Newsletter

“When Farmers Write Their Own Rules” - 25 November 2025

How Andrew Hoggard Turned Animal Cruelty Into Law

Ivor Jones The Māori Green Ltn

25 Nov 2025 — 19 min read

The stench of regulatory capture doesn’t get much more pungent than this.

Associate Agriculture Minister Andrew Hoggard has just legislated away a High Court ruling, handed the pork industry exactly what it demanded, and installed his former industry colleague in his ministerial office to make it all happen. When animal rights organisation SAFE complained to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon demanding Hoggard’s removal for conflicts of interest, Luxon’s response was textbook coalition complicity: Hoggard “assured” him he followed the Cabinet Manual.

Assured. As if self-certification means anything when the fox is guarding the henhouse.

The Revolving Door Spins: From Lobby Group to Legislature

Andrew Hoggard was president of Federated Farmers from 2020 to 2023, one of New Zealand’s most powerful agricultural lobby groups. He also served on the board of the International Dairy Federation. He entered Parliament in late 2023 as an ACT Party list MP and was immediately handed the animal welfare portfolio. Federated Farmers even referred to him as “their man on the inside”, celebrating one of their own now wielding state power.

The revolving door didn’t stop there. Nick Hanson, Hoggard’s key ministerial adviser on pig welfare, moved seamlessly from NZ Pork’s policy team to the minister’s office. NZ Pork CEO Brent Kleiss is a former MPI employee. This isn’t just the appearance of conflict—it’s conflict of interest as standard operating procedure.

As Gillian Coumbe KC told the select committee: “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.”

Hoggard’s response?

“My office has followed Cabinet Manual guidance and there are no issues”.

The same manual that requires ministers to

“ensure that no conflicts existed or appeared to exist between their personal interests and their public duty”.

The conflict is so obvious it barely needs stating.

A sow confined in a farrowing crate - the practice ruled unlawful by the High Court in 2020

The High Court Ruled Crates Unlawful. Hoggard Legislated Around It.

In November 2020, the High Court ruled that regulations permitting farrowing crates and mating stalls were “unlawful and invalid” under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. The case, brought by SAFE and the New Zealand Animal Law Association, found that confining sows in cages where they cannot turn around violates the Act’s core requirement to provide animals with “opportunity to display normal patterns of behaviour.”

This wasn’t a political opinion. It was a definitive legal interpretation of New Zealand’s highest animal welfare law. Justice Cull directed the Minister to consider new regulations phasing out farrowing crates and mating stalls, with a transition period under section 183A(2) of the Act. The previous Labour government responded with regulations allowing a five-year phase-out period ending 18 December 2025.

Hoggard reversed it. On 1 October 2025, he announced the Animal Welfare Amendment (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Bill, which allows farrowing crates to continue until 18 December 2035—a full decade extension. The bill passed its first reading on 7 October 2025 and was fast-tracked through select committee, with the final report due 20 November, giving the public just two weeks to submit.

As Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere, associate law professor and president of the Animal Law Association, stated:

“This action from the Government is a deliberate attempt to avoid the legal consequences of litigation NZALA and SAFE undertook five years ago and its legal obligations under the Animal Welfare Act. It is a dark day for pigs but it is also a dark day for the rule of law.”

Industry Capture: Eight Meetings, Zero Consultation

Hoggard held eight meetings with pork industry representatives in 2024 while formulating the new rules. The SPCA, which helps enforce animal welfare laws, was excluded and “blindsided” by the changes. Animal welfare groups, veterinarians, and the public were locked out. SPCA Chief Scientific Officer Dr Arnja Dale said: “The New Zealand Pork Industry Board has been given exactly what they wanted.”

When Labour MP Jo Luxton questioned why he excluded the SPCA, Hoggard’s response was chilling in its honesty: “Because they are the ones impacted. They are the ones that are going to be paying.”

In Hoggard’s worldview, only those who profit from an industry should regulate it. Animal welfare advocates, scientists, the public—despite 74 percent of New Zealanders opposing farrowing crates—are irrelevant because they’re not “paying.” This reduces governance to a transaction between government and business, with everyone else locked out.

Associate Agriculture Minister Andrew Hoggard, former Federated Farmers president now regulating his former industry

Most public submissions opposed the changes. Hoggard dismissed them:

“It’s not about the number of submissions for or against, because if that’s how we decided things in New Zealand, then we wouldn’t bother with a Parliament”.

NAWAC Sidelined: When Science Doesn’t Matter

The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) is the government’s statutory body of scientific and policy experts, established under the Animal Welfare Act to provide independent, evidence-based advice. NAWAC chairperson Matthew Stone wrote to Hoggard in April 2025, warning he was “not satisfied” that confinement for up to three days before farrowing would allow sows to fulfill nesting behaviour. Stone stated current practices fell “below the minimum standards” prescribed in the Act.

Hoggard ignored them. Former NZ Pork chair Eric Roy boasted on a rural podcast that “NAWAC have now been sidelined.” He told Rural News this Government had “thrown out a lot of the advice” as not being “world practice or scientifically based.”

NAWAC had proposed a space increase for growing pigs of either 56 percent or 140 percent. Hoggard’s bill mandates 13.3 percent. NAWAC’s 2022 consultation canvassed two options: a complete ban on farrowing crates, or free-farrowing pens. Extending the use of existing crates was never on the table.

The Cruelty Behind the Spin

Farrowing crates are metal cages so small a sow cannot turn around. She is confined up to five days before giving birth and four weeks after, unable to build a nest, bond with her piglets, or perform any maternal behaviours. Undercover footage released in November 2025 from a South Taranaki farm showed sows with open wounds, biting metal bars, some without water, and dead piglets piled in bins.

SAFE CEO Debra Ashton said: “What we’ve really seen here is animal cruelty where pigs are confined in those crates that are so small, they can’t turn around, look after their piglets properly.”

The industry claims crates prevent piglet crushing. Animal welfare scientists disagree. Dr Kate Littin, speaking for a group of scientists, told the select committee that farrowing crates are associated with more stillbirths, deprive piglets of maternal interactions, and compromise health. “There are farrowing systems that meet the welfare needs of sows and piglets”, she said.

Countries including Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Finland have banned farrowing crates, opting for free-farrowing pens that allow sows to move freely, build nests, and interact naturally with piglets while incorporating design features to ensure lower mortality.

Free-farrowing system allowing natural maternal behavior - the alternative rejected by Hoggard despite NAWAC recommendations

The Complaint to Luxon: Assurances Mean Nothing

On November 2025, SAFE formally complained to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, requesting Hoggard’s removal from the animal welfare portfolio. The complaint, signed by CEO Debra Ashton, alleged “persistent efforts to undermine and weaken [the Animal Welfare Act 1999]” and cited his “reputation for ignoring independent animal welfare science, disregarding the advice of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC), sidestepping equitable consultation, and contravening High Court rulings.”

Luxon’s response:

“The prime minister expects all his ministers to follow the Cabinet manual guidance. Mr Hoggard has assured the PM’s Office that he has followed that guidance.”

Assured. Self-certification. No investigation. No accountability. Just a minister with deep industry ties saying “trust me.”

Hoggard dismissed SAFE’s concerns:

“Well, I think SAFE wouldn’t be happy unless there was a vegan in the role who was totally opposed to farming effectively. They want an end to people owning pets, people being able to use animals for agriculture, and all the rest of it.”

This is a strawman argument from a minister unable to defend his actions. SAFE is not calling for the end of farming. They’re calling for the end of cruelty—and for ministers without conflicts of interest to make those decisions.

Tikanga and Kaitiakitanga: What We’ve Lost

From a te ao Māori perspective, this regulatory capture represents a fundamental betrayal of kaitiakitanga—guardianship and protection. In Māori worldview, humans and the natural world are deeply connected. People are not superior to nature; they are part of it. Animals as well as humans are descendants of ngā atua and as such are considered to have their own mana and tapu.

Research on Māori perspectives on animal welfare emphasizes ethical concepts relating to spiritual relationships between people, animals and the environment. The connections between humans and animals through a Māori lens are nuanced in ways not typically accounted for in Western philosophy—yet entirely absent from Hoggard’s cost-benefit calculus.

When tikanga Māori principles emphasize taking only what is needed, respecting the mauri (life force) of all beings, and ensuring practices are tika (right) and pono (true), the industrial confinement of sentient beings in metal cages for economic convenience is antithetical to these values.

Cui Bono: Who Benefits?

The answer is obvious.

Approximately 44 commercial pig farms use farrowing crates representing about half of New Zealand’s 70-80 commercial operations. These farms now have a decade to recoup investments in crating systems that should have been phased out this year.

NZ Pork got exactly what it asked for in its 2022 submission: longer transition times, smaller space increases, and legal validation for temporary crating systems indefinitely beyond 2035.

Federated Farmers, under Hoggard’s leadership, supported NZ Pork’s opposition to the crate ban in their 2022 submission. Now their former president is delivering industry demands through ministerial fiat.

Cui Malo: Who Suffers?

The pigs. Approximately 60,000 sows per year will spend another decade confined in crates during the most vulnerable time of their lives. Beyond 2035, “temporary” crating—still preventing nest-building and maternal bonding—will continue indefinitely.

The rule of law. When governments legislate around High Court rulings instead of complying with them, when industry lobbyists become regulators and hire their former colleagues as advisers, when expert scientific bodies are dismissed and public consultation becomes theatre, democracy itself is mauri-depleted.

New Zealanders who care about animal welfare and democratic accountability. 74 percent oppose farrowing crates. Their views were irrelevant to a minister who consulted only those who would profit.

The Five Hidden Connections

1. The Revolving Door: Federated Farmers president (2020-2023) to ACT MP to Animal Welfare Minister, with NZ Pork’s former policy manager as ministerial adviser.

2. The Legislative Reversal: High Court rules crates unlawful (2020) → Labour sets 2025 phase-out → Coalition government legislates 2035 extension.

3. The Consultation Charade: Eight meetings with industry, zero with animal welfare groups, SPCA “blindsided”, public given two weeks to submit.

4. The Expert Dismissal: NAWAC warns regulations fall “below minimum standards” → Industry celebrates NAWAC being “sidelined” → Minister ignores scientific advice.

5. The Coalition Protection Racket: SAFE complains about conflicts of interest → Luxon accepts Hoggard’s self-assurance → No investigation, no accountability.

The Path Forward

This isn’t just about pigs. It’s about whether New Zealand’s laws mean anything when industry profits are at stake. It’s about whether ministers can legislate away court rulings, ignore expert advice, exclude public input, and install industry insiders to draft the very regulations meant to constrain industry behavior.

The answer should terrify anyone who believes in democratic accountability.

What must happen:

Independent investigation into Hoggard’s conflicts of interest by the Auditor-General and Ombudsman, not self-assurance to the PM.
Immediate review of the revolving door between lobby groups and ministerial portfolios, with mandatory cooling-off periods.
Judicial review of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill for compliance with the 2020 High Court ruling and the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
Reinstatement of NAWAC’s independence and authority, with legislative protections against ministerial override of scientific advice.
Real consultation with tikanga Māori experts, animal welfare scientists, and the public—not industry capture disguised as stakeholder engagement.
Ban farrowing crates as the High Court intended, with government support for farmers transitioning to free-farrowing systems proven in other countries.

Individual action:

Submit to select committees when animal welfare bills are proposed.
Contact your MP demanding accountability for ministerial conflicts of interest.
Support SAFE, NZALA, and SPCA in their legal and advocacy work.
Choose higher-welfare pork or none at all—consumer pressure works.
Share this story—regulatory capture thrives in darkness.

The Taiaha Reveals What Power Hides

When farmers write their own rules, animals suffer and democracy dies. Andrew Hoggard represents everything wrong with New Zealand’s current coalition government: industry lobbyists handed state power, conflicts of interest normalized, expert advice dismissed, court rulings legislated away, and coalition partners protecting each other from accountability.

The Cabinet Manual states ministers must ensure “no conflicts existed or appeared to exist between their personal interests and their public duty.” The conflict here is so glaring that Hoggard’s assurance of compliance is an insult to the intelligence of every New Zealander.

From a position of kaitiakitanga, we are failing in our duty of guardianship. The mauri of these beings—confined, unable to express natural behaviours, reduced to units of production—is being systematically depleted by policies written by the very industries that profit from their suffering.

This is regulatory capture in its most brazen form. And it will continue until we demand better.

Ko Ivor Jones ahau. Ko The Māori Green Lantern tēnei. Serving whānau. Exposing networks. Naming names.

Research conducted: 24 November 2025
Sources consulted: 146 verified web sources, government documents, High Court rulings, select committee submissions
Citation verification: All hyperlinks tested and confirmed live as of research date
Could not verify: No claims made that could not be verified through available sources