Nash Stuart: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:913. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART NASH (Labour—Napier):You know this is an important bill because it sort of cuts to the heart of how we see ourselves as Kiwis. We all have pets. We all have dogs and cats and various pets—Chris Hipkins: Did you say kids?STUART NASH: —cats—and it is anathema to the vast majority of Kiwis to think that people would treat animals in any way except a humane way. But the irony about this bill is that during the last election there was actually a party that wanted to deprive children of the rights that we are affording animals. There was a party that wanted to remove the legislation that actually made it illegal to wallop and beat the living daylights out of children. I find this quite ironic. Here we are talking about the welfare of animals—and we get this; we understand this—and yet there was a party that got nearly 5 percent and came within a whisker of getting into Parliament that wanted to remove the same protections for children. It is quite astounding.The other thing is that it is actually illegal to have homeless stock. It is illegal to have your stock—not your stock Mr Assistant Speaker; well if you had stock it would be—wandering around outside your property but under this Government the number of homeless in our community has grown exponentially. Again all I am saying is that I think it is a little bit about getting our priorities right. Sure we must protect the welfare of our animals but let us not forget about the welfare of our children and the welfare of those in our communities who are disadvantaged as well.If there is one thing that I would really like to get across it is that New Zealand’s global competitive advantage is based on how we are perceived by our key markets. We have this very important brand—and it has been talked about by other speakers—that cannot be replicated and copied unlike other manufactured goods. This is the clean green image that sells our nation. It is the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. When you go overseas and you see marketing campaigns about this country—in fact I think a lot of them were actually developed by a former Minister of Tourism the Hon Damien O’Connor—the iconic images of New Zealand are of bush lambs cows fjords; this wonderful utopia that is sort of at the unspoiled end of the world. What we need to do is ensure that we retain that competitive advantage because it allows us to get a premium for products that are sold into nations that value that brand incredibly strongly.It does not relate only to our environment; it also relates to the way we live our lives treat our communities and manage our key assets. In a farming sense under which a number of these brands are sold overseas these key assets include our animals. This bill not only enhances the protection afforded to animals but in a way serves to strengthen our global competitive advantage by saying to the world: “You know what—if you are buying a product from New Zealand then it will be nurtured and raised in an ethical manner as is befitting the brand New Zealand.”This is the most important thing that we have got because in this day and age it is not just companies that are seeking a competitive advantage it is actually global economies. Economies the size of ours absolutely need to go out there and create a unique selling point for our products. Certainly in an era where so many things are able to be copied our brand is not; it is unique. Therefore the ethical treatment of animals cuts to the very heart I believe of what it means to be a Kiwi.You know we have this sort of romantic image of our forebears as pioneers on horses with a pack of dogs breaking in this land. Back then the mistreatment of animals was anathema. That has not changed. After all around 50 percent of our export earnings are derived from animals in some way shape or form. So it just does not make economic sense let alone from an emotive argument. I think this was one of the reasons that there was such an outrage with the CraFarm debacle where we had images on our TV of malnourished cows wandering around in an area where we know that this sort of animal husbandry and farming should never take place. There was almost more outrage at the mistreatment of these animals than there is sometimes about the mistreatment of people in our society. But like I said it is an emotive argument.Having said that we also live in a globalised economy where changing tastes are providing greater opportunities for our primary producers. We are operating in a 21st century economy and we need to move with the times I suppose. We need to make sure that we have an ability to take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves. By that I also mean that we cannot limit opportunities through legislation. I suppose that is what this bill is doing.I know it was recognised by the Primary Production Committee that the export of live animals is almost a little abhorrent. I know that when I was growing up and there were live sheep exports in the pictures we got back—and I think this might have been the reason that they stopped—we saw these healthy sheep boarding this huge transport ship and when they got there we heard that only a hundred had died of heat exhaustion and this sort of carry-on. It was absolutely dreadful. I think we decided at that time that this was not who we were as a nation and that it was not the sort of image we wanted to send overseas but also it was not how we believed we were to sell our major competitive advantage. We needed to stop that.What this bill does is that it does not close the door on exporting livestock. In fact there is an amendment in clause 21 that inserts a new section around how we deal with the exporting of live animals. What the bill does do is provide the director-general with a little bit more power around the management and welfare of animals during the journey but it places huge emphasis on the person responsible for the exporting of these live animals. The reason why this is important is that if someone has responsibility for their actions and they know that the fine for breaking the law is such a deterrent they are unlikely to commit an act that is going to lead to prosecution. What the bill also does is provide clarity and flexibility around the framework governing surgical or painful procedures. Again a number of speakers have talked about this. It is common sense. I think what it is doing is bringing us into the 21st century. Having said that it is still common sense and it needs to be done.There is one thing that I would like to just briefly mention. I have received two emails—that is all. At least two people got off their chuff and decided to email me. These were hunters who were asking what this is doing to hunting. What the bill does say is that it does not prohibit anyone from hunting a wild animal and going out there and undertaking the sort of outdoor recreational pursuits that a significant number of New Zealanders participate in.One thing the bill does do—and I am pleased about this because until I actually read the bill I did not realise that this stuff was not in place—is govern the rules around traps and the capturing of a live mammal bird reptile or amphibian. The bill affords a whole lot more responsibility if you are setting traps. I am going to quote from the bill here. It says that if you set a trap you actually have to inspect that trap within 12 hours after sunrise each day the trap remains set and if there is an animal in that trap you have got to make sure that that animal is properly taken care of without delay and you have got to kill the animal. The thing about that is if a hunter does not do this there is a fine of $5000.So this bill is actually quite wide ranging and it covers a whole lot of areas that affect different sections of society from the export of live animals right through to how we trap and kill pests and rodents but also—and we have heard about this—animal testing.I just want to sum up. What I think this bill does do is provide a further strengthening of our global competitive advantage. It does send a very clear message to our key markets that if you are buying a New Zealand - branded product it will have been raised killed and processed in an ethical manner and you can trust that. We need to ensure that we retain our global competitive advantage by ensuring that the processes and the farming practices undertaken in New Zealand are done in the most ethical way.I do commend this bill to the House. Like a number of pieces of legislation—I think all the legislation—tonight there is agreement on this right across the House. It is a good piece of legislation. Thank you very much.