Guy Nathan; Rurawhe AdrianHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's been a good afternoon and I think quite a good reasoned debate on this National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2). I remember when it came into the Primary Production Committee and the debates in the House preceding that. This system indeed was tested with M. bovis and it was found wanting in a number of areas. I think it's appropriate that the Government has moved to make the necessary changes. Of course prior to that we had a bill that came in under urgency with no consultation with industry the public or even the Opposition. So we certainly attacked that process but I'm pleased to see that this one has gone through the full transparency process involving industry and others that came and submitted.What it does do is it really clarifies a few things but I think there is a bone of contention around who owns the data. It looks as though Government members pushed pretty hard to say that the Government owned the data. Industry said Well we own it." So it hasn't necessarily been easily clarified but there's been a bit of a workaround that's been resolved by the Primary Production Committee and the good chairmanship of the Hon David Bennett. What it does mean is that the Minister can request some information or all of the information from the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system at any time that he or she wishes.What has been also interesting in the debate reading the bill and through the select committee process is the transport operators being liable for an animal that isn't indeed tagged. I felt from the start that that was never fair on those truckies because when you consider it often these truck drivers can turn up at any hour of the night to load out stock. It's not appropriate for the driver to be able to—and often these yards aren't lit so the driver may have a spotlight on the back of the trailer of the truck may be able to see that some of the animals are all tagged but there's no way that the driver would be able to see that all this particular load of animals are all tagged. So I think the committee has worked through a good process there and the onus is going to sit on the natural person in day-to-day charge of a NAIT animal which is the person responsible for the animals to ensure that they are correctly tagged and there will be a six-month lead-in process to that.The other one was these unsafe animals where there was another I think good robust debate in the Primary Production Committee at the time because we need to be mindful of the fact that these can be very large bulls. They might be five years old. They could be a tonne in weight. Or stags could indeed be older and they get very very aggressive at certain times of the year. So I think it's appropriate to say well there is a period of five years to allow the person in charge of the animal to tag these animals and that will be reviewed in five years by NAIT.The other thing that we have some concern about on this side of the House is indeed the ministerial direction where the Minister of the day can say to the NAIT board "Well here are all of my priorities and expectations under this term of Government or indeed under the leadership of the Minister." So we don't agree that the Minister can just go and direct the NAIT board or senior NAIT staff to say "Well here are all my individual priorities and expectations for the period that I'm a Minister. You should follow suit or toe the line." So we have some concerns about that. We will take the opportunity in the committee process when the Minister is in the chair to ask him very specific questions around some of the areas that I've canvassed today. But we do support the changes that are in the bill and I think that the select committee has done a good job. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Marja Lubeck—five minutes."