Prosser Richard: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3158. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am very pleased to rise to take a call in the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill on behalf of New Zealand First. I want to pick up on a couple of points that Mr McKelvie made earlier and one of them was actually about pest control. He talked about the pest species of animals that we have in this country. It is quite interesting that at this time the subject of 1080 is topical because 1080 is actually an extremely inhumane form of pest control. It is curious in fact that it was not included in the ambit of this bill but perhaps that is a question for another day. It is something we can revisit.Mr McKelvie also spoke about the export of live animals for slaughter and Mr O’Connor touched on that and the Minister has said a word about it as well. I want to talk primarily about the export of live animals because it is probably the major lingering concern that New Zealand First still has with regard to this bill. During the first reading I expressed some reservations that New Zealand First held regarding the export of live animals for slaughter. Of course under the existing Act this is prohibited unless it is specifically authorised by the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries. We asked at the time whether or not that being the case this bill presented an opportunity to do away with that provision altogether.New Zealand used to export animals for slaughter on quite a large scale and the practice was brought to a halt by Parliament some years ago for what were very sound reasons at the time. There were and are of course other reasons as well economic reasons but the motivation at the time was primarily centred on the conditions the animals were subjected to while they were being transported to other places and the conditions that they were subjected to when they arrived at the other end.New Zealand First has got no objection to the export of live bloodstock because we understand full well just how valuable the thoroughbred industry is to this country. We know that our bloodstock is highly regarded and highly sought after internationally and that many thousands of jobs and literally hundreds of millions of dollars are generated in the economy through the export of live horses. But horses are treated in an entirely different manner from sheep and cattle intended for slaughter in the way they are transported and cared for.Horses are airfreighted to their destinations in pressurised air-conditioned comfort. They are housed in safe secure environments while on the aeroplane and they have veterinary care. And of course on arrival their fate is not to be taken to the nearest abattoir but rather to a training track or a stud farm. These are valuable animals and they are cared for accordingly. Breeding heifers are similarly afforded a better lot than the cattle and sheep that left these shores a decade or so ago destined for the slaughterhouses of distant places. New Zealand First does not believe that we should be exporting such animals either but we recognise that while it is legal there are people who will see it as good business and who will look to profit from it.We are opposed because we believe that such practices are short-sighted and as I have said in debates on other legislation notably the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act we believe that business activity of this type will come back and bite New Zealand. The reason for that is that one day the dairy bubble is going to burst. We have allowed ourselves in this country to come to the belief that because we hold such a major position in terms of global cross-border trade in dairy products we are somehow significant in terms of world milk production and we are not. New Zealand produces only around 3 percent of the world’s milk.Most dairy produce worldwide is consumed domestically in the country of origin and international trade comprises only a very small proportion of the total. At the moment there is a shortfall between supply and demand and it is this that allows New Zealand to profit from being in a position to supply from our disproportionately large dairy production relative to our population and domestic demand to buyers from overseas. But in helping to grow production overseas through joint ventures and by selling heifers to foreign dairy producers we are only hastening the arrival of the day when demand for dairy products in the countries that are presently our export markets will be met from production in those countries. For that reason we do not believe that it is sustainable or even a good idea to export live dairy cows regardless of the conditions under which they are transported.Of course New Zealand does also export other animals for breeding purposes including cattle sheep goats deer and even chickens. Our animals are very much sought after worldwide because they are known to be for the most part from very good stock lines and are for the most part free from any of the nasty diseases that are endemic in some other parts of the world. Again animals that are exported for breeding purposes are treated better and transported in far greater safety and comfort than those that are destined for the pot.The issue of live exports for slaughter has not gone away. In fact it raised its head only last week with the Prime Minister’s efforts towards securing a free-trade deal with the nations of the Middle East’s Gulf Cooperation Council. This deal has been on hold since 2009. Coincidentally one of the sticking points is the fact that New Zealand halted live sheep exports in 2004. Apparently an investor from Saudi Arabia lost quite a bit of money as a result of the cessation of exports and we are told that the Saudis are still a wee bit sore about that. But that aside these exports were put on indefinite hold at that time for very good reason.As a nation we have engaged in live export for slaughter for more than 20 years prior to that but in 2003 something like 5000 sheep died on one ship under what can be described only as quite horrific conditions while being transported from Australia to Saudi Arabia. They died from heat stress overcrowding and a lack of food water and sanitation during a sea voyage that had lasted something like 2 months longer than it should have. New Zealand First is very much concerned that such exports may be resumed and that the provision for their resumption still exists under the bill.We are concerned on a number of fronts but they all come back to animal welfare in one way or another. Obviously we are concerned that if live exports for slaughter were to be resumed we would be faced with a return to the very same conditions that led to their being curtailed in the first place. It is hard to see how that can be avoided because these things are driven by money. Sheep are crammed into overcrowded boats because the cost of transporting them has to be kept down. A live sheep being exported for slaughter is not worth very much. In fact it is probably the lowest return for both the farmer and the nation that can be received for a sheep that has been grown for consumption.We do know that things have not improved very much in that regard in the last 10 or 15 years because live exports from Australia have continued pretty much unabated since that time and the standard of transport today is much as it was then. In fact collateral losses for sheep exports from Australia to other parts of the world are running at about 7 or 8 percent—maybe a little bit less than that but it is still too much by any measure. It is the minimal value of the animal and the minimal return to the farmer and to “New Zealand Inc.” that we oppose and for the same reasons we do not wish to see any part of our primary sector reduced to a simple exporter of bulk commodities.The second concern that we have is around the conditions that might meet livestock exported for slaughter when they arrive at the other end of their journey. We know that the Director-General can grant an exemption if he or she is satisfied that the abattoir in the destination country meets the standards that we demand here but the reality is that in too many cases live animals are sought in other parts of the world for reasons of ritual slaughter in accordance with the requirements of various religious and cultural practices. These practices by their very nature are not able to meet the minimum standards of animal welfare that we demand of our own meat processes. Animals are required to be fully conscious when they are put to death which is at odds with our own requirement that they be stunned first. They are frequently transported in the boots of cars even in the back seats of cars. They are not properly restrained. They are subjected to quite brutal and stressful treatment prior to slaughter.We have an objection also to the granting of the exemption being placed in the hands of the Director-General however professional he or she might be. The practice of exporting live animals for slaughter was stopped by politicians through the parliamentary process and we believe that if it is to be resumed then that decision must be made in the same way. We do not believe that it is good enough for a Minister to be able to hide behind a bureaucrat if and when this decision ever is to be made. Governments need to take responsibility for changes of this magnitude and we believe that if a Minister wishes to restart the export of live animals for slaughter then he or she should be required to put their money where their mouth is stand behind that decision and stand up for it if and when necessary. And whether it is necessary is a salient point because over the last decade or so we have shown that exports of live sheep for slaughter from New Zealand are not necessary.The New Zealand farming sector has got on quite well without them for the last decade and it appears that customers in the Middle East have got on quite well without those exports as well. So it is simply not necessary and we ask again why it has not been removed altogether and why we did not make provision for prohibiting it in total when the bill went through. But all that said on balance this is still a very good bill which will deliver very much better and improved outcomes for animal welfare in New Zealand and New Zealand First continues to support it. I commend it to the House. Thank you.