Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill

I wonder whether the Minister could take a call relatively early in the debate. There has been an issue around Supplementary Order Paper 188, which has been tabled by the Māori Party and which concerns the independent review being made available before any decision is made to finalise and ratify the import health standard around honey. The Primary Production Committee was well aware of this issue, and it moved amendments through the select committee process that the select committee understood would mean that the bee-keeping industry would certainly have the satisfaction of an independent review prior to the law being enacted. The select committee, I think from memory, came up with a scheme whereby there was to be a 90-day period after enactment before this import health standard would be established, in which case it was hoped that the independent review would have been completed. As I understand it, the Māori Party has now moved an amendment that, in effect, tries to strengthen this particular amendment to make sure that that happens before the final enactment. It is also my understanding that, during the day and subsequent to a question answered by the Minister in the House within the last hour, a further amendment is being tabled by the Minister that will satisfy the concerns of the Māori Party. Therefore, to hasten the debate today, it would be helpful if the Minister would take a call and explain whether that amendment has actually been laid on the Table and whether it is available for us to peruse.

I thought Supplementary Order Paper 194 had been laid on the Table, to be honest, but I have a copy here, which I will lay on the Table now. Perhaps I could help the Committee by just going through it quickly and making sure that a copy is available to members.

The Māori Party had tabled Supplementary Order Paper 188, which seeks to alter the period during which Australian honey may not be imported so that the period extends until 90 days after the independent review panel established under new section 22A—to be inserted into the Biosecurity Act by new clause 5A—becomes operational. The Supplementary Order Paper that the Māori Party has laid on the Table appears to be based on a misunderstanding about the independent review being offered to the National Beekeepers’ Association. The review being offered to the Beekeepers’ Association will commence as soon as possible. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has already met with the Beekeepers’ Association to discuss aspects of the review, and both parties wish to see it proceed quickly. The review will be similar in nature to the independent review process that is to be developed under the new section 22A of the Biosecurity Act, but there is no reason to delay the review until that process is established. Therefore, there is no logical connection between the formation of an independent review panel under the new section 22A and the commencement of the 90-day period under clause 7A.

The Government is proposing an alternative Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 194, which will ensure that the import health standard on honey is not validated until after the review process has been completed. The words to this effect are: “To omit this clause (lines 13 to 19 on page 4) [of clause 7A] and substitute the following clause:”—which I will lay on the Table. This new clause 7A, “Suspension of power to give biosecurity clearance”, states: “Despite section 7, no biosecurity clearance may be given under section 26 of the principal Act for any goods to which the Import Health Standard for the Importation into New Zealand of specified Bee Products from Australia, dated 2 August 2006 applies until the Director-General has—(a) received a report from an independent review panel set up in consultation with the National Beekeepers Association of New Zealand to consider the scientific evidence in dispute in relation to that import health standard; and (b) determined whether any amendment to that import health standard is necessary to achieve the purpose of Part 3 of the principal Act; and (c) publicly notified that determination.” The explanatory note states: “This Supplementary Order Paper [of the Government] amends clause 7A to provide that no biosecurity clearances may be given until an independent review panel has conducted a review, as provided for in paragraph (a), and the Director-General has made, and publicly notified, the necessary determination.”

This amendment, in the view of officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Biosecurity New Zealand whom I have discussed this with, deals more appropriately with the issue raised by the Māori Party than its original Supplementary Order Paper does. We recommend this amendment to the Committee.

I thank the Minister in the chair, the Hon Jim Anderton, for his explanation, which does clarify the situation substantially. As he would be aware, the bee-keepers were very concerned that the proposed bill as it came back from the Primary Production Committee deliberately did not cover that matter off as clearly as it might have. But clearly there was an understanding within the select committee and from officials that what the Minister has outlined will, in fact, happen. So it is very good to see that that matter has been cleared up.

