Carter DavidRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you Mr Chairman. I want to first of all thank the Minister for answering those questions but I also want to pick up on the one that he hasn't answered and I hope for an answer to that as well.The first point is on answering the question around the lifestyle movements. I just want to say to the Minister there's got to be an issue of practicality here. I gave the example of a vineyard grazier putting 30 heifers on and he goes to move them and one is missing and there are only 29. How can he possibly record that movement—because there are no cattle yards and he can't get them in in any way to scan them. And I know what that farmer will do. I'll tell you the only practical way he can do it. If he is asked to record the next movement from one vineyard grazing block to another what he'll do is he'll record that he's moved 30 when he's only moved 29 and the next movement will be much the same and he will be forced to put incorrect information into the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system for as many movements as he makes before he can finally get back to his own home farm where he has the facilities to put those cattle into a yard and to scan them and identify which one went missing. There is no alternative way to do it.I just say to the Minister who had some experience as a farmer would he please remind his officials most of whom have no experience as a farmer that in enforcing legislation they need to keep in mind practicality. I gave a very simple example of where legislation well-intentioned won't work because of impracticality.The question that didn't get answered was about those movements to a calf day. A very valuable part of our rural community is the opportunity for kids going to a school to take their pet calf to calf day to pet day. I suspect what the Minister is going to tell me but I want it confirmed—again under the current legislation and the amended legislation: is the farmer expected at 8.30 in the morning as he puts the calf on the back of the ute to record a movement from the farm to say Duvauchelle School on Banks Peninsula—Hon Damien O'Connor: Calf days are exempt.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: I've now got an answer: calf days are exempt. If it was a calf two-days because some schools then run it—Jamie Strange: Ha ha!Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Well they do. Jamie Strange doesn't live in the country but some people make a really big thing of calf days.Hon Peeni Henare: I won a calf day.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: The Hon Peeni Henare knows what I'm talking about. He actually won a calf day. That's about the only win he's ever had in his life but anyway I now want to move to a really worrying question. I'm referring to clause 10(2). It says In regulation 5(5B) replace 'transport or droving between 2 NAIT locations' with 'any animal movement' ". I just want an explanation as to the reason for that amendment because it seems to me that if you're moving cattle from one location to another there's only two ways to do it. You either put them on a truck in which case it's "transport" or you walk them you drove them like they used to in the old days. I don't know of any other practical—Hon Damien O'Connor: Have you heard of a ute? Have you heard of a ute?Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Yeah I've heard of a ute. The member said "Have you heard of a ute?" If you put it on a ute that's transport Minister. Utes have four wheels and they go on the road Minister. I know it's new for—well he's from the West Coast. We should recognise that. That's called "transport".Hon Damien O'Connor: You said a truck.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: The Minister interjected and said I said a truck. Well let's be clear. It could be a truck it could be ute or if it's a small calf it could be a four-wheeled quad bike with a trailer behind it—they're all transport. So let's tidy that up without being smart Minister. I haven't had a chance to explain my question. We've now decided we've defined all modes of transport—and I'm sure the Minister has some memory of droving cattle from one location to another so can I have an explanation please as to why in urgency we're rushing this legislation through? It doesn't need to be in urgency. If it had been managed properly it could have been done with a select committee examination and still have met the timetable.Hon David Parker: It could've been done years ago if it was managed properly.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Well the Hon David Parker has arrived. He said "It could have been done years ago." It could have been done years ago; it was done years ago. It hasn't been complied with properly. We all know that Minister. We're here to assist the Government to sort it out but why does it have to be done in urgency Minister? Maybe the Hon David Parker can answer that. Why the urgency? Why can't it go to a select committee so these questions can be investigated properly? Silence now from the Hon David Parker.Hon David Parker: Why wasn't it done years ago?Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Well it was done years ago.Hon David Parker: Not properly.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: We're amending legislation I say to the Hon David Parker that was passed in 2012. That's when it was done. I know his maths isn't good but that was done six years ago. It was done. The question now is around compliance and every speaker on the side of this Chamber—because there's been very few from the Government—has agreed there is an issue around compliance. You can take the politics into the argument and say it's all the fault of a Minister—is a Minister meant to be sitting in the Beehive office going on to NAIT and checking whether movements all around the country have been complied with? If Minister David Parker is suggesting that he's an idiot. If he's suggesting that he's an idiot. First of all the Minister doesn't have access to all the data on the NAIT base. That's part of the problem we're trying to fix I say to the Hon David Parker.Hon David Parker: It's been a debacle.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: He says it's been a debacle. I semi-agree with him. The compliance levels have been low. So why have we had to wait to rush legislation into the House under urgency if it's been a debacle? The Government's been there for 10 months. Why does it have to be done under urgency? At least he's stopped interjecting. So I go back to the very question I've asked and it is in Part 2 subclause 10(2): "In regulation 5(5B) replace 'transport or droving between 2 NAIT locations' with 'any animal movement' ". I don't see the logic for that change. There may be a very practical reason. Let's have it. Let's have it. Why have we changed what is quite specific in the original legislation to make it far broader? Surely we can have an answer to a question like that. It wasn't our decision Minister to put this in the House and try to rush it through under urgency. We said we'd cooperate with a brief select committee process over the two-week recess. I've even suggested that if it had been managed properly and time was of the essence it could have come in on Tuesday we could have had the select committee process on Wednesday and it could be back here today meeting exactly the same timetable. But no it's had to be rushed through under urgency without giving the opportunity for the Opposition to ask these questions. The only opportunity we would get now is in this committee stage of the House. And as National has said it wants to support the legislation. It will vote for the legislation—with a heavy heart because it hasn't been examined properly. We recognise there is a serious issue in our rural community because of Mycoplasma bovis. We have agreed that it's not an issue we want to play politics with. We're trying to work constructively with the Government. We don't agree with the urgency process. It didn't have to be done that way but on the issue of M. bovis and on the issue of getting compliance with NAIT we want to work constructively despite the interjections I've received from the Minister on the other side of the House.So a simple question: please Minister can I have an explanation for the amendment in clause10(2)?"