Biosecurity Amendment Bill

Members will recall that I informed the Parliament that I was on the select committee, with various members who are sprinkled around the Chamber tonight, that considered this bill 2 years ago. At that time, the title “Biosecurity Amendment Bill” appeared to be a fair enough title. Of course we have the original legislation, the Biosecurity Act, and this bill makes amendments to it. They are smart amendments—I might add, having had the fortune of meeting people across the table who were interested in and saw the significance of biosecurity in New Zealand. However, a lot has happened since then. We have had a large number of incursions in New Zealand. I listed those earlier, and, in order for the title to recognise the seriousness of these incursions, which it does not do at present, I suggest that instead—and I might put an amendment forward later; I am not sure what other members might do—the title should be the “Biosecurity (Stamping Out Recent Incursions) Bill”.

I say that only because in recent years we have seen cane toads coming into this country, as well as the fall webworm, crazy ants, the Asian gypsy moth, the huntsman spider from Australia, the redback spider, the mosquito larvae, the North American ring-necked snake, the glassy-winged sharpshooter, the Argentine ant—a visitor from Argentina, I assume—and the varroa bee mite.

That is why I talk about recent incursions, because in recent years we have had all these visitors from Australia, North America, and now Argentina. Why should not the title be the “Biosecurity (Stamping Out Recent Incursions) Amendment Bill”? I would be interested in other members commenting on that. This solution should have come before the Parliament a long time before now. As I have said, I was on the select committee over 2 years ago. I recall the urgency at the time. We have not seen any since. What we have seen is New Zealanders all around this country trying to stamp out, and not with bare feet, all these incursions into this country—insects and vertebrates, snakes, glassy-winged sharpshooters, and on the list goes. I would be interested to see whether any other amendments in relation to the title come forward. I would be happy to support any sensible suggestions, but I certainly put my suggestion forward and ask that members look at it very, very seriously indeed.

I would be very hesitant to list in the title the names of all these visitors. Imagine doing that! It would be easy, though, for New Zealanders if they could look up the bill and find out when the Argentine ant or the glassy-winged sharpshooter came to New Zealand. I cannot remember when the cane toads arrived. All I know is that when I go down the driveway they pop. I cannot remember when they came, but I would like to look it up in the bill and find out when they visited New Zealand. It would be good if we had them listed in the title. The problem is that the title would be as long as the bill. Imagine that! Imagine having a title as long as the bill, and it would be as long as the bill because of all the visitors we have had to this country. I hesitate to go through them again—

💬 Sandra Goudie: But you will.

The member should not encourage me. I hesitate to go through them all again.

I would like to take a relatively short call on the title of the bill. To speak on a relatively short title, “Biosecurity Amendment Bill”, is not an easy thing to do. The word that is lacking, I suspect, is “importance” or “important”. Nothing in the title of the bill reflects the concerns expressed by everybody who understands just how important biosecurity is to this country. I have talked, as I said before, to farmers all over the country, and at Mystery Creek just recently. When I asked them what was their most important concern, the one overriding concern was biosecurity. Yet, when I read the title, and I guess that when a farmer or anybody reads in the paper tomorrow morning that the Biosecurity Amendment Bill was debated in Parliament, it will reflect nothing. Somebody from the city, for example, would think: “Well, yes, I have heard of biosecurity and I guess it is something to do with stopping organisms.” But I really think that in the title of these bills we need to inform the public so much more comprehensively about what we are debating.

We are debating—in my view, certainly from an agrarian’s point of view—probably one of the most important issues that we can possibly debate or talk about in this Parliament. Indeed, the pleasing thing, as I said earlier, is that there is such a large degree of unanimity. But, again, it is very, very difficult for members of the public to understand what goes in this Parliament unless the title of a bill accurately reflects the proceedings of the Parliament. Quite frankly, the “Hon Jim Sutton” and “Biosecurity Amendment Bill” does not mean a great deal to most people, until they understand the importance and the commitment that it places on members of the public, because every one of us has a duty to ensure that our country’s biosecurity is not compromised.

We have heard so many speeches from so many members on this side of the Chamber, detailing this huge list. Is it not extraordinary that this list seems to be rather large during the tenure of this current Government? Should not the title of the bill reflect the inadequate attention that this Government has paid to this problem? If I can answer my own question, I think it should. I note Janet Mackey nodding her head in total agreement. She is on the Primary Production Committee, and she is a good member I must say. She understands the significance of biosecurity to this country.

It is regrettable that David Benson Pope, the chief Government whip, sits there, with probably no understanding of the huge importance of this bill to the average member of this Government. The only time he makes a speech is when he stands up to say: “Madam Chair, I move that the motion be now put.” That is the extent of the contribution of so many Government members, but I must say that on the Primary Production Committee we do get some worthwhile contributions from those who understand the significance of the rural sector. When was the last time the Prime Minister spoke about the rural sector, other than to give it a good swift kick and to milk more money from it? So the contribution that I would like to make at this particular point is that the title does not accurately reflect the importance to this country of such an overwhelmingly serious subject as biosecurity.

I would like to agree with Gerry Eckhoff, who made some very valid points in his speech. He mentioned that biosecurity is vitally important. This actually has to do with the Biosecurity Amendment Act 2001. Does that ring some bells? This bill has been sitting here, while the Government wonders whether problems will spread as the painted apple moth has spread. The Government has left the bill on the Table since 2001. In fact, it goes back to August 2001, when it was introduced. The title clause 1(1) says it all: “… the Biosecurity Amendment Act 2001.” This Government has sat on this bill, when biosecurity is one of the most important aspects of our economy, and when there are dangers to our economy from incursions of organisms that will damage our livestock, and particularly our bees. When the varroa bee mite came into this country, the Government, once more, sat on that incursion. It did not know what to do with that problem, in the same way that it did not know what to do with this bill that has been sitting there since 2001.

The Government has allowed all of those other incursions to occur because it was too slow in getting this bill into the House and to the Table for proper debate. The Government has waited all of that time, and now, under urgency, we are trying to get the bill through quickly.

I ask why the bill was not brought in under urgency a long time ago. Why has it sat there for 2 years while other incursions have occurred? We have a list of those incursions, and I will not attempt to repeat the long list of them given by a previous speaker, because it would probably take us all night to get through them all. It would probably take us to 2005 while we waited for this bill to come through the House again. But biosecurity is one of the most important aspects of our economy, and to leave this bill sitting there since 2001, to be enacted as the Biosecurity Amendment Act 2001, is a disgrace. This Government really needs to get off its backside and sort out our biosecurity.

I rise to take a very brief call, but after listening to the last two speakers, who said that they were struggling with the title, it suddenly came to me what we should have. They did not offer us an alternative, but it suddenly came to me in a flash that the correct title for this bill should be the “Thank God for United Future Who Have Given Support This Week for Urgency, so This Biosecurity Amendment Bill Could Go Through Bill”. That could be a useful amendment, and I hope we will move on to other more substantive parts of the bill very soon.

That is not a very novel title for the bill. I do not know whether God will be very interested in this bill, once He reads it. I think that He will be a bit concerned, rather, about it being about biosecurity when really what is contained in this bill is more about bio-risk. I think that the name of the bill should be the “Bio-risk Amendment Bill”, because if we look at the long list of incursions we have had since the 1930s, such as the Avondale spider—and we have listed a number of others—there have been about 10 just before—

💬 Brent Catchpole: They are from my home town.

That is the home town of the member from New Zealand First. Before about 1999 there were only 10 incursions, but what is really upsetting is that there have been seven during the term of this Government. So, getting back to the title, if we are looking at being secure, or incorporating some sort of feeling of security into the name of the bill, I think that is quite misleading. Certainly during the time of the previous Minister it was a case of “Let’s all head for the New Zealand borders.”, with the yellow flower wasp and the kentia palm seed borer, not to mention the southern saltmarsh mosquito and, once again, the avian pox virus—my personal favourite—the lettuce aphid, and the eastern flower thrips. Now rather than having a secure border, it has been very insecure, because a lot of things have come in and threatened the agricultural and horticultural industries.

If we are looking in particular at the incursion of the varroa bee mite, which was one of the first issues the Minister had to deal with, I think we could incorporate some reference to that in the title, and one of my suggestions is that we call the bill the “Christmas Came Early and Marian Gave Us Varroa Bee Mite Bill”. I can see a lot of nodding heads from around the Chamber, of people thinking that that is quite an improvement to the name of the bill. Another option is that we could call this bill the “Spray People with Chemicals Because I Couldn’t be Bothered Spending It at the Border Bill”, because that is certainly the way a lot of people from west Auckland whom I have spoken to feel. They were quite happy to play along with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry first of all, but after successive sprays I think that their tolerance has worn thin.

I also think that it has become quite an important issue for this country, because if we look at the number of incursions just in the last few years, we see that they are coming thick and fast. Rather than getting better at managing biosecurity, I think that things are not very secure, and the present title we have has become somewhat misleading. This bill really should be more aptly titled the “Luck of the Draw and Catch a Few Greeblies if You Are Lucky Bill”, because at the moment we have seen the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry rely very heavily on the general public to do its job for it. We have already heard in previous speeches that very few of the containers at ports actually get checked—somewhere between 5 and 10 percent. So it is very much the luck of the draw in terms of getting a number of these incursions when they should be discovered—that is, when they first come in. A pest or insect would probably have to be very unlucky to be caught by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, because if we look at those other invaders, I think all of them have been identified by the general public.

It is important that we have a bill that is correctly titled, and that reflects the important nature of the legislation, so I have put forward some suggestions and look forward to hearing others from my colleagues on this side of the Chamber about how the bill could be more appropriately titled. It is important that we have a bill with a name that people can identify with, and look at and immediately know what it is about. Quite simply, to imply that this bill is about security after such a staggeringly poor track record of letting so many pests and greeblies into New Zealand, we say that the bill has nothing about security at all. It has everything to do with bio-risk, so that is why I have made some suggestions for the title.

I move, That the question be now put.