Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PARLIAMENT House Debates Animals Protection Bill Provisions

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, September 1. The Minister of Social Security (Miss Howard) during the second reading debate on the Animals Protection Bill in the House of Representatives tonight described the bill as “an animal’s bill of rights.” “I like that,” Miss Howard said. “I’ve always been an animal lover. I’ve had more love from animals than I’ve ever had from humans in my life.” The bill is based on a private member’s bill Miss Howard introduced when she was in opposition in 1957. The bill defines cruelty to animals, provides new requirements for their care, and sets penalties for offences. “Tonight I feel very very proud that this bill has come from my original private member’s bill,” Miss Howard said. The present bill was introduced as a Government measure by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr Skinner). Opposition members supported the bill, although some urged that it be referred back to the Agricultural and Pastoral Committee so that some of the provisions could be reconsidered.

Moving the second reading of the bill, Mr Skinner said most persons were animal lovers and would not hurt animals. But there were thoughtless children who carried out acts of cruelty, and there were persons who were out of sympathy with animals altogether. Those who did not like animals usually stayed away from them altogether, but when they came into contact with them they treated them badly. Mr Skinner said the working dogs and horses of New Zealand were treated as well as those of any other part of the world.

Most of the provisions Of the bill were included in existing legislation, and practically all were in the legislation of the United Kingdom and Australia, said the Minister.

Mr W. H. Gillespie (Opposition, Hurunui) said that the biU differed from the bill introduced by Miss Howard in 1957, and he suggested that it should be referred to the Agricultural Committee of the House.

“We support this measure, but we have some reservations which we will bring up in due course,” he said.

The clause that provided for an offender to be deprived of animals touched his livelihood, said Mr Gillespie. Mr Skinner: Your colleagues on the committee agreed. Mr Gillespie: We have had more time to look at the implications.

Pets and Working Dogs Mr D. J. Carter (Opposition. Raglan) appealed to members to look at the bill without emotion. The handling of pets, he said, was very different from the handling of a team of dogs on a high-country station. “It is sometimes not wrong to beat a dog. Sometimes they need beating, and the owner must have absolute control over them.” said Mr Carter. The Railways Department would disclaim responsibility for the feeding and watering of stock if it could, and he could not find from the bill who was liable—the owner or the carrier. If an in-milk cow in a saleyard was suffering from not being milked he wondered who would be liable—the owner, who might be miles away, or the buyer, or the auctioneer.

Mr Carter said that the Railways Department could do as it pleased, but the individual had to obey the rules. He also urged that a magistrate and not a Justice of the Peace should issue a warrant to enable an inspector to enter property. “I would support the bill if it were more carefully drawn up,” said Mr Carter. Miss Howard said she could not understand why Opposition members wanted the bill referred back to the committee.

Opposition members on the committee had agreed with the bill’s provisions when it was before the committee before, she said.

Miss Howard said New Zealanders were not very animalconscious. She found people in the United Kingdom more animalconscious. “Some men in England think more of their dogs than they do of their wives.” Mr T. T. Murray (Opposition. Stratford): Impossible. Miss Howard said she went "sightseeing” in a bar in England and saw a dog sitting up at the bar on a stool between a man and woman.

“The dog was having his drink too,” she said. Miss Howard praised the work of animal obedience clubs which had grown throughout the United Kingdom. “Animals are taught good manners from babyhood. You don’t see much pollution by dogs round the street of London.”

Mr E. J. Keating (Government, Hastings) described the bill as one of the most advanced pieces of legislation of its kind in the world. Mr W. J. Scott (Opposition, Rodney) moved that the bill be referred back to the committee, but the acting Speaker (Mr R. A. Keeling) pointed out that such a motion at that stage was out of order.

Mr Scott said that he hoped that the provision for imprisonment would be removed, as a person might be ruined through ignorance of the law. Lip Service Alleged

Mr N. E. Kirk (Government, Lyttelton) said the Opposition was prepared to pay lip service to the bill while they delayed it.

“Imprisonment is good enough for aggravated cruelty—cruelty which results in the death of an animal or injury that makes its necessary for the animal to be destroyed,” he said. Stock inspectors had the powers that the Opposition objected to and they did nothing to take away their powers in the eight years they were the Government. A Justice of the Peace could try an offender against the proposed law, but, according to the Opposition, he could not issue a warrant to enable an inspector to enter a property to see whether an animal was being made to suffer.

“The bill is all provisions which cannot be carried out or which, if implemented, would gravely affect farm practice. The genuine farmer is all out for the welfare and the protection of his stock,” said Mr G. A. Walsh (Opposition, Tauranga). To kick a dog at the moment he was biting a sheep or lamb would break it of the habit, but the shepherd could be charged under the bill, and if the dog were injured and had to be destroyed, the shepherd could be imprisoned for two years. Mr Walsh said he wanted to know why the Railways Department had been left out of the bill.

The debate was interrupted by the adjournment at 10.30 p.m.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19600902.2.111

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29299, 2 September 1960, Page 12

Word Count
1,047

PARLIAMENT House Debates Animals Protection Bill Provisions Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29299, 2 September 1960, Page 12

PARLIAMENT House Debates Animals Protection Bill Provisions Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29299, 2 September 1960, Page 12

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert