Meat Industry Association of New Zealand

1. Business Name: Meat Industry Association of New Zealand (Incorporated). (Formerly registered as “New Zealand Meat Industry Association Incorporated” until 19 Oct 1998.)

2. Company Number: 217685 (Incorporated Society registration number).

3. NZBN (NZ Business Number): 9429042711377.

4. Entity Type: Incorporated Society (non-profit industry trade association).

5. Business Classification: S955110 – Business Association (industry advocacy for meat processors/exporters).

6. Year Established: 1974. (Founded 1 August 1974 as a successor to earlier meat trade bodies.)

7. Headquarters: Wellington, New Zealand. Registered office at Level 5, Wellington Chambers, 154 Featherston St, Wellington 6011.

8. Contact Details: Website – www.mia.co.nz. LinkedIn – “Meat Industry Association of New Zealand” (company page). (No official Twitter or Facebook account identified; uses press releases via website and industry media.)

9. Mission/Purpose: To act as “the voice of New Zealand’s red meat processors, marketers and exporters”, advocating for members’ interests in trade policy, market access, regulatory and economic issues. MIA’s strategic aim is a “vibrant and profitable red meat industry” supported by trade, innovation, and sustainability initiatives.

10. Membership Base: MIA represents 99% of New Zealand’s sheep and beef processing industry by volume. Its core members are Meat processing and exporting companies that operate over 60 slaughter and processing plants nationwide. In total, MIA lists ~45 member entities, including major meat companies and a few affiliate organizations.

11. Key Member Companies: Silver Fern Farms Ltd (NZ’s largest meat processor/exporter, co-owned by a farmer coop and Shanghai Maling, China); Alliance Group Ltd (farmer-owned cooperative, major sheep/beef exporter); ANZCO Foods Ltd (major beef and veal exporter, majority-owned by Japan’s Itoham); AFFCO New Zealand Ltd (meat processor/exporter owned by Talley’s Group); Greenlea Premier Meats, Ovation NZ/Hawke’s Bay Meat Co, Wilson Hellaby/Auckland Meat Processors, First Light Foods, Taylor Preston Ltd, and other regional processors. MIA also includes affiliate members like the Abattoirs Association and AgResearch (a Crown research institute).

12. Ownership/Structure: MIA is an industry-owned association. It is owned collectively by its member companies (each member has a stake via the incorporated society structure). The Association also wholly owns a subsidiary company, Meat Industry Association Holdings Ltd, which holds certain industry assets and investments, and a research arm MIA Innovation Ltd (formed 2015 to manage R&D projects). MIA Holdings Ltd is classified as a business association and is 100% owned by the MIA Incorporated society.

13. Leadership – Governance: MIA is governed by a Council of senior executives from nine member companies, plus an independent chair. The Independent Chair (since Aug 2022) is Nathan Guy, a former Cabinet Minister for Primary Industries (National Party MP, 2005–2020). Guy’s appointment marked a revolving door move from politics to industry leadership. The Council members (as of 2024) include CEOs/managing directors of major member firms: e.g. Peter Conley (CEO, ANZCO Foods); Tony Egan (MD, Greenlea, and former CEO of AFFCO); Willem Sandberg (MD, Ovation/Otago Meats); Dan Boulton (CEO, Silver Fern Farms from 2024); Gerard Hickey (MD, First Light Foods); Fred Hellaby (MD, Wilson Hellaby Ltd, also Chair of Beef + Lamb NZ Inc and of the NZ Chamber of Commerce); Willie Wiese (CEO, Alliance Group); and Nigel Stevens (CEO, AFFCO/Talley’s). These individuals represent the biggest meat companies, ensuring industry control of MIA’s agenda.

14. Leadership – Management: Day-to-day operations are led by Chief Executive Officer Sirma Karapeeva. Karapeeva has a background as a trade policy official at the Ministry for Primary Industries and took over as CEO in April 2020. Under her, MIA’s focus on trade lobbying has been prominent. Other key staff include a Manager of Strategy & Advocacy (Leigh Coleman-Shaw, ex-government strategist), a Policy & Trade Manager (Ashlin Chand, ex-MPI trade negotiator), and advisors for technical, regulatory, and legal matters (many drawn from government agencies such as MPI). This staffing reflects significant “revolving door” recruitment from the public sector, giving MIA insider expertise in government processes.

15. Affiliations – Domestic: MIA is a member of BusinessNZ, the main umbrella lobbying group for New Zealand employers and industries. (BusinessNZ’s Affiliated Industries Group includes MIA alongside other sector associations.) MIA often partners closely with Beef + Lamb New Zealand (B+LNZ) – the farmer levy board – on shared interests like trade policy and marketing. The two organizations present a united front as the “red meat sector” in many forums. For example, B+LNZ and MIA have jointly made submissions on trade agreements and coordinated advocacy initiatives. MIA is also a constituent of the Federated Farmers Meat & Wool Council (through overlap of issues), and it collaborates with other primary sector groups (e.g. Dairy Companies Association, Deer Industry NZ) on cross-cutting regulatory matters such as climate change policy.

16. Affiliations – International: MIA engages with international industry coalitions. It is the NZ representative to the International Meat Secretariat (IMS), a global meat trade body (often partnering with Meat & Livestock Australia, US National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, etc.). MIA has also been active in the Global Meat Alliance and liaises with overseas counterparts during trade negotiations. For instance, during Brexit, MIA placed a representative in London (co-funded by industry) to influence UK policymakers. The Association frequently accompanies or supports New Zealand trade delegations abroad, leveraging government relations to gain access to foreign decision-makers.

17. Government Recognition: The New Zealand Government formally recognises MIA as the representative body for meat processors/exporters in certain policy frameworks. In 2017, the Ministry for Primary Industries approved MIA as the designated “organisation representing commercial red meat processors and exporters” for purposes of the Biosecurity Act’s partnership on incursion responses. This means MIA is a signatory to the Government-Industry Agreement on biosecurity, giving it a role in decision-making (and cost-sharing) for biosecurity responses affecting the meat sector. Such recognition underscores MIA’s status as the official voice of the industry in the eyes of regulators.

18. Advocacy & Lobbying Activities: MIA’s core lobbying focus is on trade policy and market access. It routinely makes submissions to the New Zealand Government on free trade agreements (FTAs), export regulations, and tariffs. MIA has been “at the table” for all recent trade deal negotiations – e.g. the CPTPP, the NZ–EU FTA, and the NZ–UK FTA – providing industry input and pressing for favorable terms for meat exports. Domestically, MIA lobbies on a broad range of policies impacting meat processors: immigration (for meat plant workers and halal butchers), labour and employment law (e.g. opposing aspects of Fair Pay Agreements), environmental and climate regulations (advocating for agriculture-specific solutions instead of general carbon pricing), food safety and animal welfare rules, and any compliance costs that affect meat processing plants. Its methods include direct engagement with Ministers and officials (often behind closed doors), oral and written submissions to Parliamentary select committees, participation in government advisory groups, and public statements via press releases or media interviews. MIA does not appear on New Zealand’s Lobbyists Register (none exists for industry bodies), but its staff and members frequently meet with government representatives. For example, MIA officials have appeared before parliamentary committees (such as the Primary Production Committee) to press the case for immigration changes. In the absence of a statutory lobbying register, these activities are largely non-transparent unless reported by media or disclosed via Official Information Act requests.

19. Lobbying Firms/Consultants: No evidence found of regular use of external lobbying firms. MIA conducts most advocacy in-house through its experienced staff and member network. The association’s Wellington location and revolving-door hires give it direct access, reducing the need for third-party lobbyists. There is no record of MIA retaining professional lobbying firms (e.g. Saunders Unsworth or Thompson Lewis) on a permanent basis, unlike some other industries. (If specialist help is needed – e.g. communications consulting or overseas lobbying – MIA tends to partner with B+LNZ or use consultants on specific projects, such as contracting a former politician as a Brexit envoy.) Data Not Found on any declared lobbyist contracts.

