National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) Link to this

I move, That the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill be now read a second time. The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee in December 2010. The committee received 16 submissions on the bill and heard 10 oral submissions. The committee has done a thorough job in examining the bill, and called for some additional information from expert witnesses before recommending that the bill be passed with some amendments. I thank the committee for its work and the notable cooperation from both sides of the House in reviewing this bill. I also take this opportunity of acknowledging the previous Government’s work in approving the early development of the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) initiative.

Before I outline those amendments, I reiterate the need for this important bill. Agriculture is a key driver of our economic growth, and it is critical that we maintain our reputation as a world leader in the production of top-quality animal products. To do this we must improve the information we hold on livestock, including their life history and location, so that we can give assurance to our trade partners that New Zealand product is healthy and disease-free. Such information will also enable us to better manage biosecurity responses.

The NAIT scheme will support electronic recording of the locations of those animals—that is, cattle and deer—of people in charge of animals, and of the movement of animals between properties. The scheme will reduce our reliance on paper-based systems when decisions are needed quickly. Together with other non-regulatory information, the scheme can support improved productivity and on-farm management.

The committee has recommended a change to the commencement date of the bill, as the scheme is now unable to meet the original time frame of November 2011. The new commencement date will give greater certainty to those who need to be ready for the NAIT scheme, including farmers, saleyards, and processors. Some flexibility needs to be built into the bill to support different start dates for various obligations for farmers and for other participants in the scheme. The amendment sets 1 July 2012 as the mandatory date for the tagging of cattle with NAIT identification devices. Other obligations such as registering specific location and movement details in the system will become mandatory by no later than 1 November 2012. All obligations will apply to deer on 1 March 2013. Flexibility has been built into the legislation to bring these dates and provisions forward through an Order in Council.

A number of submitters were concerned that the process for designating the new NAIT organisation—which will be responsible for running the NAIT system—was overly complex. They were also concerned that the process did not align with any merger of the functions of NAIT Ltd and the Animal Health Board into a single organisation by around 2013. The committee has recommended that the relevant clauses are redrafted so that NAIT Ltd will continue to run the scheme until any new entity can be put in place.

The bill has been amended to provide more detail on matters the Minister must be satisfied about before approving the appointment of the NAIT organisation. These include the capacity of the organisation and its agreement to operate on a not-for-profit basis. A further amendment has been made to give the Minister flexibility to act where necessary to preserve the integrity of the NAIT scheme.

Sections of the bill have also been amended so that consultation carried out before the bill’s enactment will be valid for the purposes of the Act, recognising that much work around developing NAIT has taken place prior to the bill being passed. The committee has also recommended that we reduce unnecessary compliance costs by removing clause 32. That clause would require people moving a NAIT animal to make a statutory declaration as well as proving relevant information to the NAIT database. The committee felt that this additional compliance burden was unnecessary.

Several submitters commented on clause 46, which sets out who may apply for access to information in the NAIT database. The committee felt that it should be made clearer what groups of applicants may have access to which categories of data. Most submitters felt that if a person gave their consent to access their information, then the restrictions set out in the earlier draft could then be relaxed. It was also pointed out that levy-funded bodies need not be bound by separate rules from other bodies corporate. These changes will make the criteria clearer without compromising the very firm control on information sharing stipulated by the bill.

The compliance and enforcement provisions of the bill have been rearranged at the committee’s recommendation. Clause 10 has been rewritten to clarify that compliance and enforcement will be undertaken by the NAIT organisation in conjunction with the Crown.

Another issue that raised comment was the inclusion of clauses cross-referenced from the Search and Surveillance Bill. These provisions were included in the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill because the wider-ranging provisions of the Search and Surveillance Bill, when passed, will affect the NAIT organisation’s operations. The later clauses have been included as a schedule to the bill to remove their dominating effect. A consequential amendment may be made later to align the two statutes.

One further amendment relates to the power to require a person to answer questions about their compliance with the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act or regulations. While the regulations will provide exemptions from some of the general requirements set out in the bill, the people involved may still have valuable information to provide, should there be a need to trace animal movements. This clause has been redrafted to ensure that people who are exempted under the regulation are still required to provide the information if requested. A further amendment to clause 55 clarifies that a search warrant would be necessary to exercise the power to detain and search conferred by that clause.

The final point I will make is to take this opportunity of acknowledging in the House today the dedicated work of Mr Ted Coats as chairman of NAIT Ltd. His full commitment to this role has been very much appreciated. I commend the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill to the House.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this

Thank you very much for this opportunity. I rise to support the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. The Primary Production Committee had a very good discussion on this bill. As the Minister said, we heard 10 submissions, but they were very thorough submissions, very good submissions from a range of submitters. I say at the outset that this is a bill that the Labour Government started in 2004, and then we formally committed to implementing it and allocating resources in 2008. I think it is very important to say at the outset that this is an issue about animal tracing that all the key exporting countries around the world have already. We are the one that has actually been slack. I have a list of the countries that have already got some kind of national animal identification and tracing scheme in their systems: Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States—in that case it is voluntary—South Korea, Japan, the European Union, Argentina, and Brazil. Those countries have it just for export purposes.

I think it is very important that as we move forward from a number of other animal issues like animal welfare—we have now passed a number of Acts for animal welfare—and also for the image that we have as a clean and green country, that we go into animal identification, because there will be more and more demand as countries and consumers want the ability to trace where their protein is coming from and which country the animals are coming from. I think we have done well in terms of getting this bill in place so we can assure consumers and countries that the meat they are consuming is coming from reliable sources. In particular, as a major exporting country, New Zealand has, over the years, taken leadership in many areas. Whether it is technology on the farm or whether it is meat processing or freezing meat, for over 100 years we have done very well. In that vein it is important that we pass this bill, because it will give consumers better choice and better understanding of where their protein comes from. It is also important, as a country that is very serious about biosecurity and any issues to do with animal diseases, that we have a way to identify animals so consumers and buyers know which source the animal protein is coming from. Going forward, I think consumers will want proof of where their meat has come from. This identification will start with cattle and deer because as we get into the system we have to ensure we start with animals that are easily traceable. Of course the next step will be to go to sheep in future years, but because of the numbers—30 million sheep—it will not be easy or cheap.

I must highlight a couple of points that have been raised by a number of submitters on this bill. One issue is about the lifestyle block people—the people who have small lifestyle blocks. There will be a cost factor for them, and how will we identify those small lifestyle blockholders who have a few animals? There will be a cost issue and, as I understand it, it could cost $2 to $3 per animal to microchip those animals. That cost issue has been raised by some of the submitters, and I think it is important that we need to keep in mind that to fulfil the animal tracing requirement, the holders of small lifestyle blocks can be contacted. Obviously, we have what we call the FarmsOnLine database. That could be useful for this purpose.

The other issue that has been raised by submitters is the accountability for recovery. What principles will be used to recover the cost of microchipping animals? The levy recovery will be a major issue. Another issue will be at what time and what stage these animals will be microchipped. Will they be microchipped at the time of birth? What happens when animals are moved from one farm to another farm, or even moved from south to north or north to south? Those issues need to be sorted out, because this could be a potential problem in terms of animals being moved from farm to farm but farmers not being sure at which stage animals should be microchipped.

The other issue is whether it will be helpful, given that a lot of diseases are spread by wild animals, such as possums. We know that in New Zealand we have millions of these terrible animals, which spread disease. The question is whether just microchipping export animals will be good enough to stop the spread of disease. That is another issue we will need to look at.

The other issue that could potentially be a problem is dispute resolution in terms of levy payment. That is another issue that the ministry will have to resolve—whether these disputes will be resolved through regulations or whether that should be in the bill. In other areas these disputes are often dealt with through regulations rather than through legislation, and that is another concern that some submitters had.

The other issue will be to ask what process will be used to include other animals like, as I said, sheep. What processes will be used to include them in the whole National Animal Identification and Tracing process?

I say finally that although I support this bill, it is something that has been ongoing for a number of years. I am glad that at last this Government is taking this matter seriously enough to get this bill approved, hopefully before the end of this Parliament. I personally am delighted, because this is an area that I, as a scientist, have had a lot of interest in over the years. I foresee that in the future, along with animal welfare issues and our clean, green image, the tracing of animals will be very important for consumers. They are looking for safe food, they are looking for the ability to trace the animal and trace where the meat has come from, and I think that is an edge that we should have had years ago, along with other countries. But I suppose one could say that it is never too late, and even now we are passing this bill. I think it is good for the industry, it is good for the consumer, and it is good for the name that New Zealand has overseas in terms of providing a good source of protein. With those words, I am delighted to commend this bill to the House.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) Link to this

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.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this

It gives me a lot of pleasure to speak on behalf of the Labour Party on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill, and to express our wholehearted support for the bill, because it assists in underpinning the future and security of our agricultural, primary produce, and food-exporting industries. As the previous speaker, Shane Ardern, pointed out, New Zealand is uniquely placed to take advantage of 21st century global economies in our ability to put a high-value, high-quality product on the international market. I suppose this bill, and the concept of setting up a National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system, is very much a response to both the opportunities and the threats that global trade presents for us. We have the opportunity to put our products into a much larger market and to send them overseas into lucrative markets, where conscious consumers are looking for a product that they can place a premium on. We can take advantage of those markets.

At the same time we have food products coming into the country, as well, which poses a potential threat if products come into New Zealand harbouring diseases that can then find their way across the country. Having an animal identification system and a tracing system allows us to be much more responsive should the unfortunate event occur that our biosecurity systems lapse in some way and there is a threat of an outbreak. Shane Ardern referred to what turned out to be a hoax on Waiheke Island, and to the fact that it became clear that our ability to respond to that sort of threat was not really up to scratch. That could potentially undermine what is still very much referred to as the backbone of the New Zealand economy, and we need to be able to respond to that.

In 2004 Labour originally proposed an NAIT system, and in 2008 committed to an implementation plan, as well as a funding mechanism to cover all the capital set costs. That work has been continued by the current Government by its introduction of this bill, and all sides of the House, to my knowledge, support the continuation of that work.

A NAIT system will help maintain the confidence of our export markets in the safety and disease-free status of New Zealand’s livestock products, both by showing consumers that we are able to trace the source of the products they are consuming and by helping to protect our borders. It will also boost our ability to prepare and respond to animal disease outbreaks. I think it is important to note the pork industry’s concerns at the moment that by, I suppose, showing a little bit more favour towards our trade obligations and reducing some of our border standards on pork products we are at risk of introducing pork-borne diseases, particularly porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. I think that is a genuine concern held by pork producers. It is not simply a mechanism for putting up trade barriers; this is an important concern that we have to take into account. As an exporting nation we need to show the world that we take our trade obligations seriously, but also as an exporting nation we need to make sure that we have good biosecurity and border security when it comes to these sorts of diseases. I think it is really important that we take the pork industry’s concerns into account. Of course, pigs are not currently included in the NAIT system—perhaps that is something that will happen in the future—but having a tracing system like this helps to, hopefully, alleviate some of the fears that we have within our producer industries that in the event that something does come across the border, we will be able to trace it and clamp down on it quickly so that any biosecurity threat does not move too quickly through the country.

This is really important for helping our producers to enhance their product and to be able to demand a premium price for their product. In the same way that Fonterra is able to use milk and milk products to create a whole range of premium products by deconstructing milk down into its component parts, our other primary industries are able to demand a premium for their products because they are able to display to that growing market of conscious consumers that we have good animal welfare and environmental standards in New Zealand, and that our products are safe, secure, and disease-free.

Consumers these days want to know where their products come from—not just their food products but also clothing, furniture, and all kinds of products. People are concerned about labour standards and about whether people are getting good wages and have good employment standards. They are interested in knowing where their T-shirts, for instance, are made, where their furniture comes from, whether the products used in building that furniture, especially timber products, come from sustainable sources, and whether the world’s resources are being used sustainably, fairly, and with a view to looking after the people who live in the areas where those products come from.

Equally, people are very interested in the farm practices a country engages in, the welfare systems for farm animals, and where those animals come from. The environmental impact and the labour conditions under which farm workers are employed are issues, as well, that our international markets are interested in. I think it is really important that we are able to clearly demonstrate, particularly to people in Europe, Asia, and the United States—who will place a premium on this knowledge—where their products have come from and in what conditions their products have been raised and created. This really does present a considerable opportunity to New Zealand, which has a good clean, green image internationally and a good reputation for good employment and environmental practices.

It is also true that in the 21st century animal production using genetic modification and cloning techniques is on the increase. I will put to one side the arguments that different members in this House and different people will have about the use of genetic modification. In cases where it is being used it is really important that we are able to trace modified genes and animals that carry modified genes, and the movement of those animals and genes through different herds. Again, people will place a premium on knowing whether there is genetically modified material in their food products. Some people will not be very concerned that there is genetically modified material in their food products; some people will be concerned that there is genetically modified material in their food products. The NAIT system gives us an ability to prove it, one way or the other, which is of significant value to our markets, as well.

I know that the issue has been debated vigorously within the livestock industry for some years. Federated Farmers made a considerable submission to the Primary Production Committee, and in the end came down not very much in favour of the NAIT system. The cost involved—at about $2 or $3 per head of stock—is a significant upfront cost for farmers, particularly for farmers on a smaller scale like lifestyle blockholders, but, overall, the benefits that are to be gained for individuals, for our industries as a whole, and for our nation as a whole from implementing this system far outweigh the upfront costs. Labour is very, very happy to support the progress of this bill.

GARETH HUGHES (Green) Link to this

Kia ora. Ngā mihi ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is a real privilege to take a call in this debate in Parliament today. I do not know whether I am the right person to be taking a call on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill given that I am a vegetarian and have been for the last 11 years. So my interest is in the animals, not necessarily in eating the animals. But the Green Party welcomes this legislation and will be joining with other parties in Parliament to vote in support of it.

We do support greater information going to consumers. We believe that that will assist our export markets—that vital New Zealand brand—and we support the transition in New Zealand towards a sustainable agricultural sector. I will be taking only a brief call, because I am speaking on behalf of Kevin Hague, my colleague who heard the submissions and who was involved in the Primary Production Committee.

I will talk briefly about what the bill will do and what it can do, and I will look at the new quasi public-private organisation that will be enforcing the bill. Then, lastly, I will look a little at the opportunities of this bill—how we can really build that “clean, green” brand, that valuable brand to New Zealand’s economy.

To begin with, the bill establishes a national animal identification and tracking (NAIT) system for cattle and deer. We have heard that it is too expensive, initially, for sheep. I am not sure of the status of pork products in the new body that is being established, but I think we would question why we are not doing it all at once—why we are not bringing those 30 million sheep in at once—because there will be greater costs down the line when we do that.

The bill will be setting up a system to follow the rapid and changing trends, be they in diseases or new methods, that affect animals from birth to death. It is sort of taking on that cradle-to-grave idea, or a farm-to-shop tracking system. We support the intent of the bill and the way it is being rolled out. We note, though, that what is essentially being established is a quasi public-private enforcement agency that will have significant powers in relation to compliance, searching for documents, and searching and questioning people. It will even have powers of detention. I note that the agency will not be subject to Official Information Act requests.

We know that the establishment of this body will be expensive. In earlier documentation, I understand, the cost was in the order of $1 per animal, but now I hear from the debate that we may be facing a $2 or $3 cost per animal, which will be a significant cost especially to livestock farmers or even to people with only a few livestock animals. But I think that the greater burden will be in the hassle of registering and engaging with this new administrative body. No doubt there will be a great number of questions, and I think we may see a number of problems in that area.

But the issue, of course, is an important one. We are dealing with human health issues, and we have seen some very large cases globally that have dealt with animal health and human health issues. In the UK about 10 years ago we saw an outbreak of mad cow disease—or bovine spongiform encephalopathy—which caused millions of animals there to be slaughtered. A £4 billion bill was faced by the UK Government at that time. Recently we saw a food poisoning outbreak in Germany—I think they understand it was from salad products—with 48 deaths. There were literally weeks when European authorities could not track what the cause of the illness was or where it was coming from.

I hope that a law like this, which will increase identification and tracking of New Zealand livestock animals, will assist if we ever see an outbreak in which New Zealand livestock face something like that. On the other hand, we have seen the economic costs associated with Turkey’s export ban. So it is important that this Parliament is turning its hand to this legislation.

The Greens have some concerns about the new body that will be enforcing this law, but ultimately we support greater enforcement. That brand is vitally important to the New Zealand economy. We have a story to tell, and we should be telling it. I recommend that members go and look at Icebreaker’s product-tracking guide for its website. The company calls it a baacode, and it allows its woollen products to be tracked anywhere in the world, from the farm to the shop. That is a good example of innovation by a vibrant Kiwi company, and it is the type of opportunity we should be taking from this bill in order to tell our story, because we do have a story that, on the whole, we can be proud of.

The important thing, though, of course, is making sure we have substance to back up our story, and to make sure we have good animal welfare standards. The Green Party is disappointed that this bill will not be dealing with the critical animal welfare issues we face in New Zealand. It is important that the substance of the bill focuses on the environmental impacts of our agricultural sector in New Zealand, in regard to water, to dirty dairying, and to climate change, and it is important also that worker standards on our farms are of the highest scratch, so that the story we tell is compelling. That means that we can charge a premium.

We do not want to be a low-cost provider. We are on a hiding to nothing if we are going to chase China or Uruguay to see who can degrade their environment faster in order to boost productivity. Our gain for New Zealand must be focusing on a niche, on premiums, on high-value and high-knowledge products, not on trying to race other countries to destroy our environment and to go for the lowest value products.

The ultimate irony of this bill, though, is that now, as a result of this bill, foreign consumers will have far greater information on New Zealand products than Kiwis do with our imported products. It has been a source of great disappointment to the Green Party that Sue Kedgley unsuccessfully championed country-of-origin labelling, as it is a simple right meaning that Kiwi consumers should be able to know where their food has come from. I think that most Kiwis support that. It is a simple right to know where our food is coming from, but both Governments—blue and red—have not acted on that.

It was disappointing that Labour through its 9 years in Government did not act on it despite constant campaigning by Sue Kedgley, although I understand that Damien O’Connor is drafting a member’s bill, and I welcome that. It is great that Labour is coming to see the light on the need for Kiwi consumers to have proper country-of-origin labelling of their food. But the irony of this bill is that international consumers will have greater information than Kiwi consumers. I hope this will act as an incentive for us in our Parliament to work on country-of-origin labelling in New Zealand.

In summary, I say that the Green Party supports this bill, and we will be voting for it. We support the intent of greater tracking, but what we really want to do is make sure that the story we tell has a substance behind it. I note that Russel Norman, the Green Party co-leader, recently released one of our water priority election issues—that half of our rivers and streams are not safe to swim in. That is why, when we talk about our brand overseas, using this new technology and using Government support to establish it, we need to have a good, compelling story to tell. Kia ora.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this

The Māori Party has had mixed views about this National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill and the initiative to establish a national identification and tracing system. We are not at all inclined to support legislation just for the sake of legislation to bring about new compliance requirements. I have to say that one wonders where the line will be drawn when it comes to the microchipping of cattle and sheep.

So it was with some interest that we looked at the advice from the Privacy Commissioner to the Primary Production Committee. At first we were under some confusion as to whether it was the privacy of sheep, beef, and deer that was being talked about when the Privacy Commissioner emphasised the need to “properly balance privacy impacts against the public interest in identifying and tracing animals.” But in reading further, it seems that the concerns posed by the commissioner were about search and detention powers and whether a warrant should be issued. We certainly have to agree with the commissioner that this power should be exercised only under warrant.

We also concur with the advice that the reporting requirements should be amended to make it less onerous. In essence the issue of unnecessary and disproportionate compliance is the one that our caucus found most objectionable about this bill. I will quote from the Privacy Commissioner again. The submission noted that annual information would be required from the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) agency. To quote directly: “This provision imposes a high level of compliance costs on my Office and the NAIT organisation, which I do not think is necessary.” We will be interested in the response of the Minister to this concern, as it is one that has raised issues for our caucus. All going according to plan, the National Animal Identification and Tracing system will allow the rapid and accurate tracing of animals from birth to death or live export. It will provide information on the location and movement history of animals, and it should do much to improve biosecurity management.

We expect also that the bill will help to manage risks to human health associated with animals. It will help to improve animal productivity, provide market assurances, and support compliance with trading requirements. These are all worthwhile goals.

I will refer to another submission that helped us to form our position at the second reading, and it was from the Federation of Māori Authorities. The federation represents members comprising ahu whenua land trusts, Māori incorporations, rūnanga, and Māori trust boards from throughout 11 different rohe across the nation. Collectively, there are some 150 members administering over 800,000 hectares of land on behalf of an estimated 100,000 Māori beneficial owners, so when the Federation of Māori Authorities speaks, it speaks with considerable authority, and, accordingly, we listen.

The Federation of Māori Authorities said that the NAIT system will add value to New Zealand’s exported agricultural products in that it will allow our produce to be entered into high-value markets that require identification and tracing of agricultural products. This is a very important issue in terms of fostering and supporting Māori economic development while at the same time bolstering the reputation of New Zealand products in international markets. To put it simply, the federation thought that having the ability to track potentially economically damaging diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease or mad cow disease would be of great value to the Māori economy. It was their opinion that this legislation provides us with an opportunity to be proactive, as opposed to reactive, to an event of disease outbreak.

They also thought that although there will be significant costs for relevant industries to come into line with the NAIT system, these costs are small in comparison with the huge costs to our economy and international reputation should we have the misfortune to suffer a large-scale disease outbreak.

I do not want to take up much more time before the House, but I do think that the NAIT system will also be helpful for the environment. If we can track free-range cattle and sheep through this system, we can find out what farms are not carrying out their responsibilities to keep cattle out of streams and rivers and from too close a proximity to streams and rivers. They are damaging to the water and to the environment close to the water.

The Māori Party supports agricultural trade and employment of workers. We also support an effective and accountable Government entity to carry out the purpose of the bill. We are persuaded by the logic and the experience of a key Māori business to provide support to this bill. Kia ora.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

I, in turn, will speak to the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. I applaud the Māori Party and Rahui Katene for their support for the rural sector. I think we need more voices speaking out in support of the rural sector. The National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill does a number of things. I will reiterate some of those things.

The bill will enable rapid and accurate tracking of animals from birth to death or live export. I think that is vitally important, because we do need traceability, and markets are demanding more traceability. We do not want to put any of our markets at risk, so the bill is very important in regard to that. The National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system will provide information on the location and movement history of animals. I think that is also important. It will also improve biosecurity management, help manage risks to human health, improve animal productivity, allow market assurances, as I have already mentioned, and support compliance with trading requirements. All of those things are very, very important.

We cannot in any way risk our overseas markets. Our overseas markets are vital to our exports, and thus to our national economy. We must not forget that the agricultural sector is one of the stalwarts of the New Zealand economy. I hate to think where our economy would be without the agricultural sector. I wonder how many New Zealanders fully appreciate and understand that, and understand the importance of agriculture to New Zealand’s economy. Probably not enough, in my view.

I would love to see the education system change in such a way that our children understood the importance of the agricultural sector right from primary school. If we can do it for conservation, I think we should be able to do it for agriculture. I think the agricultural sector sometimes becomes the whipping boy for a lot of situations and causes where it is blatantly unfair to do so.

The Primary Production Committee is chaired by Shane Ardern, an excellent chair. His knowledge of agriculture is among the best in this Parliament. Some recommendations were made through the select committee. There was an amendment to clause 2.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

The National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill is such a sensible bill that is has united all the parties in the House. It has even united the carnivores and the vegetarians, so it was interesting to hear Gareth Hughes, one of the few vegetarians in the House, speaking on a bill about tracking animal livestock. I was on a podium the other day with Gareth Hughes. When one is on a podium with a member of the Green Party, one always worries, because one always knows that those members will “out - moral high ground” one. Gareth Hughes and I were speaking before an audience of rabid vegans, and it was very reassuring to see that even he could not please the demands of the rabid vegans.

Labour supports this bill. It makes complete sense. It is a valuable contribution to the infrastructure that supports our livestock industry and it gives confidence to export markets that the animals that are raised in New Zealand are raised according to the strictest standards of health and animal welfare.

This bill is the first step in a system that will deliver traceability for our livestock industries, and that is a standard that we need to meet for the sake of keeping confidence in our agricultural exports. As Iain Lees-Galloway was saying before, it really raises the prospect of traceability from the farm gate to the plate. Increasingly, socially and environmentally conscious consumers around the world are demanding that traceability. They want to know not only what country their piece of beef, lamb, or venison came from but also what part of the country it came from, what farm it came from, what conditions it was raised under, and what its pedigree or genetic background is. That is something we will have to seriously consider.

The National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system this bill establishes—a system that was devised and planned under the last Labour Government and is being continued under this National-led Government—really provides the platform for that traceability to be put in place. Labour supports the bill. It will ensure that a quick and efficient response is possible when we face a situation—and let us hope we do not face another one—like the hoax foot-and-mouth outbreak that occurred on Waiheke Island a few years ago.

Gareth Hughes talked about the mad cow disease outbreak in Britain and the enormous cost to Britain’s agricultural industries. The traceability that the NAIT system allows for tracing individual livestock back to the farms they have come from will allow a quick and efficient response in that kind of crisis situation. It will help maintain the confidence of the export markets in the safety and disease-free status of New Zealand’s livestock industry.

We support this bill. It will commit an implementation plan, as well as the funding to cover all the capital set-up costs. The implementation itself is necessary to demonstrate that New Zealand continues to be one of the leading producers of high-quality, high-value, safe food. Consumers want to know where their food is coming from—not only what country but also what farm and even what part of that farm the animal comes from.

Some meat companies in New Zealand already have their own traceability systems set up and are quite far down the track of delivering traceability, but this system will lay the platform for the whole industry. As previous speakers have noted, venison and cattle will be the first to be included, but it is expected that pork and sheep will follow.

We appreciate the concerns that farmers raised at the Primary Production Committee. Those concerns have been incorporated, and Labour is very happy to support this bill. I will not say any more, because I want to hear the valedictory statement of my colleague Chris Carter.