National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill

I move, That the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Today, I introduce the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill to the House. This bill is an important step in our effort to improve the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system and support our joint effort with the industry to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis from the country’s cattle herds. As we begin spring calving, it is important that we ensure all the tools we have can properly be used to track, test for, and eradicate Mycoplasma bovis. This bill corrects anomalies in the original NAIT legislation so that we can ensure our eradication efforts have every chance of success. The amendments will improve the investigation and management of non-compliance with the NAIT Act, which will help deliver the higher levels of compliance that are necessary to support the Mycoplasma bovis response.

The amendments align search and inspection powers in the NAIT Act with those that the previous Government passed in the Search and Surveillance Act in 2012. It was always the intention at the time that these two Acts, both passed in 2012, be aligned. The bill will ensure we can track all animal movements by holding to account those people in charge of NAIT animals who move them to locations not registered with NAIT without declaring these movements. The bill is not about increasing powers for officers, but about ensuring that those already available to them can be used properly and that they align with other legislation. This will help our phased eradication efforts.

The bill highlights the coalition Government’s commitment to the strengthening of our biosecurity system. A well-functioning NAIT system is a key part of those efforts. A review released earlier this year highlighted many issues with the NAIT system. The outbreak of M. bovis further highlighted these problems—simply, not enough farmers were recording animal movements. We are changing that, and I think farmers now understand how important NAIT is for our farming systems.

Alongside today’s legislation, we are already implementing nearly two dozen changes that don’t require legislative change, which flow from the well-overdue NAIT review. This legislation shows the coalition Government’s ongoing commitment to eradicating M. bovis from the national herd, alongside our industry partners, to protect our economic base. We’re about action that helps our farming sector, not just ignoring the problems and hoping for the best. We will revisit the NAIT legislation again in coming months after consulting on more changes—in particular, ways to make the system easier to use.

The response to the cattle disease Mycoplasma bovis highlighted problems in the use of NAIT that should have been fixed years ago. This is one branch of our work into making New Zealand’s biosecurity system fit for purpose. Alongside our NAIT work, the Government is committed to an overhaul of the Biosecurity Act to make it fit for purpose. Bit by bit, branch by branch, we are fixing our biosecurity system so that we can protect our vital primary industries, that provide the economy with more than $40 billion in income each year.

I want to thank our coalition partners for their support, not just for today but for the Mycoplasma bovis response. That response, I can report, is progressing well. To date, more than 20 previously infected farms have been repopulated as part of the Mycoplasma response, and another seven are well on the way to returning to farming. We are working closely with farming groups to ensure those farmers caught in the response get the support they need. I want to thank Dairy New Zealand, Beef and Lamb New Zealand, Federated Farmers, the rural support trusts, and Rural Women New Zealand for their help.

To those farmers caught in the response, we know this is hard. Where we make mistakes—and we have made a few—we will improve the systems that we run, and we’re very, very cognisant of the pressure that these farmers are under. We’re investing $30 million over two years in science to develop our understanding of M. bovis and how to better test for the disease. We will start a new round of bulk milk testing—and, indeed, it has begun—over a 12-week period to help our understanding of M. bovis’ spread in the hope that we won’t identify any new sources of infection.

Farmers know that the Government is here to help them in times of biosecurity threats and that we want to improve a system that was left without much change for some time. Wherever I travel in the country, farmers tell me that they want NAIT to be improved. I’m listening to them, and today’s legislation reflects the need for change. Just like we listened to the nurses and we’re listening to the teachers and to the business community, this is a response and a change that farmers want to see.

I would ask that the Opposition, who have worked well on M. bovis with us, can see the wisdom in these changes and support this through the House in a very efficient way. There are, of course, points that we can discuss in this, but I hope that the Opposition can see their way to support this legislation. This is not about increasing, in any unfair way, anyone’s powers, but it is about correcting anomalies in legislation between the NAIT legislation and the Search and Surveillance Act to align those effectively.

There’s no reason to stand in the way or to prolong this legislation, and I hope that, as I say, all parties in this House can come in behind this legislation and pass it for the good of farmers in the country, for the good of the people—all people—who want us to run an efficient animal tracing system, one where those who choose to flout it can be caught, can be penalised, and then can change their ways. So I welcome the introduction of the bill into this House.

Mr Assistant Speaker, thanks for the call. It’s interesting hearing the Minister of Agriculture’s address this afternoon, and I appreciate the sentiments around M. bovis and doing what the Government and industry can to support those farming families through.

This bill goes a lot wider than M. bovis. I’ve spent a lot of time with my colleagues over the last sort of week or so, looking at this bill, and we realise on this side of the House that the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system has been tested as a result of the M. bovis response. I want to thank the Minister from the outset for phoning me and letting me know that this bill was coming. Unfortunately, he couldn’t answer all of the detail, but he did allow us to have two meetings with his officials. We still have some unanswered questions that we want to indeed explore through the select committee process.

We don’t support the House being put into urgency this evening. We feel that this bill—while we could certainly discuss and debate and argue the intent of it—warranted going to a select committee. Indeed, I reached out to the Minister and said, through the Primary Production Committee, we would be prepared to have a truncated select committee process. Indeed, I think in the space over the recess that is coming up in the next fortnight, we could have turned this bill around and back into the House.

The reason that I believe it should have gone to a select committee—and, in essence, we’re cautiously going to support this bill, but we need to have some comfort from the Minister through these stages and from his officials when we get into the committee stage. There are four aspects of it and, in general, you could argue and discuss that on merit, three of the four aspects are important and needed. But we have concerns about one particular aspect. I’ll come on to that in a moment.

The aspect of a search warrant and the particular “form” and then changing the clause to “if any”, under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012—yep, we can discuss and debate that. The one that we have particular concern about is expanding the warrantless inspections of these NAIT officers. It’d be worthwhile for the Minister to explain when he gets into the chair in the committee stage with his officials—he’s mentioned twice in his introductory remarks about not increasing the powers of officers. We, on this side of the House, don’t necessarily agree with that.

Also, this change in this bill will mean that a warrantless inspection can occur. Currently, things like copying documents and taking photos and videos can’t occur. So the proposal in this bill is indeed to go further than that. I was just talking to David Carter earlier on—who has a huge amount of experience in the House and, indeed, was a former Minister of Agriculture. What would scare the heebie-jeebies out of farmers is when the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), or Biosecurity New Zealand—because they’ll probably have a new sticker on a vehicle; it’ll be the same vehicle, but a new sticker—arrive, and it could be several of them, to have a look at animal welfare. In a lot of these cases, these officials are indeed multi-warranted. Questions will start coming from the officials and there will be further answers, and no doubt more questions and discussions.

It’s likely, farmers being the way that they are, that they will say, “Come up to”—it might be that they’ll go to the woolshed, because it’s closer, or the cowshed and have a discussion. But there’s a probability that they may get invited into the house. So we want assurance from the Minister that these warrantless inspection powers that are going to be expanded—will it go as far as the dwelling? We understand how farms work: NAIT records are unlikely to be stored in the computer in the cowshed; they’re more likely to be stored in the house. So what does it mean when a farmer, with their goodwill nature, has invited these NAIT officers into their home? Does it therefore mean that while they’re in the home, they can start asking for these particular documents to copy them? So we want to understand more about that provision in particular, because we have got some grave concerns about that.

