Action Urged As New Bill And Petition Seek To Close Animal Imports Loophole
A new member's bill addressing the import of animal products was announced at Parliament today (6 May), alongside the delivery of a petition with over 11,000 signatures calling for imported animal products to meet local welfare standards. This powerful legislative proposal, backed by thousands of concerned citizens, creates momentum for change as New Zealand begins trade negotiations with India.
The petition, by animal law expert Associate Professor Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere, was received by Labour MP Rachel Boyack, while Green MP Steve Abel announced the introduction of his bill, the Animal Products (Closing the Welfare Gap) Amendment Bill. National MP Grant McCallum alongside representatives from Animal Policy International, SPCA, SAFE, and farmer Walt Cavendish spoke at the event, providing diverse perspectives on the pressing need for reform.
The timing could not be more critical as yesterday New Zealand formally began trade negotiations with India — where over 90% of hens remain in battery cages, a practice banned in New Zealand — highlighting the urgent need to address this inconsistency.
Last year a report revealed that many animal products come from countries that allow practices like confinement of egg-laying hens in battery cages, pregnant pigs in sow stalls, and live lamb cutting (mulesing) of sheep - all banned in New Zealand due to welfare issues but still used by major trading partners.
During the event Labour animal welfare spokesperson Rachel Boyack emphasised the need for consistency in animal welfare standards: "The petitioner raises a fair point that there are products sold on New Zealand shelves that are made in countries with lower animal welfare standards than ours. I commend the petitioner on bringing this petition to Parliament and look forward to it making its way through the select committee process for thorough consideration. Consumer preferences are changing, and New Zealand customers rightly expect that all products in our market, regardless of origin, meet New Zealand's animal welfare standards."
Steve Abel highlighted the ongoing issues with imports: "It has been years since New Zealand took the principled decision to ban sow stalls due to the immense suffering they cause to mother pigs. Yet, we continue to import significant quantities of cruel pork each year, contributing directly to animal suffering worldwide and undercutting more ethical local producers. My 'closing the welfare gap' Bill will close this loophole. Every day we delay adds to the suffering of animals farmed overseas and sold in New Zealand, and disadvantages our local farmers."
In his address, Animal Policy International Co-Executive Director Rainer Kravets stressed the urgency: "As New Zealand negotiates new trade agreements, the amount of cruel imports may rise further. The time is now to require imports to meet our standards: creating certainty and ensuring our standards are not traded away with each trade deal. Not only is this possible, it's the right thing to do - for animals, for our farmers and for New Zealanders who want truly better welfare for animals. The Government has a strong mandate to enact legislation with over 8o% of New Zealanders agreeing that imported products from outside New Zealand should respect the same animal welfare standards as those applied in New Zealand.'
This situation also creates a competitive disadvantage for New Zealand farmers who must comply with local laws, while effectively allowing practices rejected by New Zealand voters to continue entering through imports.
Walt Cavendish, a dairy farmer said, 'The welfare gap is growing with many imports not up to the high standards that consumers demand of their Kiwi Farmers, farmers are not able to compete on a level playing field and the high animal welfare standards are ignored on many imported products. Farmers and consumers deserve better and so do our livestock. If better is possible, good is never enough."
Debra Ashton, CEO from SAFE said, 'Whilst there are still many improvements to be made in New Zealand, it is hypocritical of us to be importing products from countries with lower welfare standards than our own. At the very least, our laws must extend also to imports. This is something both SAFE and farmers can agree on.'
'We know that New Zealanders care deeply about animal welfare, yet we continue to import products that are the result of cruelty that would be illegal here at home. Without swift action, imminent trade deals could further compromise New Zealand's values, standards and our global reputation. Animals deserve protection no matter where they are raised, and we urge the government to take action," said Arnja Dale, Chief Scientific Officer at the SPCA.
