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.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative 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 first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported back to the House by 9 February 2026.

This bill aims to provide certainty and a pathway forward for our pig farming sector to deliver world-leading animal welfare outcomes and be viable economically. Pig farmers that I have spoken to have struggled with the uncertainty of what rules they need to farm under, asking: will the rules be practical and affordable, and will they have the time available to transition their operations to meet them? For many, this uncertainty has hindered their succession and investment plans. By giving the sector certainty, we enable them to look forward and plan for a future with higher animal welfare standards.

In November 2020, the High Court ruled that regulations 26 and 27 of the Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018 and the associated minimum standards in the Code of Welfare: Pigs 2018 were unlawful and invalid. These regulations permitted the confinement of sows in farrowing crates for up to 33 days and in mating stalls for up to one week. While the court did not ban these practices, it directed the then Minister to consider recommending new regulations to phase out their use. In response, the Cabinet at the time extended the existing regulations for five years out of the possible 15 years the Act provides for, to allow time for review, consultation, and transition.

The current regulations will expire on 18 December this year. The Animal Welfare Act does not permit an extension, and, unfortunately, that entire transition time was used when the industry had no idea what it was precisely supposed to transition towards. Without legislative action, there will be gaps in the law, gaps in particular about the requirements for how piglets and sows are managed during their most vulnerable stages of life. The bill I present today addresses these gaps, delivers much needed clarity and certainty about what is the minimum required, and sets a pathway for strengthened animal welfare outcomes for pigs. These changes may not be agreed by all parties, but they are necessary. The Government has worked hard to strike a balance between ensuring high standards of animal welfare and supporting farmers to implement practical, science-based changes.

The Animal Welfare Act requires that those in charge of animals ensure the physical health and behavioural needs of those animals are met. In bringing these proposals forward, I am required to ensure that the changes are in accordance with good practice and scientific knowledge. In developing this bill, I have considered advice at different times from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, New Zealand Pork, and officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). I’ve also considered the views of nearly 4,500 people and groups such as SPCA and the New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA), who made submissions during the public consultation process.

On some issues, there has been broad consensus—for example, the proposal to limit the use of mating stalls to a maximum of three hours is supported by the NZVA, the SPCA, New Zealand Pork, and MPI. There is agreement that this proposal reflects good practice, scientific evidence, and meets the purposes of the Act. On other matters, views have been more divided, particularly over the contentious issue of farrowing crates. With the regulation set to expire at the end of this year, the decision is needed now. New Zealand Pork, MPI, and NZVA advised that confinement for no more than three days before and four days after farrowing, combined with the provision of manipulable and deformable materials during farrowing, meets the needs of the sow while also minimising piglet mortality. I acknowledge that these proposals will not be welcomed by all those with an interest in animal welfare. The proposed changes in this bill significantly strengthen animal welfare, are pragmatic, reflect available technologies, and have been informed by expert advice on the current science and good practice.

The bill proposes three key changes. Firstly, regulation 25, which sets space requirements for grower pigs: this bill increases the k-value used to calculate minimum lying space from 0.03 to 0.034, a 13.3 percent increase. This allows pigs to lie comfortably, move freely, avoid other pigs, and avoid dunging where they sleep. It also reduces the incidence of tail biting and improves overall welfare.

Secondly, to regulation 26 and farrowing crates: the use of farrowing crates is one of the most contested issues in animal welfare. People in support of their use highlight lower piglet mortality due to crushing, and improved safety for farm workers while assisting sows and their piglets. Others, opposed to their use, are concerned about how they restrict sows from expressing normal behaviours. The bill limits the use of farrowing crates to a maximum of seven days—three days before and four days after farrowing. Additionally, all farrowing sows must be provided with manipulable and deformable materials, not just those in facilities built after 2010, as is the current case. Provision of these materials is an important addition to farrowing practices, as this enables the sows to have the opportunity to perform normal behaviours, as required by the Act. Combined, these two changes to regulation 26 support natural behaviours and reduce sow stress. The new confinement period, totalling seven days, is a significant reduction from the current 33-day setting, and will be amongst the lowest in the world, with most countries we currently import pork from allowing their use for 33 days. Restricting to four days after birth focuses the use of farrowing crates to when piglets are at their most vulnerable. The bill also reduces confinement for nurse sows to a single period of no more than 36 hours, down from the current maximum of seven days.

