Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The bill amends the Animal Welfare Act 1999 to end the export of livestock by sea and shows the Government’s commitment to upholding New Zealand’s reputation for high standards of animal welfare. This year, our food and fibre sector is forecast to hit a record export revenue of over $50 billion, demonstrating its value to New Zealand as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Keeping our eyes on our future economic security, it’s vital we stay ahead of the curve in a world where animal welfare is under more and more scrutiny.

The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee in October 2021 and was reported back to this House in April 2022. The committee received and considered 637 submissions and heard oral evidence from 33 of these submitters. We sincerely thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for their consideration of the bill in the package, but we also acknowledge the valuable input from both written and oral submitters and the considerable support the bill received from the public. The committee was split in their views and were unable to agree on whether they believed this bill should pass. Both National and ACT expressed differing views in which they believed that a focus should be made on regulatory improvement. However, we already have a world-leading regulatory system for the export of livestock, and no improvement would have been enough to protect the welfare of these animals and to protect New Zealand’s reputation, and there’s plenty of evidence that I have here to prove that.

At the heart of our decision is upholding New Zealand’s reputation for high standards of animal welfare. The Government started a review of the livestock export trade in 2019 in response to concerns the trade could be a risk to New Zealand’s reputation. The objective of the review was to provide New Zealanders an opportunity to reflect on how we can improve the welfare of livestock being exported. The review consulted on several options including both regulatory improvement and a complete ban on the trade. The Cabinet paper and decisions around the future of livestock exports was delayed due to the Government’s response to COVID-19, but not long after we initiated the review, there was the tragic sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1 in September 2020. This was the seventh livestock ship to have sunk since 2009, globally. Beyond the devastating loss of life—and I want to acknowledge the families of those New Zealanders who lost their lives—the sinking highlighted the concerns and the risks the trade poses to animal welfare. Since January 2019, 27 of the 50 voyages to have left New Zealand have been in non-purpose-built converted vessels. Travelling for long lengths of time on any vessel, let alone ones that are not purpose built for transporting livestock, creates conditions that are not suitable for livestock welfare. Any recurrence of negative animal welfare incidents like this has the potential to inflict lasting damage to New Zealand’s reputation and trade—no matter how hard we set animal welfare standards for the voyages and everyone’s best efforts on those boats.

On 14 April 2021, I announced the Government’s decision to ban the export of cattle, deer, goats, and sheep by ship with a transition period of two years. We acknowledge the economic benefits some farmers have and still get from the trade, but support for it is not universal at all. There are different opinions on its long-term value and how it impacts on New Zealand’s commitment to animal welfare. A key question to answer is whether the activity aligns with the international consumers’ image of Aotearoa New Zealand. We have seen an increase, in recent years, with the direct value of New Zealand’s livestock export trade increasing to $261 million for the year ending December 2020, following the $84 million income from 2019. There was a rapid lift in the value of the trade. It’s hard to estimate the total number of farmers who use the trade as that can be dependent on conditions and on farm decisions from year to year. This is a fluctuating trade, and the economic benefit is not consistent. It amounts to only around 0.2 percent of our primary sector revenue since 2015. New Zealand’s $50 billion in primary sector exports, which rely in large part on New Zealand’s good name and reputation, should not be put at risk for this relatively small trade.

I acknowledge that those involved in the trade have made improvements over recent years, but the voyage times and the journey through the tropics to the Northern Hemisphere markets will always impose animal welfare challenges. Despite the best efforts of industry and the Ministry for Primary Industries, as well as any regulatory measures that we could put in place, as long as the trade continues the risk to animal welfare will remain. We’ve also seen an increase in consumer focus on perceptions of animal welfare in a number of markets, such as the United States, the EU, and the UK. With these market-led insights in mind, recurrent, negative animal welfare incidents and reports could inflict lasting damage to New Zealand’s reputation.

I acknowledge that demand for livestock exports by sea has increased in recent years. However, as noted already, they still only amount to approximately 0.2 percent of our primary sector export revenue since 2015. The Government has set—and, you know, it’s been debated and criticised by many out there—a two-year transition period for the trade, which will end on 30 April 2023, next year. This allows stakeholders and our trading partners time to adopt alternative options and gives those farmers and others involved in the trade enough time to change their business models. We recognise the importance of our relationships with international partners and are committed to working with them to boost trade through other means. The decision to ban livestock exports by sea has been discussed with our trading partners. They are aware of why we have come to this decision. I am informed that most of the other affected parties—exporters, farmers, trading partners, and importers—are aware of the ban and understand the intent of the transition period.

During the transition period, we are continuing with improvements being made to the trade. Following the tragic loss of the Gulf Livestock 1 and an independent Heron review, a series of recommendations were implemented immediately, and longer-term improvements will continue to be implemented as part of the livestock export continuous improvement work programme. But, nonetheless, risks with long-distance travel by livestock through the tropics with the consequential heat stress and risks associated with travel through the high seas mean we must act to protect New Zealand’s reputation on animal welfare. Our commitment to high animal welfare standards has already shown its value in animal welfare discussions in free-trade agreement negotiations with the United Kingdom. They were adamant that we had to have and maintain high animal welfare standards. The same expectation is there for the European Union when we’re negotiating with them—as we are at the moment. New Zealand needs to stay at the forefront to maintain its reputation as an exporter with high standards of animal welfare.

Making this change to the Animal Welfare Act 1999 will prohibit the live exports of cattle, deer, goats, and sheep by ship from 30 April 2023. In doing so, we reinforce, and build on, New Zealand’s reputation as a safe and ethical producer of high-quality products from animal management. There are numerous images, and I know that submissions were made to the select committee that showed the conditions that are often present on these long voyages of up to three weeks. I spoke directly and rang around, before I made this decision, with people who had been on many of these voyages and reported directly from where the animals were landed, and we saw some of those images from Sri Lanka. It is absolutely essential that, if we’re to get premiums for our products in international markets, we maintain the highest standards of animal welfare and that we do not continue with the live exports of animals by ship because of the inherent risks to animal welfare and our reputation.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I rise once again to do the Government’s job for it and actually support the rural sector and the productive powerhouse of New Zealand, because neither the Government nor Minister Damien O’Connor will do it. I’d like to acknowledge the families, though, before I begin my submission this evening, who lost their lives following the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1, particularly the two New Zealanders Scott Harris and Lochie Bellerby. But this proposed law change has been prompted by an accident—a terrible, terrible maritime accident. We would acknowledge that the immediate response was appropriate, where following the tragedy the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) placed a temporary ban on live exports, which was lifted in October 2020.

