Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

When I was sort of rudely interrupted by the clock at 6 o’clock last Thursday, I was indicating to the House that I thought that although Nathan Guy is a nice chap, he has been pretty ineffectual in this area. He has been very ineffectual in getting the resources necessary to have a proper and independent service that focuses on animal welfare particularly in the area of primary production. I think he relies on the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals pretty heavily within domestic arrangements but what he does not have is a good force out on farms ensuring that the small minority of farmers who treat animals badly are dealt with properly.

I also indicated that the Government’s approach to allow cruelty to animals to continue for another 15 years—so practices that this Minister accepts are cruel and must go do not have to go for another 15 years—in my opinion is just not good enough. As well as being cruel and wrong—cruel and wrong—those practices are not in New Zealand’s economic interests. It is in the interests of our farmers for New Zealand to have a reputation of being world leading in farming production practices. Generally, most of our farmers are, but there are some whose practices are awful. They are generally—but not only—centred in the pork and the poultry industries. That is where the biggest problems come from. The most obvious problems come from there but we also have some very poor examples of farmers in some other areas as well.

If we want to grab hold of the opportunities, especially in Europe but actually in a number of other countries as well—increasingly in the United States and even in parts of the middle class in Asia—we need to be aware that there is more and more focus on the way we treat our animals in a way that is similar to the way that we treat our environment. If we are not seen to be world leading in this area, over a period of time we will go backwards. Unfortunately, it is often the fact that we mistreat our pigs that will end up being a problem for our sheep. The fact that we mistreat our poultry will end up being a problem for our beef offshore, because it is a country’s reputation across all of the cruelty practices that is, in my opinion, very important. I am holding up now a sheet of paper that is the area that will be the area available to chooks, including size 18 and size 20 chooks, under National’s new advanced 2022 rules. Under the rules that will come into effect then, a chook will have 750 square centimetres—a tiny area. A decent chook will have trouble turning round. It might be a wee bit of progress, but, frankly, it is not good enough.

In conclusion, I want to thank again Mojo Mathers for the work that she did. I thank the Government for running out of other business so it could get on with getting this bill through. I say that eventually we are going to have to look at the real question and that is to allow all farmed animals the right to go outside. If we do not let all farmed animals have the right to go outside, we will be regarded as cruel and our exports will suffer. Thank you.

It gives me no great pleasure to follow the expert on animals from Hutt South, Trevor Mallard. He clearly is an expert on the life and times of the moa but knows very little about farm animals, in my view. I want to make just a couple of comments on the comments he just made, because I think it is grossly unfair to include all farmers in the general statements that he just made. What I do want to make the point about is that the Ministry for Primary Industries has a very strong team out in the provinces. It has a great understanding of farmers and farmers’ ability to handle livestock, and I am quite sure the ministry is well aware of where the challenges are for the farmers. I certainly admit that there are farmers who are not perfect but I also want to make the point that I think they do a pretty good job on the whole, and we certainly do our best to work within the rules.

Now I want to get back to the topic of the day, the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. This bill is critical to New Zealand’s future. I do agree with the previous speaker on that point. It is probably one of the most important bills that will come through this House, along with, perhaps, the biosecurity bill and one or two other bills, interestingly, that affect the primary production sector, because that is a sector that keeps this country going. They have a very strong underlying influence, I guess, on how New Zealand’s economy works and how the primary production sector works. The economy is driven by agriculture, and it in turn is driven by these hugely important bills or Acts of Parliament that impact on a food industry that is worth some $40 billion to New Zealand, and a livestock industry that contributes a large bit of that $40 billion to the food industry.

We have amongst the best animal welfare codes in the world. We are very good practitioners in this field. I will talk a little bit more about the codes of animal welfare a little later, but first I want to get on to a number of other issues that, I guess, have challenged the Primary Production Committee during the course of this bill, which was in the select committee for quite some time.

We dealt with household pets, for example—and 70 percent of all households in New Zealand have pets. Gareth Morgan has picked on one very topical one: the cat. Most of our wild cats in New Zealand started off as household pets, perhaps even in Hutt South. They have been dumped in our rural parts of New Zealand, and, consequently, that is a large piece of what causes the major cat problem that Gareth Morgan frequently refers to. There are also, obviously, a large number of dogs as pets in New Zealand, and many other animals. I am not saying for a minute that households do not look after their pets pretty well—I think that on the whole they do—but they certainly come under pressure. The other challenge we have with those household pets is the large, large number of unregistered dogs—dogs that cause all sorts of problems in New Zealand’s communities. In fact, we see some quite horrific injuries caused by those dogs when they attack children, or even adults. Those are pets that have clearly not been maintained as they should be. They are also pets that come under the control of this very piece of legislation that we are talking about.

I want to briefly mention the greyhound industry. The greyhound industry came in for a lot of focus in the course of discussion on this bill. Greyhound racing is, I guess, a sport. It also contributes to the New Zealand economy. It is challenged by the fact that when you breed an animal for performance, you do not always get the performance you anticipate. We have to find other ways of dealing with those. Greyhounds are clearly dealt with under the Animal Welfare (Dogs) Code of Welfare. So the issues that were raised by people with relationships to the greyhound racing industry are, in my view, satisfactorily dealt with in the Animal Welfare (Dogs) Code of Welfare.

The other issue that is very topical is one of pests, and I guess you could put that in the same category as hunting. Pests—all introduced, of course—are possums, cats, stoats, rats, etc. Mice are also a significant pest. We spend an awful lot of time keeping them out of our food chain, keeping them out of places that we need to keep secure. We also have a great deal of problems with possums, particularly in our native bush and forest. Cats, stoats, and rats likewise cause grievous damage to our native birds. There was some quite significant discussion on those topics during the course of the consideration of this bill in the select committee, and I think, again, they are well dealt with under the relevant codes that apply to those issues.

In New Zealand we farm some 45 million animals—probably a lot more, in fact, but we have an official count of 45 million - odd. We dealt with numerous issues in respect of them, including—and I am not counting birds and things like that, so I am not accounting for the poultry industry in that—microchipping, tagging, ear-marking, horses’ teeth, blacksmiths’ operations, and all sorts of operations that take place on a daily basis in respect of animals. They were all dealt with in the course of the discussion on this bill. If I go to some of the things like horses’ teeth—which were, I guess, dealt with in the discussion around surgical procedures that are undertaken in respect of animals—for a long time, very good practitioners with no qualifications have dealt with things like horses’ teeth, and a number of other issues. In terms of blacksmithing, in some parts of the world you have to have a ticket to enable you to shoe a horse under their welfare codes. In my view, New Zealanders are a much more adaptable people. I think there are a large number of those procedures that can be undertaken extremely safely by people who have a great understanding of animals. So that came in for a lot of discussion in the course of this bill as well. I think we satisfactorily resolved that.

I want to talk, briefly, about the live export of animals. Clearly, we have an understanding that there will be no live shipments for slaughter in New Zealand. We do, of course, sell a large number of horses overseas both for sport—racing—and for other uses. We sell a large number of breeding animals—sheep, dairy cattle—overseas for the same reason. I guess that if you look at the food trends of the world, it is quite conceivable that sometime in the future there will be an opportunity to export very small numbers of very high-priced animals for slaughter—well, I would not call it slaughter; I guess there will be a more practical term they will use for it. By the time they get to that point, there will be a more practical term. And we did not, during the course of this consideration, outlaw the potential for live export of animals; it is just that we have an understanding in this country that we will not do it, and I think wisely so. But there may well come a time in the future when we can in fact export for human consumption again, in a smaller and, I guess, much more enlightened way.

