McKelvie Ian: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMcKelvie Ian: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:902. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei):I guess the opportunity to speak on this bill has been a long time in the coming. I must commence firstly by acknowledging I guess the people who are no longer here who did a lot of work on this bill. We have a number of them. Shane Ardern who chaired the Primary Production Committee was mentioned by Damien O’Connor. Shane Jones had a large input into a lot of things to do with primary production; I will mention him a bit later in my few words on this. There was Eric Roy a very experienced man and Colin King. A number of committee members who dealt at length with this topic have now gone from the House. I also want to acknowledge the other members of that committee who spent a lot of time on this bill and who I think on the whole did a pretty good job. I think we have come up with a pretty good solution—obviously with the opportunity to change one or two things in the course of the Committee stage. None the less I think the bill has got to a good space.As the previous two speakers have said this is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that will pass through this House. It underpins the magnificent beast that is our livestock farming industry—one that returns over half of our gross income. As we have heard this bill makes changes to the Animal Welfare Act 1999 to improve the enforceability clarity and transparency of New Zealand’s all-important animal welfare system. The teeth provided in the enactment of this bill will come via regulatory provisions which will be developed by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. This is a committee of extremely competent practitioners from across the sector appointed for their expertise. We can be confident that they are both competent and independent and will do their job very well. They are also required to consult widely on any recommendations they may make in this field.We received a huge number of submissions which covered five basic categories: 12 industry groups 20 animal advocacy groups 8 professional bodies such as veterinarians and the like 10 expert individuals and numerous private individuals. We heard close to 50 of those submissions over 8 weeks. The real challenges we faced related to what many consider historic practices. In fact the previous speaker Damien O’Connor referred to those. The Hon Shane Jones had much to say on this matter. Issues such as doing horses’ teeth to those of us who play with horses is a pretty simple matter but for those who were submitting on this bill it clearly was not a simple matter. Things that we have always taken for granted in our care of animals are things that challenge a lot of our community who do not have the same empathy or understanding of animals. The bill has dealt with a lot of those complex issues.In new section 183B(2) inserted by clause 56 the regulations relate to surgical and painful procedures. We had a large discussion on this contributed to again by Shane Jones in particular who historically in his time in this House had some nervousness around I guess how we comply with things in life but he certainly had some nervousness around this. The committee did discuss this at length because it is a very complex subject if you think about it. I think we did pretty well with that because we did spend a lot of time on that particular clause. Factory farming has been mentioned; it is a very topical subject. The bill will be tightened up to deal with this. I think we have got to a very good space with that as well as we move through the process of implementing this bill—and it will take some time to implement this bill.Other issues taking up much of the discussion related to live export; it is banned already for slaughter. Anyone who understands food well will understand that the best food is highly dependent on its treatment from paddock to plate. Ill-treating our animals or plants prior to their entering the food chain has no future at all for food producers. Although I fully support the banning of live export for slaughter I think there could be occasions arising in the future where we may want to in a boutique form export animals or whatever that will then enter the food chain at some future point. This bill does not exactly preclude that but our current regulations certainly do preclude it. None the less the world changes and changes in transport modes and whatever could make a significant difference to this.The committee considered research testing and teaching using animal sentience which has been very topical for some time particularly for that well known animal supporter Bob Kerridge. Whether a fish is a fish or an animal was a topic that came up for quite some considerable discussion during the course of the select committee hearings. Part 3 of the bill was changed to clearly set some parameters around this. There was much discussion particularly from the farming entities as to how far a duty of care stretched and who is ultimately responsible for the care of an animal. I guess this is topical in lots of legislation that comes through this House and I think the bill again arrived at a very good space in that area because we have come to a conclusion that I think will clearly define the person responsible for the treatment or otherwise of animals.A discussion took place on the funding of the compliance regime. Like all funding the Government has faced it is difficult but it is currently well managed by the Ministry for Primary Industries. I think there will be challenges to that funding stream as this is enacted later on but none the less I think we are getting along pretty well now. Psychoactive substances came and went during the course of the bill and cosmetic testing as mentioned by the Minister also came in for much attention.On a lighter note I struggle to see the difference really between shampooing a horse for a show or to get rid of lice and testing cosmetics—lipstick I guess—on a horse. But none the less it is an interesting topic and it will involve a lot of debate from now on. The Minister has mentioned that more will be heard on this topic. This is a very complex issue and one we must deal with with care as it is very important to us all.Finally I cannot finish without mentioning just one last thing. I notice in the course of the Labour portfolio analysis that it does not have a spokesman on agriculture. I notice that the Greens’ spokesman on agriculture is—[Interruption] We have a Minister for Primary Industries. I notice that the Greens’ spokesman on agriculture is probably out there buttering himself up with a dock leaf somewhere. I am not sure whether Winston or Richard Prosser is the agriculture spokesman for New Zealand First. Anyway I think we have done a great job on this bill and I commend it to the House.