Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Mr Speaker thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) legislation that is before us this afternoon.As the deputy chair of our Primary Production Committee I often have the opportunity to follow directly behind the chairperson the Hon David Bennett. It's an interesting experience having to follow that member in these discussions which are so fundamentally important to all of rural New Zealand and our agricultural sector. For a sector that contributes so much to our rural communities' economic background and to our nation's export prosperity you often want to come into this House and speak to the bill and the things it does for our communities. However I'm often tasked with the job of having to respond to misinformation consistently from that member that chairs our Primary Production Committee—and I just have to put on record that it's disappointing to say the least.The Mycoplasma bovis outbreak for New Zealand—we've set aside just under a billion bucks as a nation to tackle just the trauma that that's caused throughout our country. I would have thought for a party that prides itself on wanting to stand up for rural New Zealand for the farmers of this country that the Opposition's lead spokesperson on these matters would have turned and spoken to the impacts of that biosecurity outbreak to the bill that was introduced—this national animal tracing system that was introduced in 2012 that was found to be woefully deficient in its application.The first real test of the NAIT system was just prior to the last general election. This was consuming the minds and the lives of rural New Zealand as many of us will know because we live in those regions. Many of us know there was a lot of fear that was coming out at that time in mid-2017 when it became very apparent that the system that our farmers were reliant upon to ensure that we could trace the animals to ensure that we could track where these biosecurity incursions were coming from—it was really traumatic for farmers up and down the country when we realised that the trust faith and confidence that they had in the previous Government to administer a system that would protect our biosecurity was woefully inept.So I would have thought that that member David Bennett who chairs this select committee the Primary Production Committee would have stood up and had the humility to actually turn to the deficiencies of that system. I would have thought that that member would have spoken to the merits of this bill that we have been considering since—I think it was introduced late last year. We've had some tremendous submissions from a broad range of stakeholders from big farmers and corporates that are mindfully watching over I guess the overarching regulatory environment all the time—the Dairy NZs the Fonterras the Federated Farmers—through to those farmers that have had to watch the eradication of their stock through to those farmers that have lost a lot during this entire process.It was Miles Anderson from Federated Farmers—he's a spokesperson for their meat and wool sector. He came to the select committee and he said that the NAIT system simply had to work and it didn't. And it failed our communities. It failed our regional New Zealand. In his remarks—and I think his remarks really got to the substance of why we're here this afternoon debating this legislation—he said look you know farmers didn't want to be woefully negligent. They didn't go about to undermine the requirements that were set out in that 2012 Act. But there wasn't enough resource put into educating those farmers that had to administer the system there wasn't enough resource in terms of ensuring it was seamless and it actually worked and there wasn't enough time and energy in that initial legislation to ensure that the regulatory mechanisms to ensure compliance with the system actually functioned effectively.So I turn to what this bill actually does and what we heard submissions on through the select committee process. I want to start with—normally I wouldn't start with this but this is where I want to start—the mechanisms by which we think it is important. And for all those we heard submissions from—like I said Federated Farmers Dairy NZ—there was a general consensus that it was very important to lift the penal regime. The penalties as were first introduced under the initial legislation in 2012 were very minimal. If you failed to tag an animal: $150 fine. Those penalties have been lifted. We have lifted those penalties—so it might be a mistake but we've lifted it to ensure that there are fewer mistakes—to $400. Where there is a failure to register stock those initial penalties were around $300. We've lifted that to $800 to ensure that again we've got the right mechanisms to ensure compliance.I think some of the substantive penalties that we've really made amendments to in this bill where there are individual failures and these are blatant failures to administer and perform the functions required of persons in charge of animals (PICAs) under the Act—the initial maximum penalty in the 2012 Act was $10000. We have substantively increased those—with the I guess you could say permission or with the blessing of the industry—to $100000 to show that non-compliance with this Act simply will not be tolerated. If you read any of the analysis on how M. bovis was introduced into New Zealand there was a consistent view I guess that had this system been working right at that time and people had done what they were meant to do it wouldn't be costing our country a billion bucks. So that's at the individual level we're increasing those penalties but at the corporate level that's where I guess the rubber really hits the road. So we've increased those penalties from $20000 to $200000.We've heard—well I think amongst the drivel that we heard before—there was a bit of a comment around data ownership. I do want to acknowledge the comments that the Minister Damien O'Connor made in this respect and also those that submitted on this point. It was a point that we received substantive submissions on—as to who actually owned the data that feeds into the NAIT system. This was a legal ambiguity and that was something that we received advice on from the Ministry for Primary Industries. Why our side of the House at the very least agreed that this is something that should lie silent for now is because there was no conclusive view as to where actual ownership does lie. So I want to acknowledge those officials who took the time to inform us as members because it wasn't just that side; it was all of us that had shared concerns about the actual legal ownership of that data.Secondly another big issue that was really put to us and there were some exceptional submissions to this point was around whether or not transporters—so those guys that drive the trucks pick up the stock take them from A to B—would be legally responsible or liable under the amendments. And under the first draft they were; they were going to be legally responsible for transporting stock that hadn't been tagged. We heard some exceptional submissions in this respect which really were persuasive amongst our select committee to ensure that we listened to those transporters. They weren't the targets of the NAIT scheme and this regime and all legal liabilities would remain with the PICAs. So those were a couple of the amendments where I think we worked collectively across the House quite constructively to achieve those outcomes.So despite the rubbish that gets said in this House from some of the members of the Opposition I want to acknowledge those who actually do work constructively to ensure that we're sticking up for rural New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.