Biosecurity Amendment Bill

I was very disappointed not to take a call on clause 2, “Commencement”. It was an important clause, and it was very disappointing that the National Party had only one speech. Part 1 is also very important because basically it sets out the guts of the changes. It sets out the importance of the processing of unaccompanied goods, the duty of the general public to let the ministry know if they see an incursion of some sort, and the importance of penalties, which are to be expected if members of the public do not do their duty and let the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry know when there are pests or incursions that put our economy at risk.

I confirm my colleague Lindsay Tisch’s comment that this bill will greatly affect the whole health of the economy. If we get it wrong, and something comes in—as we have seen under the management of Marian Hobbs, the first Minister for Biosecurity—the effect on the economy could be dire. Members should look at what the painted apple moth has done to Auckland. Ninety million dollars is being spent there to get rid of that moth. Had changes been made at the border and the painted apple moth been caught, that money could have gone into health and education. The bill is short, but we will take our time debating it, as we need to do justice to quite an important subject.

If we look again at the Government’s track record on biosecurity, we have deep, deep concerns. Since the 1930s there have been only about 10 major incursions, but since this Government took over and handed the reins to Marian Hobbs—it obviously thought this was a very important portfolio—we have seen floods of incursions into this country. As I mentioned earlier, there were the yellow flower wasp, the kentia palm seed borer, two lesser-known but very damaging incursions, such as the saltmarsh mosquito—[Interruption] Ian Ewen-Street is giving me the benefit of his knowledge in this area by listing a few others.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: And Clayton Cosgrove

And Clayton Cosgrove. I have just seen two members from the Opposition parties walk in—two most damaging incursions—one being Murray McCully and the other Rodney Hide. They have seen how important this debate is, so have graced the Committee with their presence. I do hope those members take a call.

💬 Rodney Hide: Parekura Horomia.

Parekura Horomia is mentioned here as coming in in 1999—no, that is the banjo frog. He is mentioned as one of the more harmless incursions to be inflicted upon the New Zealand economy, but is certainly costing this country a lot of money as we speak.

In terms of the amendments to Part 1, it is important to talk about some of the changes we are expecting in this bill. I think it is worthwhile talking about changes to the regional pest management strategy—such as how the Government will try to deal with things like the ever-extending varroa bee mite, which is causing a shudder in beekeeping circles around the world. We also need to look at the contents of the levy provisions. It is called a levy but it is nothing more than another tax. A Government that said it would not introduce any new taxes has introduced at least 15 in the past 3 years, and others are included in this amendment bill.

As I have said, this bill has nothing to do with biosecurity. It is more to do with bio-risk, because we have seen incursion after incursion. Going through the vast number of invaders that have been inflicted on the New Zealand population has certainly been a science lesson for me. It is not surprising, given that 5 to 10 percent only of the containers that come into the country are looked at. It is a very unlucky pest that is caught by our Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, that is for sure. It really has to be an unlucky incursion to be caught at all.

I want to take a call on Part 1 because there are a number of areas that concern us, and I think the provisions should be a little tighter. First of all, under clause 6, which inserts new section 44, we find the general duty of people to report the discovery of new organisms. It is great that people are required to report those discoveries, but there should be some additional support for those people, because I would hate to see someone fail to report an organism, or resist reporting it, out of the fear that it would cost them money to have it eradicated. As Gerry Eckhoff mentioned earlier on, there was an incident where a farmer failed to report what he thought was an incursion of a weed that was listed as noxious and dangerous. He kept that quiet for 15 years and attempted to eradicate it himself, but it turned out to be nothing more than an Australian cousin of a noxious weed, and it was quite welcome here. The failure to report an incident is something that this bill tries to overcome, but the mechanism to support people, so they do not fear that they will have to bear the full costs of the eradication, is absent.

Another clause is to do with the regional pest management strategies. Pest management is something that needs to have an overall strategy. I would hate to see one region come up with a strategy to develop its programmes, and another neighbouring region come up with a strategy that conflicts with or is not compatible with it. Ultimately, an incursion in one area could slip across to a neighbouring region, and there could be a conflict regarding whose responsibility it is to deal with it. That is another area that we feel should be examined.

We are also concerned about the levy. This Government is basically setting up another tax. It calls it a levy, but this Government will call a tax by any name other than a tax. It calls a tax everything but a tax. So here is another tax coming in to make sure that this Government continues. It calls the tax a levy so that it can say it has not introduced any more taxes, but this is another tax.

Clause 19 provides for the power to examine an organism when that organism is assumed to be an incursion. Without a database to match that power against, and without the knowledge and the background that a database would provide in support of those examinations, some of those organisms have spread very quickly—and have done so for a long time. When an organism was found not to be on the list of dangerous organisms for this country, it had to be put on that list before we could do anything about it. That mechanism just does not work, because inspectors do not have the time to mess around waiting for an organism to appear on a list before they can go and examine it, and decide that it is dangerous and should be eradicated. That list needs to be updated regularly, and a database needs to be put together of the organisms present in our overseas trading partners that are a potential danger to us. If we do not have knowledge about an organism before it arrives, how are we to handle it quickly? Without that knowledge, we will hang around and leave the organism to spread before we do something about it.

This is a very important debate, and I am privileged to be able to take part in it. There is nothing more important to New Zealand than our biosecurity, but I want to mention one particular clause in particular, clause 4. Clause 4 states: “(3) Section 7 of the principal Act is amended by adding the following subsection:”, which relates to the provisions of the Wildlife Act. Mr Catchpole spoke earlier about the fact that ferret farmers could be put out of business by that particular clause.

I want to make it very clear that under section 7 of the Wildlife Act—

💬 Darren Hughes: Brent Catchpole now writes Lindsay Tisch’s speeches.

Clause 4 is amended by Supplementary Order Paper 96 in the name of the Hon Jim Sutton. Section 7C of the Wildlife Act, “Farming certain unprotected animals”, states: “(1) No person shall farm, breed, or sell, or capture or convey or keep in captivity for the purposes of farming, breeding, or selling, any wildlife specified in the Eighth Schedule to this Act unless any such activity is authorised by the Minister pursuant to section 41 …”. The Eighth Schedule, “Wildlife not protected but may be kept, bred, or farmed in captivity pursuant to regulations made under principal Act or by Minister’s direction”, includes ferrets.

The point is that by inserting clause 4 in the bill, it simply means there is no security for the people who were involved in the breeding of ferrets in the long term. There are three licensed breeders in New Zealand, and the breeder who is a constituent of mine has 2,000 breeding ferrets this year—

💬 Darren Hughes: Ha, ha!

The member should not laugh about it; I am talking about a million-dollar business. That enterprise will export 7,500 ferrets this year, worth $1 million. He also employs five people full-time in his business. Any ferrets that are sold domestically are desexed. Ferrets are not an issue out in people’s homes. In fact, if they were to get loose, they would not survive.

💬 Janet Mackey: Says who?

They would not survive, because they are domestic ferrets.

💬 Darren Hughes: What are their names?

The member makes a joke of such an important industry. I am sure that if that breeder is listening tonight, he will not be impressed by the nature of what this Government has in mind for his industry.

The question I want to ask the Minister is whether that breeder will be able to sell his million-dollar enterprise. Will his family be able to take over that enterprise? We are seeing, under this legislation, that that person will be down and out. He has nowhere to go. This Government says that it wants consultation and the opportunity to grow the economy. Here we have a million-dollar business that will be left on the scrap heap, and Government members are laughing about it.

I want the Minister to take a call and answer four simple questions for me. Firstly, does clause 4 affect the viability and future security of my constituent in the Piako electorate? Secondly, will that person be able to continue his farming operation and to export ferrets? Thirdly, will he be able to sell his business to somebody else, or will his family be able to take it over? The fourth question relates to the domestic market. Will he be able to sell ferrets on the domestic market? There is a huge domestic market. Those are simple questions, and I ask the Minister to answer them.

I am delighted to take a call on Part 1 of this bill. I draw it to the Committee’s attention again that, among the opportunities this Committee would normally expect, would be the opportunity to debate the bill. Although I certainly appreciate hearing the contributions of my colleagues, I would deem it to be a small favour if a Government member would condescend to stand and give us his or her offering on this very important subject. I do not even mind if Government members get Brian Edwards down to Parliament to coach them on this subject, and to tell them what to say. I see one or two members on the Government side of the Chamber have had a new haircut—it is all starting to show already. I think the public demands that Government members should stand and contribute to this debate, rather than just using that old sentence, “Mr Speaker, I move that the question be now put.”, which we constantly hear. A debate is not a debate unless there are two opposing sides contributing to a subject—and this particular subject is very, very important. Regrettably, the Government is steadfastly refusing to contribute. Well, I will just carry on.

I would like to draw to the Committee’s attention that clause 6 inserts a new section 44, “General duty to inform”, which states: “Every person is under a duty to inform the Ministry, as soon as practicable in the circumstances, of the presence of what appears to be an organism not normally seen or otherwise detected in New Zealand.” Does this Committee really expect Joe Bloggs, an ordinary member of the public, to know the difference between nassella tussock and Australian sedge? I would suspect that most farmers do not know the difference between them. But there is a way that we can help people to do so, and that is through education.

I have already mentioned in this Committee a very, very good programme called Border Patrol, which I believe screens on a Monday evening. The public really warmed to that form of important information—it is not just entertainment. It is put forward in a very constructive and an informative manner, and in such a way that the public understands and absorbs the lessons that that particular programme puts across. In other words, we should be having more of those sorts of informative programmes like Border Patrol for the public.

I hesitate to say this, but it would seem quite logical to follow the Australian example of screening programmes during the intermission at major sporting events that inform the public of Australia about the importance of issues such as biosecurity. The programmes ask whether people have seen any examples of a particular product or organism, and then advise the public to call the local equivalent of our Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officers if they have seen anything. Those programmes go nationwide at a time when a very, very large portion of the public is watching the television screen.

Why can we not learn from that, and do something very similar to it, perhaps during a half-hour programme shown once or twice a year at the prime time of 7.30? Why can we not have more of those sorts of initiatives? Why can we not have some more really informative programmes that show the people of this country just how important it is that if they do come across something they are not very sure of, they then inform the appropriate authorities?

I listened with some interest to my colleague from the Green Party, who was talking about genetic modification, and about how important it is that the public are informed about that. I thought that was rather strange. I can just imagine people going to a restaurant and saying to the waiter that there is a genetically modified organism in their soup. That would be a very difficult thing to prove, unless they happened to have an electron microscope with them at their table.

We are discussing a very important bill, on a very important subject. I just want to make a few comments about a couple of the clauses in Part 1, and specifically about clause 18, which reduces the notice period for aerial spraying from 2 weeks to 24 hours where a longer notice period would seriously damage the chance of containing or eradicating an undesirable organism.

The Primary Production Committee considered that even 24 hours may be too long a period in some cases, and recommended instead that the chief technical officer could reduce the current 2-week notice period to the extent necessary in order to avoid prejudice to the eradication of an organism. The committee drew on the experience of the discovery of the southern saltmarsh mosquito infestation near Napier in 1999, which required immediate spraying before the larvae matured and were allowed to fly and spread over a larger area. The organisms in respect of which a shorter notification may be given are organisms that are not already established in New Zealand or are restricted to certain areas, and that have the potential to cause significant negative economic, health, or environmental problems.

Of course, we did not have a member on the select committee in the previous Parliament when the report was completed, but after looking at this bill and being asked whether we would support it, there were only a couple of things that we were concerned about. One of those was that the reduced notice period for spraying potentially gives the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry an arbitrary power without regard to the social costs. Accordingly, we asked the Government to look at including a provision for ministerial sign-off, to ensure that a degree of political accountability would be there with that decision. I express our thanks to the Minister and the officials who have taken that concern seriously and included it in Supplementary Order Paper 96 in the name of the Hon Jim Sutton, which we will be voting on in a short while.

Our concern is that in cases where the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry may have messed up by not acting quickly enough to control an outbreak—which occurred with the painted apple moth in west Auckland—people have to suffer the consequences by being sprayed on. The amendment we have obtained requires that the chief technical officer has to notify the Minister if he or she considers that the 2-week notice requirement for aerial spraying would significantly prejudice the chances of eradicating or containing the organism, and, if practicable, acquire the Minister’s approval. Some will say that that constitutes a very minor change, but it ensures a modicum of political accountability for the decision.

We think that that new provision is of significance, because it will mean that the decision is not made just by a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry official but also by the Minister, who is an elected representative of the people, and who will therefore be prepared to take into account the social and political consequences of spraying people in their homes and communities. The Minister will also be accountable because he will have a greater awareness of the social cost of the action to be taken—

💬 Rodney Hide: Or she.

—or she will; I ask members to forgive me for showing any kind of gender bias there. So we ask the other parties in this House to vote for that amendment.

I also want to comment on clause 19(2), which probably requires some explanation. It amends section 121 of the principal Act by extending the power to recover costs when a person fails to comply with a direction. In other words, if a farmer with a suspected case of TB amongst his cattle is asked to muster them for inspection and does not, then the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry can recover the costs of doing so. Supplementary Order Paper 96 contains an amendment that relates to that clause. It provides the power to examine organisms, and it also does other things to establish the presence of a pest. It extends those provisions to pest agents, as well.

We in United Future believe that those additions to the bill are sensible amendments. We will be giving them our support, and we urge other members of the Committee to do so, also.

I would like to focus on a couple of the clauses that we focused on during the select committee deliberations, the first of which is clause 9, “Restriction on levies”. Clause 9 gives section 92(1) a slightly more punitive air, and I talked a little bit about that earlier. Pest management levies are actually targeted at those who have contributed to the pest’s incursion or spread. They might have contributed actively by doing something stupid or sinister—that is, a deliberate act—or otherwise. They might have been inactive and overlooked an obvious situation where they could have prevented an incursion, or they might have overlooked an opportunity to report the incursion, or otherwise. So there is the issue of active contribution to the spread of the incursion, and the inactive, or passive, spread.

💬 Rodney Hide: The working Minister, Mr Cunliffe, is in the chair now.

Yes, so one could argue that the punitive measures are user-pays or polluter-pays. Paragraph (d)(i), inserted by clause 9, states that the levy means to target “persons likely to benefit from the implementation of the strategy;’’. In the case of moths and all those invertebrates and visitors from overseas that have come into the country since Marian Hobbs has been at the helm, or in the case of dry stock farmers, sheep farmers, and dairy farmers throughout the country who have viruses, diseases, bacteria, and so on, one could argue that they are likely to benefit from the implementation of the strategy. So one would hope, although, clearly, they have not seen that in the last 4 years, with at least 11 incursions from around the globe into our country—that being Labour Party immigration policy. As stated in paragraph (d)(ii), the levy also targets “persons who by their activities or inaction contribute to the creation, continuance, or exacerbation of the problems proposed to be resolved by the strategy;”. So that means those who were active, or inactive and created the problem, and might have continued or exacerbated the problem.

Members will see that clause 24 relates to penalties for people involved in the problem. Clause 25 talks about those persons who do not notify appropriate authorities where it is reasonably expected that they should know that an incursion has occurred, and that such an incursion could wreak havoc in our horticulture, forestry, and agricultural industries. One would expect that to be the case in the agricultural industry. One would expect veterinarians, farmers, and those who have contact with animals to recognise diseases. In the horticultural industry, one would expect farm advisors, horticulturalists themselves, fruit packers, and people in charge of cool-stores should recognise any incursion. So if we can reasonably expect those people to recognise an incursion and if they do not report that incursion, they will incur a hefty fine of up to $5,000. We can see that from clauses 24 and 25. So clause 9, “Restrictions on levies” actually relates to those types of people. Through their activity or inactivity, they can incur levies or, due to a serious recognisable fault, they can incur penalties. That is the association between clauses 9, 24, and 25.

Clause 18 deals with spraying programmes. Usually, and up to this date, there is a 2-week opportunity for officials in the ministry to let a community know that they might have to put up with aerial spraying. One can appreciate that if there is an incursion and officials have to act quickly, they might have to so in a shorter time.

This is a very important bill, and we now have the shiny new Minister, the Hon David Cunliffe, in the chair. Members of the Opposition have some questions for this Minister. With his Harvard education, we know that he will be able to answer them. I refer him to clause 9, and I wonder whether he could explain to the Committee the nature of these levies, and whether the Government is envisaging those levies to be a pigovian tax or a user-pays charge. Just what does the Government have in mind? I know that this shiny, sharp new Minister will be more than anxious to take a call and answer that question. The Minister is on the big salary now; he has the big car and the big office up in the Beehive. It is time he started to do some work and stand up as a Minister and explain to this Parliament and to the people of New Zealand quite what these levies are. If he does not, I am afraid that the public of New Zealand can conclude only one thing—that the bright, shiny new Minister does not know. Of course, we have had that experience before with this Minister’s member’s bill about triple-bottom-line accounting. It was talked about, but it was all mouth and no trousers. That bill did not see the light of day, either.

I also refer members to clause 23, which, to me, is extraordinary. I draw it to the attention of our colleagues in the National Party, New Zealand First, and the Green Party. I have never seen this before. Clause 23, “Levies” states: “Section 137(1) of the principal Act is amended by inserting, before the word ‘Minister’, the word ‘responsible’.” I ask members to have a think about that for a minute. I used to believe—and I am sure that members in the National Party used to believe—that Ministers were responsible automatically. But this Government brings in a bill under urgency, amends it, and says: “In this particular case, we’re going to make the Minister responsible.”

It would be the first time, would it not, that Helen Clark or Michael Cullen has ever said that a Minister should be responsible for anything? Time after time in this House, they get up and say: “I’m not responsible for that. That is an operational issue.”, or they say—[Interruption] David Benson-Pope wants to pinch some Opposition time rather than take a call himself. I hope you are watching this, Mr Chairman, because it is very clear that the Committee does want to debate Part 1. It is just that the members of the Government are not allowed to. Even the Minister in the chair is under riding instructions not to take a call. How come?

💬 Brent Catchpole: Is he responsible?

No, he is not responsible because there is no section 137(1) that inserts the word “responsible” before the word “Minister”. Would we not be so much better off in New Zealand if we had a Government that took it as read that the Minister was responsible? Annette King is not responsible for anything. Michael Cullen is not responsible for anything. Mark Burton is not conscious of anything, let alone responsible for anything. Parekura Horomia cannot read, cannot see, cannot know, and is constantly confused. He is not responsible. The Minister in the chair cannot even get his own bills up and running. What is it called, that mad thing that the left is on about? [Interruption] Yes, it is triple-bottom-line accounting. That is all gone; it is all words. [Interruption] David Benson-Pope is not even allowed to take a call in any debate I have been in in this House. All he is is noise.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have listened very carefully to the debate on this part. I know that under urgency Governments sometimes feel moved to put the pressure on for time and take a parsimonious view of the contribution that should be made by the Minister in the chair and other Government members. However, I remind the Minister who now sits in the chair that in the course of debating this part one of my colleagues raised some very important questions on behalf of a constituent. He has not yet had the courtesy of a response, and I say to the Minister that he will not get off the hook quite that easily.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Oh dear!

The Deputy Prime Minister might not think it is important, but he was not here. He should know that one of Mr Tisch’s constituents in the Piako electorate is a ferret farmer.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you will be able to anticipate this point of order. It is not fair to refer to the presence or absence of Ministers in this Chamber. It is outside the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is absolutely right. It is a convention in this House that people do not refer to the absence of members. I did not hear a comment, because I was otherwise engaged with the Clerk.

I plead guilty to a technical infraction, which I was goaded into by the intemperate behaviour of the Deputy Prime Minister, but I concede that I was in error and will try not to repeat the offence. I am indebted to my friend Mr Hide for pointing out my deplorable conduct on this occasion.

I say to the Minister in the chair that he had better get up and take a call, because I will go for another call after this one unless he does. Mr Tisch has a constituent who has a $1 million export business, which the Minister of Finance should be interested in. Mr Tisch thinks that as a consequence of clause 4(6) of this bill, that particular constituent will be put out of business. He is entitled to an answer. The Minister who is warming the chair better get used to the fact that he cannot go driving people out of business with a bill like this, which is being pushed through under urgency, and not take a call. Mr Cunliffe, who is very fine at lauding his credentials around this place, had better use those credentials and stand up and tell the Committee the answer to Mr Tisch’s perfectly reasonable questions. Is Mr Tisch’s constituent going to have his business taken away from him by this part? Yes or no? I will go for another call. I know that Mr Hide will, and I can see that Mr Tisch will also go for another call. His constituent deserves to know whether clause 4(6) will put this ferret-farming export business of $1 million a year out of business. The Minister is pretending to read a comic or a women’s magazine, or something, while I am asking these questions. I want him to stand to take a call.

I have been reading the briefing notes, and it is quite clear what the reason for this measure is. I have just looked at the list of invaders that have got in as a consequence of the loopholes in the legislation, and I see that the Minister is the Minister who in 2002 brought the avian poxvirus to New Zealand. I want to know what that Minister will do to make amends for the invasion of the avian poxvirus in 2002. Clearly, that is an important reason that this measure has been brought to the Committee. I want to know what this Minister can tell the Committee tonight will be the case in relation to that very serious threat to biosecurity—the avian poxvirus—as a consequence of the Committee being troubled to pass this bill under urgency tonight. I conclude by saying that Mr Tisch’s constituent’s business is in need of those answers.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will talk about clause 5, but first I want to comment about the reaction when my honourable colleague Lindsay Tisch made a great speech in the Committee a short while ago with regard to clause 4. The Labour members opposite actually laughed and thought it was a bit of a joke, yet it concerned a very serious matter. Their behaviour underscored their lack of understanding of the implications of a great many of the issues and matters arising out of biosecurity.

I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to clause 5, which talks about biosecurity control areas. I would like to mention a further instance of a lack of understanding about biosecurity and biosecurity control areas. One of the things we have at Auckland airport is a significant furnace, which offers one of the few opportunities we have to eradicate some bio-incursions into New Zealand. Some bio-organisms have to be incinerated to eradicate completely their existence. Some ignorant people in our communities, people with a green bent, people with a fundamentalist type of green view of the world, are trying to have this furnace—the only one of its kind in New Zealand—removed. That is a very ignorant approach to dealing with some of the bio-incursions we might have. That furnace may be the only way in which we can completely eradicate them, and stop them from spreading any further, and here we have Greenpeace doing its best to prevent it from being used in this way. That is a fact.

The other matter that I want to bring to the attention of the Committee is the contents of national pest management strategies, which are a principal mechanism under the Biosecurity Act for the effective management or eradication of pests and unwanted organisms. That furnace could be a significant part of our getting rid of unwanted organisms that have become established in New Zealand. Pest management strategies provide a commitment as to how an organism is to be managed or eradicated, and who is responsible for the various activities and for funding and compensation arrangements. It is to be hoped that some of the things that currently need fixing will be addressed as part of the national pest management strategies, which are identified in clause 7.

There is no clear accountability for the biosecurity programme as a whole, and there is a lack of clear and agreed goals and outcomes for biosecurity activities. There is little systematic analysis of the relative benefits and costs of the different components of a biosecurity programme. All these sorts of matters should be addressed as part of the national pest management strategies, and, hopefully, some of these problems will be fixed.

Deciding the allocation of resources to deal with specific threats is highly complex. Of course, we are experiencing some significant costs through the woeful lack of action by this Government. I did refer members to a number of news releases about the woeful inaction of the Government—the delay in responding to some of the incursions we have had, and the delay of the bill, which has sat on the shelf for 2 years. There has been a number of press releases in that regard, on 11, 16, 18, and 27 March, two in April, and a number in May. The importance of the bill cannot be understated in any way whatsoever.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a very important bill, and before you put the motion I would like you to consider giving one of our very few agrarian members of this Parliament, Gerard Eckhoff, another call. I am sure that he has plenty more to say about the bill, and it is a very important bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot ask that on behalf of another member.