Smith Stuart; Rurawhe AdrianSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Well I have to actually address what Gareth has just talked about. It's ironic that he thinks it's quite OK for National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) officers to go into a farmhouse and to take photos and search and seize without a warrant. Yet the GCSB or the New Zealand SIS going into his home doing the same thing would be required to go to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and put a report in place to show it was justified. That is not the case here. The irony is just unbelievable that the Greens who have the so-called moral high ground heading into their own conference this weekend—they'll be embarrassed. They'll be totally embarrassed by this performance on this particular bill.Look this whole bill has been brought in under the veil of Mycoplasma bovis so that it won't be examined too closely. Look we all have great feelings of sympathy and empathy for those people that are affected with Mycoplasma bovis those people who are losing their herds that they've long struggled over some of them they know them by name and seeing them go off to the freezing works must be terribly distressing. The stress it's caused in families we've heard about through the debate. That is not the issue here. We're talking about a law; a bill that's going to have a long consequence in New Zealand. What I'm concerned about is how is history going to judge us the people who put this bill through? Because we know one thing for certain: when we make laws mistakes get made. One way to try and minimise that is to go through good processes. One of those is a select committee process where you call in those people—call for submissions. You usually get interested people people that are involved in that particular sector and they'll come in and say Look this won't work for this reason. This is an overreach."What we know is that Government officials will overreach. They'll push this to the limit. How far this goes we don't know and I'm just very concerned about this and I'm making this point in this speech because I don't want to be judged harshly on this in the future without getting on the record that I warned you. I warned—not you Mr Assistant Speaker but I'm warning the House and the public that care to read this speech in the future. This has far-reaching consequences and we better be very damn careful about it.I also take umbrage with this as a technical error that we're fixing. It's not a technical error. This isn't a technical bill. I've seen a technical bill; this doesn't come anywhere near it. I can't believe that the Government would come up with something like this: with all the resources that they have at their disposal—that the Minister has with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)—that they could come with this flimsy document. I've seen far more technical member's bills. In fact we only have to look back a week or so when Dr Shane Reti got off on his own and came up with a quite complicated and complex bill on medicinal cannabis and he didn't have the resources of MPI to do that; he did it all himself. He travelled to the United States did all the investigation and yet we have this.Now we don't dispute that changes need to be made—they absolutely do—but the far-reaching warrantless powers of search and seizure are something that we should all be very very concerned about. I did raise this in speeches in the committee of the whole House stage about the instance where animals are grazed on properties that aren't farmers'. So for example an orchard or a vineyard and those animals being moved from one place to another place to a different vineyard—from one vineyard to another one orchard to another. You could argue if you chose to that cattle aren't really grazed on vineyards at this stage but at some stage I'm sure sheep will in fact be included under NAIT. So we have to look out to the future. This bill isn't just for today; it's for the future and I'm concerned about that because we could end up having the consequence from this bill that vineyards orchards and lifestyle blocks may no longer want to have animals grazing on their property because they don't want to be exposed to the risk of having a warrantless entry and search and seizure of their property. So this isn't pie-in-the-sky stuff; this is very real. I can't believe that the New Zealand First member Mark Patterson was sort of taking exception to the fact that we're opposing this. We're the Opposition. That's our job to point out where we see flaws in things rather than to just take the debate notes that come from the Minister's office and just follow that line. We're here to ask the hard questions and that's what we'll do. When we see something we like we'll agree with it. But going into urgency over this is just unbelievable and I can't understand the Greens for a moment. I think that we always thought that they were joined at the hip to Labour; now we can actually see that. Now that's fine. That may be what they want but that's not how they've advertised. What they're delivering is not what it says on the tin at all. I just wonder if that will come up over the weekend at their conference. I'm wondering if I could register and go along. It might be quite interesting. Brett Hudson: I'm sure it will—that and the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment bill. There'll be a lot of talk about that.STUART SMITH: Well the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is another thing altogether of course. We did have Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI) in this morning in the Primary Production Committee. OSPRI are very important in relation to this bill because they actually administer the NAIT legislation. We weren't satisfied I have to say with what came out in that select committee—we were quite concerned. I've certainly taken on board what the Rt Hon David Carter—who was an excellent Minister of Agriculture in his time and who also asked some very searching and quite pertinent questions in that select committee during the committee of the whole House stage and through the stages of this bill.He makes a very good point and I think that the Primary Production Committee needs to reflect on that and look further into this because we didn't have a lot of time today. But it was very timely for us to actually have that ahead of this urgency. We didn't know that we would be having this when we invited them in so it was unfortunate that it was a much shorter briefing that we could have perhaps hoped for.But the system was set up. We've now got software in place to manage all the transactions that go through that system but with the changes in the legislation that's going to ramp up the number of transactions that will have to be recorded through that system significantly. At the moment it is straining. It's under strain. It's struggling to keep up. So how we're going to actually manage through this process when this legislation comes into force is unclear.There's several million dollars we believe to upgrade the system and there will be a time delay and often as my colleague Mr Hudson will know these things don't always go to plan on time frames when you're talking about expensive software. And it has to be done correctly because this is really important—all these transactions that go through it.Recording animal movements is not simple. People may be familiar with their pets when they can put a little identity tag inside under the skin and it's there for life for the cat or the dog. We can't do that with livestock animals unfortunately so they're in a tag in the ear and it's just the nature of things that they come out. Having 100 percent accuracy with any kind of animal identification system is not going to be possible with all the best will in the world. The best I believe we can hope for at this stage is in the very high 90 percent range for compliance with NAIT but good efforts have to be made. The legislation is one thing; actual human behaviour is another and managing the vagaries of animal behaviour as well goes into that.I don't want to actually conflate this issue with Mycoplasma bovis. We all have great sympathy and empathy for the people that are affected by that. We do need good tools to manage NAIT and some of these adjustments are fair but we are very concerned about the warrantless powers and the implications for those in the future. I have grave reservations about it. I'm very concerned that the consequences of this will not be known for many years in the future and I think we should always move with great caution doing that. This is not a technical amendment; this is actually a complete change and an expansion of powers—ones that we should all be very careful about.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Kris Faafoi—five-minute call."