King Colin: Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
King Colin: Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15226] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is with a fairly heavy heart that one takes a call on the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill because we appreciate that on balance New Zealand is judged as being a country that is a primary-producing economy and there is an expectation in the general public’s mind that we have a high level of animal welfare. Although we do that we know that presently there are campaigns being run to improve those practices. There is no doubt in my mind that at the appropriate time as viewed by those organisations that are accountable to their members and back to citizens in New Zealand and globally we will change those practices. 
As this bill stands it has a number of fundamental flaws. The principal part of it amends section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act. Clause 5 “Definition of physical health and behavioural needs” inserts in section 4: “ ‘(ca) freedom of movement that must not be restricted in such a way as to cause suffering or injury”—we can live with that; that sounds perfectly understandable and in the right direction—“and includes having sufficient space to display normal patterns of behaviour such as being able to turn around easily and walking:’.” That is where I personally have great difficulty because although we are talking about pigs and chickens in the popular context we are also talking about a broad range of animal farming. 
I have only to think about my background my experience in sheep farming and the things we do in the best interests of lamb survival to ensure that we can mother a lamb on to a ewe that will not take its lamb. We will immobilise the ewe in as careful a manner as possible so that that lamb can suckle its mother and build up the strength to survive. That in itself is often the difference between profitability and loss. One could say: “Well we don’t care. We want animals to have rights.” I accept that. There is even a practice to get a piece of string put it around the front foot of a ewe and tie it low down to the fence—especially two-tooth ewes young sheep that have not really developed a mothering intuitiveness and nurturing. We tie them up for a day or two and make sure they have water— 
Phil Twyford 
: Yeah a day or two not 6 months. 
COLIN KING 
: But under this bill we would be breaking the law. We would be criminalising people trying to ensure that we had 24 million lambs to slaughter and export under the clean green “100% Pure New Zealand” label not people farming in the backyard of Auckland or something like that. This is where I have some serious concerns. I understand the sincerity and genuine nature of the person who is moving the bill but in its realistic context I am afraid it falls well short. 
One has only to think of shedding up a shed full of sheep. One fills the shed up so that the sheep cannot move around so that they cannot walk freely and dance around and behave in such a way. Under this bill we would be criminalising every farmer who shedded up a shed of sheep. 
I think that although we can allow the emotions and the emotive words to boil over this situation clearly is best left up to the experts and to the advisory councils. There is no doubt that the message is getting through and that there have been dramatic changes. One change that I have noticed in my time is the practice of mulesing. Mulesing done properly in my view is actually an animal welfare activity but because it destroys our image overseas we have moved away from it. 
I could speak for a long time on this bill but I think my time has gone by. I will be voting against this bill.