Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to further consideration of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I remind members that they’re able to participate remotely. If you’re on Zoom and want to take a call, please type “call” in to the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments, I’ll advise members so they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendment. Finally, it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge during their call. When we were last considering this bill, we were debating the question that clauses 3 to 12 and the Schedule stand part. The question is—I just need to take some advice on where we’re up to on this bill. Right, I’m on song, so I’ll give the call to—

Hon Louise Upston: Point of order. I understand this was being taken as one debate.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is the first time I’ve spoken when you’ve been the Chair, so I’d just like to congratulate you as an ex-transport Minister—rather, as a select committee chair. I note that you have a reformed hair cut as well to indicate a new look. I just wish you all the very best in that new position. Today has been a glorious day—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The member can come to the bill at some stage.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, the bill is very close to your heart, I’m sure. It’s been a glorious day for the Opposition and for the public of New Zealand, because finally the Government has capitulated on an issue where—like this issue here—they’ve had no real reason to do what they’ve done in the policy dimension. The Minister, we all know, has had his hands tied by the leadership, which required him to do this. And he knows that in the sector there’s a much better solution out there, and it’s unfortunate that a Minister has had his role circumvented by the leadership of the party at the highest levels, but that’s politics, I guess.

I don’t expect the Minister to answer that affirmatively and acknowledge what has happened there. But we all know, and it’s pretty widely accepted in the community what’s happened. It’s just a shame that in a time of sunlight, you could say, on the Labour Party that we’ve seen in the last few weeks and today, we don’t see more sunlight around this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Bennett, you can now start putting some sunlight on to the bill before you—please—

Hon DAVID BENNETT: I will—and much sunlight is needed. One of the questions I have for the Minister—and this relates to why I was setting the ground as I did, Mr Chair—is about the compensation that the Minister will give to farmers and to those in the sector. When blunt instruments like bans are imposed, there comes a period of time where people have relied on Government activity. They’ve relied on the ability to act in a certain way over a period of time. They’re relied on the good governance of the Government to actually act in a commercially fair and reasonable manner. There will be many who’ll be thinking that that hasn’t happened in this case.

I wish the Minister to answer that question. I don’t want the answer that “We’ve had two years and we’ve given plenty of time, and it’s been through consultation and everybody has known”, and all those things—and that will be line that the Minister will trot out. But they’re not fair. Stock just don’t miraculously arrive. It’s a long process of breeding stock, raising them to a level where they’re able to be shipped overseas. It’s a long period of building up those markets. It’s a long period of adjusting someone’s business model to actually go into that business as part of what they do. So the standard answer the Minister will trot out about the fact that we’ve had two years and the Government’s made it clear simply isn’t justifiable. So I want to know from the Minister what compensation will be out there, and what the mechanism is for people to get that compensation.

This is a blunt instrument. This is the same as GST on KiwiSaver. It’s a blunt instrument, and the parallels are very similar—the parallels of saying sorry and saying you got it wrong, and finding a solution are very similar as well. That’s all the Minister has to do today—stand up and say, “I’m sorry. I did what the leader told me, but things have changed in the Labour Party and I’m willing to stand up for what’s right now. And I recognise there will be people out there that demand compensation, and in all good conscience I can’t carry through with this legislation. So I respectfully ask that it be withdrawn from the House.” That’s what the Minister could do, and he’s had leadership in the Labour Party in the last couple of weeks of how to do that. We saw leadership from David Parker today around how to do that, as well. So the parallels are quite striking. The Minister will, as I said, trot out that excuse.

Thank you, Minister, for the opportunity to further debate this piece of abysmal legislation. In 2009, Minister, and this is as much a question as a statement, farmer confidence surveys were started by Federated Farmers, from 2009 to the present day. It has never been so low in the recent survey—never been so low. Farmers are being faced with a myriad of legislative changes, including the live-animal export ban. I just want to rattle them off and you can cut in at any time when you’re taking into consideration the $261 million that this bill and its revenue seems to remove from the primary industries: significant natural areas; He Waka Eke Noa; an emissions trading scheme; winter grazing; freshwater farm plans—contextualise that, Minister, with $261 million leaving the industry—a ute tax, and goodness gracious knows what that means; animal welfare reforms. Goodness gracious, yet again, a whole lot of unknowns. Again, contextualise that, Minister, if I may: $261 million.

