Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll take a short call on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, because much has already been said over many readings around this and the nature of what has been proposed by the Government in this case.

Some of the earlier speeches really focused on the issue of bobby calves and the nature of what actually will happen to those calves now, because in this case many stock that would have gone for sale will now have to be processed at a very young age. So that is an issue which contrasts, I guess, with the intention of what we hear the Government is wanting to do over time, which is to increase the percentage of calves that are reared. And there does become an issue that if the farmers are expected to rear those stock and they don’t have a source to be able to sell those stock, then it becomes an issue for the New Zealand farming sector in general.

Taking away this opportunity for farmers to sell that stock at a later age really does create some issues down the track if that bobby calf percentage, for example, that would have to be reared was mandated. That then would create some big issues for some of the dynamics in the New Zealand primary sector. Traditionally, the dairy industry has been one of the more profitable land-based sectors, and the ability of that sector then having to rear that many calves actually then compromises your sheep and beef sector, a sector that’s already under attack through forestry in many cases, because the land classes that the sheep and beef farmers are generally on are much more suitable for forestry as they’re generally cheaper to purchase than the dairying land. So there could be some implications down the track from decisions like this that could be complicated or compounded, you could say, by further decisions that a Government may make around young stock.

It may seem like a fairly simple decision for the Government of the day at the moment, but cutting off this option actually does have some implications down the track if further decisions were to be made. So we on this side of the House oppose the bill. We think the Government hasn’t considered the long-term implications for the sector and it’s very much a knee-jerk reaction to probably get some urban votes and hasn’t taken into account what actually needs to happen in the New Zealand primary sector.

In saying that, we all want to make sure that the highest standards of any transport of stock, especially to overseas, are maintained and met. So there’s no doubt and no question from this side that that’s something that could be worked on, and would also be, without question, something that needed to happen if this trade was to continue. There’s also the idea of the scale of the trade: that potentially the Government could’ve taken a much more considered approach. We need to have an open economy where we do trade, and if they felt that the scale of the trade was getting too big, then there may have been an option for the Government to some kind of cap process rather than a complete ban of the trade.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon DAVID BENNETT: And the Labour members may be laughing, but it’s a trade that’s been going on forever and a day, and you know, there’s also the implications of what the Ministry for Primary Industries is doing around embryos and semen to stop, effectively, a lot of that coming into New Zealand, and so it could actually close the genetic base of New Zealand if we’re not willing to trade. So there are some wider implications than just the, “Oh, yeah, no, we’ve banned the export of livestock and that’s a great idea from the Labour Party members”. There’s actually some real implications around the genetic diversity of the New Zealand herd if we’re having a closed approach in New Zealand to its fullest extent. And there will be some implications, I’m sure, if further decisions are made by Governments around bobby calves in future. Thank you.

Kia ora and thank you, Madam Speaker, or 谢谢, seeing as it’s Chinese Language Week. We all want an absolutely thriving agricultural sector, but the difference is that for the Labour Party, there are some bottom lines, and animal welfare is a bottom line. I know that on the other side of the House, there are a number of people who own farms or operate farms. They understand animal welfare, and they also understand the need to be at the very peak of the quality pyramid when we’re trading from a place like New Zealand and that there is no room whatsoever to have anything other than the highest possible standards.

I’m very happy that New Zealand is leading the world in terms of saying that our trade in animals and in livestock will be subject to the highest and most rigorous animal welfare standards because we know that the developed markets—our most prestigious and profitable markets—take that very, very seriously indeed. I know that those people in the agricultural sector absolutely want to do that and it is the Government’s job to make sure that the brand of New Zealand having the highest-quality produce—food and fibre—is protected, and that’s what we’re doing here.

What’s more, this is not some—I think the words “knee-jerk” were used by the Opposition. It’s not, for a number of reasons. Firstly, it’s been under contemplation for quite some years, well before the tragedy that’s been debated and discussed in this House already today. Secondly, we heard Minister Meka Whaitiri talk about the expert advice that she’s getting and the fact that, given where New Zealand is and given the destination of livestock, it’s not actually possible to have a live-export trade that is humane.

Now, we can use best efforts and we can have best practice, but the fact of the matter is that if you are going to put hundreds or thousands of beasts, livestock—sheep, cattle, goats, or whatever—on a vessel for 10 to 14 days across the equator, it is going to be unbelievably stressful. It is not going to be consistent with the welfare of those animals. Whilst you can put as many veterinarians on board as you like and you can have as much water and feed available and you can space them out and you can do all the things you like, the fact is that when beasts that come from a temperate climate in New Zealand are put on board a vessel in constrained circumstances and travel across the tropics to Saudi Arabia, it’s not going to be humane.

