Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

I move, That the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that the Primary Production Committee considers the bill.

New Zealanders are passionate about animal welfare. Animals, whether they are domestic, wild, or in agricultural production, are important to our way of life and we care deeply about the way animals are treated. Animals matter to us personally. Around 68 percent of New Zealand households have at least one pet. Not only is animal welfare important to us here in New Zealand but also it plays a vital part in our export brand around the world. Each year around 50 percent of our export earnings come from animals and animal products. We pride ourselves on our assurance to the world that we have high standards of animal welfare. Isolated cases of poor animal welfare can have a very negative impact on our reputation as a responsible agricultural producer.

New Zealand has a strong animal welfare system, but we cannot afford to be complacent. It has been 14 years since the Animal Welfare Act was passed, and a review of this Act is long overdue. Last year, under my predecessor the Rt Hon David Carter, the Act was reviewed. The review found that the principles and policy underpinning the Animal Welfare Act remain sound, but that the enforceability, clarity, and transparency of the Act needed to be improved. The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill has been introduced to do exactly that. The bill is about making a strong system even stronger.

I would like to highlight some of the specific changes in the bill. Two key objectives of the bill are to provide for clear and enforceable standards of animal welfare and to broaden the range of enforcement tools. Clearly, minimum standards and codes of welfare are not directly enforceable. This bill will provide for new regulations that will complement codes of welfare by establishing specific and enforceable mandatory standards. Currently the enforcement tools in the Act are limited, especially for low to medium level offending. New enforcement tools will allow animal welfare inspectors to address all offending against animals at a level that is appropriate to the seriousness of the crime. To strengthen the Act’s enforceability, the bill also provides for a new, tiered enforcement scheme made up of existing offences in the Act, lower-level offences and regulations, infringement notices, and compliance orders.

The Act as it stands has no specific requirements for exporting animals. This bill will enable the Government to establish new mandatory standards and regulations for exporting live animals. This will give exporters more certainty and will enable the Government to enforce requirements more easily to help protect New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible exporter. The bill will not change the Government’s policy of prohibiting live exports for slaughter, but it will enable the prohibition to be implemented under the Animal Welfare Act instead of the Customs and Excise Act. All of the regulations to be developed following the passing of the bill will be subject to further consultation at that time.

This bill resolves the current uncertainty around the ill-treatment of wild animals. The bill will clarify that conduct towards an animal in the wild that goes beyond generally accepted hunting or killing practice is an offence. The new offence will target acts of wilful or reckless ill-treatment, but will not affect ordinary hunting, fishing, and pest management practices. The bill also makes it explicit that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee may consider the practicality and economic impact when developing minimum standards and codes of welfare. These factors will not be able to override animal welfare considerations, but making them explicit in the Act will ensure that minimum standards are realistic and achievable.

I also know that some will focus in this debate on the testing of party pills on animals. This focus was inevitable following the recent passing of the Psychoactive Substances Act. The Animal Welfare Act places strict controls on the use of animals in research, testing, and teaching. Organisations using animals in research, testing, or teaching must follow an approved code of ethical conduct that sets out the policies and procedures that need to be followed by the organisation and its animal ethics committee. If the trial cannot demonstrate to the animal ethics committee that its benefits justify any harm to the animals involved, then the trial will not take place.

In summary, this bill will strengthen an already well-performing animal welfare system and will ensure that New Zealanders can remain proud of the way we treat our animals. I commend this bill to the House.

Indeed, it is a pleasure to stand and speak to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. The Minister for Primary Industries has quite rightly made reference to a regime in this country that does uphold and certainly promote and demand the highest levels of animal welfare of any country in the world. Indeed, we rely on it because our economy is dependent upon our reputation. The Minister has not been so good in some areas in upholding that reputation, but I applaud the fact that today, he and the Government are bringing the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to the House. As the Minister has said, there are a number of changes—technical for the most part—to the 1999 Animal Welfare Act that will improve the regime of animal welfare management, right through from farms through to saleyards and slaughter, and, indeed, it deals with the issue of export of animals from this country.

We do have a good reputation. I think the images of New Zealand, of sheep or cows in pastures with a spectacular backdrop anywhere around New Zealand, are the images that sell our country to the world. The assumption, of course, in that, that we have a clean environment, is one; the next one is, of course, that we have good welfare practices that look after the beautiful animals; and the third, of course, is that whatever we produce from that system is safe for consumption. It is a huge reputation, one hard-earned by farmers and processes and workers and everyone through 150 years of innovation, and is something that we must work hard to maintain and uphold.

The dairy industry alone has seen a rapid growth in the number of dairy cows—heifers and calves—across this country, and with that there has been a greater level of public awareness of the way they are managed. It is rather timely, I guess, given the focus on the dairy industry and what is produced from it, that, as the public drive up and down our roads or go out into the country and see dairy animals, it is important that they understand that those animals are being well managed. It is a commercial operation. It might not meet the needs or the expectations of a pet owner, but it is a commercial operation, and the legislation that we pass must balance the economic needs of this country with, I think, the underlying assumption and demand from each and every New Zealander and, indeed, people across the world, in most Western countries, that we respect the right of animals to not be treated unfairly, tortured, or in any way, I guess, demeaned and treated without any respect at all. I am not one who thinks that animals deserve the same rights as humans—not at all; I am a farmer—but I also believe that the abuse of animals should not be tolerated in any way.

💬 Shane Ardern: You must be the only one, Damien.

There have been—it might have been on that member’s farm; I would hope not, though—a number of cases recently where farm workers have abused animals. I have to say, the industry needs to take a look at that. I know that those kinds of situations arise out of frustration, and those workers should not be there—they may be for whatever personal reasons—and the industry needs to take a good look at how it better offers pastoral care for workers on farms. That is just a note for the couple of dairy farmers on that side of the House.

The bill, as I say, creates regulations and creates a better regime for implementing standards that we are demanding. Labour in Government looked at the issue of sow crates and, of course, hens for egg production. We made progress in that area. We moved to phase out sow crates. We gave the industry time. The reality that the industry has half the pigs produced out of the sow crate environment, and half in, means that it is possible to do, but there is a cost involved, so we in Government gave a clear indication to the pork industry that it should phase those out. It was the same for egg production. There have been some changes, I think, to the size of crates for hens—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Cages.

—cages, yes; my colleague corrects me—that have moved in the right direction. “Free range” is wonderful marketing terminology. There are issues around animal welfare if all chooks were to be free range, believe me. So it is about balance.

We in Labour are happy to support the Government, but what we do need to get from the Government is an assurance that it will provide the resources to implement the new provisions of this bill. I go to the regulatory impact statement here, and although an enthusiastic supporter of the bill and of the improvements it will make, I have to say that the regulatory impact statement is rather alarming, because it says here: “In terms of costs to Government, all proposed changes to the Act would be implemented by the Ministry on a fiscally neutral basis.” What that says is that it is not going to spend any more money on this. So although there will be an expectation of higher levels of animal welfare and of implementing and policing those standards, this National Government, true to form, is not going to put any more money in.

💬 Colin King: Can the member give us a figure? How much should be spent on it?

Well, an example of what has happened is that the National Government has got this proposal to double export earnings from this country—a laudable and worthy objective. It wants to rapidly increase exports from, particularly, our primary sectors. Right? But it cut the funding to the agencies that oversee, protect, and monitor that export sector. You cannot have it both ways. We are now currently dealing with a major problem of reputation for our dairy sector because the National Government cut funding for the Ministry for Primary Industry’s responsibility while expecting that the growth in the industry, the growth in exports, was to continue—in fact, to ramp it up even further. It does not collate that you can have both. In the end, you do not get something for nothing, and those so-called smart business people over there should understand that.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Ha! Which one?

Well, I have not been able to identify one, but I am sure there must be one. You do not get something for nothing, as most of my constituents understand. The problem is that when you have a regulatory impact statement saying, effectively, that the Government is not going to spend any more money in this area, then we have to ask the question of whether the increased standards, the better standards, the better regulations that we are going to pass through the bill will be implemented, because what is at risk here is our reputation. We have millions—in fact, about 6 million—dairy cows, I think, at the moment, and rapidly growing—

💬 Colin King: 6.5.

—and rapidly growing. One situation on the front page of a newspaper, the abuse of one of those cows or calves, is enough to start to undermine our reputation. So it is no good passing the best legislation here in the House and then not having the resources to ensure that, indeed, we carry that out and that every farmer and every individual carries that out across the board in this country.

We have a good reputation. It has been hard won, and we must uphold that, just as we do in food safety. But the Government, again, because it has cut resources to core Government responsibilities, has allowed that reputation to be dragged through the mud for too long internationally. Hopefully, we can restore that. We do not want the same thing to happen here in animal welfare, and although there have been a few more inspectors appointed by the Government, the overall pressure—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: That’s right.

—I acknowledge that—on the whole of the Ministry for Primary Industries, which covers a raft of things, from biosecurity through to forest management and fishing, is that the budget has been cut. The pressure is on, and we need to know—and we will be investigating in the Primary Production Committee—that the Government is going to commit more resources to implement the higher standards that will effectively be put in place when this bill becomes law.

I rise this morning to speak in support of the first reading of this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. This bill is the result of a comprehensive review of our animal welfare laws, and I want to thank the Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy, for his important piece of work. The Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1999, and from day one I knew that this day would arrive—some 14 years later. At the time that the legislation we are amending was progressing through Parliament, I told the then National Minister for Food, Fibre, Biosecurity and Border Control that there were gaping holes in the legislation that needed to be fixed. They were not fixed then; they are being fixed now. The problem we have is that notwithstanding the select committee process that I was witness to 14 years ago, the then Minister ran roughshod over public sentiment and submissions to the select committee, and barrelled on on the advice of the officials. I told the Government of the day that that was wrong and the people told the Government of the day that it was wrong, and here we are trying to fix that wrong. So it is a golden opportunity for this Government and this Parliament to fix some of the wrongs that should have been righted all those years ago.

The bill will go some way—some way—to strengthening our standards of animal welfare and protecting animals from ill-treatment. But it also represents a real missed opportunity to take our legal protections for animals a lot further and to be a world leader in the area of animal welfare. I am pleased, for instance, that there will be a new “low-level” offence for people who hurt animals, so we are not focused just on the worst offending. We need to be focused on all offending, and this bill addresses just that. I am pleased the new regulations will specify mandatory and enforceable animal welfare standards. I am pleased that the wilful or reckless ill-treatment of wild animals will now be an offence that can be prosecuted. These were issues I raised with the Minister at the time all those years ago, so I am pleased that some of them are being addressed in this piece of legislation.

I am glad that the killing of an animal to test on it post-mortem and that the breeding of an animal with known or potentially compromised welfare will now need the approval of the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee. I am not signed up to the proposition that an animal ethics approval committee is a sinecure for the problems we have around the treatment of animals in this country, and it will depend entirely on the quality of those individuals who are selected for that important piece of work around the implementation of this piece of legislation. But this bill—as I said all those years ago in Parliament, from this seat—could achieve a lot more and should achieve a lot more.

Let us start with live exports of animals for slaughter. Currently, there are no mandatory standards for live animal exports, so it is promising that this bill introduces them. The Government’s current approach to live exports for slaughter is that they are prohibited unless an exemption is granted. An exemption cannot be granted unless New Zealand’s trade reputation can be adequately managed. Well, this is not about just a trade reputation; this is about taking into account the suffering of animals, and the suffering they go through when they are exported live from sovereign States to be slaughtered overseas. Humane Society International has said: “Every year, thousands of dead sheep are thrown overboard as ships depart”—for instance—“Australian ports for the Middle East, either whole or minced, without care or consideration for the consequences of these actions,”. Live animal exports need to be very closely monitored—indeed, if they are necessary at all, and I not convinced. But let the Primary Production Committee hear evidence on that. Thankfully, there are currently no live exports from New Zealand, but I would like to encourage the select committee to look very carefully at why the provision for an exemption is even necessary.

Most disappointingly, this bill totally fails to ban the testing of psychoactive substances on animals. Beagle puppies specifically bred to be used for testing are not being protected by a bill that claims to enhance animal welfare. It is an outrage that an unnecessary chemical could be tested on animals and that in the process the animal will suffer unimaginable pain and a miserable death. New Zealanders made it very clear during the debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill that they abhor the idea of animals being tortured and killed so that people can take recreational fun drugs. They marched on this Parliament. They signed petitions. They visited members of Parliament. They wrote to the Health Committee to voice their outrage, but their outrage fell on deaf ears. Sadly, the select committee refused to hear submissions about animal welfare, and it told us at the time that it was the wrong bill to address the issue of animal testing. Well, this bill is the right bill to address the issue of animal testing. This is the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, and what better bill, what better piece of prospective legislation, could be more useful for animal welfare than to ensure that psychoactive substances are never tested on animals?

