National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill

Thanks very much for the call on this. This is quite an important part—not as important as Part 1 or Part 2, but, certainly, the title and the commencement and the principal Act are still important. In terms of the title—well, it could be the “National Animal Identification and Tracing (Wide-ranging Powers) Amendment Bill”; it could be the “National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT Officers on Every Farm All of the Time) Bill”; and the list goes on. But, indeed, I’m not going to spend a lot of time debating the titles.

In particular, I want to talk about the commencement. It would be useful to hear from the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor: is the Governor-General ready and supportive of this bill to sign it off? Indeed, what about the principal Act that we are changing? Are we all comfortable with that on page 2? So let’s have a little bit of a discussion about that. We know that it commences and comes into force the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent. We know the principal Act amends the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act.

What’s also come into my mind in the last few moments is that I was just having a look through the media clippings on this particular bill, and I thought it was—because we’re still in urgency, and we’re going to debate that, as we say, until the cows come home, because we are concerned that this bill should have gone to a select committee. When I had a look at the clippings on this, I saw in—I think it’s the Wairarapa Times-Age; is the member for Wairarapa in the House? No. I’m pretty sure that’s what the paper’s called. And I saw that the Minister had—whether he’s put out a press release or talked to a journalist up there, I’m not sure, but, certainly, there’s some comments about the need for this amendment bill.

The reason I raise it is not so much about the comments that the Minister raised in this particular article, but there was a very telling point from the president of Federated Farmers, Katie Milne. What she said was that she had been in to see Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials to talk about the concerns that Federated Farmers have about this particular bill. I thought, well, wouldn’t it have been appropriate to have pushed out the commencement date on this and had it go to a select committee? Because instead of Federated Farmers and others—Dairy New Zealand, Fonterra, Beef and Lamb, and there’ll be others: it could be the stock and station agents; it could be the International Transport Federation—coming along and submitting to a select committee, they haven’t been given the opportunity. Instead, like the Minister did, putting up his officials to us during the week—and I want to thank him for that—but there was Federated Farmers, who had to trundle off and meet MPI officials.

Now, what about others that are just waking up to the fact that we’re in urgency and this bill, potentially, is going to pass into law today? Why weren’t they given the opportunity to sit down with MPI officials? Why couldn’t this commencement date have been pushed out to allow a select committee process? I mean, these are all pretty fair questions, because there’s the Federated Farmers president, that obviously got a copy of the bill when it was introduced, read it, and thought—and she actually knows quite a bit about TBfree and how all of that works. She knows quite a bit about the National Animal Identification and Tracing system. She had enough concerns to pick up the phone—whether she rang the Minister, texted the Minister—and say, “Look, I need time with your officials to understand it.” I think, actually, they’ve still got concerns with it. So if Federated Farmers have concerns, what about those other organisations that’ve potentially got concerns? Why weren’t they given the opportunity for a sit-down and a cup of tea with MPI officials? That’s what we don’t know, and I’d like the Minister to explain that. What about farmers? What about those that’ve been on the end of this process—and in all this debate, over several hours now, we haven’t had any real examples that the Minister has been able to give us. So I would like clarity on that, please.

Oh, thank you, Madam Chair—good choice. It’s wonderful to be taking another call on the title and commencement, this time, of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. Look, I do think that the title isn’t really appropriate for this bill. As we all know in this House, when Ministers and even members do have the opportunity to come forward with bills, they do have the opportunity to, I guess, for want of a better term, put brackets in the bill name to describe within the title what the bill does, and I don’t think the title, as it stands, adequately reflects what is in the bill. Let’s not beat around the bush—we all know why this bill is being brought forward to this Parliament: it’s to deal with Mycoplasma bovis issues. And the only reference to M. bovis in this bill is buried deep, in one very brief reference, in the bill’s explanatory note.

So my view is that the Minister could’ve done a much better job—or officials, even, could’ve recommended to him that he do a much better job—in adequately describing what this bill does, because, let’s be fair, M. bovis is a hugely important issue for many communities around the country at the moment, and the bill, as it’s titled, I think comes across as, frankly, a bit heartless. In some areas of the country where M. bovis has been found, parts of the community have turned quite negative. There’s been issues with threats of physical violence and kids being bullied at school. In one instance, a child had disinfectant thrown over them because they were labelled as “infected”. It’s a pretty awful reminder of how people can behave, and I don’t think that this bill, as it’s currently titled, reflects the huge concern out there in the community, and, as I say, it comes across as a bit heartless.

It could’ve been an issue that was resolved at select committee. We could’ve sent this bill off to select committee for a short time—as has been said, a truncated period—to discuss the title of the bill and wider issues within the bill. As has been reflected by a number of contributions throughout the morning, the bill is insufficient in a large number of areas, particularly with the title, because the title doesn’t reflect what the bill does or, at least, what it’s aimed at achieving.

I now want to turn to the commencement, and Nathan Guy has given a very good contribution, again asking or questioning why the haste in putting this bill forward and having it come into effect on the day after it receives the Royal assent. I have to confess to being a bit conflicted about this. I think the Hon Nathan Guy put forward some very, very valid views on why the bill could’ve been held back and debated for a bit longer, and I agree with him on that; but when it comes to putting the bill into effect at the earliest possible opportunity, after it’s been passed by this House, I’m actually supportive of that, because, as I’ve mentioned in a previous contribution, there have been many, many delays when it comes to the response around M. bovis. I don’t want this bill to be held up any longer than it needs to be by Parliament, in going forward to the Governor-General, when there are a huge number of issues out there in the community when it comes to the response to M. bovis. The idea that we would extend out the date by which it comes into force by, perhaps, days or weeks or months, I’m not supportive of, because there’s a huge number of questions out in the community about how we deal with M. bovis. The idea of delaying it unnecessarily just for the fact that a few politicians want to debate it a bit longer—in fact, not even that, because it wouldn’t even be debated in this House any longer. The idea that it’d be unnecessarily delayed just because a few people might think it improves process, I don’t think is a particularly good idea. It should pass into law or become law as quickly as it can after it’s been passed by this Parliament, to give people certainty about what’s going to happen—for them, for their families, and for their farms.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to support the Hon Nathan Guy’s call for a review of the commencement date and to have that date pushed out, for a very good reason: it is my belief that farmers are being left behind as a result of this legislation.

They are being left behind, first of all, because they’re not being consulted. They’re not being consulted because this bill is being passed under urgency. Why is this bill being passed under urgency when the impact on farmers and lifestylers and people on vineyards, who will be impacted by the changing regulations and requirements of National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) and reporting—why aren’t they being consulted on these major changes? Least of all, now, is the ability for NAIT officers to enter a property without a warrant. Those are stronger powers to NAIT officers than are granted under the search and surveillance legislation.

How can that possibly go through this House, under urgency, without at least a weekend or a week? I’d come up to Wellington and sit on the select committee that was considering this bill. I’d put everything aside to come and sit on the select committee if there were a select committee process, because what I would be doing—and I can guarantee Andrew Falloon would be doing the same, and I can guarantee that Stuart Smith would be doing the same—is hearing from and listening to those farmers who are being considerably impacted by this legislation.

So I want to see—and I call on the Minister of Agriculture and I call on the Government to tell the House, to tell the people here today, to tell the people watching and listening from their farmhouse kitchens, who are very concerned about this because it will impact on them, just why it is that this bill is going through under urgency and is not giving them a chance to have a voice. The farmers are not only losing their voice; they’re also losing some rights. They are losing the right to be masters in their own homes, because, now, a NAIT officer can knock on the door—I presume they’ll knock on the door; they don’t have to, because they don’t need a warrant. These powers that NAIT officers have been given are more substantial, more far-reaching than the search and surveillance legislation. Is Labour happy? Are the Greens happy with this? Don’t I recall the Greens being the party that marched in the street around the search and surveillance legislation? Why is it different for farmers? That is why we need a select committee process, and that is why I would like the Minister and the Government to tell the House why the commencement date shouldn’t be pushed out.

I want the Green member Gareth Hughes to stand up and explain to the House why it is that they marched in the streets against the search and surveillance legislation? I remember it well. They marched in the streets against the powers. Well, are they marching today? No. They’re like little lambs now that they’ve had a little taste of power, aren’t they? Their principles have been completely put aside, and now they are actively arguing for—Gareth Hughes earlier in this debate—and voting for stronger powers for NAIT officers than are allowed for in the search and surveillance legislation. How can that even be, Green Party?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Title and commencement.

I would love the party to stand up and explain that in the context—Madam Chair, and thank you.

My view is that the commencement date of this bill should be pushed out. It should be pushed out to allow for a comprehensive—don’t mind if it’s truncated, don’t mind if it’s weak. I know David Bennett will put everything aside so that his select committee can hear from—

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: He’s got nothing in his diary for the next two weeks anyway.

