Baldock Larry: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Baldock Larry: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7037] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. First in response the speaker before me I want to indicate how pleased we in United Future are to be supporting this urgency week so that bills like this can be passed through this House instead of being left sitting on the Table for so long. This is an important bill that deals with an important subject for our nation. The intent of the bill is to amend the Biosecurity Act of 1993 to reflect experience of its practical application over 10 years as well as make changes to clarify responsibilities for administering pest management. 
In terms of better defining responsibilities the merger of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Forestry has made some provisions of the Forests Act redundant so those will be repealed. The bill ensures that the protective provisions of the Wildlife Act do not conflict with the use of the Biosecurity Act to control a wildlife organism that has since proved to have undesirable effects as it did with the rainbow lorikeet. In the same vein the Supplementary Order Paper in the Minister’s name was developed to ensure that the proposals of the Department of Conservation for regulating ferrets under the Biosecurity Act are not frustrated by wildlife regulations regarding farming of unprotected wildlife. The bill also allows persons not employed under the State Sector Act to be appointed as inspectors which is sensible in emergency situations where additional biosecurity inspectors who might not be Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry staff could be required. They would still be subject to the supervision of ministry staff however. 
As I noted before some provisions in the bill have arisen from the experience of officials and others in applying the legislation in practice. For example the bill extends the ability to inspect and treat unaccompanied imported goods to include transnational facilities such as those areas used to process passengers. Normally goods accompany passengers in those areas but inspectors have found that that is not always the case so the law needs to give them the power to check goods in this instance. The bill also extends the power to search persons and seize goods beyond unauthorised goods to include risk goods—in other words organic matter—and allow for routine audits where uncleared risk goods or unauthorised goods might not necessarily be suspected. In certain circumstances leaving uncleared risk goods or unauthorised goods would create a real risk of further spread of the pest or disease if these goods cannot be removed and placed in a secure facility. 
One of the most important aspects of the bill is perhaps the provision that re-enacts a previously repealed section that imposed a non-enforceable duty on all persons to inform the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of the presence of foreign organisms. The new provision revives that reporting requirement but it is coupled with a new offence provision that applies to persons who would reasonably be expected to recognise an alien organism yet fail to alert authorities. The Primary Production Committee recommended that to make it easier for the public to pass on information the obligation to report should be to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in general rather than the chief technical officer. That seems a sensible move and would make it as easy as ringing the 0800 number listed in the phone book. 
The foot-and-mouth outbreak in the UK emphasised the importance of an early warning system so we support the proposal to create a general duty to inform authorities on becoming aware of the presence of an organism not normally found on these shores. Without that legal obligation commercial interests could conflict with the duty to report. For example a commercial entity might be unwilling to report due to the potential financial impact that it could have on that individual business or because it would be a breach of a contractual arrangement. New Zealand is very reliant on the reporting of incursions by those not employed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The Ministry cannot be everywhere and this bill gives greater legal weight to that role. 
The select committee also suggested that the Government should provide information about unwanted organisms to assist those in a position to report their presence. It would seem unfair to insert a duty-to-report requirement into the legislation without ensuring that the people at whom it is targeted know what they should be reporting. United Future would like the Government to demonstrate a commitment to providing those educational resources. We know that some work has already begun to make farmers more aware of unwelcome pests and diseases. For example leaflets were distributed at the recent national field days illustrating the symptoms of six key ruminant diseases under the slogan “Look check ask a vet”. That is a positive sign and we look to the Government to extend this campaign to other groups such as those involved in the importation of goods that might carry unwanted pests. 
The proposal that pest management strategies must include a general description of the measures to be taken to implement the strategy is worthwhile. Often it is the implementation that causes concerns and people who are being asked to consider a strategy should have reasonable information on how it should be implemented. We hope that this will lead to a better-informed consultation process. 
One of the most important provisions is the one that drastically reduces the notice required for aerial spraying in an effort to ensure that a pest incursion does not spread beyond its early stages. Some speakers have already discussed that measure and I would like to focus on it in more detail to express some of United Future’s concerns so I intend to take a call during the Committee stage. 
Our biosecurity strategy is vitally important to New Zealand’s ongoing economic viability. The Reserve Bank has estimated that a foot-and-mouth outbreak in this country would result in a loss of 20000 jobs and a $10 billion drop in gross domestic product over 2 years. The primacy of the agricultural industry in New Zealand and the fact that we are free from many foreign organisms because we share no land borders makes our economy vulnerable to such incursions. Vegetables and fruit alone generate almost $2 billion worth of exports annually and the majority of domestic market requirements. Exports are forecast to hit $3.8 billion by 2010 so it is a very valuable industry to us. All of it is dependent on keeping New Zealand free from pests and diseases yet over the past 5 years we have had 30 biosecurity incursions requiring eradication or control at an estimated cost of $100 million. 
The select committee recently heard the Acting Minister for Biosecurity admit that the cost of the Government’s war against the painted apple moth in west Auckland is almost as much as if the moth had been left to its own devices and that really is an unthinkable thought. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry budgeted $90 million over 3 years for the all-out aerial attack on the moth but it is also estimated that the pest could cause between $58 million and $356 million in damage over 20 years. 
Strangely the funding provided for biosecurity in this year’s Budget has been reduced. Only $25 million was earmarked this year for incursion surveillance when $90 million was approved in principle by the Government in 2002 for the eradication of the painted apple moth alone. Surely it would be better to put more money into proactive measures such as freight-container monitoring and surveillance rather than spraying the population after the incursion has spread. 
United Future supports this bill but feels very strongly that more needs to be done to beef up our detection of biosecurity incursions before we need to start spraying the poor population again.