Tim van de Molen: From the animal welfare expert Duncan Webb.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: So this bill—and, you know, here’s a prediction for the Opposition. I predict that we will be looked at as a leader in the field and we will see some of our competitors in this market follow us. Why?

Barbara Kuriger: We are looked at as the leaders—who’s in the trail now?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Because this is not only good—and Barbara Kuriger is sitting there chipping away, but she’s one of the farmers I admire. She’s a woman who has an interest in organic farming and who takes the welfare of her cattle very seriously, and I suspect that were she the person on board one of these vessels, when the animals are stressed and are absolutely distressed, she would be very, very upset indeed, because I think she values that here.

So I know she has to pretend that she’s onside with her party, but I know that she’s a farmer who knows what quality is, she’s a farmer who knows what animal welfare is, and she is absolutely going to be consistent with the Labour Party approach, which puts New Zealand first, puts the welfare of animals first, and puts our market first, and that’s what this bill does. The world will follow. This is an absolute spearhead in good marketing, good branding, and good animal welfare, and that is why I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker—talofa, Madam Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise and take a call on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I’m a little confused about the understanding from the other side of the House. This bill is clear, it is concise, it was well signalled, and it was well traversed in the select committee. And I just want to acknowledge my colleagues in the Primary Production Committee. I think Jo Luxton signalled that we work really hard to come to consensus solutions and this was not one of those occasions. But everybody turned up in good faith and made submissions.

I acknowledge the submitters and I acknowledge the communities that are impacted by this legislation. But I’m really curious about the idea that we can look after these animals by establishing some sort of gold standard. It was curious—like I say, submitters turned up in good faith, and we asked them good questions that they tried to answer. But they didn’t know, despite the fact Australia is working on something, what the cost of meeting a gold standard would be because they didn’t know where they are now and they didn’t know where they were planning on going nor how they were going to get there.

I think that’s quite telling, because what that says is—we heard from the other side of the House that this is something that could be worked on. Well, I think, actually, that the animals we care for and our primary exporters deserve more than that. When we support our farmers and our primary industry, it isn’t just “We trust you get on with it.”; it’s “We trust you and we will support you to build a sustainable future for our primary industries, for our exporters, and for our economy and our nation.” So this gold standard that anybody’s had an opportunity to develop before now, because apparently, you know, there’s been a few “concerning” matters for animals that have been transported—nobody’s worked on it till now. Nobody was going to work on it until we made them, and that’s very, very concerning. We’ve got an opportunity here. This is a really great example of how we are progressive, and how we have ambition for this country, for our primary exporters, and for our primary industries. It’s a great example of how we’re supporting them to make a just transition. Because it’s hard. I live in Taranaki and it’s a hard conversation to have about this.

We’ve heard that there are concerns about any role a Government might play in the market: “We should just leave it to the market. The global market will sort it out. If consumers don’t like it, they’ll stop buying our products.” Well, actually, the interesting thing is the Government does have a role to play in global trade. This Government has committed and successfully negotiated free-trade agreements. The really interesting thing about these latest free-trade agreements is they are progressive and they are innovative. And it’s really interesting to see how Governments have seen that this is actually a mechanism that enables a nation to reward and support its own exporters. Because what it does is it says: actually, if we think you guys aren’t stepping up to your Paris accord commitments, then that’s not fair on our farmers. So what we’ve done is we have committed to supporting our wonderful primary sector, who are innovators, as we’ve heard. We’ve got an amazing, innovative primary sector. What we do in those free-trade agreements is we’re supporting them and lifting the bar for everybody. And what we’re seeing is other countries around the world are going, “Crikey, I want a bit of that, so maybe we have to lift our game as well.” So instead of a race to the bottom in how we care for our animals, it is about supporting those in our primary sector who are doing great things. We’re shifting practice, we’re rewarding shifting practice, and we’re working towards an ethical, efficient, and sustainable primary sector globally.

The really interesting thing is—I love a teachable moment, as an economics teacher. I always talk to students about sunrise industries, and it’s interesting when you hear from the other side of the House that we’re going to go backwards if we don’t allow this to continue. The interesting thing is we are going to be left behind. The EU have made a commitment. Now, they have banned exports for anything—this is the first step—more than eight hours, and those animals don’t have to cross the equator. What they’ve done is they’ve made a commitment to a transition, because it is about shifting everybody, to a more efficient and ethical system that favours the transport of semen or embryos over breeding stock, and carcasses and meat over animals being moved for slaughter. Now, we don’t have to worry about that bit because, funnily enough, as usual, we led the world with innovation, with frozen lamb from down in Otago, a very long time ago. So why not lead the world again? We are ambitious for our primary exporters and we believe that by supporting something that is sustainable, it is efficient and it is ethical.

