2 minutes ago

'Brazen industry capture' alleged in pig welfare rule changes

2 minutes ago
Stylised illustration of a sow in a farrowing crate and piglets nursing

Stylised illustration of a sow in a farrowing crate and piglets nursing. Photo: RNZ

The government has been accused of "brazen industry capture" by passing a series of changes to pig welfare standards that are closely aligned with an industry proposal.

On Wednesday, it was announced MPs would have less time to scrutinise pig welfare reforms in order to introduce new rules before existing rules expire 18 December.

The law change was announced by Agriculture Minister Andrew Hoggard on 1 October and passed quickly to the Primary Production select committee. It cancels a ban on farrowing crates, which was due to kick in from 18 December. Instead, the bill keeps farrowing crates in existence but gives pig farmers 10 years to adapt to slightly tougher restrictions.

The crates are controversial because a sow cannot turn around in them. They prevent nesting behaviour and can lead to health problems, but the pig industry argues they are necessary to stop sows from crushing their piglets.

Many of the new rules appear in NZ Pork's 2022 submission on a previously planned code of welfare.

Instead of banning crates, or restricting their use while making them bigger, NZ Pork's submission suggested an "alternative proposal". It asked for longer transition times, a much smaller space increase for growing pigs, a four day limit on farrowing crate use after birth, an emphasis on economic viability, and "outcomes-focused" rather than prescriptive rules.

An analysis of official documents relating to the change suggests NZ Pork got much of what it asked for in the new rules. Key phrases and policies from NZ Pork's submission appear in the bill, the Regulatory Impact Statement and Department Disclosure Document.

"The New Zealand Pork Industry Board has been given exactly what they wanted," SPCA's chief scientific advisor Arnja Dale said. Auckland University associate law professor Marcelo Rodriguez-Ferrere, who is also president of the Animal Law Association, agreed. "This is really just kind of an almost brazen instance of regulatory capture," he said.

'Exposure draft' of bill given to NZ Pork

NZ Pork - as well as the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) - was also given confidential access to an 'exposure draft' of the bill, while it was still being developed. Otago University public law professor Andrew Geddis said the law allowed for groups to be consulted on an early draft of a bill, but it did raise questions about transparency.

"Cabinet gets to choose who they want to see the law and who they want to hear from. So Cabinet can, if they like, play favourites, give an exposure draft to some people who are involved in the process, but not to others."

It was unknown how often this actually happened because it was all confidential, he said.

Hoggard was unavailable to be interviewed as he was attending the International Dairy Federation Conference in Chile. But in a statement said the bill was drafted on the basis of decisions made by Cabinet, which agreed to give NZ Pork a preview of the draft.

"Cabinet approved NZ Pork and the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) being provided an exposure draft of the Bill. This practice is not uncommon in situations where a group or sector is particularly affected by a piece of legislation," Hoggard said in a statement.

ACT Party member and ex-Federated Farmers president Andrew Hoggard

Agriculture Minister Andrew Hoggard. Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver

NZ Pork responds

NZ Pork chief executive Brent Kleiss said his organisation did not write the bill, but their input was warranted given the impact it would have on its members.

"We are the most affected sector, and our pig farmers are the most affected stakeholders. So, I think most New Zealanders would agree that as that most affected party, we'd have the chance to review it and understand those impacts."

None of the feedback it gave on the draft made it into the final bill, he said.

He also disputed claims by animal welfare groups that they were not consulted on the current changes.

"There were targeted engagement opportunities back in 2022-2023 and I was in those meetings with those groups on the call discussing the very positions that have come out today," Kleiss said.

"They talked about NAWAC's position. They talked about some that MPI [Ministry for Primary Industries] had proposed as a sort of middleground and and they talked about industry positions. All positions were discussed.

"MPI has since gone away and done a significant amount of scientific work, and ultimately, has fallen to the same conclusion, or very similar to ours.