I used these words the other day: I wager anyone—this is near on half a billion dollars leaving the industry. You worked incredibly hard to secure a free-trade agreement with the EU. Well, I argue half of it’s gone with the implementation of this piece of legislation. There are chronic staffing shortages, Minister, in the primary industries. Yet again, $261 million is leaving the primary sector. How on earth, Minister—we canvassed this last week and yet you chose not to answer directly—does the primary sector reconcile that fiscal loss? This is a lot of money and an industry with absolutely no confidence.

Ah, Nicola Grigg.

Thank you, Mr Chair. There was a very slight hesitation there, Mr Chair! Look, thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity to resume this debate. Last I spoke on this bill, the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, in this debate, I alerted the Minister to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 204 in my name, in which the National Party put forward a proposal that we would insert new sections 48A and 48B, which outlines, effectively, that the director-general must review requirements to meet animal welfare standards for the export of live cattle within three months of this section coming into force.

Now, the logic behind that is that we are very firmly of the belief, and we believe that the industry supports us—and actually we believe that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) supports us—that actually, with the right regulation, this can become a world-leading industry whereby the safe, humane transfer of livestock can occur, thus putting New Zealand at the forefront of this international industry and setting the standard, importantly, globally for other nations to follow. Unfortunately, the debate was interrupted, so I never got a response from the Minister as to whether or not he had considered SOP 204, because we think it actually gives a number of opportunities for the Director-General of MPI to, firstly, review the legislation, review whether or not it’s fit for purpose, and importantly, review what opportunities there are to restart this export industry.

Unfortunately, as I say, Supplementary Order Paper 204 has, apparently, not been considered. So I want to turn the Minister’s mind to Supplementary Order Paper 205 in my name, where, if he weren’t to consider whether or not the director-general should carry out a review and look at a permissive or exemption-type regime, perhaps they could start to look at another requirement whereby we would be allowing for a permissive regime for exporters to be able to apply for approval of animal welfare certificates. When I spoke in the last debate, we talked about the fact that the National Party would put up opportunities for certification, for exemptions, for permissions—all of which have been shouted down, unfortunately, but the reason we are going to continue to prosecute this case is because we believe MPI has been lobbying for at least two years for a regulatory framework to regulate, to license, and therefore to enforce.

We know that this ministry knows that this is a viable option. We know that this ministry is working with a number of New Zealand exporters. We know that they accepted the recommendations brought down by the Heron report that followed the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1 in 2019. Unfortunately for the ministry, thus far it has not had the levers, so to speak, to pull to enforce these kinds of permissive regimes. So we do ask the Minister: of any of the Supplementary Order Papers that he’s going to consider, would he consider No. 205 and look at the possibility of bringing in a regime that would allow for applications for approval of animal welfare certificates?

Oh, thank you very much, Mr Chair. Minister, it’s a good day to rise and ask questions on this because we have seen the Government is capable of doing backflips on dumb policy. So earlier today, in less than 24 hours, the Government did a backflip on the KiwiSaver tax. And I see Minister Michael Wood is also in the Chamber, and he’ll be very familiar with the backflip on the fantasy cycle bridge in Auckland. So this Government is developing a bit of trajectory.

But why doesn’t the Minister do the same thing, because the Minister knows, surely, that this is a dumb bill? It’s going to cost New Zealand about $475 million a year. How is the Government planning to pay for the things that we need—like our schooling system, our health system—if they’re increasing taxes, making it harder for businesses to do business? This is exactly what this bill does: it makes it harder to do business, it reduces the amount of income by $475 million a year for our economy. This is an industry that, the Minister will be well aware of, brought in $52 billion to New Zealand last fiscal year. So I’d like the Minister to answer us: why did they decide to proceed with this bill without consulting the primary sector? Because this is, again, unfortunately, another habit that this Government is developing, which is pushing ahead with legislation that affects businesses and affects New Zealanders quite significantly without consulting with them.

Look, I’d also like the Minister to tell the Chamber and tell New Zealanders and tell farmers why the Minister decided to go ahead with this, because the regulatory impact statement stated that there are two approaches to respond to the problem from the 2019 review of the post Gulf Livestock 1. The first was to allow for trade to continue but with stronger regulations, through maintaining strong animal welfare standards, and enhancing New Zealand’s long-term trade relationships. Now, that’s something that Australia has proven is possible. Australia has got gold standard for their live export. They got a fantastic deal with the United Kingdom. Why can’t New Zealand do the same? Why can’t the Minister give our farmers that confidence that we’re going to back them, just like Australia has done?

