Mallard Trevor: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 31 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2739. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): That was a very relaxed speech from a very relaxed Minister for Primary Industries and I think relaxation in the area of animal welfare is something that he is becoming renowned for. We have an appalling history and series of practices in New Zealand in animal welfare on farms—in particular on poultry and pig farms—but not only there; we have an appalling record of cruelty to some pets. And we have a Minister who regularly when there is a crisis fails to act fails to show concern and pretends that the ineffectual approach taken by the ministry which is basically understaffed and scared to do proper promotion of animal welfare is OK. It is not.There has been a slow approach to this piece of legislation which was introduced in May 2013. It languished on the Order Paper until August 2013 when the Government gave it a first reading. It was reported back in June 2014. It got a second reading in November 2014. Now nearly 2 years after its introduction we have come to look at the details of the bill. Anyone who cared about animal welfare would have given this legislation higher priority than that Minister has.The Labour Party finds cruelty to animals abhorrent but we also know—and my colleague Damien O’Connor often reminds us—that the international reputation of our exporters depends on having good policies and practices in New Zealand and the example of a few idiot farmers can destroy the reputation of our primary industry and place our exports across a wide range in danger. It is particularly important going into Europe becoming more important going into the United States but now even in the Asian market at that top end people are looking at the practices that we have when they are looking for premium product. If we ignore that we ignore some of the best markets for our product. As I say there are some idiot farmers who place that at risk and frankly the attitude of the Minister and of his ministry is far too often to turn a blind eye to it not to crack down and prosecute.This legislation is better than what is currently in place but it will depend on the enforcement. But frankly a Government that takes 2 years to get legislation through which has really stretched the agency responsible for enforcement does not give me a lot of faith in its ability to get this sorted. I do want to compliment the Minister. I think that now 700 days after it was brought to the Government’s attention the bill has a Supplementary Order Paper that addresses the cosmetic testing issue. It was not an issue on the first reading it was not an issue in the select committee and it was not an issue on the second reading but at last the Government has folded. I want to join with the congratulations to Mojo Mathers on the work that she has done on leading on this issue. It is something that she knows she has always had our support on but the fact that the Minister has finally caught up with the importance of our international reputation in this area to the rest of our primary industries is something that is a compliment to her. For that reason we will of course support the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper.I have moved Supplementary Order Paper 48 to the bill. What this Supplementary Order Paper does within clause 56 of the bill is replace a 10-year phase-in period and a 5-year renewal process for the abolition of cruel practices with a 7-year period. What we are saying is that we should not have cruel practices at all but what we do accept is that changing the practices in some farming operations is going to take some time. What we want to do is be reasonable to farmers in order to make the changes. But 15 years to stop the awful practices that we see on many of our pig farms—practices that are actually worse than the practices of a generation or two before. They have just got to stop and 15 years to stop them is just far too long.So that is why I am moving Supplementary Order Paper 48. What that does is take the 10-year cruel practice exemption that the Minister can grant—and he can grant a 5-year renewal of that—down to a maximum of 7 years with no right of renewal. I say to the Minister that if that is not good enough and if he thinks that farmers will in fact need a longer period and he thinks it should be renewed after 7 years then he should bring—as an Opposition member because I can accept that that is what he will be by that stage—something back to Parliament for the whole Parliament to consider. I think it is unreasonable for any Minister whatever their party to be left with the right to continue for 15 years practices that this Committee today is deciding are unacceptable. We are making a decision to have a better regime but we are granting a Minister time and an ability to override it and in my opinion that is something that is not acceptable.There is a further series of Supplementary Order Papers that the Committee is considering. We will be guided by Mojo Mathers on whether she wants her one to go through as well. I am assuming that the Minister’s one will override her one but if that is not the case it would be good to have discussion on that one. We will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 355 in Mojo Mathers’ name. We think that it is appropriate for there to be a balance of practicality and economics in making decisions on the part of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. That is something that I think you have got to do as part of that process and taking out that balance is something that I think goes a step too far so we will not be supporting—as we have indicated to her—that particular Supplementary Order Paper. We will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 47 which deals with the deprivation of life for non-human hominids. This is generally known as the great apes issue and we support Supplementary Order Paper 47 which essentially limits the reasons for killing apes within New Zealandto euthanasia. It cannot be done just as a matter of convenience.Of course I am pleased to hear that the Minister is going to be supportive of the tidying up of his untidy work on the legislation. The bill is better than the current legislation but not good enough.