Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's my pleasure to speak after the MP for Napier and highlight to him why being a rural MP is very different from being an urban MP and to dispel some of the myths he's just given. It was a very impassioned speech—the most impassioned I've heard him for the last two weeks with some of the other controversies that are going on in the House but anyway.I would like to say that it is a pleasure to speak on this but I am highly critical of the process because I believe that what the Hon Nathan Guy offered was a very sensible short-term truncated solution to get to the bottom of some of the concerns that this side of the House have. I'm surprised that the Minister hasn't taken it up. He would have done the thing and said I've got the numbers; it doesn't matter." But the Hon Damien O'Connor remember what we did on the Christ Church Cathedral bill? About one week before Christmas we said "Let's have a truncated select committee." Dr Duncan Webb would remember this. "Let's have a truncated select committee get it through and get it sorted." We agreed to that. The Hon Nathan Guy suggested a very similar approach in this case which has just been roundly rejected.After hearing all the speeches from the other side of the House so far including that from the Minister I'm left wondering what the rush is. What would it take? Another two weeks? Another week? Would it really matter? I've heard everybody saying—including the last speaker the Hon Stuart Nash—that we need to get on and do this. This side of the House is not disagreeing with that. It agrees that this legislation needs to be amended and changed but it has some real concerns. The Hon Meka Whaitiri spoke about spring coming as if somehow that was a big thing that was going to happen on the calendar. Well spring is coming but some of the provisions in this are actually not related to spring. There might be some calf movements; I accept that. But actually the search and surveillance and some of the more worrying things—it doesn't matter when they're brought in.I want to go back to a meeting that was held in Hastings because a number of my colleagues and the Minister have said—and the Minister may not be aware that his own officials are telling people this—that Mycoplasma bovis started in New Zealand in about June or July of last year. But they now know from DNA evidence that Mycoplasma bovis was likely to have been in New Zealand—and the Minister might like to listen to this—in December of 2015 based on the gene technology. They managed to track it back by DNA.Barbara Kuriger: When was that?LAWRENCE YULE: In December 2015. My point in saying that Madam Assistant Speaker or Madam Chair is that it has been in New Zealand a long time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): You were right the first time.LAWRENCE YULE: It has been in New Zealand a long time. As part of that it hadn't actually been picked up until about July of last year. My point in saying that is it wouldn't matter what National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) had done. I suspect this particular type of disease would have been very hard to track even if we'd had 100 percent compliance with NAIT.I think what we're trying to do here is rush something through when actually the lead-in times are about three years not a year and it's not going to make very much difference to anything in the next two weeks. So I'm amazed actually now I hear the facts from my learned colleague the Rt Hon David Carter—the honourable or right honourable—Hon Members: Right honourable.LAWRENCE YULE: —right honourable; my apologies sir—when he referred to the Hon Damien O'Connor speaking against the Search and Surveillance Bill and Mark Patterson's party voting en bloc against it in 2012. Today it's the best thing since sliced bread—no worries; don't worry about it. Well I'm saying: where are your principles? We have every right on this side of the House—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order!LAWRENCE YULE: Where are the Opposition's principles? We have every right on this side of the House to actually—Hon Member: That is a very good question. Where are the Opposition's principles?LAWRENCE YULE: We have lots of principles and one of them is making sure when we have concerns that they can go through the proper select committee process.I want to relate a little bit of my own farming experience in this because before I entered politics I was an active farmer. When I started farming how we managed animal identification and how we used animal health remedies—what paperwork we filled out was minimal. I remember when TB forms first came in and you had to record your TB accreditation. There was a big change in things. You had to fill out your status and you had to account for it all—sorry individual farmers had to account for it all. Eventually over time people got used to that system. Then meat companies including for traceability and value reasons actually got a much tighter control over animal health products.Over time the farming industry became more and more aware and more used to that type of regime. So it has been on a journey and I actually think to have 96 percent compliance with NAIT at the works and 94 percent at the sale yard—the figures I've been given honourable Minister; if I got that wrong I'm happy to hear it—actually are not a bad result. But I am also saying that we need to do better.This side of the House is saying that we need to do better but there are some provisions in this legislation that cause me and my party grave concern. In the Napier electorate actually—in an area that I've had some involvement with—Jeremy and Sharon White have a bull beef farm at Pātoka and they have Mycoplasma bovis. They have slaughtered their entire herd basically and been in a whole process of compensation with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the Government including letters and correspondence between myself and the Hon Stuart Nash and the Minister. They have no animals left and are restocking their farm and I agreed with that approach.What I do know is that out of that whole process they have lost most if not all of their confidence and respect and understanding for MPI. They have been told many times different stories about what is going to happen when and by whom. They had that much conflicting advice that they didn't know where to turn. In fact one day I spent an afternoon with them and we with some other people who are used to the farming industry made a decision that they should kill the whole lot—all the animals—and that's what they did. I'm really worried that in an environment of limited trust—that's what I would call it limited trust and I'm being generous in this case—we are now going to give NAIT officers an ability to enter a property for a search and surveillance and seizure when actually the level of trust and the level of integrity is questioned by the very farmers that I represent in my electorate.You see we do not let the Inland Revenue Department walk into your property or into your house and take your records or your books. We do not let the New Zealand Police force just wonder into your house or property without certain provisions that have been made including a warrant. What we're doing here is allowing an unnamed probably trained—hopefully—person from MPI to access a property. I agree with all my colleagues: farming people are generous warm people. They will usually invite somebody into their home. Once they're in the home they will have complete access to the records and ability to take videos and photos and I don't think that's right. For the people I represent in my electorate and the farming community of New Zealand if they knew this was what was on the agenda they would be horrified.I think the farming community in New Zealand absolutely understands that there actually needs to be a much higher level of NAIT compliance. I think the farming community in New Zealand has taken this as a terrible terrible learning curve towards what might happen with foot-and-mouth.Dr Duncan Webb: It shouldn't have had to. It should have been in place.LAWRENCE YULE: OK. Duncan Webb what I said earlier was I don't think NAIT would make any difference to where this happened because Mycoplasma bovis came in in 2015 and wasn't detected until 2017.My point is this: if we go down this path and we do search and surveillance the relationship between MPI and the farmers and the lack of trust will only get worse. I remember when IRD had a lack of trust. I don't think it does any more but I think MPI has a real issue with trust in the farming community and I think we need to be really really careful how we put this legislation through. We could have dealt with that in a rational and sensible way through a truncated select committee process over the recess—perfectly possible to be done. Yet the Minister sits over there and hasn't responded to that request so far and we are going to pass something that I think will be really compromising to the relationship between New Zealand farmers and MPI."