Carter DavidRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Assistant Speaker it is with a very heavy heart that I will vote for this legislation. National has spent a long time discussing it. We are bereft of information but after a difficult discussion National has agreed to vote for this legislation and support it. Being a loyal member of the National caucus I have no intention of crossing the floor over this issue but I am close.Let me take you through the reasons why I am so concerned. First of all why the urgency? Why the urgency? Mycoplasma bovis came into this country in July last year we had a general election in September and a Government formed in October. This issue has been on the Minister Damien O'Connor's plate since he became Minister and he's had every opportunity to present this bill to the House. We spent the first almost six months of this Government passing National legislation. There's nothing complex in this bill around the amendments to the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) legislation apart from the search powers.This could've been in the House a lot earlier and it could've gone to a select committee. It could still go to a select committee and yet we had an urgency motion earlier today voted on by Labour by New Zealand First and by the Green Party. I've been in this House long enough to recall those speeches of the late Rod Donald when he railed against the use of urgency when it wasn't necessary and he did it with passion. He was principled about the use of urgency and here we are rushing this legislation through when it doesn't need to be rushed. It could even go to a select committee for a week and we'd have a chance to look at these issues that concern me and concern fellow National members.I want to pick up on some of the points made by the previous speaker the New Zealand First member Mark Patterson. The first point I want to make is he's right: there should be no politics around Mycoplasma bovis. There was initially as the debate was in this House and I didn't think that was appropriate. This is an issue on which we should all be there to support the New Zealand primary sector. It's not about politics around M. bovis but that doesn't stop me criticising the Government for not getting this legislation to the House earlier.The second point that really worries me is the search and surveillance powers of NAIT officers. We've been asking of the officials—we've had two meetings with the officials courtesy of the Minister. One lasted 25 minutes and the other lasted 35 minutes. That's the extent of briefings and in the first meeting we had which lasted 35 minutes most of the questions we asked weren't answered because the officials that presented to us couldn't answer the questions yet we hear in the contribution from Mark Patterson that it's been through a select committee.It's been through a select committee as the search and surveillance legislation. That did go to a select committee in 2012—2012—when that member Mark Patterson was the branch chair of the National Party for the Lawrence branch. That's where he was then. So maybe he can take another call and tell me why New Zealand First voted against the search and surveillance legislation when it went through the House in 2012. If it's so good now to slap it into the NAIT legislation without giving it the courtesy of a select committee examination why then did the Rt Hon Winston Peters vote against it? Silence—silence from Mark Patterson.I have another question and this time for the Minister the Hon Damien O'Connor who said in his speech just before the dinner break—and I quote him—This is not about increasing … powers [for NAIT officers]". That's what he said. Go and check his Hansard—"This is not about increasing … powers [for NAIT officers]". Well I refer the Minister to the explanatory note. It is about aligning the powers of the NAIT Act for warrantless inspections and searches with those in the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. Minister it is about giving additional powers.Hon Damien O'Connor: It's equivalence.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: It is about giving additional powers. He says it's equivalent powers to the search and surveillance legislation of 2012. Is that what the Minister is saying—it's equivalent powers? Well then why did the Hon Damien O'Connor vote against the search and surveillance legislation in 2012?Every Labour member in this House in 2012 voted against the search and surveillance legislation and now they rush it in urgency into the NAIT legislation on the pretence that it's necessary for Mycoplasma bovis control—and the Minister laughs. But the Greens—they hang their heads in shame because they are supporting this legislation and they are supporting urgency and they voted against the search and surveillance legislation in 2012. How the wheel turns so suddenly. I remember the Hon Steve Maharey when I was on this side of the House and he was on that side of the House and we were quizzing him on a similar issue. He said "Oh they're the sorts of things you say when you're in Opposition." That's the famous quote from the Hon Steve Maharey.This legislation could still go to a select committee. I want to know about these increased powers of search and surveillance because it's been explained to me by the officials that it now means a NAIT officer—who may be well trained and who may be well-educated who may not be well trained and may not be well-educated or may be a retired or broken-down farmer—can come on to my farm and with the powers in this legislation can grab all my financial records can take any records that they want and I can do nothing about it. That's what it seems to me and the officials were unable to deny it.They did make the excuse: "Oh the officer can't go into my house my dwelling." Well Damien O'Connor knows how the farming industry works. When you get a visitor the first thing you do is say "Come in. We'll sit around the kitchen table in my house." In other words inadvertently the farmer has invited the officer into the house and that gives that officer the chance to seize any information he or she wants. Is that right Mr O'Connor? Silence.I'm not even sure that the Hon Damien O'Connor understands what he's doing with this legislation. It is very Draconian. In fact as one of my colleagues who was very involved in the search and surveillance legislation of 2012 said this actually gives more power to a NAIT officer than it does to the New Zealand Police force.Hon Damien O'Connor: Cool.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Well Damien O'Connor scoffs and says that's not right. If it went to a select committee Mr O'Connor I could've sorted that out. I could've had that question asked.There is no need for urgency. I accept we need amendments to NAIT legislation—I was the Minister that brought it in. I accept the point that Mark Patterson made that we haven't seen good compliance and we need to tidy that up but the Minister's had 10 months to think about that and what he does now is he introduces it in the dead of night under urgency and doesn't give the Opposition the chance to ask the questions that we should be asking.I say to the rural community: beware. There might be good intention around this legislation. There is a challenge to control Mycoplasma bovis in this country. There is a challenge to be the first country in the world that eradicates Mycoplasma bovis but with this legislation we are giving such extraordinary powers to unnamed officials that I think when farmers learn the extent of those powers they will be worried. Many of them will be petrified and it could have been sorted out. All we had to do was to send it to a select committee and when we said that to the Hon Damien O'Connor he refused. He said it's going to be passed in the dead of night tonight. I think that's wrong."