Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity) Link to this
I move, That the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to see that this important bill is back with the House, because it will help to strengthen the biosecurity system in New Zealand. I start by thanking the Primary Production Committee for its work. The committee received over 40 submissions on the bill, and I thank submitters for taking the time to provide their input.
One of the key areas for submitters was new Part 5A of the Biosecurity Act. This part contains the enabling provisions for the development of the Government-industry agreement for readiness and response. This is an agreement under which the Government and primary industries will make joint decisions about harmful organisms that are of concern to an industry. The decisions can cover how best to prepare for the possible arrival of a harmful organism and how best to respond if the organism does appear in New Zealand. The parties will also agree on how to share the costs of their jointly agreed activities.
I acknowledge that a number of submitters expressed concern with the overall proposal to develop the Government-industry agreement. It is important to understand what the benefits of the Government-industry agreement are. Introducing joint decision-making and combining it with cost-sharing will ensure that the resources that are available for biosecurity readiness and response are used to address the highest priorities. It will also improve the level of preparedness for a biosecurity incursion, and increase the capacity to deal with such incursions.
I am pleased to see that the committee has recommended a new purpose statement for Part 5A. The new purpose statement is contained in new section 100S, and it captures a key point: that the Government-industry agreement is all about working together to achieve the best possible outcomes from readiness and response activities. The agreement is also about sharing the costs of agreed activities. This is important, because meeting some part of the costs ensures that decisions reflect the true priorities of the decision makers. Although this principle is important, the Government is aware of industry concerns about the affordability of some activities if the cost-shares are based strictly on the breakdown between public benefits and industry benefits.
The Government does not want cost-sharing to lead to a decline in this country’s state of readiness or capacity to respond. For this reason we have agreed that the Government will pay at least half of the costs, regardless of the exact split between public benefits and industry benefits. If analysis shows that public benefits are significantly greater than industry benefits, then the Government share would obviously be more than 50 percent. This approach will greatly simplify how costs are shared, as for many pests and diseases the cost-share will simply default to a fifty-fifty split between Government and industry.
I turn now to another area where the bill deals with important relationships between different players in the biosecurity system. This is the area of pest management. The pest management amendments in the bill emerged from a significant project that involved the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and other interested parties, including the Department of Conservation, regional councils, industry groups, and Māori. The project produced a national plan of action for improvements to the pest management system, and these improvements include amendments to the Biosecurity Act. One of the most important amendments is the new requirement for the Crown as a landowner to meet its obligations as a good neighbour. The Government has carefully considered the position of the Crown, and accepts that pest management programmes should not be undermined by the Crown being exempt from them.
“Good neighbour rules” are defined in the bill, and one part of the definition is that the rules must comply with the national policy direction. The national policy direction is a new measure that the bill provides for. It will set out some key requirements that will help to ensure that pest management is carried out effectively and efficiently, and that the “good neighbour rules” do not impose unreasonable costs on the Crown, or on any other landowner, for that matter.
The bill also introduces a number of new tools that will help to provide for more effective and efficient border biosecurity. One example is the new duty for importers to take reasonable steps to ensure that risk goods comply with the requirements set out in import health standards. This will help to promote the idea that biosecurity risk should be managed by those best placed to manage it. Another example is the clear legal framework for the use of information for risk profiling purposes. This will help to ensure that resources are used to best effect in dealing with the most significant biosecurity risks.
Some of the new provisions relating to the border, when seen in isolation, caused nervousness to some submitters, and the select committee has responded to these concerns. I am happy to see the changes that the committee has recommended in relation to outcome statements in import health standards and post-clearance requirements. In both cases the recommended changes provide more clarity about when it is appropriate to use these tools.
The bill makes many other important improvements that I can note only briefly. These changes relate to areas such as marine biosecurity, the new FarmsOnLine database, and the options for dealing with non-compliance. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) Link to this
It is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. It is interesting that in a recent KPMG report—a survey of all of the key agribusiness leaders across the country, asking them what were the issues ahead of them, into the future—the No. 1 issue all of them identified was biosecurity. So it is important that, whatever changes we make, we improve the system, because this economy still relies on biological production for its wealth. Any threat to that production has to be taken seriously.
This bill has been in the development stage for a long time; it goes right back to when Labour was in Government. When there was the incursion of varroa mite we identified a lack of planning and coordination between industry and Government. So the concept of a Government-industry agreement was developed then, and that concept has been carried forward into this bill. What concerns us, of course, is that the first Budget that the incoming National Government put in place cut $2 million from the MAF Biosecurity New Zealand front-line budget.
Hon Steve ChadwickHon DAMIEN O’CONNOR Link to this
It was $2 million, and 58 to 60 front-line jobs. We thought that was pretty dumb, I have to say. The Government put up the argument: “Well, we’re facing a recession and the number of imported goods is reducing.” In fact, because of the value of the dollar a fairly steady stream of imported goods was coming into this country—in fact, far too many—at the same time as the Government had cut front-line border security. The Government has relied on—
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR Link to this
It was 55, exactly. I think there was some debate at the time as to how many would lose their jobs. We had assurances from the Government that things were OK, and that we had less volume of goods. Well, the Government has said for some time that the recession is over, and the economy is on an upward trend. But we have not heard of one more person being appointed to front-line border security services. Since that time the Minister of Tourism, who is also the Prime Minister, has put forward SmartGate, which is a passenger clearance system between New Zealand and Australia. So people can just walk off the plane from Australia, straight through into New Zealand, the theory being that there has been a risk assessment done while those people are on the plane; the officers have even worked out whether their bags should be checked. So those people can walk off the plane and straight into New Zealand.
There have been major concerns in areas like Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty where the new air services into Rotorua could potentially bring a fruit fly straight into Rotorua, over the hill, and into some of our key regions. The fact that they are facing another huge biosecurity risk through Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae (Psa) does highlight the fragility of our economy, and the Bay of Plenty is reeling under the threats and the reality of Psa. We are not quite sure how far that threat might go.
The Minister in his speech went through the bill and identified a number of key areas. I also acknowledge the chairman of the Primary Production Committee, Shane Ardern—who I have always said should be the Minister. He did a very good job, and there was non-partisan analysis of this legislation. The one thing we agreed on was that in too many cases the legislation that came before us was very, very permissive—that is, in my simple assessment the trade boffins in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had ruled over the biosecurity boffins. So we had to tidy up a number of areas. The Minister acknowledged that changes were made by the select committee, and that is great; that is the way the process is supposed to work. My question, though, to the Minister, and to his biosecurity boffins, is why did they put before the select committee a bill that, without amendment, would have seriously threatened front-line biosecurity in this country? We have made some adjustments and improved the bill, but my suspicion of the thinking behind it begs the question of how they will interpret this legislation when it is applied. There is much left to interpretation.
We come back to the question of what is driving biosecurity thinking under the National Government and under that Minister. I would say it is a softly softly, “touchy-feely” approach. They do not want to offend the Australians, because they want to let them in. They do not want to check their bags and they do not want to ask them the hard questions. So they do some kind of risk assessment analysis on some computer screen.
We need the toughest, highest level of biosecurity of any country anywhere in the world, because we rely on biological production for our well-being. God help us if foot-and-mouth got into New Zealand. We would be struggling, as an economy, for so long. We have already faced a very serious threat with Psa in the kiwifruit industry. Foot-and-mouth would be that threat times 10. Fruit fly would be that threat times five. In fact, we have identified a fruit fly larvae in this country, and who knows how it got in. We have identified honey that has not been checked. It was found right inside our economy, available to bees that might fly in and out, and it is potentially a serious risk. We do not have the best front-line system in the world, but the Minister and his officials say that we do, as they go around the world. They say we have a very high level of control, but if we identify the incursions that we have on a regular basis one would have to say that all is not well. Although it is impossible to have an absolute position—that nothing will come in—we have to try harder.
Although supporting the legislation into the House and voting for it at this particular time, the Opposition flags that we will continue to talk with industry people to make sure that any amendments, if necessary, can be put back into the House in the Committee stage and improvements made. We do not believe that this bill is as good as it should be. We do not believe that Government-industry agreements—GIAs—will provide a fair go for small sectors of the primary industries whose total gross export earnings are not huge but have the potential to grow. It might be feijoas, avocados, small industries perhaps at this point, but with the potential to really grow. A risk assessment by MAF Biosecurity New Zealand under this bill might deem them to be insignificant, and therefore the obligation of the Government to step in and help fund measures to combat an incursion might disappear. The Government might walk away. We do not want that.
We need to ensure that we have a robust system, but without changes this bill would not be robust. I think it is better, but it still has some way to go. We are in active consideration of the bill, as reported back by the select committee. We will be working with industry players and bringing some amendments to the Committee where we think that improvements can still be made. One of the industry players emailed me and said they would like to slow this down and anything we could do to hold it up would be great, because they still want to go through a double and triple-check.
If it takes longer for the bill to go through the House, I make no apologies for that. I do not think that anyone on the select committee—although I am not sure about those within biosecurity or about the Minister—would want to make a mistake with this legislation. I do not want to get into the technical details of outcomes, objectives, and who an importer is—all of these little things the committee changed to make the system more robust. The overarching question that arose from that was why the officials put up such limp legislation in the first place. Why could they not see the dangers that each and every one of us on the select committee saw? We made changes and that is great, but maybe we missed something. I for one do not want to be held responsible for passing legislation that leaves open the door to a major biosecurity incursion in this country. Although supporting the legislation at this point, the Opposition flags its intention to investigate amendments that might improve the bill even further, and we lay at the feet of the Government the challenge to put more money into biosecurity.
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) Link to this
It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. The Primary Production Committee, as has been mentioned by the Minister, and the Opposition spokesman, Damien O’Connor, received 41 submissions and heard from 27 submitters. A lot of the concerns that the previous speaker has alluded to were addressed. In fact, the select committee made nine substantive alterations or recommendations to the Government, which have been accepted. So I am interested in where that member is heading with his comments about what may still be out there that is unattended to. We will watch with some interest as to which way the Labour whips intend to go in regard to which bills they will support and which ones they will not. We will watch that space with interest.
The substantive change that is worth mentioning is the fact that for the first time the concept of a Government-industry agreement, between the stakeholders and the State, in regard to how to best address biosecurity incursions, was introduced into this legislation, and the select committee had some reservations about that and considered that fully. The committee discussed widely with those who submitted. It was an interesting concept that on one side were the small industry players such as the kiwifruit industry, which recently had a major incursion with Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae (Psa). They had experience. They were actually more receptive to the notion of having a predetermined agreement with the State about who pays and what happens, who holds the intellectual property, as it were, in regard to addressing a particular issue, and who is likely to have the biggest stake in the debate. The small industry players were more receptive to it than, perhaps, some of the older, more traditional industries such as dairy, meat, and wool.
I guess we can understand the concern that exists out there among the stakeholders in this debate. On one side, one could argue that the Government was backing away from its traditional position that the State should fund. One the other side, one could argue that those who know how to respond best and have the ability to advise need to be at the table, and be there not only in terms of discussion but also in terms of funding. So there is an element of a debate still going on there. I am very pleased to hear that the Minister for Biosecurity came out and said that the bottom seal, if you like, of who pays what would be 50 percent. Negotiations go from 50 percent up, as far as the State is involved in the incursion, whatever it might be.
The second issue, which I am very pleased to see is introduced in this bill for the first time, is the ability for a neighbour to be a neighbour regardless of whether that neighbour is the State or anyone else, and clarity around who that is. The term “adjacent or nearby” is significant, along with the case law that goes with that term. It is a major step forward. Up until now, there has been one set of rules for the State—the State being whatever piece of Crown land it might be, whether it is Department of Conservation land, school land, railways reserves, whatever—and another set of rules for the private landowner. The private landowner had to meet a far higher standard than the State in regard to pest management and weed control and any other biosecurity potential breach. That was unfair. It always has been unfair. Obviously, we did not want to reach a position where we put undue cost or unnecessary cost on the taxpayer, but we wanted fairness, and I think the position that the committee reached—and the recommendation that has been accepted—was fair and just. I think that is a step forward for us.
So I will be interested to listen to the debate as it goes through the House. We will find out what it is that is concerning the Opposition—what new material may have come to light since the select committee finally reached a position and deliberated on this bill and reported back to the House. I look forward to the passage of this bill through the House.
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. The Primary Production Committee had 41 submissions on the bill and we heard 27 of the submitters. As I saw this bill coming through the select committee, I noted that we had a number of very passionate submissions on this issue. A number of submitters were not quite convinced that this bill would fix their biosecurity concerns, but the bill is another step in the long fight against potential biosecurity issues for this nation.
As I see it, this is an ongoing struggle, because when we are dealing with biomass, the kind of work we are doing in New Zealand—we have plants, animals, meats, wool, and all that—involves potential risks to animals and plants. Over the years we have had a number of issues of concern. Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae (Psa) has been mentioned, as well as the varroa mite and didymo. Clover root weevils were a big problem in the north some years ago. These are the issues, as we open up our markets to the rest of the world, as we have more free-trade agreements, and potential concerns that will be of a nature that we have to continuously safeguard our borders.
Although the intention of this bill is very good, I am really concerned. The Minister for Biosecurity said earlier that this bill will increase capacity in terms of biosecurity. Given that the ministry already lost 54 or 55 jobs a couple of years ago, I am not sure whether we are ready, for example, for the Rugby World Cup. We will have, potentially, 80,000 to 100,000 people coming to New Zealand, and, as my colleague Damien O’Connor said, we will have a whole lot of people coming from Australia.
We have the so-called SmartGate system. Although I agree that we need something like SmartGate for people, I am not convinced of its use when there are biosecurity concerns. When people can come here, bag in hand, and not go through the screening and all that, I am really concerned. People might be in nice suits and all that, but people do make mistakes. There could be an apple here or a banana there, in a bag they have not declared. That is a potential concern.
Last year we sought some figures about how many incidents there had been after SmartGate was implemented. We are still awaiting that information from the ministry, and I hope that the next time we have the opportunity to hear from the ministry, we will find out how successful SmartGate is in terms of biosecurity. I have concerns about people coming through our borders, because although they may have good intentions, there is no way of knowing what sort of biomaterial they may be bringing into the country, for example, from Australia.
As our business improves, the number of cars coming into the country has gone back up to 2008 numbers, and there is a lot of ballast water in the ships that bring cars into this country. With the number of biosecurity staff coming down, I am unsure whether we have been able to keep up with the volume of trade coming in. We really need to increase, in my belief, the number of staff, because the number of people coming into our country has gone back to the old numbers, and we have the Rugby World Cup coming. There will be a need for more biosecurity staff at our entry points.
As my colleague said, we will be supporting the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill at this stage, but certainly we are in discussion with industry, which has concerns, particularly with the Government-industry partnership, or agreement, that the Minister talked about. Some industry representatives are saying it is not good enough, and they are talking to the Opposition about their potential concerns, and we are working on a possible Supplementary Order Paper for this bill when we come to the Committee stage.
In terms of the current issue, Psa, I recently had the opportunity to talk to my former colleague and friend from Massey University, Dr Bruce Campbell. He is the chief operating officer of Plant and Food Research. I happened to meet him last week at the airport—as I often do—and he told me that Psa in the Bay of Plenty area is still a serious concern and will be for years to come. I had a good discussion with him about what the status is now, and how he foresees the future. Clearly, they are still doing research on this, because they still cannot figure out how the bacteria came to New Zealand or where it came from. Nobody is sure yet, and they are looking into it, and he tells me that it will be years before we will be able to overcome this issue in New Zealand.
In Italy, for example, there was a big loss of vines. We have the concern of the total amount of rain in the Bay of Plenty area and the topography in the area, so there are a number of issues that we will have to look at. Dr Campbell was certainly concerned that the issue will be a serious concern for the growers in that area in the years to come.