It also goes on to clarify that NAIT needs to have registered locations, because there is obviously a gap in the legislation whereby, when a farmer sells to another farmer, they need to ensure that that farm is indeed NAIT-registered. That makes logical sense. The next part of this bill goes on to say that there are offence provisions for failure to declare these animal movements.

What’s also really interesting is that I kicked off the NAIT review in 2016 because I was hearing the concerns from farmers and from NAIT officials, whether it’s loss of eartags, the glitches in the NAIT system, or non-compliance—all of those things. Now, the report has come back. There are 38 recommendations. We heard from the Minister this evening that 15 of those are going to be dealt with by the Government and another 23 by NAIT and Operational Solutions for Primary Industries. When I look through those NAIT recommendations, I can’t see anywhere these search and surveillance powers. I struggle to reconcile, in the information that I’ve been given, how this is a drafting anomaly between the NAIT Act 2012 and the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. I reckon what’s happened—because I’ve heard this quite a bit around New Zealand—is that NAIT officers, MPI officers, have gone in to do a warrantless search and they’ve realised that they can’t go as far as where they want to go.

So this has not come about through the 38 recommendations of the NAIT review. This is late. This has only come to the table late. We need to understand and hear from the Minister—preferably in the second reading, when he next speaks—what are the examples that he can give us, so we can understand why there is suddenly this urgency.

What’s also important to understand is we heard from the Minister just a few moments ago that he’s going to have another bill—hopefully not in urgency, because we wouldn’t appreciate that, but he’s going to do another NAIT law change in this House. So why wouldn’t you do both of those together? Why wouldn’t you send them all to a select committee? Why wouldn’t you allow Federated Farmers, Dairy New Zealand, Beef and Lamb New Zealand, and farmers that may have been on the other end and had some experience of these warrantless inspections. Why wouldn’t you allow them to come and submit?

I’ve been in this House for 13 years, and I’ve heard the Greens talk a huge amount about civil liberties under the Search and Surveillance Act. Surely this warrants going to a select committee, even if it was a truncated period.

So this is not the end of the debate on this bill. What we have just learnt this evening is there will be another bill. There’s going to be another NAIT bill that’s going to change the law. Surely, it would make sense to have both of these come to the House and send them off to a select committee—not debate them in urgency—so that we can get some comfort and support them in their entirety. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions that we need further debate on.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The timing of today’s bill is important, as we are at the end of a long winter and we’re about to head into spring calving. The movement of animals will increase the biosecurity and animal welfare challenges, and that is why my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor has introduced this bill under urgency to this House.

As the Associate Minister of Agriculture responsible for animal welfare, I’m adamant that there is no place for animal cruelty. The suffering caused by the M. bovis outbreak defines animal cruelty, so this Government is committed to strengthening biosecurity by overhauling the Biosecurity Act and making it fit for purpose so that outbreaks like this don’t happen again.

So tonight, on the floor, we are debating this National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. The Minister has gone through the parts that it’s amending. It’s attempting to remove the requirements as declared on the search warrants. It talks about aligning the powers under the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act for warrantless inspections, and it also talks about the clarification—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry for interrupting the member, but it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

Members, the House has resumed. We were debating the first reading of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. Are you seeking the call?

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Well, I thought Meka had some time left, but I will if she’s not here.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Yes, she did, but, obviously, she’s not going to seek the call. So I call the Hon Amy Adams.

Madam Assistant Speaker, look, thank you. I did want to come down to the House and take a call on this amendment to the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) legislation. I know speakers who have spoken so far in the debate will have canvassed the National Party position on the bill, but just to be really clear—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Cautiously support.

—we want to cautiously support the bill and certainly vote in favour of it.

But the reason I particularly wanted to speak was to outline very clearly and as explicitly as I can the very real concerns that we have, and I want those in Hansard because the reason we have come to the position where we will vote for the bill has not been an easy one and we have relied extensively on representations both from the Minister, to my colleague the Hon Nathan Guy, and from his officials. I certainly thank him for making the officials available to us, but the position that we find ourselves in with the bill coming up at very short notice, being passed at incredibly short notice, and no opportunity for even the most truncated select committee process is deeply concerning to me. Let me just lay that balance out, because it is important.

We’re dealing in New Zealand with an issue of extreme concern to the New Zealand economy but, particularly, the agricultural community and the families who are dealing with the threat or the actual infestation of Mycoplasma bovis on their farms. The devastation, the heartbreak, the anguish that I have seen in farming families in my own electorate, that I know has been mirrored around New Zealand, is incredibly real and very concerning. My colleague the Hon Nathan Guy—very rightly, I think, and with our full support—has said, genuinely, we don’t want this to be a politics issue. We don’t want politics to get in the way of the response, and we have worked—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: And we want good legislation too.

Yeah. We’ve worked very, very collaboratively with the Government, and the Government has equally, I think, responded in kind to make sure that this doesn’t become about the politics. We really want to stick to that, and there’s no way that we would want to do anything which in any way was seen as impeding the response.

But, and it is a big “but”, what we’re dealing with in this legislation—now, look, some of the provisions are really at the tidy-up phase and we take no issue with the prescribed form required for legislation, the moving between farms and other places. It’s all fine. The issue that’s really concerned us has been the issue of amendments to warrantless search powers. I’ve been in this House for 10 years and I’ve watched the extent of the concern—very genuine concern and appropriate concern—around giving agencies of the State powers of search and seizure of goods. Of course those things have to be handled carefully. We all understand that they’re a necessary part of a framework, but these are the most intrusive powers that Parliament can grant. What we’re talking about in this legislation is giving NAIT officers the right without warrant and without cause—I want to repeat that because it’s really important; without any warrant but also without cause—to go on to any property and seize any goods, any assets, any papers, or anything they like if they think it would be useful. I’m sure members can understand how incredibly intrusive that can be.

In our legislation we have any number of both criminal and security enforcement agencies and regulatory enforcement agencies that are tasked with overseeing their regimes, and a number of them have powers—mostly under warrant; occasionally without warrant—to go into properties, but almost always there is a requirement that there at least has to be reasonable cause to suspect an offence. We normally have some sort of threshold, so if you need to go without warrant you’ve got to have a good reason to have to do so. That is not the case here. This is a warrantless power to go on to any farm without cause, as of right, and seize any goods that they think they would like to take.

Now, of course we all like to have the utmost faith in the professionalism and the pragmatism of NAIT officials. But in this House we are passing law and we have to look at it in terms of what powers they are given, and these are unconstrained, very extensive powers. My very real concern was that we are not taking just a month to go to select committee. I mean the Mycoplasma bovis response—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Well, a week. We could do it in a week or two.