But let’s remember, when the trade resumed new more rigorous animal welfare standards and reporting requirements were introduced as a result of the inquiry carried out by Michael Heron QC and Admiral Tony Parr into the trade. These new standards were well received by industry and our offshore markets, and they set a real precedent as far as global standards go. And that is the opportunity that this Parliament, and indeed this Government, have in front of it now. It is two choices: to either continue its plans for an outright ban, or take the opportunity to lead the world in welfare standards for the safe and humane trade of live animals. That is what we in the Primary Production Committee heard time and time again.

Unfortunately, though, that select committee inquiry has been nothing short of a farce. A totally predetermined outcome that has made an absolute mockery of what an inquiry should look like. The MPI departmental report actually states, and I quote, “Given the Government has made clear its commitments to the ban being in place by 30 April 2023, the recommendations in this report are intended to give effect to this decision. In MPI’s view, the bill should progress as it was presented to the House at the first reading.” Well, what a shame that that was not made clear to all the submitters who put in the time and effort to make a submission to the inquiry. They were doing their level best to make this Government see sense. Many, many industry submitters made the point that this is a largely unregulated industry, but the vast majority impressed upon us that rather than an outright ban on live exports, the Government should look to legislate for a gold standard—a quality-assurance programme that would set world-leading compliance standards.

The fact that overwhelming evidence that opposed the ban and suggested an alternative approach has been ignored is, frankly, egregious. Certainly, as the Minister acknowledged, we have heard evidence of substandard practice that no fair-minded New Zealander should tolerate. But a regime like a quality assurance programme would ensure that New Zealand exporters adopt the highest animal welfare standards in the world. Because in fact New Zealand exporters do set high standards for themselves, and repeatedly we have heard from industry that those standards can get even better.

We know for a fact that more custom-built ships land in our ports than those that have been refurbished. We also know for a fact that more ships that are less than 25 years old land in our ports, and that is the really important point. New Zealand’s current exports require high animal welfare standards, but these are not enshrined in legislation. So surely a far better option for all involved, least of all the cattle that we’re seeking to protect, is to legislate for world-leading regulations.

Now they, Minister, would include things like built-for-purpose ships with none being older than 25 years old. State-of-the-art air conditioning and air ventilation systems that don’t cause intolerable noise to animals. Vets on all vessels to ensure that welfare remains at high standards and there are multiple checks made throughout the voyage. Restricting stocking densities on vessels to about 90 percent of the limit, as the Australians have recently imposed. Increased requirements for voyage reporting, including daily vet checks and reports. Increased minimum feed and water requirements to ensure that at least 20 percent extra feed is available on ship for the inevitable delays to some voyages.

The overwhelming evidence, despite all of that that was given to us at the select committee, despite the regulatory impact statement giving two options—the improvements similar to what I’ve just mentioned, or an outright ban—the Government is still, inexplicably, determined to ban this $261 million trade. It is an emotional topic, but it needs a logical conversation and a logical, practical application. I do understand the perception that New Zealand has no control of the welfare standards of animals once they land in port in offshore jurisdictions, but again, an importer licensing regime, a quality assurance programme would help enforce New Zealand’s standards in offshore jurisdictions. And let’s be rational here, no foreign farmer paying an absolute premium for these animals are going to want them to turn up in poor condition, least of all harm them, once in-country. As vets and multiple exporters told the select committee, offshore standards are higher than perceived. A lot of these offshore jurisdictions are learning from New Zealand’s practices and Australia’s practices, and they too want to be seen as world-leading in this space. Why on earth would a—for example—Chinese farmer spend all that money shipping animals halfway around the world only for them to live a life of misery.

I’d also like to turn the attention to the Government’s very casual glossing over of the wider economic impact of this ban. To claim it is just a $260 million industry is farcical. It is grossly underestimated. The select committee asked, but would not be provided with any detailed economic analysis of the wider impact or the wider ramifications. This is an important revenue stream—yes, for breeders and farmers, but what about the knock-on effects to the truckies, the stock agents, the vets, the representatives? This is too big an industry to just impose a ban on rural New Zealand.

So to conclude with the National Party minority view, I would like to put it on the record it is the view of the National Party that the Ministry for Primary Industries needs to take a leadership role in setting and maintaining world-leading compliance standards. In order to enable this, the Government should create a quality regulatory environment to licensed operators. Rather than an outright ban of live animal exports by ship, it is the National Party view that the Government should legislate a quality assurance programme that would include but not be limited to interim recommendations made in the Heron report, as well as an industry-led gold standard assurance programme. The National Party opposes this bill in its entirety.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great surprise for me to be standing taking a call on this bill. I wasn’t on the select committee, and I understand that it was a hung select committee, so there was in fact no decision made—they weren’t able to come to a decision. I’d just like to acknowledge that it would have been a very harrowing but also interesting select committee process, which seemed as if there were two very disparate, very different viewpoints. I’d just like to acknowledge that when I take this call tonight, I have used the documents and was not involved in the process.

First and foremost, like others I would like to acknowledge the tragic loss of the 43 crew and the 6,000 head of cattle on Gulf Livestock 1. That’s a tragedy, but, let’s be very clear, that was not the reason this work was undertaken. I had a look at the Mike Heron QC report. I’d just like to read this quote, if I may. It’s in regards to the international movement of stock across borders.

“[The] transport of livestock by sea over long periods”—and, remember, it takes about 17 days to get from New Zealand to China on a boat for these stock—“is a complex and challenging exercise requiring thorough planning and diligent execution [in] all stages to ensure adequate animal welfare results. The trade is difficult to regulate, given it spans jurisdictions and the high seas and involves a myriad of international agencies, regulators, and commercial players. It involves many participants, including veterinarians, maritime surveyors, stock handlers, ship’s crews, ship owners … their agents, exporters, and various regulators. In such a context, there are no simple solutions and there is no single body or agency with ultimate control. In addition, we note the obvious: rules and regulations themselves cannot necessarily prevent tragedies and accidents.”

I put that quote on the Hansard because I think the Minister spoke very well to this point. We cannot risk the reputation—the international reputation—of New Zealand as a safe and generally grass-fed primary industry exporter to be basically throwing these animals on to ships, treating them in a manner in which we hope—and we want—them to be treated the best, but we cannot guarantee that and we cannot make a clear process, besides a regulation, to ensure their safety. Therefore this is a difficult thing to do, but it’s the right thing to do. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the member of Parliament for Southland to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Unfortunately, this is another example of the Labour Government introducing flawed legislation that’s going to have bad outcomes. It’s left to the Opposition to stand up for the farming community.

I’m just going to speak very briefly about Scott Harris and Lochie Bellerby, and extend my condolences to their family. In the case of Lochie Bellerby, the adventurous young man who was working to save up to get in to managing and buying the family farm near Te Ānau, Southland really feels his loss.

This bill amends the Animal Welfare Act 1999, and inserts a new section 41 that, “prohibits for, and the issue of, animal welfare export certificates for the export of cattle, deer, goats, or sheep by ship if the animals would leave New Zealand on or after 30 April 2023.” By prohibiting the issuing of animal welfare certificates this bill has the effect of an absolute prohibition on these exports from that date.

In April 2021, the Government announced a ban on live exports would be implemented. This was a reaction to the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1, where both animal and animal lives were lost. And I’ll just note that the Panama authorities have recently released a report on the fatal Gulf Livestock 1 sinking to New Zealand authorities. However, New Zealand authorities have not released that report to the public. I hope they do, as it’s a matter of some public interest. This was, albeit, a truly tragic maritime disaster. However, instead of enshrining an animal welfare gold standard into law, the Government has instead used this as an opportunity to shut down a significant industry for New Zealand, virtually overnight. While there have been examples in the media and in the select committee of poor practice, this does not reflect the standards of the majority of the exporters who operate built-for-purpose vessels and undertake strict monitoring on board and at destination. These exporters have also been calling for a gold standard to get rid of the small minority, like in any industry, where there’s some cowboys who don’t comply with the standards voluntarily.

In 2020, ruminant livestock exports brought over $261.5 million into the New Zealand economy, capturing a large portion of the total livestock export trade globally. This revenue is crucial to the wellbeing of New Zealand’s rural communities. It is also important to remember New Zealand’s breeding livestock, particularly dairy cattle, are highly valued in the international agricultural community, and that our high standards of animal welfare increase the desirability of our breeding livestock. Rather than legislate just to end New Zealand’s livestock export capabilities, we should develop a gold-standard approach for our livestock export capability. This could be achieved by aligning our practices with those of Australia to ensure that supreme animal welfare conditions are upheld by livestock exporters, while also preserving our stake in the livestock export market. By choosing to ban the live export trade, the Government is turning its back on animal welfare rather than taking up the opportunity to globally influence and contribute to better animal welfare into the future. The demand for livestock in established foreign markets will subside or disappear if New Zealand bans the export of live breeder cattle. Livestock will be sourced from other countries without the animal welfare support and the regulation that our law could provide for.

This legislation also overlooks another significant consequence: the New Zealand dairy herd has effectively ceased expanding. Now dairy herds reproduce for lactation purposes, and the proposed ban will see their resulting progeny becoming essentially worthless, adding to our livestock in New Zealand. The opportunity costs of these 150,000 bobby calves means that New Zealand could forgo $200 million to $300 million in direct economic benefits from the live export industry. Labour may think this income is just for farmers, but that’s incorrect; it’s for all of New Zealand. Let me use the example of David Lindsay, a sixth-generation Southland farmer in my electorate who wrote to the Primary Production Committee last year. David and his father had been supplying export cattle to several export companies for many years. David and his father are also predominantly dairy farmers. They milk their cows 365 days a year. To do this, they run a split calving system. This means calves are born in spring and summer, 65 percent of their herd is calved in spring, and they autumn calve 15 percent of their herd. The remainder of their herd, 20 percent, is made up by non-pregnant calves that they purchase from other farmers in the autumn. Now these empty, non-pregnant cows are replacement stock. Like most New Zealand dairy farmers, David’s farm does not require calves to be reared to maintain their herd, therefore the export market provides an important outlet for the calves they don’t need.

There are many benefits to the system that Southland farmers like David run. Exporting unrequired livestock improves efficiency by reducing wastage. They don’t need replacement stock to be reared. Live export cattle are wintered on feed pads. Farmers like David have actually reduced the environmental footprint by reducing the calves they rear and graze. Farmers involved in the live export trade provide employment and spend much of their income in their rural communities. David told the select committee that the revenues derived from live exports are used to support the farm’s investments and to reducing its environmental impact. And this is the thing, you’ve got to be in the black to be green. Something that I think Labour, unfortunately, forgets a lot of the time.

David’s submission also highlights that farmers in Southland and across the country strive to provide the best conditions for their animals. In David’s case, his business has invested in excellent calf-rearing facilities, chilled calf milk vats, and purpose-built stockyards for the calves. The farm also employs five calf rearers throughout the season. Further, to fatten the calves, David leases a local farm which provides a healthy rental to a local owner and provides more local employment. David’s farm turns over about $1 million, which is then reinvested back into his local community through the wages paid, the lease of farmland, the purchase of calf feed and trace elements, local vets, local farm supply providers, local tradespeople, local stock agents, and transport providers who transport animals between farms and transport facilities. This, I think, is something that Labour often forgets, is the ecosystem of our economy and the complex web of interrelated relationships that actually make the economy work; break one part of it, you break the system. It’s a real risk.