We heard about Winston Peters earlier today—not Winston Peters, bless him. We heard about Winston Churchill looking at opportunity in times of challenge. There is an opportunity here. The EU have made a commitment to invest in more and better solutions to reduce the need to transport live animals. They are raising the bar and so are we. We are ambitious for our primary industries and we know that they’re up for it, and we’re prepared to commit through free-trade agreements to a whole pile of commitments whereby we will be able to show leadership globally.

This is mainly about animal welfare, but the leadership that happens when the world continues to look at us—do they look at us for best practice with dairy farming? Absolutely. This is something else that they can look to us for best practice. How do we get around the challenges that have been presented? We can and we are. And so it is really great to see this bill coming to the House.

I acknowledge the submitters. They did come in good faith. And I need to acknowledge the Minister for having the courage to committing to this. This was well signalled. And the opportunity that was afforded by that was to have the conversations about how we shift away from the—in very recent years—growth of this sector, and how we mitigate the risks and the costs, effectively, of what we do about bobby calves.

So it’s wonderful to see this leadership. I think that when you hear not just—obviously, the EU haven’t got the challenges we have. If you look at Chile, they also have to cross the equator and they’re looking to us for leadership. That helps our global brand and that helps people to trust all over the world when we are selling our products, and it helps us to show the world why we are proud of our primary industries. I have no problem in supporting the work that has gone into making this bill happen and to make sure that our primary sector has an opportunity to really, really step up. So because of that, because of this opportunity for a just transition to be supported, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise as the member of Parliament for Southland to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I’ve been very interested to hear speeches from the other side of the House talking about a just transition and New Zealand leading the world, an export nation. This bill is about stopping exports. It’s about stopping New Zealand’s incredible dairy farmers from being able to send animals to the world rather than developing a gold standard to make sure we are the best in the world. Just closing the borders—this is Labour’s solution. Stop the borders, just stop trade. Don’t come up with a better idea, don’t improve things, don’t make it better—just stop it. That’s all they’re doing.

Let’s just pause there a moment. Dairy farmers in New Zealand have the world’s lowest carbon footprint, half the emissions of other international producers. Do we hear this from Labour? Almost never. New Zealand has approximately five million people and roughly the same number of cows, producing 21 billion litres of milk every year. We’re the eighth-largest dairy producer in the world, with approximately 11,000 dairy farmers.

Now, let’s look at another example. Brazil, by way of contrast, has four times the number of dairy cows, over 20 million, but produces less than twice the amount of milk: 36 billion litres, with a huge 900,000 dairy farmers. So New Zealand dairy farmers deserve recognition for how effective and efficient they are at producing food for the world.

We also need to produce animals for the world, and if I just point to one example right now that’s top of people’s minds: the Ukraine. There is a war in Europe now—unbelievably, but there is a war in Europe between Russia and Ukraine. Now, Ukraine urgently needs at least 50,000 cows to replace their dairy herd which has been lost. They are estimating they may lose 150,000 cows, a third of their national herd, and for Ukraine to produce enough milk, cheese, and butter for their population, they’re going to need dairy heifers from partner countries to restock the national herd. Can New Zealand help Ukraine? No, it cannot, because the Labour Government is stopping the trade of dairy cows and heifers being sent to the world. We cannot offer Ukraine assistance with their national herd because of this bill.

It’s a crying shame that we are just stopping trade rather than actually thinking about what we can do to make sure we weed out cowboys. None of us want cowboys. None of us want to see animals suffering on trips across the ocean. We want to make sure the cowboys are out of the industry. Australia has shown how to do it. Australia has shown they can actually implement a gold standard, they can get great trade deals—they’ve got a fantastic trade deal with the United Kingdom. They’ve proven they can do it. Has New Zealand followed Australia’s lead in this respect? No. So all this talk that we’re hearing from the other side of the House about leading the world, well, no, we’re not. Australia has led the way, showing how you can have a gold standard that makes sure you can look after animals when they’re being transported across the oceans and have the credibility in the markets, and that you can get good trade deals. They’ve shown how to do it. They’ve shown it can be done. The Labour Government in New Zealand has not followed this, and instead they’ve just shut it down.

Look, it’s going to cost New Zealand farmers about $475 million per annum—$475 million per annum. I should note that this is extra cash profit for farms, not just revenue. For those who may be on the other side of the House who don’t quite get what that means, revenue is just money coming through. It’s not money that you can actually keep in the bank and use for other things. This is talking about cash profit for farmers. So this is enormously valuable money when there’s a cost of living crisis which is impacting the whole country, and certainly impacting regional New Zealand, because, yes, they’re getting good prices for dairy products, for meat, etc. in New Zealand at the moment, but the costs have gone up enormously. The input costs—the cost of fuel, the cost of labour, the cost of vehicles, you name it; everything—have gone up significantly, and that means the profit margins have reduced.

