Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Madam Assistant Speaker look thank you. I did want to come down to the House and take a call on this amendment to the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) legislation. I know speakers who have spoken so far in the debate will have canvassed the National Party position on the bill but just to be really clear—Hon Nathan Guy: Cautiously support.Hon AMY ADAMS: —we want to cautiously support the bill and certainly vote in favour of it. But the reason I particularly wanted to speak was to outline very clearly and as explicitly as I can the very real concerns that we have and I want those in Hansard because the reason we have come to the position where we will vote for the bill has not been an easy one and we have relied extensively on representations both from the Minister to my colleague the Hon Nathan Guy and from his officials. I certainly thank him for making the officials available to us but the position that we find ourselves in with the bill coming up at very short notice being passed at incredibly short notice and no opportunity for even the most truncated select committee process is deeply concerning to me. Let me just lay that balance out because it is important.We're dealing in New Zealand with an issue of extreme concern to the New Zealand economy but particularly the agricultural community and the families who are dealing with the threat or the actual infestation of Mycoplasma bovis on their farms. The devastation the heartbreak the anguish that I have seen in farming families in my own electorate that I know has been mirrored around New Zealand is incredibly real and very concerning. My colleague the Hon Nathan Guy—very rightly I think and with our full support—has said genuinely we don't want this to be a politics issue. We don't want politics to get in the way of the response and we have worked—Hon Nathan Guy: And we want good legislation too.Hon AMY ADAMS: Yeah. We've worked very very collaboratively with the Government and the Government has equally I think responded in kind to make sure that this doesn't become about the politics. We really want to stick to that and there's no way that we would want to do anything which in any way was seen as impeding the response. But and it is a big but" what we're dealing with in this legislation—now look some of the provisions are really at the tidy-up phase and we take no issue with the prescribed form required for legislation the moving between farms and other places. It's all fine. The issue that's really concerned us has been the issue of amendments to warrantless search powers. I've been in this House for 10 years and I've watched the extent of the concern—very genuine concern and appropriate concern—around giving agencies of the State powers of search and seizure of goods. Of course those things have to be handled carefully. We all understand that they're a necessary part of a framework but these are the most intrusive powers that Parliament can grant. What we're talking about in this legislation is giving NAIT officers the right without warrant and without cause—I want to repeat that because it's really important; without any warrant but also without cause—to go on to any property and seize any goods any assets any papers or anything they like if they think it would be useful. I'm sure members can understand how incredibly intrusive that can be.In our legislation we have any number of both criminal and security enforcement agencies and regulatory enforcement agencies that are tasked with overseeing their regimes and a number of them have powers—mostly under warrant; occasionally without warrant—to go into properties but almost always there is a requirement that there at least has to be reasonable cause to suspect an offence. We normally have some sort of threshold so if you need to go without warrant you've got to have a good reason to have to do so. That is not the case here. This is a warrantless power to go on to any farm without cause as of right and seize any goods that they think they would like to take.Now of course we all like to have the utmost faith in the professionalism and the pragmatism of NAIT officials. But in this House we are passing law and we have to look at it in terms of what powers they are given and these are unconstrained very extensive powers. My very real concern was that we are not taking just a month to go to select committee. I mean the Mycoplasma bovis response—Hon Nathan Guy: Well a week. We could do it in a week or two.Hon AMY ADAMS: Well a week absolutely—just a chance for the very people who'll be affected to say "Look I don't think you've understood this part." or "This is going to be a real concern because of X or of Y." I don't believe the Government has put up any good reason why a week two weeks at this stage of what is a response that is already many many months old and has many many months to run—Hon Nathan Guy: 12 months.Hon AMY ADAMS: Twelve months my colleague Nathan Guy tells me. I cannot understand for one minute why the Government can't take a week or so when it is granting the most intrusive powers of the State to an agency of Government. Now this is not a question—Barbara Kuriger: Mr Patterson might tell us.Hon AMY ADAMS: Well I doubt he will but it will be interesting to see what he says to farmers on the stump. But I can't understand why when you are dealing with powers as important as this you don't belt and braces it. I want to put very clearly into the Hansard first of all the National Party's extreme concern at the width of these powers and our extreme frustration annoyance and opposition to the fact that it has not gone to a select committee. Now I understand the Government doesn't want to take six months and they don't want to take four months but we could do this very quickly. I have seen select committees—as other members will have—that are literally done in 24 hours. It is just a chance to go out say to a few of the groups who will be affected "What are we missing?" and for us to get legal advice even. We've had to rely on the legal advice that the officials have given us—and I appreciate it—Hon Nathan Guy: In haste.Hon AMY ADAMS: —but in haste over 20 minutes where they were late for a meeting themselves. That is not the basis on which we like to support legislation on this side of the House. We like to ensure that we understand the legal ramifications we understand how it sits in our framework of powers and we understand how it will affect those that it will apply to. None of those were possible for us because of the haste.We will support it on balance because we certainly don't want to detract from the spirit of working collaboratively on the M. bovis response but these powers last beyond M. bovis and these powers are not limited to biosecurity intrusions. They're not even limited to NAIT purposes because the officers that will go in will hold a number of different regulatory hats and once they're on the property without cause without warrant they can seize anything they like under any of those regulatory hats and that deeply concerns me.Now the officials told us that this puts them in no different position—and I want this to be very clearly noted: this will put the NAIT officials with no greater powers than other regulatory officers have. I am not sure that on my quick glance of the legislation I could satisfy myself with that but I take them at their word because of the urgency and the situation we're in. But should that prove to be wrong I want it noted that the National Party support is because of the assurances we received from the Minister that the urgency is unavoidable that the select committee cannot be accommodated and that the advice of his officials is that this gives NAIT officers no greater power than any other regulatory body in New Zealand—not a criminal body not misuse of drugs not investigating a murder. If either of those things is not correct then I will have very serious issues to raise with the officials because we have no option but to take them at their word.A short select committee process would have allowed for a proper legal analysis. It would have allowed for farmers to talk to us about how this may or may not be an issue. It would have allowed us to explore for example whether there was some constrained form of the powers that could have been negotiated as a sensible compromise to meet the urgent issues then a select committee process to look at a more wholesale approach. There could have been a sunset clause that said "Let's put it in place now with a sunset clause and then take the time to send a bill to select committee for a proper consideration." These are intrusive search and seizure powers without warrant and for all the parties that have stood in this House and railed against intrusive powers of the State who are all silent as little lambs right now I hope that they're prepared to stand by if this legislation goes further than how it has been represented to us.I don't like legislating based on a reliance when officials say "Trust us it's OK." We've been told that there is no option. We are prepared to treat honourable members across the House at their word but if this power is not properly constrained and if it is not subject to a sunset clause it should go to a select committee. And even with those amendments it would benefit from going to a select committee. It is a deeply deeply concerning situation and it has been the cause of a matter of some debate for us because I will not see farmers—or anyone in New Zealand frankly—subject to unwarranted unnecessary intrusive powers of search and seizure unless there is the most carefully considered discussed debated informed debate on it. None of that is possible. It should have gone to a select committee but because of the nature of the M. bovis response we will cautiously support it."