Shearer David: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Shearer David: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:664;Page:11844] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I am very pleased along with my colleagues to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I also acknowledge Simon Bridge’s creativity in bringing this bill to the House initially and in many ways the bill has increased its weight by having been converted to a Government bill. A number of very tragic high-profile cases have recently brought renewed attention to the whole issue of animal cruelty. There has been a case of kittens being fed to dogs and cases of dogs being dragged behind cars and there have been some issues on farms where cattle have been allowed more or less to starve. 
When this legislation was being discussed and thought through I was very surprised at the degree to which the SPCA has taken the lead in trying to bring to the courts offenders who have committed inhumane acts against animals. I acknowledge its contribution. It was a surprise to me that 90 percent of all animal welfare cases have been headed by the SPCA. Again I think that has heightened the attention being brought to bear on the difficulty of prosecuting these cases. The fact that only 10 people have ever been jailed for cruelty against animals is quite frankly extraordinary given that so many offenders have been brought to light even in the short space of time in which attention has been paid to this issue recently. I think it is high time that we both toughen up the penalties and make it much easier for prosecutions to be taken against those who are offending. 
It has been mentioned and I think that it is perhaps worth mentioning again that there is a link between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans in that one can extend to the other. In the bill’s earlier readings one or two of my colleagues have mentioned the research from the Humane Society of the United States where in 50 of the largest shelters 85 percent of the women and 63 percent of the children reported animal abuse in their homes. There is no doubt that abuse flows in a sense from one to the other. 
I will also touch on the point my colleague Carol Beaumont mentioned which is the economic case for this legislation. KPMG released a report about 6 weeks ago that looked at New Zealand’s agriculture and asked where it would be in 5 or 10 years’ time. There is no doubt that the demand for our agriculture which is certainly in our high-protein products will grow but so will the supply of those sorts of products from other countries. The report stated very categorically—and this is very important I think—that the point of difference New Zealand will have in competing against cheaper prices is the fact that not only are our animal products clean and green but also our animals have been treated ethically. They will have been able to wander around outside rather than being cooped up in a small stall inside a barn. That will give us the point of difference to set us apart and it will guarantee both that we have a market in Europe and the United States and that we will be able to sell our produce at higher prices. 
It is important therefore that we can stand up and say that the products that we produce for people to consume are from animals that have been ethically treated well treated and humanely treated. Our animals will not have been cooped up in small stalls as no doubt animals from many of the other countries will have been. For that reason I mention that although Federated Farmers spoke in favour of this bill they said in their submission that they wanted the part of the legislation making the reckless ill-treatment of animals an offence to be relaxed.