Biosecurity Law Reform Bill

I move, That the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee. The biosecurity system plays a vital role in protecting the things that we value most in New Zealand. New Zealand has developed a highly effective biosecurity system that is recognised as world leading, but the biosecurity system has also had to meet a greater and more complex range of challenges. It is against this context that the Government has introduced the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. The Biosecurity Act was progressive and forward-looking when it was passed in 1993, but the Act has not kept pace with the way that the biosecurity system has had to evolve and the new challenges it now faces. The bill will make a wide range of amendments to the Biosecurity Act and some related amendments to four other Acts. I would like to mention the key themes that run across the amendments.

Firstly, we need to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the biosecurity system, and we need to make sure that resources are allocated according to the level of risk and are used to deliver the greatest level of protection possible. Secondly, we need to ensure that there is clarity around rules and responsibilities to promote partnerships and collaboration. Protecting New Zealand from biosecurity risk cannot be the role of Government alone. We need to ensure that we harness the combined efforts of others who are well placed to act, such as industry and regional councils. Thirdly, we need to future-proof the legislation so that it has the flexibility to allow the biosecurity system to continue to evolve over time. This is a very large bill and I have able to touch only briefly on the important amendments that it makes. I commend the bill to the House and look forward to seeing the recommendations of the Primary Production Committee in due course.

Well, if that is how important biosecurity is to the National Government, it is pretty pathetic—a bit like the Minister for Biosecurity’s speech. If the Minister really thought that biosecurity was important, he would have made a substantive speech on the introduction of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill, which is quite substantive in its size. But we have yet to see how substantive it might be in its implementation.

Labour will support this bill’s referral to the Primary Production Committee because we believe that some improvements can be made to biosecurity and that there is a need to update the Biosecurity Act to bring it into line with new technology. However, if one reads the general policy statement in this bill, one will learn that it effectively says that we will do—we the National Government—more with less. I will go through the bill. If we read the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill carefully, we see that it rightly states—and again, the Minister for Biosecurity, David Carter, made no attempt to say this—that more than any other developed country, New Zealand depends upon the success of its primary industries and the biological systems that support them. Mr King knows that, but Mr Carter does not seem to.

There is more complex biosecurity risk facing this country every single day. We have increased trade and we have increased flows of visitors into New Zealand. Both are things we welcome, but with that increase comes heightened risk. So we need to increase and improve the systems that secure our biological systems in this country. The general policy statement, in the explanatory note of the bill, states, of course, that there will be “clearer roles and responsibilities, and improved collaboration and partnerships”—a worthy objective, indeed. How could we ever criticise that? But the bill effectively shifts the focus back on to industries to take a greater share of the cost and the responsibility. That is where Labour will have some questions in the select committee. The explanatory note of the bill states that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will “focus its resources at the border on the passengers, baggage, cargo and mail that pose the greatest risk,”. That is code for targeting, or, in other words, cuts. What the Government is attempting to do is to identify areas of high risk—it is a great theory—where resources will be targeted, but it will cut back in other areas of general risk. The question I have for the Government is whether the cuts will be worth it.

Labour goes on record, quite proudly, as saying that when we came into power in 1999, $94 million was being spent on biosecurity, but we left office in 2008, $187 million was being spent on biosecurity, but we doubled the amount going into biosecurity because we understood its importance and the growing risk. What did the National Government do? In its first Budget it cut $2 million off the biosecurity budget, and it cut 54 front-line positions from Biosecurity New Zealand. It cut 54 front-line positions from the people who look for, assess, and astutely identify risk and potential pathways for unwanted pests, diseases, and organisms. Biosecurity New Zealand identifies literally tens of tonnes of goods every single year. There are 54 fewer people doing that across the country, and that is increasing the risk. We have not yet seen an increased commitment—that fact was displayed quite clearly by the Minister’s pathetic speech—by the National - ACT Government to biosecurity and its heightened risk.

The bill does do a couple of good things. It shifts responsibility for oversight and management—without actually saying how it will do it, of course—in our exclusive economic zone. So we move our jurisdiction from 12 miles to 200 miles, and rightfully say that we should be assessing the vessels and the risk posed to New Zealand by economic activity in that area. We do have drilling rigs coming into the country from time to time—less so now the National Government has destroyed economic opportunity, I have to say. But one drilling rig in particular was identified as having serious unwanted organisms attached to it, and it was a real dilemma. We rightfully said that we need a better system of notification, early warning, and assessment, and then the ability to deal with those craft coming into this country. We will have a mandate and a legal responsibility to go out to 200 miles.