I want to talk about codes of welfare for a moment. I have here the Dairy Cattle Code of Welfare. Anyone who was concerned about the activities of “NAWAC”, the National Animal Welfare Advisory Council, which produced the codes of welfare for the Minister for Primary Industries, will realise that these things are hugely comprehensive, in my view. I think this is a very good document. I would have considered, I suppose, that as a farmer I do not need this kind of stuff, but I think, unfortunately, we do need to set a standard. These codes of welfare set a very clear standard, and I think they do a great job. There was some significant discussion around the make-up of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Council. The Minister has the ability to appoint those members, and I think not only are they a very broad cross-section of the New Zealand animal-industry experts but also there are some independents on the council who are very competent people. I think it is more than adequate.

I just want to talk very briefly about the Minister and the select committee. Obviously, as I have said, this bill is a very important part of what we do. It has been around for a while. In fact, four of the select committee members who dealt with this bill have left this House: Shane Ardern, Eric Roy, Colin King, and Shane Jones. They added a whole lot of value to this bill in the course of it. And, of course, the current committee, of which most are in this House right now, were also on that committee last year, with the exception of a couple of new members on our side of the House, and the man sitting in the Speaker’s Chair himself, Deputy Speaker Chester Borrows. We have considered 1,721 submissions in the course of this bill, including 12 industry groups, 20 advocacy groups, and eight professional bodies. It was a pretty big job. I think that on the whole the committee did an outstanding job with this bill, and I am very pleased to see it coming through. I congratulate the Minister on getting what will be one of New Zealand’s key pieces of legislation through the House. Thank you.

I must say that, despite being a longstanding member of the Primary Production Committee—of which the previous speaker, Ian McKelvie, is, of course, the chair—I did actually stand aside for the Hon Trevor Mallard, who takes the role of animal welfare within our caucus. So I was not there for a number of the hearings, but I have followed this very closely, because, as has previously been said by speakers, this does go to the heart of New Zealand’s production systems. As a passionate advocate for primary industries, I know the things that we need to protect, starting, of course, with biosecurity and food safety. Animal welfare probably comes third in terms of the hierarchy of the things that we need to uphold, both in a reality sense and in a reputational sense, because if New Zealand is to continue to export food, then the people who have to pay—or should pay—a little bit more for quality food want to know that it has been grown and produced ethically. Indeed, this piece of legislation moves us forward some way in that area. So Labour will be supporting it.

It is an interesting time because we have a society that is becoming further disconnected from the realities of production. They want meat but they do not want slaughter, and this bill is one more realistic step to address the issues, to minimise any potential harm to animals, but to still leave in place the reality that animals are grown and produced for slaughter. There will be some who are vegan and who do not want to eat that. That is true and that is their right. The vast majority of people in the world need protein, and we produce it. We produce it in a very sound and ethical way, in a safe way, and in a way that does minimum harm to the animals in the system for the most part. We want to continue with that.

We are making technical changes with the bill. We are addressing some tricky issues like the use of animals in the area of experimentation, and I will say a little bit more about that later. Not only is there a dilemma across society around wanting meat but not wanting it to come from a slaughter process; they also want cheap meat and cheap food—but, of course, they do not necessarily want to deal with the reality that we have to have commercial systems of production that some say are factory. By international standards, most of New Zealand’s systems are pretty much organic. Indeed, if you look at the sheep grazing out in the Mackenzie Country, you would see that they are as close to the basic first step in the evolutionary process as you could imagine—freedom to roam and handled probably two or three times a year. New Zealand is blessed with systems that are as close to ideal as you can get, but there are, in some areas, systems—particularly in the area of egg production, poultry production, pork and, increasingly, in the area of dairying—that are getting to the point of intensity, where the public are asking whether there is a better way than the ways that have been conducted over recent years.

The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, the organisation referred to by the previous speaker, Ian McKelvie, is an independent organisation set up to address these quite challenging ethical areas in an appropriate and independent way. I think it does a very, very good job. We have got the issues of colonies and cages for poultry, what size they should be, and what the normal range of behaviours for those chickens is. What has happened over recent years is we have moved—as a country and through legislation—to expand the areas in which chooks live to give them more movement and to give them more freedom. My colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard says that just about all those animals should have the right to go outside. We have some systems like that in the country but not all of them. If we were to move to those systems within a set period of 2, 3, 4, or 5 years, then there would be a cost to the consumer and the producer, and some might say that that is a perfectly reasonable cost. There is a reality, of course, in a low-paid economy, particularly under a National Government that seems to like zero-hour contracts, that people cannot afford to pay for that food.

There are transitional provisions here, and the exceptions and the extensions to what are deemed not ideal conditions are necessary to allow that transition to occur in a commercially realistic way. I think we have to accept that—well, some of us or perhaps my colleague is more reluctant to. Some of us see that as a normal and sensible transition. But the reality for New Zealand, as the producer of fine-quality food, is that we will have to move in that direction—that is, with eggs, poultry, and pork. I think those industries have accepted that.

The difficult issue of dairying is one that is yet to be resolved because of some Europeans, I have to say, in reality, who have come into this country and think they know how to show us how to milk cows. They want to put all the cows inside in an intensive, housed farming system. I would suggest that they are not making money this year at the payout from Fonterra, so it might clip their wings and their enthusiasm. That intensive system, despite having some advantages over effluent management, does move a long way from the pastoral system that we have known—and if not perfected, certainly developed well—and that has been the hallmark, I guess, of our production systems. So dairying is heading in the other direction at a time when other sectors are moving to a less intensified system that provides the animals with a bit more scope, a bit more freedom, and, I guess, the range of natural movement, as deemed. I think we have to warn the dairying industry here that when moving down that path, it has to be very cautious about what that might mean to New Zealand’s brand reputation. It is not something I think we should encourage. The costs of production simply climb to the point where we are at risk of years of low payout, where those farmers—and more if they get encouraged into those systems—will go broke.

I come back to the legislation. It does include some good objectives. One in particular that I quite like is that there will be encouragement for the labelling of animal products that creates a commercial incentive for improved animal welfare standards. That is a value proposition for those people who are moving their production systems to a better one for animal welfare, and it should be labelled, it should be identified, and the consumers should know, if they are going to pay a bit more for the food, why they are doing so. Why, then, does the National Government not endorse country-of-origin labelling for other foods? Why will it not buy into that? I suggest it is because the supermarkets, its mates, will simply bully it into avoiding that. The fact is that we have trans-Tasman standards. Australia buys into country-of-origin labelling and New Zealand does not. So although this legislation encourages labelling for better animal welfare standards, which I think is a good thing, there is nothing from the Government to say that they should identify where the food was produced in the first place. So it is quite a bizarre contradiction in the legislation that once this is passed, we will be encouraging labelling on the one hand and, in fact, avoiding it on the other hand.

As I said, the extension that was proposed under the legislation will now be closed down. In transitioning from the current standards to better standards of animal welfare and production systems, the reality is that we must allow that transition to occur. If they were chopped off, that would be unrealistic, uneconomic, and, indeed, undesirable for many of the consumers across the country.

All in all, I think this is a good piece of legislation. The question I would like to ask at the end of this is around John Key calling in to Saudi Arabia and, we are told, having discussions about the renewal of the live export trade to that country. I have not heard too many people asking for that or thinking that it is a good thing, other than the Prime Minister perhaps promising his Saudi counterpart that we will get this under way. So I think it is incumbent upon the Government and the Prime Minister to answer the question: are we going to resume live exports for slaughter or not? Although there was a hint from the previous speaker—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: No.

No. Well, as the Minister for Primary Industries has said no, that is good. It is good to hear that, because I do not think there is any benefit, and I am pleased to hear him say that. So I hope he tells the Prime Minister, his boss, that it is no good kidding the Saudi Arabians that we might get a renewal of that trade.

