Guy NathanHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. This bill deserves some full calls this afternoon. It's a very important bill and I believe it needs further scrutiny. In the ideal world this bill would have gone to a select committee and it wouldn't have been debated over the last 24 hours in urgency. That is hugely disappointing to the National Party.We know the importance of making sure that National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) works as it was designed but we have fundamental concerns about the due process of this particular bill and we're disappointed that Damien O'Connor didn't choose to take up our offer of sending it to a truncated select committee process in the recess. We could have turned this bill around and been having this debate in the next session. But indeed the Minister of Agriculture was a bit hoodwinked by his officials and sensed that this is a technical bill it's not new policy—well we don't believe that for one minute. We do have grave concerns about the further expansion of these warrantless powers and we feel that that's a significant encroachment on privacy and into farmers' livelihoods. We haven't been given clear examples as to why this suddenly needs to be passed through in urgency—that indeed would have helped the debate I'm sure over the last 24 hours. Because of the concern that we had we proposed five amendments. I think it's worthwhile me taking a wee while now to traverse those amendments because they were well thought through and we thought that some of them should have been passed.The first one was that a NAIT officer should have reasonable cause to go on to a property and I can see Ron Mark nodding. So why on earth New Zealand First didn't support that one I'm not quite sure. Then it came to one I thought was really well designed and thought through by Amy Adams who has—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The purpose of the third reading is to debate the bill as accepted by the committee of the whole House not to relitigate individual parts of that debate that were not accepted by the committee.Hon NATHAN GUY: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I've been in this House 13 years. First readings second readings and in particular third readings are very wide ranging. The Speaker shouldn't be constraining speeches in the Parliament this afternoon in my view when we haven't had due process. I think it's very worthy for people that have been listening to the debate over the last 24 hours that may be in their cowsheds now listening to this debate—that they should understand the importance of it. I think it's on my responsibility to fully canvass the areas that have been debated right through this process. This is a bill that is being debated in urgency in all stages.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the member for his contribution to my ruling. The member can mention in passing those issues that were raised during the committee stage but the third reading is a debate on the bill as accepted by the committee. So he can mention it in passing but going through every single part of the committee stage is not in order. Hon NATHAN GUY: Just mentioning the second part in passing the amendment that was proposed by Amy Adams talked about the need for a warrant for the ability to seize any property. That will now be a warrantless provision. Talking just in passing about the third amendment that was proposed by the Hon David Bennett that was discussing an amendment to do with natural disasters and indeed incursions where the Minister would have to come into the House. In passing the other one which I thought was really important was proposed by the Rt Hon David Carter which basically said This bill should lapse when the next bill"—because we know there's another NAIT bill coming into the House. This bill could be picked up and go to select committee to follow due process. The fifth amendment—just in passing—was proposed by myself and accepted and the reason that that's worth mentioning is because the whole House supported a review of this amendment particularly around my new clause 8A. So that is an important point because it means that the Minister has to report back to the House after 12 months. When this bill is passed through and has got its Royal assent he will be given three months when he has to report back to the House. We want to understand how wide ranging these warrantless powers will be. I also want to mention to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to the House this afternoon that we know how important M. bovis is. We know of and we back the phased eradication plan. We all know that the NAIT system needs to be turbocharged. What we heard this morning from NAIT and the Operational Solutions for Primary Industries officials in our select committee was that the overall software and the overall system is going to need some investment in the future and that will be in the near future because some of these regulations that have been passed this afternoon will mean they will be enacted in the next couple of weeks. What we also heard in the debate over the last 24 hours—and I've alluded to it—is that there's going to be another piece of legislation and that's likely to be before the end of the year. We on this side of the House think that it would have made logical sense to have combined both of these bills and sent them off to a select committee to have allowed Federated Farmers Dairy New Zealand Beef and Lamb Fonterra—and the list goes on—potentially trucking operators stock and station agents and farmers importantly to come along and submit. We were denied that. It also would have meant that we would have had officials in front of the select committee. We could have then interrogated them to understand why they think that this is just a technical inconsequential bill. We don't believe that but we were denied that opportunity. I can't understand why both the bill that we are discussing today and the one that's in the pipeline didn't go to a select committee. We have got a live example where the president of Federated Farmers was so concerned that she picked up the phone or sent the Minister a text message and said "I need to meet with your officials." We were so concerned that I went to the Minister and said "We need to meet with your officials." We couldn't get all of the answers. We haven't been able to get all of the answers through this all-stage process in the House. That's why it would have made logical sense to have sent it to a select committee so that everyone could have had their say and we could have had our concerns allayed. Also I want to put on record—and I want to look at Minister Damien O'Connor now—that he implied in the committee of the whole House a couple of hours ago that as Minister I had sat on the NAIT review report for 12 months. I say to him that that is a complete crock. That is not factual at all. If he wants to take that comment out of this House he should go and stand on the steps of Parliament and say it. Why doesn't he ring up Sir Henry van der Heyden—who has a lot of credibility across the House—who oversaw the whole of the review and ask him if it was delayed and he will tell that Minister that indeed it wasn't. What is also important to realise is that the review concluded with 38 recommendations. Fifteen of them are going to be done by the Ministry for Primary Industries and we are debating some of them now but what's really interesting is these search and surveillance powers and the warrantless powers to do with photographing evidence videoing and copying documents—they are nowhere in the review recommendations. The Minister has had 10 months in the job. Admittedly he got the review in about March or April from memory so from that period of time—May June July August—he's had potentially 4½ months to get a bill into the House without it needing to go through all stages and it could have gone to a select committee to have due process and scrutiny. I can't understand why the Minister hasn't followed that process. We have now had some sureties from the Minister that the next NAIT bill is going to go through due process—hallelujah! That means there'll be a first reading and then off it will go to a select committee. We welcome that. That's the way you get good legislation. That's the way that people can submit. What's been really interesting in this debate—and it covers the Search and Surveillance Act of 2012—is that all of the coalition parties in 2012 voted against it. Labour New Zealand First and the Greens were all against that Act and now—Hon Member: Infringement of civil liberties they argued. Hon NATHAN GUY: That's right—I remember the speeches. Yep there's a real intrusion civil liberties people's privacy—all that stuff. Now they're effectively wanting to insert those provisions so that a NAIT officer can turn up unannounced and without cause and can seize property. We have real concerns about it but ultimately we think because of the response that we're in we need to support it. But we do that with some concern and caution."