Garrett David: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Garrett David: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9082] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to voice my support and that of the ACT Party for the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I congratulate Simon Bridges on bringing this bill to Parliament initially and National on adopting it as a Government bill. It is clearly sound legislation. It increases the punishment for those who abuse animals both individuals and corporate and brings in a new offence of reckless ill-treatment to catch those who have undeservedly escaped punishment in the past. 
Like most members who are planning to speak on this bill I imagine I have in my notes a list of sickening examples but frankly I was personally sickened after hearing Mr Bridges’ examples so I will not add to them. We do not need any more horrible sickening examples. 
As an MP green in experience if not orientation I was saddened to find Mr O’Connor unable to resist a little jab by comparing the abuse of animals to the smacking of children. Well I will explain it for Mr O’Connor. I will explain why so many people in this House and throughout the country—87 percent of them in a referendum—voted against what has been passed here. It is because chastising a child with a hand is not abuse—that is why—and 87 percent of people understand that. It is a shame he had to make that linkage. 
As we have already heard the bill increases the maximum penalty from 3 years’ imprisonment to 5 years’. That is a good idea. I think everyone across the House agrees that it appears the current sentences deter nobody as there is a range of opinion as to what we should do to stop this from happening. 
I was interested and slightly amused to hear even the Green Party members make remarks about judges not enforcing the penalties that are already available. Ms Kedgley said that it was a red-letter day in this Parliament. I have been here for only 15 months but it is indeed a red-letter day when the Greens are supporting not only a law and order bill—a first in my time here—but lo and behold one that increases imprisonment. It is a red-letter day indeed. 
What this bill is doing—and I will be a bit more blunt than my urbane colleague Simon Bridges—is sending a very clear signal and message to the judiciary that this Parliament this House of Representatives of the people of New Zealand is unhappy with the level of sentencing. As I think every speaker has noted thus far the penalties have been there but I think Mr Bridges said that 10 people in the entire history of this country have been imprisoned for animal cruelty. The judges are being given a clear signal today and they will get it again at the second and third readings: increase the sentences. 
Sue Kedgley 
: That will solve everything! 
DAVID GARRETT 
: No it will not solve everything at all and I will get on to that in a minute. But if the judges do not get the message we can amend the legislation again because this Parliament makes the law in this country not those in that monstrosity across Lambton Quay. This Parliament makes the law; the judges apply it. If they are sent a signal from this place and they do not get it then mandatory sentences are around the corner. That is part of the reason for the “three strikes” bill. The judges have not got it so we are sending a message. Today we are sending a message on animal cruelty. 
I am going to change direction a little but before I do so I want to make it very clear that my remarks from here on in do not in any way seek to diminish the evil that is animal cruelty. I repeat that I was sickened by Mr Bridges’ examples so I have left mine on paper rather than verbalising them. 
It has been noted by many that there is a clear link between animal cruelty and cruelty to humans. Many studies have shown that serious cruelty in childhood is predictive of human cruelty later in life. A 1985 study of violent male offenders reported far higher rates of what the study termed as substantial cruelty to animals than a comparison group of non-jailed men. In 1998 an assessment of sexual homicide convicts showed 36 percent of those men abused animals during childhood 46 percent during adolescence and 36 percent again as adults. I refer to a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—PETA—article entitled “Animal Abuse and Human Abuse: Partners in Crime”. The article refers to the FBI profiles of some of America’s worst criminals. Invariably their histories contain disgusting acts of mutilation on cats and dogs of the kind that Mr Bridges has outlined. I am very well aware as many members will be that we have criminals here with similar histories. 
So we have to ask ourselves why some people commit animal cruelty in the first place. A 2001 report from the United States Department of Justice collated a number of theories analysing the link between child abuse animal cruelty and violent crime. The report said that those children who suffered physical and sexual abuse were far more likely to dish out the same treatment to animals. As I have said this leads to violent and sexual crime later in life. That link is clear. There is no dispute as far as I am aware. 
So how does that happen? Yesterday I wrote on my website about a member of the underclass a gang member called Hulio Ataria who was convicted of murder. The fellow murdered a young man coming to the aid of a woman being beaten by another gang member. The mother of the accused or prisoner as he is now was expelled from court on an earlier occasion for barking like a dog—a somewhat ironic link to this bill. Barking like a dog for those who are not aware of it is a symbol of solidarity support and approbation for the values the Mongrel Mob represents. It is hardly surprising that Hulio Ataria raised by such a wonderful role model who has been generously supported by the taxpayer through the welfare system turned out the way he did. If someone raises a child like an animal do not be surprised if that child becomes one. 
A few months ago we had a Drivers of Crime summit next door and unsurprisingly perhaps there was widespread agreement on just what those drivers were: child abuse alcohol abuse spousal abuse neglect and lack of education. But everyone skirted around what we should do about it. No one wanted to face the reality that the Hulio Atarias of this country have been dragged up by people like the dog-barking mother who are members of the long-term welfare culture crossing two or three generations. Those people populate our gangs and they are responsible for a great deal of our heinous crimes against both humans and animals. I agree with others in this respect: the causes of crime must be addressed to prevent future crime. 
However it is on the causes that we differ. I say and the ACT Party says that welfarism is a major cause of crime. The welfare system is broken and it must be fixed. We ignore this at our peril. This bill as Ms Kedgley and others have said cannot fix everything; it is not a silver bullet. As others have said including Ms Kedgley increasing the penalty in itself will not make any difference either. But I find it sadly ironic that the Green Party co-leader signed a Paw Justice petition calling for longer jail terms for animal abusers. That is the only time in my 15 months here that that party has supported any measure that increased imprisonment. I understand it has as its philosophy that imprisonment is completely useless. So it is very interesting that the party has one standard for animals and a lower standard for the treatment of people. I find that confusing and inconsistent. The Green members’ stance is welcome of course on this bill but I invite them to consider their stance on future bills affecting people. 
I will close by repeating something I said earlier. Parliament today is sending and will send a message to judges. I ask them to listen to it; otherwise Parliament will take some more measures.