Kedgley Sue: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:664;Page:11833] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 First of all I want to say that I was delighted to hear the speaker for the Labour Party Mr Choudhary saying that Labour now opposes all forms of animal cruelty. So I am looking forward very greatly to hearing that the Labour Party opposes sow crates and battery hen cages. It will be a big step forward in our Parliament. Members of Parliament go on and on about animal cruelty but many turn a blind eye to the gravest most serious animal cruelty of all which of course is keeping sows and hens in cages for most of their lives. 
It is interesting that Mr Choudhary said that this bill originated from the public horror at some terrible cases involving pets that came to the public’s notice recently. It is true that there have been some terrible cases of cruelty to pets—horrific cases. However I would argue that there has been a far greater outpouring of public disquiet over the expose on  
Sunday 
 about the conditions that sows and pigs are forced to live in in New Zealand than there has been over those individual cases of cruelty to pets. Yet this bill exempts all forms of institutional cruelty to animals such as sow crates and battery hen cages. 
The 90 million-odd hens that live their lives in cages will not be touched by this bill. We will all go on about animal cruelty and fining people for it but we will do nothing about the people who keep sows in cages where they cannot turn round and in fact suffer far worse things that we saw in the  
Sunday 
 programme which exposed the atrocious inhumane conditions in which they live. All that will remain completely untouched by this wonderful new animal welfare legislation. 
I think it is extraordinary that some commentators have said that politicians hate only some forms of animal cruelty such as cruelty to pets—individual acts of cruelty—but are quite happy to accept institutional acts of cruelty to literally millions of animals in our midst. But it is great to hear that the Labour Party has changed its stance and will now be opposing sow crates and battery hen cages amongst other things. 
It was interesting that a submitter from the Pork Industry Board had the effrontery to turn up to the select committee. In its submission the board said it was shocked by the recent incidences of animal cruelty in New Zealand and that it abhors any incidence of cruelty towards animals. On and on went the submitter with a completely straight face talking about the board members’ horror at cruelty to animals. They were apparently oblivious to the fact that most New Zealanders are equally horrified by the cruelty of those pig farmers—and let us be sure that it is only 50 percent of pig farmers who keep sows in crates in cages all of their lives. 
Federated Farmers also turned up and pointed out with horror that under this bill it was possible that some farmers might be prosecuted for farming activities and it could potentially expose owners of production animals and farmers to prosecution under this bill. What an outrage! Imagine if this bill exposed farmers to prosecution! Federated Farmers said that the entire new clause about reckless ill-treatment should be thrown out because the worry was that a farmer could be prosecuted for it. That was quite extraordinary. 
Basically Federated Farmers were saying that we should have two laws—a double standard. We should have one law that applies to individual animals—that is to pets—and we should have another law that applies to farm animals or what Federated Farmers called production animals. We should they say allow any amount of cruelty to production animals if it makes them more efficient producers of meat but we should be abhorred and outraged if someone treats his or her pet cruelly. This is the double standard that was actively operating in the submission of Federated Farmers.