SAFE: Proposed Welfare Code Betrays Animals And The Law
SAFE is demanding that the Ministry for Primary Industries' proposed Code of Welfare for Sheep and Beef Cattle be scrapped, calling it a legal shield for cruelty that fails to meet even the most basic obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
The animal rights organisation says the code legitimises inherently harmful practices - including mud farming, feedlots, and painful procedures like castration and tail docking without pain relief - while continuing to allow animals to suffer without access to shelter.
"If this code is accepted in its current form, it would effectively become a manual for animal cruelty," says SAFE CEO Debra Ashton.
SAFE warns that the code is not an isolated failure, but a symptom of a broken regulatory system that routinely favours industry convenience over animals' needs, experiences, and rights.
"We've engaged in good faith for years, but this draft proves the system can't be trusted. It's time to draw a line," says Ashton.
The organisation has written to NAWAC Chair Dr Matthew Stone, MPI Director of Animal Health and Welfare Carolyn Guy, Minister for Agriculture Todd McClay, and Associate Agriculture Minister Andrew Hoggard, urging them to abandon the draft and take urgent action to address these systemic failures.
"It's a betrayal of our welfare law and the animals it's meant to protect."
SAFE's full statement reads:
Proposed Code of Welfare Entrenches Cruelty and Undermines Animal Welfare Law
The proposed Code of Welfare for Sheep and Beef Cattle, currently open for public consultation, represents a profound failure of New Zealand's animal welfare system. Rather than lifting standards or upholding the Animal Welfare Act 1999, this code would entrench practices that cause widespread suffering - including painful procedures without pain relief, intensive confinement in mud farms and feedlots, and a diluted shelter standard that puts animals' lives at risk in extreme weather.
SAFE rejects the premise that this code provides meaningful guidance for compliance with the Animal Welfare Act. It does not. Instead, it offers legal cover to inherently harmful farming systems and practices that cause serious and avoidable suffering.
For that reason, SAFE will not be participating in the consultation process for a code that attempts to sanitise cruelty.
When animals are confined on mud farms, concrete, or barren feedlots, they are stripped of their most basic expressions of life - grazing, playing, resting comfortably, ruminating, and relating to one another. These are not abstract ideals, but the everyday needs of sheep and cattle.
Codes of welfare are intended to support our animal welfare legislation -- not undermine it. If this code is adopted, it will set a dangerous precedent: where cruelty is legitimised, public expectations are ignored, and the intent of the Animal Welfare Act is effectively nullified.
This failure is not isolated. In 2023, the Regulations Review Committee recommended a prompt and substantive review of how secondary legislation under the Animal Welfare Act is developed - and whether existing instruments, particularly codes of welfare, are consistent with the purpose and intent of the Act. Almost two years have passed without action. It must now be prioritised to ensure that regulation genuinely reflects the law and protects the animals it exists to serve.
SAFE is calling for the proposed Code of Welfare for Sheep and Beef Cattle to be scrapped. The code must be rewritten in full alignment with the Animal Welfare Act -- not shaped to prioritise profit, productivity, or convenience over animals' wellbeing and legal rights.
We urge the Government and the public to reject this code and demand a future where animal welfare law is not just symbolic but lived. It's time to build a system that reflects what the Animal Welfare Act already affirms: that animals are not merely commodities to be managed, but sentient beings with needs, feelings, experiences, and intrinsic worth.
Notes
The Ministry for Primary Industries is accepting public submissions on the Sheep and Beef Cattle Code of Welfare from May 14 - July 15, 2025.
