Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this legislation the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2).Now the Green Party supports improving the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) regime because we need to have accurate information about what's happening to animals. Now we were caught unprepared when Mycoplasma bovis hit New Zealand. It's cost us hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Tens of thousands of animals have had to be slaughtered and our tracing regime wasn't up to snuff to deal with what was a serious biosecurity incursion. So this is about improving it. I acknowledge the previous speaker Hamish Walker and the difficulties many farmers have had engaging with the system previously. This is about improving the regime because ultimately it's in all farmers' interests to make sure that we have a strong robust regime that works so when tragedy strikes we are prepared.Now I wasn't on the Primary Production Committee but I'd like to acknowledge the members acknowledge the chair acknowledge all the submissions. I think it has been improved in the committee. Four big changes I'd like to pull out. Now the first: one of the reasons why NAIT was so ineffectual early on was the penalty was a miserly $150 per tagging offence and only $300 for registration offences. In the first reading speech I said That's akin to being like slapped on the wrist with a wet bus ticket." And it's true so I'm glad the committee has increased those penalties from $150 to $400 $300 to $800—still not massive penalties but hopefully will act as more of a deterrent. Alongside the other benefits to make sure the regime is easier to work with I'm sure many more farmers will be complying.Now the obligations around transport was a big area where the committee considered and made some amendments. Now originally it was that any person moving a NAIT animal was liable. Now what the committee has decided is that transport operators and drovers shouldn't have that strict liability. Now part of the problem was that we know that so many NAIT animals were just being driven around by transport operators who didn't I guess have a stake in maintaining the NAIT requirements of those animals. Now I think the committee's erred on the right side because they've said that under clause 12 which inserts new section 31A(2) transport operators or drivers are exempt if a declaration from the person in charge of the animal says that the animal was in the system. Now what we're trying to do is encourage NAIT registration and tagging of the animals as long as the transport operator gets that declaration from the person in charge of the animal. I think that's where it should lie so it's fair to move that strict liability away.The committee has also recommended amending the legislation in terms of cost recovery. Obviously the new NAIT system is more advanced. There will be greater administration costs as a result. So the previous old-fashioned per unit charge or flat fee system isn't really futureproofed. So the idea of a graduated fee response based on the number of animals makes a huge amount of sense. It's simply going to make sure that their resources are going on to make sure it can protect New Zealand and our economy.Now the last area I'd like to touch on is the access to data because what the committee has done is clarify who's actually able to access the data. In terms of the Public Service they can apply for a data access panel through the Ministry for Primary Industries in terms of I think it's the 1955 legislation what's it called the territorial authorities—the legislation about animals that are lost and councils have to go find them.Hon Nathan Guy: The pounds.GARETH HUGHES: The cows?Hon Nathan Guy: Pound.GARETH HUGHES: The pound that's right—clarifying the relationship between data access and that old 1955 legislation. But I guess the big area where I wasn't privy to the conversations but it looks a fascinating debate from the committee was access and ownership—not the access to data that's been clarified but it was the ownership of data. Previously the understanding was this data was the Crown's and the committee's decided to stay silent on this matter but obviously it's going to be a huge debate going forward. The committee has clarified however that the Minister can request that data. There is no cost fee in terms of undertaking the roles of the Minister to get an accurate understanding of the situation. This is an area that needs to be cleared up though I believe and ultimately I think given the State's responsibility—the State's very clear interest in it—the State's ownership of that data I think is a very important issue. So I guess it's going to be a debate that's going to continue. But I'd like to thank the committee for improving this legislation. The Green Party can continue to support it."