Prosser Richard: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prosser Richard: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:387. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) 
: 
 As others have done I would like to congratulate some of the other new members of the House whose fine maiden speeches we were able to enjoy today. I am encouraged by the intellect and sincerity displayed by those members and I am looking forward to working with them over the term of this Parliament. 
I am pleased to speak to the House on this important piece of legislation the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. I rise on behalf of the New Zealand First Party. We are opposed to the passage of this bill in its present form. We have not had previous input into the construction of this bill or the debate subsequent to its introduction due to our party’s unplanned sabbatical from the House which I am pleased to say is now thankfully completed for all eternity. 
New Zealand First understands and fully supports the importance of the agricultural sector to New Zealand’s economy and way of life and we appreciate how critical the success of this industry is in terms of our exports and international reputation. It is indeed testament to that reputation that we as a nation have been able to maintain access to both our traditional and expanding markets over the past 8-year gestation of this bill in spite of our not having such a system of record as this bill proposes and which many of our trading partners have adopted themselves or are in the process of developing. Amongst them are Australia the United Kingdom Canada the United States of America South Korea Japan Argentina and many of the member States of Europe—the European Union. All agricultural nations live with the risk of animal disease and epidemic and their faith in our existing systems of inspection and assurance thus far is I am sure appreciated by the Government and industry alike. 
As a trading nation New Zealand must take all practicable steps to protect its borders and export base from unwanted threats and to be a responsible international citizen by ensuring that such threats do not leave our shores. It is true that the march of time and technology makes it likely that consumers and regulatory authorities alike in our crucial overseas markets may come to demand that even known suppliers with impeccable track records such as New Zealand choose to bring themselves into line with what is more and more becoming accepted as international best practice in terms of safeguards and accountability in record-keeping. It is worthy of note however we believe that the aforementioned countries have had incidences of foot-and-mouth disease whereas New Zealand by good management effective biosecurity and the grace of God remains thus far free of it. 
It is a reality that the maturing of what were ground-breaking technologies even a few years ago means that what may have been an arguably prohibitive cost when this bill was first proposed has become for the sections of the industry initially intended to be covered by it at least a far more financially acceptable proposition. Indeed the utilisation and further enhancement of the identification technologies in question by New Zealand will certainly contribute to the increasing accessibility of those systems quite possibly to the point where their employment in other sectors of the industry such as sheep is able to be made financially viable. It remains a pity as other members have noted that the disposal to overseas interests of New Zealand’s own leading supplier in this field means that this country will not be in a position to profit directly from any such expansion. 
 New Zealand First supports the promotion of measures that enhance the ongoing success and stability of our most important industries. However we would ask in addition whether New Zealand consumers are also to be afforded the reassurance of traceability as Mr Grant Robertson referred to earlier from paddock to plate. We hold some concern that certain meat products are currently imported into New Zealand from nations whose systems of recording and accountability fall far short of those that we employ even today and that in itself is without the benefits of the technology heralded as being the great advantage that this bill will supposedly afford both ourselves and our overseas consumers. 
But it is of concern to the New Zealand First Party that too great a reliance may come to be placed on this new technology at the expense of existing systems of record-keeping which are proven and which have served and continue to serve New Zealand well. Some aspects of the radio frequency identification chips in question as other members have alluded to are still in their infancy or developmental stages. Some may have crossover or interference issues with other high frequency radio equipment which is increasingly being utilised in farming today. We are concerned that a system based on radio frequency identification eartags will provide no tangible improvement in traceability over and above that provided by existing numbered plastic eartags once the animal has reached the stage in the processing chain where the head is removed from the body. 
However the use of radio frequency identification tags does open doors to the possibility both of counterfeiting once our product reaches certain less trustworthy foreign markets and of the theft and rechipping of stock. It is possible in fact that what appears on the surface to be a more high-tech and therefore safer and more secure system may indeed prove to be less so in both regards particularly when the human propensity for placing great trust in advanced technology is taken into account. I am reminded indeed of the response of a well-known criminal gang to the introduction of vehicle identification number plates some years ago in an attempt to prevent the resale of stolen cars. The motorcycle enthusiasts club in question availed themselves in reasonably short order of a supply of blank plates complete with an impressing machine the combination of which allowed them to continue their business with little interruption. In many cases the cleverer the intended system of security the easier and ultimately more persuasive are the means found to circumvent it by those with nefarious intent. 
New Zealand First does not support this bill for several reasons. In addition to the aforementioned we do not wish to see our farmers and consumers unfairly disadvantaged by any financial or compliance burdens placed upon them in the absence of a similar required standard being applied to comparable imported foodstuffs. In the light of the inherent weaknesses of the technology as it is proposed and the inevitable decline of the present system as it is progressively replaced we see the direction of the bill with regard to the mandatory adoption of the National Animal Identification and Tracing system as being precipitate. It is our view that this may be one occasion where the market should be able to speak in that demand from foreign buyers rather than dictates from our own Government should be the driving force leading the adoption of this technology.  
We are concerned that the introduction of microchips for deer and cattle may be beset by some of the same shortfalls that have been the experience of the introduction of microchips for dogs. It promises a great deal with little in the way of proven benefits comes at a measurable cost with no guarantee of improved return and carries the potential to weaken the existing system which even the bill’s authors agree will have to continue in parallel with the new methodology until such time as the application of radio frequency identification technology can be made economically viable for sheep and other stock animals outside of the two species initially specified. We would very much not like to see the implementation of a policy and a technology that seek and promise to reduce costs and improve performance but that in their application achieve entirely the opposite result. We oppose the passage of this bill in its present form and urge members from all sides of the House to do the same. Thank you.