1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
PART ONE
(PUBLIC EXCLUDED AGENDA)
RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Section 48, Local Government Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987
1982
(K Phillips/ K Bicknell):
I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
ACT
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
K Phillips
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
K Phillips
C 3.
Codes of welfare update
s 9(2)(a)
C 4.
Agree on code of welfare work plan for 2013
s 9(2)(a)
/ Al
C 5.
Discussion on draft equine code of welfare
K Phillips / s 9(2)(a)
C 6.
Discussion on future reviews process for codes of welfare
s 9(2)(a)
/ Al
INFORMATION
C 7.
Update on Animal Welfare Strategy and Act Review
s 9(2)(a)
C 8.
Work planning for animals in the wild
P Fisher / s 9(2)(a)
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE THE PUBLIC IS EXCLUDED,
THE REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER, AND THE SPECIFIC
GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND
MEETINGS ACT 1987 FOR THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION
OFFICIAL
ARE AS FOLLOWS:
General subject of each matter to be
Reason for passing this
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the
considered
resolution in relation to each
passing of this resolution
matter
THE
C 1.
Confirmation of previous
To protect the privacy of natural
That the public conduct of the relevant
minutes
persons.
part of the proceedings of the meeting
would be likely to result in the disclosure
of information for which good reason for
withholding would exist under section
9(2)(a) of the Of icial Information Act
UNDER
1982 (OIA).
C 2.
Status of actions arising from
As above.
As above.
previous meetings
C 3.
Codes of welfare update
To maintain the ef ective conduct That the public conduct of the relevant
of public af airs through the
part of the proceedings of the meeting
protection of Ministers, members would be likely to result in the disclosure
of organisations, officers and
of information for which good reason for
employees from improper
withholding would exist under section
pressure or harassment.
9(2)(g)(i ) of the OIA.
C 4.
Agree on code of welfare work
As above.
As above.
RELEASED
plan for 2013
Page
2 of
11
2
General subject of each matter to be
Reason for passing this
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the
considered
resolution in relation to each
passing of this resolution
matter
C 5.
Discussion on draft equine code As above.
As above.
of welfare
1982
C 6.
Discussion on future reviews
As above.
As above.
process for codes of welfare
C 7.
Update on Animal Welfare
To maintain the constitutional
That the public conduct of the relevant
ACT
Strategy and Act Review
conventions for the time being
part of the proceedings of the meeting
which protect the confidentiality of would be likely to result in the disclosure
advice tendered by Ministers of
of information for which good reason for
the Crown and of icials.
withholding would exist under section
9(2)(f)(iv) of the OIA.
C 8.
Work planning for animals in
As above
As above
the wild
I also move that:
s 9(2)(a)
INFORMATION
be permit ed to remain at this meeting after the public has been excluded, because of their knowledge
of meeting procedure and the subject matter under discussion.
OFFICIAL
This knowledge is relevant background
information to assist the commit ee in its deliberations.
The motion was put: carried
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
Page
3 of
11
3
[Secretariat Note: the below agenda items were not covered in the order presented in these minutes.]
C 1. Confirmation of previous minutes
The draft minutes of the NAWAC general meeting held on 15 August 2012 (NAWAC 37/12) were
reviewed. There were no amendments.
1982
Moved (V Williams/ S Brown):
That the draft minutes of the NAWAC quarterly general meeting held on 15 August 2012 be adopt
ACT
ed as
a true and accurate record of that meeting.
The motion was put: carried.
C 2. Status of actions arising from previous meetings
Actions from previous meetings (NAWAC 38/12) were reviewed and it was agreed to complete pending
actions when possible.
B Nicholas noted that the papers on fish welfare provided by s 9(2)(a) confirm that fish feel pain, and
internationally there is policy and legislation being developed to address the welfare of fish. Further
INFORMATION
action on the welfare of fish is something to consider when the Commit ee review their strategic plan
and priorities in 2013.
It was raised that NAWAC and MPI’s progress to amend the dairy cattle code of welfare to address
long-term housing of cows is taking a long time. There was concern that farmers are investing in off-
pasture systems without being aware of the animal welfare considerations. The current code of welfare
adequately covers cows housed for short periods of time and the issue is one of awareness, rather than
imperfect minimum standards. Separate to what NAWAC is doing, MPI is working with industry to
OFFICIAL
develop a short guidelines document encompassing the welfare, environmental and food safety
outcomes that farmers need to take into account when designing off-pasture systems.
Action - P Timmer-Arends to modify action list accordingly
THE
C 3. Codes of welfare update
Meat chickens – The Poultry Industry Association of New Zealand have distributed posters to all their
members containing the minimum standards and example indicators from the revised code.
UNDER
Layer hens – the revised code has been signed off by the Minister and wil be issued on 6 December
2012.
Llamas and Alpacas – this has been recommended to the Minister and it is anticipated he wil issue it in
the first half of 2013.
Dairy cattle housing – s 9(2)(a) informed the Commit ee that draft standards wil be sent to the Dairy
Industry Technical Advisory Group at the end of November for targeted consultation. Further to the
discussion held earlier in the meeting D Scobie and D Nicolson agreed to assist the dairy subcommit ee
RELEASED
to develop some key messages for farmers when they are designing off-pasture systems.
Page
4 of
11
4
Actions –
-
D Scobie and D Nicolson to assist the dairy subcommittee to develop
messaging.
-
NAWAC to advise the Minister of the proposed communications plan by 14
December 2012.
1982
Zoos and Circuses – to be discussed under agenda item C 6.
C 4. Agree on code of welfare work plan for 2013
ACT
s 9(2)(a)
explained the draft code of welfare work plan for 2013 to the commit ee. The commit ee
agreed on priorities and confirmed which subcommit ees they wil sit on.
Subcommit ees include:
Housing of Dairy Cattle - J Hellström, K Phil ips and D Nicolson
Rodeos - V Williams, P Fisher, S Brown
Equine - K Phillips, D Nicolson, K Bicknell,
Temporary housing of companion animals – K Bicknell, V Williams, A Sharr
Circuses and Zoos – J Hellström, D Scobie, B Nicholas and S Brown
Saleyards – K Phillips, D Nicolson, I Collins, V Williams
INFORMATION
Painful Husbandry Procedures - D Scobie, B Nicholas, V Wil iams, S Brown
Action – s 9(2)(a)
to update the work plan for final agreement at the February 2013
meeting
C 5. Discussion on the draft equines code of welfare
The draft code (47/12) and an overview of the issues which the subcommit ee felt would attract interest
OFFICIAL
during consultation (46/12) was circulated to the Commit ee prior to the meeting.
The Commit ee discussed:
- Pregnancy testing equipment, examples of which should be included in the general information;
THE
- Leaving halters on horses which are grazing;
- Ensure consistency with the rodeos code regarding ropes;
- Use of the whip in the racing industry;
- Exercise requirements for horses which are confined or tethered;
- Pain relief for hot branding;
- Dentistry performed by non-veterinarians; simple procedures such as tooth-rasping should be
UNDER
permit ed but there needs to be a clear distinction between dentistry and orthodontics.
Moved (K Phil ips/ V Williams):
That, subject to agreed amendments and final review by the subcommit ee, the draft equines code of
welfare be released for public consultation.
The motion was put: carried.
RELEASED
Actions:
-
s 9(2)(a)
Committee members to send further comments to
by 30 November.
Page
5 of
11
5
- s 9(2)(a)
to update the document and agree changes with the chair of the subcommittee
prior to consultation.
- s 9(2)(a)
to include a call for comments to seek the public’s view of whether hot
branding should be prohibited.
-
MPI to undertake public consultation on behalf of NAWAC.
1982
C 6. Discussion on future reviews process for codes of welfare
The commit ee had received the document writ en by J Hellström (44/12) prior to the meeting. This
document is the outcome of discussion at the previous meeting of how the Commit ee could approac
ACT h
the review of the zoos and circuses codes of welfare, particularly in light of the proposal that codes be
replaced with regulations and guidelines.
B Nicholas explained that as codes of welfare are now likely to be kept when the Act is amended, the
proposed commit ee process could be reconsidered. However it was agreed that the subcommit ee
should continue to review the circuses and zoos code within the framework of an ethical discussion. It
was felt that using this approach would be helpful for future code reviews i.e. high level thinking to
define the issues, prior to reviewing the code according to the process set out in the Act.
The definition of animals kept for entertainment is broad and is currently scoped as ‘an animal kept for
a non-production purpose’. While exotic animals could be kept separate due to their specific needs,
some broad welfare issues affect both exotic and domestic animals. How this should be add
INFORMATION ressed
requires further thinking.
Actions:
-
Subcommittee to further develop process and begin by defining the scope and agreeing
initial identification of issues by February 2013.
C 8. Update on Animal Welfare Strategy and Act Review
OFFICIAL
K Phil ips welcomed s 9(2)(a)
to the meeting at 10.15am. s 9(2)(a)
gave an overview of the issues
that were raised during public consultation, and how this has shaped the final proposal that wil be
presented to Cabinet. This information was provided in confidence as the Minister and Cabinet are yet
THE
to agree to the recommendations.
Strategy
Most submit ers were supportive of the strategy and only minor amendments wil be made. This wil
include recognising animal sentience.
Legislation
UNDER
Following consultation, MPI has put two options to the Minister regarding the core proposal to replace
codes of welfare with enforceable regulations and guidelines with no legal effect.
Option One: Retain the codes of welfare and the NAWAC led development process and create a limited
set of regulations from those minimum standards which need a firm regulatory backing.
Option Two: Replace codes of welfare with a comprehensive set of regulations developed by MPI,
which wil be packaged with best practice guidelines in a single publication.
RELEASED
Page
6 of
11
6
It was clear from the feedback received during consultation that industry valued codes of welfare and
the collaborative approach taken by NAWAC during development. One member commented it was an
improvement over the original proposal and MPI had done well to listen to stakeholders. s 9(2)(a)
noted that option one wil leave the role of NAWAC largely unchanged, and wil likely increase their
workload as it wil now have to consider regulations when developing the codes.
1982
Proposed changes to the code development process wil take some pressure off NAWAC by removing
the obligation to review codes every 10 years and allowing NAWAC to consider whether a code is the
appropriate way to manage animal welfare risks.
ACT
The creation of new compliance tools e.g. infringement offences and compliance orders which can be
more easily enforced wil help to improve the overall enforceability of the system without making
significant changes to the current system.
Live animal exports – unchanged from the proposal that was consulted on.
Wild animals – unchanged from the proposal that was consulted on.
Exemptions to replace exceptional circumstances – only a minor change to the proposal that was
consulted on.
Surgical procedures – the classification system is confusing and proposal is to replace thi
INFORMATION s with a single
set of regulations which wil also include the minimum standards in the painful husbandry procedures
code of welfare.
RTT – the proposal to record the number of animals kil ed for research wil go ahead. MPI is
undertaking additional targeted consultation about AEC oversight for breeding animals with adverse
phenotypes.
The Commit ee thanked s 9(2)(a)
for his presentation and he depar
OFFICIAL ted the meeting at 11.20am
C.8
Work planning for animals in the wild
THE
P Fisher and s 9(2)(a) led a discussion regarding issues in wild animal management. A document (41/12)
had been circulated to NAWAC prior to the meeting
MPI commissioned research ‘
A review of best practice management for humane and effective
vertebrate pest control’ which has made a number of recommendations. There is an opportunity for
NAWAC to act upon recommendations in the report. Australia is ahead of NZ and has developed codes
of practice for humane pest control for
UNDER various species.
Glueboards are due to be phased out by 2015. As part of the phase out discussion is needed with
stakeholders to ensure they are going to meet this deadline. NAWAC fully support the phase out of
glueboards and nominated P Fisher to represent the commit ee at a workshop to be organised by MPI.
The commit ee agreed that s 9(2)(a) and P Fisher should progress the glueboards workshop and review
of the NAWAC traps guideline. A subcommit ee to address animals in the wild as a strategic issue wil
also incorporate the other issues in the document 41/12 as discrete pieces of work within the overall
project.
RELEASED
Page
7 of
11
7
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
That, subject to minor amendments, guideline eight ‘balancing animal welfare needs’ be accepted as a
NAWAC guideline.
The motion was put: carried.
Action – MPI to have the new guideline placed on the web for the public to view. 1982
OTHER REPORTS AND DISCUSSION
ACT
O 5
Discussion of information circulated by MPI
The MPI update was circulated prior to the meeting (12) and was taken as read.
V Wil iams commented in relation to point 5 that the NZVA is writing guidance for vets who suspect
non-accidental injury of animals, which has a strong link to domestic violence.
Correspondence
s 9(2)(a)
advised the commit ee that Tegel had invited members to attend a day in Wellington to
discuss a new hatchery system which they are considering installing. The SPCA and MPI have also
been invited to discuss the welfare implications of this system. At endees from NAWAC and preferred
INFORMATION
dates to be decided by email after the meeting.
There is an opportunity for NAWAC to invite s 9(2)(a)
to the February or May general meeting
as he wil be in New Zealand on sabbatical in the first half of 2013. The Commit ee agreed this would
be an excellent opportunity, and agreed that MPI should extend the invite on its behalf.
Action – s 9(2)(a)
to invite s 9(2)(a)
to attend the NAWAC general meeting.
OFFICIAL
O 6. Committee members’ reports on recent presentations and attendance at conferences
s 9(2)(a) and D Scobie attended the NZ Dairy Goat Breeders Association field day and spoke to the
attendees about the goats code of welfare.
THE
s 9(2)(a)
and D Scobie presented to a class of Lincoln University students to inform them of the
requirements in the sheep and beef cattle code, and the painful husbandry procedures code.
s 9(2)(a)
attended a seminar held by Carne Technology who, in conjunction with a UK training
provider, has set up Animal Welfare Training NZ to provide animal welfare training courses at slaughter
UNDER
processors.
s 9(2)(a)
attended the Road Transport Forum Livestock Transport and Safety Subcommit ee
meeting. There was considerable discussion at the meeting around promotion of the transport code of
welfare and crate design.
s 9(2)(a)
met with MPI’s Australian counterpart, the Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). The DAFF Animal Welfare group are currently reviewing their live
animal export for slaughter processes following recent high-profile incidents.
RELEASED
Page
9 of
11
9
O 7. Mini-tutorial – Bull Riding Association
K Phillips welcomed s 9(2)(a)
to the meeting at 11.20am. s 9(2)(a) r gave a brief overview of the
history of Bull Riding NZ, and answered questions the commit ee members had about rodeos.
Feeding prior to the event needs to be carefully managed as animals can develop colic if they are fed to
1982
close prior to performing. Large animals such as bulls wil be kept off feed; however young stock wil be
fed. Water is always available for the animals, particularly as they are performing in summer.
Al of the bulls used in the bull riding events are individually owned and contracted by the event
ACT
organiser.
The reason for having a bell on the riders’ rope is to provide weight to pull the rope off once the rider
has left the bull. The reason for having a bell is traditional; it is the weight of the bell that is of
importance, not the ability for it to produce sound. However a hollow structure is preferred should the
bull stand on it.
The use of the flank strap is required to make the bulls buck, however they should be applied lightly to
‘tickle’ the animal. If it is applied too tightly they wil not buck so it is not in the event organiser’s interest
to have tightly strapped animals.
The animals are trained to work in the yards and understand the layout of the arena so they
INFORMATION can easily
find the exit race.
K Phil ips thanked s 9(2)(a) and he departed the meeting at 12.00pm
O 8. Update on the Safeguarding our Animals, Safeguarding our Reputation programme
K Phil ips welcomed s 9(2)(a)
to the meeting at 12.30pm to update the commit ee on the
Safeguarding our Animals, Safeguarding our Reputation program
OFFICIAL me.
s 9(2)(a) gave an overview of the work that has been undertaken so far this year
• Completion of the research ‘
What drives primary sector compliance with animal welfare
THE
legislation?’
• The Farmer Representatives Toolkit developed in collaboration with Federated Farmers and
industry was launched by the Minister in June 2012 at the Federated Farmers Conference.
• Publication of the VetPak, a document designed for veterinarians MPI engage to assist with
large scale animal welfare issues was completed in November.
s 9(2)(a) briefly presented the results f
UNDER rom the operational research project ‘
What drives primary sector
compliance with animal welfare legislation?’ undertaken by Prime Consulting Limited. The results of the
research suggest that animal welfare awareness in the New Zealand farming industries is relatively
high, and that farmers consider animal welfare compliance to be very important.
External factors such as weather, availability and quality of labour, and market prices seem to have an
important bearing on farm management and therefore a farmer’s ability to meet their animal welfare
obligations.
B Nicholas outlined the commit ee’s concerns around dairy farmers installing housing for cows without
RELEASED
fully considering the animal welfare outcomes and asked that s 9(2)(a) act with urgency in the
Page
10 of
11
10
development of off-pasture guidance for farmers. This is a project which is being done in collaboration
with industry under the
Safeguarding our Animals, Safeguarding our Reputation programme and will
inform farmers of the food safety, environmental and animal welfare outcomes they need to consider
during the design phase.
K Phil ips thanked s 9(2)(a) and she departed the meeting at 1.05pm
1982
[Secretariat Note: the above agenda items were not covered in the order presented in these minutes.]
There being no further items of business to discuss, the Chair thanked the commit ee members for
ACT their
attendance and declared the meeting closed at 4:20pm.
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
Page
11 of
11
11
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
PART ONE
(PUBLIC EXCLUDED AGENDA)
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Section 48, Local Government Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987
There being no other introductory items of business, it was moved (J Hellström/V Williams):
1982
That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
ACT
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
(J Hel ström)
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
(J Hel ström)
C 3.
Layer hens code of welfare update
(J Hel ström)
C 4.
Code of welfare work plan for 2013
s 9(2)(a)
C 5.
Codes of welfare update
s 9(2)(a)
C 6.
Update on Tegel Foods meeting
(V Williams)
C 7.
Calf feeding requirements
(J Hel ström)
INFORMATION
C 8.
Update on Animal Welfare Strategy and Act Review
s 9(2)(a)
C 9.
MPI Update
s 9(2)(a)
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE THE PUBLIC IS EXCLUDED,
THE REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER, AND THE SPECIFIC
GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND
OFFICIAL
MEETINGS ACT 1987 FOR THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
General subject of each matter to be
Reason for passing this
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the
considered
resolution in relation to each
passing of this resolution
THE
matter
C 1.
Confirmation of previous
To protect the privacy of natural
That the public conduct of the relevant
minutes
persons.
part of the proceedings of the meeting
would be likely to result in the disclosure
of information for which good reason for
withholding would exist under section
UNDER
9(2)(a) of the Official Information Act
1982 (OIA).
C 2.
Status of actions arising from
As above.
As above.
previous meetings
C 3.
Layer hens code of welfare
To maintain the effective conduct That the public conduct of the relevant
update
of public affairs through the
part of the proceedings of the meeting
protection of Ministers, members would be likely to result in the disclosure
of organisations, officers and
of information for which good reason for
employees from improper
withholding would exist under section
pressure or harassment.
9(2) (g)(i ) of the OIA.
RELEASED
C 4.
Codes of welfare update
As above.
As above.
- 2 -
13
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
The draft minutes of the NAWAC general meeting on 14 November 2012 were reviewed and accepted
with two minor amendments:
• Adding D Nicolson as an attendee
• Noting the correct order of proceedings, which will not necessarily follow the agenda. Future
minutes should be recorded this way.
1982
Moved (B Nicholas/D Nicolson)
That, subject to the amendments agreed, the draft minutes of the NAWAC general meeting held on 14
ACT
November 2012 be adopted as a true and accurate record of that meeting.
The motion was put: carried.
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
Actions from previous meetings were reviewed and it was agreed to complete pending actions where
possible with the following exceptions:
• Update item 3, noting it is complete
It was noted that most other actions are already on meeting agendas, to be discussed.
INFORMATION
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to update item 3 as complete
C 3.
Layer hens code of welfare update
A document circulated prior to the meeting detailed correspondence between the Egg Producers
Federation and the Minister on transition periods for cages [NAWAC 13/13].
J Hellström outlined the background to this item, noting that NAWAC had recommended the Minister
OFFICIAL
release the draft code to the Egg Producers Federation (EPF) in July last year, to ensure a smooth
transition away from current systems. He told the commit ee that the EPF received the code two days
before the Minister issued the code and it was not what the industry was expecting. EPF do not
disagree with the 10 year deadline but do think
THE it’s impractical to meet some of the transition times
within it.
J Hellström reported on a meeting the EPF had on 23 January 2013 with the then Minister, Hon David
Carter, and then Associate Minister Nathan Guy on the issue. [See NAWAC13/13 for industry briefing
for that meeting]. J Hellström suggested to the Ministers that he seek the Commit ee’s advice on how to
respond to the concerns the industry raised.
UNDER
He reminded members of the analyses behind the transition times writ en into the code of welfare, was
based on data provided by the EPF. It appeared that it dif ered from current information that the EPF
had provided to the Minister to support its concerns.
J Hellström suggested three options to take the issue forward:
1. Retain existing decision on transition and deadline, based on evidence used at the time, noting
risk of judicial review or other measures;
RELEASED
2. Retain existing decision as above, but note that regulations could be developed to revise the
situation after the amendment to the Animal Welfare Act;
- 4 -
15
3. Reopen discussion on minimum standard 12b, c and d to address the transition times. This
would include developing a recommended approach, taking it through public consultation, and
then the further code process. The prescribed final deadline would not be revisited.
The Commit ee discussed the above options, noting that current and accurate data would be needed
from the industry if it went with option 3. New data would need to be provided quickly in order for a quick
review so that it did not impinge on producers’ ability to transition under current requirements. Members
1982
were reminded of the time taken to produce the code already, including the time taken to source data,
both of which should have already allowed relevant analysis to be undertaken. K Bicknel noted the
commit ee was aware of the large margins of error around the figures derived from the data, arising for
both mathematical and economic reasons, and the resulting unpredictability was recognised when
ACT
NAWAC made its original decision.
Members discussed industry’s concern that it was not feasible for producers to change from cages
installed prior to December 1999 by 2016, as prescribed in minimum standard 12 (b). The Commit ee
considered that this timeframe
would support transition, on the basis of time required to secure resource
consent and financing. However, they noted that actual timeframes for resource consent may vary
around the country.
The Commit ee also considered whether this constituted undue pressure and whether other lobby
groups’ views should be considered. J Hellström reminded members that this was about the
Commit ees statutory responsibility to consider feasibility, under section 73(4) of the Animal Welfare Act
1999.
INFORMATION
Members discussed options other than changing the code of welfare, such as allowing leeway for
producers to meet the minimum standards, if they could prove that they had tried everything to build in
time. J Hel ström reported that this was not considered favourably by the Ministry, which is responsible
for ensuring compliance with the minimum standard as it is writ en. However, it was an option for
industry and could be agreeable to the Commit ee. For instance, the Commit ee could re-frame the
minimum standard to allow some flexibility in meeting the transition dates.
OFFICIAL
The Commit ee also discussed the logistics of revisiting the minimum standards. It was reminded that it
could review new data and did not then have to propose an amendment, with the ensuing statutory
requirements for major amendments to codes of welfare.
THE
D. Scobie recommended that NAWC should also respond to the point raised in the Minister’s briefing by
EPF [attached to NAWAC 13/13] that that their transition plan based on stocking density received no
feedback from NAWAC.
The nature of the data the Commit ee would need was also discussed, compared to the nature of the
data that had already been considered. It was proposed that an economic analysis was not needed, but
instead the commit ee required inform
UNDER ation on the feasibility of the change – resource consent times,
financials, farm management, public opposition to new buildings, etc.
The Commit ee agreed to respond to the Minister suggesting that it gather information on particular
points, which it would specify in the correspondence, and analyse the information over the two months
to determine whether the code should be reviewed or not. The Commit ee would make a decision at its
General Meeting in May as to whether the code should be amended or not. The Commit ee noted that it
did not want to amend its previous decision if there was no new data supporting EPF’s concerns raised
in its letter.
RELEASED
- 5 -
16
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
layer hens and pigs have been on the table. It is suggested that we ask ourselves whether it should be
a code at all, and to consider another option such as a sign of quality assurance (like the “blue tick” for
eggs, run by the SPCA) that NAWAC is not directly involved in. It was noted that there is an
AsureQuality scheme for the boarding establishments, but as lot of businesses are not involved,
perhaps the public is not being discriminatory based upon it.
s 9(2)(a) noted the animal welfare risks driving the development of this code were the number of boarding
1982
kennels and catteries in New Zealand which were not required to subscribe to the current commercially
available auditing scheme, but that private assessment is not compulsory. Also, this standard also
applies to SPCA, who is asking when it wil be available to support consistency within and between
SPCA and local authority animal shelters. The Commit ee agreed it could revisit whether a code of
ACT
welfare is the best way of assisting regulation in this sector, or not.
Saleyards - Members noted the work on saleyards being undertaken under the
Safeguarding our
Animals, Safeguarding our Reputations programme to support consistent and relevant guidance on
animal welfare requirements and rules at saleyards.
Painful Husbandry procedures – Active work wil begin again if/when Regulations are to be developed.
Wild Animals - The workshop on replacing glueboards is stil to be organised. s 9(2)(a) and P. Fisher are
reviewing the guideline on trap testing.
C 6.
Update on Tegel Foods meeting
INFORMATION
V Wil iams reported on a workshop to discuss a new “Hatch-brood system”. Instead of handling and
moving day-old chicks straight onto farm, they are put into an incubation system, where the environment
is very strictly control ed, and moved to rearer/production units at four days of age.
C 7.
Calf feeding requirements
J Hellström received and circulated an email prior to the meeting [NAWAC 11/13] on a possible
exception to the rule that bobby calves must be fed in the time up
OFFICIAL to two hours prior to transportation. A
processor in the South Island had requested exception for some suppliers because they were very
close to the premises, and processing so shortly after feeding was resulting in regurgitation with
consequential carcase contamination and welfare implications. A trial under a specific QA Programme
resulted in much fewer deaths among those c
THE alves involved in the trial and better overall animal welfare
outcomes.
The Commit ee noted that the Act’s requirements to meet physical, health and behavioural needs
supersede requirements in the code of welfare and that it was not an offence to breach minimum
standards. It agreed to respond to the email recommending that for suppliers where welfare was
improved by not feeding calves within two hours of transport, a QA programme could provide special
UNDER
conditions that did not require this feeding, with a number of specific requirements put in place and
close ongoing monitoring to ensure calves’ welfare needs are met.
Action: J Hellström to reply to AWOC as outlined above.
C 8.
Update on Animal Welfare Strategy and Act Review
s 9(2)(a)
updated the commit ee on the Animal Welfare Strategy and Act Review [NAWAC17/13], noting
that a Bil was being drafted to allow regulations for live animal export and surgical and painful
procedures, regulations
RELEASED to complement codes of welfare, amendments to make the codes process more
efficient and to make it possible to amend only part of a code, and clarification to the provisions relating
- 7 -
18
to cruelty towards animals in a wild state. She noted that the position of the new Minister, Nathan Guy,
on the Act amendment had not yet been canvassed by the Ministry.
Action: J Hellström to write to Minister regarding NAWAC’S priorities (in particular dairy housing) and
supporting amendment of the Act to create efficiencies.
C 9.
MPI Update
1982
This was gratefully received by the Commit ee. The Chair also reminded members of the passing of
family members of past NAWAC members. Commit ee members expressed their sympathy and agreed
to pass on condolences.
ACT
Action: J Hellström to write to s 9(2)(a)
.
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
- 8 -
19
PART TWO
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
STRATEGY AND PLANNING
O 2.
Results of 2012 review of committee performance
1982
s 9(2)(a)
had compiled the 2012 surveys on performance into a summary document for NAWAC to
discuss. Key points raised were that the Commit ee could spend less time on developing codes and
more on strategic priority issues.
ACT
O 3.
Contribution for Welfare Pulse
Members suggested items as follows, due 15 April for publication in the 1 June issue:
•
s 9(2)(a)
NAWAC strategic planning (J Hellström/
)
• Hatch-brood systems for chick rearing (V Williams/S Brown)
•
s 9(2)(a)
Canadian Animal Welfare Strategy (
/J Hel ström)
Action: MPI to follow up with identified authors for the above suggestions by 11 March 2013
O 4.
Identification of mini-tutorial topics for 2013
Members suggested the following, to be considered for 2013: INFORMATION
• A zoo visit (Wellington zoo)
• Horse racing (including stable visit?)
• Aquaculture facility
• Greyhound racing
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to coordinate a selected topic for at least one meeting in 2013
O 5.
Discussion on ‘over treatment of companion animals’ and draft letter to the Minister
OFFICIAL
The Commit ee discussed K Phil ips’ article on the over treatment of companion animals in
Welfare
Pulse in March 2012 and whether it could be adapted into a letter to the New Zealand Veterinary
Association and the Veterinarians Council of New Zealand. s 9(2)(a) reported on a Canadian study that
THE
found that there were three groups of veterinarians – those who act according to clients’ wishes without
exception, those who outlined all the options to owners and those who advocate for the animals. He
also noted that veterinarians were expected to act in isolation from each other, rather than with human
medics who could act in a collegial environment.
The Commit ee agreed this issue could be raised with the VCNZ and NZVA, and also to highlight it as
UNDER
an emerging animal welfare issue to Minister Guy.
Action: J Hellström to draft letter to NZVA and VCNZ as described, for Commit ee comment prior to
sending
Action: J Hel ström to send a letter highlighting the overtreatment of companion animals as an emerging
issue to Minister Guy
OTHER REPORTS AND DISCUSSION
RELEASED
O 6.
Discussion of information circulated by MPI
- 9 -
20
The Commit ee noted that it appreciated the information that had been circulated.
O 7.
Committee members’ reports on recent presentations and attendance at conferences
D Nicolson reported on a visit to a free stall dairy unit constructed by Rakaia Engineering Limited in
Southland.
1982
V Wil iams reported on the previous day’s meeting of the National Animal Ethics Advisory Commit ee,
with the key item being regulatory animal testing of recreational synthetic drugs.
s 9(2)(a)
reported on the Farm to Processor Forum workshop which was held to progress work,
ACT
including projects on disease, defective and injured animals and bobby calves, under the
Safeguarding
our Animals, Safeguarding our Reputations programme.
O 9.
NAWAC Correspondence
J Hellström added a late agenda item on the topic of racing greyhounds. s 9(2)(a)
of the Greyhound
Protection League had sought information on whether NAWAC would be advising Ministers of the
animal welfare concerns in the greyhound industry. He noted that s 9(2)(a)
contacted NAWAC in November last year seeking advice as to whether NAWAC had ever
investigated, or carried out research into the greyhound racing industry.
Members discussed some key welfare issues in greyhound racing, and J Hellström reported that he had
replied to s 9(2)(a)
on behalf of the Commit ee saying that it may consider the issues when developing
INFORMATION
advice on animals in entertainment. The Commit ee agreed that some general principles relating to
greyhound racing may be developed at that time, however, specific greyhound racing issues and some
wider ethical issues such as euthanasia of surplus and/or underperforming animals would be unlikely to
be investigated this year given other priorities in NAWAC’s work plan.
Action: J Hellström to reply to s 9(2)(a)
as described above
s 9(2)(a)
also reported on further correspondence on colony cages and meat chicken cleanliness as
OFFICIAL
an animal welfare indicator, which wil be circulated to the Commit ee.
J Hellstrom noted that NAWAC should be aware of what he was saying on their behalf, and the
Commit ee moved to accept correspondence bei
THE ng sent to all NAWAC members [S Brown/D Scobie].
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to ensure that correspondence sent on behalf of NAWAC is copied to the Commit ee
for information as ongoing mailouts.
There being no further items of business to discuss, the Chair thanked the commit ee members for their
attendance and declared the meeting closed at 3.15.
UNDER
O 8.
Mini-tutorial – Site visit to LandCare Research animal facility
s 9(2)(a)
guided the Commit ee through the Landcare Research animal facility
and outlined its key research programmes. The Commit ee’s tour of the live animal facility at Landcare
Research ended at 4:30.
RELEASED
- 10 -
21
NAWAC 30/13
Strategy Meeting
Thursday, 14 February 2013
9.30am – 3.00pm
1982
The Lawrence Room
Lincoln Research Centre
ACT
Corner Springs Road and Gerald Street, Christchurch
Committee members: John Hel ström (Chairperson), Kathryn Bicknell, Sue Brown, Ingrid Collins, Penny
Fisher, Barbara Nicholas, David Scobie, Alan Sharr, Virginia Williams, Don Nicolson.
In attendance: s 9(2)(a)
INFORMATION
OBJECTIVE
To determine NAWAC priorities for the next decade and what actions should be planned to achieve
them.
OFFICIAL
MINUTES
THE
Welcome
s 9(2)(a)
Apologies
K Phillips would be attending intermit ently, via online videoconferencing.
UNDER
Any Other Business Part One (Public Excluded Agenda)
No other items of business were identified for discussion under Part One of the agenda.
Any Other Business Part Two (Open to the Public)
No other items of business were identified for discussion under Part Two of the agenda.
RELEASED
1
22
NAWAC 30/13
PART ONE
(PUBLIC EXCLUDED AGENDA)
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Section 48, Local Government Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987
It was moved (J Hellström/K Bicknell) that the public be excluded from the following parts of the 1982
proceedings of this meeting, namely:
C 1.
International Animal Welfare Issues and Update
(s 9(2)(a) ) ACT
C 2.
New Zealand Animal Welfare Strategy
(J Hellström / All)
C 3.
Identify the key issues for animal welfare in New Zealand now
(All)
and over the next decade in terms of husbandry and ownership
practices
C 4.
Discuss what the best processes are for NAWAC to clarify and
(All)
address those issues
C 5.
Summary and close
(All)
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE THE PUBLIC IS EXCLUDED,
THE REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER, AND THE SPECIFIC
INFORMATION
GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND
MEETINGS ACT 1987 FOR THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
General subject of each matter to be
Reason for passing this
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the
considered
resolution in relation to each
passing of this resolution
matter
C 1.
International Animal Welfare
To maintain the ef ective conduct That the public conduct of the relevant
OFFICIAL
of public af airs through the
part of the proceedings of the meeting
protection of Ministers, members would be likely to result in the disclosure
of organisations, officers and
of information for which good reason for
employees from improper
withholding would exist under section
THE
pressure or harassment.
9(2) (g)(i ) of the Of icial Information Act
1982.
C 2.
NZ Animal Welfare Strategy
As Above.
As Above.
C 3.
Key issues
As Above.
As Above.
C 4.
NAWAC processes
As Above.
As Above.
C 5.
Summary
UNDER As Above.
As Above.
RELEASED
2
23
I also move that:
s 9(2)(a)
1982
be permit ed to remain at this meeting after the public has been excluded, because of their knowledge
of meeting procedure and the subject matter under discussion. This knowledge is relevant backgr
ACT
ound
information to assist the commit ee in its deliberations.
The motion was put: carried.
C 1.
International Animal Welfare Issues and Update
s 9(2)(a)
was invited to the NAWAC meeting to address the commit ee on international animal
welfare issues. He thanked the Commit ee and MPI for their hospitality.
s 9(2)(a) noted that NAWAC is an internationally well-known group, and that New Zealand is well-known
for its progressive policies in animal welfare. He believed that Canadians are generally less concerned
about animal welfare than New Zealanders, and their equivalent of NAWAC is stil trying to get
INFORMATION many
dif erent industries to pull together in the same direction.
The main points of the presentation were:
• The relation between conservation and animal welfare
• Addressing public concern about intensive animal production
He discussed the idea that “conservation” issues (such as dead z
OFFICIAL ones, birds being hit by cars, and birds
flying into office towers) are equally animal welfare issues. A survey by s 9(2)(a)
his PhD student,
found that welfare-orientated and conservation-orientated people rank the same activities as being
harmful to animals, and so ideas that were traditionally considered as ‘conservation issues’ may be the
THE
next big thing for animal welfare.
The second part of the presentation discussed the concern in the modern day about intensive farming.
s 9(2)(a)
considered three models of animal production: agrarian, industrial and professional. He noted
that there is some opinion that replacing farms with cities and factories causes something close to
spiritual impoverishment in people. It was then suggested that to be a farmer is becoming a profession
UNDER
rather than a job: it has standards; it has a high hurdle of competence; and the farmers provide an
important service. As the role of the farmer changes, this wil have implications on the standards that
they hold themselves to.
Note: Copy of s 9(2)(a)
presentation sent as NAWAC 25/13.
The Commit ee discussed the trust and professionalism of the modern intensive farmer.
RELEASED
C 2.
New Zealand Animal Welfare Strategy
The draft Animal Welfare Strategy was circulated by s 9(2)(a)
prior to the meeting.
3
24
C 3.
Identify the key issues for animal welfare in New Zealand now and over the next decade
in terms of husbandry and ownership practices General discussion by all members included:
• There wil be an increase in the awareness of animals well-being and sentience;
• There wil be an increased desire to extend the lifetime of animals by whatever means available
and this may not always be in the best interests of the animals;
1982
• Sentience - definition, recognition of sentience, coverage of sentience in legislation;
• Changes in veterinary clients attitudes (animals have a value themselves, rather than a purely
instrumental value);
ACT
• Assessing positive welfare (and dif iculties in assessing positive welfare);
• How to express features of positive welfare.
Specific issues of current or future priority raised were:
• Inherited defects;
• Breeding standards that demand harmful traits, both in companion animals, and for production
that results in welfare issues;
• Shelter for farm animals;
• Housing for production/recreational animals;
• Welfare issues in free range farming;
INFORMATION
• Live export of animals;
• Cats in our society and regulations that may be imposed on cat households e.g. curfews and
confinement;
• Overweight companion animals, including livestock;
• Issues in keeping horses (e.g. kept alone, small paddocks, minimal exercise);
• Issues around intensification, e.g. stockmanship and staffing (such as professionalisation
OFFICIAL
leading to increased staff costs and less staff to do routine and repetitive tasks);
• Zoos, including what animals are appropriate animals to keep in zoos;
• Social needs of animals, both social and solo-living animals (e.g. single dogs in working
families, camelids, horses, elephants
THE );
• Despatch of animals – both unwanted, bred animals (e.g. bobby calves, racing animals, male
chicks) and animals at the end of their productive lives, including many issues around it such
as:
o Needing involvement of all relevant players to make change
o Impact of despatching animals in front of other animals
UNDER
o Technologies to avoid the unwanted animals in the first place e.g. sexing germplasm
• Self-regulation in compliance (applying the VADE compliance model);
• Introducing farmed animals into natural environments where they have not been kept
previously, with consequent impacts on the animals and the environment;
• Fish farming including meeting behavioural needs on fish farms;
• Dog tail docking and surgical procedures on animals;
• Drivers for animal cruelty and abuse;
•
RELEASED
Having better conservations or working more closely with the judiciary;
• Climate change impacts (e.g. in the nature and spread of disease); and
4
25
• Selecting animals for positive welfare features or features that have positive implications e.g.
polled cattle, sexing germplasm.
Discussion of these points included:
• Driving change beyond relying upon codes of welfare;
• Models for interaction/getting all necessary people ‘around the table’ e.g. workshops;
•
1982
The reasons for people keeping single companion animals, and a suggested workshop on the
keeping of single companion animals (e.g. dogs);
• The implications for NAWAC’s workload of increasing the number of regulatory tools available
(i.e. regulations in addition to codes, plus potentially other forms of intervention). ACT
The following actions were agreed:
Action: s 9(2)(a)
/P Fisher to add cats to the list of issues in the paper being developed by P Fisher on
potential NAWAC work on animals in the wild.
s 9(2)(a) listed some summary points, comparing the situation with the Canadian equivalent of NAWAC.
He noted:
• The relative advantage of time spent providing high level advice on codes, rather than
developing codes;
• Working within a remit to advise Ministers; this can be taken more broadly or narrowly. A
broader interpretation can have positive results.
INFORMATION
He also noted that housing and invasive procedures are well-researched and often identified animal
welfare issues; and handling is becoming better developed. Underdeveloped areas include:
• Breeding. This is the “forgotten” area. These include breeding for broader production indices,
breeding out undesirable traits, or breeding for desirable traits;
• Feeding to match genetic potential (‘feeding to match breeding’); and
• Providing good lives for animals – animals do things for two reasons: they are driven to by an
OFFICIAL
unpleasant sensation e.g. hunger, thirst, pain to meet an urgent need, or they are enticed to by
a pleasurable sensation e.g. play, which may be non-essential in the immediate term but that
has long-term benefits and animals are strongly driven to achieve.
He closed by noting there is a role for codes and a role for initiatives through better-developed
THE
relationships with constituents such as the kennel club.
Members then broke into two working groups to identify areas where the greatest animal welfare gain
can be made in the next ten years:
Working group one (J Hellström (faci
UNDER litator), s 9(2)(a) , K Philips, A Sharr, B Nicholas, V Wiliams, K
Bicknell, P Fisher, s 9(2)(a)
(rapporteur)) identified:
• Euthanasia – including avoiding production of unwanted animals, as well as denial of
euthanasia to prevent suffering;
• Breeding - to avoid unwanted animals, to select for welfare gains, and the possibility to use new
technology available (e.g. polled cattle gene);
• Wildlife issues – welfare for pests and natives.
Working group two (S Brown (facilitator), D Nicolson,s 9(2)(a)
RELEASED
, S Brown, I Collins, D Scobie, s 9(2)(a)
identified:
5
26
• The changes that the Act amendment wil bring about, including providing additional compliance
tools and allowing regulations, both in general terms (e.g. in raising prominence of animal
welfare via public communications) and specific terms (e.g. mulesing)
• Working in the V & A areas of the compliance (extension activities such as communications,
workshops etc)
Specific issues where gains could be made:
1982
• Layer hens
• Fish farming/commercial slaughter of fish
• Genetic improvements
ACT
• Avoiding welfare issues in dairy housing
• Housing for pigs
• Meeting social needs of animals, and
• Use of animals for recreational purposes
C 4.
Discuss what the best processes are for NAWAC to clarify and address those issues
Although this agenda item was not discussed specifically, relevant points raised throughout the day
included:
• Deciding when codes are necessary versus other forms of intervention. The Commit ee agreed
it would need to consider how to make this decision in the future;
INFORMATION
• Developing positive tools for handling immediate issues as opposed to negative ‘knee jerk’
responses;
• Framing or considering animal welfare issues as part of holistic assessments or considerations,
not in isolation (e.g. as animal welfare versus economics);
• How to convey advice to the Minister, including in the letter discussed at the previous day’s
meeting as an action [item C 5];
• How to identify, keep abreast of, and prepare for in advance, emerging issues such as new
OFFICIAL
technologies;
• What having a new Minister means for NAWAC;
• Resourcing/staffing to support NAWAC;
THE
• How the focus for the Ministry for Primary Industries aligns with the breadth of NAWAC’s scope
(e.g. companion animals); and
• Whether the attention paid to particular sectors fairly reflects the animal welfare issues in that
sector.
