National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill

Thank you very much. We’ve had a very good debate on Part 1. The National Party is disappointed that our amendments didn’t get across the line, but, fortunately—and I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, and thank him for accepting the review clause that’s now just been inserted. That will mean that the Minister will get official advice on that section that we’ve been particularly concerned about, to do with the warrantless powers. He will now be given a report in 12 months, after the bill is enacted, and then he will report that information within three months of that review period. That will give us some comfort, on this side of the House, that it is working as indeed intended by the Government.

Speaking in particular to Part 2, which is the lesser part—it’s about the amendments to regulations—and, in particular, around the animal movements between locations other than National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) locations. This is really a tidy-up. When I was speaking about this earlier on today and, indeed, last night, I posed a few questions. We were fortunate in the Primary Production Committee this morning that we had Operational Solutions for Primary Industries (OSPRI) and NAIT officials in front of us, so I was able to ask the question, and the question was “Is the existing NAIT system—i.e. the software, the hard drive, all of the componentry—fit for purpose, and can the NAIT system handle that?” As I understand it, it’s a two-legged stool whereby information needs to be inputted and received. Well, from the chief executive we got a cautious “yes”, and then, from the chair, he went on to say that the system needs to be modernised; it’s going to require a budget, and it’s going to take six to 12 months.

So while we support Part 2 and have less concerns from Part 1—and those have all been debated and discussed, and we would’ve preferred this not to have occurred in urgency so we could’ve had the chat with senior officials in front of us—what was interesting to hear from NAIT officials today is that they do have reserves in their account. We didn’t have enough time this morning to glean what the quantum is of those reserves, but it’s very clear to us that the overall NAIT technology—hard drive, system software—is going to need to be upgraded. I think it’s going to be in the several millions of dollars to do that, but having experience as a Minister in this place for nearly 8½ years, I know that when officials come and tell you something about IT systems, it tends to be “Oh, well, we think it’s going to be in this range, but here’s a contingency of 10 percent.”, and, indeed, it could be 20 percent more than what they forecast.

So I guess we want some assurance from the Minister this morning that, indeed, these regulations are fit for purpose and that the NAIT system and software can handle it, because, in effect, this bill could pass into law within a few hours, and we want to ensure that, indeed, the NAIT system compatibility is up and ready to go for, presumably, next week or the week after. So it would be good to hear from the Minister about that.

I guess the other important point on these amendments to the regulations is there’s going to be an infringement and a compliance component of this on farmers who don’t apply. Here’s another question for the Minister and his officials: what is the likely infringement if farmers don’t comply? We’ve seen this in the past, so it would be good to get a bit of a handle on it from the Minister on the second part of these regulations—what are the likely infringement fines that are going to be incorporated with this amended regulation 5(5B)? So if farmers don’t adhere to the movement of stock when a farm is not NAIT-registered, what is the fine going to be, and how long is that going to take in terms of that report going back through the system from OSPRI across to the Ministry for Primary Industries? I acknowledge that in the last wee while, there’s been more compliance, and that is a good thing.

So we support Part 2. We’ve got a couple of questions that I’ve pitched to the Minister this morning, and it would be useful to hear those answers.

Thank you, Mr Chair. When we come to Part 2, I’d just like to thank Minister Damien O’Connor for accepting the last amendment and the parties for voting for it, because I think it gives a degree of comfort to this House that there will actually be a review, and that was—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: In 12 months.

Yeah, in 12 months’ time. So at least it won’t be completely unfettered. There will be, at some point, a bit of a review.

But when we come to Part 2, it’s the amendments to the regulations, and one of the big things in there is the insertion of the words “or other locations”, and a principal part of this bill is actually to deal with other locations. Now, primarily, you could see how it’s been identified as a risk where there’s a non - National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) location that stock have travelled to, and that’s what the Minister is trying to deal with in this situation. However, the words “other location” could actually have an extensive meaning—if you look at something like a calf club show at a school, for example. Is that now going to be considered an “other location”? There won’t be a NAIT requirement on that property. It’s a calf club event at a local school. Will there have to be NAIT compliance for a transfer of animals there and back?

