O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Chair thank you very much. I appreciate that in the spirit I guess of some unity around the Chamber we're wanting to move on and improve the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system because we all realise that it's not working as it should. I appreciate the points that have been raised. I stand by the explanatory note of the bill. I stand by the advice to me—that this is a technical bill to make some changes.Can I just go through a few things. The first question I have is why should farmers—good farmers—and people in the farming sector have any less protection from the rogues than people in the wine industry the fisheries industry the people in Crown minerals or indeed people who are managing waste across the country? What we are doing here with changes is just giving equivalence to provisions that ensure that compliance officers have the same ability to investigate where they suspect non-compliance because non-compliance affects everyone across industries.So I'll work through some of the proposed amendments that have been put to us and those that I have here. There are some valid points raised and I've had discussions with the member Nathan Guy on where we might go from here. Can I say in respect of the one about reasonable cause—a proposition put up by the Hon Nathan Guy that they would have to have reasonable cause to suspect non-compliance before they could do anything—that the reality is that if an officer has reasonable cause to suspect non-compliance they'd get a warrant. But a warrantless search for the most part is because they might need to go and get some indication of whether compliance is in fact being adhered to or not—they don't know. And in fact under all those other Acts then compliance officers can go in to inspect.Hon Mark Mitchell: They can do that now.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: To inspect right? Not to search and the member knows that. So if then in inspecting they identify any property that they realise may be relevant then they can lawfully seize it. And lawful seizure is accepted in law. The member will know that. He's probably done quite a bit of it himself—that is to seize under precedent under case law under protections in that law they can lawfully seize what might be relevant to the investigation or to confirm or otherwise whether compliance is occurring. I guess that if we were to introduce reasonable cause as a qualification to legal seizure then the problem is that all the other Acts that rely on legal seizure as a term would have to be changed and it comes down to a policy issue as to whether that would be relevant in the others under the Search and Surveillance Act.So we start to unravel what is a legal construct around protection—which the previous Government has endorsed through the Search and Surveillance Act—on one side and then the ability of compliance officers to carry through with their legal obligations. So in my view I can't support Nathan Guy's amendment that does seek to have a qualification of reasonable cause on the basis that that would undermine legal seizure across all other Acts.Can I say that in another one—and it's hard to keep up with the numbers. I appreciate that the member the Hon Nathan Guy has made some I think updates on his Supplementary Order Papers. I've got some of them here and I'm not sure which one is which. So I guess he's clarified the drafting on one of those and I appreciate it's much the same argument around the one of legal seizure.Can I go to another one that has been put up by David Bennett around the declaration of a natural disaster. Certainly in times like that maybe there are other powers that are required. The situation with M. Bovis arguably is similar to that of foot-and-mouth. The difference is in the way that the disease is transferred—one happens very quickly the other happens more slowly but they are none the less both actually significant natural events. I don't think we should have to wait for a natural disaster to be declared before we go and investigate whether people are complying with the law—with the law.So can I say that the Minister would have to declare an incursion before a search can take place. That's a ridiculous situation. Can I say that we have to be reasonable here. We are trying to protect good farmers who abide by the law who understand the value of NAIT and want people who are non-compliant to be investigated and prosecuted. And the question was asked of me: will that occur? Well in spite of the flaws or deficiencies in the law that we were delivered when coming into Government we've identified them—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Bungled operation.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: —the Ministry of Primary Industries has moved—well maybe it has been more difficult because the law was deficient. That's why we're trying to change it. That's why we're trying to change it and this technical amendment will make it easier to ensure that the law is adhered to.The Hon Amy Adams put up another amendment. She's going a step further and in fact has two here to say that Notwithstanding anything else contained in this clause a NAIT officer … shall not have the power to seize any property". Well that's a rather ridiculous step back from what should be and are accepted under the Search and Surveillance Act as reasonable powers to follow through on obligations to ensure compliance as any good policeman as any good compliance officer would do. I cannot support that. So I have to say that at this point I haven't seen any amendments that I consider acceptable because they will either unravel legal precedent by way of legal seizure; they will either undermine the ability to seize property full stop; or they require a threshold which is too high before we can go in and have either a warranted or warrantless search.We need to ensure that there is flexibility in the powers of compliance officers to go in first to check whether compliance is occurring and then if they suspect it isn't to be able to seize the property that either can confirm or clear those farmers. This is fair. The Search and Surveillance Act as passed by the previous National Government brought a fair balance between protection of property rights and individuals' rights and the need to enforce the law particularly in those Acts—Hon Mark Mitchell: Why have a search-warrant regime?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Well we have a search-warrant regime under warrant or warrantless and that member should know the difference between that. So without trying to unravel what is significant legal precedent what we're making is a technical adjustment to bring the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act into line with the Wine Act into line with the Fisheries Act and others that require the same compliance to protect industry."