"For Aotearoa, addressing this issue isn't something for the future—it requires immediate attention to maintain our integrity in animal welfare," Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere said. 'We must act to close this welfare gap and stop cruel imports'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
24 minutes ago
- Scoop
Legislation Introduced To Restrict Farm-To-Forest Conversions
Press Release – New Zealand Government The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme – Forestry Conversions) Amendment Bill will restrict wholesale conversions of farmland to exotic forestry by stopping LUC 1-5 land from entering the ETS and capping new ETS registrations on LUC 6 land. Minister of Agriculture Today Agriculture and Forestry Minister Todd McClay introduced long awaited legislation that will put a stop to large-scale farm-to-forestry conversions – delivering on a key election promise to protect the future of New Zealand food production. 'For too long, productive sheep and beef farms have been replaced by pine trees in the race for carbon credits. That ends under this Government,' Mr McClay says. 'The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme – Forestry Conversions) Amendment Bill will restrict wholesale conversions of farmland to exotic forestry by stopping LUC 1-5 land from entering the ETS and capping new ETS registrations on LUC 6 land. 'It will also protect farmers' ability to diversify – allowing up to 25 per cent of a farm to go into trees, while stopping the kind of blanket ETS planting that's been gutting rural communities in places like the East Coast, Wairarapa, the King Country, and Southland.' As previously announced the new restrictions will take effect from 4 December 2024. The law will: Restrict farm conversions to exotic ETS forests on high-to-medium versatility farmland (LUC classes 1-6) A limit of 15,000 hectares per year for exotic conversions on medium versality farmland (LUC class 6) The annual limit of 15,000 hectares for LUC 6 farmland will be allocated by a ballot process, including a reserved quota for small block holders, with the first ballot proposed to be held in mid-2026. Allow for up to 25 per cent of a farm's LUC 1-6 land to still be planted in exotic forestry for the ETS, ensuring farmers retain flexibility and choice. Protect specific categories of Māori-owned land, in line with Treaty obligations The Bill proposes time-limited transitional exemptions in rare cases for people who were in the process of afforestation prior to these changes originally being announced on 4 December 2024. To be eligible for a transitional exemption, applicants need to show sufficient evidence that they made a qualifying forestry investment between 1 January 2021 and 4 December 2024. Transactions that commenced after this date will not be eligible to register in the ETS. The applicant will need to demonstrate that the investment relates to the specific Land Use Capability (LUC) class 1–6 land they are applying to register in the ETS. Registry of 25 per cent of LUC 1-6 land will be registered against the properties title to restrict further planting as a result of subdivision. 'Labour's careless ETS settings turbocharged the sell-off of our farming base. They let speculators put short-term profits ahead of long-term food production. That was careless – and it ends now,' Mr McClay says. 'This Government is backing farmers, restoring balance, and making sure the ETS doesn't come at the cost of New Zealand's rural economy. 'This policy is pro-farming, pro-food production, pro-commercial forestry and pro-rural New Zealand.' The legislation is now before Parliament and is to come into force October 2025.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Labour leader Chris Hipkins says farming emissions policy ‘under review'
'We are looking at the science as well, we're not just talking to farmers we are talking to the researchers who are doing the work in this area too,' he said. Hipkins made the remarks ahead of the agriculture trade show, Fieldays, which is this week. Hipkins said he remained committed to the overall goal of reducing emissions but Labour was 'not committed to a particular way of doing that at this point'. He said there were 'technological solutions as well' to fixing the agricultural emissions problem. 'There is fantastic science happening in New Zealand funded by the last Labour Government about how we can... reduce methane emissions through more sustainable farming practice,' he said. Labour has supported agriculture going into the ETS, or some form of agriculture being in the ETS, since it created the scheme in 2008. What is currently unclear is the extent to which the policy is under review. Labour, since being turfed out of government, has put its entire policy platform under review. Some policies may re-emerge from the review in a similar form to the 2023 manifesto, while others may be very different. The only guide is the party's policy platform, which acts as a constraint on what the party's candidates can campaign on. The Fifth Labour Government created the ETS in 2008. The responsible Minister David Parker, who retired from politics this year, structured the scheme so sectors of the economy entered it gradually. Agriculture was set to enter the scheme in 2013, but the Fifth National Government amended the legislation, keeping agriculture out. At the time, Prime Minister John Key cited concerns New Zealand's trading partners were not taking climate change seriously and putting agriculture in the ETS would make New Zealand farmers less competitive. Labour consistently tried to bring agriculture into the scheme, forcing the sector to pay a price for its emissions, although Labour only ever proposed a heavily discounted price. In 2017, Labour campaigned on slowly bringing the sector into the ETS, at a discounted rate of 90%, meaning farmers would only pay 10% of the prevailing emissions price. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern with, from left, ministers James Shaw, Damien O'Connor and Kieran McAnulty, announcing the new farm emissions plan. Photo / Mark Mitchell In coalition negotiations with NZ First this discount was lifted to 95% along with other caveats. Later, the He Waka Eke Noa process was launched to work out a separate emissions pricing solution for agriculture to begin in 2025. If that work fell apart, agriculture would have entered the ETS as a backstop. The proposal the government decided on, accepted most of He Waka Eke Noa, but rejected some significant ideas, like giving the sector a large say in its own emissions price. National initially backed He Waka Eke Noa, but later pulled away. In 2023 National promised not to put agriculture in the ETS and no emissions price until 2030. The current coalition government ended He Waka Eke Noa and removed the backstop. The latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory, published by the Ministry for the Environment using StatsNZ figures showed agriculture was responsible for 53% of New Zealand's gross greenhouse gas emissions. The bulk of these are from methane, which is a short-lived gas. The fact it is short-lived has seen an argument mounted by the Government that it should be treated differently to long-lived gasses. The challenge for policymakers is that lifting the burden for emissions reduction from agriculture generally means pushing down more heavily on other sectors.
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
The Regulatory Standards Bill: What is it and why the controversy?
By Nik Dirga of RNZ Explainer - A new bill would make big changes to how legislation is drafted in New Zealand, but has also drawn considerable criticism as it works its way through Parliament. The Regulatory Standards Bill presented by ACT Party leader David Seymour is complex, but the heart of the matter is about how the rules and regulations that we all live by are put together, and whether that can or should be done better. It's now out for public comment through submissions to the select committee, due by 23 June. The bill has been called everything from a libertarian power grab to a common-sense solution to cutting red tape. But what's it all about, really? RNZ is here to tell you what you need to know. What is the bill? The bill proposes a set of regulatory principles that lawmakers, agencies and ministries would have to consider in regulation design. Those principles cover the rule of law, personal liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies and the role of courts. Makers of legislation would be required to assess proposed and existing legislation against those principles. The definitions in the legislation as drafted set out Seymour's ideal for what makes good law, but are contested. (See end of article for a complete summary of the principles.) Seymour called the principles "focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties," while Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight said they are "strongly libertarian in character". The bill would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. Members of the board would be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, currently Seymour. In putting the bill forward, Seymour said: "In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral - it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made." The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. "This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'." The bill was part of the coalition agreements National, ACT and New Zealand First agreed to in 2023 which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a "Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable" (page 4). The bill passed its first reading in Parliament on 23 May. It is now before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee and open for public feedback. You can read the complete text of the bill right here: Read the Regulatory Standards Bill 2025. The government's departmental disclosure statement also gives further information regarding the scrutiny of the bill. Okay, but what is regulation, anyway? The Ministry of Regulation, which was formed just last year with Seymour named as the minister in charge, says that "regulation is all around us in our daily lives". "It's in the workplace, the sports field, the home, the shopping mall - in our cities and the great outdoors. Regulation protects our rights and safety, our property and the environment." But what does that actually mean? "Fundamentally, it's a law, something that tells you you have to do something or something that tells you you can't do something," said constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler. Aren't there already legislative guidelines for Parliament? Yes, such as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), which produce legislative guidelines and advises on legislative design. "There already are a range of 'best practice' lawmaking guides and practices within government, such as the LDAC's 'Legislation Guidelines', Regulatory Impact Statements, and departmental disclosure statements under the Legislation Act," University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. Seymour has said the bill is about adding transparency, not enforcement. In an FAQ on the bill, the Ministry for Regulation says the bill "does not