Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this first reading of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2) or the NAIT Bill (No 2). I would just like to commence by joining the chorus of commendation for the service of the Hon Nathan Guy to this Parliament to agriculture. Whilst we are on different sides of the House and we won't always agree I think the rural members of the House particularly the farming members of the House do tend to work pretty collegially. We do look out for the greater good of agriculture and I think losing that institutional knowledge that you have is going to be a loss to the Parliament. I note you are sitting next to the Rt Hon David Carter—you'll be another one that's missed Mr Carter. I think that's something hopefully the National Party in their selection process considers when they are bringing people through because it is very important.In terms of the world-class tracing scheme that we would demand as an agricultural sector—given that I think the sectors that rely on this NAIT tracing system probably account for just off the top of my head some $20 billion worth of revenue we do expect a world-class system. We thought we had one. We found out road-tested in real time in the Mycoplasma bovis situation that we did not have a fit-for-purpose system and this bill under the Minister looks to address those issues. After a two-year review some of the findings have been adopted in regulation but this bill looks to enshrine in legislation some important tenets.Of course why is this important? We've had to address as has been mentioned the Mycoplasma bovis situation—$890 million to farmers through levies and taxpayers. It has been widely acknowledged that the inability to trace animals efficiently has greatly added to the complexity of that response and it has added greatly to the stress that is put on those farming families that through no fault of their own have found themselves in this situation. So it is absolutely imperative that we sort this system out. There are a number of provisions the number being specific to the land parcel which I think is thoroughly sensible. There is the impractical tagging provision which I think may have been flouted a little bit people that just could not be bothered because a number of these tags fall out; that's the reality of it. You tag them when they're three or four months old or six weeks old and by the time you sell them at two years old if you're a beef farmer many of them have fallen out. So it does take a bit of complying but it is something that you absolutely need to do and we need to enforce that. There is an exemption for dangerous cattle. We know that for bulls or wild cattle there may be some genuine exemptions there that are able to be applied but as a general rule of thumb that should not be the case.We've just heard from the previous speaker Mr Bennett about the ownership information. I think it's a fair point to raise and I think that's what the select committee process is there for. We can prosecute that argument. I personally don't have too much problem with it. I think if you compare it to the IRD you are looking at very sensitive information. In this case you're looking at essentially stock numbers which I don't think are particularly sensitive. Maybe I've underestimated the information or how that information could be used for other purposes but on face value it doesn't seem like there's information there that's overly sensitive and I think it's the risk reward. I mean the reward of having this information at our fingertips or at the authority's fingertips when it's needed I think overrides that. That's my sense and that would be New Zealand First's sense but we'll look at that through the select committee process.There is the provision to apply to look back to the point of origin for stock which I think is a good one. It's actually a good one from a management perspective too. I might have bought some cattle from Mr McAnulty. They might be a little bit scruffy but if I applied through him to look back to where they came from they may have come from Kiritapu Allan's farm and I'll know that they were well-bred and had some potential. So I think that's a good provision but it does allow you to look at maybe if it's come from a TB area or something like that originally. I note there has been quite a lot of commentary around this the likes of Beef and Lamb Federated Farmers Dairy New Zealand as you'd expect. Most of it's been exceedingly supportive. There are those issues around the data that they have highlighted and as I said we'll go through those in the select committee. The Minister assumes powers to set out the Government priorities and expectations to the NAIT board and set a direction. So I think that's a power that will probably be mainly used in an emergency situation potentially but once again we'll look at that through the select committee process. But the lessons of NAIT and the failure of NAIT have been well documented. I think in the review it said that less than half of the animal movements were being recorded which is just appalling and I think the data up to about 2017 showed there had been one $150 fine. That was the level of enforcement. It was essentially an open door and the new enforcement measures up to $100000 for an individual farm for flouting the law $200000 for corporate and down to maybe $400 for missing tags or the like. So there is some genuine teeth and I note that when the 2012 bill went through New Zealand First's contribution to that reading highlighted the need for enforcement and the fact that it wasn't done is an indictment. We have paid the price for that and this iteration of this bill sets to sort that out and to sort that out strongly and I commend the Minister for doing this. We have learnt the lessons the hard way. We are now responding and it has been quite a long and thorough process started under the last Government it's fair to say and acknowledge but I would commend Minister O'Connor for having gone through this process and landed in the House. It is I think a good bill. It's an important bill. It's on the back of some work coming from biosecurity another really important work that Minister O'Connor is doing in this space to protect our primary industries our $46 billion worth of revenue that we are so reliant on in this country to do the sort of things that we want to do and that support a First World economy. So without further ado I have absolute pleasure in endorsing New Zealand First's support for this NAIT (No 2) bill. Thank you.