Ardern Shane: Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 4) Hazardous Substances and New Organisms  Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Ardern Shane: Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 4) Hazardous Substances and New Organisms  Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:646;Page:15358] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I thank the Minister David Cunliffe for his comments about the Primary Production Committee and he was right. The select committee did go about its work in a studious fashion within a very short time frame. I was one who spoke in the second reading debate on this legislation about the very short time the select committee was given and at that point my view was that it was an unnecessarily tight time frame. But once we were made aware of the Crown Law Office opinion which was that all the import health standards that were before officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Biosecurity New Zealand had to cease being developed further from the time of the Court of Appeal case it became obvious to us fairly quickly that there was a need to move on as sensibly as possible. 
This has been an interesting exercise in the sense that one of our country’s smaller export industries has demonstrated overwhelmingly I think that if it raises its concerns strongly enough and with enough sensible scientific evidence to back up the issue then Parliament will take notice particularly once the industry has won a Court of Appeal case. This legislation came about simply because the Court of Appeal case highlighted the overlap that existed between the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. Therefore the moves today are supported by the National Party because it was necessary to tidy that uncertainty up.  
It has also been demonstrated that when a group of New Zealanders who believe in the democratic process come to Parliament to protest and find that their protest is not accepted or not believed there is a final point of appeal in this land where they can take their case. I congratulate those within the National Beekeepers’ Association on doing that. It demonstrates overwhelmingly that if we are determined enough we can still have success against what seems to be an insurmountable bureaucratic process so I congratulate the association. 
At the end of this process we now have an amended piece of legislation or two Acts that have been amended and we also have this independent review panel that the Minister spoke of. It is my sincere hope that this independent review panel will be allowed to carry out its work in the way that was intended by this Parliament. It should be independent it should be able to attract the international or national—if that is the case—expertise that it can bring together and at the end the scientific evidence that is brought to the argument whichever way that may be is compelling and is accepted. The bee-keeper industry itself said right at the outset that all it ever wanted was to have the opportunity for the science around this import health standard to be tested. This Parliament is today granting it that right. I thank the Minister for his involvement particularly in clearing up through the Supplementary Order Paper that was introduced in the Committee stage the overlap that existed in the process. 
I also say that this will not be the last time these issues are debated in this Parliament. I may be in a minority I am not sure but I believe there are some unfinished amendments to the Biosecurity Act and potentially the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I think over time further development will take place in the way that we not only introduce import health standards but in the way that we administer those import health standards and in the role of the director-general and the new structure of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. We should bear in mind that the structure we have in our Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry at the moment in regard to this stuff is relatively new after the ministry itself went through a major reform not that long ago. As that reform beds in and we are better able to see in a more transparent way where there may or may not be weaknesses in the Act further legislative change will happen. 
The debate that is still unresolved I guess to some extent—and it was highlighted in the case of the  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 importation—is what we do when there is a known passenger organism coming in with a known import that is deliberately being imported. What do we do if the scientific evidence or the process that we place that organism in or through is not as robust or not seen to be as robust as that of a deliberate import? What do we do in those circumstances? I think to some extent the independent science-based panel hopefully will answer some of those questions. 
Further I think the argument about our trading partners internationally saying that we are placing legislative roadblocks in the way of further trade will be overcome substantially by the creation of this independent science body. Once the scientists have considered it—and they must be transparent in the way they do that—and their work is peer reviewed internationally and domestically then I think those who would put up a case at World Trade Organization meetings or other such on a sanitary or phytosanitary argument will have their arguments substantially weakened. To that end I think we have achieved not only an outlet for those who feel aggrieved about the process but some transparency in terms of the way we have arrived at whatever decision we arrive at at the time. 
To those in the ministry who have concerns about this process I say that I think it will be a case of just toughing it out for a while. Certainly at the end of the day our cousins across the Tasman the Australians whom I know the ministry is in delicate discussions with presently will have this science body to come back to and discuss these issues with. 
I also say that at the end of the day if the case of those who are in industries is strong enough regardless of where those industries are—and I know that we will go through probably a long and serious debate in the meat and wool industries at the moment—they can rest assured that if they come to the Parliament with sensible and substantial legislation then this Parliament will respond and that is one of the good things about New Zealand. With those words it is my privilege to stand in the House today in support of the passage of this legislation.