Ewen-Street Ian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ewen-Street Ian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6206] 
7.  
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: How many biosecurity incursions requiring post-border eradication and control have there been in the last 5 years and what is the estimated cost to New Zealand of these events? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Biosecurity 
: Approximately 30 significant biosecurity incursions over the past 5 years have cost New Zealand in the order of $100 million. Those are rough estimates and I suggest that to get the precise number the member puts down a question for written answer. This is the best that can be done in the time available. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Why has the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s budget been cut for essential research such as the development of mechanical sniffers for sea containers and for education programmes for travellers and importers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: One million dollars has been spent on an operation in relation to investigating further work on sea containers and the Government is expecting to make an announcement soon in relation to more effective inspection of sea containers. 
David Parker 
: What evidence can the Minister point to to show that the Government takes biodiversity seriously? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Auditor-General’s report on biosecurity shows that the Government is spending more than $50 million a year above the baseline biosecurity funding that we inherited. We continue to look for ways to tighten our biosecurity measures. 
Shane Ardern 
: In the light of the Associate Minister for Biosecurity’s answer to the House a couple of weeks ago when she said: “I think that finding only six incursions in the last fortnight shows that we are very good at surveillance.” is the Government now prepared to accept that more money needs to be spent on surveillance? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister for Biosecurity will continue to urge upon the Minister of Finance the need for increased spending in these areas. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Will the Minister accept that the biosecurity database of pests that are potentially damaging to New Zealand’s agriculture and economy is inadequate and will he now take steps to upgrade the database to include all the pests of our trading partners so that they will be swiftly identified on arrival and promptly eradicated thereafter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government continues to expand its operations in these areas. We accept the need for increased activity and surveillance but it is unlikely that we will ever be 100 percent proof against biosecurity incursions. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Why does the Government think that New Zealand’s economy and ecosystems are worth less than the $190 per container it would cost to inspect 100 percent of all containers arriving at our ports? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There has to be some consideration of the total economic benefits here—the cost of inspection versus the cost of eradication versus the cost of control versus the cost of damage in some instances. For example in the case of the painted apple moth the total cost to date of the eradication programme is now approaching the bottom end of the estimated cost of simply allowing the moth to spread. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Given that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry set traps in a 1-kilometre radius round the infestation of the gum leaf skeletoniser moth even though the female moth is known to fly more than 2 kilometres can the Minister explain why the ministry lacks even a basic understanding of the ecology of this moth? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have to confess that I am not in a position to advise the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on the basic ecology of gum leaf skeletonitis. 
Shane Ardern 
: Can neither the Minister for Biosecurity nor the Minister of Finance concede that as we have budgeted up to $90 million for the eradication of the painted apple moth spending a little bit more on surveillance—given that we spend about $25 million on that at the moment—would be a sound investment? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said we are spending an extra $50 million a year on baseline spending over and above that we inherited. I repeat that however much we spend on biosecurity it is unlikely we will prevent all incursions—some things swim here and some things come through the air from Australia. 
Brent Catchpole 
: How many biosecurity incursions have there been over the last 5 years that his ministry has abandoned all attempts to eradicate and what is the cost of that abandonment to the New Zealand economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have the information to answer that question. I would have to have another question put down to answer it. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How many more times does the Minister envisage that entire urban communities will have to be blanket-sprayed with the pesticide Foray 48B because the Government refuses to put proper biosecurity measures in place at the border? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I repeat that even with the best biosecurity measures—and we have some of the very best in the world—one cannot give a 100 percent guarantee that there will never be another incursion by a species such as the painted apple moth. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Is it still true that couriered mail is not included in the claimed “100 percent inspection of incoming international mail”; if so does the Minister believe that those people who seek to deliberately bring biosecurity-risk goods into New Zealand do not know about that defect in our system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I cannot answer that question. I would have to have another question put down to answer it.