National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill

I rise in support of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill and I look forward to it coming to the Primary Production Committee.

Looking forward, the biggest economic opportunity for New Zealand to grow the economy in the way that the National-led Government wants to grow it is to export high-quality protein products from our agricultural industries. One of the bottom-line criteria in achieving that outcome is to have traceability. We must be able to tick all the environmental, social, and economic boxes, and traceability is a key to that if we are to maintain integrity in the markets. I look forward to the debate on how we will do that when the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill is before the Primary Production Committee. I support this bill and I commend it to the House.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. I will be taking a very brief call, as well. The work on this bill started in 2004. Like many bills that have come before Parliament in the last 2 years, this bill originated with Labour, and this Government is slowly getting around to bringing such bills into the House.

This issue is very important for the New Zealand economy going forward, particularly because overseas customers want to ensure that the food they get from us is of high quality, and that the animals can be traced back to the farms. They want to make sure that they are getting the real stuff.

I know there are concerns. Some farmers are particularly worried about cost increases as a result of this legislation, but I am sure that as technology becomes more affordable and is of better quality, it will be very important to make sure that the animal can be identified with an ID in the market place. With those few words, I commend this bill to the House.

Last week in a debate I spoke to my colleagues from the ACT Party about some of Adam Smith’s conditions for markets to operate correctly and for competition to deliver the best mix of price and quality. One of those conditions is information. For a market to deliver the best mix of price and quality, all consumers need perfect information about each of the competing products. The National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill is about meeting that consumer need for greater information, at least in part. There is more and more evidence that consumers around the world are seeking more information about the quality of the products that they consume. That is both quality in the conventional sense—whether this thing does what it says it does, whether this particular piece of food tastes the way we want it to taste and whether it lasts as well as we want it to—and also aspects of quality, like safety; animal welfare, which is one of the qualities of the products that we sell overseas; and environmental considerations, which include whether a product is free-range in the farming sector and its GE content or otherwise.

Distance is increasingly an important consideration for many consumers. Consumers ask how far a product has had to travel to get to them, and many consumers are choosing to consume only foods that are grown or produced within a certain distance of where they live. All of those aspects are important, and the need for consumer quality is well served by the provisions of this bill that allow animals to be tracked back from paddock to plate, if you like.

In the regulatory impact statement for the bill we learnt quite a lot about the situation that the bill is addressing. I was particularly struck by the situation that occurred in February 2008, when the European Union banned Brazilian beef imports due to deficiencies in the Brazilian tracing systems. That came at a cost to Brazil of $430 million. This measure is really important for our economy. The bill has very important biosecurity implications and it should also be supported for that reason.

We have a concern about the development of the bill—the process that was used—because it certainly appears from the discussion in the regulatory impact statement that there did not appear to be consultation with the organics sector in the broader agricultural sector. That is of concern to us. The organics sector is a very important part of the New Zealand agricultural scene. It is also a sector that particularly stands to benefit if the system is well developed, because the organics sector has a good story to tell for those consumers overseas who are specifically seeking quality. Certainly in the consideration of the bill by the select committee, the Green Party will be specifically encouraging and looking for submissions from the organics sector and from those farmers who perhaps are particularly pursuing that high-quality niche marketing for their products.

I also raise a concern about one aspect of the bill, and, again, we hope that this issue will be well considered by the select committee. It relates to the enforcement powers that will be given to those who are implementing this law. The legislation’s enforcement powers include search and surveillance powers and detention powers—a sweeping range of powers that represent a significant imposition on the human rights and liberties of people. We will certainly be looking hard during the select committee process to see that the imposition on people’s rights and freedoms is justified by the evil that the Government seeks to avert. There is a related concern, which, again, we will be paying particular attention to. That is the fact that these sweeping powers are vested by this bill not in an arm of the State but in something else. I guess that the body that will be exercising these tasks is almost a quango. Again, that is a major alarm bell for our party, because we believe that substantive powers that impose on the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders ought to be exercised only by the State, and under this bill, they will not be. That creates a particular problem.

Lastly, I come to the flip side of this legislation, and my colleague Damien O’Connor alluded to this point before the dinner break. What we are doing in this bill is creating a system by which consumers in other countries will be able to track back in some detail the history of the foods that are produced for them by New Zealand farmers and growers. I ask when it will be time for New Zealand consumers to have that same right—when it will be time for New Zealanders to know where their food comes from, what it contains. When will they know whether it contains genetically engineered organisms or ingredients, whether it is grown organically, whether it is free-range, and whether it contains trans fats or palm oil? When will New Zealand consumers have those same rights that this bill is intended to satisfy for overseas consumers?

I was pleased to hear Damien O’Connor saying that it was his intention to develop a member’s bill on country-of-origin labelling. It does represent a very substantial shift from the position that he and Labour took in Government. But we recognise change, and it is part of the Green mission, if you like, to export our ideas. So we will be very pleased to support that bill. We call on the Government, having introduced this bill, to introduce that companion bill, if you like, to give New Zealand consumers those same rights to know what is in their food and where it comes from.

I am pleased to rise and speak to the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill, otherwise known as NAIT, which brings the New Zealand primary sector up to speed with most other agricultural producing nations that already have such a scheme in place. I am delighted to see this bill coming to the House, and I look forward to its progress through the Primary Production Committee.

I also rise in support of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. Labour supports this bill because it has its origins in Labour policy—we set the ball rolling. It is good to see the Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, bringing this bill through the House. I acknowledge that this is the second bill we have seen from this Minister in the last few days. He managed to wrest $25 million from Government coffers for the kiwifruit industry. I would like to see him in charge of the Canterbury earthquake recovery, because he is so good at extracting money from the pocket of Bill English.

This bill is good regulation, and it is good to see. It is a shame that the member’s colleague the Minister of Broadcasting, Jonathan Coleman, does not adopt some of this regulatory approach. We need to see some light-handed regulation to make sure we get the best out of our economy. I rise in support of this bill, and I look forward to seeing it at the Primary Production Committee.

I also commend the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill to the House. I would just like to point out to the House that the apple industry has been doing this exact procedure for quite some time, over many, many years. In fact, if members look at a tray of New Zealand apples over in Europe somewhere, and if they look at the barcode, they will actually be able to see which forklift moved which pallet of apples, and in which packing house.

💬 Hone Harawira: That’s amazing!

Traceability—that is what it is all about, my friend. I commend this fine bill to the House.

It is interesting to see that the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill is before Parliament. I am sure that this is an essential development and a progressive innovation towards having our produce received in high-value countries. However, in saying that, I think it would be a crime not to say that one needs to bear in mind some of the difficulties our farming system will have to consider in respect of implementing this legislation. Although Parliament might set this all up, one can think of those high country farmers or farmers in parts of the North Island where there is very broken, bush-covered landscape, and where there is the possibility of losing tags, and suchlike.

The Primary Production Committee will certainly be looking forward to receiving a range of submissions, especially from farmers and the industry, so that we get this structure right—it is very essential. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.