So the second option, which the regulatory impact statement said, was a ban to the export of livestock with a transition period, something that we’re seeing here today. Why ban when the Government has the option to make the industry better, weed out the cowboys, trade with the world, and make sure we get that $475 million coming in? The Government’s going to get some of that in tax, but we want all that money—our communities need that money. We need it so we can pay for our schools, which are under financial pressure. We need it to pay for our hospitals, which are under financial pressure. We need it to pay for our nurses, our doctors, our teachers. How do we do that? We do it by trading with the world. This is what we’re doing here.

The other thing is this bill, the Minister will be aware of, will increase the number of bobby calves. So we’re creating two problems. We’re reducing the amount of trade. We’re increasing the number of bobby calves. What’s going to happen with the bobby calves? We can’t send them to happy homes where they’re needed, like, for example, Indonesia, which is going to need more livestock. We can’t send them to the Ukraine, which needs a whole lot more livestock. So Minister, I would appreciate some answers to these questions.

Look, Mr Chair, thank you very much, and I’ll take the opportunity to answer some of the questions; I’ll work through them. Let’s start at the top. Just because this trade will stop does not mean that we lose that income, it means that those animals remain in New Zealand and, for the most part, will probably end up being higher-value exports by way of meat products. So we’re not losing the income to our country at all; it just will come in a different form. I accept that there will be, possibly, lower income directly to the farmers who are selling these animals directly in—and they are getting a premium.

But I did ask around a number of people across the country at early stages of this proposition. On balance, it’s probably 50:50 or more. Most of the farmers were uncomfortable with this trade and opted to take what is our position—not the leadership; the leadership endorses my position that, on balance, my job as the Minister of Agriculture is to ensure that the incredible work that has been done through generations upholding high standards of animal welfare is not lost through what we see as an increasing trade and increasing incidence of live exports across the globe. Whether it be in sheep or in livestock, because over half of the boats used in international trade are refurbished boats that are old, that would otherwise be scrapped, but they’re then refitted—yes, they are refitted—but in all sorts of ways. Some are OK, many are not.

So the basis of this was not any drive from leadership, and, in fact, I have to say, it is an honour and a pleasure to work in a Government that does have open debate about many, many issues. And yes, there are some changes from time to time. But I have to tell you that, in my international experience and discussions, all the countries around the world where there is live export from are reconsidering their position. So I have to say, this is about maintaining our reputation because, unlike most countries, we have a high dependency upon animal protein production through milk and meat.

Joseph Mooney: Why can Australia do it?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Higher than just about—a lot higher than Australia. A lot higher than Australia. It’s only a small portion of their total exports. Of ours, it’s a very high portion. So our reputation is absolutely paramount—done a lot of good work to get there.

So what we had is a claim that we’ve had gold standards. The reality is that we’re also exporting a long way further than most other countries around the globe. The animals go from temperate climate, through the tropics, and then we’re not quite sure. So as a submitter said, in spite of the best efforts of the people on the boat and the best intentions, effectively, there was no way of significantly reducing either factor—that was heat stress and lameness—that the cows were experiencing on this journey. Cattle didn’t have enough time to adapt to the warmer weather so it really was a brutal period of survival of the fittest. That’s not the kind of reputation that we want as a country that depends on animal protein production.

Mr Bennett raised the issue of compensation. Yes, he answered it himself. There has been two years’ lead-in to this. We have, clearly, had discussions with—and of course there’ll be people who have interests who will object all the way to the end, but, actually, I’ve again spoken to many people who said we’ve got plenty of time to transition out of that, thank you very much, and we’ll move on. In terms of bobby calves, we now have—it’s a whole different issue around bobby calf management, and we have sexed semen. So there won’t be excess animals coming into our system—not the ones that people might have sold and, in fact, are not one and the same thing, as most of the members know that. These have often been bred for purpose; they’ll just be bred for meat or for dairy production.

Mark Cameron says, you know, there’s a low level of confidence across the—what I would say is that it’s hard to maintain the returns that we’re getting for our commodities and for our primary production at this point because they are really strong. Commodity prices across the globe are strong. And we are facing some headwinds with geopolitical instability. We’ve had COVID. And yes, there are some inflationary pressures. So in a situation like that where it’s unlikely that prices will continue to rise—and, indeed, Fonterra have just announced that, you know, pay out might come back 25c—of course there’s some uncertainty, and I understand that from the farming sector. This is not the solution to that, I can promise you.

Can I just say that that the other credit—oh that’s right, I went—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! Order! Time is up.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Thank you, sorry. I missed the clock. Mr Chairman, if I can continue, Nicola Grigg asked if we’d seen Supplementary Order Paper 204 or 205. Yes, we have looked at them, and we appreciate the intent, but, on balance, we think that ending this and giving clarity is a better way forward than continuing with the uncertainty that we are exposed to by this trade. Indeed, we’ve had just had an incident where farmers haven’t been paid, or traders haven’t been paid for stock that was supposed to go on—those stock were returned back to farm. It’s a bit of a commercial mess. And I’m not saying that that was all the industry, but I’m saying it’s been a little messy across a number of the areas of live export. Let’s move on with confidence, utilising the animals that we do breed and raise here, in the best way possible.

Mr Mooney says, you know, we could do backflips. The problem is, I’m a better forward than I am a gymnast. And so it’s more likely that we will continue with this. In fact, we will continue with this because this is the best piece of legislation to protect the reputation of not just the farmers now but those into the future who want to commit to livestock farming and know that we are the best managers of animal welfare and animal protein in the world, and for the world. That’s why this trade should end.

Thanks, Mr Chair. Thank you very much; I’m very grateful. Minister, just to clarify. I’m not sure if you’re aware, and maybe you can enlighten the House, what the value of an animal was—let’s theorise here: what a two-year-old Friesian heifer in calf going overseas was worth versus sale in the domestic market. I’ll offer you this: it was probably about $350 to $500 difference per head. That sort of money is gone per animal out of this, or the cessation or nullification of this trade.

Minister, again, how do you reconcile that some in this industry have invested close on $1 million in livestock-carrying vehicles, trucks, stock crates, and trailers? They’re gone. They’re gone; they’ve subsidised a large portion of their income through this trade.

There’s one thing I think you really owe this House an explanation of: you have offered that our reputation is key. Now, I think we all agree with that; no umbrage there. But how do you reconcile that the Australians can continue under a gold standard and somehow are you insinuating that their gold standard is less meritorious than the continuation of the trade for us to that gold standard, or should we just simply remove it? So, in other words, what I’m asking, Minister: do you think their gold standard is beneath currently where we sit? Because I think we deserve an answer.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister said that New Zealand needs to maintain its reputation as having the best animal husbandry standards in the world, and absolutely—won’t find any disagreement from anyone on this side of the House.

The question is, why has the Minister not looked at the option of improving the regulatory environment to make the sure that those ships the Minister talked about that aren’t fit for purpose, that shouldn’t be carrying our animals around the world, can’t be used to carry our animals around the world, instead of just banning everyone from doing it, and so making sure that only the best operators can come to New Zealand and ship these animals?

And I go back to the question I asked before about the regulatory impact statement, which said that the first option was to allow for trade to continue but with stronger regulations, through maintaining strong animal welfare standards and enhancing New Zealand’s long-term trade relationships. What advice did the Minister get on that recommendation? What discussion did the Minister have with rural New Zealand about that recommendation? What advice and discussions did the Minister have with the trade groups about that recommendation?

Because, Minister, that seems like, from my point of view, an extremely good idea—to actually allow for trade, enhance New Zealand’s long-term trade relationships, create stronger regulations to make sure the cowboys and the ships that shouldn’t be transporting our animals around the world can’t do it, and maintain strong animal welfare standards. So I would, generally, be very interested in the Minister answering about what advice and discussions the Minister had about that recommendation.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to resume my commentary from my last contribution and turn the Minister’s mind to Supplementary Order Paper 206 under my name.

In my last contribution, I mentioned a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that would allow for a certifications regime to be implemented. That doesn’t seem to have been sold to the Government, so I would then like the Minister to consider, rather, a regulation providing for exemptions, as opposed to certifications, but on a case-by-case basis.

The Minister, in his last contribution, made a number of observations about the standard of ships that have been used historically to transfer animals around the world. I think I’ve mentioned this to this House before that we would absolutely agree that a lot of that has been substandard. I sat on the Primary Production Committee, and we saw photographic evidence and, indeed, oral evidence of practices that no New Zealander would accept or consider to be right.

And that is the point of the SOPs that we are putting up here this afternoon and, indeed, have been doing so for the last couple of times that we have met to debate this bill. The whole point behind the position that we are taking on this side of the House—I might add, also, on behalf of the industry—is that there is room to regulate this industry. Underneath that regulation would, one would assume, come an insistence of only using built-for-purpose ships that would obviously include high-tech air ventilation systems and, indeed, air conditioning systems. We do understand that animals do suffer heat stress, particularly when they get to the equator on their journey.

