Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Is there a legislative statement? No.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to thank the members of the Primary Production Committee, especially the chair and vice-chair, for their time and effort in considering this bill and for returning it to the House prior to the revoking of the current regulations on farrowing crates and mating stalls. I also want to acknowledge the submitters who took their time to express their views on this bill.

This bill will mean pig farmers will operate under new animal welfare standards that will be amongst the most highest in the world and, most importantly, where they will, finally, have some regulatory certainty so that they can invest in their business and their animals.

The bill proposes three key changes to regulations of the Animal Welfare Act, and will ensure that we have massively strengthened animal welfare rules, as well as have a viable New Zealand pork sector. Changes to Regulation 25 will increase the minimum space requirements for grower pigs by 13.3 percent. This increased space provides sufficient room for pigs to lie comfortably, move freely, avoid other pigs, and gives room for separate dunging areas.

With Regulation 26, the bill decreases the maximum period that sows may be confined in crates, down from 33 days at the moment, to a maximum of three days prior to farrowing, and four days post-farrowing. It will also ensure that sows must be provided with manipulatable and deformable materials in all cases. Provision of these materials is an important addition to farrowing practices, as this enables sows the opportunity to perform their strong drive to engage in nesting behaviours. These changes will optimise welfare outcomes for sows and piglets. The rules will limit the amount of time that sows can be confined in crates, to focus on when the piglets are most vulnerable during their first few days of life, while also managing the risk of them being crushed or savaged.

The other key change is to Regulation 27, which sets the requirements for the use of mating stalls. Currently, sows may be confined in mating stalls for up to one week per cycle. This restricts their normal behaviours of social interaction and free movement. The bill reduces this to three hours at any one time. These changes reflect good practice and can be implemented by pig farmers relatively quickly.

The proposals in the bill are consistent with the purposes of the Act. The Act requires that animals’ physical health and behavioural needs are met, including the opportunity to display normal patterns of behaviour and protection from and rapid diagnosis of any significant injury or disease. The Act takes a welfare-based approach, allowing the humane treatment of animals when kept for food, research, or entertainment. The Act is deliberate in this way and does not take an animal rights approach that would not allow humans to benefit from keeping animals. From that animal welfare perspective, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) determined that the temporary crate use meets the obligations of the Act.

In bringing these proposals forward, I’m required to ensure that the changes are in accordance with good practice and scientific knowledge. MPI has considered good practice and scientific knowledge in the development of these regulations and is satisfied that the proposals meet the purposes of the Act.

This topic has long been a contentious issue of debate. I acknowledge that a good number of people opposed the bill at select committee, with a particular focus on the proposal to allow the continued use of farrowing crates. In general, those submitters believed the industry should transition to free-farrowing systems without crating. I further acknowledge, for many, that the idea of animals being in environments where they’re not roaming free in green grass is not what they have in mind for farming in New Zealand. What I say to those people is that the much more limited use of farrowing crates that we will have is the best outcome for animal welfare, because it balances the welfare of the sow and the piglet.

In submissions, the pork sector did show strong support for the proposals in the bill, but they also acknowledged that the transition would not be easy. I understand that there was agreement from most submitters on the proposal to limit the use of mating stalls, and that few submitters engaged on the proposal to increase spacing requirements for grower pigs. So I’m aware these changes may not be agreed with by everyone, but I have considered all the factors and have concluded they are necessary.

The proposals in the bill align with New Zealand’s international obligations and will uphold our reputation as a country with high animal welfare standards. In most European countries, Australia, the United States of America, and Canada the use of farrowing crates is allowed for up to four weeks. The passage of this bill will take us beyond those countries in terms of the welfare of pigs. I have heard from submitters that New Zealand should be emulating Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland, which have transitioned to free farrowing systems. However, even in these countries, they still allow the limited use of farrowing crates when a sow is restless or aggressive. Unlike producers in many other countries, pig farmers in New Zealand operate without subsidies and they are a pretty small sector in comparison to the industries in most other countries. The changes in this bill will maintain New Zealand’s international reputation and consumer confidence in our production standards.

