Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to resume my commentary from my last contribution and turn the Minister's mind to Supplementary Order Paper 206 under my name.In my last contribution I mentioned a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that would allow for a certifications regime to be implemented. That doesn't seem to have been sold to the Government so I would then like the Minister to consider rather a regulation providing for exemptions as opposed to certifications but on a case-by-case basis.The Minister in his last contribution made a number of observations about the standard of ships that have been used historically to transfer animals around the world. I think I've mentioned this to this House before that we would absolutely agree that a lot of that has been substandard. I sat on the Primary Production Committee and we saw photographic evidence and indeed oral evidence of practices that no New Zealander would accept or consider to be right.And that is the point of the SOPs that we are putting up here this afternoon and indeed have been doing so for the last couple of times that we have met to debate this bill. The whole point behind the position that we are taking on this side of the House—I might add also on behalf of the industry—is that there is room to regulate this industry. Underneath that regulation would one would assume come an insistence of only using built-for-purpose ships that would obviously include high-tech air ventilation systems and indeed air conditioning systems. We do understand that animals do suffer heat stress particularly when they get to the equator on their journey.But the Minister has not answered the question around leakage and you know he's talked about other shipments from other nations. Well I put to the Minister: is it not better that the New Zealand export industry lead the world in this with a world-leading regulatory standard whereby animals are on custom-built ships from port to port approximately weather permitting for three weeks as opposed to going from a jurisdiction like in South America where there are no regulations where those animals are on the water for about seven weeks and where they are still crossing the equator and are still going to be subjected to heat stress in ships that are probably refurbished container ships.So with regard to SOP 206 allowing the regulation to be created that would give the director-general an opportunity to provide exemptions on a case by case basis would answer those questions. And those concerns that the Minister raised the purpose of the conditional licensing regime is to—and I quote—ensure that each shipment of cattle is exported in accordance with good practice and scientific knowledge." And that is the crux of the argument that we on this side of the House are putting forward. This decision has been made entirely emotionally and entirely ideologically; there is not scientific rationale behind it.We would therefore under a conditional licensing regime request that exporters have to apply for a licence for each individual shipment of cattle and make certain that exporters maintain consistently high standards and that I would also add would extend to the importers; they too would be subject to a certification or a licensing regime on a case by case basis to ensure the ongoing animal welfare standards are kept in the destination country.We would like an exemption mechanism to be instigated prior to October next year. That gives the industry some time to move. I think I mentioned in my last contribution as much as the Minister likes to say "The industry has had two years to transition" they have been waiting with bated breath that the Minister and the Government might move on this thing. So this is coming into effect in April next year. I'm sorry that is six months away; that is not two years away. So we do want the Minister to please consider SOP 206 that each export need to apply for export licensing regime for the export of cattle."