But the Minister has not answered the question around leakage and, you know, he’s talked about other shipments from other nations. Well, I put to the Minister: is it not better that the New Zealand export industry lead the world in this, with a world-leading regulatory standard, whereby animals are on custom-built ships from port to port, approximately, weather permitting, for three weeks, as opposed to going from a jurisdiction like in South America where there are no regulations, where those animals are on the water for about seven weeks, and where they are still crossing the equator and are still going to be subjected to heat stress in ships that are probably refurbished container ships.

So, with regard to SOP 206, allowing the regulation to be created that would give the director-general an opportunity to provide exemptions on a case by case basis would answer those questions. And those concerns that the Minister raised, the purpose of the conditional licensing regime is to—and I quote—“ensure that each shipment of cattle is exported in accordance with good practice and scientific knowledge.” And that is the crux of the argument that we, on this side of the House, are putting forward. This decision has been made entirely emotionally and entirely ideologically; there is not scientific rationale behind it.

We would, therefore, under a conditional licensing regime, request that exporters have to apply for a licence for each individual shipment of cattle and make certain that exporters maintain consistently high standards, and that, I would also add, would extend to the importers; they, too, would be subject to a certification or a licensing regime on a case by case basis to ensure the ongoing animal welfare standards are kept in the destination country.

We would like an exemption mechanism to be instigated prior to October next year. That gives the industry some time to move. I think I mentioned in my last contribution, as much as the Minister likes to say, “The industry has had two years to transition”, they have been waiting with bated breath that the Minister and the Government might move on this thing. So this is coming into effect in April next year. I’m sorry, that is six months away; that is not two years away. So we do want the Minister to please consider SOP 206, that each export need to apply for export licensing regime for the export of cattle.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have two questions for the Minister. The first is in relation to his response before, where he implied that the returns would remain in New Zealand but in a different form, and then my colleague from the ACT Party quite rightly noted that there would be a different price for a stock unit of that age in the New Zealand market, compared with the international market. So perhaps the Minister needs to enlighten us, on this side of the House, as to actually how his economics work as to how we get the same return in New Zealand.

When we consider that the Minister has said that he wants to see 800,000 hectares of dry stock land go into forestry, where are these animals going to go? What are we going to do with them at that age? We’ve already had peak cows. We’ve got cows reducing. Are these heifers that are in calf going to suddenly become part of the New Zealand dairy herd? What’s going to happen to them?

How does the Minister explain that that money will, in his words, come in a different form? It won’t. There will be a loss to the New Zealand economy. If he says that there is no loss to the New Zealand economy, I would love to hear it. Now, the only answer I think he can give is his fanciful thing about “This is all part of ‘Brand New Zealand’ ” and that we get more return from it from that. That might be his answer, but that will be lovely to see, because he can’t even get a free-trade agreement in Europe for dairy. He actually took that out of the agreement.

Rachel Boyack: What?

Hon Member: Shocking.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No, they did. The Labour members are going, “Oh, really?” Well, that’s what happened. The week before the free-trade agreement, your glorious leader said, “We don’t need to negotiate that. We don’t need to talk about dairy”—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Bennett, I’ll just remind members this debate has been going for half an hour before we started today. So we are now looking for, as the previous speaker did talk into Supplementary Order Papers, in particular—so I’ll be looking for new material; certainly relevant material, Mr Bennett. So I’ll invite you to continue.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Chair. It certainly is new material, because the Labour members are over there, going, “What? Really? Never heard of it.”—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Relevant material, Mr Bennett.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: It’s new to them that the Prime Minister, basically, put the kibosh on the dairy industry in the free-trade agreement.

So where are these heifers going to go? Are we going to suddenly miraculously have more dairy conversions, Minister? I don’t think you’re going to do that. It’s not going to happen. Are we going to have more sheep and beef farms? That’s not going to happen when everything that you want goes into forestry. Where are you going to put these animals? Where do we get that return? Your words were: “They will come in a different form.” So explain it. Just tell us how you made that economic judgment.

My second question to the Minister is a very simple one. He just has to say “Yes” or “No”. Did he ask the Prime Minister to tone down the policy in this area? At any point, did he go to the Prime Minister and say, “No, we can’t do the full ban. There’s a practical solution here that we could look at.” Did he have that conversation? Just a simple yes or no. If he didn’t have that conversation, fine, everybody knows that he didn’t. But if he did have that conversation, the public and the farmers of New Zealand deserve to know that.

Hon Willie Jackson: No one cares.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No one cares? This is Willie Jackson. They obviously don’t understand that one of the biggest farmers in New Zealand is iwi. Guess who makes a lot of money in the sheep and beef industry! It’s iwi. Guess who’s going to have a big future in New Zealand sheep and beef! Iwi. But “who cares?” for Willie Jackson because he’s the urban elite; he’s not actually of the Māori who are looking after the land and the whenua, and building the base of the industry.

