Following a formal complaint laid by SAFE lodged over ten months ago, the Coalition Government has failed to address concerns over Associate Agriculture Minister Andrew Hoggard’s oversight of animal welfare.
SAFE’s original complaint pointed to a pattern of decisions under Minister Hoggard’s watch that it says prioritised industry interests over animal welfare, including the proposed reversal of the live export ban, the continued use of farrowing crates despite a High Court ruling, and Minister Hoggard’s prominent public endorsement of rodeo. The animal rights organisation says these examples raise serious concerns about conflicts of interest, industry influence, and the extent to which independent advice on animal welfare has been disregarded.
The substantive concerns outlined in SAFE’s formal complaint warrant proper scrutiny and consideration.
Our formal complaint reflects what we have consistently seen under Minister Hoggard’s oversight of the animal welfare portfolio, with industry capture going unchecked and animal welfare repeatedly being sidelined.
After lodging the complaint with the Prime Minister’s Office in November 2025 and subsequently raising the matter directly with Agriculture Minister Todd McClay, there has been no action, investigation, or meaningful engagement with the evidence it provided.
SAFE later escalated the matter to the Office of the Auditor-General, citing concerns about accountability and failures in the Government’s response process.
The issue has become about more than the original complaint.
We’ve followed every appropriate process available to us, but ten months down the line we haven’t seen any meaningful action or investigation into the serious concerns raised about Andrew Hoggard’s oversight of animal welfare.
The evidence underpinning the complaint has not been properly examined, and responses from Government officials have focused on dismissing the complaint rather than addressing its substance.
The issue is now not only about the complaint itself, but also the refusal to address the issues raised.
These are serious concerns about the integrity of New Zealand’s animal welfare system and the extent to which industry interests could be shaping decisions on animal welfare at ministerial level.
The lack of action raises broader questions about whether New Zealand’s animal welfare system contains adequate safeguards against industry influence. SAFE recently called for Federated Farmers Vice President Sandra Faulkner to step down from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC), maintaining that senior leadership roles within industry lobby groups are incompatible with positions intended to provide independent animal welfare advice.
Both situations point to a wider pattern which risks undermining public confidence in animal welfare decision-making.
This case really highlights what is fundamentally wrong with New Zealand’s animal welfare system.
A strong animal welfare system must be independent, transparent and accountable, but the current system is failing animals.
SAFE continues to call for the animal welfare portfolio to be reassigned while the concerns regarding Minister Hoggard are investigated, maintaining that the Government’s failure to meaningfully engage with the complaint is now a matter of public accountability.
When industry interests are allowed significant influence over animal welfare decision making and serious concerns can be ignored without proper examination, public confidence in the system is seriously undermined.
