(Government Bill 207–1, Andrew Hoggard)
From: Ukes Baha | 22 October 2025
Submitted in response to the Committee’s call for submissions on the Bill
This submission opposes the Bill in its entirety.
It is constitutionally improper, substantively regressive, and legally incoherent.
The measure purports to “enable a transition” for pig farmers but instead retroactively validates regulations declared unlawful by the High Court, weakens independent welfare oversight, and reverses progress toward humane and lawful animal management.
The Bill enacts new section 203 declaring that Regulations 25 to 27 of the Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018 “are, and always have been, validly made.”
This clause nullifies the 2020 High Court finding (SAFE and NZ Animal Law Association v Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 2828) that the same regulations were unlawful and invalid for breaching section 10 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (animals must express normal behaviour).
Such retrospective validation undermines the rule of law and erases judicial findings rather than remedying them.
It establishes a dangerous precedent that ministerial error can be “legalised after the fact” by simple declaration.
The Bill does not abolish farrowing crates or mating stalls; it extends their use until 18 December 2035.
This maintains a system already judged contrary to the Act’s purpose.
By re-authorising extended confinement and restricted movement, the Bill re-legislates cruelty rather than ending it.
It is inconsistent with New Zealand’s obligations under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act and with the sentient-animal principle endorsed in the Animal Welfare Strategy (2013).
Clauses 4–6 amend sections 71, 73, and 75 of the principal Act so that any Code of Welfare “must be treated as complying with the Act” if it reflects regulations 25–27.
This removes the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee’s independent judgment and short-circuits public consultation.
It converts what should be an expert-driven process into an automatic ratification of ministerial policy.
That offends the statutory independence granted to NAWAC under section 56 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
Section 203 operates retrospectively to declare invalid regulations valid “as if they had always been lawful.”
This destroys legal certainty and undermines trust in judicial remedy.
The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC) guidelines discourage retrospective validation except to correct clerical error or protect innocent reliance.
Here, the sole beneficiary is an industry seeking to avoid the effect of a court decision.
That is an improper use of retrospective law-making.
The Bill locks minimum standards in place until 2035 without mandating review or progressive improvement.
It treats animal welfare as a ceiling rather than a floor.
The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee’s 2023 recommendations for shorter crate use and larger space allowances are ignored.
The proposed formula (a = 0.034 × b⁰·⁶⁷) remains below international best practice (EU Directive 2008/120/EC).
The Minister of Agriculture is a former industry lobbyist and President of Federated Farmers.
His sponsorship of a Bill that retroactively validates industry practice creates an appearance of bias contrary to Cabinet Manual 2023, section 2.55.
Where a conflict exists between personal affiliation and public duty, recusal or independent review is required.
The Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill is not a transitional measure.
It is a constitutional and ethical regression that reverses a lawful court decision, legitimises prolonged animal confinement, and diminishes the independence of statutory safeguards.
It substitutes legislative declaration for legal compliance and sets a precedent that ministerial policy may override judicial authority.
Such a precedent is incompatible with the rule of law and the foundations of a democratic constitution.
Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com