Dr Michael Morris Animal welfare writer nzchas.canterbury

ACT MP Hilary Calvert made the news following a ‘Backbenchers' programme, where she was asked if her party would commit to the abolition of battery cages for layer hens, within 10 years. Calvert shocked many, including her own colleagues in the ACT party, when she sneeringly dismissed animal welfare concerns, boldly proclaiming that she cared more about people than 'silly little chickens”.

Calvert later apologised for her outburst on her Facebook page, stating that she was concerned with animal welfare, and that the best solution for those concerned with the plight of battery cages was to stop buying their eggs.

Calvert's comments appeared more designed to annoy than to stimulate any serious policy discussion, and they are certainly not indicative of the views of New Zealanders as a whole, or even of the ACT party. However, her comments and later apology do highlight various misunderstandings regarding animal welfare and the obligations we as a society have towards animals.

Previous discussion on the ‘Backbenchers' programme had focused on policy towards beneficiaries, especially struggling solo mothers, so the comments have to be seen in this context. Calvert appears to take the view that inhumane conditions for battery hens (and other animals), while regrettable, is a necessary evil to provide cheap animal protein for the struggling poor. However, this begs the question as to why – in a land of plenty like New Zealand – there are so many people in such poverty that they are not permitted the luxury of compassion.

The ‘divide and conquer' strategy is common practice among industry groups, politicians and others who cry crocodile tears for the poor while making no effort to address the root causes of poverty. And animal products in any event are not as cheap as plant protein sources as far as value for money is concerned (see previous blog).

Last election campaign, a Labour Party politician made a similar comment when I asked her whether her party would commit to an animal welfare policy. Her reply was that children's welfare came first. In both cases there seems to be an assumption that looking after one entails harming the other. That for every hen freed from a cage, a child is abused; every pig removed from a sow crate means another starving child. To be pro-animal is to be anti-human.

Such arguments show the same lack of understanding as those used against campaigners for the emancipation of women, who were seen to be anti-men. Those advocating freedom for black slaves were similarly seen as anti-white. In fact, the liberation of women to a considerable extent benefited men as well, given that they allowed men to questions the sexual stereotypes restricting their own behaviour.

In the same way, given the unmistakable link between abuse of animals and humans (acknowledged by both the police and the SPCA), liberating hens, broiler chickens and pigs would be more likely to lead to a more compassionate society all round. Human and non-human animals would both benefit. Such liberation needs to be based not just on lifestyle choices at the individual level as suggested in Hilary's modified statement (though this would certainly help), but by government regulation to protect these vulnerable members of our society from extreme suffering.