Biosecurity Amendment Bill

, on behalf of the Minister for Biosecurity I move, That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill was introduced to the House on 7 August 2001, was referred to the Primary Production Committee on 16 August 2001, and was reported back in November 2001. It amends the Biosecurity Act, which provides a framework to enable the exclusion of pests and unwanted organisms from entering into and establishing in New Zealand, and to provide for the eradication or management of pests and unwanted organisms that are already present in New Zealand. The Act also provides for the ongoing monitoring of New Zealand’s pests and unwanted organisms status, in order to facilitate the provision of official assurances in relation to exports of organisms and their products, as well as to meet our international reporting obligations and trading requirements. The amendments to the Act made by the bill and Supplementary Order Paper 96 are technical in nature; consequently, the bill does not substantially change the main policies in the Act. The amendments have arisen as a result of experience in applying the Act to new situations, as a result of responding to organisational changes in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and as a result of the need to resolve inconsistencies and provide greater clarity in the Act.

This bill has provided some fine-tuning to what is now an effective and efficient Act. The Government has put in more than $50 million in baseline funding for biosecurity every year, and New Zealand now has one of the most effective systems in the world for providing protection in this area. However, we will continue to get incursions of organisms across the border that must be dealt with. The Government is making a major contribution, but every citizen must do that as well, and this bill makes provision for that by requiring them to watch out for unusual or new diseases, insects or animals, and to report them to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

This bill recognises the role of individual citizens as well as that of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and it makes small but important changes to the Act. I believe that this bill deserves the support of the House because it will improve the protection for New Zealand from organisms that may harm our farms, orchards, forests, conservation areas, marine environment, and human health. The continued protection of those national assets is vital to all New Zealanders, and I commend this bill to the House.

What the Minister from the Labour Party did not tell members was that the Primary Production Committee that I worked on nearly 2 years ago worked pretty hard to get this bill through. We took submissions, listened to submitters, and this bill was prepared to come back to the House. Two years have passed. What the Minister did not tell members was that in the last 4 years—and for 2 of those years this bill has been languishing—we have had visits to this country. We have had visits of the cane toad from Australia. We have had visits from the Asian gypsy moth. We have had visits from the Australian huntsman spider. We have had visits from the North American ring-necked snake. We have had visits from the Argentine ant. We have had visits from the Australian redback spider, and we have had a visit from the North American southern ring-necked snake. We have had visits from all over the world.

I know why this Government bought shares in Air New Zealand—so that it would have an opportunity to transport all these visitors from overseas into this country in a speedy manner, because that is its lax attitude towards biosecurity in this country. So it is with some disappointment—although obviously we are happy to support this bill—that we are speaking about it tonight under urgency. Because the reality is that it has languished for 2 years, and I would like to make that point.

Some of the key recommendations in this bill that the select committee assiduously worked on at that time—a long 2 years ago—were issues particularly around those who seek to benefit from the passage of this bill. We talked about those who are likely to benefit from the implementation of a biosecurity strategy based on a particular incursion. Of course we have had 10, 11, or 12 of those in the last 4 years. We talked about those who are affected by this bill who actively or passively actually encourage, create, continue, or exacerbate incursions into this country. We talked about those people, and those, of course, who should be fined under that clause that we raised earlier, clause 24, “Offences”, where through this legislation we have introduced an opportunity for a $5,000 fine for not only those who deliberately allow, or promote, or in some way help the passage of an organism into this country—and I am not talking about Marian Hobbs here, although she has been responsible for 10, 11, or 12 incursions—but also for those who do not notify the appropriate authorities about an incursion.

When we talk about those who do not notify, we are not talking about those who are ignorant in the sense of a particular incursion or an event—one would not expect them to be aware—but those whom we would reasonably expect to know; those who have an education, and work in the field. I am talking about the area of agriculture: vets, clearly farmers themselves, perhaps meat inspectors, perhaps stock agents, those who buy and sell cattle, and all those types of people who consistently come in contact with animals throughout the country in the agricultural industry. We would reasonably expect them to recognise an incursion. If they do recognise an incursion and do not act, they can now be penalised up to $5,000, and that is a good thing.

We also have those in the horticultural industry such as growers whom one would expect to recognise an incursion while working with their product every day; perhaps those who are packers, those who transport fruit, others who are consultants in the horticultural industry, and those, of course, in the forestry industry. Any of those people whom one would reasonably expect to know about an incursion must report under that bill. We in the National Party support provisions that will punish them if they do not act. So it is not only those who will be punished under this bill who actively bring insects, or vermin, or snakes, as we have seen, into this country, but those who are passive about it and do not act when they recognise it.

There are also, of course, the important provisions about warning when there will be aerial spraying in the area. We have seen the issue in Auckland elevate to a point where our local constituents in Auckland are up in arms because they feel that there is a real problem there with spray drift hurting them in a health sense, but we can have that argument another day. But this bill actually allows Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials to have a period where they warn the public of aerial spraying within less than the 2 weeks previously imposed. It is all the way down to 24 hours.

I remember that one submitter argued that the minimum should be 48 hours. But we believe, having consulted widely with scientists and other people experienced in the biosecurity sphere, that 24 hours is a good minimum. Sometimes officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, or whichever is the lead agency, have to act quickly. We would expect that if they gave only 24 hours notice they would advertise thoroughly.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from midnight to 9 a.m. (Friday)