National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill will be reported to the House by 4 November 2019, and I will outline my reasons for that time frame. I consider that this period provides an appropriate balance between ensuring the committee and the public have sufficient opportunity to review the legislation package and implementing the changes as soon as possible.

Today, I present the National Animal Identification and Tracing—we’ll call it NAIT—Amendment Bill (No 2) and a regulatory change package to the House. I say “package” because the associated regulations are included with the amendment bill. I’m being absolutely transparent about the totality of the changes being made to the scheme’s framework. This way the select committee will be able to examine the proposed regulations as well as the statute changes, and the regulation amendments will be made at the same time as the bill is enacted.

This bill package marks an important milestone in dealing with the problems identified with the NAIT scheme. NAIT information underpins New Zealand’s ability to trace animals and respond to disease incursions. The changes address the recommendations made by the two-year Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI) - led NAIT review and the issues identified during the biosecurity response to Mycoplasma bovis. The package demonstrates that the Government’s commitment to ensuring the legislative framework for NAIT is fit for the future. It shows our dedication to continuous improvement of a system that underpins our biosecurity responses.

The process to make good legislation takes some time, but this Government has moved as soon as possible to get the needed changes in place. I acknowledge the support from other members in the House to ensure that these amendments can be made speedily—and I’m hoping so from the other side of the House—in the interests of all farmers and New Zealand as a whole. The House is well aware of the impact that the Mycoplasma bovis cattle disease has had and is still having on the farming sector, on the wider industry, and, of course, on the economy generally, as well as the commitment from taxpayers to a large bill.

The Government and our bovis partners, DairyNZ and Beef and Lamb, will spend an estimated $890 million to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis. This is a major commitment. To back it up, we need to make the legislative changes to support the eradication programme. The NAIT scheme needs to be improved to incentivise good behaviour by farmers and to strengthen traceability. Mycoplasma bovis was the first actual test of the scheme. It showed where those improvements should and need to be made.

The package makes amendments to improve the scheme on several fronts. All the amendments work together to improve the tracing of animals. Some of the amendments to improve traceability are required to allow the operational changes NAIT Ltd needs to make—for example, making sure each NAIT number relates to a specified land parcel. There are also changes to address the tracing issues found during the Mycoplasma bovis response. The legislation makes it clear that when farmers shift premises, they can no longer take old NAIT tags with them to use at another location. Note that there will be a transition period to allow farmers to use up their existing stock of tags.

Everyone should now know what is expected in terms of using the NAIT scheme, and stronger action is needed to incentivise compliance. We want to make the tools available so that if warnings don’t get heeded, there are real consequences for wilful failures to do the right thing. Several amendments will help drive better compliance with the scheme, such as increasing the penalty limits and infringement fees for offences to the same level as those for offences under the Biosecurity Act and the Animal Products Act.

The $150 fine for offences relating to failure to tag animals is too low to be a deterrent. This fee will go up to $400. The infringement fee for offences related to failures to register is changing from $300 to $800. Also, when a very serious offender is prosecuted in court, the sentencing judge will now be able to choose the most appropriate fine from a wider range. The individual $10,000 maximum penalty increases to $100,000, and the corporate fine goes from $20,000 to a maximum of $200,000. Higher penalties that line up with those given for similar offending across the biosecurity system will reinforce the importance of people complying with their NAIT requirements.

Tracing relies on having all animals tagged and registered. Unfortunately, there has been some misuse of the original “impracticable to tag” exemption. This exemption was meant to be a short-term thing used to manage some unruly and large animals that were in the system at the inception of the scheme seven years ago. However, it is being used by some people who consider tagging the animals as simply inconvenient. That behaviour has to change. The amendments will tighten up this area so that the only reason for an animal not to be retagged will be the safety of the person who is in charge of it—and that is a reality for some large animals who may have lost their tags.

Since 2012, animals are meant to have been tagged at birth, when they are small. By now, farmers should have the equipment and processes in place to deal with the very few large or unruly animals that lose their tags. Therefore, in five years’ time from when this legislation is passed, the ability to get this exemption will expire, but we will be able to have exemptions, of course, for safety. The long lead-in period gives people plenty of time to update their methods for managing and tagging all their stock.

The amendments will strengthen the monitoring of the NAIT organisation by filling identified gaps in the performance and reporting provisions. The changes will make sure a Minister can intervene in NAIT operations in a graduated manner if necessary. We need to make sure there is no repeat of the problems in the existing NAIT organisation that came to light last year. NAIT data needs to be useful to as many people as possible. The more useful it is, the more incentive there is for farmers to comply with their recording obligations. It will be a win-win situation for the wider sector.

The amendments to it ensure that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)—who is the largest user of data—can get streamlined access to the information. The director-general of primary industries will be able to grant MPI staff access to the data in the NAIT system for the purposes of the Act. In urgent situations, such as when wandering stock are creating a road hazard, MPI will also be able to facilitate the use of NAIT data by other agencies such as local councils or the police or fire services. This change will help these services swiftly identify who is responsible for the individual animals. The data can only be used for the purposes set out in the NAIT Act. There are very clear provisions on this. Unlike most similar laws, a person who misuses NAIT data can be prosecuted.

The NAIT bill also allows extra conditions to be set on the use of particular NAIT data that someone has applied for. These are very strong, practical safeguards. I want to ensure that NAIT information is protected for the future and that the sector will always have access to it, no matter who the NAIT organisation is. The draft law therefore confirms that NAIT data becomes the property of the Crown, to be held on behalf of the people supplying it, other farmers, wider industry, and the public interest. A NAIT organisation will also have to ensure continuity of access to the information system if, in the future, another agency is designated as a NAIT organisation.

Taken together, the amendments will improve the system as a whole. The package also takes the opportunity to make some technical amendments and enhancements to ensure the law is as clear as possible, and to correct minor drafting errors. This legislation package is a further step in this Government’s ongoing programme to improve our animal tracing scheme. We need a system that supports and makes it easier for people to comply and encourages them to play their part so that New Zealand’s biosecurity continues to be world class. It gives me great pleasure today to speak on this very important piece of legislation. I trust the House will support it.

Before I finish, I’d like to acknowledge the speaker who’s about to rise, the Hon Nathan Guy. He has served this country well as the previous Minister of Agriculture. While we’ve disagreed on a number of issues, and perhaps the implementation of NAIT, I hope that he shares my view that we’ve got to pass this as quickly as possible. But I do acknowledge his service to New Zealand and wish him well for the future. Now, I commend this bill package to the House.

Just before we take the Hon Nathan Guy, could the Minister just confirm that the bill he’s moved is called the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2)?

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Correct—No 2. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Excellent. Thank you.

First of all, can I acknowledge the previous speaker, Damien O’Connor, and thank him for his very kind words. Also, it was great to catch up earlier on with Shane Jones. For those that—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, I should have said, the question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was just saying, it was good to catch up with Shane Jones earlier in the day. As I was just alluding to, for those that are listening that don’t know, I have made an announcement today that I’m not standing for re-election in 2020. It’s quite a big decision for me to make, but I’ve been in this House for 15 years, achieved an awful lot, I believe, and will continue to serve the people of Kāpiti and Horowhenua for the next 12 or 15 months leading up to the election. I look forward to doing other things outside of Parliament. It’s been an absolute blast, and a privilege, and an honour.

Second of all, can I now make a contribution about this bill, the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2). We had the No. 1 bill—it came through the Parliament under urgency about 12 or 14 months ago. We didn’t agree with the process. Finally, we agreed with the changes, but that should have gone to a select committee. I’m pleased to hear the Minister say that this one is going to have due process and scrutiny around it.

I just want to acknowledge the Minister and say thank you for allowing your officials to come across to meet the National Party agriculture caucus members last week. We had a very good discussion with them, and it gave us confidence today to support the bill. We do have some issues that we want to further flesh out in the select committee.

We, unfortunately, aren’t going to agree—or maybe fortunately, depending on which way you look at it—with the Minister’s second motion that he’s going to move later on this evening, and that is a truncated select committee period, because we don’t believe that we need that. I think it should be up to the select committee to get on and do the job and bring it back into the House, without having the pressure of saying it needs to be brought into here by 4 November. That’s all a decision that really is a political decision. The Minister will say, “No, no. It’s down to the fact that we need to get on to it.”, but it’s because the Government is going to run out of bills in the House at the end of the year. That’s what it’s all about. The Primary Production Committee have the capability to get on and do this bill, and give it justice, and hear from those submitters. We will get some submitters.

We’ll get submissions from, particularly, the Road Transport Forum New Zealand—their members, no doubt, will submit and say that they are concerned about having the liability sit on them if they put an animal that isn’t tagged on to a truck. We want to hear from them about their concerns. I know that a lot of modern trucking companies are now putting Halos on the back of their truck that do record animals as they go up the ramp on to the truck. Some also use wands, but we’ve also got to think about the practicalities. A lot of these animals are loaded out at 10 o’clock at night or 2 o’clock in the morning, and we just need to understand what that means for truckies, who want to do the right thing, that may occasionally, for whatever reason, not realise that an animal doesn’t have a tag. We know that the system has been tested. We know it came in under 2012. It was reviewed under the National Government in 2016. We support these changes.

The other important changes are about the PICA, which is the person in charge—ensuring that their location links back to the animal’s birthplace. We think that’s fair. Also, it lifts the penalties, as the Minister has talked about, from $10,000 to $100,000 for individuals and from $20,000 to $200,000 for companies. We think that’s fair and reasonable. We do have a concern, that we will no doubt flesh out and talk to the Minister’s officials in the select committee process, about their access to National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) data, and who owns that data and when it’s available and to whom. They are signalling that it will be available to public sector organisations. We probably think that’s fair and reasonable, but we would hate to think that the ENGOs had access to this data. Also, we understand the implications of an animal being found on the weekend and ending up at a local pound, and potentially those council staff wanting to know where that animal has come from. So as I understand it, they will have the ability to ring the Ministry for Primary Industries’ (MPI’s) 0800 number and get that information a lot quicker than possible now.

We know, out in the rural heartland, that farmers have had some concerns about NAIT, particularly in recent times, with the slowness in the response of the 0800 number. We’re pleased to hear that MPI officials have gone across to Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI) to help get that issue sorted out. We also know that there are some glitches in the software. We know that it’s not that user-friendly. It’s good to hear from officials that OSPRI are on to that and there is going to be a system upgrade so it’s more user-friendly to farmers.

So with those introductory remarks, the National Party does support this bill. We don’t support a truncated select committee process, because it’s really up to the select committee to do the work. Indeed, it could come back earlier than what the Minister wants, but we don’t think it’s fair to have that shackle placed on the select committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I know it’s a little late, but I want to acknowledge your ascension to the bench, as this is the first time I have had the privilege and delight to appear before you, if I will, so tēnā koe.

Secondly, just before I turn to the substantive matter at hand, I too want to reiterate the Minister’s comments and commend the service and contribution that the honourable member for Ōtaki, Nathan Guy, has made to rural and provincial communities for the duration of his time in this House, but also, I know, for the immeasurable amount of energy and effort and confidence that was provided by yourself whilst you were at the helm of the ministry. So thank you for your service and your time.

Turning to the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2) that is for consideration before this House, I guess while this bill is so important for our considerations, it has been highlighted by the biosecurity outbreak of Mycoplasma bovis. M. bovis has had incredibly detrimental impacts for provincial and regional communities widestanding. If anything, though, we can take away from the outbreak that it’s an opportunity to reflect on areas where we can—and, indeed, must—do better, and National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) was and has been the subject of a number of reviews. During the process of those reviews, many shortcomings were highlighted, which this bill here seeks to amend.

So I think that one thing that we can be assured of on both sides of the House is that we are in agreement that the farming industry and the farming sector—they provide the backbone for many of our provincial economies. Now, when you get an outbreak like M. bovis in a small community, it has incredibly detrimental impacts on the wellbeing of the entire community. Now, NAIT had been in place since 2012, and I think it’s useful, probably, just to look back on where NAIT, in its inception, came from.

I think it was the Hon Jim Anderton—if I’m correct, Minister O’Connor—that was really forceful in pushing through the original proposal for NAIT. I think even under the fifth Labour Government, in about 2008, there was a proposal to try and put $10 million into establishing the NAIT scheme, but, unfortunately, we couldn’t get support from the other side of the House at that time. They weren’t into it, and there was strong opposition from a number of groups that I’m proud to say now are very supportive—from the commentary I’ve seen, at least—of what we’re trying to do now. So I want to acknowledge the journey that we’ve been on with groups like Federated Farmers and the like to ensure that the method by which we can trace livestock is one that is secure, and it will stand the test of time.

So like I said, we’ve had an opportunity now to reflect on some of the shortcomings, and we’ve had a number of reports that highlighted some of those, and Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI) and the like have been the subject of a number of critiques and reviews. I think if we look to the objectives of that National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012, the question which was before the Minister was whether or not the NAIT system that we had now, under the 2012 Act, could deliver on the objectives as set out in section 3. A couple of those: “rapid and accurate tracing of individual, or groups of, … animals from birth to death or live export”. Well, the review showed that that actually was really tricky.

“Provides information on the current location and movement history of individual, or groups of, NAIT animals”. Well, what we were seeing, and what the reviews highlighted, is that there actually had been a really low uptake. In one of the most recent reports I read, around about only 30 to 40 percent of livestock in 2017 had, in fact, complied with the provisions of the NAIT Act. So the voluntary system—or the lack of regulation, sorry, is a better way of saying—and the lack of investment into the system to ensure that where there were breaches, that those were actually picked up and that they were prosecuted and followed all the way through—that was an area of the system that hadn’t been working well. When the Act was introduced in 2012, we wanted biosecurity management to be improved. Well, arguably, that has been improved to an extent, but it could be a lot better.

I just want to flick back to the non-compliance of the Act. For livestock, farm-to-farm, I think that there was around about 30 to 40 percent compliance rate, and a lot less for sales, from farm-to-farm, of calves. I recall having the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) come before us when we were undertaking the OSPRI review, and one of the things that they spoke to was just the lack of information, access to data, and the ability to act quickly when things were showing that they were broken down. Actually, we were right in the middle of a—the campaign was just gearing up. It was in July 2017 when we had that first notification down there in South Canterbury. I think it was only about a week or two later, the second.

Now, our Government is pursuing complete eradication, and there has been a vast amount of investment that has been spent on targeting. To date, $250 million has gone into fighting Mycoplasma bovis, and, alongside Dairy New Zealand and Beef and Lamb New Zealand, it is estimated that amongst these three parties, to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis, it’s going to cost around $890 million. This is a large investment. It’s a large investment for both the communities, for the industry, for the sector, and for this Government. Now, had we had the ability to ensure that the NAIT scheme was operating as it could have been, and as it should have been, perhaps we might have been able to tackle the cause, and identify and locate the cause of that outbreak sooner, quicker. That is the hope, amongst many others, that the reforms in this bill seek to achieve.

So the primary focus of the amendments—and these, again, were alluded to in both the MPI report and the OSPRI review—is to improve the traceability of the animals. We’ve heard a little bit about that today, and we’ve just heard from the Minister of Agriculture, there. Ensuring that each NAIT number relates to a specific land parcel improves our ability to track from where to where.

I think my remarks touched on this earlier: it’s OK having a rule, but if you can’t enforce that rule, it makes things challenging. So what we’re doing, or the intention behind the fee regime—there’s a number of fee increases here, and that’s to insist, to incentivise, to drive compliance with the purposes of this bill. So for a relatively minor breach, something like a failure to tag, the fee increase is going from $150 to $400. However, for things that are really serious, where there’s a serious infringement, the consequences are set to increase, and increase significantly.

For an individual who undertakes or commits a serious infringement, the fee that we propose is to go from a $10,000 maximum infringement penalty, to a $100,000 maximum infringement penalty. For a corporation that breaches their obligations, for a serious infringement, the bill will take it from $20,000 to $200,000. Now, those sums may sound a lot, but what they do do is it brings into alignment with the rest of the biosecurity laws that we have. So this is an interesting first phase, and I’m pleased to speak in favour at this first reading and am looking forward to working alongside my colleagues as this bill progresses through select committee. Tēnā koe.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to start by acknowledging my good friend and colleague Nathan Guy. We came into Parliament together. Fifteen years is a long time, and I wish him all the very best in his future endeavours. Nathan has served this country very well, and for all those newer members over the other side of here and to our newer members—and there’s some even older members here—15 years is a long contribution out of your life. It is a big service to this country, and his family as well have had to make sacrifices to enable that to happen. Personally, he would’ve had to make sacrifices as well for the benefit of his people and his electorate and of this country and especially of the National Party. So we acknowledge that and we thank you for your service, because everyone in this room is here to serve, and we all serve with many commitments as well. So thank you, Nathan, for all you’ve done and for being a good friend and being a good supporter of the agriculture and horticultural industries in New Zealand.

We will support this bill, but I have reservations about it. The essence of the bill is actually not—nobody’s really going to have a problem with that. You know, like, everybody knows that we need to have a stricter regime around animal recording and animal transport. That is something that started in recent years and needs continuous improvement. I don’t think anybody could argue against that in any way, form, or in manner. The outbreak of Mycoplasma bovis showed deficiencies in the system and showed things that needed to change. But it didn’t show that the Government needed to own the data around every stock, every animal, that every farmer owns, and that’s what this bill does. It transfers ownership of data to the Government. Now, that is not necessary. Data is a really important part, going forward, in any agriculture or horticultural business. Anything in this country, any business in 10 or 20 years’ time is talking about data now. Data is crucial for any business, and we have to, under this bill, hand it over to the Government.

Now, I’ve got no problem in that being handed over to the Government in the time of an incursion or in the time that there’s a national emergency, like we had with Mycoplasma bovis. There could be a clause in this bill which says, in that point of time, the relevant organisations that hold that data have to give free and easy access to the Government—no problem with that at all—and that would solve the problem that the Minister’s looking for. But that’s not what he’s doing here. What the Minister is actually doing here is taking all that data ownership now, and I’m not quite sure of the reason why he’s doing that, but it’ll come out in the next few months, and we’ll find out why he’s trying to do that. But there is no particular reason why that needs to happen. We can safeguard New Zealand’s agricultural base and we can safeguard our export industries by having the right mechanism in there.

A wholesale ownership of data by the Government is never a good idea. It’s never worked in the past. If we just have a look at some of the issues with Government having ownership of data, first of all, if there’s any problem, then it’s the Government’s fault and the Minister will be responsible for any issues of data loss now. So in this case of Mycoplasma bovis, the Minister’s not responsible; the farmers and the industry are responsible, but this will actually mean that the Minister now, as the holder of that data, will be responsible through the Ministry for Primary Industries for any failings.

Secondly, Governments have shown themselves over many, many years to be not the most efficient holders of data. Often, we find that Governments and Government departments don’t have the necessary investment in that data recording and use that the private sector would have. They’re not necessarily the most up to date with holding that data, and their records can get out of date. So just say we have the Government hold this data, and in 10 years’ time we have an incursion again. We’ve got on one side the data that the Government holds, which might be out of date and in a slow manner, and we have data held by various business and industry organisations that’s much more reflective of what’s out there. Which one are we going to rely on for that incursion?

Now, there will be a number of other problems that will come out with having data. I’m just philosophically opposed to the Government holding data, first of all. That’s as a good—

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: IRD too? IRD?

Well, exactly the IRD, but the IRD has very special rules around it, and this will not have those very special rules around it. The Minister raises that point—that’s fine. The IRD has all your financial data, but no other Government department has access to that. No individuals have access to that. No competitive companies have access to that data. In fact, the highest, most stringent rules around that data are in the Government’s hands, and a breach of those is seen as one of the biggest breaches Government can have. This won’t be in that category. The Minister won’t have this data in that category. The Minister will have this in a lower category. What happens if this data is sold off to a competitor, sold off to an overseas company? What’s to stop that happening? What’s to stop this data being lost? You have many issues in social welfare and Work and Income New Zealand where data is shared in a way that it shouldn’t have been shared—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: By your deputy leader.

Yeah, well, and it happens, OK, and this could happen here. Mr McAnulty, that will very much happen. That’s the issue you bring when Government has data ownership. So you’re opening yourself up for that issue.

So that is one of the big issues in this bill, and if we give that ownership of data to the Government, I think it creates a whole set of problems that you don’t need. Now, we can still give Government access to that data in times of need, and that’s a completely different situation. I would understand, if there was a situation that arose, that that Minister should be able to invoke a power to get access to that data immediately. That should be the way it’s done, rather than ownership to the Government as it stands now.

So we look forward to seeing how that’s going to progress through the select committee, but I think there are some really big holes around data ownership, and I hope the New Zealand First Party sees light in that, as they often talk about wanting to protect personal property rights. At the same time, they’re now voting as a Government coalition partner to take away those personal property rights from individual farmers.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this first reading of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2), or the NAIT Bill (No 2). I would just like to commence by joining the chorus of commendation for the service of the Hon Nathan Guy to this Parliament, to agriculture. Whilst we are on different sides of the House and we won’t always agree, I think the rural members of the House, particularly the farming members of the House, do tend to work pretty collegially. We do look out for the greater good of agriculture, and I think losing that institutional knowledge that you have is going to be a loss to the Parliament. I note you are sitting next to the Rt Hon David Carter—you’ll be another one that’s missed, Mr Carter. I think that’s something, hopefully, the National Party in their selection process considers when they are bringing people through, because it is very important.

In terms of the world-class tracing scheme that we would demand as an agricultural sector—given that I think the sectors that rely on this NAIT tracing system probably account for, just off the top of my head, some $20 billion worth of revenue, we do expect a world-class system. We thought we had one. We found out, road-tested in real time in the Mycoplasma bovis situation, that we did not have a fit-for-purpose system, and this bill, under the Minister, looks to address those issues. After a two-year review, some of the findings have been adopted in regulation, but this bill looks to enshrine in legislation some important tenets.

Of course, why is this important? We’ve had to address, as has been mentioned, the Mycoplasma bovis situation—$890 million to farmers through levies and taxpayers. It has been widely acknowledged that the inability to trace animals efficiently has greatly added to the complexity of that response and it has added greatly to the stress that is put on those farming families that, through no fault of their own, have found themselves in this situation. So it is absolutely imperative that we sort this system out.

There are a number of provisions, the number being specific to the land parcel, which I think is thoroughly sensible. There is the impractical tagging provision, which I think may have been flouted a little bit, people that just could not be bothered, because a number of these tags fall out; that’s the reality of it. You tag them when they’re three or four months old or six weeks old, and by the time you sell them at two years old, if you’re a beef farmer, many of them have fallen out. So it does take a bit of complying, but it is something that you absolutely need to do, and we need to enforce that. There is an exemption for dangerous cattle. We know that for bulls or wild cattle there may be some genuine exemptions there that are able to be applied, but as a general rule of thumb, that should not be the case.

We’ve just heard from the previous speaker, Mr Bennett, about the ownership information. I think it’s a fair point to raise and I think that’s what the select committee process is there for. We can prosecute that argument. I personally don’t have too much problem with it. I think if you compare it to the IRD, you are looking at very sensitive information. In this case, you’re looking at, essentially, stock numbers, which I don’t think are particularly sensitive. Maybe I’ve underestimated the information or how that information could be used for other purposes, but on face value it doesn’t seem like there’s information there that’s overly sensitive, and I think it’s the risk reward. I mean, the reward of having this information at our fingertips, or at the authority’s fingertips, when it’s needed I think overrides that. That’s my sense, and that would be New Zealand First’s sense, but we’ll look at that through the select committee process.

There is the provision to apply to look back to the point of origin for stock, which I think is a good one. It’s actually a good one from a management perspective too. I might have bought some cattle from Mr McAnulty. They might be a little bit scruffy, but if I applied through him to look back to where they came from they may have come from Kiritapu Allan’s farm and I’ll know that they were well-bred and had some potential. So I think that’s a good provision, but it does allow you to look at maybe if it’s come from a TB area or something like that originally.

I note there has been quite a lot of commentary around this, the likes of Beef and Lamb, Federated Farmers, Dairy New Zealand, as you’d expect. Most of it’s been exceedingly supportive. There are those issues around the data that they have highlighted, and, as I said, we’ll go through those in the select committee.

The Minister assumes powers to set out the Government priorities and expectations to the NAIT board, and set a direction. So I think that’s a power that will probably be mainly used in an emergency situation potentially, but, once again, we’ll look at that through the select committee process.

But the lessons of NAIT and the failure of NAIT have been well documented. I think in the review it said that less than half of the animal movements were being recorded, which is just appalling, and I think the data up to about 2017 showed there had been one $150 fine. That was the level of enforcement. It was essentially an open door and the new enforcement measures up to $100,000 for an individual farm for flouting the law, $200,000 for corporate, and down to maybe $400 for missing tags or the like. So there is some genuine teeth, and I note that when the 2012 bill went through, New Zealand First’s contribution to that reading highlighted the need for enforcement, and the fact that it wasn’t done is an indictment. We have paid the price for that and this iteration of this bill sets to sort that out and to sort that out strongly, and I commend the Minister for doing this.

We have learnt the lessons the hard way. We are now responding, and it has been quite a long and thorough process started under the last Government, it’s fair to say and acknowledge, but I would commend Minister O’Connor for having gone through this process and landed in the House. It is, I think, a good bill. It’s an important bill. It’s on the back of some work coming from biosecurity, another really important work that Minister O’Connor is doing in this space to protect our primary industries, our $46 billion worth of revenue that we are so reliant on in this country to do the sort of things that we want to do and that support a First World economy.

So, without further ado, I have absolute pleasure in endorsing New Zealand First’s support for this NAIT (No 2) bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I do want to take a short call on this National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2), but before I turn to the bill, if you’d indulge me, Mr Speaker, I just want to begin by acknowledging the announcement today from my colleague the Hon Nathan Guy, who not only was the Minister who kicked off the review of NAIT—and so it’s quite apposite where I’m mentioning it in this bill debate—but was obviously the Minister of the primary sector and primary industries for a number of years in the last Government, has been a spokesperson, as a farmer himself, and has been a superb colleague, Minister, and spokesperson. To Nathan and his family, I wish them all the best. He’s certainly going to be missed here, although I’ll be joining him in the exiting as well. I know my colleagues who remain will certainly miss his very valuable contribution.

National does support the bill. You’ve already heard that from colleagues who have spoken before me. It is very clear that the M. bovis outbreak has shown up some particular deficiencies in the NAIT system and it’s only right that they be addressed through this House, and National certainly wants to work pragmatically and practically with the Government on that.

The bill has got some very good components to it, certainly, and I do want to thank the Minister for making his officials available to us—that we could go through the bill and understand it. I think that’s a very useful and sensible way of approaching legislation like this, which should be fundamentally bipartisan.

We do have some concerns around particular aspects of the bill, but the select committee is the right place to tease those out. But, certainly, in terms of making sure our biosecurity system is absolutely fit for purpose and supports what remains New Zealand’s core industry that supports our economy, and at a time where our economy is facing significant challenges for a number of reasons including the incumbent Government, it is important that this industry supports it, and for that reason we commend the bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support this legislation and acknowledge the Minister. I’d also like to echo the comments made in the House about the Hon Nathan Guy and his resignation. We haven’t agreed on much, but I’d like to acknowledge the contribution and the public service the member has made. In one area where we did see eye to eye, and I’d really like to acknowledge it as part of his legacy, is the work on banning shark finning in New Zealand. We were one of the top 15 shark catchers in the world, a pretty bad practice, and I’m glad that stopped under his tenure. I’d like to acknowledge his work there.

Now, the Green Party supports this legislation. We think it’s a great step forward. The legislation fixes, amends, and modernises the National Animal Identification and Tracing scheme. It tightens the rules, improves the use of data, aligns penalties with the Biosecurity Act, brings in a new offence for transporting untagged animals, and changes the performance framework. I mean, obviously that comes in the context of the Mycoplasma bovis absolute cost. I understand the latest figure to date is 107,000 animals have been culled as a response, a cost over 10 years of nearly $900 million to try and eradicate this disease. And what we saw, dealing with it, was that NAIT—the National Animal Identification and Tracing regime—just wasn’t up to snuff. It wasn’t up to scratch. I think the best thing you can say about it is thank God it wasn’t foot-and-mouth we were dealing with; it was Mycoplasma bovis instead.

So as the result of the Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand review, which was over 2016 to 2018, you see the recommendations that have come out. The two areas I think that are going to make such a significant difference is increasing the penalties, because when you look at the previous data, and I think this is to July this year, in the two years since M. bovis was found, there’s been 382 infringement notices, but the existing penalties regime says it’s only a $150 fine for tagging offences and a $300 fine for registration breaches. I’d point out there’s been actually no prosecutions at all, and I think a $150 fine is similar to being slapped on the wrist with a wet bus ticket. So it’s important we’re increasing those penalties, important that the transport requirements are being brought in.

Now, I’d note that there’s been a big debate around the data, and this is part of how modern society’s debates around data are such a key feature. One issue I would take umbrage with is Nathan Guy’s comments around “What if ENGOs get their hands on the data?” I think it shouldn’t be an “us and them” sort of response; ENGOs have a valuable role to play. And, actually, it’s working in partnership where we’ve seen farmers actually improve their sustainability initiatives. So data will be a key question that I know the Primary Production Committee will pick up. It’s a key issue that we’ll be paying attention to, and it’s a key aspect for how we improve the sustainability of our land use and our waterways—so a really important point.

I guess I’d like to finish by making the point that technology will play part of the solution. I know the concerns that farmers have had. We talked about problems with the 0800 number. We’ve heard problems with software glitches. I know farmers quite legitimately have pointed out, “If only we had better internet connectivity, we could have actually filled out this information.” But I’d like to champion those farmers that are embracing technology. I was reading, just before, an article by grazier James Reeves—who, I think, is in the Waikato—who was talking about how the use of hand-held scanners has improved his farm’s productivity. He’s using it for weighing the cattle as well, and he’s encouraging other farmers to use RFID chips.

So technology is going to be a key role in dealing with these solutions, a key role in increasing productivity, and a key role to increase sustainability. That’s why the Green Party is really wanting to see an uptake of technology on our farms. But we’re supporting this legislation. Kia ora koutou.

Mr Speaker, can I start by acknowledging the departing MP who announced his retirement today, the MP for Ōtaki, Nathan Guy. Nathan Guy’s not leaving until the election but he’s been a great help to me since coming into Parliament, over the last two years. I didn’t actually realise how popular Nathan was. He’s been down to Southland four or five times in the last two years, and the last time, I worked him to the bone. I took him round three public meetings—in Winton, Gore, and Balclutha. There was a discussion with the public on the National Party primary sector discussion document, and we got around 80 to 100 people per meeting. So, Nathan, sorry to work you so hard that day. I think you left home about 4.30 to catch that flight, and you would’ve got home well after 10 o’clock. Nathan’s been a great Minister for Primary Industries. He’s also led our policy discussion document over the past 12 months, and Nathan was actually the Minister when the National Animal Identification and Tracing reviews started back in 2012.

The bill is simple. At the moment, what happens with Mycoplasma bovis for the hard-working Ministry for Primary Industries officials and staff—and can I acknowledge them; they’re working extremely hard on the ground with the outbreak of the disease. It’s a bit like dropping a puzzle into a thousand pieces on a table and then trying to piece it all together to try and figure out where the source actually came from, which is a bit like finding a needle in a haystack and then trying to piece together, basically, the tracing and the traceability, which has been incredibly tough. This bill is reasonably simple. If you did drop that 1000-piece puzzle on the table, it would all be numbered; so you’d be able to identify the source straight away and you’d save a lot of time, because there has been some frustration out there in rural New Zealand over last year around the lack of communication. A lot of this is the fact that it’s really hard to trace this horrible disease.

Can I finish by acknowledging the current Minister of Agriculture, Damien O’Connor, for his assistance over the last 12 months. Thank you for briefing us on this report a week or two ago and being so open with your office around cases of affected farmers, and also everyone out there that’s been affected by this horrible disease. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call. I call the Hon Clare Curran—five minutes.

Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. Before I begin, can I also acknowledge the Hon Nathan Guy.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Oh, this is getting silly.

Well, it’s a mark of respect and acknowledgment. I had a bit to do with him in his role with civil defence. I always saw him as a pretty straight-up chap. So good luck with whatever you do next.

I’m really pleased to be speaking, albeit briefly, on this bill, because it’s a real example of the Government’s commitment to transparency, to practicality, and to a much-needed upgrade of what started off as a good idea but turned into a flawed system. That became very apparent during one of New Zealand’s most serious biosecurity incidents and issues in recent times. I know that everybody agrees that the Mycoplasma bovis issue is very serious but, unfortunately, the system that was put in place to underpin the knowledge of tracking stock movements was very flawed and was not fit for purpose. Thankfully, the Government acted swiftly and made some very clear decisions that were big decisions for our nation, because they had at risk a whole sector of our economy and exports. And that was with the very large package of, I think, $886 million to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis over 10 years, I think it is, but then to introduce the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill—the bill No. 1—to put in place the technical amendments that were needed to be able to get things moving, and then we’ve now got the No. 2 bill before us today, the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2), which will be taken through a proper process and which is absolutely essential to have a system in place that is fit for purpose for our country, to underpin our primary sector, to underpin one of our most critical industries, to underpin and protect our export industries, and to ensure that the sector is accountable.

If you look at the state of the system around the time that we were facing this major biosecurity crisis, the enforcement of the flawed system that was introduced in 2012 was extremely lax. As at December 2017, only one infringement of $150 had been issued for failing to declare a movement of an animal. At the time of the 2017 election, which was when that review was taking place, NAIT compliance in some areas was as low as 30 percent—30 percent.

💬 Marja Lubeck: It’s shocking

It is shocking. I haven’t been in the House for all of the discussion today, but I acknowledge the issues around the technology. I acknowledge the fact that there are external issues, but actually I did some reading of the Hansard today around when the bill was introduced in 2012. As I understand it, it was the idea that came from the former Labour Government and it was eventually and grudgingly introduced by the previous National Government. It wasn’t properly put in place. It didn’t have buy-in from the farming community, and therefore it was lax. We’re fixing it. We’re getting on with it. We’ve made some really big decisions that go alongside that, about eradicating Mycoplasma bovis. I want to really pay tribute to the Minister, who is doing an incredible job in this space. I hope that the primary sector does buy in this time and that we do protect that really important primary sector and make sure that we never put at risk that part of our economy again.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also bestowed upon Mr Guy for his significant contribution. It has been a privilege to have worked with you and to learn from you, as well, over this period of time. All the best for the future. I would also like to acknowledge our incoming agricultural spokesperson, Todd Muller, who’s done a magnificent job in the climate change portfolio. I have every confidence he will be just as successful in agriculture—all the best to him as he works through that.

Now, this particular bill is the second suite of changes, as we’ve heard. The initial ones, well, there was some debate around the success of that process—which we might come to a bit later. But with this, it’s looking to make some additional changes which will see, in some instances, potentially, some extra costs on farmers to comply, to adhere with the system. I appreciate the actions of the Government have demonstrated they don’t have particular regard to additional costs, not just for farmers but for the wider public. However, that’s something that we will be looking at. The select committee is, of course, the appropriate place to thrash that out, so I’m looking forward to a number of considerations being brought up there. Biosecurity, of course, is critical for us and I expect it will be well canvassed at that point.

I do just want to acknowledge the Minister as well, and thank him for the effort he’s put into this and making some changes. We have been collaborative, we’ll continue to be on this bill, and I look forward to seeing it in select committee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I add my remarks on this bill, I too want to acknowledge the Hon Nathan Guy for his significant contribution and service to our country, his leadership in the primary sector when he was Minister, and, in particular, the support he gave to the Māori economy and our interests in the primary sector as well. So I wish him all the best.

I, obviously, support this bill. I want to firstly acknowledge Minister Damien O’Connor, who has acted very swiftly and decisively in bringing this bill to the House—not just the bill; the complete suite of packages. It’s an entire package of the bill, plus the detailed regulations which will work hand in hand with the empowering legislation. So it’s all out there in the open. I’m looking forward, as a member of the Primary Production Committee, to hearing from relevant stakeholders their views on this full package, but it is a necessity that we put this bill through the House. I do support the time frame that the Minister has laid down for this piece of legislation, because the costs are great for non-compliance. I think we’ve just heard around the cost to farmers in terms of adhering to the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) scheme, but we must also consider the costs for biosecurity incursions, such as Mycoplasma bovis and the impact that that has not only on the primary sector but on our country as a whole. It’s so important that we have a strong, world-class biosecurity system, and part of that system has to be a strong NAIT system which will deal with the tagging and the registration and the tracking of animal movements. So if an incursion were to occur, and we certainly hope it doesn’t, we can act swiftly through those systems to identify it and to take immediate remedial action.

So this is a really important piece of legislation. I want to acknowledge the National Opposition for supporting this bill at its first reading. We know that this is important. We know that we want to encourage and ensure that we get full farmer uptake of the system. It’s for their benefit; it’s for the sector’s benefit as a whole, and our country. So we just want to ensure that we make the tweaks that were identified in the review that was undertaken by Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand, and also the further changes that we need to make in light of the Mycoplasma bovis incursion.

I commend this legislation and the measures that we are enacting in here. They are not too drastic. The system has been in place for seven years—that has been a good opportunity for the farming sector to embrace the system, to use the system, and to ensure that now we have an opportunity to make those improvements so we can actually make it better and stronger. As I said, our country as a whole, our export industries, and our primary sector really depends on a world-class biosecurity system. As I call it: that is our pā defences that we need to keep out all of those nasty incursions that may occur. We need to ensure that it is world-class, that it is strong and robust, and that’s what this bill achieves. So can I, once again, just acknowledge the Minister for bringing this bill through to the House. It’s really important that we act thoroughly and we listen to all of the views. I know there are concerns around ownership of data. I think we can tease out those issues, but from my reading of the bill it’s very prescribed in terms of how the data will be used. But whether it’s ownership or access to data, the main thing is that we get good data. The main thing is that we get farmers applying and following the NAIT system, tagging their animals, registering them, following their movements, and having all that information in the system so that it is there when it is desperately needed, but we certainly hope that those instances don’t occur. With that, I support this bill at its first reading.

It’s a pleasure to rise and take a very short call on this bill. But as is appropriate, I do want to acknowledge the contribution to this House of the Hon Nathan Guy, as he has announced his retirement at the election next year. I do so on the basis that I’ve never seen commodity prices at the level they are, for nearly 20 years across the board. In my view, that is significantly due to the likes of the Hon Tim Groser and the Hon Nathan Guy and others, who forged export markets. I acknowledge that that’s a cross-party thing that’s been done by this Government as well, but credit where credit’s due. Our farmers are enjoying some of the best trading conditions that they’ve seen in decades, and a lot of that is due to the efforts of Nathan and his thinking and wisdom, and his time in Cabinet. So, Nathan, you’ll be a big loss to this House and I thank you for your efforts.

Just on this National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2), we are supporting it. Minister, can I thank you for sending your officials across last week; that was very helpful. I would signal that I have raised some concerns, and I will through the process, about the implications of keeping transport operators in the mix and their need to, effectively, become another form of police along the way. A number of transport operators expressed concern to me and, Minister, I’m just saying—in this House—that I think that is something that should be resolved in a select committee. As has already been said, we don’t support the truncated select committee, because these are exactly the type of things that should be resolved properly, with due process and due information. It’s my pleasure to speak and commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I may as well start like everybody else that’s so far spoken on this bill and acknowledge the contribution of the Hon Nathan Guy. There have been many, many resignations or indications of resignations from the National Party, but I don’t think that any of the previous have spurred us on, on this side of the House, to acknowledge their contribution—and they are sincere. What I have noticed about Nathan Guy—even though some of the contributions today, I feel, have been somewhat overegged. What I have appreciated with him is that he’s a good rural bloke that treats politics like a game of rugby. When you’re on the field, you play hard, and when the game’s over, you treat people with respect and work collaboratively. I think that’s a measure of the bloke, so well done. I would also like to join the choruses from Hamilton and encourage David Bennett to take Nathan Guy’s lead.

This bill is very, very important.

💬 Mark Patterson: Don’t go, Benno!

“Don’t go, Benno!” is the sarcastic call from this side of the House, from Mark Patterson. Actually, I may as well, now that Mark Patterson has mentioned David Bennett, address some of the things that he said in his contribution. Scaremongering—they just can’t help themselves can they, the National Party? They’ve found themselves a bill in front of them which is desperately needed, and they have acknowledged that, but they can’t just stand up and say, “Good on this Government for doing what needs to be done.”; they have to pick holes in it to some extent. Actually, in fairness, some of the things that have been said will be discussed at select committee, and I think they’ve raised some valid points. But then David Bennett came along—David Bennett scaremongering about the ownership of data, of the Government owning data, in the true neo-liberal tradition of big Government is bad and small Government is good, despite the fact that it is the Government, this Government, that’s taken the lead on trying to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis, along with Beef and Lamb and DairyNZ. It is this Government that is taking a commitment to biosecurity, which is the essence of this particular bill.

What I put to this House is: what is the alternative to the Government taking a lead on ensuring that the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system works and taking a hold of that data to secure it for the benefit of those farmers that are trying to contribute to the economy like the rest of it, trying to contribute through our primary industries to make this country and its economy grow? Their data has to be protected, and what I heard from David Bennett—this call that the Government shouldn’t be involved in protecting data—is that the organisation that looks after NAIT could, in a future Government, perhaps a National Government, potentially be sold, in true neo-liberal fashion, and the data going along with it. What this bill does is protect the data from any actions that might come in the future. It is absolutely guaranteed to be secure and it is guaranteed to be there for the benefit of the farmers. If that is the best thing that the Opposition can come up with in critiquing this bill, then I think the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Damien O’Connor, has done a pretty good job of getting the balance right.