Suggestions on how to approach the i
UNDER ssues included:
• Workshops with all relevant participants
• Updating NAWAC’s Communications Strategy
• Formalising a process for identifying and preparing for emerging issues;
• Proactive release of educational or informative material, e.g. dehorning pamphlets, as
opposed to reactive release only by request, and
• Having a running agenda item on progress on strategic issues
RELEASED
Action: J Hellstrom/s 9(2)(a)
to add an hour in the agenda for each NAWAC meeting to discuss what
the best processes are for NAWAC to clarify and address the strategic priorities developed today
6
27
C 5.
Summary and close
There being no further items of business to discuss, the Chair thanked the commit ee members and the
visiting speaker for their contributions, thanked D Scobie for organising the venue and declared the
meeting closed at 3.00pm.
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
7
28
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
PART ONE
(PUBLIC EXCLUDED AGENDA)
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Section 48, Local Government Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987
There being no other introductory items of business, it was moved (J Hellström / V Wil iams):
1982
That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
ACT
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
(J Hellström)
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
(J Hellström)
C 3.
Codes of Welfare update
s 9(2)(a)
C 4.
Layer hens code of welfare
(J Hellström)
C 5.
Animals in entertainment
(J Hellström)
C 6.
Rodeos Code of Welfare
(V Williams/ s 9(2)(a)
C 7.
Update on animal welfare strategy and Act review
s 9(2)(a)
INFORMATION
C 8.
Discussion with Hon Nathan Guy, Minister for Primary Industries (Hon N Guy/ J Hellström)
C 9.
MPI update
s 9(2)(a)
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE THE PUBLIC IS EXCLUDED,
THE REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER, AND THE SPECIFIC
GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND
OFFICIAL
MEETINGS ACT 1987 FOR THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
General subject of each matter to be
Reason for passing this
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the
considered
resolution in relation to each
passing of this resolution
THE
matter
C 1.
Confirmation of previous
To protect the privacy of natural
That the public conduct of the relevant
minutes
persons.
part of the proceedings of the meeting
would be likely to result in the disclosure
of information for which good reason for
withholding would exist under section
UNDER
9(2)(a) of the Of icial Information Act
1982 (OIA).
C 2.
Status of actions arising from
As above.
As above.
previous meetings
C 3.
Codes of Welfare update
To maintain the ef ective conduct That the public conduct of the relevant
of public af airs through the
part of the proceedings of the meeting
protection of Ministers, members would be likely to result in the disclosure
of organisations, officers and
of information for which good reason for
employees from improper
withholding would exist under section
pressure or harassment.
9(2) (g)(ii) of the OIA.
RELEASED
C 4.
Layer hens code of welfare
As above.
As above.
update
- 2 -
30
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
For now, it was explained that the subcommit ee wil be discussing whether they would like to put
together a more immediate fix, for example to produce a separate document that is more technical than
the Codes. DairyNZ are already producing a document like this (Minimising Muck, Maximising Money).
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to make a recommendation to the Commit ee on how to progress the development
of some general pastoral farming indicators.
1982
Rodeos – Discussed in item C6
Equine – The subcommit ee held their meeting to consider the public submissions on 8 May. The code
report stil needs to be writ en. It was noted that the Racing Board is keeping an eye on the progress of
ACT
this Code, as it wil cover the welfare of all horses including those used in racing.
Animals in Entertainment – Discussed in item C5
Temporary Housing of Companion Animals – The current timeline is that the draft could be out for public
consultation in September, however it was suggested that the draft copy requires some more editing,
perhaps to be carried out in June. It was also noted that temporary housing has some crossover with
the upcoming animals in entertainment code, and so more discussion is required on whether this
specific code is stil needed or whether these animals are already covered by other codes.
Saleyards – s 9(2)(a) and other members of the animal welfare team met with the Stock and Station
Agent Association to discuss the proposed code of welfare for saleyards. While the code continues to
progress slowly, it is definitely on the radar. It was further noted that the stakeholders invol
INFORMATION ved in this
code are very keen to develop standards, as not having them is a risk to their reputation (although
currently they do follow the old guideline, which is out of date).
It was suggested that a saleyard visit by NAWAC would be a good idea. s 9(2)(a) noted that the next
meetings held by the Stock and Station Agent Association wil be held in Franklin and Fielding. Some
Commit ee members expressed interest in coming to the next meeting themselves even if the timing
isn’t right for the full commit ee, although it was cautioned that Animal Welfare is generally a small part
of these meetings.
OFFICIAL
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to inform the Commit ee of Stock and Station Agent Association meeting dates.
Painful Husbandry Procedures – This code is
THE very suited to having regulations, and so is generally
considered by the Commit ee and MPI to be on hold until the Amendment Bil is passed. It was however
noted that the code is up for its 10 year deadline in 2015 so also can’t be delayed indefinitely.
One commit ee member then brought up the fact that the vet council has been consulting on the
surgical conduct of vets in training and overseas vets, and whether they may be able to obtain a
temporary license. Otherwise they must be dealt with under the Act, i.e. must be under supervision at all
UNDER
times. This idea arose after the council wanted to make changes to the Animal Welfare Act as part of
the Amendment, but they have not been included. This idea may affect the code or the regulations
down the track.
Wild Animals – MPI is organising a workshop on glueboard traps. P Fisher noted that she is going to a
pest control / biosecurity conference in July, and wil do a presentation on glueboard traps.
C 4.
Layer hens code of welfare
J Hellström summarised t
RELEASED he most recent correspondence from the Egg Producer’s Federation (EPF)
[NAWAC 45/13] and outlined some of the main findings of the review on feasibility of transition times by
consultant s 9(2)(a)
[NAWAC 40/13].
- 5 -
33
It was agreed that while possibly feasible, it wil be very challenging for many operators to make the
transition away from cages on time. Some members of the Commit ee agreed that the review brought
up some good points, and there are some clear grounds for accepting that the industry are not just
being obstructive and have some genuine concerns about price and supply of eggs, especially if
NAWAC does not allow the transition to work within the laying cycle to avoid the worst bottlenecks. It
was noted that predictions about volatility are well supported in cases overseas - a UK example was
quoted where the transition from cage eggs was not smooth, and prices quadrupled in some areas.
1982
The review questionnaire in the report went out to 75 cage producers, of which 12 control 80% of the
industry, and interestingly none indicated that they were going to shift to barn production. The two
responses to the transition from cages were to invest in colony cages or exit the market. ACT
It was then noted that the total revenue impact could possibly stil be quite positive for some producers –
as the supply drops and demand and price goes up. This benefit may particularly be felt by barn and
free-range producers. It was further noted that there wil be some small producers who may simply be
casualties of the transition, and NAWAC has acknowledged and accepts this scenario.
[Secretariat note: M Stone and s 9(2)(a)
arrived at this point (10:40am). J Hellström welcomed them to
the discussion.]
The Commit ee considered the EPF’s concerns that the first transition steps are too soon. Some
Commit ee members acknowledged that the main problem is the 2016 date, especially due to resource
consent process, and that this date is the only compelling one to change.
INFORMATION
It was generally agreed that the ideal transition steps would be smooth, and penalise operators who lag
behind, although concerns were raised that this carrot-stick approach may be hard to regulate. The
Commit ee then discussed their concerns surrounding current and future compliance of welfare in the
egg industry, especially how late adopters wil be dealt with. It is agreed that there must be public
confidence that NAWAC wil put in place a system to deal with latecomers, especially since NAWAC has
already been seen to have deferred.
OFFICIAL
It was noted that the Amendment Bil wil potentially bring in regulations, directly enforceable with fines
and penalties, which wil work well with this transition, although concern is stil expressed that late
compliance may stil be an attractive option and there are welfare issues with simply shutting down a
non-complying egg farm mid cycle. It is likely that an increasing series of deterrents and punishments
THE
wil be needed. Further concerns were raised that the regulations are ‘not a done deal’, and in the worst
case, MPI wil only be able to deal with non-compliance in the way it always has (Minimum Standards),
which may not be ideal.
It is then noted that, as stated in the 2 let ers by the EPF, there are some farms that are already not
complying. s 9(2)(a)
noted that MPI compliance has already visited some of these farms and
followed up to try and change on-farm
UNDER practice, they have not brought any prosecutions. Therefore it is
noted that there is already an issue where some egg farmers think that they could ‘get away with’ late
compliance, and further regulations would be a good tool.
It was agreed that NAWAC must make a decision now on which option should go out for public
consultation, although it was noted that the submission process may turn up more options to consider.
The layer hen subcommit ee teleconference, with reviewer s 9(2)(a)
, was held on 8 May. The
subcommit ee settled on 2 practical options: pushing the 2016 date two years back (it was noted that
this option is stil not ideal and could result in up to three mil ion extra hen cage years), or introducing
RELEASED
managed incentives to change. Such a scheme could involve setting up a governing body that manages
- 6 -
34
individual changeover plans; however the industry may be too competitive to carry out such a plan
amongst themselves.
It was confirmed that the communications message that NAWAC wil release is that NAWAC is not
moving that final phase-out date, but is trying to get a smoother transition to keep the price and supply
of eggs as stable as possible for consumers in NZ. It was suggested that a message be added that
NAWAC wants to encourage farmers to make the move early. The discussion document should also
1982
include an appropriate summary of the report by s 9(2)(a) in order to explain exactly why NAWAC is
proposing to push these dates back.
Moved (J Hellström / K Phil ips):
ACT
That, having considered the s 9(2)(a)
report and the discussion of previous meetings, NAWAC wil revisit
the transition times in a public discussion document.
The motion was put: Carried unanimously.
Moved (J Hellstrom / S Brown):
That the basis of the public consultation document wil be a change to the transition timeline that shifts
the 2016, 2018 and 2020 transitions each back by two years.
The motion was put: Carried unanimously.
In recognition of the urgency, it was agreed that there wil be an out-of-session agreement on the
wording of the public discussion document.
INFORMATION
It was confirmed that NAWAC would be recommending that layer hens regulation to be the highest
priority once the Amendment Bil is passed.
It was further confirmed that the carryover requirement to reduce the stocking density (so that each bird
has 550cm2 for all cages by 2014 (Minimum Standard 6 (b) (i i)) would not be removed or changed.
Further discussion on matters other than cage transition times:
OFFICIAL
Claw shortening devices – Minimum Standard 4 (i) (i i) is essentially asking the industry to retroactively
install claw shortening devices in all cages, although this requirement wasn’t in the draft of the 2012
Code or the 2005 Code. However, it was noted t
THE hat the use of claw-shortening devices was discussed
extensively in the development of the 2005 Code.
Stocking density in barns with outdoor access – The 2005 Code allowed a Minimum Standard of 10
birds per square metre (and it is noted that a producer can get an SPCA ‘blue tick’ at this density). The
consultation code proposed 10 birds per square metre. It was noted that all of the barn operators are
currently operating at 7 birds per square metre or less, and that the EU requirement is 9 birds,
UNDER
regardless of access to outdoors or not. It was noted that there is very lit le science on the welfare
effects of stocking rates in barns. NAWAC decided to go with EU standard, as it is the only widely
accepted international standard. There were few submissions on density; however, it was noted there
may have been more if NAWAC had consulted on 9 in the first place.
It was stated that most of the industry is already complying with a 9-bird limit, but there are a number
who are unhappy with the change. J Hellström stated that he has asked the EPF for data – on how
many operators are actually at the10 bird stocking density now?
Action: Layer hens subc
RELEASED
ommitee to discuss matters raised by the EPF in their letter of 3 May 2103
(other than transition times) and whether they should be included in the public discussion document.
Report back to NAWAC.
- 7 -
35
C 5.
Animals in entertainment
The NAWAC discussion document, NAWAC 41/13, was distributed before the meeting. It was agreed
that the main purpose of an eventual public discussion document is to get an opinion from stakeholders
and the public on how they regard animals in entertainment, as there are quite profound issues around
over breeding, containment methods, and using animals for amusement.
1982
It was noted that s 9(2)(a)
and J Hellström wil be attending the Zoo and Aquarium Association New
Zealand Conference from 29 to 30 May in Dunedin. This wil serve to take the discussion to a broader
group of stakeholders. It was noted that strong initial feedback so far was that zoos consider themselves
to be educators, not entertainers.
ACT
The discussion moved to considering when an animal should be considered to be used for
entertainment and therefore in scope for this review. For example, many zoos in NZ are actually aviaries
carrying native birds. These operators don’t necessarily regard themselves as zoos at all. The Fieldays
event may be, in some cases, classified as education (and therefore RTT) but regulating these events
would be more efficiently served by a Code than an ethics commit ee. Horse jumping was identified as a
seemingly minor entertainment activity that is coming under the animal welfare spotlight in some
countries.
Further grey areas identified by the Commit ee were mobile petting zoos, therapy animals, school ‘pet
days’, and dogs and cats in shows (and therefore, some animals in temporary housing). It was further
suggested that if dogs and cats used in shows are considered as ‘entertainment’ then potential values
INFORMATION
and principles and how pain and distress are addressed need to be applied in a consistent way in the
temporary housing code. It was agreed that mobile petting zoos should be covered by the Code.
It was also suggested that to see a return of exotic animals to circuses would be a disappointment, and
this could be addressed by way of regulation.
It was confirmed that recreational hunting and fishing for food is out of scope, but that there is potential
for trophy hunting to be in scope.
OFFICIAL
Action: Animals in entertainment subcommit ee to convene before the next general meeting to consider
41/13 and any points raised here or in upcoming stakeholder meetings.
It was then noted that this issue would lend its
THE elf to a public workshop very well, and this could be
carried out later in the year.
Action: Subcommit ee to asses the possibility for NAWAC to run a public workshop on animals in
entertainment.
C 6.
Rodeos Code of Welfare
UNDER
V Wil iams summarised some of the main points from the recent meeting between the rodeos
subcommit ee and 2 representatives from the Rodeo Cowboys Association in Christchurch on 22 April.
The rodeos issues paper (NAWAC 42/13) had been circulated prior to the meeting and was taken as
read.
The main issue was that some activities in the rodeo were considered better, in terms of animal welfare,
than others. The subcommit ee considered that certain activities should be banned.
There was consensus t
RELEASED hat the Rodeos Code could not be delayed to be included in the animals in
entertainment code (because the 10 year review deadline is December this year), although perhaps the
potential of it being included in the future could be mentioned in the code report.
- 8 -
36
The subcommit ee suggested that the calf roping event should be banned. The problem is that there is
very lit le science on stress and calf roping, apart from the absence of high cortisol levels, which is not a
very useful indicator. However, the injury rate is also very low (although it was pointed out that the event
is very short, so if compared to other longer activities, the rate may seem artificially low). The weight of
calves is also a problem. Simply raising it is not easy, as bigger calves may in fact be more prone to
injury from the sudden jerking motion. It was suggested that the jerking motion alone could be banned
(and in some rodeos overseas it already is).
1982
There were many public submissions calling for a calf roping ban; however, there were not many
submissions overall (30 unique, 270 form letters) and so concerns were raised that this is not
necessarily a good indicator of societal values, especially given the rising admission numbers to rodeos
ACT
in New Zealand.
Concern was raised that in some areas on New Zealand, calf roping is in fact a husbandry technique.
On farm, it could be considered ‘necessary’. This raised the question as to whether the practice itself is
wrong, or the use of the practice in entertainment.
A commit ee member asked: how far do we let absence of evidence be evidence of absence? It was
suggested that when animals in entertainment are in question, we may have to use our common sense
and be more cautious than in other situations, as using animals for entertainment could be seen as less
necessary than using animals in other cases. It was noted that there are precedents for NAWAC issuing
minimum standards that are not solely science-based (as scientific knowledge is not the only matter
NAWAC must consider).
INFORMATION
It was then suggested that permit ing the use of only trained contract animals could take care of the
problem: but how can a calf be trained? This method could work in the South Island, where such
measures are already largely in place, but not in the North Island. Breed could also be regulated: beef
breeds are stockier than dairy breeds and may cope better.
[Secretariat Note: Hon Nathan Guy arrived at this point, so item C8 interrupted here]
OFFICIAL
The Rodeo Cowboys Association is very aware of the research that shows that the calf roping is not
stressful and is very defensive of the weight (100kg) issue.
It was suggested a note be included in the Code or the report that society does not view the rope and tie
THE
event favourably, and that other countries have banned it. This could serve as a kind of warning that
regulations may come in the future. Some Commit ee members agreed that this would be a pragmatic
approach. It was suggested that there may be more research in the future that supports regulations
against calf roping.
Some Commit ee members indicated they would prefer a stronger approach while NAWAC has the
opportunity.
UNDER
Moved (V Wil iams / S Brown) that NAWAC recommends the ban of the rope and tie event at rodeos in
New Zealand:
The motion was put: 4 in favour. Not carried.
The issue of sheep riding was then brought to the Commit ee. It was explained by the subcommit ee
that many submissions were against the practice, and many of those submit ers justified a ban by
arguing that it taught children the wrong way to handle and respect animals. There was some
discussion over whether
RELEASED sheep riding may be physically bad for the animal. It was agreed that sheep
riding should be removed from the Code.
- 9 -
37
It was then agreed that the use of fireworks at a rodeo should be banned.
The subcommit ee then brought forward the issue of spurs and flank straps. It was noted that fully
locked spurs are already banned by the industry from rodeo and partially locked are only allowed to be
used on bulls. It was also noted that the riders in the events are also judged on use of spurs. The only
concern with flank straps was the thicker straps on horses vs. bulls, which did not seem to be well
justified. However the subcommit ee tended to agree with the Rodeo Cowboys Association on the use
1982
of flank straps in general (especially as a training device).
The commit ee agreed that it should be recommended that all animals should be contract animals, but
not a minimum standard.
ACT
It was then suggested that there should be a veterinarian on site whether another emergency is called
or not (currently a vet must attend but can be called away for an emergency). Concerns were raised on
the feasibility of this requirement.
Moved (V Wil iams / S Brown) that requiring rodeos to have a vet on site at all times should become a
minimum standard.
The motion was put: carried.
The issue of calf riding was then raised. It was argued in submissions that the event is good for children
to learn about animals – but some others argued that it taught children the wrong things about animal
handling. There was discussion that if NAWAC deems sheep riding to be bad for animal w
INFORMATION elfare, then
calf riding should also be banned (especially given that its bone structure may not be developed).
However there are dif erences when comparing adult sheep to calves.
It was suggested the calf weight should go up to 200kg (from 150kg) however that would also
essentially stop calf riding, and the Rodeo Cowboys Association considered it would be too dangerous
for the kids.
C 8.
Discussion with Hon Nathan Guy, Minister for Prim
OFFICIAL
ary Industries
The Minister thanked the Commit ee for the opportunity to attend the meeting and for the work that they
do. He mentioned the Strategy, how wide ranging and important animal welfare is (68% households
have a pet and there are currently $20 bil ion i
THE n animal based exports) and that it is generally well
supported by stakeholders. He noted that he anticipates that animal welfare issues wil only heighten
over time, and that he considers the Commit ee very important to him and MPI in maintaining New
Zealand’s reputation.
The Animal Welfare Amendment Bil may be read after Budget and recess. The Minister noted the
overwhelming support the Codes received in the submissions, and the Commit ee, and added that the
UNDER
regulations wil be a good tool and it wil be very important to get them right. The key message wil be
around having the tools available for all sections of the compliance triangle (VADE model).
J Hellström summarised the layer hens’ discussion and actions for Hon N Guy. The Minister agreed that
the option taken is pragmatic. He acknowledged that New Zealand society welcomes a change in terms
of battery hens, but it is important not to cause economic dif iculties and volatility (especially in low-
socioeconomic groups).
J Hellström then summarised the animals in entertainment discussion, as an emerging issue that may
draw the Minister’s attent
RELEASED ion later in the year. Hon N Guy mentioned that he receives 1 or 2 letters a
week on the jumping of horses (as the Minister of Racing). It was also noted that greyhound racing is
- 10 -
38
also an issue in Australia at the moment, and it wil be good to see what they do there - the current
review in New Zealand wil be very interesting too. The two countries can learn from each other.
Hon N Guy then asked the Commit ee about their current priorities (apart from the Amendment Bil and
layer hens). J Hellström summarised the status of the Dairy Housing Amendment and expressed the
wish to get this resolved for the Minister. The 10 year cycle was also mentioned – for example, the
Rodeos Code must be finished by the end of the year. It was then noted that the next code likely to be
1982
recommended to the Minister is the Equines Code.
It was noted that the Amendment Bil wil hopefully address the 10 year deadline and means that
NAWAC can concentrate their time on animal welfare issues that affect larger numbers of animals, not
ACT
just those that are near a deadline – for example, the rodeos code was being debated alongside the
layer hens code while there are far fewer rodeo animals than hens.
Hon N Guy then mentioned that fact that NAWAC is now boasting a portfolio of nearly 20 codes, and
suggested that this could be reduced in the future. J Hellstrom acknowledged that the Commit ee wil
soon sit down and discuss the ideal number of codes that could be more generic (for example, a
Pastoral Species Code).
Hon N Guy stated that the big debate to do with the Amendment Bil is the level of regulations – too
many and we suffocate our industry – too lit le and we risk our reputation.
New Zealand therefore must protect all of these areas in order to protect its reputation:
INFORMATION
• Biosecurity
• Food safety
• Animal welfare
• Environmental sustainability
If any of these suffer, the international media could damage New Zealand’s reputation.
The problem of intensification in order to meet economic goals was then raised. This may have impacts
OFFICIAL
on animal welfare and water quality. It was suggested that the key may be added value - which may
even allow de-intensifying. The importance of innovation, which may result in more added value
products and could allow less livestock, was acknowledged.
THE
[Note: A Sharr arrived at this point (12:45pm) and was welcomed]
J Hellström thanked Hon Nathan Guy for coming and Hon Nathan Guy thanked the Commit ee for their
time.
C 7.
Update on animal welfare strategy and Act review
UNDER
s 9(2)(a)
updated the Commit ee on the New Zealand Animal Welfare Strategy and the Animal Welfare
Amendment Bil . He handed a document to the Commit ee (NAWAC 46/13) and explained that the
Minister is aiming to achieve all 3 readings of the Bil by the end of the year, which is very ambitious.
It was noted that the first reading debate wil be very interesting, as it wil give an opportunity to see the
response of the other parties. Then it wil hopefully be voted in and submissions, oral and writ en, wil be
accepted by the Select commit ee.
s 9(2)(a)
outlined the current strengths of the Act: it is progressive, it enshrines the five freedoms, it is
comprehensive, and it pr
RELEASED ovides for public participation. The main problems currently are enforcement,
clarity, and transparency.
- 11 -
39
The current enforcement toolkit was then discussed. While it may look comprehensive, it has problems:
particularly that the minimum standards in the codes are not directly enforceable. Anyone on the front
line finds it very hard to prosecute anything other than major ‘car crash’ events. More tools are needed
to deal with medium to low level offending. Regulation can help – new offences may be at a lower level
than the ones in the Act and MPI can implement an infringement regime (instant fines). It was stressed
that an infringement regime must be created for specific offences, and they wil only be created when
there is extensive low-level offending that may be best dealt with in this way.
1982
There was some concern around when a moderate issue is considered a minor or severe one; s 9(
assured the Commit ee that the animal welfare compliance system wil not be about writing
2)
tickets. Many infringement notices should not be expected, and it is acknowledged that complianc
(a e
ACT
needs to retain the hearts and minds of people - and turning people into criminals at the drop of a hat is
not the way to do it.
It was then noted that the current plan for MPI compliance is to retain a core group of experienced
animal welfare inspectors but perhaps to cross-train some fisheries officers to assist them with
screening callouts in the future. The work load on animal welfare inspectors has increased enormously
lately.
s 9(2)(a)
then addressed the areas of the Amendment Bil that wil be clarified. These are: live animal
exports (where guidelines wil be replaced with regulations, and the Customs Export Prohibition Oder
(CEPO) wil be brought from Customs to animal welfare); surgical procedures (where the classification
system wil be removed entirely); and il -treatment of wild animals (it wil be made clear that wilful or
INFORMATION
reckless ill-treatment is an offence).
It was explained that transparency was also an issue with the Act. To address this, in the future the
criteria for delivering minimum standards wil be more open, in that practicability and economic impact
wil be listed as considerations, and the justification for transitions and exceptions wil have to be
clearer. Animals used in RTT wil require ethical approval to be kil ed (and these animals wil be in
usage statistics) and bred (if they have known or potentially compromised welfare).
OFFICIAL
Some of the more minor technical amendments were then covered. Of particular interest to the
Commit ee was the removal of the 10-year review requirement and the provision that allows NAWAC
not to progress a Code that another group has drafted.
THE
s 9(2)(a)
explained to the Commit ee that the chairs of NAWAC and NAEAC should have their
submissions ready by the end of June. He also described the reaction by the Ombudsman to the
proposed amendment that stated that NAWAC and NAEAC meetings would no longer be subject to the
Local Government Of icial Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA); he did not agree and the
amendment did not pass, however the deputy Ombudsman did understand the issue and has provided
further advice. NAWAC and NAEAC should expect to continue to have to comply with LGOIMA and
state when the meetings are opened or
UNDER closed.
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to remind the Chairs when their submissions are due and to ensure they both have
seen relevant correspondence relating to LGOIMA.
C 9.
MPI update
The Commit ee gratefully received the MPI update (NAWAC 43/13).
Action: s 9(2)
(a)
to send the new OIE ISO standard to V Wil iams.
RELEASED
- 12 -
40
PART TWO
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
STRATEGY AND PLANNING
O 2.
Standards Integration Project
1982
s 9(2)(a)
introduced MPI’s Standards Integration Project (SIP) to the Commit ee, as outlined in
NAWAC 35/13.
It was explained that as the Codes are considered a NAWAC document, not an MPI document, the
ACT
Commit ee is being asked if they agree to have the Codes in the same style, to look part of the
“standards family”.
The Minister’s preface may be removed from future codes, and the front sections and Introduction would
be changed. For example the introduction wil include these sections: background; to what and to whom
this code applies to; the outcome it’s trying to achieve; other relevant documents; consequences; and
definitions and abbreviations. These may be pared down even further. It is also possible that the official
names of the Codes may change.
There was consensus from the Commit ee that the most important thing is to get the information out
there, and so the formatting changes suggested by MPI so far are to be accepted.
INFORMATION
O 3.
Welfare Pulse
Members suggested items as follows, due 19 July for publication in the 15 September issue:
• V Williams - an upcoming visit to the Australian Veterinary College;
• K Phillips - obesity in animals;
• A new repeating article, summarising NAWAC’s latest meetings or business.
O 7.
Mini tutorial
OFFICIAL
It was noted that the Wellington Zoo has an open invitation to NAWAC to hold their general meetings in
their conference facilities. They could possibly lead a tutorial at such a meeting. There was general
consensus that a meeting held there in Augus
THE t or November would be informative.
Temporary housing was another issue that members felt they could learn more about, for example
through visiting a boarding kennel, vet clinic, pet shop and/or the SPCA.
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to look into hosting the next NAWAC meeting at the Wellington Zoo or organising
some visits to temporary housing facilities.
UNDER
OTHER REPORTS AND DISCUSSION
O 4.
Discussion of information circulated by MPI
The Commit ee noted that it appreciated the information that had been circulated, and enjoyed receiving
electronic mailouts each Friday.
Some Commit ee members expressed concern that they were receiving their hard copy meeting papers
too late.
RELEASED
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to email future meeting papers to NAWAC at the same time as mailing them.
- 13 -
41
O 5.
NAWAC Correspondence
The Chair expressed concern that he is writing correspondence on behalf of NAWAC without the
members always seeing it first, and requested that members read any correspondence and advise any
concerns or disagreements as soon as possible.
The Commit ee agreed to this and noted that there had been no problems so far, and that the 1982
correspondence being circulated is much appreciated.
O 6.
Committee members’ reports on recent presentations and attendance at conferences
ACT
•
s 9(2)(a)
J Hellström and
recently talked with Wellington Zoo staff about the upcoming
animals in entertainment discussion (and were reminded that Wellington Zoo do not consider
themselves to be an entertainment business). Both were invited to the upcoming annual Zoo
and Aquarium Association conference in Dunedin.
• J Hellström met with a company representative from First Light foods, which exports venison to
the UK. A customer, Waitrose supermarket, is opposed to velveting and wanted to meet with
someone from NAWAC. J Hellström gave a talk including NAWAC’s opinion on velveting, and
showed them the Deer Industry NZ video which includes a statement from NAWAC.
• K Phillips and V Williams recently attended the World Small Animal Veterinary Association
(WSAVA) conference, which had a dedicated animal welfare stream that was quite well
INFORMATION
attended. Topics such as inherited defects and obesity were covered. There was also a session
on pain the day before the main conference started.
• V Wil iams summarised the NAEAC meeting in Auckland, which included visiting Living Cell
Technologies, Auckland University, Auckland Zoo, and Unitec. NAEAC also received a
presentation from s 9(2)(a)
on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bil . It was also noted that there
are 9 Codes of Ethical Conduct up for review, so NAEAC has a meeting especially to deal with
these coming up soon.
OFFICIAL
• D Nicolson attended the Invercargil District Court sentencing of two companies involved in
2010 animal welfare incidents in the south that centred on lame or poor conditioned dairy cows.
He was interested to observe that the companies were fined significantly more than would have
been the case if the company director
THE s had been fined as individuals. But it also meant that no
individuals have any criminal record as a consequence. D Nicolson was heartened to learn of
the new compliance regime mooted at today’s meeting by MPI. He believes this new style of
standardised assessment wil lead to significant improvement in compliance implementation
and MPI relationships with animal owners.
O 1. Actions to address NAWAC strategic priorities
UNDER
The Commit ee looked over document NAWAC 30/13, section C4, and identified the first two bullet
points as items to discuss (namely: deciding when Codes are necessary to address animal welfare
rather than other forms of intervention; and developing positive tools to handle urgent issues or media
fallout).
The question was then asked: should NAWAC detail what is taken into account when deciding whether
to utilise a code or a regulation to achieve their goals – for example, by developing an implementation
framework for the Amendment Bil ? This type of document could also lay out when and how NAWAC
considers economics and f
RELEASED easibility, and how NAWAC determines priorities.
A new subcommit ee was suggested to address these questions.
- 14 -
42
Action: J Hellström to go through the Amendment Bil and identify points around which new NAWAC
processes wil have to be developed.
Action: NAWAC to establish an ‘implementation subcommit ee’ at the next general meeting (14 August).
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to send out web-links on the Amendment Bill and its progress.
1982
The next issue discussed was the need for NAWAC to identify future ‘train-wrecks’ and prepare position
statements, or an approach to handle it, ahead of time if possible.
Action: At the end of each meeting, insert a new agenda item on identifying any ‘public issues’ raised in
ACT
that meeting that could cause a challenge for NAWAC.
Questions were then raised over whether this would have to be ‘closed session’ item, but the
suggestion was met with some disagreement. It was then suggested that there is potential to further this
kind of privacy and transparency conversation in NAWAC. For example, the minutes to each meeting
could go up on the website soon after each general meeting. It was noted that some parts may have to
be amended to allow the Commit ee to continue to provide free and frank advice, especially on ongoing
issues, to the Minister.
Action: Commit ee members to raise any concerns about the privacy or transparency of the February
minutes with J Hellström as soon as possible.
Action: J Hellström/s 9(2)(a)
to create an amended version of the February general meet
INFORMATION
ing minutes
for public release (if feasible and there are no objections).
There being no further items of business to discuss, the Chair thanked the commit ee members for their
attendance and declared the meeting closed at 4:00pm.
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
- 15 -
43
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
PART ONE
(PUBLIC EXCLUDED AGENDA)
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Section 48, Local Government Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987
1982
There being no other introductory items of business, it was moved (J Hellström / V Williams):
That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
ACT
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
(J Hellström)
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
(J Hellström)
C 3.
Codes of Welfare update
s 9(2)(a)
C 4.
Layer hens code of welfare
s 9(2)(a)
/ J Hellström)
C 5.
Rodeos code of welfare
(V Williams/ s 9(2)(a)
C 6.
Dairy housing
s 9(2)(a)
INFORMATION
C 7.
Greyhounds
s 9(2)(a)
/ J Hel ström)
C 8.
Update on animal welfare strategy and Act review
s 9(2)(a)
)
C 9.
MPI update
s 9(2)(a)
C 10. Summary of minutes for public release
(J Hellström / All)
OFFICIAL
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE THE PUBLIC IS EXCLUDED,
THE REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER, AND THE SPECIFIC
GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND
MEETINGS ACT 1987 FOR THE PASSING OF T
THE
HIS RESOLUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
General subject of each matter to be
Reason for passing this
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the
considered
resolution in relation to each
passing of this resolution
matter
C 1.
Confirmation of previous
To protect the privacy of natural
That the public conduct of the relevant
minutes
persons.
part of the proceedings of the meeting
UNDER
would be likely to result in the disclosure
of information for which good reason for
withholding would exist under section
9(2)(a) of the Of icial Information Act
1982 (OIA).
C 2.
Status of actions arising from
As above.
As above.
previous meetings
C 3.
Codes of Welfare update
To maintain the ef ective conduct That the public conduct of the relevant
of public af airs through the
part of the proceedings of the meeting
RELEASED
protection of Ministers, members would be likely to result in the disclosure
of organisations, officers and
of information for which good reason for
- 2 -
45
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
The draft minutes of the NAWAC general meeting on 15 May 2013 were reviewed and accepted, with
the following amendment:
•
1982
Clarify the paragraph that describes D Nicolson’s attendance at the sentencing of an animal
welfare case (refer to bullet 5, item O6).
Moved (A Sharr / S Brown):
ACT
That, subject to the amendments agreed, the draft minutes of the NAWAC general meeting held on 15
May 2013 be adopted as a true and accurate record of that meeting.
The motion was put: carried.
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
Actions from previous meetings were reviewed and it was agreed to complete pending actions where
possible, with the following exceptions:
• Remove item 1, noting that it is out of date. The implementation subcommit ee wil address new
strategic actions when it comes to the New Zealand Animal Welfare Strategy;
INFORMATION
• Remove item 3, noting that is it complete;
• Remove item 11, noting that it is complete;
• Items 13 and 14 will be dealt with in this meeting and can then be removed.
s 9(2)(a) then updated the Commit ee on progress made on item 6, which was to recommend to the
Commit ee a way forward on developing some general pastoral farming indicators. Funding has been
approved for a desktop review of some indicators. A contract is being pulled together for tender (or
maybe to go to preferred provider), within 2 weeks. Proposals could be expected in 4-6 weeks. NAWAC
OFFICIAL
representation for the project was requested and D Scobie expressed interest.
J Hellström addressed item 8, explaining that there has been no subcommit ee meeting yet, but
progress has been made nonetheless that can be discussed later in this meeting.
THE
C 8.
Update on animal welfare strategy and Act review
s 9(2)(a)
updated the Commit ee on the New Zealand Animal Welfare Strategy and the Animal Welfare
Amendment Bil .
There is an increasingly small chance that the Bil wil be read before the end of the year (s 9(2)(a)
UNDER
offered to supply details for interested Commit ee members). It was noted that if the Bill is delayed that
will have a major effect ion NAWAC’s planned work programme as the 10 year review time will still
stand.
s 9(2)(a)
then mentioned that s 9(2)(a)
had stated, during the Psychoactive Substances Bil protests,
that that he aims to push his amendment to ban animal testing into the Animal Welfare Amendment Bil .
C 10. Summary of minutes for public release
At the May 2013 meeting t
RELEASED he Commitee had decided that there was more that NAWAC could do to
increase their transparency to the public (refer to item O1), for example by releasing the minutes after
each meeting on the MPI website or in
Welfare Pulse. However, as the current style of minute taking is
- 4 -
47
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
It was noted that it would be best if the subcommit ee came back with solid recommendations at each
meeting that are very action and outcome orientated. Since the main Commit ee meets only every 3
months, vague strategic plans are not ideal.
Layer Hens – Discussed in item C4
Dairy Cattle Housing – Discussed in item C6
1982
Rodeos – Discussed in item C5
Equine – While it was noted that the subcommit ee has been working very hard (the code is finalis
ACT ed
and report is being drafted), the Equine item had to be bumped due to how packed the agenda has
become with rodeos, dairy housing and greyhounds. Consideration of this Horses and donkeys code will
be added to the November meeting for recommendation to the Minister.
Circuses and Zoos Review – An addendum to 65/13 was passed around by s 9(2)(a)
. It details
updates to the animals in entertainment work programme.
J Hellström summarised 65/13 for the Commit ee. He emphasised the issue that some facilities that
display animals are not members of the Zoos and Aquarium Association (ZAA), for example the
hundreds of DOC approved aviaries, and may therefore be at the low end of the welfare spectrum.
Especially vulnerable are domestic animals, reptiles and fish.
INFORMATION
The other major issue raised was that the big zoos are pushing for bigger exhibits, for example, goril as
at Orana Park, or another elephant for Auckland Zoo. It was suggested that the subcommit ee go to
Auckland zoo and see what they are doing in terms of animal welfare. The Minister should also get
some advice on elephants/goril as in zoos in New Zealand from NAWAC before the issue takes off on
its own.
It was further suggested that it would be a good idea for NAWAC members to go and look at zoos or
members of ZAA in their own towns. If members make it clear t
OFFICIAL hat they are part of NAWAC, bring along
a copy of the code, and raise that the Code is under review and submissions wil be welcome, it wil help
get more awareness out there that all of these establishments are covered by the Zoos code already.
This would work especially well at aviaries and aquariums.
THE
It was noted that DOC is currently working on a list of aviaries licensed to display animals, including the
smal council-owned facilities. The ZAA has a list, and it can be circulated to NAWAC members.
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to circulate a current list of ZAA members to NAWAC
Action: subcommit ee to recommend t
UNDER
o NAWAC whether to send advice to the Minister on the welfare
of elephants and gorillas in captivity
Action: NAWAC members to visit their local zoos to raise awareness of the Code review
Temporary housing of companion animals – The discussion has started on what the focus of this code
should be: temporary housing, or just housing? It was also noted that a housing code wil cover species
that are already covered by other codes - e.g. a dog in a kennel should already be covered by the Dog
Code. However, the industry is heavily supporting (demanding) this code, so there is agreement that
one is needed.
RELEASED
- 6 -
49
s 9(2)(a) and K Bicknell suggested that the Code wil cover high-density housing for commercial services
but should also cover pounds and shelters. Some situations are definitely temporary but some others
could be considered permanent (e.g. breeders). Suggested scope includes: pet shops, breeders, vet
clinics (maybe), pounds and shelters, doggy day care, boarding, catteries, and groomers.
It was noted that, of course, dif erent facilities have dif erent potential problems and needs. In Australia
for example, there are codes of practice for each dif erent facility - but also no general Dogs Code - and
1982
on top of that, many states in Australia have professional codes of practices run by societies and
organisations.
A draft wil be ready to be considered at the November meeting.
ACT
Saleyards – It was explained that this workstream hasn’t moved further, mainly because there hasn’t
been the follow-up with the North Island industry. The MPI team is working on it.
Painful Husbandry Procedures – This programme is dependent on progress of the Bil . An Order in
Council (to extend the 10-year timeframe) may be required. However, NAWAC wil have to decide
whether to review, rollover, or ban mulesing, among other procedures, at some point, even if the Bil
doesn’t go through.
Wild Animals – This wil be covered at the November meeting when P Fisher is present.
INFORMATION
C 4.
Layer hens code of welfare
Paper 63/13, the summary of public submissions, was taken as read.
It was raised again that some members of NAWAC believe the Commit ee is setting a dangerous
precedent by listening to the EPF concerns. The theme of the submissions demonstrates this belief
among the public.
It was suggested that to avoid this situation again, NAWAC shoul
OFFICIAL d be insistent that the affected party be
aware of what is in the code before its release. Concern was raised how the Commit ee ensures that the
data it relies on are correct (which was acknowledged as being dif icult), and this could be better
achieved by being very explicit about what NAWAC wants from the data. More precise questions could
THE
be asked. There was some disagreement, as others think that NAWAC already asked the right
questions, and this kind of misunderstanding must be expected to happen sometimes. It is not until you
publish the minimum standards that the industry fully understands the impact.
It was then suggested that NAWAC take a harder line with the EPF. J Hellström however noted that
EPF are not the lobbyists in this situation, but the affected group, as there has not been undue pressure
on the Minister from EPF. The Minister simply asked for advice, not for an amendment to the code.
UNDER
It was agreed that the submissions did not have any substantive information against the proposals in
the discussion document.
The SPCA, among others, believe that any rise in the price of eggs wil be accepted (or at least
tolerated) by consumers. In general, people agree on what wil happen - in terms of price rises and
farms having to close - but disagree on how bad the impacts wil be.
It was clarified that the EPF did not get everything they wanted and the timeline wil not be extended
again, as some submis
RELEASED sions feared. 2022 is stil the final date. It was agreed that the message must be
given to the industry that they need to plan their laying cycles now: it wil not be changed again.
- 7 -
50
The point raised by some submit ers that NAWAC should have pushed harder for the abolition of battery
cages in 2005 may well be valid, but the claim that industry have had from 2005 to prepare for this
change is not valid as the industry had no certainty of whether or when battery cages would be banned.
The Commit ee reached agreement that the 2-year option as described in the discussion document
should be carried out.
1982
It was noted that the code would have an amendment notice added to it (i.e. this is not a re-issue).
The issue of claw shortening was then brought up. J Hellström explained that from next year, birds in
cages must have 550cm² per bird, up from 500cm² (refer to the 2005 code). When the farmers go from
ACT
500 to 550cm², it effectively means that a bird is taken out and moved to superior housing. However,
farmers have alerted J Hellström to the fact that some farmers have the option of modifying their cages
by shifting or changing the cage door to increase the floor area in the cage so that they won’t have to
take a bird out. This action complies with the letter of the law but not the intent. Those producers who
have ‘Big Dutchman’ brand cages can even buy a commercial modification to their cages. Others may
remove a partition to make essentially a colony cage with no enrichment but slightly more space. Some
farmers are concerned about the reputation of the industry if this information gets out.
J Hellström will contact EPF to establish whether this is actually happening, and if so, warn them that
NAWAC does not support this option and wil not support them in the media if it comes to that.
It was also agreed that NAWAC could propose, after this current consultation, that modified cages must
INFORMATION
also have claw shortening devices added. It wil potential y stop farmers from modifying their cages in
this way, and NAWAC has consulted on claw-shortening devices. It was clarified that during a
consultation NAWAC is able to get information from anywhere, not just formal submissions.
Moved (J Hellström / K Phil ips) that:
The proposed changes to the layer hens code be made as put forward in the discussion document, with
the exception that claw-shortening devices must be added to any cage that is modified.
OFFICIAL
The motion was put: carried.
The response to the submissions wil be completed by the layer hens subcommit ee. A report will also
be drafted, but it will be based heavily on the di
THE scussion document.
Action: J Hellström to contact the EPF to update them on NAWAC’s decision and to advise them that
NAWAC would disavow farmers modifying their cages to circumvent the cage space requirements due
in 2014.
C 5.
Rodeos code of welfare
UNDER
The draft rodeo code of welfare and the report (NAWAC 59/13 and 60/13) had been circulated prior to
the meeting and were taken as read.
