Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

I move, That the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I thank the members of the Primary Production Committee, and particularly, I would like to acknowledge its former chair Shane Ardern, officials, and members of the committee for their thorough consideration of this bill.

The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill enhances and reinforces a number of key components of the Animal Welfare Act. I note a press release yesterday by the global charity World Animal Protection, which ranks 50 countries across the world on their animal welfare standards. This index has placed New Zealand in first place, along with the United Kingdom, Austria, and Switzerland. As an agricultural nation with such a huge focus on animals, it is extremely pleasing to see New Zealand ranked up at the top, and this is something we should all be very proud of. World Animal Protection also notes that the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, which we are now considering, is “a good example of how New Zealand is continuing to make positive change for animals.”

The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee in August 2013. It was reported back to the House on 26 June this year. The committee received over 4,000 written submissions on the bill, and heard oral submissions from a range of submitters in both Auckland and Wellington. Clearly, New Zealanders wish to continue building upon their already world-class animal welfare system, and I thank the many people who took the time to make a submission. The committee has recommended that the bill proceed with a number of changes, some of which I would like to touch on today. I support all the changes recommended by the committee.

The committee has recommended that the bill expressly recognise the sentience of animals—that is, that animals can have feelings, perceptions, and experiences that matter to them. Animal sentience has been proven in science for some time, and a number of overseas jurisdictions already recognise that animals are sentient. It is, therefore, appropriate that New Zealand’s primary piece of animal welfare law also recognise animal sentience. Changes have been made to the provisions, and they include compliance notices as a new tool for responding to low to mid-level offending under the Act. Submitters were concerned that the original drafting of these provisions left too much discretion in the hands of individual animal welfare inspectors. These provisions will now require animal welfare inspectors to make decisions according to more objective standards that are well recognised in criminal law.

There has been considerable interest in the export of live animals, and a large number of submitters have called for the bill to ban the export of live animals for slaughter. Currently, the export of live animals for slaughter is prohibited under a Customs Service prohibition order. There have been no live animal exports for slaughter from New Zealand since 2007. The Government intends to retain and strengthen this prohibition by moving it into regulations under the Animal Welfare Act once the bill is passed.

The bill also strengthens protections for animals exported for other purposes, such as breeding. The bill now enables the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries to require exporters to report on the welfare of their animals during the journey and for up to the first 30 days following their arrival in the importing country. This information will be used by the director-general when deciding whether to approve further exports by the same exporter or to the same country.

Minimum standards of animal care change over time as scientific views shift on what animal management practices are acceptable. Examples of this are the use of sow stalls and battery cages, both of which are being phased out. Transitioning from one type of farming practice to another can be expensive, and, operationally, it can be very challenging for farmers. To give farmers the time they need to make the changes, this bill provides that regulations may allow the old practices that no longer meet the requirements of the legislation to continue during a transitional period. Many submitters were concerned about these provisions, and as a result the committee has recommended amendments.

The bill now provides that transitional regulations can give an industry a maximum of 10 years to become compliant with the Act, with a once-only ability to extend this for up to an additional 5 years. The presumption will be that industries must become compliant within 10 years. It will be only in very limited circumstances that an extension could be given. Concern was also expressed by submitters about provisions in the bill allowing for regulations to authorise indefinite exemptions. The committee has recommended tightening these provisions so that an indefinite exemption will be available only for specific religious or cultural practices.

The Primary Production Committee recommended some changes to the bill in response to Supplementary Order Papers in the name of Mojo Mathers MP that seek to ban the use of animals in research, testing, or teaching if a suitable alternative exists. The bill now expressly requires the animal ethics committees to assess whether non-sentient or non-living alternatives can be considered by applicants seeking approval to use animals. I am also aware of another Supplementary Order Paper from Mojo Mathers MP that would prohibit the testing of cosmetic products on animals. The Government is still considering its view on this matter, although I note that, to the best of our knowledge, cosmetic testing on animals has never been carried out in New Zealand. I will discuss this matter further during the Committee of the whole House stage of this bill.

The Primary Production Committee has made very useful recommendations to provide greater clarity in relation to who should perform surgical procedures on animals. Significant surgical procedures are required to be undertaken by veterinarians, except where the law otherwise permits. The bill now provides a set of criteria to help determine whether a surgical procedure is or is not significant. Regulations to be made after the bill is passed will specify which of these procedures can be carried out by non-veterinarians and under what conditions.

These and other changes recommended by the Primary Production Committee reflect a very balanced and careful consideration of the wide range of comments received from submitters on this bill. The changes enhance the bill and make it even more reflective of the standards and expectations that New Zealanders have as a whole. I commend the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to the House.

It is always an honour to speak on any legislation. This is indeed—although this is probably not recognised—one of the most significant and important pieces of legislation this House has debated in the last couple of weeks, at least! I jest, but the issue is that primary industries and the rural sector still generate the largest portion of wealth created in this country. The use of animals or the management of them or the care of them—all of those things—are at the heart of our economy, our reputation, and our ability to survive into the future. We have, as the Minister for Primary Industries has stated, a good international reputation for animal welfare, and it must continue.

The reality is that through social media we now have an ability to spread good news, or bad, throughout the world in a very short period of time. One can say, although not always agreeing with them, that those people who are involved with animal welfare are perhaps some of the most passionate—sometimes misguided, but well-meaning and passionate. If they want to spread a message, you can guarantee it goes far and wide very, very quickly.

I have to acknowledge Shane Ardern, who is not in the House today. He has moved on to greener pastures—he will be hoping so, with a bit of rain up there in the King Country. He played a significant part in the Primary Production Committee for many, many years, and he guided this bill through. He had some firm views as a dairy farmer that we must not push too far into what you might call the domestic arena of animal welfare. He needed to have that, because my colleague Trevor Mallard sat on the committee in place of myself for this piece of legislation.

I will acknowledge the changes the Minister has outlined. They are all sensible changes, and, for the most part, politics did not play a significant part in the passage of the legislation. Mojo Mathers, on behalf of the Green Party, contributed as well, and there have been, as I said, Supplementary Order Papers put up.

If we get this wrong, we will pay dearly with our reputation in the international market place. As I said, increasing levels of scrutiny and communication mean we cannot afford to get anything wrong. However, I do point to an underlying and growing concern—and it is one driven, I guess, by animal rights groups rather than animal welfare groups—and that is that they start demanding some rights or protections for animals that, in fact, we do not see for humans. Personally, I am someone who would like to ensure, firstly, that humans have the protection necessary to have fair lives, to have lives free of abuse and of harm and of hurt. So this bill tries to find the balance between what realistic management is and what is inevitable in any animal management regime.

