Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you. I think the Opposition needs to work out whether they actually support strong action on Mycoplasma bovis or not because we're hearing flip-flop speeches from members of the Opposition which talk about why they're going to support the bill but then are very critical of what is in the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill.Now as I understand it—and I'm no lawyer either—the key parts of this bill are to remove the requirement that a search warrant under the original National Animal Identification and Tracing Act or the principal Act must be in a particular form to align the provisions in the principal Act which provide for warrantless inspections and searches with the relevant provisions in the Search and Surveillance Act and to make it clear that animal movements from one farm to another place must be declared to National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) to the tracing authority even if it's not a registered NAIT location and to ensure that the offence provisions around this clearly cover the failure to declare movements of animals from one location to another. So these amendments are designed to ensure that the NAIT system which was established under the former Government to have a whole-of-life tracing system from birth through until death actually operates because we've seen with Mycoplasma bovis—and it would be the same with something like foot-and-mouth—that actually being able to trace infected animals is critical to getting some control of the disease and eradicating it. We need to have an effective regulatory system and an effective tracing system if we are to maintain the confidence of consumers overseas that the meat products we're exporting and that the milk products we're exporting are fit to eat. So an effective NAIT system is about safeguarding our reputation and brand overseas which I would have thought the Opposition would be concerned about and it is about ensuring that we can tackle Mycoplasma bovis effectively.Now I'm no lawyer but I did go back and have a look at the principal Act and in Part 4 of that Act it sets out in over 30 pages the details around search and inspection powers. There are quite specific provisions which constrain the way in which those powers should be exercised. I would caution the Opposition if it's thinking of introducing Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to put in some other threshold tests because they potentially risk undermining the schema of the principal Act which was carefully thought through at the time and the safeguards which are in the principal Act around how those search powers are exercised.There are certain purposes for which a consented search may be undertaken for example. There are restrictions on the issue of a search warrant in schedule 2 clause 34—quite a few restrictions—and there are some tests in the principal Act that if an issuing officer in terms of a search warrant is going to issue that warrant he or she's got to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect an offence against the Act has been or will be committed and to believe that the search will find evidence in respect of that offence. So there is a carefully thought through schema here to provide safeguards against the unreasonable exercise of search powers. The form and content of search warrants has got to be done in a particular way and that clause goes on for a page and half with a lot of detail. So this bill is aimed at correcting some of the drafting errors with the comprehensive provisions in the principal Act.There's another clause—clause 40 in schedule 2—which sets out that every search power authorises the person exercising it to do certain things. The power of seizure which Opposition members have talked about repeatedly is to seize anything that may be lawfully seized. So there is a test in there that the seizure has to be of a thing that may be lawfully seized. So there is an ability to test the wrongful exercise of these powers in the High Court. There are also safeguards in schedule 2 that anything that is seized has got to be reported on so that it is clear to the farm owner. There is a requirement if the farm owner is absent that the authorisation notice has to be left on the property. So in the principal Act which of course did go to select committee there was consideration of the submissions on the overall protections that apply to any searches and warrantless searches that are exercised.So any SOPs that the National Opposition is likely to be presenting should consider the risk that that they will undermine the schema in the principal Act and potentially erode the safeguards that exist in the principal Act. There hasn't been the opportunity to check all these in detail but having looked at schedule 2 it is quite comprehensive and it does provide a number of safeguards. So I think the Opposition doth protest too much in claiming that this is a huge extension of powers when in the principal Act there are strong safeguards against improper use of those powers. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.