Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill

We now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 10 to 16—“Related amendments to Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018”—and Schedule 2.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, and I appreciate the Associate Minister of Agriculture’s engagement during the discussion around Part 1—and just noting that we’ve touched broadly around the science in Part 1, because it was introduced during that part and the Minister gave some relatively detailed responses. In Part 2, we will get into the specific details related to the three matters that really count in this bill, which are around the regulations for farrowing crates, the detail around the regulations for mating stalls, and the details around the regulation for grower pigs.

Before we get to that, I do just have a really specific question for the Minister that I hope you’ll be able to get back to me on quite quickly. This will just help confirm the Labour Party’s support for his amendment to Part 2. I just want to clarify, because when he’s talked about his Amendment Paper: he noted that, in Part 2, part of that Amendment Paper specifically related to the requirement to keep records. I just note, on page 10—and this is the piece that is around regulations to be inserted on 19 December 2035, clause 27 of new Schedule 3. It talks around other requirements relating to management of pigs: things like pigs are not restrained by tethering, pigs are not confined in stalls, and so on and so forth. Then it talks about the fines. It’s clause 27(2) of new Schedule 3 that talks about the record-keeping, and that piece has been deleted from—

Hon Andrew Hoggard: Which one?

RACHEL BOYACK: The very last page, page 10, of your Amendment Paper. That whole section has been removed, and it looks to me like it has just been picked up and replaced to be put on page 8 of your Amendment Paper, which is the regulation to be inserted on 19 December 2026—so that’s next year. In the Minister’s legislative statement and in his verbal statements to the House, he’s only talked about 27(2), which is about the records, but it looks to me like the entire section has been picked up and, basically, cut and pasted—which is a good thing; I’m fine with that. I just don’t want to see it being cut and then not inserted somewhere else in the bill.

If the Minister can just confirm that that’s what he’s intending to do—he might just need to check with his officials—then we’ll be able to confirm the Labour Party’s support for that particular section. That’s my first question, and then we’ll come back.

The answer is yes.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to echo the reflections of my colleague Rachel Boyack regarding the content of this section. We would like the ability to prosecute reasonably well the impact of the regulations in this section, which relate to the specific issues before us.

I have a bit of an overview that I think might be helpful in terms of what a pig’s life is like in our farming systems, which gives some context to those watching—because understanding all the different cages that are used and not used in New Zealand can be a matter of confusion.

Many people thought that we had got rid of the caging of mother pigs, because we did get rid of sow stalls. Sow stalls used to be used somewhat widely, though a lot of pig farmers have never used them; they are prohibited in New Zealand now, and we have led the world in that, and we should be proud of that fact.

Mating cages are still used to different degrees, and I acknowledge, later on when we get to talk about it, that the Associate Minister of Agriculture has moved the time frame on the use of mating cages substantially—by nine years—which is something that we called for, and he has done it, so I acknowledge that.

Farrowing crates are still used, and that is after the pig is impregnated and they’ve had their gestation of three months, three weeks, and three days, quite generally. They give birth in a farrowing crate under the current regime, and under the new regime.

The life of a captive pig in New Zealand is that, once they have been weaned, as a piglet, after 21 to 28 days, they then become a weaner pig, and then later they become a grower pig, and they are grown to around 28 kilograms or more—and then they are slaughtered. The natural lifespan of a pig grown for meat in this country is under a year, generally, and the natural lifespan of a pig, if it was not being farmed, would be about 20 years. That’s for the public to understand that this is very much an industrial form of farming, about growing animals for meat consumption, and that’s the nature of the reality of these animals’ lives. The question at hand is: how can we make that very unnaturally short life for a pig not so miserable?

On to the specifics of Part 2, and the principal regulations at clause 10. This part amends the Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018. Herein we get the substance of all the regulatory changes, but what is unusual about this, and my question for the Minister is: normally regulations would be passed through an Order in Council, correct? The Minister is nodding. Why, in this instance, are these regulations not being passed by merely an Order in Council but being passed in primary legislation? Surely it is because they are actually at risk, if not certainly inconsistent, with the purpose of the Animal Welfare Act. That’s my question for the Minister.

The reason we know they are inconsistent with the Animal Welfare Act is because the High Court told us. It’s a very specific question: why are these not being passed by Order in Council? Is it because the Minister knows, and the advice from the Ministry for Primary Industries is, that they are inconsistent with the Animal Welfare Act and therefore subject to a High Court challenge again?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, why not by Order in Council? Well, the main reason here is because they needed to do a further transition period. It was not allowed because a further transition period had already occurred. Hence we need to do this legislation—to provide that transition period for the industry to change.

