Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

I move, That the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I am very pleased to speak on the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Animal welfare matters to New Zealanders. It matters because we know that animals are sentient—capable of having feelings, perceptions, and experiences. It matters because our multi-billion dollar primary industries are dependent on the welfare of animals from which our primary products are derived; approximately $25 billion is generated from animal products per year. It matters because two-thirds of New Zealand households own at least one pet, and they are much-loved members of their larger extended families. Most important, animal welfare matters because New Zealand is a fair-minded and decent society, and treating animals properly is a part of our culture. It is very much a part of how we define who we are.

New Zealand already has a strong animal welfare system. In November last year the global charity World Animal Protection ranked New Zealand first equal out of 50 countries for our animal welfare regulatory system, alongside the UK, Austria, and Switzerland. That was fantastic. Our existing Animal Welfare Act is already part of our global success; so are our innovative spirit and our constant pursuit of excellence. Animal welfare matters: New Zealand Animal Welfare Strategy, released in 2013, defines New Zealand’s two primary animal welfare objectives as being—the first one is caring for our animals, and the second one is “reputation for integrity”. A review of the Act in 2012 identified several areas where the clarity, enforceability, and transparency of the Act could be improved. The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill addresses each of these.

The bill explicitly recognises the sentience of animals, as I have already noted. That means that they can have both positive and negative experiences. It clarifies several areas around live animal exports. Mandatory standards and regulations will strengthen protections for animals exported for breeding purposes. The current prohibition of animal exports for slaughter will continue under the Animal Welfare Act instead of the Customs and Excise Act. The ability to regulate surgical and painful procedures will provide clearer responsibilities for those in charge of animals. Conduct towards wild animals that goes beyond generally accepted hunting or killing practice will be an offence under the Act.

The bill creates a tiered enforcement scheme to address repeat low to mid-level offending where existing sanctions have been ineffective. The bill also allows animal welfare inspectors to be proactive by issuing compliance notices, requiring people to take action before their animals suffer. The bill improves the overall transparency of the Act. The amendments make it explicit that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee must consider the practicality and economic impact where relevant, but this cannot override animal welfare considerations. The bill provides clear time limits and justifications for allowing practices that do not fully meet the requirements of the Act. These transitional regulations allow an industry a maximum of 10 years to implement new compliant practices, with a one-off 5-year renewal in very limited situations.

The use of animals in testing, teaching, and in scientific research is controversial and it must be tightly controlled. Part 6 of the Animal Welfare Act already contains a sound ethical framework. This makes it clear that no living animal may be used in any scientific project unless the benefits of that work to humans, other animals, or the environment outweigh the harm to animals involved. The bill now requires the Animal Ethics Advisory Committee to consider whether sufficient regard has been given to using non-living or non-sentient alternatives when projects involving the use of animals in research, testing, or teaching are being considered. The euthanising of animals to undertake research on their tissues or body parts will now also be included in official statistics, in line with international best practice.

There is considerable public concern about the use of animals to test non-essential products such as cosmetics. To the best of our knowledge, cosmetic testing on animals has never been carried out here in New Zealand. The ethical framework means it is very unlikely that such testing would happen in the future. However, the current Act does not expressly ban cosmetic testing on animals. The bill now explicitly bans the use of animals to test finished cosmetic products and ingredients intended to be exclusively used in a cosmetic. This will guarantee that cosmetic testing on animals will never happen in New Zealand. Important research testing or teaching for purposes such as developing human and animal medicines will not be affected. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the Green MP Mojo Mathers on this particular issue. Thank you very much.

The primary benefits of this bill will be realised through a programme of regulations that will set clear and specific rules for the care of and conduct towards animals, for the carrying out of surgical and painful procedures on animals, and also for live animal exports. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee will be responsible for maintaining these regulations in conjunction with its role in developing codes of welfare. NAWAC, as it is commonly called, and the Ministry for Primary Industries are already working to develop these regulations. Once the bill has been passed they will consult extensively with all affected parties and the wider public to ensure that these regulations are fair, robust, simple to understand, and effective to enforce.

