Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I want to make some comments this morning as we go through the committee stage in this because this is a bill that I personally do not like. I think it is an utter disgrace that it's in front of the House and it is designed entirely to cover the backsides of Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officers who have not acted appropriately or understood the powers that they have under the existing National Animal Identification and Tracing Act.Where we are here in Part 1 of course is dealing with the movement of animals from one location to the other and adding in the provision for some scrutiny or oversight of animals that are moved to a non - National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) location. My question is: how do you have a non-NAIT location if the system was working and if the system had been diligently applied by MPI in the first place? The second point I'd like to make is: how many people out there are not complying with NAIT regulations? How many people sell cattle or sheep or whatever the animals are and simply say to the buyer Oh look I haven't kept up with it. Don't worry about it. You get on with it." The Minister knows full well that a lot of people do that sort of thing. It's not at all uncommon. So we have had a lax approach to the way in which the regime has been in place in the past. It's pretty clear that it is a bill that's before us today that effectively covers the tail of MPI officers who have with all due respect probably lost the opportunity for sound prosecution by their failure to recognise either the powers or the constraints of their powers inside the bill.So what I would ask is simply for the Minister to come and explain to us particularly this clause 8 which deals with compliance and enforcement. It amends and replaces the definition of "search power" so that it includes warrantless entry and inspection powers conferred by or under the principal Act. The need for a prescribed form for such search warrants is removed and the amendments to clause 82 of schedule 2 align with the offence provision in the clause which is the amendment made by clause 7 to section 31. What does this mean? It means that a NAIT officer under this bill is going to have more power to enter to search and to seize than a police officer might have in a criminal investigation. That is I think completely excessive. The Minister sits there smiling because he thinks no one's actually caught on to this. I don't think there'd be a farmer in the country who wants to see NAIT officers given the powers of entry to their property and the powers to seize property assets information or everything else as they choose without any kind of warrant. A warrant at least is an expression if nothing else of a concern that has been identified. We've heard in our discussions with officials that the problem is that there might be someone there who sees say tags missing off animals' ears etc. etc. and they think "Right we'd better have a bit of an in-depth search here." and they have to go away and it takes a bit of time to get a warrant. Well I'm not sure that the time factor is a reasonable consideration. Then they said "Well the problem is they might have all their details written down inside a notebook and suddenly the notebook disappears or suddenly the computer records disappear."Well wake up. We're in 2018. Every transaction these days between a farmer and another farmer will have a long computer record. For every transaction between a farmer and anyone else who buys those stock units there will be a long computer transaction list. Somehow they'll get from one farm to the other. That would tend to mean that there is a transport company manifest somewhere and there is a payment made by the farmer to the transporting company or by the buyer to the transporting company. These records under a warrant are able to be accessed so any suggestion that there needs to be some kind of immediacy is completely out of order.I do not understand the Green Party who went on the streets in all sorts of protests against the Search and Surveillance Bill silently sitting in this committee allowing this huge extension of powers to NAIT officers—powers well beyond those of a police officer.Madam Chair I can speak on if it's your choice. [Bell rung]CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: So the question for the Minister is: why is it necessary for a NAIT officer to have search and seizure powers greater than a police officer conducting a criminal investigation? Why do they not have to at least satisfy the concerns of anybody who values civil liberties in this country and gain a warrant from a court?Hon AUPITO William Sio: Will Mr Brownlee vote for the bill?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: And there we have Mr Sio sitting over there Aupito sitting over there telling me that everything's OK—"Don't worry about it." Well there is a slight—there is a slight—connection here or should I say simile here to something that he found very very offensive that happened during the 1970s and 1980s: the so-called dawn raids. I'll tell you what—the member might sit over there and smile and say "Oh this won't happen." Well how many times does this House give powers to people that ultimately become abused? So if I was a farmer out there at the moment going about my daily business worried about the capital I've got invested in my farm worried about the commodity prices and worried about who was going to be there to purchase the animals when they reach their bullet point their disposal point—I'm sorry I'm not a farmer so I don't know what you'd describe that as—over the top of that would be the worry that should they miss some compliance somewhere there's not going to be a discussion with NAIT. I don't believe now after this incident that there'll be any farmer that doesn't want to comply. It's not in their interests. Those bad farmers—those rogues those ratbags—who have caused the problem in the first place are not typical of farmers in this country. And I think it's just outrageous that because the MPI officers mucked up—completely mucked up—the investigation on that particular farm we come here now and are asked to pass a law that grants extraordinary powers to the NAIT officers who are selected appointed by the Ministry for Primary Industries.What are their qualifications? What makes them capable of understanding what is reasonable human rights behaviour when they're exercising the extraordinary powers that are given under this bill? None of us like to think that anyone can knock at our door and just enter our home and go for a bit of a search through any of our records. While the Minister will probably stand and say "Well dwelling houses are removed." I don't doubt that within a short period of time MPI NAIT officers will decide that the office where a farmer keeps all his records or the corner of the lounge or the living room or wherever it is is actually not a dwelling place. And it will be up to the farmer to go to the court to prove that it's part of his dwelling so all of these protections aren't there.What we have is a bill granting extraordinary powers to a small group of people who are simply taking those powers because they have not used the powers they've got right now properly—haven't understood what they're required to do. I don't for one minute think that there would have been the mistakes that were made in original investigations in the M. bovis problem had there been proper warrants sought and perhaps even police assistance in getting the information required for prosecutions. Here's the question also for the Minister: can he stand up in the committee today and say that there is going to be some prosecution of some ratbag farmer who has not complied with NAIT regulations and that has seen the spread of M. bovis in New Zealand. His answer will be no. Then the question will be "Why is that?" and the answer almost certainly is "Because MPI stuffed up the investigation." Then you'll say "So is the answer to their stuffing it up this piece of legislation?" and almost certainly the answer will be "Well if they'd had this bit of legislation they wouldn't have been in so much trouble because they would have had the warrantless right of entry and seizure from farm properties."But it is not appropriate in my opinion to change a law that affects every New Zealander because by the way there's no constraint on where a NAIT officer might go—no constraint that says "just a farm". It could be anywhere. This is very bad for the civil liberties of New Zealanders."