Rich Katherine: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Rich Katherine: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7078] 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 It must be pretty frustrating for members on that side to have to stand up and give such short speeches. Some members may leave the House having said only things like “I support the bill.” and “I move that the question be now put.” When they have gone down in history and people in the future look up their contributions they will see that they were quite limited indeed. 
In terms of making contributions today the Opposition does not apologise for taking some time in debating this issue even though there is unanimous support for the bill. This is a very important issue. If something goes wrong with biosecurity this economy could be shut down virtually overnight. The cost to the economy of a foot-and-mouth outbreak could potentially be $10 billion so members on this side have taken the issue seriously. That is why we have debated this bill aggressively and enthusiastically. 
I must say that the bill is being passed unanimously today only because of the enthusiastic work of the Opposition members on the Primary Production Committee. I think it is important to pay tribute to some of the members of that committee. Mr Gavan Herlihy made a huge contribution to the Primary Production Committee as did Philip Heatley who has been one of the more aggressive debaters on this issue in this House and Shane Ardern who is our spokesman for biosecurity. He has very much held— 
David Benson-Pope 
: That speaks volumes about the National Party doesn’t it? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It is interesting that Mr Benson-Pope the country’s most noxious incursion makes that comment because one of the things that members thought was most unusual was the fact that his Government had put this portfolio in the hands of Minister Marian Hobbs. This is one of the more important portfolios one that rural communities very much depend on. How did the Government signal that importance? How did it show the community how important biosecurity was? The Government gave the portfolio to Minister Marian Hobbs who is also known as Minister “Boo Boo”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no in this House all members are honourable members or Ministers. Please carry on. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I think it is important to go back to one of the main comments which I thought was very telling about that Minister’s handle on this portfolio. After a terrible track record with the portfolio she came out and said: “I think that finding only six incursions in the last fortnight shows that we’re really very good at surveillance.” That did not make many members on this side of the Chamber feel very confident that she was in control of the portfolio. 
It is worthwhile at this stage to go through the biosecurity report card of this Government. Even though there were only about 10 incursions prior to 1999 there has been a huge influx of unwanted pests and biosecurity risks since that time. In April 2003 we had the cane toad and in March 2003 we had the fall web worm the crazy ant and the Asian gypsy moth. I feel like David Attenborough when discussing some of these problems which the Government simply has not been able to— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: They let them in? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Yes it welcomed them in in fact. Some people think that immigration policies are confined to the immigration portfolio but the biosecurity portfolio has a very active immigration policy under this Government. 
Looking at this particular bill I think that although there is unanimous support for it it is important to take the time to debate the issues fully. Biosecurity is very much an issue where the portfolio is more or less an insurance policy of sorts. If we do not get right the investment in biosecurity then there will be significant costs further down the track. I think we have seen that with the painted apple moth. So far the cost of dealing with that particular incursion has totalled $90 million. Imagine if that money had been spent on a more thorough investigation of sea containers when they came to New Zealand! 
I have to say I was quite shocked to hear that fewer than 25 percent of sea containers are actually checked when they come into this country. The checks are not very thorough. The check entails the container being opened and an official popping his or her head in to see if anything jumps out. That is not the sort of investigation we expect. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry certainly has a lot of work to do to try and— 
Darren Hughes 
: Give it away. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that that member is very new and has aspirations of being on the front bench but he should know that he is not allowed to make silly comments when he is not in his own seat. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I shall put it this way: I am not going to adjudicate on whether the member’s comments were silly; I can say that if he wants to interject and if he is not acting as a whip he should go back to his seat. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: We have a very fragile economy which can be put at risk and certainly has been put at risk in the last few years. The biosecurity report card is nothing less than appalling. We have more problems and more incursions than we have ever had before. I think the Government needs to stop thinking in a short-term way about biosecurity investment and to put a greater amount of investment into particularly the investigation of sea containers as they come into this country. If it does not we are going to continue to have a number of very expensive problems down the track. As I mentioned earlier had the $90 million that has been spent on getting rid of the painted apple moth been spent on doing thorough investigations in the first place the chances are that we would not have that particular problem. 
This is an important bill that introduces some quite significant powers for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The bill gives the ministry the ability to act more quickly which I think is important. It is important that it be able to act in a timely manner if there are problems to do with scrapie mad cow disease or foot-and-mouth disease. It is good that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will have the ability to act more quickly than it has done in the past. The ministry will also have greater powers to audit which I think is important. Greater penalties also are introduced in this bill and that will quite clearly send a message to members of the public that if they do not act in a timely fashion and alert the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to incursions they have discovered there is a penalty involved. 
This legislation is just an amendment bill. It augments the Biosecurity Act 1993 which as we know aims to exclude eradicate and effectively manage pests and unwanted organisms. The Opposition will support anything that will strengthen biosecurity. We understand the importance of the portfolio and its impact on the economy. It is a shame that members on the other side of the House do not.