So losing $475 million per annum, to regional New Zealand is a big, big deal, and that is exactly what this bill does. Labour has just shut the borders, shut down this part of the economy, and doesn’t propose another solution, but they create another problem, because it’s estimated that there are going to be some 150,000 bobby calves which are going to have to be slaughtered. What’s going to happen with those 150,000 bobby calves? This is a major, major problem, because the meat processors have a gigantic shortage of skilled workers. They are already struggling to process the animals that they need to at the present time, and have been for some time. They don’t have the skilled workers that they need, and 150,000 additional bobby calves being sent to the meat works is going to create an enormous problem. It’s difficult not to see an animal welfare crisis being created by the so-called Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. This bill is creating more problems. It’s seeking a solution and creating a hell of a lot more problems, and it’s incredibly sad to see this.

Look, there’s all this talk about dairy herds, and, you know, some people don’t get that we have the most carbon-efficient dairy farmers in the world. But, look, the dairy herd in New Zealand is actually decreasing by about 20,000 a year and has been doing so for the last five years. So we actually have a reducing dairy herd, but we have a very good dairy industry, with about 11,000 dairy farmers who are showing the world how you can be the most carbon-efficient dairy farmers in the world, creating incredibly good stock. Now we cannot share that with the rest of the world.

Like I said, one example is the Ukraine. Another example that springs to mind is Indonesia. Indonesia also has got foot-and-mouth disease. They’re going to need to replace a whole lot of the dairy herd. They will not be able to get them from New Zealand, and that is another crying shame, because we have a responsibility to assist other countries with the livestock that they need so that they can feed their populations. I note another example: China is rebuilding its dairy herd, and will New Zealand be able to assist with that? No, it will not, again. So we are missing out on significant trading opportunities and showing how we can be the most responsible leader in this space, as we are in so many other spaces, and that is a huge shame.

So, with that, I am hoping I’m making it very clear that we are deeply opposed this bill. It is a major mistake by this Government and something that we are going to have to look at next year. The New Zealand dairy farmers deserve enormous recognition for what they do for our country, and we are very proud to support them on this side of the House.

谢谢 and talofa. As the final speaker on this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill—the third and final reading—it is a privilege to make a short contribution to this bill. I wish to thank you for the opportunity.

The Minister who spoke earlier on the bill and also Minister Meka Whaitiri highlighted a number of concerns and why this bill is at the forefront.

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the loss of life of not just the livestock but the members of the community. When the ship sank, it was a real tragedy, and it would have been very traumatic for the members to lose not just the livestock but also members of their family. I want to acknowledge that, because sometimes these things are forgotten in the eyes of risky business.

Whilst I was not a member of the Primary Production Committee, I would like to thank them for this work. I would also like to thank the officials for this work, and the submitters. There were 637 written submissions, which were quite varied, as I understand from the evidence, but also there were 33 oral submitters who raised a number of concerns, and also the mixed feedback that the select committee could not decide on.

In my short contribution, I do want to just speak on a couple of points—namely, the bill is to ban the practice of exporting live cattle, deer, sheep, and goats by ship and the transition period is until 30 April 2023. And that’s actually not too far away. As we’ve heard in the earlier kōrero by both Ministers, it is a real tragedy that New Zealand has to acknowledge that when this practice or this trade goes ahead, we have little control. So there still remain quite risky practices of this trade.

When that ship sank and the livestock was lost, it was, as I understand, the seventh time. And even after that there was another ship that sank during the COVID period, Al Badri, which did lose over 15,000 sheep, and although the crew managed to get off the ship and disembark, it is still a tragedy that we have to acknowledge. We have to review—that is what the bill contains in the practices, namely the reputation of New Zealand in the trade industry. What we want to strengthen with this amendment bill are the practices and the reputation that we have on the world stage to do with livestock.

It’s really important that the only way that we can guarantee animal welfare is to ban the live export, the current practice; hence the amendment bill. So on a world stage in the farming sector—and I’ve been listening to the kōrero from both sides all afternoon—New Zealand has a proud and high regard for animal welfare standards, and we have to take that ethical standard, that ethical point. Because we don’t want to put at risk just the lives of people on the ships but also the livestock we want to maintain, particularly because of our location on the globe.

In 2019, the Government did direct the Ministry for Primary Industries to review this specific procedure, and so when that review takes place in this amendment bill—the Animal Welfare Act 1999—to ban live export of cattle, deer, sheep, and goats, it is the right thing to do. That practice, in the transition period, will carry on until 30 April 2023. This will protect livestock from New Zealand. Whilst there are the farmers who are very concerned at how they are going to do their business, there needs to be a primary concern around the livestock, and this Government supports that the trade is very risky, and this bill will ensure and aspire to the better systems with the regulatory system improvement, with the complete ban on the trade. I commend this bill to the House.