It is a real concern for me that the Minister thinks this bill will increase the capacity of the Government. On the one hand he is saying that, but, on the other hand, we have lost a number of front-line staff and we have an increasing volume of trade. We will potentially get a lot more problems in the coming months and years because—
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY Link to this
No, no. This is something we have to address. My colleague on the other side is really saying that this is an issue we normally work very well on in the Primary Production Committee. The committee spent quite a bit of time on this particular bill, trying to make it better, as Damien O’Connor said earlier. When the bill came to the committee, it was a very, very weak bill. We have improved it quite a bit, but still there are concerns, and some of the representatives from the industry are not very happy with it. Certainly, we will look at some Supplementary Order Papers, and I am sure the chairman of the select committee, as he said here, will be discussing this bill and the details of it.
Overall, the intention is there, and I can appreciate that. The intention is there to improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of biosecurity, but, in reality, is the Minister going to do it? That is my concern. With those words, I commend this bill.
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this
The Green Party will be opposing the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. We do so because we are concerned that on the one hand we are reducing staff and funding in biosecurity—we got rid of 55 staff and chopped off a couple of million from the front-line budget for biosecurity—and on the other hand we are reducing biosecurity protections, particularly to industries, and I will illustrate that by focusing on the pig industry and the bee industry. So we are reducing budgets, we are reducing staff, we are reducing biosecurity protections, and then we are turning around and telling industries they will have to pay 50 percent of the costs if there is an incursion. If an incursion occurs because of a policy that one of these industries has completely opposed, it will nevertheless be required to pick up 50 percent of the costs.
I will illustrate this with the pork industry and the bee industry, because both of these industries are at war with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Government. It is ironic, to say the least, that we have a department, namely the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, which is supposed to be protecting our primary producing industries, yet two of these industries are at war with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry because of the ministry’s failure, they believe, to protect their industries from biosecurity risks. The Pork Industry Board has spent up to $1 million fighting the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. They are going into the High Court, I think on 25 August, because they are opposing the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry as it is insisting on lowering biosecurity standards. It is now going to allow raw pork into New Zealand from countries that have this devastating pig disease, referred to as pig AIDS. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will allow raw pig meat to come in from those countries, whereas previously this meat was not allowed unless it was treated to inactivate the virus.
I ask why the Government would be doing something as foolish as allowing raw pig meat in from countries that have a devastating virus if the industry and a whole lot of experts are saying this could bring a devastating pig disease into New Zealand, or, indeed, why the Government would agree to bring in honey from Australia, when Australian honey harbours diseases that could devastate our bee industry. Why would it do that? I have discovered the answer by looking at the import health standard that is being lowered in respect of pig meat. The reason we are doing this is free trade and because of our obligations to the World Trade Organization. It says that we are required, under article 5 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, to not have any more trade restrictive measures than are required to achieve “an appropriate level of protection”. That phrase has become the new definition of biosecurity at our borders.
When we look at the rest of the statement we see that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has done all of this. It is lowering the import standards because it believes that this will achieve an appropriate level of protection from the introduction of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, the devastating pig disease. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is saying it will lower standards to meet our World Trade Organization obligations, never mind that some of the industry experts, such as Professor Roger Morris, say that if we do this, it is inevitable that within 3 to 5 years we will have an incursion of this disease.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry thinks it will happen only once every 1,200 years, but our local experts say it will happen every 3 to 5 years. I could go into all the details as to why the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry analysis seems to be completely flawed, but my point is if what the pig industry is warning happens—that this pig disease comes into New Zealand—then the pig industry will be expected to pay 50 percent of the costs of dealing with this devastating disease that it has vehemently opposed in the courts. For many years now it has opposed the lowering of these standards by the Government, and the Government has pigheadedly gone ahead, ignored all of its concerns, and is doing it for the World Trade Organization because of its obsession with free-trade agreements. The disease will come in, and under this bill the industry will be expected to share the costs. It is completely and utterly unacceptable.
Similarly, the bee industry believes there is a very serious risk of diseases coming in if we allow Australian honey to be imported into New Zealand. Once again, it has been vehemently opposing the Government, and begging the Government not to lower biosecurity standards to allow Australian honey to be imported. The Government is ignoring those concerns and going ahead with the legislation. What will happen if one of these diseases, which would devastate our bee industry, comes in? An effect of one of the diseases would be that we would have to treat our bees in New Zealand with antibiotics. We are one of the countries in the world that do not have to treat our bees with antibiotics. It is one of our points of difference, and one of the reasons why we attract premium prices around the world, but the Government is lowering the biosecurity standard, putting our bee industry at risk. If the bee industry’s fears are realised, it may require, into infinity, our bees to be treated with antibiotics—what a disaster—as well as being treated with miticides and pesticides.
To us this measure is completely foolhardy. We lower the biosecurity risks, because we now have this new definition of what a biosecurity risk is, and against that we require simply anything that provides an “appropriate level of protection”. So we are no longer trying to keep these diseases out, we are just trying to provide an appropriate level of protection. Then we lower the numbers of staff, the budget for biosecurity, and our standards, and turn round and tell the industries that they will have to pick up the costs. It is the industries that will have to foot the bill, not the importers. At the moment we already have anywhere from 45 to 50 percent of pork in New Zealand being imported, but if we have an incursion of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, the devastating pig disease, it will not be the importers who have to pay for the disease, which will devastate—indeed, wipe out—our pig industry, it will be the New Zealand pork producers. The $700 million pork industry will be put at risk by this absurd decision to lower the biosecurity standards.
Similarly, the honey industry will be put at risk by the lowering of biosecurity standards. Yet, against all of the advice, if these pests and diseases come in, the industries will have to pick up the bill. This is complete madness. I cannot understand why the Government would do this, and the Green Party is completely opposed to it. Thank you.
RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this
The Māori Party, in its founding statement, expressed our commitment to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy, safe, and intact for everyone and for future generations. Within this, the Māori Party is also committed to assisting whānau, hapū, and iwi, as tangata tiaki, to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the well-being and future good health of the environment. Both of these commitments lead us, naturally enough, towards a position of support for this Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. There are five key areas identified in this bill: border risk management, marine biosecurity, readiness and response, pest management, and compliance and enforcement. Sustainable success in these areas will depend on the level of decision making, and that ultimately leads the operational side of biosecurity. It is for this reason that we believe it is important to look at the decision making for biosecurity before delving into minute details of the bill.
At the very core of the Treaty of Waitangi is the principle of equal partnership. This means real involvement by tangata whenua at the decision-making level, regionally, nationally, and at a ministerial level. As kaitiaki and Treaty of Waitangi partners, Māori have a particular interest in ensuring there is an appropriate delivery and integration of mātauranga Māori me ōna tikanga into biosecurity science. This integration must occur in a way that maintains the cultural integrity of these knowledge systems and cultural practices. Constant communication with MAF Biosecurity New Zealand would allow Māori to build capacity and capability in this field.
But this House is also considerably better off at this point of the second reading of this bill than we were when it first came before the House last year, given the wisdom contained in the report on Wai 262. What that report tells us is that Māori have diverse interests in the management of tāonga such as indigenous flora, fauna, and resources, as both kaitiaki and developer. These dual roles oblige Māori to be involved in decisions that may impact on tāonga. Wai 262 informs the House that iwi have relationships with species that are emblematic and have a spiritual element to them and their connection to the wider ecosystem, particularly with regard to native plants such as harakeke, koromiko, pōhutukawa, kōwhai, puawānanga, poroporo, kawakawa, mānuka, and kūmara. Also, as uri of Ngāti Kōata, of course, I am proud to speak of our direct relationship to the tuatara. The relationship is underpinned by our own knowledge of these species, or mātauranga Māori. Yet the understandings of New Zealanders with regard to the environment today are largely based on the Pākehā relationship with the environment, the Māori relationship being overlooked. Eventually this will cause the traditional knowledge and approaches to be lost.
The interests of kaitiaki and those involved in the advancement of scientific and economic knowledge need to be managed so that a balance between the two can be achieved, and both interests can be recognised and respected. How that relates to this legislation is quite simple. There is an expectation that Māori cultural, spiritual, environmental, and economic values will be explicitly reflected in the decision-making processes of MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. We believe that Māori are well positioned to identify biosecurity issues and research needs that are important to Māori. At a national level, we would like to see tangata whenua values and interests incorporated in the management of biosecurity, as it is an effective way to recognise the customary use of indigenous biodiversity according to tikanga. This would mean a real partnership between tangata whenua and MAF Biosecurity New Zealand.
Too often, Māori are brought into the fray by Government departments too late in the process. More often than not, the fundamentals of a decision have been made already. It is largely a box-ticking exercise at that point, which benefits no one, especially iwi. The Māori Party believes that the Government can and should do better than that. Māori need to be involved when the decisions are being made, not after a decision has been reached. The relationship with MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, therefore, would have to be one between tangata whenua and the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry to be of any real substance. Such a relationship would also ensure that Māori have the opportunity to debate and table reports such as the one on Wai 262 before the director-general, as one would expect from a Treaty partnership. At the very core of the Treaty of Waitangi is the principle of equal partnership. This means real involvement by tangata whenua at the decision-making level, regionally, nationally, and at a ministerial level. We would like to hear from the Minister about how a formal relationship between iwi and the director-general can be enhanced.
It is also important for Māori to be aware of potential impacts from incursions of pests and diseases associated with taonga and resources in their rohe. At the regional level we believe that the legislation should provide for the role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki when developing and implementing regional policy statements and regional and district plans associated with biosecurity. A blueprint of how this partnership could work is the Ngati Tuwharetoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Act 2010, which sees iwi have equal representation on decision-making and management bodies, as well as allowing for mana whenua iwi to develop their own strategies for the river. This will eventually be incorporated into the Waikato Regional Policy Statement. During this significant week for Tainui Waikato, with the koroneihana in progress, it is fitting to pay tribute to the visionaries behind that legislation. This is a true Treaty relationship at a regional level, and it goes beyond cursory consultation, which has proven to be ineffectual for Māori. It is indeed a model that we would hope this biosecurity law reform legislation could benefit from.
We also believe that an arrangement whereby iwi have an equal say in decisions that affect them would address the need to ensure that there is regular and informed consultation with tangata whenua, as it relates to protecting and enhancing areas and habitats that have particular significance for Māori. The key requirement is that tangata whenua should be involved, and be given equal decision-making status, in the development and implementation of regional policy statements and regional and district plans associated with biosecurity.
Finally, at a ministerial level we believe that it is in the best interests of iwi to be extensively represented on the Biosecurity Council of New Zealand, which plays an important role in strategic biosecurity policy development, as well as in advising the Minister for Biosecurity. The council has representatives from each of the primary production sectors, from environmental organisations, and from regional councils, and yet there is no iwi voice. The Māori Party believes that that needs to change in order for there to be a lasting Treaty partnership in relation to biosecurity. We want to see the active involvement of tangata whenua in the protection of cultural values, to protect the native plants, animals, and other resources that are taonga to Māori. In order to achieve this very important goal, Māori need to be involved in decision making at all levels, and the Government needs to be bold. We believe that the provisions we have sought are sufficient for that.
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) Link to this
I rise to take a short call on the second reading of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill, which the ACT Party is supporting. It is pleasing to see this bill come before the House, and we look forward to its speedy progress through Parliament.
The bill, as we have heard from other speakers before me, is in two parts. Part 1 makes amendments to the Biosecurity Act 1993 to improve and modernise the biosecurity system. It is quite right and proper that we see this sort of process happening often. In fact, ACT’s Regulatory Responsibility Bill—or Regulatory Standards Bill, as it is now named—which is before the House, talks about reviewing legislation on a 5-yearly basis, which is very important so we have up-to-date techniques and information in place. Others have mentioned in more detail the changes that will be made in this particular part.
Part 2 of the bill amends the Maritime Transport Act 1994 to implement the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments 2004. Again, we are very pleased to see this review and modernisation of the biosecurity system in place. It is dependent on all of us, not just those authorities, that we take these measures very seriously. I reiterate many of the points that the previous speaker from the Māori Party, Rahui Katene, made about the importance of having engagement from all sectors of our community in upholding these biosecurity arrangements. The first role of Government—and we should always go back to first principles in law of this type, I think—is to provide for the safety and security of New Zealand citizens. Biosecurity measures fall firmly under that wider umbrella. I often talk about the need for national security measures, as opposed to individual silos, that seek to look after our safety and security as citizens.
It was very pleasing to see at the Primary Production Committee that changes were made relating to border risk management. I will mention two in particular: firstly, the improving of the legislative framework for collaborating with other agencies. This is hugely important. We are a small country, and our agencies and our departments often find it difficult to cover the huge breadth of areas individually. But when we look to all areas of security, we find that with cooperation and collaboration firmly in place, we can achieve so much more and actually get real protection for our borders. That legislative framework allowing collaboration with other agencies is hugely important.
The other area that was dealt with at select committee was the amendments relating to readiness and response. If we are going to tackle some of the issues we have heard about from other speakers—in particular, the Green speaker, Sue Kedgley—we need to make sure these agencies are well equipped to respond very quickly to any threats that arise. New provisions authorise the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to enter into agreements with industry organisations to take joint decisions on readiness and response. Again, we should not always rely upon just Government agencies to provide that protection at our borders and elsewhere within our country. It is very wise that we have agreements with industry organisations so that everybody takes seriously their role to provide the protection that should be there.
I will leave it at that. The ACT Party supports this bill, and we look forward to its speedy movement through the House.
COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) Link to this
It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the second reading of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. I would have liked to address the bill in some depth, but I think that has been done very adequately by previous speakers.
I will spend a bit of my time rebutting some of the Opposition’s comments. I will take people back down memory lane. It was 11 or 12 years ago that Murray Sherwin, on being appointed as the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry, pointed out to the people of New Zealand that a foot-and-mouth incident in New Zealand would cost about $10 billion. Further along the way, we had the Waiheke Island experience, and we learnt that nothing substantive had been done from 2000 through to that incident. So I say to members of the Opposition that they are lions in Opposition, and lambs in Government. The Primary Production Committee spent 3 years sitting on its hands, waiting for work to come from the then Labour Government, and nothing was forthcoming.
Having said that, I say on behalf of the select committee that the major risk is from importers. With the Government-industry agreement for biosecurity readiness and response, we are putting in place a very appropriate measure to manage the outbreak of an incursion, but the question we cannot answer is how we penalise a person who breaches our border control and brings in a biosecurity incursion. That is the $64,000 question.
This bill is very good. The Government-industry agreement is very appropriate and is overdue. We have seen so many cases where an ounce of prevention would have prevented a pound of cure. This is good legislation. It should have been in law 10 years ago, but because of the procrastination of the previous Labour Government, and the difficulty it had in making the hard calls, we are dealing with it today. It is very good legislation. I commend it to the House.
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this
After listening to the member speaking before me, Colin King, I want to assure members that we on this side of the House, the Labour Opposition, take seriously the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. When one takes these things seriously one has to acknowledge the fact that we rely on our farming industry. We rely on our horticulture, our viticulture, our orchards, our pork industry, and our honey industry. I think that needs to be taken into consideration. I have to disagree with the previous speaker, who said that the importers should be our concern and our priority. Well, it is really our farming industry that we need to be looking to secure and protect. That is the reason why we have biosecurity legislation. We need to recognise that we rely on our farming, on our green and clean image, and we have to protect it. I think it is foolhardy simply to say that this piece of legislation will protect everything.
Let me read part of the report: “The bill seeks to amend this Part to allow the biosecurity system to respond to an increasingly challenging environment by providing for more effective and efficient risk management, and for clearer roles and responsibilities, and better collaboration and partnerships.” That says there is a lot of work we have to do in order to protect our borders and protect our environment. It also says we need to rely on exchanges of information within the various Government departments that service and protect our borders. But it also means we have to work in partnership with the industry itself. I have to say that it is still very much in the memories of many farmers that not too long ago we had a problem with the Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae (Psa) leaf blight outbreak in kiwifruit. The potential $75 million cost of Psa to our kiwifruit industry should be a reminder to us of how important it is that our biosecurity services are well resourced and operating effectively.
So it is no credit whatsoever to this Government when it cuts the budget by $2 million, as my colleague pointed out, and when it gets rid of 55 jobs, as my colleague pointed out, then expects us to still be able to protect our borders. I think what Sue Kedgley from the Green Party said earlier makes sense. There is no politics in this. Nobody wins. I think we have to take seriously the fact that we have an economic advantage in terms of our farming industry and our clean and green image. We will lose that, all of that is at risk, if we attempt to bully our way through by passing legislation and saying that that will fix the problem. I reiterate what Damien O’Connor, our spokesperson on biosecurity, said. Although Labour will allow the passage of this legislation in its second reading, we will continue to engage with, and talk to, the industry out there, and will decide from there whether we will support the legislation in the Committee of the whole House and the third reading. We do need to take seriously that we depend very much on protecting our borders and protecting our biosecurity. We hope the more-targeted approach to border checks will make the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s operation more efficient.
When we look at sharing information and sharing intelligence between Government agencies, we see that they can only do so much with the resources given to them. If the Government continues to cut funding from important areas and cut jobs from significant areas, then who is to blame if our biosecurity is put at risk? Labour members would like to acknowledge the good work that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, Horticulture New Zealand, and all the New Zealand kiwifruit growers have done in handling the Psa outbreak.
I think we have to feel quite nervous when we look at what happened there, because we certainly do not want a repeat of that occurrence. We do not want mad cow disease here. We do not want a tax on our bee or honey industry. We certainly do not want to put our wildlife at risk, or our flowers, our fruit, and our wine industry. Not only will the industry be at risk; there is much, much more. It has a ripple effect. There are jobs. There are livelihoods. It has an impact on the prices of some of these products, and that is one of the reasons why we are quite keen on ensuring there is a robust inquiry into milk prices. If that sort of thing is happening in terms of what is being sold overseas and the price of what is being sold here, we have to ask those particular questions.
The Minister for Biosecurity claimed that the job cuts were needed as the recession had resulted in a fall in car imports and international arrivals, and thus the Government was left carrying the cost of staff that levies no longer covered. Well, that is an extremely short-sighted approach to biosecurity management. Key imports such as used cars have already rebounded to near-2008 levels, and international arrivals have been at a record high this year. So why will the Minister not reinstate the 55 jobs that he cut, and does he expect MAF Biosecurity New Zealand to provide the same effective services and nationwide coverage with fewer staff on hand?
I was not present in the Primary Production Committee when submissions were heard, but I have heard from colleagues from the Greens and the Māori Party that the public made serious submissions, which this Government will, hopefully, take into consideration. As I said, it is a serious issue and we do need to take care. We need to protect our clean and green image. Labour members will continue to talk to the industry, individuals, and constituents involved before determining our final decision on the bill in the Committee of the whole House and in the third reading. Although I am not presently a farmer, I grew up around farms. I know what farming is like. I know how hard people work to try to protect their livelihood. I think the Government owes it to this country to ensure that we are doing all we can not only to protect the livelihoods that this economy depends on but also to protect future generations.
In closing, I take the liberty to endorse the statements that were made earlier, the condolences and the commendations towards Sir Paul Reeves and Lady Beverley. I count myself as a close friend of Sir Paul, and he will be terribly missed by the Pacific communities and by people in Manukau. Sir Paul was a good friend of ours. He was a steadfast champion of the young people in Manukau. He was somebody we looked upon with deep respect, who attempted to connect people, irrespective of their background. In the role that Sir Paul had with the Auckland University of Technology, he made sure that many of our young people from the schools in Manukau were able to perform in front of audiences that they would not normally perform in front of. That was a manifestation of Sir Paul Reeves’ attempting to connect the people of Manukau with the people of Remuera, the rich with the poor, the old with the young, Pākehā with Polynesian. I add my respects to Sir Paul Reeves’ family. It is my prayer that they will be comforted and that the dark clouds that hover over them will dissipate. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this
This has been a good debate in the House today on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. It is a good bill. I commend it to the House.
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this
Other members, in particular Labour members, have traversed the value of our exports to other countries and the importance of the security of those exports. I will read just a few figures here. “New Zealand relies upon primary production more than any other developed country, exporting around 80 percent of our primary production produced here each year.” In figures for the year ended March 2009, agriculture and food exports accounted for just under $20 billion, horticulture exports $3.2 billion, and forestry products exports $3.4 billion, which accounted for 64 percent of New Zealand’s total merchandise exports. The combined contribution of agriculture, food and beverage, forestry, and logging to New Zealand’s gross domestic product was 12.5 percent in the year ended March 2008.
It is vital that we have a biosecurity system that protects those exports and our primary productions. That is why I am astounded to hear yet again that the Government has allowed what Sue Kedgley described as pig AIDS to come into the country. Why on earth would we intentionally introduce a disease that has the potential to affect an industry of ours? I am absolutely bewildered by it. It is an absolute nonsense that that sort of thing can happen. Instead of protecting biosecurity, that is in fact jeopardising biosecurity.