That is the core reason behind all of this, and then I guess it’s about providing certainty for the sector. You mention the High Court case. Again, it did not find that what I’m proposing is illegal; it found that the other previous use of farrowing crates did not meet the purposes of the Act. As I’ve already said a number of times, we contend that the limited time we are using them does meet the purposes of the Act, and I feel it’s really important to be able to provide the industry with that transition period. This is a major cost imposition on the industry. It’s going to create a lot of challenges for them, to be able to update their facilities. Hence they need time to be able to achieve this.

Thank you. Can you confirm, Minister, that the legal advice was that there was a risk of a High Court challenge if this was merely passed by Order in Council? Aside from the question of the extension of the time frame, on the question of the consistency with the Animal Welfare Act of the option you have gone for, temporary farrowing, and the weaner pig and grower pig pen size, can you confirm that the advice was there is a risk of a High Court challenge if it was not passed through primary legislation?

This area is highly litigious. It’s attracted a lot of attention, and that risk of High Court challenges undoubtedly exists.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do just want to acknowledge the Associate Minister of Agriculture’s response to my previous question and just confirm that the Labour Party will support his amendment to Part 2. Thank you for that clarification.

I’d like to talk, first of all, about lying space for grower pigs and the specifics in the legislation. Schedule 2 of the bill inserts New Schedule 3 into the Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018, and we’re looking at the minimum lying space for grower pigs. This is where things do get technical in this bill and we talk about the minimum area in metres squared and what the Minister is proposing is for that to be 0.034.

The question I have comes to the heart of this debate and the role of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) to provide independent advice to the Minister. NAWAC’s proposal was for a value of 0.04. There were then alternative proposals provided of 0.036, both of which are greater than what the Minister has in his bill of 0.034.

Now, the reason why this matters, just for the committee and for those who are listening in, is that these are the formulas put forward by experts, by scientists, who can advise those of us in decision-making roles what is the best constraint for an animal that ensures good animal welfare outcomes, and what concerns me is that the NAWAC proposal is a greater area of space than what is being put forward in this bill. The NAWAC proposal is 0.04; what the Minister is doing is 0.034 and that’s the minimum area.

The reason this matters is that NAWAC are responsible for giving independent advice. The formula that’s in the bill is exactly what New Zealand Pork had asked for. We’ve had a situation where the regulations have gone to court for being inconsistent with the Act. Surely this opens up a legal risk for the Government that NAWAC specifically said, “No, you need 0.04 to actually have enough space for a grower pig to be able to live its life in a way that has the best animal welfare outcomes.” Yet the Minister is proposing a smaller area.

So that’s my question to the Minister: why is there a difference between what he’s proposing and what NAWAC have proposed? Again, I come back to some of those debates we’ve had around certainty for the industry, because when you put details like this into a bill that, first of all, could then be considered inconsistent for the purpose of the Act, it puts legal risk in play, which means it’s harder for industry to plan. It also means that it’s unlikely this legislation will last the passage of time. Future Governments will probably come along within the next 10 years and say, “That’s not good enough. We’re going to change it.” So you then end up in a situation where industry have invested around this new size, spent millions of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars in purchasing new equipment to house grower pigs in this amount of space, and then another Government comes along and says, “Sorry, we want to make it slightly bigger so you’re going to have to invest again.”

I put it to the Minister that you have an independent advisory committee in NAWAC. Why has their advice not been properly considered when determining the minimum lying space for grower pigs under New Schedule 3?

Thank you. In terms of grower space, in early 2025, the Ministry for Primary Industries reviewed some of the current science around that, some of which wasn’t available to the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, and they couldn’t find justification for going above 0.30. They were saying that 0.30 to 0.34, either one of those, would meet the purposes of the Act. Effectively, I looked at the costs of going higher than 0.34, which was quite substantial, and that’s to most of the industry, even those that are doing free-farrowing systems, still utilising grower space for piglets. We had two options there that I believe could meet the Act. I went for the higher option, which gave more space to the grower pigs.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just refer to Part 2 here. These issues have been raised but I don’t think there’s any harm in referring to them again. It is the new regulations 25 to 27 that come into force on 19 December 2035. What we have in the bill here, the explanatory notes of the bill, is the reference to changing requirements and specifications.

The questions that my colleague Rachel Boyack asked are very relevant, that putting these down in the bill, in the explanatory note, implies that there’s some kind of science behind the proposals. Indeed, some might—the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), perhaps, is trying to say this is best practice; some would dispute that. But it just takes one number to tip this whole thing on its ear, and that is that you change it from 19 December 2035 to 19 December 2030, for example, pull it back five years. Indeed, any further Government could move on this.

The point I’m trying to make—and the Minister may want to answer this as to why they came up with the 10-year transition. Why they specified in the notes here or allowed what is arguably the better practice—better I say, not best. Indeed, does this not expose us to, as I say, the points I made earlier on about legal challenge as to why not bring this in earlier; if so, what date? Why 2035 rather than 2030 or 2029 or whatever?