The last thing I would say is that we do not agree with animal testing for cosmetics. Indeed, it is pleasing to see, as the father of five daughters, that cosmetics and make-up are kind of on the way out. I think that is great. It will save me a fortune. Out of all the women around here, I do not see one who needs those cosmetics, and, indeed, we do not need the animal testing to try to improve them. This is a wise piece of legislation but the Government has got to follow through on what it says it is doing here.

It is a pleasure to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I was one of the new members to the Primary Production Committee and unfortunately did not go through any of the process with this bill, so I commend the members of the select committee for the fine job that they have done. Agriculture underpins our economy—in fact, it pays for our way of life. We would not enjoy the same standard of living that we enjoy now if it were not for cows and sheep, in particular. So I think to a large extent we ride on their backs in terms of our economic well-being. Agriculture earns $25 billion from livestock and it contributes to our economy. So it is absolutely huge in terms of New Zealand’s gross national product. I use the term gross national product deliberately. Too often we focus on GDP. Actually, “GNP” is how we pay our way in the world—and that term means “gross national product”, for anyone who is not familiar with that term. I think that I would like to see a lot more focus on that term.

Animal welfare is absolutely vital, but I think that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are currently running a campaign in Australia that does their cause no good. In their latest campaign they claim that 25 percent of the world’s wool is grown in Australia and that it is made from 100 percent cruelty. That is just a ridiculous statement. I agree wholeheartedly with the Victorian Farmers Federation, which said that the campaign denigrates, offends, belittles, and insults every Australian’s intelligence. I think that although we care very deeply about animal welfare, to take it to that level in a campaign really just runs the risk of putting everyone offside from that organisation’s particular argument. If you keep running into a crowded theatre calling “Fire!”, people will not listen to you for very long after that. So I think that they are not doing themselves any good.

New Zealand is, in fact, ranked first equal in the world for animal welfare, and that is fantastic. It is great, but that does not mean that we should rest on our laurels; we should always attempt to improve. I think that trade is so vital. The previous speaker, Damien O’Connor, mentioned that we are a trading nation, we are a niche producer, we sell into niche markets, and we actually command a premium for our products. The fact that people who buy our products are paying a little more than they pay for those they buy from others is based around things like our animal welfare. They do care about that. It is not something that they necessarily do a lot of research on, but if it comes up, they certainly do care about it. Although animal welfare has not been a big issue in Asia—and the Asian market is becoming an increasingly important market for lots of our goods—over time we have seen a distinct change in values around the environment in Asia, and I believe we will see the same thing with animal welfare. So it is incumbent upon us to have really good rules around that, and this bill really does go a long way towards that.

Sixty-eight percent of New Zealand households own a pet. Although most of our talk and focus has been on farm animals, by numbers of population most people’s contact with animals is with the family pet, and we should not forget that in this discussion. As my colleague said earlier, dogs not only damage humans, which we often see when there is a dog attack, but they also attack other dogs quite often, and are often trained to be vicious.

This bill deals with a lot of those issues and I commend the Primary Production Committee and the Minister for Primary Industries for dealing with it in that way. This bill seeks to amend the Animal Welfare Act 1999. It brings a higher degree of transparency to the Act, and I think that is much needed. It has a much greater enforceability, it increases the range of enforcement tools, and, in fact, it brings in more appropriate penalties. I think that is really important because we too often see well-meaning Acts of Parliament with little enforceability or inappropriate penalties. If people do offend, then they deserve to feel the full weight of the law, and we need to make sure that it really is a deterrent.

The bill provides a framework for suitable regulations, and the Minister, at their discretion, is able to bring in regulations as things change. Over time, attitudes to animal welfare change considerably. We have just gone through the Anzac Day celebrations. One hundred years ago 10,000 horses went off to the First World War. I can guarantee to you that the attitude to animal welfare 100 years ago was considerably different from what it is today. Not many of those horses came back and the way in which they were disposed of is perhaps best not focused on too much these days. Those things would not happen in the New Zealand of today under the current rules, and the rules are tightened further still under the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill.

The issues that this bill tackles are complex, and I commend the select committee for the work it did on this. It is not easy to deal with these complex issues, but we are not elected to do the easy things; we are elected to make good law and do things that are sometimes a bit tough. I actually commend both the Minister, in particular, and also the select committee for tackling these things head-on and dealing with them in the way that they did.

I think it is worth noting that not all New Zealanders—in fact, very few New Zealanders—actually deal with farm animals or have any link with farms. Going back only a few generations, most New Zealanders had a direct link to a farm through their family or good friends. Nowadays most people probably do not have any interaction with farms at all. Farmers deal with animals every day, and the reality of dealing with animals every day is quite different from the interaction that people have with a pet. Often, seeing what goes on in a farm can be upsetting for some people. A sheep being shorn, for example—although the sheep does not actually relish the process, it really enjoys getting the wool off its back when it gets outside.

Surgical and painful procedures were covered, and these were alluded to earlier in the process. I have had some feedback from veterinary surgeons in my electorate who were concerned about the docking of tails on dogs. In particular, those surgeons did not want to see the law changed because they felt that some dog owners would take that procedure on themselves rather than doing it through a veterinary surgeon with adequate anaesthesia and sterile conditions. Although I have some sympathy with their position, the reality is that we do not like that sort of procedure in New Zealand and it has really got to end. We do have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and I am pleased to see that that line has been drawn.

There are 16 codes of animal welfare issued under the Animal Welfare Act and developed by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. Those codes are being strengthened by new regulations, which I alluded to earlier. I think it is really important that the regulations will have some teeth rather than just being codes. I think that that is a fantastic innovation.

There has been some talk about factory farming, and I really just want to mention a little bit about that. If we do rush into banning so-called factory farming in terms of how we treat hens and farrowing crates, etc., there will be a cost. The cost will be borne by the consumer, and all we will likely see is consumers switching to cheaper products that have come in from offshore, and you are simply shifting the animal welfare issue out of this country and into another country. In terms of the animals you are not really making any difference whatsoever. You may be salving your conscience but you are not helping animal welfare. I think it is sensible to have a good lead-in time. Patoa Farms, which is New Zealand’s biggest pork producer, processes 2,000 pigs a week, so it is a significant producer. It does not in fact use farrowing crates, but it has taken some time for it to develop that process, and it will take the rest of the industry some time to catch up with those practices. I think it is quite right and proper that we give them some time to do that.

Wild animals, pest management, and hunting have been touched on by others, but I want to speak just a little bit about those issues. As a hunter myself I know that it is easy to be a little flippant about these things. Ultimately, the aim is to actually kill an animal, but we should be doing it in a way that is humane. I think it behoves us as human beings at the top of the animal pyramid to treat those animals right and properly. It is with great pleasure that I commend the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to the House. Thank you.

I would like to start by thanking previous speakers, particularly Trevor Mallard and the Minister Nathan Guy, for their generous affirmation of my work on this bill. At the second reading, I spoke of our hope that the Government would still be prepared to support a ban on animal testing of cosmetics despite having rejected it during the Committee of the whole House stage. I am thrilled that my work has been justified. I applaud the Government for finally agreeing to a ban on these cruel tests, and I thank all parties in the House for supporting this amendment.

We can be proud of the fact that New Zealand is now the first country in Australasia to ban cosmetic animal testing, showing leadership on an important animal welfare issue of our time. The announcement of a ban on cosmetic animal testing has met with worldwide acclaim and affirmation, and has spurred renewed efforts to get these cruel tests banned in other countries. Doing our part to support a global ban on cosmetic animal testing was a major motivation for getting this change incorporated into the bill, and I look forward to the day when no animal, anywhere in the world, is subject, in these cruel tests, to chemicals being dripped into their eyes or rubbed into their raw skin.