20. Political Engagements: MIA maintains close links with political decision-makers. Its council chair Nathan Guy (ex-MPI Minister) exemplifies the high-level connections into government. MIA often coordinates with ministers: e.g. the association worked with Trade Minister’s teams during FTA talks and was praised for contributing to the successful UK trade deal. Under the previous Labour-led government (2017–2023), MIA was a key stakeholder in the He Waka Eke Noa climate partnership (often meeting ministers on agricultural emissions policy). With the current administration (elected 2023), which campaigned on reversing or revising certain regulations, MIA has been quick to engage new ministers (such as the Associate Agriculture Minister in charge of revisiting the live export ban) to ensure industry views are heard. Notably, the government in early 2024 chose to consult primarily with industry bodies – including MIA – on developing a new agricultural emissions plan, excluding environmental NGOs. This privileged access indicates MIA’s political clout. MIA itself does not donate to political parties (being a non-profit), but key member companies and owners have been significant political donors. For example, Talley’s Group (owner of AFFCO) secretly donated around $27,000 to the NZ First Party’s foundation and tens of thousands to various National and NZ First candidates during the 2017–2019 period. Such contributions, while not made by MIA directly, strengthen the industry’s influence on policymakers.

21. Key Issues & Lobbying Positions:

• Trade Agreements: MIA consistently advocates for free trade deals that remove tariffs/quotas on NZ meat. It has celebrated deals like the 2022 UK–NZ FTA (calling it “thrilling” and beneficial for both farmers and UK consumers), and pushed for ambitious outcomes in the NZ–EU FTA (criticising the EU’s quota offers as too small). MIA and B+LNZ jointly fought against any post-Brexit reduction of NZ’s WTO meat quotas by the EU/UK, arguing strongly in international forums to protect NZ’s rights. They even stationed a lobbyist (former MP Jeff Grant) in London to influence Brexit outcomes for meat access. This on-the-ground lobbying was credited with shaping UK perceptions and “influencing some of the UK’s thinking” on future trade policy.

• Market Access & Export Standards: The MIA engages with foreign governments to resolve technical barriers (sanitary rules, halal certification issues, etc.). For instance, it coordinates closely with MPI officials and diplomatic staff when export shipments face restrictions. MIA often raises concerns about overseas policies like the EU’s new farm-to-fork regulations or proposed meat taxes. In 2023, MIA and B+LNZ welcomed a delay in the EU’s “Deforestation-free” import rule, indicating they needed more time to adapt. MIA emphasizes to New Zealand officials the importance of maintaining a “level playing field” internationally, sometimes urging the NZ Government to challenge unfair measures by trading partners. It also supports promotional campaigns in key markets (e.g. branding NZ red meat in China and the Middle East) as a form of soft lobbying abroad.

• Immigration & Workforce: A critical lobbying win for MIA was the creation of a special visa pathway for migrant halal slaughterers and meat plant workers. MIA had warned that a shortage of halal butchers (due to immigration restrictions) put “$3.3 billion of exports at risk”. In 2021 it lobbied Parliament and ministers for an exemption, and by 2022 the Government agreed to a Sector Agreement allowing 320 meat workers annually on lower wage criteria. MIA was notably appointed by the Government to administer this visa allocation to processors – effectively outsourcing a public function to the industry body. This outcome underscores MIA’s influence in shaping immigration policy to suit industry needs. MIA continues to push for streamlined visa processes, highlighting labour shortages at processing plants and arguing that without migrant labour, throughput and farmers’ returns suffer.

• Labour Relations: As an employers’ association, MIA has opposed regulatory changes deemed to increase labour costs or empower unions. It was a vocal critic of the Fair Pay Agreements (FPA) law in 2022. In submissions, MIA argued that industry-wide employment agreements could impose undifferentiated standards and that the backstop where a government authority sets terms (if bargaining fails) would lack understanding of “operating nuances” of the sector. The MIA stance mirrored BusinessNZ’s campaign against FPAs, framing them as undemocratic and harmful to competitiveness. MIA member companies – notably AFFCO (Talley’s) – have a history of bitter industrial disputes with unions (including an unlawful lockout for which AFFCO was rebuked by the Supreme Court in 2017). While MIA itself was not directly party to that case, it reflects the hard-line industrial relations culture prevalent among some of its members. MIA generally promotes “flexible” workplace arrangements and has lobbied for less rigid employment law, aligning with other employer lobby groups.

• Environmental & Climate Policy: In public, MIA acknowledges the importance of sustainability, but it has lobbied to ensure climate regulations are industry-friendly. MIA was a founding partner of the He Waka Eke Noa alliance, which formulated an alternative to bringing agriculture fully into the Emissions Trading Scheme. MIA’s chairman Nathan Guy strongly backed the alliance’s proposal for a “farm-level, split-gas” emissions pricing system that would keep farmers out of the ETS and set a low price on methane. MIA argued this approach was the “fairest and most equitable” and publicly urged the Government to adopt it, emphasizing protecting farmers from high carbon prices. The association also insisted on low initial levy rates – successfully pushing for a cap of 11 cents per kilo of methane in early years – and called for reviewing methane reduction targets to be less stringent. Environmental groups accused the sector of dragging its feet: Greenpeace labeled the industry’s climate plan “an absolute lemon” (grossly inadequate). Despite such criticism, MIA’s lobbying largely prevailed; by late 2023 the Government (with a new industry-friendly administration) scrapped the ETS entry and hewed closely to what farming and processing lobbies wanted. MIA has also engaged in water and environmental regulation debates. It endorsed a collaborative approach to freshwater reforms but opposed blanket rules that would impose excessive costs on processing plants or farmers. The association tends to highlight the sector’s improvements (e.g. reducing emissions intensity, wastewater treatment upgrades) while resisting regulatory measures perceived as too onerous or unilateral.

• Animal Welfare & Livestock Exports: MIA’s members have an interest in animal welfare regulations, especially where they impact market access. Notably, MIA did not actively oppose the 2021 ban on live cattle exports (since processors benefit if animals are slaughtered in NZ rather than shipped offshore). In fact, some in the meat industry quietly supported ending live exports for slaughter, to enhance NZ’s reputation and keep processing onshore. However, when the ban faced possible reversal in 2023, industry voices (primarily the exporters/farmers) launched a campaign to reinstate the trade. MIA itself has trodden carefully on this issue: publicly emphasizing the importance of animal welfare, but also indicating that any policy changes should not undermine the meat trade. The association’s stance is usually pragmatic – e.g. if live export resumes under the new government, MIA will likely seek stringent welfare standards to protect NZ’s brand, while ensuring that processors aren’t disadvantaged. Generally, MIA prefers industry-led codes of practice over strict laws, in line with its wider advocacy for “co-regulation”.

22. Notable Relationships: MIA’s influence is bolstered by interlocking relationships with other entities:

– NZ Meat Board: MIA works alongside the statutory New Zealand Meat Board (which manages quota and farmer levies). By law, the Meat Board must include meat processor representation, and MIA nominees have filled those seats historically. For example, past MIA leaders like Bill Falconer and Graeme Harrison sat on or chaired the Meat Board, ensuring alignment of quota management with industry strategy.

– Business/Political Figures: Several prominent figures straddle MIA and public roles. Sir William (Bill) Falconer (mentioned as MIA Holdings’ sole director from 2003) was a former Meat Board chair and a government-appointed negotiator; his dual roles illustrate common crossover. Similarly, ex-MIA CEO Tim Ritchie (who led MIA for many years before 2020) served on multiple government advisory committees for trade and food safety. These networks mean MIA can readily call on well-connected individuals to champion its causes, whether inside government or in the media.

– Talley’s Group: Through AFFCO’s membership, the Talley family has a seat at MIA’s table (Nigel Stevens as AFFCO’s CEO, plus the Talley patriarch Sir Peter Talley’s indirect influence). Talley’s interests span fishing and dairy as well, and the family has been implicated in political funding controversies to advance those sectors. This indicates a confluence of influence – strategies used in one sector (e.g. fisheries lobbying via donations) can cross-pollinate into meat industry advocacy. MIA benefits from the clout of such powerful conglomerates but also bears reputational risk from their aggressive tactics.

– Beef + Lamb New Zealand (B+LNZ): The farmer levy organization and MIA have a formal Red Meat Sector Partnership. They co-developed the Red Meat Sector Strategy in 2011 and continue to coordinate on research and marketing (via the Red Meat Profit Partnership and other programmes). This partnership means farmer interests and processor interests are often presented in unison. However, behind closed doors there can be tensions (e.g. over livestock pricing or levy uses), which MIA manages carefully to maintain a united front externally.

23. Controversies:

– Transparency and “Integrity Washing”: Critics point out that MIA operates with minimal public scrutiny. No public disclosures are required for its lobbying, and it publishes scant details of its government engagements. Democracy watchdogs have cited MIA as an example of influential industry groups that operate “in the shadows” of policy-making. The Integrity Institute’s research on lobbying noted the absence of a lobbying register in NZ enables groups like MIA to wield outsized influence without accountability. MIA’s portrayal of itself as a constructive, solutions-focused body (“a strong, credible voice” as its mission states) has been labelled “integrity washing” by some commentators – essentially a PR strategy to pre-empt criticism while lobbying hard to minimize regulatory impacts. For instance, MIA’s public rhetoric on climate change stresses commitment to sustainability, yet the organisation fought to water down methane reduction targets and delay pricing, actions seen as at odds with climate science urgency. This gap between talk and action has drawn public criticism.

– Labour Rights: The meat industry’s labour practices have been contentious for decades. While MIA itself is not the employer, its largest members have been embroiled in disputes. The most high-profile was the AFFCO/Talley’s lockout of hundreds of meat workers in 2015–2016, which courts found illegal. The prolonged battle – involving allegations of union-busting – harmed the industry’s reputation. MIA officially stayed at arm’s length, but as the sector’s employer association, it was implicitly supportive of AFFCO’s hard stance. Unions have accused MIA of failing to condemn such practices and of lobbying against pro-worker reforms. MIA’s opposition to Fair Pay Agreements and other collective bargaining initiatives is seen by unions as perpetuating a low-wage, low-security model in meat processing. This tension remains a dark shadow, with the Meat Workers Union and others regularly highlighting Talley’s influence within MIA as a factor in the association’s aggressive policy positions.

– Political Donations Scandal: The 2020 revelations about secret donations from Talley’s to the New Zealand First Party (which held the balance of power 2017–2020) raised questions about whether MIA members were buying influence on policy. NZ First’s leader (then Deputy PM) was known for pro-industry stances. Greenpeace alleged a possible quid-pro-quo in fisheries policy, and while that case centered on fisheries, it cast a wider cloud over all Talley’s sectors. For MIA, which publicly distances itself from partisan activity, this was an uncomfortable association. It highlighted a loophole: an industry body can maintain clean hands while major players behind it engage in opaque political funding. The Integrity Institute and media commentators have used this case to argue for stricter disclosure of industry influence channels, to ensure that policy decisions (e.g. around processing regulations or export rules) are made transparently and not as a result of backdoor donations.

– Climate and Environmental Critique: Environmental NGOs have increasingly targeted the agriculture sector for delaying climate action, and MIA has not been spared. Greenpeace and other climate advocates lambasted He Waka Eke Noa – which MIA helped design – as “toothless” and too slow. When the Government largely adopted the sector’s watered-down approach in 2023, critics decried it as “policy capture” by industry, explicitly naming MIA among those now steering government policy on ag emissions. There is concern that MIA will use its seat at the table to further delay meaningful emissions cuts, prioritizing short-term profit over long-term climate responsibility. MIA also drew ire for its stance on water regulations: it supported postponing tighter freshwater standards that the previous government proposed, which environmentalists saw as the industry shirking responsibility for pollution from processing plants and intensive farming. MIA argues it favors pragmatic environmental steps, but the perception of obstructionism persists among green groups.

– COVID-19 Response: During the pandemic, meat works faced virus outbreaks and were labeled potential vectors (given crowded cold environments). MIA coordinated the sector’s response, lobbying for “essential service” exemptions to keep plants running and for priority access to rapid testing/vaccines for plant workers. Some community advocates felt MIA put production ahead of worker and community safety when it resisted initial closure of plants with COVID cases in 2020. Although widespread infection was averted with strict protocols, MIA had to defend the industry’s safety record. It also lobbied for border exceptions to bring in halal butchers during lockdowns, which was granted. The episode highlighted the balancing act MIA plays – pushing to maintain output (and exports critical to NZ’s economy) while trying not to appear callous to health concerns. A government review later noted that industry pressure influenced some COVID policy adjustments in the food sector, implicitly crediting MIA’s advocacy.

24. Financial Overview: Data limited. As a not-for-profit, MIA’s finances come mainly from membership fees and joint industry funds. Its 2024 Annual Report shows total income in the millions (exact figure Data Not Found in public domain), used to fund its advocacy, research (via MIA Innovation Ltd), and member services. The NZ Meat Board historically provided grants for joint projects (e.g. market development), and agencies like AGMARDT have co-funded MIA initiatives (such as the Brexit lobbying project). MIA’s expenditure on lobbying is not itemized publicly. However, large expenses include staffing (a team of ~10) and contracting experts. The association’s special projects, like the London office for Brexit and the sector strategy reports, involved six-figure budgets shared with B+LNZ. MIA holds some reserves and assets through MIA Holdings Ltd, but being member-owned, any surplus is reinvested into industry-good activities. Financial transparency is limited to high-level statements to members; there is no obligation to report detailed accounts to the public.

25. Ethical Standards & Policies: MIA publishes a Code of Conduct in its rules (available to members), which emphasizes compliance with laws and “good corporate citizenship”. However, it has no publicly available ethics or lobbying transparency policy. Integrity watchdogs note that MIA does not voluntarily disclose meetings or conflicts of interest. The presence of a former minister as chair raises conflict-of-interest questions, though MIA insists Nathan Guy adheres to the cooling-off period requirements and did not lobby his former colleagues for a set time after appointment. MIA’s messaging often stresses “integrity” and ethical production (especially to overseas customers), but it has been less forthcoming about ethical lobbying practices. There have been calls for MIA to improve transparency, for instance by supporting a mandatory lobbying register or voluntarily publishing quarterly lobbying reports – to date, MIA has not taken up these measures.

26. Integrity and Accountability: As part of the agri-food sector, MIA faces scrutiny over “regulatory capture” – the risk that regulators serve industry interests over the public’s. The association enjoys a close relationship with MPI (Ministry for Primary Industries), which can blur oversight lines. MIA and MPI staff frequently collaborate on technical committees (e.g. the Meat Safety Advisory Council, quota allocation panels, biosecurity response teams). While this can lead to efficient policy solutions, critics argue it gives MIA a say in how it is regulated, potentially undermining independent oversight. A 2019 academic study on NZ lobbying pointed out that industry associations like MIA operate with very low transparency, which can erode public trust if their influence goes unchecked. In recent years, MIA has tried to bolster its public image – highlighting its contributions to the economy, publishing positive sustainability stories, offering scholarships to students, etc. – but it remains opaque on governance matters. For example, minutes of its council meetings or details of engagement with ministers are not published.

27. Recent Developments: After the 2023 general election, a new government more sympathetic to farming interests took office. MIA has since ramped up lobbying on pending reversals of Labour-era policies. High on its agenda: scrapping the remaining elements of the livestock emissions pricing plan, ensuring any new water quality standards are watered down, and potentially reopening the live export trade under strict protocols. In early 2024, media reported an industry push (with a $1 million budget) to persuade the public and MPs to overturn the live export ban. MIA’s direct role in this campaign is not confirmed, but it aligns with the type of coordinated industry advocacy MIA often quarterbacks. On trade, MIA is eagerly backing the Government’s efforts to negotiate an India–NZ FTA and upgrade other agreements; it continues to press for full implementation of the UK FTA’s benefits as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the Integrity Institute’s launch of an “unauthorised lobbying register” (where this profile would feature) has put MIA on notice that its activities are under increased public gaze.

28. Overall Reputation: Within government circles, MIA is generally regarded as a highly effective and knowledgeable lobby group – a necessary partner in policy development given its technical expertise and the economic significance of meat exports (the sector earned $11 billion in 2022). Politicians often cite MIA’s statistics and support in justifying trade initiatives. However, among unions, environmental advocates, and transparency campaigners, MIA has a mixed or negative reputation. It is seen as a bulwark of the agricultural status quo, resistant to changes that might increase costs for industry even if they benefit society or the environment. Instances like hiring a former minister as chair or quietly influencing policy behind closed doors feed a narrative of a powerful, if shadowy, lobby. Public opinion of MIA itself is not regularly polled – it operates more behind the scenes than in the public eye (unlike, say, Federated Farmers which often fronts media debates). That said, any controversies involving its member companies (workplace accidents, pollution events, animal welfare scandals, etc.) can spill over and put MIA in the spotlight to respond on behalf of the industry.

29. Compliance & Legal Issues: MIA as an entity has not been embroiled in legal scandals. It is compliant with filing requirements for an incorporated society and is audited by KPMG (its 2024 financials received an unmodified audit opinion). The closest legal scrutiny it faced was under competition law: in 2016, the Commerce Commission examined whether industry coordination on livestock purchasing (between processors) was anti-competitive, but no action against MIA ensued (MIA had been careful to avoid breaches after a major price-fixing case in the 1990s involving some meat companies). On the lobbying front, New Zealand’s lack of regulation means MIA has no legal obligations to register or disclose activities. This could change if reforms are enacted; the association would likely push back on any law requiring public disclosure of its communications with officials, citing the need for confidential dialogue. As of now, no known legal complaints have been filed against MIA’s lobbying conduct.

(Where specific information was unavailable or not in the public domain, “Data Not Found” is noted. The above details draw on official records, reputable media, academic analyses, and disclosures up to 2025.)

---

Sources:

[1] Edwards, Bryce. Political round-up: Who runs NZ?, NZ Herald. “Diplomats are more able than most to call on heavy-hitting industry groups to argue their case, in this instance, Fonterra, the Dairy Companies Association and the Meat Industry Association”.

[2] MPI – Food Industry Associations (NZ Government). “Meat Industry Association (MIA). PO Box 345, Wellington… info@mia.co.nz; www.mia.co.nz”.

[3] BizDB Company Register – Meat Industry Association of NZ (Inc). “Registered 01 Aug 1974… NZBN 9429042711377… Company Number 217685… address Level 5, 154 Featherston St, Wellington… Name history: became Meat Industry Association of New Zealand (Inc) on 19 Oct 1998”.

[4] BizDB – MIA Holdings Ltd. “Incorporated 13 Jan 2003… NZBN 9429036180837… Industry classification S955110 – Business Association… 1 share held by Meat Industry Association of NZ (Inc)”.

[5] MIA – About MIA (official site). “It is an Incorporated Society (owned by members) that represents companies supplying virtually all of NZ’s sheepmeat and beef exports… advocates on economic, trade policy, market access, employment, etc.”.

[6] MIA – People & Governance (official site). “The MIA is governed by a Council of nine member executives plus an independent chair… Nathan Guy, Independent Chair (former Minister for Primary Industries)… Council members include Peter Conley (ANZCO CEO), Tony Egan (Greenlea MD, ex-AFFCO CEO), Willem Sandberg (Ovation MD), Dan Boulton (Silver Fern Farms CEO), Gerard Hickey (FirstLight MD), Fred Hellaby (Wilson Hellaby MD, Chair of Beef+Lamb Inc), Willie Wiese (Alliance CEO), Nigel Stevens (AFFCO CEO, Talley’s Group).”.

[7] MIA – Team (official site). “Sirma Karapeeva, CEO (joined MIA 2015 from MPI trade policy; became CEO in April 2020)… Ashlin Chand, Manager Policy & Trade (ex-MPI trade negotiator; NZ Embassy Beijing)… Leigh Coleman-Shaw, Strategy & Advocacy Manager (ex-government communications)… Matt Conway, Policy Analyst (with MIA since 2008; ex-Parliamentary Library)… Christopher Guy, In-house Legal (since 2018)… Richard McColl, Science & Innovation (ex-AFFCO, Alliance)… Michael Pran, Accountant (also handles halal recruitment)… Yawei Wang, Strategic Marketing… ”.