"We didn't get everything we wanted - and we're really grateful for that - shows that they've really taken the time to get this right."

MPI said it conducted "further targeted consultation" with NZ Pork only in 2024.

Stylised illustration of a pig's face in a crate

A stylised illustration of a pig's face in a crate. Photo: RNZ

Welfare concerns in new rules

The SPCA said MPI's evaluation of pig welfare evidence did not line up with European Commission, NAWAC and international expert views on pig welfare.

"The science summary is incredibly narrow in scope and has clearly not been written by animal welfare scientists and misses key important pig welfare indicators," said Dale.

The bill would also "force" NAWAC to sign off on welfare standards it does not agree with, Rodriguez-Ferrere said.

RNZ reported last week that NAWAC warned Hoggard in April the changes would likely result in practices that fell "below the minimum" standard in the Animal Welfare Act.

NAWAC will be required to accept the new rules anyway, said Rodriquez-Ferrere.

"What they're doing, is basically saying to NAWAC 'You have to put these standards in, even if you disagree with them', purely to have consistency with regulations.

"And the other thing that they're doing at the same time is basically saying you can just avoid any sort of public consultation or engagement or notification with the public."

These changes undermined NAWAC's role, he said.

"It is supposed to be the body that shepherds through codes of welfare independently of any sort of pressure. They are supposed to engage with the public. They are supposed to look into it themselves and see whether or not standards that are proposed are the most scientifically accurate and representative of best practice in terms of animal welfare.

"They're not able to do that in this particular instance. They're basically being asked to sign off on standards that we have on the record as being not acceptable to them."

Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere

Auckland University associate law professor Marcelo Rodriguez-Ferrere. Photo: supplied

Welfare vs economics

Kleiss said the pork industry was "not opposed to a ban on conventional farrowing crates".

Currently, crates could be used for up to four weeks after birth.

"We are in favour of temporary confinement because of the positive effect it has on the overall welfare on-farm, between sows and piglets."

NZ Pork pushed for sows to be kept in farrowing crates for a maximum of four days after birth, because evidence showed that was the most crucial period for protecting piglets from being crushed.

But the change from four weeks to four days did not come cheap, he said.

"You have to put in an entirely new system. Farmers have to rip out the old ones and put in something new that is different.

"Some will choose temporary confinement. Some will use other systems, such as, there's a maternity ring system out there. There's free farrowing," Kleiss said.

The new requirements to provide sows with "manipulable" materials would also likely require new effluent systems.

"Some will have to build new buildings to accommodate the changes that are being proposed."

Kleiss said one farmer he'd spoken to last week estimated he would have to buy the farm next door in order to remain profitable.

"So there are expensive changes for some farmers."

But it was not all about economics, pig farmers wanted high welfare standards too.

"If you don't have good welfare on-farm, you don't make that money. Pigs don't sell, don't produce large litters, and they don't nurse and care for their litters well if they are stressed.

"I do get a bit frustrated that there seems to be this argument of welfare versus cost.

"Farmers want good welfare first and foremost, but it has to be practical, achievable and affordable, and they have to remain profitable."

A mother pig in a farrowing crate.

A mother pig in a farrowing crate. Photo: Supplied / SAFE

Standards for imported pork

Hoggard said the bill "reflects a balance" between improved welfare outcomes for pigs while ensuring farmers remain in business.

While NZ Pork wanted imported products to be held to the same standards as domestic producers, Hoggard disagreed.

"We don't restrict trade purely on the basis of animal welfare and, if we did, it would open New Zealand primary sector exporters up to similar retaliatory non-tariff trade barriers.

"Under the previous Government, the Primary Production Committee considered a petition that proposed requiring imported pork products to meet New Zealand's animal welfare standards.

"The Committee acknowledged the pork industry faces particular challenges, but concluded that it would not be appropriate to impose domestic animal welfare standards on imported products because doing so would be contrary to New Zealand's international obligations."

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Get the RNZ app

for ad-free news and current affairs