trade with other countries and to meet the consumer demand.

Animals are very important to this country economically but also socially; I will talk a little about that. Clearly, there is the domestic pet scenario. I am sure most people in this House either have or previously have had animals in their life as domestic pets or companions. Certainly my cat, Sage, who is 14 years old, has been a very important part of my life. Animals also have a role socially in terms of therapy, and I will talk about some of those roles because I do not think they have been mentioned yet in the House. We have not yet talked about some of the really important ways that having animals with people makes a difference. Animals are used in therapeutic care in the Maungakiekie electorate, where I work. I am aware of the use of animals in schools, such as dogs in schools programmes, which teach children about looking after animals properly and also about the different responses of animals to different situations. I know that in one of the local churches in Onehunga animals are used in grief counselling with children. That is very important. Pets are increasingly being allowed in rest homes because it makes a difference to the quality of life of the residents.

Animals are also used therapeutically in terms of treating people who are ill and are hospitalised. Again, interestingly enough, I have just gone through the local community papers and found a story in the East and Bays Courier of 12 February about Ella’s special place. It has been recently opened and is a particular corner of Starship Children’s Health in Auckland where children can have their pets. It has been named after a young girl, Ella, who was 5 when she died in 2003 of an inoperable brain tumour, and it is a memorial to that young girl, recognising the importance of the comfort people get from being around animals. I think it is really important to recognise the relationship between people and animals.

I will go on to look at the abuse of animals as a crime of violence. It is actually a crime of violence. We have a sickening record in this country of violent crime and I particularly want to put on record, in speaking to this bill, the sickening record of violence against children in New Zealand. The reason I am raising this record in the context of violent crime against animals is that I think these things are not unrelated. I believe violent crime—whether it is against another adult, against children, or against animals—has certain common factors. One of the issues I have about this bill is that it deals with one end of the spectrum—dealing with crime—and I want to talk about the other end. I want to talk about the prevention of crime. What are the causes of crime? What leads to people being violent, whether it is against children, animals, or other adults? What are the causes of crime? We need to do more in that area. We need to look at the culture of violence in this country that makes it acceptable for people to behave in a violent manner and that can, in fact, glorify violence.

There is a lot of research and information around the issue of empathy. People get the skills and the neurological links in their brain to be empathetic at a very, very young age—as babies. The relationship between babies and their mothers, in particular, is very important. Where there is a lack of empathy in a very young child, it can flow on to violent crime. There is a whole lot of important work in support of what we need to be doing around parenting to support young mothers. There are issues around how we learn to respect and care for each other and for animals. I have always had pets in my life; with my parents, caring for our animals was a very important message. We need to look at all those areas in terms of preventing violent crime.

There is certainly plenty of evidence about the links between animal abuse and other violent crimes. In preparing to make this speech I looked at some of the research. Certainly a lot more work is now being done about cross-reporting—that is, when people hear about animal abuse they are also looking to see whether domestic violence and cruelty to children is going on in the same home. There was a very interesting report in the Bay of Plenty Times about the fact that the SPCA routinely investigates complaints of cruelty to animals and finds other forms of offending as well. I will not go through all of the detail, but there is clear information around the links between violence against animals and violence against humans. Often it is a starting point, and people go on to become violent against people.

We have to look at the very important issue of enforcement. One of the things that worried me, as well as the need to perhaps do more in the prevention area, is that we can put in place tough penalties but we need to be able to find out about the crime, we need to be able to police it, and we need to be able to monitor it and respond. As others have said, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has five inspectors and seven contractors for the entire country to look at what is going on, mainly in terms of our farming animals. The SPCA does the absolute lion’s share of the work. It is a voluntary organisation; it does not receive Government funding. I place on record my acknowledgement of the work it does. I am sure everybody in this House would agree with me. But too few people work for the SPCA, so if we are serious about doing this we need to look at ensuring that it is resourced to do the job. Certainly one of the things that American states have found in toughening up against abuse cases is the need for evidence to support prosecution.

In winding up I concur with the point that Jim Anderton made that if we do not put resource into this issue, then this bill will be simply window dressing. Thank you.

It gives me enormous pleasure to rise and speak briefly on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I compliment my colleague across the House Carol Beaumont for an extremely well-considered and succinct address, covering off most of the key points in this debate. I also at this stage acknowledge Simon Bridges, who not only is the second-sexiest male politician in New Zealand but also had the wit and concern to address himself to a very serious issue in New Zealand—namely, cruelty to animals. As we know, the Government has adopted Simon Bridges’ bill and tweaked it in a number of areas. Many speakers have gone to great pains to outline the details of the bill, which is a comprehensive and significant improvement upon the current legislation.

This bill sends a strong message. Miss Beaumont indicated that it makes it very clear that violence is not OK. We know it is not OK against children, we know it is not OK between adults, and it is certainly not OK against animals. This Government is all about creating a brighter future for New Zealand and improving our performance in all sectors. This bill is our attempt and our initiative to address an area where we see a great need. I take this opportunity to commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: I move, That the Primary Production Committee consider the Animal Welfare Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 April 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during questions for oral answer), 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).

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.38 p.m. (Thursday)