Hutchison Paul: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7080] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this hugely important Biosecurity Amendment Bill which National will support because National realises the great importance of biosecurity to New Zealand from many points of view: from an economic point of view from an environmental point of view and undoubtedly from an animal and human point of view. 
I am greatly sorry to report to the House that the Labour Party does not appreciate how important biosecurity is. To hear a little while ago the remark of Darren Hughes that this bill should progress more rapidly through the House is absolutely ironic. Darren Hughes is a member of the Labour Government which has allowed this bill to wallow on the Order Paper since 16 August 2001. It has not been progressed by Labour. He had the extraordinary cheek to suggest that it should now— 
Darren Hughes 
: Audacity. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: No no there is no audacity on his part; “cheek” is the more appropriate word. The important thing is that here is a bill that is hugely important yet Labour has not shown any concern about it. It has dawdled on it for the last 2 years and now under urgency it wants to progress it. Labour members certainly have not made this bill a priority. This minority Labour Government has given priority to things such as the Care of Children Bill; it wants to consider whether the lesbian partner of the mother of a baby conceived using assisted human reproduction techniques should be called the father. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Can we come back to this bill please? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I am really pointing out how hugely important this bill is. As Federated Farmers pointed out in its very apt submission the importance of biosecurity to New Zealand is absolutely vital. After all pastoral exports are valued at $13 billion and comprised 42.7 percent of all exports in 2001. We learn that if there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in New Zealand it would result in a cumulative loss of $10 billion over 2 years and the loss of 15000 jobs. Yet Labour put this bill to one side and gave preference to other far less important legislation. 
The Government’s record is absolutely appalling when it comes to biosecurity. As my colleagues have pointed out since October last year there have been 11 incursions of a whole variety of organisms from the Asian gypsy moth to the North American southern ring-necked snake the cane toad and the scorpion and this Government has done little about it. It is important to reiterate what the Associate Minister for Biosecurity told the House on 26 March 2003. She said: “… I think that finding only six [incursions] in the last fortnight shows that we really are very good at surveillance.” That is a shocking indictment on the Labour Government and on that Associate Minister for Biosecurity. It is appalling how lackadaisical she has been about this very very important issue of biosecurity. 
One of the other points that has been made is that sea containers continue to be a source of biosecurity incursions because only 25 percent of those that arrive here are checked properly. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: What was the percentage under National? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The point is that this Labour Government has been in power for almost 4 long unfortunate years and only 25 percent of containers are checked. The Government is worried that it might cost $90 million to carry out proper surveillance. The Government has already spent $90 million on the painted apple moth campaign in west Auckland which has been very badly mishandled yet it is holding back on ensuring that there is proper inspection of sea containers which are one of the first areas where inspection should be done properly. As well as that the Government is commissioning very little new research into technologies to reduce the cost of inspecting containers. That again is very very serious. The Government is basically taking a passive attitude towards this very important area of biosecurity. 
One example and I do not know whether it has been brought up previously is the elimination of the white spotted tussock moth in 1997-98 under National. National demonstrated how to run a successful eradication campaign but what has happened with the painted apple moth? It arrived in late 1999. Labour did not learn the lessons of the white spotted tussock moth campaign and the painted apple moth was allowed to spread for more than 2 years before aerial spraying began. The Auditor-General released an absolutely damning report last year on the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s slow and uncoordinated response to the painted apple moth. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: What about the varroa bee mite? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The member raises a very important point. Under this Government the management of that mite has been shocking. 
I want to point out one other slight irony which involves the Greens. On the one hand we hear the Greens say in very shrill tones that they want zero tolerance regarding genetic modification (GM) although there have not been any reports anywhere in the world of adverse effects from GM food. On the other hand today we hear that Nandor Tanczos and his colleagues are incredibly upset with the Customs Service which has instituted a zero tolerance policy in terms of the importation of hemp products. Tetrahydrocannabinols undoubtedly have been proved to be harmful. The Greens want zero tolerance for something that has been proved to do no harm but they want laxity for something that is harmful. 
Stephen Franks 
: It’s called the precautionary principle. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It is the precautionary principle in reverse. I end by saying that the Biosecurity Amendment Bill is a very important bill. National supports it and we are deeply concerned that the Government has not paid biosecurity the attention that this very important area deserves. Federated Farmers in their very good submission put it all into perspective when they said that it is vital that the Government got on and started putting proactive efforts into making a realistic biosecurity strategy for New Zealand. 
Bill read a third time.