Carter DavidRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Mr Chairman thank you. I don't need to remind the committee that we're in urgency with this legislation. I do apologise—I've been away for the last hour and a half but I understand that some legitimate questions have been raised and I'm disappointed that the Minister hasn't taken the opportunity to answer them. The Minister laughs. He thinks it's funny. This legislation doesn't need to be in urgency Minister. If he'd had a half-competent Minister of Agriculture and a half-competent Leader of the House this legislation could have been introduced on Tuesday could have gone to a select committee for 24 hours and we could have got the answers that we wanted. It could be back here today and passed and achieve the timetable the Minister wants. But no we are seeing the arrogance of this Government where it puts this legislation through all stages in urgency and refuses to answer even some basic questions. I think it's an appalling process and I say to the Hon Damien O'Connor that it's one that the farmers of New Zealand will be noting.I just want to comment before I ask my specific questions on the comments just made by the Hon David Bennett. The respect for the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) amongst farmers is at an all-time low. I spoke to a farmer at the airport the other day who had been to the M. bovis meeting called at Ashburton and then went to the M. bovis meeting called at Darfield—approximately 70 kilometres apart these two locations—and he got completely different answers from the MPI officials at the Ashburton meeting to the questions that were then put again at the Darfield meeting.Hon Tim Macindoe: Was it the same officials?Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: I'm not sure. No I don't think it was the same officials. I think it was different officials. But if the message from MPI is so unclear how can we expect farmers to get any comfort around the possibility of a successful eradication of M. bovis? Then to introduce this legislation which gives MPI officers more power than a police officer—more power than a police officer. What's that going to do for the farmers' impression of and respect for MPI? And I ask the Minister to stand to his feet and answer that question and when he comes to answer the question I have some others.I'm referring to Part 2 clause 9(2) and (3). I put these questions to the Minister: four questions around what is a movement that has to be recorded under the new legislation. The Hon Kris Faafoi interjected and said Well what are the rules now?" Good question Mr Faafoi. You've now doubled the number of questions that I want to ask. As I outline these scenarios I want the Minister to answer whether movements must be recorded under the current legislation—because I don't know the answer—and whether they then have to be recorded under the amendment legislation before the committee driven through in urgency by the Hon Damien O'Connor. So the first question I ask—again; and hopefully we'll get an answer—is about farmers who own two farms. We know of many farmers who own properties—two separate properties but absolutely contiguous. These farmers for good biosecurity reasons run each farm as a completely separate unit but there might be a drought or wet winter requiring them to move a mob of 30 yearling heifers from one unit to the other unit—absolutely contiguous. They walk them across through an effective boundary gate and the movement's occurred.Does the farmer have to record that movement now—thanks to the Hon Kris Faafoi for that question—under the current legislation? And does the farmer have to now record the movement under the proposed amendment legislation? Simple question—it shouldn't even require the Minister to turn to his officials. He should be able to answer it. The second question I posed earlier and again it still remains unanswered. What about a situation where the farmer owns a farm property two blocks are absent—I want to outline a scenario where a farmer owns a farm property. It is contiguous perhaps in a hill part of the property but stock movement is facilitated easier by using the road. The farmer owns both bits of land but he takes the opportunity of moving cattle from one paddock to another going out on to a public road perhaps past two or three blocks of land that he or she doesn't own and then to a gateway into the other part of his property. Hon Nathan Guy: Yeah that's a fair question.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: It's a good question. I know of a scenario where this is appropriate. And I want to know thanks to the Hon Kris Faafoi what the law is now about whether that movement must be recorded into the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system? And I want to know from the Minister what the law will be as to that movement under the new proposed legislation. And I do think the Minister—Hon Kris Faafoi: You passed it!Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: —looks like he's taking these questions seriously; he's busy with the officials. Listen somebody interjected that I introduced the legislation and I should know. I don't know. That's why I'm asking the question today. I don't expect the Minister to know the answer but I expect the Minister to ask his officials and give us the answer in the Chamber today. The third scenario I ask about is a farmer that owns various blocks of land not contiguous; perhaps separated by a kilometre or more of public road. He runs this farm these various blocks as one unit. He's registered with one NAIT number. And he moves his cattle from one block perhaps a kilometre away either by droving them or by getting his own truck or by getting the transport company in to move them. Does he have to file a movement in the NAIT system under the current legislation—again thanks to the interjection from the Hon Kris Faafoi—and does he have to record that movement under the proposed amendment legislation? The fourth question is one I raised with the Minister earlier and it hasn't been answered. Is the farmer who makes use of all of the lifestyle blocks around the cities of New Zealand—and this Minister is a real issue. I know farmers who effectively have set up their farming operation utilising the grazing ability of lifestylers. And the lifestylers who own their 4 or 8 hectare block have no interest in owning any livestock to graze it. It must be grazed regularly for the issues of fire and weed control. So the farmer then treats perhaps 20 of these lifestyle blocks effectively as his farm. He owns only his own; he doesn't own the 19 blocks of land to use. Does that farmer have to record a movement every time he goes from one lifestyle block to another under the current law—I want the answer—and under the amended law that we're rushing through in urgency today? If the answer is yes in both cases then I want to point out the practicality of it and this is particularly of relevance to someone like Stuart Smith the member for Kaikōura where there's a whole lot of vineyards that regularly get grazed by a local farmer. He leaves stock there for a very brief period of time perhaps 24 or 48 hours because of course if you overgraze those blocks particularly with young cattle you could do damage to the vineyards. So he moves 30 there one day and goes back the next day and happens to want to move them to another vineyard block and for some reason there's only 29 there—one's jumped out. How does he possibly record that movement if it needs recording? There are no cattle yards about—he might have access to a scanner but he probably won't. How could he legitimately record that movement? I suggest to the Minister that it would be impossible.And then I want to pose another question that's come up in this debate and that's about the excellent rural community calf days—the pet day at the local school; part of rural communities. Are we going to be allowed even under the current M. bovis situation to continue with calf days?"