Fun drugs should not be tested on animals—full stop. That was the proposition I put to the National Government at the time of the Psychoactive Substances Bill going through this House, and to the select committee chairman and to anyone else who would listen. Well, this is the right bill, and I am glad that the right bill, the right vehicle, has arrived in Parliament—not at the right time, but well overdue. But let us take that as an opportunity. I will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 341, issued by Trevor Mallard, to amend this bill to make it clear that no animal should be used in research or testing for the purposes of gaining approval for a psychoactive substance. But I also call on those individuals and animal welfare groups to submit to the select committee. This is their opportunity. It is better than a march. It is better than writing letters. It is better than individual members of Parliament being lobbied. Go to the select committee and make your views known. I ask the select committee to listen to New Zealanders on how they feel about animal rights.

I want to leave you with a message from animal welfare advocate and Auckland-based lawyer Catriona MacLennan, who has argued that this bill is too timid. I argue that this bill is too timid. I argue that this is the golden time of opportunity in the interests of the animals that we are responsible for caring for while we share the Earth with them. This is what she said. She suggested that the bill should “start with a very basic statement: that animals are in fact living beings rather than inanimate objects.” Animals are living beings—I think all New Zealanders can agree on that sentiment. Animals also feel pain, and we have a duty to protect them. So I say to the chairman of the select committee, as you go into your deliberations, remember that animals have a right to live alongside us on this Earth. They feel pain, and we need to protect them.

I want to concur with everything the Hon John Banks has just said on this particular question. I think it is fair to say that it is relatively unusual, although becoming more common, for us to be in agreement on issues. I do want to reinforce that at the end of this debate on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill I will be seeking leave to send my Supplementary Order Paper to the select committee—not to debate now—and have submissions on the question of animal testing for psychoactive substances. I will get back to that, but I want to thank the member for signalling this.

The Labour Party will be supporting this bill. Animal welfare is important for its own sake, it is important for our economy, and I think it is also important for how we think about ourselves. The way that people treat animals is one of the measures of civilisation in a society. This bill is moving in the right direction. I think there is going to be debate at the select committee as to whether it moves far enough, and I know that my colleague Phil Twyford has a series of issues that he is going to raise with the House as to the fact that we are not moving far enough and that there are some quite big loopholes in the bill as introduced. We will want to see those closed as we progress the bill through the House.

I do want to now return to the testing of party pills, and when I say “party pills” I think most of us know what psychoactive substances are. They are the synthetic cannabis and the quite broad range of drugs that are known as party pills. Unfortunately, when this House dealt with the issue a matter of a few weeks ago, we did not take the opportunity to ensure that there was no testing of these recreational drugs on animals. We left open the possibility and, I think it is fair to say, the expectation that in the end animals—and a range of animals, but including dogs—would be tested to see whether or not the drug dealers would be allowed to deal in particular drugs. I think all of us know that when this testing occurs, it results in the death—and often the painful death—of animals and that, from my perspective, is something that is just not acceptable.

We have known since Tuesday that this issue was going to be coming up. Late on Tuesday I sent out an email to a number of people and, because they have been kind enough to copy me back into the email, I know that over 4,000 people have already sent a message via email—4,000 distinct individuals have sent a message by email—to Nathan Guy, asking him to ensure that this matter is on the agenda for the select committee.

I was talking to my colleague before about snapper, and I think again I am going to agree with Michelle Boag that there are two pretty big issues that are hanging around, slightly under the radar but are probably coming up above the radar. One of them is the snapper issue and the other one is the very poor decision by the Government weeks ago to allow animal testing of psychoactive substances on dogs.

So in about 36 hours the Minister for Primary Industries has got about 4,000 emails. I have put a page up on Facebook, again, late on Tuesday night. That has already had 32,000 views. You know, I do not have a wide group of fans on Facebook, or “likes” on Facebook, but this issue is one that is going viral, and it is going viral because New Zealanders care. New Zealanders do know right from wrong in this area. They do know—it is innate in us—that it is wrong to have cruelty to animals for no good purpose.

I am not going to go as far as some members. I think there are occasions in medical research where, for the greater good of the health of individual people around the world, it is OK at the moment to test on animals. It is a—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: If there’s no alternative.

If there is no alternative. You know, if it is human lives or animal suffering, in the end I will accept some animal suffering for the curing of disease. I think that is fair. But where it is for no good at all, and the support of recreational drugs is, in my opinion, not a good thing, then it is absolutely unacceptable—absolutely unacceptable—to cause animals to suffer and die. What we are effectively promoting is State-sanctioned cruelty. That is what the Psychoactive Substances Act does. It promotes State-sanctioned cruelty to animals, and that is the sort of Parliament, Government, and State that I want no part of and that I want to work hard to reverse.

I am certain that people are going to come to the select committee on this issue. I think the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is a broad bill and that is there. But what I want to make sure of is that when they come to that committee they have a proposition to address—that they have a positive suggestion to which they can submit, as well as submitting on the bill. That is why I have drafted Supplementary Order Paper 341.

I want to make it clear: I am not a law draftsperson. You know, this is something that has not been drafted with the armoury of Crown Law around it. It is a relatively simple amendment. What it does is say: “Notwithstanding anything in the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, no animal shall be used in research or testing for the purpose of gaining approval for any psychoactive substance as defined in section 9 of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.” It is simple, it is clear, and I would like to hear views on it.

I want to conclude with an email that I have got from a gentleman called Jonathan Woodford-Robinson, in response to the email that I sent out in the last couple of days. What he said was: “As the testing has no medical benefit, I liken it to cosmetics, with which animal testing has declined due to public attitudes toward it. I can’t justify any testing on animals purely for the pleasure of humans—i.e., recreational drug use. If the testing goes ahead, one may as well legislate for cock fighting, dog fighting, and any other form of animal suffering for the sake of human entertainment.” He said: “So much for man’s best friend. We’re certainly not dog’s best friend, are we?”. I think that puts it pretty well. At the end of this debate I will seek leave for my Supplementary Order Paper to be referred with the bill to the committee. Thank you.

I rise to speak to the first reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I am proud to be speaking on behalf of the only party in the House with an animal welfare policy and a separate spokesperson on animal welfare. This is an indication of how seriously the Green Party takes the well-being of animals. We do have significant reservations about this bill, but we are going to vote for it to go to a select committee in order to give the public a chance to have their say and to provide input as to how it can be improved. It is a cliché to say that animals have no voice, but the reality is that animals cannot speak for themselves. They have no voice and they have no vote, and they are not able to make submissions on this bill, which directly affects them. So it is essential that Parliament really listens to those people who have expertise in animal welfare and can speak on their behalf.

The focus for the Green Party will be firmly on ensuring that this bill genuinely protects animals from cruel living conditions and abuse, regardless of whether they are farm animals or companion animals. If after the submission process there are no substantial improvements to this bill, it is unlikely that we will continue to vote for it. This is because the bill in its current form will not result in meaningful improvement in welfare outcomes for working animals—in particular, factory-farmed animals. An animal welfare bill is meant to be just that—a bill that puts in place legal protections to ensure the well-being of animals. That means the bill needs to address the current systematic practices that cause ongoing suffering to working animals.

In New Zealand animals work very hard for us. They form the backbone of our economy, with animal products forming 45 percent of New Zealand exports last year. As well as food, fibre, entertainment, and income, animals provide us with companionship, affection, and security. We should, as an absolute minimum, ensure decent lives for them. And quite apart from doing the right thing for animals, our reputation as an ethical food producer relies upon this. As recent experiences around the safety of our food exports have demonstrated, we cannot be too vigilant on this front.

Public opinion against cruel food production practices is increasing both in New Zealand and internationally. As this country, we risk a serious backlash if we continue to sanction the suffering of millions of animals that are killed on factory farms and elsewhere. We have been exposed on television to the appalling conditions that these animals spend their whole lives in. Most New Zealanders are repelled by what they have seen—images of hens kept in cruel, cramped cages suffering extreme feather loss, broken bones, foot deformities, and ammonia burns, and pigs in crates with sores on their bodies. These animals are clearly suffering, unhealthy, and distressed. It is a national disgrace that as a country we allow animals to be kept in such conditions for economic gain.

The Animal Welfare Act places an obligation to meet the physical, health, and behavioural needs of animals in our care, and if this was enforced, then cruel practices such as those occurring in factory farming would not be permitted. And it is not just factory farms. I have seen distressing photos that have been emailed to me of animals that have been transported long distances, crammed so tight that their skin has been rubbed raw to the flesh. And we know that every year thousands more animals experience extreme levels of pain and suffering in unnecessary and unethical animal tests.

We welcome the improvements in transparency in this bill, but none the less there are some tests that should absolutely be ruled out. These practices are clearly in breach of the main provisions of the Act, and they occur because the Act contains loopholes that allow them to continue. I had hoped that last year’s review of the Act would result in a bill that closed these loopholes and ensured that the main provisions of the Act were properly enforced. Unfortunately, this amendment bill does not do that. Of particular concern is clause 56. It inserts section 183A, which allows for practices that do not meet the obligations of the Act to continue indefinitely. That is completely unacceptable.

There is no room in a decent society for Government-condoned cruelty to animals, least of all for the indefinite confinement of animals in cages. Parliament has a moral and ethical responsibility to legislate against such cruel practices for animals. We believe that clause 56 must be removed and that existing practices that do not meet the obligations of the Act must be phased out within a specified time period. Animal cruelty is animal cruelty, whether it happens to a pig, a cow, or a dog. Farm animals are just as deserving of protection from cruelty as companion animals.

Another important area is animal testing and experimentation. As I have said, it is great to see more transparency in the bill in this area, but we really want to see a clause added that prohibits the animal testing of both cosmetic and recreational drugs along the lines of Trevor Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper. The reason for this is that such testing on animals causes extremely high levels of pain and suffering. It is completely unnecessary and unethical—there are alternatives to these tests—and it is completely and strongly opposed by New Zealanders, as we have seen in respect of the recent Psychoactive Substances Bill.

With this bill we have another chance to get it right and rule out these tests completely. Such a move would be aligned with what is happening internationally. In the last year alone, animal testing of cosmetics and/or recreational drugs has been banned in Israel, in India, in Italy, and in all 28 countries of the European Union. It is time we followed suit. There are many other changes we would like to see, and we will talk about these more during the select committee process. But we would particularly welcome a clear prohibition on the export of live animals for slaughter; independent monitoring of animals used in breeding, racing, and entertainment; and the establishment of an independent parliamentary advocate for animals, such as a commissioner with oversight of animal welfare in New Zealand. All of these changes would help ensure better outcomes for animals. We have a golden opportunity to become world leaders in animal welfare and ethical food production. It is time we took it up.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the first reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and I look forward to the submissions that will come to the Primary Production Committee on this matter. Other speakers have touched on, and certainly the Minister for Primary Industries has covered, the need for New Zealand to be absolutely transparent and better than most—ahead of the pack, if you like—internationally in animal welfare issues. That is without debate, and without any dissention, I would suggest, because we are so dependent on our animal production systems for our export earnings and the standard of living that we enjoy in New Zealand. But there are a few issues, I guess, that need to be teased out in this discussion—that is, just how will this legislation work?

What the proposed amendments in the bill do is allow for a regulatory authority, or for a code, if you like—what has formerly been known as the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, or NAWAC—to take all things into consideration when it makes its decisions. This brings a higher degree of transparency and enforceability to the work that it does, and that is a good thing. It has been required for some time.

Could I also touch briefly in the few moments that I have on the issue that has been so passionately spoken about by the Hon John Banks and the Hon Trevor Mallard—that is, the testing of psychoactive substances on animals. As a member of the Health Committee as well as the Primary Production Committee, I know that the dilemma that the Health Committee faced was whether you would set a separate and different standard for the testing of psychoactive drugs than you would for drugs in general.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes.

The answer from the member is “Yes.”, and if that is the will of Parliament, well, so be it. But, effectively, in that debate we were looking at whether or not there should be a full ban or a prohibition, if you like, on these drugs full stop, and I think that Parliament overwhelmingly conceded that prohibitions do not work. The member himself, the Hon Trevor Mallard, spoke passionately about a relative who ran a club distributing alcohol in the King Country during the time when there was a prohibition in the King Country.

Prohibitions generally do not work, so what is the next best option? The next best option is harm minimisation. So then the dilemma is whether you have the same standard of test for the harm minimisation of psychoactive drugs as you would have for any other type of drug that you might use for medical applications. Members have said yes, so that is fine. If Parliament decides that is where it should be and that is the overwhelming majority of the consensus, well, so be it. I have no strong view on that, one way or another. I will of course ask the question, though, do you believe it is better to test these drugs on our young people in New Zealand than it is to have these things tested on animals? That is a debate for people to have and for people to have a view on.

I guess the next real issue is the definition of animal welfare, because, you see, everyone has a view on that. Sometimes when I have been in the cities and I see a well-loved German shepherd cooped up in an apartment, overweight because the owners are loving the animal to death, I actually see that as an animal welfare issue. I do. I see it quite regularly—cats, dogs, and other loved pets that are overfed, under-exercised, and cooped up for long hours because the owners are away at work. That is an animal welfare issue.