Amendments to the Code were then suggested:
• Minimum standard 8: “bull fighters” is not defined, and the term should be changed as it is
misleading at the moment. It also conjures images of fighting animals, which is il egal. Another
word should be found and it should be defined in the glossary.
• Minimum standar
RELEASED d 9: “Event must not exceed 30 seconds from the release of the calf” (also see
minimum standards 10 and 11). This needs to say
initial release, i.e. from the chute.
- 8 -
51
• Section 2: statements are repeated (e.g. responsibilities under the act, first paragraph). Editing
suggested.
• The recommended best practice in section 2 comes too close to telling a vet how to do their job.
While it was noted that the intent of this point is to il ustrate that a companion animal vet should
not be working a rodeo, K Phil ips pointed out that not treating species of animals you are not
familiar with is already covered in the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians. The point
is already covered in Minimum standard 1 (c) as well. This recommended best practice should
1982
be deleted.
• In section 2.1 under responsibilities, the last sentence repeats the previous sentence. One of
them isn’t needed.
ACT
• The example indicator on page 12 states that horned cat le likely to be aggressive have the tips
of their horns removed. Should the suggested length of the tip be longer than 2.5cm? Further,
the meaning of “outer” should be clarified. It was decided to remove the indicator.
• The recommended best practice on page 12 and 13 state that horned cattle should not be used.
Members of the commit ee considered this suggestion unrealistic, and that maybe it should
state that aggressive cattle should not be used. It was decided to remove the sentence.
• On page 9, some of the recommended best practices are repeats of the example indicators and
can be removed.
• Minimum standard 3 contains some repetition: (b), (c), (d), (e), should be contained under (a).
• Minimum standard 3 (k) should read “Animals must not be used if they are likely to injure
INFORMATION
themselves when placed into a chute”.
• Minimum standards 4 (h) (i) (j) and (k) are repetitive and could be tidied up.
• Further, minimum standard 4(i) is not needed already covered by the Animal Welfare Act.
• Minimum standard 4 (d) should be moved under stockmanship and selection.
• Minimum standard 6 (b) and (d) could be combined as they say almost the same thing.
• Minimum standard 6 (e) could be under Handling.
OFFICIAL
• Minimum standards 9 (a) and (b) could be moved to section 4, Handling.
• Minimum standard 9 (g) has already been stated in minimum standard 3 (h).
• It was suggested that the recommended best practice about removing ropes on page 20 is
THE
already enforced under rodeo rules. s 9(2)(a) confirmed that it is not. However it should be
checked whether the point has been repeated within the code.
• Minimum standard 13 (b) talks about gear, which should be covered in minimum standard 6.
• Minimum standard 14 (b), (c) and (d) could be pooled together. K Phil ips suggested that if the
animal cannot move, it should instantly be placed under the care of the vet and should not be
moved at all. In this case, (c)
UNDER and (d) could be removed.
• Minimum standard 14 (i) should be moved under the Arena section.
• Minimum standard 14 (h) could be moved under the Handling section.
• Minimum standard 15 (f) talks about how the animal could be bled out. This may not apply in
practice; in the interests of the crowd, a vet would probably inject. The second to last sentence
in first paragraph of the introduction on page could be removed.
• The question was then raised over whether anyone would use a firearm at a rodeo. It was
confirmed that yes, sometimes one is used. However it was suggested that the acceptable
methods for eut
RELEASED hanasia be rearranged so that intravenous injection is first on the list, followed
by captive bolt.
- 9 -
52
• The last paragraph of the general information should be removed (out of date).
• Move Appendix I to be included under the section Emergency Humane Destruction.
• In section 9, the term ‘welfare assurance system’ should be used throughout, as opposed to
‘quality management schemes’.
•
s 9(2)(a)
Any other small errors in spelling or grammar should be sent straight to
.
1982
It was noted that there is a lot of repetitiveness in the whole document. This wil require editing, but it
was also pointed out that sometimes statements have to be repeated because people don’t read the
whole document at once; therefore, if it is related to two sections, it gets put in two sections.
ACT
Moved: (V Wil iams / S Brown)
That, subject to the amendments agreed at this meeting, the Rodeos Code of Welfare be recommended
to the Minister.
The motion was put: carried.
Code report
The first point raised in relation to the code report was that, since contract calves are used multiple
times and only for a short while, the statistics on the number of injuries in rodeos (section 18) becomes
quite misleading. If calves on farms had the same chance of being injured, it wouldn’t be acceptable.
INFORMATION
The last sentence of this section should be changed to acknowledge that NAWAC has made changes to
the code in order to reduce these injury statistics even further.
Concern was raised that the recommendation that only contract animals are used is not policed and is
therefore ineffective. However, it was noted that this recommendation may become a requirement in the
future. With this recommendation, hopefully the number of contract animals wil increase to where it is
practical to require them to be used at all times.
OFFICIAL
There was some concern that the report or Code does not specifically ban sheep, but simply doesn’t
mention them. There was some disagreement with this, as it was pointed out that minimum standard 3
(i) states that only horses and cattle may be used in rodeo events. It was suggested that (i) be moved
up to (a) to make it more prominent. It was also noted that the minimum standard and report has to
THE
phrase the minimum standard this way, rather than by exclusion, such as “no sheep may be used” -
because then the standard would also have to say “no sheep, bison, ostriches, monkeys….”
In general, NAWAC considers that sheep should never be ridden, and so this wil have to be considered
under animals in entertainment. At the moment they stil may be ridden at certain events (e.g. school
days, A&P shows). UNDER
C 6.
Dairy housing
Paper 64/13, the draft discussion document, had been circulated to NAWAC the week prior. The
Commit ee was required to give its views on this document, as the dairy subcommit ee was scheduled
to meet with industry following this meeting.
s 9(2)(a) summarised the situation so far for the Committee. A pre-consultation document (i.e. the main
principles) was released out to target groups (NZVA, SPCA, Fed Farmers, diary sector). DairyNZ is
worried that NAWAC is not supportive of permanent housing.
RELEASED
[Secretariat note: Submissions from the pre-consultation are available to NAWAC. Please ask s 9(2)(a) .]
- 10 -
53
They now have a draft copy of the proposed minimum standards and they know that NAWAC wil be
discussing 64/13 and coming back to them next week (‘they’ includes DairyNZ, Fed Farmers, and the
NZVA). It was noted that some stakeholders did not have a view on permanent housing before this and
are gathering their own information at the moment.
The key issue to consider here is whether cows should be able to be managed off-pasture permanently,
or whether NAWAC considers that they should be allowed access to the outdoors, or a ‘break’ from the
1982
system. Of course, there are welfare pros and cons for each option. It should be considered whether
access to the outdoors is an ethical concern.
It was noted that those who setup these housing units are often brought here by international
ACT
stakeholders and there is a cultural clash. New Zealanders expect to see cows outside.
Waste management was raised, and it was explained that ammonia levels are covered under the
proposed minimum standards. Further, the original standards proposed were very prescriptive and have
since been pared down to more outcome-based, so it is not desirable to move back to more prescriptive
standards.
Clarification was then sought over what these systems do better than pastoral systems – is it solely an
economic gain? It was explained that there are also some welfare advantages: protection from cold,
close supervision, precision feeding. Environmental factors are also a factor (effluent management, feed
efficiency). Stockmanship and management is key to achieving good animal welfare outcomes,
regardless of system. There are problems with housing and there are strengths with housing: but it is
INFORMATION
possible to get very good outcome with an indoor system.
In any case, it was accepted that dairy housing is happening already. NAWAC must form a view on
these systems; the Commit ee needs to ensure the welfare of these cows too.
D Scobie talked of his trip to a well-known free stall barn operation in South Canterbury. When he
visited, the cows were outside for calving and they were ‘knee-deep in mud’. Therefore, saying that ‘they
are outside 3 months a year’ is not inherently good. What is the condition of the paddocks? How much
OFFICIAL
space do they have?
It was explained by s 9(2)(a) that the idea to insert a new standard that cows outside the housing system
must be in a clean dry space to calve has already been discussed; but this is not already a requirement
THE
for pastorally kept cows, which poses a problem. It must be acknowledged, however, that to let cows out
to bad paddocks may be worse to their welfare than keeping them inside.
V Wil iams raised a concern that NAWAC is running to catch up. This was a problem with pigs and
poultry, in that they intensified before it was a problem, and now de-intensifying is a huge effort. Grazing
animals should be able to graze: it is one of the five freedoms. Even if their needs can be met indoors, it
should be considered whether a cow need access to the outdoors, the grass, the blue sky - is it an
UNDER
ethical issue, or maybe even a marketing one?
It was noted that only a few years ago, there was huge push-back for the Mackenzie Basin proposal:
back then, even Fonterra and Prime Minister John Key spoke out against it. There was fear for ‘Brand
New Zealand’. Now, this outcry has subsided. The country no longer has small farms. Dairy is an
established industrial practice in NZ with a major market.
Further, pastorally kept cows are burning out, some farmers can’t feed them properly, the pastures are
pugged, and the herds have to walk too far. It was questioned whether our current method of dairy
RELEASED
farming is even sustainable in the long term. Is it right that we keep cows on such a metabolic knife-
- 11 -
54
edge that we cannot feed them unless they’re housed? It was agreed that these ethical issues are
important but part of a larger discussion about dairy cows in general, not just housing.
s 9(2)(a) stated that there is no definitive research to say that cows cannot have good welfare if you keep
them indoors for their whole life. However it was pointed out by K Phil ips that the EFSA has come to the
conclusion that if dairy cows are not kept on pasture for part of the year, there is increased risk of
lameness, dystocia, and mastitis.
1982
However, even in the absence of evidence, NAWAC is required to hold a position. It was suggested that
the public’s position would probably be, if you don’t know either way, to keep them in paddocks.
ACT
It was explained that in general the view from the farmer groups – Federated Farmers and DairyNZ – is
that ‘we should be able to house cows all the time if we want to (as long as we meet the Code of
Welfare)’. s 9(2)(a)
has started a conversation within NZVA on intensification and how the country
wil present itself in the face of housing and intensification.
It was noted that these conversations wil lead to standardisation of the housing of dairy cows which wil
be welcomed. On the other hand, this conversation could finally blow out into putting a spotlight on the
current poor welfare of some dairy practices in New Zealand.
There is also the problem that, if stockmanship is key in these systems, can it even be ensured that the
New Zealand workforce wil be able to manage indoor dairy farms? This would require a more skil ed
workforce than the current dairy milkers. There was some disagreement over whether this is an industry
INFORMATION
problem or a government one.
The stocking density of these barns in another issue: it was suggested that the standard should be very
clear and prescriptive. However, there are problems with putting a grass herd into a house with fixed-
size stalls. The cows vary in size and some cows rub against the bars and cannot lie down. One
standard may not fit all.
The Commit ee was reminded that they must reach an agreement, and it comes down to: wil NAWAC
oppose permanent housing, or wil the Commit ee find a way to r
OFFICIAL elease minimum standards that
increase the welfare of housed cows? It was agreed that NAWAC will go with the ideas in the discussion
document. No member is uncomfortable if NAWAC’s view is not totally opposed to permanent housing.
The discussion document wil be useful to engage w
THE ith the community as well. A public meeting was
suggested. J Hellström wil raise the idea at the meeting with industry - if they are running their own
seminars and so on, maybe it would be easier for NAWAC to attend theirs.
The issue of bedding was raised. In light of recent research of river stones as a substrate for keeping
calves, D Scobie stated that cows should not be expected to sit on concrete or stones. J Hellström
agreed that cows are heavier, lie down for longer, and so stones are not suitable (though no one has
UNDER
done a study). In any case, the studies on the use of river stones for calves are already causing unease
in the animal welfare community without bringing cows into it.
Moved (J Hellström / I Collins)
That, subject to small changes from the scheduled meeting with industry, NAWAC goes out to
consultation based on this discussion document (64/13). Significant changes wil require re-approval
outside of session.
The motion was put: car
RELEASED
ried.
- 12 -
55
[Secretariat note: during this item, at 2:00pm, s 9(2)(a) arrived and was introduced to the Commit ee.
Please refer to item O3 for the discussion. At 3:45pm the Commit ee thanked s 9(2)(a) for his time and
continued from C7.]
C 7.
Greyhounds
In March 2013 the Greyhound Protection League presented a petition, signed by 1,590 people, on the
1982
welfare of greyhounds to the Government Administration Select Commit ee. The presentation to the
Select Commit ee raised concerns that greyhounds surplus to or injured through racing are euthanised
en masse, and that racing conditions put greyhounds at unnecessary risk of injury or death.
ACT
In January 2013 Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ) commissioned an independent review into
the industry. It was released on 19 July and the Minister sent NAWAC a letter (53/13) on the same day,
requesting advice on the recommendations in the report (54/13), which include addressing over
breeding and euthanasia in the industry, creating minimum standards for greyhound racing, and a
formal liaison between NAWAC and the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (NZGRA) in order
to improve the industry’s animal welfare governance.
NAWAC has a full schedule, and greyhounds are not currently at the top of the priority list, although it
was noted that our current primary industries Minister is also Minister of Racing.
The biggest issue raised in the letter is that of over breeding and euthanasia. That’s a big ethical issue
that also applies to horses, layer hens and many other animals in New Zealand.
INFORMATION
A new subcommit ee was suggested, but it was decided that NAWAC’s expert on greyhound welfare, P
Fisher, would be added to the animals in entertainment subcommit ee so that the group can address
greyhound issues specifically.
C 9.
MPI update
The Commit ee gratefully received the MPI update (NAWAC 56/13).
OFFICIAL
One question was raised over the new appointment process for NAWAC members. New appointments
wil be open to public application from next year. D Nicholson asked whether the balance of skill sets will
stil be required across NAWAC (e.g. veterinary expertise, commercial use of animals, ethical standards
or animal welfare advocacy). J Hel ström clar
THE ified that yes, the range of skils required by the Animal
Welfare Act for NAWAC will still stand. Advertisements wil have to be very specific in order to replace
each member.
UNDER
RELEASED
- 13 -
56
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
It was then explained that a single fail on any species means that the zoo wil fail their accreditation.
What happens next depends of the severity of the failure. Failing to meet legislative requirements, for
example, would go straight to the board and the government would be informed. The member may be
expelled from the ZAA. Al failures wil receive technical advice to improve their rating.
The number of member zoos in New Zealand was then clarified, as not all zoos are members. In New
Zealand, the ZAA has about 20 members. To be a member of ZAA has many benefits: the key one 1982
being easier access to animals. Every single ZAA member wil be required to be part of this welfare
program.
Desktop reviews of the policies and procedures involved have been completed for every member (e.g.
ACT
what they would do if they had to close down for a few days). Each assessment cycle wil be 3 years, in
which every member is assessed (hopefully including new members as they join). The assessment tool
wil not change in this time and wil only be up for review between cycles.
The key point from s 9(2)(a) is that welfare is the most important thing that Wellington Zoo does. Without
it, everything else wil fail: the visitors wil stop, therefore no conservation or education is possible.
Animal welfare should be the basis of every zoo operation.
The Commit ee was then shown some of the zoo invertebrates in ”HeroHQ”, along with Smiley the
tortoise. These animals are used for contact with visitors. How their welfare is managed - including the
fact that the keepers wil judge their personalities - was explained by s 9(2)(a) and the keepers.
INFORMATION
At 3:45 the Commit ee returned to the Archibald Room, thanked s 9(2)(a) for his time, and finished their
discussion of closed items C7 and C9 before moving on to the other open items.
O 4.
Discussion of information circulated by MPI
The Commit ee agreed that they appreciated the information that had been circulated.
O 5.
NAWAC Correspondence
OFFICIAL
There were no comments on recent correspondence received by or sent on behalf of NAWAC.
O 6.
Committee members’ reports on recent presentations and attendance at conferences
THE
As part of the animals in entertainment work programme, J Hellström and s 9(2)(a)
attended the ZAA
conference, a meeting with DOC, and a meeting at Melbourne Zoo. These meetings are detailed in
document 65/13.
V Wil iams attended the NZVA conference. It had a focus on Food safety, animal welfare and
biosecurity, so there was lots of MPI presence. It was an excellent conference. There was a broad ’One
UNDER
Health’ concept – including antibiotic resistance, welfare, disease and so on. The conference doubled
as a celebration of 50 years of vet education. V Wil iams also attended the ANZCVS science week in
Australia.
The NAEAC meeting was held over two days, 13 and 14 August, which included a strategic planning
day. The second day was held at the Royal Society and included a liaison meeting with ANZCCART.
D Scobie reported on the AgResearch shift, the key point for NAWAC being that the animal welfare and
behaviour group wil move from Ruakura to Massey. The work produced from the group may slow
during this time.
RELEASED
- 15 -
58
s 9(2)(a)
recently attended a seminar on the Primary Industries Capability Al iance (PICA), an
organisation promoting integrated career development pathways among New Zealand’s youth.
s 9(2)(a)
attended the Road Transport Forum on 12 July. There was considerable discussion on the
New Zealand Livestock Transport Assurance (NZLTA) programme, which came into effect on 5 July.
s 9(2)(a)
also attended the annual pork industry conference and producers appreciated having an
1982
MPI animal welfare presence there.
s 9(2)(a)
, a veterinary adviser for DEFRA in the UK, visited MPI and gave a seminar titled
”
Developing fit for purpose risk-based selection of on farm welfare inspections with limited resources –
ACT
lessons learned!” [Secretariat note: Please ask s 9(2)(a)
if you are interested in seeing the
PowerPoint].
Matthew Stone chaired the 2013 EU/NZ Animal Welfare Cooperation Forum, also attended by s 9(2)(a)
. The agreement on NZ equivalence to EC 1099/2009 (animal welfare at
slaughter) was finalised and minuted.
O 7.
Identifying potential public issues
There were no potential public issues to discuss.
INFORMATION
Closing:
Departing member D Nicolson was thanked for his significant contribution and wished well for the future.
There being no further items of business to discuss, the Chair thanked the commit ee members for their
attendance and declared the meeting closed at 4:00pm.
Next meeting: 13 November 2013
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
- 16 -
59
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
PART ONE
(PUBLIC EXCLUDED AGENDA)
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Section 48, Local Government Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987
There being no other introductory items of business, it was moved (K Phillips / V Williams):
1982
I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
ACT
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
(K Phillips)
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
(K Phillips)
C 3.
Codes of Welfare update
(s 9(2)(a)
)
C 4.
Horses and donkeys code of welfare
(K Phillips/ s 9(2)(a) )
C 5.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bil update
(s 9(2)(a)
)
C 6.
Systems review subcommit ee update
(A Sharr)
C 7.
MPI update
(s 9(2)(a)
)
INFORMATION
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE THE PUBLIC IS EXCLUDED,
THE REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER, AND THE SPECIFIC
GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND
MEETINGS ACT 1987 FOR THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
General subject of each matter to be
Reason for passing this
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the
OFFICIAL
considered
resolution in relation to each
passing of this resolution
matter
C 1.
Confirmation of previous
To protect the privacy of natural
That the public conduct of the relevant
THE
minutes
persons.
part of the proceedings of the meeting
would be likely to result in the disclosure
of information for which good reason for
withholding would exist under section
9(2)(a) of the Of icial Information Act
1982 (OIA).
C 2.
Status of actions arising from
As above.
As above.
previous meetings
UNDER
C 3.
Codes of Welfare update
To maintain the ef ective conduct That the public conduct of the relevant
of public af airs through the
part of the proceedings of the meeting
protection of Ministers, members would be likely to result in the disclosure
of organisations, officers and
of information for which good reason for
employees from improper
withholding would exist under section
pressure or harassment.
9(2)(g)(ii) of the OIA.
C 4.
Horses and donkeys code of
As above.
As above.
welfare
C 5.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bil To maintain the constitutional
That the public conduct of the relevant
RELEASED
update
conventions for the time being
part of the proceedings of the meeting
which protect the confidentiality of would be likely to result in the disclosure
of information for which good reason for
- 2 -
61
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
The draft minutes of the NAWAC general meeting on 14 August 2013 were reviewed and accepted, with
the following amendments:
• Change the date in the confirmation of previous minutes to May (refer to page 4, item C1); 1982
• Add ‘species of’ before ‘animals you’re not familiar with’ (refer to page 9, item C5);
• V William’s trip to Australia was for ANZCVS Science week (refer to page 16, item O6);
• Clarify some details of the NAEAC meeting. There was a liaison meeting with ANZCCART
ACT
when NAEAC was at the Royal Society on the second day (refer to page 16, item O6).
Moved (A Sharr / S Brown):
That, subject to the amendments agreed, the draft minutes of the NAWAC general meeting held on 14
August 2013 be adopted as a true and accurate record of that meeting.
The motion was put: carried.
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
Actions from previous meetings were reviewed and it was agreed to complete pending actions where
possible, with the following exceptions:
INFORMATION
• Item 1, guidelines for testing traps, wil be postponed to next meeting. However it was noted that
the glueboards workshop is progressing. Glueboards are to be phased out by 2015 by Order in
Council, with some exceptions for food factories. A workshop wil be held for those groups who
are struggling with the shift so MPI can discuss some alternatives;
• Remove item 2, noting that it is complete;
• Item 3 wil be dealt with later in this meeting and can then be removed;
• Remove item 7, noting that it is complete;
OFFICIAL
• Alter item 10, noting that it is partially complete. The commit ee was also informed that TV3’s 3rd
degree programme wil soon do a story on greyhounds. The main welfare issues are doping
and injuries on the track, otherwise it wil cover ethical issues e.g. wastage.
THE
C 3.
Codes of Welfare update
s 9(2)(a)
addressed the codes of welfare update as in NAWAC 83/13:
Amendment Bil – Discussed in item C5.
Systems Review – Discussed in item C6.
UNDER
Layer Hens – The amendment notice is with the Minister and s 9(2)(a) has been busy doing briefings for
his office. s 9(2)(a)
noted that the Minister was at Mainland that day, looking at a colony system.
It was explained that the Minister would like to have a discussion with the industry on reporting back on
progress out of cages. This is because there is a lot of concern about pushing back the date and how it
wil look to members of the public. The farmers wil be required to report progress against annual
milestones in order to get the Minister’s approval for the amendment. So far the Egg Producers
Federation has been positive.
RELEASED
- 4 -
63
Commit ee members asked about the farm and s 9(2)(a)
clarified that Mainland is a good one to visit
as they have over 30% of the egg market and already have a colony cage house up and running. They
also have cages and a free range farm nearby. They have been able to put forward the money to
switch over quickly – Farmer Brown already sells ‘colony laid’ eggs. Members could work through MPI
or go directly to s 9(2)(a)
of the EPF and ask for a visit to a local farm.
The amendment, therefore, is looking positive to be issued this year. It was explained that the Minister
1982
is taking it to Cabinet. Although he doesn’t have to, he wants the support.
Questions were raised about who the farmers wil report to and how the pressure wil be kept on. The
commitment to report, though, is ultimately to the Minister for Primary Industries. It was confirmed t
ACT hat
NAWAC wil look at the suggested milestones before they’re given out. It was suggested that it could be
in the agenda once a year to assess those milestones. It was also noted that if the process is quite
public, the transparency wil increase the pressure, as well as trust in the industry if done right.
Dairy Cattle Housing – The housing amendment is out for consultation. There have been approximately
1400 submissions so far (most from a Greens e-card).
It was noted by some members that the media has been mixed up about the issue e.g. K Phil ips has
been asked if all cows are going to have to be housed. People are also immediately thinking ‘factory
farming’. J Hellström’s message, trying to clarify the issue, has been appreciated by the MPI
Communications team and has helped somewhat. It was also noted that some are confused about
cattle housing vs. HerdHomes (the brand) vs. covered feed pads… and so on. The term H
INFORMATION erdHomes
has become synonymous with dairy housing, although NAWAC has been avoiding using the brand
name.
Another dairy housing meeting wil be held next year after submissions are collected.
K Milne volunteered to fil D Nicolson’s place on the subcommit ee.
Rodeos – The updated code is with the Minister, but with the A
OFFICIAL mendment Bil going on nothing has
happened yet. It looks like the code won’t be issued before the end of the rodeo season. It was noted
that this is not a major welfare concern since the subcommit ee had been working with the industry
groups and most rodeos are already being run to the proposed rules.
THE
Equine – Discussed in item C4.
Circuses and Zoos Review – The subcommit ee couldn’t meet before December. s 9(2)(a)
and J
Hellström, however, were able to visit Auckland Zoo (it was noted that there would be a write-up soon).
The main focus of that visit was their elephant, Burma. At the time of their visit J Hellström had already
made a statement about how some ani
UNDER mals shouldn’t be in zoos, with elephants in mind. The
subcommit ee may recommend sending a letter to the Minister about the issue as well (refer to action
list).
However, the Zoo is already very far through the process of importing another elephant. The way they
work with Burma (an Indian elephant) is by making sure there are a lot of people there all the time;
people are her herd. During their visit, s 9(2)(a)
and J Hellström spent a lot of time with Burma but
also looked at some other areas, especially the aviary and native birds and animal encounters.
The next subcommit ee meeting (apart from S Brown who sends her apologies) wil be at Orana Park on
RELEASED
5th December. V Wil iams had expressed interest in coming to visit as well and the invitation to at end
was extended to other commit ee members who live nearby.
- 5 -
64
Temporary housing of companion animals – K Bicknell and s 9(2)(a) have been doing a lot of work on
revising this code. The subcommit ee wil also meet during the lunch break to agree how to progress
next. However much of this wil depend on the 2014 work plan. It was explained that this has been a
tough code because the minimum standards and information overlap so many other codes.
Saleyards – s 9(2)(a) has done some work on preparing an initial draft but it hasn’t gone any further. The
1982
North Island meeting with the saleyards industry stil has not progressed (because MPI staff member s 9
has been on sick leave) but s 9(2)(a) is planning to meet with one industry representative anywa(y.
2
Painful Husbandry Procedures – Linked in closely with the Amendment Bil and future regulations.
ACT
Awaiting 2014 work plan.
Wild Animals – This wil be covered at the February meeting when P Fisher is present. Glueboards had
been discussed earlier.
C 5.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bil update
s 9(2)(a)
was welcomed to the meeting. He updated the Commit ee on the progress of the Animal
Welfare Amendment Bil , including some of the issues raised so far in the submissions and what kind of
functions NAWAC may have to take on if it passes.
There were 1700 submissions. The MPI Policy team, along with s 9(2)(a)
from Standards
INFORMATION , are putting
together an issues report for the Primary Production Select Commit ee. In the New Year, probably early
February, there wil be a final departmental report. From there, the Select Commit ee makes its
decisions on any changes to the Bil and passes this back to parliament. The Bil wil then be debated
for a second time, before going through a commit ee of the whole House who wil debate the bil part by
part. Opposition members may wish to promote specific changes at this point and the house wil vote on
them case-by-case. Then the Bil gets read a third time to be made into law.
While it was hoped that wil all be done before the election next
OFFICIAL year, it was noted that this timeline is
going to be a bit tight. If it doesn’t get through, all legislation that is before Parliament remains there
through the election and then the incoming government can make a decision on how to proceed.
s 9(2)(a)
reported that the idea at the moment
THE is that NAWAC wil lead on all regulations. This is
because of concern that if regulations are led by the Minister of the day, it would politicise the
regulations too much. There have been a few concerns about the relationship that NAWAC has with
MPI; therefore it must be ensured that NAWAC keeps its independence.
Some of the main issues raised by submit ers were then discussed. s 9(2)(a)
explained that virtually all
the submit ers support the
intent of the Bil (enforceability, transparency and clarity). As well as that,
UNDER
right across the board, people think NAWAC is important and essential.
• Enforcement - some stakeholders are concerned about the new compliance order powers. It
could be perceived as effectively making the codes of welfare enforceable through a back door
route.
• Live animal exports - there is a lot of support for regulations on live animal export. However,
many submit ers want to go further and for trade for slaughter to be absolutely banned in the
Act.
RELEASED
• Significant surgical procedures - the Veterinary Council and the New Zealand Veterinary
Association want significant surgical procedures explicitly defined. At the moment, each
- 6 -
65
procedure is significant or not depending on evolving practices. There are problems with
making a definition – for example, you may capture too many and then have a massive list of
exemptions. You may also miss some. At the moment the thought is to suggest to the Select
Commit ee that a set of ‘checks’ be writ en so that a procedure can be easily categorised as
they come up.
• Transitions and exemptions – there is a lot of concern here. It is not so much about the concept
1982
of a transition, but around the fact that they can be made indefinite. The only examples of this in
action at the moment are primarily the religious slaughter and maybe farrowing crates (since
there is no commercial alternative). It was also noted that the exemptions would stil have to be
reviewed each 10 years - but not necessarily changed. There is some thinking going on about
ACT
changing this clause.
• Collecting evidence - when inspectors go onto a property they would be able to take video and
pictures. There is concern about SPCA inspectors going onto farms and perhaps stepping
across a boundary that the industry sees as belonging to MPI. Also, if the evidence is collected,
it could be released under the Of icial Information Act and damage reputations (however, it was
noted that the Of icial Information Act already has provisions around this scenario). The other
issue is the sharing of information around investigations. The industry would like a heads up
when the inspector is going to launch an investigation so that they can support the farmer and
manage the industry’s reputation. In MPI’s view, the farmer’s information is private; there may
be commercial repercussions in sharing any information. Also, until the investigator checks
everything out, what is being reported may not even be a breach of the Act.
INFORMATION
s 9(2)(a)
then outlined NAWAC’s new responsibilities if the Bil passes.
• Regulations: In the future, NAWAC wil have the ability to consider whether minimum standards
should be made into mandatory and enforceable regulations. So for example, when NAWAC
consults on a Code, it wil also consult on the proposed regulations. Then the Minister wil
receive recommendations and take the regulations through cabinet as per the normal process
for regulations.
OFFICIAL
Therefore, NAWAC wil need more support from MPI; regulations have more internal process
than Codes since they set out penalties. s 9(2)(a)
wil have to work with
NAWAC to increase the secretarial support for NAWAC.
THE
• Animals in the Wild: The Bill clarifies that ill-treatment of animals in the wild is definitely an
offence – but hunting and fishing is not. The wording is that ‘generally accepted’ practices are
OK. And of course, stakeholders are asking “what is generally accepted?”
NAWAC wil be in charge of developing guidelines around acceptable practice in hunting and
fishing.
UNDER
s 9(2)(a)
also updated the Commit ee on the layer hens amendment.
The Minister is leaning toward accepting NAWAC’s recommendations but he wants to place more
pressure on the industry to move forward quickly. He wants industry to make specific yearly milestones
and reports on those, and to make the reports public. The Commit ee was pleased that the milestones
wil be public as that wil increase pressure. It was also acknowledged that MPI and NAWAC wil have to
keep applying pressure themselves to ensure the industry meets these milestones.
RELEASED
The industry has commit ed to come back by the 15th November with suggested milestones. s 9(
has also been working on what MPI wil recommend additionally to those. Some exam
2)
ples
(a
- 7 -
66
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
2. It was noted that politics and news also affects prioritisation. For example, the issue of animal
shelter may be low until there’s a snow storm.
The basic idea of the prioritisation matrix was accepted, but it was agreed that it should be refined;
since NAWAC is working on transparency it wil at some point be available to the public.
Action: Systems review subcommit ee to refine the prioritisation process
1982
It was then suggested that NAWAC should begin work on their work plan today. K Phil ips asked the
Commit ee: How do you feel about the proposed list of priorities?
ACT
There was some discussion on the circled priorities: breeding, fish farming, shade and shelter, social
needs of animals, and wildlife.
It was noted that because the concept of codes may be under review, any work is not a “code” program
– it’s an issues program. For example the saleyards subcommit ee may come up with a code, or they
may tackle the issue in another way.
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to send saleyard code draft to saleyards subcommit ee
Education was also raised by K Milne. For example, how do new lifestyle farmers know about their
obligations under the Animal Welfare Act? It was acknowledged that this can be a problem. After all,
how many cat and dog owners have a copy of the relevant code? There are some groups that distribute
this info – veterinary offices, the SPCA, species associations and clubs, etc. However it is
INFORMATION a gap that
may need some work.
Animals in entertainment were then discussed. While not considered a top priority in terms of numbers
of animals affected and degree of suffering, this is a political issue, and the Minister may request the
work from NAWAC anyway.
The 5 priorities were listed and voted on, as there were too many to work on in 2014. Each member had
two votes. Breeding, wildlife and shelter came out with the most votes (6, 5 and 5 respectively).
OFFICIAL
The two regulations that need to be prioritised (surgical procedures and care and conduct) were then
voted on separately to decide which one to do first. Surgical procedures were seen as affecting fewer
animals but a shorter work program and theref
THE ore perhaps easier starting point.
Surgical procedure regulations was voted for 5-3.
Education and awareness was then raised as a key issue – these new priority issues aren’t necessarily
for codes – instead, the subcommit ees must ask themselves: what do we recommend to the Minister?
What can we do proactively? Can we change attitudes?
UNDER
For example, shade and shelter may not be dealt with best under a minimum standard turned into a
regulation. Raising awareness could be a better approach. If this is the case, NAWAC needs to put in
the work and recommend that to the Minister proactively.
It was agreed that the three new groups would develop new work programs as a test. While it was noted
that they wouldn’t get very far by February, it was thought that they could each come back and report on
their progress to the Commit ee at the next meeting.
New subcommit ees were then assigned.
RELEASED
•
s 9(2)(a)
Breeding – V Williams (Chair), K Milne, and K Phillips.
as MPI contact.
- 9 -
68
•
s 9(2)(a)
Wildlife – D Scobie (Chair) P Fisher, A Sharr, and S Brown.
as MPI contact.
•
s 9(2)(a)
Shelter – B Nicholas (Chair), K Bicknell, I Collins.
as MPI contact.
See Appendix One for a list of all subcommit ees as at November 2013.
Action – s 9(2)(a)
to send out subcommit ee memberships (including already established
subcommit ees)
1982
Action: 3 new subcommit ees to report back in February with ideas to progress their work program
C 7.
MPI update
ACT
The Commit ee gratefully received the MPI update (NAWAC 81/13).
There was some discussion about how large the MPI bobby calf project is, as it is perceived as an issue
that could ‘blow up’. It was clarified that here has been real improvement and change in the industry.
However, death percentage is stil being used as the exclusive indicator of welfare and that should be
changed. It was also noted that hopefully, the accepted age for transport wil be increased from 4 days
over time. MPI already doesn’t specifically state ‘4 days’ on purpose - instead it offers indicators for a fit
and healthy calf.
C 4.
Horses and donkeys code of welfare
The draft horses and donkeys’ code of welfare and the report (NAWAC 84/13 and 85/13) had been
INFORMATION
circulated prior to the meeting and were taken as read.
Amendments to the Code were then suggested:
• The term equid vs. equine was discussed. It was agreed that perhaps the term ‘horses’ could be
substituted throughout the code instead.
• On page 5, the term cross-bred should be hybrid. Hybrid should be defined in the glossary.
OFFICIAL
• General information, page 11: ‘thin skinned’ is not an appropriate term. Something like ‘more
susceptible to cold’ should be used instead.
• Minimum standard 2(d) is standard wording but water quality is not mentioned. Water that is not
harmful to health is perhaps not enough t
THE o encourage a horse to drink enough. ‘Palatable’ was
suggested instead;
• The first example indicator on page 8 should have an addition that the diet is balanced
nutritionally and the horse is not showing signs of bad nutrition.
• The 5th example indicator on page 8 should have ‘when’ changed to ‘if’.
• On page 10 remove the phrase ‘sweating may stop’.
UNDER
• Under general information on page 9, when mentioning covers, a sentence should be added to
say something like ‘there are no skin lesions due to rubbing of the cover’.
• On page 12, recommended best practice (a) should be an example indicator of minimum
standard (b).
• On page 13, the paragraph at the top should be in the temporary housing section.
• Minimum standard 5(c) was suggested to be 8 hours (to allow for race days). There was some
discussion about the tethering issue.
RELEASED
• In minimum standard 5, there’s an example indicator on having a contingency plan but no
corresponding minimum standard. One should be added.
- 10 -
69
• It was suggested that restraint and containment under section 6.1 should be under the housing
chapter but it was agreed to leave it where it is for now.
• Minimum standard 8(g) states ‘objects or other equids’ but should say ’objects and other
animals’.
• On page 20, the section on how equids are social animals etc. is repeated from page 16.
• Recommended best practice (g) on page 22 is a repetition.
1982
• On page 23, the reference to veterinary surgeon should just say veterinarian.
• Minimum standard 10(e) says that laparoscopic artificial insemination must be carried out under
veterinary supervision and with appropriate pain relief. However, the veterinarian wil make that
ACT
call so the section on appropriate pain relief should be removed.
• Under minimum standard 12, add an example indicator that horses should show minimal
reaction to hot branding (because of the pain relief).
• Minimum standard 14(d): take out ‘and function’.
• Example indicators for minimum standard 14: Remove example indicator two, as sometimes
horses wil have a wound that’s being healed.
• Example indicator 3: personnel working with equids should demonstrate, not just have, a good
knowledge of equine first aid etc.
• The first line under section 9 should be amended or removed. Sometimes the owner makes the
call on emergency euthanasia and that can be better for welfare than waiting for a veterinarian.
INFORMATION
• Minimum standard 15 (e): take out ‘until after death’.
• Minimum standard 15 (c) should not have a comma
• Remove the recommended best practice that emergency destruction should be performed by a
veterinarian. Sometimes the vet is too far away and waiting for them would be bad for welfare.
• Glossary: a few terms are defined but are not in the code.
• Remove the term ‘roughs’ from glossary; this word is not in common use in New Zealand. Also
OFFICIAL
remove it from page 9.
•
s 9(2)(a)
Any other small errors in spelling or grammar should be sent straight to
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to investigate any knowledge or practice to support tethering in horses set at 6 hours
THE
and confirm with the Commit ee
Code report
In the housing section, the phrase should be ‘under veterinary recommendation’ rather than supervision.
Moved: (K Bicknell/D Scobie)
UNDER
That, subject to the amendments agreed at this meeting, the Horses and Donkeys Code of Welfare be
peer reviewed by s 9(2)(a)
then recommended to the Minister.
The motion was put: carried.
RELEASED
- 11 -
70
PART TWO
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
Action: summary, letter and offer of a meeting with the Chair to be extended to the Dominion Post
reporter who came to Pastoral House but was not able to wait for the Open part of the meeting
1982
STRATEGY AND PLANNING
O 1.
2014 meeting dates and mini-tutorial ideas
ACT
The dates suggested prior to the meeting were:
• Wednesday February 12th
• Wednesday May 14th
• Wednesday August 13th
• Thursday November 13th
K Milne found that February and August meeting dates may conflict with her work. She decided to
check with her colleagues about moving those meetings (as there are fewer of them than of NAWAC).
Thursday 13th was changed to Wednesday 5th November to suit several members.
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to send electronic invitations for 2014
INFORMATION
Mini tutorial suggestions:
• Shelter: The
Safeguarding programme is doing some work on shelter so there is a possibility of
a shelter mini-tutorial from them. Also, some farmers doing alternative things like riparian
planting or putting stock in vineyards. Would it be possible for someone from Beef+Lamb or
DairyNZ to do a presentation on shelter?
• K Phil ips suggested a tutorial on hunting – common practice, welfare issues, etc. Both K
OFFICIAL
Phil ips and D Scobie suggested contacts that they know who are very knowledgeable on the
subject.
• Compliance: Changes they have made to the way they work recently, and how the Bil wil af ect
them.
THE
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to follow up with the Safeguarding
programme about a shelter mini-tutorial in 2014.
Action: K Phil ips and/or D Scobie to follow up with their contacts about a hunting mini-tutorial in 2014.
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to invite MPI compliance to a NAWAC meeting in 2014.
O 2.
Welfare Pulse
UNDER
Members suggested items as follows, due late January for publication in the March 2014 issue:
• There wil be the normal Codes update and K Milne wil have an introduction piece;
• It was suggested that P Fisher could write an article on the issue of greyhounds; and
• A Sharr and K Bicknell volunteered to write an article (topic undecided).
RELEASED
- 12 -
71
O 3. Identifying animal welfare issues
The Commit ee was asked to each name an animal welfare issue that was of importance to them, or
that they considered an emerging issue, or that they thought the media/public may pick up on soon.
K Milne: Considered that it takes too long for compliance to go out and check on an issue when they are
reported. Also thought that if someone rings up to report it would be a good idea to require them to state
1982
their occupation (as a farmer wil probably have better insight into stockmanship than a bus driver). It
was noted that the staff answering the 0800 number at MPI wil tend to do this already. However, having
compliance come along to a NAWAC meeting was suggested as an idea and it was added to the list of
possible workshops for 2014.
ACT
K Phillips: Bul s with broken legs are an issue. Farmers wil leave them in the back paddock and claim
that the fracture wil just heal eventually. It was questioned whether these animals are being picked up
at the works, and s 9(2)(a)
confirmed that if they are transported with healing fractures then yes,
verification vets wil record it and treat as a welfare case.
V Wil iams noted that NZVA’s advice is that leaving bulls out to heal a broken leg is unacceptable.
S Brown: Euthanasia. Drowning kit ens etc is banned, yes, but people stil are doing it. V Wil iams
suggested education as an answer. Homekil on a commercial basis was also discussed. s 9(2)(a)
explained that legally, anyone carrying out homekil in this manner needs to be registered under the
Animal Products Act. However some commit ee members suggest that maybe a few aren’t, and there
INFORMATION
have been a few horror stories. It was also noted that generalising is a risk here, as many homekil
operators are fine.
K Bicknell: Sterilisation of animals (including wild animals) and early spay and neuter of dogs and cats.
Could there be an upswell of concern from consumers and animal rights groups?
V Wil iams: Meat chickens. Especially the welfare of meat chickens as they get towards the end of their
life: from lameness and transport to slaughter. OFFICIAL
Scobie: Mulesing. This procedure may be dealt with under new regulations in the coming years.
OTHER REPORTS AND DISCUSSION
THE
O 4.
Discussion of information circulated by MPI
The Commit ee appreciated the information that had been circulated.
O 5.
NAWAC correspondence
There were no comments on recent c
UNDER orrespondence received by or sent on behalf of NAWAC.
O 6.
Committee members’ reports on recent presentations and attendance at conferences
V Williams attended the Commonwealth Veterinary Association Conference in Fiji. There was quite an
emphasis on animal welfare, which is not an area of focus there at the moment.
V Williams represented MPI at a WSPA meeting, where they looked at opportunities to do more work in
the Pacific (especially to do with disaster management).
RELEASED
- 13 -
72
V Wil iams was also invited to Auckland to talk to the international union of hunting with hounds. She
talked about NAWAC, NAEAC, and how MPI does consultation and liaise with stakeholders. The group
is worried about the future of their sport.
s 9(2)(a)
attended the New Zealand Companion Animal Conference in Auckland, which
had a big emphasis on the sentience of animals and the changes that the Animal Welfare Amendment
Bill will bring.
1982
s 9(2)(a)
attended the Road Transport Forum and the farm to processor animal welfare forum.
s 9(2)(a)
also went with s 9(2)(a)
to attend some training that the Compliance officers were
ACT
receiving and talk about the role of MPI’s standards branch and NAWAC. s 9(2)(a)
also attended the
Verification branch’s animal welfare coordinators 6-monthly meeting.
The International Society for Applied Ethology has a one day regional meeting coming up.
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to send abstracts to NAWAC.
Closing
There being no further items of business to discuss, the Deputy Chair thanked the commit ee members
for their attendance and declared the meeting closed at 4:10pm.
INFORMATION
Next meeting: 12 February 2014
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
- 14 -
73
Appendix One
NAWAC Subcommittees
As at 13.11.2013
1982
Name
Members
MPI
s 9(2)(a)
Systems review
Alan (Chair), Ingrid, Karen, Sue
ACT
Amendment Bil
John (Chair), Virginia, Barbara
Layer hens
John (Chair), Karen, Katie B
Dairy cattle housing
John (Chair), Karen, Katie M
Equine
Karen (Chair), Katie B
Rodeos
Virginia (Chair), Sue, Penny
Painful husbandry
Scobie (Chair), Barbara, Virginia, Sue
procedures
INFORMATION
Circuses and Zoos review John (Chair), Scobie, Barbara, Sue, Penny
Temporary housing
Katie B (Chair), Virginia, Alan
Saleyards
Karen (Chair), Ingrid, Virginia
New - report back in February
OFFICIAL
Breeding
Virginia (Chair), Katie M, Karen, Katie B
Wildlife
Scobie (Chair), Penny, Alan, Sue
THE
Shelter
Barbara (Chair), Katie B, Ingrid
UNDER
RELEASED
- 15 -
74
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
PART ONE
(PUBLIC EXCLUDED AGENDA)
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Section 48, Local Government Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987
There being no other introductory items of business, it was moved (J Hellström / I Collins):
1982
That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
ACT
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
(J Hellström)
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
(J Hellström)
C 3.
Codes of Welfare update
(s 9(2)(a)
)
C 4.
Systems review subcommit ee update
(A Sharr)
C 5.
Subcommit ee update
- Wildlife
(P Fisher)
- Shelter
(B Nicholas)
INFORMATION
- Breeding
(V Williams)
C 6.
Companion animals in temporary housing update
(K Bicknell)
C 7.
Animals in public display, exhibition and entertainment discussion (J Hellström)
document
C 8.
Work plan for 2014
(J Hellström / s 9(2)(a)
)
OFFICIAL
C 9.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bil and Strategy update
(s 9(2)(a)
)
C 10. MPI update
(s 9(2)(a)
)
THE
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE THE PUBLIC IS EXCLUDED,
THE REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER, AND THE SPECIFIC
GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND
MEETINGS ACT 1987 FOR THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
UNDER
General subject of each matter to be
Reason for passing this
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the
considered
resolution in relation to each
passing of this resolution
matter
C 1.
Confirmation of previous
To protect the privacy of natural
That the public conduct of the relevant
minutes
persons.
part of the proceedings of the meeting
would be likely to result in the disclosure
of information for which good reason for
withholding would exist under section
9(2)(a) of the Of icial Information Act
1982 (OIA).
RELEASED
C 2.
Status of actions arising from
As above.
As above.
previous meetings
- 2 -
76
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
The draft minutes of the NAWAC general meeting on 11 November 2013 were reviewed and accepted
with no amendments.
Moved (A Sharr / I Collins)
1982
That the draft minutes of the NAWAC general meeting held on 11 November 2013 be adopted as a true
and accurate record of that meeting.
The motion was put: carried.
ACT
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
Actions from previous meetings were reviewed (refer to paper 02/14) and it was agreed to complete
pending actions where possible, with the following exceptions:
• Remove items 2, 3a, 4, 6, 7b, 8, 9, 10 and 12, noting that they are complete;
• Remove item 4b, as advice on these captive animals is probably not needed for now;
• Item 7c is to be dealt with later in the meeting and then removed;
•
Remove item 11b. K Phillips has spoken to her contact and they want a more detailed brief.
This may come later in 2014 as the wildlife subcommit ee begins work on the best practice
guidelines, and he could be invited then.
INFORMATION
It was noted that the need for the workshop mentioned in item 3b, and the formal liaison with GRNZ in
item 5, wil be clarified once the ‘entertainment’ subcommit ee releases their discussion document. J
Hellström has also been invited to a meeting by NZ Racing Board on 19 March 2014.
It was agreed that staff from MPI compliance should be invited to the next meeting in May.
C 3.
Work Programme update
s 9(2)(a)
addressed the work programme update as in NAW
OFFICIAL AC 06/14.
The title change, from ‘codes of welfare update’ to ‘work programme update’ was explained. Since
NAWAC has expanded its work beyond codes, it makes more sense to refer to a work programme
rather than a code of welfare programme.
THE
Systems Review – The subcommit ee were keen to have a meeting but the work program needed
further discussion at this meeting and then the subcommit ee will meet to progress it.
Dairy Cattle Housing – s 9(2)(a)
explained the progress on the summary of submissions. There were
444 individual submissions on the amendment to the Dairy Cattle Code of Welfare, along with 2,453
UNDER
standard letters from the Green Party website and 100 signatures on a petition circulated by s 9(2)(a)
from the Manawatu. The vast majority of individual submissions were against indoor dairy
housing as a form of ‘factory farming’. Many called for a time limit on how long cows can be housed due
to concerns over poor welfare. Fears around maintaining food safety and ‘brand New Zealand’ were
also raised. Industry stakeholders were mostly positive towards the amendment with no major
alterations suggested.
s 9(2)(a) summarised her work with the off-paddock steering group and explained that she will act on
NAWAC’s behalf and feed information back to the subcommit ee. The group tends to focus on
environment and building structure rather than welfare, which is unfortunate. There have been some
RELEASED
welfare issues raised e.g. tail docking.
- 4 -
78
Action: J Hel ström to write to DairyNZ expressing NAWAC’s concern around the continued prevalence
of tail docking
Action: Secretariat to gather data on what this prevalence actually is – it should be less than 1% but
may be as high as 30% of cattle with docked tails in some areas
Action: Secretariat to obtain an invitation for J Hellström to one or more of the off-paddock steering 1982
group meetings where they are discussing the issue
Action: Systems review subcommit ee to consider changing the process around receiving submissions
and gathering information. Public submissions are gradually getting more inflammatory and less
ACT
substantive
Horses and Donkeys – The peer review of the final draft has been received. There are some really good
suggestions and the reviewer was complimentary. s 9(2)(a) is on track to get the code to the Minister
later this month.
Animals in Public Display, Exhibition and Entertainment – Discussed in item C7.
Temporary Housing of Companion Animals – Discussed in item C6.
Saleyards – Discussed in item C5.
K Phil ips suggested a meeting with the industry and asked for a list of people to talk to, as it could be
INFORMATION
done locally to the members of the subcommit ee rather than in Wellington (however it was noted that
these meetings must be documented, even if that it’s only a few paragraphs and email). The MPI
Safeguarding programme could be contacted to provide a list as they have been working on a signage
project for saleyards.
Surgical and Painful Procedures – It was noted that the Minster recently took an interest in mulesing.
This workstream wil be discussed in terms of regulation (see item C9).
OFFICIAL
Wild Animals – The glueboard traps review is just about finished at Landcare Research and that wil
inform the subcommit ee about the alternatives to glueboards. Some stakeholders are pushing back at
losing them. s 9(2)(a) explained that there wil be a workshop in late March between representatives from
Fonterra, DOC, Air New Zealand, s 9(2)(a)
THE , Penny Fisher, MPI, Pest Management Association and
others that wil discuss the issue.
Ministerial exemptions may be a possibility and some industry groups are happy to pursue this option
and still see the traps taken off shelves for household use. It does look like in some situations there will
be no other option than granting an exemption. s 9(2)(a) noted that she wil need to test that the
exemption process wil work under the regulations and will discuss this further with MPI and NAWAC.
UNDER
Other options apart from providing exemptions are to not go ahead with the regulation or to amend the
regulation, but it is not anticipated that these wil be recommended by MPI.
P Fisher suggested that she could draft a document (even a bulleted framework) describing what kind of
situations would need to be covered under best practice guidelines for hunting. Definitions of dif erent
practices would be particularly helpful. This could then be discussed at May meeting.
Shelter for Farm Animals – Discussed in item C5.
Breeding – Discussed in item C5.
RELEASED
Action: s 9(2)(a)
/ Safeguarding
to provide the saleyards subcommit ee with a contact list
- 5 -
79
C 4.
Systems review subcommittee update
A Sharr provided a brief update according to the work programme update above. The subcommit ee
hasn’t met but is keen to progress the work that wil be raised in item C8.
C 5. Subcommittee update
1982
Wildlife
There was already a wildlife update in item C3. The subcommit ee haven’t met yet. P Fisher and s 9(2)(a)
wil update the work programme according to the issues discussed earlier.
ACT
Action: P Fisher / s 9(2)(a)
to circulate the wildlife work programme with milestones
Shelter
The proposed work programme, in paper NAWAC 12/14, was developed by email correspondence and
by phone conversations. It was noted that the paper did take into account the work already being done
by MPI’s
Safeguarding or Animals, Safeguarding our Reputation programme. Having reviewed this
other work, the subcommit ee wil decide to either join the existing workstream and work to accelerate it
or start new work that aligns with those goals and report on it directly to the Minister.
There has also been a review of the information that the codes already have on shade and shelter – but
this stil doesn’t provide an integrated picture of what’s happening on farm.
INFORMATION
It was explained that
Safeguarding is about to commission a review of the literature, and the
subcommit ee has decided to request that they help with and have access to this document, as it wil
meet both MPI’s and NAWAC’s needs. It is expected to be finished in October/November. The working
group wil then get together to review it along with what they know independently, identify any gaps, and
give advice to the Minister.
Safeguarding is open to working with NAWAC.
It was noted that there is also work going on at local government level including tree planting and
OFFICIAL
resource management rules. This is another group to engage with. Some universities, e.g. Lincoln, are
doing work on alternative species to use on farm for shelter that works around irrigation.
Action: Assign a representative from the NAWAC subcommit ee to join the Safeguarding group
THE
Breeding
The record of the groups’ first teleconference in 13/14 was taken as read.
The main issues around animal breeding were divided into 3 areas:
UNDER
• Hereditary diseases and inherited defects – mostly companion animals
• Breeding for production over health and welfare – mostly farm animals
• Overbreeding – unintentional (accidental pregnancies) and intentional (e.g. racing industry)
The subcommit ee also had a look through the codes for any existing information related to breeding.
The only minimum standard was in the dog code, Minimum Standard No. 7: “Breeders must make all
reasonable efforts to ensure that the genetic make-up of both sire and dam wil not result in an increase
in the frequency or severity of known inherited disorders”. The sheep and beef code has a nice
paragraph about breeding as well.
RELEASED
- 6 -
80
Therefore, there is the potential for breeding to be covered in the codes, but it is an issue that is very
hard to police. The subcommit ee is leaning towards not putting breeding into a series of minimum
standards. Instead, education wil be important.
J Hellström stated that there is a real opportunity to provide NAWAC’s fist expert opinion technical paper
to the Minister. It would explain that these are ‘sleeper’ issues that affect our reputation and they must
be considered. It would be based on good science and could be split into two parts (one for companion
1982
animals, one for farm animals).
It was agreed that a good place to start would be in talking to people like the Kennel Club or dairy cattle
breeders and ask them questions about the sorts of things they consider when breeding. ACT
s 9(2)(a)
talked about how the problem with dog breeding was approached in Sweden. They targeted
the judges of shows, and that’s where the change began. The subcommit ee agreed with this approach
and had discussed it in their teleconference. It was also noted that the NZVA is doing some work in this
area (e.g. establishing a register of inherited diseases) and the subcommit ee could approach them in
order to work with the judges most effectively. It was suggested that the ideal situation would be that
impaired dogs are stripped of their ribbons, and in fact some shows have started doing this sort of thing.
The process along the way to releasing a technical paper wil engage stakeholders and hopefully kick-
start some thinking about how they can change before the paper is even finalised.
It was suggested that animals being imported could be raised in the paper. Biosecurity doesn’t ask
INFORMATION
questions about ancestry/breeding as new animals come into the country.
It was also suggested that s 9(2)(a)
could talk to the subcommit ee about poultry
breeding, as his earlier talk to NAWAC was enlightening for then members.
Action: Breeding subcommit ee to develop a timeline with milestones for the next meeting
C 6.
Companion animals in temporary housing update
OFFICIAL
The draft code, document NAWAC 09/14, was taken as read.
The subcommit ee had made good progress, with a meeting at Orana Park in December followed up
with a lot of work by email and phone. The cont
THE ent has been cut down from the code that the New
Zealand Companion Animal Council submit ed and it now looks very dif erent. Therefore the idea is to
send this latest version of NZCAC to them for their information.
It was noted that with MPI’s Standards Integration Project, this code wil have a change in format and
‘look’ from previous codes.
UNDER
Some problems that MPI compliance has been having with Hastings Pound were briefly mentioned. The
inspector was not happy with their facilities and is working with them to improve (in fact, he was not
impressed by any council pounds in the bay area). This pound has used the fact that they are waiting
for the code as an excuse not to change anything. He has let them know that that is not a defence
under the Animal Welfare Act.
Communal catteries were questioned. The subcommit ee reported that they can work for some cats, but
not for others – they must be managed properly.
RELEASED
- 7 -
81
Amendments to the Code were then suggested:
• Under Minimum Standard 5(b), is there a legal problem here in that the person in charge must
seek veterinary attention (i.e. the person who drops an injured animal off is ‘in charge’, not the
facility)? It was explained that it is correct that the owner must seek veterinary attention for an
injured animal themselves, however, once the animal is in the care of the facility then they are
in charge and whether or not the owner met their obligations beforehand shouldn’t factor in to it.
1982
• Minimum Standard 6(b) should say pain or distress, not pain and distress.
• Minimum Standard 15(b) was suggested to be too light. The ‘knowingly’ could be removed from
the standard (“Animals with potential hereditary problems must not knowingly be sold or
ACT
rehomed without full disclosure to and acceptance by the new owner.”). The word ‘potential’
could also be changed to ‘known’ or ‘at risk of’. It was agreed that the ideal outcome here is
that, for example, when someone picks up a fox terrier puppy the adopter/seller also hands out
information on known health issues in all fox terriers, rather than only giving information on a
few specific test results for that animal.
• Minimum Standard 15(g) was questioned. Requiring all animals leaving a pound or animal
welfare centre to be desexed is an SPCA internal rule, but can it be legislated? It was
suggested that this could be a recommended best practice instead. Whether or not this is
workable and necessary should be examined. The other problem is that this is not technically
an animal welfare standard – it could be considered a population control measure, but that only
indirectly applies to the individuals’ welfare.
INFORMATION
• The statement that dogs, cats and rabbits are only rehomed at 8 weeks should be
recommended best practice rather than a minimum standard (as in species specific codes).
•
s 9(2)(a)
Any further grammatical or spelling errors should be sent to
or K Bicknell by 21
February.
Moved: (J Hellstrom / K Bicknell)
That, subject to the amendments agreed at this meeting, the Companion Animals in Temporary Housing
OFFICIAL
code of welfare be finalised for public consultation.
The motion was put: carried.
THE
s 9(2)(a)
was welcomed to the meeting here, at 11:25am, and the Commit ee moved to item C9.
C 9.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bil and Strategy update
s 9(2)(a)
gave NAWAC an update on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bil . It is currently at select
commit ee as they work through the 1700 submissions. On 10 February, MPI provided them with the
departmental report, which summaris
UNDER es the issues that submiters raised, provides analysis and
recommends appropriate changes to the Bil .
There wil be a session with the select commit ee tomorrow. Following that, they must report back to
parliament by the end of March (i.e. quite a short timeframe).
s 9(2)(a)
ran through the key issues and what was recommended by MPI. This is confidential to
NAWAC.
s 9(2)(a)
then read out some examples of the criteria to determine whether a surgical procedure is
RELEASED
significant (i.e. can only be performed by a veterinarian). The criteria captures a wide scope – it may
even cover practices like bloat-sticking, but the intention is that the Minister can release regulation
- 8 -
82
specifying what is or isn’t a significant surgical procedure. The regulation may also be as specific as
“You must make sure to do x when you are doing procedure y”. Routine on-farm practices are unlikely
to be picked up in prosecutions. It was noted that the Veterinarian Act does not have rules on what is or
isn’t a veterinarian-only procedure. Therefore the profession relies heavily on the Animal Welfare Act to
establish these guidelines.
Tail docking in sheep and develvetting stags was then raised. This wil be dealt with in regulation. 1982
NAWAC/MPI wil have to go through each procedure and determine what the rules wil be. It is
anticipated that deer velveting wil get some regulatory backing.
Members asked whether the Bil wil pass before the 2014 elections and how quickly MPI wil engage
ACT
with NAWAC on regulation afterwards. s 9(2)(a)
explained that it depends on whether an early election
is called and how much cross-party support the Bil maintains in the house. In terms of MPI engaging
with NAWAC, work wil begin before the Bil is in place. There’s a lot of lead-in work to do.
There was some discussion on whether the regulations for significant surgical procedures would be
writ en all at once or released in groups. Since it’s such a process, it would be better to start with
comprehensive regulations (while always acknowledging that they may need to change). In the long run
it’s more efficient to do it all at once.
The wildlife subcommit ee questioned how the generally accepted practice guidelines for hunting would
work. It was explained that NAWAC would most likely issue a guidelines document which is not directly
related to obligations in the Act. Before they are in place, guidance can be provided by support groups
INFORMATION
(e.g. Fish and Game).
Transitions and exemptions were then discussed. What about things that don’t suit a timeframe or have
no clear end point, e.g. glueboards and farrowing crates? NAWAC and MPI wil have to determine is the
time that is reasonably necessary for the industry to develop their own alternative. For example, the
regulations could set a requirement for farrowing crates to be phased out and give the industry time to
figure something out. At the end of the period, if the industry failed, the Government would have the
ability to create a new set of regulations. This starts to put some strong incentives on the industry – they
OFFICIAL
can’t rely on the second set of regulations to be approved.
The New Zealand Animal Welfare Strategy was touched on: there hasn’t been a lot of work at the start
of the year but it is continuing. The main aim at the moment is for the Ministry itself to be better
THE
connected across the Branches and develop an operating model.
At this point J Hellström thanked s 9(2)(a)
for his time and the Commit ee moved to item C7.
C 7.
Animals in public display, exhibition and entertainment discussion document
J Hellström summarised the subcommit ee’s approach (detailed in NAWAC 16/14) and comments on
UNDER
the draft discussion document 10/14 were invited.
It was questioned whether the specific example regulation of banning African elephants or polar bears,
listed as number 2 on page 3, would detract from the rest of the document by being too controversial.
Could the examples be more general?
It was then suggested that the concept of regulations be de-emphasised throughout the document as
stakeholder groups may not be familiar with the passage of the Bill in the first place. However, some
members thought that the industry needs to be aware that very specific regulations could be released.
The idea of the document
RELEASED is to make groups aware that “this could happen to you”. Example regulations
- 9 -
83
should be listed, as it would be unfair to state that there wil be regulation and then fail to give an idea of
what it could look like.
It was agreed that sections specific to the entertainment industry (e.g. visitor interaction) be moved to
the front of the document, while more general sections that are also covered in other codes (e.g.
feeding) be moved to the back.
1982
The document should stil be structured to promote the 5 physical, health and behavioural needs, but it
must be noted that this code is very much focused on the mental domain and opportunity to express
normal behaviour.
ACT
Visitor s 9(2)(a)
raided the issue of whale/seal/penguin watching as part of New Zealand’s tourist
attractions. Technically this involves an entry fee, but are the animals being used? It was noted that it
could be said that the visitors are paying a fee to use the boat or car, as seeing the animals is not
guaranteed. The animals are not in a nature park. Also, the Department of Conservation is in charge of
monitoring these types of activities, but of course they are administering the Conservation Act not the
Animal Welfare Act. The Marine Mammals Act deals with whale watching in a way that improves their
welfare but not penguins or other animals.
At the moment, the draft does not cover free-ranging species in nature parks, conservation areas and
mainland islands. Therefore, could this issue be covered by the wild animals’ code or guidelines? s 9
explained that in Sweden, it was generally accepted that these animals have fallen through t
(
he
cracks and were not covered in full by any legislation.
2
INFORMATION
It was agreed to amend question 2, “Do you consider the scope appropriate?” by adding the question
“Should there be other animal uses considered?”
The commit ee agreed that changes wil be made as discussed and the document wil then be used as
a resource to consult with stakeholder groups. It was expected that the process would take at least 6
months.
Action: J Hellström to amend the discussion document according t
OFFICIAL
o the above discussion
C 8.
Work plan for 2014
s 9(2)(a)
introduced the Commit ee to doc
THE ument 07/14, the suggested work programme process that
wil apply to both codes of welfare and strategic issues.
NAWAC agreed that it was very useful to see everything set out in clear steps.
It was noted that it should be clear that the milestones are flexible and open. For example, a
subcommit ee does not need to meet every step (but ideally would document why they decided not to).
UNDER
In terms of time limits, it was agreed that every subcommit ee should try and report back on each
milestone in either the times as outlined in the work programme, or an agreed timetable put forward by
each new subcommit ee at the start of their work. While the time may be variable depending on the
outcome (e.g. an advice paper could take less than one year, while a code with consultation would take
longer), the main thing is that each subcommit ee is held to time-bound milestones of some kind so that
the work doesn’t blow out to take years and years.
It was agreed that 07/14 wil be the basis of every workstream’s approach, subject to small changes as
discussed above.
RELEASED
- 10 -
84
NAWAC also had the opportunity to state whether they would like to be on dif erent subcommit ees, and
it was agreed that members should work with each other... Members are also welcomed to ask for
information from other groups if they are interested in their work.
It was noted that the concept of subcommit ees as a whole may change – there didn’t used to be any,
rather NAWAC had two-day meetings each quarter. The systems review subcommit ee wil discuss
options around subcommit ees.
1982
It was explained that the painful husbandry procedures group are a kind of placeholder for the
regulatory workstream, as surgical procedures may be the first group of regulations to be developed. J
Hellström asked to join this subcommit ee when it begins.
ACT
The Commit ee then discussed the priorities for 2014. The crux of the issue was that the 3 new
workstreams (breeding, shelter and wildlife) are additional to the already existing work programme. This
is on top of an already extensive workload that in reality will not all fit in one year. Priorities wil have to
be set so that the secretariat can know what resources to provide through the year.
Some major groups were identified:
Top priorities
• Systems review
• Painful husbandry procedures / Surgical regulations
• Dairy housing
INFORMATION
Ongoing strategic issues
• Breeding
• Wildlife
• Shade and shelter
Nearly completed
• Rodeos
OFFICIAL
• Horses and donkeys
Companion animals in temporary housing and animals in public display, exhibition and entertainment
were therefore not identified as top priorities, but
THE it was agreed that it would be a shame to drop them
now. ‘Animals in entertainment’ is also an issue raised by the Minister, so it was noted that it can’t be
dropped until NAWAC has provided the advice he has requested on greyhounds. Saleyards was also a
priority before and is ongoing – it represents a gap in the livestock chain of supply that has not been
adequately covered. So there are 3 extra workstreams that need fit in somehow.
It was suggested that temporary housing could be put out for consultation early in the year so that it can
UNDER
be seen to be progressing. Whether there wil be the resource to summarise the submissions is another
matter that can be dealt with later. If needed, that stage can be pushed back. While there was some
discussion on whether to just drop it for now (the work is a sunk cost, and the code is not a priority in
terms of number of animals affected or severity of violations) it was eventually agreed that this would be
the approach.
There was no further agreement on what issues could be dropped.
Noting that:
RELEASED
• MPI can contract in extra staff if needed;
• The saleyards and breeding work would be led by the subcommit ees for now;
- 11 -
85
• The shelter workstream wil largely be driven by
Safeguarding;
• The regulation workstream wil not begin until June;
• Wildlife must deal with glueboard traps as that is on a deadline, but otherwise it’s not the end of
the world if their work is delayed until 2015; and
• MPI and NAWAC must leave some breathing room to deal with Minister issues and concerns
It was agreed that no workstream would drop off the work plan totally, but s 9(2)(a)
would write up
1982
the year’s workplan with the top priorities in mind and keep it flexible.
C 10. MPI update
ACT
The Commit ee gratefully received the MPI update (NAWAC 08/14).
s 9(2)(a) added one item: MPI recently met with MFAT about the seal ruling from WTO. A WTO dispute
settlement panel in November upheld the European Union’s ban on imported seal products, and its
decision in part cited “public moral concerns” for animal welfare. This has effectively set a precedent for
ending trade based on animal welfare concerns. The decision is being appealed by Canada and
Norway. New Zealand is watching the situation very closely.
The MPI staff realignment was also discussed. The Commit ee was reassured that it is not a downsizing
or a major restructure, but the details of how the secretariat would be affected were not available yet.
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
- 12 -
86
PART TWO
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
STRATEGY AND PLANNING
O 2.
Mini-tutorial – s 9(2)(a)
1982
s 9(2)(a)
gave a presentation to NAWAC on the intersection of animal welfare policy and science and
the dif erent stages countries tend to go through as they develop policies to promote higher farm animal
welfare. The full PowerPoint is available on request from s 9(2)(a)
.
ACT
O 3
Results of 2013 review of committee performance
The results of the review of the commit ee’s performance in 2013 were summarised. There were many
responses that stated that NAWAC should be more strategic, and it was agreed that the systems review
subcommit ee wil help with considering this further.
O 1
Election of Deputy Chair
The Animal Welfare Act 1999 (section 67 and Schedule 1, clause 3(1)) requires the commit ee to elect
one of its members as its deputy chairperson at its first meeting each year.
Moved (J Hellstrom / V Williams):
INFORMATION
That K Phillips be elected deputy chairperson of the commit ee for 2014, pursuant to the Animal Welfare
Act 1999 (section 67 and Schedule 1, clause 3)).
The motion was put: carried.
O 4.
Contribution for Welfare Pulse
Members suggested items as follows, due 15 April for publicati
OFFICIAL on in the 1 June issue:
• Documents that are being writ en up for shelter, wildlife and breeding may be potential sources
for a story. For example, 2 paragraphs from each chair could be combined into one piece.
• s 9(2)(a)
s 9(2)(a)
has also asked
to contribute.
THE
• A photo of the commit ee could be taken at the next meeting and included.
The distribution of the magazine was discussed. It was also noted that the ‘fate’ of
Welfare Pulse is tied
to the progress with the implementation of the New Zealand Animal Welfare Strategy.
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to circulate Welfare Pulse
distribution numbers
UNDER
O 5. Identifying animal welfare issues
The kil ing of bobby calves with blunt force was raised. Is it widespread in New Zealand? s 9(2)(a)
explained that MPI does not know exactly. The only figure MPI has is that 1.7m were kil ed at slaughter
plants in 2013. The rest were raised for meat, kil ed on farm, or kept as replacements, but there is no
way to separate the categories.
In light of the euthanasia of Marius the giraffe in Copenhagen, it was asked whether the practice of
culling animals that don’t fit a zoo’s breeding programme is normal in New Zealand. The entertainment
subcommit ee stated that
RELEASED it is practiced among ZAA members in Australasia.
Action – s 9(2)(a)
to circulate minutes from the latest ‘animals in entertainment’ subcommit ee meeting
- 13 -
87
OTHER REPORTS AND DISCUSSION
O 6.
Discussion of information circulated by MPI
The Commit ee noted that it appreciated the information that had been circulated.
In terms of 2014 meeting dates, K Milne stated that she has a clash in August.
1982
Action – s 9(2)(a)
to check whether the August meeting can be moved forward one week
O 7.
NAWAC correspondence
ACT
The Government Administration Commit ee gave NAWAC 3 recommendation on greyhounds:
• consider developing standards for the use of animals, particularly greyhounds, in racing
• consider developing guidelines on the breeding of greyhounds
•
consider reviewing the Animal Welfare (Dogs) Code of Welfare 2010, with a view to specifying
the circumstances in which dogs can be euthanased
The Government has responded and NAWAC’s work on greyound welfare is ongoing from the Minister’s
previous request.
The NZVA response on over-treatment of companion animals was questioned. It was thought that
NAWAC should explore whether NZVA is stil taking animal welfare seriously.
INFORMATION
O 8.
Committee members’ reports on recent presentations and attendance at conferences
There being no further items of business to discuss, the Chair thanked the commit ee members for their
attendance and declared the meeting closed at 3:50pm.
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
- 14 -
88
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
PART ONE
(PUBLIC EXCLUDED AGENDA)
1982
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Section 48, Local Government Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987
ACT
There being no other introductory items of business, it was moved (J Hellström / V Williams):
That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
(J Hellström)
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
(J Hellström)
C 3.
Work programme update
(s 9(2)(a)
)
C 4
Systems review subcommit ee update
(A Sharr)
INFORMATION
- Website
- Annual report
C 5.
Dairy subcommit ee update
(J Hellström)
C 6.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bil and Strategy update
(s 9(2)(a) )
C 7.
MPI update
(s 9(2)(a)
)
OFFICIAL
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE THE PUBLIC IS EXCLUDED,
THE REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER, AND THE SPECIFIC
GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND
MEETINGS ACT 1987 FOR THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
THE
General subject of each matter to be
Reason for passing this
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the
considered
resolution in relation to each
passing of this resolution
matter
C 1.
Confirmation of previous
To protect the privacy of natural
That the public conduct of the relevant
minutes
persons.
part of the proceedings of the meeting
UNDER
would be likely to result in the disclosure
of information for which good reason for
withholding would exist under section
9(2)(a) of the Of icial Information Act
1982 (OIA).
C 2.
Status of actions arising from
As above.
As above.
previous meetings
C 3.
Codes of Welfare update
To maintain the ef ective conduct That the public conduct of the relevant
of public af airs through the
part of the proceedings of the meeting
protection of Ministers, members would be likely to result in the disclosure
RELEASED
of organisations, officers and
of information for which good reason for
- 2 -
90
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
The draft minutes of the NAWAC general and strategy meeting on 12 February 2014 were reviewed and
accepted with the following amendments:
1982
• One typographical error was corrected
Moved (I Collins / S Brown)
ACT
That the draft minutes of the NAWAC general and strategy meeting held on 12 February 2014 be
adopted as a true and accurate record of that meeting.
The motion was put: carried.
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
Actions from previous meetings were reviewed (refer to paper 23/14) and it was agreed to complete
pending actions where possible, with the following exceptions:
• Action 1: the glueboards workshop has been held, this wil be discussed in item C3.
INFORMATION
•
Action 2: the animals in entertainment subcommit ee have begun contacting stakeholders.
This wil be discussed in item C3.
• Action 3: J Hellström held a meeting with NZGRA in March and wil discuss this in item C3.
•
Action 4: Systems review subcommit ee has completed the prioritisation framework and
wil report in item C4.
• Action 5b: Complete
• Action 13: Complete
•
Action 6: J Hellström wanted more information on dairy tail docking before drafting the
OFFICIAL
letter to industry on NAWAC’s concern over the continued presence of tail docking.
s 9(2)(a)
confirmed that a working group has been formed between MPI and the dairy sector to
address continued short tail docking in breach of
THE the code of welfare for painful husbandry procedures.
She outlined work by MPI’s Verification Services to collect statistics on dairy tail docking, and the
Verification Services programme to escalate cases to MPI Compliance if they could not be dealt with by
educating the farmer involved. There had also been recent MPI prosecutions for dairy tail breaking and
docking.
The dairy sector has agreed that it needs to better support compliance by farmers. It is collecting data
UNDER
on tail docking, educating farmers about requirements and encouraging trimming of the switch rather
than tail docking.
It was agreed that a letter should stil be sent to DairyNZ and Fonterra.
Action: J Hellström to send a letter to DairyNZ and Fonterra stating that NAWAC acknowledges that
there has been work in the area and they support this approach - but is stil concerned that tail-docking
should have stopped by now.
RELEASED
- 4 -
92
C 3.
Work programme update
s 9(2)(a)
addressed the work programme update as in NAWAC 24/14.
Systems Review – Addressed in item C4.
1982
Dairy Cattle Amendment – Addressed in item C5.
Rodeos – The subcommit ee is finalising the code in response to the last comments from MPI Policy
and Legal. Following this it wil be sent back to the Minister with an accompanying briefing. ACT
Horses and Donkeys – The subcommit ee was congratulated as this code has been recommended to
the Minister.
Animals in Public Display, Exhibition and Entertainment – The Amendment Bil , which removes the 10-
year review period for the zoos and circuses codes, may not be through in time for this code to be
released. MPI has drafted an Order in Council to extend the life of the current codes until either the Bil
is passed or the review is complete. NAWAC agreed that the Order in Council should be progressed. It
is not anticipated that the stakeholders wil have a problem with the extension.
J Hellström stated that he wil meet with the New Zealand Kennel Club (NZKC) in about a month as it is
concerned about the code.
INFORMATION
V Wil iams mentioned she had been interviewed about the NZKC. NZKC has hired someone
independent to help them improve their public image. The central body is aware of problems in this
area, and there seems to be some division within the club on welfare/breed/agility standards.
Greyhound Racing New Zealand is also aware that NAWAC is working on this code. The Commit ee
noted the huge effort that the industry has been making. s 9(2)(a)
, their animal welfare officer, has
done a lot of work on developing a code for the industry. This may include things like surplus breeding,
OFFICIAL
microchipping and tracking all dogs as well as improving tracks. Enforcement wil lie with GRNZ – fines
wil be up to $10,000 or expulsion from the racing body, meaning the dogs can no longer race. A new
facility in Levin wil take over the responsibility to re-home retired dogs (up to 400 per year). s 9(2)(a)
has also writ en an article for
Welfare Pulse.
THE
The ability of any data that is collected by GRNZ to be audited was questioned. It was thought that V
Wil iams or J Hellström may find out about this possibility at the next AWBCC meeting.
Action: The animals in public display, exhibition and entertainment subcommit ee to check up on how
the greyhound animal welfare programme is progressing in August 2015.
UNDER
Temporary Housing of Companion Animals –The Commit ee had resolved at its last meeting to release
this draft code for consultation. It is now to be released in June.
Action: J Hellström to inform the Minister
Saleyards – K Phil ips explained that the subcommit ee was beginning to think that a full code may not
be necessary for saleyards. Ultimately, the problems come back to who holds responsibility at dif erent
parts of the chain and who is policing it. The Act itself already states that stock must be fit for sale.
It was noted that any doc
RELEASED ument, including a guideline, would require collaboration with the industry.
- 5 -
93
Action: Saleyards subcommit ee to draft an issues paper to get all the problems on paper and help
figure out the best way to tackle them
Surgical and Painful Procedures – The subcommit ee is waiting for the Amendment Bil to pass to begin
work on possible regulations.
Wild Animals – The glueboards workshop was held on 28 March and s 9(2)(a) wil circulate a summary of
1982
the meeting. P Fisher noted she has some NAWAC recommendations that MPI supports and that wil go
in a MPI briefing to the Minister.
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to circulate paper on the glueboards workshop
ACT
The workshop was slightly adversarial at first but eventually solutions were found. The stakeholders
being faced with the imminent ban on glueboard traps (from 2015) included service providers (e.g.
Rentokil), manufacturers, importers, the pest management industry and some businesses (e.g. Fonterra
and Air New Zealand). MPI, NAWAC, the Department of Conservation and the SPCA were represented
too. The purpose of the meeting was to air and share, to come together towards Ministerial approval for
exemptions, and to discuss alternatives for replacing glueboard traps.
P Fisher explained that this issue with phasing out glueboard traps (and industry believing there are no
alternatives) has been going on for decades, and although the industry can name some situations
where glueboards are the only solution, they are stil not taking responsibility for moving on and finding
solutions. They don’t appear to want to hear about how successful bans have been in other countries.
INFORMATION
Ultimately it might be up to NAWAC to continue pushing for alternatives.
NAWAC agreed that they are supportive of the exemptions but only if gaining one is not easy and they
are time-limited. Some strict conditions could be applied – e.g. reporting on how many are used, how
the animals are euthanised, and how often they are checked.
It was pointed out that a business would need to consider their own reputational risk in continuing to use
glueboard traps under a Ministerial Approval when it is clear that glueboard traps are inhumane.
OFFICIAL
It was also thought that a transitional period recommended by NAWAC but then not carried out
completely because of widely available exemptions would not look good for all the other transitions that
the Commit ee works on.
THE
It was pointed out that even with exemptions, the prohibition would get the traps out of $2 shops, fewer
animals wil be trapped, and stringent checking policies can be applied via exemptions. It would stil ,
overall, be positive.
NAWAC agreed that their advice to the Minister would be to acknowledge that MPI is working with the
industry, but the Commit ee’s advice remains the same as previously: glueboard traps are inhumane
UNDER
and should be discontinued, and to note that the credibility of NAWAC’s transition processes may be at
stake.
Action: J Hellström to write a letter to the Minister on glueboard traps and exemptions
The subcommit ee has contacted the National Pest Control Agencies, which writes guidelines for pest
management including humane best practice, to see whether it is interested in working together on the
review of NAWAC’s trap-testing guideline and on developing humane best practice principles in hunting
and kil ing.
RELEASED
Shelter for Farm Animals – The internal MPI working group wil hold a meeting on scope on 20 May.
- 6 -
94
It was explained that some groups are looking at bamboo-type plants for shelter. They grow so fast that
irrigators can just drive straight over the shelter belt – they recover quickly in order to provide continual
shelter.
It was noted that although the industry may come up with guidelines (and NAWAC is aware that ECAN
is working on something, while other groups are active) they should be backed by a strong NAWAC
position. This position should also point out that there are strong economic benefits to good shelter for
1982
production animals.
Breeding – A timeline and workplan is in place and potential stakeholders have been identified. One
literature review has been completed (NAWAC 31/14) which could be the basis for a discussion
ACT
document. The subcommit ee wil organise another meeting before the August NAWAC meeting to
figure out the next steps.
At the moment, companion animals are front and centre in the document, but it was noted that the
principles of the literature review apply to all selectively bred animals.
C 4
Systems review subcommittee update
A Sharr summarised the subcommit ee’s work since the last quarterly meeting. There have been two
subcommit ee meetings with one more scheduled for the 18 June. Minutes were circulated to the wider
commit ee after both meetings.
The commit ee discussed the proposed new NAWAC Guideline 12 and prioritisation in gener
INFORMATION al.
Website
It was suggested that the NAWAC website could have more information (in the interest of the
Commit ee’s transparency) and could stand to look more modern.
V Wil iams explained that the NAEAC website is a standing agenda item for that commit ee – e.g.
making sure links are up to date, or informing MPI of any changes needed.
OFFICIAL
It was agreed that while some more exciting content (like pictures) would be welcomed, the most
important thing is that it is up to date and correct. J Hellström asked again for a ‘biography’ paragraph
from each member, emphasising that it is ver
THE y important to keep everyone’s information accurate and
up to date as NAWAC is under constant scrutiny.
Action: Al commit ee members to send a short paragraph to NAWAC secretary on their expertise and
qualifications that enable them to serve on the Commit ee.
New additions to the website were discussed.
UNDER
The publically available work programme [NAWAC 30/14] was approved for publishing on the web.
One update was requested: that the saleyards section be updated to say that the subcommit ee wil
consider issues around saleyards, not draft a code of welfare.
Action: NAWAC work programme [NAWAC 30/14] to be published online as soon as possible.
Guideline 12
RELEASED
Two amendments were suggested: that a sentence be added on sudden media priorities or substantial
animal welfare compromise; and that a diagram be added as an example.
- 7 -
95
It was suggested that the subcommit ee review all the NAWAC guidelines as they may need to be re-
ordered. The information is quite up to date but the guideline topics are a bit jumbled up.
Action: Systems review subcommit ee to consider re-ordering or numbering the NAWAC guidelines
Moved (V Williams / K Phillips)
That, subject to the above changes, NAWAC adopts Guideline 12 (Prioritisation Framework) as a 1982
NAWAC guideline and it is published online.
The motion was put: carried.
ACT
The Web Integration Project that MPI is currently undertaking was mentioned. Since NAWAC’s pages
are hosted on MPI’s website, the NAWAC sites ‘look’ wil change when the new site is launched (MPI is
aiming for the end of 2014).
Annual report
It was agreed that the subcommit ee should spend time on the style of the annual report for the future.
More photos could be added, as well as the member biographies.
The subcommit ee should decide whether hard copies are needed at all.
s 9(2)(a)
reminded the Commit ee that according to the Act, the annual report is only s
INFORMATION upposed to
serve as a report to the Minister and the Act does not prescribe much about what should be in it.
Action: Systems review subcommit ee to discuss the future and format of the Annual Report and report
back in August.
C 5.
Dairy subcommittee update
J Hellström summarised the recent work from the dairy subcommit ee, specifically on the calf
OFFICIAL
amendment. It was stated that many submissions have not been too helpful, in that they don’t contain
reasons for their opinions.
It was noted that no mat er what, any amendments released wil be controversial. The calf amendment
THE
however should be released before calving season. Dairy cattle housing is more dif icult and not ready
for release yet, so the amendments wil probably be released separately. It was agreed that NAWAC’s
advice to the Minister wil be to release the dairy amendments in two parts.
Further discussion with industry groups on housing wil also be needed. NAWAC’s position must be
robust. It was noted that DairyNZ is currently working on housing guidelines and are a bit unsure how to
UNDER
proceed as long as NAWAC hasn’t set the minimum standards.
On-farm humane destruction
s 9(2)(a) summarised the issues laid out in 27/14, noting the concern from some submit ers that NAWAC
was being reactive and not considering the best animal welfare outcomes and the technical issues
around euthanasia.
It was noted that NAWAC has considered the on-farm destruction of dairy calves as the result of a
request from the Minister. The Commit ee recognises that there are welfare risks in using blunt force
RELEASED
trauma in the destruction of calves. NAWAC has therefore prepared advice to the Minister that this
should be minimised and reserved for emergencies. If this amendment passed, welfare should be
- 8 -
96
increased as long as operators are correctly trained and guidelines are followed for following up to
ensure death.
It was emphasised that farmers should be trained in whatever method they use. Currently it is proposed
that blunt force can be used only in an emergency situation, but during routine destruction a dif erent,
more consistent way that staff have been trained in must be utilised.
1982
The discussion moved to the code structure, which currently separates emergency humane destruction
vs. humane destruction in any situation. This might not be the most efficient way to get the information
across. Some codes, e.g. Animal Welfare (Sheep and Beef) Code of Welfare, have a humane
destruction section (i.e. not for use in emergencies) because there is a reasonable amount of homekil
ACT
on these farms.
It was noted that the Meat Industry Association (MIA) submit ed that all dairy cattle should be
euthanised in the same way as they are at slaughter plants. The advantage of this approach is that it is
consistent. There is however an argument that it is unnecessary to go that far and the disadvantage is
that a blow to the head for calves in an emergency would be singled out from every other emergency
situation in other animals.
Advice was given that the simplest approach would be to look at calf euthanasia only, as widening the
scope would raise issues of consistency of method with lambs and other animals. It was suggested that
there could be an entire code or guideline about routine euthanasia on farm. However it was proposed
that if this idea was put through the prioritisation matrix (as in Guideline 12) it would probably come out
INFORMATION
as a low priority; the reason that calf euthanasia was being considered now is because it is a direct
request from the Minister. It was agreed that the discussion of euthanasia would remain focused on
dairy calves. MIA’s submission can be considered in later deliberations on the euthanasia issue.
It was noted that the word used to refer to euthanasia/destruction/humane slaughter should be
consistent through the code. It was agreed that destruction should be the word used. ‘Humane
destruction’ wil be used throughout the code, as writ en in the current draft amendment.
OFFICIAL
Specific changes:
Minimum Standard 17:
THE
• It was pointed out that the name ‘calf management’ may not look appropriate when 4/5 of the
minimum standards related to kil ing of calves. Therefore the title ‘calf destruction’ or
‘management of calf destruction’ or ‘routine destruction of calves’ could be better. It was then
suggested that minimum standard (b) can move up to (a) and the other four are grouped as
their own section. It was agreed to organise the section in this way. “Calf Management” wil
remain as the title.
UNDER
• Minimum standard (c) should read dif erently. It starts off with ‘calves that are kil ed’ then
switches tense to ‘must be rendered’ – the first section should be ‘calves to be kil ed’
• Minimum standard (f) states that calves must be treated in the same way by the contractors.
This is already a requirement of the Act so it was questioned whether it needed to be spelled ou
in the minimum standard. It was pointed out that some farmers do leave kil ing up to
contractors, so this may need to be spelled out. It was suggested that (f) could be moved into
the introduction so that the obligations of farmers and contractors under the Act were clear.
RELEASED
• The Minimum standards should qualify what NAWAC means by ‘rapidly’. Otherwise, a defence
could be used that “it was rapid compared to drowning” but it wasn’t objectively rapid at all.
- 9 -
97
‘Immediately’ was suggested. It was argued that ‘immediately’ is not in line with the other codes,
and may not be technically possible. However the term ‘immediately insensible’ is used in the
commercial slaughter code. It was agreed that the wording should be in line with the
commercial slaughter code.
Minimum Standard 20:
1982
• The reference to the blink reflex should specify that you should touch the eyeball not just the
eye.
• The introduction sentence, “If the animal is stunned they must remain.. ” is also a minimum
ACT
standard, so can be removed. Add “until death is confirmed” to the minimum standard.
• Is the neck cut description in the 2nd to last paragraph descriptive enough? A calf has dif icult
arteries to reach. It was agreed that a more generic “follow up procedure to ensure death” could
be used.
• Remove “no jugular pulse visible in the neck” as the submit er DairyNZ thinks it is not clear to
the average operator. However it was considered that this may be fine since it is just one option
put forward among many. It was agreed to remove it.
• Move absence of corneal reflex to be a sign of death rather than insensibility.
INFORMATION
• Change the term ‘rapid’ to ‘immediate’.
•
s 9(2)(a)
Typos to be sent to
Moved (V Williams / A Sharr)
That, subject to the above changes, NAWAC recommends the proposed amendment to the dairy cattle
code of welfare to the Minister for Primary Industries.
OFFICIAL
The motion was put: carried.
THE
Dairy cattle housing
s 9(2)(a) introduced the dairy housing amendment. The main issue was stated to be: should cows be able
to spend their whole lives indoors? It was explained that the general submissions on the amendment
were overwhelmingly against this. Submissions from farmers and industry groups were generally
supportive of dairy housing.
UNDER
A key point raised in submissions was that grazing is considered to be a behavioural need. Is that
correct? If so, when cows eat silage indoors, could that be considered grazing or foraging?
It was explained that there is no definitive proof that lack of grazing of pasture is a stressor for cattle.
However it has been shown that cows wil stil spend time on pasture even when their feeding needs
have been met. They wil choose to access pasture when they can - it has to be very cold for them not
to choose to spend time outdoors.
Further, it has been shown that cows wil work to be outside whether the ground is pasture or something
RELEASED
else. There is plenty of evidence that cows wil ‘celebrate’ bring outdoors by kicking their heels up and
having a run around, but they wil not graze necessarily; they may stil choose to eat indoors. It was
- 10 -
98
noted that the UK’s Farm Animal Welfare Commit ee has stated that ‘foraging behaviour’ is a need, not
necessarily ‘grazing’.
It was noted that there is also an argument that if there is a deficit with the cows’ indoor housing,
providing access to the outdoors provides some relief. But insisting on outdoor grazing could reduce
welfare, by giving metabolic issues to cows that are used to their indoor feed. Also, cows have been
shown to choose to go indoors to rest.
1982
It was agreed that there is no evidence that grazing at pasture is a behavioural need but access to the
outdoors (and open space) might be. In fact there is pretty strong evidence that going outside is a
behavioural need, given that cows wil work for it.
ACT
If they must have access to the outdoors, but not necessarily pasture, it should be stated that the cows
have access to a soft standing area; standing on concrete is a big contributor to lameness. This is
dif erent from a lying area.
It was suggested that a minimum standard could state that cows must have access to a soft standing
surface with a corresponding recommended best practice saying that it should be outside.
It was noted that a few farmers in New Zealand are keeping their cows indoors 365 days per year
already, and this is common in other parts of the world; but s 9(2)(a)
noted that many of these
countries are moving to require animals have access to the outdoors. In NZ the state of indoor-only
barns is experimental; we can’t know whether access to outdoors wil be the norm.
INFORMATION
Another suggestion was made for a minimum standard: cows must be given enough space with suitable
footing so that they can express their normal social behaviour. This behaviour should be classed
separately from just walking, sit ing and eating. That does leave the option for it to be indoors (though
that would be expensive). Having this area outdoors could be recommended best practice.
It was agreed that the Act has five needs and they should be treated equally. Access to the outdoors
can be provided without considerable trade-off to the other needs.
OFFICIAL
It was explained that the argument against it from industry is that it is technically dif icult to move them
around all the time (e.g. it compromises feeding), and they need the knowledge and organisation to pull
it off. It was argued by some NAWAC members that it’s a trivial expense to provide access to an
outdoor area.
THE
It was agreed that the subcommit ee needs to meet to discuss this behavioural need further.
In general it was noted that submit ers are comfortable with a period of indoor living for 2-3 months in
winter, but not permanent indoor production.
UNDER
The Commit ee’s preference is for cows to have some time outdoors. Based on a precautionary
approach access to the outdoors should be provided until it is shown to be unnecessary.
It was further noted that there is an enormous variation in stand-off pads and bad welfare in stand-off
areas and sacrifice paddocks should be addressed. An appropriate time period for time outdoors should
also be discussed.
It was agreed that there doesn’t need to be another public consultation, but affected parties may need to
be briefed.
RELEASED
- 11 -
99
A final issue was then raised: riverstones are being promoted as a suitable substrate to raise calves, but
they are not considered by NAWAC to be a suitable surface for adult dairy cattle or calves, based on
available science. It was noted that there may be strong pushback on this stance.
It was also pointed out that some science portrays riverstones as providing for good welfare. Why
choose the science that is are against? It was explained that the paper being referred to [secretariat
note: Sutherland, M.A et al 2014: Rearing substrate and space allowance influences locomotorplay
1982
behaviour of dairy calves in an arena test] was a well-designed paper that presented overwhelming data
against the use of riverstones for bedding. It was agreed that NAWAC would engage with the industry
rather than allow it to continue.
ACT
Action: Dairy subcommit ee to continue discussion on the dairy housing amendment and bring back a
proposal on ensuring some time outdoors.
C 6.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bil and Strategy update
s 9(2)(a)
updated NAWAC on the progress of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bil .
It is stil with the Primary Production Select Commit ee. They were due to report in March, but have now
extended that deadline to mid-June.
The Select Commit ee seems to be in a place where the members are happy with the Bil , and
remaining points wil probably be debated in the house. s 9(2)(a) also noted the recent ban on testing
psychoactive substances on animals. The Supplementary Order Paper related to cosmeti
INFORMATION c testing wil
probably also go through to the full house for debate.
Currently, it is thought that the Bil wil be referred to the house before the election but not necessarily
passed.
C 7.
MPI update
The Commit ee gratefully received the MPI update (NAWAC 28/14).
OFFICIAL
The recent re-alignment of MPI staff was noted. A diagram of the new organisational structure was
passed around for information.
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
- 12 -
100
PART TWO
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
STRATEGY AND PLANNING
O 1.
Mini-tutorial – animal welfare inspectors
1982
s 9(2)(a)
, Chief Inspector at the Wellington SPCA, gave a presentation to NAWAC.
• Complaints – thousands of complaints of animal il -treatment are received per year. Routine
inspections and pick-up of volunteered goods are also common.
ACT
The most common problems relate to Section 10 of the AWA (the obligation to meet physical,
health and behavioural needs), followed by Section 11 (the obligation to alleviate pain and
distress). Examples are skinny dogs, tied up with no access to shelter and medical treatment.
Stray cats are another common call. Reckless and wilful il -treatment is rare, as are il egal
surgical procedures and traps.
Complaints can come in by phone, email, walk-ins and during other call-outs.
• Response time – There are five priority levels at the SPCA: Priority 1 is an emergency and
should be answered in an hour; priority 2 requires a same-day response; priority 3 within 24
hours; priority 4 within 48 hours; and priority 5 within one week. Priority 5 includes scheduled
INFORMATION
property checks.
• Prosecution – whether or not to prosecute is a multi-level decision. Firstly the investigation team
wil discuss the possibility, and check the background of the people involved and pull together
their investigation notes. The case wil be put to the prosecution subcommit ee of the Board,
which includes a lawyer, the CEO, and the Chief Inspector.
• Codes of Welfare – are used extensively by investigators. On the job, they have the minimum
OFFICIAL
standards available as a checklist, reducing the information to a few pages. Codes of Welfare
are also used as an education tool.
• Amendment Bil – there is worry that the instant fines wil actually water down the severity of the
THE
offenses that they see. At what point do you hand an instant fine to the owner of a starving dog,
rather than prosecute them? Bad cases should stil go through the courts. Training and
implementation wil be key to rolling out the new compliance tools.
s 9(2)(a)
, Manager Planning & Intelligence at MPI, then talked to NAWAC about MPI’s compliance
model.
UNDER
• Structure – the structure of the compliance directorate was explained. The district managers,
located throughout the country, are key to coordinating all of the compliance officers. The
coordinators, first point of contact for the public calling in, are based in Auckland.
• Complaints – MPI has about 700 complaints per year. They come in from the public, from
intelligence gathered in proactive work, MPI veterinarians, referrals from the SPCA, industry
and NAIT checks.
RELEASED
- 13 -
101
• VADE model – MPI operates their compliance based on the VADE model – Voluntary, Assist,
Direct and Enforce. The idea is that the vast majority of people wil voluntarily comply because
they want to and wil make sure they know the right information. Some wil require assistance –
they want to comply but don’t know how. A few wil require direction to comply. A small minority
wil require enforcement for failure to comply (i.e. a prosecution). So, education becomes an
important tool that is used much more often than strong enforcement. Animal welfare is a good
news story: most people do it well.
1982
• Myths
o
“The merger to create MPI degraded compliance service delivery”. In fact, prosecutions
ACT
have gone up since the merger.
o
“Fishery officers are now suddenly animal welfare officers and don’t know what they’re
doing”. In fact, new animal welfare officers volunteered and are passionate. They are
trained and know the legislation.
o
“MPI works independently from industry”. In fact MPI must work with industry to affect
change – see cow tail breaking as an example.
o
“Staff aren’t trained at UNITEC (like the SPCA officers are)” – this is true, MPI staff go
through their own programme.
INFORMATION
o
“Compliance and verification work independently”. They work closely together.
o
“It’s all about farmers”. Actually, MPI is currently involved with a rodeo, a stock agent,
transporters and saleyards.
O 2.
Contribution for Welfare Pulse
Members suggested items as follows, due late July for publication in the September issue:
OFFICIAL
• Breeding (K Phillips)
• Work programme other than codes – e.g. systems review priorities (A Sharr)
O 3. Identifying animal welfare issues
THE
Members were invited to discuss current areas of interest to Commit ee members and any new or
emerging issues for the public. None were raised.
OTHER REPORTS AND DISCUSSIO
UNDER
N
O 4.
Discussion of information circulated by MPI
The Commit ee appreciated the information that had been circulated.
O 5.
NAWAC correspondence
There were no comments on recent correspondence to and from NAWAC.
O 6.
Committee m
RELEASED
embers’ reports on recent presentations and attendance at conferences
- 14 -
102
V Wil iams mentioned the recent Animal Welfare and Behaviour Consultative Commit ee meeting,
noting that Greyhound Racing New Zealand reported making good progress against their animal welfare
goals.
V Wil iams also reported on the latest NAEAC meeting. The most prominent issues for the Commit ee
were cosmetic testing and testing of psychoactive substances.
1982
Any Other Business
s 9(2)(a)
announced to the Commit ee that she wil be leaving MPI in July in order to take up an
opportunity at AgResearch. She thanked NAWAC for their work and dedication over her time at MPI.
ACT
O 7.
Tour of Wellington SPCA’s facilities
Closing
There being no further items of business to discuss, the Chair thanked the commit ee members for their
attendance and declared the meeting closed.
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
- 15 -
103
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
PART ONE (PUBLIC EXCLUDED AGENDA)
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
1982
Section 48, Local Government Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987
There being no other introductory items of business, it was moved (J Hellström/K Milne):
ACT
A:
That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
C 3.
Work programme update
C 4
Systems review subcommit ee update
C 5.
Pigs: Farrowing crate review
C 6.
Wildlife: RNZSPCA proposal to prohibit snare traps
C 7.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bil and Strategy update
C 8.
MPI update
The general subject of each mat er to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this
INFORMATION
resolution in relation to each mat er, and the specific grounds under section 48 (1) of the Local Government Of icial
Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as fol ows:
General subject of each matter to be Reason for passing this
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the
considered
resolution in relation to each
passing of this resolution
matter
C 1.
Confirmation of previous
To protect the privacy of natural
That the public conduct of the relevant
minutes.
persons.
part of the proceedings of the meeting
OFFICIAL
would be likely to result in the disclosure
of information for which good reason for
withholding would exist under section
9(2)(a) of the Of icial Information Act
1982 (OIA).
THE
C 2.
Status of actions arising from
As above.
As above.
previous meetings.
C 3.
Codes of Welfare update.
To maintain the ef ective conduct That the public conduct of the relevant
of public af airs through the
part of the proceedings of the meeting
protection of Ministers, members would be likely to result in the disclosure
of organisations, officers and
of information for which good reason for
UNDER
employees from improper
withholding would exist under section
pressure or harassment.
9(2)(g)(i ) of the OIA.
C 4.
Systems review subcommit ee
As above.
As above.
update.
C 5.
Pigs: Farrowing crate review.
As above.
As above.
C 6.
Wildlife: RNZSPCA proposal to As above.
As above.
prohibit snare traps.
C 7.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bil To maintain the constitutional
That the public conduct of the relevant
and Strategy update.
conventions for the time being
part of the proceedings of the meeting
RELEASED
which protect the confidentiality of would be likely to result in the disclosure
advice tendered by Ministers of
of information for which good reason for
the Crown and of icials.
- 2 -
105
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
s 9(2)(a) took the opportunity to report back on the DairyNZ workshop she had attended the previous day
which had outlined the industry’s 2013-2020 strategy for sustainable dairy farming. Target 12 of the
strategy, relating to animal health, welfare and well-being had been led by DairyNZ and the Dairy
Companies Association of New Zealand (DCANZ). Target 12 sought to have 100 percent of dairy farmers
being compliant with good practice animal welfare guidelines and industry standards for dairy farming.
At endees considered that compliance with animal welfare standards sat at 60 or 70 percent. Animal
welfare concerns relating to painful husbandry procedures, bobby calves, body condition score, lameness
1982
and mastitis were acknowledged. Industry was to focus on some of these issues and develop action
plans to support farmers and their staff to achieve good welfare outcomes for their animals. Education
was noted as being an important part of this process. s 9(2)(a) reported she would forward the action plans
to NAWAC’s dairy cattle subcommit ee when available.
ACT
B Nicholas was surprised that shelter had not been identified as an area which required action plan
development. J Hellström agreed to add the issue of shelter to his letter which would also address tail
docking in dairy cattle.
Action 9: J Hellström reported that the dairy cattle subcommit ee had held a teleconference since the last
general meeting, raising two areas of concern. The subcommit ee was of the opinion that cows in indoor
housing systems needed access to the outdoors and should not be held for long periods on river shingle.
J Hellström asked s 9(2)(a) and s 9(2)(a) to review the literature on these two issues. The dairy cattle
subcommit ee would respond to DairyNZ after this information had been received.
Action 12: J Hellström reported that he had met with New Zealand Kennel Club (NZKC) r
INFORMATION epresentatives
in June. Under the leadership of the current chief executive officer and president, NZKC had initiated a
survey of their membership and also of the general public. The NZKC membership identified concerns
they had about the tail docking of dogs. As a result, NZKC modified its policy on tail docking to enable
traditionally docked breeds to now be shown or entered into competitions with tails. J Hellström thanked
s 9(2)(a)
for drafting the letter to NZKC and reported that NZKC now had a new president. The commit ee
agreed that the letter be amended and sent to NZKC.
J Hellström reported that he had recently attended a full day’s
OFFICIAL greyhound racing at the Wanganui track
and would write a detailed report for the commit ee to comment on before writing back to the Minister.
Since s 9(2)(a)
first raised his concerns about greyhound racing with NAWAC a year ago, the industry
had been proactive about making improvements, especially in regards to quality control. Some of the
THE
improvements included: trialling a new safety barrier to prevent injury to dogs; having a requirement for
new dogs to be registered and micro-chipped by three months of age and their details entered into a
database; independent reporting of racing injuries; and an active re-homing programme. V Wil iams
volunteered to send commit ee members a copy of the greyhound racing report that had been tabled at
the last Animal Behaviour and Welfare Consultative Commit ee (ABWCC) meeting, which she had
chaired.
UNDER
J Hellström advised that there were 4,500 racing greyhounds and that most races were run at distances
between 300 and 500 metres. The Wanganui race track held approximately 100 meetings per year. The
other race venues around the country were noted.
J Hellström had also attended an Equine Health Association meeting. The horse racing industry was of
the opinion that because they had their own codes relating to horse welfare, they did not have any
problems or issues to deal with.
s 9(2)(a) asked J Hellström if the issue of drug use in the greyhound industry was discussed at all. s 9(2)(a)
RELEASED
had been made aware of concerns from the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM)
- 4 -
107
group at MPI about drug use for masking pain. While this issue was not specifically discussed, J Hellström
advised that 40 dogs were drug tested at each race meeting.
P Fisher reported that she had heard about a professional bull riding and pyrotechnics event on the radio
recently with a disclaimer that the event was not a rodeo. s 9(2)(a) reported that she and s 9(2)(a) had
been working with MPI Legal on the definition of ‘rodeo’. J Hellström asked MPI if they could find out
more about this event and if necessary refer it to the MPI Compliance Branch.
1982
Action 16: It was noted that the Minister had replied to J Hellström’s letter relating to glueboard traps.
The letter had been circulated to commit ee members for information prior to the meeting.
ACT
Action 17: It was noted that not all commit ee members had yet submit ed their short biographies to the
secretary.
Actions:
s 9(2)(a)
to forward DairyNZ action plans to the NAWAC dairy cattle subcommittee when
available.
J Hellström to add the issue of shelter to his letter to DairyNZ and Fonterra which will also
address tail docking.
s 9(2)(a)
to finalise and send out letter to NZKC.
J Hellström to write a report on his attendance at a greyhound racing meeting.
V Wil iams to send the NZKC report, which was presented at the last ABWCC meeting, to
committee members.
INFORMATION
s 9(2)(a)
to find out about advertised bull riding and pyrotechnic event and refer to MPI
compliance if necessary.
C 3. Work programme update
The work programme update was circulated prior to the meeting. For work programme items not already
on the agenda, the following updates were provided:
OFFICIAL
Dairy cattle amendment: s 9(2)(a) reported that the humane destruction amendment to the dairy cattle code
of welfare had been issued on 4 June 2014. There appeared to be some confusion in the public domain
about the use of blunt force to kil calves which was putting animal welfare inspectors in a dif icult position.
THE
While routine kil ing of calves cannot now be carried out by a blow to the head, the practice can be
performed in unforeseeable or unexpected conditions by operators who are trained and competent in
doing so.
s 9(2)(a)
, Manager Animal Welfare Sector Support, was working with DairyNZ to prepare some
educational material that inspectors could distribute to people when attending animal welfare complaints
involving calf destruction. In the mean t
UNDER ime, continued reporting of suspected cases of animal il-treatment
and cruelty involving calves was encouraged.
Work on the dairy cattle housing amendment continues.
Rodeos: As mentioned previously, the rodeos code was currently with MPI Legal. s 9(2)(a) advised
commit ee members that due to the new format for codes of welfare, introductory information which was
once held at the front of the code would now be incorporated into the body of the code, meaning it would
be part of the standard. It was noted that consultation with MPI Legal was built into code development
and NAWAC would be part of the conversation in future codes of welfare.
RELEASED
- 5 -
108
Horses and donkeys: s 9(2)(a) reported that the code was stil with the Minister. It was noted that s 9(2)(a)
, Senior Policy Analyst, Regulatory Reform and Animal Welfare Policy would be providing the
policy advice.
Animals in public display, exhibition and entertainment: According to the work programme update, it was
anticipated that this code would be ready for recommendation to the Minister in February next year. J
Hellström advised that a discussion document would need to be developed prior to that. A realistic
1982
timeline for delivery was mid-2015. It was noted that the zoos and circuses code of welfare review date
would be extended by two years via an Order in Council and the Animal Welfare Amendment Bil , when
passed, would abolish the need for codes to be reviewed every 10 years.
ACT
Temporary housing of companion animals: s 9(2)(a) reported that public consultation on the temporary
housing code was due to close the next day, with at least 13 submissions received to date. Some of the
issues raised in the submissions included de-sexing of dogs, de-sexing animals upon release from
shelters and cat micro-chipping.
Saleyards: A draft code of welfare on saleyards drafted by MPI had been updated by s 9(2)(a) Before
taking the next step in the code’s development, s 9(2)(a) had been asked by the NAWAC saleyards
subcommit ee to draft an issues and options paper which would be considered by the entire commit ee.
s 9(2)(a) reported that she and K Philips had attended the recent fitness for transport pilot road show, which
included discussion on issues at saleyards, and encouraged other commit ee members to attend when it
was in their area. Further road shows were scheduled for the North Island later this year w
INFORMATION ith road shows
commencing in the South Island sometime next year.
K Phil ips shared her concerns about unfit animals arriving at saleyards. It was noted that owners of
condemned animals which arrived at slaughter plants were charged financially. It was suggested the
same deterrent could be applied to owners of condemned animals which arrived at saleyards. K Phil ips
questioned whether there was a role for animal welfare inspectors to play here.
Surgical and painful procedures: s 9(2)(a) reported that follow
OFFICIAL ing the most recent systems review
subcommit ee meeting, work on the surgical and painful procedures regulations would continue in parallel.
Shelter for farm animals: s 9(2)(a) reported that a proposal relating to shelter research had been submit ed
THE
to MPI’s Animal Welfare Operations Commit ee (AWOC) and that approval had been received from the
commit ee to seek funding for the project. s 9(2)(a)
(Manager of the
Safeguarding our Animals,
Safeguarding our Reputation Programme) was of the opinion that industry stakeholders should be
consulted prior to the funding bid going ahead. s 9(2)(a) asked commit ee members whether they wanted
to lead a workshop with industry stakeholders on this research. B Nicholas, chair of the NAWAC shelter
subcommit ee was supportive of the idea and it was agreed that the workshop could be run before the
end of the year. s 9(2)(a) agreed to c
UNDER onvey this information to s 9(2)(a) .
Breeding: s 9(2)(a) sought clarification from the commit ee about whether they wanted to send a letter to
relevant stakeholders about selective breeding and animal welfare and if so, was the issue a priority in
the short term. s 9(2)(a) was concerned that the letter would not be expected and may cross over with
other areas of work being undertaken by NAWAC. V Wil iams reported she had not considered how the
letter would impact on other matters and certainly did not want to create unnecessary dif iculties.
It was agreed that the NAWAC breeding subcommit ee review the stakeholder list and amend it to have
a conversation in the first instance with key individuals only. Included in the scope of the letter should be
RELEASED
an acknowledgement that NAWAC is looking to develop advice to the Minister on how big an issue
breeding really is. This would inform the subcommit ee about how to proceed next.
- 6 -
109
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
A Sharr touched on the other matters that had been on the agenda for the systems review subcommit ee
including the NAWAC annual report, NAWAC guidelines and matters relating NAWAC meetings. J
Hellström considered the future look and structure of codes of welfare also required some consideration
and asked that the subcommit ee consider this and report back at the November general meeting. J
Hellström thanked the systems review commit ee for their work to date. s 9(2)(a) agreed to circulate an
update of the systems review subcommit ee’s work plan to the subcommit ee, and organise another
subcommit ee meeting.
1982
Actions:
Systems review subcommittee to review its work plan and consider how NAWAC
structures codes of welfare as a priority.
ACT
s 9(2)(a)
to circulate systems review subcommittee work plan to subcommittee members
and organise another meeting of the subcommittee.
C 5.
Pigs: Farrowing crate review
J Hellström reported that after the airing of the first
Sunday programme which depicted apparently poor
conditions in a piggery, including a rodent infestation, the Minister had called J Hellström to discuss
options for industry moving away from the use of farrowing crates and adopting alternative systems. The
Minister announced that he had requested NAWAC to investigate options for moving away from farrowing
crates at a recent pork industry conference. The Minister’s speech, detailing the above information, was
circulated prior to the meeting.
INFORMATION
It was noted that the Bil as introduced allowed the making of regulations that could permit practices that
do not fully meet the obligations of the Act during a transition to a new practice. Following public
consultation, the Bil was amended to provide for a specific timeframe for transitional regulations.
Transitional regulations can now only be made for a maximum of 10 years, with the ability to extend this,
once only, for an additional 5 years in limited circumstances. This means that the pork industry would
only have a maximum of 15 years to transition away from farrowing crates to alternative systems.
J Hellström indicated K Bicknell’s interest in being part of the NA
OFFICIAL WAC subcommitee looking at this issue
and suggested she chair the group. S Brown and K Milne also agreed to join the subcommit ee. s 9(2)(a)
reported that s 9(2)(a) would be the MPI lead on this piece of work.
THE
J Hellström reminded commit ee members that 40 percent of farmers did not use farrowing crates. While
no country in the world had yet banned the use of farrowing crates, there was a lot of work being done on
this issue. Piglets were most at risk of being crushed by their mothers when they were between 10 and
14 days old. Piglets older than two weeks were able to get out of the way of danger so the use of farrowing
crates for a maximum period of six weeks was not really necessary. The need for new farrowing systems
to provide nesting material was noted, so too, the costs associated with dif erent housing systems.
UNDER
It was agreed that MPI draft a letter to the Minister, on J Hellström’s behalf, advising him that a
subcommit ee had been established to look at the issue of farrowing crates. The letter would also ask
the Minister for clarification as to what exactly he wanted from NAWAC, unless it could be confirmed that
the Minister would make a writ en request for advice. s 9(2)(a) agreed to follow up the formal request for
advice from the Minister’s office.
Actions:
s 9(2)(a)
to seek formal request from the Minister’s office about NAWAC providing advice
RELEASED
on farrowing crates.
- 8 -
111
s 9(2)(a)
to draft letter to the Minister advising him that a NAWAC subcommittee has been
established to look at the issue of farrowing crates.
C 6. Wildlife: RNZSPCA proposal to prohibit snare traps
The proposal by the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RNZSPCA) to
prohibit the sale and use of all snares in New Zealand was circulated to commit ee members prior to the
1982
meeting. The original proposal had been sent to J Hellström as chair of NAWAC and referred to P Fisher
and the NAWAC wild animal subcommit ee for comment. It was noted that document number 51/14,
referred to in the background reading list had not yet been drafted and as such, was not available for
consideration under this agenda item.
ACT
P Fisher provided an update on current snare use in New Zealand based on the information she could
find. This information, along with comments from the wild animal subcommit ee, had been circulated as
a memo prior to the meeting to be considered alongside the RNZSPCA proposal. The following items
were noted:
Neck snares were being sold on Trademe;
Snares were not used for operational pest management;
More information was required on the cultural use of snares by Maori;
Snares are subject to the same requirements as leg hold traps under the Animal Welfare Act;
Snare use can be ‘attended’ (where the setter waits near the snare) or ‘unattended’;
Snare use appears to be very limited in terms of numbers used.
INFORMATION
NAWAC agreed to two recommendations from the wild animal subcommit ee that commit ee members
raise initial thoughts at the meeting and that the snare report be considered by the wild animal
subcommit ee. The subcommit ee would consider whether a restriction or prohibition on snares was
required, using the RNZSPCA report as a starting point to inform their work.
Action – Wild animal subcommittee to add issue of snare use to their work programme.
OFFICIAL
The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.40 pm and resumed again at 1.15 pm. s 9(2)(a) departed the
meeting at 1.15 pm to attend to another work matter. In light of s 9(2)(a)
departure, J Hellström
recommended the commit ee move to the open part of the meeting.
THE
PART TWO (OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
STRATEGY AND PLANNING
O 1. Contribution for Welfare Pulse
UNDER
The topic/author(s) of articles for future issues of
Welfare Pulse were discussed. A Sharr volunteered to
write an article on NAWAC’s involvement with developing animal welfare regulations. J Hellström
reported he would be talking to Rotary on animal welfare policy and offered to adapt his presentation for
a future article.
Action – A Shar and J Hellström to draft articles for ‘Welfare Pulse’.
RELEASED
- 9 -
112
O 2. Identifying animal welfare issues
J Hellström invited commit ee members to identify current areas of interest to them and new or emerging
issues for the public. The following items were identified:
B Nicholas noted the interesting conference on the ethics of in-vitro flesh and enhanced animals,
1982
details of which were circulated to commit ee members prior to the meeting. s 9(2)(a) reported there
was a centre in Auckland doing similar work.
J Hellström noted that he had met with MPI’s Director-General, Martyn Dunne to discuss animal
welfare issues after the broadcasting of the
Sunday programme on pigs. It was noted that poli
ACT ticians
were engaging in animal welfare ‘aesthetics’ – i.e. if a particular practice looked unpleasant it was
automatically assumed that it must equate to bad animal welfare.
K Milne reported that cow sheds in the Buller region, damaged by recent storms had not yet been
repaired and could pose a risk during calving season.
J Hellström reported an increasing awareness of post operative pain following specific procedures
such as disbudding of calves.
s 9(2)(a)
rejoined the meeting. The recent revelation that an egg producer had deliberately misled
consumers by labelling his cage eggs as free range was noted. NAWAC, when reviewing the layer
hen code of welfare, had deliberately not defined the term ‘free-range’.
PART ONE CONTINUED (PUBLIC EXCLUDED AGENDA)
INFORMATION
C 8. MPI update
The MPI update, circulated prior to the meeting was noted. s 9(2)(a) reported that the draft report on welfare
indicators for pastoral species, prepared by s 9(2)(a)
, had now been received.
PART TWO CONTINUED (OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
OFFICIAL
OTHER REPORTS AND DISCUSSION
O 3. Discussion of information circulated by MPI
THE
J Hellström reported that he had been invited to participate in a brain storming session on regulatory
partnerships which was run by MPI’s Animal & Animal Products Directorate senior leadership team. The
outcome of that session had been summarised by Matthew Stone (Director, Animal & Animal Products)
and circulated to commit ee members prior to the meeting. MPI employees were being asked to focus on
regulatory councils to make sure the relationships were being maximised.
UNDER
O 4. NAWAC correspondence
It was noted that all key items of correspondence had been circulated to commit ee members.
s 9(2)(a) rejoined the meeting at 1.45 pm.
O 5. Committee members’ reports on recent presentations and attendance at conferences
s 9(2)(a) reported she had attended and presented at the National Education and Training Seminar (NETS)
RELEASED
run by National Pest Control Agencies (NPCA) and the New Zealand Biosecurity Institute (NZBI). As one
- 10 -
113
of the roles of NPCA is to develop industry best practice s 9(2)(a) was asked to talk about the Animal
Welfare Amendment Bil and how it would affect both industry and NAWAC.
s 9(2)(a) presentation had focused on generally accepted practice and had shown video footage of
individuals kil ing possums in dif erent ways to demonstrate this principle. As NETS is made up of such
a large and diverse group of stakeholders the meeting provided a good opportunity to convey the message
of making animal welfare part of normal business.
1982
P Fisher noted that the consideration of animal welfare was well advanced in the use of traps, but not so
accepted in the use of poisons.
ACT
V Wil iams reported she had attended the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in
Research and Teaching (ANZCCART) conference in Queenstown the previous week. Of note were the
presentations from Associate Professor Joseph Garner, from Stanford University relating to behavioural
management and enrichment and attrition rates in drug discovery. Other presentations relating to the
statistical merit of studies including blinding and randomisation were noted.
K Phil ips reported that she had attended a genetic testing presentation hosted by an animal health
laboratory. A test is now available (at a cost of $150) to screen for inherited canine and feline diseases.
J Hellström reported he had been contracted to advise the Department of Conservation (DOC) and MPI
on the economic impact of wasp control.
INFORMATION
PART ONE CONTINUED (PUBLIC EXCLUDED AGENDA)
C 4
Systems review subcommittee update continued
s 9(2)(a) continued her summary of the regulatory work programme. In respect to the care and conduct
regulations there was a need to identify those minimum standards that were applicable to all species as
well as those that were species specific. There was an intention to involve industry at the outset with the
process being led by NAWAC. s 9(2)(a) reported that MPI policy
OFFICIAL had held a meeting with primary industry
representatives on Monday to discuss the Animal Welfare Amendment Bil and that they had indicated a
wil ingness to engage with NAWAC on the work programme. It was noted that during the pre-consultation
workshops, some issues may be identified which cannot be resolved. It was possible that additional
THE
NAWAC meetings and teleconferences may be required to approve the formal consultation document.
On behalf of the commit ee, J Hellström thanked s 9(2)(a) for her update.
s 9(2)(a) asked NAWAC whether they could approve the work programme so she could circulate it to the
reference group. Given that the work programme had only been circulated at the start of the meeting it
was agreed to give commit ee members until Friday to submit any additional comments on the
programme.
UNDER
Moved (A Sharr/K Phillips):
That the Regulatory Work Programme, drafted by s 9(2)(a)
be approved by NAWAC and circulated to the
reference group by NAWAC, subject to any additional comments on the programme being received by
Friday 9 August 2014.
The motion was put: carried.
RELEASED
It was agreed that NAWAC would invite stakeholders to the pre-consultation workshops, when necessary,
and invite RNZSPCA to join the reference group as this invitation had not yet been extended.
- 11 -
114
Action – Committee members to provide additional comment on the work programme by
Friday 9 August 2014.
C 7.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bil and Strategy update
Two papers relating to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bil were circulated to commit ee members prior
1982
to the meeting. s 9(2)(a) asked commit ee members to contact s 9(2)(a) if they had any questions relating
to the document titled
Overview of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bil .
s 9(2)(a) reported that the Primary Production Select Commitee reported the Bil back to the Hous
ACT e on
Thursday 26 June 2014 with a recommendation that it should proceed with some amendments. s 9(2)(a)
summarised the key amendments as follows:
The sentience of animals has been recognised in the Bil .
The consultation process during the development of regulations has been clarified.
The term ‘compliance order’ has been changed to ‘compliance notice’.
The Bil specifies each offence in the Act as either a criminal offence or an infringement offence.
To enable a knowledge base to be established, exporters of live animals have to report on the welfare
of animals not only during the journey but also 30 days after they have arrived at their destination.
Indefinite exemptions are only available for religious and cultural practices.
Scientists wil have to report on the number of animals kil ed for research, testing and teaching
purposes as the definition of ‘manipulation’ has been changed to include kil ing as a m
INFORMATION anipulation.
Animal ethics commit ees wil be required to assess whether applicants have sufficiently considered
non-sentient or non-living alternatives to the use of live animals in research, testing or teaching
projects.
Criteria have been included in the Bil to determine whether a procedure is, or is not, significant.
The Bil allows approved organisations to dispose of animals abandoned in their care; seize an animal
if it is at clear risk of imminent harm; and dispose of an animal immediately if it is wild or unsocialised
and severely distressed as a result of being contained.
OFFICIAL
Some parts of the Bil remain unchanged, including:
Not allowing MPI to share information with industry on farmers being investigated for animal welfare
THE
breaches.
Inspectors retaining the ability to collect evidence without a warrant as all public law enforcement
agencies are subject to the Of icial Information Act 1982.
Allowing NAWAC to take ‘practicality’ and ‘economic impact’ into account when setting minimum
standards in codes of welfare.
Not allowing an outright ban on live animals for slaughter.
Permit ing the hunting and kil ing of
UNDER animals in a wild state provided that the animals are hunted and/or
kil ed in accordance with “generally accepted practice”. It was noted that NAWAC wil be providing
guidelines on this.
Not banning specific activities or procedures.
J Hellström thanked s 9(2)(a) for the overview noting the amendments as outlined were consistent with
NAWAC’s submission on the Bil .
PART TWO CONTINUED (OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
RELEASED
Any Other Business Part Two
- 12 -
115
O 6. Hunting with hounds
V Wil iams reported that she had been approached by the New Zealand Hunts’ Association Inc about
speaking at a seminar in February next year. Even though the invitation was a personal one, V Wil iams
was happy for another NAWAC member to talk to the group if it were considered more appropriate. It
was agreed that V Wil iams would represent NAWAC at the seminar. Given that hunting with hounds was
a form of entertainment it was suggested that V Wil iams’ presentation include reference to the work being
1982
undertaken by the greyhound racing industry and its move towards self regulation. s 9(2)(a) reported that
the NAWAC wildlife animal subcommit ee had previously discussed hounds being used to hunt hares.
Coursing was noted as being il egal in New Zealand.
ACT
J Hellström reported that the weakest link in the greyhound racing industry was its breeders but industry
representatives would be visiting each of them in due course.
It was agreed that s 9(2)(a)
(from MPI Verification Services) be invited to the May 2015 general
meeting to provide an update on bobby calves. J Hellström suggested the NAWAC trip to Gisborne take
place in early February.
Before closing the meeting J Hellström on behalf of the commit ee paid tribute to K Phil ips and her
contribution to the work of the commit ee over the last six years. K Phil ips’ term of appointment was due
to expire on 31 October 2014 but it was noted that due to the upcoming election there may be delay in
appointing her replacement. Therefore K Phil ips would continue on the commit ee until such time as her
replacement had been appointed.
INFORMATION
There being no other items of business, the Chair thanked commit ee members for their attendance and
declared the meeting closed at 3.10 pm.
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
- 13 -
116
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
PART ONE
(PUBLIC EXCLUDED AGENDA)
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Section 48, Local Government Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987
1982
There being no other introductory items of business, it was moved (K Phil ips / A Sharr):
That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
ACT
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
(K Phillips)
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
(K Phillips)
C 3.
Work programme update
(s 9(2)(a) / Al )
C 4.
Draft work plan for 2015
(s 9(2)(a) / All)
C 5.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bil and Strategy update
(s 9(2)(a)
)
C 6.
MPI update
(s 9(2)(a)
INFORMATION
- Commit ee appointments
- New look for Codes of Welfare
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE THE PUBLIC IS EXCLUDED,
THE REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER, AND THE SPECIFIC
GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND
MEETINGS ACT 1987 FOR THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
General subject of each matter to be
Reason for passing this
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the
OFFICIAL
considered
resolution in relation to each
passing of this resolution
matter
C 1.
Confirmation of previous
To protect the privacy of natural
That the public conduct of the relevant
THE
minutes
persons.
part of the proceedings of the meeting
would be likely to result in the disclosure
of information for which good reason for
withholding would exist under section
9(2)(a) of the Of icial Information Act
1982 (OIA).
C 2.
Status of actions arising from
As above.
As above.
UNDER
previous meetings
C 3.
Work programme update
To maintain the ef ective conduct That the public conduct of the relevant
of public af airs through the
part of the proceedings of the meeting
protection of Ministers, members would be likely to result in the disclosure
of organisations, officers and
of information for which good reason for
employees from improper
withholding would exist under section
pressure or harassment.
9(2)(g)(i ) of the OIA.
C 4.
Draft work plan 2015
To maintain the ef ective conduct That the public conduct of the relevant
of public af airs through the free
part of the proceedings of the meeting
and frank expression of opinions
would be likely to result in the disclosure
RELEASED
by or between Ministers and
of information for which good reason for
of icials.
- 2 -
118
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
documents are ready. It was noted however that problems do lie with the engineering firms,
who may be the first in line to give advice to farmers building a barn.
• Action 8: Remove. Saleyards is on hold pending the passing of the Bil .
• Action 11: Complete.
• Action 13: Complete.
•
1982
Action 16: Remove. The Safeguarding programme and MPI has been raising the issue of
shelter at the Farm to Processor forums; many stakeholders are not even at the stage of
accepting it as a problem.
• Action 22: Complete.
ACT
• Action 23: Complete.
In regards to the wildlife subcommit ee action, there was some discussion on 1080 in the media; it was
noted that NAWAC has commissioned work on the humaneness of 1080 in the past and uses that to
shape the NAWAC opinion. Best practice use is always encouraged so that non-target exposure is
limited and that harm is minimised to target animals; NAWAC supports efforts to find alternatives to
1080. It was noted that P Fisher and colleagues are doing work on improvements to the humaneness of
pest control methods.
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to circulate pest control humaneness report to NAWAC
There was also some discussion around travelling speakers who are coming to NZ to talk about dairy
INFORMATION
housing; s 9(2)(a) confirmed she wil attend at least one. World Animal Protection has been talking to
Fonterra about dairy housing and the seemingly worldwide movement towards ensuring time for cows
outdoors.
The selective breeding subcommit ee gave an update on the meeting various stakeholders they held
day before (with NZVA, NZKC, NGRA, NZTR and NZPork). NZKC was highlighted as a stakeholder that
had made real progress - e.g. they have an accredited breeder’s scheme - but still has some problems
in thinking about conformation and welfare. NZGRA were particularly impressive with their approach to
OFFICIAL
overbreeding and selection. Pigs were an unanticipated problem: There are only two main breeding
companies in New Zealand, supplying genetic material from overseas, and the subcommit ee learned
that pig farms often have a 40% replacement rate of breeding sows each year. The Commit ee
highlighted some issues including brachycephaly, caesareans required in bulldogs, the polled gene in
THE
cattle not being selected for, media attention on certain dog and cat breeds that are not healthy, and a
new ‘arms race’ in sheep breeding. Selective breeding affecting the welfare of ornamental fish was
highlighted as a previously unconsidered area.
