O'Connor Damien: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — First Reading 
O'Connor Damien: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9078] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I acknowledge the member who has just spoken and his initiative I suppose to bring to the House a bill that will receive the support of Labour and I am sure the vast majority of the members in the House. However before we rush away and pat ourselves on the back and say how good we are to protect the animals of this country we should think carefully about some of the principles involved in the process of what we are trying to do here. 
There is no doubt that we all want to protect animals in this country. The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill brings into place penalties for what we will call the wilful ill-treatment of animals. No one wants to see that kind of treatment particularly in a country that is built on its reputation for competency in and compassion for animal management. Through our farming systems and in our domestic situations we have always appreciated utilised and protected animals that need our protection. It is the job of this House to protect those animals. We will pass this legislation and hopefully maintain our reputation in the world as a country that upholds the high standards of animal welfare because as my colleague Mr Anderton said we need to be able to sell food with integrity to the world. 
But in considering this legislation we are going through an interesting process. Firstly the bill assumes that increasing penalties will change behaviour. We cannot guarantee that. We are effectively doubling the penalties for the ill-treatment of animals and that should be so. However as has been pointed out the policing of the existing law or the new one we will bring into place will be the key issue if we are to see a change of behaviour. We need to ensure that a change of behaviour occurs and there is no doubt about that. The reality is that the ill-treatment of animals is connected to the ill-treatment of humans and to abuse; it has been well documented. Preventing the ill-treatment of animals is crucial for any fair and just society in the same way that we do not want to see the ill-treatment of our fellow human beings either. 
I cannot help but reflect on a situation in the House about 2 years ago when we struggled as a Parliament to condone the hitting of people. Many people in this House stood up and made bizarre statements like: “We should uphold the right to hit a child.” Yet quite rightfully we are all condemning the unjust hitting of animals and we should do. Let us not get too ecstatic about this. The bill doubles the penalties for ill-treating animals but we should think back and ask why so many people objected to penalties for ill-treating children. I cannot understand the hypocrisy of this Parliament—which for the most part can make wise and just decisions—in introducing this bill which Labour supports yet not too long ago in this House we could not condemn the ill-treatment of children. 
David Garrett 
: Because smacking’s not ill-treatment. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I tell Mr Garrett that I would not say too much about this. I think we should just reflect on that and move on. 
No one in this House wants to see the ill-treatment of animals or humans who are not able to defend themselves and that is what we are addressing with this legislation. Let us remind ourselves that it takes more than increased penalties and the quick introduction of a populist bill—because most of New Zealand thinks it is right—to address the issue. Sometimes we do not always make the best judgments. 
It is important that the Government backs this change in legislation with better policing. It is not sufficient to have only five people throughout the country to monitor and ensure that this new legislation is upheld. Doubling penalties without proper policing will not change behaviour. 
We are a country dependent upon the wise management and the good welfare of our animals. There will no doubt be points raised in this debate about the treatment of hens the treatment of sows or possibly the treatment of cows. We rely on the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and I think the process is sound for an agricultural nation. My experience as a Minister in dealing with that group of people was a good one. They are very fair people and they uphold the highest standards of ethics in terms of animal welfare and management. They have to address the difficult issues of the balance between economic parameters around animal management and the ethical parameters around animal welfare. I think they do a good job and I do not want to bring those issues into the debate although I am sure they will be raised. 
I think it is important to say to the judges who will be dealing with this new legislation that they have had the tools in front of them for some time to impose higher penalties but they have not always used them. It is not for me to make judgment on their judgments but they should perhaps look at the situation and get the message that we cannot tolerate the kinds of animal welfare abuse that we have seen in recent times. 
Perhaps it is a reflection of the pressure on society on individuals and on families whose reaction is to take it out on animals. If that is the case then we have an obligation to assist them. It is not just about giving a handout or being namby-pamby but we need to get in and give clear direction that that kind of behaviour should not be tolerated. That is done through the courts but it is also done earlier on through the support systems and social networks that we have. 
I applaud the passage of this legislation because it will effectively protect animals that are unable to protect themselves. The question I ask the Government is whether it will guarantee the protection of people throughout this country who are unable to protect themselves. For example there are victims of accidents in this country who are currently on accident compensation and who are facing the possibility of removal from the accident compensation client list which means the removal of their income and their means of existence because the Minister for ACC wants to balance his books. I expect the National Party to come back and make adjustments to the legislation and to tell the Minister for ACC that it is not right that he should punish people who are unable to protect themselves. It not right that he will not ensure they have some form of income because they have been injured through no fault of their own. So let us not get too righteous about what a wonderful place Parliament is and how good the National Government is in introducing animal welfare legislation when at the same time— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Today. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
:—throughout this country today there are people who are not being looked after. I know that down in my electorate on the 20th on a Saturday 20 people who are supported in their existence by accident compensation payments will be appearing before someone employed by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to cut the list down. Those 20 people will stand before that reviewer and are likely to be totally exposed to the reality of receiving no income. Those people who have not been able to protect their income have not been looked after by this Government. I acknowledge that this legislation protects animals that are unable to protect themselves but let us be consistent here. I want to see from the National Government just as much care and compassion for people in this country as it is currently showing for animals.