Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I'm very pleased to round out the National Opposition's contributions in this debate. My what a debate it has been. For those that are listening they might draw all sorts of conclusions about what this debate has been but I want to start my contribution by saying what it's not about.This debate is not about any dissension about how vitally important it is to have a phased eradication of M. bovis. There is zero disagreement about that in this House. But make no mistake this legislation that's been changed under urgency with no public scrutiny—changes in the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill; NAIT as we fondly know it—the changes in this legislation are not just constrained to the current situation we have with M. bovis. The ramifications and the reach of this legislation go far wider.I think it's very important to make sure that is on the record. Similar to my colleague Hamish Walker who spoke before me as an electorate MP with the first—not the first one but first two cases in the Waikato which is of course the heart of dairy excellence in New Zealand the cost on individuals and their families is enormous. This debate is not disputing that. Unfortunately what this debate does do for those that are dealing with this crisis day to day is it provides a huge level of uncertainty about what can happen on their property.The other side have accused the National Opposition of scaremongering. Let's just clarify because I think in the time of crisis people deserve honesty. People deserve that the people who represent them and those that are the Ministers in charge of a crisis are honest. To call this a technical bill is outrageous. To call this a minor correction for mistakes in an existing piece of legislation is outrageous. That is not honest. That is not upfront with the very people that are dealing with a crisis right now right here and I think that's appalling.So in terms of this crisis—and this House under urgency generally we do debate legislation that is related to a civil defence emergency; we've had special legislation for Canterbury earthquakes. The difference is that even with legislation that is dealing with an emergency or a crisis in this country we have had the ability to provide scrutiny through a shortened select committee process.Now the other thing that is worth noting on this piece of legislation because it relates very much to the use of urgency is that this is a phased eradication. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the Minister for primary industries had a range of options available. The one selected wasn't immediate eradication. If it'd been immediate eradication our side could have understood the need for urgency for legislation with no scrutiny whatsoever but it's not. This is phased eradication. There was absolutely sufficient time—for people who are dealing with a crisis like this it is absolutely their right and our responsibility as lawmakers to them to give them a voice.We've had contributions from the urban MPs across the House and while they might have some nice and interesting ideas they have not faced this issue in their electorate. They have not faced the concerns of members of their electorates who are dealing with a crisis who are now confronted with a piece of legislation they've had no opportunity to scrutinise. The other thing is this legislation is not just constrained to M. bovis. If it was there could've been a sunset clause. There could've been constraints and restrictions around these particular changes in the legislation but no the Government didn't want to listen at all to anyone.What was absolutely staggering was watching the Green members' faces when they realised—hello hello thanks to the Opposition's work on this legislation under urgency with very little notice—this was not just a technical bill. This is a substantial change and far-reaching in terms of the search and surveillance legislation. The Government members hate hearing it. It is absolutely unheard of for an MPI official to have greater powers than the New Zealand Police—absolutely outrageous. Again the Green Party are always interesting because every single piece of legislation that urgency was accorded for when they were in Opposition they opposed on principle—opposed. But they've gone—principles have walked out of the door as soon as the Greens could see that there was a sniff of power. But what they don't do—what they don't do—is look in the eyes of the very people that are affected by this.It's interesting because one of the areas although my colleagues asked detailed questions about it was around the provision of moving animals from one property to another—one that was NAIT certified and the other one that wasn't. I have dairy cows on my property right now but they graze there; I don't own them. The farmer who owns them is responsible for the NAIT records of the movement of those animals. So does that mean the MPI official can walk on to my property and carry out any kind of inspection they want? These were the sorts of questions that the Opposition was asking in detail in this House under urgency because the Government would not give any member of the public the ability to contribute to make sure we made good law.But did they answer? No. Were they interested? No. And yes it's great to see that many of them are hanging their heads in shame as we debate this final third reading when we debated the rest of it under urgency. Yes look around. Tamati Coffey you have a large rural constituency. I shall wait to hear what they want to say to that member when they realise exactly what their Government have done to the rural community. It doesn't seem like that member's interested which is quite a pity because at the end of the day last time I checked the rural communities were still the most significant contributor to our economy that then provides all of the things that New Zealanders want to see in terms of health and education. But no no that side of the House is quite willing to remove their rights to ensure that a MPI official will have more rights on a rural property than the police do—more rights than the police do.That side of the House would be absolutely in uproar if this was an urban issue. If it was something about officials being able to go on to urban properties—Hon Scott Simpson: In South Auckland.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —in South Auckland in west Auckland in Northland—you name it—in Porirua there would be an outrage but unfortunately the Government hasn't considered the wide-ranging impacts of this legislation. They had the opportunity to constrain it to focus it so that it was just limited. They had the opportunity. This side of the House was willing to give them the opportunity for public submissions even truncated—half a day. Half a day would've been better than nothing because this House often then has to deal with legislation because the implications haven't been thought through and I join my colleagues on this side of the House to say this legislation will be back. This legislation will be back because that side of the House sold farmers a lemon saying it was a technical bill and we all know it's not. This is not just a technical bill. It's an outrage and it's dishonest to suggest it is. This has far-reaching implications for farmers and I'm disappointed in the Government.