O'Connor Damien: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Damien: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4079. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 It is very appropriate to have a biosecurity bill the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill  back in the House this week. The Minister in the chair the Minister for Primary Industries  after his outrageous accusations against the horticultural industry last week will I am sure get up to take a call and justify what was an outrageous rant at a group of people who commit billions of dollars in investment—their heart their soul their energy—to growing products that we sell offshore. And he gets up at a conference out of his limo and has a go at them because they feel threatened by biosecurity! 
They are not threatened by Part 2 of the bill here unless of course on their odd day off they go out fishing—which they do I have to say. This part relates to ballast water and all I can say is that it is about time. I think in our support of the bill we have to acknowledge that maybe we could have pushed this along. However this bill itself was generated by Labour in Government; we saw the need for this for greater alignment of the sectors. 
In the area of ballast water my colleague Rino Tirikatene was very modest and kind to the Government. In fact the risk is not 3 million cubic tonnes of water; it is 6 million cubic tonnes—metric tonnes I should say sorry—of water that comes into this country every year. There are 2500 visits by ships coming into the country and they exchange water under a protocol; there has been a general agreement. This bill will move to regulate ships and bring us under the international protocols that attempt to keep marine pests diseases and organisms out of New Zealand waters. 
We are very proud of our marine environment. We say that we are clean and green we have beautiful mussels we have whales in our water and we have the Maui’s dolphin an endangered species—all in pristine marine environments. Well the truth is that we have actually had 148 exotic marine pests come into this country. My guess is that it probably started when Abel Tasman came to this country. Captain Cook probably helped as well. Since that time we have been bringing unwanted pests and organisms into the marine environment of this country. There are a number now that we do not want to bring in I have to say and the focus on ballast water is quite appropriate. I hope the Minister has got the same focus on terrestrial pests and diseases. He seems to have ignored some of the risk that has been explained to him time and time again. 
I went to the Ministry Agriculture and Forestry website—or the new superministry website; I am not sure whether they are keeping this up to date—and it clearly outlines the risks to our country from some of the pests. I should name the six of them that it says are the most significant: the Mediterranean fanworm the European shore crab or green crab  the northern Pacific seastar the Chinese mitten crab the  
Caulerpa 
 and the Asian clam. I am not familiar with these things other than to guess that they would have a severe impact on our native marine wildlife. We had one bizarre situation where the Pacific oyster—which actually came in on boats established itself in New Zealand waters and has been turned into what was a profitable aquaculture industry—unfortunately has now almost been destroyed certainly in Northland by an algal bloom and perhaps by an unknown pest that could maybe have been brought in through ballast water. So it is appropriate that we move to legislate for stricter controls in this area. 
For another example of the things that we are trying to do perhaps think of the  
Rena 
. Think of what happened out on the reef there. Although the country was focused on oil on the fuel from the boat and on our attempt—successful for the most part—to get all that oil off the boat there was of course ballast water in the hull and in the boat that no doubt escaped from that vessel. 
The legislation has penalties in place. It has defence against charges should some contamination or pollution occur and one of those defences of course is if ballast water has escaped as a consequence of damage to a ship—a reasonable position. But I think it does beg the question of what we can do to minimise the chances of boats running aground. If nothing else comes from that disastrous situation it is that we should have a better more highly regulated coastal shipping environment. I was in the House here in 1994— 
Hon Annette King 
: We should have coastal shipping. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: We should have coastal shipping. 
Hon Annette King 
: Yes. It was scrapped by the Tories. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Because the National Government the Tory Government as my colleague said— 
Shane Ardern 
: What’s wrong with the Interislander? 
Hon Annette King 
: Took $51 million out of it. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: That is right. It absolutely decimated coastal shipping here. We were debating that bill. That member Shane Ardern would not know. He was probably on the farm then. He should be still. We were debating that bill until 4 o’clock in the morning if I remember rightly in this very Chamber. 
Hon Annette King 
: That was the Plimsoll line. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: That is right. That was on the Plimsoll line. All I can say in summary is that the Labour Opposition in the 1990s fought tooth and nail to stop the National Government deregulating coastal shipping the consequence of which was the  
Rena  
running aground the huge cost to the Bay of Plenty and the huge cost to the Government. There will be people smiling at that because that is the same Government that deregulated the building industry and of course the mining industry and—I will bring it back to the bill. Talking about ballast water and the regulation that we are bringing into place here the wisdom of good regulation is profound. The stupidity of deregulation in too many cases is also quite stark. I hope that this National Government learns. 
We are supporting this bill. We have pointed out our concerns particularly in Part 1 of the bill. We have major concerns in that area because the Government is not properly resourcing biosecurity. But in terms of Part 2 of the bill dealing specifically with the area of ballast water—dare I tread outside the tight constraints that the Chairman puts on me—can I say that we support wise implementation of regulations around ballast water in New Zealand and we hope that the Ministry for Primary Industries and all its Government agencies have enough resources to properly police this. Of the number of boats be they fishing boats or cargo vessels coming in out of the 2500 I suspect that not all of them are crewed managed and captained to the standards that we would expect. We may very well face the incursions as listed on the Ministry for Primary Industries’ own website that would have a huge impact on what we hope is a growing aquacultural industry—an industry that has huge potential in the pristine waters of this country. 
The Chairman is acknowledging the exit of St Bede’s College—a very good school I have to say. It is a shame it turned out so many National Party members. There are a couple of good Labour Party members from there to uphold the honour of the school. Can I say that in summary we do support the bill. We support the implementation of Part 2 but it is important that the Government gets this right and follows this through with appropriate policing of these regulations.