Well, a week, absolutely—just a chance for the very people who’ll be affected to say, “Look, I don’t think you’ve understood this part.” or “This is going to be a real concern because of X or of Y.” I don’t believe the Government has put up any good reason why a week, two weeks, at this stage of what is a response that is already many, many months old and has many, many months to run—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: 12 months.

Twelve months, my colleague Nathan Guy tells me. I cannot understand for one minute why the Government can’t take a week or so when it is granting the most intrusive powers of the State to an agency of Government. Now this is not a question—

💬 Barbara Kuriger: Mr Patterson might tell us.

Well, I doubt he will, but it will be interesting to see what he says to farmers on the stump. But I can’t understand why, when you are dealing with powers as important as this, you don’t belt and braces it.

I want to put very clearly into the Hansard, first of all, the National Party’s extreme concern at the width of these powers and our extreme frustration, annoyance, and opposition to the fact that it has not gone to a select committee. Now, I understand the Government doesn’t want to take six months and they don’t want to take four months, but we could do this very quickly. I have seen select committees—as other members will have—that are, literally, done in 24 hours. It is just a chance to go out, say to a few of the groups who will be affected “What are we missing?”, and for us to get legal advice even. We’ve had to rely on the legal advice that the officials have given us—and I appreciate it—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: In haste.

—but in haste, over 20 minutes, where they were late for a meeting themselves. That is not the basis on which we like to support legislation on this side of the House. We like to ensure that we understand the legal ramifications, we understand how it sits in our framework of powers, and we understand how it will affect those that it will apply to. None of those were possible for us because of the haste.

We will support it, on balance, because we certainly don’t want to detract from the spirit of working collaboratively on the M. bovis response, but these powers last beyond M. bovis, and these powers are not limited to biosecurity intrusions. They’re not even limited to NAIT purposes, because the officers that will go in will hold a number of different regulatory hats, and once they’re on the property without cause, without warrant, they can seize anything they like under any of those regulatory hats and that deeply concerns me.

Now, the officials told us that this puts them in no different position—and I want this to be very clearly noted: this will put the NAIT officials with no greater powers than other regulatory officers have. I am not sure that on my quick glance of the legislation I could satisfy myself with that, but I take them at their word because of the urgency and the situation we’re in. But should that prove to be wrong, I want it noted that the National Party support is because of the assurances we received from the Minister that the urgency is unavoidable, that the select committee cannot be accommodated, and that the advice of his officials is that this gives NAIT officers no greater power than any other regulatory body in New Zealand—not a criminal body, not misuse of drugs, not investigating a murder. If either of those things is not correct, then I will have very serious issues to raise with the officials, because we have no option but to take them at their word.

A short select committee process would have allowed for a proper legal analysis. It would have allowed for farmers to talk to us about how this may or may not be an issue. It would have allowed us to explore, for example, whether there was some constrained form of the powers that could have been negotiated as a sensible compromise to meet the urgent issues, then a select committee process to look at a more wholesale approach. There could have been a sunset clause that said, “Let’s put it in place now with a sunset clause, and then take the time to send a bill to select committee for a proper consideration.” These are intrusive search and seizure powers without warrant, and for all the parties that have stood in this House and railed against intrusive powers of the State who are all silent as little lambs right now, I hope that they’re prepared to stand by if this legislation goes further than how it has been represented to us.

I don’t like legislating based on a reliance when officials say, “Trust us, it’s OK.” We’ve been told that there is no option. We are prepared to treat honourable members across the House at their word, but if this power is not properly constrained and if it is not subject to a sunset clause, it should go to a select committee. And even with those amendments it would benefit from going to a select committee. It is a deeply, deeply concerning situation, and it has been the cause of a matter of some debate for us because I will not see farmers—or anyone in New Zealand, frankly—subject to unwarranted, unnecessary, intrusive powers of search and seizure unless there is the most carefully considered, discussed, debated, informed debate on it. None of that is possible. It should have gone to a select committee, but because of the nature of the M. bovis response, we will cautiously support it.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Yes, it is with some, well, not pleasure, really—this is a serious matter. We need to bring this legislation forward under urgency: the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. In response to the previous member, the Hon Amy Adams, who has just resumed her seat, and also other members of the Opposition who have spoken so far on this bill, in questioning the need to go under urgency when you are essentially granting powers to the State, it is an issue that we do take seriously on this side of the House, and we would not go to this process lightly. But I think the issue that’s being lost on the other side of the House is that this actually has gone through a select committee process.

When the original legislation, the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) Act 2012, was passed, the National Animal Identification and Tracing provisions were supposed to totally align with the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, so that all went through a very extensive select committee process. So what we’ve found in the heat of the battle, when we have had to go to these provisions, is that they haven’t been fit for purpose. They haven’t actually been effective, because they haven’t aligned with the Search and Surveillance Act, which they were supposed to. So this is not like we’re pulling something out of left field. This is just bringing this Act into line with what it was originally intended to be when it was brought into legislation, I might say, under the previous Government. So maybe you’d have to take a bit of a look at your own processes here. So we are—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

Sorry?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Do not bring me into the debate.

Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. The Opposition—the former Government—may have to look in the mirror a little bit as to why we’re here debating this very issue.

But let’s step back a bit for a start and just ascertain why we are here and why we are doing this. We have had a major biosecurity outbreak. This is a serious disease for which we have had to bring in a serious response. The taxpayer and the Cabinet, led by our Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, have had to come up with a package of $886 million. That is shared across industry, but the bulk of that is being carried by the taxpayer, so this is not a trivial matter. We do have to respond in kind, and if we need to take some measures to help that response, that’s what we need to do, and we are doing it.

Can I just say I need to go on record as saying to the farmers that are affected that this has been an absolute tragedy for most of them. Through absolutely no fault of their own, they’ve found themselves mixed up in this terrible situation. The response to date has been found somewhat wanting in parts. I think most of us that have been involved in that will know some of the personal stories, and we have had to cobble together a response in part and learn as we go. That is something we’re working through, but it’s something we have to do better. There are still some people falling through the cracks.

So to those farmers who’ve been affected, all our hearts go out to them. This is not a political matter; this is a something where the whole nation is behind them. I’d just particularly like to mention the rural support trusts and the work that they have done. I think that’s been absolutely invaluable. But there are lessons from this that we have had to learn. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated response. If we look at pea weevil, myrtle rust, kauri dieback, velvetleaf, and Bonamia ostreae in the oysters, we have had to deal with a lot of these biosecurity outbreaks, so we really do need to tidy up our act here.

Also, just going back to their decision to eradicate, I note the article in the paper. Ben Walling, I think, is the Southland farmer that had to put down 400 of his calves. He articulated how terrible this disease was, how distressing it was on the animals and on the farmers, and he said that his response was absolutely necessary. We had no option but to go for eradication if this was to get out into the wider community.

So, a well-functioning NAIT system is absolutely pivotal in our response. Of course, we have had the review and the NAIT system has been found wanting. There has been significant non-compliance, and you know this is not all just politicians or the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI), but we farmers have to take our share of responsibility here, too. But we haven’t had the enforcement going behind this legislation to give it the teeth. We’ve been allowed to be too slack around this stuff, and haven’t we paid dearly for that.

