Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: That statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I move, That the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I will keep this very short and avoid covering a hell of a lot of old ground that we’ve traversed this morning and last night. This bill is quite simple. It moves the dial forward on welfare outcomes and goals and provides a sensible time frame for pork farmers to adapt to these changes. These changes, as has been mentioned, will reduce the length of time pigs will be in farrowing crates from the current 33 days to just seven—three days pre-farrowing; four days post-farrowing.

This puts us amongst the leading countries in the world. Very few other countries do this, and most other countries are still at 33 days. The other change is that the bill increases the grower space by 13.3 percent and also we are reducing the amount of time that pigs can spend in mating stalls down to three hours. These are pragmatic changes and the sensible time frame we are introducing for the transition for farmers will ensure they are able to adapt to these changes.

These changes are not simple. They are not easy. They require a huge investment, and, in many cases, farmers will need to disestablish their entire facilities and rebuild from the ground up. This is a major cost we’re imposing upon these farmers. It is not simple. It is not easy. Thus they need the 10 years.

I repeat that very few other countries have standards this high. These changes are very pragmatic, and the key thing here is that this ensures we will still have a domestic pork sector, and I just want to labour this point a little bit. We’ve heard a lot of people talking about this idea that customers and overseas consumers and all these people are going to want this and we’re just going to have to do it anyway. Well, yeah, OK; that’s how markets work. If there is a market signal, then people will respond. Farmers will respond to a market signal. The challenge we have here is that the market signal that our pork producers are getting right now is that people would rather buy cheap from overseas at lower welfare standards.

You can say, “Oh, everyone demands this.”, but the reality is that they may say that in a survey—it doesn’t cost them anything to respond to a survey—but when they have to put money on the table, that’s really their choice, and that is the signal they’re sending. They don’t want to pay for extra. They’re happy with the standards that are there. So it’s important that if we want to maintain a pork sector in this country, we cannot get too far. We obviously need to have leading welfare, but from what I’m hearing from the Opposition, we would have no pork sector in this country, and we would be importing everything.

It amazes me at times. We heard yesterday during the fast-track bill one of the members opposite was going on about, “What are you wasting your time talking about this for? How is this going to make food cheaper in the supermarket in Wainuiōmata? How is any of this going to change the dial on the cost of living?” Well, I did want to get up and explain how transport and energy prices all impact on how much your food costs to actually produce and get to market, but for all these members opposite who want to jump up and say that people want this, and at other times they talk about the cost of living and how can we make food less expensive, answer this for me. If you do what you want to do and we don’t have a pork sector or we force our pork sector to do all this or go even higher and it pushes up the prices, how does that make their Christmas ham any cheaper?

Finally, I just want to say that I hope everyone does enjoy their Christmas hams this year, and I commend this bill to the House.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the ACT Party votes to be cast by the National Party for the next hour so that members can attend a farewell for our long-serving chief of staff, Andrew Ketels.

Leave is sought but I don’t think you need to. I can grant that leave.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We’ve spent a large amount of time today traversing this bill, and it is extremely disappointing that it is going to be passed in the House today. Labour will continue to oppose this bill, and I will take the House through the reasons for that. A significant number of those reasons are related to the science in terms of what is best for sows and for piglets, and I will come to that quite substantively in my speech.

To start with, I would like to talk again about the background to this bill. In 2020, there was a High Court case that found that current practices around confining pigs in farrowing crates and other forms of confinement were at odds with the purposes and objectives of the Animal Welfare Act. Essentially, the operations of what was happening on farm were illegal and invalid. Cabinet took decisions at that point to put in place temporary regulations with a plan to move to finalising improved regulations for pig and piglet welfare, and those temporary regulations were due to expire next week on 18 December.

During our previous term in Government, it was the Labour Party—and I’ll put on record, because we do hear often in Opposition speeches how there’s been substantial consultation. Substantial consultation happened under the Labour Government. It was led by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), and it was led by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC). That consultation was based on a number of options about improving the space requirement for pigs in their environment. Then, around the time that final advice came through to Government, the Government changed, and so it wasn’t able to be implemented in time for the Government changing.

The Associate Minister of Agriculture has been in his role now for two years. What he has done in that time: instead of implementing the advice from NAWAC, he allowed the pork lobby to go back to lobby further, and he didn’t consult with the SPCA. Now, on my watch, that’s appalling, to not consult with the SPCA on such an important matter. They were sidelined. They were blindsided. When the law was introduced to Parliament, they had had no knowledge of what was going to come before this House, and that is not good enough.

Now, there’s a number of issues with the substance of this bill that the Labour Party takes issue with, and I’m going to go through those today. What is incredibly disappointing is that in many occasions relating to animal welfare changes, we can reach bipartisan, cross-party support. We should be striving to reach agreement between industry and other stakeholders such as animal welfare organisations, because that is how we get certainty and stability for industry and for a sector that is important like this one. What we don’t want to do is set up a flip-flop policy arrangement, but that is what is going to happen here, because we’re not going to be able to abide by what has been introduced to law here; we’re going to have to do something different, and that doesn’t provide certainty for industry. It’s not good for anybody.

I’m extremely disappointed that unlike Mr Peters’ approach around greyhounds, for example, where he has worked closely with the Opposition to actually come up with a programme of work that we all agree on—it actually means we can work together for the good of the animals involved. That is my plea, that, actually, on issues like this, we shouldn’t be having this debate across the House, because it is important that we support these sectors as well. For the record, I’ve met with New Zealand Pork and given them that message, and I’ve met with the SPCA and given them that message, that I would expect the two parties to sit down and come up with some solutions and potentially compromise around that.

Here are the issues. The first is that we are going to be waiting for 10 whole years for some minor improvements to pig welfare—10 years. Now, the industry hasn’t actually asked for 10 years; five years would be far more reasonable. I accept that there will have to be investment for industry—I accept that—but it does not have to be 10 years. When we have law currently in place that has been found by the court to be at odds with the purpose of the Act, that we know does not meet high standards for animal welfare, we should be working to change that as soon as possible. So when it comes to two components of the substance of this bill, around farrowing crates and around the grower pig requirements, waiting for 10 years is far too long, and that cannot stand.

There is one area where I do support what the Minister has done, and that is around improvements for time spent in a mating stall. For that to come in place in one year, that is a good thing, so I do want to give credit where it’s due. That is a good thing and I support that, and the Labour Party voted for those amendments as part of the bill.

Let’s talk about grower pigs. Only a 13.3 percent increase in the containment size for grower pigs, significantly less than what was proposed by NAWAC—significantly less. These are pigs that are being grown for sale for provision of meat, and when they are contained, they should be held in the best animal welfare standards possible, because pigs are sentient, and ensuring that they can actually move and not be constrained in their environment is a really important part of their welfare. So what the Minister has done is sided with the exact recommendations of the pork industry and completely sidelined NAWAC, and that is unheard of.

You know, one of the things the science adviser said to me was that during his consultation process, the most recent round, the SPCA were consulted because they were part of NAWAC. That’s actually wrong. The SPCA representative was no longer on NAWAC when NAWAC were consulted. They were replaced by a farmer when they left NAWAC, so there’s actually no representative of the SPCA currently on NAWAC and they weren’t part of that consultation. There’s some real concern here around NAWAC being undermined in terms of their responsibility to provide that independent advice to the Minister that comes from a broad range of people sitting around that table with a range of interests and expertise.

That’s grower pigs and mating stalls, but the biggest issue, certainly for the public, is around farrowing crates, and I think we’ve been sold some misinformation, frankly, around the science on this. What has come through the Primary Production Committee process which has been very helpful, from a group of New Zealand animal welfare scientists—many of whom have worked as veterinarians, many of whom have worked specifically in animal welfare science, have worked for MPI, have sat on NAWAC before. Some of the comments they’ve made in their submissions—and I’m going to put them on record. Here’s one: the current proposal to allow sows to be confined for seven days without increasing pen or crate size is particularly problematic. 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’ve also looked at some of the research. Specifically, Baxter et al talk about how “A well-designed and managed system without permanent crating can achieve the same performance as conventional farrowing crates.” Finally, another study from 2002: when considering the piglets’ needs, the European Food Safety Authority concluded that “Reducing the space available to the lactating sow below 6.6 m2 [will reduce] her freedom of movement and increase the mortality of [her] piglets.” So, actually, there has been a lot of scientific evidence that is at odds with what the MPI science summary has produced.

Because the select committee looked at this for such a short period of time, we weren’t able to deeply delve into that science, and that, again, is not good enough. That is not a good process for this Parliament to be following for such an important industry and the certainty it requires. My view is that we need certainty. My view is that we need some agreement between the industry and between animal welfare organisations around what standards two parties can compromise on and live with into the future so that we can improve animal welfare. Firstly, it must be less than 10 years, and there must be improvements around the farrowing system and significant improvements into the space allowance for grower pigs.

The Labour Party will not be supporting this bill. When we return to Government, we will be doing something differently. We will involve all stakeholders in those decisions and not just the ones that we happen to side with because of our backgrounds. I do not commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We have a powerful principle in our Animal Welfare Act that upholds an idea developed in New Zealand at Massey University that characterises animal welfare and the idea that animals, even when farmed, should still live a good life. It’s the concept of the five domains. Those five domains are freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury, or disease; freedom to express normal behaviour; and freedom from fear and distress. I cannot imagine anybody who doesn’t see film footage or photographs of a mother pig in a farrowing crate where she cannot turn around, she cannot express normal behaviour, she cannot build a nest, which is a profound instinct of mother pigs in the 24 hours before they give birth, she cannot properly tend to her young—I cannot imagine anyone who seriously thinks that that is not distressing for the mother pig or that it allows them to express their natural behaviour. Certainly it was the finding of the High Court in 2020 that the continued caging of pigs was inconsistent with our Animal Welfare Act.

This legislation the Minister is passing—that the Government is passing—is a means of, essentially, getting around the Animal Welfare Act because rather than an Order in Council that establishes a new code for pigs, it has been passed in primary legislation. This point has been made by legal experts and other submitters. Crown Law advised that was it not done in primary legislation, this new regime could be challenged again at the High Court.

In that regard, it is sort of cooking the books on our strong animal welfare law whereby the new codes of welfare, as signed off by the Minister, must be treated as complying with the purpose of this Act, even though by any reasonable measure they do not comply with the purposes of the Animal Welfare Act.

The animal welfare science is very clear on the basic principles of what life is like for a mother pig and piglets. To be clear, the Minister suggested that countries like Sweden and Norway have moved to temporary crating, which is what this legislation will do: it will move New Zealand to temporary crating. But it will do it in 10 years’ time, with the option of extending the status quo of five years for a mother pig in a cage by another five years in 10 years’ time. It could be potentially 15 more years of the status quo that our own courts have said are utterly unacceptable.

There is a hugely missed opportunity here because it turns out, even in the Government’s own evaluation of what it would cost to move to free farrowing, for a 350-sow farm it would cost $595,000 as the capital cost. What the Minister is proposing costs $507,000 for a 350-sow farm as the capital cost. That is a nominal in the scheme of things, over even a 10-year transition difference. The missed opportunity is that had the Government had the courage to move the way the whole world is moving in this space, to uphold the actual principle embodied in our strong Animal Welfare Act—

SPEAKER: Look, I don’t mean to interrupt the member, but I think you might want to rephrase—

STEVE ABEL: Use of the word “courage”?

SPEAKER: Yeah, you can’t use that word. You might want to say “foresight” or some other such word.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Mr Speaker—yes. Had the Government had the foresight to recognise the opportunity of moving New Zealand to something that is both consistent with the strong public feeling on this matter—overwhelmingly over many years, polling has showed that most New Zealanders do not want to see pigs in cages—had they seized the nettle, so to speak, and actually taken that step of phasing out farrowing crates, even if it was in 10 years’ time, it would both set us on a course that is consistent with the courage we did take when we phased our sow stalls. It would set us on that course and eliminate any uncertainty about the expectations of how animals are treated in our agricultural systems in this country. We would put ourselves where we really want to be, which is as a genuine world leader in the animal welfare space. The New Zealand public don’t want to see animals suffering. We have an expectation that if we’re going to farm animals, it’s done in a humane way that upholds the highest standards of welfare.

That missed opportunity is a big problem for the pork industry, for the pig farming industry, because whilst the Minister has said this is to give some sort of certainty to that industry, in fact the legislation does the exact opposite because it does not have the support of the whole House, it does not have public support, and the industry can be certain that if there is a change in Government, there will be a change in this legislation. I want to offer an olive branch to the pork industry: NZ Pork and the pig farmers, let us sit down and work out a way forward that does fulfil the highest and best expectations of the Animal Welfare Act and the public expectation, think about what is necessary to move to free-farrowing farming in this country, recognise the costs involved in that, and recognise the challenges for the industry. But let us understand that is the way that we need to move and we need to find ways to do it.

I agree with the concerns that it would be ludicrous for us to have a situation where pig production in New Zealand was no longer viable and all of the pork we consume was imported; currently, 60 percent of it is. I have a bill to say that no animal products imported into this country should be inconsistent with our Animal Welfare Act. That would assist some way in that. But I agree with the concern that we don’t want to wipe out the existing domestic production. We want to bring it to a high standard and we ideally want to have more domestic production and less consumption from overseas, but that cannot be done at the cost of animal welfare. It cannot be accepted at the ongoing suffering of mother pigs in cages.

Finally, I want to say, the Minister said that the market can decide what welfare standards are tolerable. That was the essential essence of what the Minister proposed: that if the market determines and the customer is willing to pay, then the welfare standards will improve. That is categorically not how animal welfare works, because, by that logic, we would allow everything to fall to the very lowest common denominator. There would be no animal welfare because the most abusive means of farming would be sustained and they would undercut all other means.

The logic of the Minister’s assertion around the market is the same error that has been made in the conflation of the question of cost to farmers and the impact on animals. The High Court has been very clear that practicality and economic impacts cannot override the welfare considerations under the Act. That is to say, animal welfare comes first in this regard. It is not to diminish that there are economic challenges, but we must first and foremost consider the animal welfare under the Act.

This bill fails on multiple counts. I do not believe it gives industry certainty. It certainly locks in a miserable existence for mother pigs and piglets for another 10 years at least, and it is not consistent with what I believe most New Zealanders believe our farming should be. It should be world leading in preserving the dignity and the wellbeing of animals, as well as being a means to making an honest living for farmers, as well as providing food to people. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is about balancing the welfare concerns of sows and of piglets. It will save 14 percent of piglet deaths and also give farmers a pathway towards the changes that have been introduced in this bill. I commend it to the House.

New Zealand First will support this bill. It was clear that indoor farming for pigs does need to change, and there’s a High Court ruling that we respect on this side of the House making that so. We do have to upgrade our animal welfare provisions in regard of indoor farming of pigs.

This is a complex issue. This is, as Miles Anderson just said, not overt cruelty to sows for the sake of it. This is a restriction of some movement of sows to protect piglets, and the data—our data and the Ministry for Primary Industries’ data does show that there is a 14 percent higher mortality rate for piglets in these non - farrowing crate situations. There is a balance to be struck here. It is some restrictions to the sow against some protection for the piglets.

This legislation will dramatically reduce the amount of time, over time—as has been said there is a quite a long transition here—that sows can be constrained in farrowing crates from, I think, four weeks down to about seven days. It also reduces the time in containment in a mating stall to three hours at a time. The Minister has brought those requirements forward a year, as a result of the select committee, which I think is a good decision.

But there is a bigger issue here. Do we want to have a domestic pork industry? It is that simple—do we want to have a domestic pork industry? The reality is 60 percent of the pork that is consumed in New Zealand is imported, much of it from jurisdictions that have animal welfare regulations well below our existing regulations, let alone where we’re going to. It’s easy to moralise around this stuff, but the reality on the ground is it’s $600,000 for an average 350-sow piggery, indoor piggery, to convert, plus $34,000 a year. That is material.

In 2001, there were 600 commercial piggeries in this country. I was surprised—when this court ruling first came about in the first term that I was in Parliament, I was actually really shocked to find out that there were 92 commercial piggeries left in New Zealand. There are now estimated to be between 70 and 80. This is not an industry that’s booming in any way that can afford to take a $600,000 capital hit without a decent transition time or a $34,000 blow to their bottom line on an annual basis.

Remember, only about just over half of these 70 or 80 farms that we’re talking about actually are in containment. So many of our pig farms—I think Havoc Farm Pork’s one that’s a pretty well-known brand, but there is a consumer choice, if people do want to support those and I would encourage them to, those outdoor piggeries. But for the 44—the 44—New Zealand First will stand beside them. We will not see them run out of business unnecessarily because we are prepared to import vast quantities of imported pork to replace their output. We will work with them. We support the Minister and parties on this side—the Government—and the measures that we brought in. It’s a very clear decision from New Zealand First. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on this bill and to acknowledge our support for the bill. I think the issues have been well canvassed across the readings and in the committee stage. I do, again, want to bring the House’s attention to the extensive consultation undertaken, since 2022, on this bill, including with industry experts, animal welfare groups, and the industry itself. I commend the bill to the House.

Steve—

Hon Member: Scott.

SPEAKER: Scott Willis.

Thank you, Mr Speaker—and I appreciate not being called Steve Abel, although sometimes people do mistake us. Steve’s balder than I am, and he has facial hair.

SPEAKER: Look, there’s certainly a visible similarity, but as soon as you open your mouths and start talking, Steve Abel’s got it all over you.

SCOTT WILLIS: Certainly, on this bill, I’ll take that—I’ll take that. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I must say, I was disappointed in the debate we had on the title and commencement when my amendment was ruled out of order—out of order in that it was ruled inaccurate. I thought that was a really unfair statement, because my title suggestion that I think the Minister should really adopt was “The Industrial Pork Producers’ Regulation for Pig Crate Containment Amendment Bill”, which I think describes exactly what this bill is all about. It certainly describes who the Minister listened to in devising the standards.

We have canvassed where this bill came from; that it is part of the corporate industrial food regime. It’s not really protecting farmers; it’s supporting an industry that doesn’t consider animals as sentient beings but simply as part of a food chain and that what happens to them doesn’t really matter. That’s the real issue that we have with this bill. It is not supporting our progressive farmers; it’s not supporting animal welfare; it’s not supporting better nutrition and food for our communities. It’s certainly placing those laggards—those people who were unable or unwilling to make changes—in a really difficult position, because they know that, in 2026, there will be a change of Government, and this legislation will not stand.

We are concerned that this bill, rather than providing any certainty, simply upends the situation and extends the anxiety for our rural sector even further. I look around, and I know there are some people here who do understand parts of what happens in rural Aotearoa. If we want to keep trading on the “clean, green Aotearoa” brand—and we are already at risk of breaching our free-trade agreement with the EU because of this Government’s walk-back of methane targets, of climate action, of freshwater standards—we need to instead insist on higher-quality production. That means better animal welfare. That means we make sure that what we’re producing is something we can be proud of—something that we can label and something we can note.

The question that came from the other side of the House just before was, “Why don’t we choose that?” Well, we need to know what we’re choosing. We need it to be labelled. We need to have a clear indication of whether we’re eating pork that’s been produced in cages—we need to know that. We need to know whether we’re eating pork or buying pork that’s been produced in other jurisdictions that haven’t lived up to even our weak standards—we need to know that. My colleague Steve Abel has a bill that will fix that. That’s something that we should just do. This should not be something that we even have to debate; we should have the ability to join forces across the House to make this happen.

A future where we move more to industrial food, industrial production, and factory-style farming is not a future that most New Zealanders want. It’s not a future that provides for everyone. We can do so much better than accepting this pathetic attempt to mollify the industry rather than address the real issues of animal welfare, of informed consumers who want better food, want to know the provenance of their food, and want to understand that, when they are purchasing something, they’re doing better and they’re not making life and the world worse. We will continue to oppose this bill, and we will change things next term.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call in the third reading of this piece of legislation. I do rise alongside my colleague Rachel Boyack to confirm that the Labour Party will be opposing this bill at its third reading, which should come as no surprise to members in this House. I too would like to just traverse how we got here, but before I do that, I do want to take a moment to acknowledge the over 8,000 people who took time to submit on this piece of legislation, and over 90 percent of those people opposed this legislation.

I want to talk a little bit about what this bill does and why we find ourselves here, but I also want to talk about the issues around the consultation process, which I think is something that we do need to continue to highlight. If we think about those over 8,000 people that submitted on this bill, so many of them didn’t get the opportunity to appear before the Primary Production Committee that I’m sure would have loved the opportunity. This was because of the fact that we had to have a truncated report-back period. In my view, that is not the best way of making legislation. I do understand that it was time-limited, and I’ll also talk a little bit about that, but when we don’t have the ability for those that submit to us with written submissions that wish to make oral submissions, I do think that we are failing democracy somewhat.

Again, I do want to point that out to the ACT Minister that was speaking in the House last night who said that many voices make better law. I think that that’s something that perhaps the Government might want to listen to, considering it was one of their Ministers that made that comment.

What this bill does is, basically, its primary intent is to address the imminent expiry of a couple of clauses—26 and 27—which are around the use of farrowing crates and mating stalls. That is due to expire on 18 December. I do want to acknowledge that members of the Labour Party do support the amendments that the Minister made with regard to the mating stalls, and we think that that’s a good thing and that the changes must come into play as of this time next year, roughly.

Also the amendment that the Minister has made around the record-keeping having to be under way as of this time next year—I think that that is a very important thing because record-keeping does ensure that there is the opportunity for the farmers to show that they are doing what they need to be doing should someone question them, so I think that it’s a protection also for them and I acknowledge the Minister for making those good decisions there.

We are here in this situation because in November 2020 there was the court ruling to say that the farrowing crates and the mating stalls associated with the minimum standards in the pigs code were unlawful and invalid, and that is part of the reason why we find ourselves here, although it is somewhat concerning when, in the time of the previous Government, there was a substantial amount of consultation that was under way and undertaken around this particular issue because of all the consultation, and it was very wide. It was wide—it was industry, it was animal welfare groups, it was the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and the like.

There was a huge public consultation, and as my colleague Rachel Boyack mentioned earlier on, by the time that consultation was all put together in a report and came before Ministers, the election happened and there was a change of Government. What would have been more beneficial would be to have seen the current Minister for animal welfare just pick up those recommendations and actually look to make a decision based on that current report, but instead he chose to go out for further consultation. But it seems that it was only consultation with the pork industry and not the likes of animal welfare agencies. I understand that there are several, but the SPCA is the one that he should have actually consulted with, given that they are the largest organisation.

As my colleague Rachel Boyack also mentioned, when the Associate Minister of Agriculture said that he consulted with NAWAC and that there was an SPCA representative on NAWAC, so therefore he was consulting with the SPCA—well, that is not correct, because the SPCA person on NAWAC was no longer on NAWAC at the time of consultation. I don’t think that it was very fair of the Minister to say that given in the previous round of consultation with the previous Government, the SPCA was consulted then and therefore did not need to be consulted this time, when in fact the pork industry was also consulted last time, but he chose to consult with them specifically this time. I don’t think there was a lot of fairness in that.

My colleague Rachel Boyack talked about the idea and the willingness of this side of the House to work in a more bipartisan way. When it comes to things like agriculture—even education and infrastructure—I think it’s important that we do look for more ways to work together in a bipartisan way. Sadly, this did not happen in this situation.

She also raised a really valid point about getting industry and animal welfare bodies in the room together to try and nut out a way forward where I guess not everyone is necessarily going to be happy with the outcome and that compromise would have to be made. But at least then everybody would have had the opportunity to have their say and have their input.

I do want to raise concerns—like, I understand that this was a time-limited situation where we had to get this legislation in the House by 18 December, which is next week. It is concerning that there was only seven days’ notice for public submissions. I do think that the fact that the Minister waited for nearly two years to look to do something, bring something to the House, is of concern and should not have meant that the public had less of an opportunity to engage with the process.

Suze Redmayne: What happened between 2020 and 2025?

Hon JO LUXTON: The member across the House asks what happened between 2022 and 2025. There was a huge amount of consultation undertaken, as I said before, but I’m happy to repeat it for the member; she might have missed it. There was a lot of consultation with stakeholders, animal welfare groups, NAWAC, and the Ministry for Primary Industries, and they put together a report that was presented to me not long prior to when I was actually the Minister, just prior to the election. The election happened and there was a change of Government, so, unfortunately, we weren’t able to act on it, and it would have been nice to see the current Minister just pick up that piece of work and run with it rather than going down the path he chose to go down.

The Minister that spoke earlier—Patterson—asked if we want to have a domestic pork industry. Absolutely, we want to have a domestic pork industry. We want a pork industry that is a success in New Zealand. He did mention that there is a small number, which is unfortunate, so we need to do all we can to support our pork industry and grow our pork industry. The fact that we have a huge amount of imported pork is really concerning, so it is up to us as Kiwis to make sure that when we go out, we are supporting our New Zealand pork industry.

Before I finish, I just want to say to the House and to those that I’m sure are out there listening and watching intently that whether it be lamb or ham this Christmas, make sure you either buy New Zealand made, or look for the labels that say “100 percent New Zealand ham and pork” to ensure that you are buying New Zealand - grown ham.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would echo the previous sentiment in regard to buying New Zealand ham, lamb—don’t forget about beef, though.

Look, we heard a lot about the science during the committee of the whole House, and I’d just make the comment it is quite easy to pick the data that fits your argument. But what Dr John Roche did is he actually looked at all of evidence—and a vast amount of evidence. That’s where we got the recommendation on this bill. It does take a balanced approach, balancing the welfare of the sow and the piglets. I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call. Arena Williams.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, here we are: a couple of weeks before Christmas, and food prices are going up, the affordability crisis is hitting families all around the country, and the Government is desperate to find a villain that is not their mismanagement of the situation. In this case, it’s animal welfare; it’s those people out there who say that we should be treating the pigs well, because, in this case, good old Government is coming to the rescue with some good news for the consumers, if we would have it their way. They would have us believe that the reason why consumers are paying more for their hams is because somehow it’s out of control to expect that Aotearoa New Zealand would have a situation where the rules were on par with other countries that we like to compare ourselves to, the standards that apply to pork grown in this country.

The most vociferous advocates on that side of the House for New Zealand’s pork industry, in this debate, have been exactly those MPs who will not vote for the legislative solution put forward by Steve Abel that would make regulations in New Zealand apply to those imported products, that would not ensure that New Zealand farmers who are getting their pork on the shelves at the supermarket this Christmas are entitled to fair margins, and that the profit being made on those products on the shelves in the duopoly are fairly priced, and that they are alongside products of a similar value and not competing for space with products imported from Latvia or Belarus or unclear where they are from. No. We’re having a debate about the evils of crating and the evils of regulations which came into effect because the court said, “No. We’ve got to do better. We’ve got to catch up faster. This isn’t legal.”, because, then, the Act that we are trying to follow here is called the Animal Welfare Act. The problem here with the regulations is they must ensure standards for the welfare of animals.

The problem here is that the Government has created a very strange backdoor solution to regions because what the problem really is is that they want animal welfare not to apply to just three regulations in the code when they apply to pigs. Essentially, what they have done in this bill is taken away any minimum requirements whatsoever and then implanted, by primary legislation, exactly what industry wanted, under the cover of an improvement in the cost of living for New Zealanders.

I think most New Zealanders are more sensible than that. I think this Government also knows that: that most Kiwis are really worried about the average household costs going up 2.4 percent last year, food prices rising 4.7 percent, and most New Zealanders saying at this Christmas time that their most significant concern is rising costs. The Government have used that as a political tool to cloak what is happening here, which is bending over for an industry that knew it had to change, knew it had to follow international best practice, and didn’t want to.

So the Government has reached out and into regulations through primary legislation, and stretched the constitutional boundaries of what they were able to do to make that happen. Instead of actually being clear with New Zealanders and saying, “Look, we don’t want the Animal Welfare Act to apply. We’re actually going to make up a bill which says that the Animal Welfare Act doesn’t apply to pigs.”, they’ve chosen to go around the back way and not consult with people they knew would object to that and they’ve offered a shortened consultation period for the people that did.

Now we are faced with the situation in New Zealand where we are going backwards, once again, and where the people being blamed for the rising cost of living and the rising cost of the ham on the Christmas table are the wrong people, because New Zealanders should look over there and see a Government that will not address the underlying problems here: that the duopoly was found to be making a million dollars in excess profits per day—nothing addresses that in this bill.

We will see the rising cost of meat, which was 7 percent in the last year, continuing under the guise of a Government that’s making some progress because they are ignoring animal welfare in all of its forms for these specific three regulations which only apply to pigs. That is not a solution; that is a failure to confront the market conditions which are leading to New Zealanders’ costs going up. It is making consumers worse off, not better off, and it is worsening the affordability crisis. New Zealanders know that. That is why this Government is unpopular with most people who say that the cost of living is their number one concern.

New Zealanders will not fall for this. This is not a good solution. It will not endure. Labour will fix this when we are back in.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to talk in this third reading of this very important bill: the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill. It’s got a date that we’ve got to get this done by for the clear reasons that have already been commented on. This bill has had extensive consultation, as many people have already talked to. It ensures that New Zealand retains its reputation for high animal welfare outcomes, while making sure that we keep a viable pork-farming industry here in New Zealand. The bill is well balanced on a number of different matters. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Sorry, I was a little slow there. This bill is a bit of a lost opportunity, and the Minister in the seat exposed the reasons why this Government fails to take up those opportunities. He said that market signals should determine what the pork industry should do. Why not, for once, get ahead of the market signals and be out front and create a product that the world wants? The reality is that the ethics around animal welfare, and consumer views towards them, are changing internationally. We can be criticised a little, I guess, for not having sorted this out because what we did, following the court action that deemed the regulations to be illegal under the Act, was we actually gave the industry some time to transition; that was this month. Unfortunately, the industry sought to reverse that direction of travel, talk to the coalition Government, and actually kicked us down the road for another 10 years, which is, effectively, what we are doing here.

The pork industry, as was pointed out before by the Hon Mark Patterson, has shrunk considerably. In fact, 45 percent of the industry, now, is outdoor. Can I say that my experience as a young 7- or 8-year-old was going from a cow shed to the pig shed to feed out the skim milk while we took the butter or the cream to the butter factory. I grew up with pigs, with a system of raising pigs in plenty of space. They were indoors, but not in the confinement that we see today. The pork industry, and the pig industry, has changed dramatically. The intensification, the systems that we take from offshore places like Denmark, where I’ve seen the very intensive systems that they need to produce protein, have been brought onshore to here. We have, within the industry, a tension between the outdoor systems and the indoor systems. The indoor systems are increasingly being deemed as unethical and not supportive of what people expect of animal welfare systems for animals across the globe. We’re a country that relies on good management of animals for our wealth and for our wellbeing. We must try to do the very best we can, using the knowledge that we learn.

We know there are different systems for outdoor and for indoor, and the Minister has made some adjustments—kicked down the road for another 10 years—to what he says, or thinks, will be the market signals for good animal welfare systems. I’d suggest that, by the time this Government’s transition out to 2035 comes into place, actually the demand for that kind of pork will have shrunk dramatically because, I think, the world is moving to scrutinise the systems of food production.

The question is: why didn’t the coalition Government—I know the answer, of course—seize the opportunity to work with the pork industry, to put it ahead of the game? It is a very traditional industry. In fact, we found that out through COVID-19 and I found out because I was the Minister and we wrote out cheques for millions and millions of dollars. We purchased pork because the pork industry is a system of production that just pokes them in at one end, and pokes them out at the other end, and has very little flexibility. In fact, we have very little, if no exports, even to the Pacific neighbours that we have—they have high demand for pork; Australia has—but the pork industry has been focused on the domestic consumption.

Most New Zealand animal production systems are worthy of world status, and of export status, and that’s what they do, except pork. The question has always been for that industry: why don’t you focus offshore? Give yourself some market flexibility because we are importing a lot and we can export some as well.

Mike Butterick: We already do.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: If we’ve got systems—not much, if any. Not much if any, and I’d be interested to hear from that member if he thinks there are some markets. Can I say that, we probably, and I know there will be a lot of outdoor systems and some of the indoor systems—there are good farmers—but the regulations that we have are outdated. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, our independent animal welfare advisory body, has said they’re outdated. In fact, they’ve said the systems we have, and the systems that are being endorsed today and prolonged, are actually outside the scope of the Animal Welfare Bill that was worked on in the 1990s. It was updated in the early 2000s, but that bill has identified sentience. It’s identified the need to look after animals in an ethical way that acknowledges their senses. I don’t want to get into that. I’m no vet, I’m no expert, but I’ve heard enough to know that we run pretty good systems, but we do have to be mindful—as we do with beef production, as we do with sheep production—to make changes where necessary. We’ve stopped mulesing with merinos; we’ve stopped—well, we should be stopping—the bobby calf system; I don’t know how to call it, really, in a nice polite way: that is, we stop knocking bobby calves on the heads on the farm. We have to do that; stop chopping off cows’ tails. We’ve done that, as we understand and we learn that these things are not right.

In terms of pig production, pork production, most of the world is saying that actually confining sows in the way that this piece of legislation will allow to continue is not right. The argument around “Well, it will protect a few piglets” is a contested one. The members on that side of the House are saying, “Oh, the Ministry for Primary Industries has done some extensive research.”; that will be investigated. In my view, that will be challenged and exposed as not being entirely complete. I hope that it’s not misleading because the Government has relied on that—on one report—and if that one report is exposed as being inaccurate or misleading, then we have a problem with the science that this Government relies on to make many, many decisions. That’s another issue, and I think time will expose that as being either of value or not to this whole debate.

It is important that, internationally, anyone who might be interested in this knows that we, in Labour and in Opposition, are absolutely committed—beyond next year when we get into Government—to uphold the highest standards of animal welfare, as we are now obliged to do under some trade agreements. But it’s not just those trade agreements; we do it because it’s the right thing to do. As a country dependent, as I’ve said before, on the utilisation—the ethical utilisation—of animals for our wealth creation, we will continue to do our best, believe me, in spite of what might be temporary interruptions or lost opportunities, as this bill is, to try and move us ahead of the game.

I would be supportive, and as a former trade Minister, of the ability for us to put in place standards—as is allowed in trade agreements, carefully—that ensure that if we open the door to consumption of pork in this country and we set a standard for how that’s produced, we don’t make choices or single out any countries or any trading partners but we say that’s the standard. We’re allowed to do that. But, actually, this is a lost opportunity to do that because we won’t be at the head of the game—we won’t be at the head of the game, and that, unfortunately, is a lost opportunity.

This has been a bit of a torrid process. It is a highly emotional process. If the Government thinks this is unusual, any piece of legislation regarding animals—as we move forward over time—will be highly emotive. That’s the reality. Over 8,000 submissions in a very short space of time on this one bill alone. That’s an indication of the importance that, as Governments, we get this right into the future. This is a lost opportunity. It won’t, unfortunately, offer the certainty to the pork industry that they need, and for that I apologise. Maybe, it should have been, could have been, sorted. There was always going to be a transition, always a cost, but if that cost is seen as wise investment over time, then that’s smart. We can’t support the bill because it is a lost opportunity. We will work with the industry once we’re back in Government to ensure that they have a future.

National backs our farmers 100 percent. Pork farmers are like all farmers across the country: the backbone of New Zealand. They just want to be able to get on and do what they do best, and that is farm. This bill enhances welfare outcomes for pigs, gives farmers the confidence to invest, and the certainty they need to do what they do best, and that is farm.

I just want to say thank you to all the farmers in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.