Yeah—can hear from the farmers. We are prepared to put everything aside—we don’t care—just for a week to hear from those very people for whom this Draconian piece of legislation is intended.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have two brief questions to ask of the Minister in regard to clause 2, “Commencement”, in the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. My first question is—if we think about the wording of clause 2, the Act comes into force the day after the date at which it receives Royal assent. So let’s assume the Governor-General’s readily available tomorrow, or, perhaps, over the weekend, because there’s obviously real urgency about this. This could become effective law by Monday or Tuesday next week—and the Minister nods his head and says that’s about the timetable they want.

My question, in relation to commencement, is: what communication will the Government or the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) undertake with the farmers of New Zealand to tell the farmers of New Zealand of this extraordinary power that has been given to an MPI officer? As we’ve heard, through the search and surveillance legislation, they will now have the ability to do a warrantless search. They’ll be able to pick up anything off that farm without a warrant—effectively giving an MPI officer more powers than a police officer.

So I want to know the programme the Government’s embarked on in regards to communicating this message to New Zealand farmers. Because I know—I’ve got a farm situation; quite a long drive. I can see who’s coming up my drive. And if it was a policeman, I’d be worried. What have I done wrong? What farmers have to get to grips with is that it’s not the policeman that might be coming up the drive; it might be an MPI officer who has more powers of seizure and confiscation than a police officer has. So it’s a very legitimate question. Farmers are going to be shocked, shocked to the core, when they hear about the strength, the Draconian nature, of this legislation. I simply ask the Minister, in light of such an immediate commencement date, what communication process will he instigate to let farmers know?

There is an alternative if he needs time: he could delay the commencement date. He could delay it a week to get a media programme organised. Because I’m sure he’s rural proofed this legislation as it went through the Cabinet process—I’m sure he has. He says he rural proofs everything!

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Good question.

Well, I forgot to ask it when it was appropriate, but I suspect it hasn’t been rural proofed, because we all know that’s a load of rubbish.

The second question I had is a very serious question. We are clearly going to have a lot more movements going through the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system. That’s clear from the answers given by the amendments that are being proposed and the answers given by the Minister. We had the opportunity to have the chair of NAIT before the Primary Production Committee this morning, and I asked him about the structure of the NAIT database, and he said, “It is stressed.” So it’s stressed under the current load of movements that are put into the NAIT system. Can the Minister assure me that come Monday or Tuesday of next week, when farmers are required to do substantially more entries into the NAIT system, the computer system won’t crash?

We know it’s under stress. We’ve heard that from the chair of the Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI) board this morning. If it’s under stress already, will it cope with this additional workload? Because I can tell that Minister, he’s going to be very, very embarrassed, having rushed this legislation through the House in urgency when he didn’t need to do so, if we now get it passed and it gets Royal assent in the next few days, becoming law effective Monday or Tuesday; farmers then attempt to comply with the new law, fearful of that MPI officer coming up the drive with more powers than a policeman—if the farmer then attempts to comply, and, all of a sudden, the NAIT database crashes. So I do hope, for the Minister’s sake, he’s done his homework, he’s talked to OSPRI, and he’s assured that the system will cope with these changes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to follow on from that very good speech. And, yes, the commencement date is the real issue here in this part of the debate. The title—well, it can be anything, really, but the commencement date is the fact that we are going through urgency in this debate in committee, and then we are looking at an immediate effective commencement date for the New Zealand community.

I suggest that the request of the last speaker, the Rt Hon David Carter, is answered by the Minister as to what he has actually done to ensure that legally he’s able to have that commencement come into force. Because I would hate to see a situation where these rules were applied to a situation in the near future and that member of the public then challenged the legitimacy of the rules because of this commencement time.

Because there has been no public scrutiny of this bill—there has been no attempt or ability for the public to make their views known—legally, would this, then, be seen as a breach of human rights, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, or other requirements that may be enabled or used by someone in a defending position, should they actually be subject to these rules and wish to avoid them actually applying to them? So it would be important that the Minister has actually determined whether this commencement date—relative to a very short process in this House, a matter of less than 24 hours, for a bill to be passed which has such Draconian powers.

You know, the Search and Surveillance Bill was a bill that took a lot of debate in this House when it first went through. There was a lot of contention between Opposition and Government parties. It was something that the public was fully aware of—in the public arena. There was the ability for a process to determine the implications of that for the human rights and the privacy and property values of individual New Zealanders. We do not have that in this case.

I just seek an assurance from the Minister that he has got the Crown Law Office to check this out to make sure that whatever they are doing today is actually going to be viable, and that there would be no issue if someone thought to challenge the approach taken by a National Animal Identification and Tracing officer on the basis that this didn’t go through a full and fair process.

It is Draconian legislation, in the sense of the search and surveillance, that somebody may use if they are in a position of difficulty, and wish to use that against the Minister. So it would be helpful if the Minister just clarified for this committee that he has done the necessary research to make sure that there is no problem in going ahead with the commencement date that is immediate and effective, essentially, as the last speaker said, potentially from Monday.

To the people out there in our communities that are listening, they need to be aware of what this actually means, as well, because, potentially from Monday, they will be subject to these rules. And there may be some person that doesn’t know that, and then, basically, as that officer is driving up the road and coming into their farm, doesn’t think that they have to deliver that information or allow that search and surveillance. What will be the situation then, because the commencement’s immediate? How will the Minister be instructing his officials to act in this regard? Are they going to be instructed to probably have a little bit of leniency with people initially, so that the word gets around, you could say, that this is of immediate effect and there are these powers that people had not perceived those officials having in the past? That would be something that the Minister probably needs to address, as well, as to how, on the ground, he actually intends to implement an immediate commencement date—whether he is expecting there to be leeway from his officials in regard to just genuine unawareness of certain farmers or certain landholders that may be captured by this legislation in the future. So it would be great if the Minister could address those two questions and explain to the committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to talk about the commencement date, but it really is in relation to the title of the bill, as well, in clause 1. What we’ve found out this afternoon is that schools and calf shows are going to be exempted from the bill. Now, it’s not in the bill—it’s nowhere in here—so this must be under regulations. So when are these regulations going to be drafted? Are they being drafted, are they ready to go, so that the date—

Tim van de Molen: What about A & P shows?

Yeah—well, A & P shows. That’s a very good question, Mr van de Molen has just raised: are A & P shows going to be exempted? I’m all for calf shows and those sorts of things to be continued on, but they are a biosecurity risk because those calves do commingle, and that’s one way we know, with M. bovis and a lot of diseases, in fact—you know, nose to nose contact will be a very easy way to transmit a lot of those diseases, so it is a serious risk. But what, in terms of the regulation-making power—when are the regulations being made? Is it going to be coming in, all sitting there ready to go? Because what other regulations are there that we don’t know about?

I do support the concept of having some time for everybody who’s affected by this bill—and it’s a much wider group of people than we originally thought. It’s not just farmers. It is people who have a vineyard, say, for example, that could be grazing stock, or an orchard that could be grazing stock on there, or a lifestyle block; they might not own any stock but have stock grazing on those properties. They are going to be impacted by this bill. They may want to change the way they operate as a result of that. But do they know this is coming? Of course they don’t, because we’ve only just found out. So when’s the opportunity for these people to arrange themselves in such a way that they won’t be breaching and be captured by this new bill? I think that’s something that hasn’t been talked about. It is being rushed through.

Look, everybody understands the M. bovis issue is a problem, but I don’t think these two things need to be conflated together as much as they are, because we all understand M. bovis is a problem. If this had to happen just as a result of the M. bovis outbreak, why wasn’t it done months ago? So that’s not the case. This is really, as we know, pushed by the officials to get this bill drafted, and we know that public servants—it’s just in their nature—will overreach; they’ll push the boundaries of what those regulations allow them to do.

This is why the name of the bill—it looks very innocuous. So the title is the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Act 2018. Well, that’s a very innocuous name, but as we’ve heard this morning—warrantless searches, seizure of goods, copying of records without permission. All of those things—as, I think, the MP from Ōhāriu Brett Hudson mentioned this morning, it’s greater powers than we would have in the event of a terrorism threat. So this is hugely wide ranging. Most people will have no idea that this is coming their way. And, as has been well stated, the farmhouse, the family home, is the office. All of these things are being impacted on that. And this name, this title, doesn’t cover that.

Where people need to be able to understand what they’re going to be liable for, what they’re being exposed to—and we’ve rushed this through this process. We’ve fought it all the way because, albeit that we voted for the bill, we wanted a full process so this could all be teased out, so the public have an opportunity to understand what this really means. That opportunity has been taken away from us and from the public. And with the Act coming into force the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent—we don’t know when that’s going to be. If that’s immediate, then the people will not have the opportunity to understand that they could well be breaking the law through ignorance, which is no defence. I think that’s a great shame and it should be addressed by the Minister.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak on the title and commencement provisions within the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. Like others, I would like to speak about the commencement date, Madam Chair, but with a slightly different perspective, you will be relieved to know—first, from the perspective of the constitutional requirements that law be accessible, and an aspect of that is that it’s easy to find. In the case of this piece of legislation that has been put together at somewhat short notice—certainly introduced to the House in that manner—it could be argued that the part of the bill that is least accessible, least easy to find, perhaps, if you are on a farm and therefore most deeply affected by it, is the date that it will come into effect.

