Cameron Mark; Kuriger BarbaraMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister you and I are very collegial. But for the love of all things common sense how can you reconcile this piece of legislation?It's predicated I believe on the downing of Gulf Livestock 1. You've used the word animal welfare". My colleague on the right side of the House Nicola Grigg alluded to welfare and the massive improvements that have happened in this trade. Minister. I honestly believe this bill is ideological. You're blurring the lines between animal welfare in transit and the tragedy of the sinking of a ship.As a question go back to 2015 and 2016. I'm not sure if you remember what the dairy payout was but I was still farming—actually I'd been farming at that point for about 25 years. It was $3.90 and finished up at $4.30. This was the reason this trade that I managed to be above board and not below and that's thousands of farmers that use this trade—so certainly hundreds at that point. This kept their bottom lines afloat.But I want to offer you some quotes by farmers that were using this trade and continue to use this trade. Farmer producers potentially out of business. Farmhands calf growers livestock handlers feed suppliers vets—these are all people that are potentially going to be affected by the nullification of this trade. Exporters livestock agents—wonder how many livestock agents around the country are now going to lose 15 percent 20 percent of their trade—transport operators and the list goes on.The member on the right side of the House Nicola Grigg alluded to $261 million. Well I wager anyone worth their salt: it's half-a-billion dollars. We are in a cost of living crisis. Rural New Zealanders have seen fuel's gone up—and we've canvassed before—fertiliser's gone up and there's all manner of red tape the rural sector is now being slated or having to face.How do you justify half-a-billion dollars potentially going out of the sector? And can you please clarify how all these people that are in this embroiled—or better word—part of this trade are going to fiscally come out of the other side better off? Why would you not agree with Mike Heron and the Ministry for Primary Industries assertions that this trade could continue under an adopted gold standard? Because I think this side of the House and hundreds of farmers around rural New Zealand deserve a better answer than this we've been given.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Mr Chair. Just following on from some of Mr Cameron's questions Minister. I've got the regulatory impact statement (RIS) in front of me and it basically says—as the RIS acknowledges—that prior to the 2019 review the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) had limited data regarding the welfare of livestock during the voyage and post-arrival. And it talks about the limited research available of livestock exports on our reputation.So the first question is: if there was no data to back up this decision then I would like to know the comments that the Minister's made on several occasions about it damaging our reputation—what data and input did the Minister use? Because in the regulatory impact statement there is very little. Also according to this MPI has undertaken the 2019 review on the presumption that transporting animals in and of itself does not necessarily have an adverse effect on animal welfare.So there's a lot of questions around this saying that prior to 2020 in that review MPI did not have a lot of data and they certainly did a shift on the way through this in terms of their position. So I would like the Minister to be very clear with us over on this side of the House but also with the industry as to what was the basis of making this decision because it wasn't clear data and evidence. Thank you.Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Thank you. I would be interested in the Minister's response to the Supplementary Order Paper in my name—181—which is about extending the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to ban the export of live eels by both sea and by air.I am really supportive of the work that the Government and the Minister has done to introduce the bill to the House and the work that he and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) are doing to progress the legislation and end the really unhealthy trade in cattle sheep deer and goats and any exports of them by sea.But there's the more fundamental issue that we have—longfin and shortfin eel—longfin eel are at risk and declining. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment former commissioner Dr Jan Wright in her report On a pathway to extinction? highlighted the impact that commercial fishing is having on the welfare of eel populations in Aotearoa and questions the stock assessments that have been done by MPI.These eels are largely exported at the moment but they have very little revenue that's associated with that. For the year ending 31 March 2022 the export revenue for eel and eel products was $2.4 million. There is much more value in eels swimming live in streams and lakes around Aotearoa than being exported in polystyrene boxes to end up on some diner's plate in Korea Belgium Europe and elsewhere. The other key animal welfare issue here is that there are no regulations around how the eel will be killed for those that are exported live. But the fundamental concern of the Greens is that eels are better swimming alive. I know the Minister has raised previously that there hasn't been consultation with iwi but in terms of exports eel—tuna—are of course a customary fish but they are usually eaten here in Aotearoa for customary purposes not exported.So I really encourage the Minister to seriously consider this Supplementary Order Paper which seeks to protect the status of these magnificent creatures which only breed once in their life—and that is at the end of their life when they do an extraordinary journey to the sea trenches of Tonga to breed where they can live to 80 years or more—why they should be caught exported for a very small amount of revenue killed their population affected when they are an at-risk and declining species in the case of longfin; and why the Minister won't consider expanding the bill to cover the live export of eels because that would be doing something for a species that is at severe risk of going to extinction."