Dr Michael Morris - Animal welfare writer Dr Michael Morris has a PhD in zoology from the University of Auckland. He is presently teaching degree courses in environmental management at the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic.

The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill has just been through the select committee stage. The Bill increases penalties for animal welfare offences, but - more importantly - it adds a new offence of reckless ill-treatment of an animal. The new offence allows prosecution of incompetent or uncaring guardians who may not be deliberately sadistic, but nonetheless show a totally thoughtless disregard for the needs of their animals.

The Bill also allows the court to confiscate all animals from offenders, even those that were not abused, and to extend the period in which offenders are not allowed to keep animals again.

The Bill represents something of a double standard in that it makes no provision for the ritualistic cruelty inherent in an agricultural system that produces clinically obese and lame broiler chickens, incarcerates three million layer hens in tiny cages, and drives 60,000 breeding sows literally insane in sow stalls and farrowing crates. However, a double standard is better than no standard at all and the strength of the Bill can be judged by the worried reactions of those profiting from animal abuse.

Federated Farmers in their submission to the select committee for example are concerned that the new offence of reckless ill-treatment may apply to farmers who fail to provide adequate provision for stock in extreme weather. When one sees the mounds of dead lambs left to die in harsh South Island winters it is pleasing that the amended Act will capture this kind of heartless behaviour. Similarly, Federated Farmers are concerned with the 'financial hardship' farmers would undergo if they are caught offending. One may just as well lament the fate of the convicted paedophile banned from looking after children, or the convicted drunk driver barred from driving. The solution in each case is simple; don't offend.

The New Zealand Pork Industry Board also expressed concerns that their use of sow stalls and farrowing crates could lead to prosecution under the new offence. Since sow stalls and farrowing crates are totally unnecessary for anything other than increased profit (see my last blog on this subject), it is precisely this sort of treatment an Animal Welfare Act should be targeting. The select committee debating the Animal Welfare Act in 1999 highlighted intensive pig farming and battery egg production as two industry practices that they hoped the Act would properly address. Hopefully the new Animal Welfare Amendment Act, together with a revised Code of Welfare for Pigs, will hasten the demise of these practices.

In conclusion, while the Amendment Act shows some inconsistencies, it is a step in the right direction. As local MP and initiator of the Bill, Simon Bridges has stated, it reflects the growing concern of the public over animal welfare. It is hoped this concern will also be manifested in submissions on the pig code of welfare, and a boycott on factory farmed pork and other factory farmed products. This should in turn help secure a total ban on inhumane agricultural practices.