Anderton Jim: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Anderton Jim: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9074] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 In New Zealand we have always had a close connection in both a social and an economic sense with animals. Our economic success is based on animal-derived products. But we are also proud of our ethical approach to the welfare of animals. We care about what happens to them and we get upset when they are mistreated whether on farms or in homes. So the Labour Party and the Progressive party welcome the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill today because it toughens up our ability to protect our animals and it makes offenders pay for any mistreatment. But I am not naive about the issues that it addresses. Those whose incomes depend on animals cannot afford to be overly sentimental. They and we grow animals to provide food both for New Zealanders domestically and for the rest of the world. 
Starting out in the workforce in the 1950s and 1960s I spent enough time in the freezing works of New Zealand to see a few things that would make me cringe even today—they made me cringe then I might say. But anyone working with animals or simply owning an animal can and should commit to acting humanely and most people do. I have to repeat that most people do because in many ways the publicity given to ill treatment would indicate to some people that there is mass mistreatment of animals in New Zealand and I do not believe that there is any evidence to support that view. 
This bill does not target the overwhelming majority of farmers producers and pet owners who work within animal welfare guidelines. It targets the small minority who wilfully recklessly or because of psychological impairment mistreat animals. It is not hard to think of recent examples. The Minister of Agriculture mentioned a few. We see on our TV screens starving and neglected animals which focuses everyone’s mind. 
New Zealand’s niche in the world is that we are a pure clean and environmentally friendly society. In our markets consumers are becoming more and more demanding about quality production. They are asking searching questions as they should about issues like environmental responsibility. They are asking about animal health and welfare and the quality standards of our production processes. The future for New Zealand’s primary exports will be in having the best answers to those questions that we can possibly have. There is no future in trying to compete on price alone against emerging low-cost producers. We have to compete by guaranteeing the quality and the value of our food production as a whole. If we do not meet the expectations of our customers then we face potentially very damaging risks to our export base. 
This bill will make the Animal Welfare Act work better. An increase in the penalty from 3 years to 5 years shows that we take cruelty to animals seriously. Introducing a new offence of reckless ill-treatment of animals alongside the existing offence of wilful ill-treatment will help us capture those who might otherwise not have reached the threshold of the offence of wilful ill-treatment. But let us be realistic. There is no point in increasing the penalty if we do not have people on the streets and in the fields to investigate the crime. The Government has already cut front-line staff in areas like biosecurity. When the Hadda beetle was found in Auckland recently it was not found by a biosecurity staffer; it was found by a man walking his dog in an Auckland park. So how does this Government intend to police animal welfare? 
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has exactly five full-time staff to do animal investigations plus seven contractors. It was thus so when I was Minister of Agriculture. I moved it in the Budget but I never got round to being able to have some more of them. The RSPCA has about 100 staff who investigate animal welfare issues on whom the Government is heavily dependent to monitor breaches of the Animal Welfare Act. They of course are in the main volunteers. The Government pays nothing to their costs apart from some training costs. In 2008 as Minister of Agriculture through the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry I gave the RSPCA a $300000 one-off grant. But I recognise that it was nowhere near enough nor has it been consistently funded. 
When I was Minister we set up the Fast Forward Fund which was a partnership between the private sector and the Government to fund research and development. We had over $700 million in the ministry’s accounts ready to fund research into areas like this—not solely of course but it would have been one area. For example how do we measure animal welfare? It is not always easy measuring how animals feel at any particular moment about their environment; it is awkward at the very least. In 2006 the chairman of the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council Professor Christopher Wathes came to New Zealand and asked us how we know whether animal welfare standards are being observed. 
When I was Minister I used to get a huge volume of letters into my office about animal welfare issues and I know that the current Minister will have the same experience. It was clear to me then and it still is today that we have to be leaders in New Zealand not only in animal welfare but in measuring the standards of animal welfare. We have to be leaders in the right techniques as well as in the substantive results of our measuring. The Fast Forward Fund could have helped to deepen our research into animal welfare and therefore improve the market position of our animal-based industries. 
I would like to know how the current Government will find the right tools to measure animal welfare now. It got rid of Fast Forward and replaced it with the Primary Growth Partnership. I hope the Primary Growth Partnership addresses this issue. But to date the Primary Growth Partnership has funded precisely no research projects; none. It has only $25 million in the kitty this year to even start. 
I support the bill because it is ethically the right thing to do both for this Parliament and for the industry. But I question how the Government intends to investigate the inevitable increase in complaints. If we have a higher standard we will have people who are requiring us to meet it. I have not seen anything yet that indicates that the Government has addressed that issue. How will it equip vets Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry staff or RSPCA investigators to know when an animal is being mistreated or if it is reported as being mistreated how will the investigation take place and by whom? That has been a problem we have faced for a very very long time. 
All of us have to recognise the minimal amount of resource that is put into animal welfare issues. It simply is unacceptable and it is not good enough. I do not think anyone in this Parliament would want to defend it. So without that support I fear this bill may end up as more of a window-dressing bill because it suggests that we are tougher on animal welfare issues without providing the substance that a high-quality animal welfare system in New Zealand will require. In supporting this bill through to a select committee I certainly give notice to the Government that we will be asking some questions along those lines during the select committee process and I hope that the Government can give some positive answers.