The Associate Agriculture Minister has defended his decision to consult only the pork industry and give them a decade to transition to new pig welfare reforms, during a grilling from opposition MPs.
Andrew Hoggard appeared before the Primary Production Select Committee on Thursday, which was hearing a limited number of oral submissions on the Animal Welfare Amendment (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Bill after the process was fast-tracked.
The Government's bill reverses a planned ban on farrowing crates – which stop a sow from turning around in order to avoid crushing her piglets – and instead keeps them in use until 2035 when they will be used less.
Labour MP Jo Luxton, who was the previous minister in charge of animal welfare, quizzed Hoggard on why he excluded groups such as the SPCA, and why he gave pork producers 10 years transition time when they agreed five was enough.
"Because they are ones impacted. They are the ones that are going to be paying," Hoggard said.
"I was looking at some really hefty costs for an industry and at the forefront of my mind was 'Jesus, will this industry be able to survive these costs'?"
Some farms would face potential costs of between $600,000 to $1.6 million to pay for the changes, he said.
Ten years was needed so they could get resource consent to build bigger sheds to accommodate the more space needed for growing pigs from 2035, he said.
"We have an absolute mess of a system at the moment where people are struggling to get consents, so that was a big part of it. We need to get these RMA changes enacted and in place so people will be able to progress through the system."
Earlier, the select committee heard from Gilliam Coumbe KC who said Hoggard's claim he had no choice to rewrite the law was "completely false".
Coumbe, who represented animal welfare groups in the 2020 high court case that resulted in farrowing crates being found unlawful, said Ministry for Primary Industries briefings from December 2023 advised Hoggard he could extend the current deadline by a further five years under existing law.
"MPI officials advised the minister that that was their preference. Even New Zealand Pork said they were comfortable with five years. It seems like this minister has just plucked 10 years out of the air – it's completely unprincipled and unnecessary."
In a statement, Hoggard said the requirements needed to further extend the transition time under the current law could not be met.
"To extend the existing practice without taking a bill to Parliament, I would need to be satisfied that most of the sector had significantly changed their systems to start phasing out the use of farrowing crates for four weeks.
"It would be unfair on farmers to expect them to have spent huge amounts of money changing their farming system because they had no idea what they would have to change to."
Coumbe also raised concerns about Hoggard's potential bias, noting Federated Farmers – which Hoggard led until before becoming a minister – supported NZ Pork's opposition to the crate ban in a 2022 submission.
"There is a case here to say that there is, you know, a reasonable basis for perceived bias. And it's not something that I say lightly about a minister," Coumbes said.
"You have a situation where, in effect, the minister was both the consultee in the consultation process as president of Federated Farmers, but also now the decision maker. And you know that's obvious that there's a conflict there."
Hoggard said there was no conflict of interest.
"My office has followed Cabinet Manual guidance and there are no issues. My role as minister is to bring decisions to Cabinet based on the best available evidence and advice, in accordance with due process.
"When I was president of Federated Farmers we made a huge number of submissions on a wide range of policies, however the president was not directly involved in this process unless they were also the board spokesperson, which I was not."
Labour's animal welfare spokesperson Rachel Boyack said she was concerned the Government's pig welfare reforms were being driven by industry, rather than science or independent animal welfare advice.
"There's no doubt in my mind that industry has played a large role in developing this law and it's very disappointing that trusted animal welfare organisations like the SPCA have been left out of the process."
The truncated legislative process made it difficult for the select committee to now properly investigate the issue, she said.
"The minister has been in his role for two years. He could have worked with organisations like the SPCA. He could have asked to sit down with us and actually come up with an option for extending the current systems that we have in place while putting in place those longer term solutions. But he's chosen not to do that.
"It's a shortened, truncated process that means the select committee does not have enough time to properly consider the science and all of the submissions that have come to us.
"My plea to the minister is to basically continue with the current law, and we would be happy to work with him on this… and have a proper process involving animal welfare organizations and involving industry so that we can get a lasting solution."
SHARE ME