PARLIAMENT House Debates Bill On Cruelty To Animals

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28321, 5 July 1957, Page 12

PARLIAMENT House Debates Bill On Cruelty To Animals

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, July 4.

There should be classes to educate Magistrates on “just what is cruelty to animals,” said Miss M. B. Howard (Opposition, Sydenham) in the House of Representatives this evening. Some of the fines Magistrates were imposing for serious cases of cruelty were ridiculously small, she said.

Miss Howard was moving the second reading of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Bill, a private bill which she has introduced to bring the present legislation up to date.

The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr S. W. Smith) said that the Deputy-Prime Minister (Mr K. J. Holyoake) had agreed that the bill be put before a special committee of the House so that representations could be heard on it. Miss Howard said she would be pleased if this course were adopted.

Miss Howard said that the bill r was based on a New South Wales act, and would incorporate all I those sections of the New Zealand Police Offences Act dealing with cruelty to animals. This would give New Zealand a single, compact act on the subject. At present persons who wanted to find legislation dealing with cruelty to animals had to go to all the amendments of the Police Offences Act. In South Africa a Prevention of Cruelty Bill was at present under review, and it was being suggested that lashing be made a punishment for offenders. Miss Howard said that she was opposed to corporal punishment, but would like to see Magistrates impose heavier penalties on offenders. Legislation against cruelty to animals, she said, was not necessary for most New Zealanders, whose hearts were just as kind as her own. But it was needed to control the few. Winter Shearing Miss Howard said there had been quite a lot of discussion lately about cruelty to animals. She quoted the shearing of sheep in winter and the “terrible” cases of cruelty in the cartage of animals to the works as warranting investigation. Sometimes bobby calves being transported from the West Coast to Christchurch were left in trucks for four days without food or water.

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, she said, had not the power or the funds to look into all these cases. There was need for Government supervision to stop this cruelty. Under the bill special constables would have the right to enter and inspect where they believed there was cruelty. Miss Howard said that with the way poison was being used for destruction of rabbits there would be no birds or wild life left. Rabbit boards were allowed to get hold of poison and use it indiscriminately. The Banks Peninsula Rabbit Board was supposed to get six tins of 501 b, but had got six tons. Dogs and cats were being killed by the poison throughout the country through touching rabbit carcases.

Miss Howard said she could have got support from veterinarian and other associations, but had brought the bill forward herself in the belief that the New Zealand Government was just as enlightened and just as kindly as Others. The legislation was for the few, not for the many. Minister’s View The Minister of Internal Affairs aaid that no-one would oppose the principles of the bill. It should not be supposed, however.

that there was no worth-while legislation at present. There were a number of laws about the treatment and killing of animals, many of them introduced by the National Government.

“We all know that the transport of calves is not what it should be and that some have to go by truck to train, with at times long waits.” said the Minister. However, this was only a minority of cases.

Most of the offences were covered by the Police Offences Act, and it was a question for discussion whether they should be dealt within a separate act. Mr Smith said it was seldom wise to lift selected pieces from one act without being absolutely sure that the pieces stood alone. The New South Wales act provided for wider exemptions than the bill before the House. There was no exemption for hunting, shooting, or trapping, and without that exemption it was doubtful if hunting game would be lawful. The bill would also make it an offence “to kill any animal needlessly.” Mr J. M. Deas (Opposition, Otahuhu) said that there was a good deal of unintentional cruelty in transporting cattle from farms to freezing works. Among other things, the speed of stock waggons could cause hardships to animals.

Mr Deas added that there was a case for fixing minimum penalties for cruelty to animals. “Should Report Cases” Mr C. G. E. Harker (Government, Hawke’s Bay) said that he hoped the discussion on the bill would bring home to people that they should report cases of cruelty to the police and the S.P.C.A. New Zealand, he said, was not lagging far behind other countries in the Commonwealth in its legislation on cruelty to animals. Putting all this legislation into a single bill might help to make more people aware of it. But he had an open mind oh this question. It w r as a matter of opinion.

There were a few sections in the bill which were not in New Zealand’s present legislation, and he thought these could be adopted. One of these was the provision of more severe penalties for cases of aggravated cruelty. Any suggestion, however, that Parliament should fix minimum penalties was dangerous. These did not always operate in the interests of justice, and in this type of legislation did not appear warranted.

Mr C. L. Carr (Opposition, Timaru) said that if the existing legislation was consolidated in one act he was sure it would lead to greater observance of the law. The Minister of Social Welfare (Dame Hilda Ross) said that cruelty was very often caused through carelessness. She cited the case of hydatids in dogs, a disease that was often the result of neglect.

Mr W. H. Gillespie (Government, Hurunui) said that farmers had to carry out practices which some persons might regard as cruel, such as the docking of horses and the castration of farm animals. Over the years more humane methods had been developed to do away with needless suffering. The Department of Agriculture had done useful r earch in this field.