So, Minister, answer those questions. Did you at any point ask the Prime Minister to tone down the policy agenda in this area? Secondly, explain how this money’s going to come in a different form, when, as my good colleague has said, there is a completely different market for those animals. And where do you expect those animals to go?

Thank you. It’s good that the member David Bennett sat down so I could answer the questions. Look, it’s good that he also acknowledges the significant role that iwi play across agriculture. It hasn’t been recognised as it should be, and I have to say it’s a pleasure to see the development across many iwi Māori entities in agriculture. And not one of them called for a change in our position on this.

When I was farming—and it might be different for Mr Bennett—but if you have an in-calf heifer and you don’t send it away, that doesn’t mean to say the value of that animal disappears. Indeed, you have a heifer that will produce a calf that has value in itself. You then can actually milk it if you want, or, in fact, actually, there are some that produce beef that will say there’s a really good return on beef heifers.

Can I just say that the equation that stopping this trade ends the value of the animals in New Zealand is completely false. So I—

Hon David Bennett: We never said that. We said “lower value”.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Maybe the member should just take a different—

Hon David Bennett: Point of order, Mr Chair. Both myself and my colleague never said it ended the value; we said it has a lower value, and the Minister needs to answer—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Bennett, that is not a point of order. That is a debating point. [Interruption] No, sit down please, Mr Bennett.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Can I just point to the fact that—and I think Mr Cameron’s actually got his figures wrong. I think he underestimates the premium that many farmers were getting—underestimates them, because I think my brother was certainly selling animals for about twice their value for the export market, and so I accept that there would be less money available to those farmers who might have sold directly to those markets. It does not mean there’s less money for New Zealand, and I explained that biological process to Mr Bennett.

Can I just go through a couple of other points. Mr Mooney asked—

Hon David Bennett: Did you ask the Prime Minister?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Oh, did I ask the Prime Minister? I asked her, “Can you continue to support my view that we should end this trade, because that will protect our reputation?” That’s the discussion I had, and I’m happy to say that I led that on the basis of all the information, the discussions, and the reading that I’ve done in this area.

Can I just go back to a couple of points made by members over there. Nicola Grigg says that, you know, a lot of the boats have been substandard. Indeed, that has been the case, and if you look across the history of the trade, there was a boat from Chile having to refuel in Fiji that was locked out of the port, because Fijians didn’t think that this trade was ethical. A number of people across the globe are concerned about what has been happening and what is still happening, which is why we’re trying to stay ahead of that. We can still assist the people we had as customers through genetic transfer, through embryos, through sperm transfer, and we can have air travel for very high-value animals. This does not stop us assisting in the genetic improvement of animals around the world. We simply just will not be doing it through transport on boats.

Can I say finally: look, Mr Mooney says, you know, we should just use the best operators. The problem is it’s a subjective judgment on who they are, and it gets really, really tricky. If we end up with one dud operator, as we did, one tragic accident, as we did, then the reputation of this country is at stake. That’s why we’re moving on this.

I do warn members that there hasn’t been any real new material here, so I will be looking for new material on all new speeches.

Mr Chair, I’m very pleased to let you know that I have five Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), and I’m up to number four of five, so this is certainly my best attempt at new material, and I look forward to the Minister’s response on this one too.

So I would like to draw the Minister’s attention this time to Supplementary Order Paper 208, which we haven’t yet canvassed in this Chamber. Now, to be fair, though, I do feel like I’m repeating myself, because I have—

Hon Damien O’Connor: You are.

NICOLA GRIGG: —asked the Minister—oh, you still haven’t given me an answer, Minister; not a satisfactory one, at least. We have asked the Minister multiple times, the industry has asked the Minister multiple times, to provide a framework for regulation to tidy this industry up. It’s really interesting that a Government that purports to be all about just transition is prepared to cut this industry off at the knees in six months from now. So despite our best attempts—you know, we’ve asked for the Minister to consider things like permissions regimes, regulations, export certificates, exemptions, case by case basis, etc., etc., etc. The primary SOP we’ve put up has been asking the Minister to ask the director-general to carry out a review within three months of this thing coming into force so that he can look to the viability of implementing a world-class gold standard regime.

