Prosser Richard: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:13062. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in this first reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. NewZealand First supports this bill at least going to the Primary Production Committee in the first instance and very probably beyond but I would signal that we do have some concerns that we will seek to have addressed. The general policy statement tells us that the bill “makes changes to the Animal Welfare Act 1999 … to improve the enforceability clarity and transparency of New Zealand’s animal welfare system.” These are commendable goals. New Zealand First is very pleased to be able to stand in support of them. The statement indicates that the changes will “enhance the operation of the Act rather than alter the fundamental principles and policy settings which”—it proclaims—“remain appropriate.” This may be regarded as a good thing.The bill implements the Government’s decisions resulting from the 2011-12 review of the Animal Welfare Act so this bill is essentially a device by which the existing Act may be brought up to date and may be made to be more functional. As I have alluded to there are quite naturally one or two aspects of the bill as it has been introduced with which we are not entirely happy. We will seek to address these at the select committee or later on by way of a Supplementary Order Paper as circumstances dictate. We note that under the current Act the export of livestock for slaughter is prohibited—which we are happy about—except with the consent of the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries. This bill will tidy up some of the regulations and processes around that issue but we further note that the bill will not change this policy per se. This we find somewhat disappointing. New Zealand First can think of no good reason for allowing the export of livestock at all for any purpose other than perhaps breeding—Colin King: Come on—what about racehorses? What about cattle?RICHARD PROSSER: —and that itself should be subject to some fairly stringent conditions with few if any exemptions. Bloodstock would of course be one example. But the general export of New Zealand breeding livestock is not we would contend in the greater interests of “New Zealand Inc” as a whole particularly when it involves the selling of prime New Zealand bloodlines—dairy cows for example or fine-wool merinos—to our competitor nations in these crucial industries.New Zealand First does not advocate killing the golden goose nor does it approve of selling the goose to foreign buyers. We can sell the golden eggs we can sell the feathers we can sell the pâté defoiegras—these are all good things—but to sell the goose itself is counter-productive in our view. This may not be the most appropriate bill to deal with this issue but it is a fine opportunity to make the point. Given that in most instances livestock being exported will be going to countries and jurisdictions where the treatment of animals is not afforded the same degree of importance that we in New Zealand would generally consider as being of a required standard I do think it fitting to raise the issue with regard to what will be the deliberations of this House on the matters that this bill encompasses.New Zealand First does have an issue with the transparency provisions of the bill. Although we acknowledge that the explanatory note under the heading of “Enforceability” makes reference to regulations that support codes of welfare “by setting specific and enforceable mandatory standards for example prohibitions on the use of sow stalls or requirements for layer hen housing.” we are concerned by some further references to these very issues in the section on transparency. The explanatory note states that “The Bill makes the criteria that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) consider when developing codes of welfare more transparent by explicitly including ‘practicality’ and ‘economic impact’ as second-tier considerations. This will allow economic and practical factors to be considered alongside but not to outweigh animal welfare issues.” Well either they do or they do not.I would contend that the very fact that these considerations whether they be second-tier or not are to be allowed to be examined alongside animal welfare issues suggeststhat almost by definition they will indeed in some cases be allowed to outweigh them. In the same section of the bill the explanatory note informs us that “The Bill also replaces the exceptional circumstances provisions with transitions and exemptions. The exceptional circumstances provisions currently enable NAWAC to recommend minimum standards in codes of welfare that do not fully meet the obligations in the Act. These provisions have been used for example to permit the use of battery cages until a certain date is reached and to permit the ongoing use of farrowing crates for pigs with no final date. The new provisions will enable NAWAC to recommend regulations permitting practices that do not fully meet the obligations in the Act—during a transition to a new practice where there is a defined expiry date: [or] for an indefinite period where there is a need for an exemption. The Bill establishes criteria that would need to be satisfied before a transition or an exemption is recommended and an exemption would only be available if a transition were not feasible. Exemptions would need to be reviewed within 10 years or earlier if the regulations so specify.”Once again this is a case of either it is or it is not. Either we as a nation give enough of a continental to pass a law that affords proper priority to the concerns of animal welfare or we do not. We cannot say that we care about animal welfare but only up to the point where caring is going to cost us money or put us out. We can do better than that and New Zealand First contends that we should. We would like to see this bill making a bold statement a definitive statement a statement that hoists a flag and says this is the way forward. We would like to see this bill set an end date beyond which sow crates and battery cages may not be used in New Zealand. We would like to see this bill mark the road ahead; for it to say to the industries concerned: “This is what you will achieve and this is when you will achieve it by.” We would like to see that incorporated in this bill and we will be lobbying for that.One thing we will not be lobbying for however is Supplementary Order Paper 341 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. New Zealand First members will not be supporting this Supplementary Order Paper. That is not because we do not think that the Hon Trevor Mallard will make a fine Speaker of this House in due course and in the fullness of time—quite the contrary. We do believe that Mr Mallard will make a very fine Speaker when the time comes for that baton to be passed into his care. We will be opposing it because we do not have a blanket opposition to the use of animal testing. New Zealand First members accept that there remains in this day and age a need for the use of animal models in the testing and evaluation of medical substances intended for the use and betterment of humans.We do not agree with the use of animal testing for such things as cosmetics. We accept that there is very probably little point in using animal testing for the evaluation of substances that are intended to have a psychoactive effect in humans. But in terms of pure toxicity there is not at this time a viable alternative to animal models when it comes to determining how much or how little of any particular substance is too much. The term LD50 is an abbreviation for lethal dose 50 percent. It is the dose of any given substance in milligrams per kilogram of bodyweight at which half the rats died. Medicines are tested against this model as are industrial chemicals agricultural chemicals pesticides herbicides and even food additives. We all rely on animal testing to a greater degree than I think many people realise. New Zealand First does not advocate for and is opposed to—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Sorry somebody has got a cellphone. I heard it ringing. It is not permitted. The member will continue.RICHARD PROSSER: We do not believe in testing potentially poisonous psychoactive substances on dogs or cats or on dolphins and chimpanzees for that matter. But no one ever said it was going to be easy being a rat and if a few rats have todie so that a large number of humans do not then that is something we can live with. That may be harsh and in the future it may not be needed. Perhaps in the fullness of time we will have computer modelling that can replace it but for now it remains a necessary evil. For that reason New Zealand First will not be supporting Mr Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper.In conclusion I reiterate that we do support what we perceive as being the broad aims of this bill. We do accept that there is a motivation to improve the lot of our furry and feathered friends and we will happily support this bill’s referral to a select committee at least in the first instance. Thank you.