Animal Welfare (Pigs) Reform Amendment

Names: Simon Clark, Grace Boardman, Júlia Pásztor, Meghan de Blanc-Knowles
Roles: Officers
Organisation: Aotearoa New Zealand Employed Veterinarians Union Manatōpū Inc (50223645)
(NZBN: 9429052544569) [Incorporated Society] henceforth, the Aotearoa Veterinarians’ Union,
or AVU

The AVU’s position is as below, that:

● Farrowing crates (in their truest definition) are built specifically to restrict movement. This is a clear violation of the Five Freedoms of animal welfare, and violates the legal standard of animal welfare legislation in both Aotearoa and internationally.

● This violation of the Five Freedoms puts at risk the reputation of Aotearoa’s high welfare farming practices – and thus the high value produce that we are able to bring to the international market as a result.

● Farrowing crates have been unlawful since the high court ruling in 2020 under the Animal Welfare Act.

● Previous welfare concerns throughout the farming industry have been implemented despite pushback from the industry – with great success – which has strengthened our international footing in sustainable and cruelty-free agriculture (for example: bobby calf welfare regulations introduced by Minister Nathan Guy)

● New Zealand pork producers who are striving to compete on cost with countries such as China may be better placed to reconsider the market they are aiming for. The majority of New Zealand’s exported meat (venison, beef and lamb) are all traded in premium markets, carrying the ‘NZ brand’ of high welfare and naturally kept stock. Inadequate welfare practices in the pork industry in New Zealand has the potential to undermine the hard work of the rest of the agricultural industry, by tainting them all with the negative implications of poor welfare. Despite the fact that other countries can and will produce meat cheaply by using outdated techniques, it does not mean we should follow suit. Instead we should look to be international innovative leaders in this area – which across beef, lamb and venison industries, we continue to be. Pork production should therefore be striving to catch up to the example set in other areas of the industry, not attempting to continue an ethically unacceptable status quo that would not be accepted in another species.

● The industry has had well over five years to consult on and implement the measures under discussion. Any companies that have not acted on them have shown a willful disregard for the law and for the goodwill of the time they were allocated in which to make these changes.

● It seems unfair to penalize those in the industry that have gone to the effort of making the changes required in the allocated timeframe. Less than half of the commercial pig farms in Aotearoa are currently using farrowing crates – indicating they are not essential for the industry.

● We must be seen to be internationally relevant, and this step backwards would put us decades behind the legislation in this area in the EU and UK. Again, this undermines the hard work and tens of millions of dollars spent by the rest of the agriculture industry to market our NZ meat products as high value and high welfare.

● The SPCA, who have statutory authority to enforce the AWA, was not consulted prior to the bill introduction, indicating the government is taking a rushed and potentially biased stance on this important topic.

● Sentience in animals was recognized in the 2015 Animal Welfare Act. Pigs are known to be highly intelligent. Ethically this is a topic that requires at least the consultation of the relevant parties who are best placed to advise on their impact (for example: SPCA, NZVA, AVU, NAWAC). Note that The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has already found farrowing crates to be incompatible with the Animal Welfare Act and ruled that use of them must be discontinued, a decision that was upheld by the high court in 2020.
If the pork industry is struggling with the changes, there has been ample time (now 15 years) for them to approach animal welfare organisations and their own vets to seek advice about how best to implement them.

● There are multiple management techniques that can be considered, which are outside the scope of this submission, but could have been implemented over the course of the last five years to allow this transition to happen in the way it was planned. Instead, some producers have decided not to act, believing that they can strong-arm the government into bending to their will – prioritizing profit over and above the welfare of their animals and reputation of the rest of the industry. This demonstrates arrogance, a lack of empathy, and seemingly a lack of understanding of the ‘NZ brand’ that the rest of the meat producers in this country strive to protect.

In summary, we strongly recommend this bill should be withdrawn.
Nā mātou, nā,
Simon Clark, BVSc MVM
Grace Boardman, BVSc MRCVS
Júlia Pásztor BSAs (Hon) DVM MANZCVS (VPH)
Meghan de Blanc-Knowles BA BVSc
Aotearoa Veterinarians Union