Probably the issue that I really want to touch on in closing, though, is this. During the flooding in the Whakatāne area—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: “Fokatāne”.

—in the Whakatāne area there was a major animal welfare issue up there—a major animal welfare issue. There were farms that went completely under water. Houses, cow sheds—everything went under water. I was invited up there as part of the agriculture team in the National caucus at that time. The SPCA, an organisation that I have a lot of respect for, drove out from Tauranga to where it could have been helping people move these animals and carrying out useful work. But instead of that, it served notice on some of those farmers because their cows had been standing in a cow yard, or somewhere high above the water—and the only way they could keep them alive was to do that—and they were not able to transport them there and then because the Ministry of Transport had shut down the drivers of the trucks that had come from other parts of the country to shift them away.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Just shows there’s idiots everywhere—just shows there’s idiots everywhere.

Well, yes—well, you know, Trevor, that is what happened—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

First of all, that is—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is “Mr Mallard”.

The Hon Trevor Mallard.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is right. Well done, Mr Ardern.

Yes. So that is what happened. So in my view, the SPCA were creating an animal welfare issue by being bureaucratic and less than supportive of those people, who were distressed at the time, and some of the animals were, as well.

So this is going to be an interesting debate going forward, obviously, on who says what about what animal welfare is and determining what that actually means, and just how, through the select committee, aided and abetted by good, solid legislation, we can decide that and the outcomes of it. Thank you. I look forward to the passage of the bill.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in this first reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill at least going to the Primary Production Committee in the first instance and very probably beyond, but I would signal that we do have some concerns that we will seek to have addressed. The general policy statement tells us that the bill “makes changes to the Animal Welfare Act 1999 … to improve the enforceability, clarity, and transparency of New Zealand’s animal welfare system.” These are commendable goals. New Zealand First is very pleased to be able to stand in support of them. The statement indicates that the changes will “enhance the operation of the Act, rather than alter the fundamental principles and policy settings, which”—it proclaims—“remain appropriate.” This may be regarded as a good thing.

The bill implements the Government’s decisions resulting from the 2011-12 review of the Animal Welfare Act, so this bill is essentially a device by which the existing Act may be brought up to date and may be made to be more functional. As I have alluded to, there are, quite naturally, one or two aspects of the bill as it has been introduced with which we are not entirely happy. We will seek to address these at the select committee, or later on by way of a Supplementary Order Paper, as circumstances dictate. We note that under the current Act the export of livestock for slaughter is prohibited—which we are happy about—except with the consent of the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries. This bill will tidy up some of the regulations and processes around that issue, but we further note that the bill will not change this policy per se. This we find somewhat disappointing. New Zealand First can think of no good reason for allowing the export of livestock at all for any purpose other than perhaps breeding—

💬 Colin King: Come on—what about racehorses? What about cattle?

—and that itself should be subject to some fairly stringent conditions with few, if any, exemptions. Bloodstock would, of course, be one example. But the general export of New Zealand breeding livestock is not, we would contend, in the greater interests of “New Zealand Inc” as a whole, particularly when it involves the selling of prime New Zealand bloodlines—dairy cows, for example, or fine-wool merinos—to our competitor nations in these crucial industries.

New Zealand First does not advocate killing the golden goose, nor does it approve of selling the goose to foreign buyers. We can sell the golden eggs, we can sell the feathers, we can sell the pâté de foie gras—these are all good things—but to sell the goose itself is counter-productive, in our view. This may not be the most appropriate bill to deal with this issue, but it is a fine opportunity to make the point. Given that in most instances livestock being exported will be going to countries and jurisdictions where the treatment of animals is not afforded the same degree of importance that we in New Zealand would generally consider as being of a required standard, I do think it fitting to raise the issue with regard to what will be the deliberations of this House on the matters that this bill encompasses.

New Zealand First does have an issue with the transparency provisions of the bill. Although we acknowledge that the explanatory note, under the heading of “Enforceability”, makes reference to regulations that support codes of welfare “by setting specific and enforceable mandatory standards, for example, prohibitions on the use of sow stalls or requirements for layer hen housing.”, we are concerned by some further references to these very issues in the section on transparency. The explanatory note states that “The Bill makes the criteria that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) consider when developing codes of welfare more transparent by explicitly including ‘practicality’ and ‘economic impact’ as second-tier considerations. This will allow economic and practical factors to be considered alongside, but not to outweigh, animal welfare issues.” Well, either they do or they do not.

I would contend that the very fact that these considerations, whether they be second-tier or not, are to be allowed to be examined alongside animal welfare issues suggests that almost by definition they will indeed in some cases be allowed to outweigh them. In the same section of the bill, the explanatory note informs us that “The Bill also replaces the exceptional circumstances provisions with transitions and exemptions. The exceptional circumstances provisions currently enable NAWAC to recommend minimum standards in codes of welfare that do not fully meet the obligations in the Act. These provisions have been used, for example, to permit the use of battery cages until a certain date is reached and to permit the ongoing use of farrowing crates for pigs with no final date. The new provisions will enable NAWAC to recommend regulations permitting practices that do not fully meet the obligations in the Act—during a transition to a new practice where there is a defined expiry date: [or] for an indefinite period where there is a need for an exemption. The Bill establishes criteria that would need to be satisfied before a transition or an exemption is recommended, and an exemption would only be available if a transition were not feasible. Exemptions would need to be reviewed within 10 years, or earlier if the regulations so specify.”

Once again, this is a case of either it is or it is not. Either we as a nation give enough of a continental to pass a law that affords proper priority to the concerns of animal welfare or we do not. We cannot say that we care about animal welfare but only up to the point where caring is going to cost us money or put us out. We can do better than that, and New Zealand First contends that we should. We would like to see this bill making a bold statement, a definitive statement, a statement that hoists a flag and says this is the way forward. We would like to see this bill set an end date beyond which sow crates and battery cages may not be used in New Zealand. We would like to see this bill mark the road ahead; for it to say to the industries concerned: “This is what you will achieve, and this is when you will achieve it by.” We would like to see that incorporated in this bill, and we will be lobbying for that.

One thing we will not be lobbying for, however, is Supplementary Order Paper 341, in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. New Zealand First members will not be supporting this Supplementary Order Paper. That is not because we do not think that the Hon Trevor Mallard will make a fine Speaker of this House in due course and in the fullness of time—quite the contrary. We do believe that Mr Mallard will make a very fine Speaker when the time comes for that baton to be passed into his care. We will be opposing it because we do not have a blanket opposition to the use of animal testing. New Zealand First members accept that there remains in this day and age a need for the use of animal models in the testing and evaluation of medical substances intended for the use and betterment of humans.

We do not agree with the use of animal testing for such things as cosmetics. We accept that there is very probably little point in using animal testing for the evaluation of substances that are intended to have a psychoactive effect in humans. But in terms of pure toxicity there is not, at this time, a viable alternative to animal models when it comes to determining how much or how little of any particular substance is too much. The term LD50 is an abbreviation for lethal dose 50 percent. It is the dose of any given substance in milligrams per kilogram of bodyweight at which half the rats died. Medicines are tested against this model, as are industrial chemicals, agricultural chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and even food additives. We all rely on animal testing to a greater degree than I think many people realise. New Zealand First does not advocate for, and is opposed to—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Sorry, somebody has got a cellphone. I heard it ringing. It is not permitted. The member will continue.

We do not believe in testing potentially poisonous psychoactive substances on dogs or cats, or on dolphins and chimpanzees for that matter. But no one ever said it was going to be easy being a rat, and if a few rats have to die so that a large number of humans do not, then that is something we can live with. That may be harsh and in the future it may not be needed. Perhaps in the fullness of time we will have computer modelling that can replace it, but for now it remains a necessary evil. For that reason New Zealand First will not be supporting Mr Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper.

In conclusion, I reiterate that we do support what we perceive as being the broad aims of this bill. We do accept that there is a motivation to improve the lot of our furry and feathered friends and we will happily support this bill’s referral to a select committee, at least in the first instance. Thank you.

Just before I call the next member, can I just advise the House that the Chamber is a place of listening and debate. This is not a call centre. Cellphones are not an extension of the member’s office and when in the House they must be in silent mode.

It is a pleasure to make a contribution during the first reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, and I must commend the level of debate that has preceded me. There is no doubt that there is a lot of emotion, a lot of passion for the welfare of all animals, and when one reflects on the progress that has actually been made over the last 30 years in managing this topic, one can say that there has been a marked improvement. However, that having been said, it is also very clear that society’s expectations have moved along considerably.

Fundamentally, this bill will establish a framework under which enforceability, clarity, and transparency can occur. And when we look at that enforceability, there were some very passionate arguments put forward from various contributors to this debate, but unless we have a framework whereby those people with the responsibility can actually make people accountable for poor practice or for cruelty, then it is of no avail. That is where the difficulty really lies, because there quite often is not a silver bullet to addressing these issues, and they need to be well-thought-through. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So, effectively, this is what the bill endeavours to do, and we acknowledge the fact that as a nation 50 percent of our export receipts come from the sale of animal proteins. On that basis we have got to be very, very resilient and very accountable and transparent in the way that we deal with things.

Just looking at the two sides of the debate, we have the agricultural basis, which is enormous, but on the other hand we have a large population of domestic pets. It is interesting, when I think about it: the saying is that the dog admires its owner, the cat despises its owner, and the pig treats the human as equal. It is quite humorous but, however, we are surrounded by animals. We have one and a half million cats in New Zealand, we have close to half a million domestic dogs, 31 million sheep, 3.75 million beef cattle, six and a half million dairy cattle, and a million deer. So when you look at the proportionality of four and a half million New Zealanders dealing with a population of that size—and yet we are feeding probably 20 million to 30 million worldwide, and that is what maintains our standard of living—it is crucial that we do maintain locally, nationally, and internationally a leading standard around animal welfare.

I certainly welcome the opportunity for debate around the psychoactive substances. It will be very important that we actually take away the heartstring tugs that we feel, and the difficulty around the morals of that situation. But, again, when we boil it all down and we think of the national effect, one only has to cast one’s mind back to the 6 o’clock news and what can appear on that. We have to be really resourceful so that we have a framework around animal welfare that can, in time, develop. I see in the bill that it is going to take up to 5 years to get some of these regulations really developed and set in so that they do work appropriately. It is going to be 5 years. It gives us a lot of time to get it right, and I believe that the select committee has the resources and also the clarity of thought, on balance, in respect of how to make this work.

I certainly welcome the arrival of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, and, in doing so, we look forward to dealing with it in the select committee, with great diligence and professionalism. I commend this bill to the House.

I want to start by saying what is good about this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. It regulates to create enforceable standards where, before, the old codes were not directly enforceable. It sets up a tiered enforcement scheme with infringement notices and a range of penalties. It creates compliance orders, so that animal welfare inspectors can stop a person from doing something that contravenes the Act. And it enables mandatory standards for the export of live animals to be set in regulations.

But in other ways this bill is a disappointment. It fails to fix one of the big defects in the current Animal Welfare Act, and that is the provision that allows indefinite exemptions for breaches of the animal welfare obligations. In the Animal Welfare Act, codes are intended to set out standards of care and welfare. However, many of the codes contain standards that violate the Act’s own welfare obligations. Even more bizarre, the exemption clauses in the Act allow these breaches to continue for indefinite periods of time. In my view, exemption clauses have been invoked too readily, particularly in relation to factory farming practices.

It has been 14 years—14 years—since the Act was passed, and I think it is fair to say that there has been incremental improvement, but too little improvement, in the minimum standards for animal welfare under the 15 welfare codes now in existence. Under these codes, many farm animals suffer practices that violate the welfare obligations in the Act. That is clear. Layer hens continue to be kept in battery cages, confining a hen for the duration of its life in a cage with a floor smaller than an A4 sheet of paper, a sloping mesh floor, and a height of only 35 centimetres to 40 centimetres. It is flagrant breach of the Act’s welfare obligations, but the Government does not intend to phase out battery cages until 2022.

The code of welfare for broiler chickens disregards the welfare obligations in the Act. It allows stocking densities of 19 birds per square metre—19 birds per square metre. There is no ability for birds to express their natural behaviours; the lighting and ventilation standards, I argue, are inadequate; the code fails to address the selective breeding of so-called non-survivor birds that are unable to support their own weight; and nor does it address the feeding of chemicals to promote rapid growth.

