O'Connor DamienPart 1 Amendments to principal ActHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Look thank you very much Madam Chair. I make no apologies for wanting this legislation to move as quickly as possible through the House. I will answer some of the questions that have been raised by members through the second reading. A number are legitimate questions and I appreciate that.I guess the first one is why the speed and why it's taken so long. I guess we can run through the process. When we came into Government we were presented with a new set of facts around M. bovis. We got on with action in that area and then the next stage I guess was to look at the whole regime around National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) and what was happening and wasn't happening. Then we had to actually force the NAIT review out into the public arena because Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand was sitting on it for some reason and I had to actually almost threaten them to get that out. That was a frustration: a review that had taken 12 months initiated by the previous Government but wasn't available for anyone. So the 38 recommendations—and some of them don't relate directly to that but they clearly went from top to bottom and said that NAIT needed a lot of changes to improve it.Then we carried on with what is the primary focus and always has been; that is to focus on the eradication of M. bovis. That is the most important thing. NAIT is one of the tools that we have and it's been a very poor one. What we have identified because I asked officials to go away and look at the immediate changes that we need to make adjustments that we can bring through the House quickly and to improve the system—they said there were 23 recommendations that required no legislative change or regulation and indeed they're going through that process. But the ones here that we are dealing with are technical. They in no way relate to policy settings for NAIT or for the discussion or debate and process that went through under the previous Government to set up the NAIT regime. We are simply making technical adjustments to give effect to what the previous Government wanted and we want and that is for the system to work. Currently it doesn't work.In the provisions that we're looking at here—I'll just run through them—people have raised quite unreasonably the scare tactics about what powers we are conferring upon NAIT officers here. What we are effectively doing is bringing their powers into line with those of the Search and Surveillance Act and I know a number of my colleagues and I have referred to that as well. With those two pieces of legislation going through the House at the same time under the previous Government the assumption was that they would both line up. The NAIT Act went through first and the provisions weren't adjusted to line up with what was the final Search and Surveillance Act. People have pointed to the opposition for whatever reason from the Opposition party—the Government that it is now—at the time and we can go back and I guess we can relitigate that. I can certainly quote from speeches from the Government of the day supporting a number of things in NAIT and the assumption that actually we were going to align the provisions and the powers in the NAIT Act with that of the Search and Surveillance Act.There are a number of issues within—and I'm sure that there will be points raised by the members here and I'll reserve my right to answer the points as they are raised as we go through this process. I don't want to prolong it. We do need to get these things in place. Federated Farmers contacted me saying We believe that the changes you are making to allow penalties to be imposed on a farmer that shifts animals from a NAIT property to one that doesn't have a NAIT identification are unnecessary." No they are necessary because while it's illegal to transfer from a NAIT property to a property that doesn't have a NAIT number there is no ability in the legislation to penalise or prosecute people for that. The prosecution can occur only if people don't notify when they move animals from a NAIT property to another NAIT property. But if you move them from a NAIT property to a property that doesn't have a NAIT number you can't penalise them. It's a ridiculous situation and it's one of the technical amendments that we're moving through.In terms of if without a warrant NAIT officers go into a property—and they can't go in without a warrant into any house on a farm or to a marae. That's in the legislation now. They can't do that. So they would apply for a warrant. Let's get that clear. But if they go into a property and they're trying to check whether compliance has been adhered to they are entitled to go into a property without a warrant on the basis that they believe compliance has not been adhered to. When there they are able to lawfully seize what they believe might be useful property. Now these things are all determined I have to say in my bundle of papers here; I'll get to them eventually. The point being that "lawful seizure" is a term defined in the law and supported through precedent and case law and a proposal to add "reasonable cause" to that might seem on the face of it to be a reasonable proposition but the problem is that if you put "with reasonable cause" in that then you undermine the credibility and integrity of "lawful seizure". Then you'd have to go back to every other piece of legislation that doesn't have "with reasonable cause" and then start to pull apart the I guess solid "lawful seizure" definition that we currently have in law.So what we're attempting to do is give more ability for firstly that lawful seizure because I think there has been identified through the Ministry of Primary Industries' (MPI) processes in this whole M. bovis saga a limited ability for them to go and get the information that they need. Let's be clear: farmers want people to adhere to the NAIT regime. They want it to be easier to do that and we're working through the changes. But they want the people who are blatantly disregarding the law to be caught and penalised and prosecuted. We need to be able to get the information to do that when we believe that a farmer is noncompliant when they might go on to a property to try and verify that. If they see evidence that they think would be useful at the moment they can't seize it. So we believe they should be able to.These are technical amendments that we are making here. They don't require the full consideration of a select committee. I appreciate the arguments that are put up by the Opposition but we need to move through because actually every day that we don't have these provisions in place does limit the ability of MPI to get on with the job of firstly identifying and seizing information and prosecuting those people—and there are still some out there—that are blatantly disregarding the NAIT system. I think it would be irresponsible of us or anyone who supports the farming sector and I know that the Opposition do support the farming sector generally. But sometimes we've just got to make the hard calls and do what's necessary and this is indeed what the Government is doing through this piece of limited NAIT legislation. Yes there will be other legislation that will be considered and will go to a select committee and that will be far more wide ranging but these are technical issues not related to policy. I think anyone who studies NAIT will realise there are policy issues that need to be addressed and then there's the greater issue of the Biosecurity Act and its review.Can I just acknowledge my colleagues who have been very restrained—and our coalition partners too—who again have to understand a technical piece of legislation. I'm getting advice. I'm happy to answer any of the specific calls but I do appreciate the support as indicated from the Opposition and hope that we can move this through as quickly as possible and let MPI get on with the job and we can then eradicate M. bovis."