Mallard Trevor: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:13058. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to concur with everything the Hon John Banks has just said on this particular question. I think it is fair to say that it is relatively unusual although becoming more common for us to be in agreement on issues. I do want to reinforce that at the end of this debate on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill I will be seeking leave to send my Supplementary Order Paper to the select committee—not to debate now—and have submissions on the question of animal testing for psychoactive substances. I will get back to that but I want to thank the member for signalling this.The Labour Party will be supporting this bill. Animal welfare is important for its own sake it is important for our economy and I think it is also important for how we think about ourselves. The way that people treat animals is one of the measures of civilisation in a society. This bill is moving in the right direction. I think there is going to be debate at the select committee as to whether it moves far enough and I know that my colleague Phil Twyford has a series of issues that he is going to raise with the House as to the fact that we are not moving far enough and that there are some quite big loopholes in the bill as introduced. We will want to see those closed as we progress the bill through the House.I do want to now return to the testing of party pills and when I say “party pills” I think most of us know what psychoactive substances are. They are the synthetic cannabis and the quite broad range of drugs that are known as party pills. Unfortunately when this House dealt with the issue a matter of a few weeks ago we did not take the opportunity to ensure that there was no testing of these recreational drugs on animals. We left open the possibility and I think it is fair to say the expectation that in the end animals—and a range of animals but including dogs—would be tested to see whether or not the drug dealers would be allowed to deal in particular drugs. I think all of us know that when this testing occurs it results in the death—and often the painful death—of animals and that from my perspective is something that is just not acceptable.We have known since Tuesday that this issue was going to be coming up. Late on Tuesday I sent out an email to a number of people and because they have been kind enough to copy me back into the email I know that over 4000 people have already sent a message via email—4000 distinct individuals have sent a message by email—to Nathan Guy asking him to ensure that this matter is on the agenda for the select committee.I was talking to my colleague before about snapper and I think again I am going to agree with Michelle Boag that there are two pretty big issues that are hanging aroundslightly under the radar but are probably coming up above the radar. One of them is the snapper issue and the other one is the very poor decision by the Government weeks ago to allow animal testing of psychoactive substances on dogs.So in about 36 hours the Minister for Primary Industries has got about 4000 emails. I have put a page up on Facebook again late on Tuesday night. That has already had 32000 views. You know I do not have a wide group of fans on Facebook or “likes” on Facebook but this issue is one that is going viral and it is going viral because New Zealanders care. New Zealanders do know right from wrong in this area. They do know—it is innate in us—that it is wrong to have cruelty to animals for no good purpose.I am not going to go as far as some members. I think there are occasions in medical research where for the greater good of the health of individual people around the world it is OK at the moment to test on animals. It is a—Hon Ruth Dyson: If there’s no alternative.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: If there is no alternative. You know if it is human lives or animal suffering in the end I will accept some animal suffering for the curing of disease. I think that is fair. But where it is for no good at all and the support of recreational drugs is in my opinion not a good thing then it is absolutely unacceptable—absolutely unacceptable—to cause animals to suffer and die. What we are effectively promoting is State-sanctioned cruelty. That is what the Psychoactive Substances Act does. It promotes State-sanctioned cruelty to animals and that is the sort of Parliament Government and State that I want no part of and that I want to work hard to reverse.I am certain that people are going to come to the select committee on this issue. I think the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is a broad bill and that is there. But what I want to make sure of is that when they come to that committee they have a proposition to address—that they have a positive suggestion to which they can submit as well as submitting on the bill. That is why I have drafted Supplementary Order Paper 341.I want to make it clear: I am not a law draftsperson. You know this is something that has not been drafted with the armoury of Crown Law around it. It is a relatively simple amendment. What it does is say: “Notwithstanding anything in the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 no animal shall be used in research or testing for the purpose of gaining approval for any psychoactive substance as defined in section 9 of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.” It is simple it is clear and I would like to hear views on it.I want to conclude with an email that I have got from a gentleman called Jonathan Woodford-Robinson in response to the email that I sent out in the last couple of days. What he said was: “As the testing has no medical benefit I liken it to cosmetics with which animal testing has declined due to public attitudes toward it. I can’t justify any testing on animals purely for the pleasure of humans—i.e. recreational drug use. If the testing goes ahead one may as well legislate for cock fighting dog fighting and any other form of animal suffering for the sake of human entertainment.” He said: “So much for man’s best friend. We’re certainly not dog’s best friend are we?”. I think that puts it pretty well. At the end of this debate I will seek leave for my Supplementary Order Paper to be referred with the bill to the committee. Thank you.