Although the code of welfare for pigs will see the use of sow crates phased out over the next year, it will still be lawful to continue using farrowing crates. I want to talk briefly about farrowing crates because I think they are perhaps the most egregious example of a breach of the Act’s own welfare obligations that is currently allowed to continue indefinitely. Farrowing crates are used to house sows when they are about to give birth. They are about 2 metres long and 70 centimetres wide. They are designed to stop the sow from crushing the piglets by rolling on top of them. But the crate is so small that the sow can only stand up or lie down. Sows are kept in these cages for up to 12 weeks per year. The Government acknowledges that the use of farrowing crates does not meet the animal welfare obligations in the Act. That is clear. That is a fact. They do not allow the sows to express their normal behaviour. And with the aid of the exemption clause, the Government perpetuates this inhumane practice, arguing that there are no better commercially available alternatives. This is a triumph of commercial expediency over ethics.

In fact, the commercial argument itself does not even hold up. Thirty-five percent of sows already give birth in alternative systems. Some are outdoor and some are indoor, but all require more space. The pig industry admits that alternative systems can be as good as, or even better than, the farrowing crates, when it comes to productivity. The international literature shows clearly that there is no difference in piglet mortality rates between, for example, Sweden, where farrowing crates are banned, and Denmark, where they are used. The critical difference here is that free-range methods require more space, more land. Farrowing crates, by their very nature, are more intensive. They require less space and therefore they are cheaper. It comes down to money, and that is what is going on here. The Government, through the inadequacies of the Animal Welfare Act, is colluding with factory farming to perpetuate inhumane and cruel practices because they are cheaper than a decent, humane alternative. If we look at the bill before the House, section 183A(5), inserted by clause 56, allows these indefinite exemptions to continue—to continue ad infinitum. Pigs could be kept in farrowing crates for decades to come.

This bill, as other speakers have argued, offers a chance to end or reduce the suffering of millions—millions—of factory-farmed animals in New Zealand. And I believe that as New Zealanders are ready to make a choice and say that animals should not be used to test party drugs, New Zealanders are also ready to raise the standards of animal welfare. This House and the Government deserve credit for finding the courage to ban sow crates. Now they need to follow through and ban farrowing crates.

There is growing revulsion at the cruelty of keeping hens in battery cages, and I believe that that should be banned much sooner than 2022. I intend to bring a Supplementary Order Paper to the House that would close the loophole of section 183A(5) and ensure that any practice that did not meet the welfare obligations contained in the Animal Welfare Act would have to be phased out within 5 years. Animal-based agriculture contributes more than $21 billion to the economy every year. Factory-farmed animals contribute only 2.3 percent of that figure, but some of the inhumane practices of factory farming are a stain on the reputation of our farming sector and potentially a threat to this important industry. For the sake of brand New Zealand, we should be making ethical and humane farming practices just as much a feature of our reputation as food safety, high quality, and sustainability. But this argument, above all, is about what is right. To subject sentient creatures to such misery and cruelty on an industrial scale simply in order to allow some producers to undercut their competitors on price is, in my view, unethical. It is time to remove this contradiction from our law that identifies a practice as a breach of the law and then in the same breath gives it an indefinite exemption. It is not right, it is not the Kiwi way, and it is time to change it.

I came to Parliament to represent an electorate, Rangitīkei, that is very dependent on the well-being of animals, the welfare of animals, and the health of animals to make its living. Interestingly, I have spent much of my life involved in a sport and a business that are dependent on animals for their survival. I would go so far as to say that many of my best friends have been animals. That is because they can be trusted, they are faithful, they are sympathetic, and they are always there when needed. There is the odd human who demonstrates the same traits.

💬 Shane Ardern: Name one.

Exactly—name one. This bill is an enabler. It enables us to build a more competitive and productive economy. It creates suitable legislation to ensure that animals are treated well. We have become world leaders in welfare—in animal welfare—which we surely must be.

I want to touch on three things. One is our pets. We own pets with confidence, and this bill enables that. Did you know that 68 percent of all New Zealand households have a pet? That is an amazing statistic. There is everything, from a donkey to a mouse, from a cat to a bird. The fact that we have cats and birds as pets makes the call of Gareth Morgan a little hard to follow until one realises that many of those pet cats that are supposedly loved by New Zealand citizens are then dumped in the wild. This is what creates most of our problem with our wild cats: the fact that people do not look after their pets properly. As I have said, this bill is an enabler. By containing many of its tools in regulation, it allows welfare standards to evolve more freely for societal expectations, science, current practice, and technology. The world is evolving and changing so quickly that I can understand the need for this.

I want to talk briefly about standards applying to the live export of animals. We must remember that the racing industry, the thoroughbred breeding industry, and the horse industry would not survive in this country at all were it not for the live export of animals. The dairy industry is exporting a considerable number of animals around the world at the moment with significant benefit to that industry. So, as we work our way through the standards for live export, we need to be very cautious that we do not compromise the good parts of that export industry.

I want to talk briefly about fireworks. I do not like the way we let off fireworks around this country. I think that it is particularly relevant or pertinent when one talks about animal welfare in this country, and I think that in the course of this bill we should deal with this issue to the best effect we can, because there is no question in my mind that fireworks are extremely intimidating for animals. We have talked about psychoactive substance testing at length this morning. I tend to agree with most of what has been said, although I did hear a fellow on a relatively well-known TV programme not very far from here a few weeks ago offering to test them on himself provided we paid him enough money to do it.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: He might have failed.

I thought it was quite good, actually. I think he would have failed the test at the time.

I have got no problem with supporting this bill. I think it is fantastic. It provides clarity and the tools to ensure the integrity of our export industry. Finally, the way we treat our animals measures us as a nation. If we can treat our animals well, we can live at ease with our fellow human beings. Thank you.

I understand this is a split call?

I understand that as well. It is a pleasure to follow my colleague from the Manawatū, Ian McKelvie. I think he spoke very well to the purposes and thrust of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, which is to ensure and improve animal welfare. He recognised, as I am sure other speakers have, how important New Zealand taking a positive and progressive stance on animal welfare is to our international reputation, and therefore how important it is to our economy. There is no doubt that although people are probably acutely aware of welfare issues when it comes to domestic animals—pets, cats, dogs, mice, and birds—perhaps sometimes farm animals, particularly for urban dwellers, are a little bit more distant, and we need to be aware of the welfare of production livestock as well.

What I want to talk about this morning, in the brief call that I have, is how our position relating to the testing of psychoactive substances on animals relates to that international reputation that is so important to our export economy. It was an oversight of the Health Committee not to receive submissions regarding the testing of psychoactive substances on animals. We had the choice. It was not out of scope for us to hear those submissions. It was a matter for the committee to decide on, and the National Party members of that committee blocked us from hearing submissions on issues of animal testing of psychoactive substances. That was the National Party members on the Health Committee. The argument was made at the time that that was not the right piece of legislation to consider that issue. I disagree with that argument, but the argument was made at the time. Indeed, the chair of the Primary Production Committee also sits on the Health Committee, and he made the comment at the time that the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill would be the appropriate mechanism through which to consider those issues.

Therefore, I implore the members of the Primary Production Committee to hear submissions on animal welfare in relation to the testing of psychoactive substances. I implore the thousands upon thousands of people who emailed us when we were considering the Psychoactive Substances Bill, and the thousands upon thousands of people who have written to the Minister for Primary Industries, facilitated by my colleague Trevor Mallard, to make their submissions to the Primary Production Committee and have their voices heard. This Government far too often overrides democracy, silences our citizens, cuts people off from their democratic right to have their say about the way legislation is passed in this country, and it must not do it on this bill. It must hear those submissions because—

💬 Shane Ardern: How many?

How many? I think about 4,000, I reckon you will get. I may be pitching it a little low there, but I reckon there will be about 4,000. I reckon many of those will be substantive, and the members on that committee should hear them. In fact, I pledge that if that committee finds that there is too much work, I will help out. I will come and substitute in. I will help out and come and support that committee so that it can hear those submissions, because I think New Zealanders are sick and tired of having their democratic rights undermined, and they need to be heard.

This is not just an issue of animal welfare; this is an economic issue of New Zealand’s reputation internationally, because we know that the world is looking at us because of the innovative approach that this Parliament has taken to psychoactive substances. The world is watching to see how that new regime actually works out, and they will certainly be watching to see whether or not we accept the testing of psychoactive substances on animals. I have spoken to people working in the industry, and they assure me that testing on animals is not necessary. If it is not necessary, let us make it clear. Let us stop the testing of psychoactive substances on animals.

I rise to speak to the first reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. The Green Party is supporting it going to the select committee. We want New Zealand to be world leaders in ethical food production.

A friend in the National Party said that he saw this as an enabling bill, but we have to be very, very careful that this bill does not rest at a level of just enough, and that it is not just seen as a bill minimis, as such. We have to reflect that in the rural scene and our farming scene there are systematic practices on our working animals that really have to be looked at very, very hard. We have to lift the game on those because we are getting too many bad stories. But it is actually still our average. Can we lift our average up a bit, to be something that absolutely everyone, rural and urban, can be very, very proud of?

Animal products, as stated earlier, make up 45 percent of our export income. Our economy is underpinned by these animals, particularly these working animals. We also know very, very well what international expectations are around food safety, for example, how much that expectation is rising, how important that is, and how closely we are being regarded. Animal welfare is similar, and it must be rapidly improved to ensure that it is not the next Clostridium, dicyandiamide, endosulfan - type event.

Photos of cages or mistreated dairy animals are not ambiguous. An image is way, way less likely to be seen as a false positive, as we might get in some food safety issues. Our clean, green, “100% Pure” branding and ethical stature means that this bill must ensure the absolute best possible outcomes that translate into something that New Zealanders, rural and urban, can be very, very proud of.

Live animal exports are intended to be managed through regulations through this legislation. Let us look at stopping the live export of animals for slaughter, full stop. Let us have a look at that. In the select committee, I think we will see some submissions that will give us good cause to do that.

Why are some of these exemptions that are foreshadowed in this bill seen to be acceptable? We need transitions that are not indefinite; we need transitions that have a very clear and short-term cap on them. It has been mentioned already that in section 183A(5), inserted by clause 56 of the bill, we have reviews. Those reviews must be much shorter, as a mandatory, than 10 years, but we actually need caps in there.

Also, it has been mentioned around psychoactive drugs testing on animals. It was appalling that the submitters could not present to the full cross-section of the House their submissions that they had made in good faith around psychoactive drugs. The speaker from National compared this: do we test on young people or animals? There is absolutely no need to test on either. That is something that came out of the submissions to the Green Party, which listened to those submissions. We do not need to do either. We can deal with the psychoactive drugs testing very, very quickly—short and sharp.

Research is one other issue. We have to think of the genetically engineered animals up at Ruakura where they struggle to get 5 to 10 percent of inseminations to come through to live births. Often, it is zero out of a batch. There are “goys” up there—goats. They call them “goys”—females in a boy’s body. They come out as young male goats and are induced into milking at 9 months by hormone treatment and the like. The number of abortions and the issues up there are appalling.

These are things that we can address very, very well through this bill if we put enough emphasis on them. We can make a significant change through this legislation. As we say, we support it going to the select committee and look forward to hearing the submissions on that. Thank you.

I am pleased to stand and speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, which is before us. I am not a member of the Primary Production Committee, so—

💬 Shane Ardern: You’d make a big contribution.

No doubt it would like to call me in occasionally. I did have the advantage, I think, of growing up on a farm for the first 10 years of my life. I had that awkward experience of having animals as pets on the farm. I think of the pets that I had, which were calves, lambs, pigs, and horses. Unfortunately, in my memory, every single one of my pets—

💬 Shane Ardern: Died?

—died. Some were economic units and some just had accidents. I think that that experience of having a farm animal as a pet sort of shows a little bit of what this whole issue is all about, because we have animals as contributors to our economy and we have animals as contributors to the sense of well-being that we enjoy as companions. Trying to find the right middle ground in this area is really important, which is why this bill is very important.

It is important for animals’ sake, but it is also important for our sake. How we treat living things that are lesser than ourselves and often dependent upon us and loyal to us says a lot about who we are. I recall the remark of a man called Milan Kundera, who says: “Humanity’s true moral test, its fundamental test, consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals.” I think it is important, therefore, that this bill goes to the select committee. There are some very important aspects of it that will be discussed and debated, and it will no doubt receive some submissions from the general public.

It is important to understand that there are a number of provisions in the Animal Welfare Act that require greater clarity and enforceability, and, as the select committee identifies those and works through them as they are in the amendment bill, I think we are going to come to some good place where we can continue to see the contribution to our economy that animals bring and also the well-being of their lives, as New Zealand is, no doubt, very committed to.

It is a very important bill before the House, and I am very pleased to stand in support of it. I wish the select committee all the best as it goes through this process. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

I seek leave to move without debate an instruction to the Primary Production Committee requiring it to consider the prevention of animal testing of psychoactive substances in its consideration of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? No, there is not? There is no objection.

I move, That it be an instruction to the Primary Production Committee in its consideration of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill that it consider and, if it sees fit, adopt the amendments in my name set out on Supplementary Order Paper 341, relating to preventing the use of animal testing for the purposes of gaining approval for psychoactive substances.

Motion agreed to.