Biosecurity Law Reform Bill

I move, That the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill be now read a third time. The Biosecurity Law Reform Bill makes a wide range of improvements to the legislation that underpins our biosecurity system. The initial policy development work was started under the previous Labour Government, and I want to acknowledge the continued support of the Labour Party. The bill was introduced during the last Parliament in November 2010, and was considered by the Primary Production Committee in the first half of 2011. The bill was reported back to the committee in June 2011, and was read a second time before Parliament was dissolved for the general election.

I talked in my first reading speech about the key themes that run across the amendments of the bill, and it is useful to re-emphasise those again. Firstly, we need to continue to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the biosecurity system. 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 roles and responsibilities, and 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 such as regional councils. Thirdly, we need to futureproof the legislation so that it has the flexibility to allow the biosecurity system to continue to evolve over time.

The bill adds a number of new provisions that will improve effectiveness and efficiency in the management of biosecurity risk at our borders. These include improved powers to gather information and use it for risk profiling so as to ensure that the resources are allocated according to the level of risk, adding a new duty that requires importers to ensure that their goods comply with the applicable import rules, improving the enforcement options for dealing with non-compliance at the border, and improving the tools for dealing with the biosecurity risks that are presented by craft.

The bill will help to provide clarity around the roles and responsibilities, and promote partnerships and collaboration. A key initiative in this area is the Government-industry agreement for readiness and response. Over the last 12 months tremendous progress has been made in this regard. Industry organisations are working more closely with the Ministry for Primary Industries on taking this initiative forward. The Government-industry agreement will promote better prioritisation of activities in the readiness and response area, improve preparedness for incursions, and enable industry perspectives and expertise to be brought to the decision-making table.

The bill includes a number of amendments that will futureproof this legislation. These include allowing for increased use of electronic systems and enabling the Biosecurity Act to be used to manage biosecurity risks that arise in the exclusive economic zone.

Of the many other enhancements that the bill makes, I would like to also briefly mention, firstly, improving the information that is available on the FarmsOnline database to support incursion responses, and, secondly, important changes in the pest management area, including streamlining the process for developing pest management plans.

Members from across the House have talked in previous debates about how important the biosecurity system is to New Zealand and our economy. I would like to emphasise to the House that I am in complete agreement about the importance of biosecurity to our country. I would also like to acknowledge the genuine concern of growers, farmers, and producers about New Zealand’s biosecurity system. I encourage them to raise their concerns with me and to engage in constructive debate, as is their right. However, I am disappointed at the manner in which biosecurity has been frequently used as a political football by some politicians and some industry leaders. I hope that the passage of this bill with good cross-party support will bring about more constructive engagement, both in Parliament and outside, rather than the continuation of some of the negative politics of recent times.

I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank the staff throughout New Zealand’s biosecurity system. They are hard-working, they are dedicated to doing their best, and they deserve to be congratulated on their consistently high standard of work, which has ensured that New Zealand’s biosecurity system is, indeed, world class.

As I have said before, biosecurity is, and always will be, my highest priority as the Minister for Primary Industries. This bill reflects that by bringing in reforms that will be of benefit across the whole of the biosecurity system. I commend this bill to the House.

I was very pleased to hear the Minister for Primary Industries commit once again to the biosecurity system and the importance of it for our economy. Indeed, I have just come from a Young Farmers gathering with the Minister here in Wellington. It was a great event, hosted by the Young Farmers, where the chief executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries said that biosecurity, as he has said before, is the single most important consideration, and the single biggest threat, to primary industries in this country. I absolutely agree.

Can I quote something: “I told you so. It had to happen, and it did. On 8 May the export of produce from New Zealand worth $2.5 billion per year was put in doubt when one male Queensland fruit fly was found in a pheromone trap in Avondale.” These are not my words; these are from Andrew Fenton, President of Horticulture New Zealand. He said it was only a matter of time, not a matter of if. He said that Horticulture New Zealand has been going on about this for years, that cost cutting kicked in with restructuring for greater efficiency and effectiveness, and that “we lost 100 percent X-ray of baggage entering our borders.” The number of front-line staff and detector dogs has been reduced in favour of passenger profiling.

We think biosecurity is the single biggest threat to this country—to our whole economy. We supported most of the provisions in the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill—in fact, we initiated them—but we were concerned that the Government, in pushing ahead with this bill, at the same time cut funding to front-line biosecurity in its first Budget, and has now slashed front-line staff and staff at Biosecurity New Zealand by about 90 staff. The Minister just got up in the House and said that the Government thinks that it is the most important thing for primary production. Well, if one fruit fly can put $2.5 billion worth of exports at risk, think of what one bit of dirt with foot and mouth on it on the soles of the shoes of any used or unused footwear coming into this country would cost this economy. It is in the billions and billions of dollars.

We have agreed to support this bill, because it does bring in some new provisions that allow better information-sharing across Government agencies. It, however, also puts in place basically a system of self-regulation. The National Party has been known for self-regulation. In fact, it did it in the mining industry, it did it in the building industry, and it did it in electricity. In fact, everywhere it has done it, there has been a disaster. It is doing it also in the area of the meat industry, where companies will now self-regulate on meat inspection. There are real dangers when industries under pressure cut corners. The component of self-regulation here—where, in the Minister’s words, exporters have to share the responsibility—places the whole economy of our country in the hands of what might be some desperate importers with their backs to the wall, trying to make a buck to survive. Well, that is simply not good enough. We need a robust, secure front-line system analysing risk offshore, analysing risk as the people and all the imported goods come to this country, and having robust, very secure front-line checking systems in place—never mind what might happen should an outbreak occur.

That is another component of the bill—Government-industry agreements. Industries have been very concerned because, in fact, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries—as it was, and then it was the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and now it is the Ministry for Primary Industries—was dictating to industries what they were likely to incur by way of costs should there be an incursion of the Queensland fruit fly, the painted apple moth, varroa, or the numbers of experiences that we have, unfortunately, had to face, and heaven forbid if we were ever to face a foot-and-mouth outbreak. Costs now would be shared by industry and by the Government. Some may say that that is fine, because they are the beneficiaries. The problem is that when importers bring products into the country or people travel, they actually are the ones providing the risk. They are the ones—they are the exacerbators—who are threatening the industries here. Industry, without the ability to have some say on how that is managed, thought that very unfair.

The Minister has introduced a Supplementary Order Paper that does go some way to addressing industry concerns—that is, it commits to consultation around how incursions would be managed here, but also some discussion into how front-line biosecurity systems are run. With that Supplementary Order Paper, on balance, the Labour Party is prepared to support the bill on the basis of improvements made around technology and upgrading the systems of information gathering and sharing. But we do not support this bill on the basis that we are endorsing the current biosecurity systems in this country. This is one component. It is a modernisation, as the Minister said, in some ways.

I received today NZ Grower, a magazine. It says that the officials and the Government are determined to impose on the growers of capsicums, cucumbers, zucchinis, and tomatoes a new import health standard. In spite of our ability to grow all those things, supermarkets and others want to import those products into this country, and the Government wants to dumb down the import health standards for the importation of those things. The growers think that places us at greater risk of a biosecurity incursion. The new import health standards allow—Mr Nick Smith probably does not know this—a certain number of fruit fly eggs and larvae to enter New Zealand, because that is an acceptable level of risk under the proposed import health standards. That is not good enough. That is an outrageous dumbing down of the biosecurity protection of this country, to all the growers in that horticultural area. The growers have an opportunity to submit. I hope the Minister is listening. He has not been listening on many things. I hope he listens to them, because in no way are we supporting the Government in the dumbing down of import health standards, as I said, for these horticultural products.

There is currently a legal battle in the courts, because pork producers in this country have had to go to court to uphold and protect their industry, and to uphold the standards that will keep out porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome—basically, the AIDS of the pork industry. We do not have it. Australia does not have it. Virtually every other country in the world has it, and this Government wants to dumb down the import health standards to allow the importation of pork that places far greater risk of the transfer of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome from Canada or any European country—or anywhere else in the world, effectively, because they have got it—into our country. Why would we do that? It is dumb, it is cost cutting, and it is ideology by the Government over there, which says we should let the market forces determine where we should lie. The members over there are shaking their heads. Read this. It is saying that the import health standards for capsicums and tomatoes are proposed to be dumbed down. We know it is in the area of pork. We are concerned about importing honey, and we know that the Government cut front-line biosecurity border protection services—fact. No debate—that is a fact.

The Government and the next speaker might say “Oh, we have good systems and we have all these things in place.”, but the fact is that we got a Queensland fruit fly through the border and through the systems. We picked it up, thankfully. I am acknowledging that the systems here can pick that up, hopefully every time. But, I guess, the more border breaches that occur, the less likely we are to pick up each and every one of them.

In supporting this bill, which allows the modernisation of parts of the biosecurity system, in no way does Labour support the dumbing down of biosecurity across the board in this country. It is the one single thing that keeps the Director-General awake at night, he said. It is the single biggest threat to this economy, because we still rely on biological production, we still rely on primary production, and this Government has not been prepared to put the resources in to ensure the level of risk is appropriate.

This Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is the most substantive change in New Zealand biosecurity laws for more than 15 years. I want to challenge the member who has just spoken opposite, Damien O’Connor, who has beaten his chest around how important biosecurity is. Why is it that in the three terms—9 years—of a Labour Government, we did not have any substantive law reform in the very area of biosecurity? Let us just go through the track record of this Government in biosecurity. In our very first year in Government, National brought in laws that more than doubled the fines for those who breach our biosecurity laws, and this evening in the House after a comprehensive review of our biosecurity laws we have this very substantive bill that improves our laws. For all the huff and the puff from Damien O’Connor, did you not hear the words “But we’re going to support the bill.”? He knows in his heart of hearts that this is good law that will help protect New Zealand’s vital exporting industries.

I want to challenge the member on a few aspects of his speech. The first is that like every Labour spokesperson he promises more spending. It does not matter whether it is education, health, an extra TV channel, putting the school age down to 4, or more money for ACC, every single one of Labour’s spokespeople is hopping around the country promising more money. And the simple question is that the challenge that faces every Western Government is where the money is coming from. I have a very specific question that Damien O’Connor needs to answer, given that rave: how much extra money per year will Labour commit to biosecurity?

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: You wait and see.

Oh, you wait and see! You wait and see! What sort of weasel words—what sort of weasel words! I have a copy here of Labour’s biosecurity policy at the last election. You would have thought that after all the rhetoric from Mr O’Connor that Labour would have had some hard dollars on the table, and that it felt so strongly that it had a certain amount of extra money that it was going to put into biosecurity. Do you know what? Not one specific dollar amount was committed by Mr O’Connor in respect of biosecurity.

The member Mr O’Connor has said that the fruit fly incident that occurred in Avondale shows our biosecurity systems are not working. He is wrong. Exactly the opposite is true—exactly the opposite is true. The fact that our monitoring systems picked it up and the way in which the systems respond are things that we should salute, and we should be proud of the response that occurred and the way that incident was dealt with. Then we had another one of these Labour attempts to sort of rewrite the history. Let me go through. He said that this is just like what occurred in the building and mining industry regulatory setting. Well, I would love to quote in terms of the building law reform, Mr O’Connor, the words of George Hawkins, one of his colleagues. Do you know what George Hawkins said? He said “How dare the National Party claim credit for the building liberalisation that occurred in 1991.” He said that all of this is Labour’s work.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Tongue in cheek.

Well, no, actually. For the record, Mr O’Connor, the building law reform was introduced by the fourth Labour Government. The bill was introduced by Margaret Austin, and actually it had its third reading only after the change of Government.

I have a question on mining. Mr O’Connor wants to highlight the mining. I have a simple question for him: during his 9 years in Government, from 1999 to 2008, if he was so wise about the deficiencies in the mining industry regulations, why did Labour do absolutely nothing for 9 years? You know what really is the issue with Mr O’Connor? Mr O’Connor will play petty politics over the 29 tragic dead miners on the West Coast, just in the same way as he will play petty politics with the issue of biosecurity, rather than actually making sure that this country has the right systems and the right rules around protecting our vital industries.

I want to also talk about the issue of SmartGate. It is interesting, Mr O’Connor, that we have just had a review of SmartGate. That member repeatedly stood up in the House and said that SmartGate would increase the biosecurity risk for New Zealand. Do you know what the review shows? Actually, they are getting more and improving New Zealand’s biosecurity. It is delivering better biosecurity results in the audit that has just been published 3 weeks ago, showing again the success of this Government.

The last point I want to challenge Mr O’Connor and the Labour Party on is this playing politics. Whether it be in terms of the capsicums, the pork, the honey, or the tomato, we on this side of the House say that our biosecurity decisions need to be made on the basis of good risk management and science, not politics—not politics. You see, we have had an age-old argument—90 years going—in respect of access for apples into Australia. We are a country that makes our living out of exporting biological products in markets overseas, and we cannot have a double standard, saying in one breath that when Australians come to make decisions about New Zealand apples and managing the risk of fire blight, we want an independent, science-based approach, and then when it comes to New Zealand on the other foot, and it comes to issues of pork or capsicums or honey or any other, we are going to take a political and not a science-based approach.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: It’s not based on science, Nick.

I say to Mr O’Connor that what he is effectively arguing is that the decisions about those biosecurity and import standards should be made by political representatives, rather than by scientists, and we on this side of the House, as a party that stands for trade and for earning this country’s living from biological products, say that our biosecurity systems need to be first class, and our decisions about import standards need to be based on science, not politics. That is what this bill is about. This Government is proud of the work that we are doing in biosecurity. It is part of what we are doing to build a better future for this country.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I want everyone to know that the contribution just given by Dr Nick Smith demonstrates that the only knowledge he has about biosecurity is a knowledge of the clever root weevil, an experience the man can no doubt elaborate upon at a given point in time. Perhaps he might be a bit more at home, however, talking about the sea squirt or anything, because no one on this side of the House is playing petty politics. He is such a senior parliamentarian, and I accept that there has been a bit of peevishness in the House today, and I accept that he has been through somewhat of a torrid time, which I can relate to myself. But I say do not bring into the House in a debate the names or the fact that we have suffered those fatalities. You are better than that, Dr Smith. This is about the quality of our systems to ensure that the primary produce owners can continue to invest into the future. Do not allow your rhetoric to cause you to fail to live up to your own standards as a senior parliamentarian, which you are more than capable of maintaining.

So we will support this bill, the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. We are of the view, however, that the Government, for reasons that it understands better than perhaps we do, did cut into the available budget, and we feel, as we have said on numerous occasions, that that weakens the ability of those who are guardians at the edges of the State to actually maintain our standards. About two-thirds of the general primary produce merchandise sector, etc., actually is at stake here. I accept that that member does come from a part of New Zealand where there is the vestiges of a pipfruit industry. Without a doubt, if we continue to allow and observe and even respond to Dr Smith’s contributions, we will be not only worsening his reputation but lessening the tone of the debate.

The guts of the debate is this: although we will support the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill, there are sections we remain mightily concerned about. It is the right of every parliamentarian to continue to point out that you cannot cut indiscriminately. Every time that we point out that indiscriminate cuts are at stake here, the Government hopes to cause us to have to defend our preference for spending money. In actual fact, it is an investment in the largest single contributing sector to our exports. Without exports to borrow their own narrative, there is no growth in GDP, because the Government has shrivelled and shrunk the size of the domestic economy as it pursues excessive levels of austerity, etc.—freeze the regions, forget about the regions. Whether it is in transport, whether it is in the ports sector, whether it is in the manufacturing sector, what are we left to fall back upon? We fall back upon those very types of produce that need very good sector protection.

It could be said that it sounds slightly trivialising to talk about sniffer dogs, but without a doubt those of us who travel frequently are often very happy to see the sniffer dogs going about their business. The fact that only one new sniffer dog has been produced suggests that there are no pest dangers coming back, or that it has become too expensive. Often the public need to see a symbol or something that epitomises the miserly, foolish approach taken by the current Government. If you looked at the money that has been wasted in putting together the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, those funds would be better dedicated to the men and women who work inordinately long hours, etc. doing a difficult job, because you are dealing with people who are often offended, and who are often frightened or confused as they come into our country. Those biosecurity staff need to be rewarded. They need to be talked up. They do not need to be sold out.

On this side of the House we are very conscious of not only the work they do, but the inordinate amount of investment at stake. Sure, that side of the House is arguing that we live in austere times. We are suffering the ongoing effects of the global financial crisis. But you will have no economy unless you continually remain alert, and send a constant message, as the changing nature of our own population grows, that when you come to our country, not only are these the rules, but your wrongdoing, your foolishness, or your ignorance will not go undetected. Those are welcome and obvious contributions that should be coming into this debate—not these very shallow and loud remarks coming from the member as he watches my good friend Sam Lotu-Iiga beat him back into Cabinet. But that is another matter. We do not want to stir up the prospect that we might suffer, God forbid, a foot-and-mouth scare—a foot-and-mouth experience—but I remind the members on the other side of the House, as one of my colleagues said earlier, that there was a certain moth. Just look at the tragedy that befalls, unfortunately, a lot of our whānau. There is a disproportionately large element of Māori investment in the kiwifruit industry, so we know personally, even in that part, which is often not thought of as a key contributor to the pastoral sector or the horticultural sector, of the dangers and the downsides.

How can the current administration genuinely believe that it is going to grow—whatever flash name it uses, partnership engagements, etc.—by throwing money at the meat industry, the wool industry, and various other elements of the pastoral sector if they are going to cut the most valuable thin line of resistance? It cannot escape the mathematics. It may seek to justify that, but all we have got to do is remind it of that unwanted Australian, otherwise known as the Queensland fruit fly. I am disappointed that Dr Nick Smith did not focus on the fruit fly. No doubt the man could expand at length—[Interruption] Well, I have got to tell you, once you stand and you make the silly mistake of invoking the names or the fact that fatalities have been suffered, and you try to sheet that home to a member on this side of the House, then shame on Nick Smith for diminishing the quality of this debate and being so foolhardy as to do that as a senior parliamentarian. I do not, in the short term, intend to allow him to forget that.

But on to the other elements of the bill. I have an orientation towards supporting a lot of self-regulation, but in this case we cannot allow those who are advocates of self-regulation to enjoy all of the responsibility without any clear direction, and, in addition to that, with the right balance between who will pay, because they will bear the costs if they get it wrong. I think it is a legitimate political debate and it is a legitimate philosophical debate as to what extent the State can hand out. I happen to think that Judith Collins, on the matter of alcohol, has probably got it wrong, because there will be no adequate self-regulation in the alcohol industry, but we will sort that into the future. There is a case for self-regulation here in the meat industry, but, as my colleague said, we cannot back it indiscriminately in the event that there is no overarching direction or there is not an adequacy of resources. But that is not to say that they should not be able to come and advocate—not so much only on the basis of historical experience overseas, but with genuine data and science.

I actually have a great deal of sympathy for what the pork industry is currently saying. Unfortunately, I doubt whether it will make much impact on this particular administration. That is not to say that the current Minister for Primary Industries is pigheaded or anything like that. But once they set their sight on a course of action, we have here in many cases amongst the senior Cabinet Ministers a level of intransigence that they will not turn. They seem to seek to ape the excesses of Margaret Thatcher or something like that. Unfortunately, I have very little confidence that the pork industry is going to not so much get its way but be able to make an impact. As my colleague has said, it is providing genuine data. It is providing genuine scientific information. Perhaps it has been lost in the swirl that passes for—well, not even the swirl, but the torpor of the bureaucracy, etc.

But in that lies an exact example as to why, yes, you can support self-regulation to a certain level, but in the absence of an overarching direction and in the absence of adequate resources, not only are we putting our key contributors to our export sector at risk, but we are actually diminishing the underlying worth of the principle—i.e. that the State does not need to do everything, but the State cannot yield unless there is an adequate level of resource and a clear overarching direction. Despite these misgivings, we will continue to support the bill. Kia ora tātou.

The Green Party, unfortunately, is opposing the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. This bill does not go nearly far enough, and even if it did, this bill is not being resourced well enough. We would need some significant changes, which have not come through the select committee process at all. There are parts of the bill that we can see could have benefits. Extending our reach to the exclusive economic zone is consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and would ratify the international conventions for ship ballast water, and there are some immediate benefits there. Establishing a national policy direction would make the Crown be bound to regional pest plans—and we may speak to that a bit more because that is flawed as well—but the theory behind it is all good.

I turn to distributed responsibility for biosecurity management. Biosecurity management would be less centralised, with new duties placed on the importers to proactively manage the risks. But that leaves a huge hole as well, particularly when our inspections are under-resourced. Industry groups can become management agencies with significant powers to make decisions and raise levies. There is a benefit here. The new agencies would be subject to the Official Information Act and we may actually get some real inside stuff on whether or not they are working. But I would suspect that some of the sectors will be reluctant to be open to that level of scrutiny and may be reluctant to join in to some of those agreements that the Government is trying to put on to them. The new biosecurity information database will mean that personal, land, and biosecurity data will be collected and shared, enabling better risk management in the future. So there are some positive things.

However, there are a number of other parts of the bill that are very concerning to us, and we cannot support the bill. Targeted risk management seems like a good idea at first glance, and, yes, we do need to target our limited resources in the best way. Recognising the huge size of the biosecurity task, this bill attempts to prioritise scarce resources—and they are becoming scarcer all the time as this Government keeps shrinking back on biosecurity. All of the Government’s current activity leads to these resources being targeted at the cash cows of the economy, while ignoring other, vulnerable industries. The big economic cash cows of the moment may not be the big cash cows in the future, and the shortcomings in this bill and the huge shortcomings in the resourcing of biosecurity by this Government stand to leave a legacy for ongoing generations. We can think of the pests that have come in in recent years that are here, that are not going away, and that future generations have to factor in for their management in primary industries. I can point out a few.

In the marine area Undaria costs the marine aquaculture industry significantly, and it hooked into it and did something about it. But Undaria is here to stay, and it is spreading as we speak. Yep, we may take an opportunity out of that and grow Undaria for some markets—probably markets in the countries where it came from—but at the same time it is a massive cost. Pacific oyster—the way that was spread around supported by a previous Minister of Fisheries, Sir Doug Kidd, who helped with that one. The South African brown mussel was brought on a ship into Tasman Bay. Some of the sea squirts, and there are more by the year in our marine environment. Kiwifruit—well, we know all about kiwifruit and the Psa, the pollen imports that came in so recklessly and were allowed by this Government. The kiwifruit industry, of course, is subject to huge risk by fruit fly and other potential pests as well.

The import health standard for capsicum, eggplant, tomatoes, cucumbers, and all of those things was just mentioned before by Labour. The risk of fruit fly getting into that industry—and a number of the other fruit industries—is immense. To be actually allowing the possibility and accepting a certain number of eggs coming in as a measure, as a baseline, for biosecurity is appalling. We have already got the psyllid, which has come in and has thrashed that industry, and is causing huge amounts of pesticide to be used that was not being used before. It is the same with the potato industry—$250 million already down the tubes because of biosecurity shortfalls by this Government. We could have used that $250 million in biosecurity to prevent other things getting in. We know that if the fruit fly gets into the Bay of Plenty, they anticipate $820 million will be lost, with 3,500 jobs down the tubes because of it. But maybe that is already halfway down because of the slackness around the pollen and the Psa. In Hawke’s Bay roughly $390 million will be down the tubes if fruit fly gets in, with 3,000 jobs gone. In Nelson it will be $265 million and almost 2,000 jobs are anticipated to be lost as well.

And then there is the honey. We anticipate, because of the free-trade agreements, allowing honey imports from Australia with known risk, with known disease factors that we do not have in New Zealand already. That means a lot more chemicals being used around our hives and a reduction in the quality of the produce that we want to send overseas. I will just mention, by the way, with capsicum, eggplant, tomatoes, cucumber, potatoes—things affected by the psyllid, particularly the Solanums—there is a huge amount of pesticide being used. Those industries were getting better and better, particularly the glasshouse industry, at not using dangerous pesticides on our kai, on our food. But what has happened now? They were using biological controls and they were very good managers, very efficient managers, bringing in insects that would deal with the pests that they had at the time, which were the other form of white fly, aphis, mites, and things. They were all under control through using biological means. We have got the psyllid. It is costing us as a community and in health, because if we test that produce—if we dare to test that produce at the moment—we will always find significant chemical residues, and not just one but a multiplicity of residues in that produce, because they have not got a solution for psyllid.

We have to get on top of biosecurity better than this bill is setting up. It is setting up purely to alleviate the Government some money in looking after biosecurity. It is looking after the cash cows. It is forgetting about the other industries out there, the flower industry, the pork industry, and the honey industry—those other ones that the Government seems to think are too small to worry about—which may be the Zespris and the Fonterras in the future if things go wrong in those industries. Our trees, our forest industry, are also at significant risk, and the huge cost to the community when we spray them when there is a gypsy moth outbreak is not acceptable.

The other thing with this bill is it does not really deal with the risks of genetic engineering and the risks of contamination that are inevitable if we have GE getting in in the wrong way in this country. There are people who do not understand the depth of the cost of that to New Zealand and to Brand New Zealand if we get it wrong in terms of imports and contamination through seed, whether it be canola, corn, or something else that has not appeared here as yet.

Lastly, this bill specifically makes biosecurity law subject to the limitation of international trade agreements. That is terrible. We lose our sovereignty on how we can look after biosecurity in this country for future generations. Thank you. Unfortunately, the Green Party will not be able to support this bill.

It occurs to me that we have lost our way with this debate somewhat. I think that the debate here relates to a piece of legislation, the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill, that in my view is a very good piece of legislation. The amount of money you put behind a piece of legislation is quite a different issue, and clearly the Greens, particularly, have lost sight of that fact. I think this piece of legislation is a very good piece of legislation. It has been very well-thought-out over a long, long time, and so I do not think we should ever lose sight of the fact that we have such a piece of legislation. How we fund it is another matter. I certainly support the way this Government is funding it, because at the end of the day $750 million is a fairly significant slice of cash to put behind a biosecurity system.

We also should realise that we live in an isolated place, probably one of the most isolated agricultural producing countries in the world, so we are halfway to protecting ourselves naturally by the tyranny of distance. The other thing, however, that I guess to some extent circumvents that is the fact that we have one of the largest coastlines in the world. It is clearly impossible for us to guarantee we are going to protect our coastline, however much money we put into it and however much resource we put into it.

This piece of legislation is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation this House will put through in this term of Parliament. There is some groundbreaking change in this. It is the modernisation of a system. It allows those of us who wish to travel to travel—provided we do not take extra stuff in our bags—much more efficiently, effectively, and quickly than we used to. It also allows, through much better systems, the identification of risks to our economy, and the biosecurity system can pick that up.

This Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is intended to provide a more efficient and effective biosecurity system. It provides for partnerships where applicable and allows for the fleet-footedness of our border control. Not every industry in New Zealand is going to be able to participate in this partnership. There are some that clearly do not have the structure to join partnerships with the Government, and I guess the equine industry is one of those, where it is spread right throughout New Zealand and does not have a body that could coordinate it. So that is a challenge for the future for pieces of legislation such as this.

During the course of our history we have had some spectacular success, really, at dealing with incursions in the past, with one of those being the scrapie disease. It came to New Zealand about 20 or 30 years ago. We managed to remove that from the country. It did no further damage to our livestock industry at all. More recently we had the equine flu in Australia, which was kept from New Zealand by a very effective and efficient border control system. So we do have a border control system that works. A biosecurity—

💬 Brendan Horan: Oh, come on. What about the Psa virus?

Well, if you bring it in in your suitcase you will always get it in, will you not? We have a border control system and a biosecurity system that I think works extremely effectively and if people wish to try to shyster the system, they will always be able to get through a system, because no system is bulletproof. But I think this bill puts in place a very strong system—a system that certainly complements the way we want to operate in New Zealand in the future. The trick for any business—in fact, for the Government—is to get the balance between risk and reward correct in the pursuit of a healthy economy and a better outcome for our country. I was not on the select—

💬 Brendan Horan: If you start employing people and employ more biosecurity staff, that would be a better outcome.

We also banned parrots quite some time ago from this country—I am not sure how he got here. I was not on the select committee that dealt with this business when it first came before the House but I certainly have no problem in supporting the third reading of this bill and I am sure it will be a great success for the future of New Zealand. Thank you.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on this the third reading, the final act, we could say, of the great theatre by which the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill becomes law. New Zealand First is opposed to the passage of this legislation, not because we do not agree with the stated aims of the bill—we do agree with them; there is fine intention within this bill—and not because there are not good aspects to the bill or there are not good elements within it. The extension of New Zealand’s biosecurity laws and the ability to enforce them to the 200-mile exclusive economic zone is a good thing. Measures that will prevent unwanted organisms from entering our waters via the ballast tanks carried by cargo ships are a good thing.

The omnibus provisions of the bill bring several other Acts of this Parliament, as they relate to biosecurity, under one umbrella. That is a good thing. But there are exasperating elements to this bill also. I am prompted to bring to the attention of the House the North American groundhog, Marmota monax. It is a squirrel-like creature, a ground squirrel, a rodent of the family Sciuridae. It is known in some parts of the United States as, variously, the land beaver, the woodchuck, and on occasion even the whistle-pig—the whistle-pig. I am given cause to wonder whether, if one gives a whistle to a pig, it is still a pig. But I digress—I digress perhaps just a little.

I mentioned Marmota monax because it is the inspiration for a film. It is a funny film starring Bill Murray, who is a funny man.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What’s it called?

Groundhog Day. In the film, which strangely enough is entitled Groundhog Day, Bill Murray’s character relives the same day over and over. It is this that reminds me of this bill. Bill Murray is a funny man; he is a funny Bill. This bill is not a funny bill. It is not funny, because, just like in the film, when we look at this bill, we are faced with the same sense of déjà vu as Bill Murray’s character experiences throughout the story. Here we go again; that is the theme of the movie. Once again, this Government, this National Government, has correctly identified a problem—indeed, a set of problems—and then gone about creating a bill that will entirely fail to properly address them. All too often this Government does this. This Government creates legislation that takes entirely the opposite approach to problems from that which is required in order to solve them. It is the same thing and it keeps happening over and over. We are trapped in our own Groundhog Day with this bill and others of this Government’s creation.

There are other eerie parallels between the groundhog and this bill. Its various names have a curious relevance to aspects of this bill and to the way in which they will impact on New Zealand’s biosecurity. Members may think I am taking a rather odd approach to this third reading by drawing numerous references to a rather odd North American rodent. I believe it is wholly appropriate because it is reflective of this Government’s rather odd approach to biosecurity, which is at the heart of this bill’s failings.

I reiterate, and we are happy to acknowledge, that there are good things within this bill, and its stated intent is a good one. But at the heart of its failings is the moving of the focus of biosecurity away from direct inspections and towards a targeted regime based on risk assessment and profiling. New Zealand First regards this approach as deeply flawed. We know from experience—everyone in New Zealand knows from experience—that, with the best will in the world, we cannot stop every last pest or disease or other biosecurity threat from crossing our borders. But with proper vigilance we can minimise the threat of an incursion. Even with full inspection, we know that something going wrong is a case of not if but of when, and without proper vigilance and full inspection, it becomes a case of not when but of how soon. If we drop our guard in this ill-advised manner, something will go wrong and something will get in—than that there is nothing more certain.

How does this relate to the groundhog? Well, as I mentioned before, one of its names is woodchuck. There is a well-known tongue-twister that asks the question how much wood a woodchuck could chuck under various circumstances. The answer in New Zealand’s case might very well be none at all, if our lax approach to biosecurity means that we let in a moth or a virus that devastates our pine forests. Without trees there will be no wood for the woodchuck to chuck, no revenue from forestry, and no jobs for forestry workers either. Do we really want to open ourselves up to that sort of risk?

The whistle-pig is another name for the groundhog. And whistling forlornly for non-existent pigs might be all that remains for our pork industry if inadequate safeguards at the border mean that we allow the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus to enter and establish itself here. The land beaver—I do not even wish to begin drawing comparisons between this bill and any sort of beaver, however appropriate the connotation might be. Suffice to say, in moving the focus of biosecurity inspection in the way that this bill would bring about, we are virtually admitting that not only do we expect the horse to bolt but that we are leaving the stable door open to make its escape even easier. And shifting responsibility for compliance from Government to industry is yet another example of the type of self-regulation that we have seen so often and that we know does not work. We have had leaky buildings, we have had Pike River, and now this bill will deliver us foot and mouth disease—not if, but when. You can take that to the bank.

New Zealand First supports calls from across the primary production sector for the 100 percent inspection of all goods crossing the border and for the screening of all passengers, regardless of who they are and where they are travelling from. We salute the Government’s intentions where this bill is concerned, and we really wish it had been able to get it right. But, just like Groundhog Day, here we go again: it has not. This is a deficient bill that will cost New Zealand dearly and irrevocably, and New Zealand First does not support it. Thank you.

After 23 years in the dairy industry and 15 years as a fish exporter, I am very, very aware of our dependence on effective biosecurity measures. But I would like to speak, in relation to this Biosecurity Law Reform Bill, on pest control—pest control. This bill is worthy of support and I am very glad to hear it is getting cross-party support, particularly from our friends in the Labour Party. I am sorry that New Zealand First, although praising the bill, cannot see fit to support it, and it is a disappointment that the Greens, although they support it, do not actually come up to the bar and get in behind it.

However, in terms of the pest control aspect, my interest in this particular bill is concentrated on the way it affects other enactments, and one in particular is Part 3, clause 79, “Amendment to Ombudsmen Act 1975”. Just to quote: “Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 is amended by inserting ‘Management agencies under Biosecurity Act 1993, if they are corporate bodies, in their role under pest management plans or pathway management plans’ …” will be affected.

I am advised that the effect of this will be to ensure that the Animal Health Board will be subject to the Official Information Act. This has long been a request of the people of the West Coast and Tasman and I am very pleased to be able to announce it to them this evening—as long as the bill passes. I am grateful to the Minister for the inclusion in this particular bill. Thank you.

As a former member—an alumnus—of the Primary Production Committee for 6 years, but not a current member, I was not going to take a call in this debate, because this is a very important piece of legislation, until I heard the contribution of that well-known diplomat Nick Smith. I can talk about this, because I am going to respond to the scurrilous speech that he made in this House. This is a bill about biosecurity. Traditionally, the Primary Production Committee, chaired formerly by my colleague Damien O’Connor and now by Shane Ardern, has always been a committee that has been bipartisan. I remember one colleague—I think it was David Carter; I am sure my colleague Damien O’Connor will recall this—in the select committee saying when they were in Opposition: “We know we’re going to lose on this, but we’re going to make our points. We’re going to ensure that the legislation coming out of the Primary Production Committee, which is vital to our primary industries, comes to this House in as good a shape as it can be, because our primary industries are so important to us.”

So this legislation is generally non-partisan and there have been some non-partisan contributions tonight, apart from the scurrilous contribution—the scurrilous, low-life contribution—from Nick Smith. What Nick Smith did, which had nothing to do with this bill, was accuse my colleague Damien O’Connor, the member for the West Coast, of playing politics with the tragedy that happened at Pike River. That speech by Nick Smith will stand in infamy. I acknowledge my colleague Damien O’Connor, and I think it is appropriate to also acknowledge Chris Auchinvole and other politicians who were in and around that tragedy, just like the Canterbury earthquakes and other tragedies that we have had. I think, beyond politics, people responded as best they could in a non-partisan way to assist their communities, to put an arm around those who had lost loved ones, to express their love and affection for those communities, and to support them. And for that scurrilous member, Nick Smith—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I understand what the member is doing, but all members are honourable members. The use of that kind of adjective against the member is out of order.

That honourable member—ha, ha—Nick Smith showed scurrilous behaviour in this House tonight, and this is a serious issue. He brought a member into disrepute and made a scurrilous series of accusations that my colleague played politics with people’s lives and played politics with a tragedy. His electorate borders the West Coast, and if anybody in their whole entire career has played politics over and over and over again, whether it be ACC, whether it be a whole host of issues, and wallowed in the gutter—the political gutter—it is the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

I stand here in defence of my colleague, and in defence of and alongside Chris Auchinvole and the other colleagues who went down to Pike River, along with leaders in the community, and who stood by those men and women who lost loved ones. And if they are watching tonight, I apologise on behalf of this Parliament for the despicable speech and accusation that that member, Nick Smith, made—and on the back of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill.

So Nick Smith’s intent was not to get up and talk about a bill that was in any way connected to that series of tragedies; it was to get up on any piece of legislation and put the boot into a colleague, but in doing so trample over the memories, the tragedy, and the emotions of those people who lost loved ones in that tragedy.

Politicians get accused of a lot. Sometimes, yeah, we are a bit nasty. Sometimes we do put the slipper into each other, and sometimes we do get a bit passionate, but, by God, there was a colleague of mine who talked about the fact that there are written Standing Orders and there are unwritten standing orders. The unwritten standing orders are basically protocols between members of Parliament where there is a line that you do not cross. I am glad the member is here. I am glad he is here, with his hair standing on end and his red face. I am glad he is here to listen, because that member’s behaviour has been scurrilous. There is a lot said in this Chamber. As I have said, the slipper goes in from time to time, but it has been—

💬 Jacqui Dean: Attack the issue.

I will attack the issue, all right. The issue is that of a member of Parliament coming into this Chamber, using a basically bipartisan piece of legislation to accuse another member of playing politics with those who died in a tragedy—died in a tragedy.

|Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was Mr O’Connor who raised the issue of Pike.

And here we go, because Dr Nick Smith—I am glad he is here—shows no remorse in trampling over the spirit and memory of those people who were lost.

That member is a sort of political version of a limbo dancer. He will go as low as he can in this House, and he did tonight—over a biosecurity bill. It would not have mattered whether it was a bill on anything. He got up to talk about biosecurity, to put the slipper in. Well, I am going to move to the legislation, because that member is not worth it. But I do apologise to those watching, because that member tonight has brought this Chamber into disrepute, lowered the tone, and wallowed in the political sewer where he treads very, very often—[Interruption] Very, very often.

💬 Louise Upston: Who’s in the sewer?

Oh, so I am accused of that. No, I am accused of standing up and defending a colleague from a vicious and scurrilous attack by that piece of work over there.

💬 Louise Upston: Who started it?

Well, there you go! There is the second one. I could forgive that member, because she has not been around here that long, and she is not that experienced, and these things happen, but, oh no, not that one over there—the member for Nelson. He knew exactly what he was doing, exactly what he was saying. It was calculated and it is seen for what it is.

We move to the legislation. I say this: we will, as Damien O’Connor said, support this piece of legislation, but with some gross reservations. Because, of course, this legislation has been around for a while, dressed up, brought into the Chamber, and trumpeted in a lofty way that the National Party does. But then we look at the history and the facts. We know that Dr Nick Smith is great at getting up and lecturing us on history and lecturing us on what other Governments have done. But, you see, on entry into this place in Government, what Nick Smith’s Government did was cut—immediately in its first Budget—$2.8 million out of the biosecurity budget. That was its commitment to biosecurity. We know, on all sides of this House, because we support our primary industries, that an incursion of any kind, whether it be a minor incursion, or, God forbid, whether it be foot-and-mouth, or whatever, would be terminal for our primary industries in New Zealand.

Then it followed, of course, that in 2009 Dr Smith’s Government slashed 54 front-line biosecurity officers. More redundancies have followed, and the latest figures show there are 91 fewer staff on our borders now than in 2008. So such is its commitment to biosecurity. Then we talk about the biosecurity dogs, the sniffer dogs. I do not think Wellington Airport has had a sniffer dog, I think, since October—over a year ago. So such is the Government’s commitment to biosecurity. So, yes, we will support the bill, but we know, of course, that if New Zealand had an outbreak of foot-and-mouth, it would cost us billions and billions of dollars. It would destroy our primary industries and destroy our economic base.

So I say to Dr Smith and others, as they stand here and lecture us on history, that they should look at their own recent history in respect of their last few years in office, and their commitment to biosecurity. There are many farmers on that side. There are many farmers who are in the industry, doing the business, who know far more about this sort of thing than many of us in this place who are townies.

But there is a commitment that is needed, a real one, not a piece of legislation that is dressed up, but some dollars, some cents, and some staff to protect our border. This is what this is about, and this is about “New Zealand Inc.” This is not about politics. This is about a bipartisan approach, as we have generally had, to primary industries in this country. So I say we should get a bit real about this. We should make a serious attempt to get to grips with this and protect our border. We should not engage in scurrilous and underhanded political sewer tactics, which we saw tonight from that member, Nick Smith.

I rise to support the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill in its third reading. In doing so, I want to remind the House that I am a new member to this House, and I am not going to therefore dignify the contribution of the member who has preceded me with a response, other than to say that, as a new member, I know that that is the kind of speech that makes the public who are listening to and watching this presentation on TV tonight roll their eyes and wonder what it is that we do in this House.

Here we are, debating important legislation—important legislation that goes to the very root of supporting our primary industries and the very basis of our economy and prosperity for the future. So, because we live in challenging, global times and a challenging global environment, and because we have been so reliant over so many years—in fact, our entire history—on the virtue of our distance and our position on the globe as the main preventer and barrier to our biosecurity lapses, it comes now as being very appropriate that this piece of legislation should come before the House and be passed this evening. I am delighted and thrilled that it seems to have bipartisan support across the House. That is a good thing—a very good thing.

I have the pleasure of representing a rural electorate—the very fine electorate of Coromandel. In that electorate, of course, horticulture, agriculture—and all the cultures for that matter—and aquaculture as well are all primary industries that are the backbone of the Coromandel electorate. I know that in my electorate the communities in Katikati and in Waihī, and most recently in the area of Whenuakite on the northern end of the peninsula, have been plagued by the Psa drama that is confronting our kiwifruit industry. So biosecurity is important in my electorate and will continue to be so.

I am very pleased that this Government is taking the appropriate action and prevention measures that are required to ensure that our primary industries are protected in a way that is effective going forward. I remember—it was only a few months ago—the example that we had of the single Queensland fruit fly that was found in the urban electorate of Mt Roskill. For me that proved that the system does work.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: It was Phil Goff.

It was Phil Goff’s electorate, that is right. But it was not Phil Goff who was the fruit fly. So the system worked. It worked well, and for me it gives me great confidence as a rural constituent member to support this bill. So I do so with vigour and commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Is this a split call?

💬 Rino Tirikatene: Yes.

It is; right. A 5-minute call, Rino Tirikatene.

I am pleased to make a short contribution on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill at its third reading. As I have mentioned in my other contributions, biosecurity is vitally important to our country, to our primary sectors. It is about protecting our industries, our regions, our brand, and our pa. I use that descriptive term because it is a battle that goes on every day at our border, where we have our visitors coming through our airports and goods that come through our ports, and the flows that happen every day. So it is an ongoing battle that goes on, and we need the best biosecurity systems in the world.

I know that the Minister for Primary Industries does say that we do have a world-class biosecurity system, and that must be the aspiration that we want to achieve. Unfortunately, we have seen some really serious mishaps, particularly over the past couple of years, with some serious pest incursions, as Mr Simpson has just spoken about. We have had the Psa virus affecting the kiwifruit industry, and some other serious incursions such as the fruit fly from Queensland. The varroa bee mite was another one that has come through.

We need to protect our pa, and Labour does support this legislation. We have supported it right the way through. We have expressed a lot of reservations around particular things like the Government-industry agreements, but on the whole we do support the bill because there were a lot of aspects around our biosecurity systems that needed updating, amending, and improving, and they are incorporated into the bill, which we have supported.

As Mr McKelvie mentioned, though, there can be the most elegantly drafted piece of legislation that has all the bells and whistles in it, but it is actually the resourcing that underpins that legislation that is vitally important. So I do differ from Mr McKelvie because it is the resourcing of our biosecurity system that has faced significant cuts under this Government. Hence we have heavyweights from right across our primary sector that have been really upset at the amount of cuts that have happened to the biosecurity sector and right across the board. I am talking about organisations like Federated Farmers, Horticulture New Zealand, and New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers. They have said that there need to be fundamental changes to the biosecurity system and there needs to be more resourcing put into the system.

What we have seen under this current Government is a relaxing of our biosecurity system. The Government wants to make things easier. It wants to make travel, tourism, trade, and the importing of goods a lot easier for business, so it has lowered the cost of our biosecurity system and our model, and it is putting more of an emphasis on risk management rather than risk prevention. Well, if the Government listened to our primary sector industries, which are saying we need to put the emphasis right on protecting our pa, if it listened to Federated Farmers, and to those other esteemed industry organisations that represent the primary sector, it would hear them saying that we need to beef up the funding and the resourcing that goes into biosecurity.

We need only to look at things like what the industry is calling for—100 per cent X-ray checking of all baggage through all our airports, and sniffer dogs. We all travel regularly in and out of Wellington Airport. I have not seen one little beagle sniffer dog for years. We also need an increase in biosecurity staff. We have seen a 12 percent reduction in front-line biosecurity staff under this Government, yet we have seen a 14 percent increase in the amount of international visitors, so there have definitely been cuts to the resourcing of the biosecurity system. So that is what we do challenge the Government on.

We do understand that this piece of legislation is long overdue. A lot of the measures in the legislation were created under the Labour Government, so we do commend this bill at its third reading, but we implore the Government to further resource the biosecurity sector.

This evening there has been a fair amount of self-congratulation from some of the Government members. I just want to begin by correcting a logical error that has appeared in several of their speeches, and that is that finding a pest, finding the Queensland fruit fly in Mount Roskill, is not evidence that the system works. It is evidence that the system is not a complete failure. We actually do not know how good our system is. We do know that there have already been some very substantial and dangerous incursions, and that we have ample evidence of the risk of many others.

What I wanted to spend the bulk of my time on this evening was an aspect of this issue of biosecurity that has not been explored in the debate tonight on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill, and that is the importance of biosecurity not for our primary industries but for our natural biodiversity. I have said previously in debates on this bill and on other biosecurity measures that the flora and fauna of this country are unique in the world. If they do not survive here, they are lost to the world for ever. So the consequences of biosecurity risks are not only to the primary industries—and I am sure that everybody in the House shares concern about those—but also to the natural world, and yet this bill and the measures it includes, and all of the thinking that underpins it, have been largely silent on that issue.

Why is that a problem? It is a problem because of the consequence of targeting. When we choose to target a particular set of measures or a particular set of issues, we are implicitly choosing to de-target everything else. What that means is that when we target even more the primary industries through this bill, we are placing even less emphasis on the importance of protecting our natural biodiversity, and that is a major problem. It is also a problem within the measures of the bill, because one of the things that I anticipate and confidently predict will occur under this bill is that with these Government-industry agreements, those sectors that are able to afford a significant investment into such agreements will be the ones that get the great treatment from our biosecurity services, and those sectors that cannot will not get that same service. Conservation of our natural biodiversity will be at the very end of the queue.

But the consequences of this bill for conservation are worse still than those that I have mentioned. One of the provisions of this bill will bind the Crown to regional pest plans. That in and of itself is not a problem—in fact, it is probably a good thing to do—but that new obligation, which will have at the very least a multimillion-dollar impact and liability on the Department of Conservation, does not come matched with the funding to be able to meet that obligation. What it means is that, in addition to, effectively, less protection from biosecurity risks for our conservation estate, for our natural biodiversity—in addition to that problem—there will also be effectively a major funding cut to the Department of Conservation, because funds that were intended to protect our natural biodiversity through Vote Conservation will be lost to the sector. So there will be multiple problems for conservation.

I want to finish by talking briefly about free trade, because it seems to me that in many ways biosecurity is the victim of the obsession with free trade that seems to have gripped this country—in several ways. No one argues that there is enough money to pay for all of the things that one could possibly do to protect our country from biosecurity risks. But, given unlimited risks that are proportional to the amount of stuff that we import and limited dollars, the logical, rational response would be to take whatever steps we can to restrict the imports. We do not do that, because of the obsession with free trade. The Green Party opposes the bill.

It is my great pleasure to take what I think is the last call in this third reading debate on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. I want to firstly thank Mr Mallard for reminding me before the dinner hour that every call slot is precious. This bill has been well canvassed on its third reading, and I commend it to the House.