The next important step forward that I acknowledge in this bill is recognising ballast water and the potential risk and harm that poses to this country. It has been there for a long, long time as a risk. There has been an international convention on it. There is no law, but there is a convention on, and a general practice for, the transfer of ballast water in craft as they travel from one country to the other. So, for example, a craft might pick up goods in the harbour at Singapore—and we can just imagine what might be in the water there, as craft come from all around the world to trade in Singapore—and it might pick up ballast water, come on its merry way down to New Zealand to park up in Nelson, or Tauranga, or Auckland, and discharge its water, with all the risk that goes with that. We need a tighter regime to ensure that those risks are not transferred to New Zealand’s biosystems. We have, as this Government has said, huge potential in aquaculture, and the risks posed by ballast water are huge, so we need to improve our systems.

The bill also deals with the “good neighbour” rules in terms of regional pest-management regimes. At the moment, regional councils are responsible for having pest-management regimes—regional pest-management plans, to be precise. Regional councils deal with all the private land and any pests and weeds in that area. They have no ability to provide direction to the Department of Conservation over Crown land, for example. For the most part, in regions like the West Coast and the Tasman where there is a large amount of Crown-owned land in the Department of Conservation estate, there has been a good working relationship. This bill will change the law to ensure that there must be coordination between the regional pest-management plans and the oversight of that Crown land to ensure that we do not have unwanted pests transferring from Crown land on to private land and effectively undermining all the good work of the regional councils in that planning.

The other issue I must raise is cost sharing. The bill will mandate a shared-costs arrangement of the control of pests and organisms and incursions in this country. We have seen it most recently with Pseuodomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae (Psa) in the kiwifruit industry, where the industry will pick up 50 percent of the costs of control of that and the Crown will pick up the other 50 percent. That is not bad in principle, but I today I picked up a report in a horticultural magazine that said there are small horticultural niche groups that have no funds to do fifty-fifty arrangements with the Crown. So what happens if a visitor brings into the country an unwanted pest or organism that affects asparagus, for example, and the asparagus industry is expected to pick up 50 percent of the cost? It sounds like a fine theory. There will be many issues that the Labour Opposition members of the select committee will be teasing out, testing, and challenging the Government on. It is important that we do not end up with a dysfunctional and ineffective system to control pests and diseases if they come into the country.

Labour will support this bill’s referral to the Primary Production Committee. There are many issues we will be challenging the Government on. Biosecurity is a vital area for the New Zealand economy, and we do not believe that the Government has the commitment, the funding, or the determination to do it properly.

It is a pleasure to receive the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. It was also a pleasure to listen to members on the other side of the House acknowledge the comprehensive framework that the bill builds. It is very long overdue. We know that the Government has demonstrated its commitment to biosecurity with the way it responded to the Pseuodomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae outbreak in kiwifruit. It was very different from the hand-wringing we saw from the old, tired Labour administration, which was unable to sort out other issues such as the varroa bee mite. It gives me great pleasure to support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

I will try to take most of my time allocated tonight to do justice to this important bill, the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill, unlike the two Government members who have spoken, including the Minister for Biosecurity, who did not take his full opportunity to outline why he wants to see this important legislation passed, after scrutiny by the Primary Production Committee. I applaud the seriousness that the bill applies to the considerable threats of incursion and pests to our nation. We make our living as a nation off our land; therefore, the risks that are posed by pests that come in are enormous.

Labour is very much in support of this bill. Biosecurity threats and technologies have changed significantly in the past 10 years or so, and we acknowledge that the legislation needs to be overhauled to take account of technology and reflect those changes. We support the change in the bill to broaden the scope of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s biosecurity powers, which will hopefully allow it to operate more efficiently and effectively. Those are issues to be supported, applauded, and aerated in this House by members who will take the time available to Parliament to discuss them, unlike the two Government members who have spoken to date.

We support this bill and we acknowledge, of course, that the most recent incursion we have faced is the Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae (Psa) outbreak in the kiwifruit industry. For those members who are not aware, the kiwifruit industry is a nearly $1 billion export industry for this nation. It is a huge export earner for New Zealand and it is truly important. I want to acknowledge the great response that the Government has led, along with the kiwifruit industry.

The previous Labour Government took biosecurity seriously. We more than doubled the vote, from about $94 million in 1999 to $187 million by 2008. However, given the reliance on it we have as an export-led nation, it has been disappointing to see this Government make cuts to biosecurity staff. I have spoken informally to biosecurity staff who tell me that the cuts have meant that they are letting through people whom they would not normally be letting through. Staff are standing there at times overloaded with work as planes come through in a bundle, and they are letting through people whom they know in their heart of hearts should be put through more scrutiny and checks. When there is only a handful of staff working and a couple of jumbos are coming through, they can do only what they can do. Therefore, we are already taking risks with our biosecurity. It is very fraught. We have an open border. We receive enormous tonnages of imports. They come into the country in containers, only a handful of which are inspected. We have to do things on a threat-risk basis, and that is understood, but the thin green line has got thinner as a result of this Government and it should be taking account of the risks it is posing on us as a nation.