Of course, the bill does not specify the details that many people wanted to submit on and that many people will still be concerned about. Those will be dealt with through regulations that will be developed as a result of the legislation. I am sure that MPs will be lobbied, as the Ministry for Primary Industries moves forward to develop the regulations from this piece of legislation.

One thing that is connected to this but that the Government has failed to include, and it ignores it, is country-of-origin labelling. In doing all these great things for animal welfare, for food safety, and for the reputation of New Zealand, it is unbelievable that the National Government is refusing to endorse mandatory country-of-origin labelling—as do our trans-Tasman partners—that would identify the products managed and produced in our country, and that could be sold with a reputation that is held in high regard internationally. New Zealand consumers would also know whether the meat they were eating was from New Zealand animals or, indeed, from Australia, which is occurring all too often in the supermarkets today.

As I talk to farmers, I say: “We will always need regulations, we will always need to have high standards, and there will be a cost to your farming operation.” But in return for that, I say to them that we should then uphold, promote, and ensure that their good efforts are rewarded through better market place returns. Yet the National Government refuses to acknowledge the one move that would assist New Zealand farmers and producers, who have worked hard and who will be working harder, arguably, to meet these standards in this new piece of legislation, and who will do so, hopefully, in the knowledge that it maintains and builds further our reputation for the highest levels of animal welfare in the world. So the consumers of our animal products would then know, because of the label, that the food they were eating had been produced in the soundest, safest, and most ethical ways.

The bill also enables mandatory standards for live animal exports to be set in regulations. Again, another issue of some controversy over the years is that there have not always been good standards in live exports from our country, or, indeed, from Australia more so. They have struggled with that. We are seeing more and more dairy animals, in particular, being exported directly from New Zealand to China, in particular. There is some debate about that—I guess in the same way that we sold off our kiwifruit root stock and plant material, and suffered because of that, because everyone in the world then grew the same thing.

Then, indeed, the kiwi cow, which the New Zealand dairy industry has developed so well as an efficient producer of milk, is now being exported—or its genetics—and through live exports are now going directly to China. I am sure those people will very astutely and very carefully maximise the value of our exports. That is OK, and we are getting rewards for that, but we have to be mindful, firstly, of the dangers, in the live export trade, of not looking after them properly and thereby putting our reputation at stake, and then, secondly, and perhaps more important, of course, of building the capability of a country that, ultimately, will be competing with us in terms of dairy production in its own market and, indeed, perhaps elsewhere around the world. New Zealand does not have a very good record, I have to say, in wise long-term management in such situations, but this bill will do one thing to try to safeguard that live export trade, and that is to ensure that it is done in a very ethical, safe way for them.

If I can go back to a few other issues in the bill, I will just say that in principle Labour, of course, will always battle for high standards of animal welfare, both on the farm and in the towns. I see my colleague Mr Mallard has come here just to ensure that I keep focused on the town issues. I have to say that one of the dangers, as I referred to briefly before, is that if we go for a zero-hurt or zero-harm approach, then we may indeed see some pretty sad outcomes in terms of animal welfare—and the issue of animals used in rodeos is one that has been topical. Sometimes we will have dogs. I have worked with and have owned some very, very loyal working dogs, who run and run and keep running, and work to the point of going beyond pain, I am sure. I hope that we do not have people running around to check that they are running no more than 10½ kilometres in any 5-hour period etc., because we are getting to that point of perhaps extreme protection in some areas of our legislation. It certainly was not the intent of the Primary Production Committee, of Mr Ardern, and certainly of myself that we should move to implement regulations that are bordering on ridiculous.

We do have, as I say, the realities of an animal welfare regime overseeing an animal production regime that is built around the breeding, the raising, and ultimately the slaughter of animals for human consumption. We are not going to get away from that. So at points in that whole management regime, although this bill attempts to minimise any negatives, there will be some through any reality, just as there are in human behaviour as well. I said to my colleague that if we guarantee that there can be no harm to humans, I guess there will be none of us going out on the rugby pitch to play a game of rugby, which often produces some hurt and some harm. So the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is, I think, a sound approach towards finding a balance between sensible commercial management and protecting not the rights but the welfare of animals as they move through that system.

I guess the opportunity to speak on this bill has been a long time in the coming. I must commence, firstly, by acknowledging, I guess, the people who are no longer here who did a lot of work on this bill. We have a number of them. Shane Ardern, who chaired the Primary Production Committee, was mentioned by Damien O’Connor. Shane Jones had a large input into a lot of things to do with primary production; I will mention him a bit later in my few words on this. There was Eric Roy, a very experienced man, and Colin King. A number of committee members who dealt at length with this topic have now gone from the House. I also want to acknowledge the other members of that committee, who spent a lot of time on this bill and who, I think, on the whole, did a pretty good job. I think we have come up with a pretty good solution—obviously with the opportunity to change one or two things in the course of the Committee stage. None the less, I think the bill has got to a good space.

As the previous two speakers have said, this is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that will pass through this House. It underpins the magnificent beast that is our livestock farming industry—one that returns over half of our gross income. As we have heard, this bill makes changes to the Animal Welfare Act 1999 to improve the enforceability, clarity, and transparency of New Zealand’s all-important animal welfare system. The teeth provided in the enactment of this bill will come via regulatory provisions, which will be developed by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. This is a committee of extremely competent practitioners from across the sector, appointed for their expertise. We can be confident that they are both competent and independent, and will do their job very well. They are also required to consult widely on any recommendations they may make in this field.

We received a huge number of submissions, which covered five basic categories: 12 industry groups, 20 animal advocacy groups, 8 professional bodies, such as veterinarians and the like, 10 expert individuals, and numerous private individuals. We heard close to 50 of those submissions over 8 weeks. The real challenges we faced related to what many consider historic practices. In fact, the previous speaker, Damien O’Connor, referred to those. The Hon Shane Jones had much to say on this matter. Issues such as doing horses’ teeth, to those of us who play with horses, is a pretty simple matter, but for those who were submitting on this bill it clearly was not a simple matter. Things that we have always taken for granted in our care of animals are things that challenge a lot of our community who do not have the same empathy or understanding of animals. The bill has dealt with a lot of those complex issues.

