Parliamentary debates: Thursday, 11 December 2025

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker; nice to see you here this morning. “The last shall be first and the first shall be last.” Well, I was last, last night, and first this morning—amazing how this place can transform a few things.

Pigs: the animal welfare of pigs—you may think it’s a relatively minor matter. People will be wondering why we are rushing legislation under urgency to do with pigs’ welfare. Well, there’s a couple of core components of our economy that we need to keep in mind, and that is that we use animals to create wealth in this country, and we’ve done it very, very well, I have to say. For the most part, internationally, we’re recognised as having good animal management systems, but there’s an evolution in awareness—just as there has been around DDT and nicotine and other things like that. We’ve become aware of sentience and the fact that animals are not just things to be used and abused. We’ve developed, as a country, systems of animal welfare—protocols and standards. For the most part, the legislation was changed in the 1990s, and then it’s been upgraded and, generally, has attempted to put in place high standards of animal welfare. I don’t think we can say we’re the best in the world, but we certainly have some very high and respected animal welfare standards across the globe.

When it comes to pigs, 75 percent of the protein produced in the world comes from pork and chicken. There’s been increasing scrutiny on the systems used to produce that pork and that chicken meat, and there have been adjustments across the globe to those systems. Some time ago, the pork industry had to deal with the reality that these farrowing crates were perceived as a fairly negative impost upon animal welfare standards for pig management. The industry was given a heads-up a long time ago that perhaps things needed to change. When we have been in Government, we certainly did our bit to try to assist the industry—providing transition periods, seeking independent advice from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC), and then indicating that, yes, we should change.

Now, can I just bring to the House the reality that it’s 55 percent of the New Zealand pork industry that is facing this challenge; 45 percent of the industry doesn’t have to worry about it because they run outdoor systems that don’t use farrowing crates, and they will not be impacted by whatever change this piece of legislation brings. It’s 55 percent of an industry that produces 40 percent of the pork for our country—about 60 percent of the pork we consume actually comes in from outside New Zealand. In fact, the pork industry has legitimately asked for us to look at the standards that apply to the pork that is being produced outside and imported into New Zealand. They’ve been asking for it for quite a few years, saying we should have equivalence, or we should at least ensure that they are doing better. I support that, but what this bill does is undermine their argument. “Be careful what you ask for” is something I would suggest to the pork industry, because if we were, indeed, to run the best systems in the world, then we could legitimately go to our trading partners and say, “Look, we can”—and, actually, trade legislation would allow that. We could say that we have some animal welfare standards and our consumers need to have assurances around the quality of animal welfare for that pork being produced.

The problem is that what the Government has done is ignore the opportunity to actually move forward. Following a transition period that we, in Government, provided to the pork industry—and there were a couple of interventions; the High Court ruled that the transition period that we had provided the industry actually wasn’t legal, and that’s why this piece of legislation is here. The lost opportunity is to move us forward to a clearly higher standard of animal welfare for pig management, and then to be able to apply standards to imported pork on the basis that we are aspiring to be the best country for the world and to have the best animal welfare practices in the world. We can’t actually claim that at the moment, but we’re getting close. Why not aspire to be the best country for the world? Why not aspire to be the best farmers for the world? I know that there might be members over there who think we are—actually, you’ve got to lift the lid on that and look across a number of areas of our farming systems. We’re good, we’re efficient, but we’re not the best in what are increasing areas of public and consumer scrutiny. Our long-term future depends upon us having the best systems in the world and the best systems for the world.

There are many colleagues who have covered the technical aspects of this piece of legislation. NAWAC is an independent organisation, and any Minister who deviates from their advice is a fool. Sometimes, they provide advice that’s not that pleasant for a Minister in the hot seat, but if you deviate from that, you’re in trouble, I can tell you, over time. We then end up in the tricky area of political debate that moves beyond science. When it comes to science, I have to raise questions around—because if you go back, science said DDT was OK; science said nicotine was OK; science has said perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances are OK. We’ve had a lot of science that’s actually been, in hindsight, commercially driven and misleading.

What I suggest is that the advice that the Ministry for Primary Industries provided to the Primary Production Committee wasn’t good science, and closer scrutiny of some of those aspects would lead many to believe that, actually, there’s a political element here that is distorting science. When we do that—when we shift from the independence of NAWAC and we distort the science that we are so-called independently assessing—then we are in trouble. I think, as a country, we have been proud of the systems of independent science, objective assessment, and attempts to evolve and maintain the best farming practices across the globe. We’ve done pretty well, but the coalition Government over there has shown, in many areas of governance, that it’s prone to corporate pressure and distortion of the facts in the direction that our international reputation is seriously under threat. Our ancestors worked really hard to build that, and this coalition Government is slowly dragging that into the mud.

Travel offshore and talk about carbon emissions, talk about some of the animal welfare, talk about modern slavery—all the areas that we need to focus on because others across the globe are. This is an area, and this is a piece of legislation, that deals with the standards of management of pork production for 55 percent of our pork industry—not the other 45 percent—and the question that it begs is: has the Government missed an opportunity to put us ahead of the world? Are they just bowing down to what has been a pretty consistent approach from the primary sectors of “Let’s kick for touch, and let’s just try and move this down the road.” They did it on emissions in agriculture—they still haven’t addressed that issue and the challenge—and they’re doing it on some animal welfare standards. This is a missed opportunity.

If the pork industry, or 55 percent of the pork industry, relies on this piece of legislation and on maintaining the status quo with minor adjustments—because that’s all it is—then they are kidding themselves to think that this offers them certainty. Whether it be from New Zealand consumers or others offshore—trading partners—we’re under the spotlight. It’s important that, when we do make adjustments, we do it for well-founded, robust, scientific reasons that do give industry certainty, or as much as we possibly can, and we don’t try to pretend that this is short-term pressure relief and still ignore the reality of the changes that the industry will have to make over time to ensure that it survives.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take the last call on this bill, the Animal Welfare (Regulation for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill. There are just a couple of points I’d like to make. I remind everybody who may have been listening to the drivel from the other side just recently, that the policy objective is to support a legally compliant and welfare-focused transition for New Zealand pig farmers. It’s quite simple.

