Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): We heard a contribution a few minutes ago from the Green member Gareth Hughes who was asking a number of questions to the Opposition—a somewhat unusual process in a committee stage. But all I want to say to him is that his interpretation of the Act and his analysis of how both the Search and Surveillance Act and the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act work at the present time is very very inadequate. What I find amazing is that his party were once out on the streets rallying people in protest against the Search and Surveillance Act but are now in here today voting for an expansion of the powers—or an expansion of those who may call on powers under that Act. I think what I am now expecting is that any time soon we're going to see the Green Party promoting a bill that allows agricultural chemicals and pesticides to be considered part of organic farming practice. That is the sort of ridiculous situation that this party has got themselves into.We have a bill here today that allows the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) officers more powers to surveil search and seize than a police officer because all it has to be is on a suspicion or an idea. And then of course we learn from Brett Hudson that not only does this bill confer more powers on NAIT officers than police; it also confers on NAIT officers less supervision less scrutiny of their warrantless activities than is on either the GCSB or the SIS—the country's two main security agencies. So in other words the Government currently thinks that there is activity going on on farms that is likely to cause incursion issues across the agricultural sector that is of greater risk to the country than any terrorist threat. I want to suggest to the Minister that that is somewhat out of balance with the reality of the world we live in. Now the question is still not answered by the Minister: what scrutiny will go on NAIT officers who decide to use their warrantless powers to search and seize? Is there going to be any? I think it would be only reasonable that some kind of regime such as the Inspector-General's scheme over the security agencies the SIS and the GCSB applies to NAIT officers; a similar thing to the Independent Police Conduct Authority that applies over the police. These guys are going to be totally free agents to enter any property because there is no definition in the bill that confines it simply to a farm or to a place where animals are contained or held or housed or whatever; it's a general power. So as I said earlier they can go into the local accountant's office. They can go into the main offices of accounting firms throughout the country if they have an idea or a bit of a suspicion that there might be records of movements of cattle inside those premises. It's most unlikely but there's no constraint in this bill on the use of that warrantless power. So we're going to have a group of New Zealanders presumably who are titled NAIT officers—no particular indication of how they're trained what they're trained in what they are supposed to understand but they're going to have this extraordinary power to go wherever they like without any constraint whatsoever. That cannot be the intention of the bill. If the intention is to tighten up the NAIT regulations which we all agree with; if it is to encourage greater compliance with the NAIT regulations which we all agree with; if it is to have a regime in place that means if there is a future incursion of any type there is a greater ability to contain it and to eradicate it then we all agree with that. What we don't agree with is the opening up of the warrantless authority to go anywhere you like to search anything you like and to seize whatever you like without any reference or scrutiny of that activity whatsoever.