Both industry and advocacy groups engaged extensively with the development and progress of this bill. I want to acknowledge the wide range of submissions received by the Primary Production Committee. I want to also thank the select committee for its hard work on this bill. It has been a truly collaborative process right through from the select committee, working with different political parties here in the House. The Government looks forward to the ongoing engagement of all of these different groups as the regulations are developed over the next 18 months or so.

I am proud of the record of this Government on animal welfare. In 2010 we allocated an additional $8.2 million to support animal welfare compliance and enforcement. This enabled the Ministry for Primary Industries to more than double the number of its animal welfare inspectors, and to provide funding to the SPCA for its very important enforcement work. Penalties and sentences in the Animal Welfare Act were increased, also in 2010. The penalty for wilful ill-treatment was increased from 3 to 5 years’ imprisonment, with a maximum fine of $100,000 for individuals and $500,000 for a body corporate. We have banned the use of animal testing for psychoactive substances, banned shark finning, and banned the use of blunt force trauma to euthanise bobby calves. Dry sow stalls are being banned from December this year, and we are phasing out the use of battery cages for hens. A huge amount of work has happened already and there is more to be done.

As I said, I would like to thank the officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Primary Production Committee members, and also members of the public who have taken time to put their input through submissions into this bill. In closing, I would also like to note again that, although New Zealand is now ranked first equal by the global charity World Animal Protection, the bill currently before the House is evidence that we will never be complacent. Our world-leading animal welfare laws are being made even stronger. I commend the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to the House.

I want to thank you for giving me the call and to acknowledge right at the beginning the leadership of Mojo Mathers in this debate and in highlighting the issues of animal welfare to the extent now where it is in the political mainstream and a major party has made considerable progress towards having policies in the area that are realistic. It is a pity that the Government has not—but even I will admit that this bill is much better than the current legislation.

I do also want to apologise to that member for my own poor handwriting, which resulted in me indicating to the House that we would support one of the amendments that we were voting on, the “great apes” amendment. We did not, and that was a mistake. I apologise for my handwriting, which was not good enough for the whips to interpret.

The Minister for Primary Industries still does not really get it, though. He does not understand that it is in the economic interest of this country to have a reputation for animal welfare that is much better than the one we currently deserve. Every 2 or 3 months we have examples of farmers who let the side down. They are not typical farmers, they are not run-of-the-mill farmers, but, as I have said on every occasion when I have addressed it, they let the side down. The Minister’s slackness in resourcing the enforcement from the Ministry for Primary Industries is the main reason that many farmers get away with it for years and years and years, and, as a result of that, our reputation is placed at risk.

The Minister needs to know that world views on animal welfare are changing. They are changing in New Zealand; they are changing especially in Europe. And one of the biggest risks that we have is one of the programmes that has been shown on New Zealand television about our awful treatment of animals—mainly pigs but also chickens and occasionally beef cattle—being shown on television in Europe. If that occurs, then our reputation will take a massive hit, and what will make it worse will be if the Minister is shown once again in his apologist mood towards farmers who are cruel to animals. On just about every occasion when one of the series of abuses has been revealed publicly, the Minister has been interviewed and he has been an apologist for the slack enforcement of his ministry—the slack enforcement of his ministry. He has supported its levels of enforcement. He has said that it does a good job. And the problem, which is obvious to everyone, is that he is conflicted on this issue in his ministerial role. He misunderstands his responsibility as the Minister who is responsible for animal welfare, and he tries to sweep cruel practices under the carpet.

There are some things that we should have done here. For example, we should not let cruel practices continue for another 15 years, and that is what that Minister supported. We should be stopping the puppy milling that is occurring in New Zealand, and that is what that Minister supports. We should be stopping the euthanising of the vast majority of greyhound puppies that are born in New Zealand, but that is what that Minister supports. This Government tries to pretend it cares about animals, but if we see the opportunities that are lost as part of this legislation we see that it does not.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.