Robertson Grant: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Robertson Grant: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16212] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Despite its brevity I think that was the best speech Sandra Goudie has given in Parliament—in my time here anyway.  
Sandra Goudie 
: Thank you very much. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well no I say to Mrs Goudie that it is a low bar.  
It gives me pleasure to rise to speak in this debate because I believe that the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is timely. Members on this side of the House recognise that issues related to biosecurity are constantly evolving and although the Biosecurity Act 1993 provided a good basis for us to manage our borders and our immediate environment time moves quickly in the area of biosecurity and there is a need for an update.  
There is absolutely no doubt that New Zealand perhaps more than any other developed country relies on high-quality biosecurity measures.  
John Hayes 
: Thank you thank you thank you. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Hayes is someone who would know a great deal about that from his time working to defend our borders.  
About 80 percent of New Zealand’s primary production each year is exported. When we look at some of the numbers we see that they really do emphasise the importance of that. Nearly $20 billion of agricultural and food exports $3.2 billion of horticultural exports $3.4 billion of forestry product exports and 64 percent of our total merchandise exports come from the primary production area. That area is critical for our economy. The kind of comprehensive review and measures that are required from time to time in the biosecurity field is what we are seeing with the bill. Therefore it is an important one for us to focus on tonight.  
It is such an important bill that we would perhaps expect slightly more contribution from the National Government members. They have made limited contributions throughout this urgency process which makes us wonder quite how urgent the National Government sees these matters as being. But on biosecurity we certainly know that we are pleased this bill has come before the House.  
The Biosecurity Act was put in place in 1993. Seventeen years later the world is quite different. It is important that we acknowledge the changes in the way that people travel around the world the frequency of travel that is undertaken by people the way that goods move around the world and the fact that new markets are opening up all the time that goods are being produced in multiple countries and exported to New Zealand and that people and goods are travelling together more often. We need measures that acknowledge those things. We also have to acknowledge the rapid change in technology. A lot of what is in the Biosecurity Act 1993 reflects a manual system of processing whereas nowadays we have a lot more computerised systems of processing and obviously that needs to be worked through.  
Also after 17 years of operation the Biosecurity Act has thrown up one or two issues that perhaps have shown it is not working so well. Some would say that that is particularly so in the area of pest management—in the way in which our relationships are formed between regional and local authorities and central government. It is good to see that those issues are being picked up in this bill. There have also been changes in the way in which our marine environment is managed in New Zealand’s relationships with other countries in the way in which the exclusive economic zone has been developed and in the way in which our international maritime law has continued to evolve. All of those things have occurred since 1993 and it is important that the bill is updated to reflect them.  
As other speakers have said the bill moves to amend a number of different areas. As I have said it particularly looks at the question of the marine environment. There are several amendments in that area. They look at the exclusive economic zone and make sure that the measures in the Biosecurity Act are consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. There are also amendments that introduce a new instrument into the Act the craft risk management standard which will set out biosecurity requirements for craft arriving in New Zealand.  
I note from the regulatory impact statement that there was an issue in the consultation process—and I am sure it will be taken up during the select committee process—over how craft risk-management standards will be implemented. Stakeholders who were involved in that process certainly wanted to see New Zealand’s biosecurity standards mesh with international standards and conventions where possible. But in the consultation process they questioned the application and use of those standards how practical they would be and whether the movements would apply to craft that move around New Zealand or to craft that arrive in New Zealand. All of those issues were raised in the consultation process and I hope that the select committee will take them up. Although it sounds like a reasonable idea that there should be a consistent craft risk-management standard it is new territory and it needs to be clear. Obviously the people involved have expressed that already in the consultation process and we certainly hope that it will be taken up further.  
As I said earlier there is also an alteration made in the bill to the position of the Crown in relation to making sure that regional pest-management strategies are aligned. There is some concern in the regulatory impact statement about the potential cost to the Crown for that. The regulatory impact statement makes clear that there has not yet been time to identify exactly what those costs are. I think that will be another issue that the select committee will want to look at.  
The bill will also allow national and regional pest-management plans to be more effectively developed and allow the development of plans at the national level to address the movement of harmful organisms. That is all stuff that members on this side of the House would be happy to support investing in.  
I note that the bill amends the scope of the Wild Animal Control Act 1977. That is an Act that Mr Twyford knows well. [ 
Interruption 
] No they have not yet actually. It is incredible really. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is that why Tau is away? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well no. We note that there are two particular animals being looked at in this part of the bill: possums and wallabies which are currently managed solely under the Wild Animal Control Act and will come under the Biosecurity Act. I want to know whether Robbie Deans fits within the definition of a wallaby. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Russel Norman should be worried.  
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Russel Norman may be worried that is true— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: More like a possum in the headlights. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right. He is perhaps both a possum and a wallaby. We will certainly be interested to see the extent to which the definition of wallaby will be contained in the changes being suggested.  
The other area I will mention is the clarity of roles and relationships and collaboration and partnerships. Certainly again looking at the regulatory impact statement there was strong support in the consultation with stakeholders for improving the clarity of the relationships between MAF Biosecurity regional and local authorities industry and other importers. Clearly as Dr Norman has already mentioned New Zealand has such a great number of imports and exports and there is the need to do a huge amount of assessment but not everything can be assessed. We need to ensure that partnerships are in place to make sure that quality assessment can take place and that the things we need to look at are looked at.  
It is on the subject of those relationships that I will now move to the impact of the decision made by the National Government to cut 55 front-line staff from MAF Biosecurity. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is the kind of reaction I would expect from the Hon Ruth Dyson because it is remarkable. Having spent a considerable amount of time working through both the importance of biosecurity to New Zealand and the changes since 1993 it is remarkable in the context of this bill to then realise that this Government cut 55 front-line positions from MAF Biosecurity. That is the very area that we have established throughout this debate as essential to New Zealand’s economy and essential to our environmental health and well-being and this Government has cut those front-line positions.  
We have heard from David Carter in previous times that those positions were cut because there were fewer imports of particular types of cars coming into New Zealand. How short-sighted is that? To say that right at the moment we do not have quite enough imports and exports to justify the staff is no way to manage a biosecurity system in New Zealand. What happens when there is an incursion? What happens when tourism starts to rise again? We have the expensive cost of re-employing all of those people—or not as the case may be. We need to invest in biosecurity in New Zealand and that includes the people who protect our borders. They are truly front-line staff.  
This Government came into office with a promise not to cut front-line public servants. This was the first and biggest example of a straight-out breaking of that promise. There has been concern throughout New Zealand and throughout the sectors that are affected by this bill. There has been concern from organisations such as Horticulture New Zealand the New Zealand Flower Exporters Association and Federated Farmers. All of those organisations have expressed the concern that cutting 55 front-line positions puts at risk New Zealand’s biosecurity.  
There is nothing more important to our economy than the protection of our borders. We need to ensure that MAF Biosecurity has adequate staff in order to perform the important roles that are noted in this bill. We will support this bill being referred to a select committee because we believe that biosecurity is a vital part of protecting and enhancing our economy and protecting our environment. But we raise our concerns that cutting 55 front-line staff does no good. We must ensure that we have the people in place to protect our borders.