In new section 183B(2), inserted by clause 56, the regulations relate to surgical and painful procedures. We had a large discussion on this, contributed to again by Shane Jones in particular, who, historically in his time in this House, had some nervousness around, I guess, how we comply with things in life, but he certainly had some nervousness around this. The committee did discuss this at length because it is a very complex subject, if you think about it. I think we did pretty well with that, because we did spend a lot of time on that particular clause. Factory farming has been mentioned; it is a very topical subject. The bill will be tightened up to deal with this. I think we have got to a very good space with that as well, as we move through the process of implementing this bill—and it will take some time to implement this bill.

Other issues taking up much of the discussion related to live export; it is banned already for slaughter. Anyone who understands food well will understand that the best food is highly dependent on its treatment from paddock to plate. Ill-treating our animals or plants prior to their entering the food chain has no future at all for food producers. Although I fully support the banning of live export for slaughter, I think there could be occasions arising in the future where we may want to, in a boutique form, export animals, or whatever, that will then enter the food chain at some future point. This bill does not exactly preclude that, but our current regulations certainly do preclude it. None the less, the world changes, and changes in transport modes, and whatever, could make a significant difference to this.

The committee considered research testing and teaching using animal sentience, which has been very topical for some time, particularly for that well known animal supporter Bob Kerridge. Whether a fish is a fish or an animal was a topic that came up for quite some considerable discussion during the course of the select committee hearings. Part 3 of the bill was changed to clearly set some parameters around this. There was much discussion, particularly from the farming entities, as to how far a duty of care stretched, and who is ultimately responsible for the care of an animal. I guess this is topical in lots of legislation that comes through this House, and I think the bill, again, arrived at a very good space in that area, because we have come to a conclusion that, I think, will clearly define the person responsible for the treatment, or otherwise, of animals.

A discussion took place on the funding of the compliance regime. Like all funding the Government has faced, it is difficult, but it is currently well managed by the Ministry for Primary Industries. I think there will be challenges to that funding stream as this is enacted later on, but none the less I think we are getting along pretty well now. Psychoactive substances came and went during the course of the bill, and cosmetic testing, as mentioned by the Minister, also came in for much attention.

On a lighter note, I struggle to see the difference, really, between shampooing a horse for a show, or to get rid of lice, and testing cosmetics—lipstick, I guess—on a horse. But none the less, it is an interesting topic and it will involve a lot of debate from now on. The Minister has mentioned that more will be heard on this topic. This is a very complex issue and one we must deal with with care, as it is very important to us all.

Finally, I cannot finish without mentioning just one last thing. I notice, in the course of the Labour portfolio analysis, that it does not have a spokesman on agriculture. I notice that the Greens’ spokesman on agriculture is—[Interruption] We have a Minister for Primary Industries. I notice that the Greens’ spokesman on agriculture is probably out there, buttering himself up with a dock leaf somewhere. I am not sure whether Winston or Richard Prosser is the agriculture spokesman for New Zealand First. Anyway, I think we have done a great job on this bill and I commend it to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare nei. It is my honour to get up and take a call on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Clearly, Labour supports the second reading of this important bill. Animal welfare is important for its own sake and for preserving the good image of New Zealand as an ethical food producer. The bill attempts to improve and strengthen the animal welfare system in New Zealand. Some will welcome the changes that have been incorporated in this second reading. Some may say this does not go far enough. But 68 percent of New Zealand households have at least one pet. I have a pet, a 2½-year-old long-haired German Shepherd. Some people will say that my welfare and care of her is not the best, given that I probably see her only one day out of seven, so I do want to acknowledge my dad who walks her twice a day and feeds her while we are away doing other things. But, in all seriousness, each year 50 percent of our export earnings come from animals and animal products so our international reputation and marketing brand is absolutely critical. My senior colleague Damien O’Connor touched rather eloquently on the importance of making sure that our brand is protected, particularly when we grow our market internationally.

I too want to acknowledge the members of the Primary Production Committee who are no longer here. Their names have been mentioned. I myself joined the committee perhaps one month before this particular bill was introduced. I know, from both pet owners and also exporters, that the whole challenge in front of us is very vast, to ensure that for animals, be they pets or be they for export, there is no doubt as to the way we treat them in terms of testing, which has been raised by previous speakers. This is something that I take seriously, and I know this House takes seriously.

As to my own history of animal welfare in the commercial space, I am the product of a shearing family and have been a rousie in a lot of the sheds up on the East Coast. A lot of the runs were very, very lengthy—like 21 days. Those were the days when you started at 5 a.m. and worked until 5 p.m. They were 9½ hour days, back in those days. There was fatigue with a lot of our shearers. I remember as a very young person, after day 10, day 12, the images that I saw of our shearers nicking sheep—[Interruption] They were actually quite big nicks. Blood was not unusual, and probably the longer you worked in the shearing shed, the more likely you were to have sheep bleeding—and it raised a concern in me, as a very young person. I did not know it was called animal welfare, but that experience of seeing so many sheep bleeding in their pens really affected me. Of course we have all got stories, and I am talking from a commercial point of view. For a lot of our people up on the East Coast, that was our livelihood in terms of the shearing sheds. But the point around looking after our animals is that it was important because, obviously, they cannot talk for themselves. In a market where the wool and animal welfare is important, I too want to ensure that we have a very good system. This bill has gone to the select committee, and a number of the submissions made—and I agree with the Minister—have come back with a balanced view to ensure that we are protecting our reputation as a marketer of animals and animal products.

I do want to take us down and look at the earlier contributions from our Labour colleagues. Of course now that you are in the seat, Mr Assistant Speaker, I was looking at your reference and that was around animal testing in terms of psychiatric drugs. I too want to add my weight. I acknowledge what the Minister has said around ensuring that we are not just using animals for testing when it comes to products. But I do want to support that we need to ensure that we keep a very close and watchful eye on that place, so that animals are not subjected to the testing of psychiatric drugs, and also cosmetics, as has been mentioned earlier, and that we explore—and I do acknowledge what the Minister said—all other non-living alternatives before we subject animals to any of that kind of testing. I want to put my support in to ensure that we make sure that the testing is robust, before we allow animals to be subjected to testing, to ensure that we protect animals in that sense. I want to acknowledge the work that you did, Mr Assistant Speaker, in terms of raising that through your Facebook page, which got over 4,000 hits, in terms of animal testing. I want to acknowledge you for that, and also the select committee for taking that on board in terms of the amendments that have been made.

