Ardern Shane: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20999] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker Dr Ashraf Choudhary. His services to the Primary Production Committee will be sadly missed. He is one of the very few agricultural scientists who have come into Parliament in the time that I have been here. He has made a substantial contribution not only to this bill but also to the Primary Production Committee in the whole time that I have chaired it and prior to that on occasions when I have served on it. I thank him for his contribution. 
I do not intend to relitigate all of the comments that the Minister of Agriculture went through because I think he pretty much summed up the history of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill and where we are with it but I would like to make some points. Before I do that I thank the officials and the Minister for the way that they have worked with us in this process. I particularly thank the officials because we certainly grilled them on a number of issues and made life fairly challenging for them while we went through the formation of the amendments that the Minister spoke of in his comments. 
Can I say New Zealand has never been better placed than it is right now to exploit the opportunity to export high-quality traceable sustainably farmed—and I emphasise the last bit “sustainably farmed”—protein foods to the world and the world has never been more receptive to the idea of buying at a reasonable price. That does not make us a low-cost producer but a niche producer and marketer of high-quality food to the world. We have never had a greater opportunity. Hand in hand with that goes the responsibility of having a traceability mechanism that is based in modern technology and has integrity. That goes to the hub I guess of some of the major concerns that were raised through the submission process in the select committee. 
Federated Farmers raised with us substantial concerns about the choice of technology—low-frequency versus high-frequency technology—that may be employed. As a committee we were not going to try to second-guess which technology may be the best in the future but we tried to make sure that the bill was enabling so that the market could determine through technological development which technology would be better suited and most cost-effective. The Federated Farmers submission was well received despite the fact that they indicated at the end of it that they were not entirely happy with the direction that we were heading in. I think to some extent that concern has now started to fade away a little because high-frequency technology will be able to be used if in the end that is proven to be the best technology. We called in an expert to appear before the select committee to give us advice on this matter and I have to say he did not in any way at all allay our fears that potentially we were going down the wrong path. In fact it was quite the opposite of that: he might have suggested to us that high-frequency technology as Federated Farmers were submitting potentially may be the way of the future. We have yet to find that out I guess as time goes on. 
The other major issue that needs to be mentioned now is the Crown’s commitment to this project. The Crown has made available to this project $7 million in upfront capital costs and 35 percent of the ongoing costs at $2.5 million per annum. That is the kind of importance the Government believes this issue needs and I support that entirely. We cannot be a First World trading nation if we do not back up our comments about traceable First World products with technology and with action. The State is doing that and that needs to be acknowledged. National Animal Identification and Tracing is effectively an insurance policy to support New Zealand in a uniquely livestock-based economy. Nowhere else in the world that I am aware of is as dependent on exports from livestock—proteins and fibres—as New Zealand is. We are unique in the world in that regard so making sure that that integrity is in place is absolutely the genesis of this notion. Those who would have been critical of it as the previous speaker said because of cost probably need to bear that in mind when they consider their position on that issue. 
The ability in the future to implant a silicon chip—not a tag that can be lost or have retention issues—into farmed livestock for traceability and to do so in such a way that it will not affect meat processing or cause other ongoing problems is something that I am confident will develop over time. The developments that will come from that of course in terms of livestock handling genetic certainty about the integrity of records kept and traceability back to the farm of origin etc. are substantial. They spin over not only into international market certainty but also into buyer security certainty. We had the example of the Waiheke Island foot-and-mouth hoax when we in New Zealand were absolutely found to be wanting. The lessons learnt from that hoax have I guess focused the minds of people. If we are to be involved in rearing or keeping livestock even if it is as a hobby rather than a commercial enterprise we need to be responsible for the record-keeping on how many of those particular animals we have where they are and when they are being transported. 
I look forward to the passage of this bill. I am confident that it will make good progress through the House. It is good to see the support we have. I am not sure whether anybody will oppose it at this stage but maybe someone will do so. I look forward to the passage of the bill.