Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill

In supporting Part 2 of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill I make particular reference to the powers that the director-general will be given by this part. Normally one would be a little nervous when one saw the wide-sweeping powers that will be given to that person—who is, no doubt, a very competent person. But in this case, this is the exception. The reason for it being the exception is—as my colleague Eric Roy referred to just previous to my speech—that the kind of expertise and the speed at which technology and drugs are changing is such that we need a person with a very high competency level. We need a person with the department, the officials, and the advice that goes with the position of director-general. So in this case, being able to give that kind of support to the director-general—and I am referring to the powers that the director-general will have, and some of them he or she already has under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act—that is provided for in the amendments in this particular part of the bill is sensible in that regard.

As I said earlier, this is a large industry that is very dependent upon being competitive internationally. It is very dependent upon being able to have traceability of the products that we sell in the international market. What makes New Zealand unique is that we export, in some industries, up to 95 percent of what we produce, whereas other jurisdictions around the world consume 95 percent, or 100 percent, of what they produce and import products from countries like New Zealand. So being able to go out into the marketplace with absolute surety about what we are doing, and what we are putting into that which becomes food product through the animals themselves, is important. It is something that needs a much higher level of scrutiny to what one would expect even in human health and human medicine, because of the market demands around food safety. We have seen a bit lately in recent media about the safety of different products being imported into countries, particularly the US, from parts of the world where they do not have the same standards that we have.

As we move further down the track of DNA traceability and are able to trace back to the source of product, this will become more and more of an issue. Some of the technology that is being employed, some of the market sophistication now, is such that I am not sure whether New Zealand will be able to keep up on its own with what is almost a flood of demand coming our way. Having a person of the competency level that we would expect the director-general to have in a position to be able to make those decisions, or at least to have an overview of those decisions and give advice to the Minister, is essential in this particular Act. I say well done, once again, to the members of the Primary Production Committee for their work in regard to that.

I also make reference to the relationship of this bill to Acts other than the principal Act. As I have said, the bill makes reference to the Wine Act. Of course, the wine industry is a growing industry in this country, another major exporter, and another industry that exports a high percentage of what it produces as opposed to having it consumed domestically—although the percentages are not as high in that industry as they are in our other more traditional primary industries. That is also important, and I thank the committee for the work it has done on clause 48 and the amendments it has made in regard to that. The bill also has reference to a number of other Acts, like the Meat Act, the Dairy Industry Act, and a number of others. I thank the committee for the work it has done on that.

Just in closing I touch on one point. The Minister for Food Safety, Annette King, in reference to the bill, said that the time it had taken had been, by parliamentary standards, pretty short. I agree; that is absolutely so. Maybe she might like to inform the Committee when the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill might make it on to the floor of the House so that it can be processed in a timely way—given that this Government is in the mind to get things processed in a timely way. I suggest that perhaps poor old David Parker, who is now probably about the 15th Minister to have his name beside that legislation, might want to bring it to the House so it can be properly debated.

I take a call on Part 2 of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. There will probably be a few cockies around New Zealand who are listening to Parliament and hosing out their cowsheds as we speak, and they will be interested to know that National is supporting this bill. In essence, the legislation is a bit of a tidy-up, as a result of reviews carried out in 2001 and 2004, and the bill pulls all of that work together. National is supporting that.

Fundamentally, the thing that is of particular note is that there is a 3-year review of the compliance costs around this bill. That will be very, very important as we look forward. Although the officials have told us—and the Minister Annette King has, as well, this evening—that there will not be too many issues around compliance costs, I think it is very important to have that 3-year review so that we can see how this rolls out.

As the Minister will know, this bill will have an impact on veterinarians around all of New Zealand. The Minister has been in front of our Primary Production Committee in the past. Of particular concern to rural New Zealand and a lot of farmers is the shortage in the number of veterinarians coming out of Massey University. The Minister’s department has been all over the world trying to attract veterinarians into New Zealand. This is really, really important, because at the moment we are unable to train enough. Farmers will be interested to know that it costs about $10,000 per vet—if my recollection serves me correctly—to attract overseas veterinarians into New Zealand. Surely we need to do more promotion in order to ensure that we attract students to take up veterinary science at Massey University.

We have also heard this evening about the data protection and how that was outside the scope of this bill. In the Primary Production Committee we heard from submitters who were able to tell us that around different parts of the world data protection is available for 8 and 10 years. I am pleased to know that a group is looking at this issue, because I think it is fundamentally a very important part of this bill. I think that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Ministry of Economic Development, and the Ministry for the Environment are involved in looking at the issue.

The other issue that I touch on is this fourth drench family that will potentially—when it comes into New Zealand—come through this bill, as well. This is of great significance to farmers throughout New Zealand. Currently, we have three drench families. There is a thing called drench resistance—so the parasites are building up resistance over time to drench families—and the fourth drench family that will, hopefully, arrive in New Zealand at some time soon is forecast to return about $100 million to the farm gate.

In summary, National is supporting this bill. It is a bit of a tidy-up, to provide a one-stop shop. We look forward to seeing it roll out, and we will be watching with interest over the next few years to see what impacts the legislation has on any compliance costs.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill with amendment, and the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.