Federated Farmers, DairyNZ and Beef + Lamb NZ leaders, who endorsed the changes a week ago, said they understand the need for the change but the late additions should have been open to public scrutiny instead of being pushed through Parliament under urgency.
The Farmers Weekly was told a drafting error omitted the search and surveillance powers from the original Nait Act.
Farming sector leaders have been criticised for supporting the changes but they now say they were unhappy at the rushed legislated process.
“The risk when you rush through legislation is that you do not fully understand the implications and the unintended problems,” Federated Farmers president Katie Milne said.
It has been claimed the search and surveillance powers allow Ministry for Primary Industry officers to enter farms unannounced and without a warrant to search for and seize items.
Some changes were designed to plug cattle tracking gaps identified by the Mycoplasma bovis outbreak but the extended powers have provoked anger among farmers and claims that in some cases they exceed police powers.
Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor disagreed, saying MPI officers will not have any more power than they already had.
The changes ensure the Nait Act is consistent with the Search and Surveillance Act, something O’Connor said was recommended by the Primary Production Select Committee when it considered the original Nait Bill and gave inspectors similar powers to those in the fisheries, wine and animal welfare sectors.
“Officers could already enter a farm to inspect for Nait compliance under the old laws.”
But there are limits to their powers.
“MPI Nait officers are not able to enter a house, living quarters or a marae. To do this they would have to have a court-ordered search warrant.
“Other safeguards to protect people’s rights also stay in place, like a Nait officer has to give notice of an inspection and identify him or herself and the right to challenge the seizure of items remains.”
O’Connor said the new laws clarify what evidence can be collected during an inspection, including copying documents such as Animal Status Declaration forms or taking photos and videos.
“This evidence can be used to issue infringement notices.”
Milne acknowledged it aligns aspects of several Acts but she is unimpressed with the rushed process.
“It was not part of the original things to which we agreed.”
Milne said MPI would have to carefully exercise its authority or risk losing the support and trust of farmers.
B+LNZ policy and advocacy manager Dave Harrison said his organisation doesn’t support the process followed and has asked MPI to provide clarity to farmers on why the process was rushed.
He understands the need for stronger Nait compliance laws but noted MPI officers already had extensive search and surveillance powers under the Animal Welfare Act, Biosecurity Act, Animal Products Act, Animal Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act.
The previous Nait Act did not allow MPI officers to collect evidence that could be central to enforcement.
“This is not us justifying what MPI has done and why but we can understand what it is trying to do by aligning other powers it has under other laws.”
DairyNZ chief executive Tim Mackle agreed the new powers are needed but said the legislative process “was not optimal”.
“If there had been a lot more clarity off the bat for farmers and their partners it would have avoided a lot of the consternation farmers have felt.”
Mackle said inspectors could always enter farms but the legislative changes unified inspectors’ powers under Nait with other Acts.
“My understanding is that without making these changes, it made it more difficult to use evidence collected from farms under the Nait Act in any prosecution.”
O’Connor said changes to the Nait Act also resolved issues with unregistered addresses.
“Before, you could send an animal to a non-registered location, not record the movement and face no consequences.
“That defeats the purpose of Nait and undermines the ability to respond to M bovis.
“But common sense has been applied and this would now be an offence, just like not recording animal movements to a registered address.”