Thirdly, regarding regulation 27, which sets the requirements for the use of mating stalls: currently, sows may be confined in mating stalls for up to one week per reproductive cycle. This restricts their ability to express normal behaviours such as social interaction and free movement. This bill reduces this time to three hours at a time, with a mandatory three-hour break before re-confinement.

This package of reforms will come at a cost to farmers. New Zealand’s pork industry is small in comparison to other livestock production sectors. There are fewer than 80 farms, with around 45 indoor piggeries. Yet in my conversations with New Zealand Pork and pig farmers, they’ve expressed their commitment to progressive change. These changes will place New Zealand pig farmers amongst other countries with globally leading welfare standards, without the subsidies that are often present in those other countries.

This bill provides a 10-year transition period. This aligns with international norms for changes of this scale and gives farmers time to plan, finance, and implement infrastructure changes. Not all of these changes will take 10 years to implement, and I expect the sector to move faster where it can. However, I believe we must acknowledge that, together, these changes are significant for farmers. They will require significant financial investments and much effort in the way of planning, gaining consents, and changes to farm infrastructure and on-farm practices. These new requirements will therefore take effect from 19 December 2035.

In conclusion, this bill is the product of an extensive consultation process and science-based policy-making, and it reflects the expectations of consumers and the high expectations that New Zealanders have about the way we treat animals in this country. It supports farmers for a practical transition while ensuring animal welfare standards continue to improve. I urge all members of this House to support the bill. It ensures New Zealand remains a leader in animal welfare, provides clarity for farmers, and strengthens public confidence in our food production systems. This Government is backing farmers, restoring balance, and making sure our regulations reflect both compassion and practicality. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Now that we’ve heard nearly 10 minutes of spin, let’s put some facts on the record today about why this bill is such a shocker and a terrible indictment on this House, on this Government’s lack of commitment to animal welfare. Let’s get some facts on the table.

Farrowing crates are terrible for pigs and their piglets. They cause significant animal welfare issues for sows and piglets. It leads to an increased risk of stillbirth, reduced growth rates, poorer maternal attention, and increased risk of mismothering—which is savaging of a piglet. Also, for sows, their use is associated with restriction of the expression of their normal behaviour, including basic things like turning around, walking, resting comfortably, and creating separate functional areas. It is an indictment on this House that farrowing crates, under this legislation, will be permitted to continue to be used in this industry.

I’m just going to go back over some of the history. In 2018, the then Minister of Agriculture issued regulations and minimum standards, which allowed farrowing crates. There was a judicial review following that, which found it was a breach of the Animal Welfare Act. Following that, the Labour Government put in place regulations to phase out farrowing crates by 18 December 2025.

The Minister has talked about consultation as if it was something he did; Labour did it in 2022. He’s then talked about some changes that he’s making under the Act. I’m going to talk about what was actually in that consultation versus what’s been put forward today. If we talk about farrowing, under the public consultation, which was due to come into force in 2025, it was either a ban on farrowing crates and a requirement for larger pens, or up to 72 hours in a crate, and only after farrowing and only after nest building is complete—and in a five-minute speech, I don’t have time to get into the detail of why this matters—but not seven days. The advice I’ve received from experts is that seven days will continue to put these animals at significant risk.

The Minister’s proposals, funnily enough, match the proposals from NZ Pork, who he has just admitted to having targeted consultation with. Yet the SPCA have written to the Ministry for Primary Industries, asking for consultation; they’ve written to the Minister, asking for consultation. Nothing targeted under your watch, Minister. They were consulted in 2022, but a failure to consult the SPCA over this legislation that was landed on this House this week is, again, an indictment on this House, Minister.

He’s talked a bit about space for grower pigs. It’s correct. He’s going to increase the minimum spacing requirements by 13.3 percent—the exact proposal from New Zealand Pork. Yet what Labour was proposing was either a 56 percent or 140 percent increase in space; not 13.3 percent.

I appreciate that there actually is a risk here because, in the last two years, since this Minister’s done nothing about this, we’ve gotten to December, and we now have a legal risk presenting itself. Here’s my genuine olive branch: I will happily work with the Minister to extend what is currently in law by one or two years so we can get this right, but not reduce standards from what was consulted on in 2022 by such a massive reduction, and definitely not 10 years before we get minimal improvements in animal welfare for pigs—tiny improvements that the Minister is trying to stand up and claim as being a good thing. They are tiny improvements.

