Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill

There are two significant parts to Part 1 that I want to refer to. One is an explanation around the insertion of new section 22A, “Process for independent review panel to be established”. First, I want to pick up on a comment that the Minister made earlier. It became evident during the Primary Production Committee process that somewhat in excess of 400 import health standards have been developed after discussion with various stakeholders. They have largely been accepted and we have moved on. Two are of significance and they were presented to the select committee. They were an import health standard for honey and an import health standard for the importation of some pork products. It became clear from listening to the submitters on those two import health standards that there was a lack of clarity and transparency around the process, whereby the import health standard was originally developed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, then opened for consultation, and consultation occurred. The ministry assured us that it took into account the submissions received from the various industries, and finally a decision was made and a process developed by which an import health standard was established.

In listening to those two particular industries, it became clear to the select committee that we needed a process whereby there was independence in the review, and that is what new section 22A in clause 5A has sought to establish and, I think, does so. It states that an import health standard is drafted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, then put out for consultation. The industry has a chance to feed that consultation back to the ministry, which then moves to finalise an import health standard. At that stage any disgruntled industry sector has the ability to call for an independent review panel to be established. The review panel will be independent of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and it will have the difficult but important job of sorting out the correct balance between the scientific information presented and the information placed before the panel that lacks scientific rigour and is more for protection of a particular domestic industry. I think we have gone a long way with the establishment of that panel. I said in an earlier contribution, for the benefit of the Green Party, that I think it will find that most of the submitters who came before the committee will be well satisfied now that there is this new section 22A.

The second part of my contribution relates to Supplementary Order Paper 194 in the name of the Minister, the Hon Jim Anderton, that changes clause 7A. There was an issue around the finalisation of the import health standard for honey. We attempted, through the select committee process, to make sure that the benefits of this independent review panel would be received even prior to its establishment, so that the honey import health standard development would receive transparency, examination, and independence from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. I am aware that following the report back from the committee some in the industry still lack trust that this process would be followed through and would occur in the time that the select committee set, which, in effect, is 90 days following the enactment of the legislation.

I congratulate the Minister on a further amendment now appearing that makes it absolutely categorically clear that no honey will come into this country until the import health standard has had the independent review panel process. I certainly hope that that will satisfy the valid worries and concerns presented to us by the bee-keeping industry. In defence of their concerns, I do understand that as an industry they are suffering greatly as a result of the incursion of the varroa bee mite. It has cost many bee-keepers tens of thousands of dollars and they are rightfully scared of any other disease that may arrive in this country. At the end of the day, the particular import health standard, and the process by which the new organism Paenibacillus alvei may or may not affect the viability of the industry, is something that must be sorted out on a basis of science and not on the basis of emotion.

I will take a brief call on Part 1. I resisted the urge to climb into the debate occurring around new clause 2A, which I decided was probably better left unmassaged, shall we say. First, I acknowledge the Minister Jim Anderton for his involvement right throughout this—there was a briefing for our caucus members who were interested, prior to us getting into this—and for the way in which he accepted what was a unanimous series of decisions from the Primary Production Committee. I just say to the Minister rather wryly that quite a bit of wisdom and practical knowledge resides on that select committee and had he consulted us on the fisheries amendment legislation a little earlier we might well have come to a much easier road for him to pursue. We will just park that matter, but the point has to be made.

I am pretty happy with the result we have. It was, as I say, a unanimous decision and I share the concerns of those people who say that we certainly have a blockage. For those people who are concerned about what we have done, we have actually reverted to the practice since the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, but we have put in a layer of review for where there is concern. We have put in a level that gives an opportunity for those with serious concerns to have the decision scientifically peer reviewed by whoever is available internationally. I actually think we have strengthened the process and I do not understand the argument proffered previously in the debate—leaving aside the conspiracy stuff—that this has detracted from what we have done.

I think that the review panel has two impacts. It has a salutary impact upon those in the biosecurity section of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry who are tasked to make the decisions, because they know that if they do something that does not look right, or about which there is concern, there will be an immediate response and the likelihood of peer review. That is one thing. Then, for those who actually sit out there—and I made some comments in the debate on the second reading about this not being a get-home-free card for those people who want to use this as a non-tariff barrier—there are some quite prescriptive things that I will read into the record of the Committee just to make sure that that is not abused. The umbrella organisation has a mechanism that saves the litigious process of going as far as the Court of Appeal when the best science can actually make that assessment. So I think that is very positive.

I think there were two issues that the select committee needed to deal with. One issue was having this review process in place, and the other issue was the retrospectivity around the bee situation. I think they have had their day in the sun—their expression was quite clear. Again, I think there is further clarity on new clause 7A, which I hope actually takes away all those emails from people saying “by the enactment”, and “the 90 days”, and all that chronological stuff, which they did not understand even though we assured them it was the case—but there are not that many of them. Clause 7A talks about bee products being a special case, and that is going to be an issue that is given consideration. I am pleased to hear that that work is under way.

I make just one point—because I do not understand the science of this and in making this point I hope that it is considered by the review panel—and that is the issue around Paenibacillus alvei being a blockage, or taking out the marker of American Foul Brood, which is another alvei process. I think that needs consideration by that review panel, because I do not know whether that is good or whether it is bad, or whether it is a justifiable means to stop the importation of honey. But that is an issue, in my view, that the industry needs to give some consideration to. So I raise that in the hope that that is an issue that will be in the report.

The Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill is a good piece of work. I reiterate again the wisdom of the select committee in finding, in very short time, very practical solutions and for adding value to a bill that had to be passed. National supports the bill.

I would like to take a brief call as a follow up to the issue of the review panel. I think it is very important to realise that the amendment is very important, because there is no research that suggests that this organism, Paenibacillus alvei, has any adverse effect. Clearly there is only one scientist in New Zealand who has suggested there is a potential problem, but there is no clear difficulty with this pathogen. The scientists in Australia are suggesting there is no problem with this pathogen, and in New Zealand there is only one scientist who knows a little bit about honey who is suggesting there is a potential problem—there is no clear defined problem in this case.

I am really delighted that it has been agreed that the director-general will set up a scientific review panel. I am really glad because, being a scientist myself, I believe it is important that this should be looked at closely, then if there is a problem at least we will have the time—a 90-day period—to sort this out. Otherwise at this stage there is no research that suggests that this pathogen is a problem for the honey industry, or the honey bee itself.

So with this brief call I want to make clear that I am really delighted that a scientific review panel has been set up to clarify this issue, because clearly at this stage there is no research to suggest this pathogen has any adverse effect. Thank you.

Can I start by saying that I was a little bit fascinated with the earlier debate and exchange going on as well. I was reflecting on our good friend the Hon Jim Anderton’s time in the caucus with characters like Douglas, Bassett, and Prebble, and the old saying “jumping out of the frying pan into the fire” came to mind, because if wearing his pink shirt and tie cannot get him back in with the Greens I am not sure where to go from here on that. So we will come back to the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill and talk about that.

Can I say thank you once again to the Minister because today he has clarified matters for some who had concerns, and my colleague Eric Roy touched on some of the emails we have received around that. I think this will allay their fears substantially, or it should do. Certainly the independent review panel, which is set up under this part of the bill, will give those in the future, as well as those currently seeking to alter, slow down, or change the course of import health standards, the opportunity to bring to that debate some independence—not only the fact that it is independent, but that it is seen to be independent, and I think that is probably the important part in regard to that.

The Court of Appeal case did throw up some interesting issues, and as the Minister rightly pointed out, with 500-odd import health standards currently in existence—about 400 import health standards that have been worked on, or agreed to, or other such, in the last 4 or 5 years—only two of them have been vigorously opposed and ended up with the Beekeepers Association of New Zealand taking the Court of Appeal case that bought about this bill. When one looks at it, the system actually is not as broken as that, as far as putting this together. I think the greater concerns—and I guess this is something for another day—is the upholding of some of those import health standards; there have been quite a few breaches.

So as my colleague the Hon David Carter said, one can understand the anxiety of industries such as the bee industry in regard to the independence or the robustness of import health standards, when they have been affected to the extent that they have by incursions such as the varroa bee mite. One can also understand the anxiety of the pork industry, which itself has had major problems with things like multi-systemic pig wasting disease, and other potential devastating diseases that have come through our borders despite the import health standards, and despite the best efforts by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry biosecurity. So having the ability for an independent review of any import health standard that could potentially affect our substantial exporters and importers is a sound move, and it gives that view of independence.

The further issue, I guess, that will always be thrown back at Ministers regardless of what Government persuasion they come from, is the issue of free trade. If one looks at some of the work that goes on in regard to establishing import health standards, without doubt there has to be robust scientific evidence that can be argued internationally, that can be peer-reviewed internationally, that is transparent, and that will stand up to that scrutiny. As a trading nation we leave ourselves very exposed to criticism of putting in place non-trade barriers if we do not do so.

So the independence of this independent review panel really will be something that, I guess, brings some further transparency to that debate as well and, in fact, could help rather than hinder with that international argument around world trade and the phytosanitary legislation and regulation that we put in place, so it is, I think, a good step forward.

The fact is that it was necessary and the issue has been well canvassed. I think the Minister said that something like 200 potential new import health standards were in the system after the Crown Law Office handed out its findings that were going to be either held up or potentially held up. No exporting country can continue with that kind of uncertainty, so clearly this is a sound move in terms of moving forward with the whole argument around import health standards, how they are set up, and how robust and how scientific the evidence is that they are based on. So with those comments, I support the passing of this legislation.

I would like to thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for their constructive engagement here. I want to answer just a couple of points raised about the work of the review panel. I am advised that Biosecurity New Zealand has discussed with the National Beekeepers Association of New Zealand that the future review should cover whether Paenibacillus alvei could mask the diagnosis of American foul brood. So that is already on the agenda.

Also Biosecurity New Zealand discussed with the National Beekeepers’ Association the review that looked at whether there is any evidence that Paenibacillus alvei caused disease or was a food safety issue. We can find no evidence of that at the moment. Finally, Biosecurity New Zealand has invited the National Beekeepers’ Association to work with it and to suggest issues that the association would like the independent review panel to consider as part of its work.

I do not think there can be any doubt that there is goodwill towards working this issue through. The scientific evidence should stand on its own merits. I do not have any fear about that, and the sooner there is a complete acceptance of the evidence base of our biosecurity system by all New Zealanders the better, because that is what it is meant to achieve. We are proud of our biosecurity system, because in many countries the only science that is engaged in is political science. That does not have much to do with evidential science. New Zealand can be proud of its biosecurity system in terms of its scientific evidence base. This bill will go a long way towards assuring people there are independent checks when there is any doubt, and that has to be good for us all.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 194 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to clause 7A be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 189 in the name of the Hon Tariana Turia is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 192 in the name of the Hon Tariana Turia to clause 10 be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.