I also welcome a small but important change in the bill that will require animal ethics committees to consider alternatives to animal testing when considering applications to test on animals. Alternatives to animal testing is an area that is making rapid progress at the moment, but, sadly, it is one that New Zealand is lagging behind in. Animal testing often involves extremely high levels of pain and suffering. One of the most traumatic things that I had to do last year, in the discussions on the Pyschoactive Substances Bill, was actually to watch a video of what was involved in toxicology testing, and it absolutely broke my heart. We should be doing everything that we can to reduce the number of animals suffering in these cruel tests, and we have a moral and ethical obligation to do so.

If we are to be confident that unnecessary animal tests are not being carried out, it is essential that animal ethics committees are kept up to date with the latest developments in non-animal tests. For example, just recently, over in Australia, a major company decided to use the liver chip model to test the potential cure for hepatitis B instead of using the much more painful and cruel animal test. I want to encourage the Ministry for Primary Industries to investigate ways of ensuring that this information about the latest developments in alternatives to animal testing is shared between the different animal ethics committees in order to guide their decision making. I have spoken to former and current members of animal ethics committees, and they have told me that they would welcome this information because they do not actually have it.

This is particularly important in light of the fact that we know that different animal ethics committees are making different decisions about controversial tests. At least one animal ethics committee has approved three applications for the controversial and outdated LD50 test, whereas another says it would never have approved these because they do not meet the “Three Rs” of animal research. This inconsistency is concerning because it undermines the ministry’s claims that we can trust the decisions of animal ethics committees. In my view, they have a long way to go yet.

Another welcome change in the bill is the partial removal of the loophole that allows, for an indefinite period of time, the development of regulations that breach the purpose of the Act. This is long overdue. These loopholes are the ones that have previously allowed cruel factory farming practices such as factory cages and sow crates to remain legal. I had an amendment that removed that loophole, and the Primary Production Committee heard good submissions from the public in support of my amendment. The Green Party fully agreed with Trevor Mallard that the current transitional provisions in the bill are too generous and that 7 years is sufficient time for farmers to make the change away from cruel practices such as farrowing crates. The fact is that there are successful pig farmers, such as Havoc farm, that do not rely on farrowing crates, and it gives lie to the argument that they are needed.

Many people in the House will remember the footage shown on Campbell Live last year that showed very different conditions on different pig farms. The first programme focused on exposing the awful conditions on a pig factory farm in the Waikato. That footage was horrific, showing pigs that were absolutely depressed, cramped in confined conditions, unable to turn round, and unable to express natural behaviour, and that did not have anything like a normal existence. Those conditions were typical of many intensive pig farms and they amounted to legalised animal cruelty. Sadly, this bill will do little to address these conditions. The second programme showed a completely different vision for how farming can be done in New Zealand. It showed Havoc farm, a free-range farm in South Canterbury. It said that the mothers there are able to roam freely with the piglets and that there is access to warm shelters, litter to snuggle down in, and an ability to explore and interact. That is the way that farming should be done if we are going to farm for meat, and these are the only kinds of conditions that the Green Party considers to be acceptable.

Despite some of the really positive aspects of this bill, it is our overall view that this bill still represents a missed opportunity to get it right for the millions of animals suffering on factory farms. My concern is that this bill will not only continue to sanction these kinds of cruel conditions of factory farming but that it may entrench them even further, and that is because it now elevates practicality and economic impact in the bill as explicit factors that can be considered when developing regulations. There was already the ability to take these factors into account, and, historically, these factors—practicality and economic impact—were precisely the arguments used to justify codes of welfare that enabled animals to be kept in factory cages and in sow crates that were in clear breach of the provisions in the Act. In our view, this move sends the wrong message about which factors are important in developing codes of welfare in regulations.

I also want to say that another main area of concern that has just come to light is the area of live exports. As everybody has mentioned previously, there is an effective prohibition, via an order under the Customs and Excise Act, on live exports for slaughter, and many submitters wanted an outright ban in this bill. The advice and the assurance that we had from Ministry for Primary Industries officers was that the intention is for the current prohibition to be maintained via regulation under the Act, once the bill is passed. I know that many of us have felt very concerned about the recent comments by the Prime Minister, when he was visiting Saudi Arabia, that this was one of the areas that was being looked at. It would be absolutely shameful if we allowed our current policy to be weakened when the regulations are developed, just for the sake of a trade deal. That would be horrific. Nothing could be more damaging to our international reputation than if we were to resume live exports of animals for slaughter, because we know that causes significant suffering, and many farmers do not want it and the public do not want it.

Although we are pleased that some changes will become enforceable, much will depend on which standards get lifted into the regulations. We also remain concerned about the resourcing of animal welfare monitoring and enforcement. Currently, less than 1 percent of complaints result in prosecution, and we still want to see significantly increased funding for monitoring and enforcement, including proactive enforcement. Thank you.

I am very pleased to rise to take a call in the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill on behalf of New Zealand First. I want to pick up on a couple of points that Mr McKelvie made earlier, and one of them was actually about pest control. He talked about the pest species of animals that we have in this country. It is quite interesting that at this time the subject of 1080 is topical, because 1080 is actually an extremely inhumane form of pest control. It is curious, in fact, that it was not included in the ambit of this bill, but perhaps that is a question for another day. It is something we can revisit.

Mr McKelvie also spoke about the export of live animals for slaughter, and Mr O’Connor touched on that, and the Minister has said a word about it as well. I want to talk primarily about the export of live animals because it is probably the major lingering concern that New Zealand First still has with regard to this bill. During the first reading I expressed some reservations that New Zealand First held regarding the export of live animals for slaughter. Of course, under the existing Act, this is prohibited unless it is specifically authorised by the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries. We asked at the time whether or not, that being the case, this bill presented an opportunity to do away with that provision altogether.

New Zealand used to export animals for slaughter on quite a large scale, and the practice was brought to a halt by Parliament some years ago for what were very sound reasons at the time. There were, and are, of course, other reasons as well, economic reasons, but the motivation at the time was primarily centred on the conditions the animals were subjected to while they were being transported to other places and the conditions that they were subjected to when they arrived at the other end.

New Zealand First has got no objection to the export of live bloodstock, because we understand full well just how valuable the thoroughbred industry is to this country. We know that our bloodstock is highly regarded and highly sought after internationally, and that many thousands of jobs and literally hundreds of millions of dollars are generated in the economy through the export of live horses. But horses are treated in an entirely different manner from sheep and cattle intended for slaughter in the way they are transported and cared for.

Horses are airfreighted to their destinations in pressurised, air-conditioned comfort. They are housed in safe, secure environments while on the aeroplane and they have veterinary care. And, of course, on arrival, their fate is not to be taken to the nearest abattoir but rather to a training track or a stud farm. These are valuable animals and they are cared for accordingly. Breeding heifers are similarly afforded a better lot than the cattle and sheep that left these shores a decade or so ago destined for the slaughterhouses of distant places. New Zealand First does not believe that we should be exporting such animals either, but we recognise that while it is legal, there are people who will see it as good business and who will look to profit from it.

We are opposed because we believe that such practices are short-sighted, and, as I have said in debates on other legislation, notably the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act, we believe that business activity of this type will come back and bite New Zealand. The reason for that is that one day the dairy bubble is going to burst. We have allowed ourselves in this country to come to the belief that because we hold such a major position in terms of global cross-border trade in dairy products we are somehow significant in terms of world milk production, and we are not. New Zealand produces only around 3 percent of the world’s milk.