I will spend a couple of moments talking about some of the issues that are still outstanding. One of them is the whole issue of the pork import health standard. I understand that the industry has some grave concerns that the review process will not be in place simultaneously—I guess that is the way to put it—with the promulgation of the import health standard that is before Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials at this point in time. The industry would like an assurance that it will be given the opportunity to have access to the independent review process prior to its import health standard being given the green light by the director-general of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The select committee, once again, understands that the industry will be given that opportunity. The Minister might also want to indicate in the Committee whether he has any knowledge on that at this point, in order to clear up the matter of the import health standard for the pork industry—that is the importation of uncooked or unprocessed pork—and whether it will have the opportunity to go through the independent review process before its import health standard is confirmed. I understand that is the case, but the Minister may want to clear it up for the industry, as well. I know that Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials are talking with industry representatives at the moment.

The whole issue of import health standards is one that has gone reasonably well in New Zealand, except for the fact that there have been a few breaches. People can understandably draw conclusions on that and on whether or not the policing of the standards is robust. But to bring it into context, the officials advised the select committee—and I congratulate them on their fine work in the select committee and recognise their input into this process—that about 400-odd import health standards have been either put in place or ticked off in the last 4 or 5 years, and only two of them have been highly controversial. That is not a bad record and it puts things into context.

This legislation, in my view, and particularly this independent review panel, will go some way in giving those in that industry who feel as though they have not had a fair process, whomever they may be, when they trigger the controversial lever, as it were—and there have been only two of 400 in the last 5 years or thereabouts that have fallen into that category—the opportunity to go back to that independent review process. It will give them the opportunity to have their day in front of those whom the industry, and Biosecurity New Zealand in consultation, deem to be experts—those who know what they are talking about in this matter.

In setting up the independent review panel for the bee-keepers, it would appear to me that at least one or two of the people they recommend should be on that panel—and I presume one of them could be Dr Mark Goodwin, although I do not know; that is their decision. They may have someone else. I suspect that that will be the case. I do not necessarily mean that the view of that individual or his or her chosen people needs to be upheld, but it clearly would bring the independence that I think was the intent of the select committee—and, indeed, Parliament—if this bill is passed. It will make that process more transparent. I hope that will be the case; I suspect that that is where it is heading. I thank the Minister for his clarification earlier.

I thank the member for that support. I heard the request about the pork industry’s import health standard and whether it will be subject to the same procedure as we are going through now for the Australian honey import health standard. The answer is yes, it will; it will be subject to exactly the same procedures we are going through now.

There is no doubt that as New Zealanders travel widely around the world, as our trade increases, and as climate change happens, there are increasing risks to our biosecurity. There is no doubt about that. Clearly, the Government has to take the lead in protecting our plants, environment, and climate from these likely changes.

I will take up some of the challenges put forward by the Green Party and Māori Party, which are opposed to the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill. I was surprised that we did not see any member from those parties actually taking part in the consideration of this bill at the Primary Production Committee. I wish they had actually taken part and had heard the submitters. A number of submitters, particularly those from the bee-keeping industry and pork industry, had very strong views about it; there is no doubt about that. The select committee heard all these views and took those concerns back to the officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. We also took advice from Crown Law and the Legislation Advisory Committee. We were told clearly that because of the court case there was no way we could go ahead without making relevant changes to this bill. We have to make amendments so that we can make sure that some of these organisms coming in as passengers—or what I call stowaways—into the country can be better dealt with by the Biosecurity Act rather than by the Environmental Risk Management Authority and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. In this case, the Environmental Risk Management Authority cannot do the kind of evaluation that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry people can do. These organisms do not come under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, which states that any intentionally imported new organism has to be dealt with by the Environmental Risk Management Authority.

The committee had about 50 submitters, and 15 of them wanted to be heard, which we did. In fact, we had additional meetings to deal with this issue, because there was a shorter time frame for us. The committee did an excellent job, particularly in proposing to set up a scientific panel. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is supposed to do that as soon as the enactment of this bill happens. The panel can have people from overseas. I would suggest that there are not many scientists in New Zealand—perhaps one or two—who know a lot about honey. The panel might have to comprise some people from overseas. It is up to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to look around for these scientific people to look into this issue.

