Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this

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

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) Link to this

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

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

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

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

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) Link to this

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

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this

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

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

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

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

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this

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

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

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

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) Link to this

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

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

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

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

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) Link to this

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

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

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

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

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) Link to this

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

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) Link to this

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

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this

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

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

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

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

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this

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

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

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

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) Link to this

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

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

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

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this

I will take a brief call on the commencement date and also to concur with a comment made earlier by the Minister about the urgency for this legislation. I thank the Minister for, having now received the report back from the Primary Production Committee, being prepared to move the bill through the House as quickly as possible.

There was urgency around this legislation. I think it would be fair to say that the select committee remained to be convinced of its urgency as we started the deliberation, but then when we saw a letter from Crown Law that quite categorically told the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry that it should not issue any new import health standards nor should it amend any other import health standards, there was clearly a situation whereby trade at our borders was being slowed quite considerably or halted. That required very urgent action by the Minister, and I congratulate him on doing that.

I shall give the Committee an example. New Zealand has had a regular trade of horses with Australia that has existed for many, many years. During the latter part of last year, Australia had a serious outbreak of equine influenza that caused the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to act quite quickly and correctly to stop the further importation of horses from Australia. To move from that situation required an amendment to a well-established import health standard.

It would have been the ministry’s intention to move that amendment through, to have an amended import health standard, and to allow the recommencement of the equine trade between Australia and New Zealand, provided, of course, that the authorities were completely satisfied that we were not about to introduce equine influenza into New Zealand.

The Crown Law opinion made it absolutely clear that the process of developing the amended import health standard could not be progressed further unless we managed to change this legislation. That is a very practical example of the need for urgency around the legislation.

The select committee received a number of submissions from members of the equine industry who said they actually do not understand the issue around the import health standard with regard to the importation of honey, or the import health standard situation around the importing of pork. But they desperately needed the recommencement of this equine trade between the two countries, which is worth many hundreds of millions of dollars. They were a group of submitters who made a very strong case to the select committee for urgency on the issue to be required.

I speak completely in support of the title, clause 1, and of an urgent commencement date, clause 2, with regard to this legislation.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this

Aleikum salaam. I take this brief call. As has been said earlier, this bill was necessary. The Primary Production Committee had to rather hurriedly consider the bill; although I would not like to call the consideration urgent, it was hurried.

Clearly, there was an issue for the industry in terms of trade. As has been said by the previous speaker, there was an issue about the trade of horses between New Zealand and Australia. So this bill was necessary.

The select committee was sort of blamed by some submitters for the hurried consideration of the bill. Clearly, this bill was required because of the court case. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had received advice from Crown Law that this bill was necessary. The bill was referred to the select committee and we did a great job in having additional sittings to get the bill through. We heard 15 submitters and we came up with some amendments. Hopefully the bee-keepers are happy with the amendments. It was important that the bill be done in that time frame.

We had advice from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as well, to make sure that our overseas trade did not suffer as a result of this bill. With that, I commend this bill.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. I want to refer to two issues. The National member talked about the importation of horses, which I will refer to, and I will also refer briefly to the Department of Conservation and its involvement in the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill.

First of all, I reiterate the Green Party’s concern, which is evidenced in the papers prepared by the ministry in 2006, that the original intent of this legislation was to allow for the importation, or the bringing into New Zealand, of genetically modified organisms. It is very good to have heard the National Party refer to the issue of importing horses, because the equine flu vaccination is a genetically modified vaccination. It is a living genetically modified virus, and there is no permission to enable it to be introduced into our country. That would be the responsibility of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. If someone wanted to bring that vaccine into New Zealand, that person would have to go through the Environmental Risk Management Authority process. If someone wanted to do that, it would be the first living genetically modified organism released at large into New Zealand and our environment.

That raises very serious concerns. The New Zealand public do not want to see these organisms released into our environment. It is quite right that the Environmental Risk Management Authority would be the organisation that would assess it. But under this bill, if a horse were imported into the country and that horse had been vaccinated with this living genetically modified virus vaccine, then it would be an unintentional importation of an organism and would come under the definition in this legislation. It would be perfectly legal for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to allow for the importation of that genetically modified, known but incidental, passenger organism into this country.

Where would the risk assessment sit? Well, it would sit with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and with the biosecurity agencies. What criteria do those organisations use to assess these kinds of organisms? Well, they do not have a precautionary principle. They do not have the rigorous scientific process that the Environmental Risk Management Authority has, which is set out in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. They would be able to assess it according to their own criteria, which are at a much lower level and are much more risk-happy assessment criteria. We could have the first living genetically modified organism at large in our country as a result of this legislation.

One wonders what the National Party’s interest is in supporting this bill. It concerns me greatly. I wonder whether it is because National is quite interested in the racing industry. One might want to reflect back to 2005, when there was a very good relationship between the National Party and the racing industry at that time. Some of that relationship was exposed later, after the election. So is this interest part of that relationship? Is that why the National Party is quite OK with legislation that will allow, in law, potentially, for this organism to come into the country as a passenger organism?

It is a very worrying issue, and I think the New Zealand public have the right to have some concerns about it. I know the Minister is likely to stand up and say that the bill excludes genetically modified organisms. What he will not tell the public is that in 2006 the papers that were prepared around this issue specifically allowed for this legislation to include and allow for the importation of GMOs, and that that was the policy position of this Labour Government in 2006.

What has changed? Well, it is election year—that has changed. We all know that New Zealanders will not accept the introduction of GMOs into our country, because we know the risks that those organisms will have to our biodiversity, to our threatened species, and to our primary production sector, which is, as the Minister is so pleased to repeat, such a major part of our economy. Yet the two old parties in this House are prepared to risk that major part of our economy. The Minister himself is prepared to do that for this legislation.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) Link to this

I always like to think that members of this House, by the time they get here, would be inclined to let the facts get in the way of their prejudices. The facts are that New Zealand’s biosecurity system already, on a daily basis, allows animals—horses, dogs, cats; animals of a whole variety—

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

Tēnā koe. Well, there we have it. The Minister Jim Anderton has exposed the primary reason for the Government’s support for the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill, and why it has been brought forward, which is that it is to do with trade relationships with other countries. What he is really saying here is that New Zealand has signed up to international trade agreements, which means that we are not able to exercise the level of border control that the New Zealand public believes is crucial to protecting our country from incursions of other organisms from overseas that may put our economy and our environment at risk.

What he said in this last little speech of his was that trade barriers are a major concern for him. Therefore, he will propose legislation that will open up our borders to known organisms that could pose a serious threat to our environment and to our economy.

Mr Anderton talks about the value of these trade processes to the country, but he is not reminding the Committee or the public at this time that one of the main threats of these kinds of organisms is to our primary sector—to our farming sector, our horticultural sector, our forestry sector, and potentially even our fishing sector and aquacultural sector. Those are industries on which our country relies, and we are obligated to protect them to the maximum extent possible. We rely on those industries to a very large extent for the economic well-being of this country.

That has always been the Green Party’s position. That is why we have always opposed the introduction of GMOs into this country. That is why the Greens have strongly promoted environmental measures to protect our environment, so that the land on which our primary sector is based, and the water on which our primary sector is based, is healthy and clean and can continue to support those sectors well into the future, for my grandchildren and great-grandchildren and for all of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

At the same time as we are trying to protect our economy and our environment from these incursions, the Labour Government, along with the National Party, is supporting legislation that gives control and decision making over known organisms that could cause serious risk to our country to an organisation, a ministry, that has a very low risk-assessment process.

The Labour Government, along with the National Party, has diverted the law. The Government has an alternative. It does not have to give this power to biosecurity agencies; it could give this power to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Environmental Risk Management Authority, which is designed to deal with these issues. The authority has a precautionary principle and the scientific, rigorous processes in place to deal with known passenger organisms.

But, no, it has chosen not to take the most rigorous approach. It has chosen not to provide the maximum level of protection to our environment and to our economy. Instead, it has given the power to biosecurity agencies, which have a much lower risk-assessment threshold.

We know, for example, that environmental organisations that are part of the Government have said that this bill will not protect our environment. In January of last year the Department of Conservation said that it did not support the proposal. The department said that the legislation would reduce the quality of risk assessment, would expose New Zealand to greater risk from new organisms, would create an inconsistent system, and is an unwarranted relative to the problem the Government was trying to solve.

One of our principal organisations for the protection of our environment, for the protection of our biodiversity, and for the protection of our threatened native species has said that this bill will pose a risk to that environment and to those species. The Department of Conservation did not support this legislation. It did not make a submission, and we might like to ask why. Is it that the Department of Conservation was not allowed to? Why did it not make a submission on this legislation?

We know that there is not support from the Government’s own environmental agencies that are responsible for protecting our environment from these kinds of incursions. We know that the Government in 2006 intended for this legislation to allow for GMOs to be introduced. And we know that there is some kind of connection between National and the racing industry, so perhaps that is why National is supporting this legislation.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) Link to this

I was not going to take another call, but the member has accused those who are supporting this bill of misleading the public. She says that the Department of Conservation made submissions that opposed the bill, and asks whether we would like to explain why. I tell the Committee that the member and the Green Party were supplied with the following email, which I will read out. I suggest to Ms Turei that when a member gets up in this Chamber, that member should at least balance what he or she says with some facts. Here is the email that the Green Party was supplied with, from the Department of Conservation: “Notwithstanding the assertion in the article”—the article on the Stuff website—“that ‘the Department of Conservation had been cut out of the consultation at Cabinet level’, the Department of Conservation is in fact satisfied that it was consulted on this matter in 2006-07, and more recently on the draft bill and Cabinet papers. Our early view in 2006 was that there was insufficient justification, given the information to hand, to warrant the proposed changes. That context changed with the National Beekeepers’ Association court case. DOC acknowledged the legal advice MAF had received on the risk MAF faced, and that Cabinet has agreed to the need for legislative change. DOC was consulted on the draft bill, proposed some changes that were accepted, and is satisfied that the draft bill intends to address the immediate legal issues faced by MAF.”

If the member has had that email—and I know the Green Party has—I ask why on earth she has not acknowledged it here instead of going on in the tirade way she did. I do not think that is a particularly honest way of debating. If the member knows the content of the email, she should have acknowledged it here. This is the truth: the Department of Conservation has been consulted and has acceded to this bill because the department knows that the legislation is necessary because of the court case. That should at least be acknowledged as being the facts of the matter by Ms Turei.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

Mr Anderton did not finish reading that email. I have a copy of the email here with me, and there is a final paragraph that I am sure is available to him; I know I have it. It states: “DOC also expressed the view in 2006”—that long ago—“that the Biosecurity Act should have minimum standards, and that the precautionary principle be applied within it, as does the HASNO Act. The Biosecurity Act currently lacks the transparency and certainty that the principles and such criteria provided in HASNO, and this poses risks. DOC still holds this view”—I have this email from 11 March—“and wishes to see this issue addressed in the future.” That is what the Minister failed to read out in the Chamber just now.

Why did he do that? It may well be that the Department of Conservation agrees that it was consulted. It is clear that the department was obviously asked the question about the legislation. The department says that, and we have information about it. But the department did not make a submission on the legislation, and it reiterated that it retains concerns that the Biosecurity Act does not have the provisions or principles in place to provide adequate protection of our environment.

It is all fine and well for Mr Anderton to make comments about consultation, but he is not telling the public the fact that it is our environment and our economy that are being put at risk, and that the Government department responsible for the protection of our environment, in particular, has said that a risk is posed, and that that risk has not been addressed in this legislation. So I am asking the very serious question here about how much risk we are prepared to put our environment at, for the purpose of preventing the trade agreement problems this Government has because it was part of signing a trade agreement that prevented us from having controls that would protect our environment.

If the Government signs agreements that stop us from putting in place those protections, then that is its responsibility. It is not a conspiracy; it is just the truth. It is the Government’s responsibility, and the Government has failed the country. Now it is imposing on the country legislation that has been put through the House in a very speedy way, that denies a proper public and transparent process—because there was not time for people to read and understand the legislation and to make proper submissions on it—and that does not even have one of the Government’s own key departments involved in this bill by making a submission so that we can see the bill’s full impacts on our natural environment.

There is no excuse here. Mr Anderton, the Government, and the National Party, which is supporting the legislation, have no excuse for the risk they are putting our environment at. I reiterate that this is not just about the environment; this is about our economy, because our economy is dependent on our environment. We all know that. That is why the community works so hard to clean up our waterways, and why we work so hard with farming communities and urban communities to clean up their environment. We know how dependent we are on it.

Yet at the same time that the community is doing this work and prioritising a clean environment that we can rely on, the Government, with its friends the National Party, is putting legislation through a hurried process that lacks public transparency and puts the very environment and economy at risk.

There is no excuse for that. No amount of talking about trade issues or trying to accuse the Greens of conspiracies will change the fact that this legislation puts our environment and our economy at risk, and the Labour Government and the National Party are supporting that risk.

The Greens have supported the changes to this bill that we think will make it better, because that is a responsible thing to do. We will be opposing this legislation because of the risk it poses to our environment and our economy and because it prevents New Zealanders from truly having a say on the real issues here. Thank you, Mr Chair.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this

I will take just a brief call to support the title and commencement date as proposed in the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill. Yes, our economy is dependent on our environment. It is also dependent on trade, on the ability of organisms and livestock to move between countries, and on our ability to be able to import and export.

It is for that reason that I stand to support the commencement date, particularly, and also to applaud the Primary Production Committee on the very quick and thorough work it has done in looking at this bill so that it can proceed and so that this legislation can be put in place quickly.

I was present when the Proprietors of Taharoa C Block, a Māori corporation, talked with the Prime Minister about the importance of being able to import the particular plant it needed to go into a very important and successful biofuels venture it is working on. I have listened carefully to what the previous speaker, Metiria Turei from the Green Party, has argued. I really do not believe that people who have worked with the environment for many, many decades—people who have at their basis the understanding of the importance of our land and the spirituality of that land, being the people who are concerned with this particular Māori corporation—would ask the Prime Minister to see to the speedy resolution of this issue if they believed that our environment would be at risk as a result.

So I can stand up and happily support the commencement date of this bill. We need this legislation to be put in place quickly. That was reinforced by people in the Waikato area and beyond, in relation to the importance of some of the issues they are working on. I support what previous speakers have said about the importance to the equine industry—in particular, the horse breeding industry—of not having things frozen unnecessarily while we address the unforeseen consequences of a court case that I do not think anyone in this country saw coming.

We had this situation before us. We have acted promptly. I believe that that is what New Zealanders would want to occur, because we are a country that is reliant on the freedom of movement in that way. We needed to deal with this matter urgently and we have done so. I congratulate the Minister and also the members of the select committee on dealing with it in a quick and thorough way.