To achieve the best balance between high standards of animal welfare and supporting farmers, I will be proposing two minor amendments to the bill, via an Amendment Paper—first, the transition period for mating stall requirements. In its current form, the bill proposes providing a 10-year transition period before the new requirements on mating stalls, farrowing crates, and space requirements for grower pigs come into effect on 19 December 2035. Applying the 10-year transition across all three matters was intended to provide clarity and simplify the transition period for pig farmers.

To comply with the new requirements for mating stalls, farmers will only need to change farm practices; no new equipment or buildings will be required. As such, I’ll be presenting an Amendment Paper to the committee of the whole House to reduce the transition period for Regulation 27 from 10 years to one year, meaning the new requirements will come into effect on 19 December 2026. I consider that this proposal strikes an appropriate balance between achieving high standards of animal welfare and providing sufficient time for farmers to implement changes to their practices. I expect there will be broad acceptance from industry to this change, and others will be pleased to see an improvement to the animal welfare outcomes occurring earlier.

The second change is around record-keeping requirements for farrowing crates. The new Regulation 26 will require records to be kept about how farmers comply with farrowing rules. It is planned to come into force after 10 years. These record-keeping requirements are to address a gap in the current regulations. I propose shortening the time for these record-keeping requirements to come into force on 19 December 2026. This will increase transparency and trust in the pork industry and provide greater assurance that farmers are meeting minimum required standards.

In conclusion, this bill supports a transition to massively strengthened animal welfare standards for pig farmers, in accordance with good practice and scientific evidence. It strikes an important balance between high standards of animal welfare and maintaining a thriving and productive pork sector. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

It’s not really a pleasure to take a call on this bill. Just to confirm to the House that the Labour Party will continue to oppose this bill as it makes its way through the Parliament.

I’m going to just spend some time focusing in on the select committee process in particular, because we are at second reading, and because we’re in urgency we’ll be getting an opportunity in the morning to interrogate the bill a lot further around the committee of the whole House stage. I do want to talk to some of the frustrations around that select committee process throughout this speech.

Before I do that, I’m going to talk to what led us here. It’s important that the background to this bill is actually put on record, because there has been a long process to get us here. Unfortunately, what happens when we are putting this bill through the House, is we do not have that agreement between industry and animal welfare organisations that we should have and that we need to ensure we have certainty for industry. The Minister has talked about the need for industry to have certainty, but if the Minister was actually clear about wanting that, there would have been a far greater consultative period over the last year or so, including working properly across the House, including working properly with animal welfare organisations to get agreements so that we can have that certainty. I’ll talk to that in a bit more detail later.

The background to this is that in 2020, there was a court case in New Zealand which found that the regulations around pig welfare were unlawful and invalid—essentially, that they were inconsistent with the Animal Welfare Act. That was a case that was taken by the Animal Law Association. Cabinet was left with a situation where the High Court said that current practices were unlawful and action needed to be taken. Cabinet then agreed to new regulations with a phase-out period that would allow the continued use of farrowing crates and mating stall systems for five years. As others have noted, as the Minister has noted, those temporary regulations are due to expire next week on 18 December 2025.

What the Government then did was during the period around 2022 in particular, there was a significant amount of consultation led by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) with industry, with stakeholders, with animal welfare organisations on a range of options that would improve animal welfare for pigs. Those standards were consulted on during 2022. At that point, we had a change of Government. The frustration from this side of the House is that instead of pursuing the advice from NAWAC at that time and providing at that point the certainty to industry, nothing happened.

