Andrew Hoggard – Minister of Legalised Cruelty, Farmer of Loopholes
From Lobby to Legislature, Without a Pause
Animal Welfare Rollback · Industry Capture · Retrospective Lawmaking · Conflict of Interest
Current Portfolios
- Minister for Biosecurity
- Minister for Food Safety
- Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills)
- Associate Minister for the Environment
Andrew Hoggard presents himself as a practical farmer turned policymaker — “a voice for common sense in rural regulation.” In truth, his appointment places the former president of Federated Farmers in charge of policing the very industry he represented for decades. The conflict is not symbolic; it is structural.
Within his first year, Hoggard advanced legislation to retroactively validate unlawful pig-farming regulations overturned by the High Court. Rather than complying with judicial direction, he legislated it away — transforming illegality into legality by declaration.
“He turned cruelty from a crime into a clause.” – Ukes Baha
Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill – Rewriting Wrong as Right
The Bill, sponsored by Hoggard, declares that Regulations 25 to 27 of the 2018 Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations “are, and always have been, validly made.” Those same rules — permitting the use of farrowing crates and mating stalls — were struck down in SAFE & NZ Animal Law Association v Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 2828 for violating the Animal Welfare Act’s core standard: that animals must express normal behaviour.
Instead of reforming practice, Hoggard’s Bill erases the court’s ruling and extends confinement to 2035. It subordinates the rule of law to ministerial convenience and converts cruelty into compliance.
- Constitutional breach: Retroactive validation nullifies judicial findings and erodes separation of powers.
- Regulatory capture: The Bill shields the pig industry from accountability while silencing independent oversight (NAWAC).
- Ethical regression: Crate-based confinement continues for another decade under the guise of “transition.”
“The pigs remain caged — but so too does justice.” – Ukes Baha
👉 Why this Bill rewrites the law and delays change · Read the full submission · Submission deadline: 23 October 2025
Federated Farmers to Cabinet Table – The Closed Loop
Hoggard’s path from Federated Farmers President (2020–2023) to ACT MP and Cabinet Minister (2023– ) is a case study in revolving-door governance. The same organisation that lobbied against stronger animal-welfare rules now benefits from his regulatory reversals.
Under the Cabinet Manual 2023 (s 2.55), Ministers must avoid even the appearance of bias. Yet Hoggard’s role effectively fuses lobbyist and lawmaker — shaping policy for the industry he once led. No independent review or recusal process was applied.
Biosecurity and Environment: Loopholes Over Limits
While fronting as Minister for Biosecurity and Food Safety, Hoggard has argued against tighter livestock-transport, nitrate, and feedlot standards, claiming “farmers know best.” His portfolio statements reveal a trend: deregulate enforcement, rebrand oversight as “partnership,” and defer compliance timelines indefinitely.
At the same time, he supports ACT’s push to exempt agriculture from emissions obligations until “global competitors act first,” effectively codifying inaction while other nations tighten sustainability benchmarks.
ACT Party Line – Deregulate, Deny, Delay
Hoggard’s actions align with ACT’s broader legislative pattern: undo judicial or regulatory checks that interfere with private interest. Under the rhetoric of “freedom to farm,” the party re-brands oversight as overreach and legality as red tape.
- Reversal of legal precedent: Turning unlawful practices into lawful ones by statute.
- Deferral culture: Postponing compliance deadlines to politically convenient horizons.
- Delegated discretion: Concentrating decision-making in ministerial or departmental hands with minimal public review.
Media & Public Reaction
Animal-welfare groups condemned the Bill as “a betrayal of sentience,” while former NAWAC members warned it “undermines twenty years of progress.” Newsroom reported that even government veterinarians privately objected to the retrospective clause, calling it “a political repair job.”
The SPCA and SAFE both demanded Hoggard’s recusal, citing conflicts of interest and failure to act in good faith under the Animal Welfare Act.
What You Can Do
- Submit on the Animal Welfare (Pigs) Amendment Bill before the Primary Production Committee closes submissions.
- Demand an independent review of conflicts of interest within agriculture and animal-welfare portfolios.
- Support organisations advocating for crate-free and stall-free standards aligned with section 10 of the Animal Welfare Act.
- Share this exposé to preserve public record and prevent the normalisation of retrospective cruelty.
Every exposé preserves memory — because forgetting is how cruelty repeats.
🔙 Back to APIAPE Index