Overall, this bill is a very good amendment to clarify what the Environmental Risk Management Authority can do and what the Biosecurity Act can do through the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry people. I commend this bill to the Committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Before the member begins, can we make sure we are talking about new clause 2A. I do not want us to take off into Part 1.

Yes, I was just about to clarify that. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will address new clause 2A and the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Tariana Turia on new clause 2A. The Green Party was interested in the way this bill progressed through the select committee and was dismayed, as is obvious from my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons’ second reading speech, at the extent to which I think we were misled about the true intentions of this legislation. In our view, it is designed to enable a much easier process for the recognition of an allowance of genetically engineered organisms into our country by providing that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry can deal with those kinds of organisms, where they are known, as the bill sets out.

I know we were told that this bill specifically excludes genetic organisms, and that there is a provision that does that. We also know, from previous drafts of the legislation and previous reports from officials, that it was originally intended for genetically modified organisms to be included and to be allowed through this process. We have absolutely no faith at all that this process provides any protection for New Zealand, for our biodiversity, or for our primary sector to be protected from genetically modified incursions if the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is the organisation that deals with these issues, rather than the Environmental Risk Management Authority, whose job it is to consider these things.

The Supplementary Order Paper concerning new clause 2A proposes a sunset clause, and we fully support that. We believe this legislation needs to be repealed at a defined date in the future, so that issues raised that were not properly canvassed through the select committee process can be properly canvassed through that process. It is clear, from the very short period of time that submitters had to make submissions on the bill, that it would have been very difficult for them to canvass all of those issues, particularly where there may have been some misinformation about the full intention or the likely intention of the ministry and the legislation. We agree that a sunset clause should be defined in the legislation so that it fails at a period in time, and that there is a requirement for the ministry to deal properly with these issues.

We are particularly concerned for the primary sector, because they all oppose this legislation. It is not often that the Greens and the primary sector agree on significant issues like this, but on this one we do. We fully support the primary sector’s concerns that if the ministry is left to deal with these organisms and to provide the proposals and processes to allow them into the country, the sector will be at serious risk of organisms that are known to cause risks to it.

Frankly, it is very surprising to see both the National Party and the Labour Party supporting legislation that will put our primary sector at risk, because this is what this legislation will do. Unless there is a clearly defined mechanism for ensuring this legislation fails at some point in the future, so that the work is done to provide the proper protections for the primary sector so that it is not subject to the kinds of risks that this legislation will allow, we are putting one of our major export earners at serious risk.

The Greens have concerns about other areas to do with the primary sector, as is well known. We do not want to see its destruction through poor environmental management—which is always our concern—or through incursions of organisms, through a process that fails to provide a proper precautionary system or to properly assess the risks of those organisms to that sector. It is amazing that National and Labour will be prepared to put that sector at such risk, with such little consideration for what is some kind of turf war, maybe, or some strange turf thing going on between the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Environmental Risk Management Authority. Why would the two older parties in this Parliament be prepared to put our primary sector at such risk?

I will speak specifically to new clause 2A, the amendment proposed by the Hon Tariana Turia, but first of all I make a comment in response to the Green member Metiria Turei. She is correct that the Primary Production Committee received a large number of submissions that were initially opposed, but the amendments that have been developed through the select committee process go a long way towards satisfying the submissions received by the select committee. The select committee wanted some independence in the process, because it felt that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was both judge and jury in finally determining import health standards. The select committee has delivered that with the amendments now before the Committee.

The second point I make is around the sunset clause proposed by the Hon Tariana Turia, and I thank her for the opportunity of meeting with her this morning to discuss this. The select committee considered the necessity of a sunset clause on the legislation, and would have proceeded with such a notion if it did not have confidence that it had got this legislation correct through the select committee process. The only time we would impose a sunset clause is if we did not think we had done a good enough job at the select committee. I think the select committee has done a very credible job. I think the interface between the two pieces of legislation, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Biosecurity Act, was clearly imperfect—as demonstrated by the Court of Appeal decision. I think the amendments as proposed before the Committee today greatly change the original bill as submitted to the House. I think the interface now properly reflects what Parliament intended when it passed those two pieces of legislation—the Biosecurity Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. It is my belief that a sunset clause is absolutely unnecessary, and on that basis the National Party will certainly not be supporting its proposition.

I conclude by making one other point—and the select committee commentary makes note of this. It is now within the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s programme to consider a complete review of the Biosecurity Act, and that is appropriate. This is important legislation that should be above politics. It is important legislation that protects the biosecurity of this country, but it also allows the flow of goods into the country. We must achieve that balance. The correct review of the Biosecurity Act will occur under a time frame whereby negotiation and consultation will take place with stakeholders. That is the appropriate process, rather than this guillotine approach of a sunset clause. As I said earlier, a sunset clause would be suitable only if we did not have confidence that the legislation as presented back will more than satisfy the concerns of most of the industry.

I speak quickly on the amendment to insert a sunset clause in the bill, as set out on the Māori Party’s Supplementary Order Paper. Firstly, with all respect, there is no need for this sunset clause. The amendments in the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill do no more than ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s longstanding role in managing the risks associated with new passenger organisms is maintained. It does not change anything over what the House originally believed was the practical situation in law. The bill will not lower the level of biosecurity protection for New Zealand, as the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will continue to carefully manage the risks in the same way it always has. There is no change required, because there is no change intended.

I turn to the Green Party member Metiria Turei’s comments. Firstly, when we are addressing ministries and we are suggesting that there is some kind of collusion of officials in Government departments to do something after the election, it would be a good idea to get its name right. There has not been a Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries since 1995, but I have a statement here dated today from the Green Party suggesting the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries is doing something. There is no such ministry, and there has not been for 13 years. That is No. 1. It is not all that credible when one cannot even get the name of the ministry right.

The second thing is that there is no conspiracy possible here. The Green Party is suggesting that the officials in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Biosecurity New Zealand are somehow going to do something after the election, as though they are elected members who have some authority to change things after the election. They do not stand for election. That is why there are officials in a Government department. They operate under the mandate of the Government of the day. These officials serve this Government. They will equally loyally serve the next Government. If it is the same Government returned, then they will honour the policies of that Government. If it is a new Government, then they will honour those policies. I have been here long enough to know that that is a fact. Sometimes I wish it was not, but it clearly is. To suggest that the officials in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Biosecurity New Zealand are running around planning some kind of coup against the Government—whatever that Government might be—is simply ridiculous. That is some kind of mad conspiracy theory.

I suggest the Green Party gets a grip on reality. I ask its members to acknowledge the fact that this is a necessary, pragmatic change. The Green Party itself acknowledged the Court of Appeal decision. The Green Party said that the court’s decision may well make the administration of Biosecurity New Zealand virtually impossible. They said that and they said: “Well, that’s what our interpretation of the law is. If you want to change it so that you can actually have an effective biosecurity system, you will have to change it by parliamentary legislation.” That is exactly what we are doing. If there is a conspiracy here, it is a conspiracy between the Court of Appeal, the present Government elected members, the National elected members, and the officials in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Biosecurity New Zealand. Now, how likely is that? It is not very likely, I would suggest.

I do not know what Jim Anderton is talking about; those kinds of criticisms are ridiculous and pathetic, and they do not get us anywhere in the debate. This debate is about the protection of the New Zealand environment and of the primary sector from the incursions and damage that known organisms brought in as passengers on other kinds of goods or products may pose to those sectors, and about how to best manage and control the risks of those known organisms. I am aware that we are speaking about the commencement clause. The Greens support the proposal to impose a sunset clause on this legislation, because the public have not been made aware of those issues, which have been kept from the public on purpose.