In July 2023, following multiple complaints on the integrity of codes of welfare, the Regulations Review Committee recommended a prompt and substantive review of the process for developing secondary legislation under the Animal Welfare Act.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
3 days ago
- RNZ News
Ministry for Primary Industries to review controls for tomato virus
Tomato brown rugose fruit virus. Photo: Tomatoes NZ Ministry for Primary Industries says it will review its current controls after Australia changed its strategy to deal with a highly contagious virus affecting tomatoes, capsicums and chillies. Across the Tasman , biosecurity experts and industry representatives have declared tomato brown rugose virus not technically feasible to eradicate and moved to a management strategy. 'Tomato virus' was first detected in South Australia last August and has also been found on a farm in Victoria. It is not harmful to humans but infected fruit can ripen irregularly or be deformed. It can also reduce crop yields by 70 percent. Biosecurity New Zealand deputy director-general Stuart Anderson said MPI had controls in place that were "working well for New Zealand and prevented any issues for our tomato growers after the discovery of tomato brown rugose fruit virus (ToBRFV) at sites in South Australia last August". He said a ban on all Australian tomato imports remained in place, even though only Australian tomatoes from Queensland, an area free from the virus, were imported here. "We made the decision to suspend imports from all Australian states out of an abundance of caution. As part of the actions we took, tomato and capsicum seeds from Australia require testing for the virus prior to arrival in New Zealand, a requirement already in place for other countries where the virus is present. That requirement remains. "Although Australia has announced they will no longer be pursuing eradication, all of the controls that have been in place to limit spread of the virus remain." There was nothing to suggest the virus was here but MPI's chief biosecurity officer would conduct a review of what Australia has in place to manage the risk, and New Zealand's import rules "to ensure that our settings remain reasonable", he said. "New Zealand imports Australian capsicums from Queensland. ToBRFV has not been reported in any parts of Australia in capsicums and has not been detected in Queensland. We are closely monitoring the situation in Australia and if there is any significant change in distribution, or which crops it is affecting, we will review the current import rules. "We continue to work closely with New Zealand's tomato sector. We have asked New Zealand industry representatives to assist by sharing any information they have that may inform our decision-making. We also meet regularly with Australian officials to maintain a continued understanding of the situation." MPI said growers should continue to check their biosecurity practices. "As always... be vigilant and contact us on our pests and diseases hotline (0800 80 99 66) if [you] notice problems with [your] tomatoes". Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Otago Daily Times
4 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Pines, wallaby programmes set to continue
A $2 million work programme to control wilding pines and eradicate wallabies from Otago appears set to continue amid delays from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and no funding agreement in place. Otago regional councillors will tomorrow consider a staff proposal to continue the Otago Regional Council work programme on the National Wilding Conifer Control Programme and the Tipu Mātoro National Wallaby Eradication Programme from the beginning of this financial year on July 1, "even if there is a delay in the signing of the agreements with MPI". "For the last two years there has been a delay in MPI issuing the funding agreements for the Wilding Conifer Programme and Tipu Mātoro Wallaby Programme to council for signing," a council staff report said. "This delay has created issues for delivery of both national programmes. "To address this delay, it is proposed that council starts the delivery of works for the National Wilding Conifer Control Programme and the Tipu Mātoro Wallaby Programme from July 1, 2025, even if the goods and services agreements are not yet signed. "The council biosecurity budget can carry the financial risk, until signed agreements are received, to ensure continuity and effective delivery of the programmes." The report said from 2016 to last year the national programme had spent $140m in wilding pine control nationally. From July 1, last year, funding of $10m a year had been committed by MPI to the national programme. The council had entered two previous funding agreements on pine control, the report said. One was from 2020 to 2024 and a second one was for the 2024-25 financial year, which expired at the end of this month. There had been discussion with Biosecurity New Zealand staff and there was an understanding there would be a new five-year deal with variations for annual funding on offer. However, MPI had not yet provided the council with a draft agreement to replace the agreement that was expiring, the report said. Likewise, after the council established an Otago Wallaby Programme following increased sightings of the pests in 2016, the Tipu Mātoro National Wallaby Eradication Programme was set up in 2020. The national programme was given $27m over the next four years for control of populations outside of containment areas, such as the one in South Canterbury. Again, the council signed a 2020-24 four-year deal and a subsequent one-year deal that was due to expire at the end of this month, the report said. In the case of wallaby control, MPI had provided a draft agreement, the report said. Like the expected wilding control agreement, it was a five-year deal with variable annual funding, it said. The report said council staff had informed MPI officials the delays were having an effect on the council's processes. Staff would continue to argue funding delays should be "reduced" to make sure the programmes were delivered "as efficient and effective as possible". In order to get the work started, it was proposed that the council get to work on the control programmes with the understanding the funding agreements would arrive and chief executive Richard Saunders would sign them on the council's behalf if there were no surprises. "It is proposed that the work programmes may commence prior to signed funding agreements with MPI, if these are not provided early enough in the financial year," the report said. "Funding is highly likely to still be provided by the government, there will just be a delay due to how their systems work." For wilding pine work, it was expected the council's obligations would be the same as last year and $1.07m would be received from MPI. The council was expecting $950,000 for wallaby work, the report said. Biosecurity New Zealand pest management director John Walsh told the Otago Daily Times yesterday the funding was secure. "Biosecurity New Zealand recognises that a delay to release funding has caused some issues for the council. However, there has been no reduction in funding available and we've been working collaboratively with the council to support the delivery of these programmes," he said.
Scoop
29-05-2025
- Scoop
Roads To War: The EU's Security Action For Europe Fund
As the world was readying for the Second World War, the insightful humane Austrian author Stefan Zweig made the following glum observation: 'Openly and flagrantly, certain countries express their will to expand and make preparations for war. The politics of rearmament is pursued in broad daylight and at breakneck speed; every day you read in the papers arguments in favour of armaments expansion, the idea that it reduces unemployment and provides a boost to the stock exchange.' This is not so different from the approval by European Union countries on May 27 of a €150 billion loan program known as the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) borrowing scheme. A press release from the European Council stated that the scheme 'will finance urgent and large-scale investments in the European defence technological and industrial base (EDTIB)' with the intention of boosting 'production capacity, making sure defence equipment is available when needed, and to address existing capability gaps – ultimately strengthening the EU's overall defence readiness.' The statement also makes a central rationale clear: that SAFE will enable continued European support for Ukraine, linking its defence industry to the program. Despite not being an EU member, Kyiv will be able to participate in the scheme. Interestingly enough, the United Kingdom, despite leaving the EU, will also be able to participate via a separate agreement. Disbursements to interested member states upon demand, considered along national plans 'will take the form of competitively priced long-maturity loans, to be repaid by the beneficiary member states.' The scheme further anticipates the types of weaponry, euphemistically titled 'defence products', that will feature. As outlined by the European Council on March 6, these will comprise two categories: the first covering, amongst others, such products as ammunition and missiles, artillery systems, ground combat capabilities with support systems; the second, air and missile defence systems, maritime surface and underwater capabilities, drones and anti-drone systems and 'strategic enablers' including air-to-air refuelling, artificial intelligence and electronic warfare. The broader militarisation agenda is confirmed by linking SAFE with broader transatlantic engagement and 'complementarity with NATO.' It will 'strive to enhance interoperability, continue industrial cooperation, and ensure reciprocal access to state-of-the-art technologies with trusted partners.' Significantly, the emphasis is on collaboration: a minimum of three countries must combine when requesting funding for SAFE defence projects. There seems to be something for everyone: the militarist, the war monger and the merchants of death. Global Finance, a publication dedicated to informing 'corporate financial professionals', was already praising the SAFE proposal in April. 'The initiative has the potential to transform the business models of many top European defense groups – like Saab, which has traditionally relied on contracts from the Swedish state to grow its sales.' What a delight it will be for such defence companies to move beyond the constraints on sales imposed by their limiting governments. A veritable European market of death machinery is in the offing. The fund is intended for one, unambiguous purpose: war. The weasel word 'defence' is merely the code, the cipher. Break it, and it spells out aggression and conflict, a hankering for the next great military confrontation. The reason is traditional, historic and irrational: the Oriental despotic eminence arising from the Asian steppes, people supposedly untutored in the niceties of European good manners and democracy. Not that European manners and democracy is in splendid health. A mere glance at some of the candidates suggests decline in institutional credibility and scepticism. But we can always blame the Russians for that, deviously sowing doubt with their disinformation schemes. The initiative, and its tightening of ties with arming Ukraine, has made such critics as Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán sound modestly sensible. 'We need to invest in our own armies, but they expect us to fund Ukraine's - with billions, for years to come,' he declared in a post on X. 'We've made it clear: Hungary will not pay. Our duty is to protect our own people.' The approval of the fund by the European Commission has also angered some members of the European Parliament, an institution which has been treated with near contempt by the European Commission. European Parliament Presidente Roberta Metsola warned Commission President Ursula von der Leyen earlier in May to reconsider the use of Article 122 of the EU Treaty, which should be used sparingly in emergencies in speeding up approvals with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. Bypassing Europe's invigilating lawmakers risked 'undermining democratic legitimacy by weakening Parliament's legislative and scrutiny functions'. The Council's resort to Article 122 potentially enlivened a process that could see a legal case taken to the European Court of Justice. The European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) has also supported a legal opinion repudiating the Commission's cavalier approach in approving the fund. According to that tartly reasoned view, Article 122 was an inappropriate justification, as the threshold for evoking emergency powers had simply not been met. Ironically, the rearmament surge is taking place on both sides of the Atlantic, at both the behest of the Trump administration, ever aggrieved by Europe not pulling its military weight, and Moscow, characterised and caricatured as a potential invader, the catalyst for decorating a continent with bristling weaponry. The former continues to play hide and seek with Brussels while still being very much in Europe, be it in terms of permanent garrisons and military assets; the latter remains a convenient excuse to cross the palms of the military industrial establishment with silver. How Zweig would have hated it.