That would actually be the sort of issue that could come up, because it’s not necessarily just a transfer from one farm to another. In the earlier speeches, I noted that the Rt Hon David Carter made a number of references to inter-farm transfers. There may be different properties that the same farmer holds or leases or has stock transferring between, and “other property” is intended to cover those. But there may be circumstances that the people in this room aren’t aware of that could actually be genuine cases where that “other property” may actually become a very difficult or tiresome requirement. For example, if there were a number of properties that had different titles, or different farms—like a lot of farmers—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Oh, contiguous as well.

Yes. A lot of farmers may have two dairy farms, for example, that are right beside each other, and they may transfer stock from one property to the next.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: And how’s that going to work?

How would that work? Or if they had a runoff right beside their dairy farm that they were taking—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Is this why you never introduced it?

Pardon? Is that member saying something? No, she’s not. That would be typical. And the other member beside her is laughing because he doesn’t know when to vote in this House.

So if we just take that example, there’s a runoff beside a dairy farm and the person takes their stock to that runoff for the winter for grazing, and it may be used for maize or some other thing like that. Does that farmer then have to actually declare that movement, and is that what was intended in the circumstance when it’s really just taking stock through a gateway to the next part of their farming enterprise?

Then you could get situations where there are lease animals. I think one of my colleagues raised the issue in regards to vineyards, where there are animals—in that case, sheep—that are taken around different vineyards in a lease-type arrangement. So is that intended to be covered, as well?

Now we understand the—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: What happened in the previous regime, then?

Pardon?

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: What was the situation in the previous regime?

Look, that’s a good question. What was the situation in the previous regime—and that’s why we’re doing this amendment around “other place”. To that member, I say that there’s no problem with extending it to the other place—OK? So we’re not voting against that. We’re saying that that is—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: So you didn’t do this in your nine years?

No, it’s not a matter of—the member is asking a question of whether it was done in the past. It hasn’t been, because this is what’s being done in the bill. That’s how legislation works, and there’s no problem with that at all. The question is defining “other place”, and that is the issue, because the bill hasn’t gone through a select committee. There has been no robust process to actually look at those definitions. There has been no opportunity for members of the public and the farming community to come in and actually say whether that definition would actually work.

So, Mr Faafoi, it’s not a matter of who hasn’t done what; it is a matter of getting it right now. That is the thing that—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: And that’s what we’re doing.

And they’re not doing that, because there has been no select committee process. It is simply a case where the Government has wished to push this through and it hasn’t looked at that. So—

💬 Jamie Strange: It sounds like class sizes.

What’s that member saying?

💬 Jamie Strange: It sounds like class sizes—all of a sudden you’ve discovered what we need to do.

Class sizes—talk about class sizes. There are no class sizes when the teachers are all on strike. That member is talking about class sizes when his Government has put all the teachers out on strike, so I think he would be better to be quiet in this Chamber and to listen, rather than to actually interject to distract people from the actual full impact of this bill that we’re looking at here today.

So there are some questions around what “other places” will look like, and we’re not trying to obfuscate the process here. We just want to make sure that it is actually done in a way that actually meets the requirements that are being sought.

The Minister may have gone through all those options and may well have looked at that and got advice from his department as to what would be considered to be an “other location”. We will look forward to him being able to explain that, because this side of the House hasn’t had that luxury. We haven’t had the advice that he has had to the extent that he has had it, and he may well have considered whether something like a calf club at a school is an “other location”. He may well have considered if there is an adjoining piece of land that is used as a runoff with a different title, that is considered to have a different NAIT number, and that is now required to be registered for that movement. He may have considered those things, but we don’t know that, and we request him to answer those questions so that we have that clarity and so that members of the public and the farming community know where they stand.

With these unfettered powers that are being given out to NAIT officers, farmers will now need to be able to understand what the requirements that they will have to satisfy are, because, potentially, they could be in breach of them in a very quick manner because, as soon as somebody comes on to their property, they can ask for that search and surveillance right. It comes to a fundamental point of how we want NAIT to work. Nobody denies that NAIT needs improving. That’s the point Mr Faafoi said before, and nobody denies that at all. The question will be that NAIT will never work—it will never ever work properly—if it doesn’t have buy-in from farmers.

This is the heart of what’s going to be the problem with what the Minister’s doing today. Even if he thinks that it’s just a temporary solution and something that needs to happen and that “I’m all-powerful. I can do this.” and his department requires that, this actually sends the wrong signal to farmers. It sends the signal that there will be a Draconian approach to NAIT going forward. NAIT will work, and it needs to work, in a different way in the future, and that is only if there is buy-in from farmers, because I can guarantee you that the next time we have an incursion, we will be doing exactly the same thing. We’ll be sitting in this House and we’ll be saying “We should have done this. The legislation should have had this power. This should have happened.” But if we actually have farmers working with the system and with the Government, the officials, and the department at the time, then we will be much more effective.

And 99 percent of the farmers have worked with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and are willing to go through that process now when it comes to M. bovis. That’s the success of MPI at the moment and why we’re looking at eradication rather than just containment, because we know that the vast majority of industry are working with MPI. There will be some rogue cases, but that’s in anything in life. But when there is a system of Draconian measures that’s planted on top of a community who we need to work with us to deliver results, often you don’t get that result. What happens is the opposite. People retrench and try and avoid the system.

We don’t want avoidance, and with these Draconian powers it’s going to encourage people to look at loopholes in the NAIT system. It’s going to encourage people to look at avoidance of the NAIT system, and it will achieve the opposite of what the Minister wants to achieve today for those rogue players. Those are the people who need to actually feel that the system works for them and that they can be part of it. Now, that’s something I wish the Minister had taken into account when he looked at the principles behind the policy he is enacting here today. I feel that he’s going to lose a lot of credit now within the farming community. There will be people that—whether it’s true or not, the perception will be that this is heavy-handed governance. Whether that is true or not, that is the perception.

Mr Chairman, thank you. I don’t need to remind the committee that we’re in urgency with this legislation. I do apologise—I’ve been away for the last hour and a half, but I understand that some legitimate questions have been raised, and I’m disappointed that the Minister hasn’t taken the opportunity to answer them. The Minister laughs. He thinks it’s funny. This legislation doesn’t need to be in urgency, Minister. If he’d had a half-competent Minister of Agriculture and a half-competent Leader of the House, this legislation could have been introduced on Tuesday, could have gone to a select committee for 24 hours, and we could have got the answers that we wanted. It could be back here today and passed and achieve the timetable the Minister wants. But, no, we are seeing the arrogance of this Government, where it puts this legislation through all stages in urgency and refuses to answer even some basic questions. I think it’s an appalling process, and I say to the Hon Damien O’Connor that it’s one that the farmers of New Zealand will be noting.

I just want to comment before I ask my specific questions on the comments just made by the Hon David Bennett. The respect for the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) amongst farmers is at an all-time low. I spoke to a farmer at the airport the other day who had been to the M. bovis meeting called at Ashburton and then went to the M. bovis meeting called at Darfield—approximately 70 kilometres apart, these two locations—and he got completely different answers from the MPI officials at the Ashburton meeting to the questions that were then put again at the Darfield meeting.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Was it the same officials?

I’m not sure. No, I don’t think it was the same officials. I think it was different officials. But if the message from MPI is so unclear, how can we expect farmers to get any comfort around the possibility of a successful eradication of M. bovis? Then, to introduce this legislation, which gives MPI officers more power than a police officer—more power than a police officer. What’s that going to do for the farmers’ impression of, and respect for, MPI? And I ask the Minister to stand to his feet and answer that question, and when he comes to answer the question, I have some others.

I’m referring to Part 2, clause 9(2) and (3). I put these questions to the Minister: four questions around what is a movement that has to be recorded under the new legislation. The Hon Kris Faafoi interjected and said, “Well, what are the rules now?” Good question, Mr Faafoi. You’ve now doubled the number of questions that I want to ask. As I outline these scenarios, I want the Minister to answer whether movements must be recorded under the current legislation—because I don’t know the answer—and whether they then have to be recorded under the amendment legislation before the committee, driven through in urgency by the Hon Damien O’Connor.

So the first question I ask—again; and, hopefully, we’ll get an answer—is about farmers who own two farms. We know of many farmers who own properties—two separate properties, but absolutely contiguous. These farmers, for good biosecurity reasons, run each farm as a completely separate unit, but there might be a drought or wet winter requiring them to move a mob of 30 yearling heifers from one unit to the other unit—absolutely contiguous. They walk them across through an effective boundary gate and the movement’s occurred.

Does the farmer have to record that movement now—thanks to the Hon Kris Faafoi for that question—under the current legislation? And does the farmer have to now record the movement under the proposed amendment legislation? Simple question—it shouldn’t even require the Minister to turn to his officials. He should be able to answer it.

The second question I posed earlier, and again, it still remains unanswered. What about a situation where the farmer owns a farm property, two blocks are absent—I want to outline a scenario where a farmer owns a farm property. It is contiguous, perhaps in a hill part of the property, but stock movement is facilitated easier by using the road. The farmer owns both bits of land, but he takes the opportunity of moving cattle from one paddock to another, going out on to a public road, perhaps past two or three blocks of land that he or she doesn’t own, and then to a gateway into the other part of his property.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Yeah, that’s a fair question.

It’s a good question. I know of a scenario where this is appropriate. And I want to know, thanks to the Hon Kris Faafoi, what the law is now about whether that movement must be recorded into the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system? And I want to know from the Minister what the law will be as to that movement under the new proposed legislation. And I do think the Minister—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: You passed it!

—looks like he’s taking these questions seriously; he’s busy with the officials. Listen, somebody interjected that I introduced the legislation and I should know. I don’t know. That’s why I’m asking the question today. I don’t expect the Minister to know the answer, but I expect the Minister to ask his officials and give us the answer in the Chamber today.

The third scenario I ask about is a farmer that owns various blocks of land, not contiguous; perhaps separated by a kilometre or more of public road. He runs this farm, these various blocks, as one unit. He’s registered with one NAIT number. And he moves his cattle from one block, perhaps a kilometre away, either by droving them, or by getting his own truck, or by getting the transport company in to move them. Does he have to file a movement in the NAIT system under the current legislation—again, thanks to the interjection from the Hon Kris Faafoi—and does he have to record that movement under the proposed amendment legislation?

The fourth question is one I raised with the Minister earlier, and it hasn’t been answered. Is the farmer who makes use of all of the lifestyle blocks around the cities of New Zealand—and this, Minister, is a real issue. I know farmers who, effectively, have set up their farming operation utilising the grazing ability of lifestylers. And the lifestylers who own their 4 or 8 hectare block have no interest in owning any livestock to graze it. It must be grazed regularly for the issues of fire and weed control. So the farmer then treats, perhaps, 20 of these lifestyle blocks, effectively, as his farm. He owns only his own; he doesn’t own the 19 blocks of land to use. Does that farmer have to record a movement every time he goes from one lifestyle block to another under the current law—I want the answer—and under the amended law that we’re rushing through in urgency today?

If the answer is yes in both cases, then I want to point out the practicality of it, and this is particularly of relevance to someone like Stuart Smith, the member for Kaikōura, where there’s a whole lot of vineyards that regularly get grazed by a local farmer. He leaves stock there for a very brief period of time, perhaps 24 or 48 hours, because, of course, if you overgraze those blocks, particularly with young cattle, you could do damage to the vineyards. So he moves 30 there one day and goes back the next day and happens to want to move them to another vineyard block, and, for some reason, there’s only 29 there—one’s jumped out. How does he possibly record that movement if it needs recording? There are no cattle yards about—he might have access to a scanner, but he probably won’t. How could he legitimately record that movement? I suggest to the Minister that it would be impossible.

And then I want to pose another question that’s come up in this debate, and that’s about the excellent rural community calf days—the pet day at the local school; part of rural communities. Are we going to be allowed, even under the current M. bovis situation, to continue with calf days?

Thank you, Mr Chairman, and, indeed, things will change around the recording of animal movements. I think one thing that Mycoplasma bovis has done is alert individual farmers to the need to actually record movements from one property to another, given that the spread of the disease is between animals and some of them have got different blocks and have been able to differentiate the necessary culling of one block, because they do run them separately. And, yes, the movement is defined in the Act, and location is defined in the Act.

The core objective here is that—while movements have to be recorded, there are some people who don’t, and if they don’t and they’re moving from one National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) property to another NAIT property, then we can prosecute them. But if they’re moving from one NAIT property to a property that doesn’t have a NAIT number, we can’t prosecute them—clearly, a bizarre situation and one that we need to rectify, which is why we’re making the technical amendment.

In answer to the questions that have been raised, if the property is contiguous, there’s no necessary recording of the movement—no change. However, can I say to farmers who have a property that bounds one on the other that if they want to run them differently, and they do, if it comes to biosecurity management, there’s a huge advantage in that, particularly when it comes to culling. And if you’ve recorded the movements from one to the other, and managed them as two properties, and if you do happen to, say, under a Mycoplasma bovis outbreak, have an infected herd, then if you run them as one complete property, you have to cull the whole lot. If you run them as two and record the movements, then you don’t have to cull the whole lot—clearly an advantage from the biosecurity perspective moving forward. Farmers may be able to make those calls and, in my guess, they’ll probably start recording all movements, as they should, because it protects them as well.

The assumption that this is all cost and all burden and all difficult is one, well—it’s around the obligations to conduct a business, really. And biosecurity will be higher in terms of priorities in a farming operation. I make no apologies for that at all, and I think there’s a whole lot of learning to take place.

Can I just say that if a property is contiguous and stock is moved through a public road, there is no recording of the movement—no change from the status quo. If the property is not contiguous and is separated by 1 kilometre, no—if the farmer has chosen to register both properties as one NAIT number. Somewhat of an anomaly that we’re working through is that a farmer can have a number of different properties within a 20-kilometre radius and have one NAIT number. In my view, that’s not sustainable. We should have a NAIT number for each property, and while there may be some allowances—and talking with Federated Farmers, the point was made around bovine tuberculosis as a current management regime around biosecurity. Should you have to record the movement of those animals? Look, I think there will be particular circumstances where exemptions are allowed but, in summary, any movement of an animal from one property to another should be recorded, with the exceptions that I’ve just run out here.

In terms of lifestyle blocks, yes you should record them. Don’t underestimate the risk associated with lifestyle blocks, where people maybe don’t fully understand the biosecurity risk. They might be bringing in animals from a number of different properties and be thinking, “Because they’re lifestyle, it’s not important.”—no, that’s wrong. It’s very important, and so what we’re doing here is just making the amendment—the change—to ensure that, actually, if people move animals from one property to another and the property they’re moving to is not registered with a NAIT number—and it should be—we, firstly, change the system, as was investigated by the select committee this morning. We’ve had assurances from NAIT that they can make the changes very quickly so that, instead of recording a number, you record an address. That’s really important so that the property, if they don’t have a current NAIT number, is identified by an address.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Rapid number.

That’s right. A rapid number, or whatever. It’s really important. The core of this is actually about ensuring that everyone does the same thing right through the system and that where there are gaps in the system because there’s not a NAIT number, that actually doesn’t exempt a person moving stock from the obligation to record that movement, because it is the movement that has the potential for the transfer of disease, particularly when it comes to Mycoplasma bovis. That’s the thing we want to know about. That’s the threat we’re trying to reduce.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to acknowledge the Minister, who’s just given us a full explanation of those aspects of Part 2 to do with stock movement, and I want to reflect on what the Minister said and what it will mean to farmers and lifestylers and people with contiguous farming operations. It will mean, for them—and we absolutely accept the necessity for this legislation and the necessity for compliance with this legislation. I don’t think farmers understand that any more clearly than those farmers in South Canterbury and North Otago, where, in Glenavy, the first six farms were identified as having M. bovis.

I’m not unfamiliar with the situation in South Canterbury and North Otago, obviously, and I just want to talk about a meeting I went to in Glenavy, at the hall. We had representatives from National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) and from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). It was a very full meeting—probably about 200 farmers—at 5 o’clock on a Wednesday evening, or something like that, and the MPI officer in charge gave those farmers a very clear message around the reporting of their movements to protect stock from the further spread of M. bovis. There was one voice in the audience—one farmer—who said, “Well, if it gets too hard, then we have choices.” And the MPI man, very rightly, said, “No, you don’t. You don’t have choices. You should comply with NAIT requirements, and particularly with stock movement restrictions that may be put on because of M. bovis. Because, if you don’t comply, we will come and visit you and it won’t be pleasant.”—or words to that effect. It was a very strong warning, and it was accepted by the vast majority—this was just one lone voice.

But if I then reflect on the powers of NAIT inspectors to enter a property without warrant, and if I reflect on how that will impact farming families, then how can farmers have confidence in NAIT? How can they have confidence in MPI when what they are seeing, increasingly now, is not a spirit of cooperation: “ Let’s deal with this biosecurity incursion together.” No, it’s not like that anymore. What it is now is, “We’re going to legislate for you. We’re going to legislate against you. Our big stick that was shown at the meeting down south in South Canterbury has just got a whole lot bigger and more powerful, because we will come on to your property without notice. We will come into your home without a warrant, and we will search what we believe we need to.” So that spirit of cooperation—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): For the last one and half minutes—if the member can turn her attention to the actual clause 9 or relate her story to it.

Yes; thank you, Mr Chair. I am making my comments in the context of stock movements, which are in regulations contained in Part 2, but I’m just weaving a bit of a story around it.

The point I want to make is that in the climate of fear and concern that is current in South Canterbury, North Otago, and in those farming families that have been affected by M. bovis, the kind of the big-stick approach in this piece of legislation does not engender confidence in MPI, and without that confidence and spirit of being able to work through the issues together, then things are just going to get so much harder for those families.

I have had, as have a number of colleagues, a number of situations where I have had to keep the box of tissues very close by as farming families are explaining their frustrations, their fear, their loss of income, the loss of their reputation, the loss of their business, the loss of the cows in their herd—which they know by name—and their daughters, and their daughters, and their daughters. Now, they matter too, and I would like to see some acknowledgment by the Minister that they matter too in the promulgation of this legislation, which gives NAIT and MPI a very, very big stick to clobber them with.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to first of all thank the Minister for answering those questions, but I also want to pick up on the one that he hasn’t answered, and I hope for an answer to that as well.

The first point is on answering the question around the lifestyle movements. I just want to say to the Minister, there’s got to be an issue of practicality here. I gave the example of a vineyard grazier putting 30 heifers on, and he goes to move them, and one is missing and there are only 29. How can he possibly record that movement—because there are no cattle yards and he can’t get them in in any way to scan them. And I know what that farmer will do. I’ll tell you the only practical way he can do it. If he is asked to record the next movement from one vineyard grazing block to another, what he’ll do is he’ll record that he’s moved 30 when he’s only moved 29, and the next movement will be much the same, and he will be forced to put incorrect information into the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system for as many movements as he makes before he can finally get back to his own home farm where he has the facilities to put those cattle into a yard and to scan them and identify which one went missing. There is no alternative way to do it.

I just say to the Minister, who had some experience as a farmer, would he please remind his officials, most of whom have no experience as a farmer, that in enforcing legislation they need to keep in mind practicality. I gave a very simple example of where legislation, well-intentioned, won’t work because of impracticality.

The question that didn’t get answered was about those movements to a calf day. A very valuable part of our rural community is the opportunity for kids going to a school to take their pet calf to calf day, to pet day. I suspect what the Minister is going to tell me, but I want it confirmed—again, under the current legislation, and the amended legislation: is the farmer expected at 8.30 in the morning, as he puts the calf on the back of the ute, to record a movement from the farm to, say, Duvauchelle School on Banks Peninsula—

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Calf days are exempt.

I’ve now got an answer: calf days are exempt. If it was a calf two-days, because some schools then run it—

💬 Jamie Strange: Ha, ha!

Well, they do. Jamie Strange doesn’t live in the country, but some people make a really big thing of calf days.

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: I won a calf day.

The Hon Peeni Henare knows what I’m talking about. He actually won a calf day. That’s about the only win he’s ever had in his life, but anyway, I now want to move to a really worrying question. I’m referring to clause 10(2). It says, “In regulation 5(5B), replace ‘transport or droving between 2 NAIT locations’ with ‘any animal movement’ ”. I just want an explanation as to the reason for that amendment, because it seems to me that if you’re moving cattle from one location to another there’s only two ways to do it. You either put them on a truck, in which case it’s “transport” or you walk them, you drove them, like they used to in the old days. I don’t know of any other practical—

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Have you heard of a ute? Have you heard of a ute?

