Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Chair.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: This’ll be good.

Mark Mitchell, don’t distract me. During the remaining course of this committee stage, the National Party intends to put up a variety of options to the Minister, and, indeed, the Director-General of Primary Industries, that would ask them—particularly the Minister—to consider options that might look like regulation, licensing, permitting, and certifying kinds of regimes. Look, we know on this side of the House that, in its heart of hearts, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) believes that New Zealand can indeed continue the export of live animals in a safe, humane, fair, cruelty-free way.

The ministry itself, in 2020, came out with its own recommendations that would enable this trade to continue in a safe, humane, fair way. The ministry has drawn on the recommendations made by Michael Heron QC after the terrible accident of 2019 that would allow for this trade to continue. On this side of the House, we believe that this ban, as has been announced, is a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible, terrible accident. But we also believe that, since the ban was announced, this country is now operating in a completely different trade and export environment. This is an extremely inflexible ban. It does not allow for the economic ramifications that have been found out to be far more factual than has been demonstrated by the ministry. It is our view that the ministry has been lazy in its reporting of the economic ramifications on rural New Zealand. The ministry says it would be a $261 million loss to rural New Zealand. Well, from investigations and research pulled together by Infometrics, it now transpires it’s more likely to be a $475 million per annum hit to rural New Zealand. Therefore, as I said in my opening remarks, this side of the House wants to put up today options for the Minister to consider that might allow for the Director-General of MPI to have or to be able to draw on a licensing regime, a permitting regime, a certification regime.

So I turn the Minister’s and the House’s attention to clause 10. We would like to put forward new section 48A in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 205 under my name. It would insert new section 48A. As I said, this will, hopefully, contend with the economic ramification of this ban. We would like to see, on this side of the House, inserted in this bill requirements for regulations permitting the application for and approval of animal welfare export certificates by the director-general. The reason we feel so strongly about this is that there absolutely is a way New Zealand can continue this trade in a fair and humane way. Importantly, though, it would set New Zealand in a position to be a world leader in this trade area. We do not believe that a ban of New Zealand live exports to offshore jurisdictions will solve the problem of inhumane trade that is occurring from other jurisdictions around the world. We would like to see a Supplementary Order Paper 205 considered by the Minister today, please. It introduces an exemption mechanism whereby individual exports of live cattle can be granted on a case by case basis. We would ask the Minister to consider that. It will allow for regulations to be made that permit the granting of animal welfare export certificates. Thus, it gives the director-general the flexibility to authorise, or not, export shipments that would meet world-leading standards.

We believe that this will continue the preservation of global food security in an environment where we have a war in Europe. Estimations are about 100,000 cattle will be lost to that. We have a foot-and-mouth outbreak in the likes of Indonesia, and estimations are 50,000 cattle will be culled. We firmly maintain this live export trade must be allowed to continue from New Zealand to countries that are permitted and regulated in accordance to a standardised system that we will discuss as we go through this committee stage. So my question to the Minister: has he given consideration to the likes of SOP 205, whereby the director-general would be allowed an exemption regime and a certification regime?

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I’ll take the opportunity to answer the questions put on that particular Supplementary Order Paper. Look, just to re-emphasise the fact that Government is moving in this area for the very reason that the member puts up, which is that we are in a different trade and export environment—quite true. Actually, the people who buy our products offshore are often paying a premium from a country where they expect we run the highest standards across all our production systems, so we have to ensure that that is true. Look, what I can do is refer to where, just in recent times, of course, we’ve had issues of non-payment, of uncertainty around the trade within New Zealand itself. That has created litigation that is not systemic, but it is indicative of the challenges around this opportunistic trading that we have.

Again, 15,000 sheep drowned on another ship in the Sudan, with the point being that across the globe, there has been growing concern around the issue of live exports. I think that we will see more, as we have clear indications from other countries that they will be looking to restrict, if not ban, the export of live animals.