I will commend this Minister for his response. Since the report came out in April, he’s certainly stepped up the infringement and the enforcement of infringements. There’s been 39 infringement notices. That’s up from one in the previous five years—one—and I think that particular infringement penalty was $150. So it was totally inadequate enforcement. I would commend the Minister for the way that he has stepped up here and shown some leadership.

I would also note the industry groups that have got in behind this as one. It’s not a cheap exercise, as we’ve established, but the industry organisations have risen to the task. They have sold the necessity of this to their membership, and I think that’s what we needed. We needed to be talking from one voice, and we did, and that includes across the House, actually. We took the politics out of this a little bit and focused on the matter at hand, which was a serious one, and we’re getting on with doing the job as a Parliament, which I think, under the circumstances, is commendable.

Of course, within that $886 million, we’ve got $30 million being committed to science, and, of course, we’ve got the spring milk testing coming up shortly. And isn’t that going to be a pivotal time when we find out, with the stock under pressure, whether this has escaped beyond the known outbreaks to date? So that will be a pretty telling moment.

The response has been hampered by non-compliance. This bill, while technical, is extremely important because it does, as I said earlier, align the NAIT Act with the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, which is always as it was intended. To the members opposite that are showing some concern, it did go through a select committee process. It was the intention for this to be consistent with that Search and Surveillance Act, and many of you would have been involved in drafting that.

It amends some anomalies around search warrants and the way MPI and NAIT officials are able to obtain such, but I think the issue that’s been brought up is around the warrantless inspections. Again, to repeat myself, it does align with the Search and Surveillance Act, but what we’ve got now is a situation where the NAIT inspectors are able to access a farm. They’ve got the ability to get on to the farm, but once they’ve got on to the farm they’re unable to actually take the actions that they might need to do, whether that is copy some documents or take some videos. So we’re essentially sending them in there with one hand tied behind their back. They’ve already got the ability to access a property, but they just can’t effect their duties while they’re there. The checks and surveillances that are in the Search and Surveillance Act are still available within this NAIT Act as well. Of course all the movements are to be recorded between farms. That’s just an eminently sensible move. Just because a farm is not necessarily registered does not mean that those cattle should not be recorded as a movement. We absolutely need to know that detail.

So this is part of a suite of packages, as the Minister alerted us to before. He has signalled that the NAIT Act will be reviewed in full. There is, for example, new technology now available to us that we must be looking at. Also, the Biosecurity Act is up for review as well, and for some amendments. So, within that suite of packages in this response, this Government is taking this issue extremely seriously. We’re putting the measures in place that we need to do—we absolutely need to do. There is no alternative but to get this right. So, with this, New Zealand First supports this bill to the House. Thank you.

Madam Assistant Speaker, it is with a very heavy heart that I will vote for this legislation. National has spent a long time discussing it. We are bereft of information, but, after a difficult discussion, National has agreed to vote for this legislation and support it. Being a loyal member of the National caucus, I have no intention of crossing the floor over this issue, but I am close.

Let me take you through the reasons why I am so concerned. First of all, why the urgency? Why the urgency? Mycoplasma bovis came into this country in July last year, we had a general election in September, and a Government formed in October. This issue has been on the Minister Damien O’Connor’s plate since he became Minister, and he’s had every opportunity to present this bill to the House. We spent the first almost six months of this Government passing National legislation. There’s nothing complex in this bill around the amendments to the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) legislation apart from the search powers.

This could’ve been in the House a lot earlier, and it could’ve gone to a select committee. It could still go to a select committee, and yet we had an urgency motion earlier today, voted on by Labour, by New Zealand First, and by the Green Party. I’ve been in this House long enough to recall those speeches of the late Rod Donald when he railed against the use of urgency when it wasn’t necessary, and he did it with passion. He was principled about the use of urgency, and here we are rushing this legislation through when it doesn’t need to be rushed. It could even go to a select committee for a week and we’d have a chance to look at these issues that concern me and concern fellow National members.

I want to pick up on some of the points made by the previous speaker, the New Zealand First member Mark Patterson. The first point I want to make is he’s right: there should be no politics around Mycoplasma bovis. There was initially, as the debate was in this House, and I didn’t think that was appropriate. This is an issue on which we should all be there to support the New Zealand primary sector. It’s not about politics around M. bovis, but that doesn’t stop me criticising the Government for not getting this legislation to the House earlier.

The second point that really worries me is the search and surveillance powers of NAIT officers. We’ve been asking of the officials—we’ve had two meetings with the officials, courtesy of the Minister. One lasted 25 minutes and the other lasted 35 minutes. That’s the extent of briefings, and in the first meeting we had, which lasted 35 minutes, most of the questions we asked weren’t answered because the officials that presented to us couldn’t answer the questions, yet we hear in the contribution from Mark Patterson that it’s been through a select committee.

It’s been through a select committee as the search and surveillance legislation. That did go to a select committee in 2012—2012—when that member Mark Patterson was the branch chair of the National Party for the Lawrence branch. That’s where he was then. So maybe he can take another call and tell me why New Zealand First voted against the search and surveillance legislation when it went through the House in 2012. If it’s so good, now, to slap it into the NAIT legislation without giving it the courtesy of a select committee examination, why, then, did the Rt Hon Winston Peters vote against it? Silence—silence from Mark Patterson.

I have another question, and this time for the Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, who said in his speech just before the dinner break—and I quote him—“This is not about increasing … powers, [for NAIT officers]”. That’s what he said. Go and check his Hansard—“This is not about increasing … powers, [for NAIT officers]”. Well, I refer the Minister to the explanatory note. It is about aligning the powers of the NAIT Act for warrantless inspections and searches with those in the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. Minister, it is about giving additional powers.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: It’s equivalence.

It is about giving additional powers. He says it’s equivalent powers to the search and surveillance legislation of 2012. Is that what the Minister is saying—it’s equivalent powers? Well then, why did the Hon Damien O’Connor vote against the search and surveillance legislation in 2012?

Every Labour member in this House in 2012 voted against the search and surveillance legislation, and now they rush it, in urgency, into the NAIT legislation on the pretence that it’s necessary for Mycoplasma bovis control—and the Minister laughs. But the Greens—they hang their heads in shame, because they are supporting this legislation and they are supporting urgency, and they voted against the search and surveillance legislation in 2012. How the wheel turns so suddenly. I remember the Hon Steve Maharey, when I was on this side of the House and he was on that side of the House and we were quizzing him on a similar issue. He said, “Oh, they’re the sorts of things you say when you’re in Opposition.” That’s the famous quote from the Hon Steve Maharey.

This legislation could still go to a select committee. I want to know about these increased powers of search and surveillance, because it’s been explained to me by the officials that it now means a NAIT officer—who may be well trained and who may be well-educated, who may not be well trained and may not be well-educated, or may be a retired or broken-down farmer—can come on to my farm and, with the powers in this legislation, can grab all my financial records, can take any records that they want, and I can do nothing about it. That’s what it seems to me, and the officials were unable to deny it.

