Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well I rise once again to do the Government's job for it and actually support the rural sector and the productive powerhouse of New Zealand because the Government nor Minister Damien O'Connor will do it. I'd like to acknowledge the families though before I begin my submission this evening who lost their lives following the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1 particularly the two New Zealanders Scott Harris and Lochie Bellerby. But this proposed law change has been prompted by an accident—a terrible terrible maritime accident. We would acknowledge that the immediate response was appropriate where following the tragedy the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) placed a temporary ban on live exports which was lifted in October 2020. But let's remember when the trade resumed new more rigorous animal welfare standards and reporting requirements were introduced as a result of the inquiry carried out by Michael Heron QC and Admiral Tony Parr into the trade. These new standards were well received by industry and our offshore markets and they set a real precedent as far as global standards go. And that is the opportunity that this Parliament and indeed this Government have in front of it now. It is two choices: to either continue its plans for an outright ban or take the opportunity to lead the world in welfare standards for the safe and humane trade of live animals. That is what we in the Primary Production Committee heard time and time again. Unfortunately though that select committee inquiry has been nothing short of a farce. A totally predetermined outcome that has made an absolute mockery of what an inquiry should look like. The MPI departmental report actually states and I quote Given the Government has made clear its commitments to the ban being in place by 30 April 2023 the recommendations in this report are intended to give effect to this decision. In MPI's view the bill should progress as it was presented to the House at the first reading." Well what a shame that that was not made clear to all the submitters who put in the time and effort to make a submission to the inquiry. They were doing their level best to make this Government see sense. Many many industry submitters made the point that this is a largely unregulated industry but the vast majority impressed upon us that rather than an outright ban on live exports the Government should look to legislate for a gold standard—a quality-assurance programme that would set world-leading compliance standards. The fact that overwhelming evidence that opposed the ban and suggested an alternative approach has been ignored is frankly egregious. Certainly as the Minister acknowledged we have heard evidence of substandard practise that no fair-minded New Zealander should tolerate. But a regime like a quality assurance programme would ensure that New Zealand exporters adopt the highest animal welfare standards in the world. Because in fact New Zealand exporters do set high standards for themselves and repeatedly we have heard from industry that those standards can get even better. We know for a fact that more custom-built ships land in our ports than those that have been refurbished. We also know for a fact that more ships that are less than 25 years old land in our ports and that is the really important point. New Zealand's current exports require high animal welfare standards but these are not enshrined in legislation. So surely a far better option for all involved least of all the cattle that we're seeking to protect is to legislate for world-leading regulations.Now they Minister would include things like built-for-purpose ships with none being older than 25 years old. State-of-the-art air conditioning and air ventilation systems that don't cause intolerable noise to animals. Vets on all vessels to ensure that welfare remains at high standards and there are multiple checks made throughout the voyage. Restricting stocking densities on vessels to about 90 percent of the limit as the Australians have recently imposed. Increased requirements for voyage reporting including daily vet checks and reports. Increased minimum feed and water requirements to ensure that at least 20 percent extra feed is available on ship for the inevitable delays to some voyages. The overwhelming evidence despite all of that that was given to us at the select committee despite the regulatory impact statement giving two options—the improvements similar to what I've just mentioned or an outright ban—the Government is still inexplicably determined to ban this $261 million trade. It is an emotional topic but it needs a logical conversation and a logical practical application. I do understand the perception that New Zealand has no control of the welfare standards of animals once they land in port in offshore jurisdictions but again an importer licensing regime a quality assurance programme would help enforce New Zealand's standards in offshore jurisdictions. And let's be rational here no foreign farmer paying an absolute premium for these animals are going to want them to turn up in poor condition least of all harm them once in-country. As vets and multiple exporters told the select committee offshore standards are higher than perceived. A lot of these offshore jurisdictions are learning from New Zealand's practices and Australia's practices and they too want to be seen as world-leading in this space. Why on earth would a—for example—Chinese farmer spend all that money shipping animals halfway around the world only for them to live a life of misery.I'd also like to turn the attention to the Government's very casual glossing over of the wider economic impact of this ban. To claim it is just a $260 million industry is farcical. It is grossly underestimated. The select committee asked but would not be provided with any detailed economic analysis of the wider impact or the wider ramifications. This is an important revenue stream—yes for breeders and farmers but what about the knock-on effects to the truckies the stock agents the vets the representatives? This is too big an industry to just impose a ban on rural New Zealand.So to conclude with the National Party minority view I would like to put it on the record it is the view of the National Party that the Ministry for Primary Industries needs to take a leadership role in setting and maintaining world-leading compliance standards. In order to enable this the Government should create a quality regulatory environment to licensed operators. Rather than an outright ban of live animal exports by ship it is the National Party view that the Government should legislate a quality assurance programme that would include but not be limited to interim recommendations made in the Heron report as well as an industry-led gold standard assurance programme. The National Party opposes this bill in its entirety."