Yeah, I’ve heard of a ute. The member said, “Have you heard of a ute?” If you put it on a ute, that’s transport, Minister. Utes have four wheels and they go on the road, Minister. I know it’s new for—well, he’s from the West Coast. We should recognise that. That’s called “transport”.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: You said a truck.

The Minister interjected and said I said a truck. Well, let’s be clear. It could be a truck, it could be ute, or, if it’s a small calf, it could be a four-wheeled quad bike with a trailer behind it—they’re all transport. So let’s tidy that up without being smart, Minister.

I haven’t had a chance to explain my question. We’ve now decided we’ve defined all modes of transport—and I’m sure the Minister has some memory of droving cattle from one location to another, so can I have an explanation, please, as to why, in urgency, we’re rushing this legislation through? It doesn’t need to be in urgency. If it had been managed properly, it could have been done with a select committee examination and still have met the timetable.

💬 Hon David Parker: It could’ve been done years ago if it was managed properly.

Well, the Hon David Parker has arrived. He said, “It could have been done years ago.” It could have been done years ago; it was done years ago. It hasn’t been complied with properly. We all know that, Minister. We’re here to assist the Government to sort it out, but why does it have to be done in urgency, Minister? Maybe the Hon David Parker can answer that. Why the urgency? Why can’t it go to a select committee so these questions can be investigated properly? Silence now from the Hon David Parker.

💬 Hon David Parker: Why wasn’t it done years ago?

Well, it was done years ago.

💬 Hon David Parker: Not properly.

We’re amending legislation, I say to the Hon David Parker, that was passed in 2012. That’s when it was done. I know his maths isn’t good, but that was done six years ago. It was done. The question now is around compliance, and every speaker on the side of this Chamber—because there’s been very few from the Government—has agreed there is an issue around compliance. You can take the politics into the argument and say it’s all the fault of a Minister—is a Minister meant to be sitting in the Beehive office, going on to NAIT and checking whether movements all around the country have been complied with? If Minister David Parker is suggesting that, he’s an idiot. If he’s suggesting that, he’s an idiot. First of all, the Minister doesn’t have access to all the data on the NAIT base. That’s part of the problem we’re trying to fix, I say to the Hon David Parker.

💬 Hon David Parker: It’s been a debacle.

He says it’s been a debacle. I semi-agree with him. The compliance levels have been low. So why have we had to wait to rush legislation into the House under urgency if it’s been a debacle? The Government’s been there for 10 months. Why does it have to be done under urgency? At least he’s stopped interjecting.

So I go back to the very question I’ve asked, and it is in Part 2, subclause 10(2): “In regulation 5(5B), replace ‘transport or droving between 2 NAIT locations’ with ‘any animal movement’ ”. I don’t see the logic for that change. There may be a very practical reason. Let’s have it. Let’s have it. Why have we changed what is quite specific in the original legislation to make it far broader? Surely we can have an answer to a question like that.

It wasn’t our decision, Minister, to put this in the House and try to rush it through under urgency. We said we’d cooperate with a brief select committee process over the two-week recess. I’ve even suggested that if it had been managed properly and time was of the essence, it could have come in on Tuesday, we could have had the select committee process on Wednesday, and it could be back here today, meeting exactly the same timetable. But, no, it’s had to be rushed through under urgency, without giving the opportunity for the Opposition to ask these questions.

The only opportunity we would get now is in this committee stage of the House. And as National has said, it wants to support the legislation. It will vote for the legislation—with a heavy heart, because it hasn’t been examined properly. We recognise there is a serious issue in our rural community because of Mycoplasma bovis. We have agreed that it’s not an issue we want to play politics with. We’re trying to work constructively with the Government. We don’t agree with the urgency process. It didn’t have to be done that way, but on the issue of M. bovis and on the issue of getting compliance with NAIT, we want to work constructively, despite the interjections I’ve received from the Minister on the other side of the House.