Labour does not realise that rural communities, everyday people who work hard to support their families, are going to be adversely affected by this outright ban. As a consequence of this legislation, hundreds of millions of dollars are going to be taken away from small rural communities around New Zealand. This foregone income is going to go to another country in this post-COVID environment when export income is critical to our nation’s economic recovery and to the resilience of New Zealand’s rural communities.

I also note with concern that Cabinet made its policy determination before having consulted the industry or with rural New Zealand. It is important to remember that New Zealand has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world already. Also, the Beef + Lamb New Zealand study shows that New Zealand farm produce produces only 25 percent of the global average in terms of carbon emissions. Removing New Zealand’s ability to export stock will only serve to induce demand for less carbon-efficient beef, which will ultimately increase global emissions.

Compelling evidence from cattle breeders, vets, and export industry experts has been totally ignored at the select committee. Unfortunately, this is becoming a habit from this Labour Government. There is an alternative approach to the self-destructive proposal for our economy. National believes that the livestock trade should continue but with stronger regulations through maintaining strong animal welfare standards and enhancing New Zealand’s long-term trade relationships. The Government has turned a blind eye to submitters and the points that they raised very rightly.

The live export sector directly contributed $261 million to the economy in 2020. The projected economic loss caused by such a ban has been grossly underestimated, and rural communities across New Zealand will be detrimentally impacted by both jobs and revenue loss. Food supplies and exports are becoming more important than ever in the coming years as the world faces a food crisis. The world’s food security relies, in part, on Kiwi farmers, Kiwi growers, and the Kiwi Government to be encouraging, to do their bit, and to make sure that we can export food to the world, not be hampered by their own Government.

New Zealand’s current exports require high animal welfare standards. There are ways to improve animal welfare. For example, National would support legislating for purpose-built ships, airflow standards, maximum stocking rates, minimum vet availability on board, increasing food reserves, and minimum drainage pen standards. This bill is irretrievably flawed. It threatens jobs. It threatens our rural communities, and it creates a demand in the market overseas for less carbon-efficient and less animal welfare friendly products to supply the market. National does not support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. This bill amends the Animal Welfare Act 1999 to ban the export of livestock by sea and shows the Government’s commitment to upholding New Zealand’s reputation for high standards of animal welfare.

When we talk about this bill, we talk about the overall primary industry sector, which was about $50 billion, and that’s what this bill is seeking to protect. Now, we cannot risk this. We have heard from the member that resumed his seat, Joseph Mooney, and other Opposition MPs about how this Government and this bill is going to cost jobs, is going to cost many things, but the Opposition did not—I do feel like their views are very short-sighted, because to save $200 million, risking a $50 billion sector, because this is all about reputation, and that’s what we are aiming to protect.

The ban will have a transition period of up to two years, allowing stakeholders time to change business models. This shows that something has been cooked overnight. The Government has done the review of livestock export and trade in 2019 and responded to concerns that the trade could be a risk to New Zealand’s reputation. Now, we acknowledge that the objective of the review is to provide New Zealanders an opportunity on how we can enhance the welfare of the livestock being exported. Now, we acknowledge that the farmers do benefit from the trade; however, it’s a fluctuating trade and the economic benefits are not consistent. The Ministry for Primary Industries’ report acknowledged this impact but also the view that the impact is small in the context of the overall primary sector.

New Zealand needs to stay at the forefront of the game to maintain their reputation as an exporter with a high standard of animal welfare, and this was brought up during the free-trade agreement discussions with the UK and the EU. This legislation is sensible, it’s the right one, it looks at a long-term benefit rather than the short term, it’s something that’s been designed to protect a $50 billion sector instead of $261 million. So it’s sensible, it’s the right one, I commend it to the House.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I want to start this contribution tonight with a quote from a parliamentarian in this Chamber in 2015—and I quote: “[This] bill will go some way—some way—to strengthening [the] standards of animal welfare and protecting animals from ill-treatment. But it also represents a real missed opportunity to take our legal protections for animals a lot further and to be a world leader in the area of animal welfare. I am pleased, for instance, that there will be a new “low-level” [offending] for people who [want to] hurt animals, so [that we’re] not focused just on the worst offending. We need to be focused on all offending, and this bill addresses just that. I am pleased the new regulations will specify mandatory and enforceable animal welfare standards. I am pleased that the wilful or reckless ill-treatment of wild animals will now be an offence that can be prosecuted. These were [some of the] issues [that] I raised with the Minister at the time all those years ago, so I am pleased that some of them are being addressed in this piece of legislation.”

I think that this is a really important reflection, on the Hansard, only several years ago, to bring to the Chamber tonight, because that contribution was of course from John Banks, the former leader of the ACT Party, who also in that contribution went on to say—and I quote: “Live animal exports need to be very closely monitored—indeed, if they are necessary at all, and I am not convinced.” This, of course, was during a debate in a 2015 amendment bill on the Animal Welfare Act, which was celebrated and introduced by the then National Government Minister Nathan Guy, and inserted what we now know as the welfares or the wellbeings inside of the Animal Welfare Act. That night, Nathan Guy said—and I quote: “I am very pleased to speak on the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Animal welfare matters to [all] New Zealanders. It matters because we know that animals are sentient—capable of having feelings, perceptions, and experiences.”

Referring to, I guess, the chronology of events that have led us to this tonight—and I want to acknowledge, as other parliamentarians have, the loss and devastation with a number of ships on live export routes sinking—it was in 2008, per concerns about animal welfare, that Aotearoa New Zealand initially banned live export for slaughter. Illogically, we did not extend that to live export for continued growth of those animals. It simply does not make sense to have a situation where we were comfortable, seemingly, as a Parliament and, seemingly, across parliamentary lines, to have a situation where we recognise that we could not control the animal welfare standards with regard to slaughter at the point of live export but that we were somehow willing to entertain continual enablement of live export for sake of live export, for sake of that continued growth and eventual slaughter—none of that animal welfare standard that we would be able to impose on other countries.

