Hague Kevin: Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hague Kevin: Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15228] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 A dictionary definition of the word “conscience” is “the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or motives impelling one toward the right action to follow”. There is no question that the issue of animal welfare is a question of conscience. 
I accept what my colleague Sue Kedgley says. She believes that every member of this House in their own conscience in their own mind knows that the right thing to do is to vote for this bill and end these barbaric practices. Unfortunately that imperative tonight conflicts with a principle that the Government has used in its own political management of this Parliament and that is that when the House debates members’ bills from Opposition members the Government decides for political reasons not to give oxygen to the Opposition and routinely vote those members’ bills down. 
I ask the Government—whoever is in charge of the Government’s votes tonight; whoever has the opportunity to change the direction the Government has given to its members—to please consider all those New Zealanders who have seen documentaries on television about barbaric practices in chicken farming and about sow crate practices and who have been appalled by those practices overseas and in this country. I ask the Government to consider the view of New Zealanders when they learn that the Government tonight had the opportunity to act on those issues but chose not to and instead chose to act in its own political interest. I also await with interest what possible reason the ACT Party could have for voting against this bill tonight. 
In some ways I feel sorry for Shane Ardern and Colin King who were given the responsibility to speak against this bill tonight. We are I have to say still completely mystified about whether the Government holds any rational objections to this bill. Mr Ardern spoke at the beginning of his speech about there being no economic point of view that would justify animal cruelty. In actual fact animal cruelty occurs precisely because of the economic interest some farmers have in short-term economic gain. Practices like the battery farming of hens and the use of sow crates in pig farming enable farmers to carry more stock in a small area. It is entirely about short-term economic interest; that is the justification for the animal cruelty that is used. Mr Ardern breathtakingly argued in favour of sow crates. He ignored the reality that many farmers who practise free-range pig farming and free-range hen farming have found completely acceptable and viable ways of doing that and making a profit. No sensible reason has been advanced by Shane Ardern. 
Mr Ardern also talked about advice that the Government had on inadvertent consequences of the bill and of course there has been no detail or explanation in respect of that. That is precisely the kind of thing that a select committee inquiry could sort out. Colin King talked about the definition of freedom of movement and he brought up some minor quibbles about that definition. That again is something that a select committee could deal with. We heard a pathetic argument about Labradors in houses and we also heard Colin King talk about restrictions on the mobility of ewes for several days which is a complete red herring. It is totally outside the scope of this bill and it has nothing to do with section 73 of the principal Act. 
I have been exposed to the sow crate experience and it is a totally cruel experience. I take on board the Prime Minister’s comment that he is very very distressed by this practice and that the Government may consider doing something about it. Tonight the Government has the opportunity to do something about these barbaric practices. It will be judged by its refusal to do so.