require new legislation to be consistent with the principles". "It requires that legislation is assessed for any inconsistency with the principles, and that this assessment is made available to the public. Agencies and ministers are required to be transparent about any identified inconsistencies, but this would not stop new legislation from progressing." Geddis said while the bill was intended to operate in the executive branch of government only, it may have implications for the courts. "Once the particular standards of 'good lawmaking' included in the RSB are written into our law by Parliament, the courts cannot but take notice of that fact," he said. "And so, these standards may become relevant to how the courts interpret and apply legislation, or how they review the way the executive government makes regulatory decisions." Haven't ACT tried to pass something like this bill before? That's right - similar legislation has been introduced to the House three times, and failed to become law three times. Previous tries saw the 2006 Regulatory Responsibility Bill Member's Bill by former ACT leader Rodney Hide; the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011 also introduced by Hyde and produced by the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce; and a 2021 Member's Bill by Seymour. Unlike previous versions of the bill, the 2025 iteration adds a regulatory standards board to consider issues, removing courts from the equation "in relation to a recourse mechanism for legislation inconsistent with the principles". The bill has been somewhat softened in this incarnation, Edgeler said. "This is the weakest form of the regulatory standards proposal that there has been." He also noted that future governments could repeal or amend the bill as well. And as the Ministry for Regulation says, "any recommendations made by the Regulatory Standards Board would be non-binding". "It won't stop any future government doing something it actually wants to do," Edgeler said. So what are some of the concerns about the bill? The bill has drawn considerable feedback, with earlier public submissions strongly negative. After the discussion document was launched on the bill in November, the Ministry of Regulation received about 23,000 submissions. Of those, 88 percent opposed the bill, 0.33 percent - or 76 submissions - supported or partially supported it, and about 12 percent did not have a clear position, the ministry reported. Seymour has since dismissed the negative submissions and alleged some of them were made by 'bots'. Among the top concerns the ministry's analysis of the feedback found were that the bill would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking" and "undermine future Parliaments and democracy". Bill opponent University of Auckland Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey has said the bill is too in line with minority party ACT's ideology and will "bind governments forever to the neoliberal logic of economic freedom". Other government agencies have also weighed in. In a report on the bill after launching an urgent inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal found that "if the Regulatory Standards Act were enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, specifically the principles of partnership and active protection". It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. In a submission received by Newsroom under the Official Information Act, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said it had "misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvement" and it might have "significant unintended consequences". In terms of the financial impact, a regulatory impact statement by the Ministry for Regulation estimated the bill would cost a minimum of $18 million a year across the public service under the minister's preferred approach. Seymour said the cost of policy work across the government was $870m a year, and the bill was about 2 percent of that. And in an interim regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Regulation itself expressed some ambivalence about the bill. The ministry said its preferred approach was to "build on the disclosure statement regime ... and create new legislative provisions". It said it supported the overall objectives of the bill but "that an enhanced disclosure statement regime with enhanced obligations, will achieve many of the same benefits" and also impose fewer costs. Does it remove the Treaty of Waitangi from governance? It does not say that, but the bill's silence on Māori representation in government has troubled opponents. "On the consultation point, Māori clearly weren't adequately engaged with before the RSB was created and introduced into the House," Geddis said. "The Waitangi Tribunal's report on the RSB is unequivocal on this issue." Geddis said in contrast, that LDAC guidelines contain an entire chapter of guidance on how Te Tiriti should be considered. "That very silence creates uncertainty as to how the principles in the RSB are meant to interact with these principles of the Treaty." Under principles of responsible legislation outlined at the start the bill, there is a statement that "every person is equal before the law," which some have said dismisses Māori concerns. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at the bill's first reading last month attacked the bill. "If you look through the whole 37 pages, which I encourage that you don't, the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative." Seymour has insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. "We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted... If that's not enough, then I don't know what is," he told RNZ's Guyon Espiner. What does the bill say about property rights? A section that has drawn attention says "legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless there is a good justification for the taking or impairment; and fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment". The question many opponents have raised is what "compensation" might mean and who might seek it. "Applied to the real world, this means that anything the government does that decreases corporate profits opens it up to possible legal action," bill opponent Ryan Ward wrote for E-Tangata. What do supporters say? Writing for the New Zealand Institute, Bryce Wilkinson said criticisms of the bill as "a 'dangerous ideological' drive towards limited government are arrant nonsense". "The bill itself is a mild transparency measure," Wilkinson has also written. "The Regulatory Standards Bill's modest aim is to make wilful lack of disclosure harder." "At the end of the day we are putting critical principles into lawmaking," Seymour told Newsroom. "We know bureaucrats don't like this law. For New Zealanders that's a good thing." So how can we have our say on it? Now is the time to do it. Public submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be accepted until 1pm Monday 23 June. Submissions are publicly released and will be published to the Parliament website. What happens after that? Does the bill look likely to pass? Here's what happens next. The select committee is due to report back on submissions by 22 November, although Seymour has asked that to be moved up to 23 September, Newsroom reported. After the select committee, the bill would proceed to a second reading, then a committee of the Whole House, and a final vote in the third reading, which would need support from more than half of Parliament to pass. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026. While the Treaty Principles Bill, also championed by ACT, failed in Parliament in April and was voted down by every party but ACT, Edgeler said the path for this one was less shaky. "This one, of course, is more likely to pass because the promise in the coalition agreement is to pass it," Edgeler said. That agreement requires National to support the bill all the way through, which is different to the agreement's clause on the Treaty Principles Bill. By extension it also requires New Zealand First to support it all the way through because their agreement requires them to support the agreement with ACT. "Whether it passes in the exact form, who knows, whether New Zealand First continues its support or insists on changes which might drastically alter it, or even water it down further, is a different question." NZ First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as a "work in progress" and Geddis said: "It is possible that the changes NZ First want so alter the RSB's content that it ceases to deliver what ACT wants it to, creating a stand-off between the two coalition partners." Geddis agreed the coalition agreement makes it difficult for National to not support the bill. "Given that these agreements are treated as being something close to holy writ, and given how much political capital David Seymour is investing in this bill, it seems unlikely that National will feel able to withhold its support. That then leaves NZ First as being, in effect, the decider." One last question - what were those regulatory principles again? From the bill itself, in summary, the principles are: • the importance of maintaining consistency with various aspects of the rule of law; and • legislation should not unduly diminish a person's liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or various property rights, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person; and • legislation should not take or impair property without the owner's consent unless certain requirements are met. The requirements include that there is a good justification for the taking or impairment and fair compensation is provided to the owner; and • the importance of maintaining consistency with section 22 of the Constitution Act 1986. Section 22 of that Act provides that it is not lawful for the Crown, except by or under an Act, to levy a tax, borrow money, or spend public money; and • legislation should impose a fee for goods or services only if the amount of the fee bears a proper relation to the cost of providing the good or service; and • legislation should impose a levy to fund an objective or a function only if the levy is reasonable in relation to: - the benefits that the payers are likely to derive or the risks attributable to them; and - the costs of efficiently achieving the objective or providing the function; and • legislation should preserve the courts' constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation; and • legislation should make rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative power only if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review; and • the importance of consulting, to the extent that is reasonably practicable, the persons that the responsible agency considers will be directly and materially affected by the legislation; and • the importance of carefully evaluating various matters as part of a good law-making process. These include: - the issue concerned; and - the effectiveness of any relevant existing law; and - the public interest; and - any reasonably available options (including non-legislative options); and • who is likely to benefit and who is likely to suffer a detriment; and • legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons; and • legislation should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available.