I suggest that the explanation of Part 2 here and the direction of travel exposes the industry once again to uncertainty. The Minister and the Government are quite mischievous to think that this is going to sign everything off and it’s all going to be hunky-dory, because if he wants to refer to the science that MPI had access to and the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee didn’t, I’d suggest he go and check that—double-check that—because my observation of commentary on this is that they haven’t got it right.

So huge risks here. Maybe the Minister could take a call and answer those few questions as to why it’s not five years rather than 10 years. Does he think that this exposes or adds to a legal case or a legal challenge, because it specifies here what should be in place, but the transition, as he’s offering it, is fairly generous.

Thank you. So the question is: why a 10-year transition? Several factors; number one: we are going through, as we’ve experienced this week in the House, changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) process. At the moment, it’s costing farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars to get new consents—

Shanan Halbert: You could have been two years ahead of yourself.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: —or change consents. Now, for—sorry, what was that?

Shanan Halbert: You could have been two years ahead of yourself with the RMA.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Anyway, the key thing here is: that’s a hell of a lot of uncertainty; it’s a huge cost that I don’t want these farmers to have to pay on top of the works they’re going to have to do on their farm. We expect that everything will be bedded down with the RMA by 2029; effectively 2028-2029. That gives us a few years there. Then you’ve got—and we’re expecting them to expend upwards of $700,000. Now I want to give them certainty that they’re investing that money in something that will be legally compliant, consent wise. etc. That’s a key factor to start with.

Then there’s the actual factor of they’ve got to build this stuff. In some cases, these farms will need to tear down every single facility they’ve got and rebuild from scratch, as that’s going to make the most sense. Again, that doesn’t happen overnight. In a practical sense, you can’t do that overnight, because then you’re left with no facilities to actually manage your pigs. It’s going to have to be done in a staged process. To my mind, 10 years makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Also, internationally, the only other few countries that are moving to a similar reduced period of farrowing crates as us are doing it in 2034-2035. This lines up with what other countries are doing. My understanding is that the previous Government could have well given a 10- to 15-year transition period. They only gave a five, so it makes sense to enable them to have that full transition period to make this transition.

Thank you—thank you, Mr Chair. I certainly have heard the Associate Minister of Agriculture’s concern for pig farmers—or the pig industry; whichever the Minister prefers to refer to—their concern about having to invest in the right type of structures, and the concern that there’s a cost involved with it.

But, thinking about Part 2, we’ve also heard from my colleague Damien O’Connor that there is some question about the scientific basis of the decisions that the Minister is basing this on. This is really the heart of it, I think, because we need to understand what the risk of poor legislation is. The Minister has pointed out that this bill could be challenged in the High Court; now, as it’s drafted, it’s a real risk. The Minister’s already acknowledged that—as it’s drafted. When we are drafting legislation, we should be aware that if we are drafting legislation and it’s then going to put us in a situation where we drive more judicial risk, that is not a good place for legislation to start from—that is really not a good place for legislation to start from.

I’m interested if—the Minister talked earlier about seeking balance and advice; not consensus, but balance—I’m wondering whether the Minister thinks that he’s got the balance right. If the Minister has not leant on the independent advice from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee but is focused on the request from the pork industry in setting these limits for farrowing crates, etc., has the Minister got the balance right in his advice? Is this going to protect pig farmers—the pork industry, if the Minister likes—but, also, our farrowing sows, our piglets? Is this the type of advice that the Minister is leaning on? Is it the right type of advice? Is it actually going to protect our concerns that we have that this is going to go to the High Court?

This is really something that is not going to help our farmers at all. It’s not going to save costs; it’s going to increase costs. My concern is the Minister hasn’t had an opportunity to go deeper and to seek wider and more robust advice. Is the Minister confident that that has been done, and has been done thoroughly?

In terms of whether I am satisfied with the advice I received: yes. Sorry, the member went on quite a bit, and I lost track of what he was actually asking. Look, the advice I’ve got is that this will meet the purposes of the Act.

In terms of the assertion that this is somehow more prone, the statement I made was that, effectively, any piece of legislation is prone to judicial review. I just pointed out the fact that this area has attracted a lot of interest from lawyers in the past, but that is part of what has informed our process on this, to ensure that it is not judicially reviewed—that the sector can have certainty going forward, can make those investment decisions, and can improve the welfare of the pigs under their care.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to note that in terms of the discussion points around Part 2—just to quickly summarise—we’ve talked a little bit about legal risk and had some responses from the Associate Minister of Agriculture; we’ve talked a little bit about grower pigs and had some responses from the Minister. We do need to delve into the issue around farrowing crates in quite a bit of detail, so I just want to signal that to the committee because it’s the area around farrowing crates, in detail, where there is the most contention in the public.

I’ll just put on record, actually, in terms of mating stalls. It’s the one area of this bill where we are comfortable with the Minister’s decision making in terms of limiting the time that pigs will be in mating stalls, and we’re actually really happy and want to say thank you to the Minister for bringing that from 10 years down to one year. We’re absolutely supporting that amendment and happy with that.

I just want to note to the committee that my next—and I’m going to have quite a few questions and I’m going to come back to the Minister specifically around the real detail around farrowing crates, because that is where the science has elements of dispute, that is where the greatest public concern sits, and this is where the greatest scientific detail sits. I’m going to get started on that now.

The first element around farrowing crates is: what the bill has chosen to do is not make any changes to the size of the farrowing crate but chosen to make changes around the time frames that a sow and its piglets can spend in the farrowing crate. Now, I want to just talk first around the size component.

The Minister, in his second reading speech in the House last night, made commentary around free-range farming and commented that the public would most likely like to see pigs on ground and green grass and the like, similar to how we see our cattle and our sheep. The Minister made that commentary. The question I have off the back of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee’s (NAWAC) advice, though, isn’t actually suggesting that we should be moving from a farrowing crate situation through to an “every pig is free-range and roaming amongst grass” situation. My specific question to the Minister is around the option that NAWAC has looked at, that the SPCA has looked at, is around farrowing pens. It is still a restricted environment for the sow, but it is not restricted around the crate.

Now, I’m going to pre-empt that my colleague Steve Abel from the Green Party will probably have some more detailed questions on this because I think this is the area he likes to jump into as well, to supplement my questions. But my question really is: why has the Minister not given greater consideration here to farrowing pens, which are larger than compared to farrowing crates?

Now, I’m just going to link this briefly—and I will probably come back to this—to the time consideration because the concern that the science community have raised, and, Mr Chair, I’ll probably need to just seek an extension to my call here just to flesh out this argument a little bit more. The advice—and it’s good advice—is that when a sow has given birth, you shouldn’t move her, right? There’s the pre-farrowing period and then the post-farrowing period. Sometimes there is that concern that, for example, in the pre-farrowing period, it’s very clear that the sow needs to be able to move, she needs to be able to build a nest. And the greater amount of space she has, the more likely she is to be able to do that. There is genuine concern—and I do think the Minister needs to acknowledge that—that in the small, defined space of a farrowing crate, it’s very difficult for the sow to turn and to build the nest.

Now, if you have a situation where you have a greater amount of space in that pre-farrowing period, then the sow gives birth and then you want to go to a more restricted space to try to improve piglet mortality. That, potentially, means moving the sow and it becomes challenging. One of the benefits of a farrowing pen is it actually allows that flexibility within the pen to move the spaces, and so the reason why it is a good option to consider is that you can then allow the sow and the piglets to stay in the same area but you can potentially restrict them further in that time if you need to, to allow for piglet mortality.

I’m going to have more questions on this. I can pre-empt that my colleague Steve Abel’s going to have quite a few detailed questions around farrowing crates, and I’d be really interested in the Minister’s initial response into why farrowing pens were not properly considered.

In terms of farrowing pens, the research done—and I guess they fall into the free-farrowing system, as it were. The scientific evidence, the bulk of it that we had, showed there was this 14 percent increased risk of pig mortality from a free-farrowing system. Now, there are some new innovations out there, like the maternity ring that some pork are doing. Unfortunately, that has only been going in the last year or so, so we don’t have the full results from that. That may well be a solution in the future that many decide to move towards. That will be their choice, and I’d commend them on that, assuming this is a system that does work for them. We did not have that evidence at the time when we needed to make these decisions.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I feel slightly distressed that we’ve moved on to farrowing crates already because I still had questions on grower pens. So if you would suffer me to ask a couple of those and then pick up on where Rachel’s led with the farrowing crates.

The assumptions around the grower pens—and, for context, because I think a lot of this is jargon that is probably not very comprehensible to the layperson: after the piglet has been weaned and they become a weaner, so-called, they get put into a barn and then they get put into a pen with probably another five pigs, and they get grown in those grower pens. So we’re talking about that stage of the process of producing pig meat.

One of the assumptions, Minister, in your evaluation of the so-called k value—i.e., what amount of space is acceptable for providing an existence for a pig in a grower pen—is based on this Averos analysis that we mentioned briefly earlier on, in this Mondrian/Milan Mrkusich - type modern artwork here, with an incomprehensible sentence: “broken line regression analysis of the effect of allometric space allowance and the percentage of total lying behaviour of growing finishing pigs housed on fully and partly slatted floor.” It did, I just have to say, briefly remind me of that great insight of Lord Ernest Rutherford who, to paraphrase, said, “If you cannot make your theory comprehensible to a layperson, you probably don’t understand it yourself.” I think our chief science advisor could take some advice from Lord Ernest Rutherford on that one.

The point is, in the analysis that Rachel Boyack tabled by Dr Jason Kurz that I mentioned earlier, his conclusion was animal welfare, as distinct from production efficiency, is measurably compromised at lower space allowances. Are you not concerned that the assumptions that you’ve fallen on regarding grower pigs actually are not consistent with an independent, objective view of the science? He goes on to say conflating statistical uncertainty with a lack of effect and equating productivity with welfare are a mistake.

The other thing I would like to check: already, the Minister has spoken of the economic considerations of implementation of a new regime. It would be good for us to be clear that we have a decent opportunity, through this process, to actually dig into the economic assumptions because that is another question the Minister has considered, even though—as the High Court rightly pointed out—economic considerations cannot be part of judging what is acceptable welfare standards for animals. So that’s my first question on the grower pigs. I’m loathe to end the call now lest I don’t get the next call, but can I step up and see the response to that, potentially, because I would like to follow up on this.

I’ve almost forgotten what the first part of your question was. In terms of the economic considerations—what part did they play?—as I mentioned before, that was in relation to the transition period. In terms of the welfare side, that was being sure that whatever numbers we came up with met the purposes of the Act.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Let’s jump on to the farrowing crates question that Rachel Boyack began on. For clarity, the Minister was presented with two options. Option 1—for context, I’m reading from page 16 of the regulatory impact statement, clause 57—was recommended by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Council (NAWAC): “based on the scientific evidence, available technologies, and best farming practices [a] five-year transition period would help farmers to adapt their systems and practices.” Option 1 is a move to free farrowing in a 6.5 square metre space, completely getting rid of farrowing cages. That was the option recommended to you by NAWAC.

The second option is what the Associate Minister of Agriculture has chosen and is manifest in this legislation, which is no increase in the size of the farrowing cage and temporary farrowing for a maximum of seven days—three days before and four days after farrowing. Now, clause 60 on page 16 of the regulatory impact statement says, “During public consultation, animal welfare advocates generally supported ending the use of farrowing crates [completely]. In contrast, most pig farmers and industry representatives advocated for the continued temporary use of [farrowing] crates”.

The Minister, it seems—and I would like to check this—in going for option 2, was heavily relying on the economic consequences of option 1 versus option 2. It is undeniable that both options, and the regulatory impact statement acknowledges this, “result in a need for increased investment by farmers. However, the level of investment associated with option 1 is greater than option 2.” Crucially, on page 17 of the regulatory impact statement, there is an evaluation or assessment made of what the difference is cost-wise between those two options: “A 350-sow farm”—this is clause 68—“is estimated to face a capital cost of approximately $507,000”. That’s for moving from the status quo to a temporary farrowing system. A 350-sow farm moving to free-farrowing would have a capital cost of $595,000; that’s an $88,000 difference—a 17 percent difference—or around a fifth more for complete elimination of farrowing crates and increasing the pen size to 6.5 square metres. I acknowledge that that doesn’t take into account the other capital outlay, such as for more land that a farmer might need to have bigger farrowing pens.

A major assumption, Minister, in your assessment of that being a financially unviable solution is to do with the piglet mortality assumed in those options. When tested, that piglet mortality, under a free-farrowing system, is highly estimated at 19 percent. It is estimated at 12 percent in the temporary farrowing option. NAWAC explicitly pushed back on the assumptions of that and made it clear that, over time, management practices would mean that the actual piglet mortality would decrease. For the clarity of the committee, piglet mortality is a factor in pig farming; whether it’s free-farrowing, caged farrowing, or free-farmed pigs, it’s an issue, because these pigs are so unnaturally large and bred that way for meat production purposes, and they may have a litter of a dozen piglets that are very small and vulnerable to being crushed by the mother.

I might have to take another call on this if that’s all right, Mr Chair? Thank you. My question is: What is your confidence in that assessment of the economic differential, and to what extent did you take into account the huge opportunity of us moving to a free-farrowing system, whether in five years or 10 years, and thereby eliminating this problem of farrowing crates being inconsistent with our Animal Welfare Act, inconsistent with public feeling, and inconsistent with the way the world is moving? To what extent did you consider that as a cost factor and a lost opportunity to improve or build on our positive reputation around animal welfare? That’s the first question.

I’ll come back to the economic assessment side of it, because there are a lot of questions around the assumptions on the economics. I’ve got analysis done by Matthew Haddrell on the economic analysis of the bill, which I would seek leave of the committee to table. It is not publicly available. There is a preliminary analysis that is very critical of the assumptions in the economic assessment. Do I need to do that as a point of order, Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just seek leave.

STEVE ABEL: I seek leave to table the preliminary economic analysis of Matthew Haddrell, commissioned by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Are there any objections? It’s not publicly available, I understand. Yep, table it.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you. I will allow the Minister to answer some of those questions, because I know there’s a few in there. Thank you.

OK. In terms of the economic considerations, just to reiterate once again: the key thing was, will what we’re proposing meet the purposes of the Act? In that case, yes.

Now, the questioning comes to the economics and how they impact. In terms of free-farrowing versus temporary crating, it’s not just the capital cost; it’s the ongoing operating expenditure or increased costs that may result. That, for me, is how the real cost comes to the farmer. If they’re having increased piglet mortality—and this is how they make their money: they grow a piglet, they turn it into bacon or pork, and that’s how they earn their crust. If they’re having increased losses, that’s less profit they make, that’s less interest in being in business; it becomes too hard, and they leave. In terms of that part of it, that is the economic cost that we’re considering with regards to, OK, we’ve got two systems that do meet the purposes of the Act. I’ll just say that we did these proposals, we did send them back to the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, and they did agree that the post-farrowing four days of temporary crating did meet the purposes of the Act.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to come back to the questioning around farrowing crates, because what I want to refer to specifically are submissions from some of the submitters during the select committee process. These would have been made available and were submitted back in October from a group of New Zealand animal welfare scientists. They have raised a whole number of issues back, again, around the science.

One of the things they have noted here is that scientific evidence shows that confinement of sows in farrowing crates compromises their welfare by preventing them from performing highly motivated behaviours such as nest building, turning, and interacting freely with their piglets. It goes on to say that the current proposal to allow sows to be confined for seven days without increasing pen or crate size is particularly problematic and that evidence suggests that this approach may actually increase piglet mortality, as sows released into undersized pens can accidentally crush piglets due to restricted movement. They go on to say, “Moreover, confining sows under restricted movement with no nesting material up to three days before farrowing prevents them from engaging in essential nest-building behaviour, further compromising welfare and affecting maternal care.”

What they have gone on to talk about as well is the conflicting science, because there is that concern. We’ve talked about it being disputed, being conflicting science. They’ve gone on to say that science can tell us about welfare within a farm system—for instance, an intensive indoor system based on close confinement—and science can tell us that the sow and piglets do better when they are not in close confinement systems. Sows and piglets do better when they can exist together in an environment that provides for their needs. One of the issues that has really cropped up in this debate—and I want to put this on record in this committee stage and get a response from the Associate Minister of Agriculture—is the discussion around a trade-off between sow and piglet welfare.

Actually, what the scientists have told the select committee is that we need to stop talking about the trade-off between the sow and piglet welfare—that, actually, they say, what the evidence shows is that what is good for the sow is also good for the piglets. They’ve raised some actual evidence—for example, recent studies in 2022—that a well-designed and managed system without permanent crating can achieve the same performance as conventional farrowing crates. This has been demonstrated in research and under commercial conditions, in research by Baxter et al. in 2022.

When also considering the piglets’ needs, another study showed that reducing the space available to the lactating sow below 6.6 metres would reduce her freedom of movement and increase the mortality of her piglets, but, above 6.6 metres, the behavioural freedom of sows and piglets is increased but piglet mortality does not further improve. What this speaks to is the benefit of what I’ve already raised around farrowing pens, as opposed, necessarily, to moving to an entirely free-farming system. There is a significant amount of science that actually disputes the Ministry for Primary Industries’ science summary, and I’d actually like the Minister to really dig into the detail of the science—what he has fully considered.

The final piece that I’d like him to talk about is around nest building and the types of materials that will be available for nest building. We asked this of officials but haven’t actually had a strong enough response, in my view, around the type of materials. We know that, for example, there are cases where farmers will leave a hessian sack and believe that that is enough of a deformable material. Actually, what the animal welfare experts have told us is that it isn’t enough. Will the Minister ensure there is a lot more detail—I think my colleague Steve Abel has some amendments on this—around what a deformable material actually is, to ensure that sows are able to properly undertake that nest building, because that will lead to better outcomes for both the sow and also the piglets?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Firstly, as the member quite rightly said, there are lots of different scientific views on this. Larger pen size—it’s not straightforward. You can have the situation where you’ve got a larger pen size, and that makes the creep area—where the piglet keeps nice and warm at night under the heat lamp—further and harder to find for the piglet. Then you’re going to have to have a person get in there to make sure the piglet gets there, and that puts them more at risk.

So it’s not always straightforward; these things are risky. I guess that comes down to, you know, we can have lots of science—various studies being done—but, often, it’s the farmer who knows what works. They’re motivated to have the highest piglet survival possible on their farm. That is their driving thing. If you don’t have good animal welfare outcomes on your farm, you don’t make a lot of money, and so these farmers will be looking for solutions that work for them—that make the piglets survive better so they can actually farm better. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It would be good to have a bit of back and forth if that assists the Associate Minister of Agriculture. The point you just made, Minister, which you have articulated a few times, is your concern for the viability of a farming operation under any regime that still, in principle, maintains good animal welfare practice. I really want to challenge the assumptions on the piglet mortality, because a large part of what the Minister is arguing around the justification for the choice that he has made to go for option two, which is the temporary farrowing, is the cost impacts of a higher piglet mortality, as my colleague raises, but if those cost impacts are not correct, which is that if you take into account increased stillbirth from mother pigs kept in farrowing crates, which is one of the consequences of that and perhaps increased distress on the pigs, which leads to savaging, then it is also suggested, legitimately, that there is not much difference in the piglet mortality between the two systems, and, furthermore, with familiarity in the management practices, that mortality can be brought down.

My question for the Minister is: given how much he is relying on piglet mortality and its impact on cash flow, can he be certain that the choice to not move away from farrowing cages is really the right one, first and foremost for the welfare of the animals but, secondly, even for the industry? I’ve got a follow-up to that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, just following on from the discussion. I appreciate that there has been really go to and fro. There were a couple of things that the Associate Minister of Agriculture referred to, and one was that the economic analysis of this and why, in fact, it’s been pushed out to 10 years. The implication is that the industry faces 700,000, or there abouts, for an average operation.

The question to the Minister is: how have they done that calculation? Is it on the assumption that they automatically keep the same number of sows, which I suggest it probably is. Yet any farming operation, any primary industry operation, is always flexible to adjust it to the ongoing requirements and changes for operators. They may be climatic, they may be animal welfare, they may be related to the labour availability. I’m assuming that the cost calculation, this one that the Minister says is too great for most operators, is based on a flat-line kind of management approach. If that is the case, perhaps he can give us an assurance on that.

Can I ask then whether, in the economic analysis, there was any valuation or assessment done of the countervailing kind of potential through the imposition of standards, which has been referred to, for imported product? That is, that did the higher standard regime that could have been implemented, that might be—depending on, you know, there’s a lot of debate around that—in 2035—so we have a slightly higher standard, whether it’s high enough or not, that’s a point that’s been well canvassed here, I’d suggest it probably isn’t. But none the less, the argument that if we had a higher standard and we would therefore be able to expect high standards of the imported product, what potential benefit does that offer to the pork producers? Maybe a little bit more leverage in the market.

So the question for the Minister: has this all been assessed? If it hasn’t, it should have been. If he’s referring to economic building as the reason for the extension of these regulations or the unwillingness to make the adjustments that are unnecessary, then we need to know that the economic burden has been properly assessed.

One of the values of market leverage of perhaps the supermarkets or the retailers having to accept higher standard animal welfare pork from New Zealand produces is kind of a win-win I would suggest—win, win, win. There may be or may not be an additional cost to the consumers. No one wants to unnecessarily drive up the cost of food in New Zealand, although I’d suggest a better solution to that is higher wages and then paying the food producers what they deserve. But, look, there are a couple of questions for the Minister.

Can I also refer to something he said, which was as long as there’s good animal welfare, then the systems are going well. I’d suggest the paradigm has been animal health not animal welfare and that as long as there’s good animal health—that is they don’t die and they grow quickly—then that’s OK. But the animal welfare side, which is a new concept of sentience discovered, I guess, and developed since the 1990s, now being brought into legislation, then does the Minister understand the difference between—or do the officials and did they, in their advice, differentiate between good animal welfare or good animal health? Because that is, in fact, a critical component of internation scrutiny.

Not just animal health, we’re pretty good at that. We can pump in antibiotics. We can just make sure that they grow quickly and pay them a whole lot of food. But there is this other dimension to animal management now that we have to take on board if we’re to be a country that depends upon good animal management, good animal welfare, to give us a good return for our economy. So a few questions there for the Minister and I look forward to his answers.

Working backwards—question, the last one that the Hon Damien O’Connor asked about. Do officials and the Associate Minister of Agriculture understand the difference between health and welfare in terms of animals? The answer to that is, of course, absolutely yes. I want to just also point the member in the direction of the Sapere Research report that was commissioned by the Ministry for Primary Industries to examine the cost implications of proposals. The questions that he asks are well defined and explained there.

Now, in reference to Steve Abel’s repeated questions, I can, with confidence, report that the Minister has previously answered those questions conclusively and fully.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Yes, I will take one more call, but I do want it to be specific to the clause, and also to note that Ministers have been engaging well and addressing questions, so looking for new material and specific references to clauses in this next contribution.

Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. I want to specifically pick up on the regulations regarding other requirements to management of pigs, which is to do with the manipulable materials that Rachel Boyack has touched on, but also this period of time in the mating stalls. So looking at, again, the decisions on regulations associated with the code of welfare of pigs document proactively released by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)—page 13 of that document outlines some advice given to the Associate Minister of Agriculture on the mating stalls. I’m on page 13 of that—clause 54.

To be clear, the Minister originally, in this earlier version of the legislation, had a 10-year time frame on the mating stalls. There is only one single recommendation on this, which is that there should be a requirement that pigs spend only three hours in a mating stall at a time and then must spend a minimum of three hours out of the mating stall.

Originally, the New Zealand Pork Industry Board had indicated that farmers would not need a transition period to implement these new practices. Then they came back and said they would need at least six months for this change to occur. They made that statement on 18 December—oh, no, they didn’t. They didn’t make that statement then. That was regarding the 18 December date we’re trying to meet.

So based on this information, the advice from MPI was to issue the code requiring the mating stall change to come into effect on 1 July 2026 but to provide the New Zealand Pork Industry Board with a copy of the code that you intend to issue in confidence and seek their feedback on whether it is realistic for the members to meet the requirements set out in the code. Then the recommendation was to set the regulation on mating stalls to come into effect on 1 July 2026.

So my first question is why did the Minister initially suggest 10 years for that to come into effect, rather than the MPI recommendation of six months—1 July 2026? And why has he now determined to make it one year rather than the 10 years he initially set upon and rather than the six months initially recommended? Thank you.

One year sounded simpler than six months in terms of people’s transitions.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clauses 11, 12, and 13 to provide for “an earlier date set by Order in Council” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 471 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Rachel Boyack’s amendments to clauses 13 and 14 set out on Amendment Paper 447 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s remaining amendments to clauses 11, 12, and 15 set out on Amendment Paper 447 be agreed to.

Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendments to clauses 13 and 14 to change the date to “2027” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s remaining tabled amendments to clauses 11, 12, and 15 to change the date to “2027” be agreed to.

Steve Abel’s amendments to clauses 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 set out on Amendment Paper 461 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Steve Abel’s amendments to clauses 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 set out on Amendment Paper 462 are out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to clauses 11, 12, and 13 replacing “2035” with “2028” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to clauses 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, replacing “2035” with “2028” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to clauses 11, 12, and 13 replacing “2035” with “2032” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to clauses 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, replacing “2035” with “2032” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment inserting new clause 11A set out on Amendment Paper 467 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 13 set out on Amendment Paper 463 be agreed to.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s three tabled amendments to clause 13 are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s two tabled amendments to clause 14 are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Referring to Schedule 1, the question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending Schedule 1, clause 8(1)(c), to require “consulting with the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending Schedule 1, clause 8(1)(c), to require “consulting with relevant animal welfare or advocacy organisations” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 471 amending Schedule 1, clause 8(2)(a) and (b), to reference “on the day of or after commencement” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 471 amending Schedule 1, clause 8(3), to include the word “not” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 471 amending Schedule 2, new regulation 27(1)(b)(ii) and (iii), to replace “3 hours” with “1 hour” be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 471 as amended be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Rachel Boyack’s amendment to Schedule 2, heading to new Schedule 3, set out on Amendment Paper 447 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, heading to new Schedule 3, to change “2035” to “2027” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Steve Abel’s amendments to Schedule 2, heading to new Schedule 3, set out on Amendment Paper 461 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Steve Abel’s amendments to Schedule 2, heading to new Schedule 3, set out on Amendment Paper 462 are out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, heading to new Schedule 3, replacing “2035” with “2028” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, heading to new Schedule 3, replacing “2035” with “2032” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to Schedule 2, new regulation 25(1), set out on Amendment Paper 464 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 465, new regulation 25(1), be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 466, new regulation 25(1), be agreed to

Steve Abel’s amendments to Schedule 2, new regulation 26(1), set out on Amendment Paper 467 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Steve Abel’s remaining amendments to Schedule 2, new regulation 26, set out on Amendment Paper 467 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to Schedule 2, new regulation 26(4), set out on Amendment Paper 468 be agreed to.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, new regulation 26(4), to increase the fines to “$5,000” and “$20,000” be agreed to.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, new regulation 26(4), to increase the fines to “$7,500” and “$25,000” be agreed to.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, new regulation 26(4), to increase the fines to “$7,500” and “$35,000” be agreed to.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, new regulation 26(4), to increase the fines to “$10,000” and “$37,500” be agreed to.

Steve Abel’s amendments to Schedule 2, new regulation 27(3), set out on Amendment Paper 469 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.