Lees-Galloway Iain: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — Second Reading 
Lees-Galloway Iain: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:21001] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It gives me a lot of pleasure to speak on behalf of the Labour Party on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill and to express our wholehearted support for the bill because it assists in underpinning the future and security of our agricultural primary produce and food-exporting industries. As the previous speaker Shane Ardern pointed out New Zealand is uniquely placed to take advantage of 21st century global economies in our ability to put a high-value high-quality product on the international market. I suppose this bill and the concept of setting up a National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system is very much a response to both the opportunities and the threats that global trade presents for us. We have the opportunity to put our products into a much larger market and to send them overseas into lucrative markets where conscious consumers are looking for a product that they can place a premium on. We can take advantage of those markets. 
At the same time we have food products coming into the country as well which poses a potential threat if products come into New Zealand harbouring diseases that can then find their way across the country. Having an animal identification system and a tracing system allows us to be much more responsive should the unfortunate event occur that our biosecurity systems lapse in some way and there is a threat of an outbreak. Shane Ardern referred to what turned out to be a hoax on Waiheke Island and to the fact that it became clear that our ability to respond to that sort of threat was not really up to scratch. That could potentially undermine what is still very much referred to as the backbone of the New Zealand economy and we need to be able to respond to that. 
In 2004 Labour originally proposed an NAIT system and in 2008 committed to an implementation plan as well as a funding mechanism to cover all the capital set costs. That work has been continued by the current Government by its introduction of this bill and all sides of the House to my knowledge support the continuation of that work. 
A NAIT system will help maintain the confidence of our export markets in the safety and disease-free status of New Zealand’s livestock products both by showing consumers that we are able to trace the source of the products they are consuming and by helping to protect our borders. It will also boost our ability to prepare and respond to animal disease outbreaks. I think it is important to note the pork industry’s concerns at the moment that by I suppose showing a little bit more favour towards our trade obligations and reducing some of our border standards on pork products we are at risk of introducing pork-borne diseases particularly porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. I think that is a genuine concern held by pork producers. It is not simply a mechanism for putting up trade barriers; this is an important concern that we have to take into account. As an exporting nation we need to show the world that we take our trade obligations seriously but also as an exporting nation we need to make sure that we have good biosecurity and border security when it comes to these sorts of diseases. I think it is really important that we take the pork industry’s concerns into account. Of course pigs are not currently included in the NAIT system—perhaps that is something that will happen in the future—but having a tracing system like this helps to hopefully alleviate some of the fears that we have within our producer industries that in the event that something does come across the border we will be able to trace it and clamp down on it quickly so that any biosecurity threat does not move too quickly through the country. 
This is really important for helping our producers to enhance their product and to be able to demand a premium price for their product. In the same way that Fonterra is able to use milk and milk products to create a whole range of premium products by deconstructing milk down into its component parts our other primary industries are able to demand a premium for their products because they are able to display to that growing market of conscious consumers that we have good animal welfare and environmental standards in New Zealand and that our products are safe secure and disease-free. 
Consumers these days want to know where their products come from—not just their food products but also clothing furniture and all kinds of products. People are concerned about labour standards and about whether people are getting good wages and have good employment standards. They are interested in knowing where their T-shirts for instance are made where their furniture comes from whether the products used in building that furniture especially timber products come from sustainable sources and whether the world’s resources are being used sustainably fairly and with a view to looking after the people who live in the areas where those products come from. 
Equally people are very interested in the farm practices a country engages in the welfare systems for farm animals and where those animals come from. The environmental impact and the labour conditions under which farm workers are employed are issues as well that our international markets are interested in. I think it is really important that we are able to clearly demonstrate particularly to people in Europe Asia and the United States—who will place a premium on this knowledge—where their products have come from and in what conditions their products have been raised and created. This really does present a considerable opportunity to New Zealand which has a good clean green image internationally and a good reputation for good employment and environmental practices. 
It is also true that in the 21st century animal production using genetic modification and cloning techniques is on the increase. I will put to one side the arguments that different members in this House and different people will have about the use of genetic modification. In cases where it is being used it is really important that we are able to trace modified genes and animals that carry modified genes and the movement of those animals and genes through different herds. Again people will place a premium on knowing whether there is genetically modified material in their food products. Some people will not be very concerned that there is genetically modified material in their food products; some people will be concerned that there is genetically modified material in their food products. The NAIT system gives us an ability to prove it one way or the other which is of significant value to our markets as well. 
I know that the issue has been debated vigorously within the livestock industry for some years. Federated Farmers made a considerable submission to the Primary Production Committee and in the end came down not very much in favour of the NAIT system. The cost involved—at about $2 or $3 per head of stock—is a significant upfront cost for farmers particularly for farmers on a smaller scale like lifestyle blockholders but overall the benefits that are to be gained for individuals for our industries as a whole and for our nation as a whole from implementing this system far outweigh the upfront costs. Labour is very very happy to support the progress of this bill.