I am not sure whether anyone has read the regulatory impact statement, but the consultation undertaken has been significant and wide-reaching, and changes were made as a result of that. I commend the bill to the House.

Arena Williams—Te Pāti Māori’s call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill. This is a bill that has received many submissions from the industry and people who are concerned about these decisions following the High Court ruling under the Labour Government. What, overwhelmingly, those submissions said was that we should follow the science, that we should have a New Zealand system which is robust—

The previous speaker said bad science—he said the science was wrong. Trust the science—and he said the science is wrong.

—and can rely upon the most useful advice that we have available from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Council—or NAWAC.

But this is not a situation where that has occurred. I hear the member Dr Hamish Campbell, an advocate for science, heckling me on the other side of the House, and I say to him that if we were following the science here, this would be a very different bill. This would be a bill where there was regulation that was following advice, but that hasn’t occurred here. The Associate Minister of Agriculture has been advised about this, and the decision is different from that. The Hon Damien O’Connor is right when he says that we get into tricky territory here where we have removed this from the advice of the experts. We’ve removed it from the realm of the objective parts of our system which are beyond politics and are into the realm of following best practice around the world and working up to those, and we’ve moved it into a sort of political discussion about what our values are here.

I’ve heard members on the other side say, “Well, you know, this debate is getting shrill; this debate is getting about our values”—yes, because it has been dragged there by a Minister who is intent on giving effect to the proposal of the industry, which matches that proposal almost exactly and has been now enshrined in primary legislation, something that would’ve usually been worked out in the regulations because it is technical in nature and should follow the science.

I want to briefly address the Primary Production Committee’s considerations. The select committee did some work around the retroactivity in this bill and the provisions that were highlighted to it from the Regulations Review Committee. There are two provisions which seek to give a sort of special and unusual effect to two regulations in the animal welfare code for the management of pigs. Those are Regulations 25, 26, and 27, which were the subject of the High Court decision, and the words of the legislation here are pretty unusual. They say that those regulations have been validly made as if they always have been. What’s unusual about that is that they were the subject of the High Court decision, the High Court came to a finding on those that was carefully considered, and now we have primary legislation which purports to make them always have existed.

The problem with treating primary legislation as if it can change the past is that it can’t in fact change the past. So now we have a problem around proceedings that might be brought against people who relied on those regulations at a certain point in time when the law was knowable and known, and where they could have been adjusting their practices because that was the law. But these regulations are worded in such a way where the Government is saying, “Oh, well, even if you were in contravention of the law at the time, we are trying to make it the case that these regulations would’ve applied then.” That is difficult for any Parliament to consider passing just in and of itself, because you can imagine that people who were doing something unlawful at the time, or, indeed, people who were doing something lawful at the time, should be able to expect that the law is as it was and that any prosecutions, any actions that arose from their actions at the time would be judged on the laws of the time. We’ll come back to that at the committee stage.

In closing out what has been, you know, a debate about people’s values and not necessarily the science that we’re following, it is a reflection on all of us, what we will accept when we cannot see it. For most New Zealanders, they will never see sows in the situation that we are allowing to continue and lock in for many years under the legislation that we are passing now. It’s not really about the pigs; this is about us. This is about what we will accept, and accept on an industrial scale, from an industry that all around the world is updating its practices. We will be one of the countries that chooses not to and chooses to lock in these conditions.

This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill.

Members, the House is in committee on the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill. We start with Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 9, “Amendments to principal Act”, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to give a very brief context for the complexity of the subject matter in the bill. While the bill is not particularly long, there are a lot of important details that we need to prosecute.

The main determinations being decided here are to do with four impacts on the way that pigs are farmed, the primary one being the use of farrowing crates, the second one being the size of the weaner and the grower pig pens, the third one being the use of mating stalls, and the fourth one being the availability of manipulable materials. So that’s to give context to the subject matter in that.

Also, questions around the scientific advice the Associate Minister of Agriculture has received and the location of NAWAC—the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee—and its influence on that advice; thirdly, there is the question of the extent to which the Minister has considered economic matters or industry financial matters or viability matters as against the obligation of considering the Animal Welfare Act; and probably the final one is the impact on the Animal Welfare Act and its intent.

In this Part 1, the amendment to the principal Act, “Section 71 amended (Public notification)”, we are immediately greeted with the attempt—one might say—to curtail the ability of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to give strong advice that is, as my colleague Damien O’Connor alluded to, almost invariably accepted by the Minister. This section, clause 4 and clause 5, is the place where, essentially, NAWAC is hog-tied—not wishing to make a pun, but they are neutered to being obedient to the Minister’s determinations on what the code should contain.

I would put it to the Minister that that sets a very challenging precedent through this legislation that relates exclusively to pigs, but it sets a very challenging precedent for any legislation or any code of regulations that relate to animal welfare in so far as it, essentially, gives the power of the Minister to, through a trick of legislative formula as expressed in these sections, allow NAWAC, that exists as an independent welfare adviser, to be overridden by a preferred code of the Minister of the day. We’re talking about pigs today, but we could be talking about the code of welfare for any number of animals in the future.

What’s the question?

Well, my question to him is—I have actually asked a question, Simon Watts.

Yeah, I’ve got it.

Yeah. My question is about the extent of his concern about that precedent being set. I would put it to him that that defeats the very elegant structure of our animal welfare laws and codes and regulations, which allows there to be independent advice that the Minister can take despite the strong voices that will invariably come from industry. My concern is that the Minister is setting a dangerous precedent for how we treat our animal welfare laws in general. I’ll allow him to answer on that and take another call soon. Thank you.

I thank the member Steve Abel for his question. Just firstly, he raised what consideration was put around economic matters. Now, that primarily relates to the transition time. When I looked at the economic impact, it was around that’s why we need a transition time, and that was critically important for that decision. In terms of where we sat at, we needed to achieve—you know, that met the requirements of the Act. Whatever regulations we came up with, they needed to meet the requirements of the Act. Now, we could have had many different scenarios that met the requirements of the Act—so long as they met the requirements of the Act, then of course we can look at, “OK, what makes practical sense, what makes economic sense?”, but, first and foremost, they need to meet the purposes of the Act in terms of that welfare.

