O'Connor had previously said the economic impact of banning live export would be small, noting that exports by sea made up 0.2 percent of New Zealand's primary sector exports revenue since 2015.
National and Act disagreed.
In its dissenting view, National said it opposed the "bill in its entirety".
"It is the view of National Party committee members that the projected economic loss caused by such a ban has been grossly underestimated, and that rural communities across New Zealand will be detrimentally affected by both job and revenue loss," the party wrote in its dissenting view.
The party suggested the Ministry for Primary Industries should instead "take a
leadership role in setting and maintaining world-leading compliance standards".
Act agreed, saying New Zealand should develop a "'gold standard' approach for our livestock export industry".
"Act implores the committee to oppose this ideological bill and instead develop a first-in-class livestock export trade that champions animal welfare, supports rural communities, and boosts New Zealand's economy for years to come," the party wrote.
The Labour members were more subdued on the possible economic impacts of the legislation, saying the committee was advised "livestock export contributes $261 million to New Zealand's economy annually" and the "second-order economic effects are
not likely to be significant".
Other submitters warned the ban could lead to an increase in the slaughter of bobby calves, which were sometimes sent overseas.
The committee was told "the slaughter of bobby calves is wasteful compared to their use as breeding stock overseas. We were advised that, currently, approximately 1.8 million bobby calves are slaughtered annually.
"Submitters said that the ban could potentially add around 130,000 more," the report said.
There were differing views on whether banning live exports would improve New Zealand's reputation.
Some "submitters were concerned that this reputation is being undermined by livestock
export, as New Zealand cannot ensure that its welfare standards are being met by other
countries".
Other submitters warned the "continuation of the trade could negatively affect free trade
agreements with other countries".
But other submitters said a ban could itself be reputationally damaging.
"Other submitters thought that banning livestock export would undermine New Zealand's
reputation as a well-managed agricultural economy and transparent trading partner," the report said.
Veterinarians for Animal Welfare Aotearoa managing director Helen Beattie said she was "enormously disappointed that the Select Committee has not been able to recommend the Amendment to the House".
Beattie said the evidence presented to the committee needed to be looked at.
"Interrogation of the evidence must include considering the merit of evidence from those with vested economic interests, whether they be farmers, veterinarians, exporters, or those who manage transitional facilities, versus those whose evidence is independent, and those with expertise in animal welfare," she said.