The other contribution from this side of the House, raised by Mr O’Connor, was around the lack of funding to monitor the changes in this bill in terms of the role of the Ministry for Primary Industries. I know there was an issue in the first reading of this bill around the ability of the ministry to do its job of monitoring and upholding the regulations that this bill is hoping to present. To the Minister, who has introduced this bill for the second time, I say that I am hoping that adequate funding is going towards the ministry to ensure that the monitoring and the upkeep under this bill will be maintained.

Labour obviously wants to continue to encourage and work with all our New Zealand farm and producing groups to ensure that they take leadership on issues of animal welfare and that they are at the forefront of instituting appropriate animal welfare standards. We also continue to encourage labelling, like my colleague Damien has already mentioned, of animal products that create a commercial incentive to improve animal welfare standards. We will continue to introduce new codes in areas and for animals, where this is appropriate. Further, Labour supports the notion of a universal declaration on animal welfare. The declaration aims to achieve global consideration of the welfare of sentient animals and the recognition of animal welfare as an issue of importance, as part of the social development of nations worldwide. We have a concern about the ability for regulations to allow mistreatment to continue past the commencement of this bill. We welcome the select committee’s change to close the loophole that would have allowed near perpetual extensions, to one that allows a maximum of one extension of 5 years after the original 10-year period. There still could be more caution around these regulations, however.

Labour, again, supports this reading. We think, on balance, it has been well crafted. We look forward to the Committee stage and it being discussed in the House. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

I promise to stay away from lipstick and horses.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Why did you have to promise that?

I thought it was necessary. I rise to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill as someone who has worked all his life with animals—not horses. I was a sheep farmer, and having gone through tailing and shearing and those normal day-to-day operations with sheep, I have seen the perverse effects of overregulation. I worked on a farm in Ireland where you could not lamb a ewe that got into difficulty; you had to get a vet in. Unfortunately, the delays that that led to resulted in unnecessary suffering and, in some cases, death. So we have to be very careful when we write rules and regulations that they actually are fit for purpose and achieve what they set out to do.

I also velveted deer. I had a ticket to velvet deer under anaesthetic, so I have had quite a bit of experience in that area. Also, I have had experience of being involved in capturing deer out of a helicopter with a net gun, using tranquiliser darts at some time, and also capturing deer in pens in the bush. I think the point that was made by Damien O’Connor was a very good one about social media and the danger that offers today to us as a trading nation. I think it is very important. We actually have to balance the right to farm against the rights of animals and the right to trade. If we get that balance wrong then we are going to be in trouble. Animal welfare is very much in the mind of the consumers and our trading partners, so we must get legislation that actually protects all those rights and balances them. This bill does that in my opinion, and I am very pleased to see that it makes it more transparent and easier to manage, and it is with great pleasure that I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

I rise to speak to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. This bill is very much a mixed bag, with the good, the bad, and the ugly all mixed up. Mostly, though, it represents a missed opportunity. It represents a missed opportunity to get it right for the millions of animals experiencing the greatest suffering in New Zealand in factory farming and unnecessary animal testing. Animals in New Zealand work incredibly hard for us. The least we can do is ensure that they are treated humanely and with respect. We need animal welfare law to both recognise and stop the systematic cruelty and suffering of both intensive factory farming and animal testing. Quite frankly, when it comes to intensive factory farming our animal welfare law is a farce.

Over the last year we have seen two situations that illustrate just how inadequate our animal welfare law is. The first is undercover footage by Farmwatch, shown on television, that exposed the terrible conditions and abuse that goes on inside our pig factory farms. That footage was horrific, showing depressed pigs confined in cramped conditions, unable to turn round, and deprived of anything resembling a normal existence. We cannot deny the realities of what factory farmed pigs and other animals are being subjected to in New Zealand. But what is really shocking is that most of that appalling footage and the conditions that were shown are legal. Factory farming is legal. Keeping millions of intelligent animals in cramped conditions where they cannot express natural forms of behaviour is legal, and this bill does very little to improve their plight.

Equally concerning is the recent proposal by Craddock Farms to build a mega-factory hen farm south of Auckland, which would confine over 300,000 hens in cramped cages. If that consent is granted, Craddock Farms will spend millions of dollars on the development of our country’s biggest caged-hen farm.

We agree with the SPCA when it says that the proposed colony cage farm is a backward step for our country, which flies in the face of international animal welfare trends. It is clear to anyone with an ounce of compassion that colony cages do not provide hens with the opportunity to display normal behaviour, as required by the Animal Welfare Act. They are battery cages with lipstick on them.

Even the former National MP and farmer Shane Ardern, who was the former chair of the Primary Production Committee, has publicly agreed that factory hen farming is cruel and that the teensy-weensy tiny little bit of extra space that the hens will get in these colony cages is unacceptable. Colony cages are cruel, and mega-factory farms such as the proposed Craddock hen farm are nothing more than concentration camps for hens.

Sadly, not only will this bill continue to sanction these cruel farming conditions, it will ensure that they continue to remain legal by elevating in the bill practicality and economic impacts as factors that can be considered when developing regulations. There is already the ability to take these factors into account, and these economic impacts and practicality have already been used to justify codes of welfare that allow animals to be kept in cruel cages.

The explicit elevation of these factors out of the many factors that can be considered is extremely concerning. In our view it sends the wrong message about which factors are important when developing codes of welfare or regulations, and it makes it more likely that factory farming systems such as intensive pig farming and colony cages will continue to remain legal on technical grounds, despite the clear evidence that such systems are cruel and cause prolonged suffering for millions of animals. Animals deserve better.

We were also disappointed that the Government members of the select committee decided at the last minute to vote down my amendment to reduce the number of animals used in testing and to vote down the ban on animal testing of cosmetics. So I am very pleased to hear tonight that the Government is still keeping an open mind on that and will be considering it at the Committee stage. I also welcome the support from the Labour Party for a ban on animal testing of cosmetics.

Unlike what the previous National speaker Ian McKelvie said, cosmetic testing on animals does not involve shampooing of horses’ fur. It involves dripping the substances into the eyes of rabbits with their eyes prised open, it involves rubbing the substances on to raw skin, and they are highly painful cruel tests, so please get rid of any fluffy, woolly notions that it is not so.

The National Government, and John Key in particular, took great pride in excluding animal testing from the Psychoactive Substances Act. Great—they wanted to see that. But in our view it would be a double standard to not have a ban on the animal testing of cosmetics in this bill and then not requiring alternatives to animal testing to be used where such suitable alternatives exist. Animals are subjected to extremely high levels of pain and suffering in these tests, and we should be doing everything we can to reduce them.