Now, in terms of sections 71, 73—or the points there, where you’re talking about sections 71, 73, and 75, amended by clauses 4, 5, and 6 respectively. To be honest, when I first read that, I asked “What precisely does this mean?”, although I used quite different language. When I finally managed to get my head around this, after talking to the lawyers quite a bit, I guess where we’ve got to start with is the fact that, historically, how codes have been developed—well, we develop the code first, and then you’ve got the code written down, and then that code, there’ll be suggestions around regulations. The regulations are then made after the code has been developed. Because of the time pressure we’ve got with this one—we’ve got the initial transition period finishing next week, so we had to do these regulations first, and we’re still working on the code.

The key thing is, whilst we’re still going to be working on this code, we need to make sure that whatever the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) feels that they should recommend to me, they’re not constrained by feeling like, “Oh, no, we can’t do that do that because we’re hamstrung.” We need to make sure that what’s in the code works with these regulations—that is the intent.

I would just add in terms of the compliance—sorry, not compliance; the independence of NAWAC. What you described is not what is intended here; it is not restricted by the bill. The amendments that are made in the bill do not dictate what NAWAC can recommend, nor what minimum standards or recommendations the Minister can use. The provisions provide that any standards that NAWAC or the Minister are satisfied are needed to give effect to, or for consistency with, regulations 25 and 27 must be treated as meeting the purposes of the Act. It really is about trying to get—an example would be if we wanted to have minimum standards around deformable or manipulable material. In the development of this code, we decide we need to have some minimum standards around that—that we’re not constrained in any way by what’s in the code. That is the intent, it is not to hamstring NAWAC in anyway—forgive the pun. It does ensure their independence.

Steve Abel—one more call.

Thank you, Mr Chair, I appreciate that. To take a broader interpretation of those sections—I appreciate the answer, Minister Hoggard—the High Court judgment in 2020 found that the status quo was unlawful and that was the basis on which a time frame was set for moving beyond farrowing crates. Now, the effect of this bill is to, essentially, defeat that judgment. We know, because this information has been released, that Crown Law has advised that there is a risk that, if a change is not made within the time frame you just mentioned, by 18 December, farmers still using farrowing crates under the status quo will be liable to be taken to court. That is the reason for the rush. One could say that that was entirely predictable, and we’ve known about this for five years, so this could have been dealt with sooner. That is broadly understood and agreed upon: that there’s a risk that those farmers become illegal after the end of December.

The way to fix that would be to pass a regulatory solution, but the risk is that that regulation would not be superior to the primary legislation in the Animal Welfare Act and, therefore, still subject to judicial review or a court challenge. By passing through these opening sections in primary legislation—I’m reading from clause 4, which inserts new section 71(5)—defining that “Subsection (1)(b) must be treated as being met in relation to proposed standards and recommendations in a draft code of welfare if the National Animal Welfare Advisory”—the effect of this is to say that the laws, the code, and the regulations do meet the Act, even if, in a material sense, they don’t meet the Act. Because the Act requires the five domains, the expression of a good life for an animal and any material evaluation by independent scientific welfare experts who find that putting pigs in cages for seven days does not meet the Act on a pure material assessment now get overridden by this part of the legislation, which says, by default, “If it’s said to meet the Act here, it does meet the Act.”

Do you contest that the effect of this legislation is, effectively, to say what is put in the regulations meets the Act by default?

Look, just in regard to the High Court, the High Court ruled that the previous regulations for farrowing crates were made incorrectly and therefore invalid, OK? It was how they were made; that was what made them invalid. Now, whilst they didn’t ban farrowing crates at that point, the clear implication was that the use of crates for 33 days didn’t meet the purposes of the Act. Our view is that the proposed shortened use does.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to begin by speaking to my intent in terms of how I wish to prosecute this particular bill through the committee stage. Members will note that we have two parts and each part refers to a schedule, and so this morning I will be speaking substantially to Part 1.

I also note that there have been a substantial number of amendments to this bill from myself, from my colleague Arena Williams, and from members of the Green Party. Arena Williams’ amendments talk specifically to the early part of Part 1, across clauses 4, 5, 6, and 7, and so I’m just signalling that my colleague Arena Williams will want to take some calls to speak to her amendments in those parts of the bill. In terms of Part 1, I have some amendments to clause 8 that I’m going to wish to talk to quite specifically, which are around elements of the retroactivity in terms of this bill.

The other matter that I wish to note just at the beginning of this part of the discussion this morning is that we did have a truncated select committee process. When the Associate Minister of Agriculture first introduced this bill into the House, he put forward a February report-back date. The Primary Production Committee elected to report back earlier—in November—and what that meant was there was less time available at the select committee for select committee members to hear from the public and to recall officials for further advice, particularly in relation to some elements in Part 2 which relate to the science. We’ll get to that in Part 2, but I’m just noting for the record right now that as a member of the select committee that voted against that truncated process, there were a lot of unanswered questions, and this is now the appropriate opportunity for us to be able to answer those questions due to that truncated process.

Now, I’m just going to speak specifically to clause 6, and I have a question for the Minister specifically related to clause 6. In the explanatory note, at page 4, it says that “Clause 6 amends section 75, which provides for the Minister to issue a code of welfare that is recommended by NAWAC. It also provides for the Minister to refer the code back to NAWAC or to decline to issue the code. Clause 6 inserts new section 75(4A) and (4B)”, and there are some matters related to that that we can interrogate further. Essentially, the report prepared by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) after a code is referred back to it by the Minister “must be treated as complying with the purposes of the principal Act if NAWAC is satisfied”, and so it is pleasing to see that the second part to this does give NAWAC that responsibility to be satisfied that the code gives effect to and is consistent with those regulations.

I have some specific questions around the drafting of new section 75(4A) and (4B), which is over on page 3—so we’re looking at clause 6 in Part 1. It says here in new subsection (4A) that “Standards and recommendations in a code of welfare issued under this section must be treated as complying with the purposes of this Act if the Minister is satisfied that they are needed to give effect to, or for consistency with, any of regulations 25 to 27 of the Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018.”, and so my understanding is that the code of welfare is drafted by NAWAC and is then referred to the Minister. New subsection (4B) includes the phrase “Recommendations in a report under subsection (2)(a)”.

My question to the Minister is this—what is confusing in this part is that back in the explanatory note, it, essentially, gives the Minister the opportunity to decline that code of welfare and to refer it back to NAWAC, but when reading through new subsections (4A) and (4B), it doesn’t actually refer to that process. It doesn’t stipulate how that process works. It’s potentially a drafting issue, and, again, this speaks to the truncated part of the select committee. I’d like some answers from the Minister about exactly how that referral-back process works and where it’s actually stipulated in the legislation, and I would ask on what criteria the Minister would refer something back to NAWAC for, essentially, declining a code and referring it back to NAWAC. That’s my first question to the Minister.

I guess I can just give an example, in terms of the Minister referring the dairy code back to the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) a while ago. It also came there, sent it back to NAWAC for consideration, so that’s—

Where is it?

They’re working on it, and they’ll be bringing it forward very shortly.

In terms of the wording, I guess all I can reiterate is what I said to the member Steve Abel, in terms of sections 71 and 75. That is, from my understanding—and I know the wording is confusing, but that’s all there is for you—the important fact here is that we are trying to ensure that where we arrive to with the code, we are not going to have a confusion issue with the regulations.

I’m not satisfied with that answer, because the purpose of the committee stage is actually so that, for example, the Hansard can be referred to in court when things are unclear. You’ve acknowledged in your response to me that it’s unclear. Why are we passing this bill today if it’s unclear?

I’m just coming back to page 3—and I’ll keep this contribution short. It’s subclause (4B) in clause 6 amending section 75 “Recommendations in a report under subsection (2)(a)”. So whose report? Subsection (2)(a) of the Animal Welfare Act. Again, he may wish to take some advice from his officials on how this actually works. You can talk about an example where it’s worked in practice, that’s fine, but we need more detail in the legislation, we need more detail on the Hansard, because if something—you know, what is the criteria the Minister uses to refer back? What is the specific part in law that is referred to in the explanatory note, because the clauses don’t actually detail that.

If the Minister refers something back because he doesn’t like it, let’s say he gets a code of welfare from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC), he thinks it goes too far, so he sends it back—on what grounds can that then be challenged? Like, do we end up going back and forth between the Minister and NAWAC—a stalemate going back and forth and, in the end, we have no certainty for industry?

These are important questions, because we have had legal cases on this particular matter. What’s the process? Where is it stipulated in the legislation? This is up to the Associate Minister of Agriculture, really. If he wants to put on Hansard today that the process is unclear and leave it to the courts to determine, well, that’s on him; it’s not on us. I’m keen to get to the bottom of it, get it on to the Hansard. Maybe take some more advice from officials and come back to us with a more detailed and substantive answer. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Good morning to the Associate Minister of Agriculture. Thank you for his enthusiastic engagement in this committee of the whole House stage. I am not an expert on the animal welfare regulations, but my interest in this is from the perspective of the retroactive provisions and the way that the regulations apply.

This is an unusual way to make regulations, and I want to ask the Minister, first, about new clause 5, which is under subclause (7) of his tabled amendment. I want to understand this, and I’m prepared to be corrected, but I think I’ll set out for the Minister what I think he’s set up here in clause 5, and then he can help me with whether that’s right or not. You’ve got the publication of the draft code as a sort of protection rules that are set out in section 71(1)(b) of the Animal Welfare Act. When you publish it, you have to comply with the purposes of the Act. That was what the High Court case was interested in.

The purposes of the Act, and there are a number, the ones that the High Court case was interested in—they weren’t all of them; they were about the actual treatment of animals by the people who keep them, but, actually, what’s being amended here is all of them. The way I read it, the purposes of the Act, which prohibit a number of things there: you know, you must take all reasonable steps to ensure physical, health, and behavioural needs. That was an issue in the court, but there are a number of other things, like in accordance with the scientific knowledge and good practice of the time—that’s about, sort of, the public temperature of New Zealanders; that’s about international best practice and those issues, which is a more sort of values-based judgment as well.

When you then have this, sort of, protection baked into the regulation-making power, those regulations are made under section 183 of the Animal Welfare Act. This, I think, is intended to remove that protection only as it relates to the regulations for pigs, which are sections 25 to 27 of the animal welfare code—great. That makes sense in the context of what he’s doing now, and the committee understands that, and, though we disagree with it and it’s not what we would do, that’s the intention here, and it fits with the policy advice. I just want to ask him whether there is a set of circumstances which should be better protected here, or at least better understood, that we’re not doing, and that Parliament doesn’t intend to pass, which is that if you deem the regulations as having been met, because—

You should have come to the select committee.

I should have—I do enjoy regulations. If you deem the regulations as being met, regardless of whether they comply with the purposes of the Act, what about a situation we are not envisioning here, where other parts of the regulations that apply to give effect to section 25 to 27 of the code of welfare for pigs are changed? Not by him—because with the regulation-making power, he’s got an in to making the regulations; so do the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC). If NAWAC were to propose a set of regulations which are not anticipated by this policy intention, later—now, he’s removed them from the protection, which is that they must publish those guidelines only if they’re satisfied that it meets the purposes of the Act; and the purposes of the Act are broad. They include things like, say, restrictions on surgeries around animals. That’s nothing to do with the policy intent here, but that protection doesn’t apply. So are we in a situation, now, where we have created—basically, you’re sort of relying on the situation now, I think, where we think and we hope that NAWAC’s temperature on how protective the regulation should be will always be higher than the Minister’s, will always want further protections.

That’s the only thing that we’ve got to rely on here, I guess: that you would land in a window of public acceptance of those regulations, that if we remove the protection, as it does in his new clause 5, then, if you have a situation where NAWAC is changing regulations about something completely different, there’s no requirement to check that it complies with the purposes of the Act. That’s really the question I have for him: is that right? Is that what he intends to do, and, if so, how does it apply to other, ordinary practices of making regulations, because they always need to comply with the Act or they’re unlawful?

