Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Thank you. The question
is that the motion be agreed to.
time. Thank you. The question is that the motion be agreed to. I
call the Hon Nathan Guy. Thank you very
much for the opportunity to take the
call on the second reading. I was
hoping that the
Minister of Agriculture and
Agriculture and biosecurity would have responded to some of the
questions and comments from this
side of the House.
It is obvious and very
side of the House. It is obvious and questions
side of the House. It is obvious and very clear to us
that we are going to have to wait until he's in the
Chair at the committee of the
whole to answer a lot of these questions.
Let's just recap on some of
those questions. One is we haven't had
a sense from any of the contribution
from the Government
benches this afternoon and into the evening now,
as to why urgency needs to be taken
from
as to why urgency needs to be taken on this bill. 10 months on since the
Government has been formed and
what Government has been formed and what
was also glaring was when
the minister spoke a few hours ago he
indicated to the House indeed there
is another NAIT bill
being cooked is another NAIT bill being cooked
up. So we have a NAIT bill in
urgency this
urgency this evening but wait, it's a bit like the Ginsu knives, but
a bit like the Ginsu knives, but
wait. ..There's more. There's
more coming down the pipeline. So why
would the minister come into the
House in urgency when we have
another bill that's been cooked
up by his officials. Surely it
would make logical sense to combine
those two bills, send them off to a select
committee so that everyone
can have committee so that everyone can have
their say. When I talk
about everyone, I talk about
fed rated farmers, dairy New Zealand, possibly
beef and lamb, Fonterra
and farmers that have been on the end of this
response and, indeed, may have had
firsthand experience of these NAIT
officers coming onto their property
and using their warrantless
powers. So we haven't got a sense from the
Government benches this evening as
to why urgency is needed. We can't
fathom, not even from
Mark Patterson, why this couldn't go to a
select committee. You would
have
I did listen. I think you got confused. You were talking about a
select committee for the search and
surveillance bill, that was
enacted in 2012 that New Zealand First, the
Greens and Labour all voted against.
Now they want to effectively get
these two acts to align and Mr
Patterson can't give us
a clear reason why it couldn't go
to a select committee. What we
also haven't heard from the minister, or
any one in the
haven't heard from the minister, or
not a recommendation of the NAIT
heard from the minister this evening that 15 of those are going to be
dealt with by Government. That
is obviously on the
second NAIT bill, and 23 of them are going to be
dealt with by NAIT and OSPRI, but when
you look through the whole 38
recommendations, two of these
particular aspects of this
NAIT bill that we are debating in urgency this
evening aren't there. We
haven't had any examples from the minister as to
why suddenly has this become
on urgent issue when he's been in the
chair for 10 months. These are
the unanswered questions. We also stood
up in the House and said that these
provisions that he wants to insert
into the warrantless powers
go no further. Well, that is
completely wrong. It was interesting to hear
from Eugenie Sage because
they were really opposed to
the Search and Surveillance Act of
when it went through the part and became an act
when it went through the part and
liberties and seeming to encroach on people's personal lives and
personal property. I listened
intently to Eugenie Sage this evening. The
critical point in her
contribution was,
critical point in her contribution
error. We are led to believe that this is
error. We are led to believe that
technical inconsequential tidy up technical inconsequential tidy up
that should have been done a
long time ago. But the reality is, when
we look at this bill, and when we
sit down with the minister's
officials this week, we realise
that it's more than just a technical bill
and, indeed, it is consequential. So
we have some concerns on
this side of the House and we would
have really have liked to have ironed
really have liked to have ironed
these out in the select committee
process. It is not too late, it
is, for the minister to stand up and
We've had a bit of a huddle on the Government benches and we realise
that we should send this to a select
Primary Production select committee, I will ask David Bennett,
the Chair, is the Chair prepared to call
the Primary Production
Primary Production select committee to meet
Primary Production select committee
Yes, yes. Mr Bennett says he is. Here we have an offer from
this side of the House poor
the Primary Production select committee
to meet in the recess.
We believe we could turn this bill around over
the truncated period in
the recess and we would be back in the House within
we would be back in the House within
two weeks to debate it. That
offer so far has been turned down
by the minister. Why would the
minister want to effectively not give
New Zealanders and farmers
an opportunity to submit on this
You would think it's logical. They talk about being open and
transparent. Why would the minister
not send it to a truncated
select committee process.
not send it to a truncated select committee process. So in conclusion,
Madam Chair, we are cautiously
supporting this NAIT
Amendment Bill. There are aspects of it
that we entirely agree with. And those two
aspects are that when a farmer
sends
another farm that farm must be NAIT registered. Then, of course, there
is the
is the compliance and infringement is the compliance and infringement
aspect of that if that
transaction doesn't occur accurately
in the way it should. But the
search and surveillance extension of
these warrantless powers has us,
on this side of the House, really
concerned. We would have preferred to have
heard from the minister at
his second reading speech just a
moment ago, to stand up
and answer these questions but it's clear we
are going to have to wait until
the minister gets in the chair. I
have a personal view that the minister
is only just coming to terms with what
part of this bill actually does. It
is going to mean that we are
going to need to explore these very
detailed and technical questions
via the minister, to his officials
either later this evening or more
likely tomorrow morning. I conclude
where I started off,
Madam Chair, M. Bovis is a very important issue. The
NAIT system need
to change. The minister has had 10 months to bring
this bill to the parliament. He's
decided to bring it through in
decided to bring it through in
urgency at the end of
recess. There is ample time for this bill to go to a select committee,
even if that was truncated. There
is even if that was truncated. There is
ample time for people who
are interested in this bill, and that
would generally be farmers, but
it could be stock agents, it could be
truckies, who are involved in the
whole NAIT supply system, to have
their voices heard. But
the reason we have all of these
unanswered questions is we have had just two
sessions with the
minister's officials for, as my colleague, the
Rt Hon dart David Carter mentioned,
one for about 35 minutes and one
for about 20 minutes and
they couldn't answer some of
the specific details of this bill. It is an important
bill. We want to get it right.
Fundamentally, we think that parts
of it are really important and
it should go through. But there are
some aspects around
the Search and Surveillance Act of 2012
that we have some concerns about.
Surveillance Act of 2012 that we have some concerns about. I call
Kieran McAnulty. This is an
And I therefore commend it to the And I therefore commend it to the
House. Good speech. Thank you.
And I therefore commend it to the House. Good speech. Thank you. I
call the Hon David
Bennett. I would just like to first of
all thank the minister. I think that he's
done a pretty good job on M. Bovis so