The main contributions from the Opposition to this legislation tonight have focused primarily on what the former speaker, Joseph Mooney, was alluding to as the so-called “ecosystem of the economy”. I’m so glad to be talking about the ecosystem of the economy, because this is a concept that the Greens have been banging on about for a really long time now. When we start to think about the economy, it’s really important that we ask ourselves “What actually is the economy?” Well, the economy, it happens, is all of us and the things that we create and the planet that we extract resources from and the relationships that we have with each other and with the planet. That former National Party speaker also went on to say that when you break one part of it, that you go on to break other parts. I think the point was that there are flow-on effects for actions that we in this House make in terms of the broader economy. To that effect, I would invite, again, National Party members to reflect on the fact that in so many areas of our economy where we’ve continued to see persistent inequality and extraction of our planet to the detriment of the literal life-support system that all of us rely on, that that ecosystem is very much out of balance, but not in the way that they would be seeking for us to entertain tonight.

They’ve also spoken about how this is, again, going to be detrimental to our economic outlook. To that effect, I would just again raise the point as put forward by the Minister and by officials that live export makes up 0.2 percent of New Zealand’s primary sector export revenue since 2015. It might also be worth thinking about the fact that European Parliaments in February 2019 voted on a series of changes representing a shift away from live export.

We have the primary piece of legislation which this bill is seeking to amend that has in it the wellbeings as initially put in by a former National Government Minister and with contributions from a former ACT Party leader, asking for it to go further and questioning whether there should continue to be the existence of live export, because it was questionable and dubious at that point in time. This cannot come soon enough. Again, I want to acknowledge the activists and the advocates who have spent so long in trying to draw the public’s attention to just this.

I also want to reflect on the Primary Production Committee report, which the Opposition has spent a long time referring to one perspective as raised at committee. But quoting from the select committee’s report it says—and I quote: “A number of submitters who supported the ban believe that it should instead take effect immediately, or as soon as possible.” Because the fact of the matter is that in that two-year phase-out period, we have continued to see dozens of ships with thousands of animals being live exported to countries with which we have no control over the animal welfare standards of at their point of arrival, let alone the questionable standards with which we continue to see some problems in that process of live export on those ships.

I also want to acknowledge my forebears in the animal welfare portfolio in the Greens, particularly Mojo Mathers—who I believe should have the honourable title—who has continued to have a lasting impact and legacy on this Parliament subsequent to her departure. She was calling for this a decade ago.

It would be remiss of me, too, to not acknowledge the incredible mahi of my colleague in the last term of Parliament and somebody who has continued to go on to advocate for animal welfare. That is of course Gareth Hughes, who accepted a petition back in 2019 from Save Animals From Exploitation from 30,000 New Zealanders begging the Government to just get on with it and phase out live exports.

I also want to acknowledge the fact that there are a number of submitters who were speaking to the reality that whilst this legislation focuses on live export via sea, there are still other types of live export—particularly those via air, which we continue to export our animals to other countries with which we do not have control over the animal welfare standards of. This, of course, was the rationale with which we ended live export for slaughter in 2008, but made the very illogical decision not to extend for live export writ large.

So again, referring to the contribution as made by my colleague in the Labour Party to those National Party MPs who continue to raise the fact that we could seek to maybe have some kind of discussions with these countries that we’re exporting to around their animal welfare standards. Once again, if you look at the Heron report, you will see very clearly—as I’m sure the National Party would understand, given their constant banging of the drum of their economic literacy—that we cannot regulate the markets internally, what’s occurring with regard to animal welfare standards in those other countries. Again, this is why we sought to do it in 2008. I’m hearing from the National Party that this is why we can seek to regulate. We can seek to regulate and licence those who are leaving our shores, absolutely. But we have next to no control over what happens when those animals arrive on that foreign soil. And that is the point.

The Greens agree with those submitters who ask for this to go further and faster, and with that I will end my contribution. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, gee whiz! What an absolute shemozzle—another ideological bill from the champagne and chardonnay socialists on the left. The Labour Government just loves to ban stuff. We’re in a cost of living crisis—find ever-increasing ways to kill off industry. This industry is worth $261 million last fiscal year, and we know, economically, it has a ripple effect—half a billion bucks, I wager anyone. This bill is purely ideological.

I also sit with my colleagues and the colleagues on the left in the Primary Production Committee. I heard multiple submissions in support of the continuation of this trade. So many submitters felt jilted. The conversation was one sided, and they weren’t being listened to. The process, they said to me, was disingenuous.

I wager anyone in this House that this is a complete departure from common sense. I am a farmer. I’ve used this trade. It’s brilliant. It creates a fiscal revenue stream for me. In the absence of anything else, I can see it being hugely problematic. It is predicated, as we well know, on the downing of the Gulf Livestock 1 ship. Tragic—we all accept there was a tragic loss of life and livestock. But this, however, has blurred the lines between the animal welfare standards in transit and the incident on that tragic day. Terrible loss of life—terrible loss of livestock. We’ve confused the lines between animal welfare and transit and the welfare at destination, and apparently the Green member, Chlöe Swarbrick, thinks that she should have oversight into foreign jurisdictions over what they do. Noted submitters, veterinarians, stakeholders, and farmer growers—it was seen by them as an erosion of all trust by Government.

If we’re not going to do it, who is? I think that’s the fundamental question. It’s not being asked. That production, Minister—you know full well—will be pushed offshore, and, by virtue of that, the animal welfare standards fall. The detractors of the trade can only espouse that. They don’t actually have an honest narrative. It spoke of our international reputation. Well, I wager anyone in this House, we are the number one farmers in the world, and our welfare standards are amongst that.