I am well aware of the threats that are posed. I was living in Marlborough when the Ross River virus was discovered in a tiny part of Marlborough, the Vernon Lagoons area, which is one of the most beautiful parts of that beautiful province. An enormous project went in to capture the salt marsh mosquitoes that carried the Ross River virus. That effort was great to see because the risks were very considerable and it would have been a disaster if that virus had taken hold in the rather balmy climate of Marlborough, out there on the Vernon Lagoons. Some years earlier, we saw a spraying regime across Auckland to combat the painted apple moth, and that was highly appropriate.

I note the investment that the Government has made in countering the Psa threat in the kiwifruit industry, with $25 million almost instantly found to deal with the issue. I have to say that the response was very well coordinated. It was swift and it was well communicated. I can only ask David Carter, the Minister of Agriculture, to please take over the earthquake recovery portfolio as well because we need that sort of leadership. At the moment, things are going backwards in Christchurch in respect of the response of the Government to the earthquake. We saw a pitiful package last week. We wish we could get a $25 million package announced to assist Christchurch businesses, which are reeling from the onslaught of the earthquake and its impacts. The ramifications of that lack of funding will be with us for a long, long time, especially if nothing is done in the interim as Christmas approaches. I note, though, that it is great to see $25 million allocated to fight Psa. It is good to see a Minister providing leadership, getting the industry together, and getting a commitment from the industry to put together a $50 million package. But I contrast that with the $100,000 in real cash found for the Christchurch business community, where jobs are bleeding because of the impact of the quake and the drop in turnover. Businesses are often experiencing half the turnover that they had before the 7.1 magnitude quake on 4 September. I just wish David Carter could be in charge of that portfolio. I am sure he could stand up in Cabinet for the people of Canterbury as a Canterbury-based Minister and MP, and tell Cabinet that it needs to do more. I hope he continues to do that. I hope he does not let Bill English take hold with his very trenchant approach to these issues and his fear for precedent, because that will see hundreds more jobs lost in the Christchurch business community and hundreds more businesses having to close for want of a small and judicious intervention by the Government at the time of a once-in-750-year event.

The response to the Psa issue has been great. It is what we need when we are a nation that earns its living from exports like kiwifruit. The risks of incursions are enormous. If something took hold in, say, the dairy industry, we would be talking about a risk to an $11 billion industry, and the sheepmeat industry is worth a couple of billion dollars, so there are huge risks posed. That is why we are supporting this legislation. It is appropriate and timely. We have concerns about the cuts to biosecurity staffing, but there is still the opportunity for the Minister to make some amends in respect of that. Obviously, the package that he has brought together for the Psa outbreak is an example of the leadership he can provide when he puts his mind to it, talks to his Cabinet colleagues, and extracts $25 million. That is the sort of response demanded for biosecurity, and I say to him that he needs to reconsider the cuts to biosecurity staffing.

This bill will not cause much controversy. It has been progressed in an appropriate fashion. Even if we are sitting at quarter past nine on a Friday night under urgency, at least the Minister has had the decency to refer the bill to the Primary Production Committee at the conclusion of the first reading debate. That is what we want to see. The select committee process provides the opportunity for input and expertise to be aerated round a committee table. We want to hear from people involved in the biosecurity industry, from people who are making their living from primary production and who are most at risk if we have a serious biosecurity incursion.

We acknowledge the need for change. Technology is moving rapidly. We are seeing things such as SmartGate coming through, which relies on our good friends in Australia to do some of the border checks for us. Everybody wants to be able to move more rapidly across borders, which is a given, but risks come with that and we need better biosecurity screening and operations.

In conclusion, I come back to Psa. The potential cost of Psa was around $75 million to the industry. The Government has indicated that it is at its point of finality with the offer of $25 million, and that is fair enough. The industry is obviously coming to the party. It is doing its best, but it is clear that we are facing very real threats to our kiwifruit industry in various parts of the country, most particularly in the Bay of Plenty but in other parts as well. The cost to New Zealand underscores why biosecurity is so important to our nation. We make our living off the land. We are a nation with a reputation for being clean and green. Obviously, people who are buying our produce expect it to be premium. That means that it cannot be tainted by disease or by anything else, and that is why Labour is supporting the bill.

We commend the Minister for bringing it to Parliament and allowing the bill to be sent to the select committee, unlike other legislation we have been debating this evening. That is the appropriate process, and the Minister earns brownie points, in our view.

I finally say that I wish the Minister would talk to his colleague the Minister for Earthquake Recovery in order to win for the Canterbury business community the amount of money earmarked to fight Psa.

I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. The Green Party strongly supports the statement in the explanatory note of this bill: “Biosecurity is critical to New Zealand’s prosperity and way of life. More than any other developed country, New Zealand depends on the success of its primary industries and the biosecurity system that underpins them. The biosecurity system also protects the native plants and animals and other resources that are taonga to Maori and precious to all New Zealanders.” We are now used to hearing about biosecurity incursions into New Zealand on a pretty regular basis: Psa, varroa mite, didymo, kauri dieback disease, Undaria, painted apple moth, southern saltmarsh mosquito, and so on. The incursions we have already had have cost us hugely, but these are nothing compared to some of the risks that we need to guard against: foot-and-mouth disease, for example, or various fruit flies, as Horticulture New Zealand warned yesterday. In the face of these major threats there is no doubt that our old Biosecurity Act was no longer fit for purpose, and the Green Party welcomes this attempt to bring it up to speed.

We support most of the provisions of the bill. The biosecurity information database and the national policy direction from the Minister for Biosecurity are good, common-sense measures. We particularly welcome the extension of our biosecurity regime to our full exclusive economic zone, consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and ratification of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments. One of the limitations of our existing unsophisticated biosecurity measures is that we worry most about what we can see. My colleague Kevin Hague has often spoken in the House about the near complete absence of adequate measures for responding to risks from microscopic organisms. The same principle applies to places that we do not usually see, such as remote terrestrial areas and underwater environments distant from our shores.

We have mixed feelings, and look forward to hearing the submissions, about the provisions for distributed responsibility for biosecurity management. A more cooperative approach has some potential to extend the biosecurity net and improve outcomes, but it also has the potential to blur lines of responsibility and carries many of the conflict-of-interest risks of self-policing.

The bill also codifies the Government’s current approach of targeted risk management, and in some ways this is the nub of the bill. With an inevitably limited budget and potentially uncapped risk, targeting resources to the highest risks is the only approach to take. In 2009, about 104 loaded incoming shipping containers were checked for biosecurity risks each day. That is about 9 percent of those coming into the country, leaving about 386,850 shipping containers unchecked over the course of a year. Maybe the highest-risk 9 percent are checked—they certainly should be—but that is a huge amount of uncontrolled risk. It is also essential, but absent from the bill, that we act to minimise risk by minimising the import of goods that pose risk. Again, as the bill’s explanatory note states: “Globalisation and changes in transport technologies have resulted in greater and more rapid trade and travel and the development of new trade and travel routes. While this is positive for New Zealand’s economy, it exposes us to greater and more complex biosecurity risk.” The Green Party says that that is an unacceptable approach. The Government proposes no measures at all to try to reduce, let alone minimise, the biosecurity risk.

In fact, the situation is even worse than that. The bill explicitly makes biosecurity law subject to the limitations of international trade agreements. That provision is in new section 100G(5)(e). The clause talks about imposing levies for the purposes of having pest-management plans. Pest-management plans are the plans for the eradication management of pests. These can be either national or regional. The Government has given itself the power to impose a levy for the purpose of funding a pest-management plan, but it has made it explicitly clear that we cannot actually introduce such a levy if it is in breach of our international trade agreements. This means that the Government’s free-trade agenda not only poses increasing risk that we need to try to deal with because of ever-increasing volumes of imports, all of which could carry pest species, but also will compromise New Zealand’s ability to respond to that risk in our own domestic biosecurity law.

That means that despite the good things that the bill would achieve, the surrender of our biosecurity sovereignty, which the Government proposes, means that we cannot possibly support it. The increasing trade volumes, and therefore the biosecurity risk associated with free-trade agreements, are well known, and they will be looked back on as a kind of collective madness. Our free-trade agreement with China has already delivered 77 percent of imported shoes containing fungi, bacteria, and plant material, and garlic infested with fungi. We now have free-trade agreements with countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic. This bill proposes to limit our ability to take all possible steps to combat the inevitably increasing risk from those countries. A foot-and-mouth incursion could cost 20,000 jobs and reduce GDP by $10 billon over 2 years. The stakes are very high indeed and we need to face them without a hand tied behind our backs.

This is not the first area where the Government’s headlong rush to embrace free-trade agreements has been identified as posing an erosion of New Zealand’s sovereignty by limiting our ability to determine domestic law. One could think about the current Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, which include Malaysia. Malaysia has foot-and-mouth disease, and we currently import palm kernel expeller from Malaysia in huge quantities. Upwards of many thousands of tonnes of palm kernel expeller come in from Malaysia. Foot-and-mouth disease can be dormant in soil and can be carried in soil. The palm kernel expeller in Malaysia sits on the ground and then is scooped up with large amounts of soil before it is loaded in ships and sent to New Zealand. So our exposure to foot-and-mouth via palm kernel expeller is quite real and is actually a genuine biosecurity risk. However, this bill says that New Zealand cannot introduce levies to manage these kinds of risks if they breach our free-trade agreements. This bill says that whatever we sign up to in the Trans-Pacific Partnership will restrict our own ability to pass sovereign domestic biosecurity law.

The Green Party will participate constructively in the select committee process to help improve the bill and looks forward to hearing the submissions from the New Zealand public. But we tell the House now that we will not support a bill that compromises New Zealand’s ability to do everything possible to protect this country from biosecurity risks and threats, and neither should any other party. The New Zealand that would be the logical result of this bill’s preparedness to compromise biosecurity in the interests of free-trade agreements is one of globalised pests, diminished biodiversity, and the faded, degraded greyness of the globally standard environment—not our future.

The ACT Party will be supporting the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill and commends it to the House.

Kia ora anō tātou katoa i tēnei pō. Te roa hoki o tēnei rā.

[Greetings to us all once again tonight. What a long day this has been.]

The Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is based on the premise that biosecurity is critical to New Zealand’s prosperity and way of life, as expressed already by a number of members of the House. I have to say how positive it is to come to a bill that up front, in the first few paragraphs of the explanatory note, expresses commitment to a biosecurity system that protects the native plants and animals and other resources that are taonga to Māori, as expressed by Green member Russel Norman.

In fact, it is almost a consistent theme throughout the bill that effective and efficient instruments and measures are needed to prevent, reduce, and eliminate the adverse effects of harmful organisms on the relationship between Māori, our culture, our traditions and our ancestral lands, waters, sites, wāhi tapu, and taonga, and this is only right. We hope that such recognition will also be mirrored in the national policy statement on indigenous biosecurity so that the protection of significant vegetation and the significant habitats of indigenous fauna is seen as a matter of national importance.

The production of a national policy statement on indigenous biodiversity, the House may recall, is yet another of the already significant gains achieved as a part of the agreement between the National Party and the Māori Party on the emissions trading scheme in 2009. The other important connection that must be made in the context of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is to read this legislation in the understanding that the Waitangi Tribunal is expected to release its report soon on the Wai 262 Treaty claim on indigenous flora and fauna and on Māori cultural and intellectual property, which is known informally as Wai 262. I take the time to point out all of these connections because I want the House to know that when we talk about biosecurity, we are also talking about biodiversity, intellectual and cultural property, and, of course, the relationship with tangata whenua.

New Zealand’s unique flora and fauna holds special significance for Māori, and of that there should be no doubt. Protecting New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity is of great significance to Māori as kaitiaki. For the Māori Party, we have followed these commitments through to our policy statements. Our policy describes our commitment to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy, safe, and intact for everyone and for future generations. We specify also the need to promote freedom from ecological destruction. Yet, when we think about the recent crisis in my electorate of Waiariki and the need to introduce an aggressive containment strategy for Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae (Psa) for kiwifruit vines, it is blatantly obvious that, despite the best intentions of all our parties, we are still vulnerable.

The last time I was briefed by Hemi Rolleston, the chief executive of Te Awanui Huka Pak Ltd, the numbers were not looking all that flash—103 orchards have now been issued with a restricted notice by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and 100 orchards have had Psa confirmed. The majority of the Psa-positive orchards are within a 23 kilometre area south of Te Puke township. Psa-positive tests are also coming back from orchards based in Hawke’s Bay, Tauranga, Whakatāne, Waikato, Golden Bay, Motueka, and Gisborne.

I really want to acknowledge the impact that this crisis has made not just throughout my electorate but on the wider industry. The more severe impacts on vine health forces some serious impacts on the industry as it adapts to cope with Psa in the future and, indeed, with the inevitable impact on production and sales. My colleague Rahui Katene also tells us of experiences—again, as discussed by Dr Russel Norman—in the Marlborough Sounds where some things like a particular seaweed have come in on the hulls of ships and even on yachts that arrive from overseas. The vessels are then cleaned at local marinas and, before we know it, there is a biosecurity risk.

We are determined to support any move to ensure the protection of our flora and fauna. A failure to put appropriate measures in place will put a wide range of primary industries at risk of contamination—a risk that we can ill afford. But the critical issue is how we do this. The Māori Party believes that a fundamental basis to biosecurity law reform would be to ensure that a Treaty clause is included in the legislation. We appreciate the legislative changes that are being introduced in the bill. They will enable amendments to improve and modernise the biosecurity system. The amendments will promote more effective and efficient biosecurity, encourage partnerships in the management of biosecurity risks, and provide flexibility to enable future improvements. But we also want to see this Government and subsequent Governments recognise and provide for the role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki when developing and implementing regional policy statements and regional and district plans associated with biosecurity.

We want to see tangata whenua values and interests incorporated into the management of biosecurity. We would like to ensure that there is regular and informed consultation with tangata whenua, particularly as it relates to protecting and enhancing areas and habitats that have a particular significance to tangata whenua. We want to see the active involvement of tangata whenua in the protection of cultural values to protect the native plants, animals, and other resources that are taonga to Māori. We hope that the biosecurity system is able to work in such a way as to recognise the customary use of indigenous biodiversity according to tikanga Māori.

The Māori Party caucus has concluded, on the basis of all of the analysis, that our support for the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is conditional on there being a Treaty clause within the legislation. Our support will be subject to satisfaction with an appropriate Treaty clause. In the meantime, we support the bill at this its first reading. Kia ora tātou.

I rise to express my support for the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill and the very necessary changes that go with it. I commend the bill to the House.

Despite its brevity, I think that was the best speech Sandra Goudie has given in Parliament—in my time here, anyway.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Thank you very much.

Well, no, I say to Mrs Goudie that it is a low bar.

It gives me pleasure to rise to speak in this debate, because I believe that the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is timely. Members on this side of the House recognise that issues related to biosecurity are constantly evolving and, although the Biosecurity Act 1993 provided a good basis for us to manage our borders and our immediate environment, time moves quickly in the area of biosecurity and there is a need for an update.

There is absolutely no doubt that New Zealand, perhaps more than any other developed country, relies on high-quality biosecurity measures.

💬 John Hayes: Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Mr Hayes is someone who would know a great deal about that from his time working to defend our borders.

About 80 percent of New Zealand’s primary production each year is exported. When we look at some of the numbers we see that they really do emphasise the importance of that. Nearly $20 billion of agricultural and food exports, $3.2 billion of horticultural exports, $3.4 billion of forestry product exports, and 64 percent of our total merchandise exports come from the primary production area. That area is critical for our economy. The kind of comprehensive review and measures that are required from time to time in the biosecurity field is what we are seeing with the bill. Therefore, it is an important one for us to focus on tonight.

It is such an important bill that we would perhaps expect slightly more contribution from the National Government members. They have made limited contributions throughout this urgency process, which makes us wonder quite how urgent the National Government sees these matters as being. But, on biosecurity, we certainly know that we are pleased this bill has come before the House.

The Biosecurity Act was put in place in 1993. Seventeen years later the world is quite different. It is important that we acknowledge the changes in the way that people travel around the world, the frequency of travel that is undertaken by people, the way that goods move around the world, and the fact that new markets are opening up all the time, that goods are being produced in multiple countries and exported to New Zealand, and that people and goods are travelling together more often. We need measures that acknowledge those things. We also have to acknowledge the rapid change in technology. A lot of what is in the Biosecurity Act 1993 reflects a manual system of processing, whereas nowadays we have a lot more computerised systems of processing, and obviously that needs to be worked through.

Also, after 17 years of operation, the Biosecurity Act has thrown up one or two issues that perhaps have shown it is not working so well. Some would say that that is particularly so in the area of pest management—in the way in which our relationships are formed between regional and local authorities and central government. It is good to see that those issues are being picked up in this bill. There have also been changes in the way in which our marine environment is managed, in New Zealand’s relationships with other countries, in the way in which the exclusive economic zone has been developed, and in the way in which our international maritime law has continued to evolve. All of those things have occurred since 1993, and it is important that the bill is updated to reflect them.

As other speakers have said, the bill moves to amend a number of different areas. As I have said, it particularly looks at the question of the marine environment. There are several amendments in that area. They look at the exclusive economic zone and make sure that the measures in the Biosecurity Act are consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. There are also amendments that introduce a new instrument into the Act, the craft risk management standard, which will set out biosecurity requirements for craft arriving in New Zealand.

I note from the regulatory impact statement that there was an issue in the consultation process—and I am sure it will be taken up during the select committee process—over how craft risk-management standards will be implemented. Stakeholders who were involved in that process certainly wanted to see New Zealand’s biosecurity standards mesh with international standards and conventions, where possible. But in the consultation process they questioned the application and use of those standards, how practical they would be, and whether the movements would apply to craft that move around New Zealand, or to craft that arrive in New Zealand. All of those issues were raised in the consultation process, and I hope that the select committee will take them up. Although it sounds like a reasonable idea that there should be a consistent craft risk-management standard, it is new territory and it needs to be clear. Obviously the people involved have expressed that already in the consultation process, and we certainly hope that it will be taken up further.

As I said earlier, there is also an alteration made in the bill to the position of the Crown in relation to making sure that regional pest-management strategies are aligned. There is some concern in the regulatory impact statement about the potential cost to the Crown for that. The regulatory impact statement makes clear that there has not yet been time to identify exactly what those costs are. I think that will be another issue that the select committee will want to look at.

The bill will also allow national and regional pest-management plans to be more effectively developed, and allow the development of plans at the national level to address the movement of harmful organisms. That is all stuff that members on this side of the House would be happy to support investing in.

I note that the bill amends the scope of the Wild Animal Control Act 1977. That is an Act that Mr Twyford knows well. [Interruption] No, they have not yet, actually. It is incredible, really.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Is that why Tau is away?

Well, no. We note that there are two particular animals being looked at in this part of the bill: possums and wallabies, which are currently managed solely under the Wild Animal Control Act and will come under the Biosecurity Act. I want to know whether Robbie Deans fits within the definition of a wallaby.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Russel Norman should be worried.

Russel Norman may be worried, that is true—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: More like a possum in the headlights.

That is right. He is perhaps both a possum and a wallaby. We will certainly be interested to see the extent to which the definition of wallaby will be contained in the changes being suggested.

The other area I will mention is the clarity of roles and relationships, and collaboration and partnerships. Certainly, again, looking at the regulatory impact statement, there was strong support in the consultation with stakeholders for improving the clarity of the relationships between MAF Biosecurity, regional and local authorities, industry, and other importers. Clearly, as Dr Norman has already mentioned, New Zealand has such a great number of imports and exports, and there is the need to do a huge amount of assessment, but not everything can be assessed. We need to ensure that partnerships are in place to make sure that quality assessment can take place, and that the things we need to look at are looked at.

It is on the subject of those relationships that I will now move to the impact of the decision made by the National Government to cut 55 front-line staff from MAF Biosecurity.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: What?

That is the kind of reaction I would expect from the Hon Ruth Dyson, because it is remarkable. Having spent a considerable amount of time working through both the importance of biosecurity to New Zealand and the changes since 1993, it is remarkable, in the context of this bill, to then realise that this Government cut 55 front-line positions from MAF Biosecurity. That is the very area that we have established throughout this debate as essential to New Zealand’s economy and essential to our environmental health and well-being, and this Government has cut those front-line positions.

We have heard from David Carter in previous times that those positions were cut because there were fewer imports of particular types of cars coming into New Zealand. How short-sighted is that? To say that right at the moment we do not have quite enough imports and exports to justify the staff is no way to manage a biosecurity system in New Zealand. What happens when there is an incursion? What happens when tourism starts to rise again? We have the expensive cost of re-employing all of those people—or not, as the case may be. We need to invest in biosecurity in New Zealand, and that includes the people who protect our borders. They are truly front-line staff.

This Government came into office with a promise not to cut front-line public servants. This was the first and biggest example of a straight-out breaking of that promise. There has been concern throughout New Zealand, and throughout the sectors that are affected by this bill. There has been concern from organisations such as Horticulture New Zealand, the New Zealand Flower Exporters Association, and Federated Farmers. All of those organisations have expressed the concern that cutting 55 front-line positions puts at risk New Zealand’s biosecurity.

There is nothing more important to our economy than the protection of our borders. We need to ensure that MAF Biosecurity has adequate staff in order to perform the important roles that are noted in this bill. We will support this bill being referred to a select committee because we believe that biosecurity is a vital part of protecting and enhancing our economy and protecting our environment. But we raise our concerns that cutting 55 front-line staff does no good. We must ensure that we have the people in place to protect our borders.

I will address the last comment from the previous speaker, Grant Robertson, although substantially I agree with everything he said. The point is that if the volume of trade drops, MAF Biosecurity will not need as many people as it had.

Biosecurity is absolutely critical to my Wairarapa electorate and the prosperity and way of life of the people there. New Zealand depends on the success of the industry and the primary sector, but the Biosecurity Act needs to be upgraded to allow the system to respond to an increasingly challenging environment.

With those words, I support the bill and hope it will progress through to the select committee very quickly. Thank you.

The Labour Opposition is in full support of sending the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill to a select committee, where submitters can have their say on what is quite a substantial bill. This is one of those cases that quite often come up in the Chamber of an Act that, in its day, was perfectly adequate. Certainly, the Biosecurity Act in 1993 was more than adequate in the environment in which it was enacted, and it responded well to New Zealand’s biosecurity needs at the time. But that was 17 years ago and things have moved on. In fact, Grant Robertson used the word “evolved”, which I suppose is another word that gets thrown around this place quite a bit. But in terms of biosecurity, evolution is exactly what we are dealing with. Many of these organisms evolve very quickly. They evolve into new organisms and pose new threats to New Zealand’s primary sector.

Over a period of 17 years it is quite easy for legislation like the Biosecurity Act 1993 to become outdated. But this Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is different from a lot of technical updating bills. First of all, it is entitled the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill, and it is a comprehensive reform of our biosecurity laws. It is not merely a technical amendment; it is, quite literally, a very significant and substantial bill. Just physically looking at the bill, we see it is close to an inch in depth. It has close to 211 pages and many, many parts.

💬 Phil Twyford: How much does it weigh?

It would be interesting to know how much it weighs, and maybe we can find that out at the select committee. But the point I am getting at is just how insignificant the Government’s contributions on this bill have been today. For such a major piece of law reform, it has been up to the Opposition to delve into what is contained in the bill. Grant Robertson uncovered a few interesting facts, and Damien O’Connor went into the real guts of the bill. The Minister for Biosecurity managed only a couple of minutes, and the other Government members’ contributions have been pathetic, given the importance of this bill.

Biosecurity very much underpins New Zealand’s economy, as we have discussed several times in this debate. Our primary production sector accounts for a huge part of our economy, and New Zealand relies on primary production in a way that almost no other developed country does. We export about 80 percent of our primary produce each year, and thus it is hugely important that we have the right mechanisms in place to protect our primary industries. It is true that over the last 17 years since the previous bill was enacted, protecting our borders has become a much more complex issue. The tendency towards greater global trade, the fact that products are coming into New Zealand from all parts of the world where different diseases and pests might reside and might find their way to our borders, and the fact that international travel is so much more accessible these days means that it is a far more complex environment.

We need a more flexible approach to biosecurity in New Zealand, but one thing that the Labour Opposition will be watching out for as this bill progresses through the select committee is that a more flexible approach is not used as an excuse for cuts, or used as an excuse for the Government to shirk its responsibilities in biosecurity and to merely pass those on to industry or to other players. The Government needs to have responsibility, it needs to have oversight, and, ultimately, it will be held responsible by the voters out there in New Zealand if this bill should actually reduce our ability to protect our borders. We will be keeping an eye out for that. But for the time being it looks like good legislation, and we look forward to hearing what the submissions are.

It is interesting to note that we have recently seen cuts to the number of front-line staff in the biosecurity arena—and nothing gets more front-line than our borders, and protecting our borders and protecting our industries. There are no staff more front-line than our customs officials and our biosecurity staff. The Minister used as one of his excuses for those cuts the fact that the global economy was down and international travel was down as a result, but the numbers do not actually bear that out, at all. From 2009 to 2010, total arrivals and departures numbered 8.2 million, and from 2010 to 2011, they numbered 8.3 million. The figure is projected to grow to 8.7 million in 2011 to 2012, to just over 9 million in 2012 and 2013, and to 9.3 million in 2013 to 2014.

That is an increase over 5 years of 13.7 percent in the total number of people travelling across our borders, yet the Minister used a downturn in those numbers as an excuse to cut front-line staffing numbers. Although we have now seen a recovery, we have not seen the same re-establishment of the number of front-line staff. I think that is dangerous. That is dangerous for our primary industries.

We have seen the introduction of SmartGate, which looks like a very sensible way of increasing efficiency.

💬 Grant Robertson: It keeps Paul Quinn out, doesn’t it?

I could not possibly comment. But we think it is dangerous to have these sorts of cuts to front-line services when clearly there is an increase in the amount of traffic across our borders.

The current value of protecting New Zealand from potential biosecurity incursions depends significantly on two factors: the size of the impacts and the probability of those impacts occurring. The magnitude of the potential economic cost means that reducing the probability of incursions can lead to significant economic benefits, so there is money to be saved by being well prepared. There have been a number of significant incursions in recent years. For example, there was the painted apple moth, the Asian gypsy moth, and didymo. There has been the varroa mite, which has had a significant impact on our bee-keeping industry. Most recently there has been Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae (Psa)—

💬 Hon Member: Say that again.

—I might just have another crack at that—Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae, which is better known as the Psa disease.

💬 Grant Robertson: They did Latin at King’s College, didn’t they?

You know, I did do Latin in third form, as it happens. The Psa disease, all joking aside, has been having a terrible effect on our kiwifruit vines. It has the potential to cost the country $75 million. It is a good example of why we need strong and secure biosecurity defences in place. Those are just a few examples, but by being well prepared we can save ourselves a lot of money further down the track. Indeed, the cost of cleaning up the mess caused by an incursion of a disease or a pest can be quite substantial, and often outweighs the cost of maintaining a decent level of staffing and having a decent biosecurity protection system in place.

Just to finish up, the Labour Opposition supports this bill. We support having strong biosecurity defences for our nation. We look forward to the submissions at the select committee, and we look forward to the steady progress of this bill.

The Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is a progressive piece of legislation that is vital for protecting our primary industries in New Zealand. In particular, it deals with pest management. I know that the Hon Phil Goff knows a lot about pest management. I commend this bill to the House.

I move that the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee, that the committee present its final report on or before 3 May 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer, and during any evening on a day on which the House—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member did not give notice during the first reading of the speech.

I did so.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am advised that the member did not give notice, which would mean that the referral is out of order. I am just going to seek some advice. The member cannot give an instruction in respect of the details of the referral. All he can do is move a motion as to which select committee the bill is going to. He cannot move an instruction.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.