Most dairy produce worldwide is consumed domestically in the country of origin, and international trade comprises only a very small proportion of the total. At the moment, there is a shortfall between supply and demand, and it is this that allows New Zealand to profit from being in a position to supply, from our disproportionately large dairy production relative to our population and domestic demand, to buyers from overseas. But in helping to grow production overseas through joint ventures, and by selling heifers to foreign dairy producers, we are only hastening the arrival of the day when demand for dairy products in the countries that are presently our export markets will be met from production in those countries. For that reason, we do not believe that it is sustainable or even a good idea to export live dairy cows, regardless of the conditions under which they are transported.

Of course, New Zealand does also export other animals for breeding purposes, including cattle, sheep, goats, deer, and even chickens. Our animals are very much sought after worldwide because they are known to be, for the most part, from very good stock lines and are, for the most part, free from any of the nasty diseases that are endemic in some other parts of the world. Again, animals that are exported for breeding purposes are treated better and transported in far greater safety and comfort than those that are destined for the pot.

The issue of live exports for slaughter has not gone away. In fact, it raised its head only last week with the Prime Minister’s efforts towards securing a free-trade deal with the nations of the Middle East’s Gulf Cooperation Council. This deal has been on hold since 2009. Coincidentally, one of the sticking points is the fact that New Zealand halted live sheep exports in 2004. Apparently, an investor from Saudi Arabia lost quite a bit of money as a result of the cessation of exports, and we are told that the Saudis are still a wee bit sore about that. But, that aside, these exports were put on indefinite hold at that time for very good reason.

As a nation, we have engaged in live export for slaughter for more than 20 years prior to that, but in 2003 something like 5,000 sheep died on one ship under what can be described only as quite horrific conditions while being transported from Australia to Saudi Arabia. They died from heat stress, overcrowding, and a lack of food, water, and sanitation during a sea voyage that had lasted something like 2 months longer than it should have. New Zealand First is very much concerned that such exports may be resumed and that the provision for their resumption still exists under the bill.

We are concerned on a number of fronts, but they all come back to animal welfare in one way or another. Obviously, we are concerned that if live exports for slaughter were to be resumed, we would be faced with a return to the very same conditions that led to their being curtailed in the first place. It is hard to see how that can be avoided, because these things are driven by money. Sheep are crammed into overcrowded boats because the cost of transporting them has to be kept down. A live sheep being exported for slaughter is not worth very much. In fact, it is probably the lowest return for both the farmer and the nation that can be received for a sheep that has been grown for consumption.

We do know that things have not improved very much in that regard in the last 10 or 15 years, because live exports from Australia have continued pretty much unabated since that time, and the standard of transport today is much as it was then. In fact, collateral losses for sheep exports from Australia to other parts of the world are running at about 7 or 8 percent—maybe a little bit less than that, but it is still too much, by any measure. It is the minimal value of the animal and the minimal return to the farmer and to “New Zealand Inc.” that we oppose, and for the same reasons we do not wish to see any part of our primary sector reduced to a simple exporter of bulk commodities.

The second concern that we have is around the conditions that might meet livestock exported for slaughter when they arrive at the other end of their journey. We know that the Director-General can grant an exemption if he or she is satisfied that the abattoir in the destination country meets the standards that we demand here, but the reality is that in too many cases live animals are sought in other parts of the world for reasons of ritual slaughter in accordance with the requirements of various religious and cultural practices. These practices by their very nature are not able to meet the minimum standards of animal welfare that we demand of our own meat processes. Animals are required to be fully conscious when they are put to death, which is at odds with our own requirement that they be stunned first. They are frequently transported in the boots of cars, even in the back seats of cars. They are not properly restrained. They are subjected to quite brutal and stressful treatment prior to slaughter.

We have an objection also to the granting of the exemption being placed in the hands of the Director-General, however professional he or she might be. The practice of exporting live animals for slaughter was stopped by politicians through the parliamentary process, and we believe that if it is to be resumed, then that decision must be made in the same way. We do not believe that it is good enough for a Minister to be able to hide behind a bureaucrat if and when this decision ever is to be made. Governments need to take responsibility for changes of this magnitude, and we believe that if a Minister wishes to restart the export of live animals for slaughter, then he or she should be required to put their money where their mouth is, stand behind that decision, and stand up for it if and when necessary. And whether it is necessary is a salient point, because over the last decade or so we have shown that exports of live sheep for slaughter from New Zealand are not necessary.

The New Zealand farming sector has got on quite well without them for the last decade, and it appears that customers in the Middle East have got on quite well without those exports, as well. So it is simply not necessary, and we ask again why it has not been removed altogether, and why we did not make provision for prohibiting it in total when the bill went through. But all that said, on balance this is still a very good bill, which will deliver very much better and improved outcomes for animal welfare in New Zealand, and New Zealand First continues to support it. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to be speaking this afternoon on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. To begin, I will make just a couple of comments about comments made by the member for Hutt South, the Hon Trevor Mallard, this afternoon about the Ministry for Primary Industries and about it perhaps not being out there doing its job in the field. I have to say that, in my experience—prior to my becoming a member of Parliament, I did substantial work with the Ministry for Primary Industries on various committees in the area of animal welfare—a lot of work has been done with industries to help them to improve the practices in which they partake in order to earn an income.

Although there has been some reference today about this bill having been around for a long time—and as one of the newer members of the Primary Production Committee, I will acknowledge those who have gone before me—that does not mean, actually, that nothing has been happening out there. People who farm animals are really keen to make a difference. They know what the market perceptions are. They know what people are saying about their practices. There is a lot of work constantly going on, all the time, to make sure that they are upholding the best practices that they possibly can.

We have heard a bit today about the 16 codes of welfare that are covered under the Act, and, of course, these codes will be strengthened by the new regulations. In recent weeks I have been lucky enough to see some good presentations from people, in the likes of the poultry industry, who are actually transitioning to a phase where they are looking at moving from cages into colonies. So they are looking at actually taking the animals in that process out of those cages as fast as they economically can. Sometimes it is economically difficult to do some of those things in a hurry. But I am really heartened by the attitude of that industry, in terms of being able to effect some change.

There was a reference today about sheep shearing. In Te Kūiti, in the heart of my electorate of Taranaki - King Country, we have just had the New Zealand shearing championships. I have seen some of the graphics that have been coming out of Australia as well. I have to say that I did not see any sheep in distress, and there were hundreds—probably thousands—of sheep shorn over that weekend. Those people are professionals who know the technicalities of shearing a sheep. I am sure that if I got hold of a sheep and tried to shear it, it would probably panic, but when you watch the likes of a champion like David Fagan shearing a sheep, it is very professionally and very well done.

We have also heard this afternoon about animals being outside rather than inside. I think I will be really interested to see what happens there. Some of the latest requests out there, in terms of getting rid of our pests in New Zealand, have been calls from some people in society to keep cats inside. So it is going to be really interesting because we have got people asking to get farm animals outside but then to keep cats inside.

It is surprising to me, in this bill, that it has taken such a long time for us to realise that animals are sentient beings. Even though we know it, it is going to be nice, actually, to see it finally written in legislation. I would also like to commend Mojo Mathers for her clauses around banning cosmetics testing on animals.

What I would really like to highlight this afternoon is the fact that we are talking about being productive and competitive—and trade is very important to this country. Yes, there is a need to have high standards. We are in a transition phase with a lot of industries. Earlier this year the Government released the New Zealand Animal Welfare Strategy. This sets a direction. It sets a vision. I think we would be arrogant to think that we in this House are the only people who are the experts on animal welfare. Industries have the ability to debate, to construct evolving standards, and to work with the Ministry for Primary Industries. People who work with animals do care about animals. The proposals in this legislation have been through rigorous consultation. They are set to act at a pace that our communities can live with. I think it is really important that this legislation has made that clearer and more transparent, and that we can navigate our way through this legislation much more clearly than we could before.

There is also one thing that I would like to point out around trade and biosecurity, and that is the move to avoid unnecessary delays in urgent national biosecurity responses. Clause 5 inserts into section 3 of the Act the new subsections (2A), (2B), and (2C) to provide for exemption from the requirement to seek approval from an ethics committee before killing an animal in such circumstances. Sometimes we just do not have time to go through big long rigorous processes that could end up being substantially more dangerous to society than to the animal, or animals, concerned in those situations. So I am really, really pleased to see that that is changing in this bill.

This bill also clarifies what constitutes a significant surgical procedure that can be carried out only by a vet, without defining it so narrowly that farmers cannot do routine procedures. So that is just another clarification that means people will not be able to say: “I did it because I didn’t know.” Things are unclear in the Act and people go ahead and do things, and then find out later. So it is really important that people do know exactly what is in the legislation and exactly what they are allowed to do.

The other thing is that there will be greater sanctions for those who mistreat animals. I think that is really important because, at the end of the day, we do have laws to protect us from those people who perhaps do not see things in the same way as the rest of us. That is not only farmers; that is pet owners and a whole raft of other people. We have also included wild animals in this. It is really important that just because they were not pets or owned by somebody, they were not protected under our law. I am pleased to see that there are greater sanctions for those who do mistreat animals, because, for those who watch not only the daily 6 o’clock news but also social media, which is a classic these days, there are people showing pictures of mistreated animals, so it is certainly important to get on top of that one.

Under this legislation, the vast majority of New Zealanders who take care of their animals very well will not see any major changes in terms of the way they are expected to behave towards their animals. I think it is going to deal with those people who, as I said, really do not have the feeling for animals. We need to deal with those people because one thing is for certain: those people in society who have trouble respecting animals often have trouble respecting people as well. Thank you.

The next call is a split call. Steffan Browning—5 minutes.

I am pleased to be able to speak to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and congratulate those involved with getting the improvements into the bill, particularly my colleague Mojo Mathers. What I want to see when this legislation is fully enacted is other elements of animal welfare law that are already enacted put into practice by this Government. I am thinking particularly, as I speak tonight, of the hundreds of cows that died from the herbicide-tolerant swede issue in Southland, the many, many more that were visibly ill, and the many, many more with subclinical issues. So poor was the condition of some of the surviving cows that there was a question of their suitability as culled cows for processing.

I have been looking at some Official Information Act material on this. There is what they call a natural toxin that seems to be the cause of the distress of these cows. This was a serious animal welfare issue. Was that product, which clearly is at the base of this issue, withdrawn? Was it banned? Or was there a cover-up? There was a cover-up. We still do not have a proper report on what happened last winter, and into early spring, to those cows in Southland. The only way we can find anything is through Official Information Act material, and in that I find the very valid questions that I put to the Minister and I see how they were treated as just generalisations. It says that if the group is asked about this, it should just stick to these messages and not go down the track of trying to answer any questions.

There is a chemical involved here as well. It is not just the glucosinolates—we call them GSLs for short, as everybody else does, for good reason. A glucosinolate is natural toxin. It forms in the leaves of swedes and other brassicas. It can get to quite high levels, and under certain conditions it can get to a toxic level. But what we find here is that the herbicide-tolerant swedes have way more than the non - herbicide tolerant swedes. The glucosinolate levels are 4 to 16 milligrams per kilo in the leaves—the bulbs are lower, down on the ground, 1 to 4 milligrams per kilo—but non - herbicide tolerant ones are just 1 milligram. Something is going on in PGG Wrightson’s Cleancrop system, with swedes at least, and we are not too sure about the turnips, rape, and other products under that system. It cheated New Zealanders and it cheated farmers by going down a system of production of those herbicide-tolerant ones and by dodging the genetic engineering route that it already had for that same product through a chemical mutagenesis thing—just as much a DNA muck up—so that it did not have to go through the Environmental Protection Authority and be open to submissions and testing for safety. PGG Wrightson dodged it and this Government has let it dodge it.

This is an animal welfare issue. It is also an issue for the people who consume the products from those animals, and for the other animal products in this country from animals that are fed products containing lots of herbicides, whether it be glyphosate or whether it be chlorothalonil, which is in these herbicide tolerant swedes and is banned in China. In here, in the Official Information Act stuff, I find that they are saying: “Is there enough other herbicide if we move away from these crops?”. They are so locked into PGG Wrightson’s crop. We have got to change the way we farm. We have to go down the organic route, and this Government has got to help with regulation for the organic sector. Thank you.

I call Sue Moroney—5 minutes.

It is a pleasure to rise and support the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill at its third reading on behalf of the Labour Party. I just want to note for regular viewers of, and listeners to, parliamentary debates that they will have noticed something a little different happening in the House this afternoon. It is a Government day where Government measures are going through the House, and the Government members are making very fulsome contributions to this debate. It is good to see that occur, but, of course, it is a sign that the Government is not that keen to get through all this legislation very fast because it does not have much legislation on the Order Paper at the moment. That is because the Government has run out of ideas, so it has finally found its voice and is wanting to talk rather a lot about its legislation, one piece of which is the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, and that is what is consuming our interest today for the next little while in the House.

Labour is supporting this bill and we are very pleased to do so, although we wish it went an awful lot further and we wish that the measures came in more quickly. Once Parliament determines, as it has, that certain practices are harmful and are not in the interests of animal welfare, then our question is: why wait 15 years to bring in those measures? If we have determined that these practices are harmful, we should act as soon as we can. I noticed that the last Government member who spoke on this bill used a phrase where she said that people were doing this “as fast as they economically can”. That is a phrase that I have not heard used a lot before, but I think it is very telling in terms of where the priority lies in this regard. I would prefer, and the Labour Party would prefer, that the welfare of the animals was the priority and that people were urged to treat animals in a more respectful way much more quickly than taking 15 years for those harmful practices to be phased out. So that would be our criticism of this bill. However, we are pleased that there is some progress being made.

One of the most important reasons that personally I am pleased to see some progress made on animal welfare is the very close and now well-documented link between those who are prepared to abuse animals and be harmful towards animals and those who therefore turn out also to be abusive towards fellow human beings. There is now actually a lot of evidence that tells us this. The young men whom I think were eventually caught undertaking that heinous act of clubbing the seals to death down south—this happened about 18 months ago, maybe 2 years ago now. Actually, when people show a lack of empathy towards animals in that way—albeit these animals were out in the wild, not someone’s pet—they almost certainly have that same lack of empathy towards others in vulnerable situations, like children, like other fellow human beings, like women in their lives as well.

So I think it is very important not only for the issues of animal welfare, which in its own right is very important, and for the issues that many other members have pointed out about how we are placed within the international market and how animal welfare is seen in those terms, but it is also important because we know of the impact and the direct correlation and relationship between people who get a buzz out of hurting animals and how that probably means that they get the same buzz out of hurting, and have the same lack of empathy for, their fellow human beings. I am not going to take up too much more of Parliament’s time. This is an important measure not only for animals but for people. It is important for our place in the international market. Labour supports its passing.

I just find it absolutely amazing that when Opposition members speak in support of a Government bill, they make such good sense. So I just want to commend Sue Moroney’s on some of her thoughts there, and also—

💬 Sue Moroney: Oh, be careful—be careful.

Yes, be careful. I have been warned to be careful. That is right. You will not get any more credit from me.

The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is a very important bill, I think, for most New Zealanders—well, all New Zealanders—and, certainly, for those who have a kind consideration and thought towards animals. In fact, about 70 percent of New Zealand households have a pet, and I was just thinking about the pets that I have had throughout my life. I started off with tadpoles. I am sure that everybody else here might have had a tadpole in their room, in a little jar with a bit of oxygen weed. Then I had guinea pigs, cats, and calves. I had a pet pig once, called Patsy. I had lambs, horses, and dogs, of course. All of these things, I think—

💬 Sue Moroney: Horses in your bedroom?

