New Organisms and Other Matters Bill

In dealing with Part 3 of this bill, members will see that it refers particularly to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act—legislation that no doubt many members will be very familiar with. They will probably not have to refer to the principal Act at all while making their submissions during this part of the debate.

When this bill first came before the House, we learnt very early on that, essentially, it would disappear and be phased into the three Acts of Parliament that are covered in the remaining three parts to this bill—namely, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, the Medicines Act, and the Biosecurity Act. I know my colleague Shane Ardern will be very keen to make a contribution on the Biosecurity Act.

When one looks at Part 3, in particular, it is tempting to just pass over amendments that appear at the end of a new bill like this, but I decided to have a quiet look at the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act and see exactly what those amendments do. I do not recall going into this level of detail during the select committee process—

💬 Hon David Carter: Perhaps they should have done.

To be fair, my colleague is probably right. I say to the chairman of the select committee, the Hon Brian Donnelly, that I do not think we spent much time looking at the amendments to those Acts .

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: We did give you the opportunity.

That is probably true enough.

Clause 52 of the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill, “Director-General to withhold information”, looks vague and innocuous at first glance, but it is worth having a bit of a look at it. Subclause (1) states: “Section 12(2) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘immediately notify’, and substituting the words ‘make all reasonable efforts to contact and notify immediately’.’’

💬 Hon David Carter: It’s a cover-up!

It is. He says it mockingly, but there are some real concerns about the way these words have been factored in. Let us go to section 12 of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act—that is, the section dealing with the director-general’s right to withhold information pursuant to an Official Information Act request. Section 12(2) states that where the director-general receives a request to release any information under the Official Information Act, the information to which the request relates may be able to be withheld if that information has been classified as commercially sensitive. I see the Minister frowning, but from my reading that is the general gist of subsection (2)—the information can be withheld if it is commercially sensitive, and that seems to make sense.

But at the point the application reaches the director-general, under the current regime the director-general must immediately notify the person who gave him or her the information—in other words, the holder of the commercially sensitive information—that a request to release the information has been received. Under the current Act, the bar is set quite high, in the sense that the person, the commercial entity, or the applicant, must be immediately notified. There is nothing about reasonable steps, or constructive notice—none of that stuff; they must be notified immediately.

In clause 52(1) the words “immediately notify” have been omitted and the words “make all reasonable efforts to contact and notify immediately” substituted. That is quite different from “immediately notify”. It is a kind of wishy-washy version. Does one sort of pick up the phone, dial the number, and if one cannot get through, think: “Well, I’ve made all reasonable efforts to make contact.”? Or maybe one presses the wrong fax number on the machine, and thinks: “Well, I’ve made all reasonable efforts to make contact.” Maybe if one just drives past the business premises, that is enough.

I rise to take a very brief call to explain New Zealand First’s position in terms of these next three parts and the schedule. I particularly want to point out to my colleagues in National that we did negotiate with the Chair that the commencement date and Part 2 were the significant parts of this bill; we asked for extensive opportunities to debate the issues in those two areas, and the Chair really did accommodate us. So therefore we believe that it is only right and proper now to reduce the amount of debate around these last three parts, largely because they are consequential parts, and as my colleague Simon Power has said, there were no great cries from submitters that they needed drastic change or anything else. Most people saw them as just consequential, flowing on from the legislation itself. New Zealand First is not going to take multiple calls on these three parts.

I speak, with particular interest, about the part amending the Biosecurity Act and the director-general’s ability to respond quickly by waiving the normal process of notification and the normal stand-down period with regard to veterinary products and drugs in relation to whatever it is they may be responding to. On the surface, that is a very good provision, but it would be interesting if the Minister would take a call and give us an example. I could run through a range of scenarios where I think that might be useful—such as, there might be a new drug being developed somewhere overseas and there could be a major incursion of some sort, like a foot-and-mouth outbreak, or some other such disease where there is a vaccine, or some kind of medical development that could be useful in response to that, and thereby the director-general would be able to say, yes, we are not going to put this through the process that we normally would, through the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and the like, because there may be some new organism in it, and we are are willing to let it go because there is this major calamity on our hands.

That may be what it is for. I suspect that that is what it is for. I do not actually know whether that is true, and it would be really good if the Minister would take a call and tell us whether that is so. I know that in biosecurity matters over recent times there have been some holes in the policy so big that one could drive a whole truckload of foot-and-mouth contaminated cattle through.

So are we here, dealing with the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill, creating another loophole or another cavity that things could slip through? I am just not sure about that. I know that the director-general himself is a very competent person; we have always had very competent people in that role, and I know that that decision would not be taken lightly, and unless there was a reasonable amount of evidence that the drug, or the compound, or the new organism, or whatever it might be, that they are trying to release, was likely to have a positive outcome. But we just do not know; and, certainly, when we read this and we refer back to the respective sections of the different Acts—like section 49B of the Biosecurity Act—it is still not clear. I know that the Minister will be well informed on this, so I will be interested to hear her response on those issues.

I also know that the Biosecurity Act has had a number of amendments, and I am not sure whether they are relevant to this or whether this supersedes those. Maybe the Minister will be able to answer those questions.

The main guts of this part, as my colleague Simon Power said, is the Agricultural Components and Veterinary Medicines Act. I know there was a lot of debate around live vaccines and dead vaccines—I guess that is the way to describe the alternative to live vaccines—at the time that that was introduced. I know that in the case of leptospirosis, for example, and a number of other bovine diseases, there are dead vaccines. Now, will this apply to live vaccines or will it apply to dead vaccines? I am not sure. It is not clear when we read this. It is certainly not clear how wide the director-general’s ability will be to waive the standard rules, the Environmental Risk Management Authority criteria that one has to go through, for this sort of release. It does not say; it is not clear. I know that the Minister will have the answer to that. I am sure the officials have advised her on it. So maybe the Minister can take a call and advise us on that.

I know that in the case of leptospirosis there is a huge controversy out in rural New Zealand as to why the vaccine has to be confined as tightly as it is, and why it cannot be administered by farmers. I know that in some cases farmers do so, and I know that some stock and station agents and others who handle normal livestock-type vaccines want to trade in that vaccine and be part of it, and at the moment it is tightly regulated and only the vets are allowed to administrate it. Vets are the only ones who are allowed to sell it, trade it, and so on. So is there relevance in that? Will the director-general be able to direct whoever it is in that regard?