1
Submission on the Proposed Regulatory Standards Bill – Discussion Document
Introduction
1. The following submission has been prepared by the Animal Justice Party Aotearoa New Zealand (AJP).
2. The AJP is a registered political party dedicated to advocating for the rights, welfare and protection of animals. Our mission is to create a society where animals are treated with respect, compassion and consideration. Through active participation in the political landscape, we aim to drive policy changes that reflect our commitment to a more ethical and sustainable future.
3. We have not sought to answer all the questions posed in the Discussion Document. However, our analysis addresses many of these.
4. We do not focus on the history and evolution of this Bill, which has already been examined by Parliament three times, twice in depth, and rejected each time, or the fact that the new Ministry for Regulation does not support this Bill. Nor do we consider if the Bill itself upholds the standards it purports to wish to introduce. There will be no doubt many submitters who will provide expert views on these matters. Given AJP’s mission our comments are deliberately focused on how this proposed Bill could impact regulations concerning animals, their ecosystems and building a compassionate Aotearoa for all.
Executive Summary
5. AJP is extremely concerned about the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill due to its potential negative impact on animal welfare and protection in New Zealand. The Bill raises three critical issues:
2
a. Its proposed framework fails to recognise animals as sentient beings deserving of protection, instead reducing them to merely economic considerations. This represents a significant step backward from New Zealand’s legal recognition of animal sentience in the 2015 amendment of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (the “Act”).
b. The proposed “benefits must exceed costs” principle would systematically block animal welfare improvements since many benefits to animals cannot be
quantified in economic terms. Resulting in economic efficiency taking precedence over animal protection. Furthermore, the proposed Regulatory Standards Board structure creates multiple avenues for industry to challenge and weaken animal welfare and protection measures under the guise of reducing “regulatory burden.” Together, this could severely impact our ability to develop and maintain
comprehensive animal welfare standards and legislative protection.
c. Its prioritisation of minimal regulation and economic efficiency would
systematically disadvantage animal welfare and protection initiatives,
enforcement of animal welfare standards and environmental protections, making it harder to achieve the comprehensive regulatory protections needed to advance an ethical and sustainable future for New Zealand’s animals.
Context and Background
6. The Discussion Document begins, on page three, with a sweeping statement from the Minister for Regulation, “Most of New Zealand’s problems can be traced to poor productivity, and poor productivity can be traced to poor regulations.” This claim is presented without evidence, despite common sense suggesting that New Zealand’s challenges arise from a multitude of factors—individual, societal and systemic. While poor regulations may play a role, they are only one cause among many. Additionally, this reductive assertion ignores the vital role of regulations in protecting vulnerable beings, including animals.
7. The Discussion Document states, on page five, that the aim is to pass the Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable to ensure “… that regulatory decisions are based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency,…”
8. AJP challenges the assumption that “good law” can be measured purely in economic terms or human convenience. It should also reflect the public’s moral standards.
3
9. The absence of a universal formula or legal definition for “good law” is particularly evident in how our legal system treats animals and their habitats. While some view laws that protect property rights and economic interests as “good,” those of us advocating for animals recognise that this often comes at the expense of animal welfare and environmental protection. For example, what the agricultural industry might consider “good law” – such as minimal regulation of farming practices or development – directly conflicts with what we know animals need for their well being and survival.
10. The fundamental conflict lies in competing ethical frameworks: one that views animals as mere property or resources to be used solely for human benefit, and another that recognises them as sentient beings deserving of moral consideration and legal protection. This tension is visible in debates over intensive farming regulations, habitat protection laws, animal testing requirements and wildlife management policies.
11. For instance, what a developer might consider “good law” regarding land use could mean destruction of critical wildlife habitat. What an industrial animal farmer might view as acceptable animal welfare standards might fall far short of what we know about animals’ capacity to suffer and their complex emotional and social needs.
Analysis of current animal welfare regulations
12. AJP agrees with the statement on page ten that “New Zealandʼs approach to regulation has not always been consistent with best practice.”
13. The Act serves as the primary legislation for animals, with separate codes of welfare sitting beneath it for different species and situations. Currently this creates some regulatory inefficiency or quality concerns, such as:
a. The codes lack consistency in both content and structure, creating unnecessary complexity and uneven minimum protection standards. This manifests in two ways:
i. first, through redundant provisions across multiple codes, such as
repeated general requirements for animal handling and care that could be consolidated into a single overarching standard;
ii. and second, through inconsistent levels of specificity between different codes. For example, while the dairy cattle code provides detailed
requirements for off-paddock facilities and minimum lying space, other
livestock codes are significantly less prescriptive about similar welfare
requirements. This inconsistency creates confusion for compliance and
enforcement and leaves gaps in animal protection.
