Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Yes. I would like to speak to clauses 4 through to 7 in relation to animal movements from National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) properties or between properties and raise a question because what's not clear is what constitutes a movement and what properties would be captured in that. I can use an example of stock being grazed in vineyards in Marlborough—and this happens a lot particularly with sheep. Now sheep aren't part of NAIT but they may well be at some point in the future. Anyway the argument holds true. Where animals are taken to a third party's property shifted on to there grazed—and then they may well be shifted four or five times around different properties. Is that a movement that has to be recorded and reported to NAIT? That's unclear—it's totally unclear—and I think this is a very important aspect to it.Also what would be unclear—what about the search and surveillance clauses? Does that give power to NAIT people discharging their duties under this bill to be able to have access to in this case a vineyard's records and a warrantless search and seizure of property from a third party completely unrelated? The way I read the bill that is actually the case. This would have far-reaching implications if this is the case and this level of uncertainty is out there because we'll have people who would be concerned about those infringements on their rights and having that extended to them. So they will simply withdraw that opportunity for the grazing of those animals to be carried out on these properties. It's a very valuable part and a symbiotic relationship between in this case sheep—but it could be cattle going on to vineyards. The great thing about grazing on vineyards is that most of the year they don't have any animals on them at all.That has a very low worm burden to no worm burden on those properties. So the pasture is clean. The pasture is also great for storing carbon so we want to have that. We don't want to have chemically nuked - out vineyards which would be the alternative. Otherwise you're spending a lot of money. Also in these days of concern about the environment and climate change the alternative to having stock grazing in those vineyards is to run tractors around and mow them. That is not the best solution. So this bill I think has quite far-reaching and perverse impacts.This is what we are often back in this House fixing—a bill is drafted it becomes an Act many years pass and people haven't thought about the consequences of what might happen in the future. This is the opportunity. We're not going through a select committee process as has been alluded to by many people today and I won't traverse all of those arguments. But that is a serious problem potentially in the future.I note that the Hon Damien O'Connor is back in the chair so I'd like him to consider that question. What happens when stock is moved on to a grazing property such as a vineyard? Does that constitute a movement that has to be reported to NAIT? And when it shifts from one vineyard to another vineyard does that constitute a NAIT movement that has to be recorded? Do the search and surveillance powers in the bill—and the warrantless entry and all of those provisions—also apply to those third-party properties? Because the way the bill reads they do. And as I said this will have far-reaching implications for those good relationships between farmers and third parties utilising our resources in New Zealand for the best effect and helping to meet our climate change ambitions as a country—these things all fit together. And in my reading of the bill this will have implications that we do not want as a country. I certainly don't want it in my electorate and having all of those good relations being undone by an ill-thought out ill-prepared bill which has come before this—[Time expired]