Polls show that nearly 90 percent of people want to see animal testing of cosmetics ruled out in this country, which brings us in line with other countries such as Israel, India, and all 28 countries of the European Union that have recently done the same. I am hoping that the Government will listen to the thousands of people who are speaking out for animals and want to see such a ban. That includes New Zealand manufacturers of cosmetics who want to see this ban as well because that is the ban that supports their reputation internationally, so they have expressed their support for such a ban. It makes sense on both a pragmatic level and a moral level. We have had extensive legal advice on the proposed wording of the amendment that brings in a ban on cosmetic testing, and we are confident that with new wording what we now have will address all the technical issues that have been raised by officials at the select committee.

On a more positive note I want to acknowledge the most significant constructive change that was adopted by the select committee, which was to close the loophole that allowed the development of regulations that breached the purpose of the Animal Welfare Act for an indefinite length of time. I had an amendment that removed that loophole, and there were many submissions that were received in support of that amendment. After intense deliberation it is good to see that that loophole has mostly been removed, and there is now provision instead for transitional arrangements to be in place for a maximum of 15 years, which is 10 years plus the 5-year extension, to allow farmers time to phase out a practice that has been found to be in breach of the Act. That will mainly apply at the moment to farrowing crates on intensive farms.

If in future other practices, such as colony cages, are found to be in breach of the Act then the industry will have at most 15 years to phase them out. This is a long overdue change and I am proud to have played a part in achieving that, but 15 years is really far too long and I hope the industry will not drag the chain on this.

So overall this is a very mixed bag. We are voting against the bill at this stage but express our disappointment around the failure to adopt any changes on animal testing at all. We will review that after the Committee of the whole House. Thank you.

I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the second reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill, albeit with some reservations. We are very pleased that this Government has seen fit to prioritise it as one of the first pieces of legislation to be brought forward from the 50th Parliament to the 51st. The subject of animal welfare is one that is very close to the hearts of a great many New Zealanders. This bill passed through the Primary Production Committee under the most able chairmanship of Shane Ardern, now departed from these halls. I spent the term of the last Parliament as a permanent unofficial interloper on the committee and I am very pleased to be back this term in an official capacity under what thus far appears to be the equally capable helmsmanship of Mr McKelvie.

This bill addresses a number of fundamental issues relating to animal welfare, as it should. Not unexpectedly it will not satisfy everyone. I reiterate that we in New Zealand First are not entirely happy with some of the detail. Central to the animal welfare discussion in this country, as we all know, is the fate of intensively farmed pigs and battery-caged layer hens. This bill proposes limits on the time allowed for producers to move from those standards of containment for intensively farmed animals that are currently permitted to those that are proposed. As is human nature those limits are regarded as being far too long by some stakeholders and far too short by others. Personally, I buy only free-range eggs because I like chooks. I have always been a country boy. We had chooks when I was growing up. I have had chooks almost everywhere I have lived and because I can afford it. The reality is that barn eggs are more expensive to produce than cage eggs, and free-range eggs are more expensive to produce than barn eggs.

💬 Ian McKelvie: Can run them on the road.

Roll them chickens, Mr McKelvie. So the nation can decide if it chooses to decree that all hens must be free-range, and that, in my view, would be a grand thing for animal welfare. But the immediate effect would be that the price of eggs at the supermarket would double.

Whether free-range chickens are actually healthier and happier than their barn or colony cousins is still a matter for some contention. To many, myself included, it would appear to be a given. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, however, supported by independent studies, which are perhaps not surprisingly also supported by the egg industry, contend that any measurable difference is negligible. Mortality from diseases and pests is arguably lower amongst intensively farmed egg-producing chickens. Conditions of temperature and humidity are constant and controlled, and nutritional requirements are met and guaranteed. Personally, if I was a chicken I believe I would very much prefer to be a free-range chicken, but I say that from the standpoint of not being a chicken, and those who set the regulations do so on the basis of the objective science as it is presented, however counter-intuitive it may seem to some.

Politicians and political parties can change the rules if they wish, but they must do so in the knowledge that they will have to explain the doubling of the price of eggs to the people, who, of course, have to feed their families in what is a comparatively low-wage country with food prices that are already high. The alternative is that we go back to subsidising agricultural production as we once did and as most of the rest of the developed world still does. Since this appears anathema to the economic policies of both major parties in New Zealand, it is not likely to happen any time soon. People do not feel good about hens in cages. Good, ordinary people do not like the idea of battery hens being confined in tiny cramped spaces, but the reality is that a combination of hungry kids and poor wages have a profound effect on human sensibilities.

Pigs are in a similar situation. Sow crates were originally invented as an animal welfare measure. They prevent the mummy pig from eating her babies or rolling on them and crushing them to death. In close confinement, such as is standard in intensive pig farming—even in a semi-enlightened country such as this one—both those things happen as a matter of course. Some changes have come about in recent years. Crates have become larger and pigs are not allowed to be kept in them for as long at a time or for as much of the year as used to be the case. But for the intensive pig farming model there is not an absolute alternative now or in the foreseeable future. It is not a matter of cost, rather that there is nothing currently available or on the cusp of being invented. Again, there are free-range farming models that allow pigs sufficient space that cannibalism and suffocation cease to be major factors in the mother-child relationship. However, they require more land. As with chickens, that actual cost to production goes up, and with that the price of pig products to the consumer also rises exponentially.

Britain moved to a free-range only pig farming regime some years ago. But the British still have farm subsidies, like the rest of the EU, which means that British consumers of pork, bacon, sausages, and ham do not have to shoulder the actual costs associated with the production of their daily fare. We can choose to go the same way, but again we can do so only with the agreement of the people based on their clear understanding of what it is going to cost them. Initially, it will cost the taxpayer as the Government buys out or otherwise compensates pig farmers who are not able to expand their operations to free-range through unavailability of land or because upscaling is not economically viable, yet who still have a great deal invested in plant, machinery, and stock. Then there will be the ongoing increased price of pig products. The alternative is to increase imports over present levels. New Zealand’s piggery exports are negligible at the moment, and we import around half of all pig meat consumed annually. The downside to this is that most imports are from producer nations whose animal welfare standards and farming practices are less advanced and stringent than our own, thus increasing imports from such countries risk putting the entire New Zealand pork industry out of business for no net gain in overall global animal welfare. So there is no free lunch available here.

If we move without any transition period to what we believe are the highest standards, which we believe we should be using, it will mean higher prices or subsidies, neither of which appeal to voters. The pigs and the chickens are sandwiched neatly between the rock and the hard place as far as politics in this country is concerned. It would take a brave politician indeed to tell the people that two of their staple foods are going to double in price so that we can all feel good about animal welfare, and I say that from the position of being genuinely concerned about it. I would like to say that 5 years is long enough for compliance with animal welfare standards, but, as has been said, there are no technological answers to the problems associated with factory pig farming on the medium-term horizon. Adhering to such a time frame will mean hardship for many and no overall improvement for anyone or anything unless you have subsidies. So it is a round and round in circles kind of a thing. We are supportive of the move to larger cages and lower occupancy rates for chickens. I believe the industry is moving in this regard and probably will meet the required deadlines, and we certainly support that. So the short answer is that we would like all these things to happen, but the people must understand the actual costs associated with them.

Of course, the lot of the pigs and the chickens is not the only issue this bill deals with, neither is it the only issue with which we do not entirely agree. There is the matter of sentience. New Zealand First is mindful of majority mainstream scientific opinion with regards to animal sentience. It is generally accepted that of the wider species groups there are some, namely primates, cetaceans, elephants, horses, dogs, cats, and pigs, that display an exponentially greater predominance of sentient behaviour indicators than other animals, accompanied perhaps by some species of birds—notably ravens, magpies, and parrots—and certain invertebrates, such as octopi.

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: What about mallard ducks?

I cannot comment on mallard ducks, but determining what may constitute humane treatment of these animals should be shaped by recognition of this measurably greater sentience. However, this bill does not make a distinction as to degrees of relative sentience with regard to different animal species. In that light, New Zealand First asks why this bill does not specifically disallow the keeping of cetaceans in captivity. These sentient creatures are our kin. These magnificent, intelligent, sociable sentient animals are our brothers and sisters of the oceans. It is barbaric and inexcusable, in this enlightened day and age, to keep them in captivity for the amusement of humans, even under the guise of scientific research. New Zealand First contends that degrees of sentience should be recognised in this bill. New Zealand First, for example, supports the great apes declaration. We likewise recognise the greater sentience of cetaceans and we ask why—if however unlikely it is to remain legally permissible to keep dolphins and orca in captivity—is it not also unacceptable to keep sentient pigs and sentient chickens in conditions that many would contend are inhumane? There must be consistency, or, failing that, there must at the very least be logic and common sense.

There are a few other things with which we have some minor quibbles, and without going into them all, ahead of the Committee stage, I wish to raise the subject of live animal exports. The bill as returned from the Primary Production Committee proposes in clause 21 that in section 43 of Part 1 subsection (2) should be inserted so that the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries, in considering whether to grant an export licence, particularly for live animals for slaughter, may consider the post-arrival conditions for the management of animals in the importing country. This subsection is inserted to address concerns that an outright ban could possibly put New Zealand in breach of our obligations to the World Trade Organization. New Zealand First proposes that the word “may” be replaced with “must”, which would allow for a practical ban in all circumstances where one would be required. And if this not possible, we ask whether in fact it is a good idea for New Zealand to be signing up to any international trade treaty that overrides, or may override, our sovereign rights of self-determination.

All that said, although this bill is still capable of improvement, it is a good bill and we are happy to continue supporting it through to the next stage. Thank you.

Before I call the next member, I am going to repeat a comment I made this morning, and say it specifically to the member Richard Prosser, who has just resumed his seat—who is now no longer an inexperienced member; he is a front-bench member—and that is that Speaker’s ruling 47/1 does apply, and I think he should consider himself warned.

As the newly elected member for Clutha-Southland, it is a privilege to sit on the Primary Production Committee and to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill tonight. As we have heard from the Minister for Primary Industries, the purpose of this bill is to make the Animal Welfare Act clearer, more transparent, and easier to enforce.

Coming from a farming background, and growing up with family pets, I believe that how we treat animals is important. But not only that, a large part of our international trading reputation rests on how we treat animals and the ethical standards we hold in this regard.

We have around 930 dairy farms and over 3,500 people employed in the dairy sector in Southland, contributing around $1.2 billion to the Southland economy each year. That is just dairy, and that is just in Southland.

Across all of the animal product categories our country exports, such as milk, meat, and wool, New Zealand enjoys around $20 billion a year in earnings. So one of the things this bill includes is new, direct protections for New Zealand’s wild animals, animals being exported to other countries, and animals being used for research, because we cannot and we should not underestimate how important our international reputation is in respect of our animal welfare.

We have one of the best animal welfare systems in the world and we should be proud of that, but it is important that we keep reviewing, updating, and improving how that system operates. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

I call Kevin Hague for a 5-minute call.

When Sue Kedgley first raised animal welfare concerns in this House, she was met with laughter. These were not considered to be important or serious matters. I report with pleasure that all members of the House speaking in this debate today, at least with very few exceptions, have at least considered these matters to be serious, and I know that that was the tenor of the consideration in the Primary Production Committee. I did not have the pleasure of sitting on the select committee myself, but I want to pick up several of the matters that my colleague Mojo Mathers has raised, and also address a further one.

One of the areas of concern for us is that the Ministry for Primary Industries continues to be the main agency responsible for enforcing animal welfare standards in farming. That creates a conflict of interest because, on the one hand, the agency responsible for animal welfare is also, on the other, the agency that is concerned with maximising farm production. That conflict of interest, along with under-resourcing, means that the Ministry for Primary Industries cannot be relied on to effectively monitor or enforce animal welfare standards, especially on factory farms. Currently, less than 1 percent of complaints about breaches of animal welfare standards actually result in prosecutions.

The Government has already made it plain that it is not going to be addressing that under-resourcing problem by providing more resources. That very low level of prosecutions by the Ministry for Primary Industries and the lack of a proactive inspection regime for factory farms are going to mean that much animal suffering on such farms will continue to go unchecked, unmonitored, and unenforced. The Green Party, therefore, supports not only switching the responsibility for monitoring animal welfare standards away from the ministry but also increasing the resourcing for those functions.

