Carter DavidRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): With a number of questions being raised already this morning I would hope the Minister Damien O'Connor is going to take the opportunity of answering genuine questions. We are in urgency. This has not gone to a select committee. The only chance we get to find out how the Minister thinks his legislation is going to work is in the committee of the whole House. So I implore the Minister to listen and to answer the questions.I want to start my contribution this morning by talking to an amendment that I've moved and that I hope the Minister will give due consideration to because I think my amendment takes a lot of the heat out of the arguments that were before the House last night. The amendment is to insert new clause 8A and it says that the amendments in clause 8 will expire on 15 August 2019. The reason I have put that amendment before the committee is that this side of the Chamber passionately believes this legislation should have gone to a select committee. It could have gone to a select committee for the two-week recess and been back and ready to pass by 4 September. I asked the Minister yesterday in my speeches—and he hasn't responded but he might—why the urgency. What difference would a two-week select committee process make to the efficacy of this legislation? I want that question answered.If we accept my amendment then we do—we heard from the Minister yesterday that he intends to bring yet another NAIT amendment bill before the House. I want to know the timetable for that amendment bill and I also want an assurance that the Minister will respect democratic process with that legislation and send it to a select committee. Because if we then allow these extraordinary powers to expire as per my amendment he's got the ability to bring it in in his next draft amendment legislation of NAIT allow it to go through a select committee process and let the farmers of New Zealand have a say on the extraordinary powers that he's rushing through that the Hon Gerry Brownlee has just spoken about. It's a simple solution Minister that will take the heat out of his committee today allow us to have some comfort in seeing the legislation pass knowing that the issue then within 12 months will be substantially examined at a select committee as it should be. Why won't the Minister accept that amendment?The second issue I want some answers to concerns clauses 4 to 8 and it regards what is a movement of cattle. Now it might seem a fairly plain question but what about a farmer that has two contiguous blocks of land and he attempts to run them quite independently. And he then for some particular reason wants to move a bunch of two-year-old heifers from one particular block to another. Does he have to register that as a movement? It is an absolutely contiguous common boundary.Another example: it might be a hill-country farm contiguous at some point on the hill making stock movement difficult from one part of the farm to another so he engages a transport company and takes his stock from his farm but along the road because it's an easier way of moving it to the same property. Is that a movement requiring registration as a NAIT movement?My third example and this is particularly common around the cities of New Zealand is where you've got a large number of lifestylers owning their 8-hectare blocks and not wanting to engage in agriculture in any way so they enlist the assistance of a local farmer and what that local farmer does is he moves them around raising them as if those properties were his own. They're not his own; they're owned completely by somebody else and he moves them legitimately either by driving them on the road or by getting transport in.As he answers that question I come back to a fourth example or a farmer with one registered NAIT number who perhaps has two properties but separated by for example 20 kilometres. He moves cattle from one of his properties to the other property—is that a NAIT movement that needs to be recorded? Is that a NAIT movement that should have been recorded under the current legislation but now has to be recorded under the proposed amendment legislation?They are simple questions practical questions Minister from a farmer who knows a little bit about NAIT unlike I suspect the Minister in the chair who should know a lot about NAIT but maybe doesn't know as much as he should do. They're the sorts of questions that farmers will be asking as this legislation is passed and receives its formal assent. I want to know where they go and ask for that information.We've just had a very brief half-hour select committee briefing by the NAIT chair and the NAIT chief executive. I subbed on to the Primary Production Committee for that examination—I came away with less confidence in NAIT as an organisation and Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI) as an organisation than I had before I attended that briefing. We asked the chief executive about the level of compliance with NAIT under the current legislation. She answered—and this is extraordinary—that she was comfortable with the level of compliance. She argued that when you compared the introduction of our animal tracing system with others around the world they take time to come in and we should be grateful that it's being complied with at the level that it is. I don't agree with Michelle Edge. I don't think the level of compliance is anywhere near where it should be.The next question that arises out of that—that I didn't get a satisfactory answer from Michelle Edge as chief executive of OSPRI but I look forward to the satisfactory answer from the Minister when he takes to his feet—is who is the policeman for NAIT under the current legislation and under the amendment legislation? Who is expected to monitor compliance? As I pointed out to the NAIT people before the select committee this morning there's a perfect opportunity for compliance auditing to be done under the TB testing regime. Farmers get regular TB tests done by a person who is a subcontractor to OSPRI and they have the opportunity to do an audit of NAIT every time they do a TB test.So Minister take a call. Talk to your officials who are pushing for these extraordinary greater-than-police - like powers in the Search and Surveillance Act; talk to your officials and answer to me on the level of compliance auditing that's done now under the TB testing regime. Again Minister despite the answer that was given to me today by Michelle Edge the chief executive of OSPRI my observation as a farmer would be that there's zero auditing done by the TB testing regime—a lost opportunity Minister.There are a number of questions I've raised. They're not frivolous questions; they're genuine questions. I do ask the Minister to talk to his officials and have a serious look at my amendment. If he agrees to that amendment we can take the heat of this argument out knowing that the extraordinary powers will have a sunset clause on them prior to a proper select committee examination which he is refusing to allow on this particular occasion and I want to know the reason why he's refusing to allow that examination. Why the urgency for this to be done under urgency?