The issue for New Zealand is that it is such a long distance from many of the markets that we have traditionally supplied. The issue of heat stress and the issue of animal welfare is something we can’t ensure in those journeys, which is why we are moving to ban this to give clarity to those people who want to breed, farm, and process animals in our country, so that we have certainty moving forward.

I’m going to go to Mark Cameron, but, before I do, I just need to correct a statement I made earlier. When I introduced the questions, I said that clauses 3 to 12 and the Schedule will stand part. What I should have said was that new clauses 2A to 12 and the Schedule will stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, you and I are very collegial. But for the love of all things common sense, how can you reconcile this piece of legislation?

It’s predicated, I believe, on the downing of Gulf Livestock 1. You’ve used the word “animal welfare”. My colleague on the right side of the House, Nicola Grigg, alluded to welfare and the massive improvements that have happened in this trade. Minister. I honestly believe this bill is ideological. You’re blurring the lines between animal welfare in transit and the tragedy of the sinking of a ship.

As a question, go back to 2015 and 2016. I’m not sure if you remember what the dairy payout was, but I was still farming—actually, I’d been farming at that point for about 25 years. It was $3.90 and finished up at $4.30. This was the reason, this trade, that I managed to be above board and not below, and that’s thousands of farmers that use this trade—so certainly hundreds at that point. This kept their bottom lines afloat.

But I want to offer you some quotes by farmers that were using this trade and continue to use this trade. Farmer producers potentially out of business. Farmhands, calf growers, livestock handlers, feed suppliers, vets—these are all people that are potentially going to be affected by the nullification of this trade. Exporters, livestock agents—wonder how many livestock agents around the country are now going to lose 15 percent, 20 percent of their trade—transport operators, and the list goes on.

The member on the right side of the House, Nicola Grigg, alluded to $261 million. Well, I wager anyone worth their salt: it’s half-a-billion dollars. We are in a cost of living crisis. Rural New Zealanders have seen fuel’s gone up—and we’ve canvassed before—fertiliser’s gone up, and there’s all manner of red tape the rural sector is now being slated or having to face.

How do you justify half-a-billion dollars, potentially, going out of the sector? And can you please clarify how all these people that are in this, embroiled—or, better word—part of this trade are going to fiscally come out of the other side better off? Why would you not agree with Mike Heron and the Ministry for Primary Industries assertions that this trade could continue under an adopted gold standard? Because I think this side of the House, and hundreds of farmers around rural New Zealand, deserve a better answer than this we’ve been given.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just following on from some of Mr Cameron’s questions, Minister. I’ve got the regulatory impact statement (RIS) in front of me and it basically says—as the RIS acknowledges—that prior to the 2019 review, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) had limited data regarding the welfare of livestock during the voyage and post-arrival. And it talks about the limited research available of livestock exports on our reputation.

So the first question is: if there was no data to back up this decision, then I would like to know the comments that the Minister’s made on several occasions about it damaging our reputation—what data and input did the Minister use? Because in the regulatory impact statement, there is very little. Also, according to this, MPI has undertaken the 2019 review on the presumption that transporting animals in and of itself does not necessarily have an adverse effect on animal welfare.

So there’s a lot of questions around this saying that prior to 2020 in that review, MPI did not have a lot of data and they certainly did a shift on the way through this, in terms of their position. So I would like the Minister to be very clear with us, over on this side of the House but also with the industry, as to what was the basis of making this decision, because it wasn’t clear data and evidence. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to the Supplementary Order Paper in my name—181—which is about extending the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to ban the export of live eels by both sea and by air.

I am really supportive of the work that the Government and the Minister has done to introduce the bill to the House and the work that he and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) are doing to progress the legislation and end the really unhealthy trade in cattle, sheep, deer, and goats and any exports of them by sea.

But there’s the more fundamental issue that we have—longfin and shortfin eel—longfin eel are at risk and declining. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, former commissioner, Dr Jan Wright, in her report, On a pathway to extinction?, highlighted the impact that commercial fishing is having on the welfare of eel populations in Aotearoa and questions the stock assessments that have been done by MPI.

