Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) : I move, That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a third time. As has been noted in previous debates on this bill, access to, and use of, agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines is vital to our pastoral, horticultural, and forestry sectors. But there are risks if these products are used inappropriately or unwisely. These include risks to human and animal health, to our biosecurity, and to our agricultural and horticultural exports. The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act is a key part of New Zealand’s regulatory framework for the managing of these risks, and the changes to the principal Act made by this bill will serve to provide greater transparency for stakeholders and improve the workability of the legislation. Further, the changes deliver on the policy objectives and intent of the principal Act.

I am pleased to say that the bill and the changes made by the Primary Production Committee have widespread and—I may even say—unanimous support in this House. This bill provides for changes to be made to the principal Act, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act—the “ACVM Act 1997”—to make it more effective and administratively efficient. The changes improve the workability of the Act for the stakeholders and close several gaps identified in the coverage of the Act, in order to better manage the public health effects of agricultural compounds and the regulations of all parts of the supply chain.

These provisions, amongst other things, expand the purpose of the Act to include managing the risks to public health, thus ensuring that all relevant risk factors can be considered. The bill clarifies the statutory backing for the arrangements to restrict the supply, sale, or use of products such as prescription animal medicines and poisons such as cyanide to authorised persons. It also clarifies that pet foods and stock foods are covered under the Act.

The bill also makes changes to improve the enforcement of the Act. It provides for the alignment of the processes and powers relating to the imports of agricultural compound and veterinary medicine products with those of the Biosecurity Act. It enables the director-general to recall non-compliant products or suspend product registration, and provides a more appropriate and effective range of penalties for offences. The bill improves the flexibility in the administration of the Act by providing an alternative approval process in special circumstances for the import, manufacture, or use of agricultural compounds without registration. It allows for the recognition of persons or agencies to carry out specified activities or functions for the purposes of the Act and provides for the issue of certificates of compliance to assist exporters. It also updates the cost recovery provisions of the Act. Finally, the bill tidies up aspects of the Act by removing regulatory requirements that are in excess of those necessary to manage risks, deleting provisions that have become redundant or are no longer necessary and making other minor changes such as updating terminology.

The bill was considered by the Primary Production Committee, and a number of amendments were made to clarify the way in which the Act works in respect of several matters. The select committee made changes to the bill to clarify the relationship between codes, standards, and conditions on trade name products. The mechanisms for setting regulatory requirements were amended to ensure that they were made in a more straightforward manner, and they will be subject to an increased level of parliamentary scrutiny via the Regulations Review Committee. These changes arose from concerns raised by the Legislation Advisory Committee to the New Zealand Food Safety Authority officials advising the select committee, who then brought these matters to the committee’s attention.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the officials of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority for their work on this bill and to acknowledge the work done by the select committee. Its members worked in a very constructive manner. My only disappointment, I have to say, was the contribution from the chair of the committee, who during the Committee stage complained that it had taken 4 months to get to that stage. I did point out in the Committee stage that I had been in this House when a National Government had petitions and bills that never made it to a debate, at all, so I had to say to the member that in fact he was crying crocodile tears. Putting that to one side, I think that the work done by the select committee was commendable, and I commend the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : Despite that vicious criticism from the Minister, National will continue to vote for the third reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. I think what became evident through the various stages of this debate in Parliament, with all parties voting unanimously to support this legislation, as the Minister noted, was an acceptance by all the parliamentary parties of the importance of agriculture and horticulture to the New Zealand economy. Therefore, it is essential that we have legislation that is of assistance rather than a hindrance. I think, in the contributions made by all members through the various debates we have had in recent weeks on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, that the relevance of the importance of agriculture has become clear. I look forward to the bill’s passing later on this afternoon.

It is worthwhile recalling the history of the legislation prior to this amendment bill. The original agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines legislation was passed in 1997, and at that stage that legislation was quite far-reaching and forward-thinking. We took a whole lot of small, specific pieces of legislation and attempted to mould them into one overarching piece of legislation, which has lasted very, very well and served the industry well over the last 10 years. But it has been noticed over recent times that the process, the so-called one-stop shop, by which the dangers are of any potential product is recognised—the process by which the various importers and retailers of these products get the chance to extol the virtues, as compared with any proposed risks—could have been simplified greatly, and that is the essence of the amendment bill we have before Parliament today.

The Government clearly has a very large responsibility to ensure that all the products used in New Zealand primary production—and there are many thousands of them—are safe. That is something that must be accepted, certainly by New Zealand’s agricultural and horticultural communities—and it is—and it must also be recognised by all the countries to which we extensively market our products. But having talked about safety, I say it is also absolutely essential that we have a very wise balance against any processes that an importer must go through, because those processes tend to add greatly to the compliance costs under which those industries that service agriculture and horticulture operate.

As the Minister alluded to in her contribution, the work of the Primary Production Committee on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill was very extensive. As I said in some earlier contributions to the debate in the Committee of the whole House, I thought that the amount of work done by the select committee was probably more extensive than it needed to be, but having said that I can also say we were greatly assisted by the quality of submissions that came before it. Almost inevitably they started with the same opening paragraph, which said they were “generally supportive of the thrust of the legislation, but …”. They then went on not only to list the essence of their discomfort around the amendment bill—and, more important, I can say this of all the submissions that came before the select committee—but also to give us in a very concise and concrete fashion some very sensible suggestions on how to then modify the legislation. I think that on the whole we have accepted the tone of those submissions, and we have accepted the huge amount of work done by the industry in giving us the solutions, and they have been largely incorporated into the legislation that is now before the House this afternoon.

The passing of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill today will in a small way make farming in New Zealand a little easier. I think that this will be welcome relief to an industry that over the last 8 years has seen a sea of legislation that has been hugely difficult for the farming industry to cope with. We have only just seen legislation passed 5 or 10 minutes ago around water health standards—legislation that will make it extremely difficult for our rural communities. That was pointed out to the Government throughout the select committee process, but the Government chose to ignore it. So it is a welcome relief finally to see legislation before the House that is of assistance to our industry, and that is a sharp contrast to the obstructive experience that the farmers of New Zealand have had to cope with over the last 8 years.

I support the legislation, and I thank the Labour Government for finally doing something small—it is small—for our primary industries, because they certainly need that sort of assistance. So in the dying days of the Labour Government, at least it has one small piece of constructive legislation available, and it will be over to the next National Government in October 2008 to make sure that this is just the first, very small step in the right direction for agricultural producers.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I am very happy to take a call on the third reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. I have to say that the honourable chair of our Primary Production Committee, Mr David Carter, just cannot help himself. It absolutely kills him that a bill here before the House is doing a good thing for our primary production sector, and is doing a good thing by ensuring that New Zealand’s trade overseas is not impacted upon. We are doing whatever we can to make sure that whatever measures we take are commensurate with the risk involved, and that we keep the cost down as much as possible. He just could not cope with that, so, first of all, he had to take a whack at the Hon Annette King and go on about how long it has taken the bill to come to the House. This bill was introduced in November last year; we are passing it less than a year after it was introduced into this House. We have had issues today whereby National Party members have told us that things are not taking long enough. Things are either too fast or too slow. Sometimes I think the National Party will never be happy with anything the Labour Government does.

The unanimous support that this bill has around the House is a testament to its importance. Notwithstanding the previous contribution from David Carter, I say that when it comes to issues of primary production and trade we recognise their value and importance to all New Zealanders and to the New Zealand economy, and we try to come to a consensus wherever possible. It is very important that we make sure that one of the drivers of our economy is treated well, although from the way the Hon David Carter was talking I think we may be seeing some kind of financial rescue package from the National Party for dairy farmers. God forbid that dairy farmers have to make sure their drinking water is safe, or that the drinking water for the workers on their farms and in their communities is safe. God forbid! Clearly, with the absolutely precarious financial state that dairy farmers are in at the moment, it could absolutely tip them over the edge if they had to make sure that the poorest and most vulnerable children in their communities have access to the same safe drinking water that they do and that the National Party members do! [Interruption]

The only reason I raise the issue, I say to Eric Roy, is that the Hon David Carter raised that very issue in his speech. I felt it was important to respond to him, because this Labour Government has been very good for the primary production sector. The National Party will never acknowledge that, but Labour has been a staunch supporter of provincial and rural communities. We have made sure that provincial hospitals have stayed open.

Shane Ardern: Tell that to the kids in the areas where the schools were closed down.

MOANA MACKEY: I say to Mr Ardern that we have made sure that provincial hospitals have stayed open, after many in my area were closed under his National Government. I suggest that Mr Ardern be very quiet on that issue. The regional health authorities went around closing provincial hospitals. Labour has been good to the primary sector. [Interruption] That is right; they were probably not big enough for the cash registers that the National Party was rolling into provincial hospitals and hospitals all around the country at that stage. But I digress from the bill.

Hon David Carter: You do.

MOANA MACKEY: I actually do, yes. This is a very good bill. I will take only a short call, because much of it has been covered and it will become repetitive.

Eric Roy: Stop!

MOANA MACKEY: I very much look forward to Mr Eric Roy’s contribution, when he takes us back to farming in the 1840s. He is very knowledgable. Mr Eric Roy is a fountain of knowledge for anyone who wants to know anything about farming in New Zealand. So I very much look forward to his far fuller contribution, when he takes us back over the full history of this specific bill.

I also want to pay tribute to the submitters who came to the Primary Production Committee. The submissions were very well focused. As always, despite what people may be hearing in this House, the Primary Production Committee worked together very well. We are always willing to listen to whatever proposals are put to us, in order to make any legislation better, particularly legislation that affects such an important part of our economy as the primary sector. As I said before, that sector is very important, because we are a very open market when it comes to trade. We need to make sure that we are ahead of the times. We need to make sure that we close off any kind of challenge or risk that might come into our primary production sector, and we need to make sure that we are on top of that. I am sure that this bill will be a step in that direction.

I am happy to stand in support of this bill. I commend the Minister for the fact that the bill has been passed so expeditiously through the House. It is being passed less than a year after it was introduced into the House. That shows the Government’s level of commitment to the primary production sector. It shows the Government’s level of commitment to making sure that we minimise all risk when it comes to that particular sector, and—this is also important—to making sure that any provisions put in place to regulate or assist our primary production sector are commensurate to the level of risk that there is and that we do not go over the top.

Again, I thank the submitters and the Primary Production Committee, and I commend the bill to the House.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : I will also take a short call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. There is actually not a lot to say, because we are all pretty much in agreement on the bill. We have had an opportunity to comment through its first and second readings and its Committee stage, so I think we have just about exhausted the material. But I will make a comment firstly about the Primary Production Committee. The previous speaker, Moana Mackey, made the comment that the select committee works for the good of New Zealand and of the agricultural sector. That is true. There is a general level of bonhomie within the select committee and of listening to one another. The select committee is a very enjoyable one to be on, but if we are in such good humour in the select committee I do not know why, when we get into the Chamber, we have to have a flick at each other.

Moana Mackey: He started it.

ERIC ROY: I do not care who started it; it just does not really square with the way in which we say we work so collegially together.

This is important legislation. It embodies a whole lot of things that are quite crucial for the New Zealand agricultural and primary production sector, which is the leading export earner for New Zealand. That is why it is so important. The aspect is not only that there has to be safety; the perception of safety around the products we use is as important as that. It does not matter whether we comply to the letter with Codex Alimentarius if the consumer on the other side of the world has the slightest doubt about the solidity and robustness of the process. If there is any question about that, the consumer just turns off the product. It is important not only that we have a good legislative framework but also that our farmers and those involved in primary production comply with it so we have absolute assurance of our products.

That ranges across traditional and organic farming and all of the compounds that are used in various ways, whether they be biocontrols, chemicals, fertilisers, pesticides, or animal health products: vaccinations, antibiotics, or whatever else they may be. There are many hundreds of thousands of products, in reality. We need to be able to have some assurance. At the same time, we need to have a process whereby new products can be introduced, because pests and diseases build up resistance, and we need development in the area of fertilisers and animal health products. There has to be a clear trail whereby those things can come in and go through the process without having a serious impact on the cost of compliance, yet we have a safety assurance. This is really quite complex legislation. It is an amendment to quite a layered process that has gone on over the years whereby we can give that assurance.

I support the legislation. I think most of the comments have been picked up by others. There is general agreement not only amongst the select committee but also, as has been pointed out, with the submitters on the bill. I look forward to this bill being passed. It is another step on the way to New Zealand performing as well as, and largely outperforming, the rest of the world.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : The Green Party is pleased to join in what seems to be unanimity in this House by supporting the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. We are particularly pleased that this bill will require for the first time that these literally thousands of veterinary medicines that are used in New Zealand will be assessed for their risks to human health and to the environment. One would have thought that this would always be the case, but alas no. For the first time, we will have to consider those risks, and also consider that stock food will be covered by the regulations. As many people will be aware, genetically engineered commodities are fed to animals as stock feed—for example, soy, canola, corn, and so forth. Until recently, even though we knew that much of this stock feed had been genetically engineered, it has not been covered by any regulations. It is very, very satisfying to find that this bill will cover stock food and pet food and will—as the Minister said—require that things like cyanide, and other veterinary medicines, will be able to be sold only by authorised persons. Thank heavens for that!

One aspect of this bill that I was particularly pleased to see was in the commentary where the committee—I was not actually on the select committee that considered the bill—acknowledged that some veterinary medicines are exactly the same as human medicines, the only difference being that they are given to animals rather than humans. The committee pointed out further that some medicines, such as antibiotics, when they are the same as those used in human health, and when they are fed to animals on a large scale, pose significant risks to humans and potentially the environment, and could pose a threat to human health.

It is very pleasing to see a select committee actually acknowledging this very, very significant risk to human health, which is posed, in particular, by the continuous feeding of things like antibiotics to pigs and chickens in New Zealand. As the bill points out, the problem is that we are feeding some of the same medicines used in human medicine to animals—and feeding them continuously.

As a recent report pointed out, it is one thing to give antibiotics to individual animals on a case by case basis as we do with humans, but it is quite another thing to continuously feed antibiotics to animals in their breakfast, lunch, and dinner, as it were, and in their water, on a mass scale. Because what that inevitably does—and we all know this—is give rise to antibiotic-resistant bugs and bacteria. These bacteria can, of course, spread antibiotic resistance into the food chain and the environment throughout New Zealand.

We know that this is a very significant problem in New Zealand. A very small study carried out by Massey University found very high levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria on a single pig farm. Another study found that 40 percent of the chicken farms they sampled had bacteria that were resistant to vancomycin, which is considered to be the antibiotic of last resort.

One would have thought that if we had studies showing this degree of resistance developing in our pig farms and chicken farms, we would take this risk extremely seriously—particularly as overseas there is a lot of research into, and real concern about, antibiotic-resistant bacteria being found in pig herds and poultry flocks. This is causing quite a flurry of interest, regulation, and efforts overseas to reduce the amount of antibiotics that are fed to animals—particularly pigs and chickens. One would think, given this international concern, that there would be similar concern here in New Zealand. Alas, that is not the case. Despite all of the evidence showing that we are spreading antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the environment and through the food chain, we continue to allow farmers to continuously feed antibiotics to chickens and, of course, to entire herds of pigs, as well. As someone said in a recent report, the problem with factory farms is that they are raising more than pigs and chickens; they are raising drug-resistant bugs, as well. This is very much the case here in New Zealand.

Given that we have basically done almost nothing about this very serious problem other than sweep it under the carpet and turn a blind eye to it, it is, frankly, exciting for me to read a select committee report that actually addresses this issue, refers to the concerns about it, and seeks to strengthen the regulations around not just the feeding of antibiotics but the feeding of all veterinary medicines to animals. The report also acknowledges that veterinary medicines, such as anti-parasite dips and drenches, which are used on whole herds of animals, also pose significant risks to human health and the environment.

We are absolutely delighted that we are acknowledging the risks to public health from the adverse effects of agricultural compounds, and requiring that the risks to human health and the environment be taken into account. We are delighted to support this legislation. We hope it will not be just a piece of legislation that sits in the bottom drawer, as it were, but that it will result in much more stringent monitoring of veterinary medicines and assessment of their risks. We hope we will see a reduction in the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, in particular, and other veterinary medicines in New Zealand.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe. The Māori Party comes to the third reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill from a context founded in the knowledge that the land remains a central platform for Māori economic development. We believe that future prosperity for tangata whenua is inextricably tied to the productivity and protection of the whenua. As such, we are very keen to address the risks associated with the use of agricultural compounds—those risks being to trade and primary produce, animal welfare, agricultural security, and environmental well-being. Tangata whenua are major stakeholders in the agribusiness sector, and some Māori agribusiness operations are performing exceedingly well commercially. For those other businesses that may be underperforming, there is obviously considerable value in encouraging the wide uptake of best-practice technology and management practices.

This bill turns to address and improve the prevention and management of the risks to human health arising from agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines, and enables Parliament to address the risks arising from the use of pesticides and chemicals in the farming and forestry industries. It is imperative that chemicals, compounds, and veterinary medicines are evaluated to ensure that they do not pose any risk to human health, animal health, the environment, or trade.

The Committee stage of this bill brought up the issue of drench resistance and tied it to the proposals around data protection. The Māori Party is keen to support initiatives that enhance business practice for the agricultural industry, so we are pleased that the bill has given consideration to ensuring we have a significant period of data protection available for companies in order to warrant the bringing of new products into our market. A critical issue must be about maintaining our international competitive advantage—something that, of course, has never been more ingrained in the national psyche than in the aftermath of the tragedy that occurred in Cardiff this weekend gone.

A key and primary objective of this bill has been to introduce new provisions to protect public health from the adverse effects of agricultural compounds. The timeliness of the legislation could hardly be more relevant, as the Business Council for Sustainable Development has only recently released its results of a survey that confirms that 78 percent of New Zealanders believe the public health service has worsened or stayed the same over the last 5 years. Right throughout this bill we have agreed to new provisions framed in the context of reducing the risks to the health of all New Zealanders. The Primary Production Committee report asserts that some veterinary medicines that have been used on animals, such as anti-parasite dips and drenches, pose significant risks to human health and the environment. We have only to look at the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill that was before the House in the last sitting period to see a classic example of the unpredictable and serious side effects that come about through the ingestion of a cattle worming agent by people. Benzylpiperazine was originally designed as a treatment for internal parasites in cattle—a de-worming treatment that we all know to cause serious risks to public health.

The other aspect of the timing of this bill relates to a recent announcement from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Although the record of this current Government is hardly positive as far as listening to the United Nations goes, it appears that in this one isolated case New Zealand is taking its advice seriously. The Food and Agriculture Organization has warned that global animal food production is undergoing a major transformation that could lead to a higher risk of disease transmission from animals to humans. That is a dire warning indeed, which this bill responds to through the strategies that are being put in place to control the use of active ingredients fed to food-producing animals that could pose a threat to human health. We in the Māori Party really welcome the opportunity provided by this bill to invest in the greater ability to regulate and assess the contamination of food, for the sake of the benefit to public health. The risk of disease transmission from animals to humans will increase in the future, so the work that the New Zealand Food Safety Authority undertook on the bill has been greatly appreciated in making explicit the association between the contamination of food and the risk to public health.

When I spoke during the second reading of this bill I raised the issue about regulatory costs. The Māori Party is pleased to see the obligation to avoid redundant regulatory control is clearly articulated in this bill. The bill is quite clear that the controls already imposed under other legislation, such as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act or the Medicines Act, should be considered. Effective legislation must be a priority for this House, not the creation of undue bureaucracy or additional regulation for the sake of it. We commend the Primary Production Committee for making amendments that will actually make a difference to people’s understanding of the legislation, and thereby their ability to comply with it. We also support the proposal for the 3-year review of the compliance costs around this legislation.

Finally, I want to bring the wider aspirations of the Māori Party for an organic and a GE-free Aotearoa to this debate. We believe that we could benefit from further analysis of ways to reduce the reliance on pesticides and fertilisers in our commitment to regulate risk management and reduce toxicity levels. We want to place on record the important contribution that Te Waka Kai Ora, an organic produce agent, could bring to this policy. One of its ambitions is to develop a significant organic agricultural project based on hua paraumu, which would identify a pure product and assure consumers of the product’s integrity. Such a project would form the basis for developing an indigenous organic brand and standard. Te Waka Kai Ora has suggested that the verification of organic produce under an indigenous brand would include the integration of tikanga Māori—Māori custom—into processes and standards. It would help to set the standard and independently check that organic products advertised for sale met the standard, and then the labelling would claim compliance with achieving the standard for organic produce.

As tangata whenua, we have an exclusive Treaty right to ensure that our lands, forests, and fisheries, and the subsequent produce from them, remain free from being genetically modified or polluted by genetically modified organisms. Te Waka Kai Ora suggests that maintaining, or perhaps more accurately re-establishing, a GMO-free environment in agriculture would give Aotearoa the competitive marketing edge that I raised earlier today—the push to lift demand in the American and global export market places. At their very essence, agricultural compounds—pesticides and fertilisers—impact on the mauri, the life force, of our foods, flora, and fauna, and it is therefore of great importance that we do all we can to prevent any risks to environmental, animal, and public health. The impact of cross-pollination from GE crops, super weed hybrids, and general pollution in the environment are all risks that threaten ngā hua Māori—natural produce—and as such cannot be dissociated from Māori cultural, social, and other economic development.

The Māori Party is therefore happy to support this bill to prevent and manage the risks associated with the use of agricultural compounds: risks to trade in primary produce, risks to animal welfare, risks to agricultural security, and risks to environmental well-being. We are pleased also to put forward our support to ensure that the use of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines does not result in breaches of domestic food and residue standards in order to better prevent and manage the risks to public health. The Māori Party will support the third reading of this bill with this riveting delivery. Kia ora.

NATHAN GUY (National) : I wish to take a call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. It will be drive time, up on the Kapiti coast now, with people heading away and listening to their radios—I read today with interest that this is the first day that Parliament will be live on television. In particular, I want to talk about this bill being really a one-stop shop, tidying-up bill, and about managing risks, as we heard before in a very good address from Mr Sharples of the Māori Party.

In the Primary Production Committee we heard from four submitters, and we received six submissions of very good quality, as well. In particular we spent quite a bit of time—and the submitters helped us with this process—on compliance costs, because that was an issue for a lot of the submitters. It is interesting to see that there will be a small increase in costs as users become familiar with this legislation after it is passed this evening. It is forecast that compliance costs around this legislation will in time be reduced. We will be watching that with a great deal of interest.

The submitters before the Primary Production Committee also pointed out the issue around data protection, and how different parts of the world prescribe a period of 10 years; I think that in Canada, in particular, it is 8 years. New Zealand currently has a period of 5 years for registration, and a further 5 years for full registration. The first 5 years are provisional, with another 5 years for full registration. There was a concern that we are not keeping up with the rest of the world, and that the time should be pushed out further, but the officials told us that that could not be part of this bill. So that is something we will have to look at moving into, in the future.

The National Party supports the passage of this bill in its third reading in Parliament this evening. I guess the biggest concern I have is that this legislation will have to be implemented by veterinarians around New Zealand. New Zealand currently has a shortage of veterinarians, and we are not training enough through Massey University, so we are having to go around the world to recruit them. This afternoon we heard from Annette King, the Minister for Food Safety, that the Food Safety Authority is trying to recruit veterinarians from around the world to come to New Zealand, and that is proving to be extremely costly. I am sure we need to do more to train more New Zealand students, and we need to ensure they stay in New Zealand, as well. I guess they will have to look to the National Party to provide the right incentives for them to stay in New Zealand.

In conclusion, the National Party supports the third reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. I wish to thank the Primary Production Committee for all the work it has done on the passage of this bill, which has taken, I think, about 9 months—and that is actually pretty quick, for Parliament. We look forward to the 3-yearly review of the legislation, to ensure that it is delivering on the mechanisms set out in it.

• Bill read a third time.