Kuriger Barbara; O'Connor DamienBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Mr Chair. Following on from that wisdom passed on to the Minister by Joseph Mooney I would like to also ask the Minister why he didn't consider calling it the Food Security Reduction Bill" for all the reasons that Joseph Mooney outlined. One of my suggestions was going to be why did we not call this bill the "Maritime Disasters Prevention Bill"? Because actually this has been a massive overreaction to a maritime disaster and we all know that that's what caused this. There are some boats out there around the globe that are not fit for purpose. As we sat through the Primary Production Committee and we looked at the animal welfare on some of those boats there wouldn't be a person in this House that would want to accept some of the welfare standards that we saw in a small proportion of those cases. However most of our presentations and submissions in select committee showed us what the gold standard can achieve and what we can have if we really set our mind to it as a food producing nation and that involves our responsibility to food security and other countries. So I really think it's an overreaction. I would also ask the Minister to perhaps comment on the "Ministry for Primary Industries' Flip-flop Act" in that the original advice was not to ban this; it was to move to gold standards as most of us see would be a logical solution. Why all of a sudden did things turn around partway through? Submitters totally wasted their time coming into select committee—to fall on the deaf ears of this Government. Thank you Mr Chair.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you Mr Chair and I'm sorry I wasn't here for the very first speech—and I'm just taking some notes—which I think was from Mr Cameron. So I'll try as best I can to address some of the issues that I've heard since I've been in the committee here. The issue of the value of the industry and how much has been exported and some discussion on that—I've not got into final figures on it. Of course it is significant. I accept that for those people who are involved in the sector—the people who sell animals they get cash on farm and it's quite handy. So I'm not undervaluing or dismissing that. So yes this will have an impact on those who might have been expecting—but the two years that we gave as indications of where this would end up we think is a fair indication. I've just been given a note to stick to the title which is a fair point. On the name can I say this is the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill because all those animals that won't be sent away will have better animal welfare here in New Zealand. And the point of bobby calves some of which may be part of—I think it's about four and a half million bobby calves a year which we're going to have to address over time. I accept that as an issue but we are monitoring it and some say this is a gold standard process but the Ministry for Primary Industries have done a lot of work to try and improve and safeguard the animal welfare of those animals that have been exported and will be until the end date.But a recent report I have here is for I think a 14-day voyage. For over 10 of those—one two three four five six seven eight nine 10 11 12 13—days it was over 28 degrees. This is for animals that have come from a temperate climate go through the tropics and then go to another location. Heat stress has been acknowledged but actually I'm told that for the vets it's not as big an issue as lameness on the boats that we're using. The reality is that few of these vessels have been built for purpose—very few. Most of them are on their second rotation are old boats and are unreliable. Indeed we had a ship sink in the Red Sea where 15000 sheep drowned. There's growing concern about the trade of live export across the globe and this is about animal welfare acknowledging that there is an impact on some. But actually we trade billions and billions of dollars into the world market for high-value product that comes from high-value production systems. That's the only place that we can be.The issue of food security has been raised. We can feed about 40 million people. And yes there are some food security issues across the globe particularly because of the outrageous behaviour of the Russians in Ukraine; I can't say that strongly enough. Yes—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm going to interrupt the Minister and say what I've said to the committee: we're on a very narrow debate on the title. I mean it's the Minister's bill but I'm pretty sure that doesn't extend to these matters.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I take your guidance Mr Chair. Can I come back to the one on the name then. It is around animal welfare because without high animal welfare standards we will not be able to meet the expectations of the consumers. And there is not much we can do in the feeding of 40 million people to contribute to the wider issues of food security; we have to work with other nations on that issue. The name of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill stands because it is about the welfare of these animals."