I’ll give a brief little anecdote if I may about another piece of legislation, and only briefly for the purpose of remaining relevant to this bill. I was recently contacted by a lawyer in relation to another bill that was passing through the House, who wondered when it was likely to come into effect, and my point is that even for those who are pretty well equipped to be able to understand the construction and the arcane details of legislation, such as the meaning of the Royal assent and how the different stages of legislation being passed can play out, it can be difficult to understand these matters.

In the case of this particular bill—or Act, or part of an Act, as it will shortly become—I would like to raise a challenge to the Minister to explain how we are going to avoid a situation where the legislation is effectively retrospective. By that, what I actually mean, Madam Chair, if you will allow me the chance to explain, is that if a bill comes into law so quickly that those who are affected by it do not have the chance to become aware of it and make provisions to comply with it, then effectively they are being asked to comply with some of the law of the land that they haven’t had a chance to know would affect them.

I know that that might seem like a pretty narrow and technical sort of point but, actually, I think it is in fact a very real one when you consider the circumstances in which the provisions of this bill might be enforced. Others on this side of the Chamber have spoken about the need for practical measures to ensure compliance, and I wonder, therefore, in relation to the commencement date being such a short period of time after the Royal assent, if we won’t have a situation where the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officers might turn up, as they are perfectly entitled to do in accordance with this new legislation, and state to farmer Joe or farmer Jane, as the case may be, that they have the right to turn up and do certain things, including to enter and to search and seize and so forth. And said farmer might actually challenge their ability in genuine ignorance of the fact that this law has now been passed, and an unpleasant situation might well arise. It doesn’t take too much imagination to contemplate how it would happen, whereby the farmer in question politely requests—indeed, farmers in the Helensville electorate and across the land always do phrase questions in very polite terms—that the MPI officer might cease and desist from being on the property. That might be a genuine misunderstanding because it might be that the farmer in question was a bit busy this week to be tuning into Parliament TV, or perhaps didn’t realise that at 12.30 on a Thursday afternoon we would be still in this phase of the legislation.

Perhaps I might finish my remarks on the commencement date, again focusing on the short period of time between the Royal assent and the bill coming into effect [Member’s phone rings], and I will do that with some competition from across the Chamber—I’m not used to being heckled electronically. I just note that the more significant a matter is—and we are talking about fundamental freedoms in the case of legislation that gives powers of search and seizure—the more time should be given for the implementation measures that are required under that. So a greater ability to comply should accompany the seriousness of the compliance requirements—that is my point there.

I’ll just answer a few of the queries that have come from clauses 1 to 3. This bill has been introduced under urgency because there is urgency to get the changes. It is a technical bill. That is, it deals with technical issues, not policy issues, and they are, I guess, flaws in the bill that have been exposed through an extensive programme that we have to eradicate bovine tuberculosis. We’re working through on-the-ground controls. We’re doing an investigation into some of the possible sources of infection and then trying to ensure that people comply with the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system.

The changes that we’re making, all the way through this bill, are to ensure that people comply with the NAIT system and that they don’t spread Mycoplasma bovis. The commencement date should be as soon as possible, and delays in this House mean one more day or a few more days where people will be, arguably, non-compliant with the NAIT system, and that puts at risk every taxpayer, every farmer—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: It should go to a select committee, though.

—everyone who’s committed to the eradication of Mycoplasma bovis. Look, I’ll just say that we want to move through this bill. There will be more substantive one—it will go through the complete process.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Is that going to select committee?

All I can say is it is really important that we have proper legislation, we have proper processes—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Proper process. This isn’t proper process.

—and unless we pass this quickly, we can’t guarantee that everyone’s going to comply with it. So I encourage that member to commit to things. I’m not going to commit to him anything around what happens with the next bill. We’ll deal with that as it comes along. I’d just like to see this bill passed as quickly as possible—and cooperation from the National Party, which put in place the NAIT Act and oversaw the process for quite some time. We’re making the changes to bring it into line with what is required to enforce the NAIT system.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading