National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill

If ever there was a piece of legislation that the National Party—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Would the honourable Minister please put the motion to the House.

I move the third reading of the National Animal—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Just a moment—we’ll get the words to you.

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Fantastic.

I appreciate process in the House here, but I guess the reaction from the Opposition identifies what we are challenged with here. If ever there was a bill that the National Party should support, it is this bill. We are trying to fix up an absolute mess left to us through a National Party piece of legislation that was never enforced by a Government that didn’t want to offend its mates—there was one infringement notice in five years from a system that was absolutely flawed and failing. Their mate chaired Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI), and he’s long gone, and they refused to take any action that might offend any one of the National Party’s mates. It is outrageous. We have worked through what is a real crisis. M. bovis—I’m not going into the reasons why it might have come into the country. I think they will be exposed as we move down the track. The challenge we had is that we had had a Government that had taken little action early on, and we came in with a growing number of infected herds and animals and we had to take quick action.

We, indeed, have done as much as we can, as quickly as we can, but we have been hampered by some technical issues. In fact, there was a review of the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) Act that one of the speakers had said he’d initiated, but then sat on for 12 months—12 months of refusing to release the 38 recommendations that would have allowed us to have a better system in place now and save the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. The fact that the National Party were wanting to procrastinate on the bill here and filibuster and drag it out is costing taxpayers, and every one of them should be infuriated.

We have committed, as a Government, $886 million to clean up M. bovis, and if the NAIT system had been operating as it should have, it’d probably cost half that. We didn’t know where animals had been moved to, and the previous National Government had refused to implement the legislation that should have identified those movements. And we’re making changes here to try and tidy it up. There will be more to come, because there are many clauses in the NAIT legislation, as the 38 recommendations point out, from the top at governance all the way through to the NAIT tags, and we will work through those systematically.

The reason we brought this in under urgency is that it is just a few technical amendments to what is a huge challenge to improve the NAIT system and biosecurity management through New Zealand. We’ve been left a big, big challenge, not just with Mycoplasma bovis but with a system that is arguably under-resourced. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) is an organisation with too many responsibilities. We created a business unit, Biosecurity New Zealand, we’ve said to the individuals, “Get on with the job.”, and now we’re working through the changes in legislation, which this piece of legislation is part of, to ensure that we can protect our country into the future. It’s not just the farmers; it’s about our whole way of life.

In terms of the technical amendments here, what they are doing is aligning the powers under the NAIT Act with the Search and Surveillance Act—no more, no less. They are necessary for people to investigate where non-compliance is suspected. That’s all. We have then ensured that when movements take place around this country, farmers are obliged to notify and register those movements, and because of the technical deficiencies in the NAIT Act that the previous National Government passed, these things weren’t occurring. We had between 30 to 50 percent compliance when farmers were moving animals from farm to farm around this country. If we’d had an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease—God help us—we’d be finished, because the system would have completely failed. The fact that M. bovis is an animal-to-animal disease means we had been able to try to catch up to, and make up for, a failing NAIT system.

The National Government not only implemented a flawed Act, and Federated Farmers resisted the implementation and the passage of that all the way through—and I spoke to Katie Milne yesterday, who had concerns about this piece of legislation, and it was fair enough to raise those—but actually I have zero tolerance for organisations that are expecting Government to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars and who are resisting the improvements needed to ensure we have a robust NAIT system in place. We need to make the changes, and I have zero tolerance for anyone who resists on the basis of some flippant political response or filibustering in the House. We want this in as quickly as possible.

The flaws in the NAIT system were suppressed, leading up to the last election. No one knew how bad it was, because the review report identifying the 38 recommendations was buried. Why hadn’t the previous Minister ensured that that was out in the public arena so we knew what to do? We had to dig that out, and I had to almost threaten OSPRI and NAIT with legal action to try and get that report released—literally. The National Government’s approach to animal tracing has been abysmal, and I was disappointed with their filibustering in the House, because I want to get on and do this as quickly as possible. We need to, and unfortunately they once again displayed the reaction, the resistance, the reluctance, and, in my view, the Neanderthal thinking that is looking backwards and not realising that unless we have robust traceability, we won’t be able to trade products into the future. This is about the future of New Zealand agribusiness, and I call on leaders from top to bottom across the agricultural sector to understand that reality and to ensure that we put in place a very, very good system, and it’s not, and we need the changes, and we need them quickly.

We’ll have great debate on the policy changes, and there will be some of them, we accept, that we’re going to have to shift some of the direction and policy issues around NAIT, but, in terms of the technical ones, if we can’t get on and do those quickly, then, clearly, we’re failing not only the farmers but the taxpayers who, in terms of Mycoplasma bovis, are picking up and footing the bill for the failure of a system that they thought was working. And the members on that side of the House knew it wasn’t working, and they refused to take action. And when we take action, to be resisted by that party over there is somewhat disappointing. I still hope that they can vote this through on the basis that they see the wisdom of this, but getting it through as quickly as possible would have been a sign of good faith and a sign that they realise how important the NAIT system is, and making it effective and functional and efficient is really, really important.

Can I say that as a Government we are committed to supporting the rural sector, from top to bottom—from top to bottom. And can I say that all I hear from the National Opposition is resistance to change. They’re backward-looking, unfortunately, and I have to say that instead of supporting the people who are showing some vision, and the officials—and I heard criticism of MPI officials in terms of their M. bovis presentations. That is outrageous, because all the farmers I spoke to who went to those presentations were very grateful. While they didn’t like everything they heard, they appreciated that MPI officials were tabling—as I did, whenever I could—all the information that we had, in front of those farmers. I’ve been upfront with farming leaders, upfront with the banks, upfront with everyone across agribusiness, because honesty’s the best policy. But can I say that the system that we have around NAIT is still not good enough.

And, yes, if farmers aren’t going to comply, we will prosecute. We’re not going to prosecute some farmer who can’t access the system, or who’s confronted with a technical glitch. We will help them through those issues. But where we have blatant misreporting, where we have people who refuse to engage in the NAIT system, then they should be prosecuted. And do you know what? The farmers up and down this country are asking us to do that, and we will. And we’ve got investigations under way, unlike the previous Government, which prosecuted one person for non-compliance with the NAIT system when, at best, 40 to 50 percent of them were complying with the system. I don’t blame the farmers—the signals that went through from the previous National Government to the farmers was “Don’t worry about it. It’s not really important. It doesn’t matter whether you register your movement or not.” Well, I’ll be upfront: you must register movements. The Act is clear what movements are. We’re clarifying some of the technical deficiencies in the NAIT Act to assist farmers, but the message is very, very clear. And members over there who are trying to rewrite history when they should be admitting that they got it wrong, right up front, and that they were too soft in their implementation—that would be something that I would appreciate, and so would the farming sector across the country.

Can I acknowledge the support of our coalition partners, the Greens and New Zealand First. They do understand the importance of moving this through as quickly as possible. I can acknowledge mistakes made in legislation—I think any one of us here knows that there’s hardly a law that is perfect—but when we identify the flaws, then we do have to move on, accept them, and make the changes as quickly as possible to enable the system to work.

I welcome the passage of this legislation in the hope that it will bring a better NAIT system and help the farmers of this country. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That Minister, Damien O’Connor, has devalued his role within the New Zealand agricultural sector. He has shown that he has no respect for the agricultural sector and he has taken advantage of this House in the last 24 hours to put the boot into the agricultural sector in New Zealand, and he is smirking in this House because he knows it’s the truth.

He’s smirking in this House as I say those words, and the reason is—

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I’m looking at the Minister and he is not.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s a debatable point; that’s not a point of order. Sit down [Interruption] Sit down.

Well, look, that was the Hon David Parker, and we all know his influence in this House.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: He’s lemon sucking and he hates farmers. Sour. Sour.

He is—he is. People don’t have to necessarily exactly see it, Mr Parker. They will see this legislation and they will see the effect of what has happened in this House today, and how the Minister has gone around in this debate and been so cute about this debate in saying, “Oh, this is only a technical issue.”

Now he’s smirking again—a technical issue. He is smirking, though. Ha, ha!

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon David Parker. I hope it’s not going be the same as last time, because that is not a point of order.

💬 Hon David Parker: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is your duty to protect members in this House from inappropriate insult. That is incorrect. You can see that the Minister is not smirking—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry. Sit—

💬 Hon David Parker: I think the member should be called to order.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. If accusing someone of smirking becomes unparliamentary, this House will go into mourning. I call the Hon David Bennett, and let’s not have any more interruption.

Thank you. That Minister has gone around saying it’s a technical issue. This is not a technical issue. This is the greatest intrusion that you can make into somebody’s personal and property rights. The search and surveillance legislation was put there for a reason. It is the most intrusive tool that the Government has for its agencies, and now farmers are subject to that.

We repeatedly asked the Minister to explain other legislation that has the same ability to go in there with that search and surveillance legislation, and he referred to these other laws, but he could never confirm that they had these unwarranted abilities to go in. That will now be on New Zealand farmers and agricultural producers.