So a simple question: please, Minister, can I have an explanation for the amendment in clause10(2)?

Mr Chair, I’ll just take a brief call. There are a couple of reasonable questions there and points made. Regarding cattle yards—no cattle yards; I accept that is a practical challenge. I guess trucking and technology and changes that we will bring to the House and that will roll through the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system mean that technology will allow us to track those animals, whether they get on or off a truck. On the issue of changes in clause 10, “transport or droving”, the reality is that any animal movement—farmers are very creative. I’ve seen them in cars; I’ve seen them in utes.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Are you sure?

No—we’ve just got to ensure that we cover all those bases. I think this is a technical move. It is kind of a tidy up, but if there’s ever a loop then people are going to drive through them. So that’s what we’re doing here—trying to tidy up the technical amendments to ensure that any animal movement is legitimately recorded in the NAIT system.

I rise to speak on this, Part 2 of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill, drawing particular attention, of course, to clauses 9 and 10. Now, essentially, the amendments to these regulations widen the scope in which they can be applied. They’re intended to clarify farmers’ obligations under National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) to support investigation and management of non-compliance. So it’s very important, if they are to achieve that intention, that we can be sure in this House that they will in fact be clear to farmers.

So I want to put a question to the Minister in the chair today, around these regulations, specifically in relation to the exemption for calf shows that has been discussed in this debate. What the Minister has assured us is that when people are bringing their animals to school for calf competitions and are trying to go in the draw to win a prize—just like Peeni Henare was successful in doing as a young lad back when he was a winner, back before he joined the other team—that when they do that, it will be exempt from this regulation. What I’m unable to see when I look at what’s here in the law, which we intend to pass in this House, is where that exemption in fact lies. Of course, what the law says here is that this will be for a “NAIT location” or “other location”.

“Other location” to my mind, and I’m sure to the mind of many reasonably minded and pragmatically minded farmers, would include a school. So if there is to be an exemption of the sort that the Minister has assured the Chamber about in this debate today, it’s important that that is on the record. Of course, this goes to the very heart of what regulation is about, because it is one thing for us in this House to regulate, to allow for regulation, but actually the practical import of that regulation is how members of the public are informed about it and how it is enforced.

Of course, it goes without saying that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) is one of the departments in the New Zealand Government that has the most amount of legislative instruments under its control. That is for good reason—because the Ministry of Primary Industries is controlling food safety and other things—but we have to be realistic about what clauses 9 and 10 mean, because if NAIT is going to work effectively into the future, farmers need to understand very clearly what it is. So I just put that question around the exemption.

I also note that the expectation is that these regulations are not expected to be controversial, because the intent is that their impact be on those who are already not complying or who are suspected of not complying. If that is the case, I think it would be useful for the Minister, for the record, for Hansard, and for farmers who may show particular interest in these matters—in fact, for agribusiness advisers who, once this legislation is passed, want to be informing members of the community about how they comply with it. Because of those reasons, I think it would be useful for the Minister in the chair to give us a couple of examples of instances where officials have been unable to prosecute or begin a prosecution for someone because these regulations haven’t been wide enough. On a pure read of them as they stand, the description of a “NAIT location” and the description of “transport or droving” seem broad enough to carry scope so that any breaches could be prosecuted currently.

So some clarification of the difficulties that the ministry has had would be useful so that farmers and those affected by this law have a better idea of what it is that these are intended to capture. Of course, what we are not trying to do with this law is make life harder for farmers. What we are trying to do is support them to support the eradication of Mycoplasma bovis, to ensure that they’re operating in a regime that allows for the effective tracing of animals.

At that, I just go back to the point I touched on earlier, which is to say that these clauses 9 and 10 will only achieve their intention if indeed MPI put the information campaigns and enforcement behind them to ensure that this is a real and live regime that actually supports the work of the National Identification and Tracing system. It is one thing to amend the law; it is another to ensure that people know how to comply with it, and when they don’t there is enforcement. So if the Minister would be so kind to tell us a bit more about his winning calf and to answer those questions, I’m sure that the committee would appreciate that. Thank you, Mr Chair.

I move, That the question be now put.