They did make the excuse: “Oh, the officer can’t go into my house, my dwelling.” Well, Damien O’Connor knows how the farming industry works. When you get a visitor, the first thing you do is say, “Come in. We’ll sit around the kitchen table in my house.” In other words, inadvertently, the farmer has invited the officer into the house, and that gives that officer the chance to seize any information he or she wants. Is that right, Mr O’Connor? Silence.

I’m not even sure that the Hon Damien O’Connor understands what he’s doing with this legislation. It is very Draconian. In fact, as one of my colleagues who was very involved in the search and surveillance legislation of 2012 said, this actually gives more power to a NAIT officer than it does to the New Zealand Police force.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Cool.

Well, Damien O’Connor scoffs and says that’s not right. If it went to a select committee, Mr O’Connor, I could’ve sorted that out. I could’ve had that question asked.

There is no need for urgency. I accept we need amendments to NAIT legislation—I was the Minister that brought it in. I accept the point that Mark Patterson made, that we haven’t seen good compliance and we need to tidy that up, but the Minister’s had 10 months to think about that, and what he does now is he introduces it in the dead of night, under urgency, and doesn’t give the Opposition the chance to ask the questions that we should be asking.

I say to the rural community: beware. There might be good intention around this legislation. There is a challenge to control Mycoplasma bovis in this country. There is a challenge to be the first country in the world that eradicates Mycoplasma bovis, but with this legislation, we are giving such extraordinary powers to unnamed officials that I think when farmers learn the extent of those powers, they will be worried. Many of them will be petrified, and it could have been sorted out. All we had to do was to send it to a select committee, and when we said that to the Hon Damien O’Connor, he refused. He said it’s going to be passed in the dead of night tonight. I think that’s wrong.

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you. Speaking on behalf of the Green Party on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill, I think the comment of the previous speaker, the Rt Hon David Carter, that the Minister should have fixed this up ages ago is very unfair, because of the huge effort that Minister Damien O’Connor and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and Biosecurity New Zealand have been putting into dealing with the outbreak. The number of public meetings that have been held around the country and the amount of activity on-farm to actually try and eradicate this disease has been significant. So the focus has been on that activity rather than on doing the changes here. That said, however, there is a huge amount of effort going into implementing the recommendations of the review, and nearly 30 of those have already been implemented. There is the commitment to bring further legislative changes back to the House.

The Green Party is supporting this bill on the understanding that it was a drafting anomaly in the original Act in 2012 and that this bill is simply correcting that anomaly. My understanding is that a search warrant under the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) Act must be in a particular form and that, at the moment, regulations need to be passed to enable that to happen. The bill is removing that requirement, so, again, that is a process issue.

The fact that this bill is making the NAIT legislation consistent with the Search and Surveillance Act is providing the powers to officers that are consistent with those that other agencies have. So at the moment, under the NAIT Act, you can already have warrantless inspections and searches. A NAIT officer can already enter and inspect a place without a warrant to determine whether that person’s complying with the Act, so it’s the anomaly in the drafting that they can’t undertake their usual activities like taking photographs, like requesting a person to assist with entry and search, and like copying documents which means that that’s the reason for this bill to align it with the search and surveillance provisions. So this power is already there; it’s just the drafting anomalies. I have listened carefully to the Hon Amy Adams and her speech, but the assurances that the Green Party has been given through the Minister are that this is simply correcting a drafting anomaly.

I think what we have seen with MPI’s work on M. bovis is that there are some major compliance challenges—that animals are being moved from one location to another without the proper identification—and that that increases the risk of spread of the disease. So those compliance issues should have been dealt with by the previous Government. What we’ve seen under this Government is a significant increase in infringement notices. Some 39 have been issued in recent months, compared to one notice in the entire five years before that.

Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand, which is the organisation charged with implementing NAIT, has done a really good job on TB and on getting TB infection rates down. Movement control is a critical part of doing that, but the whole NAIT system has been very poorly implemented.

If New Zealand is going to get on top of this disease and if we’re not going to face the billion-dollar cost which its spreading would entail to our primary sector, we need stronger compliance and enforcement provisions. That is what this bill does, so the Green Party is supporting it. No, it’s not going to a select committee, but our understanding is that this is correcting drafting anomalies. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’d like to start by just addressing Eugenie Sage, the Green member who’s just sat down. As the Rt Hon David Carter pointed out, both the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party voted against the search and surveillance powers in the previous iteration of this legislation. But I’d like to address the principles, which were raised by the Rt Hon David Carter, around the Greens opposing urgency quite vigorously when it wasn’t needed, right back in Rod Donald’s time—

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: We heard it many times.

—I believe you talked about. But in the last term, we heard this time and time again—the principles of it—and I’d like to share a quote which I think is quite appropriate: “Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour; … If at my … convenience I might break them, what would be their worth?” We are in that moment. What about your principles now?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order!

Yes, we have a very serious situation. Yes, we need to make some changes, but going into urgency to fix problems, an anomaly—well, it’s not a drafting anomaly, actually. It’s actually extending search and surveillance powers, which the other side of the House oppose—including your leader, Mr Patterson. So, you know, these people should do some research and don’t just rely on your comms unit’s—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

—notes. Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.

Don’t rely on the comms unit’s notes that might come out on this particular legislation, but do a bit of research yourself. I have seen the Hansard from that debate and, as has been pointed out, not many of those people are left in this Parliament—certainly, not here tonight—that spoke in that debate. But the Rt Hon David Carter remembers it well, and it’s quite interesting that we end up in this position now.

Yes, we need to take action—there’s no doubt about that. We are going to vote for this, but the select committee process is there for a very, very good reason, because we could end up with unintended consequences out of this. It’s not that urgent that we couldn’t go through a truncated select committee process, which we offered to support. We offered to support that. We’re very happy to do that. Let’s get this legislation right. Don’t fix one issue—which we might not agree fully with—but then create another, and I think that’s where we’re headed with this.

Let’s not forget M. bovis—yes, it came in in July of last year. It’s been a serious issue, and our sympathies go out to those people who are dealing with it. It’s a very difficult situation for many of those that are involved with that, but let’s not make it worse.

In some of the provisions of this system, the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system, like, for example, making it clear that when animals are shifted from a NAIT property, they still have to record it whether it’s going to another NAIT property or not—and I think that’s great. That’s fantastic—96 percent of those animal movements that go to slaughter at the freezing works are recorded under NAIT and 94 percent of those movements that go to saleyards are actually recorded under NAIT, and that’s, I believe, up to 1,000 to 2,000 transactions per day. So it’s a significant number of transactions.

However, we do have to acknowledge that some in the farming sector have not been playing their part. It is difficult, and it will always be impossible, I think, to have 100 percent compliance because tags come and go. I know from experience, in one of my former lives, certainly, on a stud farm and trying to match up animal tag numbers, that the tags come out. They fall out and you can’t exactly find out where they are. It’s impossible to have 100 percent compliance with that, and NAIT will be the same—there’s no doubt about that. Getting it to something over 95 percent is, I think, easily achievable, but everybody has to play their part, and we do need the regulatory framework for that to work.