These eels are largely exported at the moment, but they have very little revenue that’s associated with that. For the year ending 31 March 2022, the export revenue for eel and eel products was $2.4 million. There is much more value in eels swimming live in streams and lakes around Aotearoa than being exported in polystyrene boxes to end up on some diner’s plate in Korea, Belgium, Europe, and elsewhere. The other key animal welfare issue here is that there are no regulations around how the eel will be killed for those that are exported live.

But the fundamental concern of the Greens is that eels are better swimming alive. I know the Minister has raised previously that there hasn’t been consultation with iwi, but in terms of exports, eel—tuna—are, of course, a customary fish, but they are usually eaten here in Aotearoa for customary purposes, not exported.

So I really encourage the Minister to seriously consider this Supplementary Order Paper, which seeks to protect the status of these magnificent creatures, which only breed once in their life—and that is at the end of their life when they do an extraordinary journey to the sea trenches of Tonga to breed, where they can live to 80 years or more—why they should be caught, exported for a very small amount of revenue, killed, their population affected, when they are an at-risk and declining species in the case of longfin; and why the Minister won’t consider expanding the bill to cover the live export of eels, because that would be doing something for a species that is at severe risk of going to extinction.

Look, Mr Chair, thank you. I’ll start on the live eels one, and I appreciation the Greens’ concern for our longfin eels; indeed, all of us should have concerns for them. There is a limited quota capacity that is calculated on the basis that it’s a sustainable catch, available to iwi and to other fishers across the country. Some of them are, indeed, exported.

The Animal Welfare Act does cover animals, but there is exclusion for fish for a number of reasons. If we were to include and bring fish into the Animal Welfare Act and under this jurisdiction—maybe the changes that she proposed—it does require quite a lot of policy consideration. I’m not saying that it should not occur, but it would be ad hoc to bring it in at this stage and, indeed, the member, given her luck, will probably put in a private member’s bill and it might come up. I invite her to do that.

Look, there is a longfin eel strategy that is due to be released, and I think we look forward to that. I think that that will give us a clearer indication to ensure that, firstly, the quota available is a sustainable one. I think Minister for Oceans and Fisheries would be open to, you know, changes to that or working with the Department of Conservation to make sure that we haven’t got that figure wrong. But just simply supporting the Supplementary Order Paper without having done the policy work around inclusion of fish, we think, would be a step too far. But I acknowledge the concern that she has, and actually many others and most of us in the House should have, for that.

Can I just go back to the question around data. I accept actually leading into the early stages of this whole area of concern, there wasn’t very good data. Indeed, when I looked, the so-called reports had been sanitised. I had major issues with that within the department and with the system that we had that didn’t deliver us accurate reports on what was happening on some of these voyages, which, I have to say, was probably a culture carried over from the previous National Government—but I’m not going to get into that.

Can I say that that sanitisation—and again I’ve had to really push, and we have had, through the transition period that we have allowed the industry to move away from this. We have been getting better information and it has identified ongoing issues of heat stress and, of course, of lameness, which are the two areas of most concern, I think, from an animal welfare perspective.

Because we do have animals that are going from a temperate climate—often they might be in Southland, or somewhere, or South Canterbury—where many of them are loaded on to boats and they’re put on to these vessels. They are cramped. They go through tropical environments. The heat stress has been acknowledged in numerous submissions to the Primary Production Committee, one of which is a personal submission from one of the vets on board—acknowledging that those people on board were doing their very, very best in really challenging circumstances.

The idea that if the animals get hot you might hose them, in fact, would create a spike in humidity which would add to it. So all of these things that might be considered—

💬 Barbara Kuriger: This is not on all ships, Minister. Not on all ships.

Oh, really? Oh, is that right? The member over there knows; she’s been on one of the boats, I’m sure.

I think that if you look through some of the issues that have been brought to the attention of the select committee and certainly myself, on balance, what we are saying is that we can’t afford to put New Zealand’s reputation as good managers of our livestock and our livestock protein production system—upholding, adhering to, and promoting the highest standards of animal welfare. We can’t put our reputation at risk and continue.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve never heard such an elaboration on the truth in this House in my two short years.