Significance was also paid to animal welfare and the sentience of animals and the five concerns in what animal welfare and the designation meant. We heard a lot of submissions. They spoke to significant mortality on farm compared to—well, no; I’ll rephrase that. They spoke to mortality being significantly less—I apologise—than on average percentage compared to farms here in New Zealand. How do you justify that? I can’t make sense of this.

It spoke to condition score gains—now half a condition score. I’m not sure if the members on that side of the House actually know what a condition score is—crickets. They don’t know. They actually don’t know. Have they ever been on a farm? This is the interesting thing. That speaks to weight gain, for the individuals on the other side of the House.

Investment in pre-departure conditioning: the tens of thousands of man hours that go into this trade every year to secure that reality. Rural communities and jobs—we heard from submitters—and the employment it created across rural New Zealand. This will totally erode that.

Notably—and I think the members on the right-hand side of the House would agree with me—there will be a glut on the bobby market. We absolutely know it. There’s going to be another 150,000 to 200,000-odd bobby calves going into the trade. Arguably, the left side of the House doesn’t care about that, but, hey, look, that’s their burden to contend with. Further overburden of the meat sector, that’s what we heard, and I think that’s what needs to be addressed.

Submitters noted conditions on board with purpose-built ships and the average age of the training fleet.

Now, I’m cognisant, and the people on the right side of the House are cognisant, there is the capacity to have a regulated gold standard. The Heron report spoke to the continuation of the trade, which we all canvassed in select committee, worth hundreds of millions of dollars. We are in a cost of living crisis. This is not the time to shrink this trade. It absolutely speaks to localised, rural economies, and, arguably—I wager anyone—this Government is totally turned off to the rural sector.

The industry absolutely agrees there’s always the capacity to do more to speak to that gold standard. Changes on 1 June that were proposed, 2021: the Ministry for Primary Industries implemented a new minimum conditions code—and again, I reiterate that the left-hand side of the House doesn’t understand that concept. Have a minimum live weight of 200 kilograms—well, I spend a lot of time with livestock, and I can tell you 200 kilos is a yearling. The average size of these animals is significantly more than that. Decrease the minimum/maximum stage of pregnancy—well, anyone who’s farming understands the concept of in-calf cattle going offshore and the mitigations that would have to be employed in the process. The new requirements for drafting—fair enough, absolutely. This is the kind of facilitation and logic that the rural sector can employ when being challenged to improve.

The 1 November 2021 changes: bulls and heifers to be kept separately pre-export—well, gosh, anyone farming knows that concept. I mean, this is the reality, these are the challenges met, these are the mitigations that can be put in place—and recently mated heifers to be given an extra 15 percent on board by area—absolutely, damnably good stuff. The ability to self-regulate, work within a gold standard, and continue this trade, prescriptions on purpose-built ships, facilitation of purpose-built ventilation, specialised effluent disposal, increased bedding areas per square metreage in transit, and the animal production numbers needed to facilitate this trade forward, will only create further revenue to a depressed—and oppressed, by that of the left—economy. Adequate and increased food storage for considered delays that may happen during voyage and at sea—absolutely. This speaks to the gold standard this Government has totally overlooked.

ACT believes in the consistent principled approach of objectives to further improve animal welfare. We are the number one country that speaks to ruralists in determining animal welfare, and it can only get better with further oversight. ACT would absolutely repeal this ban as part of any Government. In a contracted economy, it is not time for an ideological, political, pontificating crew out of the left to ban this trade, and it’s a further beat-up of the primary sector. It’s absolute, total malarkey. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This bill, the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, amends the Animal Welfare Act of 1999 to ban the exports of livestock—cattle, deer, goats, and sheep—by sea. And it shows this Government’s commitment to upholding New Zealand’s reputation for high standards for animal welfare. That was most apparent in the over 600 submissions that the Primary Production Committee—

💬 Nicola Grigg: You weren’t there.

—heard, in particular. But I do have the report, funnily enough. A number of submitters commented on the effect of the ban on New Zealand’s reputation. And submitters were quite concerned as to how New Zealand’s reputation for high standards on animal welfare would fare if we continued this practice.

In particular, submitters were concerned that this reputation is, in fact, being undermined by livestock export as New Zealand cannot ensure the welfare of those stock at the end of the line. That was made most apparent in that incident—that’s been discussed more than once in this debate around live exports who died—when the Gulf Livestock 1, with 43 crew members and nearly 6,000 cattle, capsized in the South China Sea after leaving New Zealand in 2020. We need to remember that because that is a risk that continues to happen.

But that’s not only what happened. During that submission period, we also heard about the conditions that cattle experience: inadequate ventilation causing heat stress and cold stress; water and feed troughs that are incorrect and can’t feed properly, they can’t get access to food and water during the trip; lack of facilities to handle animals for veterinary treatment, they can’t get proper medical treatment; inadequate effluent management systems causing effluent accumulation; inappropriate pen surfaces, such as concrete, causing skin lesions and lameness, and interrupting essential animal behaviours—these are not good aspects to be having in terms of our international reputation.

I commend the Minister for taking a stance to phase out live exports—he’s done a fantastic job. By having a good transitional period in place to give the sector time to adjust, we know that we can continue to be the clean, green country that we are, and have a good reputation to trade well at a great level internationally. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in opposition of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill which seeks to allow this Government to ban the export of livestock, cattle, deer, sheep, and goats by sea—taking effect 30 April 2023.

Like many others, I do want to acknowledge the families who lost loved ones in the Gulf Livestock 1. In particular, I want to acknowledge the Bellerby family from Southland who lost their son and brother Lochie Bellerby in this tragic maritime accident. From the review that resulted from this maritime tragedy, there were two approaches that this Government could have taken. The first one was to continue the trade but with stronger regulations, maintaining strong animal welfare standards and enhancing New Zealand’s long-term trade relations. Now, National obviously agrees with that approach—a gold standard with changes to perhaps stocking density, increases in reporting from vets, increases in minimum fodder requirements, things that could have made a real difference to animal welfare. But instead of working with the primary industry on a complex issue to bring about workable solutions, this Government chooses to ban it. To shut off $261 million of revenue and the wider financial implications for the rural sector. I guess throwing away $260 million is nothing to a Government that wastes billions. So it meant nothing to them.

The issue here is that this Government has taken the lazy way out. They wouldn’t sit down and work with the primary sector. They wouldn’t try and work to save a source of revenue for this country, and they wouldn’t try and improve animal welfare by doing things that took a little bit more time. Because if we don’t do it here in New Zealand, we can close our eyes and it’s obviously not going to be happening anywhere else. So the Primary Production Committee ignored science, ignored evidence from cattle breeders, from vets, from experts in the export industry.

This virtue signalling isn’t new to this Government. Let’s have a look at the pork industry where such stringent animal welfare regulations have been put in place that now we import 60 percent of the pork that we eat in this country. Sixty percent of the pork that is eaten in this country is imported from countries that have lesser animal welfare standards than we do. So closing your eyes and saying it’s not happening here, it’s not a problem in the world anymore just isn’t the case. It is absolute nimbyism—“It’s not happening in my backyard.”

Last night we had the pastoral lease amendment bill, and when we started talking about the high country farming families, we heard laughing and scoffing from the other side of the House. They scoffed at any anguish that was causing to those high country farmers. Well, I want to read some excerpts from an email that was sent to me from one of my constituents. And I may not get it all read and I apologise to them. It goes: “Live exports, what it means to us. Here on the farm the ability to live export is important to us both financially and, more importantly, emotionally. Each year we sell about 70 jersey heifers and they go to China. Without this market, those very heifers have no future. Here is the choice for our spring-born surplus heifers: we could sell them on the bobby calf truck at four days of age.”—probably on the other side of the House they don’t know what bobby calves are, they are calves four days old—“We would get income less than the cost of the milk they drank in the four days. It’s horrific to think that animals of four days of age should be killed to save them from a life as a profitable breeding cow in a sophisticated operation in China.” I could go on, but obviously I haven’t got time. But we oppose the—[Time expired]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Jamie Strange.

As much as I would like to hear more from the previous speaker, unfortunately we have, as you’ve indicated, run out of time, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this piece of legislation. We have heard quite a bit in this debate around the topic of trade. As we know, as a small country at the bottom of the planet we are very reliant on trade. We need to be aware of the global perceptions that are changing. As a race of humans, we are continuing to change the way that we operate and there is a global change in terms of animal welfare. It’s important that we stay ahead of this curve as this change takes place. More and more people are expressing their concern about animal welfare. It’s important that we are a world leader in this area.

I’ve heard the Minister the Hon Damien O’Connor talk about “volume-to-values”. We hear a lot about “volume-to-value”, but “volume-to-values”, whereby the values that we uphold are important for us to be leaders in the world. This is an example of us being a leader for the rest of the world; sensing the tea leaves, in terms of the global perceptions that are changing. This is an important piece of legislation as we lead the world in this area. I commend it to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for that. Look, I was very, very lucky to sit on a portion of the submissions on this bill and the members on the other side are right—there were, of course, people who submitted in support of the bill. As someone who doesn’t often sit on the Primary Production Committee I was surprised to hear some of the arguments in favour of the bill, which were, essentially, that not that many cattle died in the 14 or so days that it takes to transport the cattle from New Zealand to the overseas market. Given that the animals had to be in prime health to be put on board, I was surprised that any cattle mortality at all was acceptable. But what was never alluded to by those submitters was the fact that 14 days in a stall, crammed into a cargo vessel through the Tropics was in and of itself traumatic. The animal welfare issues there are significant. So it was good that even prior to the tragedy that we’ve heard so much about how this Government was looking at this issue and it was precipitated by that horrific tragedy.

So look, animal welfare is important. We do want to be world-leading in that area and our farmers, by and large, are outstanding at looking after the welfare of their cattle and other stock. This is just an additional piece of that puzzle so that New Zealand can lead the world in its farming practices across the world. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I first wanted to mention this evening the loss of life on the Gulf Livestock 1 ship, particularly the human life, but obviously an awful maritime accident happened which saw a whole shipload of animals go down.

But having said that, and going through this process, I would have to say that this is probably one of the worst select committee experiences that I’ve had, and it is definitely the worst select committee experience I’ve had on the Primary Production Committee. I want to say that this is not a reflection on our chair, Jo Luxton—Jo is a very good chair of the committee. But what actually happened on this committee is that the members of the Government were sent to the committee without the ability to change anything.

So last night we were sitting in the House talking on the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill, and the Minister actually made a comment to the people on this side of the House and said, “Why are you putting up Supplementary Order Papers? Why did you not make an effort at the committee to change this piece of legislation?” Well I can tell you that—that wasn’t the Primary Production Committee, that was the Environment Committee, but I can tell you the opposite effect has actually happened on this committee. This [Holds up a stack of papers] is a pile of absolutely wasted submissions. And it was very embarrassing sitting there as a select committee member, watching good people coming in and making submissions, knowing that those submissions were going to make no progress because nobody was listening at the other end.

Now, we as a committee also heard some submissions from examples of welfare on some ships that needed to be improved, and none of us would disagree with that. There were some of those ships that shouldn’t be sailing with animals on it, and there were some of those ships that should not be allowed to continue. However, we saw some exemplar examples, and we heard from the industry about ships that were built for purpose—for animals, less than 25 years old, that could be used. They were talking about the amount of feed on the ship; the extension of five days extra feed in case there was a hold-up to make sure the animals weren’t going hungry. We heard from vets and we heard people working on those ships, and we know that this process can be done extremely well.

But of course, this Government decides that they want to ban it. Actually, this is despite advice from the Ministry for Primary Industries in the first instance, and maybe the two Ministers sitting over the other side of the House—Damien O’Connor and Megan Woods—should learn a lesson one from the other. Minister Woods actually decided that she was going to ban offshore oil and gas permits, and that resulted in a whole heap of Indonesian coal. Banning things is not the answer.

So if I look at the regulatory impact statement here, “Any move to prohibit the export of livestock would cause an economic loss to these groups, and make recovery from COVID-19 more difficult in the rural communities where livestock exports provide an additional source of income. For some individual businesses, that impact is likely to be significant.” And it wasn’t just the businesses we heard about; we had submitters come in from rural communities. I specifically remember Mark Cameron, a man from one of the communities up in Northland, that talked about the ripple effect of what would happen to those people in his rural community if these livestock exports were to be banned. Unfortunately, the Minister for Rural Communities, who is also the Minister of Agriculture, took no notice of that and it didn’t make any difference.

So it said, likewise—and we hear all the time about “this is going to ruin our reputation”. Now, we teased that out with various people in the committee, including the Minister, and all anyone could tell us—we asked for evidence, we asked the Ministry for Primary Industries for evidence, for somebody to quantify that this was going to ruin our reputation. The only thing we heard from people was, “Well, the Minister said.” Even I think the Minister himself told us that it was his opinion, and he’d been talking to people. He had no facts, he had no statistics, and he had no quantifiable evidence. It was the Minister’s opinion that this was going to happen. So the Minister made a case that it was going to affect our trade. But on page 2 here, when I look at the regulatory impact statement, it said, “Likewise, if the trade was to be banned, we could damage our reputation with trading partners, especially in the countries where trade is used to help the importing country meet its poverty reduction or rural economic growth policy objectives.”

So I want to say what a shocking process this was. I do feel for those people who came in and made very, very, very genuine submissions, coming into that room to make a submission, thinking that they were adding value to the parliamentary process, only to be ignored.

What I’m also disappointed about tonight is: where are the members of the Primary Production Committee? The Government’s put other speakers up on this bill today. I will note that Dr Duncan Webb said that he had, in part, sat on the committee occasionally. But it almost seems like—are people actually not wanting to get up and speak about their decision, because they were actually put there to carry out the Minister’s instructions?

Livestock exports form part of a network of trading activities that create and foster relationships and a customer base that support New Zealand’s broader international trade objectives. We hear a lot, over the other side of the House, about how we can’t guarantee what happens to those animals when they get to the other side. People are paying mega-money for these animals. They are paying a fortune. For those animals, by the time they leave the country, they need to be travelled, they need to be in tip-top condition. Who in their right mind would take a ship of animals that the buyer at the other end was going to refuse to take? It just doesn’t happen. They actually pay very good money, and when they get to the other end, why would they not want to look after the animals, why would they want to abuse them, why would they waste money?

We asked a lot of questions, actually, about food security in the countries where those animals are being exported to, and particularly in this time now, even since we did this, the world has ended up in a different place around food security. We’ve got some awful things going on where Russia’s having a full-on attack with Ukraine. Ukraine actually has 30 percent of our wheat. We hear about canola, but also not all of that food that’s produced in those countries up there is going to humans; some of it is going to animals. There’s going to be quite a dire need in the Northern Hemisphere.

If the Minister really thinks that we can ban this trade, just like Minister Woods thought we could ban the exports and now we’re importing coal from Indonesia, if the Minister thinks that he can shut his eyes and think that if we ban this in New Zealand where we have some top-class exporters who work in with exporters in Australia, that other people are not going to do it, then he can think again. I remember clearly the Minister basing this on trade. Well, Minister, Australia still do this. Australia got trade agreements before we did. So where on earth did that argument come from? This is absolutely based on the Minister’s opinion. I honestly say that if the Minister, in future, is going to run a select committee where the submitters are going to come in and not be heard, then why have a select committee process at all? It’s absolutely appalling that the public and the farmers of New Zealand, and the cattle traders, would be treated in this way. It was the most appalling select committee that I’ve been part of in my whole eight years in Parliament. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Good evening, Barbara. I am Zooming in—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! When a member refers to another member, they will use their full name.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good evening, Barbara Kuriger, fellow member of the Primary Production Committee. I’m Zooming in from Hastings, where I just attended the Hawke’s Bay Federated Farmers annual meeting. And I took the opportunity to talk to farmers about the fact that I was going to be speaking on this bill tonight. And unlike the continual negativity that I have heard from the National Party, talking about how the entire farming industry of the country is against this bill, I have to say that several farmers that I spoke to tonight agreed.

But if you needed a reason to actually realise why we are banning the live export of animals, I recommend to every New Zealander to read the last submission of the 640 that we heard in the Primary Production Committee. That was made by an anonymous submitter who—and I will read just a small bit from it, but I recommend you read it before you make any more comment: “The following submission reflects my recent journey in the last 18 months as an experienced cattle veterinarian on board a live export ship carrying thousands of cattle to China.” During this visit, this experienced veterinarian speaks about the harrowing ordeal that was experienced on the ship just recently. This ship was a container vessel, and these container vessels that were converted represent the most vessels that come into New Zealand. In fact, actually, it says here purpose-built vessels in the last two years were used 23 times and converted vessels were used 27 times. So the majority of these ships are converted container vessels. This vet talked about having to euthanise cattle, this vet talked about the conditions, the heat stress, and several things that had to be spoken about anonymously.

So I came into this select committee with an open mind. When you read submissions and you see the photos, you can see those members on the National Party, those members of the ACT Party, you’re only opposing this because—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): All right. Order! Order! The member will refrain from bringing the Speaker into the debate. And just while I’m at it, the sound level of this remote call is a bit low, and some of the barracking is drowning out, and I’m struggling to hear the speaker. Every person in this House deserves to be heard, so could we just turn the volume up or turn the volume down.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Given people haven’t been able to hear my speech via Zoom because of the shouting from the National Party, I will let this submission that I have just talked about—which every single New Zealander, if you’ve ever had a doubt on why we are banning live exports should read, from an experienced vet in cattle who had to speak anonymously just to get the story out there. That is why I fully support the banning of this export. Thank you, Madam Speaker.