4
b. Some regulations contain outdated technical specifications that haven’t kept pace with animal welfare developments and the understanding of animal sentience, including animals ability to feel pain and suffer.
c. There are discrepancies in how different provisions are classified as either minimum standards (which are enforceable) versus recommended best practices (which are not). Additionally, there are cases where minimum standards lack clear metrics for compliance. For example, terms like “sufficient” or “appropriate” appear in some codes without precise definitions. This makes enforcement challenging.
d. A gap between minimum standards and recommended best practices in the codes of welfare. Many important welfare provisions are only listed as
recommended practices rather than mandatory requirements. For example, provisions about enrichment and natural behavioural opportunities are often only recommendations, despite being crucial for animal wellbeing.
e. The enforcement system has limitations that are of concern. While the Act provides powers for inspectors, the reliance on a complaint-based system means many welfare issues go undetected, particularly in commercial animal farming operations where public participation is limited, and inspectors are prevented from proactively mitigating welfare concerns.
f. The codes often include significant exceptions for “economic” or “practical” reasons that can override welfare considerations. This fundamentally
compromises the protection of animals by prioritising commercial interests.
g. The timeframes for implementing welfare improvements are often too lengthy, allowing practices recognised as problematic to continue for extended periods during “phase-out” periods.
14. AJP would like to see updated, and regularly reviewed, regulations that consistently reduce suffering, respect animal rights and foster ethical treatment across society; coupled with enforcement of these regulations, strict penalties and robust oversight to ensure compliance.
15. Existing regulatory oversight mechanisms, such as the Regulatory Systems Amendment Bills (RSABs) introduced in 2016-17, already provide a framework for addressing issues in New Zealand’s regulatory system. These omnibus bills, as described by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment, allow for updates to multiple pieces of legislation simultaneously, while aiming to ensure regulatory systems are efficient, effective and aligned with best practices. The increasing use of RSABs demonstrates their potential to address many of the challenges often cited as reasons for creating new legislation and doing so in a cost-effective and streamlined way. It is concerning that neither the Discussion Document nor the Interim Regulatory Impact Statement considers the role RSABs could play in resolving these issues, especially given their proven utility.
Critique of proposed principles
16. AJP is extremely concerned by the principles outlined in the Discussion Document; not least due to the fact that their meaning is often open to interpretation which could lead to uncertainty and confusion.
17. Additionally, principles AJP would expect of good law making in Aotearoa New Zealand are missing, notably the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is inconceivable that considerations of improved regulation exclude this.
18. Other concerning missing principles include those essential foundations for a fair society, sustainable environment, protecting the rights of vulnerable society members (which includes animals), the rights of future generations and the absence of any precautionary principle regarding potential harm to animals or their habitats.
19. The principles, particularly the “Legislative design principles” section (pages 21-22), completely omit any recognition of animal sentience or welfare, despite this being established in New Zealand law in 2015 when the Act was updated. These principles focus entirely on human rights, liberties and property without acknowledging animals as sentient beings. This is a significant regression likely to result in regulations that fail to properly consider animal welfare and protection, and subsequently prove harmful.
20. The Bill’s principles concerning liberties and property rights fundamentally conflict with modern and scientific understanding of animal welfare and sentience. While the Act recognises animals as sentient beings, they remain legally classified as property – creating an inherent tension in how our regulatory system treats them. This contradiction becomes particularly problematic under the Bill’s proposed principles in two key ways:
a. The “Liberties” principle exclusively focuses on human freedoms while ignoring potential impacts on animal welfare and protection, creating an imbalanced framework that could justify harmful practices focused on human economic liberty without proper consideration of its impact on vulnerable society members, such as animals.
6
b. The “Taking of property” principle, with its emphasis on compensation for property loss, fails to acknowledge the unique, and contradictory, status of animals as both legally-owned property and sentient beings. This could have severe practical implications:
i. Implementation of new animal welfare regulations affecting farming
practices could become prohibitively expensive due to compensation
requirements
ii. Habitat protection rules could face legal challenges as “property rights violations”
iii. Factory farming regulations might be contested as “unduly diminishing property rights”
iv. Animal welfare improvements could be blocked if they’re seen as
imposing on property owners’ freedoms
21. The requirement that “benefits should exceed costs” poses particular challenges for animal welfare, as traditional cost-benefit analyses often fail to properly value, or entirely overlook animal welfare and environmental impacts. This could systematically disadvantage regulations aimed at protecting animals, as their benefits are often difficult to quantify in purely economic terms.
22. The emphasis on minimising “regulatory burdens” and “compliance costs” (page 23) could potentially lead to weaker environmental and animal welfare protections if they’re viewed as “burdens” on industry. For example, new animal welfare enforcement mechanisms could be blocked as imposing “undue compliance costs” or requirements for enrichment in animal housing could be deemed “unnecessary regulatory burdens”.
23. Overall AJP fears the proposed principles would make it harder to implement and enforce vital legislative animal protection measures, using the guise of reducing “regulatory burden” to potentially dismantle essential oversight of industries that impact animals. For instance, agricultural practices, wildlife protection, habitat conservation and pollution controls could all be weakened under the premise of avoiding “undue” regulation.
Key gaps in current regulatory processes
24. From the perspective of AJP there are several key gaps in the current regulatory assessment processes.
25. There is currently no mandatory requirement for comprehensive animal welfare impact assessments when developing new regulations, even when those regulations might significantly affect animals. This is particularly concerning given New Zealand’s legal recognition of animal sentience. For example, when assessing new agricultural or urban development regulations, there’s often insufficient analysis of impacts on the welfare of both domestic and wild animals and their ecosystems.
26. The process for incorporating scientific evidence about animal welfare and environmental impacts into regulatory decisions could be more robust. While the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) was established under the Act to provide independent advice to the Government Minister responsible for animal welfare, its recommendations don’t always receive adequate weight in final regulatory decisions. Moreover, there’s often insufficient funding for research to properly assess regulatory impacts on animals.
27. The current system lacks rigorous post-implementation review processes specifically focused on animal welfare outcomes. For instance, when regulations affecting farming practices are implemented, there’s limited systematic assessment of their actual impacts on animal welfare over time.
28. While there are consultation processes, they often don’t adequately capture the voices of animal welfare experts and advocates. The timeframes for consultation can be too short to allow for thorough analysis of animal welfare implications, and the process can favor industry stakeholders with greater economic resources.
29. There is also insufficient consideration of the cumulative and long-term impacts of different regulations on animals and their ecosystems. For example, how multiple regulations across different sectors (agriculture, urban development, transport) might collectively impact wildlife corridors or habitat fragmentation.
30. To address the gaps in our current regulatory assessment processes, improvements are needed across several key areas.
31. In the regulatory design phase, fundamental changes are required to better protect animal welfare interests. Most critically, mandatory animal welfare impact assessments should be implemented for all relevant regulations. These assessments must include consideration of cumulative and long-term impacts on animals and their ecosystems, as isolated evaluations often fail to capture the full scope of regulatory effects. Additionally, the regulatory design process needs stronger requirements for evidence-based decision making, with animal welfare experts involved from the earliest stages of policy development rather than being consulted as an afterthought.
32. The consultation process itself requires significant enhancement to ensure meaningful consideration of animal welfare and protection issues. Current time frames often prove inadequate for proper analysis of complex animal welfare implications, necessitating extended consultation periods. Animal welfare and protection organisations, typically operating with limited resources, need better support and resources to participate effectively in these consultations. Most importantly, the consultation framework must be restructured to ensure animal welfare and protection considerations carry equal weight alongside human economic factors, rather than being treated as secondary concerns.
33. Implementation and monitoring systems need substantial strengthening to ensure regulations achieve their intended outcomes. This includes developing more sophisticated metrics for measuring animal welfare outcomes, moving beyond simple compliance checks to the assessment and measurement of actual improvements in animal welfare. Regular review cycles specifically focused on animal welfare impacts should be established, supported by increased funding for monitoring and enforcement activities. These changes would help ensure that regulations remain effective and responsive to emerging animal welfare science and challenges.
34. Finally, better coordination and integration across regulatory frameworks are essential. Current siloed approaches often result in fragmented protection for animals, with different agencies operating under varying standards and priorities. The role of the NAWAC in regulatory decisions should be strengthened to provide more consistent and expert oversight. Moreover, improved coordination between different agencies dealing with animal welfare would help ensure more comprehensive and effective protection for animals across all relevant sectors.
35. This comprehensive approach to regulatory improvement would help create a more robust and effective system for protecting animal welfare, while ensuring that regulations remain practical and achievable. The focus should be on creating a regulatory framework that both respects the welfare and protection of animals and provides clear, workable guidelines for those subject to regulation.
Governance concerns
36. The Bill’s proposed governance structure raises serious concerns about accountability and the protection of animal welfare interests. These concerns centre around two key mechanisms: the Regulatory Standards Board and the Minister’s expanded powers.
37. The Regulatory Standards Board (the “Board”):
a. Risk of Capture: The Board, tasked with reviewing regulations against libertarian principles, risks becoming a tool for well-resourced private interests and
corporations. With members appointed by the Minister for Regulation, there’s a significant risk of ideological bias favoring business and economic interests over animal welfare and protection.
b. Structural Bias: The Board’s mandate to prioritise “costs” and “regulatory burden” creates a systematic disadvantage for animal welfare and protection measures, which often require industry investment in better conditions and welfare practices.
c. Ineffective Oversight: While the Board allows public complaints, its non-binding recommendations could:
i. Create bureaucratic hurdles for improved animal welfare and protection interventions
ii. Provide a mechanism for challenging existing animal protection
regulations
iii. Slow down or complicate the process of improving animal welfare
standards
38. Ministerial Powers:
a. The framework grants the Minister for Regulation substantial discretion over consistency requirements, creating potential vulnerabilities in animal welfare and protection regulations. The Minister could:
i. Use emergency or minor legislative change exemptions to bypass animal welfare regulations
ii. Prioritise short-term political or economic interests over animal welfare iii. Weaken existing protections through selective enforcement of
consistency requirements
b. This concentration of power lacks adequate checks and balances, particularly for protecting animal welfare interests that may conflict with economic priorities. The absence of mandatory consultation with animal welfare experts or consideration of animal welfare impacts in ministerial decisions creates a significant gap in oversight and expertise.
39. This governance structure fails to provide the robust, balanced oversight needed to protect animal welfare interests, instead creating multiple avenues for weakening existing protections under the guise of reducing regulatory burden.
Conclusion
1
40. The proposed Bill represents a concerning shift in New Zealand’s regulatory framework that could significantly undermine animal welfare protections. Our analysis reveals three fundamental flaws in the Bill’s approach:
a. Firstly, the Bill’s principles are inherently contradictory to New Zealand’s legal recognition of animal sentience. By prioritising economic efficiency and property rights over animal welfare, the Bill creates a framework fundamentally
incompatible with the ethical treatment of animals as sentient beings and could disadvantage animals in regulatory decisionmaking. The narrow focus on human liberties and economic costs fails to acknowledge the complex ethical obligations we have toward animals as sentient beings.
b. Secondly, the Bill’s governance structure lacks adequate safeguards for animal welfare interests. The proposed Board and expanded ministerial powers create multiple avenues for well resourced private and commercial interests to challenge necessary animal welfare protections and dismiss them as non-essential. Without mandatory consideration of animal welfare impacts or expert consultation requirements, the Bill risks enabling the systematic dismantling of essential protections under the guise of reducing regulatory burden.
c. Thirdly, the Bill’s implementation would likely create significant practical barriers to improving let alone adhering to animal welfare standards. The requirement for compensation when property rights are affected could make new welfare regulations prohibitively expensive. Meanwhile, the emphasis on minimising regulatory burdens could weaken enforcement mechanisms and reduce
monitoring of animal welfare compliance.
41. These issues are compounded by the Bill’s vague and open-ended language, which creates uncertainty rather than the clarity it purports to provide. The oversimplified principles fail to address the complexities inherent in effective regulation, particularly in areas like animal welfare where competing interests must be carefully balanced.
42. Moreover, there is no compelling evidence that this legislation would deliver meaningful benefits to offset its potential harm to animal welfare and environmental protection. Instead, it risks adding significant costs and bureaucratic hurdles to New Zealand’s policy-making system while potentially undermining decades of progress in animal welfare and protection regulation.
43. Given these serious concerns, AJP strongly opposes the Bill as described in the Discussion Document. We recommend a fundamental reconsideration of the proposed framework to ensure it adequately protects animal welfare, recognises animal sentience and maintains New Zealand’s ability to implement and enforce comprehensive animal protection measures.
44. AJP has no objection to the release of this submission.