I’ve got several questions for the Minister because he just doesn’t seem to quite be answering any questions from this side of the Chamber. I want to refer to clause 10, which amends the Act, which effectively prohibits the director-general from issuing any certifications or exemptions. So I’ve put up Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 204 under my name, which seeks to insert new clause 10A and new section 48A. Now, within this is the gold nugget that this Government so needs: new section 48A requires that the director-general must review requirements to meet animal welfare standards for the export of live cattle.

We’ve heard the horror stories, Minister. I’ve sat on the Primary Production Committee. I’ve heard of the lameness, I’ve heard of the heat stress, I’ve heard of the reverted container ships that make animals suffer heat stress because there is not ventilation, and that there is no air conditioning and there are rough-cast concrete floors. We’ve heard it, and it was awful. No right-minded New Zealander would tolerate or accept that, but you, as Government, have an opportunity to rectify it. You have an opportunity to ensure only built-for-purpose ships are allowed to continue with this trade.

So under new section 48A, this would require within three months of this thing coming into force—which, let’s not forget, is the end of April next year. By my count, April, May, June, July—so by July 2023, Minister, we’re probably going to be in campaign mode by then, given we may or may not have an election in about September. So there’s a lot of good that you could do if you do decide to incorporate this into the law. Within three months of this section coming into force, the director-general must undertake a review of and report to the Minister on whether standards could be applied to the live export of cattle for breeding purposes.

Now, I know many of us have referred to it, but that’s because it really is worth looking at. So my questions to the Minister are: has he considered the Australian gold standard of live-export trade? Has he considered regulations that would require low-regulated stocking densities in the world, specialist training for stockmen and vets, the phasing out of pregnant cattle for export, a contingency of fodder and provisioning to ensure welfare is maintained during unforeseen delays, and a responsible vessel owner programme that would include the ventilation, the air conditioning, the stocking densities, the nice flooring, and the built-for-purpose drainage that would mean cattle aren’t standing in their own effluent?

It is all here for you, Minister. It is literally a cut-and-paste job if you were to accept SOP 204 under my name that would require your director-general to at least consider it. It is foolhardy to not consider it. The ramifications of cancelling this export are going to be widespread. I referred before to the $460 million of direct economic impact per year on our rural communities—that is 3,000 jobs. If you can implement this in regulation, in law, this is only good for New Zealand, it is only good for our export earnings, and, actually, it is only good for cattle-breeding offshore. Please do consider SOP 204.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to carry on, if I may, from Nicola Grigg’s point as in a line of questioning. The mortality rate on-ship was actually lower than the average dairy farm and beef unit in New Zealand. It was so low it was almost non-measurable, but none the less it was measured. It was very slight. In the submissions process, when we were listening to submitters coming in, I was asking questions of veterinarian practices in and around the trade and what animal welfare looked like, and the five parameters or metrics that they used. In part of that line of questioning, I asked them about dry matter and kilos of live-weight gain and/or condition score—and I’m sure with your farming background, Mr Chairperson McKelvie, you understand the concept of condition score.

When I was querying the palletised food and the overall wellbeing to animals in transit, they were telling me that, on average, half a condition score was gained by virtue of the nature of the sedentary travel. They agreed—many, many submitters agreed—with the adoption of the gold standard as proposed: increased storage of fodder, a greater metred area per animal, purpose-built ships, baffled-effluent storage, increased ventilation. These animals actually fared better in transit than many of their animal cousins and brothers and sisters here in New Zealand. How can you reconcile that—and these are from registered veterinary practitioners that check the animal welfare pre-departure and post-arrival—because none of what is being presented here today reconciles the facts. The facts speak to that the overall wellbeing and mortality of the animals is lower in transit than it is on the average farm here in New Zealand.

The time has come for me to report progress, which I shall do as we’ll adjourn for lunch.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.