Now, we know now from hearing the Minister talk to select committee and, give some more detail about what did happen behind the scenes, that MPI then did some targeted consultation with the pork industry, and lo and behold, some legislation was then put on the table recently. Funnily enough, what was put on the table matched exactly what the pork industry had requested. There was a press release from the Minister announcing that there were going to be improvements to pig welfare—and wasn’t this a wonderful thing? The problem with that—there are two major problems, which we discovered at that point. The first was that those standards aren’t due to be improved for 10 whole years.

Now, I disagree entirely with the Minister that the industry needs 10 years—10 years to transition. I do agree it needs time to transition. I do agree with that, but 10 years is far too long, and when we get to the committee of the whole House, the House will note that there have been a series of amendments put forward to bring that time frame back down to a better period of time, because 10 years is too long for any improvements to animal welfare for pigs.

The second part that came through clearly was that the actual improvements to farrowing crates, mating stalls, and for grower pigs were significantly weaker than what had been proposed during the consultation led by MPI and NAWAC in 2022. Instead of being consistent and sticking with the options that had been put forward, it appears—and I think when things look like a duck and sound like a duck and quack like a duck, they’re probably a duck—that some last-minute lobbying from the pork industry has led to a bill being introduced that matches the exact views of the pork industry.

Now, we get to some further concerns. The SPCA, who—as I said in my first reading speech, and I’ll put it on record again—are New Zealand’s largest reputable animal welfare organisation in New Zealand, have a responsibility to actually administer the Animal Welfare Act. They are pragmatic, they are sensible, they are based on science, and they have people with significant skills sitting around their workplace. The SPCA asked the Minister multiple times during their meetings what is happening around the pig regulations. Instead of being brought into the conversation, they were completely sidelined.

Steve Abel: Blindsided.

RACHEL BOYACK: Completely. Absolutely, Steve Abel—blindsided.

Again, I say in the Labour Party, what we want to see is certainty for this industry. We cannot get certainty if laws have been decided and determined without the input of New Zealand’s largest animal welfare organisation. It just isn’t good enough. I stand here saying that the pork industry and the animal welfare organisations should both have input into this. It’s not about allowing one to have more input than the other; it’s about ensuring everybody who has an interest in this is at the table. That may lead to some compromise, that may lead to everybody being willing to give way a little, but that is not what has happened here.

The next frustration which I’m going to speak to is around the select committee process. Now, the select committee process was truncated—it was truncated. Now, the Minister made a massive booboo when he introduced the bill to the House and wanted a report-back date in February. It was very clear that would have exposed industry to legal risk from 18 December due to the report back and then the ultimate passage of the bill. We would have been left with a legislative gap. I acknowledge that. However, the Minister made that mistake. The committee then decided to report back earlier, and as a result, we had a truncated process.

Now, the frustration with that is that there has been a lot of disputes around the science with regard to sow welfare and piglet welfare. I’m going to talk to that a little bit, because what has happened is that MPI, led by their chief science adviser, who was also the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, John Roche, has put in place a science summary. Now, if people read from animal welfare scientists—and we will come to this when we get into the committee of the whole House in a lot more detail and ask the Minister a lot of questions. Scientists have been scathing of that summary. There has been the suggestion made that we need to make a trade-off between sow and piglet welfare.

Actually, if you listen to the expertise from animal welfare scientists, people who have worked in this field, people who have worked for MPI, people who work for the SPCA, actually, there is recent science and research showing—if we specifically talk about farrowing crates, that, actually, farrowing crates and the removal of them, there actually is not that much difference in the outcomes for piglets. The suggestion—the suggestion—that farrowing crates are good for piglets is actually disputed.

We will get to that in the committee of the whole House, and very keen to table some of the scientific documents that we have on this—look forward to the detailed submissions from the other side on this bill. The frustration is that the select committee process was so truncated and shortened, the Parliament of this House has not been able to do its due diligence on that particular matter of dispute.

We will be here for a long time tomorrow with a lot of questions for the Minister. We look forward to that debate; look forward to significant contributions from the other side tonight. I do not commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a piece of legislation that goes against the welfare science for animals. It goes against the law and the courts, it goes against public opinion, and it goes against industry certainty. In every sense, it is a pig’s breakfast.

Todd Stephenson: “A dog’s breakfast” is actually the saying.

STEVE ABEL: “A pig’s breakfast” is a saying as well.

Todd Stephenson: No, it’s not.

STEVE ABEL: Look it up. This legislation locks in mother pigs to their cruel caging indefinitely. It actually maintains the use of farrowing crates in the status quo formula, where pigs are allowed to be in there for five weeks. It locks that in for another 10 years at a minimum, with the permission to extend it for a further five after that. Only then, after 10 years, does it move to temporary farrowing: seven-day farrowing. The Minister pointed out that Sweden and Norway are already doing temporary farrowing. Under a best-case scenario with this legislation, New Zealand won’t be doing it for 10 more years. Temporary farrowing, even under the welfare science, is certainly not good for pigs, either. Just to be clear what we’re talking about with farrowing crates, it’s a cage.

Miles Anderson: Here we go.

STEVE ABEL: Here we go. [Holds up picture] So people can understand what we’re talking about. Are you ashamed to look at it?

Miles Anderson: We love a photo.

STEVE ABEL: Well, a photo tells a thousand words, as they say. You can see a very unhappy mother pig, who’s stuck in a cage, who cannot turn around, who cannot build a nest. That is not the best way to mother young.

The use of farrowing crates causes significant animal welfare issues for both sow and piglets. For piglets, their use is associated with increased risk of stillbirth, reduced growth rates, poorer maternal attention and sow-piglet interaction, and increased risk of mismothering—e.g., savaging—and a lack of enrichment and space. For sows, their use is associated with the restriction of the expression of almost all normal behaviour, including turning around, walking, resting comfortably, creating separate functional areas—lying area, toileting area, feeding area, and nesting area—rooting and maternal and nesting behaviours. They are associated with health problems such as pressure sores, teat cuts, lameness, frustration, boredom, pain, and distress caused by the prolonged confinement. That is the fact of putting mother pigs in cages, and this Government is going to prolong that miserable cruelty for at least another 10 years.

What is more, the means by which they are doing it is to break our own Animal Welfare Act. This legislation actually requires the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to accept the determinations of the Minister as if they meet best-welfare standards. This amendment bill changes primary legislation to avoid the Government being taken to court again, as was done in 2020 successfully, where the court determined clearly and distinctly that farrowing crates must be phased out and got rid of if New Zealand is to be consistent with its own Animal Welfare Act.

Thirdly, I said this to Brent Kleiss from NZ Pork that I would tell this little story: what is the difference between a mother pig and a pork industry boss? Pigs are highly intelligent. The pork industry are fools if they think that this legislation will stand the test of time, because the members on this side of the House are not going to allow the caging of mother pigs to stick around for another 10 years and beyond. If you want industry certainty, you need to go the whole hog and get rid of farrowing crates. It turns out, in fact, that even the economic analysis on that is not correct, because it only costs 17 percent more to completely phase out farrowing crates, as opposed to moving to the Minister’s proposal.

Finally, this legislation is widely opposed by the New Zealand public. For a long time, New Zealanders have not wanted to see pigs in cages. The latest polling by Horizon Research just in October 2025 shows that 66 percent of New Zealanders want to see a complete phasing out of farrowing crates. What is most striking about that polling is that the voters from every single political party in this House want to see the phasing out of farrowing crates. ACT Party voters: 61 percent of them want to see it phased out, only 18 percent don’t. New Zealand First Party voters: 51 percent of them want to see it phased out, only 22 percent don’t. National Party voters: 63 percent want to see farrowing crates gone, only 14 percent don’t—78 percent of Labour Party voters, 88 percent of Te Pāti Māori voters, and 90 percent of Green Party voters.

There is not a single constituency that elected any party in this House to this Parliament that supports the continued use of farrowing crates. Therefore, this bill is not democracy. This bill is a Government not doing the bidding of the people but doing the bidding of the pork industry. I cannot think of a more glaring example of that, because to come up with this amendment bill, the Minister had to bypass the independent scientific advice, had to bypass the law, and had to go against the strong public feeling.

It’s a big responsibility to be responsible for animal welfare in this country. I believe the Minister responsible for animal welfare has a serious duty, because, of course, animals can’t speak for themselves. They need advocates, and in making assessments about animal welfare outcomes, it is the duty of the Minister for animal welfare to listen to those experts who actually understand what is going on for animals. All of us who have spent time with animals know what animal suffering is. Anyone who’s farmed animals or had pet animals, companion animals, knows that animals do not want to be in cages. Animals do not want to feel pain. They do not want to be separated from the young. When it’s hot, they want somewhere to go that’s cool. When it’s cold, they want somewhere to go that’s warm. There’s no way they want to spend five weeks stuck in a cage when they’re trying to give birth to young, and trying to nurse them, and trying to build a nest. Those are the profound instincts of mother pigs, as they are the instinct of any animal when it is giving birth to its young.

This Government, and this legislation, disdains that basic respect for the sentience of animals and for the dignity of animals. If we are to have the farming of animals in our country, it must be predicated on a principle of them having a good life and not a miserable existence. That is the reason so many New Zealanders are against the use of these farrowing crates, and that is why we as the Green Party strongly oppose this legislation. My message to the pork industry is that you are mistaken if you think this gives you a futureproofed industry. It does not. They need to work within the expectations of public morals and public sentiment if that industry is to have a just and a moral future. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to note that this approach will ensure that we continue to have our high animal welfare standards but still have a viable pork industry, which is the aim, and we will be phasing out the farrowing crates over a period of time so it gives the industry surety and the ability to invest. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, the simple question New Zealand First asked within this bill, just responding to some of the previous comments, is: do we want a domestic pork industry? Do we want a domestic pork industry? The reality is our domestic producers are competing against a flood of imported product, much of it from countries that do not have our high levels of animal welfare standards and regulations.

We do accept the High Court ruling, and we do know and the industry knows that it has to recalibrate, and that’s exactly what the Minister is bringing to the House tonight and out of the select committee. We are reducing the time in farrowing crates and we know that—you know, there were 8,000-odd submissions to the select committee, most of them supportive of what the Minister’s doing, just maybe wanting to do it quicker. The Minister has brought forward, which New Zealand First supports, a couple of amendments, including the mating stall limitations down to three hours and bringing that forward to next year.

But it is a very simple equation. I heard the statistics here in the poll—yes, it is an emotive issue, but actually, 60 percent of the pork is imported. If those 60 percent of people all went and bought New Zealand free range pork—which they can; it is available; not all pigs raised in New Zealand are in confinement—this wouldn’t be an issue. But the fact is 60 percent of New Zealanders will have a Christmas ham that was purchased using overseas pork from unknown animal welfare standards.

This bill was pragmatic and so New Zealand First will continue to support it. We think the Minister’s made some good amendments to it, but it is not the simple equation that we’ve been hearing. The farrowing crates aren’t designed for cruelty; they’re designed to save piglets. It is very much a sows versus piglets debate and getting that right. We’re working through this and so New Zealand First continues to support the bill. Thank you.

This is a split call. I call Scott Willis.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is interesting hearing the different parties of the Government trying to defend the indefensible. I’ve heard a lot of hogwash from this lot, but that is to be expected. We hear them full of climate denial, we hear them wanting to mine, we hear them wanting to open up coalmines. We hear all kinds of rubbish from this Government.

I’ve heard, do we want a domestic pork industry really? Really, if we’re thinking about raising animals, is that an industry or is it farming? I think that is a fundamental question we need to address. Do we want an industry? Do we want the corporate industrial food regime that this Government wants us to be eating from? Is that what we want? I certainly don’t want that. I’ve raised pigs and I know how intelligent they are and I know how they do care for their young and I know that they do not like to be enclosed.

After World War II, we saw the emergence of a more industrial model. We saw tanks turned into tractors. We saw chemical weapons turned into pesticides; fungicides. We saw explosives turned into fertilisers. We saw the intensification and industrialisation of agriculture. We saw the rise of agritech. We’ve seen the use of growth hormones in the pork industry. This puts pressures on animal physiology, and it’s a terrible thing. It’s a terrible thing to think that we can shape animals to suit our own desires when they have lives and they have natural environments that they can thrive in. What we’re doing with this is simply trying to create food that comes from anywhere or nowhere. It isn’t giving identity; it isn’t respecting the animal; it isn’t giving us something that most humans want.

I do remember going to Riverside—I think, whatever—just out of Oamaru a few years ago where they put on a “Pig Day Out”, and that was a whole pig from free-range Havoc farms broken down into separate pieces and really respected each and every part from tail and trotter to snout. Now, that type of process helps people understand where and how to respect an animal and why we shouldn’t simply consider animals as things that we can abuse to grow more protein. We can certainly be omnivores, but we shouldn’t do so and dehumanise ourselves in the process.

I think one of the things that is really challenging is that somehow, in the mess that happened with the free-trade agreements we’ve got in agriculture—the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs—is this ideological justification that we Kiwis are feeding the world. We’re not feeding the world; we’re feeding the already overfed in the world. We’re not feeding the hungry, we’re not feeding the poor. This bill is simply pushing animals—pushing animals—into crates—

Andy Foster: La-la land.

SCOTT WILLIS: —into crates. And yeah, la-la land. That’s right. I agree—I agree, that’s where the Government is and that’s why they’re determined to be a one-term Government. We would like to help them do better, but they can’t seem to do so.

What I heard from Miles Anderson is we will eventually get there. Don’t we hear that all the time from this Government? Don’t worry, we’re going to cut the methane targets, but we’ll eventually get to 1.5 degrees. Don’t worry, we’ll cut the clean car standards; we’ll eventually get to 1.5 degrees. Don’t worry, we’ll open up coalmines; we’ll eventually get to 1.5 degrees. It’s the “We’re going to get there.” That’s what this Government’s about. But they won’t because they are incompetent, and they know that this is going to be rejected; they know they’re a one-term Government.

Brent Kleiss, who Mr Abel mentioned, the CEO of NZ Pork, presented to the Primary Production Committee about an industry that he is incredibly proud to represent—an industry that contributes a billion dollars to the GDP of New Zealand. They support this bill because it enhances welfare outcomes for pigs, it provides the sector with a realistic time frame to adapt to change, and it gives farmers the confidence to invest in their animals and in their businesses.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this proposed piece of legislation. I would imagine it’s likely to be the last call of the evening. I just want to acknowledge and thank the Minister for the amendments that he has proposed this evening and to note that Labour will be supportive of those amendments that the Minister has made mention of this evening, although we do still stand opposed to the legislation itself at this point.

Todd Stephenson: Good try, though.

Hon JO LUXTON: Why, thank you. We do have concerns with the process prior to this piece of legislation coming to the House with regard to the fact that the SPCA, as my colleague Rachel Boyack mentioned, is one of the largest animal welfare bodies in the country and they are there to uphold and administer the Animal Welfare Act and have been left out of the consultation.

I understand that the Minister did make mention that they were consulted with quite substantially in the consultation that was held with the previous Government and perhaps he didn’t feel the need to include them in this round of the consultation process, although he did seek to have some quite substantial consultation with the pork industry, which is fair enough; that is the industry that is going to be affected by this. But I would also argue that it is important that we get the voice of others that are able to be part of this consultation, because as a previous ACT Minister said this evening, more voices make better law, and so I think that’s something that we need to consider.

One of the things that was also brought up within the Primary Production Committee is the concern around the shortened report-back time frame. I do think that when we have a piece of legislation like this—as the Hon Mark Patterson mentioned, it is quite an emotive piece of legislation. I do think that it is important that we allow a real opportunity for the public to engage and submit in the process. We did certainly have a large number of people that provided submissions, but due to the short report back, we certainly couldn’t hear from perhaps all of those that would have liked the opportunity to present to the select committee orally, and so I do think that that is a bit unfortunate for democracy for New Zealanders.

I and Labour stand opposed to the 10-year time frame to change the farrowing crates. Now, Miles Anderson mentioned that the Government was phasing out farrowing crates. That’s not my understanding; they’re just making changes to the sizing of farrowing crates, and so I think perhaps it might be worthwhile, Miles, just checking the legislation—

Miles Anderson: Oh, it is late, Jo.

Hon JO LUXTON: —before he speaks to it, perhaps, in the next reading that he does. Yes, it is late, Mr Anderson, but it is still important that when we speak to pieces of legislation, we speak to them accurately and say the correct thing. So just to reiterate, the Government is not phasing out farrowing crates; they are changing the sizing of farrowing crates.

Now, the Labour Party would have been open to working in a bipartisan way with the Minister on this piece of legislation had we had the opportunity and perhaps even thought about an extension, but definitely not the 10-year extension, which is something we find problematic. Given the fact that the industry itself—whilst the farmers out there in this industry do the best that they can and they look after their animals the best that they can, the public perception does not support that and I think it is important that as a Government, as a Parliament, we look to do all the things that we can to support industry to be able to be in a situation where the public perception isn’t one where they can be critical of what’s going on behind the farm gate.

Hon Nicola Grigg: Aren’t you the primary industry spokesperson?

Hon JO LUXTON: I’m sorry, Minister Grigg; perhaps you might like to take a call. I can’t quite hear what you’re saying, but if you wanted to take a call, I’m sure we’d be all ears. But as I said, we will continue to oppose this bill and perhaps put forward some amendments tomorrow during the committee stage. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a very emotive subject, this, and sometimes it’s very easy to go and cherry-pick the data that suits your particular argument, but we did hear from Dr John Roche, Chief Science Advisor, who looked at all of the research, and the recommendations in this bill take a balanced approach, and they balance the needs and welfare of the sows and the piglets. I commend this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call and to speak. It’s been interesting. I’ve been listening to all the contributions in the House tonight on the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill, and it’s quite disconcerting that I haven’t had to take extensive notes because the members on the Government side of the House really haven’t made much of a contribution. You would think that if they were feeling safe and secure in their decision-making process with this potential piece of legislation, they would be a little bit more eager to shout its merits from the rooftops. But we note that they are not.

It’s a little bit rich, isn’t it, for them to talk about animal welfare and industry certainty and to completely disregard what is the most substantial element in this, which is that for any good industry to survive and thrive and to be sustainable and successful, they need to work with all of the stakeholders so that there is some general consensus around the type of moral, ethical, and socially acceptable existence for said industry. I would have thought that the Minister in charge of this bill would have spent a little bit more time securing that type of consensus and that type of societal buy-in because that is important, obviously, in the long run, but, yet again, we are in the House at almost midnight talking about a bill that’s been ill-thought-out, that’s been rushed, and that’s a bit of a sugar rush in terms of making some quick gains, or ingratiating certain parties in this House to certain stakeholders.

It’s very disappointing. As my colleagues have said, Labour will not be supporting this bill, and we will be very vigorously opposing it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think this piece of legislation, or this bill before us, is a very pragmatic approach to a situation where we’re trying to improve animal welfare, and it’s done in a very pragmatic time frame. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Madam Speaker.

It’s a tough call, but it’s nearly the witching hour, and I think we probably need to call it a day. Members, the House is suspended until 9 a.m.

Sitting suspended from 11.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)