Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Oh thank you Madam Chair—good choice. It's wonderful to be taking another call on the title and commencement this time of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. Look I do think that the title isn't really appropriate for this bill. As we all know in this House when Ministers and even members do have the opportunity to come forward with bills they do have the opportunity to I guess for want of a better term put brackets in the bill name to describe within the title what the bill does and I don't think the title as it stands adequately reflects what is in the bill. Let's not beat around the bush—we all know why this bill is being brought forward to this Parliament: it's to deal with Mycoplasma bovis issues. And the only reference to M. bovis in this bill is buried deep in one very brief reference in the bill's explanatory note.So my view is that the Minister could've done a much better job—or officials even could've recommended to him that he do a much better job—in adequately describing what this bill does because let's be fair M. bovis is a hugely important issue for many communities around the country at the moment and the bill as it's titled I think comes across as frankly a bit heartless. In some areas of the country where M. bovis has been found parts of the community have turned quite negative. There's been issues with threats of physical violence and kids being bullied at school. In one instance a child had disinfectant thrown over them because they were labelled as infected". It's a pretty awful reminder of how people can behave and I don't think that this bill as it's currently titled reflects the huge concern out there in the community and as I say it comes across as a bit heartless.It could've been an issue that was resolved at select committee. We could've sent this bill off to select committee for a short time—as has been said a truncated period—to discuss the title of the bill and wider issues within the bill. As has been reflected by a number of contributions throughout the morning the bill is insufficient in a large number of areas particularly with the title because the title doesn't reflect what the bill does or at least what it's aimed at achieving.I now want to turn to the commencement and Nathan Guy has given a very good contribution again asking or questioning why the haste in putting this bill forward and having it come into effect on the day after it receives the Royal assent. I have to confess to being a bit conflicted about this. I think the Hon Nathan Guy put forward some very very valid views on why the bill could've been held back and debated for a bit longer and I agree with him on that; but when it comes to putting the bill into effect at the earliest possible opportunity after it's been passed by this House I'm actually supportive of that because as I've mentioned in a previous contribution there have been many many delays when it comes to the response around M. bovis. I don't want this bill to be held up any longer than it needs to be by Parliament in going forward to the Governor-General when there are a huge number of issues out there in the community when it comes to the response to M. bovis. The idea that we would extend out the date by which it comes into force by perhaps days or weeks or months I'm not supportive of because there's a huge number of questions out in the community about how we deal with M. bovis. The idea of delaying it unnecessarily just for the fact that a few politicians want to debate it a bit longer—in fact not even that because it wouldn't even be debated in this House any longer. The idea that it'd be unnecessarily delayed just because a few people might think it improves process I don't think is a particularly good idea. It should pass into law or become law as quickly as it can after it's been passed by this Parliament to give people certainty about what's going to happen—for them for their families and for their farms."