Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

We come now to clause 2. This is the debate on the commencement. The question is that clause 2 stand part. I will be listening very carefully to make sure that this very narrow debate will be about the commencement.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Evidently the commencement date of this legislation is 30 April 2023. Minister, you’re cognisant—I can only hope—that we’re in a cost of living crisis never more felt than in rural New Zealand. The Federated Farmers survey that you probably saw yesterday said that confidence in rural New Zealand has never been so blessed low since 2009, when the survey first started. Minister, this is a $261 million economic earner to that part of rural New Zealand, and I’d wager anyone worth their salt it’s worth significantly more.

Talking about the commencement date, sir—and I know Mr Chair might call me up if I go over—we are talking about the commencement date and this is less, effectually, than a year away. This is a massive economic earner. It gives farmers surety, and less than a year away this economic fiscal income is being taken from them. We are living in a cost of living crisis, never more felt than in the rural sector—the price of fuel, price of fertiliser, everything is going through the roof and farmer confidence has tanked. Why on earth would you expedite this date through this piece of legislation? I think the rural sector deserves an answer. You’ve got to come clean with it and explain why.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to talk about the commencement date of this bill. I’d like to put to the Minister whether or not he’s had the time or the inclination to consider my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) under my name, No 207, which seeks to extend the commencement date from 30 April 2023 through to 2024. We on this side of the House hold grave concerns for the impact and the ramification that this bill, and how quickly it’s coming about, is going to have on rural communities, particularly businesses involved in the breeding and export of cattle around the world. The SOP 207 would delay the commencement of the prohibition of live exports by about a year. This Government often talks about “just transition”, and we would like to see a fairer and more just transition, as Mark Cameron from the ACT Party has pointed out. This is coming around very, very quickly—April 2023 is less than a year away. We would think it would be just and fair to extend this ban for another year.

The SOP also is written to acknowledge the haste with which this Government has made this decision and brought this bill before the House, to ban live exports. We would like to see an extension of the time frame for the implementation of the prohibition. We also would like to acknowledge that the recommendations brought by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) in October 2020 following the Heron review, that MPI itself was very comfortable with that transition, with those new animal welfare aspects, and requirements that were brought in is as a temporary measure. We believe that they can still further be improved on and we will discuss those later in further submissions to the House. But the reason that we are seeking this extension is firstly to recognise that this industry, which is wide ranging, is going to be far more vastly affected than any evidence that has been presented to the Primary Production Committee by either the Minister, the Government, or indeed the Ministry for Primary Industries. As I mentioned in my first submission earlier, an Infometrics report has blown out of the water the Government claim that this is just a $261 million industry. It is in fact a $475 million per annum industry.

We understand, via the Infometrics report, that it is going to impact almost 2,900 farms, and that includes many around South Canterbury, where I come from. It is going to have a massive impact on the GDP of this nation. It is estimated to cost about $150 per household on average a year in terms of impacting our GDP. And as the Minister for Trade, the Minister for Primary Industries will also understand how very important our export industry is and how every measure must be taken to be able to bolster our sales offshore. We would submit to the Minister this afternoon that by extending this commencement date by another year at least, this will give these businesses some time to fulfil contracts, to be able to meet orders, to be able to complete sales.

We do believe, as we’ve said, that the select committee process has been an absolute sham. It was a foregone conclusion. MPI wrote, in its departmental report, that it was giving effect to the Cabinet paper—that was extremely disappointing, and the National Party noted that in our own minority view in the select committee report. We do believe that those submitters, given that the vast majority of them were ignored, should at least be given the respect of a further year to stretch this thing out so that they can come up with some form of supplementary income to make up for the lost revenue. As we say, close to half a billion dollars in wider economic impact will be lost to many rural and regional parts of New Zealand.

So I ask the Minister if he could please consider my SOP 207 that will extend the time frame of this bill through to 2024 coming into effect.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would also like to encourage the Minister to pick up the Supplementary Order Paper, in the name of Nicola Grigg, around the commencement date.

So there’s a couple of reasons that I think are very strong reasons for pushing this date out further. One of them is that since this whole shambolic process started, a war has broken out between Russia and Ukraine, and food security is of the essence. We heard yesterday that a large number of these animals are actually going for milking animals so that populations who are buying these animals can feed milk to their children. Now, the Minister may well say that “Yes, we are fit for a better world, and we feed, you know, this proportion with high quality products.”—some of it’s still going out in commodity, I must note. But, actually, if we take out a proportion of what we produce and what we present, it doesn’t matter what category of food value you put it in, it leaves a gap in the food security of the world. So that is one reason this was unforeseen at the time that Cabinet made the decision not to listen to the submitters in the Primary Production Committee.

The second reason is that, Minister, you said yourself this morning, we are going to have to, as an industry, have a major discussion about the bobby calf industry. It’s going to be a very difficult thing to replace, given the nature of our farming systems and how they work. By the Minister putting this option on the table and taking out the live export option, you’re taking away options from those people who choose to give those animals a further life and send them to another country where food security is questionable, as we say. So one of the things that the Government’s not been good at is thinking about the consequences of its actions. I think, given that, and given that the Government is always talking about just transitions—we haven’t seen any just transitions yet—we want fair and affordable transitions to anything this Government might propose, even though we don’t agree with what the Government’s trying to do here. I think, in fairness to the industry and to the sector and to everyone involved in agriculture in New Zealand, wouldn’t it make sense, Minister, to have a fair and just transition? Let’s look at the bobby calf industry first before we take drastic steps like as proposed in this legislation.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Yeah, look, I’d just like to make a few quick comments in relation to the proposed commencement of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill as well.

I mean, ultimately we’ve got a bill here that has been brought about as effectively a knee-jerk response to what was, without doubt, a tragedy—the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1.

You know, whilst none of us would like to see a repeat of that, ultimately it comes back to some of the comments I made in my earlier contribution around the title of this bill as well. That’s in relation to the quality of the vessels that are being used as part of this.

So that knee-jerk reaction—we don’t support it. It is what it is, but as Barbara Kuriger has just touched on as well, the reality is that that time frame now needs to be amended because we have a very short window—in the scheme of farming system time frames—to now adapt to a new way of operating at a time of significant uncertainty globally around those food supply and food security issues.

It would be absolutely appropriate in my mind to take up the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) put forward by Nicola Grigg, SOP 207, proposing to extend the date by 12 months because this would acknowledge the fact that we are in a significantly different global environment from what we were when this bill first came forward.

But also, it would enable more time for consideration of the domestic impact; that’s twofold as well. One is the direct impact on farm systems—but not only the farm system itself and the need to adapt there, but also the downstream supply chain implications from that as well.

Those numerous other business players rely on this industry—in some cases exclusively on this industry—for their business operations. That’s a very scary thing for them to now be looking at a very short time frame in the scheme of business lifespan to have to overhaul, totally rejig, or somehow adapt their business to create new revenue streams or else go out of business altogether. An additional 12 months, I think, would be an appropriate reflection to give them time to transition.

You know, what we’re seeing, unfortunately, time after time is a Government that just doesn’t seem to understand what it means for business owners in New Zealand, the impacts of their legislation—and we’ve seen that case after case where something just gets rammed through with no consideration for the actual impact on those that the legislation will be affecting. This is another example of that, so we really need that additional time frame to help support those businesses to make a transition. If this is going to pass, then we need to give them time.

The other aspect of that comes back to some of the comments I made around title as well, which was in response to the Minister’s comments about his perception of the international view of continuing live exports and whether that might impact our market access potentially around the globe. Now, my comments in the title contribution I made were that, really, in my view, the bigger issue is what’s happening with our bobby calves or the industry in general from those stock now not being live exported for breeding purposes to continue adding value and food supply into the global supply chain.

But now those animals are instead staying here in New Zealand and will, in many cases, be sent to slaughter. I believe that has a potentially higher risk for our reputation or brand in New Zealand compared to the continuation of the live export trade.

So I absolutely believe we need to be having a more robust discussion around what that future might look like for the industry and coming up with some proposals, working with industry, listening to industry, taking on board their feedback via submissions—actually listening—and then coming up with some potential new solutions off the back of that. Because otherwise you’re going to end up with a situation where this comes into place in 2023 and suddenly we have an unintended consequence—as we’ve seen again many times from legislation under this Government—that then ends up being a significant issue and then some sort of knee-jerk or band-aid reaction to try and deal with that and you have this domino effect of poor legislation.

That’s a concern I have, so I absolutely support SOP 207 in the name of Nicola Grigg proposing an extension of 12 months for the commencement to 2024.

The commencement date of 30 April 2023, we think is a fair and just date. I announced this in 2019. We’ve provided the industry with two years’ transition. The risks to our reputation from the ongoing trade, we thought, was acceptable to provide the industry with a fair and just transition. We’ve seen the Supplementary Order Paper, but we will not be supporting it.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Minister, I’m interested in your response—just then where you said you announced this in 2019. I think everyone in this House and around New Zealand—and, in fact, around the world—would agree that the world has changed dramatically since 2019, which has a direct bearing on this Act coming into force on 30 April 2023.

By the world changing, Minister, I mean inflation. Inflation’s impacting the world. Inflation is impacting New Zealand in a very significant way. Foot-and-mouth is in Indonesia. It is impacting on them, and, as I mentioned earlier, it’s going to mean they are going to have to replace their herd at some point. Where are their animals going to come from? Ukraine—it was inconceivable in 2019 that there would be a war in Europe. Here we are today; there is a war in Europe. Fifty thousand cows as of today, we know, are going to need to be replaced in the Ukraine to replace the herd so people can eat. Where are those animals going to come from? Can New Zealand do its part to help other countries around the world with this piece of law coming in to force on 30 April 2023? No, it cannot.

Supplementary Order Paper 207 by Nicola Grigg, extending this by one year, would be a very sensible thing to do given the incredibly different economic situation and geopolitical situation New Zealand and our world finds itself in. I would ask: is the Minister aware that most of the live exports go to developing nations? And is the Minister aware that there are hundreds of millions of people in extreme food insecurity as we speak? Where are they going to get their food from? Why cannot New Zealand be part of the solution? Why not at least extend this one year so that we can reassess the position, as this is an incredibly unpredictable and unstable environment that we find ourselves in.

In 2019, it was inconceivable that food security would be one of the top issues for the world only a few years later, but that’s where we find ourselves, Minister. That is one of the key things New Zealand, as a trading nation, can do for the world. We can supply food for the world, and, importantly, here we can supply milking cows to the world so people can actually milk cows and have sustenance for themselves and their children. It is a key part of New Zealand’s economy, and we have good quality stock in this country.

And it’s not just our part for helping developing nations, which is where most of our livestock go to; it’s the impact on New Zealand as communities around New Zealand find more challenges with this cost of living crisis, with inflation. I mean, Infometrics has analysed this and their analysis is that the net cost to New Zealand’s GDP in the short term—one or two years after the ban—would be around $475 million per annum, and an ongoing net cost to national financial wellbeing of around $320 million per annum.

Now, as I go around my region of Southland, Minister, I speak to schools who are finding significant funding challenges. I speak to the health sector who have significant funding challenges. How are we going to pay for this? We pay for it by being a trading nation, by selling things to the world that the world needs. The world needs food, and we need to be able to provide this to them in a safe way, in a gold standard manner, as Australia has done. Australia has developed a gold standard for their live exports. Australia is getting great trade deals, so it hasn’t impacted their ability to get trade deals. Why aren’t we looking at doing the same and why not at least extend this out for a year for the commencement date of this Act so that we can reassess the economic picture in New Zealand?

We can’t afford to be losing $475 million per annum, and this has a disproportionate impact on our rural communities who are under pressure. We can’t afford not to be in a position to assist developing nations who are facing extreme food insecurity. We can’t afford not to be in a position to help Indonesia, who need to replace their livestock facing foot-and-mouth disease. We can’t afford to be in a position to say to the Ukraine, “Well, we can’t help you with your cows, sorry. We’ve got great cows, but sorry, you can’t have any of them to replace your stock that have been lost in the war with your neighbour, Russia. Sorry.” We are just focused on sending a signal that we’re stopping all live exports from New Zealand. So I would ask the Minister to seriously consider this, because the world has dramatically changed since 2019, and I’d ask the Minister to reflect on that and to consider this extension.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, farming looks pretty easy when your plough is a pencil and you’re a thousand miles away from the field. I know as a farmer, every day, farming has got more expensive. As you will have heard in this House today—it’s been canvased on this side of the Chamber—this trade is worth tens of thousands of dollars to those that are involved in it. The figures out of Infometrics have alluded to moneys in between $49,000 and $116,000 per farm. How do you reconcile that to my previous question, when I stated that we are in a cost of living crisis, and this House has conceded that point, historically and as of today, on-farm pressures have grown exponentially, fuel has gone up exponentially, fertiliser costs have got up exponentially, and here we are: you’re taking away, in some instances, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of dollars from those that use this trade. Can you please, for the sake of everyone in this House, with some transparency, tell these farmers how on earth, with less than a year to go, they can reconcile their fiscal and business models? I think rural New Zealand deserves an answer.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that Nicola Grigg’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 be agreed to.

Members, we have a few seconds before I can report progress—oh, no; we’ve got no seconds!

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.