Moroney Sue: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 31 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2749. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak at the Committee stage of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I am pleased to speak on this because first of all Labour is supporting the legislation. It is good to speak on a bill where we can actually be positive about what is occurring in Parliament because frequently we find that that is not the case under this Government. I am also pleased to rise and speak on the bill because I do consider myself to be an animal lover. I have been around animals all my life. Actually I was brought up on a dairy farm in a little place in the Waikato by the name of Walton—this is probably the only thing that the Hon Judith Collins and I have in common. I have had animals involved in my liferight from the very start—animals that we have relied on for our family income and animals as household pets. And through my association with the horse racing industry I have been involved in animal welfare from that perspective as well. So this is an issue that is actually very close to my heart.I would say at the outset that this bill does concern me. I do not rise to speak to too many bills where when we are talking about the commencement clause the bill talks about quite a number of sections coming into effect 5 years after the date that the Act receives Royal assent. It concerns me that for quite a number of sections—I think it refers to sections 4 10 12 13 16 20 22 25 45 and 57—it could take 5 years before they come into force. I was not on the Primary Production Committee so I am not familiar with the details of those sections but I would be interested to hear from the Minister as to why that particular time period has been named in the commencement clause of this bill because as I say it is very unusual. Mostly when we are debating bills and giving priority to those bills by the use of parliamentary time it is because we want them to take effect immediately. That is normally what we are doing.I will however note that I do want to speak strongly in favour of Supplementary Order Paper 48 put in by my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard because his Supplementary Order Paper actually speaks to that issue. It ensures that the piece of legislation that we are passing which bans or outlaws the mistreatment of animals will be a reality within 7 years—not the possibility of 15 years as the bill in its current form allows. The bill does actually allow up to 10 years for these practices to become completely outlawed or banned and then it has the provision of another 5 years as I guess a little bit of fat in the system as well. It seems alarming to me that given we are dedicating parliamentary time to this debate right here right now in the year 2015 we would find it acceptable for some of these practices to continue until the year 2030 or beyond depending on when Royal assent is given for this bill.It seems to me that there appears to be a lack of urgency from the Government benches as to how soon they want to make sure that these practices disappear. From the Labour side of the Chamber we are clear about this: it should not take anywhere near 15 years to be able to get rid of the mistreatment of animals which this bill is designed around—7 years is well long enough and easily adequate for those practices to change. So I would challenge the Minister and his colleagues to give us the justification for why such a long period would in fact be needed. I think it may well be that the Government underestimates the ability of those involved in deriving their livelihoods from animals to be nimble and to change their practices in a shorter period of time. I think it tells us quite a lot about how the Government feels about those who rely on animals for their income—that the Government thinks they will be slow to respond. That is why the Government is giving this extraordinary amount of time for these practices to change. I would very much like some comment from the Government benches on that issue.I notice that new section 30C inserted by clause 17 protects hunting in safari parks. Maybe this is a piece of local information—local to New Zealand that is—that I am unaware of but I would like to know from the Minister where the safari parks are that this new section would apply to. It is not actually something that I have been involved in. I have not booked myself into a safari park in New Zealand to hunt and kill animals. I am really quite unsure as to what new section 30C applies to. If the Minister could let us know about that I would really prefer that he do it in a way that was not an advertisement for that one safari park that might exist in New Zealand that has escaped my attention. But I would be interested to know where that does occur.I do however want to note that the bill outlaws—and so it should—the killing of animals in a wild setting. It does not actually use that phrase.Dr Megan Woods: Does it cover moa?SUE MORONEY: I am sure it does cover moa. The issue that I really do want to cover—because it is a very serious issue and it is the one that sticks in my mind which I believe this bill will deal with—is that shocking incident where seals were clubbed to death. It is a very very important thing that we do make sure we have got a piece of legislation that does address that issue not just because animal welfare is important to our economy and to our export sector not just because of that but because it is the right thing to do. In that instance when those seals were killed—just for the pure entertainment of a few young men it appeared—that is something that the entire nation I think found completely distasteful.I do want to draw a link because I have been thinking about why it is that the mistreatment of animals is so abhorrent to us. Yes it is abhorrent in its own right but there is a lot of research that now backs up the assertion that people who will be cruel to animals will be equally cruel to humans. There is a very strong link between those who find it entertaining to be cruel to a defenceless creature that cannot fight back and those who will hurt children. There is a strong link between those who commit offences against animals and those who are involved in domestic violence as well. I did not want to sit down after speaking in this debate without making sure that we drew that link—that this is an important bill in its own right but that it is also equally important because it relates to how we interact with each other as people. Thank you.