Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): Unlike the previous speaker, who said that he thought this bill was moving in the right direction---I wonder whether Mr Baldock has had the opportunity to actually read the bill---my opinion is that this is one of the worst bills to come before Parliament in recent times. Firstly, it is completely unnecessary. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry have had 4 years or more to undertake these reviews. Secondly, as everyone else has pointed out, the bill has been rammed through this House with unseemly haste. Thirdly, this is bad legislation, as my colleague from ACT has pointed out. It undermines the original Animal Welfare Act, it allows another 3 years for the deemed codes to be reviewed, and it allows for the remaining codes to be extended indefinitely, so that in fact they need not ever be reviewed, at all.

Worst of all, this bill, far from being technical in nature---the Minister who introduced it has constantly tried to kid us that it is purely technical in nature---it actually profoundly affects the welfare of animals in New Zealand, consigning millions of animals, in particular pigs and hens, to cruel conditions in sow crates and cages for many, many years to come. In so doing, it flouts the express wishes and concerns of the majority of New Zealanders.

The odd thing is that during the various speeches, many speakers agreed with me that this is bad legislation, not only because it is being rammed hastily through the House but also because it will mean that a review of the codes need never be undertaken---even the code in respect of the treatment of dogs, which one member went on and on about. It would be very good to address that by code, but under this amendment these codes need never be reviewed.

All those various members, having pointed out these fundamental flaws in this legislation, then turned round and voted for it, which is odd to say the least. Be it on their heads that they are allowing legislation to pass today that ignores the overwhelming desire of the public to have these deemed codes reviewed as fast as possible---in fact, most New Zealanders hoped, and they still probably imagine, that they would be done by Christmas---and that allows the shameful practice of keeping animals locked up in cages to continue for many, many years to come. That is the truth of what those members are voting for today.

One of the roles of the House of Representatives is to represent the views of the community in this House. I am sure it has not escaped members' attention that the cruel treatment of animals, particularly those that are kept in cages and so forth, is a passionately held concern of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders, which we ignore at our peril. But instead of representing those passionately held views, this Parliament has chosen to ignore them. It has turned its back on the views of the majority of New Zealanders, which have been expressed in the thousands of submissions that have been made on these codes, and it has listened instead to the views of a small sector of society---the commercial interests involved in industrial agriculture, which seem to believe they are somehow entitled to treat animals as commodities, as biological machines, and to treat them in any way, no matter how cruel, providing that it makes them more efficient producers of meat for human consumption. They also seem to believe they are somehow entitled to flout public opinion on this matter and be exempted from the very principles of the Animal Welfare Act, which stipulate that animals in the care of humans should not suffer and should be able to express natural forms of behaviour.

The view that we humans somehow have some God-given right to treat animals as machines or as a commodity is being challenged, and indeed rejected by more and more people who argue that animals are fellow creatures that we should treat with respect and compassion. In my view, members of this House should be taking a lead in rejecting the view that animals are commodities and in trying to encourage the view that animals should be treated with respect and compassion, and ensuring that all animals in New Zealand are treated humanely.

Yesterday in this House a number of MPs, and particularly Shane Ardern, suggested that all farmers in New Zealand treat their animals well. I am sure that the vast majority of farmers do that. But it is patently absurd to suggest that farmers---

Shane Ardern: I said ``the overwhelming majority''.

SUE KEDGLEY: It is patently absurd, I tell Mr Ardern, to suggest that farmers who keep animals locked up in cages where they cannot even turn around are treating their animals well. I am sure the member knows that pigs, for example, are highly sociable and intelligent animals. Many people argue that pigs are more intelligent than dogs. Research in America has shown that pigs can play games on computers with joysticks for hours at a time, and so forth, so I defy anyone in this House to argue that pigs do not suffer hideously when they are locked in crates for days, weeks, and sometimes months at a time, where they cannot even turn around. That being the case, all of us should be doing everything in our power to release pigs and other animals like hens from their misery and enable them to be treated humanely.

I think everyone in this House realises that public opinion on animal welfare has shifted dramatically in recent years. I think that the sooner this Parliament figures that out, comes to grips with it, and gets itself into the 21st century, the better, so that instead of appearing like King Canute trying to stem the turning tide, trying to stem the overwhelming tide of public opinion by holding back, by preventing reviews of codes that the overwhelming majority of public opinion has been clamouring for, we are seen to reflect and represent public opinion in this important area.

I will not go on, except to say that I consider this to be unnecessary and shameful legislation. It is certainly not merely technical in nature, as some have tried to pretend. It will have far-reaching consequences for the welfare of animals in this country. It is bad legislation. I cannot think of many other pieces of legislation that allow fundamentally important things like codes of animal welfare to be reviewed indefinitely by Order in Council---secret procedures that involve no democratic process. It is appalling legislation, and I am astonished that all members, apart from the Green Party, are proposing to support it.