Nash Stuart: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Nash Stuart: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:12412] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 This is an interesting debate because I have heard Shane Ardern and Tim Macindoe trumpeting about the wonderful things they have done to fix animal rights. Well that is good and great and as has been mentioned we all support that but I would love members of the Government to stand up and talk about some measures they will put in place to help humans. What have they done? There have been a whole lot of cuts. If we start at the beginning of life we see that there have been cuts to early childhood education. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is a third reading speech not a first reading speech and the bill is about animal welfare. 
STUART NASH 
: Very much so. 
This is a great debate. One of the first legal debates we had at law school was a discussion of whether a fish is an animal. I suppose that comes down to whether a human is an animal. Of course a human is an animal. That is why I am talking about the welfare of humans as well as the welfare of animals. The welfare of human animals has been affected by cuts to home help and early childhood education and everything in between. The only animals that have benefited from this Government are the ones that walk on four legs—clearly not the ones that walk on two legs. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. 
When it comes to animals I support this bill. Who would not support this bill? 
Tim Macindoe 
: Well talk about it then. 
STUART NASH 
: I will talk about this bill. As mentioned the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill was initially brought to the House by Simon Bridges. I suspect that the reason Mr Bridges is no longer in charge of the bill is as he admitted last night in the debate that he lost about 50 percent of the cases that he heard as a prosecutor or defence lawyer. I do not quite know how that works. If someone had Mr Bridges as a lawyer and tossed the coin that person would win 50 percent of those cases and lose 50 percent of them. Goodness me! The Government could not risk this bill being defeated in the House so it took it away from Mr Bridges looked for a safe pair of hands and then gave it to David Carter. 
But anyway the bill is before the House it is having its third reading and it will be supported by everyone in the House which is fantastic. I suppose Mr Bridges did well to pick it up to start with and he acted in a very magnanimous way when it was ripped from him and given to a Cabinet Minister who is more important. I commend him for retaining his dignity. Someone with a lesser personality would have jumped up and down and whinged when such a simple task had been taken off him but he did well. I must admit that I love his glasses; they look good. I wonder whether there are lenses in them. He looks very smart. 
Anyway animal cruelty is abhorrent to everyone. We all know that when photos of such abuse appear in newspapers and on TV they always raise groans of disgust. Animals are not humans but many are treated in such a way. I know of cat owners who think that cats are on a higher level than humans— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Tell us about the cats. 
STUART NASH 
: I will. The abuse shows a disturbing lack of not only responsibility but also any thought of empathy. It is quite frightening. We all know the stories about Guy Fawkes Night when kids set fire to dogs and cats. It is just dreadful. Parliament has a role to send a message loud and clear that certain behaviour is simply not acceptable. This is what this bill does. It sends a message that any abuse of any sort of animal is simply not acceptable to society so we will increase the measures wholeheartedly and let us hope it works. Let us hope it is picked up and broadcast loud and wide. 
I was astounded to read that in 2008 the SPCA had over 14000 complaints of animal abuse—14000. I know that only 110 resulted in charges being laid and 58 resulted in convictions but I ask what the hell is going on out there when 14000 cases of animal abuse are being reported. Goodness me; we need to do something about this. One thing we really need to do is fund the SPCA. Parliament gave it an extra $1.2 million over the next 4 years. We rely on it to such a large extent yet we expect it to hold cake stalls and to raise money so that it can do the public good. The SPCA needs to be funded and money also needs to be provided to early childhood education adult and community education classes and home help. 
Let me get back to these animals. I ask whether a fish is an animal. Is an orange roughy an animal? I am not too sure. I have been to the SPCA in Napier and it does a fabulous job. There were not only cats and dogs at that SPCA; there was even a turtle. The chief executive officer of the SPCA in Napier a wonderful guy called Rob Johnson has done an amazing job of turning that place around. He has got money he has the buy-in of the local community and he has got local sponsors. I know that Rob would like to spend more of his valuable time actually advocating for animals and building cases against those who neglect and abuse them rather than getting out there and raising money. This is what we have to do. This is a classic case of an organisation that could do with more funding. 
I ask why this is important. It may have been Tim or Shane Arden who mentioned that tackling animal cruelty can have a greater benefit for society. There is a proven link between cruelty to animals and abuse of humans. I can tell members about a 1997 survey that was undertaken by the Humane Society of the United States of 50 of the largest shelters for battered women. It found that 85 percent of the women and 63 percent of the children entering those shelters discussed instances of pet abuse in the family. That is simply dreadful and it is something we must do a lot about. 
I am in a relationship where the cat shares the same privileges as me—except when it comes to rights over the couch or the prime cuts of meat. The cat’s name is Mozzarella. That cat has been around longer than I have so I suppose Mozzarella has pre-emptive rights. Even in moments of tiredness when the couch would be nice but the floor beckons thanks to Mozzarella’s disposition there is never ever a moment when I would consider treating this ball of fluff any differently from how I would treat a child. The thought of cruelty quite frankly makes me feel ill. I simply cannot understand how there can have been 14000 reported instances of animal abuse in 2008. And those are just the ones that are reported; I assume it is probably the tip of the iceberg. 
This bill is obviously supported well and truly in this House. It has been reported widely that the SPCA will be given the powers the police will be given the time and the other agencies that do the work around this area will be given the mandate to go out and put in place the measures in this bill. I hope that we see more convictions and that the complainants do not have someone like Simon Bridges as a lawyer because he admitted as mentioned that he won only 50 percent of his cases. I suppose that is not too bad; it is better than the Irish rugby team against the All Blacks. I support this bill and I commend it to the House. Thank you very much.