Browning Steffan: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Browning Steffan: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3786. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is also unable to support this bill the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. The Green Party is very very concerned about biosecurity and we often and for many years have been pushing the issue of inadequate biosecurity by successive Governments. We have seen pest after pest come in affecting different industries and affecting biodiversity in this country.  
I was part of the early consultation on this bill and it is clear that Biosecurity New Zealand as it was then was really looking to see whether it could have some better systems and some better processes to look after biosecurity and in some respects the bill does address that. It is looking at how to do it in maybe a more user-pays way which unfortunately leaves some glaring gaps but not only that it actually impacts on industry in a very—how would you say it—hodgepodge way. It is a mix and match all over the place way of doing it. It is going to be inadequately resourced under the Government-industry agreement system when it is implemented and that is being attempted to be implemented now under duress in most of the industries.  
Most of the changes may seem to be able to enhance biosecurity outcomes in New Zealand but that would be only if biosecurity was significantly better resourced and there is no intention of that. The Government has not done it and it did not do it in the last Budget either.  
The distributed responsibility for biosecurity management is we say a brave new adventure for the Ministry of Primary Industries but it is one that will blur the lines of responsibility for biosecurity breaches. It is a more cooperative approach and you might say that will lead to some better biosecurity outcomes but it is actually blurring the lines of responsibility and we see that as a very big risk. We see that as actually quite sad.  
I want to look at the real problems with biosecurity in New Zealand. The Minister for Primary Industries has said it in this House in recent months a couple of times: do we want the same approach taken by our international markets the importers of our produce into other markets? That was in response to the pig endogenous retrovirus more recently the pig issue—the thing that is in front of the court because it is so contentious. The Minister expects that we will accept greater risk into this country because of some of our purported better exports. He says that we need to prioritise that we will take up the recommendations from the  
Pseudomonas syringae 
 pv.  
Actinidiae 
 investigation and that that will prioritise where biosecurity goes depending on the importance of a particular sector. That is a very narrow way of looking at it. It is a very risky way of looking at it because it puts it down into just a few sectors that are seen as the sectors where our economy is based. But that is our economy at the moment on a really slack commodity level. We have got pines we have got dairy and if that is all we are going to rely on and we look the other way and not at the depth that we need to around biosecurity risk we are not looking to the future for New Zealand.  
I note that John Lancashire the immediate past president of the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science in its recent publication lambasted the Government—and previous Governments as well I must say—for the neo-liberal approach that it has been taking to trade and biosecurity. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: What’s that mean? 
STEFFAN BROWNING 
: That means that in recent years both major parties have said they will do a little bit less regulation and they will do freer and freer trade and that means we are taking more risks about growing biosecurity threats. The slight loosening of border controls has led to some very expensive search—