Guy NathanHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you. Madam Chair. It was good to have the Minister of Agriculture on his feet a few moments ago. Really he was what I consider to be sort of dancing on the head of a pin. First of all he appears to have been sucked in by his officials that this is a drafting anomaly—Simeon Brown: It's not a nice pin. It's not a nice pin.Hon NATHAN GUY: —and it's quite technical. And I thought—no it's not a nice pin; it's actually quite sharp.What I thought was really interesting was when the Hon Amy Adams got up to take a point of order on the cover sheet of this bill—which is written by the Minister all signed off by him—which says that this bill makes technical amendments and it doesn't represent a new policy. Well we have a completely different point of view. It was interesting to hear Mark Patterson just talk about his talking points—Hon Amy Adams: He's doesn't know what bill we're debating.Hon NATHAN GUY: Yeah that's right. He started to talk about the search and surveillance stuff and how we are making changes to that. What I'm really keen to hear from the Minister in the chair Damien O'Connor is this: can he name to us—and he might need to turn to his officials—one regulatory scheme where officials can enter search and seize goods (a) from a property (b) without a warrant and (c) without reasonable cause? That is a very fair question and I would appreciate him in the next wee while giving us examples of that. We also haven't heard examples from the Minister as to why suddenly this has become very urgent—hugely urgent.Clayton Mitchell: Anyone could answer that.Hon NATHAN GUY: Ten months and now—well take a call then. Now suddenly we've got to put the House into urgency; no select committee; he doesn't want to hear back from Federated Farmers Dairy New Zealand Fonterra Beef and Lamb—doesn't want to hear what they think about it. He doesn't want officials to sit down with the select committee in a truncated period so that we can interrogate them to understand that this is a technical bill because we don't believe it is Minister. That's why we are proposing two very important amendments and I want the Minister to consider them. One is from the Hon Amy Adams and is hugely important. When you look at the powers under warrant under the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012 it has wide-ranging powers. What these warrantless powers will do the extension that the Minister—Hon Gerry Brownlee: New powers.Hon NATHAN GUY: —wants—yeah new powers: copying of documents photos videos—OK we get that. But what is not mentioned is that with these warrantless powers they can go on and seize anything. So they can effectively turn up on a farm unannounced without cause and say Hi I'm taking your hard drive."Hon Amy Adams: For no reason.Hon NATHAN GUY: Yeah for no reason—no reason; no cause. Surely you would think that if you can go on to the property and photograph documents and video and copy documents that would be enough. Why not then go back into town get a search warrant get it signed off by the judge and go back? These powers go beyond being technical. That's why the amendment from Amy Adams needs a huge amount of consideration and debate and I think that the Minister should be able to support that. It knocks out that one intrusive power: the power to seize any property under a warrantless inspection.The other amendment—from me—is all about a National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) officer having to have reasonable cause to suspect non-compliance with the provisions of the Act. So what I mean by this is that a NAIT officer can't just suddenly drive along and think "Oh I'm just gonna swoop in on this property under my warrantless powers and go in and interrogate the farmer or the farm manager under these NAIT officer provisions." He or she has to have reasonable cause.We have seen elements—if you think back to the WorkSafe debate that we had where we had overzealous officials out there on farms completely overreaching and going beyond their powers and that got farmers' backs up. We know that by and large these NAIT officers are good well-meaning people. We know that they're doing their utmost to try and get on top of the phased eradication of M. bovis. But what could happen—here's a hypothetical and it indeed could happen. You have an overzealous NAIT officer with extended warrantless powers who takes it on themselves with these intrusive powers to turn up unannounced without cause and demand to seize property.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Vindictive behaviour with no consequence.Hon NATHAN GUY: Exactly right Mr Brownlee. Why on earth wouldn't the Minister want this piece of legislation this bill to go to a select committee so that we can hear from his officials why this is needed?Hon Amy Adams: We found out that it's not technical.Hon NATHAN GUY: We agree it's not technical—Amy Adams is exactly right. So I suspect that the Minister won't be able to give us an example of a regulatory scheme where officials can enter seize and search goods from any property or place without a warrant and without reasonable cause.Simeon Brown: Just one would be helpful.Hon NATHAN GUY: Yep one example would be helpful. So these are two very good amendments. There are others in the name of David Bennett that he's going to talk about shortly and the Rt Hon David Carter. We think that the Minister should seriously consider these proposals from the National Party. The contribution this morning and yesterday has been fair and reasonable and balanced because fundamentally we want to get on and make sure that the NAIT system is working appropriately. But these warrantless powers—an overzealous NAIT officer being able to turn up on properties unannounced without cause and seize property—we think have gone too far.The other questions—which I'm very keen to hear about from the Minister—are these: what about the question that I proposed last night to do with the NAIT system; can he give us a feel on the overall system the IT and whether it will be able to handle the proposed changes that he's talking about; and what's the likely cost? That's one question. What happens if the farmer has been open and warm when a biosecurity animal welfare NAIT officer or whoever turns up on the farm—they could indeed have a ute-load of them—and he or she invites them into the house? Suddenly they are in the property where the potential hard drive and the files are stored. As I understand it the provisions with these warrantless inspections do not include the dwelling. But what happens if the farmer—like they often do when someone cold calls on them—says "Come on let's sit around the table and have a cup of tea or coffee and have a chat." and suddenly they're in the dwelling? What happens if the records are stored down at a bank—more likely the local accountant's office. In fact it may not be local. Because of the way technology is now it could be not be in the local town; it could be in the city. So does that therefore mean that these NAIT officers with these warrantless powers can turn up unannounced and take all of these files? So this is not just a mere drafting anomaly that the Minister has been sucked in to believe by his officials. I heard the Greens—Eugenie Sage—parrot that last night: the lines that she'd been given by the Minister's office. That is not true. It's not a drafting anomaly. It's not just a technical bill; it goes further. The cover sheet on this bill says "The bill does not represent new policy." Well we don't agree. So there are several questions that I'm very keen to hear from the Minister and the technical one is one I imagine he'll need to go and refer to his officials on. He's said on numerous occasions that this doesn't extend the powers of NAIT. Well of course it does. So I'm keen to hear from the Minister and we're going to have more contributions."