As my colleague Mojo Mathers has said, the bill is a mixed bag and, in particular, a missed opportunity. Although there are some advances in the bill, two of the most important areas—factory farming and animal testing—are largely unaddressed. Those diabolical, appalling standards that exist on factory farms and result in a surge of concern from New Zealanders, whenever those conditions are unmasked by usually surreptitious mechanisms from animal welfare activists—because otherwise New Zealanders would never get to see them—will continue. We are particularly concerned about the continued presence of economic impact and practicality in the matters that must be considered in the casting of regulations.

Those matters remind me very much of occupational safety and health, where we have adopted a regime that is based on making changes to make workplaces safer where they are practicable. What that regime has resulted in, in occupational safety and health, are shortcuts and failure to make necessary improvements to occupational safety and health because the company concerned would find them to be unaffordable. That is precisely what the dynamics will be that are played out as the regulations under this bill are cast. Farmers who engage in factory farming will continue to engage in those processes, because they will find it unaffordable and, therefore, impractical, and the economic impact will be too great for them to actually change their practices. So the suffering will continue unabated.

There is no basis for animal testing of cosmetic products. The Minister for Primary Industries, in his remarks at the beginning of this debate, said that he was not even aware of whether it occurred in New Zealand. Well, then, for goodness’ sake, Minister, in your Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage, ban it altogether.

I am happy to take a brief call on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, and can I start by acknowledging the many very dedicated and passionate people around New Zealand who are interested in this issue. Like every member of Parliament, I get their hundreds, if not thousands, of emails declaring that they care about animals, and I want to send to them a very clear message: I care about animals as well. I have acknowledged all those emails, I share the concerns that people have raised, and I admire their passion, dedication, and commitment in doing so over a significant period of time. New Zealand cannot be complacent when it comes to animal welfare.

When we look at our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand, which our export industries, tourism, and so many other New Zealand companies rely upon, would some of our current practices when it comes to animal welfare stack up favourably against that brand, which we are so proud of overseas, as being 100 percent pure? The answer to that at the moment must surely be no. Therefore, extending the changes in this bill—and, in fact, I think going further—is very important to New Zealand, and I think it is long overdue.

I get a bit frustrated. I am a consumer. I look at many of these things from a consumer’s perspective, and I get frustrated that the progress on these issues seems to be so incredibly slow. Kevin Hague mentioned Sue Kedgley raising these issues in the House quite some time ago, and yet progress has been very, very slow.

I want to acknowledge people like Mike King for the work that he has done in exposing some of the worst practices in New Zealand. I think many New Zealanders would not have even been aware that those things were happening in a country like New Zealand, and it took someone like him to actually shine some light on that before New Zealanders were aware of those issues.

Many New Zealanders will look at this from the perspective of being a consumer. I want to pick up a concern that Richard Prosser raised, and that is the impact of animal welfare measures on the potential prices that consumers pay for products—you know, for food and so on. But the point that I would make is that I remember that it would not be that long ago when going and doing supermarket shopping—probably within the last 10 years—that free-range eggs were maybe two, three, or four times the price, or significantly more expensive than eggs that came from battery hens, and yet now in the supermarket the price differential is nowhere near that. The consumer has basically placed the demand on for free-range products. They want to know that their eggs are coming from free-range chickens and, as a result, the price has actually come down. So to say that looking after animal welfare will come at a cost to the consumer—it does not necessarily apply. Actually, in many cases market forces will help to take care of that.

Consumers actually want to know that the food that they are buying has been produced in an ethical manner. I want to know when I go to the supermarket that I am buying free-range eggs, and I always make an effort to hunt them out. I want to know that the pork that I am buying is ethically produced and that all of the other products that I am buying are ethically produced, as well. So I think that the New Zealand consuming public, from a consumer perspective, want to know those things, and I think that New Zealand has been too slow in making sure that our laws have kept up with that and that our regulations have kept up with that. So I welcome the moves in this bill to start to move it further forward, and I would like to say that I would like to see much, much faster progress than we are seeing.

I want to briefly commend a couple of the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward on this bill. I want to commend Supplementary Order Paper 341, which bans animal testing for the purposes of meeting the thresholds required for the sale of psychoactive substances. Of course, according to the Standing Orders, I am not allowed to mention the member who promoted that particular amendment, but I do want to say that I think that is a very important amendment. I think that if the only way to prove that a psychoactive substance is suitable for human consumption is to torture animals, then I think that we should take the decision as a Parliament that we will simply say that that is not acceptable and that we would rather not have those products on the market. If torturing dogs is the only way to prove that those products are safe—and, actually, the SPCA would argue that there are other ways to test the products without testing them on animals—then I do not think we should be doing it. I think that if those drug pedlars cannot find another way to test their products, those products simply should not be on the shelves and should not be available.

I think that similar things apply to cosmetics. We have to look at what is happening around the world. Other countries that we compare ourselves to have taken very principled positions when it comes to animal testing for cosmetics. Not only are they banning the testing but they are banning the importation of products that have been tested in other countries, and New Zealand should be looking at that as well. These are our trading partners. These are people whom we have relationships with. If they are doing it, then we need to be looking at doing that as well. We should live up to our “100% Pure New Zealand” image, the brand that we are so proud of, and animal welfare is an integral part of that.

As a member of the agribusiness community and a new member of the Primary Production Committee, I would like to acknowledge the work that has gone on.

The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is an important piece of legislation that will enable New Zealand to build a more productive economy by updating and strengthening animal welfare in New Zealand. This bill will make legislation easier to enforce and will give wider powers to those charged with dealing with people who breach welfare laws.

The Animal Welfare Act 1999 sets out the correct underlying principles. However, these amendments indicate that it is time to update and improve legislation surrounding animal welfare. Both for New Zealanders and for our international trading reputation it is important that the way we treat animals is correct, and this bill aims to improve New Zealand’s reputation in this sector. We have one of the best animal welfare systems in the world, but at the same time we are always looking for improvements. Ultimately, the vast majority of New Zealanders already take great care of their animals and will hardly notice the changes made in this bill. However, there will be greater sanctions for those few who do mistreat animals. Thank you.

You know, this is an important bill because it sort of cuts to the heart of how we see ourselves as Kiwis. We all have pets. We all have dogs and cats and various pets—

💬 Chris Hipkins: Did you say kids?

—cats—and it is anathema to the vast majority of Kiwis to think that people would treat animals in any way except a humane way. But the irony about this bill is that during the last election there was actually a party that wanted to deprive children of the rights that we are affording animals. There was a party that wanted to remove the legislation that actually made it illegal to wallop and beat the living daylights out of children. I find this quite ironic. Here we are talking about the welfare of animals—and we get this; we understand this—and yet there was a party that got nearly 5 percent and came within a whisker of getting into Parliament that wanted to remove the same protections for children. It is quite astounding.

