Campaign Resources

I/We wish to make the following comments:

Animal Cruelty and Welfare Obligations

Mother pigs are confined in cages where they cannot turn around, lie comfortably, or build nests. Mating stalls are limited to three hours, yet the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) has repeatedly advised that pigs should never be confined for mating. These cages cause physical injury, mental distress, and long-term suffering.

The Animal Welfare Act 1999 requires owners to prevent unnecessary pain and distress. Caging mother pigs breaches this obligation. The 2015 Amendment explicitly aimed to end non-compliant practices, including cages. The High Court in SAFE & NZALA v Minister (2020) ruled that “farrowing crates” are unlawful and invalid.

Allowing cages until 2035 is a deliberate attempt to override Parliament’s intent and the court’s authority. It turns back the clock on welfare standards that New Zealand has already legally and ethically outgrown.

Implications:
Legal and moral obligations cannot be delayed for economic convenience. Every day cages remain in use is another day of sanctioned cruelty and statutory breach. To compare: it would be unacceptable to leave children in classrooms lined with asbestos because renovations are expensive. It would be unlawful to allow cars with faulty brakes to operate for a decade because the fix costs too much. Yet this is what the government proposes for pigs, knowingly permitting harm that the law already forbids.

Legal Compliance and Parliamentary Intent

Regulations 26 and 27 (under section 183A(1)) currently allow “farrowing crates” and mating stalls to continue indefinitely. Section 183A(2), however, was designed specifically for time-limited phase-outs of practices inconsistent with the Act. That pathway has been ignored.

Regulations cannot lawfully override the purpose of the Animal Welfare Act or the 2015 Amendment. Extending the use of cages until 2035 violates the rule of law and undermines judicial authority.

Implications:
The law requires that non-compliant practices be eliminated, not extended. Government action that knowingly allows ongoing illegality risks renewed court action and erodes public trust in animal welfare enforcement. It sets a highly risky precedent that statutory duties can be weakened for political or industry convenience.

Economic and Practical Considerations

The industry claims that upgrading facilities will cost around $675,000 per farm, and that removing cages will increase piglet deaths and force farm closures. These claims ignore both animal welfare science and long-term economic reality. Across Europe, modern free-farrowing systems have already reduced piglet losses through design improvements and animal-centred management. The idea that cruelty protects piglets is false, it’s an outdated excuse to preserve a broken system.

Cages and intensive indoor systems also create hidden public costs: high waste output, polluted waterways, and dependence on antibiotics to manage stress-driven illness. These are not just welfare issues but environmental and human health concerns.

Meanwhile, more than 60% of ‘pork’ consumed in New Zealand is imported from countries with far lower welfare standards.The solution is not to keep our cruelty to compete, but to raise import standards so all ‘pork’ sold meets our legal expectations. 

Implications:
Cost cannot justify unlawful cruelty. Compliance brings long-term benefits: Reduced legal and reputational risk, protection of export credibility and trade access and public confidence in genuine animal welfare enforcement.
Delaying reform imposes hidden costs: legal risk, public distrust, and reputational damage that will far exceed the cost of compliance. The precedent of ignoring the 2015 Amendment, the 2020 High Court ruling, and NAWAC’s consistent advice weakens the rule of law and signals that statutory obligations are optional.

I/We wish to make the following recommendations

Every day of delay is unjustifiable cruelty, to piglets, mother pigs, and the integrity of New Zealand law.

• Immediate action is required: Farrowing crates and mating stalls should be phased out without further delay.

• Time-limited transition: Given the lack of action to date, this needs careful planning. If a transition period is unavoidable, it must be realistic but short, respecting both animal welfare and legal obligations.

• Government accountability: Minister Hoggard and MPI must comply with the law, honour Parliament’s intent, and uphold judicial rulings.

• Industry support: Provide financial or technical assistance to farmers to ensure compliance.

Recommendations 

1. Enforce s183A(2) to implement a legally compliant, time-limited phase-out of farrowing crates and mating stalls.
2. Set a firm deadline well before 2035, given it’s been 5 years already, another 10 is unacceptable. 
3. Mandate reporting and independent monitoring to ensure compliance.
4. Provide transition support for farmers (grants, infrastructure assistance, technical guidance).
5. Public transparency: Engage stakeholders, including animal welfare organisations and the public, in reporting and oversight. Given current conditions are impossible to prove, manage or have oversight of. 

Thank you for your consideration.