Carter David: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Carter David: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11280] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Primary Production Committee for its very prompt consideration of this bill. I am pleased to say that in the time available the select committee received 17 written submissions and heard six oral submissions and that resulted in some very valuable improvements to the bill. I am also pleased that the committee agreed unanimously that the bill be passed with minor changes as it reaffirms the importance that this House gives to animal welfare in New Zealand. 
I note that the committee expressed concern over the perceived lack of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry animal welfare inspectors and resources. That is something I raised with the previous Labour Government on a number of occasions. This Government shares those concerns and that is why Budget 2010 boosted animal welfare funding activities by $8.2 million over the next 4 years. That is the largest increase in animal welfare funding in over a decade. I am also aware that some will consider that this extra funding is not enough but it is a significant step and I am confident it will go a long way towards addressing the concerns of the committee. 
I would like to discuss the main changes recommended by the committee all of which I support. The committee agreed that the maximum penalty for contravening a disqualification order should be raised to the same level as the new offence of reckless ill-treatment—that is a maximum of 3 years in prison or a fine of $75000 for an individual or of $350000 for a body corporate. People are disqualified from owning animals because they either have repeatedly offended against animals or have offended so seriously that the court has had little choice but to restrict their access to animals. Contravening a disqualification order is a serious offence because it is deliberate and places the animals in the offender’s care at high risk of being abused in the future. To provide an effective deterrent to potential offenders it is appropriate that a serious penalty be put in place for this crime. 
The committee also agreed that section 172 of the Animal Welfare Act should be changed so that the forfeiture clause applied only to animals owned by the offender. As the bill was originally worded the court could order forfeiture to the Crown of all animals to which a charge related. That could have included animals that were not owned by the offender and could have resulted in the owners of animals losing those animals even though they had no involvement in the offending. As the bill now stands the court can order forfeiture of animals that form part of the charge only where they are owned by the offender. As a further safeguard forfeiture is available to the court only where it is needed to protect the welfare of the animals concerned. 
I would like to briefly recap the main provisions of the bill. The bill expands the thresholds for wilful ill-treatment of an animal the most serious category of offending to include serious injury or impairment of an animal. Previously animals had to die to be permanently disabled or to be destroyed to end their suffering in order for wilful ill-treatment to have occurred. This prevented many cases of horrific cruelty being prosecuted at the appropriate level and led to the wrong message being sent to offenders. The bill creates a new offence of reckless ill-treatment of an animal. This offence has the same criteria as wilful ill-treatment but has a lower penalty reflecting the lower burden of proof needed to prove that charge. Reckless ill-treatment sits between wilful ill-treatment at one end of the spectrum and the strict liability offence of ill-treatment at the other. Together they provide a graduated regime that will improve the ability of prosecutors to lay charges appropriate to the crime. The bill increases the penalties for wilful ill-treatment of an animal as well as those for ill-treatment or other neglect-type offences including failure to meet the physical health and behavioural needs of an animal. I have already discussed disqualification but I would mention that the bill allows the court to impose a minimum disqualification period. Where the court sets no minimum period a default period of 2 years applies before the disqualification can be lifted. Finally the bill allows any or all animals owned by the offender to be forfeited where the court believes that this is required for their protection. 
On concluding this reading members may ask what difference this bill will make. I stand by the statement I made during the first reading of the bill that New Zealand society does not tolerate animal welfare crimes. Our Animal Welfare Act is renowned for being progressive and comprehensive and we can be proud that we are judged favourably by the international community and importantly by our trading partners. This bill will help ensure that we maintain our well-deserved reputation. Once again I commend this bill to the House.