Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd just like to begin by addressing the member Eugenie Sage who accused our members of flip-flopping. Being a member who spoke out stridently against Chinese-owned water bottling companies the moment she became the Minister she very quickly approved one. So flip-flops might be something she may be quite good at judging but she doesn't seem to have a very principled position on that particular issue.I really did enjoy the Hon David Bennett's contribution. In fact he even got some praise from the other side which is quite an unusual thing for that particular member but I don't know why.I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Nathan Guy and the Hon Damien O'Connor both of whom have been in the unenviable position of having to be the Minister during a difficult biosecurity outbreak in New Zealand. I well remember meeting with the Hon Jim Anderton when he was the Minister of Agriculture when I had a former position with New Zealand Winegrowers and we had a meeting about biosecurity issues. He told me at the time that it's the worst job you could have—being the Minister for Biosecurity—because there's no good news with biosecurity. No one ever reports it when something's stopped. It's only when something breaks out that the biosecurity Minister is in the news and then everybody wants to attack him. There's only downside and no upside. I remember that very well. You could say a lot of things about Jim Anderton but actually I quite enjoyed some of our meetings. That was a very good one and I remember it quite vividly. So I do acknowledge the difficult job that those two gentlemen have had in firstly Minister Guy and now Minister O'Connor. I know he's doing his best. However we do have some issues with this bill.I would also like to acknowledge the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and Roger Smith the director of biosecurity and the work that they've been doing. They are doing their best. It's a huge test to ramp up. They have all of the exercises that they've put in place to try and model these sorts of outbreaks and how they might manage them but nothing tests it like the actual event and then to ramp their staff up and get them out there to work in very challenging conditions.I thought before about Hamish Walker's contribution and the very difficult pain and situation that those families who are having their animals killed are going through. I thought there was quite a lack of generosity from Stuart Nash to actually attack Hamish Walker who gave a very good contribution. He wasn't saying it shouldn't happen; he was just acknowledging the difficult position that those families are in. It must be heart-wrenching for them to see their animals going off to the freezing works when they're often in what appears to be quite good health. We know that they're not. They are infected or potentially the risk is too high to keep them so it is the right thing to do but it must be very difficult for them to do that.However there are some things that could be done better. I know certainly from some close family members who have had some animals tested—they haven't had any found to have M. bovis at this stage but to wait eight weeks after a test and longer and not have any response. All they want to know is are they infected or aren't they and is it clear or undetermined—just some information. I acknowledge that they're very busy and I understand that they're being stretched but communication goes a long way. I think MPI would do well to remember that but I do acknowledge that they are doing their best.As has been pointed out there's been a review undertaken with 38 recommendations—38 recommendations—but not one of them was around extending the search and surveillance powers. However this is now suddenly the main driver for this bill and I find that difficult to understand. We have asked the questions. The Minister had the opportunity to answer some of those questions when he stood up for his second reading speech and elected not to address them. He will be taking his place in the chair tomorrow we hope when we get on to the committee of the whole House. I for one will be looking forward to hearing some of those questions being answered because we deserve answers. New Zealand deserves answers and so do the farmers of New Zealand. Yes we are taking this incredibly seriously and we want to get the best-possible tools for MPI to manage this process. However we have very serious questions about the enhanced search and surveillance provisions that are in this bill.We do also now hear from the Minister's speech that there is another bill. We have to really question why those two bills weren't pulled together and put through. We would've agreed to a truncated process. It could've been: gone through first reading today met during the recess and then gone through to the rest of the processes. We could've done this months ago. We've had months and months of National Government bills that were on our Order Paper which we've been debating in this House for months. Now we've got these bills that are being rushed through without going through the proper process.We've had a wonderful example of a great process. There's been a medicinal cannabis bill—a very flawed one—in the House and Dr Shane Reti took it upon himself to go out research a bill and put one in the ballot himself. He didn't have the benefit of MPI sitting behind him with all those bevy of officials to do the work; he did it himself. How long did it take him? Two weeks. He got up off his backside went around the world spoke to the right people came up with a framework and has a bill drafted and it's more complicated and far-reaching as well than this bill we're debating tonight. When MPI have all those resources they could have done the work. They didn't and I find that very disappointing. I've congratulated MPI—you give people praise where they deserve it—but they deserve criticism as well and this is simply not good enough.So I think that it would be quite helpful for the Minister to reflect on that. When he gets a chance tomorrow morning he should be I suspect having a very serious talk with his officials and asking them why they couldn't do what Dr Shane Reti did on his own in two weeks on his own resources and put together a more comprehensive bill than we are debating tonight—more well-thought-out a greater platform framework and principle of the bill and then all of the clauses in it are be far better thought out than this bill tonight. I think quite frankly the farmers of New Zealand deserve better than that.So I think that when we look at the Opposition—well what are the Government parties now—who took great umbrage at the search and surveillance legislation they are now with great delight all of a sudden throwing those principles out the window and just going on and doing what they are told because somebody has decided this is the right thing to do when they haven't really done the work. Principles are only really measured when they are put to the test and when they've been put to the test they've been found sadly wanting on this.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The level of chatter is slowly rising. I think the member's done a great job but his own colleagues could actually help him a bit.STUART SMITH: Well thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes I thought they were murmuring great praise of the speech in support. So I think that's quite—I'm taking it as a compliment anyway.Matt Doocey: I would too Stewy.STUART SMITH: Yes indeed. But I hope the other members on the other side of the House take the rest of the night and tomorrow to reflect on what they've said today because I think it hasn't reflected well on a lot of them and I think they're better than that.Eugenie Sage while I started out criticising you the work that you've done and the research to come back here and make a sound argument—I might not agree with it but at least you've made it. My colleague David Bennett sitting on my right—his suggestion of putting a national interest test into clause 8 I think is a very sound one and that would improve this bill dramatically. It would go right to the heart of what Eugenie Sage was talking about and actually add a lot more to it and make us much more comfortable with the bill than we are now.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Jamie Strange. This is a split call—five minutes with a bell at one minute.