I want to refer to some comments that were made by my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons in her second reading speech in terms of the conspiracy theory proposed by Jim Anderton. We know that draft discussion documents were prepared in February 2006 and November 2006. So 2 years ago those documents were prepared about how to manage the control of these kinds of organisms. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Minister have been waiting for an opportunity to bring this legislation forward. They found it in the court case, and they are using that as an excuse to do what they have been preparing to do now for at least 2 years. Those draft discussion documents of 2006 were entitled “Fixing problems in new organisms, including genetically modified organisms, unintentionally introduced in New Zealand”. What is meant by “unintentionally” is not “unknown”; what is meant is “not purposely or deliberately brought into the country”.

It is quite clear from those papers that the intention was always that genetically modified organisms should be included in this legislation. It is quite clear that they have now been excluded from this legislation, which has been in preparation for some years, because it is an election year and the Government knows that it simply cannot allow a process that would let known but unintentionally imported genetically modified organisms come into New Zealand through a very core process that is run by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and not by the Environmental Risk Management Authority, which is responsible in law for managing these issues.

Of course, one can expect that once this bill has passed and the election is over, if Labour gets back into any kind of Government it will then have the opportunity to amend this legislation and allow the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to consider using a very poor, very low-risk assessment process for genetically modified organisms not deliberately brought in, but knowingly and unintentionally brought in as passengers on other imported goods. That was the intention when this legislation was first proposed in 2006. The policy behind this legislation was to enable genetically modified organisms to be brought into this country using the biosecurity legislation to allow them through.

Now the Government is using the issue to do with Paenibacillus alvei and the bee-keepers, and the court case surrounding that, as an excuse to bring in this legislation, knowing that if it gets back into power—and perhaps this is National’s intention too—it will then be able to modify the legislation in order to allow in genetically modified organisms. That is not a conspiracy theory; modifying the legislation in that way was proposed in the draft papers produced by the ministry responsible for this legislation. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory of Jim Anderton’s; this is his own ministry’s work and is clearly his and his ministry’s intention.

Again, I say the Green Party fully supports the clause that will kill this legislation dead in a defined period of time, so that the Government and the ministry have to work on a new set of provisions, and have to talk with the New Zealand public about their true intentions around genetically modified organisms. Otherwise this measure will sneak through under the public eye. That will mean that the public will not have a chance to truly know what is happening. There will be no transparent process, and no real opportunity to assess the risks of allowing Biosecurity New Zealand to do this—that is the problem.

We are away from new clause 2A, I know, but the speech has been given so I have no choice but to respond. Now we have the conspiracy theory to this point. These officials at the front of the Chamber have been waiting for the Court of Appeal to have a case that it makes a decision on, which presumably they knew in advance, and when the court makes that decision, they will strike. So this is their strike! But having struck now, they are going to strike again after the election! So which is it: are they striking now, or striking after the election in collusion with the Court of Appeal? This is not my mad scenario, I suggest to the member from the Green Party; it is what she is telling the Committee. This is lunacy, if anyone thinks about it for more than 5 seconds.

Here is the point. If this is so nefarious, so dangerous, and so bad, why is the member of that party letting it go for another 18 months? She should be fighting against it right here and now, to stop it now, and it should be so bad that it could not possibly last another 18 months. Think of all the terrible things this conspiracy is going to do in the next 18 months! If the member adheres to her principles, she would not want it in for 1 second, let alone 18 months. But she is saying 18 months is OK but longer is not.

An awful lot of damage can be done in 18 months, but here is the point. What is the law? Let us get down to it. Here is what members are invited to vote for. They are invited to vote for incidentally imported new organisms to have certain requirements around them or not. The definition of incidentally imported new organisms is under clause 10(2). It clearly does not include “(a) an essential or constituent part of those goods: (b) imported in or on the goods with the intention of concealing the presence of the new organism:”. That is, these are not allowed in. These are not allowed in.

Thirdly, what is not allowed in is a genetically modified organism—which the member has just told us is coming in. We are asked to pass a law that says it cannot, and the member is voting against it, so presumably she wants genetically modified organisms in here, because this law says they cannot come in. What is wrong with that? If there is something about “cannot come in” that the Green Party does not understand, if there is something about a genetically modified organism not being able to come in that the Green Party does not understand, here it is in writing. I did not make this up; it is here printed for everyone to see. There is no conspiracy; it is clear as day. Why cannot the Green Party read that? It is pretty logical; even I—as a relative layperson in the biosecurity area—can understand that a genetically modified organism is not allowed. That is what the bill says. We are inviting the Green Party to honour its own policy. I do not think that is a hard call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I call the Hon Tariana Turia, who I expect will talk on new clause 2A.

I am inspired to speak after listening to the Minister who, in fact, brought the Green Party into Parliament. Now, it seems, he is being stung.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: I brought the Māori Party into Parliament too, actually.

I would doubt that. The Māori Party put forward Supplementary Order Paper 188 in my name regarding the sunset clause because we are not convinced that the bill addresses the statutory gap that exists between the Biosecurity Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act in approving the introduction of new organisms. The example of Australian honey is a classic example of why this Supplementary Order Paper is required.

Members will recall that the National Bee-keepers’ Association presented the case that Australian honey needed to get clearance under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act due to the presence of a new organism, Paenibacillus alvei. As history now shows us, that position was supported by the Court of Appeal. However, as was reported by the Primary Production Committee, the Environmental Risk Management Authority is unable to carry out such an assessment on Paenibacillus alvei, because of both the limited provisions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the paucity of scientific data on the organism. Instead, this bill provides that clearance for the import of Australian honey will be assessed under the less stringent Biosecurity Act.

The Māori Party considers that the current statutory scheme is unable to address the biosecurity concerns associated with Paenibacillus alvei, and it is precisely because there is a lack of certainty around the risks associated with Paenibacillus alvei that a rigorous assessment process needs to be undertaken. We will not compromise on standards and just accept that because the risk cannot be categorically stated, it will be assumed to be OK. That is not the way to keep our bees or our country safe. We need to ensure that such important decisions are made using the very best information available about environmental risk, and if that information is not available, then research needs to be commissioned in order to establish the degree of risk. The Māori Party seeks to introduce a sunset clause of 18 months as a means of achieving the space and time needed to cover all the bases. We cannot afford to be complacent. We must not ignore the fact that many submitters expressed serious concerns over this issue to the Primary Production Committee.

Given that the bill simply overturns the Court of Appeal ruling that all new organisms imported into New Zealand must have prior approval under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act regardless of whether they are imported intentionally or incidentally, it will allow Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials time for further thinking and work on a more robust process through which to assess incidentally imported new organisms, including the setting of minimum standards as suggested in the submissions of virtually all New Zealand’s primary producers. Although we accept that there is an urgent need for existing import health standards to be validated and for changes to be made to ensure that import health standards currently under consideration can be progressed, there is no corresponding need for urgency concerning the process by which import health standards will be considered in the long term.

The need for an urgent amendment to solve an existing problem should not create a situation that places our environment at risk of contamination, and we did urge all parties to consider and support our Supplementary Order Paper.

I call the member Metiria Turei, and I plead with her to concentrate on new clause 2A.

Yes, Madam Chairperson, you are quite right to remind us of the clause we are debating. I do want to address some of the accusations made by the Minister, and particularly the kind of intellectual “pretzelism” that he is suggesting we engage in in order to justify not just the bill but the process that led up to it.

The Green Party does agree that there is some confusion here about who is responsible for dealing with these kinds of organisms, and the Government is quite right to look for mechanisms to deal with that confusion. The problem here is that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has had a view about changes that it would like for itself in the Biosecurity Act, and it is not unknown for ministries and Ministers to be opportunistic about when they might try to make such changes. So I do not think it is in the least a surprise that legislation and policy that is prepared some years in advance might find themselves coming before the House when an opportunity to progress them makes itself available. That is not irrational; it is perfectly sensible. That is not a conspiracy; it is just a process one might expect from a Government that wants to present its policy.

The Greens are very concerned about the confusion as to who is responsible for dealing with known but unintentionally brought in organisms. That is what the bill is concerned with, and in fact that is what the Court of Appeal decision concerned itself with, as well. It concerned itself with known organisms, not unknown ones. The Court of Appeal did not concern itself with organisms one would not know could be brought in. So, for example, it is quite clear and obvious that Paenibacillus alvei is a known organism. It comes in with honey imports, so it is not brought in purposefully. It is brought in unintentionally, but it is brought in knowingly. The Minister, the ministry, and this legislation are purposefully trying to confuse the community on that difference, in order to justify why the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the biosecurity legislation should have the responsibility for assessing those organisms, as opposed to the Environmental Risk Management Authority, whose job it is to assess new organisms that are brought into the country.

As I said, we agree there is some confusion, and we would have liked to see the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act amended to enable it to be made more clearly responsible—it can be responsible, actually, under the current law, but we would like it to state that more clearly—for known but unintentionally brought in organisms, rather than the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, whose tests for risk assessment are much, much poorer than those of the Environmental Risk Management Authority.

The Green Party is happy to support amendments to this legislation that it considers will make the legislation better, and that is why we are supporting the amendment to insert new clause 2A, to impose the sunset clause. It is why, in fact, we will be supporting one of the Minister’s own amendments, and later on in the debate, no doubt, we will get a chance to discuss that. The key here is that a great deal of confusion is being propagated by the Government in order to enable an organisation to approve knowingly brought in organisms at a much lower standard of risk assessment than that used by the Environmental Risk Management Authority, whose job it is to do that. I do not think it is right for the Government to convey that kind of, I guess, confusion to the public. I think the public have a right to know the real intention behind the policy and legislation. They have a right to know what the true impact of the legislation is, and they have a right to know what the future intentions of the Government might be in relation to that legislation, particularly where it may concern genetically modified organisms.

We know from the papers produced by the relevant ministries that there was an intention to allow GMOs to be brought in under legislation like this. It is proven, it is in the papers, and it is publicly available. People know that that was the intention. It is very difficult, then, to have any faith that this Minister, this ministry, or certainly this Government or National has any intention of not following that policy in the future when there is opportunity to make such changes.

The public’s right to know—I agree with that absolutely. So let the public know this and let the representative of the Māori Party in this Parliament, Mrs Turia, know this too—and this addresses the issue of taking more time, extending this, and going on for quite a long time talking about it. Right now we have 500 import health standards that have been passed, and they cover somewhere around 4,000 or 5,000 individual commodities that are imported into this country, many of them from poor countries and many from rich ones. All those import health standards are now up for legal challenge—all of them—as I speak. In addition to that there are 200 current applications that cannot proceed because we are now subject to legal challenge on every single one of them. So the biosecurity system is paralysed now, as we speak. How does that work if we just continue doing that—if we take more time over this while the whole biosecurity system in New Zealand grinds to a halt? If Mrs Turia wants to know whether this would have any effect on Māori—and she is always interested in that, I am sure—she might like to know that the Proprietors of the Taharoa C Block supports this bill, as follows: “The Proprietors of Taharoa C Block is a Māori incorporation with business investments in New Zealand and Australia. Taharoa C Block—”

💬 Hon Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do not recall at any point in the comments I have made today, which were general in nature, that I was representing the view of the Proprietors of Taharoa C Block Incorporation. In fact, I am not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I thank the member. That really is a point of debate, rather than a point of order.

I tell Mrs Turia that the point I am making is that she is asking for delay in this bill, and that a Māori incorporation has written to the Primary Production Committee asking that because of its involvement in gaining approvals to import a new biofuel plant to help reduce New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions, it has been directly impacted by the freeze on issuing import health standards. The point I am making is that this kind of paralysation affects everybody in New Zealand, including Māori. I would have thought that the Māori Party might know that, that it might be aware of those representations at the select committee level, and that it might take them into account when it is attempting to delay the implementation of this bill.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 188 in the name of the Hon Tariana Turia to insert new clause 2A be agreed to.