van Velden BrookeBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party tonight in opposition to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. But I also rise in opposition on behalf of my colleague Mark Cameron who sadly can't be with us tonight because he's stuck up in Northland under the alert level 3 restrictions. And I do wish that he could be here tonight to give this speech on behalf of ACT because I know that he would give it great gusto. Mark is probably the best person placed in Parliament to talk on this bill because he is the authentic voice of rural New Zealand—you know whether it's just having his gumboots in his office as a constant reminder of the livelihoods of farmers or the messages that our caucus receive when Mark is not here in Parliament milking his cows in the Far North. And I know even during these COVID restriction times Mark has been diligently looking after his animals on his own farm like farmers up and down New Zealand have been doing during the COVID restrictions and I take my hat off to them working. While others can do remote work these people are using their hands and feet to make sure that we have livelihoods in New Zealand. But of course farmers up and down in New Zealand care about animal welfare because it is their livelihoods. You know it is what makes our country work. And it's also that unless farmers are looking after their animals they don't have good produce for the next year. It is in every farmer's best interest to give good conditions to their animals. So animal welfare is extremely important. But why are we bringing this bill to Parliament? And I think we need to acknowledge every time that we bring a new law to this place: what is the problem that we're actually trying to solve? What is the proposed solution? What are the benefits and the costs? A very basic question and ACT has analysed all of these and I'm sorry to say but it doesn't stack up as a good law to be made. So for context in mid-2019 Cabinet asked the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to lead a review into the export of livestock because they were concerned about the reputation of New Zealand as a responsible exporter of animals. And I note that MPI recommended that either we had a full ban on live exportation or an increased regulatory system to manage any risks. Now livestock export is controlled under the Animal Welfare Act and that's what this bill seeks to change. In New Zealand we currently have regulations about animal exportation. There are conditions for animal welfare on the voyage and for animal welfare at the destination. But we have to be clear: we can do better for the conditions of animals. We can do better to improve animal welfare. But this bill seeks to do the heavy-handed approach which is the ban. There would be a full cessation of trade from 30 April 2023.But if we look at MPI's analysis of what the impacts of that actually would be the economic loss to farmers and the economy would be significant. I'll read a few points if I may from the MPI analysis and it says Live animal exports provide a boost to New Zealand's economy and rural communities. Any move to prohibit the export of livestock would cause an economic loss to these groups and make recovery from COVID-19 more difficult in the rural communities where livestock exports provide an additional source of income. For some individual businesses that impact is likely to be significant." It also goes on to say "The direct value of New Zealand's livestock exports was $261.5 million for the year ending December 2020." It also says that "MPI's view is that reputational impacts are real but difficult to quantify. These risks should be taken seriously but can be managed through enhancing the regulatory framework." The problem is even worse than that though because if we truly do care about animal welfare standards we do have to acknowledge the part that New Zealand plays in ensuring that we are upholding better standards around the world. If it's not us that are providing livestock to other countries for their breeding programmes somebody else will very quickly fill that void. Trade will simply go offshore. The problem won't go away. But actually being in that space allows for better animal welfare conditions than what the alternative would be. People do need food. People do need animals to breed. And if we can be part of that we can uphold better animal welfare standards but also ensure that our farmers have ongoing livelihoods that won't be affected. I don't want to see countries with poorer welfare standards filling the void that New Zealand currently plays in that market. We also just have to acknowledge that COVID has been a very very tough time for all people but it has been hard for farmers too who have been constantly working through this time and not getting a huge amount of credit from the Government to be fair. It just feels like there are regulations and red tape constantly being placed upon our rural communities. But our farmers have pulled us through and this is a time when we should have their back. COVID is not a time when we should be placing more restrictions on their ability to pull themselves through this time. We don't want to create more pain and hurt farmers any more. In summary there's just a few points that I'd like to make. We can do more for animal welfare we do need to be clear but there was an alternative that could have been reached. And when there is an alternative why should we go with the heavy-handed approach that will hurt farmers? If I put it plainly in the words of my colleague Mark Cameron: "Far out! What a fiasco." So in summary ACT stands in opposition to this bill. Thank you."