Biosecurity Amendment Bill

I am happy to support Part 2, “Amendments to Forests Act 1949”. This is the most significant part of the bill. Clause 26 repeals the redundant provisions. They are redundant not only because of this bill but because the Biosecurity Act, in combination with this amendment bill, effectively nullifies the need for those particular provisions.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: Why?

Because sections 69, 70, 70A, 71, and 71C of the Forests Act are repealed. Members might like to know that section 70 provides very broad regulation-making powers, which are not required any more. The section states that regulations may be made “for the purpose of eradicating or preventing the spread of any disease which may affect areas, trees, tree seed, timber, forest, or forest products.” Members who had paid attention to this bill, and who had been at the Primary Production Committee, as I was—diligently, as is my habit—would know that the bill covers those issues with regard to forestry; they would know that it covers not only agriculture and horticulture but forestry as well. That purpose, ”eradicating or preventing the spread of any disease which may affect areas, trees, tree seed, timber, forest or forest products.”, becomes irrelevant with the passage of this bill.

I am glad of that. The biosecurity provisions of the Forests Act operate as a parallel system to those in the Biosecurity Act, so why have them? On top of that, with the amendments we have pile upon pile of regulation-making powers that we do not require. The National Party is a party of small government, of less regulation and bureaucracy, and of less compliance cost. We believe that we do not need those sections any more, and we are happy to repeal them. The Labour Government, which believes in big government, high compliance cost, and lots of regulation and bureaucracy, of course brought us all the way on this matter in the select committee. [Interruption] That will come as no surprise to Murray McCully, the member of Parliament for East Coast Bays. [Interruption] I do not know why the most harmless incursion to this Parliament, being David Benson-Pope—the sleepiest incursion to this Parliament—has woken up and started heckling me. He should read the bill and take a call.

All I want to say in closing is that sections 69, 70, 70A, 71, and 71C of the Act are being repealed, and the Crown has available alternative instruments to use in relation to the biosecurity of trees. This amendment deals with that. Why pile regulation upon regulation? Why pile bureaucracy upon bureaucracy? Why pile legislation upon legislation? Why pile David Benson-Pope upon anyone? The National Party will be voting for Part 2.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the Minister in the chair has not taken a call on this part, and did not take a call on Part 1. That leaves the Committee in a difficult position. I am bound to say that this debate will go on for some time if the Government continues to take that sort of cavalier approach. It was bad enough that, in respect of Part 1, Mr Tisch’s ferret farmer was denied an answer as to whether he would have a business tomorrow.

Part 2 has provisions that, on the face of them, look innocuous. I am indebted to my colleague Mr Heatley, the honourable member for Whangarei, for his explanation, but I am bound to say that it was the Minister whom I was looking to for some guidance on this matter. Although it may sound trivial, I want the Minister to demonstrate to the Committee that he has full command not only of his own faculties but also of the provisions contained in Part 2. When a measure such as this is being passed under urgency, it is important that the tyres are kicked by members on the way through. This bill will go through its third reading after the Committee is finished with it. I want the Minister to take a call and tell us that he has had a good look at the provisions in the Forests Act 1949 that are referred to in clause 26(1) and (2). Can he tell us whether he has satisfied himself that the powers contained in this Biosecurity Amendment Bill exactly replicate the provisions of sections 69, 70, 70A, 71, and 71C of the Forests Act? Can he confirm that? Mr Chairperson, I appeal to your good nature and excellent judgment in this matter, but I have asked a perfectly reasonable question. Can the Minister tell us whether the provisions of the Forests Act that are referred to in clause 26(1), which repeals sections 69, 70, 70A, 71, and 71C of the Forests Act, are exactly replicated by the Biosecurity Amendment Bill, which the Committee is about to pass?

Can the Minister not hear me? He wants us to vote for this measure, on the basis that these are now redundant provisions that should be repealed. I simply ask him the question: has he satisfied himself that these provisions are, indeed, redundant, and can he certify to the committee that sections 69, 70, 70A, 71, and 71C are exactly replicated by this bill? If he cannot tell us that, we should be voting against it. The Minister cannot just roll up to Parliament with a bill—and I am bound to say, and I am not being critical of the draftsman, the explanatory note is distinctly unhelpful on this matter. There is no explanation about Part 2, in the explanatory note. Members like Mr Heatley, who had the advantage of being on the select committee, know from their own understanding of the bill in the select committee process that Part 2 is OK. Mr Heatley thinks that Part 2 is OK. I think Mr Heatley’s judgment is generally quite sound, although I have seen the odd lapse from time to time.

I just want to be quite sure, so I want the Minister to tell me. The Minister is pretending to be in some other place. I will give up on clause 26(1) and move on to clause 26(2), and ask him whether section 71B(2) of the Forests Act is replicated by the provisions of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill, which has already been ticked off by the committee. Can I sleep easy tonight, knowing that Parliament has not made a huge mistake by repealing section 71B(2) of the Forests Act?

We now have a Government that we can confirm has no respect for this House, the institution of Parliament, and parliamentary democracy.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Oh!

David Benson-Pope thinks it is funny. Government members think that Parliament is funny and they think that a business going under is funny. They put a Minister—a boy Minister, with his training wheels still on—in the chair who does not know what the bill is about. He has not taken one call. Why have Parliament, if this Government is just going to come down to this Chamber and pass legislation, irrespective of the questions that the public asks and irrespective of the Opposition’s concerns? I tell the Minister that I have some questions for him about Part 2. It is now 25 minutes to midnight on a Thursday night, under urgency. I tell the Minister to take his training wheels off and have a go at this question. Why is section 70A of the Forests Act 1949 being repealed? I have read this bill in conjunction with the Act, and I can understand why we have to get rid of section 69. I can understand why we have to get rid of sections 70, 71, and 71C, but why do we have to repeal—

💬 Gordon Copeland: It’s progress.

I am pleased. United Future members, who go along like the doormats that they are, will vote for it because the Minister with the training wheels on has told them to. I hope he takes a call and explains why section 70A of the Forests Act—[Interruption] The member is saying that he was alive when that Act was passed. [Interruption] He is saying that he does not understand it, but he will vote for it, anyway. God knows how United Future members are getting on! If members do not understand the bill, the purpose is to come to the Chamber, and the Minister would explain it—except we have a Minister in the chair who still has training wheels.

I ask the Hon David Cunliffe, the member for Herne Bay, to take the call and explain why section 70A is being repealed. He gives a look of complete emptiness. [Interruption] David Benson-Pope said that it has something to do with his electorate in Dunedin. Why does he not stand up and take a call and rescue the Minister? [Interruption] Now he is saying that the Minister is rorting the system. I think it is true that David Cunliffe is rorting the system, because he is taking a Minister’s salary but not doing a Minister’s job. I say to the Minister that he should take a call and explain why section 70A of the Forests Act is being repealed. It seems to me that it should not be repealed.

Mr Copeland says that he is confused now. He is like members on this side, thinking that he will not vote for it. Mr Phil Heatley of the National Party is having second thoughts. Harry Duynhoven has already called out across the Chamber: “Don’t trust David Cunliffe, because you can’t trust him on this.” I think his vote now is up for grabs. I tell the Minister that all the members are laughing at him, even his United Future doormats are laughing at his expense. This Minister will not come to this Chamber and convince Parliament why we should vote for the bill.

How hard can it be to explain why section 70A of the Forests Act 1949 has to be repealed at this time of the night, under urgency? That is not a big ask. One section of a very old Act is being repealed. I ask the Minister to please explain the reason to the Committee, because Mr Copeland needs to know. He has to go back and talk to God, and his voters, and say that he did this in good conscience.

I move, That the question be now put.

That premature closure would have been most unfortunate. It is difficult to follow such a powerful speech as the one delivered by my colleague Mr Rodney Hide from the ACT party, but I have to say that, as a result of that speech, I am deeply concerned about aspects of this bill. I am deeply concerned about the Minister’s inability to answer what I thought were some quite basic questions about the bill. In fact, in just making a general comment about the way the Minister has conducted himself through this entire debate, I say he has not taken one call.

💬 Rodney Hide: He’s scared of Parekura.

Has he been taking lessons from Parekura Horomia? That is a very good question. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to the member at the back that when he refers to people, he must use their full name, not just their first name.

Some of the questions asked by members on this side have been very reasonable. Some of the questions raised by my colleague Lindsay Tisch about a very distressed businessman from his electorate, who is now worried about whether his business might go under—

💬 Rodney Hide: How do the ferrets feel?

That is quite right. How do the ferrets feel about the Biosecurity Amendment Bill? Their entire ability to survive is being put severely at risk.

The Minister has not answered some very, very basic questions. One was whether the redundant provisions that are repealed, the amendments to the Forests Act, would be replicated in the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. How can we sleep at night, when worrying about the repeal of these provisions if nothing is to be put in their place? Who knows—because of the large number of incursions we have seen in just a short number of years, I suspect that maybe the Minister who has been looking after this particular portfolio, Marian Hobbs, invited termites to come here. Basically, there has been a rush at the border, and a large number of incursions have occurred in a short space of time.

Section 70 of the Forests Act provides very broad regulation-making powers for the purpose of “eradicating or preventing the spread of any disease which may affect areas, trees, tree seed, timber, forests, or forest products.” I do not recall any discussion about those particular aspects earlier in the debate on the bill. How can members on this side of the Chamber be confident that these particular provisions are redundant, as the bill describes them, when we have heard nothing from the Minister about what provisions in this bill replace them? I can see why a number of people involved in the forest industry, a billion-dollar industry in this country, are concerned—and rightly so, because this provision removes some security aspects from an Act that is nearly 54 years old, which is nearly as old as the Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe. Obviously, they have not been looked at. Some real concerns have been raised, yet the Minister remains silent. For a member who is getting a salary of over six figures and a Crown car, plus a number of other perks, the least he could do as part of his duty is to answer some very simple questions. This Part 2 is probably one of the shortest parts I have debated in this House. It is quite simple, yet the Minister in the chair has been absolutely silent.

Section 71B(2) of the Forests Act is amended by repealing a quite important paragraph. [Interruption] I would like to ask for quiet from some of my colleagues, because this is a very important part. In fact I think that Part 2 is so substantial that members on this side of the Chamber will probably take more than one call and hopefully provoke the Minister into saying something—anything. Any sort of reply or attempt to answer some pretty simple questions would be quite encouraging.

💬 Opposition Member: What about a smile?

Even a smile would do. That Minister should put down his crossword. From here it looks as though he is doing the crossword out of the Woman’s Day. He should stand up and answer some of these very basic questions.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have been listening to the member who has just resumed her seat, talking about the amendments to the Forests Act. She requested the Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe, to stand up and indicate whether the sections being repealed under this part are covered, and, if so, how they are being covered, in this bill. I cannot see where there is any replication of those provisions, and I cannot see any cause to remove them. Sections 69, 70, 70A, 71, and 71C of the Forests Act are supposedly being repealed, but where in this bill are they covered?

The Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe, has failed to convince the Committee, and almost every speaker so far has requested him to stand up and explain to us where those sections are genuinely covered in the bill. I cannot see where they are covered, and neither can other members on this side of the Committee. I ask the Minister to stand up and give us an explanation. Clause 26(2) states: “Section 71B(2) of the Forests Act is amended by repealing paragraph (b)(i) and paragraph (c). Where in the bill are they replaced? This side of the Committee has requested the Minister to stand up and explain. He should take a call now and give us an explanation.

The Minister is shaking his head. He has no intention of standing up and taking a call. He has probably been told by his whip not to take a call, because he knows nothing about the bill and therefore should stay seated and keep quiet. That way, members of the Opposition will not be able to rubbish him. He should stand up and show that he actually understands this bill, by telling us where those sections have been replicated in this bill. So far, nobody has been convinced that he has understood the bill. He has not taken a call throughout the whole debate. He should stand up and take a call to show us that he understands the bill. I say again to him to take a call. Why will he not take a call? The Minister will not take a call. That shows he has not been in his job long enough. He has all the trappings, but he has not been in the job long enough to take a call and give us a real reason. The bill has been around since 2001. He must have had a chance to read it; he should take a call and let us see how he understands it.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I’ll take a call.

Mr Benson-Pope over there is squawking away. He is saying that he will take a call. That will be good! I hope he will take a call and explain why his Minister will not stand up and give us some answers. I say to him that he should stand up and take a call, telling us why the Minister in the chair is not allowed to stand up to explain Part 2. This part, which repeals sections of the Forests Act, is not understood. Mr Benson-Pope should stand up and explain why he will not allow his Minister to take a call. The Minister should take a call and explain this part to us.

I move, That the question be now put.