I think the Primary Production Committee—most of us who will be speaking on this bill have been a part of the Primary Production Committee at some time or other—is a very collegial select committee. It’s probably the best select committee that I’ve sat on for that collegial nature, although I have to acknowledge Tutehounuku Korako sitting over there. Yes, the Māori Affairs Committee is also quite collegial, and I do enjoy that as well, when I’ve had the pleasure to sit on it. But, as I’m sure the members opposite will agree, that select committee is very collegial. It would have worked through this process very quickly and efficiently, and we would have ended up with a far better situation, or at least—even if it didn’t change, even if it remained the same—we’d be much more comfortable in the knowledge that we’d explored all the opportunities and all the permutations of this particular search and surveillance.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Oh, but don’t play politics—we mustn’t play politics.

We are extending powers. They’re quite significant. It might be very easy for Mr McAnulty to play light with this, but, actually, we’re talking about people’s homes here. We’re in homes. We’re not talking about going just to a business, as would be the case with many other urban businesses where it’s a building that’s quite separated. This is a home that people are going into, quite often.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: There’s $800 million of taxpayers’ money to get this sorted.

It is $800 million. It’s a serious issue. No one’s saying that it isn’t a serious issue. What we’re saying is that you don’t cause other problems just in order to solve another one.

We hear today that there’s another bill coming. There is another NAIT bill coming. Why couldn’t we put them together? And when urgency finishes tomorrow, we have another bill coming up before the House—the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill—that’s exactly the same as this: rushed, not consulted, haven’t gone out and found out all the issues that might surround the bill. Why haven’t you done that? Why hasn’t the Government done that?

I am very concerned about this Government. There are so many of these examples. We’ve got the same sort of thing with the Overseas Investment Act, the same thing with the waka-jumping bill. It is a very bad trend that’s coming through with this Government, and the principled support—or lack of—with the Greens supporting this type of legislation and legislative process is very disappointing. As they go into their conference this weekend, I wonder if their members will reflect on that and perhaps send a message to the caucus that they are not living up to the legacy of the likes of Rod Donald—a very proud legacy, and someone who had principles that were worth something. Mind you, he didn’t have to have that tested in Government, I suppose. But when they are in Government now, we see that those principles have a very low price after all.

Actually, the NAIT system offers us a real opportunity to have traceability in our system. So it’s far wider than biosecurity, although this is why we’re debating this so quickly and in a much shorter process under urgency, but traceability is absolutely the way forward for our industries to get a higher price in the market. We produce enough food for about 40 million people, and when you take out the 5 million who live in New Zealand, that’s 35 million people that we can sell our food to, and those people want to achieve a higher price. Why would they pay for that? It’s because they want to know the provenance of their food, and they want to know that that food has been produced in a certain manner.

Wander into Tesco’s in London, or anywhere else in the UK, and what will be found there on the more expensive cuts of meat is a photograph of the farmer who produced that meat. Why do they do that? They don’t do that just to fill the shelf up; they do that because the consumer is prepared to pay more when they can identify that cut of meat and the provenance of that product. They can also have confidence in the system and the traceability of the production right through the value chain. Blockchain is coming, so this sort of legislation under the NAIT will be very important to fit within that blockchain, which will dominate our production and value chains very quickly in the near future.

So, in summary, I support, as we do, the legislation but with very serious misgivings—certainly serious misgivings about the process and serious misgivings about the offer that we gave for a much truncated select committee process so that we could ensure that we’re not making another mistake. That it has not been taken up by the Government is something I think they should reflect on. Thank you.

I understand this is a split call.

💬 Rino Tirikatene: It is indeed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Tēnā koe, Rino Tirikatene.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I don’t intend to speak long on this bill. I’d like to commend Minister O’Connor for his swift action in bringing this bill to the House and also to congratulate the Government for the work that it’s doing in the eradication of Mycoplasma bovis.

I just want to say that I’m pleased that the Opposition will be supporting this bill. I know they’re going through a set play, set piece of, you know, moan and groan about urgency, and we’ll hear more of it as the contributions go along. But they are supporting this bill because they know that it’s needed—it’s needed. We’ve learnt from these terrible incursions, these outbreaks that happen across the primary sector, the damage that it can cause. All we are doing is strengthening the National Animal Identification and Tracing provisions to ensure that the system works properly. It’s all about just tracking the traceability of stock. It’s had a long history, the system. Unfortunately, the uptake hasn’t been as good as it should be, nor has the enforcement, but we’re fixing it, and we’re taking swift action to do that.

Everyone knows that this system is important, and I would just like to congratulate those farmers who have been playing by the rules and putting on those tags and entering the data. This is a wake-up call, I guess, to all those that haven’t, because the price that we have to pay is too great. We’ve learnt from the whey protein contamination incident—those sorts of events—and likewise with the outbreak of Mycoplasma bovis, that these organisms can cause huge destruction across our primary sector, our exports, our brand, our reputation, and our wealth as a country. So we need to take these systems seriously. This isn’t representing new policy. All we’re doing is making sure that the legislation reflects the legislative intent that’s always been there, and so I support this legislation.

I acknowledge the Opposition. Yes, they may have concerns, and I guess, if they want, they’ve got 20-plus hours of debate in this House and questions that they can ask to tease out any issues or concerns that they may have. But, ultimately, we need this legislation. It’s good for our primary sector and it’s going to be good for our country, and I support it at its first reading. Kia ora tātou.

Madam Assistant Speaker, I’m very happy to be standing up and taking this call, as this has affected my electorate, Clutha-Southland, greatly. The reason why the National Party wants this bill to go to select committee is pretty straightforward. It’s too important, not only to the agriculture sector but to our country. Farmers have sent tens of thousands of their fit and healthy stock to slaughter. How do you explain that to your kids? “Mum and Dad, why are our perfectly, often individually named, stock going to slaughter?” Decades of genetics lost—years and years—a lot of money spent building up the genetics, sent on the truck down to the works. Livelihoods lost, cash-flow problems that result from slow compensation payments, and sleepless nights.

This is too important to rush through this House and then not take it to the select committee, and just talking—I mean, in my experience on the Primary Production Committee, we actually get on. The reason why we get on is we want to make the primary agriculture sector as best as possible for our country. I had one farmer contact me yesterday just outside of Gore, in West Otago. He said, “Hamish, I saw you at some of the public meetings. The reason why I’m getting in touch is that I’ve had 17 different personnel from the Ministry for Primary Industries, the different organisations, on to my farm, and nearly all of them have told me something different.” This guy just wants to get on with his life.

I’ve got another farmer. He spent the last 10 years battling away, paying off interest only. He’s finally at a stage now where he can start paying off principal, and this has put him back. He’ll be paying interest for the next five or 10 years. This farmer was actually mentioned earlier by a previous speaker, I sat down with him and with his wife, and he said that this has driven him to depression. The wife can’t sleep. He said, “We had to explain to our children why we are sending our fit and healthy stock to slaughter.” This is a big deal.

