Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill

We now come to the debate on Part 4. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to clause 63, “Section 36 amended (Obligations relating to traps)”. Now, in this country, we hold our heads up high with our high standards to animal welfare, and that when we go hunting or trapping, we do things in a humane way. With this new subclause (2A), “A person who, without reasonable excuse”, I’m interested to know what a “reasonable excuse” might be. Also, “fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $900.”—I’m interested to know how that figure was come to, $900, when we hold ourselves to such high esteem with regard to our animal welfare and control of pests in a humane way. Nine hundred dollars—“not exceeding”. So it could be $200. Why is there not a specific amount there? Why only $900, when we really should be wanting to put people off doing things in an inhumane way?

Madam Chair, thank you so much. Indeed, it’s not only $900; it’s a tripling of the fine. At the moment, it is only $300 under legislation, and it’s tripling to $900. It says “up to” because you allow the courts, in the case of a court case, to make a determination as to what should be relevant rather than saying, “It must be this”, because there could well be—I can’t think of any—mitigating circumstances.

Often in legislation, we’re saying, “unless there is reasonable cause or reason to do so”, which means that it’s not an absolute infringement or crime. Again, it would be for a court to determine whether or not that was the case. I don’t believe the legislation has gone through to say what it would be or it wouldn’t be, and the reason that wouldn’t make sense is people would say, “Well, I’m just going to go and do it this way, because obviously this is justifiable.” But, it is a tripling of the fine—in effect, showing the significance of the view of the House as to a tripling of the penalty as to what was previously in legislation.

Secondly, it is always important, when looking at what a penalty would be, that we line it up with similar sorts of effects elsewhere where somebody may be committing a crime so that there is some degree of uniformity and penalty across the statute book.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I was around, but I can’t recall all the details of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. It was a piece of legislation heralded through by Pete Hodgson, actually, who was a vet. It was very progressive, but there are amendments here, of course, that are being proposed.

One amendment is to section 43, “Consideration of application”. I’m guessing that’s an application for an export licence. It says here—the proposal is—“any history of breaches by the applicant of conditions on an animal welfare export certificate:”. It’s a very useful time to ask questions of the Minister as to what he’s doing with the live export situation. I’m guessing that the changes here relate to their possible reintroduction—that our previous Government banned—and I’m assuming that this may relate to new legislation he has in the pipeline. If so, when are we likely to see that? There are different exports of live animals: there are some chicks, there are some goats—most of those are flown. We have banned cattle going on ships. Does this relate to the so-called reintroduction of live exports of cattle on ships that the Government has talked of? We haven’t heard too much about it—and I think it’s absolutely stupid—but the Government may be wishing to proceed in that area.

Does this provision here mean that those exporters, where there have been breaches of standards and there has been a process, and the Minister can maybe clarify, of reporting back from live exports leading up to the ban—there were reports that were supposed to come in. I think the Ministry for Primary Industries probably weren’t as good as they should have been at getting those reports. But where there were identified breaches in any way, or bringing the animals to consolidation prior to export, does this change here mean that those are the very people who may be eliminated from receiving a live export certificate?

No. I mean, the member is trying to make a link between two parliamentary terms. This proposed amendment, in clause 64, to section 43 was in the proposed legislation during the first reading when he was Minister, so it, actually, has come across that period of time and it remains there.

Indeed, section 43 lists the matters that the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries must have regard to when considering an application for an animal welfare export certificate. The policy intent is that any breach of conditions put on the previous certificate is considered as part of the assessment of a new application. When the Hon Damien O’Connor, as Minister of Agriculture, brought this legislation to the House in the last term of Parliament, this clause was there. It merely says that if there has been a breach, that is considered when somebody puts in an application for a new certificate. I would just point out that I take issue with one thing. He said the previous Government banned live animal exports. They didn’t. Live animal exports still take place under the legislation they put in place. They narrowed or restricted a certain part of exports when it comes to ships.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to speak to clause 65 under Part 4, “Section 81 amended (Effect of this Part)”. It’s to do with research, testing, or teaching in use of animals, and relates to the welfare impacts of that.

There is a challenging history in terms of how vivisection has been used, and perhaps many of us know the worst examples of it, where cosmetics are rubbed into rabbits’ eyes and, over a course of time, people see whether shampoo is harming the rabbits day on day on day. It’s pretty grizzly, and fundamentally cruel for the animals. This is to do with how animals are treated in terms of application of testing and research. What I wanted to clarify from the Minister is how this change affects the overall approach that we take in“The limitation imposed by subsection (1) on the application of Parts 1 and 2 and regulations made under this Act does not apply—(a) in any case where any animal is used in research, testing, or teaching other than in accordance with this Part or other than in accordance with the conditions of any project approval; or (b) if regulations prohibit an activity or a procedure from being undertaken in the course of research, testing, or teaching.” I wonder if the Minister can explain the impact of this change on the current framework and the parameters around that issue.

Both in legislation and regulation, I think it’s fair to say there is some confusion. It may not be broad or wide, but it is not as clear as it needs to be about what is permissible and what is not within New Zealand regulation when it comes to teaching, testing, or research on live animals. This merely clarifies that. It sets out very clearly what is permissible but, equally, what practices are not.

I would note for the member that any research, teaching, or testing activity requires approval of an animal ethics committee before it can take place. That doesn’t alter it. The amendment merely clarifies so that there is no confusion under legislation or regulation what is already the view of Parliament as to what’s permissible and what is prohibited under law, but the role of an ethics committee as to deciding what should take place remains.

Thank you. Just on this point, I was looking at the principal Act as well, and it is just really (b) that has changed in a reference to regulations in subsection (2), which I think the Minister just referred to. Most of the clauses are already in the principal Act. The change here relates to regulations. Are there other changes, or is the Minister considering that there will be new regulations or that this just refers to the existing regulations, if there are any, and that this is just the clarification around the regulations applying?

This area of law regulation is not something I have responsibility for. I’ve delegated it. However, no, we don’t expect there will be new regulations. It merely is in respect of existing legislation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I go to clause 64A(3), “Section 71 amended (Public notification)”. It relates to actually one of the most important parts of our animal welfare system, and that is the independence of NAWAC—the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. It develops codes and it’s still working through these codes, and they are quite complex. They, I think, are respected for their independence, and I think any Minister would be somewhat foolish to step away from that independence and trying to have more input into that. There has been, at times, a frustration around the process. This amendment here will limit the submission period to 30 days, as I read it: “which must be a date no earlier than 30 working days after the date on which public notice is given”. Now, if the Minister of Agriculture could clarify that date around the submission process and ensure that—I guess it might be an attempt to kind of speed up the process, but, actually, these are really, really complex issues. So I seek clarification of the notification submission period for NAWAC and its draft codes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. No. Already existing is, in legislation, no less than 30 days. What this clause does is changes notifications. At the moment, it says notification through publication in a newspaper, no less than 30 days after that; this is merely saying “public notification”. So it doesn’t have to be a newspaper. It can be in a range of ways to inform the public. The period of time, which is a minimum period of consultation, of 30 days has not been altered.

Part 4 agreed to.

Part 5

Amendments to Biosecurity Act 1993 and regulations made under that Act