Biosecurity Law Reform Bill

I would like to acknowledge the good efforts of my colleagues! They do not always want me in the House, but on this occasion they saw some value in bringing me back in, so I appreciate that.

Labour will support this Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. It is important. It is a bill that was actually developed in concept by the Labour Government. It came out of the sad and sorry state around the varroa mite infestation coming into this country. The response from the bee industry at that time was a bit muddled, to be nice about it, I guess. We saw the need for a coordinated and collaborative approach from industry sectors should that kind of thing occur in the future, hence the concept of Government-industry agreements. This is at the heart of the bill.

The bill does cover other areas. Part 1, in particular, which we are debating here, covers technical aspects of updating systems of biosecurity to ensure that Biosecurity New Zealand, or the Ministry for Primary Industries, or whatever the Minister for Primary Industries wants to call it now, has the technical capability to transfer knowledge in order for people to find out about these things in the best way possible.

In supporting the bill, though, I have to put on record—as we have done before—our concerns. In fact, since the bill has been in the House we have had every reason to be further concerned about the biosecurity systems in this country. So in supporting the bill we are not in any way endorsing the biosecurity system as it is at this point in this country. I think it is sadly lacking, I think there are insufficient resources, and there is huge risk to our economy every single day. The passage of this bill will, hopefully, assist in reducing the risk of unwanted pests and organisms coming into this country, and the more we reduce the risks the better for us as a country.

I will, through the debate, refer to points made by industry sector leaders about the Government-industry agreements. I hope the Minister will get up and explain. He has put before the House a Supplementary Order Paper that goes some way, we understand, to address the concerns of the industry sectors. When we were last debating this bill they were concerned that they were not going to be properly consulted. That the Government-industry agreements focused on cost-sharing should an incursion take place was one thing, but an information approach and a collaborative approach to prevention was something that they were locked out of. The intent of Supplementary Order Paper 27 is that each sector will be part of the consideration, but, I am told, not necessarily the decision-making process. The Minister may want to get up and explain why that is the case.

I think there is some ideological belief that the sectors are self-interested—and that is probably not far from the truth—and that they do not have an ability to balance the requirements of open trade and biosecurity protection. I do not buy into that. Most producers in this country are fully aware of the need for open trade internationally. They understand we cannot close our borders unnecessarily, but they do rely on science-based evidence to have fair risk assessment and risk analysis. What we have seen in recent times—I have here A Review of Import Requirements and Border Processes in Light of the Entry of Psa into New Zealand. It is very disturbing reading. It points to flaws in the science, flaws in the risk analysis, flaws in the communication in biosecurity.

Producer groups, or sector groups, are concerned that they are not able to not only be part of the process but also be part of the decision making and the final risk analysis, because their lives and their sectors are on the line here. The one thing about a biosecurity incursion more often than not is that once it occurs, it is irreversible. You cannot turn back the clock. Varroa is here to stay. Didymo is here to stay. In the case of a military intervention, we would, hopefully, chase the army away. In the case of drugs coming over the border, we often catch them, destroy them, and we move on. When a biosecurity breach of our borders occurs, more often than not we are stuck with it. Sectors such as avocados, for example, or summer fruits, or kiwifruits in the case of Psa, incur the cost from now into the future of all the additional prevention measures, including the replacement of plants and whatever else might occur. I do not even want to mention foot-and-mouth. The cost to our economy would be astronomical.

So in supporting this piece of legislation we are doing so with a view to improving the system. We are not in any way admitting that the system is right at the moment. We hear the chief executive officer of the Ministry for Primary Industries saying that we have a world-class biosecurity system. I do not believe him. We have a reasonable system, and we have worked on it, but the resources have been squeezed and the risks have increased. It is the same as our thinking we have got a First World economy. By many measures we are actually approaching Third World status—our level of debt, and some of the challenges in front of us. We always try to be optimistic. In the area of biosecurity, being optimistic is not good enough. We actually have to guarantee that we have got secure borders. That is why we are going to push the Government on this. We are going to ask the hard questions.

In fact, the bill as originally introduced by the Government had major flaws in it. I would like to acknowledge once again the good work of the Primary Production Committee chair, Shane Ardern. You should be a Minister, Shane—shame about that. I know I am not helping you, but nonetheless—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That’d be recognising talent, and that’s not a good thing for the Nats to do.

No, it is not, and, unfortunately, he has had his last chance, because we will be in Government next time, with a bit of luck and a bit of good hard work. Who knows? It may be very, very soon, depending on the outcome of a meeting taking place now. Anyone heard a report?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Is that the police meeting or is that the Māori Party meeting?

It could be either one. I think there are two coalition partners in trouble as we speak.

We hope that we can take charge of the biosecurity system. We doubled the funding for biosecurity when we were in power, from $94 million to $187 million. That was the commitment of the Labour Government to biosecurity. In its first Budget in 2009 the National Government cut the funding for biosecurity and cut the number of jobs. In fact, the flow-on from that is that close to 90 jobs are now gone.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Are they the ones who cut the dogs, as well?

It has cut the dogs. There has not been a dog at Wellington Airport since October of last year.

💬 John Hayes: Not true. There was one there the other day.

You saw one the other day?

💬 John Hayes: Yep.

That is right, they may have borrowed one from Auckland or Christchurch. In fact, I think one was going to be brought up from Christchurch just to satisfy a few politicians coming back from Australia. But, unfortunately, it is not permanent yet.

The system has huge gaps in it. People are writing to me and they are writing to the Minister and saying there are huge gaps in the biosecurity system. If the officials stand up and say we have a world-class system and it is all hunky-dory, they are wrong. I understand they have to work with the limited resources the National Government gives them, but you cannot kid yourself that we have a world-class biosecurity system. If this bill passes, and I guess it will—we are certainly supporting it—then it will take us some way forward, but the guts of the Government-industry agreements is actually around how you manage an incursion once it has happened. Well, in fact, good biosecurity systems will prevent incursions, and that is the area we need more focus on. Although the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper does assist in that area, there is still a long way to go to make sure that all sectors, big and small, in this country are listened to and are able to participate in the risk assessments and the whole process—not just sharing the costs but actually ensuring that, firstly, we prevent anything from coming into the country, and then, should it occur, that each and every person involved, from the Government and from the sectors, is working efficiently.

I am sure you will come to understand that that was a very good call over the next few minutes. The Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is a very, very important piece of legislation for this Parliament. In fact, one of the things I do agree with the previous speaker on is that biosecurity is one of the most, if not the most, important issue facing New Zealand in terms of securing a sound economic base and a solid economy to go forward on. In fact, increasing trade and travel volumes represent enormous challenges to this Government agency. Around 170,000 items a day come across our borders, an enormous amount of traffic both in and out of New Zealand, and all with the opportunity and potential to have a threat to our border.

Can I congratulate and thank the officials for the fine work they did during the select committee committee process. It was one of those times when there was a very good cross-party approach to it, and quite a good collegial understanding of the importance of it. The Primary Production Committee made some substantial recommendations, which I am pleased to say—and I thank the Minister—were accepted by the Government. The bill will now introduce a number of different things that were not in the original proposal. One of those is to recognise the, I guess, status of land ownership, whether it be Government, private, or local government, and the lack of effect that has on a potential biosecurity breach. There was a large amount of concern about the different policies for different types of land ownership structure prior to this bill. I am hoping that that will overcome some of those concerns.

The biggest debate in the sector for the last 5 years has been the notion of a Government-sector partnership. Certainly, right at the beginning of the debate there was quite a bit of reluctance on the part of various industry players to be part of discussions in that. But if there is a lesson to be learnt from the recent kiwifruit Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae (Psa) incursion and the report that subsequently came from that, it is that most of the institutional knowledge, or intellectual property, if you like, in regards to what can be done, when, and how, is in a lot of cases contained within the industry itself. The Government actually had a very good track record of working closely with the industry at that stage. There is quite an irony, I think, at this point looking at that report to note that it was actually the horticultural industry that put up some of the strongest opposition to the idea of a Government-industry partnership in the first stages. I am not sure whether it still holds that view, and certainly most of the evidence would suggest that it probably does not now. So allowing that to happen, and making sure there is a legislative framework for a credible process to move forward and negotiate with the various sectors as to which part the industry will cover or hold the intellectual property rights in, and the pre-incursion discussions that must take place and agreements that must be reached, certainly in my view, are going to enhance that.

It is not a new idea. It is unique in some aspects, but it is not a new idea. In fact, in Australia they have been doing it in certain states for quite a while. I think that New Zealand can only benefit from introducing these Government-industry partnerships. I look forward to the discussions there.

I heard the member who spoke before me mention foot-and-mouth. Clearly most industries would believe that if there was a major incursion that is well known with the type of economic effect that such an incursion as foot-and-mouth would have on New Zealand, then there would be an expectation, a very high expectation, that the State would be there to respond quickly. But in terms of some of the lesser known and somewhat obscure incursions that are unlikely to have such a substantial effect on the New Zealand economy but can have a devastating effect on an individual industry, most of the knowledge around what that might be or how to respond to it quickly, and what the response should be, which in some cases is very much debated at the time of the incursion, is held within industry. It is impossible for the former Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, which is now the Ministry for Primary Industries, to have all the intellectual property that is necessary on every single aspect of every single incursion that may affect a sector of our primary sector. In my view, it is absolutely essential that that information is made available to the State through these industry agreements, and that that takes place before the incursions take place, as well, so that a predetermined agreement can be put in place.

There are many other parts of this bill that I could speak on and many other recommendations that were made by the select committee, but I know that my whip or the Minister will not thank me for taking up any more of the Committee’s time. To that end, I think it is a very good day that we are reaching cross-party agreement on this. I look forward to the passage of the bill through Parliament.

I think it is always a shame to see the very good member Shane Ardern silenced by his Government colleagues. Here is a member who has more farming experience in his little finger than the rest of the National caucus has in total, yet he cannot even take his full call, because Government members and his whips want him to sit down. I want to reiterate the comment made by my colleague Damien O’Connor about what a shame it is that this member is not a Minister. As chair of the Primary Production Committee he has always been very good to deal with. For those members who have not served on the Primary Production Committee it really has a completely different culture from a lot of other select committees. It is very enjoyable, it is very collegial. The Minister for Primary Industries himself was also a very good chair of the Primary Production Committee, and, as a member of the committee that considered this legislation, I say that it is indeed a pleasure to be able to take a call.

Of course, Labour will be supporting this legislation, but I do reiterate some of the concerns that my colleagues have made and that were made in the second reading of this bill, which are that all the legislation in the world is fantastic, but if you do not have the people on the ground to ensure that it is carried out and that the objectives are met, then it does not really mean much at all. There is no point having great legislation to deal with an incursion once it has happened if we are not putting as much effort as possible into ensuring that these incursions never occur in the first place.

New Zealand is an island nation and I guess has a number of advantages in that it is less likely that these incursions are going to take place. But since the original Biosecurity Act, which is being amended, was drafted in 1993, obviously the world has changed dramatically. We are now dealing with far more international passenger traffic and international freight than we were dealing with at that time, and it is right that the legislation be brought up to date and with the times. But as we have seen with the varroa mite, as we have seen with Pseudomonas syringae pv Actinidiae (Psa), we are not immune from these incursions, and to see the kinds of cuts that have happened in the biosecurity budget is very, very disappointing.

What we have seen in biosecurity is kind of a pattern that we have seen with the National Government across a number of portfolios, which is that in the initial years of its Government, it makes major cuts and then slowly dribbles some of that support back and expects everybody to be grateful for it, and it expects the public to believe that that is actually an increase. But as the public know, and certainly as the sector, which deals in this area, knows, it is not an increase. We have seen a decrease in bodies at the border dealing with biosecurity and ensuring that the very basis of our economy is protected. I completely agree with the member Shane Ardern when he says that in terms of the legislation we pass in this House a lot of it is very important, but this legislation around biosecurity comes to the very fundamental protection of our economy. That is why cross-party support is important, but is also why we need to ensure that we have the capability as a public service in New Zealand to actually give force to legislation that we pass in this House, and that is where Labour does have some concerns.

I am very pleased with the provision that the Crown is duty-bound to abide by regional pest management strategies. You know, I work in the Bay of Plenty and have been dealing with the local authorities there. I was very pleased to take the Labour leader, David Shearer, to the Bay of Plenty to talk to orchardists about the Psa outbreak. I think it is really important that parliamentarians talk to those people on the ground about where they see the failings in the system as they have happened. That is no criticism necessarily of any Government; every Government, when something goes wrong, should be prepared to stand up and take stock of what happened, where the gaps were, and learn from that. And certainly in the Bay of Plenty there has been a lot of frustration around how the Psa outbreak could have been handled differently, about whether some of the cuts in biosecurity might have led to the Psa incursion.

It is a bit of a cautionary tale, I think, because if I look at my own portfolio of climate change, we have a very monocultural forestry industry in this country around Pinus radiata. There are a number of pests that would be devastating to our forestry industry. Some of those pests are already in New Zealand. They have been benign so far and let us hope, absolutely touch wood—no pun intended—that they remain benign. But there are also a number of pests internationally that could very, very easily—as was the case with Psa—enter New Zealand. When you look at how monocultural our forestry industry is, that is a real concern. That is why this legislation and why support and funding for biosecurity are so crucial, because if you simply want to look narrowly at our international obligations under Kyoto, under this Government our greenhouse gas gross emissions are continuing to rise. The Government says it is focusing on net emissions—well, that relies on mitigation. The only mitigation we have in New Zealand is forestry. So if we were to lose a significant proportion of our forestry because of pest incursion, it would mean a massive liability for the Government. We literally have all of our eggs in that one basket; not just in terms of forestry but in terms of Pinus radiata. So although sometimes it may feel we are debating ethereally about some of this stuff, in reality this is just about as crucial as it gets in terms of the New Zealand economy.

I want to make some comments on Part 1, because it amends a number of principal Acts. One of the Acts that it amends is the scope of the Wild Animal Control Act 1977. One of my concerns across a number of areas with this National Government is all these changes being made to different Acts where the left hand and the right hand really do not seem to know what each other is doing. We have a piece of legislation at select committee at the moment, the Game Animal Council legislation, and when I read the changes that we are making here in the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill to that piece of legislation, they seem to run right up against the changes that the Government has made to the Game Animal Council legislation because of its confidence and supply agreement with Peter Dunne. I hope that the Minister is taking into consideration the very worthy reasons that he has given around possums and wallabies, and that the need to control those species is not undermined by some of the changes that are being made at select committee at the moment. And we have heard a number of submitters, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who submitted specifically on this issue and who is concerned about the loss of sovereignty from the Department of Conservation in terms of animal pest control, particularly with possums, and the 1080 strategy, by handing that over to some kind of independent, separate-from-Government body, and that there may be a loss of the ability for the Government to ensure that pest management is adequately controlled. So I sincerely hope that the Minister has taken into account the effect of that piece of legislation on the ability of this particular legislation to deliver what it is promising.

The other thing that I found particularly interesting, especially given the previous bill that we have just been debating, is that this bill extends the application of the Biosecurity Act into the exclusive economic zone. I find this particularly interesting, because we have had a long-running debate at the Local Government and Environment Committee, and indeed during the second reading of the exclusive economic zone legislation in this House, about whether or not legislation that governs New Zealand’s sovereign territory can be extended out into our exclusive economic zone where we do not have the same level of sovereignty and where we are guided by international conventions. We keep being told by the Government that when it comes to the Resource Management Act we just cannot do that—we just cannot do that, because that is not our sovereign territory. This is our sovereign territory. Here we are, the very next bill we are debating, and apparently the Biosecurity Act can operate quite comfortably in the exclusive economic zone. We also know that the Health and Safety in Employment Act can operate quite comfortably in the exclusive economic zone. We also know that the Maritime Transport Act can operate quite comfortably in the exclusive economic zone, so the question has to be asked why the Resource Management Act is apparently the only piece of legislation in New Zealand that cannot operate in the exclusive economic zone.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Bad timing.

It is very bad timing, because it shows up the deficiencies of the Government’s argument in the previous legislation, which is “You can’t possibly do that, because of the issues around sovereignty.” That is not true. It is simply that the Government did not want to have those kinds of well-known, well-understood, well-tested legal tests in the exclusive economic zone. But I would welcome the Biosecurity Act being extended into the exclusive economic zone. Labour wishes that the Government would show a little bit more consistency on this. I know that the Minister of Energy and Resources is in the Chamber. He is squinting a little bit. I know it is tough; it is 20 to 10, Minister, and it is well past your bedtime, but you might want to take note of this—because this is the Minister who is in charge of ramping up this activity in the exclusive economic zone without protections and who argues that this legislation cannot be extended into the exclusive economic zone. He is now sitting in the Chamber listening to his Cabinet colleague David Carter and to his parliamentary colleagues talking about the fact that it is so important that the Biosecurity Act be extended into the exclusive economic zone. All we would ask, Minister, is for some consistency from this National Government. But Labour is happy to support this piece of legislation.

Tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa. Pulling myself away from very important business, I thought I would come down and just add to the debate, the colourful debate, and talk in particular on this Part 1 of this particular bill, the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. If members were able to have a look at this fine Supplementary Order Paper 87, they would see that there is a particular sort of drive in my Supplementary Order Paper. The Supplementary Order Paper, as you will see, is “to provide improved levels of consultation with tangata whenua.” That is an important topic as we sit here tonight in Parliament. At the very core of that discussion is the whole notion about te Tiriti o Waitangi as being at the very principle of equal partnership. This means meaningful and effective involvement by tangata whenua at the decision-making table. Too often Māori are brought into the fray by Government departments too late in the process. More often than not, the fundamentals of a decision have pretty much been made already. And so it is largely, some might say, a box-ticking exercise at that point, which benefits no one, especially iwi Māori. The Government can do better with this. Māori need to be involved when the decisions are being made, not after the decision has been reached.

Experience with the Rena disaster, as we well remember—I was up there and involved with that, as were various Ministers—tells us that we must increase our capacity to both prevent and respond very quickly to incidents that have the potential to do really serious environmental and economic damage to this country. I know, from personal experience of the tangata whenua of Mōtītī, Matakana, Tauranga Moana, Papamoa, all the way down to Ōpōtiki, Whakatōhea, Ngāti Awa, and Te Whānau-a-Apanui, that they continue to be affected by the damage done in their tribal waters. They talk about it in trips as we go up and down the coast, and particularly at tangi that I have attended recently. Te Moana-a-Toi Iwi Leaders Forum represents the interests of more than 16 iwi, their tribal waters, their fishery assets, and the people who were affected by tonnes of oil, the containers, and the debris from the broken cargo ship. The impressive thing about that was that they were involved in every capacity. Whether it was the shoreline clean-up, or the assessment teams working all up and down the east coast identifying priority sites for oil spill response activity, the people were there.

But there were many incidents, unfortunately, where mana whenua should have been involved much earlier. Even in terms of the Rena response it took a bit of time, but we got there. It took a bit of time, but we did get iwi involvement in terms of the clean-up and so on. In January there was considerable anxiety over the issue of Corexit 9500, a serious toxic chemical to break down oil from the vessel. Of course, several species of fish, including the kōkiri, the puffer fish, stingray, and shark, etc. were washing up on the islands’ beaches—those ones that I talked about, Mōtītī, Matakana, and so on—and the people, obviously, had huge concerns. But it was up to the people of Mōtītī to ask the powers that be, including Maritime New Zealand and the public health authorities, to look more seriously into the concerns, by getting independent experts to carry out more thorough and comprehensive tests. The jury is out on the short-term lethal effects versus the long-term effects of the chemical on the food chain and ecology.

I give these examples—and, of course, while that was going on the iwi of those islands put a rāhui in place to stop food gathering on Mōtītī. My point is—this is getting to the crunch, Mr Chair—who better to ask about the impacts on land and people than the people of the land in the first place; those who take up the role and the responsibilities of tangata kaitiaki. I 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 what we talk about as taonga ki te iwi Māori. In order to achieve this very important goal Māori need to be involved in the decision making at all levels, and Government needs to be bold. The Māori Party believes that the provisions that we have sought throughout this Supplementary Order Paper are sufficient to allow that to happen. Legislation should provide for the role of tangata whenua’s tangata kaitiaki when developing and implementing regional policy statements and district plans associated with biosecurity. Sustainable success in border risk management, marine biology security readiness and response, pest management compliance and enforcement all depend at the decision-making level on decision making. That is where we believe Māori, tangata whenua, should be.

I will close with perhaps a lead in this. A blueprint of how this partnership could work is actually the Ngati Tuwharetoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Act of 2010, which says that iwi have equal representation at the decision-making and management bodies as well as allowing for manu whenua iwi to develop their own objective vision strategy for the river. This reflects a very strong and important Treaty relationship at the regional level. I say again that the blueprint is really the Ngati Tuwharetoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Act 2010. I know it is a long one, but nevertheless the general intent of it is bringing together iwi being involved at the very high end of management and involvement in terms of developing plans and the management of that river. There is the starting point, and we believe it actually acts out the Supplementary Order Paper that I have in place.

I suppose, just to wrap it up, the general gist of this Supplementary Order Paper, as I say, is that we want to ensure there is regular and informed consultation with tangata whenua as it relates to protecting and enhancing areas and habitats that have a huge significance to Māori people. I hope that members of the Committee tonight will be able to give my Supplementary Order Paper, on behalf of the Māori Party, some serious consideration, and I look forward to the vote on that particular aspect. Thank you very much. Kia ora tātou.

Talofa lava, Mr Chair. You have a wonderful way of greeting MPs at this late stage of the night, so thank you.

This bill, the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill, is not a very sexy bill. I hate to think that it reflects the personality of any of the people here, but I just want, in the short time that I am taking this call, to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Damien O’Connor. I suspect that the Minister on the other side of the Chamber will accept that the Hon Damien O’Connor has provided a very considered, mature, and genuine desire to protect our biosecurity here in New Zealand.

Throughout this bill, in its first reading and its second reading, we have always stated quite clearly, led by the Hon Damien O’Connor, that our priority was the protection of our industry and that it was of concern to us the way that this Government had reduced the number of staff at our border controls. But despite those concerns, you have heard tonight from the Hon Damien O’Connor a very considered and mature response to try to work with this Government for the sake of protecting our most valuable industries. So whilst we support this bill because we think and we hope that the measures and the systems that this bill outlines and provides for will provide some preventive measures to control our pest and disease incursions, we still have genuine concern around the Government-industry agreements.

This bill is timely, of course, when you consider the recent finding of the Queensland fruit fly in Auckland, a pest that could destroy our $3 billion a year horticultural industry, and this is on top of the Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae outbreak in kiwifruit, which is likely to incur costs in the region of $75 million. These incursions are a stark reminder that the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach to biosecurity is not cost-effective.

As I said at the beginning, this is not necessarily a very sexy kind of legislation for us to be talking about. My grandfather was a pig farmer in the Islands. He taught us that the minute you stepped on pig droppings, it did not matter how much you wiped them off, you had to bathe yourself consistently for that day. It did not matter how much perfume; it was still going to smell.

But the other day, visiting farms up north with the Hon Damien O’Connor and Shane Jones, I learnt that the smell of pig droppings and the smell of cow droppings was the smell of money. The point there is that it is an industry that is very, very important for the future of our country. We are working together on the basis that it is our hope and desire, led by the Hon Damien O’Connor, that we do all that we can do to ensure that the industry is protected, because whatever happens, whatever incursions might occur, if it affects the farming industry, if it affects our kiwifruit industry, or if it affects our wine industry it will have a rippling effect throughout. Thank you for that time.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek leave for the Committee to report progress.

💬 Hon David Carter: No, you can’t.

Why?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It has to be done on the call.

I move, That the Committee report progress.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill and no progress on the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill.

Report adopted.