Putting the ‘Live’ Back in Livestock: Banning Live Exports in New Zealand
by olivia van burgsteden
Last week marked the end of live exports in New Zealand. Since the 30th of April, no live animals will be exported via sea from New Zealand. This significant development follows the passing of The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, which was introduced in September 2021 and received royal assent in September 2022. The ban is long overdue after the harsh reminder of the harmful nature of live exports with the sinking of Gulf Livestock 1, which claimed the lives of 5867 cattle and 41 crew.
Live exports have been a part of New Zealand since the 1860s, with increased numbers beginning from the 1970s. Most cattle and sheep exported from New Zealand travelled to the Middle East for slaughter, as the Middle East relied on fresh meat due to their inadequate infrastructure to preserve meat. From 2007 onwards, New Zealand phased out live exports for slaughter based on animal welfare and reputation concerns. However, live exports for breeding remained. In 2020, the number of livestock exported from New Zealand reached over 100,000.
Although livestock being exported for slaughter stopped, livestock being exported for breeding did not stop animals from dying. Animals exported from New Zealand faced horrific conditions despite the guidance under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and the Ministry of Primary Industries. Under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, animals are recognised as sentient beings, which means that animals can experience emotions that humans are capable of, including depression, anxiety, fear, and stress. However, livestock have suffered heat stress, disease, injury, and mistreatment during live exports.
Under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, animals must be cared for to minimise the risk of unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress and protection from any significant injury or disease. However, photos from the Gulf Livestock 1 during a voyage in 2019 show the cattle crowded in pens and covered in excrement. Even upon arrival onto the ship, livestock are treated cruelly by being struck with pipes and electric prodders around their head. Agriculture Minister, Damien O’Connor, admitted that once livestock leave New Zealand, little that can be done to ensure their welfare.
Moreover, reports provided under the Official Information Act give harrowing details about the welfare of animals during live exports. On the Brahman Express in 2021, one cow experiencing heat stress was continuously hosed down until she stood, resulting in her death the following morning. On the Yangtze Harmony in 2021, multiple cows suffered neck and leg fractures from suspected trampling and being stuck in railings. Only ten days later were these cows euthanised, leaving them to suffer for an appalling amount of time.
Welfare concerns do not just end once the animals reach their destination. From 2018, all livestock exported went to China. The Animal Protection Index Rating ranges from A, as the best, to G, as the worst. Overall, China receives an E. China’s welfare legislation regarding farm animals receives a G. China has no legislation surrounding the rearing of pigs, chickens, or dairy cattle. The recent ban is a significant step towards improving animal welfare standards and promoting more sustainable and humane agricultural practices.
Those opposing the ban, such as the National Party and ACT, argue that live exports can be done well as they worry about future economic losses. In 2022, the total value of live exports was $524 million. Live exports have made up 0.32% of New Zealand’s primary sector export revenue since 2015 and 0.2% of all agriculture revenue since 2015. Live Export New Zealand argues that this profit loss will impact the rural communities the most, including young farmers who use the income from exporting livestock to purchase their first farm. New Zealand based services can earn an extra $1.5 million for every 3,000 animals exported, which is then circulated within rural economies. Transporters, veterinarians, farm companies, and many others will likely experience the impacts of this loss in revenue.
National plans to re-introduce live exports if elected to government in this year’s general election. MP Christopher Luxon spoke of strict regulations that would ensure a “gold standard.” This would include live export ships and certification regimes for the livestock in their destination country. However, this leads to the question, why have these regulations not already been implemented? Live exports have been contentious for many years, including when National was in government and would have been able to amend regulations. National MP Barbara Kuriger, who also opposed the bill, has faced animal welfare issues in the past, with her son pleading guilty to animal cruelty against his cattle in 2020 and her husband being charged with animal cruelty also. It will be interesting to see how National plans to take care of livestock on a grand scale when their MPs cannot adequately care for their own livestock.
Not only is the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill a win for animal welfare, but it also improves New Zealand’s reputation. New Zealand has become the first country to ban live exports by sea. This sends the message that New Zealand takes animal welfare seriously and that we are committed to constant improvement. By banning live exports, New Zealand is taking a stand against the exploitation of animals. It promotes more sustainable and equitable agricultural practices, essential for building a fairer and more just global food system. Hopefully, this ban is to remain.
Ultimately, the ban on live exports is an essential step towards creating a more socially just world where the welfare of animals is respected and protected. The ban emphasises the inherent value and rights of animals and makes us consider the broader social and environmental implications of our treatment of animals. Animals have their own interests, needs, and desires that must be considered when making decisions that affect their welfare.
The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Equal Justice Project. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The Equal Justice Project makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The Equal Justice Project will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.
Featured image source: Olivia Van Burgsteden in situ.