Turei Metiria: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15208] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
Tena koe. Well there we have it. The Minister Jim Anderton has exposed the primary reason for the Government’s support for the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill and why it has been brought forward which is that it is to do with trade relationships with other countries. What he is really saying here is that New Zealand has signed up to international trade agreements which means that we are not able to exercise the level of border control that the New Zealand public believes is crucial to protecting our country from incursions of other organisms from overseas that may put our economy and our environment at risk. 
What he said in this last little speech of his was that trade barriers are a major concern for him. Therefore he will propose legislation that will open up our borders to known organisms that could pose a serious threat to our environment and to our economy. 
Mr Anderton talks about the value of these trade processes to the country but he is not reminding the Committee or the public at this time that one of the main threats of these kinds of organisms is to our primary sector—to our farming sector our horticultural sector our forestry sector and potentially even our fishing sector and aquacultural sector. Those are industries on which our country relies and we are obligated to protect them to the maximum extent possible. We rely on those industries to a very large extent for the economic well-being of this country. 
That has always been the Green Party’s position. That is why we have always opposed the introduction of GMOs into this country. That is why the Greens have strongly promoted environmental measures to protect our environment so that the land on which our primary sector is based and the water on which our primary sector is based is healthy and clean and can continue to support those sectors well into the future for my grandchildren and great-grandchildren and for all of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. 
At the same time as we are trying to protect our economy and our environment from these incursions the Labour Government along with the National Party is supporting legislation that gives control and decision making over known organisms that could cause serious risk to our country to an organisation a ministry that has a very low risk-assessment process. 
The Labour Government along with the National Party has diverted the law. The Government has an alternative. It does not have to give this power to biosecurity agencies; it could give this power to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Environmental Risk Management Authority which is designed to deal with these issues. The authority has a precautionary principle and the scientific rigorous processes in place to deal with known passenger organisms. 
But no it has chosen not to take the most rigorous approach. It has chosen not to provide the maximum level of protection to our environment and to our economy. Instead it has given the power to biosecurity agencies which have a much lower risk-assessment threshold. 
We know for example that environmental organisations that are part of the Government have said that this bill will not protect our environment. In January of last year the Department of Conservation said that it did not support the proposal. The department said that the legislation would reduce the quality of risk assessment would expose New Zealand to greater risk from new organisms would create an inconsistent system and is an unwarranted relative to the problem the Government was trying to solve. 
One of our principal organisations for the protection of our environment for the protection of our biodiversity and for the protection of our threatened native species has said that this bill will pose a risk to that environment and to those species. The Department of Conservation did not support this legislation. It did not make a submission and we might like to ask why. Is it that the Department of Conservation was not allowed to? Why did it not make a submission on this legislation? 
We know that there is not support from the Government’s own environmental agencies that are responsible for protecting our environment from these kinds of incursions. We know that the Government in 2006 intended for this legislation to allow for GMOs to be introduced. And we know that there is some kind of connection between National and the racing industry so perhaps that is why National is supporting this legislation.