Ardern Shane: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2426] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I say to the Committee at the outset of my speech in this financial review debate that I do not agree entirely with my colleague who has just resumed his seat. There are very few issues on which we disagree but on this one I do. I think the biggest risk to New Zealand’s economy is our Minister for Biosecurity. He is the single biggest risk. The second biggest risk to our New Zealand balance of payments is our Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Forestry who is the same person. I shall tell members why I think that is so. 
The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research reporting to Biosecurity New Zealand put the cost of the didymo incursion in New Zealand at $285 million. We know that that is probably on the conservative side because its estimates in the past have always been conservative as will be the estimates we are likely to get from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on this. We know they are probably on the light side. Yet after repeated questioning the Minister both through written questions and through questions in the House has constantly said: “Unlike the member Mr Ardern I do not believe we could have overcome this problem by treating didymo. There is nowhere in the world that knows anything about killing didymo.” Well I just bring the Minister’s attention to some of the substantial work that has been done internationally that suggests that the two rivers where the incursion was first found could have and should have been chemically treated which would have brought the situation under control for much less than the conservative estimate of $285 million. That is not to mention the further biodiversity loss that will come from the incursion particularly when it spreads throughout New Zealand. 
Once again today a group of land-based agricultural-based hard-working New Zealanders protested on the steps of Parliament against this Government and its suggestion that the importation of honey does not present a biosecurity risk. That is what the Minister said—that it does not present a biosecurity risk. Quite frankly it does. The Minister also said to the group of bee-keepers on the steps of Parliament that he as the Minister cannot under the Biosecurity Act intervene on matters that are in the realm of the director-general of Biosecurity New Zealand. I thought that was an interesting comment to make so I went to the Parliamentary Library—our very good Parliamentary Library—for an explanation of which part of the 1993 Act excludes the Minister from being able to intervene when he is not convinced there is a potential biosecurity risk. 
I have the library’s findings here which are that it cannot find anything to suggest that the Minister is unable to intervene in a decision in terms of imports or potential biosecurity risks. The library rather than just relying on its reading of the Act went further and asked for  
Laws of New Zealand 
 a legal encyclopaedia to have a look at whether that was so. The answer came back that it could not find any area in the 1993 Act that precludes the Minister from being able to intervene in this matter. So I say to the Minister—and I am sure he has his officials scurrying as we speak to find the relevant legislation—that I will be interested to hear from him on that. I am sure he will take a call and respond and that will be good. 
Also during this financial review debate the Minister was asked whether he thought the biosecurity structure in New Zealand was adequately resourced and I think what he said was: “Unlike the previous Government we have resourced this structure better than it has ever been resourced before.” Yet we found in the case of the foot-and-mouth hoax on Waiheke Island that Biosecurity New Zealand was in breach of section 4 of the Public Finance Act because the Minister had to appropriate—or misappropriate it could be suggested because there was not enough money there—$886000 under Vote Biosecurity to control what could have been a devastating incursion in this country. So members of the House and anybody else who might be listening can surely see by this that Minister Anderton is not on top of his portfolio and therefore we have a major risk to this nation. A biosecurity breach in this country is the single greatest risk to our exports. If it is the case that heat treatment of honey can keep European foulbrood out then why does the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry not say unequivocally that this is so? It does not.