I want to go back just a bit and tell a story about ship ballast. I see that the bill “amends the Maritime Transport Act 1994 to implement the international convention on ballast water.” Where I come from up in the Bay of Islands, our river, the Taumarere River, is inundated with Pacific oysters.
I will recap the kōrero before the break. It is no secret how important biosecurity is to protecting our primary production industries. Therefore, we need to invest in it.
Hon Nathan GuyYes; I say to the member for Ōtaki that I was just getting on to the ballast story. I was talking about our ancestral river, the Taumarere River, up there in the Bay of Islands.
Some 60 or 70 years ago, my uncles told me, they could walk 4 or 5 miles along the mudflats, from the village right up to where the fishing grounds were. They could do that in bare feet, as kids in those days were wont to do. However, that would now be impossible to achieve, because the mudflats are inundated with Pacific oysters. The Pacific oyster industry in the Bay of Islands has benefitted from ballast. However, unfortunately the dumping of ballast rocks in water has had an effect on the environment. These days people’s feet would be absolutely cut to ribbons if they tried to walk those 4 or 5 miles that my uncles walked some 60 or so years ago. I do not think even gumboots would last the journey.
The Taumarere River was quite a busy port many years ago. In fact, it was one of the main trading routes from Sydney to the Bay of Islands in New Zealand. When ships started come up the river, the depth of the water got a bit shallow and they had to dump their ballast and ballast rocks. One can see the ballast rocks on the side of the river. They had oyster spat, which has since grown and spread and overtaken the mudflats. So it is good to see that this bill will amend the Maritime Transport Act 1994 to implement the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments so that we do not have that situation happening again. I know that ballast water has been dumped in various ports around the country, which has led to various sea creatures settling. I know also—although I cannot remember the report where I read it—that some ports have been taken over by anemones and those types of marine creatures, and that MAF Biosecurity New Zealand has basically given up on trying to eradicate them from the ports, because they have just gone out of control.
This bill also amends the scope of the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 so that possums and wallabies may be managed solely under the Biosecurity Act 1993. Just as fate would have it, yesterday I had a constituent in my office in Kaikohe who is a possum trapper. He is at his wits’ end trying to deal with a lot of red tape and bureaucracy around the culling of possums. He is a possum trapper; he poisons possums. All he wants to do is get out in the bush and kill possums. That is all he wants. He has to deal with the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Health, and other organisations just to go and kill possums.
One may ask what the link is between the Ministry of Health and possum trapping. The fact of the matter is that this guy, who just wants to get in the bush and kill possums, actually has to go in and identify where river courses and waterways are. In fact, it is only river courses that lead to drinking reservoirs for towns. He has to identify where schools are. This guy goes way up in the bush—miles away from anywhere—and he has to fill out a plan that shows all these things that happen to be miles and miles away, when he is using cyanide, which breaks down in the water in next to no time and has absolutely no effect whatsoever on any wildlife 3 kilometres downstream.
Hopefully, this bill will speed things up and make things easier for this poor possum trapper. He is just trying to earn a living but is inundated with bureaucracy. He is not a person who likes to get behind a computer or use a pen and do all that sort of stuff; he just wants to get out in the bush and kill possums.
Manuka honey was another issue that Sue Kedgley from the Greens brought up. Up north the manuka honey industry is a fledgling industry with a lot of potential for export. In fact, I was at the opening of the beekeeping school in Kaitāia not 12 months ago. They showed us these products that manuka honey can be used to make. Most people think honey goes just on your toast. In fact, there are bandages that are infused with manuka honey because of its antibacterial properties. The only machine in the world that can produce these antibacterial manuka-infused bandages, I am told, is in London in England. The demand for this manuka honey is 2,000 tonnes per annum, just to make these bandages, yet we can fulfil only 300 tonnes per annum. So there is massive potential there for the economy.
We have to make sure that we do not get more little critters like these varroa mites that have got into New Zealand and are now infecting hives all around the country. We have to make sure that we do not have these biosecurity threats getting in at our borders, which is the reason we have to ask why 54 front-line jobs have been culled from MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. It is absolutely ridiculous that we are removing staff from a front-line industry that will protect our primary produce being exported overseas. I would like to think that part of this bill would be to return those front-line staff so that we have those protections at our border.
I want to touch quickly on the Wai 262 claim, because the Crown has an obligation to protect our indigenous flora and fauna. If we allow these pest invasions and incursions to come into New Zealand and damage our native flora and fauna, then I do not believe that the Crown is fulfilling its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. I do not believe that the Crown is fulfilling the intent of the Wai 262 report that has come out recently. I know that the Crown will have a look at that and see what it can do, in terms of Wai 262. I believe that it is incumbent on the Government to produce legislation that will protect our borders and the whole biosecurity industry. Kia ora.
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) Link to this
I rise to take a quick call on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill and to commend the bill to the House. I also commend the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, on his speech, particularly for the way he focused on compliance costs. It was great to see Mr Davis focusing on one of the six key strategies of the National Government’s plan. We welcome him to come over to this side of the House at any time to work on bringing down those compliance costs for businesses in New Zealand. It is a fantastic thing and we support that initiative. I commend the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill to the House at this point in time. Thank you.