[8] BusinessDesk – “Meat Industry lobbying for halal butcher visas”. “The Meat Industry Association is lobbying the government to create a special migration visa for halal butchers, arguing the current shortfall… putting $3.3 billion of exports at risk. ‘We are very disappointed with the immigration reset,’ MIA chief executive Sirma Karapeeva told the select committee.”.

[9] MIA Circular (MBIE Sector Agreement) – “The Meat Industry Association of New Zealand (Inc) has been appointed by MBIE to facilitate the allocation process [for 320 meat process worker visas].”.

[10] RNZ News – “Concerns over secret fisheries donations to NZ First Foundation”. “The foundation received $26,950 from Talley’s and from managing director Sir Peter Talley… in four amounts all below the threshold for disclosure… Talley’s also donated $10,000 to Shane Jones in 2017… and $40,000 to eight other candidates (7 National, 1 Labour)… Russel Norman called on the PM to review key policy decisions favourable to the seafood industry in light of the donations.”.

[11] NZ Herald – “Supreme Court dismisses Affco’s unlawful lockout appeal”. “The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by Affco… finding the meat processor unlawfully locked out meat workers when collective bargaining was taking place.”.

[12] MIA – News Release (Aug 2022) “Commitment to He Waka Eke Noa”. “‘We believe the recommended emissions pricing framework is the fairest and most equitable option for all farmers and growers,’ says Nathan Guy, MIA chair… It helps keep agriculture out of the ETS… ‘We know HWEN is not perfect, but by being outside the ETS, we can refine and improve it over time.’ MIA and Beef+Lamb NZ are also arguing for a cautious approach to pricing and pushed for a maximum starting rate of 11c per kg of methane for first three years.”.

[13] NZ Herald – “Meat Industry unhappy with emissions pricing proposal”. “MIA rejects the Government’s proposed interim processor-level levy, wants changes to the emissions price-setting process… The He Waka Eke Noa Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership had recommended a farm-level levy.”.

[14] Otago Daily Times – “$1m ‘counter-offensive’ to overturn live export ban”. “The lobbying effort here would focus on ensuring the public and MPs better understood the industry… ‘We’ve been ineffective at telling our story… we want NZers to see both sides of the equation,’ says a pro-live export farming leader. Associate Ag Minister (former Fed Farmers president) Andrew Hoggard said reintroducing the trade was a priority.”.

[15] Farmers Weekly – “Sector welcomes trade deal (UK FTA)”. “Beef + Lamb NZ and the Meat Industry Association (MIA) are also thrilled with the deal. ‘It allows British consumers access to best in-season products all year around,’ B+LNZ chief executive Sam McIvor said.”.

[16] MIA – Annual Report 2024 (Foreword/Stats). “Our sector is NZ’s second largest goods exporter… generates $12 billion in income per year… employs over 25,000 people directly… 60 processing plants mostly in the regions… Nearly 40% of processing employees are Māori.”.

[17] Democracy Project (Bryce Edwards) – “NZ Lobbying & Influence Register”. The DemocracyProject’s series (Integrity Institute) profiles numerous lobby entities, including industry groups like MIA, highlighting their political activities and influence. (Note: The specific MIA profile may not be publicly accessible yet, but related profiles and commentary indicate the approach to shining light on these groups.)

[18] The Standard (Political Blog) – “Haere ra He Waka Eke Noa”. “This week the inevitable happened: the Government announced HWEN would be disbanded, agriculture not to enter ETS, and it would consult with farming sector organisations (DairyNZ, B+LNZ, Federated Farmers, DCANZ, MIA) on the future. Not iwi, not environmental groups… You can imagine what the result will be.”.

Spot anything in this entry that is wrong? Please either leave a comment at the end or email, in confidence: bryce@democracyproject.nz