—have made me a very empathetic person. Thank you very much, Ms Moroney.

I think that there is some validity in the comment that the way we treat our animals is indicative of the sorts of attitudes we have towards ourselves—human beings—and it is always good to see animals treated with respect and care. I think that in our country we are horrified when we see abuse and cruelty to animals. It comes across our TV screens far too often, and there is an outcry when despicable things are done. I think it is indicative of the fact that New Zealand is, by and large, a very decent society. So it is no wonder that we are bringing through the House this piece of legislation, by and large with support right across the House, wanting to improve the state and the being of animals. I am sure that there are going to be differences on some finer points—as different members have spoken about—but, by and large, we are together on this.

One of the things that my colleague Barbara Kuriger said—she understands animals very well, she being from a dairy background—was that this bill talks about the sentience of animals: their ability to feel, to perceive, and to experience. I think that the more science reveals this, the more of an obligation there is upon humanity to deal with animals in a very humane way. I think also that the comments made by Damien O’Connor are pertinent, in that we live in a world that consumes protein. So that is the other balance of it. There are some people who abhor the thought of a steak or a ham sandwich or, you know, sausages on a barbecue. But, you would say that—

💬 Kris Faafoi: Oh!

It would not be Mr Faafoi, by the look of it. He is a man who would like a beautiful lamb curry, no doubt, and also a steak on a barbecue, or a beef sandwich.

But the other side of it is that we understand that animals, whether they produce dairy products, wool, milk, or meat, have contributed to our way of life and to our economy here—to the point where each year around 50 percent of export earnings comes from animals and animal products. I think that is the reality. For myself, whenever I go to the supermarket, I always buy eggs that are free range. That is because I believe in animal welfare, and also because they seem to be the biggest and the nicest eggs. I think there is something in that; that we can have not only a reputation around positive animal welfare but also products that are far superior because of it. I think people in the industry need to realise that they will not be hurt by the transition, but that, actually, they will end up with products that are far superior. Having minimum standards is an important aspect of this.

We pride ourselves on our place in the world with regard to animal welfare. There is a global charity, called World Animal Protection, that recently ranked 50 countries across the world on their animal welfare standards. This index placed New Zealand in first place, alongside the United Kingdom, Austria, and Switzerland. That is good to see, but we cannot afford to be complacent just because we might be top-ranking. We must always look for improvements. One of the things Mr Mallard said was that this transition away from caged hens is taking far too long—15 years. Well, in the bill, it is 10 years. Yes, there is an opportunity for a person to apply for a one-off exemption of 5 years, but for the vast majority, the strong expectation is that it should take no longer than 10 years. I believe also that over that period of time you would have to have a good reason for why it was going to take that long. There is no reason why people cannot be proactive in moving ahead.

It is not just legislation that controls this; it is also market appetite. It is what the market wants. Increasingly, we will find, not only in New Zealand but also around the world, that the market is deciding its food products and the products that animals produce—milk or whatever it may be—based on ethical farming. That is the way the world is going. People are listening to that message. If they are interested in staying in business, they need to listen.

It has been 14 years since there was a review of the Animal Welfare Act, so this bill is long overdue. It is a very important piece of legislation. This legislation will update and strengthen animal welfare in New Zealand. This bill is the result of a comprehensive review of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. It was found that although the principles of the existing legislation are sound, the time is right to update and improve how it operates.

In that regard, I want to put a shout out there for my former parliamentary colleague from Taranaki - King, Country Shane Ardern, who was the chair of the Primary Production Committee. He did a tremendous amount of work on this bill. We are very pleased now to have Barbara Kuriger, who is the member for Taranaki - King Country. That electorate starts in Taranaki and ends nearly in South Auckland. I think it is a nation-size electorate.

💬 Jacqui Dean: A townie.

Yes, that is right. And she is a townie in a dozen towns up and down our country. Barbara has a tremendous knowledge of and experience in animal welfare, and it is great to have her in our caucus.

Minimum standards are important. Sometimes it is a real shame that you have to legislate for minimum standards. You would hope that people would always, all the time, be seeking to be the best and to develop and promote excellence in their industry. But minimum standards of animal care do change over time, as scientific views lift on what animal management practices are and on what is acceptable. An example of this is, of course, what has recently captured the attention of New Zealanders, through campaigns, and that is the use of sow stalls and battery cages—both of which are being phased out. I think that is an important point to make.

When transitioning from one type of farming practice to another, we have to acknowledge that it is an expensive process. We have put into this bill a transitional period of time. The purists might be upset at that and they might say: “Do it tomorrow. Do it whatever the expense is. You just have to do it.” Not only do we need to consider the well-being of our farming and poultry industries but we also need to understand that the way of life that has been passed on to New Zealanders is something that we need to protect. These transitional measures are being put in place because we do expect a transition, but we are not going to do it just tomorrow, although we expect the industry to be proactive in this and make every effort to do it in a very timely way. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to make the penultimate contribution in the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Even though I am not a member of the Primary Production Committee, I know that this is a very, very important piece of legislation that we are debating in the House today. It further enhances our reputation as a quality food-producing nation and exporter to markets around the world. It is a very important piece of legislation.

We have heard in previous contributions that we as Kiwis feel very deeply about animal welfare, and that is true. We have heard that two-thirds of households have pets. We have heard that our export industries are largely underpinned by our food production and our food product exports. I need not go into the detail of how important it is in terms of our way of life and our standard of living that we do have strong primary industries. We are fair-minded as Kiwis. We do like to see our animals treated well. We are horrified when we see examples of abuse conducted on animals whether it be on farms or in other situations. All of those matters are sought to be addressed through this bill. We are supporting this bill based on that underlying principle and policy.

Again we have heard numerous contributions from the Government side of the House about the importance of animal welfare in terms of our primary industries, but again it has failed to even mention the importance of the seafood industry to our country. I repeat that the seafood industry is very important. It is a $1.5 billion export industry, and it is very important in terms of the communities that it services. I think of communities in my own electorate, such as Bluff or Kaikōura, or even over on the Chatham Islands. It is a very important industry.

Animal welfare, under the application of this bill, is equally important to the seafood industry. The No. 1 export product in the seafood industry now is live lobster. The very fact that our lobster, which is potted here in the waters of Aotearoa, has to live in a tank in a restaurant, principally in North Asia, is incentive enough for the industry to ensure that the animals are absolutely treated with the highest standards of handling and transportation all the way from—dare I say it—a rock over on the Chatham Islands through to their handling on the plane to Asia.

The seafood industry has come about only in the last, say, 15 to 20 years. It is an industry that has flourished, and now the No.1 product in our seafood industry is lobster, and that is principally based on animal welfare, handling, and the catch methods that are applied to live lobster. I am very pleased to say that the fishing industry has a very good relationship with the Ministry for Primary Industries in terms of the protocols, or codes of practice, that are in place, for example, for live lobster. I would imagine that the industry is looking forward to those codes of practice eventually being put into regulation, again because the value lies in the very fact that the product has to be live. That is where the value lies, and that is where the premium is paid to our exporters. Ultimately, the returns flow back to our fishing industry, our fishers and their families, through the very fact that that lobster is handled and is received live by our customers.

It does not really stop there because opportunities abound for further live exports. We know that there are small bits of trade that are happening around live pāua exports. We have significant live shellfish exports that take place. All of these are enhancing the value that we are earning as a seafood industry, which ultimately benefits our country. The one area of opportunity that is yet to be developed is in the live fin fish export trade. If you go into any restaurant in North Asia, in China and southern China especially, live fish is a very much highly prized dish in the Chinese market. If we are able to actually export live fish, that can turn a low - value species fish in New Zealand into a high-value fish, just by ensuring that we look after that fish or that animal, and making sure that it is delivered in good condition to the customer.

