Why Oppose the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill

Principles at Stake

• Rule of law: Courts must have the final word on legality. Parliament should not erase judgments retroactively.
• Animal sentience and welfare: Animals must be able to express normal behaviour — a duty set by the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
• Independent oversight: NAWAC exists to protect science from politics. Its advice cannot be overridden for convenience.
• Integrity of legislation: Validation clauses that declare past illegality “always valid” threaten the credibility of all lawmaking.
• Public accountability: Welfare reform should be transparent, evidence-based, and not determined by industry pressure.

What the Bill Really Does

• Retroactively validates illegal rules: New s203 declares Regulations 25–27 “are, and always have been, validly made,” overturning a High Court finding of unlawfulness.
• Extends confinement for another decade: Farrowing crates and mating stalls remain legal until 18 December 2035.
• Weakens NAWAC independence: Changes to ss 71, 73 and 75 force NAWAC to treat these regulations as compliant regardless of science or public input.
• Ignores expert advice: NAWAC recommended faster change and larger space allowances; these were omitted.
• Locks in minimal standards: The new “lying-space” formula and limited crate times become the permanent floor, with no built-in review or import-parity requirement.

Why This Undermines Law and Welfare

• Legislative override of the judiciary: The Bill cancels a court ruling instead of complying with it — a breach of constitutional balance.
• Prolonged animal suffering: Crate confinement blocks natural movement and maternal behaviour, contradicting the Act’s purpose.
• Loss of scientific integrity: Expert committees are sidelined, and ministerial discretion replaces independent review.
• Democratic erosion: When Parliament rewrites history for one sector, the precedent endangers all legal accountability.
• Public deception: The language of “transition” masks regression — it keeps the old system alive under a new title.

Consequences if Enacted

• The High Court judgment becomes meaningless, encouraging future governments to erase rulings they dislike.
• Pig-farming practices ruled unlawful remain legal for another ten years.
• NAWAC loses independence, and welfare codes become minister-approved rubber stamps.
• Public trust in animal-welfare enforcement erodes as oversight weakens.
• Farmers investing in humane systems face unfair competition from those who do not modernise.

What Real Reform Would Require

• Respect the court’s ruling: Remove the validation clause and draft new, lawful regulations consistent with section 10 of the Act.
• Accelerate the transition: End crate use by 2028, not 2035, with assistance for farm conversion.
• Restore NAWAC independence: Repeal ss 71(5), 73(7), 75(4A–B) and ensure transparent public consultation on any new Code of Welfare.
• Mandate review: Insert a statutory review every three years to raise welfare standards in line with science.
• Ensure import parity: Require imported pork to meet the same welfare standards to protect both pigs and local producers.

If You Care About Law, Justice, and Compassion

This Bill is not about transition — it is about validation. It legalises what the court found illegal, silences expert oversight, and delays humane reform for a decade.

If you believe law should stand above politics,
If you believe compassion belongs in legislation,
If you believe no government should erase a court judgment,
Then this Bill must be opposed.

“Justice delayed is cruelty legislated.” — Ukes Baha

Read the full submission: Formal Opposition to the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill