Great, but that would require all people in all the government organisations to be rational, be 100 per cent ethical all the time, and operate within the intention of the Act.
I have great concern about how the information could be used. Why on Earth does the Ministry of Social Welfare need access to NAIT? What would IRD use it for? My concern is, what if IRD or another government department used the information so they could gain against farmers? Where is the protection around information?
The word "intended" is bandied about inside the proposed regulation as well. Well, how helpful is that expression? The word is open to interpretation. Imagine being the court judge who would have to decide on any case using this regulation.
Maybe our policy-makers could just get it right the first time, using words that weren't so open to different interpretations. What you might intend could be different to what someone else intends.
I do want organisations to have better communications when it comes to dealing with animal movements and disease control, but it must be done above board, and the risk of abuse of whatever system we end up with must be minimised.
Seeing what is being put up does not put my heart at ease. You just have to look at other government programmes to see how well "intended" systems have failed.
What we need is for the police and councils to have access to information to help control wandering stock and ensure they are returned to where they came from — but if the government is going to give police and councils this access then they must also make sure police and council staff are given the right tools to do the job, and that means adequate training and funding.