The other thing is that it is actually illegal to have homeless stock. It is illegal to have your stock—not your stock, Mr Assistant Speaker; well, if you had stock it would be—wandering around outside your property, but under this Government the number of homeless in our community has grown exponentially. Again, all I am saying is that I think it is a little bit about getting our priorities right. Sure, we must protect the welfare of our animals, but let us not forget about the welfare of our children and the welfare of those in our communities who are disadvantaged as well.

If there is one thing that I would really like to get across it is that New Zealand’s global competitive advantage is based on how we are perceived by our key markets. We have this very important brand—and it has been talked about by other speakers—that cannot be replicated and copied, unlike other manufactured goods. This is the clean, green image that sells our nation. It is the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. When you go overseas and you see marketing campaigns about this country—in fact, I think a lot of them were actually developed by a former Minister of Tourism the Hon Damien O’Connor—the iconic images of New Zealand are of bush, lambs, cows, fjords; this wonderful utopia that is sort of at the unspoiled end of the world. What we need to do is ensure that we retain that competitive advantage because it allows us to get a premium for products that are sold into nations that value that brand incredibly strongly.

It does not relate only to our environment; it also relates to the way we live our lives, treat our communities, and manage our key assets. In a farming sense, under which a number of these brands are sold overseas, these key assets include our animals. This bill not only enhances the protection afforded to animals but in a way serves to strengthen our global competitive advantage by saying to the world: “You know what—if you are buying a product from New Zealand, then it will be nurtured and raised in an ethical manner, as is befitting the brand New Zealand.”

This is the most important thing that we have got, because in this day and age it is not just companies that are seeking a competitive advantage, it is actually global economies. Economies the size of ours absolutely need to go out there and create a unique selling point for our products. Certainly, in an era where so many things are able to be copied, our brand is not; it is unique. Therefore the ethical treatment of animals cuts to the very heart, I believe, of what it means to be a Kiwi.

You know, we have this sort of romantic image of our forebears as pioneers on horses with a pack of dogs, breaking in this land. Back then the mistreatment of animals was anathema. That has not changed. After all, around 50 percent of our export earnings are derived from animals in some way, shape, or form. So it just does not make economic sense, let alone from an emotive argument. I think this was one of the reasons that there was such an outrage with the CraFarm debacle, where we had images on our TV of malnourished cows wandering around in an area where we know that this sort of animal husbandry and farming should never take place. There was almost more outrage at the mistreatment of these animals than there is sometimes about the mistreatment of people in our society. But, like I said, it is an emotive argument.

Having said that, we also live in a globalised economy where changing tastes are providing greater opportunities for our primary producers. We are operating in a 21st century economy and we need to move with the times, I suppose. We need to make sure that we have an ability to take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves. By that I also mean that we cannot limit opportunities through legislation. I suppose that is what this bill is doing.

I know it was recognised by the Primary Production Committee that the export of live animals is almost a little abhorrent. I know that when I was growing up and there were live sheep exports, in the pictures we got back—and I think this might have been the reason that they stopped—we saw these healthy sheep boarding this huge transport ship, and when they got there, we heard that only a hundred had died of heat exhaustion and this sort of carry-on. It was absolutely dreadful. I think we decided at that time that this was not who we were as a nation and that it was not the sort of image we wanted to send overseas, but also it was not how we believed we were to sell our major competitive advantage. We needed to stop that.

What this bill does is that it does not close the door on exporting livestock. In fact, there is an amendment in clause 21 that inserts a new section around how we deal with the exporting of live animals. What the bill does do is provide the director-general with a little bit more power around the management and welfare of animals during the journey, but it places huge emphasis on the person responsible for the exporting of these live animals. The reason why this is important is that if someone has responsibility for their actions and they know that the fine for breaking the law is such a deterrent, they are unlikely to commit an act that is going to lead to prosecution. What the bill also does is provide clarity and flexibility around the framework governing surgical or painful procedures. Again, a number of speakers have talked about this. It is common sense. I think what it is doing is bringing us into the 21st century. Having said that, it is still common sense and it needs to be done.

There is one thing that I would like to just briefly mention. I have received two emails—that is all. At least two people got off their chuff and decided to email me. These were hunters who were asking what this is doing to hunting. What the bill does say is that it does not prohibit anyone from hunting a wild animal and going out there and undertaking the sort of outdoor recreational pursuits that a significant number of New Zealanders participate in.

One thing the bill does do—and I am pleased about this, because until I actually read the bill, I did not realise that this stuff was not in place—is govern the rules around traps and the capturing of a live mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian. The bill affords a whole lot more responsibility if you are setting traps. I am going to quote from the bill here. It says that if you set a trap, you actually have to inspect that trap within 12 hours after sunrise each day the trap remains set, and if there is an animal in that trap, you have got to make sure that that animal is properly taken care of, without delay, and you have got to kill the animal. The thing about that is if a hunter does not do this, there is a fine of $5,000.

So this bill is actually quite wide ranging, and it covers a whole lot of areas that affect different sections of society, from the export of live animals right through to how we trap and kill pests and rodents, but also—and we have heard about this—animal testing.

I just want to sum up. What I think this bill does do is provide a further strengthening of our global competitive advantage. It does send a very clear message to our key markets that if you are buying a New Zealand - branded product, it will have been raised, killed, and processed in an ethical manner, and you can trust that. We need to ensure that we retain our global competitive advantage by ensuring that the processes and the farming practices undertaken in New Zealand are done in the most ethical way.

I do commend this bill to the House. Like a number of pieces of legislation—I think all the legislation—tonight, there is agreement on this right across the House. It is a good piece of legislation. Thank you very much.

It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the second reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. May I congratulate the previous speaker, Stuart Nash, on the very sensible and balanced approach he has taken, and thank the Opposition for backing what is, in my view, a very balanced bill. It balances the need of exporters to be able to provide assurance to those valuable markets where we are sending our commodities that they are prepared and produced in an ethical manner without the unnecessary suffering of animals, and it does move our country in the right direction in terms of providing the highest possible ethical standards. Animals are our valuable little cuddly friends—our pets—they are our delicious lunch or dinner, and they are a valuable commodity to be sold overseas. This bill makes sense in all of these areas, and for that reason I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.