It not only goes to the fact that the fish is alive but it goes further in terms of the appearance. Our customers in North Asia like colourful fish. They like stripes; they like distinctive looking and highly prized fish that will end up on their plates. Opportunities abound for our seafood industry and I know that it will be working with the Ministry for Primary Industries to ensure that there are very appropriate regulations or codes of practice put in place to ensure that we can unlock the value to generate further foreign exchange earnings, which will ultimately benefit our nation.

This is a very important piece of legislation. I do, though, want to take issue with the Minister for Primary Industries, because I do believe he was being slightly disingenuous in his comments about how the Government is doing so much to support animal welfare and enforcement. The Minister mentioned that there have been extra front-line animal protection officers appointed, or put on to the job, to ensure that there would be on-farm inspections, compliance, and the like. But that is not entirely correct because a fair portion of the actual animal welfare inspectors that the Ministry for Primary Industries does engage at the moment, or employ, are actually fisheries officers. They are those good men and women whose job is to actually detect and investigate breaches of our fisheries legislation. Yet those fisheries officers are now being shifted into roles that require them to be animal welfare inspectors as well, or biosecurity officers to investigate incursions that take place. Again, the fact that the Government is, sort of, fudging the numbers in terms of what is actually going into the front line is slightly disingenuous.

Finally, can I also say that the Minister has talked about the fact that resources are going into animal inspections. Can I say that when it comes to fisheries, the fishing industry pays over $35 million each year in cost-recovery compliance, and $10 million of those cost-recovery levies that are imposed on, and paid by, the fishing industry is supposed to go on compliance. Unfortunately, now we are finding that the fisheries officers are having to be animal welfare inspectors as well. It is easy to take money from an industry, but the Government needs to make sure that it is actually delivering services to that industry for those costs. Thank you.

I am very pleased to stand in the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. When I was contemplating what I would say in my contribution to this third reading, I went back, as always, to my electorate, which is a large southern rural electorate that is a big producer of a number of commodity products, which are duly exported overseas.

This led me to think about an occasion when I was in Hong Kong. I was taken to a wet market and then to a dry market and supermarkets to have a look at primary produce, particularly New Zealand beef and lamb at the time. I was very kindly chaperoned by a local gentleman who was an importer of New Zealand beef and lamb products and who was a local representative of Beef and Lamb New Zealand. Many tourists go to the wet markets because you can see chickens being slaughtered right there, and there are concrete floors. People go to the market and buy each meal because of the culture and because they like the freshest of food. We went from the wet markets on to a supermarket where New Zealand beef and lamb—in this instance, lamb in particular—was packaged for Hong Kong consumers, as it is packaged for Singaporean consumers, European consumers, Chinese consumers, or wherever it is in the world that New Zealand exports its animal products.

A couple of things struck me, and I reflected on a couple of aspects that I think relate to this bill. One of them was the context around the meat product—and it was lamb in this case. It was that the offering on sale was a package maybe twice that size, and there were little slithers of thinly sliced lamb that were being sold. I was thinking: “Gosh, that doesn’t look like a leg of lamb.”, which is what I’m used to buying or growing. But it is the form in which the Hong Kong consumer buys the lamb for the dinner that night, and it might end up being a hotpot, which, from memory, is one of the dishes that New Zealand lamb is used in. So I noted the differences in expectations of the different markets for our product, and I also noticed, when I was looking at the labelling, that New Zealand sells itself on having not only a wonderful environment and a clean, green environment—which, I have to say, this Government—

💬 Stuart Nash: Has destroyed.

—is doing a lot to enhance. You see, there we have the Opposition, because it is the Opposition and it can only think to oppose, saying “destroyed”.

Let me say to that member of the Opposition that this Government has done much more to enhance the quality of our environment—and particularly of water—than any. In fact, if I recollect, the Labour Government in the previous term had its water plan of action. Does anybody who has been around here for a while remember Labour’s water plan of action? Well, it was so bad—so bad—that officials at the Ministry for the Environment termed it, in public, the water plan—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am relating this to the bill because of our international reputation in terms of quality. Although we do have some parties in the House that would seek to destroy New Zealand’s international reputation, this Government is working very strongly to enhance our international reputation, and this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill certainly adds to our reputation.

I know when speaking to some of our vets, for example, in and around the Waitaki district that they have long been concerned—particularly those who are involved in the export markets and who service the farmers, farming operations, and freezing works that export internationally. They are absolutely aware of and support not only New Zealand’s efforts to enhance our environmental reputation—because this is “New Zealand Inc.”, after all—but also the need for us to maintain our reputation for good animal husbandry standards. And I believe we do.

What I have also seen over the years, particularly around the Waitaki Valley, is the expansion of dairying as a result of irrigation—another wonderful initiative of this Government in supporting this development. It is not only supporting it but also providing incentive funds, and research and development funds for the development of irrigation, which is increasing productivity and jobs in the regions. Particularly, I want to zero in on the Waitaki Valley because we now have irrigation from the top of the valley—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): This is a third reading speech.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. What that has meant is that we now have dairy farming expansion along the main road. When you have dairy farming expansion along the main road, the travelling public—both visitors and New Zealand citizens alike—get to see farming operations up close. In fact, people will often stop and park their cars to take photos of dairy cows and sheep when they can find them—there are fewer sheep in my area than there used to be. One of the consequences of having dairy farming on show is that animal husbandry, as of necessity, needs to lift its game, consequentially—not just because it can be seen from the main road and it is New Zealand’s reputation at stake but also because farming has lifted its game substantially over the past few years, and that is just my observation.

I did not sit on the select committee that considered this bill—I know that a number of members here did—so I have not had the opportunity to scrutinise fully this bill. But I am pleased that one of the objectives of the bill is to provide for clear and enforceable standards of animal welfare. In that, I do hope that attention was paid to the growth of smallholdings and hobby farmers in New Zealand. I think that Federated Farmers have often raised the point that small farmers also need to have a high standard of animal husbandry. It may not be that they are exporting—probably not; the likelihood of small farms exporting is probably pretty low—but none the less, even if those animals are being raised for home kill or on-farm killing, or for sending down to the local abattoir to be killed and then dressed at the butcher and then sent home again, which is what we used to do when we had a small farm, the level of animal husbandry needs to be maintained by that sector as well.

I did a visit to Alliance Group’s Pukeuri freezing works some years ago—probably 4 or 5 years ago. This was just as the local MP, because I was interested in the export of lamb, and they tried to play a trick on me at Pukeuri. We went right to the top of the chain—and it is quite a long trek from the bottom, where they cut up the cuts with the saws, all the way up back to the kill. This is a halal plant, and so the sheep were killed very humanely. In fact, they had no idea what was coming—so it was a very humane kill—and then they proceeded down the line. I could see the workers looking at me—a local sheila turning up—and thinking: “Who does she think she is—the local MP? I know, we’ll get her.”

As the sheep was coming down the line, it came time to top the sheep’s head off. What the freezing workers did was pop it on the ground looking at me, with the hope of my saying: “Oh, isn’t it awful. It’s a sheep’s head.” Well, little did they know that we had been involved in home killing down on the farm for 20 years or so by that stage, so that did not work. But I have to say that I know a lot of the freezing workers out at Pukeuri, which is probably why they played the trick on me. I have to say that I know Pukeuri freezing works very well. I also know Silver Fern Farms up at the northern end of my electorate. I have met with the management. I have met with the freezing workers. They do uphold the highest standards of animal welfare, because they have to. They understand that for the animals’ sake it is important and also that in terms of our international reputation and our export markets it is critical. Thank you.

Bill read a third time.