Turia Tariana: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turia Tariana: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15152] 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. There is a popular television commercial starring a young boy asking his dad where he comes from. His father launches into a comprehensive and dramatic story of the birds and the bees to the utter astonishment of his son who really just wanted to know the name of his birthplace rather than the details of his creation. The Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill reminds me of that ad and unfortunately the affected industries may well be stung. On one hand we are told it is an uncontroversial confirmation of the original intentions of Parliament when it passed legislation in 1996—all very innocent so it seems. On the other hand bee-keepers and other concerned parties are telling us that this bill could easily cause a massive increase in unwanted organisms being imported into Aotearoa. The Maori Party has been searching through the myths to find the meaning of this new raft of biosecurity legislation. 
One of the strange quirks of bill-making in this House is when as in this case the majority of the 53 submissions oppose the bill yet the conclusion of the Primary Production Committee was to unanimously recommend that the bill be passed. It is like when the Foreshore and Seabed Bill came before this House: 2171 submissions; 186 presentations; 10 consultation hui which were unanimous in their opposition yet well the rest is a legacy that this Government will have to live with. 
Is the opportunity to receive free and frank advice from those most affected in the sector simply a farcical act of pretence? When it comes to the crunch is the advice of Crown Law or the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the only word in town? Why make out that the experience of bee-keepers farmers and horticulturalists is going to be treated with respect when the legislators hold the upper hand? 
The other point to stress about the façade of consultation is that as other speakers have noted a 1-week deadline placed enormous pressure on the industry the agricultural producers and the environmental and conservation non-governmental organisations to be able to deliver the substantive analysis required. What the Sustainability Council emphasised is that this bill establishes a fundamental change of biosecurity law that will undermine border protection. It was its considered view that the removal of standards to assess organisms not present in Aotearoa would weaken not only the economy but also our most treasured native species. The New Zealand Pork Industry Board has long argued that it is critical that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry set border standards to maintain our human plant and animal status. The Waikato branch of the National Beekeepers’ Association spoke of the need for the bee-keeping industry to be protected against the importation of new diseases and organisms—diseases and organisms that could also detrimentally affect the flora and fauna of this land. 
I could go on but the point is that there was a remarkable synergy amongst the submissions. They painstakingly detailed the risks that the proposed regime might introduce to the economy. They shared their concerns about the environmental threats that would result from biosecurity breaches. The bee-keepers forewarned Parliament of a crisis state called Colony Collapse Disorder where literally most of the bees disappear from the beehive. It is a bit like this place on the Thursday session before the Easter break. 
The United States Government is facing a cost of over $100 million over the next 5 years in researching Colony Collapse Disorder. The threat must not be underestimated. At this stage Colony Collapse Disorder is killing approximately 30 percent of beehives in the United States and the future prospects are not good. By far the most consistent message throughout the feedback was the concern about the unseemly haste of rushing this legislation through. Virtually all of the submitters put forward the argument that in light of the complexity of protections available under the Biosecurity Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act careful and considered policy work must be undertaken to ensure the two are in alignment. 
We will support the introduction of a sunset clause that would basically ensure that the amendment will be repealed within 12 to 18 months of enactment. We concur with the advice put forward that there is no need for rash urgency concerning the process by which import health standards will be considered. A sunset clause will enable the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to continue to work on the import health standards without ensuring the additional risk of jeopardising our environmental protection. 
In essence the Maori Party’s approach to environmental policy focuses on problems arising from human impact on the environment with retroacts on to human society. This effect is felt in understanding the way in which the intervention threatens good health or well-being in the clean green environment. We consider that the provisions of this bill give priority to World Trade Organization obligations ahead of the protection of our native flora and fauna. Such a decision places a wide range of animal and plant industries at considerable risk of contamination. We have heard from Shane Ardern this afternoon of two such issues—the brush fences imported from China and a product that I cannot quite remember from Sri Lanka that brought in quite a number of new plant species—and that is shocking. 
This issue is about much more than the birds and the bees. It is also about the value and necessity of pollination which is critical for grass crops trees and flowers. But instead it appears that the decision to import honey is related to trade agreements with Australia particularly in exchange for being able to export our apples there. 
In practical terms the bill revalidates the health importation standard that was issued to allow Australian honey into Aotearoa. Another amendment that we believe could be helpful would be in relation to the 90-day exemption period that is proposed for the Australian honey standards. The bill seeks to suspend imports from Australia for 90 days from the date this bill receives the Royal assent. The 90-day exemption is designed to allow bee-keepers the opportunity to invoke the independent review procedure yet the classic joke of this bill is that if we assume the bill receives the Royal assent by say 1 April 2008 as all indications lead us to believe then the 90-day exemption will have expired before the criteria for setting up the new panel has even been published. 
An amendment will be placed before the House during the Committee stage that seeks a change to this 90-day exemption period. The proposal is that 90 days moves from as in the current wording the commencement of this Act to instead after the date on which the independent review panel is established. 
A particularly compelling case was put to the committee by Russell Berry representing the National Beekeepers’ Association. Despite the fact that his advice and that of his peers seems to be resisted or perhaps because of this fact I want to leave the last word to him as to why the Maori Party is voting against this bill. He said: “We reject the notion that free-trade principles can or should take precedence over New Zealand’s right to establish and maintain the strongest protection against known risks of exotic pests and diseases. Finally it is very important to maintain some areas of the world as free as possible of diseases of bees and we could very well be called on in the future to supply bees to countries such as USA when all their own honey bees die from such disasters as CCD.” 
So from one “Beehive” to another we must do all we can to ensure the legislation will protect us our flora and fauna and our environment also against known new organisms. This legislation does not meet the grade and we therefore will not be supporting it at the second reading. 
I seek leave to table an email from the chief executive of the Department of Conservation to the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.