The importance of biosecurity was drilled into me at a very early age. My father has been working in TB testing and dairy-shed inspection and has been on call, essentially, for 40 years, in the group that if foot-and-mouth was ever to come to this country, then he would be part of the response team. I remember him talking to me when I was a young boy about the importance of a strong biosecurity system in this country because of the importance of ensuring that something like that never comes to this shore. We cannot be complacent, and the Mycoplasma bovis incursion in this country has taught us that. Thank God it was Mycoplasma bovis that hit this country and identified the issues of the NAIT system and the need to try and fix it, the need to be compliant, and the need for all of us to play our part, because if it was foot-and-mouth, we’d be having a completely different discussion. We wouldn’t be talking about record commodity prices, as Lawrence Yule did just previously; we’d be talking about how we can bring our primary industries up from the ashes.

So thank God it wasn’t foot-and-mouth, and I am grateful for—if we are to search for positives in what is a terrible, terrible thing in Mycoplasma bovis hitting this country, at least it has given us the fire underneath ourselves that we needed, actually, as a country and as an industry, to be compliant and not be complacent. What this bill does is it actually delivers the tools for NAIT to be able to ensure that everyone can have confidence—those within the industry, and those that are producers, and those of us here in Parliament, and the rest around the country, but also those that buy our products—that we can trace animal movement around this country so that if there is ever another incursion, we are better placed to be able to deal with it.

This Government has taken on a task that no other country has been able to do, and that is to set a goal in eradicating Mycoplasma bovis. Every time that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) reports to the Primary Production Committee, they report that all is on track. This is in an instance that is unprecedented. There were always going to be teething problems. It is very difficult to establish a system when there is no other system to replicate or test against. But, week by week, MPI are improving the way in which they deal with things. There are still hiccups, particularly around compensation, but it is improving, and I, like others, want to acknowledge the work that officials have put into the programme for eradication and also those that are dealing with farmers on a day-to-day basis—and I’d like to say, in a very shameless plug, that includes my mother. The point is that there are thousands of people around this country trying to deal with an issue that, if this bill achieves what it intends to achieve, we should never have to deal with again. Animal tracing is vitally important, and I think as a nation we have received that message, so good on the Minister for leading this.

I fully endorse the move to have a slightly condensed select committee process, because there is a balance here needed between ensuring that those that wish to submit and wish to be consulted as part of the select committee process can do so—but there is an element of urgency here. We have to be quick and get it in place, because the efforts to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis are ongoing, and we, as I said earlier, cannot be complacent. So I think the three months is fair. It hits that balance.

I do acknowledge the other side of the House for getting in behind this, despite their little grizzles. I think, once again—and I hope the media do pick up on this, because it’s not reported enough—that when it comes to primary industries, this House actually works more collaboratively than it works in opposition, and I think that needs to be acknowledged. I fully commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

I move, That the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 4 November 2019.

I do so for the following reasons: the Mycoplasma bovis outbreaks demand that we continue to improve the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system as quickly as possible; the changes need to be enacted so that they sit alongside the work NAIT Ltd is carrying out to fix the system—that includes a multimillion-dollar investment to improve the system’s operability; a well-functioning animal tracing system enforces our trade reputation for food safety; the changes have been well signalled to industry and stakeholders, and there is general agreement on the need to improve NAIT; and, lastly, a proper-functioning NAIT is vital to prevent bad outcomes should other diseases arrive here.

This is another example of an arrogant Government rushing through legislation without giving the public the opportunity to engage in the proper process. We’re seeing this time and again from this Government, and it’s simply not good enough. The Minister here is pushing through, on behalf of the Government, a condensed time frame on this select committee process simply because the Government’s Order Paper is far too light—there’s nothing in here for them to be debating—and that is not an appropriate reason to truncate a select committee process. You would think, with the 280 working groups that cost $300 million, that they’d be able to fill up their legislative pipeline by now, and yet it’s very empty, and this process is an unacceptable way to try and fill that up.

If we wind back to last year and the first effort at this bill, it was an absolute debacle: pushed through under urgency, no select committee process whatsoever, no opportunity for the public to engage on what we’ve just heard, throughout the course of this previous debate, is a very important topic. Biosecurity is an important topic. Why were the public not given the right to engage on that? Well, I suppose we should commend the Government. They’ve gone one better. At least they are having a select committee process on the second version of this bill—much more than they did first time around, but it’s still truncated.

There’s no reason to be doing this. Farmers should have the opportunity to submit on this. They should have the right to think it through in detail, to conduct the full process, and to not have an arrogant Government pretending they know best, truncating that process yet again, and slamming something through just so they have something to debate pre-Christmas.

There’s no consistency from this Government at all when it comes to these sorts of things. How can the public have confidence they know—or is it perhaps actually that the Minister doesn’t have confidence in the Government members on the select committee, which is why he’s wanting to truncate it and maintain more control over this particular process? On this side of the House, we stand by proper process. There’s always an odd exemption where it is appropriate to speed up that legislative process—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Yeah, Christchurch earthquakes is an example.

The Christchurch earthquakes is a great example of that. This is not one. This is an example of where the public should be given the full and proper opportunity to consult, to engage, and to give their feedback. There will be implications for them as a result of this. Part of that will be additional costs. They need time to consider what that might mean for their business. Goodness knows farmers have seen plenty of additional costs under this Government already. They need to see how this will impact on them. Then you’ve got the trucking firms as well—what are the implications for them under these rule changes? We need to ensure that everyone can engage in this. This is a busy time of year on farms, and for trucking firms as well. They need to have plenty of opportunity to canvass widely, to consult their industry bodies, to engage with the select committee process, and to give some thoughts on that.

So on this side of the House, we do not support such a truncated process. We are constantly advocating—

Sorry to interrupt the member, but it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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