If you read comments from people like the Animal Law Association, if you read comments from reputable animal welfare organisations like the SPCA, they need—

Grant McCallum: They’re not reputable.

RACHEL BOYACK: They’re not reputable? You heard it from a National Party member today, saying that SPCA are not reputable. OK, I’ll remember that—I’ll remember that when they go out collecting for them in their nice suits every year, have not—

Grant McCallum: No, Animal Law, actually—Animal Law.

RACHEL BOYACK: The Animal Law Association, who won a court case, and given that the Minister’s allowing this to run till February—we’ve got between December and February for another court case. So that’s going to be really interesting, Minister. Labour will not be supporting this bill.

Fundamentally, for those members of the public watching, you need to understand that this bill means 10 more years of misery for mother pigs and piglets—10 more years. That’s the fundamental thing that this bill does: it delays the legislated action to bring an end to the cruel use of farrowing crates by 10 years.

Now, if anyone was in any doubt as to the essential animal cruelty of this Government, this bill proves the point. While there are cows wallowing up to their udders in mud in Southland and while they plan to bring back live animal exports, now they’re also delaying action on pig welfare by a decade—a full decade—and then, only then, after 10 years, they intend to increase the space available to a mother pig by 13 percent.

Guess who liked the idea of that! The pork industry. Guess who advised against that! The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, the very advisers to the Minister. He’s called the Minister of animal welfare, but, in fact, this legislation proves he should rightly be called the “Minister of animal cruelty”, because it is undeniable: the evidence from animal welfare experts across the world is that keeping pigs like this is inhumane, fundamentally.

Animals want to nest and care for their young and their piglets. What a farrowing crate does—well, you lock a mother pig into a cage and stop it from being able to turn around, from being able to build a nest, from being able to care for its young, and you cause it stress. You cause harm to the pig. The maternal nesting behaviours are fundamentally disallowed. It is associated with pressure sores, teat cuts, lameness, frustration, boredom, pain, and distress caused by the prolonged confinement.

Just to be clear, the changes the Minister is talking about, about restrictions of a few days, that is not coming into effect under this bill for 10 years. So the current status quo, which is: five days before giving birth, the pigs can be in these crates, then another four weeks afterwards—four weeks and five days like this. That’s what this bill is locking in. It’s utterly unnecessary, because half of New Zealand pig farmers are already doing it like this, letting the pigs live a natural existence where they get to nurse their young and express their natural behaviours. Why? I see the sadness on your faces over there, National members, and you should rightly be sad. It is utterly unnecessary for this to be extended. It goes against the will of the New Zealand public, who were consulted extensively about their views of caging these animals like this, and their views were very clearly that it was not acceptable to them.

This Government goes against the will of the people, it goes against the welfare of the animals, it is fundamentally cruel. What is more, to those pig farmers who have done the right thing over recent decades and got rid of these farrowing crates, how much are you let down by your industry and them lobbying for this extension of 10 years? How much are you failed by that industry? Furthermore, it is as if the pork industry doesn’t realise that politics is cyclic. The tide turns, and do you think, honestly, that this bill is going to hold the line for 10 years when there’s a change of Government? Do not waste your money investing in this ridiculous 13 percent increase in the size. Move towards free farrowing. It is happening all over the world, in the likes of Sweden, in the likes of Norway, right here in New Zealand. It is the way to go—move towards free farrowing. That is the only certain future for this industry. Don’t be fooled by this ridiculous in-between step to a fractionally less cruel method of farming, in 10 years’ time.

This bill has no future under a Green Government. We will stand for animal welfare. Like my colleague who just spoke, Rachel Boyack, we understand there needs to be some transition period, but that must be a transition to free farrowing. We fiercely oppose this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to speak on the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill and I just want to point out that, actually, we’ve lost a large number of our pork producers over the last three or four decades. This bill seeks to establish clear, robust standards, setting minimum space requirements, improving the living environment, minimising the use of systems such as farrowing crates and gestation stalls, but over a period of time, because we’ve already lost a large number of our pork producers and the last thing we want to do is lose a large number more. They’re already struggling.

