Prosser Richard: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:907. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the second reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill albeit with some reservations. We are very pleased that this Government has seen fit to prioritise it as one of the first pieces of legislation to be brought forward from the 50th Parliament to the 51st. The subject of animal welfare is one that is very close to the hearts of a great many New Zealanders. This bill passed through the Primary Production Committee under the most able chairmanship of Shane Ardern now departed from these halls. I spent the term of the last Parliament as a permanent unofficial interloper on the committee and I am very pleased to be back this term in an official capacity under what thus far appears to be the equally capable helmsmanship of Mr McKelvie.This bill addresses a number of fundamental issues relating to animal welfare as it should. Not unexpectedly it will not satisfy everyone. I reiterate that we in New Zealand First are not entirely happy with some of the detail. Central to the animal welfare discussion in this country as we all know is the fate of intensively farmed pigs and battery-caged layer hens. This bill proposes limits on the time allowed for producers to move from those standards of containment for intensively farmed animals that are currently permitted to those that are proposed. As is human nature those limits are regarded as being far too long by some stakeholders and far too short by others. Personally I buy only free-range eggs because I like chooks. I have always been a country boy. We had chooks when I was growing up. I have had chooks almost everywhere I have lived and because I can afford it. The reality is that barn eggs are more expensive to produce than cage eggs and free-range eggs are more expensive to produce than barn eggs.Ian McKelvie: Can run them on the road.RICHARD PROSSER: Roll them chickens Mr McKelvie. So the nation can decide if it chooses to decree that all hens must be free-range and that in my view would be a grand thing for animal welfare. But the immediate effect would be that the price of eggs at the supermarket would double.Whether free-range chickens are actually healthier and happier than their barn or colony cousins is still a matter for some contention. To many myself included it would appear to be a given. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee however supported by independent studies which are perhaps not surprisingly also supported by the egg industry contend that any measurable difference is negligible. Mortality from diseases and pests is arguably lower amongst intensively farmed egg-producing chickens. Conditions of temperature and humidity are constant and controlled and nutritional requirements are met and guaranteed. Personally if I was a chicken I believe I would very much prefer to be a free-range chicken but I say that from the standpoint of not being a chicken and those who set the regulations do so on the basis of the objective science as it is presented however counter-intuitive it may seem to some.Politicians and political parties can change the rules if they wish but they must do so in the knowledge that they will have to explain the doubling of the price of eggs to the people who of course have to feed their families in what is a comparatively low-wage country with food prices that are already high. The alternative is that we go back to subsidising agricultural production as we once did and as most of the rest of the developed world still does. Since this appears anathema to the economic policies of both major parties in New Zealand it is not likely to happen any time soon. People do not feel good about hens in cages. Good ordinary people do not like the idea of battery hens being confined in tiny cramped spaces but the reality is that a combination of hungry kids and poor wages have a profound effect on human sensibilities.Pigs are in a similar situation. Sow crates were originally invented as an animal welfare measure. They prevent the mummy pig from eating her babies or rolling on them and crushing them to death. In close confinement such as is standard in intensive pig farming—even in a semi-enlightened country such as this one—both those things happen as a matter of course. Some changes have come about in recent years. Crates have become larger and pigs are not allowed to be kept in them for as long at a time or for as much of the year as used to be the case. But for the intensive pig farming model there is not an absolute alternative now or in the foreseeable future. It is not a matter of cost rather that there is nothing currently available or on the cusp of being invented. Again there are free-range farming models that allow pigs sufficient space that cannibalism and suffocation cease to be major factors in the mother-child relationship. However they require more land. As with chickens that actual cost to production goes up and with that the price of pig products to the consumer also rises exponentially.Britain moved to a free-range only pig farming regime some years ago. But the British still have farm subsidies like the rest of the EU which means that British consumers of pork bacon sausages and ham do not have to shoulder the actual costs associated with the production of their daily fare. We can choose to go the same way but again we can do so only with the agreement of the people based on their clear understanding of