Bridges Simon: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:664;Page:11841] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I acknowledge some very thoughtful contributions to this debate in the Committee stage of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Carol Beaumont’s contribution I thought was very good. I acknowledge the point she made that there were only 17 submissions to the Primary Production Committee on the bill. Like her I think perhaps that does not signify a lack of interest in this bill but rightly shows a view out there in the community that we are doing something about animal welfare and doing something good. I also acknowledge Sue Kedgley’s contribution which again was a very thoughtful one. I acknowledge her advocacy for animals for some time now in this Parliament. 
I will not rehearse the arguments in favour of this bill. I did that in its first reading and I have also done so in other places but I just say that I think this bill shows Parliament at its best. It shows us uniting on an issue for the most part without trying to score political points and I think that is a wonderful thing indeed. 
I will also just address the concerns raised in the select committee’s report on the bill. It raised a couple of concerns one of which Sue Kedgley raised today in the Chamber. I will just go through them. Firstly there is the concern that there are only five full-time Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry inspectors in New Zealand to undertake prosecutions for animal cruelty and there are insufficient resources the report says to pursue all cases of cruelty with 92 percent of complaints being made to the SPCA. That was the concern of some members on the committee. I think it is a valid concern. I have consistently said in relation to that that good work is being done by pro bono prosecution panels—or at least one panel established in Auckland with the very best lawyers on it. That goes at least some way towards addressing that concern because the real expense is in taking the court cases. So it is good that first-class lawyers are taking those cases on for free. 
I think the other thing that we can say of course is what the Minister has said—and he is to be heartily congratulated in tight times on finding an extra $8.2 million of funding over 4 years to boost animal welfare activities. Around $5 million of that is going into animal welfare enforcement and compliance; he has gone through the breakdown of some of that. Perhaps that is not the entire answer but I think it is nevertheless a robust answer to that concern. 
The other thing that concerned some members on the committee was a disbelief if you like that increasing the length of sentences would by itself result in a decrease in the number of cases of cruelty to animals especially since only 10 people have ever been jailed in New Zealand as a result of animal cruelty charges. Again that is a valid concern—only 10 people ever jailed. I say to the Committee that the fact that we have had only 10 people go to jail for that is all the more reason to pass this bill and to do something so that when those cases come to court they are treated with the appropriate severity and seriousness. I make the point that when this bill—and I accept Sue Kedgley’s point that it was a much more modest bill when it was my member’s bill—was drafted I was simply trying to send a message to the judiciary to toughen up its game and treat this issue more seriously. 
I actually think there are good strong signs that that is occurring. I know these are early days and the bill has not even been passed but my understanding is that since this bill’s introduction there have been a couple more cases of imprisonment for animal cruelty. Certainly I am aware of the one reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 26 May under the headline “Farmer jailed for cruelty to thousands of chickens”. It states: “An Auckland poultry farmer has been jailed for a year for causing suffering to thousands of animals kept in what were described as filthy and inhumane conditions.” My point to the House is that I think sending 10 people to jail in this country for animal cruelty is an indictment but my view is that we are seeing signs of that number going up.