Prosser Richard: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prosser Richard: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3784. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the New Zealand First Party. We are opposed to the passage of this bill the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill in its present form. New Zealand First is strongly committed to the promotion and preservation of New Zealand’s biosecurity. We understand that the intention of this bill is to enhance and improve the level of that biosecurity and we support the amendments that it will bring to several other pieces of legislation namely the Maritime Transport Act 1994 the Ombudsmen Act 1975 the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 and the Wildlife Act 1953. We see the bringing together of relevant legislation under a single umbrella as being a positive move in terms of the imposition and enforcement of measures intended to safeguard the biosecurity of New Zealand which is undeniably of crucial importance to our agriculture and to tourism and thereby to our economy and way of life.  
We acknowledge the work done by the previous Primary Production Committee and appreciate the lengths and detail to which that committee went in order to ensure that what has been presented to the House is a far more workable bill than that which the committee originally found itself tasked with examining. Indeed in reading the  
Hansard 
 from the previous Parliament it is apparent that members from both sides of the House found immediate and obvious faults in the bill as it had been prepared. The committee made nine substantive changes and recommendations to the Government all of which were accepted.  
From this I am given cause not only to be reassured as to the commitment of the committee to achieving workable and practical outcomes but also to wonder why and how such an important piece of legislation could have been so flawed to begin with. It is this inherently flawed nature of the construction and more important the focus of this bill that forms the basis of the New Zealand First Party’s opposition to it rather than the detail of its application which has already been addressed. In addition given the bill’s focus as we see it combined with the concurrent adoption of certain new technologies and existing budget-driven contemporary practices at the border it is our view that these elements will in fact work together in our estimation not to strengthen New Zealand’s biosecurity but indeed to weaken it.  
There are five key areas identified in this bill: border risk management marine biosecurity readiness and response pest management and compliance and enforcement. In terms of marine biosecurity the New Zealand First Party is encouraged by the inclusion of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone within the boundaries of the bill’s jurisdiction. We believe that this will enhance the safety of the existing fishery as well as contributing to the minimisation of other risks associated with sea traffic and further risks with a potential to impact on the New Zealand mainland and major outlying islands from other marine-based activities including those associated with offshore mining and oil exploration.  
We are pleased also that the bill facilitates the implementation of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments 2004. This convention aims to minimise the potentially negative or deleterious effects of ballast water carried by cargo ships generally collected in or near the coastal waters of one port and discharged at the next and often including real and possible contaminants such as biological materials including plants animals viruses and bacteria. These materials can include non-native species which may impact on aquatic and marine ecosystems causing a variety of negative effects ranging from civil nuisance value through to serious ecological and economic damage.  
Likewise New Zealand First welcomes the provisions in this bill that enable a national policy direction to be formulated and imposed with regard to pest management and control. New Zealand First believes that a collective strategy coordinated by Government will enable all individuals and agencies involved in or responsible for the control destruction or other management of existing and potential pests to work to a known standard in the formation of their operational plans and methodologies. We believe that this will greatly assist in the eradication or effective control of pests that may exist or cross between regional and jurisdictional boundaries.  
We are also pleased that the Crown as a landowner will be included in regional pest-management rules under the provisions of the bill correcting what we see as the anomaly of its present exclusion. Land not currently required to meet regional pest-management rules includes not only that managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Information New Zealand but also that controlled by the Defence Force the Department of Corrections the Ministry of Education the Ministry of Justice the Crown Forestry Group and the New Zealand Transport Agency.  
So there are good things in the bill and the stated intent is a good one with which we agree. As I have said we acknowledge the good work that the previous committee has done on a cross-party basis towards bringing the provisions of this bill into line with that stated intention. However where New Zealand First sees the bill as failing is in its approach to the remaining provisions not yet addressed—those of border risk management readiness and response and compliance and enforcement. We appreciate that the aim of the bill’s authors is to include some carrot along with the stick to reward those who have a good track record with regards to upholding and improving biosecurity as well as punishing those whose record of performance is poor.  
But it is in the relaxation of inspection-based activities and the change in focus away from direct and intensive governmental involvement in the process of ascertaining the presence of risk factors and organisms which is an essential element of the reward side of the equation that in our view places the biosecurity of New Zealand at greater rather than lesser risk. I note from the second reading of the bill that the  
Hansard  
contains references of concern from some Opposition MPs that the move towards greater industry self-regulation may be driven by a desire to ease and accelerate the movement of goods in line with the requirements of the World Trade Organization. Be that as it may it is of great concern to the New Zealand First Party that removing the direct involvement of inspection and enforcement of regulations for any industry coupled with an increase in penalties for those subsequently found to be in breach of them is not a formula that has proven to be successful in New Zealand in recent years. It is somewhat akin to putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than a fence at the top.  
I would suggest to members that both leaky homes and Pike River came about under regulatory regimes that had been relaxed in a similar manner. Although a desire to speed the process of importation and international travel for those who have not transgressed against the requirements of the border may be of honourable intent we are acutely aware that our primarily agrarian economy is but one mistake away from disaster. The most careful of frequent travellers could very easily bring in a threat inadvertently and unintentionally the consequences of which have the potential to be dire for the nation as a whole.  
We have seen the effects of the  
Pseudomonas syringae  
pv.  
Actinidiae  
disease on our kiwifruit industry and the varroa mite on the bee-keeping and honey industries. And of course we all know that New Zealand lives with the constant spectre of foot-and-mouth disease the repercussions of which have thankfully yet to be visited upon us. I can tell this House that the root virus phylloxera arrived in Central Otago during my time in the wine industry there and that was with all the necessary protocols in place around movement. Without them it would doubtless have made its appearance decades earlier and had it done so it is doubtful the New Zealand’s reputation as the producer of the world’s finest Pinot noir could ever have been established.  
A piece of fruit or a jar of honey accidentally left in the luggage of a business traveller with a hitherto unblemished record could have consequences for this country that no fine or monetary penalty could possibly hope to address. Similarly an insect or animal pest slipping through the net of an importer with previously impeccable systems and credentials could likewise impact on the nation beyond the ability of any punishment to deter particularly when any such transgression is likely to be entirely unintentional. In either event without recourse to complete inspection—certainly by new technological means as far as is possible—the adoption of this bill in its present form will mean that New Zealand has no means at all of intercepting or preventing such threats.  
That is a risk that I would suggest to members is too great to be countenanced. The SmartGate may not seem so smart after all if we allow it to let in a virus that devastates our pork industry or a moth that wipes out our pine forests. For these reasons New Zealand First cannot support this bill. Thank you.