what it is going to cost them. Initially it will cost the taxpayer as the Government buys out or otherwise compensates pig farmers who are not able to expand their operations to free-range through unavailability of land or because upscaling is not economically viable yet who still have a great deal invested in plant machinery and stock. Then there will be the ongoing increased price of pig products. The alternative is to increase imports over present levels. New Zealand’s piggery exports are negligible at the moment and we import around half of all pig meat consumed annually. The downside to this is that most imports are from producer nations whose animal welfare standards and farming practices are less advanced and stringent than our own thus increasing imports from such countries risk putting the entire New Zealand pork industry out of business for no net gain in overall global animal welfare. So there is no free lunch available here.If we move without any transition period to what we believe are the highest standards which we believe we should be using it will mean higher prices or subsidies neither of which appeal to voters. The pigs and the chickens are sandwiched neatly between the rock and the hard place as far as politics in this country is concerned. It would take a brave politician indeed to tell the people that two of their staple foods are going to double in price so that we can all feel good about animal welfare and I say that from the position of being genuinely concerned about it. I would like to say that 5 years is long enough for compliance with animal welfare standards but as has been said there are no technological answers to the problems associated with factory pig farming on the medium-term horizon. Adhering to such a time frame will mean hardship for many and no overall improvement for anyone or anything unless you have subsidies. So it is a round and round in circles kind of a thing. We are supportive of the move to larger cages and lower occupancy rates for chickens. I believe the industry is moving in this regard and probably will meet the required deadlines and we certainly support that. So the short answer is that we would like all these things to happen but the people must understand the actual costs associated with them.Of course the lot of the pigs and the chickens is not the only issue this bill deals with neither is it the only issue with which we do not entirely agree. There is the matter of sentience. New Zealand First is mindful of majority mainstream scientific opinion with regards to animal sentience. It is generally accepted that of the wider species groups there are some namely primates cetaceans elephants horses dogs cats and pigs that display an exponentially greater predominance of sentient behaviour indicators than other animals accompanied perhaps by some species of birds—notably ravens magpies and parrots—and certain invertebrates such as octopi.Paul Foster-Bell: What about mallard ducks?RICHARD PROSSER: I cannot comment on mallard ducks but determining what may constitute humane treatment of these animals should be shaped by recognition of this measurably greater sentience. However this bill does not make a distinction as to degrees of relative sentience with regard to different animal species. In that light New Zealand First asks why this bill does not specifically disallow the keeping of cetaceans in captivity. These sentient creatures are our kin. These magnificent intelligent sociable sentient animals are our brothers and sisters of the oceans. It is barbaric and inexcusable in this enlightened day and age to keep them in captivity for the amusement of humans even under the guise of scientific research. New Zealand First contends that degrees of sentience should be recognised in this bill. New Zealand First for example supports the great apes declaration. We likewise recognise the greater sentience of cetaceans and we ask why—if however unlikely it is to remain legally permissible to keep dolphins and orca in captivity—is it not also unacceptable to keep sentient pigs and sentient chickens in conditions that many would contend are inhumane? There must be consistency or failing that there must at the very least be logic and common sense.There are a few other things with which we have some minor quibbles and without going into them all ahead of the Committee stage I wish to raise the subject of live animal exports. The bill as returned from the Primary Production Committee proposes in clause 21 that in section 43 of Part 1 subsection (2) should be inserted so that the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries in considering whether to grant an export licence particularly for live animals for slaughter may consider the post-arrival conditions for the management of animals in the importing country. This subsection is inserted to address concerns that an outright ban could possibly put New Zealand in breach of our obligations to the World Trade Organization. New Zealand First proposes that the word “may” be replaced with “must” which would allow for a practical ban in all circumstances where one would be required. And if this not possible we ask whether in fact it is a good idea for New Zealand to be signing up to any international trade treaty that overrides or may override our sovereign rights of self-determination.All that said although this bill is still capable of improvement it is a good bill and we are happy to continue supporting it through to the next stage. Thank you.