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to circulate ornamental fish paper to NAWAC
C 3.
Work programme update
UNDER
The work programme update (NAWAC 69/14) was circulated prior to the meeting. For work programme
items not already on the agenda, the following updates were provided:
Animals in Public Display, Exhibition and Entertainment – This work is on hold until 3rd quarter 2015.
There was some discussion about whether too many issues had been incorporated into this code. The
vision of more generic codes of welfare that encompass many species was explained.
Wild Animals – The work plan wil be circulated soon. The subcommit ee also agreed on a meeting date
RELEASED
(Wednesday December 10 2014).
- 4 -
120
The current plan for the wildlife subcommit ee is to discuss a guidelines document on generally
accepted practice in New Zealand order to get it ready to circulate to whole Commit ee.
s 9(2)(a) outlined the work that various pest management, hunting and fishing associations are doing –
including work around helicopter hunting, ‘ethical hunt’ guidelines, and even bow hunting. These hunting
associations/councils have been quite open about identifying their own animal welfare concerns, which
is very promising. Examples of concerns include pig hunting, sport fishing and live baiting.
1982
It was noted that the SPCA has had concerns recently around recreational cruelty to wild animals,
especially since some offenses are being filmed and uploaded to places like Facebook and Youtube,
perhaps showing an increase in offending due to people’s attitudes towards pests and wild animals.
ACT
Fishing was discussed by the commit ee. It was noted that at least one country has banned catch and
release, although it is very dif icult to imagine this in a New Zealand context. One study has shown that
70% of released fish die. It is complicated because New Zealand rules state that small fish must be
released.
NAWAC members were invited to a glueboards workshop in Wellington on glueboard alternatives – P
Fisher is not able to attend, and it was thought that there should be NAWAC representation. NAWAC
would be pushing that alternatives must be discussed, i.e. the discussion around whether or not to ban
glueboards is long gone (it has been many years since that point passed). The workshop is on 1
December after lunch (a Monday). K Milne stated that she would be in Wellington on that day on other
business, and wil need to check her flight times but may be able attend.
INFORMATION
Selective Breeding – this was already discussed under item C2.
Dairy Cattle – s 9(2)(a)
was contracted to write a paper summarising the evidence around access
to the outdoors and the issue of cows needing to separate from the herd at calving. Bedding on stones
was raised; however the evidence for not allowing stones is unclear for adult cattle, and the definition of
what ‘stones’ means (gravel, chips etc) wil need to be explored.
Bedding for animals being exported live was discussed as well: o
OFFICIAL ne member had heard that bedding
was not refreshed until just before landing which could be weeks. However, s 9(2)(a) noted that there is
on-board monitoring, Animal Welfare Exports Certificates must be issued for each shipment, and reports
are passed back to MPI on landing so it is unlikely that the bedding is never changed. It was noted that
THE
lately livestock transport to the Chatham Islands has picked up; historically there have been issues
there.
s 9(2)(a)
explained her work on export regulations. At the moment MPI is working on guidelines, but
later on regulations under the Act wil tighten things up further.
Pigs and Farrowing Crates – An issues paper has been completed covering research done since the
UNDER
latest release of the code of welfare. It outlines alternatives to crates, but also some ideas like breeding
for maternal ability (behaviourally and physiologically). Time in the crate can also be reviewed e.g.
should it be limited to 3 days? The size of the crates is also an issue: bigger pigs are being bred that are
kept in crates built a long time ago that are now too small. Changes like adding straw may make a
dif erence, allowing the sow to carry out nesting behaviour.
A memo (NAWAC 70/14) on a recent meeting with pork industry representatives was taken as read and
opened for discussion. It was suggested that although breeding is discussed a lot, could mis-mothering
among pigs be a solely behavioural issue? That is, since piglets are kept separate from the sow and not
RELEASED
allowed to learn from her, are farmers propagating bad mothers that require stalls and so the cycle
- 5 -
121
continues? It was noted that the heritability of pig mothering had been discussed by the breeding
subcommit ee and is very low (0.05% heritability).
One member was concerned about the amount of contact with the pork industry at this early stage. It
was explained that the shared writing group concept has been used many times before over other
codes. NAWAC will always meet on its own at some point in the process, and this has worked well in
the past. It was also suggested that it is good to involve industry because NAWAC wants their buy in. K
1982
Bicknell also pointed out that the industry has to participate in the economic impact analysis which is
important to this work. Doing that work separately and ending up with two analyses (MPI vs. industry)
has occurred before and it is really dif icult to work together past that point.
ACT
A teleconference or meeting was suggested for the subcommit ee fairly soon since the timeline for this
advice on farrowing crates is short; the economic analysis needs to be underway very soon.
C 5.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bil and Strategy update
s 9(2)(a)
introduced themselves to the Commit ee. It was explained that the most up to
date information on the progress of the Bil is available in the MPI update (NAWAC 72/14). It was
confirmed that it is unlikely the Bil wil be read again before the end of the year.
C 3.
Work programme update continued
Regulations – Two meetings have been held on regulations: one on care and conduct and one on
painful husbandry and surgical procedures. Care and conduct was the subject of the first m
INFORMATION eeting, and
the working group went through a long list of Minimum Standards to think about how to pull them
together. One MPI-only meeting was also held with compliance and systems; this was in order to look at
developing criteria or a framework that is shorter or more manageable.
The surgical procedures work has had one meeting which was smaller and very valuable; surgical
procedures were listed and a regulatory intent was identified for each one around who should do these
procedures (i.e. vet only or not) and how they should do it (e.g. must use pain relief). Some were
suggested to be prohibited, including dog tail docking.
OFFICIAL
It is envisaged that draft regulations wil go out for full public consultation late next year. NAWAC’s
annual workplan has been aligned it with the regulation work so that stakeholders are managed well.
THE
D Scobie compared the two meetings, explaining that the first care and conduct meeting was more
complex and frustrating. In contrast the surgical procedures meeting was straightforward and satisfying.
Horses and Donkeys – The Commit ee asked why this code has not been progressed, as NAWAC had
recommended it in April. s 9(2)(a)
explained that MPI had been providing advice on other codes of
welfare, the regulations and the Amendment Bil and that February or March 2015 was the suggested
UNDER
date for release. s 9(2)(a)
also explained Policy’s role in the release of a code in checking that it met
the requirements of the Act. It was noted that J Hellström had talked to the Policy director around his
concerns about the length of time for release, especially considering that racing horses is an issue and
greyhounds were clearly pulling ahead in terms of welfare.
Horse racing was discussed and it was noted that horse racing breeding numbers are falling worldwide
according to s 9(2)(a)
who met with the selective breeding subcommit ee that week. s 9(2)(a) had
also recently appeared on a breakfast show really pushing rehoming of racing horses. The dif erence
with the greyhound industry here is that they have commit ed to following the life of every greyhound
bred from birth to death w
RELEASED hile horses are branded/identified but when retired or sold the industry does
not keep track of them.
- 6 -
122
The Minister may get questions about racing given the recent events at the Melbourne Cup events; it is
good that he wil be able to say he is considering a horse code (that does cover racing horses).
Rodeos – The subcommit ee was congratulated as this code was released on 31 October. The recent
media stories on Glassons advertising and the shutdown of Huntly rodeo was discussed.
s 9(2)(a)
updated the Commit ee – she met with the Rodeo Cowboys Association just before release of
1982
the code. An MPI inspector was also there to talk about compliance so it was a really productive
meeting, s 9(2)
(a)
will also meet with Bull Riders Association spokesperson next week.
The code has been sent to A&P shows, which also have sheep riding events, though they are not
ACT
technically rodeos; it was suggested that MPI/NAWAC could send a follow-up letter clarifying the
situation.
An international rodeo (branded as a ‘bull riding contest’) is happening on 13 November. The New
Zealand Rodeo Cowboys Association has sent MPI a letter to clarify they are definitely not associated in
any way. They also asked to follow up and make sure the show had an animal welfare inspector
present.
The show organiser also called s 9(2)(a) and asked about pyrotechnics, stating that they’d paid $14,000
and were all ready to go – he did not want to drop that part of the show. The issue has been forwarded
to legal and compliance. He has been told what may happen if they go ahead with the display knowingly
breaking a Minimum Standard.
INFORMATION
Saleyards – Recently, s 9(2)(a) met with stock agents, Federated Farmers and
Safeguarding to discuss
the supply chain and the transfer of responsibility for the animals, also getting the opportunity to see
s 9(2)(a)
fitness for transport roadshow. She spent the next day at Feilding saleyards and saw
how it all worked.
An issues paper for saleyards has been drafted. The key issues are the change in responsibilities
across the supply chain, unloading of animals (timing, space, left on trucks without water), and penning
of animals (especially mixing unfamiliar animals). These issues
OFFICIAL are similar to transport, however at the
saleyard there is no verification vet or animal welfare officer. It was suggested this could be addressed
via regulation.
V Williams was also shown around a saleyard
THE recently, and realised towards the end that she hadn’t
seen any water. However when asked they stated that any stock that is kept overnight or has travelled a
distance would be kept in a ‘water pen’.
Temporary Housing of Companion Animals – The subcommit ee has scheduled a meeting in December
to go over the summary of submissions.
UNDER
C 4.
Draft work plan for 2015
The draft 2015 work plan had been circulated prior to the meeting (NAWAC 71/14).
s 9(2)(a) went over the plan outline. The top three priorities – drafting regulations, farrowing crates, and
dairy housing – are the major focus for 2015. The workstream on saleyards has been shifted into the
regulations workstream, so that the knowledge from that work can be used in the drafting.
It was noted that the delivery milestone for dairy housing may be pushed out because J Hellström does
RELEASED
not have good availability to meet with stakeholders and the subcommit ee until 2015.
- 7 -
123
The systems review subcommit ee wil be put on hold until August 2015; this wil be discussed further
later in the meeting.
With no further comments, s 9(2)(a) wil finalise the work programme and bring it to the next NAWAC
meeting. A simplified version wil be published online, as it was in 2014.
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to finalise and publish NAWAC’s 2015 work plan
1982
C 6.
MPI update
The Commit ee gratefully received the MPI update (NAWAC 81/13). s 9(2)(a) was congratulated on her
ACT
promotion to Senior Adviser.
The publication of the report on ‘barriers to compliance’ was highlighted. V Wil iams has been working
on the report in her role as a consultant to MPI. The basis for the report was a survey asking farmers
what they already know about animal welfare rules and the five basic needs. Those within the pig and
poultry industries had higher knowledge as a result of being small industries under more scrutiny. The
publication has been delayed due to the absence of human ethics approval but it is hoped it wil be
published soon.
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
- 8 -
124
PART TWO
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
STRATEGY AND PLANNING
O 1.
2015 meeting dates and mini-tutorial ideas
1982
The dates suggested prior to the meeting were:
•
ACT
Tuesday and Wednesday March 10th and 11th, to be held in Gisborne
• Wednesday May 20th
• Wednesday August 19th
• Wednesday November 11th
or Thursday 19th
It was agreed that the August meeting would be held on
5 August (to take into account calving later on
in August) and that the November meeting would be on the
19 November because J Hellström is not
available until then.
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to send electronic invitations for 2015
A NAWAC/NAEAC joint meeting was suggested for 2015 since it has been several years since the last
one. The Commit ee welcomed the idea and V Wil iams agreed to bring it to NAEAC’s meeting the
INFORMATION
following week; a date would be circulated afterwards. [Secretariat note: this date is 4 August].
Mini tutorial ideas were then suggested:
• Shelter already organised for March
• Bobby calves already organised for May
•
Farrowing crates and pig farming, although this programme is moving very quickly so the
subject may be ‘too late’ by August
OFFICIAL
• Game animal council or Fish and Game - any wildlife topic
Action: P Fisher / s 9(2)(a)
to advise the secretary of an appropriate wildlife speaker for August meeting
THE
O 2.
Welfare Pulse
s 9(2)(a)
gave an update on the new structure and ownership of
Welfare Pulse. s 9(2)(a) is the new
editor, and the layout wil be dif erent after the current issue is published – only one or two articles per
issue plus the usual repeated sections (“across our desks”, NAWAC update, etc). At the moment there
UNDER
is a backlog of articles so no new articles were requested.
O 3.
Systems review subcommittee update
The systems review subcommit ee held a meeting on 8 October 2014 that consolidated all of their
actions to date and established that the subcommit ee had met the requirements laid out in their terms
of reference.
The minutes to the meeting (NAWAC 73/14) and a report (NAWAC 74/14) had been circulated. A Sharr
asked for the commit ee t
RELEASED o agree or not agree to each motion in the report.
The first point around the new strategic plan was agreed.
- 9 -
125
Moved (A Sharr / V Williams)
That the NAWAC strategic plan be updated at the first meeting in 2016, with the current plan extended
to cover 2015.
1982
The motion was put: carried.
The second point on abusive submissions was discussed. It was suggested that if the sole purpose of a
submission is to throw abuse then NAWAC should not count it. However, then it depends on what
ACT
people think is abusive. A statement could be abusive but it’s also a true representation of how that
person feels. Another suggestion was to send back letters to abusive people to let them know it wasn’t
accepted – but is that too much effort? It was agreed that NAWAC needs to take on the issues and
consider the submissions even if they are critical of the Commit ee.
MPI’s Policy & Trade thought that hardly any letters ever come into MPI that are solely abusive, and
unless it was threatening it would be considered and summarised alongside the others.
Moved (A Sharr / S Brown)
To stick with the status quo in regards to summarising submissions.
INFORMATION
The motion was put: carried.
The third point on NAWAC guidelines was agreed.
Moved (I Collins / D Scobie)
That the NAWAC Guidelines wil not be renumbered or reordered.
OFFICIAL
The motion was put: carried.
The point on meeting regularity was noted; everyone agreed that the current setup was working well.
THE
Moved (V Williams / S Brown)
That NAWAC meetings would be continued to be held quarterly with occasional two-day strategic
meetings as required.
The motion was put: carried.
UNDER
A question was raised in regards to meeting papers. It was thought that they could be dated or
organised better. It was noted that MPI keeps an ‘index’ of papers that could be circulated (it has been
previously).
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to circulate index of papers quarterly alongside meeting papers
The point on NAWAC’s annual report was then discussed; a mock-up report was contained in Appendix
One. It was noted that even if not printed, the secretariat wil continue to file hard copies and the report
would be published onl
RELEASED ine.
Moved (A Sharr / B Nicholas)
- 10 -
126
That the NAWAC Annual Report wil be the minimum allowable by the Act and wil be published online
only.
The motion was put: carried.
The final point was on the format of the annual work programme.
1982
Moved (A Sharr / V Williams)
That the quarterly work programme update remain the same, while the annual large excel spreadsheet
wil remain within MPI and not be circulated to NAWAC.
ACT
The motion was put: carried.
O 5.
MPI compliance update
s 9(2)(a)
introduced himself to the Commit ee. It was noted that compliance had been invited by J
Hellström to each meeting from now on to give an update on activities.
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to send NAWAC meeting dates for 2015 to s 9(2)(a)
There was a comparison of complaints in 2014 to other years; there has been an increase in the total
number of complaints plus it must be noted that November and December are traditionally high.
INFORMATION
Prosecutions have jumped since the MPI merger which can be put down to MPI being a bigger
organisation with more resourcing.
Education work has been ongoing; this year there have been 2 reports on tail breaking vs. 9
prosecutions last year. s 9(2)(a)
Safeguarding programme is a good news story in this area. It is
too early to tell the ef ect that infringement notices wil have. It was noted that verification vets wil be
able to issue them as well.
OFFICIAL
There are 11 full time animal welfare inspectors, but 29 cross-warranted officers have completed 13,246
hours of animal welfare work in the year to date.
It was noted that new, inexperienced farmers have been an issue especially in the dairy industry lately.
THE
Another issue has been the tension with the Privacy Act: getting the industry involved to help support
cases has been problematic when information sharing is constrained.
Recovering a farm after an investigation has been a huge drain on resources and the compliance side
has been thinking of ways to reduce this. The line between an animal welfare intervention and teaching
routine farm management has to be drawn so that inspectors are not staying on for long periods while
new cases pop up elsewhere. Some i
UNDER deas are: hiring more inspectors, especially vets; hiring farm
management consultants; using volunteers; learning from the fisheries model; and working with the
SCPA on livestock as well as pets.
O 4.
Safeguarding our Animals, Safeguarding our Reputation update
s 9(2)(a)
introduced herself and noted that the bulk of the
Safeguarding update is contained in the
MPI update (NAWAC 81/14) document circulated earlier.
She shared some information on the recent roadshows, which targeted transport operators. There was
RELEASED
some tension there in that transport operators considered animal welfare issues to be the farmer’s
problem and felt that they could not turn down business; meanwhile the saleyard operators are blaming
- 11 -
127
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
Another use for these traps – pest management – was noted; while they cannot be used on rodents
without approval, DOC has been using them to catch rainbow skinks and this use wil be able to
continue.
O 9.
NAWAC correspondence
There were no comments on recent correspondence received by or sent on behalf of NAWAC. The
1982
greyhound report was noted.
O 10.
Commit ee members’ reports on recent presentations and attendance at conferences
ACT
V Wil iams chaired the latest Animal Behaviour and Welfare Consultative Committee (ABWCC) meeting.
This is a forum for the exchange of information of animal welfare between many parties. It was a really
good exchange of information with great presentations. One issue that came up was that of dairy goats
and what to do with goat kids; a representative of the industry came along for the first time. They are
doing some work on using penetrative captive bolts.
Action – s 9(2)(a)
to circulate ABWCC minutes/reports for information
s 9(2)(a) attended the Asia Pacific Poultry Congress and talked about the codes for meat chickens and
layer hens. One highlight was learning about some exotic crossbreeds being developed in Asia to raise
production (e.g. pheasant x chicken or duck x chicken). Some producers are coming up with new
alternatives to antimicrobials, like turmeric added to the feed. INFORMATION
s 9(2)(a) also attended the OIE collaborating centre meeting held in Korea. The main focus was how the
Australian/New Zealand collaborating centre can expand the implementation of international animal
welfare standards through the Middle East and Asia.
s 9(2)(a)
attended the New Zealand Companion Animal Annual Conference. The main focus was on
cats and stray/feral cat control, as well as the SPCA’s ‘Saving Lives’ programme. To that end s 9(2)(a)
was invited to speak and his talk was very interesting although the fundamental dif erence of
opinion between him and the SPCA on the efficacy of Trap Neut
OFFICIAL er Return programmes was not
resolved. P Fisher stated that Landcare Research is currently doing some research into what feral cats
actually eat in the wild. There is also an issue around toxoplasmosis affecting wildlife (especially in
Australia). Cat curfews were discussed – do they work? Australia is very progressive in this; in some
areas you must keep cats indoors, you can’t hav
THE e cats in apartments, etc. New Zealand is behind on
this thinking. The ‘Enhancing the Halo’ project in Wellington was noted - this is a programme
spearheaded by s 9(2)(a)
to encourage those who live near the sanctuaries and town belt to own
fewer cats or to control them better.
Closing
UNDER
There being no further items of business to discuss, K Phil ips thanked the commit ee members for their
attendance and declared the meeting closed at 4:30pm.
Next meeting: 10 and 11 March 2015
RELEASED
- 13 -
129
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
It was noted that the Agenda contains an error: s 9(2)(a) is attending from Policy rather than s 9(2)(a)
PART ONE
10:30am – 2:00pm
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
1982
O 1.
Visit to Whangara Farms
ACT
In the morning the Commit ee visited Whangara Farms.
They were able to see new technology in action (including weather stations and the use of EID tags in
sheep) as well as learning about how the station plans to provide more shade and shelter to the animals
by starting up their own plant nursery.
Lunch was provided by the marae at Whangara.
PART TWO
2:30pm – 5:00pm
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
INFORMATION
STRATEGY AND PLANNING
O 2.
Appointment of Deputy Chair
The Animal Welfare Act 1999 (section 67 and Schedule 1, clause 3(1)) requires the commit ee to elect
one of its members as its deputy chairperson at its first meeting eac
OFFICIAL h year. J Hellström nominated V
Williams.
Moved (J Hellström / I Collins):
THE
That V Williams be elected deputy chairperson of the commit ee for 2015, pursuant to the Animal
Welfare Act 1999 (section 67 and Schedule 1, clause 3)).
The motion was put: carried.
It was noted that V Wil iams wil finish her term at the end of October 2015; MPI and NAWAC wil deal
UNDER
with any gap in deputy chairmanship at the last meeting of the year if needed.
Action: Secretariat and Chair to arrange appointment of interim deputy chairperson at the November
meeting or the first meeting after Virginia is replaced on the Commit ee, in accordance with Schedule 1,
clause (5) of the Animal Welfare Act.
O 3.
The New Zealand animal welfare strategy: an update
RELEASED
- 2 -
131
s 9(2)(a)
(Manager, Animal Welfare, Regulation & Assurance), was invited to give an update on the
progress of New Zealand’s animal welfare strategy. He handed out a paper (
secretariat note: later
circulated and filed as NAWAC 24/15).
The (draft) paper describes a high-level strategy intended to outline an ‘animal welfare system’ created
from a service design perspective. At the moment much of the work being done is related to pulling
1982
together a system within MPI, but the view of this paper is of New Zealand’s animal welfare
infrastructure as a whole.
The circular diagram in the paper puts animals at the centre, with progressively less involved group
ACT s
radiating outwards (though even the citizens on the outside can be very interested at times). The idea of
depicting it in this way is to create a dif erent viewpoint. Imagine the benefits flowing outwards and the
costs pushing back in.
Those further removed from the centre (i.e. animal advocates, general public) may have dif erent
expectations and knowledge than those working closely with animals (i.e. farmers); however it is
important that the learning and knowledge can go both ways, that farmers continue to listen to those on
the outside layers, not simply dismiss them because they “have no idea what we do”. On the other
hand, those further removed from the food system can place unrealistic burdens on it, expecting
welfare/quality to be better and food to be cheaper at the same time.
Problems and opportunities in the system were summarised, which included:
INFORMATION
• Husbandry practices that are accepted as necessary but cause pain and distress
• People in charge who are indif erent or unaware of animals needs, or cut corners
• Those experiencing dif icult personal circumstances – e.g. health, finances, relationships
• Rascals who are entertained by mistreatment
• People with ‘pathological’ traits
• Unrealistic or unfair expectations of people, for example, those in charge of animals
OFFICIAL
• More efficient coordination and use of experiences and resources in addressing priorities
• Equity of costs and benefits across the animal welfare system.
The future state section was then discussed, w
THE ith focus falling on the statement “Animal welfare
inspectors resourced according to expectations”. It was noted that SPCA inspectors are resourced in a
dif erent way (they are a non-profit); in the future state would this need to change in order to meet the
above statement? NAWAC questioned how much MPI contributes to the SPCA inspectorate. It was
explained that MPI contributes up to $400,000 per year for farm animal intervention and for inspector
training.
UNDER
In regards to the drivers of animal welfare, it was acknowledged that cost and economics is a key
element; for example eggs have become progressively cheaper, driving farmers to intensify over the
decades.
The “Response” section of the future operating model was then discussed. DairyNZ’s Early Response
System was noted. This system identifies poor performers and brings in bank managers, support, etc.,
all (hopefully) before the animal welfare situation on farm really falls apart. Response also means
emergency responses to earthquakes, droughts, etc.
RELEASED
- 3 -
132
s 9(2)(a) then discussed the idea of an animal welfare forum as part of the future state – one that could
include NAWAC and NAEAC; can we pull together these and other organisations to create a forum like
the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching
(ANZCCART) for airing issues?
Action: Explore the idea of an animal welfare forum (as part of implementing the NZ animal welfare 1982
strategy) at the NAWAC/NAEAC joint meeting in August
Governance is another key part of the future state of the animal welfare system. Resourcing wil be key,
as wil delineating roles (e.g. between MPI and NAWAC). The inspectorate between MPI and SPC
ACT A
needs to work together efficiently.
s 9(2)(a)
sought feedback on the paper from the Commit ee. Members thought the circular diagram was
good because it really places the focus of the system on the animals themselves.
In regards to governance and leadership it was thought that the issue of confidentiality needs to be
worked out. This has been a problem and has caused a few ‘false alarms’ where people thought they
were on watch. For industry groups, being able to have a quiet word with the person in question before
it gets really bad wil make a huge dif erence for the animals.
It was suggested that one way to get engagement across the system may be to think about the types of
people in each layer. It was noted that any one individual is in many layers; a sheep farmer would be
INFORMATION
considered to be in the second circle, but then when thinking about pigs, would be all the way on the
outside layer.
s 9(2)(a)
thanked the Commit ee for their feedback and discussion. An updated copy will be completed
over the next few months.
Action: Secretary to circulate final copy of the animal welfare operating model when complete.
OFFICIAL
O 4.
NAWAC self-evaluation: results and discussion
The results of the review of the commit ee’s performance in 2014 were summarised (NAWAC 09/15).
Overall it seemed that NAWAC and the secretariat performed well in 2014 but there were specific issues
to discuss.
THE
The first comment on the review was in regards to the dif icult-to-find mission statement, which is part of
a bigger issue: animal welfare is dif icult to find on the MPI website. It was thought that it should be easy
to find from the front page.
It was confirmed by MPI that as part of the biosecurity.govt.nz website migration, NAWAC and NAEAC
wil get their own updated web pages
UNDER . It could be possible to pursue a separate website, as NAWAC
and NAEAC are independent Commit ees. In the end it was agreed that the chairs of the two
Commit ees would request a joint meeting with Martyn Dunne asking for more visibility or, if not, their
own website.
Action: Secretariat to arrange for V Wil iams and J Hellström to meet MPI’s Director-General to discuss
the visibility of NAWAC, NAEAC and animal welfare on the new website.
Proactive work was raised in the review several times. NAWAC has already begun this, with the
selective breeding, shade & shelter, and entertainment work programmes underway. Of course, the
RELEASED
- 4 -
133
Animal Welfare Amendment Bil has also caused NAWAC to stop and think about what it does, which
has been beneficial. The new meeting paper, “animal issues”, to be discussed under agenda item C5 on
11 March, was also explained. The systems review subcommit ee had recommended more focus on the
agenda item at the previous meeting in November (refer NAWAC 74/14), and this meeting wil be the
first round of that type of ‘horizon scanning’, assisted by topics that MPI staff have picked up on. The
weekly emails have also been beneficial, and it was agreed that big issues from those should be fed
1982
back to MPI to be added to the issues list. Having discussed strategy, it was noted that codes and
regulations wil continue to be a part of NAWAC’s work. However, the codes may become something
more like a guidance document in the future.
ACT
NAWAC appreciated clear time frames and deadlines from the secretariat. MPI agreed that they can
keep this in mind going forward.
There were some comments under the section for external communication. s 9(2)(a) explained that once
per year, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC, UK) runs an open session – would NAWAC want to
do something like that? It was noted that while their sessions are widely advertised, not many people
come. It may not be efficient to do in New Zealand. As part of the draft regulations process, NAWAC
members are meeting with industry stakeholders soon (around 25 groups identified so far). J Hellström
will take the opportunity to ensure that the stakeholders know what’s coming and why, and wil have a
chance to say what they want to see regulated. These meetings would be an opportunity to ask the
question: do you see value in an open forum, annually for example?
INFORMATION
It was noted from s 9(2)(a) that the chairs of NAWAC and NAEAC and the staff at MPI do a lot of the work
in this area, and perhaps all need to take more responsibility for sharing what they already do. Other
members agreed that while the Chair meets with many external stakeholders, not all members feel so
involved.
V Wil iams explained that NAEAC writes the animal ethics commit ees a newsletter a few times a year,
and it’s a good way to connect everybody, but noted that NAWAC has many more stakeholders.
OFFICIAL
Induction of new commit ee members was then discussed. It was suggested that there should be a brief
document stating exactly what the chair should do when inducting new commit ee members. They
should not just be given material, but have it explained to them along with the background on
contentious issues. It was noted that each mem
THE ber does already get a letter from the chair and a
meeting with them before the first quarterly meeting that they attend. Another issue however was that
members often need ‘refreshers’ when they begin work on a subcommit ee. MPI staf already try to do
this but agreed that they could continue to work on it. It was explained that NAWAC members should
always refer to the code reports and the NAWAC guidelines in the first instance.
Action: Secretary and Chair to review the introductory let er from the chair and contents of induction
UNDER
pack, with a view to including more information on contentious issues and statutory functions (like
operational research).
It was agreed that the work of supporting team in MPI has been much appreciated. s 9(2)(a) raised the
score given by the Commit ee on scientific support; at 4.3/5 it was the lowest score. What can be done
to raise it? It was suggested that science on welfare issues (especially the most contentious issues like
farrowing) can be contradictory or unavailable, but the score is not a reflection on staff.
Operational research was also discussed. It was explained that NAWAC has twice previously
commissioned a review
RELEASED to identify research gaps but this function has recently fallen behind as the
- 5 -
134
national animal welfare strategy implementation work continues. It is a NAWAC function to provide this
advice. It was confirmed that identifying research priorities wil be included as part of next years’ work
plan and strategic plan update. It was also noted that MPI’s animal welfare operational research fund
wil support two studies starting this year: farrowing crates and bobby calves. It was also noted that
operational research is included in each MPI Update document and NAWAC can request copies of the
reports mentioned within at any time (and eventually they’re available to the public).
1982
There were no further comments raised. J Hellström stated that he believed the annual performance
review was a good exercise and should continue in the future.
ACT
O 5.
Agree on final 2015 work plan (including subcommittee structure)
The NAWAC work programme, circulated as paper 10/15, had been finalised at the previous meeting.
Members discussed whether there was more to change before it is published.
It was agreed that the Systems Review Subcommit ee work should be added to the document (though it
starts in August). It was also explained that the farrowing crates work was currently working on advice
on options only, rather than proposing already that the code of welfare should be amended. S Brown is
a member of the farrowing crates subcommit ee and should be added to the list of members on the
workplan.
Saleyards has been dropped as a subcommit ee but the relevant issues are being picked up as part of
INFORMATION
the regulations work.
[Secretariat note: at this point s 9(2)(a)
arrived to give their presentation on
Whangara farms – the below section of discussion was continued first thing on 11 March]
The subcommit ee membership was reviewed. There was a vacancy on the dairy cattle subcommit ee,
which J Wagner agreed to fil .
OFFICIAL
Another member would potentially be needed for systems review, but that would be determined later in
the year once they know the workload.
It was noted that J Wagner has joined the farr
THE owing crates subcommitee. K Philips is also staying on
for 6 months as an ex-officio member.
s 9(2)(a) explained that the listed MPI contacts would be switching around in May once the new team
member has joined the secretariat.
The shelter subcommit ee required a new member to replace B Nicholas, and K Bicknell requested that
UNDER
she be removed from the subcommit ee due to the workload of the farrowing crates review. Katie M
offered to join. I Collins agreed to lead the subcommit ee as the new chair. That leaves one space open,
but it was noted that there would be a new NAWAC member in May.
The Commit ee then agreed that the work programme was ready to publish on the web in the format
used in previous years.
Whangara Farms Presentation
RELEASED
- 6 -
135
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
PART ONE
(PUBLIC EXCLUDED AGENDA)
1982
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
ACT
Section 48, Local Government Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987
There being no other introductory items of business, it was moved (J Hellström / V Williams)
That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
(J Hellström)
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
(J Hellström)
C 3.
Work programme update
(J Hellström / All)
C 4.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bil and draft regulations update
(J Hellströ
INFORMATION m)
C 5.
Animal welfare issues register and discussion
(s 9(2)(a) / All)
C 6.
MPI update and feedback on information shared
(s 9(2)(a) / All)
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERE
OFFICIAL
D WHILE THE PUBLIC IS EXCLUDED,
THE REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER, AND THE SPECIFIC
GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND
MEETINGS ACT 1987 FOR THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
THE
General subject of each matter to be
Reason for passing this
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the
considered
resolution in relation to each
passing of this resolution
matter
C 1.
Confirmation of previous
To protect the privacy of natural
That the public conduct of the relevant
minutes
persons.
part of the proceedings of the meeting
would be likely to result in the disclosure
UNDER
of information for which good reason for
withholding would exist under section
9(2)(a) of the Of icial Information Act
1982 (OIA).
C 2.
Status of actions arising from
As above.
As above.
previous meetings
C 3.
Work programme update
To maintain the ef ective conduct That the public conduct of the relevant
of public af airs through the
part of the proceedings of the meeting
protection of Ministers, members would be likely to result in the disclosure
RELEASED
of organisations, officers and
of information for which good reason for
- 9 -
138
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
The motion was put: carried.
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
The commit ee reviewed progress on the list of actions (NAWAC 04/15) agreed at previous meetings.
The following updates were provided:
1982
• Action 4: Complete – wildlife work plan circulated as paper 15/15.
• Action 20: Complete – work plan finalised, wil be published.
ACT
•
s 9(2)(a)
Action 22: P Fisher and
to discuss, but suggested that a speaker would be suitable in
November or perhaps at the NAWAC/NAEAC joint meeting.
• Action 23: Complete – invitations to fitness for transport roadshows have been sent.
Further discussion included the animals in public display, exhibition and entertainment work. J Hellstrom
explained that he wil talk to the Government Administration Select Commit ee on 25 March about
greyhounds. A letter summarising NAWAC’s main points has already been circulated and J Hellström
wil report back on the submission afterwards.
There was a question on sheep riding in rodeos. There has been a lack of clarity among other groups
(e.g. A&P shows) about sheep riding. It was noted that there is potential to pass a regulation here once
the Animal Welfare Amendment Bil has passed in order to make it consistent. It was interesting to note
INFORMATION
that at least one rodeo has offered a mechanical sheep instead.
There was discussion on the joint NAWAC/NAEAC meeting. The topic is new technology but not much
planning has gone into the day yet. An invitation has gone to one speaker (relating to 3D printing). It
was thought that SAFE and the SPCA would be invited, but K Bicknell raised that the meeting wil be
just before the release of NAWAC’s advice on farrowing crates, and the pork industry is already on edge
about NAWAC’s motives.
Action: J Hellström and V Wil iams to discuss the planning of the
OFFICIAL
joint meeting further.
C 3.
Work programme update
The work programme update (NAWAC 11/15
THE ) was circulated prior to the meeting. For work programme
items not already on the agenda, the following updates were provided:
Animals in Public Display, Exhibition and Entertainment – this workstream is on hold at the moment,
except for some work on greyhounds and some work feeding into regulations (for which there would be
an update later in the meeting).
UNDER
Wild Animals – an update has been circulated in paper 15/15 (via email). In summary, there will be work
on snares and generally accepted practice. The key issue is to define ‘generally accepted practice’; the
subcommit ee is proposing to draft a new NAWAC guideline. As part of that work, the subcommit ee wil
hold a workshop with stakeholders, talk about what they do and why, and use that to start the
conversation on what generally accepted practice is. Hopefully the draft guideline wil be done by
December this year. There was a question on the progress of glueboard exemptions.
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to bring information on glueboards to the next commit ee meeting – on how many
exemptions have been given and any issues raised from that process.
RELEASED
- 11 -
140
Members were asked to consider the stakeholder list circulated in paper 15/15. Subcommit ee members
noted that they had discussed the stakeholder meetings and whether a workshop with many large
groups would be better compared to individual meetings with smaller groups. On one hand smaller
groups may talk more but larger groups could result in a ‘cross-pollination’ of ideas.
It was also noted that most people who hunt and fish are not part of these groups; is it worth
1982
approaching individuals and communities? There was a mixed reaction – talking to the representatives
of industry groups is more of a ‘fact finding’ mission and they would be suitable for that. However
individuals may not join these groups if they feel they don’t represent them.
ACT
Selective Breeding – The subcommit ee has had meetings with all key stakeholders including contact
with the New Zealand Kennel Club since there was a recent visit from an Australian representative. The
subcommit ee has divvied up species amongst themselves, and everybody has produced papers that
answer key questions within those species - now it’s a matter of pulling it together into some kind of
paper.
The information that could feed into regulations was discussed. It was suggested that some ‘black and
white’ issues like breeding lethal genes could be banned. The rest – how to breed animals, what traits to
choose, etc. – is dif icult to regulate. The New Zealand Kennel Club is not very proactive in some areas
like brachycephaly, and how would NAWAC even reach the backyard breeders? It was noted that the
state of Victoria in Australia has a code for breeding, and it is considered unenforceable and ineffective
by the Australian Kennel Club.
INFORMATION
There was discussion on the selection of polled genes in cattle. It’s a big welfare gain, and the genetics
are there, but people are not selecting for it over production values.
J Hellström stated that it wil be good to have a NAWAC opinion-type document for the first time. The
draft wil be presented at the May meeting.
Dairy Cattle Housing Amendment – This amendment is now in the post-consultation stage. NAWAC
OFFICIAL
received lots of feedback, including many comments suggesting it is ridiculous to believe that cattle
don’t need to graze. Other issues included bedding (riverstones) and access to the outdoors.
The code has been amended and wil be sent to the subcommit ee to review. The amended code wil
THE
then hopefully go out to wider industry-NAWAC writing group by the end of March, be back to NAWAC
at the May meeting, and released in August. The dif icult thing to consider is the timing of the code
amendment alongside the development of regulations. It is likely that a recommendation wil go to the
Minister basically saying “this is how the code should be amended, but we are also looking at
regulations for issues x and y”.
UNDER
DairyNZ are working on guideline for dairy housing that covers cow comfort for cows in purpose built
housing. It does not cover other off-paddock systems (e.g. feedpads). They’re close to finalising it. Does
NAWAC think that they should hold off on publishing until the code amendment is recommended? It
was agreed that it would be helpful if DairyNZ could wait if possible.
It was explained to NAWAC that MPI doesn’t have a collective view on dairy cattle housing, and there is
a risk that water quality and climate change colleagues wil be saying dif erent things than animal
welfare and NAWAC – meaning there is potential for the Minister to receive conflicting advice. s 9(2)(a)
has been working on informing across MPI. Others need to be aware that there are welfare concerns.
Then, the advice to the M
RELEASED inister wil consistently be “this is why it works, but here are the concerns”.
- 12 -
141
It was noted that legislation in other areas (e.g. environment, irrigation and water quality) has an impact
on farmers that can conflict with animal welfare requirements.
Farrowing Crates – The subcommit ee has been busy, having already toured a few systems and with
more scheduled in the future.
1982
There has been some industry contact and K Bicknell and s 9(2)(a) have been looking at scientific
literature. The terms of reference came direct from Minister: to summarise what’s happened since the
code was released in 2010 and see whether or not there is cause to reconsider farrowing conditions.
Industry involvement so far has been beneficial because of their data, but they are also concerned
ACT with
potential future impacts for them. The major next step is to progress the economic analysis on
alternative ways of managing farrowing.
The subcommit ee’s focus has been identifying information gaps and any changes to the information
that was available when the commit ee came to its current position on farrowing crates, which is stated
in the pig code of welfare. It was noted that there are other things that affect mortality other than
housing – one is lit er size (tied in with genetics), so you end up with a cycle where lit ers are bred to be
larger and larger and that’s considered to be a reason why crates are justified. This also has
consequences for other factors such as body weight at birth and rate of heat loss. The other factor, of
course, is management.
The other thing is that all of the focus on piglet welfare is mortality. There is virtually no inf
INFORMATION ormation on
welfare of surviving piglets. How do you compare the loss of for example .5 piglets per lit er vs. the
increased welfare of 11 other piglets that can spend time with their mother outside of the crate?
As well as this there is the need to future-proof. Right now, if you only look at scientific literature, there
are arguments to retain short-term use of farrowing crates. However, there is work on alternatives that
could provide significant welfare benefits and there is a risk in providing advice that requires adoption of
a management system that could be reviewed again in the future, requiring another change if the
Minister was to instigate another review.
OFFICIAL
The use of induction was mentioned. Sows can be induced with synthetic oxytocin (because when
confined, they produce less of the hormone) so that they farrow during working hours. This is not
addressed in the pig code. This issue is part of
THE farrowing (as is nest building) – should it be considered?
Another issue is that the data is reported as ‘mortality to 10 days’, which looks good in crated piglets,
but in a longer time scale you can see mortality spikes due to scours. Are piglets in other systems,
overall, maybe more robust? Are the piglets who die in other systems actually dying for reasons other
than crushing or would they die ‘anyway’?
UNDER
The final point is that enrichment in crating systems is pretty much ignored. It doesn’t fit in the
management systems and feedback so far is that the farmers are not wil ing to try.
The subcommit ee is summarising these points and the scientific literature to provide a brief update to
the Commit ee.
Horses and Donkeys – MPI Policy has reviewed the draft code and report and identified some areas for
updating or discussion with the subcommit ee. One example is hot branding, which may be restricted by
regulations in the future, and therefore should be carefully considered in the draft code. s 9(2)(a) is
dealing with this, with the subcommit ee.
RELEASED
- 13 -
142
Shade and Shelter – the
Safeguarding our Animals, Safeguarding our Reputation programme wil not be
progressing work on shade and shelter in this calendar year, as the work was not supported by the
industry operational group for the Programme (the Farm to Processor Animal Welfare Forum). However,
it remains on NAWAC’s work programme under the new subcommit ee chair, Ingrid Collins.
Systems Review – this subcommit ee is on hold at the moment, to resume in August according to 1982
NAWAC’s 2015 work plan. Commit ee members discussed that NAWAC wil need to develop a position
on what it wants the codes of welfare and regulations to really look like – how wil they be printed, how
wil they work together?s 9(2)(a) suggested that when proposals for regulations go out to wider
ACT
consultation, people may start asking this question, and NAWAC may want to think about it sooner
rather than later. As a minimum, would it be helpful to confirm whether codes of welfare/regulations are
in one document?
It was noted that the Systems Review subcommit ee had earlier proposed having material from the
relevant code or codes of welfare and regulations, all in one document.
Stakeholders also should be asked what they would like to see.
Companion Animals in Temporary Housing – The subcommit ee has finished considering the code
following public consultation and a contractor is drafting the accompanying code report. The
subcommit ee is planning on bringing a draft for recommendation to the Minister, to the August NAWAC
meeting.
INFORMATION
C 4.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bil and draft regulations update
J Hellström had circulated a paper (NAWAC 12/15) to the Commit ee before the meeting.
In summary, there are two sets of regulations that NAWAC is involved in: care & conduct and significant
surgical procedures. The regulations working group is trying to keep them at the same point of
development throughout the process, so it now meets for 2 days each time, spending one day on each.
OFFICIAL
Appendix one of the paper 12/15 shows which issues/codes have been assessed for potential
regulations, noting that further issues/codes have been assessed since this paper was writ en. Some
issues are pretty straightforward, but some are more subjective – for example how do you regulate feed
THE
and water objectively in an outcome-based way? What’s the symptom that you want to prevent? Do you
regulate inputs instead?
