The Long Wait In The Crate: Why 2035 Is Too Late For New Zealand’s Pigs

New Zealand’s long-running debate about pig welfare has taken a troubling turn, but blink and you might miss the latest developments. What began as a legal reckoning over farrowing and gestation crates is now being rewritten in law – with Parliament moving at breakneck speed to delay long-promised improvements and entrench the use of crates for another decade.

In 2020, the High Court found the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) had acted unlawfully when issuing pig welfare regulations that permitted the prolonged confinement of sows. The Court ruled that the process failed to meet the Animal Welfare Act 1999 requirement that animals be given the opportunity to display normal patterns of behaviour. It was a landmark victory for animal advocates, confirming that restricting a sow’s ability to turn around or interact with her piglets breaches the law’s fundamental welfare principles.

Following that ruling, the Government extended the existing regulations to 18 December 2025, promising comprehensive reform. But on 1 October 2025, Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare), Andrew Hoggard announced that new requirements would not take effect until 19 December 2035, locking pigs into the same confined systems for another ten years.

On 7 October 2025, Parliament passed the first reading of the Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill, sending it to the Primary Production Select Committee. The bill’s purpose is explicit: to legally override the upcoming expiry of crate-related rules and extend their life to 2035. In doing so, it would retroactively validate regulations that the High Court found unlawful – a move that looks a lot like a direct challenge to judicial authority.

Introducing the bill, Minister Hoggard said it would provide “certainty and a pathway forward for our pig farming sector to deliver world-leading animal welfare outcomes and be viable economically.” He acknowledged the earlier High Court ruling but argued that farmers faced “uncertainty about what rules they need to farm under” and that “the rules must be practical and affordable.”

But the process underpinning the bill is anything but world-leading. The public consultation period is just 14 days, closing 23 October 2025. For legislation that reshapes animal welfare standards for a decade, such a truncated process is an unconscionable breach of democratic norms. How can the public meaningfully assess and respond to proposals of such consequence in just two weeks?

The SPCA, the organisation with statutory authority to enforce the Animal Welfare Act, was not consulted prior to the bill’s introduction. In its policy brief, the SPCA warns the bill erodes years of progress on animal welfare, undermines the High Court’s decision, and undermines the independence and efficacy of the NAWAC advisory process. It states that the proposed 2035 timeframe, coupled with the rushed consultation, “risks curtailing consultation and undermining public confidence in its outcomes.”

Proponents of the bill point to transition costs; MPI estimates an average cost of $678,000 per indoor farm to retrofit facilities. But those costs were foreseeable and the sector has had decades to plan for reform. With targeted funding, phased milestones and design support, transition could happen far sooner without economic collapse.

A 3 April 2025 letter from NAWAC to the Minister, released this week by MPI, reveals how sharply the Government’s bill diverges from the advice of its own advisory body. NAWAC reiterates its position that current crate-based systems “fall below the minimum standard required by the Animal Welfare Act both because of the duration of confinement and also the prevention of nest building behaviour.” The committee cautions that the proposed decade-long extension of these practices may limit the ability to respond to new welfare science or technological change, warning that any transitional regime should include clear milestones toward higher standards rather than simply preserving current practices.

NAWAC also reminds the Minister of the statutory hierarchy of considerations under the Animal Welfare Act; while economic and practical feasibility can be taken into account, animal welfare must be given primacy in decision making. The committee warns against any interpretation that would subordinate welfare outcomes to economic convenience – a stance fundamentally at odds with the bill’s stated objectives of “providing the industry with certainty and maintaining productivity for the sector.” The committee also explicitly flags the risk of further legal challenge if the Government proceeds with the proposed approach.

The disjunction between NAWAC’s evidence-based advice and the Government’s politically driven timetable exposes one of the central contradictions of the bill and raises urgent questions about whether animal welfare remains the true compass of policy in this area.

The bill passed its first reading 68 votes to 53, reflecting clear unease across the House. Labour and Green MPs argued that the Government was rewriting history by validating unlawful regulations, while National and ACT members emphasised farmer certainty.

New Zealand now risks becoming a laggard by global standards. Farrowing crates have been banned, with some exceptions, in Finland, Norway, Switzerland, and some EU countries. A number of US states have banned, or are phasing out, the use of crates. Several states have even enacted laws, upheld by the US Supreme Court, banning the in-state sale of pork from crated systems.

A Government that claims to champion “world-leading” standards cannot in the same breath advance a bill that turns the clock back – and cut corners on democracy while doing so. The Government should reconsider its approach and ensure a process that respects the High Court’s findings and upholds democratic accountability. The select committee should extend consultation to at least six weeks, allow expert hearings, and publish an evidence-based transition plan with enforceable interim milestones. Anything less reduces the High Court’s decision to a legal footnote, and betrays both the law’s intent and the public’s expectation that compassion – not convenience – should guide our treatment of animals.

New Zealand once prided itself on progressive animal welfare law. The Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill threatens to make us an outlier for all the wrong reasons. The long wait in the crate must end – not in 2035, but now.

(The opinions and thoughts expressed in this article reflect the author’s personal views.)

About Author:

Bianka Atlas is a legal researcher, advisor and advocate with expertise in human rights and animal law. She is the first New Zealander to obtain a Masters in Animal Law from the Center for Animal Law Studies at Lewis & Clark Law School (USA), where she was a Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy International Scholar.

© Scoop Media