Action Urged As New Bill And Petition Seek To Close Animal Imports Loophole
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 …
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
RNZ News
3 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Bill to ban protesting outside private homes passes first reading
Standing in for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, James Meager said the bill would be a welcome relief to many MPs, officials, and other individuals who had been targeted. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Legislation to make protesting outside someone's home an offence has passed its first reading at Parliament. The bill would apply to demonstrations directed at a specific person outside their private residence, considering factors like how 'unreasonable' the protest is. Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori opposed the bill, expressing concerns it could override the right to freedom of protest, and there were existing tools police could use. Standing in for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, James Meager said the bill would be a welcome relief to many MPs, officials, and other individuals who had been targeted. He said the bill was a balance of rights and freedoms. "The protection of New Zealanders' privacy is fundamentally important in our society, as is the ability to protest. The government upholds both of these values," he said. Meager said the public's right to protest was protected by the Bill of Rights Act, but demonstrations outside homes could impede on someone's right to privacy. "Unreasonable, disruptive intrusions into people's private spaces are simply unacceptable," Meager said. The government believed existing legislation did not clearly reflect the importance of privacy in the context of demonstrations, meaning police had difficulty in applying offences like disorderly behaviour. The offence would only apply if the protest was targeted at a specific person outside their private residence, meaning marches that passed by someone's house would not be covered. Time of day, duration, the demonstrators' actions, noise levels, and distance to the premises would also be factors in determining the offence. Despite Labour leader Chris Hipkins earlier expressing his concerns that protest had become personalised, Labour did not support the bill. Labour's Duncan Webb. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Its justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said the bill "chips away" at free speech rights, and New Zealand could not call itself a liberal democracy while passing legislation that prohibited demonstration. "The point of political action is to disrupt. It is not to be nice, it's not to be convenient. Protest is disruptive, that's what a protest is." Webb acknowledged other MPs have experienced people acting inappropriately outside their residences, but the legislation was targeted to suppress political action. "If that's your problem, the easy fix is actually to fix the offence of disorderly behaviour, and make it clear that disorder that flows into a private premise can in fact still amount to that offence." The Green Party also opposed the bill. MP Celia Wade-Brown said threats to people's safety or their families' safety were unacceptable, but the new offence had a disproportionate punishment. "Three months in prison, $2000 fine, this is not a parking ticket." Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi said if police felt they could not apply existing legislation to remove someone behaving unreasonably outside another's home, then police should "check their practice." Speaking in support of the bill, ACT's Todd Stephenson accepted there were two competing rights in the legislation, but the Select Committee phase would be a chance for a discussion about how the balance could be struck. "It's worthwhile at least going through the Select Committee process and uncovering what powers the police do or don't have currently, but they're saying they don't have sufficient powers." Casey Costello from New Zealand First said it was a "sad, sad indictment on our democracy" that the legislation was even needed. "We know we have politically motivated groups who will purposely release private residential addresses of elected officials, of businesspeople, in order to invoke an intimidatory approach to dealing with decisions." Costello disagreed it was a limitation on protesting, but a protection for people's privacy. "It is absolutely reasonable to say that we will ensure that voices can be heard, but my children, my mother, my family will not have to bear the price of the decisions or the public position that I hold," she said. The Justice Committee will now consider the bill, and will report back within four months.
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Should you quit Spotify, Substack? Why some Kiwis are leaving the popular platforms
Green MP Tamatha Paul and journalist David Farrier are among high-profile New Zealanders quitting billion-dollar platforms Spotify and Substack over concerns including spending on weapons, the use of AI and a lack of content moderation. In June, Spotify chief executive and co-founder Daniel Ek announced that through
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Henare 'mistaken', Labour won't repeal gang patch ban
By Lillian Hanley of RNZ Labour's deputy leader says Peeni Henare was "mistaken" when he told the audience at a by-election debate his party would repeal the gang patch ban. The Labour Party has had to clarify its position on the ban, which makes it illegal to wear gang patches in public, after the Tāmaki Makaurau candidate made the comment. The by-election on September 6 is being held to elect an MP for the Māori electorate following the death of Te Pāti Māori MP Takutai Tarsh Kemp in June this year. The Gangs Act came into force in November last year, banning the wearing of gang patches in public and allowing police to stop gang members associating with each other. An audience member at the Waatea hosted debate in the Auckland suburb of Favona last night asked candidates: "Will you repeal the gang patch law if you come into government - yes or no?" Te Pāti Māori candidate Oriini Kaipara responded "yes" and Henare, a list MP for Labour, can be heard saying "āe" (yes). However, Labour leader Chris Hipkins has said in the past the party would not repeal the ban. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has released a statement highlighting Henare's comment, saying Labour had "finally announced" its first law and order policy. "This is shocking, but hardly surprising from a party so soft on crime. "On numerous occasions, Chris Hipkins has committed to keeping National's gang patch ban. He needs to be clear with New Zealanders - does he have any policies of his own, or is his plan dictated to him by Te Pāti Maori and the Greens?" Labour's deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni then confirmed to media this wasn't the Labour party position. "We have no intention to repeal that legislation." She said Henare may have been mistaken. "We did oppose the bill in the House, and so I'm wondering whether that led him to that conclusion," she said, but indicated it was a question for Henare. He has been approached for comment. Asked whether there needed to be a conversation with the MP to clear up any confusion, Sepuloni said there was "certainly no need for a telling off here". "Peeni is doing a good job out on the campaign trail, and respect the mahi that he's doing." When it was explained to Goldsmith that Labour hadn't in fact changed its position, he told reporters that Sepuloni needed to inform Henare and the Labour justice spokesperson. "I don't know who that is, Roger, somebody, I think his name is," Goldsmith said. Duncan Webb is Labour's justice spokesperson. "Well, I haven't heard from him. He doesn't ask me any questions in the House." Goldsmith said there could be two explanations for the mix-up. "One is they don't know what they're doing, or two, they're frightened to reveal to the public what they really want to do. "What we saw last night from Peeni Henare is actually there's a big chunk of them want to bring back gang patches, go soft on crime, return to what we had in the past." National campaign chair Chris Bishop suggested it was always good to agree with the leader of your party, advising Henare that "freelancing away on policy is not career-enhancing." Serial heckler The debate also saw the reappearance of Karl Mokaraka, who ran for Destiny Church's Vision NZ party in the 2023 election. He disrupted the debate and was removed from the premises by those in attendance and NZ Māori wardens. Waatea general manager Matthew Tukaki posted on social media, saying the tikanga of the marae had been abused by his disruption. "It was torn asunder by the betrayal of a sad few representing a political party who say they stand for Māori kaupapa but in all reality don't. "What happened last night was a disgrace and [party leader] Hannah Tamaki and her violent thugs should be called out for what they are - hooligans." He said the behaviour had no place on or in the marae. Oriini Kaipara told RNZ it was disappointing to experience the degradation of tikanga Māori. "Marae are not the realm or jurisdiction of any political party. "As politicians, aspiring or otherwise, we come as manuhiri into the domain of Hau Kāinga and Tikanga Māori. It is important when making decisions on where to hold political debates and who we invite in, we manaaki all at all times. The obligations go both ways."