Other things considered included issues that are currently not minimum standards (maybe
recommended best practice, or for which there is not yet a code or minimum standard) but it’s clear that
they need to be included in regulations. A simple example is hot branding – this is currently allowed in
UNDER
codes, but there are alternatives, it could be considered outdated, and perhaps should be banned.
The regulations are being developed in at least two tranches. Tranche one offers quick benefits, and will
be issued as soon as possible (hopefully within 18 months). Tranche two requires more careful
consideration and buy-in from industry and wil include ‘grey’ areas, developed perhaps a year after
tranche one. There may be further tranches required for very contentious issues that require long
periods of work with affected industries.
RELEASED
- 14 -
143
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
doing a bit more homework and bringing some items along to discuss in order to start the conversation
(but of course NAWAC members continue to add their own). Therefore, the paper 13/15 is the list of
issues that have come across MPI’s desk since the last NAWAC meeting and they are as broad as
possible as an exercise in ‘horizon scanning’. The proposal was to go through and identify where
NAWAC wants more explanation.
1982
Craddock farms layer hens conversion – this was an example of Resource Management Act
requirements conflicting with code of welfare requirements. An egg producer needed new premises in
order to move hens from conventional cages to colony cages, and resource consent was required to
ACT
install the new system. Public consultation was undertaken as part of the resource consenting process,
which animal activists made full use of. Consent was denied because of the possible odour from the
new facility. Craddock farms has indicated they wil appeal.
NAWAC considered this potential issue in its advice to the Minister on the layer hen code of welfare. As
a result the timeline for shifting to colony cages was discussed extensively and even pushed back by
two years. The industry has been updating the Minister on progress. There is nothing further for the
Commit ee to do at the moment except to follow the story with interest.
Nepalese Gadhimai Festival – there is an international movement to stop the festival (which involves
extensive non-stun slaughter of sheep). There was some concern from the public that New Zealand
animals ended up there.
INFORMATION
Only breeding animals have been exported to Nepal. The issue is of interest but NAWAC as part of a
general concern about non-stun and religious slaughter, but no further action is required.
Electronic collars - just before Christmas, s 9(2)(a) received a big envelope from the Electronic Collars
Manufacturers Association overseas providing a lot of data and promoting the equipment. Notably it
also contained information on collars for cats. It was presumed that this Association is feeling the
movement around the world towards banning this equipment. They are used in NZ, though there are
standards under the dog code of welfare (but not the cat code). There is a risk is that with no answer to
OFFICIAL
correspondence like this, sometimes NAWAC finds out that the group has labelled “NAWAC endorsed”
on their products. But it was agreed there would be no action.
Grooming Spitz breeds – s 9(2)(a)
is the firs
THE t point of contact for public enquiries, and received one call
from a dog groomer/breeder of spitz breeds (double-coated dogs like huskies). The caller claimed that if
you groom certain dogs in the wrong way – e.g. shave a double-coated dog - it disrupts their ability to
thermoregulate and on top of that the coat may never grow back. The grooming industry is not regulated
and so a code of welfare was requested by the caller - she was advised that this was not likely but
wanted the issue passed on anyway. s 9(2)(a)
to investigate – does the dog code of welfare
successfully address the issue?
UNDER
s 9(2)(a)
had also received a call on untested veterinary devices. A vet physio called to ask whether a
handheld ‘light therapy’ device could be imported into New Zealand for home use. The Agricultural
Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act doesn’t cover devices, so there is no barrier to importation.
This raises a risk that has come up before with alternative medicines, i.e. people failing to provide
effective veterinary treatment. No action identified.
Shade and shelter – NAWAC already aware of this, but with the unusually hot weather and drought
there were several calls and complaints about why people are not required to provide shelter from the
sun.
RELEASED
- 16 -
145
In the news – an off-duty policeman shot a dog with a crossbow; both MPI and the SPCA were
interested in investigating. Noted that warranted police of icers are animal welfare inspectors under the
Act. The Commit ee wil be given an update when one is available.
There was also a video circulating that showed a man on a commercial fishing boat apparently bashing
a shark to death with a piece of wood. Apparently both he and the cameraman were immediately fired.
1982
Again, the Commit ee wil be given an update when one is available.
Rodeos – as identified earlier, enquiries have been coming in from A&P shows on whether the effective
ban on sheep riding in the code of welfare for rodeos applies to them. Also, some rodeos are stil us
ACT ing
sheep but not riding them – whereas under the code, they shouldn’t be using sheep at all. MPI was
aware of the issue and following up on complaints as necessary.
The Commit ee discussed other events including dog trials.
The letter from s 9(2)(a)
regarding ongoing pyrotechnics at rodeos was discussed. The response
has been circulated (06/15). It is not anticipated that this issue wil continue.
Drones – more and more stories are coming through about how animals react to drone use, this time
there has been one about seagulls attacking the drones being used to film the cricket. What about using
them on farm to check on young animals – does it stress the mothers? Wil animal advocates use the
tech to survey large farms?
INFORMATION
A drone demonstration was suggested for the NAWAC/NAEAC joint meeting, since the topic is ‘new
technology’. I Collins has a contact through s 9(2)(a)
, and it was noted that Beef + Lamb are trying
them out as well. The Secretariat wil continue to circulate to the Commit ee items on drones of
relevance to animal welfare.
Live exports – issues continue. NAWAC not directly involved in live exports but wil be consulted on the
set of regulations that wil cover them.
OFFICIAL
Prodders – there are new handheld prodders that look like Tasers on the market that are being stopped
at the border by customs. So, how do you prove they’re for animal use?
THE
Also there are ‘swine’ prodders being sold on TradeMe – but under the code of welfare, they can’t be
used on pigs.
NAWAC and the National Ethics Advisory Commit ee (NAEAC) have previously expressed to the
Minister a shared a concern that traps and devices can be used in NZ until such a time as NAWAC
makes regulations or some other Act comes into force that restricts them. So anyone can import
anything and use it on an animal unti
UNDER l that point. This issue had been ruled out of scope in the recent
review of the Animal Welfare Act. It was noted that NAWAC may be called on to develop advice on
these electric prodders and also that MPI was working with TradeMe on this issue.
Exotic pet trade – New Zealand has a project on the go looking to agree which animals can be traded
based on biosecurity risk. This is led by a group in MPI with relevant stakeholders including pet retailers
and the Companion Animal Council. This group is aware that there are also animal welfare concerns
with keeping exotic pets.
RELEASED
- 17 -
146
Cats – the current issue is that vets are being given the responsibility for euthanasia of stray cats
brought in by members of the public, as the SPCA moves away from routine euthanasia and towards
Trap Neuter Return under its Saving Lives programme. It’s a risk to the profession – vets can be
pursued by owners if they accidentally euthanaise someone’s property. Complicating matters, the Act
requires animals to be held for 7 days prior to euthanasia or rehoming in certain situations. It would
probably be better for a wild cats welfare to euthanase it than hold it.
1982
There is no single piece of legislation for cat management in New Zealand, like there is for dogs, and
various groups around the country are dealing with issues relating to cats. These include Lower Hutt city
ACT
council investigating whether they can introduce a bylaw to enforce microchipping, MPI looking at what
they can do to support biosecurity managers who are working with local councils and the NZVA is
looking at whether they coordinate some kind of national forum on cats. MPI also receives inquiries from
the public on what to do with trapped cats, including whether gassing or drowning is acceptable.
NAWAC agreed to leave this issue on the animal welfare issues register but there was no immediate
action.
After the discussion there was a clear consensus that this agenda item is worth continuing, and it was
agreed that there would be a fresh list next time (though each list would stay on for one more meeting
post-discussion before it is deleted).
INFORMATION
The Commit ee was reminded to send issues that they think of to the secretary to be added to the list.
One more point was raised - how well NAWAC has been informed by compliance data while working
through the regulations process. It gives a good evidence base for decisions.
s 9(2)(a)
stated that there is a plan for s 9(2)(a)
(Verification Services) and s 9(2)(a)
(Compliance) to share their reports with industries, and NAWAC could be added to this list.
OFFICIAL
Action – Secretariat to ensure that NAWAC is included in any upcoming Compliance / Verification
reports
THE
C 6.
MPI update and feedback on information shared
There were no questions or comments.
UNDER
RELEASED
- 18 -
147
PART TWO
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
OTHER REPORTS AND DISCUSSION
1982
O 1.
Mini tutorial: shade & shelter
s 9(2)(a)
gave a presentation on the provision of shade and shelter for livestock, how it can affect
ACT
welfare, and options to deal with the problem.
One point that was especially noted and discussed was the information on how to reach farmers in
order to educate them on issues such as shade and shelter. A study had been done which listed
effective and ineffective ways to reach farmers, and Commit ee members wanted more information.
K Milne noted that booklets are a great way to distribute information when done correctly (e.g. strong
waterproof paper, pictures, ringbinder or can be hung up in the shed).
It was thought that although phone or mobile device apps and texts were ranked quite low, they are stil
good for the younger farmers but they can be limited by the cellular network.
INFORMATION
One way to reach farmers effectively is through their own community – it was noted that vets, stock
agents, and other farmers make up some key areas of the community that can share information.
It was emphasised that what is needed to move the shade & shelter issue forward would be data on
how respiration rate or live weight is linked to shade.
Action – Circulate Blair et al & Stewart et al. Massey study on how farmers learn.
O 2.
NAWAC minutes: sharing with other committee
OFFICIAL
s
Secretary s 9(2)(a)
explained that MPI has received a request from the government of Singapore to
share information on how NAWAC operates, as Singapore looks to set up their own independent
advisory commit ee on animal welfare. As wel
THE l as sending the publically available guidelines and
meeting summaries, the Commit ee was asked whether they would consider sharing their full minutes.
Moved (J Hellström / S Brown)
That NAWAC shares a year’s worth of minutes with Singapore, making sure to note their confidentiality.
UNDER
The motion was put: carried.
Sharing information with EuroFAWC was also discussed; NAWAC receives their minutes each year,
plus major updates from European countries every now and then – see the recent documents circulated
from The Netherlands. NAWAC used to send their own minutes to EuroFAWC, but this has dropped off.
It was agreed that meeting summaries would be sent to the EuroFAWC secretary along with major
documents when required (e.g. new strategic and operational plans, opinions and codes of welfare).
Action: Secretary to share minutes and meeting summaries as discussed (one-off with Singapore,
ongoing with EuroFAWC).
RELEASED
- 19 -
148
O 3.
NAWAC correspondence
There were no questions or comments on recent NAWAC correspondence.
O 4. Committee members’ reports on recent presentations and attendance at conferences
1982
J Hellström has had an invitation to present to the Australian RSPCA. This would be a provocative talk
comparing the state of New Zealand’s animal welfare system to Australia’s.
He has also been invited by the New Zealand poultry industry to speak to them in May about the new
ACT
regulations.
V Williams summarised her presentation to the New Zealand Hunts Association. She talked to them
about hound and horse welfare but also gave a warning – while their industry is flying under the radar
right now, the greyhound industry can be held as a cautionary tale on how fast that can change (and, in
New Zealand, a good example of how to proactively work on issues). The Four Corners exposé on live
baiting in Australia had broken just before the talk. Discussion moved to this issue. V Wil iams had
asked GRNZ welfare officer s 9(2)(a)
about live baiting, and he stated that there was none in New
Zealand. He explained that New Zealand has been more proactive than Australia (see 2013 review),
and has no private tracks for members to use.
It was noted that keeping a wild animal captive for hunting (i.e. live baiting) is il egal in New Zealand, but
INFORMATION
hunting an ‘animal in a wild state’ (i.e. hunting with hounds) is not.
V Wil iams also told the New Zealand Hunts Association that the industry should begin to gather data
(e.g. on injuries and number of captured animals). The use of live animals as prey would need to be
justified in the face of available alternatives.
K Bicknell, s 9(2)(a) and K Phil ips have been invited to an event put on by company EcoPharm,
at ended by vets and producers. It is quite a closed event but they are able to go along and listen to
OFFICIAL
farrowing-related presentations for part of the afternoon.
There was some feedback on the first few fitness for transport workshops in the South Island. They are
going well but transporters are saying ’these issues are the farmers fault’ (farmers have not been invited
THE
to these workshops).
With no further business, the chair declared the meeting closed at 2:30pm.
UNDER
RELEASED
- 20 -
149
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
PART ONE
(PUBLIC EXCLUDED AGENDA)
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Section 48, Local Government Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987
1982
There being no other introductory items of business, it was moved (J Hellström / I Collins)
That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
ACT
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
J Hellström
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
J Hellström
C 3.
Work programme update
s 9(2)(a) / All
C 4.
Horses & donkeys code of welfare
s 9(2)(a)
C 5.
Greyhounds: live baiting
P Fisher / J Hellström
C 6.
AW Bil and implementation
s 9(2)(a)
Regulations update
J Hellström
INFORMATION / s 9(2)(a)
Information and knowledge sharing with industry
s 9(2)(a)
C 7.
1:00pm: Safeguarding update
s 9(2)(a)
C 8.
1:30pm: MPI compliance update
s 9(2)(a)
OFFICIAL
C 9.
Animal welfare issues register and discussion
J Hellström / All
C 10. 2:30pm: The 2014 bobby calf season summary
s 9(2)(a)
THE
C 11. MPI update
s 9(2)(a)
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE THE PUBLIC IS EXCLUDED,
THE REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER, AND THE SPECIFIC
GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND
MEETINGS ACT 1987 FOR THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
UNDER
General subject of each matter to be
Reason for passing this
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the
considered
resolution in relation to each
passing of this resolution
matter
C 1.
Confirmation of previous
To protect the privacy of natural
That the public conduct of the relevant
minutes
persons.
part of the proceedings of the meeting
would be likely to result in the disclosure
of information for which good reason for
withholding would exist under section
9(2)(a) of the Of icial Information Act
RELEASED
1982 (OIA).
C 2.
Status of actions arising from
As above.
As above.
previous meetings
- 2 -
151
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
on snares has been carried out by MPI’s graduate staff member. The RNZSPCA continues to
supply evidence of misuse of snares.
• Selective breeding: With members also involved in farrowing and dairy housing, it had been too
busy and this item will be left until the next meeting.
•
s 9(2)(a)
Companion animals in temporary housing: The new MPI contact is
Only work
needed now is to confirm the final changes. This is anticipated to be considered at the August
1982
meeting and then recommended to the Minister.
• Shade and shelter: I Collins has received information and papers on the subject and stated her
wil ingness to get this piece of work underway. A few of the proposed interventions include
ACT
regulations; some wil have an impact on other areas such as resource consents. Al angles
need to be considered.
•
s 9(2)(a)
Systems review:
explained a possible new issue - the MPI communications and web
teams have kicked off some work to ensure all consultations share a consistent MPI ‘voice’
when put up on the web. This may not be appropriate for codes of welfare consultations, which
are led by NAWAC and only organised/hosted by MPI. It was agreed that the systems review
subcommit ee would organise a response or solution if required. s 9(2)(a) asked whether the
commit ee was happy to start the work on re-formatting codes of welfare (with regulations) in
August or whether they wanted it sooner, so that it be included in conversations with
stakeholders at regulations workshops. It was agreed that there is not a big rush, and it would
be better to have draft regulations first. I Torrance agreed to join this subcommit ee.
INFORMATION
Farrowing crates update
It was first shared that K Bicknell had stepped down as chair due to il ness. It was proposed, and
agreed, that K Phil ips (ex-officio member) should chair the subcommit ee.
s 9(2)(a) had shared paper 31/15 which summarised the work of the subcommitee so far. Since the
date of the paper, the subcommit ee had visited a ‘high-health’ facility, had a subcommit ee
teleconference, and had a free and frank discussion with NZPork in regards to farrowing.
OFFICIAL
At this point, the subcommit ee is not sure that a prohibition on crates can work, since the amended
Animal Welfare Act allows for a maximum transition period of 10 years and the literature shows that
there is no viable equivalent to transition to. The industry is receiving a strong message that when there
THE
is, they wil need to move quickly.
An economic impact analysis is underway, as requested in the Minister’s letter. It wil compare a 3-week
system (essentially, early weaning) and a one-week system (farrowing pen system)
.
Selective breeding is another issue that has become evident. Bigger sows means some animals are
UNDER
touching the front and back of their crate at the same time, breaching a minimum standard in the pig
code. This standard is being discussed as part of the regulation work. Larger and larger litter sizes are
also a problem.
Another minimum standard to allow for nesting behaviour is not being met in many cases. Most farms
seem not to providing nesting material because the slatted system cannot handle substances like straw.
This standard is being discussed as part of the regulation work. It was noted that there are 120 farms in
New Zealand that are with NZPork.
Commit ee members ques
RELEASED tioned why sows are in crates for 5 days before farrowing. The reason given
by industry is that they need time to settle, and that some sows wil farrow earlier than expected.
- 5 -
154
Discussion moved to the economic analysis. Cooperation from industry has seemed grudging at best,
with NZPork contesting decisions. With the loss of K Bicknell, it was suggested that NAWAC needs
economic knowledge to push back against their concerns. s 9(2)(a) suggested an MPI animal welfare
policy staff member that has an economics background.
The company contracted to do the analysis, Nimmo Bel , would like a reference group for
technical/welfare issues. It was suggested and agreed that NAWAC agrees with the creation of a 1982
reference group and that K Phil ips or J Wagner be on the group.
In regards to appointing K Phil ips as chair of the subcommit ee, s 9(2)(a) noted that she had confirmed
with MPI legal that an ex-officio member can chair a subcommit ee.
ACT
Moved (J Hellström / I Torrance):
That K Phil ips be elected chair of the farrowing crated subcommit ee
The motion was put: carried.
Moved (J Hellström / Sue Brown):
That the Commit ee formally acknowledges K Bicknell’s work and wil send a letter of thanks.
The motion was put: carried.
Moved (J Hellström / V Williams):
That changes to subcommit ee membership be made as discussed during the work programme update
The motion was put: carried.
INFORMATION
Action – s 9(2)(a)
to update and circulate subcommit ee master list
C 4.
Horses & donkeys code of welfare
Paper 32/15 containing suggested final changes to this code had been circulated prior to the meeting,
and it was explained that the reason these changes are being suggested to the whole commit ee is
because all original subcommit ee members have since left NAWAC.
OFFICIAL
• Minimum standard 6: In general information on using the nose twitch, remove the reference to
not using it on other parts of the body, leaving just “the nose twitch is only to be used on the lip”.
•
THE
Minimum standard 10: In regards to rectal examination, it was noted that there is some cross-
over between this minimum standard and potential future regulations. It was explained that MPI
would prefer to release the code as-is, since everything can’t be on hold for two years while
regulations are developed.
• Minimum standard 10d: This refers to seeking expert assistance when a horse is having
dif iculty foaling, but 10a requires there to be people available who are experienced and
UNDER
competent.
s 9(2)(a)
expressed concern about releasing minimum standards for hot branding and rectal
examination that wil be out of date or superseded by regulations 18 months down the line. It was
agreed that the issues can be flagged within the code with a note from NAWAC that these standards
may change soon.
There were no further comments.
C 5.
Greyhounds
RELEASED
: live baiting
- 6 -
155
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
The amended Animal Welfare Act requires the Minister to consult with NAWAC when he releases
regulations (these first rounds are being released by the Minister – future regulations wil be developed
by NAWAC alongside codes). It was explained that formal consultation wil happen next year, in that the
Minister will formally write to NAWAC. This wil run alongside public consultation.
Preconsultation was discussed and it was noted these are almost complete except for the greyhound
industry and SAFE due to scheduling.
1982
Regulations update – surgical and painful procedures
s 9(2)(a)
had circulated a paper prior to the meeting, 38/14 (3).
It was explained that a lot of focus has been on provision of pain relief. The other main focus is who
ACT
should do each procedure: a vet, an ‘accredited person’ (current setup for deer velvetting), or a
‘competent person’. There are some controversial topics in this area – see tail docking across species.
Black and white definitions can be hard to write.
It was noted that the SPCA and the Veterinary Council of New Zealand are on the working group but wil
also be able to make their own submissions.
The time frames are that informal conversations wil be held with key stakeholders July/August; public
consultation early 2016; and first tranche expected to be issued by end 2016.
Regulations update – live animal exports It was explained that live exports are in a bit of a dif erent area to the other regulations. They are
INFORMATION
governed under a separate part of the Act with less NAWAC input, since NAWAC’s influence is limited
to domestic issues.
These regulations are at the scoping stage. The big focus is exporting for slaughter, currently prohibited
with exemptions given by the Director-General of MPI. However, this prohibition is under the Customs
Act and it expires at the end of 2016. This wil be lifted into regulations under the Animal Welfare Act.
The scope for the prohibition on export for slaughter currently includes only cattle, sheep, goats, and
deer. However, a wider scope and standards around age, pregnancy, and stocking density are currently
OFFICIAL
contained in guidelines which are also being examined. Other species would be considered as part of a
second tranche of regulations.
Regulations are intended to be in place by March/April 2016, so wil need to be publically consulted in
September/October this year.
THE
NAWAC wil definitely be involved during that public consultation period. The commit ee was asked
whether they wanted to be involved at a higher level– by having someone on the working group, or
being considered a stakeholder on the same level as exporters. It was agreed to accept MPI’s invitation
to be more involved; NAWAC elected A Sharr to be on the working group.
Information and knowledge sharing with industry
UNDER
Regulations are a tool at the sharp end of the enforcement process. MPI is working hard to find out how
to drive compliance/behaviour change without getting to that point.
The industry has been very engaged in ‘early warning’ systems that can deploy industry resources and
help. It was explained that MPI is hoping to involve the wil ing resources of industry to drive behaviour
change before we have to get to enforcement.
Moved (V Williams / S Brown) that NAWAC:
•
RELEASED
agrees to the care and conduct tranche 1 matters to be progressed in Table 1
•
agrees to the care and conduct activities to propose banning in Table 1
- 8 -
157
•
agrees that the NAWAC sub-commit ee continue with developing the regulations with MPI
according to the process and timeline outlined in this paper
The motion was put: carried.
Moved (D Scobie / I Torrance) that NAWAC:
•
agrees that the NAWAC sub-commit ee continuing to work with MPI in the development of the
surgical and painful procedures regulations with MPI according to the process and timeline 1982
outlined paper 38/15 (3).
The motion was put: carried.
Moved (A Sharr / S Brown):
ACT
That NAWAC formally acknowledges the work that MPI staff, NZVC, SPCA and the NAWAC
subcommit ee have done so far on regulations.
The motion was put: carried.
O 2.
Glueboard traps update
With time to go until speakers arrived for item C7, NAWAC moved on to item O2.
s 9(2)(a) summarised the paper 36/15 that explained the history of glueboards regulations. In January of
2015, glueboards were finally prohibited for all users except for exemptions issued by the Minister
(delegated to the Ministry). Approval to sell or use can only be granted where there is no viable
alternative and it is in the public interest. The paper provides more detail on these examinations.
INFORMATION
Exemptions are issued with a list of conditions.
There are 3 main groups: Department of Conservation, using boards on boats/planes/islands;
multinational companies, that may have rules from overseas or other countries/companies to use
glueboard traps; and smaller players that use them because they always have and don’t see
alternatives (whether true or not). It would be ideal to use the resources available to that second group
to find alternatives to glueboards for the third group.
OFFICIAL
There was some question around how to distinguish between intentional and accidental targeting of
rodents (because glueboards for insects are allowed). Ultimately, it is up to animal welfare inspectors to
decide on a case-by-case basis. However, there are dif erent types of traps marketed to dif erent
species, places where you expect only one variety of rats, etc.
THE
It was agreed that it is not ideal to have to give exemptions, but at least now MPI maintains a clear list of
users. Approval is only for a year and users wil have to justify their use again with each application.
NAWAC had previously discussed approaching the Minister with their concerns over exemptions being
granted. It was agreed that this could wait for the next update; if NAWAC did approach the Minister it
could be in February i.e. after the nex
UNDER t round of applications.
Action: s 9(2)(a)
to give another update in November with NAWAC to provide further advice to the
Minister afterwards.
s 9(2)(a) is planning another meeting of the glueboards alternatives working group.
C 7.
Safeguarding update
s 9(2)(a)
arrived to give NAWAC an overview of the last six months.
RELEASED
- 9 -
158
In the last few months, focus has been on the 12 fit for transport roadshows across the country. There
were more than 600 attendees – transport operators/stock agents rather than farmers. The key
messages were: animals need to be fit for transport as part of a whole-of-supply approach (not just from
farmers); if they’re your livelihood, their welfare is their responsibility; consumer perception is reality;
slaughterhouses are food processors, not dumping grounds; and doing nothing/ignoring problems is not
appropriate. One action pushed was to ask the farmer: “Are your animals fits for transport?” Just asking,
and noting the answer, would help to defend the transport operator in any investigations and may make
1982
the farmer stop and think.
An unintended consequence was a significant spike in veterinary certificates issued to transport sick
animals to saleyards, but these certificates are only supposed to be used to get animals to slaughter.
ACT
Some vets are issuing certificates with destination unspecified which is illegal (s14).
At endees were also encouraged to work on their relationships with clients (i.e. farmers), as the
transport operators can see problems developing over time. There were some promising examples of
businesses saying no to transporting animals and not losing clients.
The workshops cost $30,000 and there was great feedback. One side effect has been many more
codes of welfare being printed and distributed. A future challenge is how to maintain this good
engagement. Less than a dozen attendees knew about the Amendment Bil , but all were pleased about
the potential ability to fine the bad operators.
The next big chunk of work is on bobby calves. Statistically speaking, it is reported that there is 99%
INFORMATION
compliance – sounds good, but that stil means thousands of bobby calves dead/injured every year.
Research is being commissioned to find welfare indicators for calves, since it tends to be measured via
mortality at the moment.
Questions and suggestions were welcomed.
There were some questions around animals being sent to slaughterhouses that are far away from the
farm, dramatically increasing travel time, in order to get more money. The bottom line is that MPI wil
OFFICIAL
investigate the welfare of the animals without regard to contractual arrangements.
I Collins invited the
Safeguarding programme to future open days at Whangara Farms and nearby
properties, run by Silver Fern Farms and local FarmIQ members.
THE
It was suggested that the messages need to be shared in pictures – examples of conditions that need a
veterinary certificate, videos of lameness scores, even photos of animals after a long journey or after
suffering backrub, because farmers never get to see the outcome. MPI does not like to share graphic
pictures (market access) but DairyNZ does have good information out there.
It was noted that industry groups are saying things like “when you transport a heavily pregnant animal
UNDER
you need to consider A, B and C” but in fact the pregnant animals should not be transported at all;
there’s a logic to saying “it’s happening anyway so we just want to help” but they are opening
themselves up to prosecution or consumer backlash.
Any further suggestions via email were invited. It was noted that shade and shelter was back on the
agenda with I Collins leading.
C 8.
MPI compliance update
s 9(2)(a)
arrived to gi
RELEASED ve a compliance update.
- 10 -
159
There has been a steady increase of complaints so far - a 46% increase in Jan-Apr from 2014. It was
noted that glueboards, drought, and rodeo account for a few of the extra. It is expected that drought-
related complaints will rise. It was also noted that that animal activists seem to have developed a
strategy of laying complaints, then making an OIA, then taking the OIA to ombudsman, which has the
effect of wasting compliance time.
Lifestyle block-related complaints are on the increase. There is a need to get animal welfare messaging
1982
out to them. There are a lot of well-meaning people that don’t know enough, and about 30% of total
complaints relate to this group. The question of the definition of lifestyle block was raised. Compliance
does not have a definition, and NAWAC/MPI is coming up against this problem as they try to draft
regulations. An ad-hoc definition by the animal welfare coordinators, who answer the hotline, is whether
ACT
the block is their primary source of income. Another possibility is anything ‘less than 100 acres’ (except
for chickens/pigs). It is thought there are about 30,000 lifestyle blocks in NZ.
Complaints were broken down by species. There has been an increase in dairy (underfeeding), horses
(lifestylers), glueboards, and sheep (rodeo).
It was thought that increased awareness has led to the increase in complaints in 2015 – for example,
inspectors are now uniformed staff. Social media has generated more complaints. There is also an
increasing number of urban visitors to rural areas, who tend to generate less reliable complaints. About
21% of complaints annually are trivial or aren’t followed up. About 50% of this set can be dealt with on
the phone, and the other 50% stil require a callout which wastes time.
INFORMATION
As part of the animal welfare budget bid, compliance is hoping to hire 6 additional inspectors (i.e. not
cross-warranted), 3 regional trauma vets, and a new animal welfare compliance manager based in
Pastoral House. With this set up, more proactive work can be done (e.g. links with
Safeguarding).
C 10. The 2014 bobby calf season summary
s 9(2)(a)
was welcomed to talk to NAWAC about the bobby calf project and results. The Bobby Calf
project aims to reduce the number of calves that die before they can be processed. It focuses on
OFFICIAL
ensuring all members of the supply chain (farmers, transporters and processors) meet their animal
welfare responsibilities and protect the health and welfare of the calves. This project has been running
for four years and has targeted all aspects of the supply chain.
THE
Situations of poor animal welfare are identified by MPI VS veterinarians at processing plants. Recurring
incidents (when a trigger is exceeded a third time) wil be referred to the Compliance Branch for
investigation along with sufficient supporting evidence.
The trigger level for individual suppliers is either:
• A mortality rate of 5% or higher within a three week moving window for all calves submit ed by a
UNDER
supplier during that three week period, or
• A mortality rate of 5% or higher in each of any two consignments from that supplier within a
three week period.
For transporters, when the mortality rate from any transport load exceeds 1.5% of that load, the meat
processor is expected to immediately investigate that incident.
For processors, the total daily mortality of all calves associated with any day’s processing should be less
than 0.7%. If this level is exceeded, the meat processor is expected to immediately complete an
investigation.
RELEASED
In 2014, mortality rates dropped even with more total calves. It was noted that next year may be
interesting with the ban on blunt-force trauma to kil calves on farm.
- 11 -
160
Issues arising from the project include: young female vets are much less tolerant of bobby calf issues
than the generation before; there is concern from processors around the potential to make them move
to same-day processing; and there is some resistance to these types of projects from the Meat Industry
Association.
There needs to be further analysis on impact of preparation, fitness, and lairage. It was found that more
calves were condemned in the yards than on arrival.
1982
NAWAC questioned why calves were not all processed same-day. s 9(2)(a) responded that it is up to
NAWAC to change the rules (currently, calves must be processed within 28 hours and verification works
to encourage this as a maximum amount of time rather than a routine occurrence).
Safeguarding’s
ACT
aforementioned research project on welfare indicators may help to build an evidence base for changing
this.
It was noted that mortality rates tend to go up as the season progresses. Some of this is to do with
procurement - calves are trucked further near the end of the season as plants shut. It was noted that
farmers who truck their calves further may never even know they have a dead calf (since they’re paid on
pickup).
An interesting finding was that the premises that do well have vets that rule ‘with an iron fist’, while
collaboratively working with stakeholders and encouraging proactive employees.
In 2015, there wil be no change to the trigger setup. However, actions taken as a result of breaching
INFORMATION
triggers wil be more serious, with less educational responses and more enforcement responses. A
communications strategy is in place, and proactive farm visits wil be carried out, including audits of
petfood and slinkskin operations.
The roadshows have been done, and
Safeguarding has the operational research on welfare indicators
in the works. There has also been an industry agreement to stop shipping bobby calves across the
Cook Strait.
s 9(2)(a) noted MPI’s new Primary Growth Partnership Programm
OFFICIAL e, which aims to try crossing dairy cattle
with Wagyu beef to make calves that are better for raising as beef animals.
s 9(2)(a) was thanked for his time. THE
C 9.
Animal welfare issues register and discussion
A list of wide-ranging national and international animal welfare issues had been shared with the
commit ee (paper 34/15) prior to the meeting. The following issues were discussed:
• Skinny cattle on the Interislander: This story went viral. MPI found no breaches of the Act. The
UNDER
outstanding issue is whether it was right that they were transported between islands at all; this
has been identified as a focus of the second tranche of regulations. No immediate actions
identified.
•
s 9(2)(a)
Paw Justice’s Don’t TradeMe puppy mill campaign:
has had a meeting with TradeMe.
They are looking at limiting the number of puppies an account can list per year and introducing
a voluntary code. They had requested an OIA to find out how many puppy mil s MPI is actually
aware of; there are not many cases found by compliance. MPI’s view is that the alleged issues
raised by Paw Justice can be managed under the Act or codes of welfare. The only thing with
no hard and fas
RELEASED t rule is the number of liters a bitch should have per year, which is contained
under recommended best practice in the dog code.
- 12 -
161
• Chained Dog Awareness letter and new website: there were big assertions made in the letter –
any substance behind them? I Torrance is not aware of specific numbers, but the SPCA
responds to many reports of chained dogs, and the main tool is education. Tethering (not just
for dogs) is on the radar under the regulations workstream.
•
s 9(2)(a)
Stock-X:
had taken a call from a start-up from Stock-X who are starting up an online
marketplace for livestock; they were sent the relevant codes of welfare and links to animal 1982
welfare information. No actions identified.
C 11. MPI update
ACT
The MPI update was circulated prior to the meeting (35/15). There were no comments or questions.
PART TWO
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
STRATEGY AND PLANNING
O 1.
Mini-tutorial: farrowing crates
INFORMATION
Massey PhD student s 9(2)(a)
was welcomed. She had previously given a good presentation to
the farrowing subcommit ee at Waratah Farms, and it was thought this information would be useful for
al of NAWAC.
Her research objectives were to compare performance, behaviour and welfare between traditional
farrowing crates (where sows are confined 5 days before birth and then a maximum of 4 weeks
afterwards) and temporary confinement (where the sows are released into a farrowing ‘pen’ 4 days post-
partum).
OFFICIAL
Indoor farrowing systems can include simple pens - containing a temporary crate, heated creep area
and feed trough – to pens with separate nesting and dunging areas and a sloped wall to discourage
crushing (as the sow wil lean against the wall while lying). Waratah uses temporary crating in a simple
THE
pen with slatted floors. Many of the sows had been moved from crating only to the pen system.
Weaning weight was higher in the pens than a farrowing crate (hypothesised to be due to behaviour
differences), but mortality was higher in pens than the crate. Farrowing systems had no effect on the
sows’ reproductive performance.
Videos of the pens in action were shar
UNDER ed with the commitee and questions were welcomed.
The first question was whether any data was collected on the stress levels of sows. The study staff
wasn’t able to collect cortisol, due to practical dif iculties of conducting research on a commercial farm.
They did record behaviours like bar biting. This data is stil being reviewed and wil be shared with
NAWAC when available. Gilt behaviour was also observed – to see whether their behaviour dif ered
when they were raised in a dif erent environment to that which they gave birth in (i.e. do they learn to be
bad mothers)?
It was clarified that the data collected is with the intervention of the staff during crushing events or poor
RELEASED
health of animals, meaning there could be an interaction between staff/system/pigs. If there is one, it is
at least consistent across both systems.
- 13 -
162
It was pointed out that no nesting material was visible in the video. Waratah had trialled nesting
material, but the ef luent system could not handle it.
Was the cause of death recorded? It was judged by farm staff, with the vast majority of deaths being
crushing/suffocation. Weakness/starvation piglets are generally euthanized.
How many piglets born per lit er? At this farm, there were on average around 13, with around 12 born
1982
alive. Farrowing pens equated to around 0.5 extra deaths per lit er. There are 2.4 lit ers per sow per
year. After that initial extra mortality event, it is expected that all other piglets wil make it to market.
It was clarified that there is no dif erence in mortality rate when following sows through more than one
ACT
round of farrowing in pens – i.e. no subsequent reproductive effect.
Is there an increase in scours in ‘freer’ systems? There was no effect found in this study, but
anecdotally staff found that piglets that didn’t find the udder and got cold and died from
chil ing/starvation. They had to restrict the space that piglets had by modifying the pen.
In farrowing crates, can a piglet approach the sows head? Yes, and it is the only interaction they can
have (the piglet has to initiate).
Are Waratah’s farrowing crates better than in general? They are definitely modern – as seen in the
flooring materials, for example.
Do the sows learn to use the sloped sides - is the reason that they lie down quickly becaus
INFORMATION e they were
so used to the crate? In general sows wil almost always look to lie down against a surface. The sows
observed would have farrowed in crates before, so it is a possibility. That’s why the study is looking at
gilts born and raised in a pen and whether that affects lying behaviour. The general rule is that in the
pens, a good mother wil become a better mother; a poor mother wil become a poorer mother. In crates
you can’t see the dif erence.
Why didn’t the sow respond to squawking piglet in video? Have they learned not to respond (because
most of the time, when they hear that noise it’s not their own pi
OFFICIAL glet)? Not clear from the study.
It is possible to breed sows (strain called GenoMum) that reduce crushing behaviour. Genetics wil get
more and more attention, in regards to temperament as well as maternal behaviour.
THE
s 9(2)(a) was thanked for a helpful presentation.
OTHER REPORTS AND DISCUSSION
O 3.
Discussion of information circulated by MPI
UNDER
No comments were made on any information circulated by MPI.
O 4.
NAWAC correspondence
Correspondence was received from Chained Dog Awareness (with a response sent) and s 9(2)(a)
(greyhounds – potential response discussed above). There were no comments.
O 5. Committee members’ reports on recent presentations and attendance at conferences
J Hellström was invited to speak to the Australian SPCA in Canberra on why ”animal welfare matters to
RELEASED
New Zealanders”. There were a range of speakers talking about why animal welfare is important in their
sectors. It was a bit of a sombre meeting given that the federal government had dropped leadership in
- 14 -
163
animal welfare, leaving it to the states. J Hellstrom was proud to talk about the Amendment Bil , the
recognition of animal sentience, and the 1st-equal ranking given by World Animal Protection.
J Hellström also presented a paper to the New Zealand poultry industry in Palmerston North the week
before the meeting about regulations and the Amendment Bil . Feedback was that the broiler industry
does not want to be regulated by the number birds per area, but rather the weight of birds per area. Not
much controversy elsewhere.
1982
J Jamieson attended a talk at Wellington Zoo by s 9(2)(a)
called ’wild welfare’; he had interesting
views on the negative presentation of zoos in social media and the true role of a zoo – primarily
entertainment, followed by education, then conservation.
ACT
I Collins had been invited to an executive ’boot camp’ at Stanford.Unfortunately can’t attend this year,
but wil try again next year.
V Willaims had chaired NAEAC meetings earlier in the week. They visited the research institutes at
Palmerston North and had the incoming chair, s 9(2)(a)
, at that meeting. He wil be taking over in
November.
V Williams was also invited to ANZCCART, and talked to them about the research, testing and teaching
system and whether it’s working. Had a really good conversation about potential holes in the system,
the main one being that there is no requirement for competency testing people working in research
conditions.
INFORMATION
I Torrance had attended the national SPCA conference and AGM. It was agreed at the meeting to
launch a strategy to bring the many member societies into one entity. As well as achieving economies of
scale and lowering inspector turnover, this wil standardise the complaints process, as it was agreed
earlier this year to roll out Shelter Buddy, a software that tracks all complaints, inpectors, and animals
that come through the door. The organisation is going through the Amendment Act in relation to their
own policies.
With no further items of business, the meeting was closed at 4:
OFFICIAL 15.
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
- 15 -
164
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
PART ONE
(PUBLIC EXCLUDED AGENDA)
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
1982
Section 48, Local Government Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987
There being no other introductory items of business, it was moved (J Hellström / D Scobie)
That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
ACT
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
J Hellström
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
J Hellström
C 3.
Work programme update
s 9(2)(a) / All
C 4.
Dairy housing amendment
J Hellstrom
C 5.
Companion animals in temporary housing draft code
K Bicknel
C 6.
11:00am: Farrowing crates
K Phillips
INFORMATION
C 7.
Selective breeding paper
V Williams
C 8.
Animal welfare regulations progress report
J Hellström
C 9.
Subcommit ees – departing NAWAC members
J Hellström / All
C 10. Animal welfare issues register and discussion
J Hellström / All
OFFICIAL
C 11. MPI update and discussion of information circulated by MPI
s 9(2)(a)
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER T
THE
O BE CONSIDERED WHILE THE PUBLIC IS EXCLUDED,
THE REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER, AND THE SPECIFIC
GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND
MEETINGS ACT 1987 FOR THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
General subject of each matter to be
Reason for passing this
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the
considered
resolution in relation to each
passing of this resolution
UNDER
matter
C 1.
Confirmation of previous
To protect the privacy of natural
That the public conduct of the relevant
minutes
persons.
part of the proceedings of the meeting
would be likely to result in the disclosure
of information for which good reason for
withholding would exist under section
9(2)(a) of the Of icial Information Act
1982 (OIA).
C 2.
Status of actions arising from
As above.
As above.
previous meetings
RELEASED
C 3.
Work programme update
To maintain the ef ective conduct That the public conduct of the relevant
of public af airs through the
part of the proceedings of the meeting
- 2 -
166
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
The draft minutes of the general meeting held on 20 May 2015 (NAWAC46/15) were reviewed and
accepted with the following amendments:
1982
• Remove Barbara Nicholas from attendees
Moved (V Willaims A Sharr)
ACT
That, subject to the above amendments, the draft minutes of the general meetings held on 20 May 2015
be adopted as a true and accurate record of those meetings.
The motion was put: carried.
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
The commit ee reviewed the list of actions (NAWAC 47/15). The following updates were provided:
• Action 1, to advise the speaker of an appropriate wildlife speaker, is stil pending. Fish & Game
didn’t come to the recent wildlife workshop and they were the preferred speaker. P Fisher to
follow up.
INFORMATION
• Action 3, to discuss a new animal welfare forum, was done at the joint meeting. It was clear that
the commit ees wish to have joint meetings more frequently (annually was proposed). There is
the potential to liaise with other groups such as ABWCC (the Animal Behaviour and
Consultative Commit ee), which started as an advisory group to AgResearch Ruakura and grew
to include many industry representatives from there. The new forum could be the home for New
Zealand’s Animal Welfare Strategy. s 9(2)(a)
offered to take paper to the next ABWCC
meeting. Action to be left as ‘in progress’.
•
OFFICIAL
Action 5, to discuss the new website with MPI, to be closed. NAWAC stil disappointed that
animal welfare is not easy to find from the front page, but is satisfied that the new pages are
easy to navigate and have good information.
• Action 7, reviewing the induction pack, is in progress. The idea is to add a briefing on current
THE
issues so that each new member is more prepared for their first meetings. The idea was
welcomed and it was suggested that contact points for subject matter in each area should be
added.
• Action 8, to plan the joint meeting, is complete and can be removed.
• Action 10, to bring information on glueboards, wil be discussed later in the meeting and is then
UNDER
complete.
• Action 13, to ensure the commit ee is included in MPI compliance/verification reports, is
complete. NAWAC wil receive quarterly reports.
• Action 14, to update and circulate subcommit ee list, is complete.
• Action 16, to ask Greyhound Racing New Zealand for evidence that they have investigated the
possibility of live baiting is completed, but in person. This is to be followed up with a formal
letter.
RELEASED
Action – Secretariat to draft let er from John Hellstrom for Greyhound New Zealand.
• Action 17, on sharing glueboard information, also complete.
- 4 -
168
C 3.
Work programme update
The work programme update (NAWAC 51/15) was circulated prior to the meeting. For work programme
items not already on the agenda, the following updates were provided:
1982
•
s
Animals in public display, exhibition, and entertainment: A work plan has been pulled together. 9
has looked at the scope but has a few questions – the next step is to organise a
(
ACT
subcommit ee meeting to further discuss scope.
2
• Systems review: An updated terms of reference had been circulated prior to the meeting
(NAWAC 52/15). One meeting has been held and recommendations from this wil be writ en up
and presented in November. There was some discussion on the role of science in NAWAC’s
decision making and s 9(2)(a)
work on positive welfare. It was suggested that he (or s 9(2)(a)
) could be invited to the next meeting.
Action – secretariat to invite s 9(2)(a)
to present the five domains model at a NAWAC
meeting.
• Horses & donkeys: The code has been commented on by Policy, and is now in a legal review.
Expected to be issued by the end of the year.
INFORMATION
• Wild animals: The wild animals subcommit ee held a workshop in June with two groups: pest
managers and game hunters. Some were wary about the purpose of the meeting at first, but
realised quickly that NAWAC was there simply to encourage thinking around generally accepted
practice. It was noted that Game Animal Council stated that something like 80% of hunters are
not associated with any organisation – the normal approach of approaching representatives
might not work here, however there is some obligation on these organisations to contact or
promote this issue alongside promoting the practice of h
OFFICIAL unting.
There was good discussion around general principles of generally accepted practice, and it was
thought it would be best to leave it up to individual groups to further define it for their own
purposes. The Game Animal Council
THE have convened a group to discuss the issue (ungulates
only). Meeting notes are due out to whole commit ee in the next few weeks.
One interesting issue was remote monitoring (electronic) of traps; under the Act that’s OK for kill
traps, but a live capture trap must be inspected every day, and there is question around
whether this form of monitoring counts as an ‘inspection’. There is a potential need to amend
the Act if it turns out that remote monitoring does not count and we want to allow it. The
UNDER
Subcommit ee is reviewing this issue.
C 4.
Dairy housing amendment
The papers 49/15 (proposed amendment), 63/15 (Federated Farmers and DairyNZ submissions), and
62/15 (draft code report) had been circulated prior to the meeting.
It was explained that the industry groups have reiterated their opposition to the amendment on dairy
housing, stating that the science to support outdoor access as a behavioural need for dairy cattle is not
RELEASED
valid or doesn’t exist, and that the consultation process was too short. Comments had not been
- 5 -
169
received from the New Zealand Veterinary Association, but other comments had been forwarded to the
Committee.
What NAWAC has put forward is a proposal that cows should not be housed for life, and in general
where cows are kept indoors they should get outdoor access sometimes, e.g. by not being housed
during their dry period. The draft code report describes the basis for the proposal: NAWAC does not
maintain that access to the outdoors is a need, as such, but notes benefits from access to the outdoors
1982
contrasting with risks of insufficient system design and management that are magnified when cows are
permanently housed.
Only one farmer is apparently housing cows (or intending to) for longer than one lactation currently in
ACT
New Zealand, so there does not appear to be a strong drive for permanent housing. There are,
however, more farmers housing cows for several months with daily access to the outdoors, or with a
period out of doors each year.
J Hellström met with the Minister on August 3rd and advised him of on-going industry opposition to
constraints on permanent housing. The next step is for the subcommit ee to meet with industry face-to-
face to explain why they have interpreted the science the way they do. The Minister would also like a
further briefing from NAWAC before he receives the Commit ee’s final advice on the revised code.
s 9(2)(a) explained that the report and code had been reviewed by MPI staff and will be externally peer-
reviewed (by s 9(2)(a)
at Massey).
INFORMATION
In the past, industry bodies have said many times that NAWAC is being unscientific and pandering to
the public when it has proposed policies they don’t agree with. It seems unclear what farmers want
compared to what the industry says that they want. Farmers themselves may not be interested in
moving to lifetime housing.
There is a national reputational risk as well, and industry groups may not have considered this aspect in
developing their position. The subcommit ee has noted that overseas dairy is moving back outdoors or
providing access to the outdoors for loafing, and considers that if we recommend allowing permanent
OFFICIAL
housing now, this is likely to be going against furture international developments.
It was agreed that subcommit ee goes back to these groups stating that the amendment has been
reviewed again, but after consideration of the science, public submissions, overseas progress, and the
THE
precautionary principle, NAWAC will still recommend this amendment to the Minister for Primary
Industries in November, pending external peer review and final comments from sector representatives.
s 9(2)(a)
raised the issue of the dairy goat industry. They are already housing full-time. It is worth
looking at this and making sure it’s not totally at odds with this decision. The dif erence is that goats run
outside get footrot, and the sheds for goats tend to have more space and have enrichment. It was noted
that sheep milking is also an emerging industry.
UNDER
Action – subcommit ee to look at codes of welfare for other housed animals to consider alignment.
The NAWAC guideline on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis was discussed, and how the process to
develop the code of welfare for layer hens included a MCDA approach where the 5 domains of welfare
were overlaid with other considerations, and public submissions.
Action: Dairy housing to be put through the MCDA decision making process, as documented in NAWAC
Guideline 08.
RELEASED
- 6 -
170
C 5.
Companion animals in temporary housing draft code
This code, originally drafted by a group convened by the New Zealand Companion Animal Council, 1982
originally contained a tremendous amount of detail. It has been through a number of iterations and is
now considerably slimmed down.
The most recent discussion was around the definition of companion animal – broadened to include
ACT
horses and donkeys and other animals that might find their way into a stock pound.
A number of submissions wanted vets’ clinics included as a ‘temporary housing facility’, but they are
excluded (they are medical facilities and subject to Veterinary Council sanctions). It was noted that
SPCA does sometimes investigate vets’ clinics anyway. Boarding facilities that are attached to vets’
clinics are covered by the code.
The suggested changes were:
• Training exclusion: what is the logic in not including training facilities? There had been a lot of
debate here. Some members have seen kennels etc. with training facilities associated. Also,
there are places offering ‘training while you’re at work’. The main stumbling block however was
how dif icult it would be to include horses that are sent away for training. It was not
INFORMATION ed that the
training facility itself could be considered dif erently from the associated housing. It was also
explained that with horse training for racing (or greyhounds), this facility is not ‘temporary’; the
facilities are housing animals permanently. It was decided to keep the exclusion as it is.
• Emergency management: Is having someone on site at all times impractical? It was decided to
keep this, as it is recommended best practice not a minimum standard.
• Lighting: recommended best practice (a) is essentially the same as minimum standard (a) –
OFFICIAL
could delete the recommended best practice. (d), under recommended best practice, is
essentially already covered by minimum standard (a), but is included for more information –
could be moved to introduction or kept as an example indicator. It was also questioned why (b),
‘care should be taken to ensure that lights to not cause excessive heat for animals’, and (c),
THE
‘lighting should be installed safely and securely, and be inaccessible to animals’, were
considered best practice.
• Hygiene: recommended best practice (k), ‘hot and cold water should be available in sufficient
quantities to enable the area and feeding utensils to be thoroughly cleaned’, does not specify
which area it is talking about. Should be changed to indicate ‘adequate cleaning’ of everything,
i.e. without specifying utensils or areas at all.
UNDER
• Sale and rehoming: should recommended best practices (d) and (e) become minimum
standards? “Animals should not be released for sale or rehoming if there is any doubt about the
ability of the potential owner to care for them appropriately.” And “Animals should not be made
available for sale if temperament evaluation indicates a lack of suitability, unless the new owner
has experience and the ability to manage and correct the unwanted behaviours.” It was agreed
that the ‘any doubt’ statement sets too high a bar, especially when people can get animals from
anywhere at the moment. It would be too dif icult to enforce as a minimum standard.
• Sale and rehoming: is minimum standard 16 (e) realistic (desexing)? Subcommit ee considered
RELEASED
that it was, and noted extensive public support for the standard.
- 7 -
171
• General Health: recommended best practice (b), vaccination – should this be a minimum
standard? It was thought there are welfare arguments for it, but there are legal arguments
around on imposing things like vaccination on to people and their pets. It was noted that the
New Zealand Veterinary Association had discussed this issue in the regulations workshops and
also were not ready to require this via regulation.
• Desexing: What about animals that are not common but end up in shelters (turtles, llamas, etc?)
1982
It was noted that the wording allows an ‘out’ by saying desexing must be done only “if they are
of a species and an age for which such procedures are surgically possible.”
• Behaviour: Is enrichment a recommended best practice or should it be a minimum standard? It
was agreed to move this sentence to be an example indicator.
ACT
Moved (K Bicknell / V Williams)
That, subject to the above changes and a legal and peer review, NAWAC recommends the proposed
code of welfare for temporary housing of companion animals to the Minister for Primary Industries.
The motion was put: carried.
The subcommit ee should note in their letter to the Minister their thanks for the New Zealand
Companion Animal Council’s work, which was led by s 9(2)(a)
.
C 6.
Farrowing crates
INFORMATION
s 9(2)(a)
(MPI) and Karen Phil ips (co-opted member and subcommit ee chair) arrived for the
discussion of farrowing crates at 11am.
Farrowing was also discussed at the May NAWAC meeting. Since then, the economic analysis has
begun. The scope has been narrowed down quite a bit so they are looking quite specifically at certain
areas that NZPork and the subcommit ee have identified.
NAWAC 54/15 was discussed, and the following points raised:
OFFICIAL
The biggest problem is that the modern sow has been bred for maximising piglet production not for
mothering ability. Minimising piglet mortality is a challenge to the farmer and is met through confinement
in farrowing cages.
THE
The subcommit ee looked at keeping sows in a crate for a shorter period of time (at the moment farmers
keep them in crates for up to 5 weeks – 4 weeks farrowing + a few days before). Nimmo Bell, the
company contracted to do the economic analysis, is looking at the economic side of shortening the time
to 3 weeks. NAWAC has looked at the welfare impacts. One issue is that is sows aren’t farrowing on the
same day, so weaning at the same time 3 weeks after the first sow farrows is not ideal for younger
piglets whose sows farrowed later. Int
UNDER roducing parturition inductions is not a good option. Another way
is to open up the side of the crate after a few days/a week to allow more movement. However, the sow
still can’t walk, all she can do is turn around, and this system is associated with higher rates of piglet
death.
The problem is that where modified confinement systems provide a welfare benefit to the sow, there’s a
trade-off in reduced welfare for the piglets. Scientific consensus supports that there is no ideal solution;
even with substantial investment.
Sow welfare may be improved in out-door systems but piglet mortality is much higher. A number of
RELEASED
issues affect the welfare of the sows and piglets, including environmental temperature, as piglets can’t
- 8 -
172
thermoregulate for several days after birth and wet and muddy conditions have an impact. Sows also
have much higher food requirements to keep themselves warm in outdoor systems.
Selective breeding has a major part to play. Litter size is a major factor in survivability. Piglet size is
going up at 1.5 piglets per year, and teat number by only ¼ per year. Further, more piglets means more
frail piglets. The industry is against change in regards to genetics which are controlled by breeding
companies based overseas, but if NZ industry never says anything, how wil it change? The genetic
1982
manipulation is an ethical issue that is creating a welfare problem.
Nurse sows were also identified as an issue, with industry reporting it has dif iculty complying with
current code requirements in regard to the length of time nurse sows are held and the percentage of
ACT
sows held as nurse sows at any one time.
The minimum standard requiring manipulable material in new farrowing crates is also an issue, with
farmers telling NAWAC that they wil not use straw because it doesn’t fit with their systems – but the
code of welfare doesn’t require straw, specifically so that farmers could innovate if needed. Also, there
is only quite a small window (pre-farrowing) where they have the instinct to nest and require the
material.
It was noted that the only country that has banned farrowing crates is Sweden (but they have
exemptions in place for farmers to use them for 4 days, which are widely used), and they are
INFORMATION
investigation whether crates should be allowed for longer again.
It was also explained that the Act no longer allows minimum standards to be writ en below the level of
the Act in exceptional circumstances.
Exporting the welfare problem (increasing NZ production costs so that people buy more imported pork)
is also an issue, but this is not within NAWAC’s influence.
NAWAC, therefore, is in a position to advise that the crates are
OFFICIAL not acceptable, but there is no
alternative, so for now they must remain in place. There is currently no need for transition as there is
nothing to transition to.
The fact that the industry seems to be system
THE ically ignoring parts of the code wil go in the report.
The ultimate direction could be towards smaller lit er sizes. Denmark has started this move. It was
explained that Australia has been closed to new genetic material for quite some time. Their lit er size is
lower. Ours is averaging 13.5 or so, theirs is around 11.
It was noted that the Minister’s request including asking for advice on older-style farrowing crates. The
UNDER
newer crates seen by the subcommit ee were better/bigger – sows were not touching the edges.
NAWAC’s advice would cover this aspect.
It was suggested that NAWAC continues to work with the industry outside of the regulations and codes,
for example in the style of/with the help of the
Safeguarding programme. The industry needs to keep
working on many aspects.
It was noted that the view that the welfare of the sow is more important than that of the piglets is not
ethically defensible. It was questioned whether there is a need to justify why NAWAC prioritises piglet
welfare more than other
RELEASED interested groups, since the decision is likely to be criticised. Is a neonatal
piglet mortality caused by starvation, hypothermia or crushing really comparable to 12-15 weeks of
confinement a year of a production sow? An ethical component should be included in the report.
- 9 -
173
Action: Farrowing should be put through the MCDA decision making process, as documented in
NAWAC Guideline 08, to document the rationale in comparing piglet vs. sow welfare.
C 7.
Selective breeding paper
The draft paper on selective breeding and animal welfare was circulated prior to the meeting (NAWAC
56/15). This is a new type of work for NAWAC; an opinion/statement is something that NAWAC hasn’t
1982
done to this extent before and is a landmark approach that allows NAWAC to consider social and
strategic issues, not just rules and minimums.
V Wil iams explained the work process: The subcommit ee went through dif erent industries and
ACT
highlighted issues. At the end of each section, there is comment on what NAWAC thinks.
It was agreed that the structure of each section was good, as was separating the two fish sections.
The final report wil need an executive summary at the beginning for being sent to the Minister.
A peer review was discussed and it was agreed that this paper should be peer reviewed before release.
Several names were suggested including s 9(2)(a)
and someone related to the
poultry industry like s 9(2)(a)
.
It was suggested that the teats issue (increasing number of teats rather than reducing lit er size) should
be added to the pig section.
INFORMATION
V Wil iams welcomed further feedback.
Action: Commit ee to read and send feedback to V Williams by the end of August.
C 8.
Animal welfare regulations progress report
Paper 55/15, the regulations progress report, was circulated prior to the meeting and was taken as read.
OFFICIAL
s 9(2)(a)
summarised the recent meetings by the regulations working group where they discussed
penalties with prosecutions and compliance. The group really had to test that they weren’t accidentally
‘downgrading’ any minimum standards and existing offences in the Act. Regulations are, after all, for
mid-lower level offending.
THE
MPI staff are now organising a series of workshops, for fact-finding and for stakeholders to get the
chance to consider what matters need to or should be regulated.
There were some questions on specific matters proposed for regulation:
Must not be lifted by the tail – it was not
UNDER ed that some cows may sometimes be encouraged to stand or
stand stil by lifting the tail, which is in the best interests of the animal. Further, lab mice and rats are
commonly lifted by the tail.
Dif erence between species – why prohibition on drowning only for dogs and cats? It was explained that
this is because there already are minimum standards so the regulations wil start here and roll it wider
later if needed. It is also stil much more common to drown cats and dogs than other species.
Dentistry in horses – some equine dentists are well qualified. Although they are not vets, should they be
allowed to operate? What about requiring vet supervision? It was explained that this is something that
RELEASED
has been looked at extensively and wil no doubt be discussed further in workshops/consultation. At the
moment, there is no requirement for qualification at all.
- 10 -
174
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
animals cannot actually be eaten and wil have food/water but wil that be true in all cases? MPI
is pursuing this issue. No further NAWAC action required.
• Wildlife: MPI was asked by a pet food operator whether they can shoot wild animals for pet food
in a commercial way. There was discussion over whether this would be considered a
commercial slaughter or a wild animal/hunting issue. No further action required.
• Wildlife: There has been another enquiry from DOC about freezing reptiles due to new 1982
research. While the AVMA stil says no chil ing and freezing, this new research suggests it
might be OK. DOC points out that people are uncomfortable about blunt force, and there is a
risk that trapped (pest) skinks will just be let go instead. Keep this issue on the register as a
watching brief.
ACT
• Cat café: Agreed that NAWAC were fine with this new business; clarified that cats are owned by
the café so it is essentially the same as a home environment. No further action required.
• Crayfish: Consumption of live crayfish at restaurants in Auckland has been in the media, with
MPI investigating for potential breaches of the Animal Welfare Act. No further NAWAC action
required.
• Live export: NAWAC already aware of the large export to Mexico; it has been in the media
extensively. Keep on the list.
• RTT: A public enquiry from a staff member at a university sought to clarify whether the layer hen
code applied to chickens when not actively in an experiment. It does, so this is a reminder that
animals kept in research facility, when not being manipulated, may be covered by NAWAC’s
INFORMATION
codes. Note the meat chickens code would not apply because it’s only for commercial
purposes, but the layer hens code is meant to cover all layers, including backyard chickens, and
so the code wil also apply to chickens in research facilities. No further action required.
• TradeMe: The working group with TradeMe, MPI, NZVA, SPCA, has finished the ‘welfare code’
for TradeMe users selling animals. It’s based on codes of welfare – it contains requirements on
breeding of the animals (no father/daughter, brother/sister, etc.). If they don’t meet the
requirements, they could be charged under the Consumer Guarantees Act, but it is voluntary.
OFFICIAL
Traders can still list an animal to re-home at no fee and not subject to the code. No further
action required.
• Cattle on the interislander: There was no prosecution. One issue raised that is of concern is that
they were travelling under a vet certifi
THE cate, so why were they going across the Cook Strait?
Keep on register.
C 11. MPI update and discussion of information circulated by MPI
There were no comments on the MPI update.
UNDER
RELEASED
- 12 -
176
PART TWO
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
STRATEGY AND PLANNING
O 1.
Glueboard traps update
1982
There wil be a summary of the next meeting on alternatives to glueboard traps ready by the next
NAWAC meeting.
ACT
OTHER REPORTS AND DISCUSSION
O 2.
NAWAC correspondence
Correspondence was received from s 9(2)(a)
on rodeos, s 9(2)(a)
on cow pacifiers, and
s 9(2)(a)
on zoos, which was sent to D Scobie and answered by J Hel ström.
s 9(2)(a)
had submit ed a book chapter that he had drafted on New Zealand zoos and welfare. J
Hellström reviewed it and fixed some factual errors. D Scobie also commented on it in his personal
capacity, not as a member of NAWAC.
s 9(2)(a)
also sent some emails on behalf of the group Advocateship of Purebred Dog Breeders. This
is in regards to the regulations workshops being organised by MPI and feeling as if they were left out.
INFORMATION
O 3. Committee members’ reports on recent presentations and attendance at conferences
J Hellström met with members of the Zoos and Aquarium Association at their conference. It was a good
meeting; they have growth, but there are issues around their ‘social license to operate’. For a while, it
was grim and there were entire generations that were turned off and maybe never went back. They
recognise this issue and are working on going way beyond minimum standards and into affirmative
states.
OFFICIAL
I Torrance and J Jamieson attended the ‘Wild Future’ talk by s 9(2)(a)
in Wellington. He is pushing
zoos to think about their function – entertainment, education, or conservation? How much do they really
do in those areas?
THE
V Wil iams attended the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Testing and
Teaching (ANZCCART) conference on the Gold Coast. It was a worthwhile conference, one of the main
takeaways being the training and how people are trained to handle/deal with animals is a major area for
NAEAC and others to continue working on. There is an issue with culture at dif erent institutions. Some
see Animal Ethics Commit ees (AEC’s) as a license for what they do, and others see them as a barrier
UNDER
to research.
Any Other Business: Fish welfare
s 9(2)(a) reminded the Commit ee of reports in the media about ‘fish mortality events’ on fish farms in the
Marlborough Sounds in 2012 and again this year. MPI is investigating possible links to disease.
Mortality in these events is very high, with morbidity leading up to mortality as well. It seems likely that
these events wil continue periodically. NAWAC has long had on its work programme that there needs to
be a code of welfare for fish and MPI encourages this. MPI has also recently been approached by the
RELEASED
industry body Seafood Standards Council, who want to work more proactively on biosecurity and
welfare. With this in mind, s 9(2)(a)
have been tasked to take something back to the
- 13 -
177
Seafood Standards Council on what can be done. This is likely to include suggestions for regulatory and
non-regulatory interventions, possibly including a code of welfare. NAWAC agreed that it could consider
a paper from MPI and should look to including fish welfare on their programme in 2016.
Action – s 9(2)(a)
to coordinate paper to NAWAC for November meeting, with a view to including a
farmed fish standards on the work programme for 2016.
1982
It was noted that the blue-tick scheme for salmon was ended because of perceived lack of consumer
interest; though it was thought that in other countries (e.g. Canada) there is a lot of interest in welfare-
friendly salmon so this may change.
ACT
Closing
With no further items of business, it was acknowledged that this is the last meeting for K Bicknell, D
Scobie and V Wil iams. They were thanked for their work and expertise that all three brought to the table
during their time on NAWAC; all made fantastic contributions during their time.
The meeting was closed at 3:10pm.
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
- 14 -
178
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
PART ONE
(PUBLIC EXCLUDED AGENDA)
1982
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Section 48, Local Government Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987
There being no other introductory items of business, it was moved (J Hellström / I Torrance)
ACT
That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
J Hellström
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
J Hellström
C 3.
Work programme update
s 9(2)(a) / All
C 4.
Dairy housing amendment
J Hellström
C 5.
Farrowing crates
s 9(2)(a)
INFORMATION
C 6.
Systems review report
A Sharr
C 7.
Strategic plan in 2016
J Hellström / All
C 8.
Animal welfare regulations progress report
J Hellström
C 9.
Animal welfare issues register and discussion
J Hellström / All
C 10
Farmed fish
s 9(2)(a)
OFFICIAL
C 11. Work programme 2016
J Hellström / All
C 12. MPI update and discussion of infor
THE mation circulated by MPI s 9(2)(a)
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE THE PUBLIC IS EXCLUDED,
THE REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER, AND THE SPECIFIC
GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND
MEETINGS ACT 1987 FOR THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
UNDER
General subject of each matter to be
Reason for passing this
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the
considered
resolution in relation to each
passing of this resolution
matter
C 1.
Confirmation of previous
To protect the privacy of natural
That the public conduct of the relevant
minutes
persons.
part of the proceedings of the meeting
would be likely to result in the disclosure
of information for which good reason for
withholding would exist under section
9(2)(a) of the Of icial Information Act
RELEASED
1982 (OIA).
- 2 -
180
1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
C 1.
Confirmation of previous minutes
The draft minutes of the general 05 August 2015 (NAWAC 77/15) were reviewed and accepted. 1982
Moved (A Sharr / I Collins)
That the draft minutes of the general meetings held on 05 August 2015 be adopted as a true and
accurate record of those meetings.
ACT
The motion was put: carried.
C 2.
Status of actions arising from previous meetings
The commit ee reviewed the list of actions (NAWAC 78/15). The following updates were provided:
• Action 1, to advise the secretary of an appropriate wildlife speaker, is complete with ZIP at the
current meeting
• Action 2, to appoint a new deputy chair, to be completed later in the meeting
• Action 3, to explore the idea of a new animal welfare forum, is in progress. J Hellström and V
Williams met with the Animal Behaviour and Welfare Consultative Commit ee (ABWCC) and
INFORMATION
discussed it with them. There is an appetite to move ahead, as ABWCC is also looking to
expand its remit. There is recognition that the new forum would meet as a joint group annually
rather than every few years. Discussions wil continue with stakeholders.
• Action 4, to circulate a final copy of the operating model, is in progress. s 9(2)(a) explained that
there is a draft which lays out the animal welfare situation within MPI. It is set up along the lines
of key activities: rules, education, enforcement, response (e.g. emergency), international,
performance, and forums. s 9(2)(a) is due to present it to ABWCC in March. After finalising the
OFFICIAL
MPI area, the next steps are to bring in stakeholders and then the general public, possibly in
conjunction with NAWAC and NAEAC.
• Action 5, on the new website and NAWAC’s visibility, is complete. NAWAC is happy with the
functionality of the website. It was agr
THE eed that a letter should be sent to the Director-General
with positive feedback.
Action – Secretary / J Hellström to send a letter to the Director-General of MPI with positive feedback on
the new website.
• Action 6, to review the induction pack, is complete. New members received summaries and
memos of the top-priority issue
UNDER s alongside the normal set of codes and other documents. J
Hellström is due to meet with K Schutz, G Shackell and new member Graeme Doole for the
usual induction meeting with the chair.
• Action 7, to draft a letter to Greyhound Racing NZ to ask formally that live baiting does not
occur, stil in progress.
• Action 12, to read the breeding paper and send feedback to V Wil iams, is complete.
• Action 13, for s 9(2)(a) to coordinate paper on farmed fish, complete and wil be discussed later
(agenda item C10).
RELEASED
- 4 -
182
C 3.
Work programme update
The work programme update (NAWAC 79/15) was circulated prior to the meeting. For work programme
items not already on the agenda, the following updates were provided:
• Wild animals: the Game Animal Council (GAC) has writ en a recommendation to member1982
societies to write their own generally accepted practice. The subcommit ee also had a meeting
with groups that deal with large game animals, and they are now formally thinking of putting
together a guideline/statement on animal welfare. The fishing and game bird industries are the
ACT
next step.
There was further discussion on how dif icult it is to reach hunters and fishermen who are not
members of any society. One suggestion to reach people was to insert information into the
training that you must take to obtain a gun license. Another way is through the media, and the
SPCA has taken two hunting cases recently. Finally, DOC has agreed to refer to animal welfare
whenever anyone applies for a permit to hunt on DOC land (but NAWAC haven’t yet seen
wording).
In regards to glueboard traps, s 9(2)(a) reported that it looks like about ½ of the exempted groups
wil not reapply. MPI is about to send out a reminder letter about re-applying and providing the
data that MPI requires (e.g. on numbers of animals caught etc). This data can be dif icult to get,
so it was asked whether this would lead to people using the traps il egally. It was ex
INFORMATION plained that
commercial pest control operators can only buy glueboard traps through particular suppliers,
and the suppliers can only operate under Ministerial approval. Residential use of glueboard
traps bought in cut-price retailers remains an issue but is being addressed by MPI and SPCA
animal welfare inspectors.
• Selective breeding: A memo has been circulated suggesting a couple of courses of action
[NAWAC 81/15]. NAWAC was impressed with the paper, and agreed to wait until 2016 to
finalise and consult, which provides an opportunity to take it to the Animal Behaviour and
OFFICIAL
Welfare Consultative Commit ee, which is discussing breeding and sustainability. The paper
can also be discussed in detail at the first meeting in February. The regulations working group
has been discussing selective breeding in regards to Scottish fold cats.
THE
• Temporary housing: s 9(2)(a)
at Massey University has agreed to do the peer review;
unfortunately he is not available until January, but he has said that the report can be ready by
mid-February (first NAWAC meeting in 2016).
• Shelter: I Collins has contacted s 9(2)(a)
(PhD Agricultural Science) to help write a
paper on this; the
Safeguarding programme wil also take part in the shelter workstream.
UNDER
• Entertainment, Exhibition and Encounter s 9(2)(a)
acknowledged as providing excellent
support and a new life to the newly-named ‘3E’s’ code. A memo has been circulated,
explaining that there are two pieces of work being developed: one wil be an opinion piece in the
style of the selective breeding paper, and the other to develop the code of welfare, which wil
incorporate the zoo, circus and rodeos code of welfare as well as bringing in racing [NAWC
80/15]. At this point it looks feasible, but it wil be a huge code and a lot of work. NAWAC noted
the approach and agreed that it should continue.
• Horses & donkeys: s 9(2)(a) has been talking to the Equine Health Association about a few last
minute queries, hence the delay, but the code should be issued before Christmas.
RELEASED
- 5 -
183
O 1.
11:00am: Remote monitoring of traps
s 9(2)(a)
(Zero Invasive Predators) and s 9(2)(a)
(Massey University) arrived for the
open items O1 and O2.
s 9(2)(a)
1982
thanked NAWAC for the opportunity to share their work in remote trap monitoring
and asked for any feedback on animal welfare during their presentation.
Zero Invasive Predators (ZIP) is a non-profit organisation spun out of the Department of Conservation
ACT
and funded by DOC, the Morgan Foundation, and various dairy cooperatives and businesses.
ZIP’s purpose is to eradicate predators, defined as rats, stoats and possums.
Their current focus is at Bottle Rock Peninsula in Queen Charlotte Sound. Using leghold traps and the
Trapinator, they are setting up intensive lines of traps across the peninsula; they have managed to
eliminate possums from it, and have now set up intensive lines separating it from the mainland to keep it
pest free.
The leghold trap was displayed. It is linked to a wooden platform with space routed out, so the trap is
flush with the platform and the chain can run freely when the animals’ leg is caught. The transmit er is
attached to the trap with a magnet, and it is set up so that when the magnets no longer touch anymore
(meaning the trap has been separated somehow), the trap is registered as triggered. This
INFORMATION information
travels along all transmit ers along the trap line in a daisy chain until reaching the last node, which
sends the information to a web server.
The failsafe built into the system is that the default state for a trap is always ‘triggered’. Each trap must
confirm multiple times that they are not
triggered before that information wil be sent.
Once received by the web server, the information is collated and sent to the field ranger one hour after
sunrise. This is how the system is currently set up, but the information is available immediately and
OFFICIAL
could be viewed sooner.
Information wil be sent even if no traps are sprung, to avoid the receiver wondering if the server is
broken. Managers are able to see the trap inf
THE ormation and the time at which traps are reset.
If the message is not received by the fieldworker, it wil be sent to the manager (and automatically
escalate further as needed).
If the daisy chain message system fails, for whatever reason, (e.g. trees down, system failure) then all
traps that are not responding wil automatically register as triggered. If no message is ever sent, then
UNDER
that is a failure of the satellite, and it means that every single trap must be checked.
The reason to use leghold traps is that they are much more effective than their kill-trap (the Trapinator)
in catching possums. Catch rates can be estimated using chew cards to detect possums that get past
the trap lines.
There is a visual lure, a white chew card, that is enough to get the possums up off the ground and onto
the leghold trap at the top of the platform (traps must be off the ground in order to eliminate non-target
species from being trapped – having no bait is also useful for this).
RELEASED
Current statistics show that using a remote trapping system reduces the labour cost by 20 times.
- 6 -
184
The average time to dispatch was queried. Al possums in the trial so far have been dispatched by 1pm.
Most are within 4 hours of sunrise.
NAWAC thanked s 9(2)(a)
for their time. The wildlife subcommit ee wil be continuing to
work in this area and is developing an opinion on remote monitoring.
O 2.
11:30am: Mini tutorial: The Five Domains Model and positive welfare
1982
s 9(2)(a)
(Massey University) gave a mini-tutorial on the five domains model and how to
incorporate positive welfare into welfare assessments.
ACT
It was explained that the general movement in animal welfare has been in the direction of positive
welfare. The first laws were to protect animals from cruelty, then they required responsibility, and now
alleviating negative states is no longer enough.
The idea of meeting behavioural needs may already require positive experiences (depending on the
definition of ‘needs’). s 9(2)(a)
have therefore been using the five domains model
to look at how to assess positive welfare.
Behaviour and mental state is seen as the area that lags behind in the research – work is happening
now, but scientists don’t want to be anthropomorphic and it is a dif icult area to study.
It was noted that alleviating negative experiences may cause some positive experiences (by causing a
feeling of relief) but doesn’t necessarily lead to long-lasting positive feelings.
INFORMATION
How are positive experiences identified?
• Species ecology/evolutionary value
• Motivation to work to gain access to a reward
• Activation of reward areas in brain
• Observing behaviour
OFFICIAL
Opportunities only enhance welfare if utilised. When animals are severely welfare compromised, there
are also often few opportunities for enhancement (e.g. an animal in pain wil not play with a toy).There is
also individual animal variation – individuals value dif erent things; need to provide choices.
THE
Trade-offs can become very complicated when adding positive dimensions. Weighing whether a positive
experience wil ‘cancel out’ a negative one is comparing apples and oranges, then you have to consider
the individual variation on top.
NAWAC thanked s 9(2)(a)
for her presentation, as it was very informative and timely.
UNDER
C 4.
Dairy housing amendment
A verbal update was provided.
The subcommit ee have nearly finalised the draft amendment to the code of welfare. At this point it is
the issue of access to the outdoors that remains. Sector organisations first agreed that a requirement for
outdoors time was obvious, but more recently decided that farmer’s choice should not be restricted.
There are a few farmers already doing long-term housing (and at least one that is apparently housing
indoors permanently). H
RELEASED owever it was noted that industries are trying to move away from this overseas.
This is a risk that needs to be taken into account.
- 7 -
185
The subcommit ee are waiting for the New Zealand Veterinary Association to get their comments in on
the final draft at the moment. J Hellström is also due to speak to the Minister shortly. It is hoped that the
draft amendment can be recommended by Christmas.
It was explained that there is plenty of research saying time outdoors is good for cattle, but not how
much, and research saying spending all time indoors is not so good; but sector groups are stil opposed,
though it is unclear how farmers stand.
1982
NAWAC wil need to make an out-of-session resolution to confirm that version of the code wil be
recommended to the Minister. s 9(2)(a) reiterated the importance of commit ee members being able to
request a meeting if they were not comfortable with making the decision out of session. ACT
The Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis according to NAWAC Guideline 08 has been completed for off-
paddock facilities for dairy cattle and will be received alongside code report.
C 5.
Farrowing crates
A verbal update was provided. Interim advice has been provided to the Minister based on the August
meeting [NAWAC 54/15]. The advice made it clear that NAWAC hadn’t yet made a final decision in the
absence of the economic analysis which has been delayed.
There has been a recent meeting between contractors Nimmo Bell, the subcommit ee and NZPork to
discuss the first results. Everyone seemed fairly happy with the process. The second part of the report,
the industry level report, is due on 10 November. An out-of-session decision wil be requir
INFORMATION ed.
It was also noted that K Bicknell had visited some pig farms in Switzerland to look at free farrowing
systems. She has reported back to the subcommit ee back that the trip was useful, and that sows and
piglets looked relaxed and content, but there was a high fly burden. A Swiss researcher that she talked
to believed that the mortality levels were comparable to crates. However, the way pigs are farmed is
very dif erent. Approximately 40% of gross farm income is from the government. Each herd is limited to
150 sows. Cost of pork in Switzerland is 2x that of the rest of the world.
OFFICIAL
The Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis according to NAWAC Guideline 08 wil be completed once the
final Nimmo Bel report has been received and wil be circulated with the decision.
It was also confirmed that NAWAC did not hav
THE e to recommend transitional regulations for the use of
farrowing crates up to four weeks after farrowing: the current code of welfare notes that the use of
farrowing crates is not acceptable for extended periods but it allows use up to four weeks.
It was clarified that the advice wil include how NZ can work on creating a future where there are
alternatives to farrowing crates. NAWAC wil also make it clear that the problem stems from a drive for
profitability from larger litters.
UNDER
C 6.
Systems review report
A Sharr summarised the report with agreements that had been circulated to NAWAC (83/13)
Each agreement was discussed and agreed to:
• The guideline on level of intervention is underway with help from MPI policy and legal; it will be
ready to discuss at the next meeting.
• Examples of how
RELEASED to include regulations in codes were discussed. The commitee agreed to
publish regulations inside codes of welfare, and agreed to use layout option 2.
- 8 -
186
• NAWAC appreciated the new process diagram.
• The updated guidelines should be circulated to all members and discussed at the next meeting.
• NAWAC agreed that the ‘guidelines for writing codes of welfare’ need to be updated, and
decided that it should not suggest that members of the public can recommend regulations
alongside draft codes (but acknowledged they are likely to do it anyway)
1982
• NAWAC agreed that the dif erence between ‘general information’ and ‘introduction’ should be
made clearer, and the secretariat should support them in this, but that neither section should be
removed entirely.
ACT
• NAWAC discussed the role of science in its decision making; this wil be discussed further when
creating the next strategic plan in February 2016.
Moved (A Sharr / S Brown) That the recommendations in paper 83/15 are agreed to, subject to the NAWAC guidelines being
shared, and that option 2 is selected as the layout format for reprinting regulations.
The motion was put: carried.
C 7.
Strategic plan in 2016
INFORMATION
s 9(2)(a) discussed NAWAC’s strategic plan, which expires in 2015. NAWAC was asked what kind of
format they wanted to discuss the plan – a facilitator was suggested to guide the discussion in a way
that ends in a useable document.
Action – s 9(2)(a)
/ J Hellström to come up with approach for working on the strategic plan. To be
circulated to the rest of the Commit ee by early 2016
C 8.
Animal welfare regulations progress report
OFFICIAL
A paper had been circulated to the commit ee (87/15) prior to the meeting. It also had links within to two
other papers that were provided to the regulations working group.
NAWAC was asked to note the progress and
THE share any comments on the paper, the matters for
regulation, or on how MPI has been working with NAWAC.
Action – Al to share feedback on 87/15 by Wednesday 11 November
MPI is aiming to report back to the Minister by end of November to update on the workshops and to
share the results of the latest meeting. MPI then needs to switch to consultation stage before Christmas
UNDER
so that the consultation can be carried out in April 2016.
There is one outstanding issue on consultation: NAWAC wil be specially consulted, but if they disagree
with anything that is released, MPI and NAWAC wil need to sort out how this wil be handled. MPI
cannot share the consultation document before it goes out to the public.
J Hellström explained that the 87 matters had been cut to 67 at the latest meeting, and outlined reasons
why 20 were removed.
MPI hopes to have the discussion document prepared by end 2015, but Cabinet may not be able to
RELEASED
consider it until February. Noted that MPI must not share drafts as part of regulatory process.
- 9 -
187
After consultation, the timing of the next steps depends on number of submissions and time to
summarise them. NAWAC wil be kept well informed.
Tranche 2 has no timeline yet. It is clear that there are groups of issues (e.g. bobby calves, shelter,
transport, breeding) to be addressed; it may be best to go one issue at a time. Each wil trigger a large
debate.
J Hellstrom noted that the consultation process was managed by MPI very well, and both MPI and 1982
NAWAC’s reputations were enhanced by the process.
C 9.
Animal welfare issues register and discussion
ACT
The issues register was circulated as paper 88/15.
•
Dairy price: there have definitely been issues with pregnant cows transported, as well as
calves sent for calf serum (since the price increased). Leave it on for next time.
•
Sheep shearing and PETA: Hasn’t been new news in NZ, but probably won’t go away; PETA
stil releasing videos, putting increased pressure on high-value suppliers. Rumour that new
SAFE campaign on the way.
•
Bobby calves: Some processors have done very well, but a few of the individual plants have
not been able to decrease mortality rates. MPI has a working group on it to work it out before
next calving season. There is a reputational issue as well. Calf serum is marketed as NZ origin,
and buyers are increasingly concerned with animal welfare.
INFORMATION
•
Compliance: The case of a dairy farming employee cutting the teats of cows in Te Aroha was
noted as one that generated a lot of public interest.
•
Compliance: The highest ever sentence indicated more appetite to prosecute animal welfare
cases.
•
Drought: Drought indicated for 2016 due to El Nino. West Coast is having a wetter season;
East coast drier. Some farmers have been trucking their animals across the island to the West
OFFICIAL
Coast. Leave it on for next time.
• There were no other issues to add.
C 10
Farmed fish
THE
A memo (89/15) had been circulated to explain why farmed fish wil be suggested to be added to the
work programme.
Farmed fish have been on NAWAC’s work programme for a long time, but it is consistently pushed back
onto ‘next year’s programme’. MPI is meanwhile pushing aquaculture as a growth industry and is keen
UNDER
to consider biosecurity and animal welfare alongside productivity, so now is suggested to be the right
time to engage with industry and write a code. The industry has come to MPI to ask to work with them
on animal welfare, so whether NAWAC engages or not, MPI wil need to continue to work on this.
C 11. Work programme 2016
Historically, the secretariat have prepared a writ en paper to discuss in November and ratify in February.
This year, it has been dif erent on one hand because of the regulations process and on the other
because the strategic plan also needs to be updated.
RELEASED
Some ideas for how a 2016 work plan might look were discussed:
- 10 -
188
•
On the go – regulations; reviewing the codes once regulations are added (this encompasses
thinking around shelter, saleyards and bobby calves); the 3E’s code
•
New - On-farm slaughter, snares, farmed fish – or all fish?, lifestylers (also on Safeguarding’s
programme)
•
Finalising – breeding; temporary housing
1982
It was agreed that there was no need to finalise now, but there is clearly a range of issues to discuss in
February.
ACT
The method of problem identification was noted. The regulations working group had been using
compliance statistics, but it was thought that this may be missing major areas of welfare compromise
where there are stil animal welfare risks – it is just that the problems have not been recognised or
formally reported.
NAWAC’s PR/Comms strategy was discussed. At the moment, NAWAC tended to be in the news to
respond when things went wrong – it was suggested this could be looked at. Noted good engagement
has been achieved, for example with the wildlife sector (see magazine write-up and feedback from
stakeholders).
C 12. MPI update and discussion of information circulated by MPI
There were no comments on the MPI update.
INFORMATION
PART TWO
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
STRATEGY AND PLANNING
O 3.
2016 meeting dates
OFFICIAL
The following dates were suggested and agreed:
• 17 February
THE
• 18 May
• 17 August
• 16 November
O 4.
Appointment of Deputy Chair
UNDER
J Hellström nominated J Wagner, due to her extensive experience on other advisory commit ees.
Moved (J Hellström / I Collins) That J Wagner be elected deputy chairperson of the commit ee for the remainder of 2015 and 2016,
pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (section 67 and Schedule 1, clause 3)).
The motion was put: carried.
OTHER REPORTS AND DISCUSSION
RELEASED
O 5.
NAWAC correspondence
- 11 -
189
There were no comments on recent NAWAC correspondence.
O 6. Committee members’ reports on recent presentations and attendance at conferences
J Hellstöm attended an Australasian poultry veterinary practicioners association conference in 1982
Queenstown and presented a paper on social license for intensive hen production (to be circulated).
Another paper, by researcher s 9(2)(a)
from Melbourne, was very interesting. The study looked at the
behaviour of birds in free range operations (RFIDs to track wandering). About 80% birds spend time
outdoors, contrary to the thoughts of some critics of free range systems.
ACT
s 9(2)(a)
has attended two meetings of the newly formed National Cat Management Forum, convened
by the NZVA. Currently very early days, but there should be more updates by the next NAWAC meeting.
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
- 12 -
190