Just in relation to Rachel Boyack’s question of where the report-back process happens or where is it detailed, that is in the main Act in Part 5, section 75 of the report-back process.

Just to one of the earlier questions that Arena Williams had, the bill does not change the ways the code is made under the Act; the question is about matters outside of the bill.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I just want to follow up on a couple of the responses from the Associate Minister of Agriculture to clause 6, regarding the amendment to section 75. Minister, you said the wording is confusing and that what we’re trying to do is avoid confusion and we share in that objective, obviously.

One thing I want to clarify is the effect of new subsection (4A), “Standards and recommendations in a code of welfare issued under this section must be treated as complying with the purposes of this Act” where the code of welfare, no matter what it is, is treated as complying with the purposes of the Act even if an objective interpretation of the purposes of the Act would say that that code does not comply. For example, saying that you can keep pigs in a cage for five weeks at a time, or for seven days at a time in this instance, may be interpreted by an objective evaluation to be inconsistent with the purposes of the Act. But this provision says by fiat, in a sense, that that wording must be treated as complying—a code can, essentially, override the purpose. I just want clarification as to whether I’m understanding that correctly.

Secondly, who has the final say on the code of welfare—recognising that the Minister will receive a recommendation from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, who has the final say on accepting that code? The second part of that section goes on to say, “if the Minister is satisfied that they are needed to give effect to, or for consistency with, any of regulations 25 to 27 of the Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018.” Who has the final say on those new regulations? Obviously, that’s a determination of Parliament that the Minister will be the one with the final say—that’s my understanding. If he could clarify that, I’ve got a follow-up question if the Chair will allow. Thank you.

I thank the member for his question. Again, in terms of section 75, the point here is that we’ve got these regulations—you laid them out at the start. Again, I use the example that one of those regulations is around the provision of manipulable and deformable materials. Now, if in the code we define what that looks like—is it straw, is it whatever?—then we need to have this provision so that when the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee makes recommendations in the code around this and we sign them off, they are then meeting what that is. That is the entire intent, OK? It’s not to create something that’s completely unrelated to those regulations. Where things help provide clarity for codes, provide clarity for those regulations, that is the intent—to make sure we don’t have any more confusion.

Sorry, I forgot your last question—oh, I remember now. In terms of who has the final say, the Minister does.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m ably assisted by lots of legal minds here that are a lot sharper than mine. I’ll just go back to a couple of principles. We are on Part 1 here and I’ve got a couple of questions to the Associate Minister of Agriculture. He states, of course, that we’re not changing the Act. If we go back to how this dilemma occurred, maybe we pushed the boundaries on the Act—that is, we in Government tried to provide some transitional arrangements for the industry on the basis that at the end of that, which is this year, on the 18th, then they would meet the objectives of the Act, and they refused to. They thought that they’d go to a political battle and “We’ll just kind of sound this out with the incoming Government and we’ll see if we can get some changes.” Indeed, the industry’s done a lot of very effective lobbying.

Can I come back to the legal judgment, of course, that said that our transitional provisions were not legal because they did not meet the objectives of the Act? The Minister just said in one of his responses that we have judged that these new provisions will meet the objectives of the Act. He may be wrong. In fact, the Government is often wrong. The coalition Government has been wrong. So my question is: will this piece of legislation be subject to challenge as well? I suggest that it might be because the regulations that we thought in good faith were within the objectives of the Act, and would have provided that transition, were deemed by the High Court to be illegal.

If the Minister, as he states, is not changing the Act, we’re still in the same dilemma. The same Animal Welfare Act provisions will apply to the code. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) may, in good faith, come back with an adjusted code, and the Minister has effectively made legal the retrospective part of that and said we’ll carry that forward, but that actually may be challenged as well.

The point I consistently make here to the industry is that this doesn’t offer certainty. In accepting the mistake made by us in Government to provide a transitional regime that was deemed to be illegal but was going to run out of time, instead of the industry saying, “Actually, if we’re going to abide by the Act, we’re going to have to make some changes to our systems—more than what is provided for in this piece of legislation here.”, my question to the Minister is: is he going to change the Act? If not, how does he think—because he said that we have judged that these new provisions will meet the objectives of the Act. Where did that advice come from and what happens if it’s wrong?

In terms of how we have judged, that is through all the scientific work that has been done, collated by the Ministry for Primary Industries and their team of experts around looking at all the scientific literature that is out there and judging that “Yes, these, what we have arrived at, will meet the purposes of the Act.” They believe that this will be sufficient.

In terms of this argument that somehow the industry refused to adapt and change, they had no idea what they were supposed to change to. The previous Government created a transition period with no stake in the ground as to what the end outcome was supposed to be.

Yes, there was.

No, there was nothing. There were no codes. There were no minimum standards. There were no regulations that they had to move towards. You set up a transition period for five years. You know, here is the code that arrived with me in 2024; that only left two years for the industry at that point. We had to work through and find out, and get to a point where we’d have something that was workable. That’s why we need a new transition period. If you had done it and given them 10 years at that point, and if you had had the opportunity to accept the previous National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee code—you didn’t. That’s where we’re at.

Look, thank you. I just want to follow on. I accept the Associate Minister of Agriculture’s point that there was some uncertainty that we had consulted on a proposal. That’s not what we’re talking about here, though. That’s different. Indeed, the discussion—which was not easy; the industry always pushed back. There was some debate and some of those things had not been concluded. I accept that.

Can I just move on to the point he makes around the scientific analysis of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). I’d suggest to him that he should go back and check it very carefully and I’d suggest the author of that, who identified himself at the Primary Production Committee, I understand, as the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor—hopefully that is robust science, because the point I made in my first speech here in the second reading is that if we deviate from the integrity of scientific advice in this country, we are in trouble—we are in big trouble. I’d suggest that MPI’s scientific advice may not be as robust as it should be, and that leaves the industry exposed, which is the point I ask of him: is he confident that this will not be subject to legal challenge?

I accept that there’s a transitional period; I think it’s needed by the industry. The point here, I think, is that it’s kicking it out too far, and people who understand the need for a transition are saying that it goes out far too far. It’s kind of unrealistic and it exposes us to not just international scrutiny but the social licence for the pork industry within our own country.

We are trying to help the industry to move to a sustainable space, but some of the signals have not been taken up. I accept that if we’d been really clear and gone out, then the industry would have been up in arms and said they were all going to collapse. Perhaps we should have done that. Perhaps we should have just said, “That’s it. Move on.” and made the major transition, but what this bill is doing is just creating more uncertainty, I’d suggest.

The question is around: is he confident that the scientific evidence and assessment done by MPI is robust enough to stand up to a High Court scrutiny?

Yes, I am. I’ve known John Roche, the Chief Science Advisor at MPI, for a number of years. He is an excellent person; very knowledgeable in all areas of animal welfare. His team looked across a range of studies. They looked across a whole range of studies and then went, “All right, what does the average sort of tell us here? What is the scientific consensus?”, as the Green Party would like to talk about. That is where we landed and so I take that on board. You can point to one study here and one study there, but, actually, if you want to get a balance, you’ve got to sort of look at them all in combination, which is what they did, and go, “Where, on average, do things land?”

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m interested, later on, in exploring some of the science a bit further with quite specific questions to the Associate Minister of Agriculture based on advice that I have received. But before I do that, I want to come back to some of the clauses in Part 1, and specifically as they relate to three of my tabled amendments that I lodged in the House yesterday.

The first one I’m just going to speak to amends clause 8, and what the effect of that amendment would do is remove, from new section 203(1), the words “immediately before and”, because one of the matters we have been exploring somewhat in this committee—but, in my view, not to enough of an extent—is that what this bill also seeks to do is not only make the regulations enforceable after this bill comes into force but prior to. Now, that is a retroactive clause in this bill. This is explicitly where it sits, in clause 8. There are three of them, which I will just talk to my amendments in relation to them.

The issue that was raised with the Primary Production Committee by the Regulations Review Committee—and I note that the chair of that committee is sitting next to me, and may wish to make some calls around this as well. The committee wrote to the Primary Production Committee and advised that we should remove the clauses that are retroactive, because what they do is they create uncertainty in law and they undermine the role of the courts in interpreting the law. They also noted that these three clauses assert that a certain legal status existed formerly, despite that the law at that point in time may have provided for a different effect. Essentially, by having retroactive clauses in this, it creates real legal uncertainty. That’s problematic in this instance because what it sets up is a situation whereby what now is status of that High Court ruling—does that need to be thrashed in the courts again and tested out again? It actually creates legal risk for Government. The first amendment I’ve put on the Table is to delete the words “immediately before and”.

Then, if you look at new section 203(2) and 203(3), inserted by clause 8—I also have amendments to those—which would remove the piece that says, “and always has been”. It’s really interesting when the Parliament tries to say that time that has already passed, you can’t go back and look at that time again, that somehow the law was different at that time. Parliament should always be very, very careful when those types of clauses are inserted into legislation. There needs to be a reason for it. It’s not clear why officials have advised the Associate Minister of Agriculture that we need to take these three steps around making the law retroactive. It’s not actually clear what problem it’s trying to solve. In the views of the Regulations Review Committee, it’s not necessary. Again, this speaks to the truncated, shortened version of the select committee process that we had, in that, again, we’re not able to spend enough time interrogating these matters with officials.

I have three amendments that would remove the retroactivity components, which I think the Government should look seriously at supporting. We should always take real care, as a Parliament, when we put retroactive clauses into a bill. We have not taken enough care in this instance.

The advice of officials—just to be clear: the view is that section 203 is not retrospective; it just validates and continues what has always been the case. Now—

That is retrospective.

Here we go. The words “always has been” is common drafting in New Zealand legislation for such a statutory validation as it avoids potentially implying that there is any point at which the regulations have not been valid.

All right. Members, now we’ll be looking for reasonably specific—particularly around amendments—from henceforth rather than broad-based statements. I think we’ve covered most of the contextual matters.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I can refer to the amendment, but, also, because the conversation has kicked off around the science, I’m loath to not address some questions to the Associate Minister of Agriculture around that, if this is the appropriate time.

It relates, specifically, to mention of regulations 25 to 27, which are mentioned in clause 6. I presume we will get to them later in the schedule, as well. It relates to the scientific advice that the Minister referred to that he received from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Dr John Roche. I wonder—and I have got an amendment in regard to regulation 25, as well, if the Chair would like me to articulate that—if the Minister has seen the response of the SPCA to that advice, which says that it does not accurately represent scientific evidence and it characterises animal welfare science, an area in which New Zealand is world class and has world-class expertise, as entirely subjective.

Further, has the Minister seen the evaluation of John Roche’s paper by statistician Dr Jason Kurz from Waikato University? Mr Roche presented this to us at the Primary Production Committee during scrutiny, with this Mondrian-type diagram that was somewhat incomprehensible to any layperson. This is the paper that the Chief Science Advisor relied on, the Averos et al. paper. Mr Kurz assessed the Chief Science Advisor’s evaluation of that paper, and said that the Government’s summary that there needed to be no improvement in the welfare above the k-value—the k-value, for clarity, is the determination on the size of the grower pens by which this Minister has decided that they can increase by a certain amount and how much that should be. The critique of that summary from Waikato University said that the logical flaw in the behaviour or welfare was a misinterpretation of the model and the threshold; that it also took selective citation of the weakest subset; that it was a misuse of uncertainty and non sequitur; that there was a category error; and that the policy or economic arguments were being disguised as science. Has the Minister seen that critical analysis? I’m happy to table it or give it to him.

To pick up on my colleague Damien O’Connor’s point, is it not deeply concerning if there is a suggestion—as this paper concludes—that animal welfare, as distinct from production efficiency, is measurably compromised at lower space allowances for grower pigs, and that, if there is any suggestion that the Chief Science Advisor has presented an interpretation of science that happens to very conveniently align completely with the preferences of the New Zealand pork industry, shouldn’t you, as animal welfare Minister, concerned about accurate independent science, be concerned that that is the very risk for the credibility of the decisions that you are making based on that advice?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Because the Associate Minister of Agriculture has brought the science into the conversation—technically, it probably sits more with Part 2, but the Minister has brought it in, and my colleague Steve Abel has just referred to a paper that I also intend to seek leave to table. Mr Abel has, quite rightly, raised the paper, which reflects on the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) science summary’s reliance on Averos and that the inferences in that science summary are incorrect. I want to just commend his comments, because I agree with them.

The other document I want to refer to—again, has the Minister seen this?—is an article in the Listener published on 24 November by Andrea Graves, the title of which is “Caged hogwash”. There are comments in here where the journalist spoke to a number of animal welfare experts, and here are some of the comments in the article related to that science summary: “Eight animal welfare experts the Listener spoke to”—eight—“including university scientists, veterinarians, and former Nawac members, described the summary as ‘appalling’, ‘incomprehensible’ and ‘biased’.”

Oh, come on.

Someone across the Chamber says, “Oh come on.” Are they a scientist? This is what scientists have said to this journalist. A further comment, from animal welfare scientist Karin Schutz, who says, “The conclusions are not supported by recent research, and … you have to provide a methodology for how you selected your papers”.

It talks quite a bit around nest building, and again, I’m going to leave the detail, to talk about nest building, until we actually get to Part 2. I’m not going to go into the detail of that right now, but the fact is that scientists are critical of the MPI Science Advisor’s science summary. They’re critical of that, and we have that on record.

This particular paper that Mr Abel referred to. I’d like to take a point of order, to seek to table these two documents.

Point of order—leave is sought.

I seek leave to table the paper prepared by Dr Jason Kurz, who is a statistician from the University of Waikato, titled Critical Analysis of Government Justification on Space Allowance and the Averos Model. This is not a paper that is available in the public domain.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

A further point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave to table the article printed in the Listener on 24 November.

That one should be publicly available.

It should be.

I won’t put that point of order. I’m going to take a call from Lawrence Xu-Nan. I was waiting—I’ve only briefly come into the Chamber; I was watching before I came in. I was waiting for a question in that last speech that we had. I was in the Chamber yesterday, and I saw some great dialogue going on between the Hon Rachel Brooking and the Hon Chris Bishop in a Q and A session, and that is what we’d be looking for in a session like this. I see a lot of it has been covered off, but that’s what I am expecting: very concise questions which haven’t yet been asked to the Associate Minister of Agriculture.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m happy to have a little back and forth with the Associate Minister of Agriculture. I want to focus on a specific section that he hasn’t covered, because I think this bill presents two different interests and opportunities: one of interest to my colleagues Rachel Boyack and Steve Abel, from an animal welfare perspective, and the other side is for the likes of Arena Williams and myself, from a regulation-making power perspective.

I want to focus on Schedule 1, which is technically clause 9 of Part 1, and I want to particularly focus on new Part 3 inserted, clause 8(3). I know that we talked a little bit about the reporting and the content of the report, etc., but I wanted to just focus on the wording of this. My first question to the Minister, before I talk about an amendment, is that it’s very unusual and peculiar to see that if a report—

Sorry, just for the Minister’s purposes, could you just repeat the clause?

Oh, yep. Schedule 1, new Part 3 inserted, clause 8(3). This is page 6 of the bill and page 7 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 471.

Yep, I’ve found it. Thank you.

The first question to the Minister is that it’s very peculiar to have a report or a code being made or being able to take effect before the commencement of anything, really—before the commencement of the Act. Can I just check with the Minister: what is the rationale of, basically, legitimising a code before commencement?

Further to that, like I said, the idea of legitimising a code or a particular regulation, etc.—and this is also a very interesting bill in the sense that we are making changes, and we can talk more about that in Part 2, but we are making changes to regulations that are secondary legislation within a primary legislative setting—i.e., the House. Legitimising something before commencement is very peculiar, so one of my amendments that I want the Minister to consider is that, rather than “before commencement”, the normal standard of wording that we tend to use is “on the day” or “the day after commencement”. That will actually be, I think, a more appropriate framing.

If the Minister—I see he has just received some advice—wouldn’t mind considering that. I’ll get him to respond to that, because I saw that the Minister just got some advice, then I’ll ask my next question.

Look, this is just enabling the transition clause. It’s similar to what I described earlier regarding sections 71, 73, and 75.

If it’s a transitional clause, that’s even more, in some ways, concerning, because that’s not how, normally, we would assume a transitional clause is framed in here. So just to give an example, yesterday we had the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill, where the Minister responsible for RMA Reform released an amendment that’s specifically to account for situations of transitional savings and concerns by having two separate commencement dates, where there is a first commencement date that potentially could be, in this context, set in place when the report is made, and the second commencement date when the report is taken into effect—without having to legitimise the report before commencement. Again, it’s almost like we are now saying that laws will take effect before they even commence, which is, again, something we talked about in terms of retrospectivity, but this is very peculiar wording.

Rabbit hole.

I actually would disagree. I would say that the very purpose of committee stage is for us to do this, especially in the context that there have been High Court challenges, and there’s a judiciary challenge on something like this. The fact that we are in the rabbit hole will be very appreciated by the judiciary in the future.

The next thing I want to check with the Associate Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Andrew Hoggard, is my amendments, and I’m going to move from clause 8(3) of Schedule 1 to clause 8(1)(c), which is that “the code contains standards or recommendations that the Minister is satisfied”. I think there are two things over here, and, again, I don’t see any particular checks and balances in terms of the regulation-making power in this particular case. I don’t see there’s any sort of ability for the Minister to review. It is technically within the Minister’s power because it is secondary legislation, so we’re not seeing a “Henry VIII” clause here, at least I don’t know, unless the Minister is able to enlighten whether this is going to be a “Henry VIII”—I’m seeing head shaking. But the fact that the Minister unilaterally can make something like this without any form of checks and balances is a concern.

I would ask the Minister to consider two of my amendments. One of them is whether the Minister would consider inserting that “the code contains standards or recommendations that the Minister, after consulting with the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee”—NAWAC—unless that’s something the Minister’s going to plan on doing anyway. Or alternatively, “the code contains standards or recommendation that the Minister, after consulting with relevant animal welfare or advocacy organisations, is satisfied are needed to give effect to, or consistency with,”. These two amendments are the ones that are tabled at 11.52.14 and 11.52.15.

In terms of the finalised code, we will be doing further consultation with various groups and the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee on that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to take the Associate Minister of Agriculture to Schedule 1. Following on from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s questions, I want to clarify with him the info between this and his clause 5, which amends section 73(6) of the principal Act. It’s a simple question. When he was intending to basically insert by primary legislation something into the code—which is what Schedule 1 does—did he have advice on whether he should leave that route open for the Minister?

Because my reading of this—and I think he can nod or give me an indication—I think that Schedule 1, this is a one-time only. If this is a one-time only, what are the trade-offs he was making there for the Minister to be able to change these provisions 25 to 27? Really, why I’m asking you that is because now that Parliament has had a debate about the policy that applies to 25 to 27, even if we don’t agree with you, this is now sort of a matter that is like making primary legislation normally and isn’t a matter that you would expect, then, the Governor-General by Order in Council to amend, but you’ve left that open at your new clause 5.

We would love this. We would love it if the Order in Council later amended the policy to give effect to a policy that we agreed with, and that those could be minor tweaks to achieve the policy aims of the Labour Party. But that would be inappropriate. It would be inappropriate to do that, because Parliament has made a choice here not to pass a law, which is the farrowing crates primary law—Act, bill—in the name of Andrew Hoggard, and that’s your choice but then we’ve left open this power at clause 5 to amend it.

I also want to ask the Minister: are those still regulations? Regulations 25 to 27, in his mind, are those still secondary legislation? Would it be appropriate for the lawmaker to make a different decision that departed from his policy intent?

Look, the question is: are we trying to leave the door open to extend the extension again? No, it’s 10 years. It’s done.

I sense Arena Williams has got one more quick question.

I do. Thank you to the Associate Minister of Agriculture. Yes, I’m interested in whether the door is left open to a further extension of time, but also, is the door left open to the Governor-General coming back and having a second go after the Minister has had a go? I’m not advocating for that. I think that would be the wrong thing to do, because when Parliament has a debate about policy, the lawmaker who is a part of the executive Government—it’s not appropriate to change that, even though that is a position that we would agree with.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 4, section 71(5), to change “must be treated” to “may be treated” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 4, section 71(5), to reference the minimum standards of an animal’s physical, health, and behavioural needs be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 5, section 73(7), to change “must be treated” to “may be treated” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 5, section 73(7), to reference the minimum standards of an animal’s physical, health, and behavioural needs be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 6, section 75(4A), 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 clause 6, section 75(4A), to require consulting with relevant animal welfare or advocacy organisations be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 6, section 75(4B), to change “must be treated” to “may be treated” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 6, section 75(4B) to reference “the minimum standards of an animal’s physical, health, and behavioural needs” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 to delete clause 7 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 8 to delete new section 203 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 8, new sections 204(1)(b) and 205, to provide for “an earlier date set by Order in Council” be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 471 be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ six tabled amendments to insert words after “of the Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018” are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, section 71, to insert new subsection (6) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 73, to insert new subsection (8) relating to “the environment supports natural behaviours” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 73, to insert new subsection (8) relating to “the practices of people in charge of pigs” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 73 to insert new subsection (8) relating to “no confinement system imposes an unreasonable or avoidable restriction on movement or behaviour” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 73, to insert new subsection (8) relating to “the cumulative impact of the housing, handling, and management systems” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, section 73, to insert new subsection (8) relating to “the best scientific knowledge available at the time” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6, section 75(4A), to provide that “the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is satisfied” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert section 75(4C) requiring that “the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has reviewed the code and confirmed that the standards and recommendations are needed” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert section 75(4C) requiring the Regulations Review Committee to review the code of welfare be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert section 75(4C) requiring that “the Minister and the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee are satisfied the standards and recommendations are needed” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6, to insert section 75(4C) requiring the approval of the Regulations Review Committee of the standards and recommendations be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment deleting clause 7 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment deleting the text of clause 7 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, section 183A(11A), to require the agreement of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Council be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, section 183A(11A), providing that subsection (11A) does not apply in relation to pigs is out of order as being contrary to the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, section 183A(11A), to provide that “subsection (6) continues to apply to regulation 26” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, section 183A(11A), to provide that “subsection (6) continues to apply to regulation 27” be agreed to.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 203(1), to delete “immediately before and”, be agreed to.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 203(2), to refer to “the day after Royal assent”, be agreed to.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 203(2), to refer to “the day of Royal assent”, be agreed to.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 203(2), to refer to “six months after Royal assent” be agreed to.

Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 203(3), to refer to “the day after Royal assent” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 203(3), to refer to “the day of Royal assent” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 203(3), to refer to “six months after Royal assent” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 8 inserting new subsection (1AAA) of section 204 and replacing “2035” with “2028” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 8 replacing “2035” with “2028” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 8 inserting new subsection (1AAA) in section 204 and replacing “2035” with “2032” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 8 replacing “2035” with “2032” are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Rachel Boyack’s amendment to Amendment Paper 471 to clause 8, new section 204(1), set out on Amendment Paper 447 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s remaining amendment to clause 8 set out on Amendment Paper 447 be agreed to.

Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 471 amending clause 8, new section 204(1), to change the date to “2027” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s remaining tabled amendment to clause 8, to change the date to “2027”, be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ four tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 470 amending clause 204(1)(b) are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ three tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 470 amending clause 204A are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 8, new section 204, set out on Amendment Paper 461 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Steve Abel’s remaining amendment to clause 8, new section 205, set out on Amendment Paper 461 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

Steve Abel’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 462 are out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

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—

Which one?

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—

You could have been two years ahead of yourself.

—or change consents. Now, for—sorry, what was that?

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

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?

Just seek leave.

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

Are there any objections? It’s not publicly available, I understand. Yep, table it.

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

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.

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.