But this time around, SOP 208; I really would like the Minister to at least consider this one, and that is implementing new section 54A, whereby the Minister himself would review the ban on live animal shipments within three months. Now, the reason we are asking for this is that it would require the Act arising from the passage of this bill, which we presume is going to happen, because that’s what happens when a Government has an absolute majority and it knows it’s in its dying days; it’s going to pass anything it blinking well can for the next 12 months. It would require the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to review the prohibition six months after it comes into force. So hypothetically speaking, perhaps if it were to be a change of Government after September next year, perhaps by about March 2024, the Ministry for Primary Industries would review this thing.

This SOP has been put up because it recognises, and we on this side of the House recognise, the haste with which this Government is operating, the haste with which it made a decision. We supported the immediate cessation of shipments immediately after the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1 in 2019. We felt that was right and proper. We supported it. We then supported the Heron recommendations that MPI chose to implement as well. We believe, and we know MPI believes, there is a way to regulate this thing. So we think that this is a knee-jerk reaction. It is ideological; it is emotional. That is why we are putting up this SOP, because we believe this thing needs to be reviewed and we do think that if and when it’s reviewed, it will be found to be wanting. This SOP also introduces the review mechanism, so we’re putting all the frameworks in place where MPI must start to look. In the context of the Animal Welfare Amendment Act, it will review the prohibition on the application of issuance of animal welfare export certificates, and it will consider whether the animal welfare export certificate process could be reinstated under prescribed conditions and criteria. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. The Minister has said in the House a number of times now that this is to protect our reputation. Last year, the Minister said that, in effect, this trade puts $33.7 billion in trade in animals and agricultural products at risk. However, the Ministry for Primary Industries thought the reputational impacts were real but difficult to quantify. So I would like to ask the Minister: has the Minister gone to our trading partners and asked them what their view is on this trade, in terms of them buying our products?

Now, if I look just at one example, China, alone, took about $20 billion of our goods in 2021. Most of that was dairy, meat, and wood. And China is also rebuilding its dairy herd, because they reduced their herd in a culling programme in 2015-2016 by 50 percent, but now they’re trying to rebuild it so they can rebuild their ability to produce milk domestically. So that is obviously a big trading partner, an important one. Has the Minister gone to any of these trading partners and our biggest ones and asked them, rather than just putting a finger in the air and being like, “I feel like it could affect our reputation.”? Has he gone and actually asked them and got some data to inform this decision about whether it will in fact affect our trade with them or not? Because that would seem to be an absolutely critical point, to actually have some metrics underpinning the decision, and it is one that would give some confidence that the Minister’s actually making a principled decision, rather than just a “feels” decision.

I move, That the question be now put.

There hasn’t been any new material, but at this stage I’ll look with hope that one of the two speakers—Mr Bennett.

Thank you, Mr Chair. In the last answer from the Minister, he talked about there being a compensation, I guess, for not having the live trade in that you can use sperm and embryos and suchlike to enable New Zealand to have access to genetics and suchlike, and this hasn’t been discussed in this House before. But, at the same time as this bill, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has, effectively, cut the trade in embryos and sperm from overseas. So the new rules and regulations around it basically mean it is impossible to bring in a lot of those products to New Zealand. That’s a relationship back to the M. bovis days, and MPI have tightened up the rules. So, effectively, for those that aren’t here, they basically have to put radioactive—give a good whack to those products, which basically knocks them out, and a very small proportion will actually ever survive.

So if the Minister’s using as an excuse that we don’t need to trade in animals that are live, but at the same time his excuse for that is “We can still get embryos; we can still get sperm”, but at the same time his officials have, effectively, killed that market, how does he reconcile that? How does he explain it? The Minister knows what I’m talking about. He’s had the correspondence that I’ve had from people in that sector who say they can’t do it any more. It would have been on his desk, and he’s seen it. He has seen that; his officials have seen it. They can’t in this House ignore it; they can’t in this House say that’s not true. There are officials here that have seen those letters. They actually made the policies that do it.

So the Minister needs to explain why, five minutes ago, he said, “Don’t worry about the live trade; you’ve always got the embryos and sperm.” We don’t, actually, because he’s killed that market. His officials need to explain to the Minister how he’s going to reconcile all that, and then he needs to reconcile to the farmers in New Zealand how they keep getting the best genetics in the world. If you’re the racing industry, you don’t rely just on New Zealand genetics. You get some of the best horses around the world and bring them in. He’s called Sir Tristram for a reason—you know, he came from Ireland. What are we going to do with our beef, our sheep? How are we going to have a sheep milking industry if we don’t get—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Bennett, you were vaguely on the bill before. You’ve now stretched quite a way away. So can we come back to the bill that’s actually in front of you and the provisions of it? It’s been wide ranging, but we are now at this stage of the debate—

Hon DAVID BENNETT: This bill bans the import of livestock, and the Minister has said in his answer, “Don’t worry about that; you can do semen and embryos.” Well, you can’t. Theoretically you can, but by the time you nuke them, they’re basically dead. So, you know, they’re not coming through. The Minister knows—he’s looking very sheepish at the moment—but maybe he needs to explain it. What are New Zealand farmers going to do around genetics, going forward? They can’t have a live trade, and they can’t have the genetics come in through those other forms. That is new material that hasn’t been discussed, but it’s a direct implication of this bill, and the Minister raised it in his answer as an excuse for this bill. He says, “Don’t worry about this; you don’t need live trade. You can have the others.” Well, you can’t, because the rules are so difficult now that it makes a lot of that impossible.

So can the Minister please explain his rationale, please explain what’s happening there, and to actually identify what’s going on and acknowledge that there is a problem there around semen and embryos, and say what he is going to do about it. Because is this “Fortress New Zealand” coming back again in the primary sector, where we’re not allowed to have genetics from around the world? Is that what the Minister truly wants for New Zealand? I ask the Minister to answer those questions.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Minister, I will push back on your statements that I had the figures wrong. Do you know what the national herd scheme is, sir? I’d hope to think that you did. F12s—I’m not sure if you know what the acronym was; it was for Friesian 12s and it was to do with their pedigree status.

The average price for the national herd scheme when these animals were being traded versus the value of the animals domestically: the value of the animals domestically was $1,600 to $1,750 on average through the national herd scheme. This was average prices for F12s in the last two fiscal seasons. The average price for animals going offshore was about $500 more than that per head. Now, I used average figures.

Now, I want to add to that just to keep some new material flowing here, given that Mr Chair has asked for it. Pre-departure condition score, Minister: do you know what the pre-departure average condition score for animals going offshore is versus average Friesian dairy cows being dried off—theorising here—on 15 or 20 May? I guarantee you, sir, the pre-departure conditions—the half a condition score that these animals are putting in terms of weight gain in transit is not indicative of a problem.

I want you to clarify yes or no, sir, do you know what the average of mortality of bovine livestock is here in New Zealand versus in transit? Because every suggestion we’ve had: in transit, it is infinitesimally small compared to what is happening on average on an everyday New Zealand dairy farm. So can you clarify that, because there’s a massive distinction there?

There was a little bit of new information there and I’m happy to do that. The fatality rates—and we’ve been monitoring those—on the face of it might seem relatively low. But actually, when you look across the reports, I’ve had to scrutinise those reports and challenge them from time to time to ensure that we—indeed, lately we have been having a more accurate report-back system.

But there are a lot of injuries—they’re mainly foot injuries, but one of the things that is indicated in reports but doesn’t necessarily result in a fatality is huge heat stress. I think, by any animal welfare standard, it would be considered unacceptable.

Can I just very briefly touch on a couple of the other things. Nicola Grigg said, you know, this is a hasty bill. It’s taken two years: clear notice to the industry. I think recognition of that, even though they don’t agree, recognition of the time that we gave them in the lead-up to this—and it is important that we move on with certainty, that we don’t offer false hope, which is I know what the National members have been trying to do. But we will move on with this.

I was a little confused, as I was from the two interventions by Mr Bennett: one that was completely false regarding the EU trade deal; but the second one here, I wasn’t sure whether he was talking about the importation or the exportation of genetics.

We’re actually talking about the export of products, and we can—and indeed, if the member thinks there’s blockage to the importation of genetics from our country, that people want to do that, then please come and see me and I will address that with officials. But I think they facilitate that as best they can, given the biosecurity requirements of the countries into which we would be exporting.

But I think on balance, we’ve been through and we’ve canvassed most of the issues here. I can accept the perspectives put forth by the Opposition. We don’t agree with them; we think that on balance we still need to uphold the reputation and protect it for all of those generations of farmers that’ve got us to where we have got to, and for those who will get us to where we need to be in the future.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that Nicola Grigg’s amendments inserting new clauses 2A and 11A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendments to clauses 5, 7, 10, and the Schedule set out on Supplementary Order Paper 181 be agreed to.

The question is that Nicola Grigg’s remaining amendments to clauses 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and the Schedule set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 be agreed to.

Nicola Grigg’s remaining amendments to clause 10 and the Schedule and inserting new clause 10A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 204 are out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. Nicola Grigg’s amendment inserting new clause 10A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 205 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. Nicola Grigg’s amendment inserting new clause 10A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 206 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.