They are now subject to a threshold that is higher than any other law in New Zealand, apart from that search and surveillance one, which was there for a different reason. The Minister has used the guise of M. bovis to attack New Zealand farmers. That is what is happening in this House.

Why would you go into urgency if it was not to do that? The whole purpose of going into urgency is not because this is an immediate problem that needed to be dealt with today. That Minister has been there for 10 months. In all those months of dealing with M. bovis, have we heard him come to this House and say, “I need to pass legislation this week to control National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT).”? No.

But suddenly it becomes part of the legislative programme of this Government, and, within 24 hours, they seek to pass it. That is because they are hiding behind urgency because they are bringing in search and surveillance laws that no other New Zealander has to face, because they don’t like farmers. That is the right of it—

💬 Hon David Parker: You’re voting for it.

David Parker, don’t come into this House and tell me how you love farmers. Don’t tell me how you love agriculture and trade.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring me into it.

Mr Parker was railing against trade for his whole time in Opposition.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Great rage! Get wound up! Get wound up! Come on! Come on! Wind up! Come on!

Oh, Ruth Dyson as well—the great friend of the farmer she always has been!

And the New Zealand First Party there—sitting there meekly. Well, New Zealand First, listen and learn what’s going to happen to your party in the next six to 12 months as your members go around and meet farmers. Farmers will say to you that these rules are intrusive. They’re intrusive, they are extreme, and they’ve been put on to us in our point of weakness. They’ve been put on to us in our point of weakness, and that’s what happened in this House here today.

The Minister has said that there’s more to come. Well, we wait to see that. Hopefully, he reflects on the pitiful process that they’ve gone through here today and take a real process which is engaged with those people that are affected by it. That is the same Minister that voted against the search and surveillance legislation when it came into this House, and the other Opposition parties, especially the Green Party at that time, were very much against that legislation and saying that it was an intrusive and Draconian part of New Zealand legislation. Yet, today, they use urgency when there is a crisis within the agricultural sector to pass it in there. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the commitment to the rural sector if they can’t even talk to them? They can’t even be bothered to give them a chance to have a say on this.

This bill is something that has been used by the Government of the day to put extra requirements on New Zealand farmers. Now, I think there’s something else that they’re doing that for. I don’t think it’s just for M. bovis. I think they’ve got some other plan, and I’d love to see the next stage of the NAIT regulations, because once the search and surveillance has been passed in this bill as it is, and then the extension of NAIT goes beyond what we currently have in NAIT, there could be the potential there for farmers to be subject to very strict rules, which they have no comeback in this House and no way of discussing and going through to deliberate with the Minister on.

The Minister says the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has too many responsibilities. This is the very Minister that split MPI up—that’s taken away their ability to deal with many issues. This Minister’s hidden behind things like M. bovis and biosecurity issues to take apart one of the great institutions that we need in our agricultural sector. MPI needed to be as strong as it could be. It didn’t need to be divided, and we don’t need to continue to divide them and take advantage of cases like this with M. bovis to enable that Minister to just put through his political rhetoric.

We put up amendments that would’ve challenged the timing of this bill; that would’ve enabled a fairer process to be had. We committed to doing a select committee process that would’ve been fair and open and truncated and would have met any time frame that had been set by the Government, and yet none of those opportunities were taken up.

That is because the Government didn’t believe in actually having consultation around this. I can’t go past the fact that there is no urgency at this point in time. The urgency around M. bovis has been there for eight to 10 months and, this time, suddenly, in 24 hours, we have to deal with this. The peak of M. bovis may have been, or it maybe yet still to come, but at this point in time there is no urgency out there, apart from the urgency of one Minister wanting to put extra powers into that industry so those people in the agriculture sector are subject to a much higher threshold than any other sector in New Zealand. That is unfair on farmers and it will not work.

The reason it will not work is because farmers will react the other way now. Instead of being alongside MPI and working with them, there is a real prospect that rogue farmers will actually do the opposite, because they know that these rules are out there and instead of engaging with MPI and other Government officials to make sure we have the best biosecurity system in New Zealand they will hide their tracks and take advantage of it.

A Draconian piece of legislation like this never works because if you take that approach then that only incentivises people to do the opposite. When people do the opposite, the programme doesn’t achieve its full potential.

So in this House we all understand what M. bovis means to the New Zealand economy, and the Minister is not correct in saying that this Government is spending $800 million on it. In fact, the New Zealand farmers are paying a great deal of the proportion of that money. So be honest in this House and tell New Zealanders—

I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the Government has indicated that it no longer wishes to continue with urgency. Therefore, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m. (Thursday)