The bill recognised that achieving these improvements will require considerable adjustment from our farmers, many of whom have invested heavily in their current systems, and the bill also introduces a sensible transition period, allowing stakeholders time to adapt, plan, and invest in the necessary infrastructure. This transition will not occur overnight; instead it will be managed over a defined period, providing certainty, enabling farmers to secure resources and support the need for compliance.

So I look forward to seeing this come before the Primary Production Committee. I commend the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill. It’s probably not a topic that I have direct knowledge of, but, obviously, as a consumer, it’s something that I’ll probably see on my Christmas table with a lot of delight. This has come from a period of time, from the High Court decision in 2020, with that transitional period of five years, and, now, we see ourselves here today to support this bill into select committee, where, I think, by hearing from stakeholders and people in the farming community, we’ll find a way forward.

The one thing we would like to highlight is that we can’t destroy this industry. This industry is as important as any other industry, and we are all talking about a cost of living crisis at the moment. We talk about products and the cost of products when we walk into our supermarkets. There needs to be a balance, and it needs to be realistic. We, at the moment, in New Zealand import 60 percent of all our pork products from Canada or from the US or from over in Europe. While that may be an option, sometimes those standards in those countries aren’t as high as those we are going to implement here today, so there needs to be some consistency around the regulations we’re putting on our industry people and the regulations of the importers of products into this country. I think that question has just as much appetite to be answered through the select committee as the rest of this bill as we go forward.

As we’ve seen, across the floor, around the farrowing crates, yes, that is an issue, but it’s also an issue if they’re not used and young piglets are squashed. This is the other thing: since we aren’t experts, we actually need to go delicately through this in select committee to actually understand what the right balance is going forward. The confinement and the increased space requirements are a step forward—something I think, through select committee, can be discussed. It’s giving welfare to the pigs in the way that they’re produced, and it’s also giving some certainty to the actual farmers. On that, I commend the bill to the House and look forward to the select committee process.

I commend the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This is a lost opportunity, I’d suggest. Just briefly to go back through history, the Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1999 by a visionary Government, a National Government actually, that saw the importance of animal welfare moving forward. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, which is an independent committee, came up with a code of practice, a code of welfare, for pigs in 2010, again under a National-led Government. Then we got into Government. We had technical issues. At that time, of course, there was a very clear steer to the pork industry that they had to make progress on these mating stalls and farrowing crates. In fact, it’s always been a contentious issue because that’s the way things have been done. Well, it has actually, for about 40 percent of the industry, 40 to 50 percent of the industry; not for all of it, for about half the industry here. Of course, as has been said before, about 60 percent of the pork we consume comes from offshore. That’s good trade. We like trade because we sell a whole lot of products offshore.

If I can just come back, because I think the animal welfare, the specific technical, challenging issues have been raised by my colleague Rachel Boyack. I have to say the history of this is really, really important. If Labour can be accused of anything, it’s probably that it’s been too generous to the pork industry. In fact, we gave them every opportunity to make progress here and to move ahead. But they dug in. They dug in and hoped that there’d be a change of Government and they’d lobby the incoming Government and get what they wanted. Well, that’s exactly what this piece of legislation is.

The challenge for animal protein is across the globe, and unless we can show the highest standards of animal welfare, caring for animals while utilising them for the production of protein, we’re going to come under increasing pressure and pushback from alternative proteins. People will say, “Oh that’s not, you know—they can’t do that”. That is the direction of travel, and unless the industries—the dairy industry has to tidy up its bobby calf issue. If they didn’t, there’d be pushback on dairy. They’ve taken that on board. The pork industry has to take on board the one of farrowing crates and mating stalls. In fact, about half the industry—or 40 to 45 percent of the industry—is already ahead of that game in New Zealand.

What I’d say to the pork industry is don’t bully those people who have outdoor systems or block them from access to processing their animals. Within the industry, there’s a division, and that division is not healthy. Those who want to move ahead, show and tell the story of high animal welfare standards, outdoor systems while looking after, taking the young ones inside. So it’s not all outdoor. There are very few people who do that, but it’s actually progression in an industry in an area where there’s increasing scrutiny on animal welfare.

What I’d say to this Government and to the Minister is that you’ve done the pork industry a disservice. Proposing this legislation might be giving them what they’re asking for, but it’s denying the reality of the direction of travel internationally. The bizarre contradiction is that the pork industry has been lobbying the Government to say, “Don’t allow the importation of pork from lower-standard countries because we have higher standards.” Well, we’re moving to truly higher standards. This is going to dumb it down. The opportunity to tell the story to consumers that we indeed do have the highest standards of animal welfare for pork—and pork and chicken are 75 percent of the protein in the world—we can’t do that any longer.

The Minister is providing a disservice long term for the pork industry. It might be a short-term relief, but they’re still going to have to make the changes. One of the things that we were asked to do is that when the Government imposes the standards, make sure they are long term and enduring. This is not; this is halfway. This is not what the industry needs long-term to be able to convince its consumers that they are caring for the animals in the way that not just New Zealand but, actually, international consumers expect.

This is a terribly backward step for the pork industry at an opportunity and a time when they could have moved forward. We gave them 10 years, we bent over backwards to give them time, and if I could be criticised for anything, it is the fact that I didn’t make the call and get on with it and give them what they needed, which was certainty.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I’d just like to acknowledge and thank all those that farm pigs and produce pork in New Zealand. I’d thank them for the contributions they make to our food supply and to our economy. This bill reflects a commitment to high standards of animal welfare and also respect to those men and women who produce our food, so I look forward to this bill coming in front of our select committee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill. I want to reflect on the bill that we were just talking about, the Hauraki Gulf bill. Of course, we were talking more about fish than pigs, but we were also talking about a 10-year period and about how long the past decade has been and how much people involved in wanting to improve the Hauraki Gulf have been working away and trying to convince us decision makers in this House to do something about it. Ten years saw a number of reports. It saw a bill coming through. It saw a select committee in a different Government hearing submissions, and then it saw a select committee report back unanimously on that bill. The Government waited for a year to do anything about it, made some changes, and then it’s come back. Ten years is a long time, and what this bill does is say, “Oops, we haven’t done enough on animal welfare for pigs, so we’re just going to delay everything by a decade.” It’s outrageous, totally outrageous.

Then how are we going to do that delay? “Oh, I know.”, says the Government, “We’re going to do this thing that we keep doing in this Parliament, something that hasn’t happened beforehand with the egregious regularity that is happening in this Government. We are going to change secondary legislation, regulations by primary legislation.” You might say, “Well, that seems like an efficient way to change regulation, so what’s the problem with that, Mr Speaker?”

Well, of course, if you are changing regulations—and I know the other side of the House will say, “Well, Parliament is sovereign, and we can use Parliament’s resources to do this.”—what happens is that there is no recourse to the courts for judicial review for those regulations, for that secondary legislation.

I put it to the House and the Minister that this is not an accident; it is a cynical use of the parliamentary process to stop citizens who are concerned about legislation not being followed. In this case, this legislation is about the welfare of animals, and we’ve seen different groups say, “Well, actually, the welfare of animals is not happening. You need to do something, Government. We’re going to take this to court and have the court say that as well.” But now, by implementing this piece of legislation, those groups won’t have the ability to do that. The only voice that those groups will have is by doing what they do in terms of petitions and other engagements to show their displeasure.

We’ve heard that the Minister has consulted different groups, and he thinks that there is this high standard of animal welfare. In fact, he said that New Zealand is a leader in animal welfare. But we’ve also heard that the SPCA—not known, you know, to be a hugely radical group—has not been consulted by this Minister. This Minister has had his portfolio for two years—oh, almost two years; in November, it will be two years—and he has not consulted the SPCA and yet says that we are a leader in animal welfare, when we know that those groups that care about animal welfare say, “No, no, no! The process at the moment, the regulation that is intended for a decade’s time, it is not good enough.”

Labour is not supporting this bill, and we do not support this continued action by this Government to cynically override how regulatory processes are made and how they are able to be appealed. It is done on purpose, and it is done to the detriment of our animal welfare in this case, and our environment in other cases.

Look, I’d just like to take this opportunity to acknowledge our hard-working farmers and the contribution that they make to our New Zealand economy and the very, very high standards of animal welfare that we have here in New Zealand. This bill is going to raise those animal welfare standards. In fact, these new requirements in the bill will be among the highest animal welfare standards in the world. In New Zealand, we have extremely high animal welfare standards. This will continue our reputation on the global stage and in New Zealand, so I commend this bill to the House.

The question is, That the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

Instruction to the Primary Production Committee