I just want to recall Steffan Browning’s speech, from the Green Party, back in 2012, on the Search and Surveillance Bill. This is when the Green Party actually stuck to their values. His speech—would you like to hear it?

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Yes.

💬 Dan Bidois: We’d love to.

This bill is an “invasion of human rights … Human rights and civil liberties are out of the window. This is a police State type of bill. This is a Big Brother bill. I am looking forward to a day when it can be repealed and we can have more sense made out of it. The Greens will continue to oppose this bill.” This brings back memories: the waka-jumping bill, the “Minister of Water Bottling”, and the “Ministry of Mining on Conservation Land”. I encourage all the Green Party members this weekend, at their annual conference, to get out there and let them know what they think.

I just want to acknowledge all the farmers and communities affected out there, especially in Clutha-Southland. The financial toll, the emotional toll, the uncertainty, and the gossip that this has caused—I’ve had some farmers into my office, and they’re telling me they’re treated like lepers. So this is a big deal. I also want to pay a special tribute to the organisations like the Southland Rural Support Trust, Dairy New Zealand, Federated Farmers, and the banks in Southland, who are standing by our farmers in Southland. I don’t know if that’s the case in other areas of the country, but in Southland they certainly are.

I’ve attended many meetings across Otago and Southland, and the most common feedback I get is that the response so far has been a complete mess. Why, Minister, are we rushing this through the House when we can put it through the select committee? It would take only a week. We can hammer it out, and we can all have our diversity of thought to get the best outcome for farmers. This is an important issue for New Zealand—not only the farming community but New Zealand. It’s costing nearly a billion dollars. We’ve got Government Ministers talking down the industry. How are we supposed to attract workers to the industry when you’re talking down the industry?

This actually goes to international markets. We’ve got people overseas questioning what’s happening when you’ve got Government Ministers talking down the industry. Minister, it’s not too late to take it to select committee, and I urge you to listen so you can get cross-party support on this.

Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I would like to answer a question that that last member, Hamish Walker, asked. He said, “How can you explain the slaughter of fit, healthy stock to your kids? How can you do this to your kids? Some of this stock is individually named.” Well, I will provide an answer to that member. How you do this is you stand up and you take responsibility and say that the last Government got this wrong. The last Government did not put the processes and the procedures in place that would mitigate the risk of this happening. The National Animal Identification and Tracing system, if it had been up and running and working well, would have mitigated this. It would have allowed the Ministry for Primary Industries to follow this through and ensure that it didn’t happen. But do you know what? Because that Government did not want to offend its farmer mates, it did not enforce the one system that would have mitigated the risk around this.

The interesting thing about this is that I have watched this debate, and I have seen Nathan Guy sit there smiling and laughing and joking. He should be out there in his office or talking to farmers, doing a mea culpa, saying, “If we had got it right”—if that Minister had taken responsibility—“then we wouldn’t be in the situation we are in at the moment.” The member asked, “Why are we doing it under urgency?” Because it needs to be done urgently—it needs to be done urgently—and that’s a consequence of that last Government taking its eye off the ball completely. It’s going to cost the taxpayer $800 million. I think the Hon Damien O’Connor has done an absolutely brilliant job of salvaging this. I will acknowledge that the rural support trusts, Federated Farmers, and all the support agencies have got behind the farmers and they’ve said, “We recognise that in your time of distress we are here to help.”

But the other group that says “We are here to help.” is this Government—is this Government. That is why Minister Damien O’Connor has been travelling up and down this country and being really honest and having very honest conversations with the men and women who farm our land—very honest conversations. He’s put action in place—“This is how we’re going to do it.”, and he’s done it. And he’s done it. If the Minister that he succeeded, the Hon Nathan Guy, had shown the same level of leadership that this Minister has, instead of burying his head in the sand, not wanting to offend his farmer mates, not ensuring this was implemented, we wouldn’t be in this situation. And what’s happened? Eight hundred million dollars—$800 million—that’s the cost. That’s the cost. I’m pleased, the farmers in New Zealand are pleased, and, I suspect, the taxpayers of New Zealand are pleased that we have got a Minister who is a Minister of action, who’s got a strategy to sort this out—who’s got a strategy to sort this out—and I thank the Hon Damien O’Connor.

We’re going to support this bill 100 percent. I know that that side is going to support it. Mr Carter said we shouldn’t play politics. Well, don’t. Do the right thing. Do the right thing and see this through, because it’s coming, and you’ll find that that member, what’s his name—Hamish?

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Hamish van de Molen, or something.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Use the member’s correct name.

Sorry, the member for Clutha-Southland. Well, what I can tell that member is, finally, he will be able to go out to his farmer constituents, who he says he visits a lot—I doubt that—and actually say, “Well, we’re taking action on this. This is too important.”, and it is. So, well done, Minister O’Connor. Let’s get this through, and let’s get the sector sorted, finally. Thank you very much.

It’s my pleasure to speak after the MP for Napier and highlight to him why being a rural MP is very different from being an urban MP, and to dispel some of the myths he’s just given. It was a very impassioned speech—the most impassioned I’ve heard him for the last two weeks, with some of the other controversies that are going on in the House, but anyway.

I would like to say that it is a pleasure to speak on this, but I am highly critical of the process, because I believe that what the Hon Nathan Guy offered was a very sensible, short-term, truncated solution to get to the bottom of some of the concerns that this side of the House have. I’m surprised that the Minister hasn’t taken it up. He would have done the thing and said, “I’ve got the numbers; it doesn’t matter.” But, the Hon Damien O’Connor, remember what we did on the Christ Church Cathedral bill? About one week before Christmas, we said, “Let’s have a truncated select committee.” Dr Duncan Webb would remember this. “Let’s have a truncated select committee, get it through, and get it sorted.” We agreed to that. The Hon Nathan Guy suggested a very similar approach in this case, which has just been roundly rejected.

After hearing all the speeches from the other side of the House so far, including that from the Minister, I’m left wondering what the rush is. What would it take? Another two weeks? Another week? Would it really matter? I’ve heard everybody saying—including the last speaker, the Hon Stuart Nash—that we need to get on and do this. This side of the House is not disagreeing with that. It agrees that this legislation needs to be amended and changed, but it has some real concerns. The Hon Meka Whaitiri spoke about spring coming, as if somehow that was a big thing that was going to happen on the calendar. Well, spring is coming, but some of the provisions in this are actually not related to spring. There might be some calf movements; I accept that. But, actually, the search and surveillance and some of the more worrying things—it doesn’t matter when they’re brought in.

I want to go back to a meeting that was held in Hastings, because a number of my colleagues and the Minister have said—and the Minister may not be aware that his own officials are telling people this—that Mycoplasma bovis started in New Zealand in about June or July of last year. But they now know from DNA evidence that Mycoplasma bovis was likely to have been in New Zealand—and the Minister might like to listen to this—in December of 2015, based on the gene technology. They managed to track it back by DNA.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: When was that?

In December 2015. My point in saying that, Madam Assistant Speaker, or Madam Chair, is that it has been in New Zealand a long time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): You were right the first time.

It has been in New Zealand a long time. As part of that, it hadn’t actually been picked up until about July of last year. My point in saying that is it wouldn’t matter what National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) had done. I suspect this particular type of disease would have been very hard to track even if we’d had 100 percent compliance with NAIT.

I think what we’re trying to do here is rush something through when, actually, the lead-in times are about three years, not a year, and it’s not going to make very much difference to anything in the next two weeks. So I’m amazed actually, now I hear the facts from my learned colleague the Rt Hon David Carter—the honourable or right honourable—

💬 Hon Members: Right honourable.

—right honourable; my apologies, sir—when he referred to the Hon Damien O’Connor speaking against the Search and Surveillance Bill and Mark Patterson’s party voting en bloc against it in 2012. Today, it’s the best thing since sliced bread—no worries; don’t worry about it. Well, I’m saying: where are your principles? We have every right on this side of the House—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order!

Where are the Opposition’s principles? We have every right on this side of the House to actually—

💬 Hon Member: That is a very good question. Where are the Opposition’s principles?

We have lots of principles, and one of them is making sure, when we have concerns, that they can go through the proper select committee process.

I want to relate a little bit of my own farming experience in this, because before I entered politics, I was an active farmer. When I started farming, how we managed animal identification and how we used animal health remedies—what paperwork we filled out was minimal. I remember when TB forms first came in and you had to record your TB accreditation. There was a big change in things. You had to fill out your status, and you had to account for it all—sorry, individual farmers had to account for it all. Eventually, over time, people got used to that system. Then, meat companies, including for traceability and value reasons, actually got a much tighter control over animal health products.

Over time, the farming industry became more and more aware and more used to that type of regime. So it has been on a journey, and I actually think to have 96 percent compliance with NAIT at the works and 94 percent at the sale yard—the figures I’ve been given, honourable Minister; if I got that wrong, I’m happy to hear it—actually are not a bad result. But I am also saying that we need to do better.

This side of the House is saying that we need to do better, but there are some provisions in this legislation that cause me and my party grave concern. In the Napier electorate, actually—in an area that I’ve had some involvement with—Jeremy and Sharon White have a bull beef farm at Pātoka, and they have Mycoplasma bovis. They have slaughtered their entire herd, basically, and been in a whole process of compensation with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the Government, including letters and correspondence between myself and the Hon Stuart Nash and the Minister. They have no animals left and are restocking their farm, and I agreed with that approach.

What I do know is that out of that whole process they have lost most, if not all, of their confidence and respect and understanding for MPI. They have been told many times different stories about what is going to happen when and by whom. They had that much conflicting advice that they didn’t know where to turn. In fact, one day I spent an afternoon with them and we, with some other people who are used to the farming industry, made a decision that they should kill the whole lot—all the animals—and that’s what they did. I’m really worried that in an environment of limited trust—that’s what I would call it, limited trust, and I’m being generous in this case—we are now going to give NAIT officers an ability to enter a property for a search and surveillance and seizure when, actually, the level of trust and the level of integrity is questioned by the very farmers that I represent in my electorate.

You see, we do not let the Inland Revenue Department walk into your property or into your house and take your records or your books. We do not let the New Zealand Police force just wonder into your house or property without certain provisions that have been made, including a warrant. What we’re doing here is allowing an unnamed, probably trained—hopefully—person from MPI to access a property. I agree with all my colleagues: farming people are generous, warm people. They will usually invite somebody into their home. Once they’re in the home, they will have complete access to the records and ability to take videos and photos, and I don’t think that’s right. For the people I represent in my electorate and the farming community of New Zealand, if they knew this was what was on the agenda, they would be horrified.

I think the farming community in New Zealand absolutely understands that there actually needs to be a much higher level of NAIT compliance. I think the farming community in New Zealand has taken this as a terrible, terrible learning curve towards what might happen with foot-and-mouth.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: It shouldn’t have had to. It should have been in place.

OK. Duncan Webb, what I said earlier was I don’t think NAIT would make any difference to where this happened, because Mycoplasma bovis came in in 2015 and wasn’t detected until 2017.

My point is this: if we go down this path and we do search and surveillance, the relationship between MPI and the farmers and the lack of trust will only get worse. I remember when IRD had a lack of trust. I don’t think it does any more, but I think MPI has a real issue with trust in the farming community, and I think we need to be really, really careful how we put this legislation through. We could have dealt with that in a rational and sensible way through a truncated select committee process over the recess—perfectly possible to be done. Yet the Minister sits over there and hasn’t responded to that request so far, and we are going to pass something that I think will be really compromising to the relationship between New Zealand farmers and MPI.

It’s marvellous to be following what is somewhat of an East Coast line-up of speakers, following the MP for Napier, the Hon Stuart Nash, and one of his constituents, Lawrence Yule. Two Napier-based MPs and here we have the real voice for Wairarapa standing up to put my support for this, and it is marvellous to have the opportunity to do so.

What a marvellous opportunity to be able to stand up and lend my voice of support to yet another example of this House coming together for the sake of the rural and regional sector of this country. But is it actually coming together? That’s the question. Is the House actually coming together on this very important issue—of course, the amendment to the National Animal Identification and Tracing, something that is crucial to the rural and regional sector? No—no, it’s not. It might show it when it comes time to voting, but, actually, what we’ve heard tonight are these thinly veiled pleas to keep politics out of it.

What we’ve seen from the National Party is that they stand up and they say “Look, I’m not going to bring politics into this.”, and then spend nine minutes talking about politics, claiming that they have always been neutral throughout the Mycoplasma bovis response. What a load of rubbish—what a load of rubbish.

The previous speaker, Lawrence Yule, wondered why the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has an issue with trust. Perhaps, if the National Party didn’t take every opportunity they could to put the boot into MPI, we might actually be able to have a sector that backs the department. Perhaps, when the issue that caused rise to this bill, Mycoplasma bovis, arose, if that side of the House didn’t stop playing politics and trying to put the boot into the Minister, we could have actually had a universal approach to this. It wasn’t until after a couple of weeks that the National Party actually got the message from the farming sector and industry reps that they didn’t appreciate having their party putting the boot into them that those members got the message.

You’ve got representatives like Alastair Scott in Wairarapa, who was standing there at every opportunity putting the boot into MPI. But after two to three weeks, when the Minister actually started to put forward proposals and actually demonstrate that he was bringing industry along with him, members just like Alastair Scott got the message and they shut up, and I will find that tonight will be exactly the same thing.

Actually, it doesn’t matter, because at the end of the night, the National Party, when they’ve stopped playing games, will vote for this bill because they know it’s important, they know that the sector wants it, and they know that the regional and rural areas that they are supposed to represent want it. It is this Government that’s bringing it to the country and fixing a problem that they created.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading