Urgent Debates — Biosecurity Incursions—Report of Auditor-General into Ministry of Primary Industry’s Preparedness and Responsiveness 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Urgent Debates — Biosecurity Incursions—Report of Auditor-General into Ministry of Primary Industry’s Preparedness and Responsiveness 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8396. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Urgent Debates 
Biosecurity Incursions—Report of Auditor-General into Ministry of Primary Industry’s Preparedness and Responsiveness 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from the Hon Damien O’Connor seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the report from the Controller and Auditor-General on the effectiveness of the Ministry for Primary Industries in preparing for and responding to biosecurity incursions in New Zealand. The release of the report is a particular case of recent occurrence. As an Auditor-General’s report there is no ministerial responsibility for the report itself but it deals with matters involving ministerial responsibility. The report finds evidence that the Ministry for Primary Industries is under-prepared for potential incursions of some high-risk organisms and makes wide-ranging recommendations to improve preparedness. 
Given the significance of the matter and the need for a high level of public confidence in New Zealand’s biosecurity response I consider it important enough to warrant the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. I call upon the Hon Damien O’Connor to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. Last week we received from the Auditor-General a report that was perhaps one of the most alarming things to be tabled in Parliament over the last 12 months. This report in brief said that we are not prepared for an outbreak of foot-and-mouth in this country. There will be many members including the Speaker himself I am sure—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Members please show some courtesy. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: —who are aware of the significance of our primary industries and of the constant threat to each and every one of those sectors through foot-and-mouth. The Auditor-General’s overview said: “Our country is more dependent on biosecurity than any other developed country. Biosecurity is fundamental to New Zealand’s economic health and natural heritage.” Well no truer statement could be written down and no truer commitment to New Zealand’s future could be made than that from a Government that properly funds properly resources and shows commitment to biosecurity. 
What did National do when it came into power? Its very first Budget cut over $2 million from front-line services for biosecurity and ongoing cuts resulted in 96 front-line staff being chopped from MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. At that time the Government came back saying: “Well what did Labour do in Government?”. In Government we doubled the amount of funding for biosecurity from 1999 through to 2008—we doubled the commitment to biosecurity. We still knew that it was not perfect but we had doubled the funding and we had formed Biosecurity New Zealand as a separate entity within the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry—a separate entity focused on protecting New Zealand from biosecurity risk. We had then instructed it to undertake a strategic review and develop a strategic plan for biosecurity moving forward. Labour in Government both recognised acknowledged and funded biosecurity as the most important area—more important than military security. We doubled the funding and we have done a lot in that area. The National Government goes on about it but biosecurity as the Auditor-General’s review has said is one of the most fundamental and important issues for our economy. 
We still get 30 to 40 incursions—that is unwanted pests and diseases—coming into this country every single year. I note the ability of the professionals and I would like to acknowledge the people who have worked in biosecurity. They do an outstanding job. But in the last 4 years I have been contacted by a large number who have left the job. They simply cannot commit to their conscience. They cannot in all honesty say that they can remain in the job and do it properly under the cuts that have been forced upon them by the National Government and by the faults that this Auditor-General’s report has clearly identified. 
So firstly in 2009 we had cuts to front-line services. The Auditor-General’s report did not actually address the border security issues; it actually looked behind the scenes to where we were told by the Minister and have been told on numerous occasions—the former Minister in particular—that New Zealand’s biosecurity system is world class. It is world class—the Minister has repeated it in this House numerous times and through press releases. Well if it is world class it is simply not good enough. We have 30 to 40 incursions every year. The Auditor-General’s report said that the planning is not up to it not only for the single biggest threat which is foot-and-mouth but also in all other areas of biosecurity—strategic planning training human relations management staff training. You name it; there are huge huge gaps. The recommendations are very clear. We have got in the Auditor-General’s report an identification of the lack of leadership. This comes squarely back to the Government because if you do not have a Minister who is prepared to lead in their portfolio area you will not have a Government department—not you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson; perhaps the Speaker who was formerly in the Chair but not you. If you do not have the leadership you do not have the strategic vision and you do not have the effectiveness of the department. 
I will go through a few of the recommendations. The report said that we should make “all biosecurity planning more realistic …”. There have been from Biosecurity New Zealand and going back probably more than 4 years some ambitious targets. Those targets were set on the basis of funding that was committed by the last Labour Government. We doubled the funding remember—the funding that was going to be consistent to all areas of Biosecurity New Zealand. It had ambitious targets. There was no doubt about that; the Auditor-General said so. But the Auditor-General said that it was unrealistic particularly given the constraints on resources that the incoming National Government placed on MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. It is no good making false promises or assurances when you cannot deliver. That is what the Auditor-General said. 
The second recommendation is: “Complete response plans for high-risk organisms including foot and mouth disease and review them at regular intervals …”. We had the fruit fly outbreak a major scare in this country—the single biggest threat to the horticulture industry is the Queensland fruit fly. We had one fly identified in Auckland and this report said that the response plans were not complete and that in fact had that outbreak been real had the number of flies been far more than the one we were not in a situation to handle that incursion properly. 
Again on the third one—clearly identifying the foot-and-mouth disease—it said that we simply have to “Prepare better …”. There was Exercise Taurus in 2012. In fact going back prior to that we had a suspected foot-and-mouth outbreak and there were lessons learnt. Unfortunately the lessons have not been implemented into better processes for MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. In fact I have to be up front and say of course that we got rid of Biosecurity New Zealand. In fact now the National Government in getting rid of Biosecurity New Zealand has put it back into a super-ministry called the Ministry for Primary Industries which deals with issues from trade through to food safety forestry fishing and biosecurity. It is little wonder then that the issues of biosecurity get hosed down. They will be suppressed or compromised by the trade negotiators a number of whom will be with the Prime Minister in South America at the moment who are promising to open doors and increase the trade which we need I understand—we all understand—but not at the expense of biosecurity standards. 
The staff capability which was something we were very proud of under Biosecurity New Zealand has been compromised. Because of the constraints on resources and on finance the planning the support and the training for each and every area of biosecurity have been compromised and the Auditor-General has clearly identified that. 
Can I say that we are today tomorrow facing threats from incursions and one in particular that I would like to raise that we have not properly assessed because of the constraint on resources is the one of palm kernel expeller. That is the supplementary feed brought in from Malaysia and from a couple of other Asian countries to feed cows—supplementary feeding for the most part and actually in times of drought it is essential feeding which I acknowledge. However there has been a report done by farmers who went to Malaysia and who asked to go to a factory where this product was made. It is a by-product of the palm oil industry. They wrote a report that is quite alarming. They sent that report to the Ministry for Primary Industries and we have yet to hear a dickey-bird from the ministry. That report said that palm kernel is coming into this country. It is potentially exposed to animals to vermin that are themselves exposed to foot-and-mouth endemic areas. We are fearful that we may allow into this country because of insufficient monitoring by an under-resourced under-prepared group of people—a not unskilled but unprepared I guess group of people who have not had the support and sufficient training in the last few years—foot-and-mouth through palm kernel expeller. That would be a disastrous situation. At a time when farmers are looking for more supplementary feed it is going to come in in greater volumes. We want to know that the National Government is going to resource the Ministry for Primary Industries to ensure that we do not get foot-and-mouth in this country. 
This is quite a substantive report. I applaud and acknowledge the independence of the Auditor-General’s work. It is first-class. It does not pull punches but it is alarming. If the Government does not act on the recommendations it is like placing a bomb in the middle of the room here and waiting for it to go off because one thing is for sure: without major improvements in both the resourcing and the planning the training and the preparedness of our biosecurity team then we are going to face a major problem. Psa is destroying the kiwifruit industry as we speak. Psa identified flaws in the system. We were told that the Government was moving to improve that system; the Auditor-General says otherwise. The Auditor-General has said our biosecurity system is not world class. In fact it is deficient for a country— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Whose is better? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Oh Nick Smith. Yeah he is over there. He has been one of the Ministers who has sat on his hands squeezed resources for this vital area and then he will go around the country and say: “Oh I’m the Minister of Conservation.” It is not only the primary sectors that are threatened by biosecurity incursions it is the conservation estate and the Minister should wake up to that fact. It is in fact all of our natural heritage it is our economy threatened each and every day and the Auditor-General says that we are not prepared. We are not prepared as a country and unless Nick Smith and his colleagues and his cronies are prepared to put in more money more focus and more resources he and his colleagues will be responsible for the destruction of our economy because if foot-and-mouth comes in here we will all be paupers and that is the truth of it. 
I go back to one of the first statements made by the Auditor-General: “Our country is more dependent on biosecurity than any other developed country. Biosecurity is fundamental to New Zealand’s economic health and natural heritage.” The Minister of Conservation who is sitting on his chuff over there should listen to that. The natural heritage that we use to draw tourists to this country and that we are so proud of in our “100% Pure New Zealand” image is dependent upon us keeping out unwanted pests and diseases. I applaud the Auditor-General. I hope that there will be a report in 2 years’ time when we come into Government that clearly identifies a drastic improvement because the Government has for once decided to put resources into the right areas of Government responsibility. I applaud this report I table it and I seek help from the Government to take some action on it. 
Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries) 
: 
 I wish to begin by laying out for the House my belief regarding the words of the previous speaker Damien O’Connor. The previous speaker has set out today to undermine the work of biosecurity to lay down very clearly—I absolutely acknowledge this—his concerns for biosecurity but in doing so he has in fact damaged our reputation for biosecurity. Today I am going to outline the very balanced response— 
Hon Member 
: Read the report. 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: —the very balanced response that this Government is taking to that report. 
The previous speaker said that if the Government does not act—well I can assure this House that the Government has already acted on some of the recommendations and will in fact act on all of them. The Government welcomes the Auditor-General’s report. We will carefully consider any advice and recommendations made that could improve our biosecurity system because we as a Government understand how important biosecurity is to this nation. 
The Ministry for Primary Industries has accepted the report and all seven recommendations though it may not have sounded like that a little while ago and they are already being worked on. Biosecurity is our top priority and the Government is delivering long-lasting solutions for our biosecurity and the primary sector to boost productivity. Three-quarters of a billion dollars is spent annually on biosecurity by central government regional councils industry and private landowners. Government spending on biosecurity is almost double what it was in 2000 under the previous Government and last year saw record numbers of biosecurity staff recruited. 
I too am going to quote from the report and I do so now: “MPI and its predecessor organisations responsible for biosecurity have been by and large successful at responding to incursions dealing with between 30 and 40 incursions a year.”—again overinflated by the previous speaker; he had it up to 50. “They have developed generally high-trust relationships with partners by working together on responses and have improved biosecurity by sharing knowledge and fostering innovative practice.” This is from the Auditor-General’s report. “No border control”—I continue to quote from the report—“is 100% effective so it is important that New Zealand is prepared to deal with incursions effectively.” And this report is very helpful in that respect. 
Overall I maintain that New Zealand does have a world-class biosecurity system. As a Government we are extremely conscious of how important it is to protect our borders and continuing to improve that system is a major priority. We are always looking to review how we do things and improve systems. This report is part of that and I contend that the improvements are ongoing by all Governments and therefore I also contend that the system is now far better than it was some 4 or more years ago because it is continually improving. 
We do not accept that our planning for foot-and-mouth is inadequate. This is an area of major work for the Ministry for Primary Industries as seen with Exercise Taurus last year which was as those who read the report will know observed by the Auditor-General. This was a planning exercise to model an outbreak and follow-up actions are to be completed by June this year. 
It is worth noting that this report looks at only one part of the biosecurity system—that is responding to pests and diseases within New Zealand. Although we need to be prepared to respond quickly and efficiently to incursions we also have strong systems in place to prevent incursions from occurring in the first place. The report also shows that the Ministry for Primary Industries has been successful at responding to incursions. 
As I have already mentioned significant changes to the biosecurity system had already occurred before this report was released and I want to assure the previous speaker because in fact he was concerned about that. Improvements already in progress include updating plans for dealing with specific pests better surveillance targeting and more regular exercises and simulations. For example work is under way to identify the highest priority gaps in high-risk organism preparedness so that these can be addressed in plans. This work will be completed by September this year and will then be simulated and tested in the biosecurity exercise programme. 
The report notes that preparedness for foot-and-mouth disease is improving. The Ministry for Primary Industries and industry are working together on action plans covering areas such as refining scenarios for foot-and-mouth disease incursions developing a vaccination policy establishing guidelines for disposal of carcasses and developing on-farm biosecurity plans. This work will result in shared ministry and industry plans that will be completed by September this year and will include planning on the areas specifically mentioned by the Auditor-General such as carcass disposal vaccine plans and deployments. 
The Ministry for Primary Industries is developing a programme to deliver foot-and-mouth disease testing and simulation exercises over the next 5 years and our preparedness will be tested on an ongoing basis. In 2013 eight exercises will be completed. The next whole-of-Government biosecurity exercise will be held within the next 2 years. 
The Auditor-General’s report notes that the Ministry for Primary Industries recognises the need for more planned reviews and testing of systems work is under way to identify the highest priority gaps in high-risk organism preparedness and the ministry is developing a business case to replace its existing bio-containment laboratory with a replacement laboratory up and running in 2018 if the business case is approved. 
The Ministry for Primary Industries statement of intent 2012-15 commits to improving capability including creating a strategy for people capability and leadership training to be supported by new information systems. The ministry also supports making contracting simpler faster and more efficient for response partners and this is under review. 
A review of the biosecurity response services contract began in early February 2013. The project team looking into this contract is due to make its first report back to the ministry’s senior management in mid-March this year after taking advice from legal and policy staff. The Ministry for Primary Industries is developing its management of the three major systems in biosecurity food safety and primary production following our mergers and will continue to develop its current governance arrangements business planning and strategy setting in a way that supports management of the three systems. 
The Ministry for Primary Industries Strategy 2030 and the recent Performance Improvement Framework or PIF review identify the importance of setting results-based performance expectations and building our people capability. The ministry will set clear and results-based performance expectations and provide an accelerated focus on building our people capability. In fact last year the ministry employed 45 new quarantine inspectors and 11 more were recruited in January this year. Last year seven detector dog handlers were recruited and this year a further four. Last year 11 new detector dogs graduated from the Ministry for Primary Industries detector dog programmes. 
It is completely incorrect for the Opposition to claim that biosecurity funding has been reduced. Vote Biosecurity has gone from $181 million in 2007-08 to a forecast $196 million for 2012-13. In that period— 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: No no. 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: Well Mr O’Connor it certainly sounds like an increase to anyone listening to those figures. In that period annual spending on surveillance and investigation increased by around 35 percent spending on core response capability increased by around 13 percent and spending on preparedness and pest management increased by around 5 percent. Retaining a world-class biosecurity system is critical to delivering New Zealand’s economic success. Pests and diseases pose serious threats to our primary producers who rely on a good biosecurity status to support their businesses. Our access to export markets is heavily dependent on our biosecurity status. 
None of this is news to this Government. We know that trade and travel patterns are changing rapidly. As New Zealand interacts with more international partners tourism is increasing and pressure is building for more streamlined travel. Around 175000 items a day come across our borders. Therefore it is very very important that we take a risk-based approach not a blind-regulation approach to assessing the risks to New Zealand. As a result the Government’s three border agencies the New Zealand Customs Service the New Zealand Immigration Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries are now working more closely together to better coordinate border services. 
Members need to be assured that the Ministry for Primary Industries is constantly developing its response including after the suspected foot-and-mouth disease outbreak on Waiheke Island. Let me just outline the changes since then: policy for the ministry’s response to risk organisms and biosecurity response knowledge base the Biosecurity Law Reform Act progress towards implementing Government-industry agreements a whole-of-Government biosecurity response guide a biosecurity science strategy FarmsOnLine and National Animal Identification and Tracing or NAIT. 
Building the national biosecurity capability network does not sound like a Government sitting on its hands to me. We now have a much stronger and more effective border system than we did when we took over in 2008. The previous Government was slow to react. Page 67 of the Auditor-General’s report notes that “Evidence shows that many recommendations from the 2005 foot and mouth disease simulation were not put into effect fully.” So it is empty words indeed to hear the Opposition criticising this Government when it has already undertaken to progress many of the recommendations and in fact accepted all of them and will put progress into place as soon as is practicable. In fact this is a Government that is taking action on this serious issue. 
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. I am pleased to be able to stand to speak to the Auditor-General’s report into the primary industry’s ability to deal with biosecurity incursions. That was a very very damning report on biosecurity agencies over this last while. However I would like to tell the Minister for Primary Industries and those associated in National that we look forward to working on biosecurity with them because there needs to be significant improvement—and very very fast at that. The Government needs to front up. It needs to show where it is actually going to do new spending on biosecurity and it must be very quick about that too. We have got a Budget coming but we need some very strong signals not just working within the current Budget framework. 
We completely agree with the Auditor-General’s assertion that our country is more dependent on biosecurity than any other developed country and that biosecurity is fundamental to New Zealand’s economic health and its natural heritage. I have got a few examples to speak of in a moment or two. However the problem with it is that this National Government is continuing to put international trade ahead of biosecurity time and time and time again. We have seen that over the issue with the porcine disease—the “pork age” you might call it—where it wants to bring in raw meat that will risk our New Zealand industry. Why? It is just to protect major trade agreements. We know that with honey it wants to bring in honey from Australia where there is disease we do not have here. Why? Just for some trade agreements. It seems to think it is worth the risk to sell off our biosecurity our children’s futures— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about fire blight in Australia? 
STEFFAN BROWNING 
: —our farming families’ futures for some short-term trade of unsustainable products which you seem to be totally focused on Mr Smith. I will just carry on with what this Auditor-General’s report comes up with. She focused primarily on foot-and-mouth disease. What did it show? That we are totally unprepared and what did she add in there or what do we know about this? That the cost to New Zealand in 2 years if that went ahead would be $10 billion and 20000 jobs. This is a Government that reckons it is creating jobs; this is a Government that through biosecurity alone is costing jobs. 
We can go into some more such as Psa and Psyllid. We have got a number of them there to consider. 
The Auditor-General said that there was a risk that the inadequately resourced surveillance strategy has damaged the ministry’s reputation amongst stakeholders such as local government. I would include the public importers and producers. Within New Zealand we have issues of biosecurity about what is happening. It is not even just the incursions. We have Chilean needle grass that the Government looked the other way at as it spreads further into Canterbury. We have also got Kauri dieback up north towards which this Government has decided it is not going to do any Budget funding. It is not going to go for any new funding on Kauri dieback another part of New Zealand’s natural heritage. Is this going to be the next Maui’s dolphin? It is not. There is no new Budget money. It has said that. The Ministry for Primary Industries said it to the people up north—the people who are having real concern about that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s not true. 
STEFFAN BROWNING 
: It is. Well that is really good Dr Smith and I am really looking forward to seeing new Budget money on Kauri dieback. It will be fantastic because the research is not happening there. It is a  
Phytophora 
taxonAgathis 
 disease that is really really difficult to sort out and the Government seems to be looking the other way. There is no money for operations just public relations stuff. We need better from this Government around biosecurity. 
Getting back to what is happening at the border we know that there are very very lax import standards or management around containers. We know that. Successive Governments have been part of that but this particular Government ongoing is allowing for lay people to effectively be biosecurity inspectors in warehouses of imported goods. So goods come in—a business or a wholesaler or whatever that has imported a container—and who inspects it? Somebody who has done something they can pretty well do online to get the tick for being an inspector. That very same wholesaler has got a bundle of customers waiting for the products in their shops or their businesses around the country for the products out of that container and that layperson that business person opens it up and a moth or something crawls out of it. And what happens? What they are meant to do is get hold of the Ministry for Primary Industries which may if it feels it is important enough come out there and fumigate it or do something. It may do that but that person who has opened up that container and seen that insect spider or whatever come out of there has got a conflict of interest. They have customers waiting for product yet they are the ones who are meant to do something about it. That is a hell of a lot of good faith in somebody who has a very very big vested interest. 
We need to change our systems. We need to be doing far far more inspection at the ports and you cannot do it on current budgets. You have to lift the game for that. I want to ask the Minister how much new spending he is going to do on biosecurity this year—new spending very clear spending not robbing Peter to pay Paul but new spending. The other question is whether the Minister or any of the Ministers including the one barking from over there can have confidence in the New Zealand biosecurity system after this. Can they have confidence after this Auditor-General’s report? Can they have confidence considering Psyllid is costing huge money? The Psa outbreak is potentially costing the country $800 million over 15 years. Add that to the Psyllid and we are talking over a billion dollars there. That is less than foot-and-mouth but is that the trade-off to flog off a bit of unsustainably produced milk powder and logs through our wharf? It is not value-added. It is fouling up our reputation fouling up our waterways and we sell off future generations’ incomes through poor biosecurity. There is significant cost. It is not just the dollar value of that; it is what that does to communities. We have seen what it has done in the kiwifruit industry and we have seen what happens in the primary production world every time. 
We also have to think about what this flow-on is to the New Zealand community. Psyllid comes in—we had fantastic control in our glasshouses using non-toxic methods of control even for conventional growers. Bio-controls were in there. What do they do now? They pour on chemicals to kill psyllid in those hothouses. Thankfully we are looking at new bio-controls. There is a big cost to the community when you get more and more of a chemical cocktail being poured into the community’s stomachs. 
There is another issue. The Minister has just had a briefing for incoming Ministers. In there there is something that I would like to see the Minister work out. The Auditor-General says through the report that the preparing for and responding to security incursions is basically really flawed. Yet the briefing paper by the Ministry for Primary Industries to him says: “New Zealand has a biosecurity system that retains a sufficient”—note sufficient—“level of protection while encouraging economic growth.” This is the same ministry the Ministry for Primary Industries. I am not saying that people in biosecurity in the ministry cannot do a good job as individuals. I think they are probably striving very hard. I would say their morale is way way down because of the lack of support from central government for them. So we very much support the report from the Auditor-General and we will do our best to help the Government do something about this. Thank you. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I totally agree with the comments of the previous speaker Steffan Browning when he said that the Government supports the report from the Auditor-General and that is about where my agreement with the previous speaker’s contribution ends. We do support this report. The Ministry for Primary Industries has accepted the report and all seven recommendations that the Auditor-General has recommended are being implemented or are already halfway through being implemented as we speak. 
It is without doubt that biosecurity is the biggest threat to the New Zealand economy—without doubt—and to the total social infrastructure and the standard of living that we have become accustomed to. So biosecurity is a No. 1 issue for this Government. So let us correct some of the statements and introduce some facts into the comments made by our previous speakers. First of all people would be surprised to hear that under the previous Government there were something like 30 or 40 incursions annually and some of those incurred a major biosecurity risk. For example something like 8 tonnes of raw meat was intercepted at our borders by biosecurity officers under the previous Government—8 tonnes of raw meat. We know about that because the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s own audit told us that. Eight tonnes of raw meat—and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry itself admitted that potentially it had not been 100 percent correct. 
So what has happened since then? We have heard a lot of suggestions about funding cuts. Well in fact there has been a 35 percent increase in surveillance. There has been a 13 percent increase in core response capability. There has been a 5 percent increase in pest management and preparedness funding. In fact the funding has gone from $181 million in the 2007-08 year to $196 million for the 2012-13 year. That does not sound like a cut to me. In fact that sounds like a substantial increase. 
So this Government does take biosecurity very very seriously. In fact this Government implemented major changes in regard to the way we deal with container devanning. Under the previous Government there was a major concern about the number of devanning sites. I heard the previous speaker describe some of the processes in regard to devanning as being inadequate. He was right. During the terrorist attacks overseas—9/11 being the one that I guess gave the most focus—the Customs Service was required to carry out far greater levels of inspection than it ever had been before. In that process it discovered the ability to use X-ray equipment that allowed a far greater surveillance of imported containers. 
So biosecurity was able then I guess to some extent piggyback on the back of that and use that technology which of course has meant a far higher level of surveillance. When that was first recommended to the previous Government it turned that option down. This Government has implemented it. So it is interesting and probably a little bit rich to hear our opponents say that this is not a Government that is interested in biosecurity. 
The Minister outlined a whole range of areas where the Government has beefed up biosecurity. There are Government-industry agreements. The industries themselves hold a substantial amount of intellectual property on biosecurity and are able to contribute and where that is possible there are agreements implemented. Under the national identification scheme animals are now far more traceable than they were in the foot-and-mouth scare or hoax on Waiheke Island. There has been the introduction of far greater surveillance when people come through our borders using dogs using X-ray equipment and using a much wider range of opportunities there and there has been a reconfiguration of how people come into New Zealand. When they come through a high-risk area they have a much greater level of surveillance. When they do not they have a lower level of surveillance. To suggest that this Government is not investing heavily in biosecurity or is not taking biosecurity seriously is very very short-sighted indeed and in fact is not correct. 
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) 
: 
 I thank the Hon Damien O’Connor for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It is obvious that all parties in this House do accept that biosecurity is of enormous importance to New Zealand and to our economy. In this day and age where advanced technologies in manufacturing information technology and so forth are touted as being the way of the future it is still a fact that 75 percent of New Zealand’s economy one way or another directly or indirectly is dependent on agriculture and for that reason biosecurity is probably the single most important line of defence that New Zealand can have for our economy and for everything else. 
We have heard a lot about reinvestment in biosecurity from this administration. We have not heard a lot about the cuts that preceded that. We have had cuts to front-line services over the last few years. We have had a reduction in boots on the ground. We have seen a diminishing of morale amongst front-line biosecurity officers—people who work for the Customs Service and people who work for the Ministry for Primary Industries. They are disillusioned by the lack of resourcing and by the redirection of resourcing in biosecurity which is moving away from the traditional established methods of inspection—methods that they as professionals on the ground have had confidence in over the years. They are seeing those methods being replaced by a reliance on technology a reliance on intelligence and a reliance to some degree on untested theory. 
The fact of the matter is that we now have fewer boots on the ground than we did a decade ago. We have seen the results of a relaxation of the strenuous efforts made previously around biosecurity. We have seen it with the introduction of the Psa virus and its devastating effects on our kiwifruit industry. We have seen what happens when a fruit fly gets in and we have no way of knowing how that fruit fly got in. 
I remember back in 1997 when I was a sales rep on the road in Central Otago and the rabbit calicivirus was introduced to the South Island. Calicivirus was something that many in the farming industry had been calling for as a method of controlling rabbits. It was investigated and eventually the Government said that the farmers could not have the calicivirus. By that stage of course it was out and spreading—it was about 4 months before the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry told the farmers that they could not have calicivirus—on the farms of Central Otago and South Canterbury. I remember calling at a farm—mind you I will not reveal the location—where the farmer’s wife was out the back of the house with a blender. She was blending the internal organs of some rabbits that had died of the virus and they were creating biocide and painting carrots with it and spreading them on the farms. So back in those days when there was a great deal more investment made in adequate biosecurity it was still possible for a virus an organism like the calicivirus to be introduced deliberately by people who had an agenda to do so. 
We are told that the calicivirus came in via two methods—one possibly through a diplomatic bag and the other in a pilot’s bag—but the fact of the matter remains that at that time when the ministry was better resourced and was better focused on controlling those sorts of threats that virus still managed to make its way in and still managed to spread and become established. I was told quite proudly by a staff member from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry days that they had a plan whereby they could put 90 people on the ground anywhere in New Zealand within an hour and a half of an incursion being announced. We could not do that today. We simply do not have the resources. 
Today the door is wide open. The door is wide open through SmartGate which allows passengers carrying Australian and New Zealand passports to enter without being stopped without being inspected. The door is wide open to containers and machinery arriving in this country without being inspected properly and without being clean. There is dirty machinery arriving off ships in this country. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse 
: They go through just passport control not customs. 
RICHARD PROSSER 
: Well the Minister says that it is passport control and not customs. It is all front line. It is all people on the front line. It is all ways of stopping and inspecting goods and passengers as they come across the border. We have to take a holistic approach to this because we are an island nation. The only two ways that we can be reached and approached are by sea and by air so everything—people freight—arrives by sea and by air. It is all crossing the border. We are wide open through fast-track visa arrangements for carriers such as the one that has just been announced with China Southern Airlines for their frequent flyers. We have no way of knowing who these people are what they may or may not be bringing in and now we are going to start letting them in the same as we are letting in Australian and New Zealand passport holders without inspecting them. 
So as the Hon Damien O’Connor says we are now wide open to a foot-and-mouth incursion. Claims of increased spending and increasing resourcing around biosecurity even if they are true are irrelevant if they are not targeted to the right areas. As I say we did not take account of previous cuts and we place too much reliance on intelligence. We have a reduction in boots on the ground. 
I put questions to the select committee earlier in the year about the sorts of resources the Ministry for Primary Industries had to counter an incursion. The ministry said it had its own resources obviously and the resources of other Government agencies including the army to call on. Well we all know that the army itself is undergoing cuts and reductions. It is losing people it is losing vehicles and it is losing the ability to help in situations like this. 
Of course we also face the possibility that there could be deliberate incursions and other nations companies perhaps wanting to make a competitive advantage over New Zealand where we have advantages where they could seek to destroy those advantages by bringing in any kind of virus that could diminish New Zealand’s ability to have a competitive edge. We have seen it work the other way round. We have seen legitimate New Zealand intellectual property being removed from this country through illegitimate means. For example a few years ago some Chinese officials were stopped taking New Zealand apple budwood out of the country. So if it can work one way it can work the other. 
No system is 100 percent effective—this we know. But even with all the protocols in place something can get through. Without protocols in place something will get through. Without protocols in place and without proper effective inspections and controls it is not a case at all of if—it is a case of when. We will get foot-and-mouth through this system. 
I recall again a number of years ago when I was working in the wine industry receiving a crate off a carrier of cast-iron pipeline fittings. We were putting in an irrigation system and this crate of pipeline fittings had come in from China. We put the crate on the ground—this was on a vineyard near Wanaka so we were out in the middle of nowhere. We were nowhere near a port of entry we were nowhere near an inspection facility and we were nowhere near anywhere where we could get fumigation. As we opened the crate a spider ran out. I happened to notice the spider and I happened to know that the crate had come from China. I did not know what sort of spider it was but I did know that it could be something dangerous. I happened to be in the right place at the right time to see that spider. I got on the phone to my boss got hold of some information on the kind of chemical and the kind of application that we should use to control it went into town got the chemical applied it to the area and hopefully fortunately we prevented something more dramatic from taking hold in that part of New Zealand. But that was a matter of a fortunate accident of me being in the right place at the right time. Without inspections and without proper fumigations and facilities in place at our ports we cannot guarantee that we will always be lucky. 
The Auditor-General’s report summarises that the Ministry for Primary Industries is unprepared for potential incursions from some high-risk organisms. It emphasises that not enough priority is being given to planning. It emphasises that the plan for dealing with foot-and-mouth is inadequate staff are not using the new response system to its full potential some information systems do not yet link together information is not used as effectively and as efficiently as it could be and performance reporting also needs to improve. It is a damning report. 
New Zealand First has been calling for action on this for over a year. I have a copy of a press release put out by myself at almost this time last year saying that New Zealand First is calling for an independent inquiry into inadequate biosecurity procedures and staffing levels. We are going over the same ground over and over again. We could stand here on this side of the House and berate the Government—and deservedly so—for its direction or lack of direction on biosecurity for the fact that it is not prioritising the spending that it is making in the correct direction. 
I think a more constructive approach would be for us to ask to plead please for the Government to listen to read the Auditor-General’s report properly and to take on board the messages that are contained within that report. Please listen to calls from across this side of the House. Please listen to Federated Farmers. Please spend the money spend it in the right place put the boots back on the ground and safeguard New Zealand’s agriculture and the three-quarters of our economy that depends on it. Thank you. 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. The Auditor-General’s report on biosecurity is a damning report on this Government and it reveals that New Zealand is at a major risk of a major biosecurity breach. What that means is that our pa defences are weak and they are weak because of the slash-and-burn policies of this Government and the dismantling that it has done of our biosecurity defences in the continuous restructurings that have occurred with the Ministry for Primary Industries. 
People at home might watch reality shows like  
Border Patrol 
 and they will see our hard-working customs and biosecurity people. They always make the bust; no one or no thing ever gets through. But that is not the reality because the reality is that they do not always get their man and that has been accentuated by the fact that this Government has been cutting funding slashing front-line staff and failing to properly prepare for an incursion. 
I want to focus on that last point because the Associate Minister for Primary Industries in her speech quoted from the Auditor-General’s overview. She was putting all the positive spin that she could on the fact that the Ministry for Primary Industries does respond to incursions and its responses to incursions have taken precedence. Then she went on to say: “No border control is 100% effective so it is important that New Zealand is prepared to deal with incursions effectively.” Then she stopped. But if she had carried on with that paragraph she would have read that the Auditor-General said: “However it is my view that MPI is under-prepared for potential incursions for some high-risk organisms. Responding to incursions has taken precedence over preparing for the potential arrival of other pests and diseases. Not enough priority has been given to planning. Many response partners who have worked with MPI and its predecessors believe that stronger response capability is also needed.” What that shows is selective reading by the Minister. 
The Auditor-General’s report is very clear that the Ministry for Primary Industries is underprepared and it is not putting enough priority into planning and working with the various industry groups. That could not be highlighted more than by the risk that has been identified with our risk of an incursion of foot-and-mouth disease. The ministry is woefully underprepared for a foot-and-mouth incursion. The Auditor-General estimates that a foot-and-mouth outbreak could cost the country $13 billion. That is a huge impact on our economy and that is why we must keep our pa defences strong. But you cannot do that—you cannot have your warriors defending your pa—when you have fewer and fewer warriors in place. 
What have we seen with this Government? The numbers: we have had 91 biosecurity officer positions cut between 2008 and 2012 since National has been in office. The number of sniffer dogs—those little beagle dogs that go sniffing around the airports—has dropped particularly at Auckland Airport where it is down to 13. Although the Government may talk about “We’ve got a little technology introduction here. We’ve got incremental progress happening here and there.” the fact of the matter is that if you do not have front-line people manning these key positions—and we are a huge country—we are very exposed. The farm gate is wide open in the breeze and this Government is just letting all potential incursions diseases pests and other nasties come in. They could be invading our borders because of the woeful record of this Government. 
I also want to go on and make some remarks around Psa because the member who spoke for the Government last talked about whatever incursions occurred during the Labour Government but I think we need only mention three letters “Psa” and what absolutely devastating damage that has done to our kiwifruit industry. If we just look at researchers from Lincoln University this is really interesting— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
RINO TIRIKATENE 
: It is devastating our industry. I did not realise I had a short call. We commend this report and we urge the Government to take proper action and give proper resourcing to our biosecurity systems. Kia ora. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The next call goes to Mr King. I think to remind the House the next two calls are 5-minute calls. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I am sure that we will adhere to that. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You will. 
COLIN KING 
: The Government welcomes this report and it welcomes it from the point of view that it finally wakes people in New Zealand up to just how important agriculture and the primary industries are to the New Zealand economy. I would have to say that when you look at the other side of the House it is only when a report comes out and states the obvious that they actually wake up and you hear Damien O’Connor speaking. He is the lone voice around agriculture on that side of the House and he is pleased to inform his colleagues of how important agriculture is. 
We welcome this report from the Auditor-General because it really does highlight the point that I am making which is how do you fight this thing before it gets to your border? Let us face it when you hear New Zealand First say that you have to have a standing army here you have to use technology and you have to use everything available to you. I am pleased to see that the Government is moving very quickly to enact those activities. There is a lot of work being done by this Government including National Animal Identification and Tracing. We have done a lot of stuff on our side of the border but the real challenge is to be able to manage the overwhelming amount of material that is being brought into this country because we are developing a consumer society. This is an export-led economy and we welcome this report because biosecurity is very very important. We welcome the report but we are also very very impressed by the moves the Government has taken to date in order to improve biosecurity management with regards to that challenge which will continually confront this country and every Government going forward. Thank you very much. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I like almost all previous speakers in the House today welcome this report. I think this is without a doubt the most important issue facing New Zealand whether we like it or not on any one day in our history. Agriculture of course is the primary industry in this country. It produces 70c of every dollar spent in this country so we certainly cannot afford to take risks with the biosecurity around it. I think we have to understand that as we make changes and bring ourselves up to date with the dramatic opportunities that technology and things like that allow us we need to ensure that we keep our levels of biosecurity up and we need to ensure that we use modern techniques to enable those people involved in that industry to do that. 
Also we are a trading country. We rely heavily on agriculture for our living and we need to have relationships with our trading partners that enable them to see very clearly what we are doing as a country and that also enable them to participate in any activity that they wish to participate in with us within reason. We need to protect the integrity of our product and the integrity of our borders. 
On the weekend a number of us visited Kapiti Island. While visiting Kapiti Island we found the fraughtness of biosecurity in that a stoat had got to Kapiti Island some 4 years ago and bred there. There is no way of knowing how she got there but she certainly had a couple of kids while she was there. Those have since been trapped and eradicated. Interestingly they also had a photograph of a possum floating to Kapiti Island on a log and if that can happen between Kapiti Island and here with a possum imagine how difficult it is for us in this country to control a border of the magnitude of the one we have with sea all around it. 
So I have no problem supporting this report. I think it is a great report. I think if we were to go looking for reports that I guess told us we were perfect we would have no need to request reports on this sort of stuff. I welcome these kinds of reports and I think they are great value for the Government they are great value for the country and they will add to our ability to improve our biosecurity systems. Thank you for this opportunity and that is me. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We are back to 10-minute calls. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in the urgent debate on the Auditor-General’s report on biosecurity. Let us firstly remember that we have interrupted the business of the House to hold an urgent debate on a matter of critical national importance. It is not OK for the sleepy Government members to sit over there on the Treasury benches snoring their way to accepting a report that actually makes fundamental criticisms of the Government in three regards. Firstly it says that this country is highly vulnerable to a major incursion of a critical pest or disease such as foot-and-mouth. It says that we are under-resourced that we are underprepared and that the systems are underdeveloped. That is a toxic cocktail of risk that threatens our major livelihood industries the primary industries of this country. 
It is notable that members all round this House whether on the Government benches the cross benches or the Opposition benches are all agreed on the central importance of biosecurity. That is at least a good starting point for this debate. The Minister Ms Goodhew however said that Labour currently was undermining the work of biosecurity by damaging our reputation by reciting the results of this report of an independent Officer of Parliament. The Auditor-General is an independent non-partisan officer of this whole House. This is not a Labour Party report nor a Government report; this is an independent performance audit by the highest audit authority of the land and it behoves every member to listen to it. It will do the Government no good to accuse Labour of mudraking. 
Secondly the Minister said that the investment in biosecurity is almost double what it was in 2000 and then she claimed the credit for it. I found that fascinating because my advice was that it was the previous Labour Government that had doubled the investment. So I went to check and I can confirm that here are the numbers. I must stress to the House that these numbers are not deflated to constant dollars. These are the actual dollars in years gone by and therefore understate the relative contribution of the previous Government. When Labour took over last time the previous Government was spending only $90 million a year on biosecurity. Under Labour it doubled by 2008 to $181088000—again without allowing for any of the effects of inflation. Then the current National Government cut the spending in its first year to $179 million cut it again in its second year to $168203000 and latterly has increased it back to about where Labour had it of $192190000. So there was a doubling. It just happened under the last Labour Government not under the current National Government. The best that could be said for the current Government is that it is flat-lining and that might be a general statement about this Government. 
The Minister then said that yes a number of criticisms were made in this report—that is an understatement; it is full of criticisms—and that the Ministry for Primary Industries recognises the need for improvement. Well that is good. We commend the ministry for being willing to learn from the report. But what are the improvements that are being made? The Minister said “Well we’re developing a business case for new systems and we are writing a strategy for people development and we are going to put the whole thing under review.” Well that is the old adage of when there is no answer to the problem do another review. But the people of New Zealand deserve better than that—they do—because these are critical issues. 
The report makes a number of very damning conclusions. I can do no better than quote from the overview written by the Auditor-General herself. She says: “it is my view that MPI is under-prepared for potential incursions from some high-risk organisms. Responding to incursions has taken precedence over preparing for the potential arrival of other pests and diseases. Not enough priority has been given to planning. Many response partners who have worked with MPI and its predecessors believe that stronger response capability is also needed.” That is the Ministry for Primary Industries is so busy rearranging the deckchairs in another megamerger like the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—“Mobie” the great white whale of economic development—that it has not got time to plan ahead for the incursion that might come next week next month or next year. The Auditor-General goes on to say that although some “improvements are being made”—credit where credit is due—“… serious weaknesses remain. Plans for responding to potential incursions from some high-risk organisms are not yet complete. … the plan for dealing with a foot and mouth disease outbreak is inadequate.” Strong words from the Auditor-General. She goes on: “Workforce planning and capability development needs to be stronger so that MPI has the appropriate people with the right skills in the right place. Staff are not using the new response system to its full potential … Performance reporting also needs to improve.” and of course it “has an opportunity to achieve lasting improvements” if it follows the plans that are set out. 
What does all this mean in practice? If we turn to figure 3 in the report we see a sorry long list—pardon me—of incursions. I am choking up thinking about biosecurity; what do we know? There are the gum leaf skeletoniser moth didymo—known to any fisherman as a terrible plague on our waterways—the southern saltmarsh mosquito kauri dieback Psa of our kiwifruit industry and juvenile oyster mortality. When I was put down for this debate I was initially wondering why an urban member from Auckland was to speak about biosecurity. [ 
Interruption 
] In fact my electorate—thank you Ms Delahunty—has had firsthand experience of these problems. I want to mention three that are either current or immediately past real issues in the electorate of New Lynn. 
Let me start with what was probably the largest issue which was the painted apple moth and which let me say upfront did occur during the time of the previous Government. In the painted apple moth experience we recognised a very strong need for community involvement and community education. The moth was eradicated with a programme of overflying and applying a bacterial solution to the moths. But the issue was that the community needed to be involved. It was learning by doing on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Biosecurity New Zealand and its agents so that by the end of that programme they had become much more skilled in community involvement than they were at the start. 
The next incursion I want to mention is that of the Queensland fruit fly. [ 
Interruption 
] That means the sound has gone off has it? Is that you Mr Deputy Speaker or is that a word from the Lord perhaps? 
David Bennett 
: David Shearer works in mysterious ways! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Maybe it is a word from the Government benches. I think it is still working—is it? It is not a word from “Cue Ball”. Let us work with that and we hope that the guys behind the dark curtain will keep the machine running. [ 
Interruption 
] “Put another coin in the slot” said the Minister of Commerce showing that his commercial orientation never fails him. 
In regard to the Queensland fruit fly one fly was found in Avondale in the heart of my electorate. That might not sound like a big deal but it required controls being put on moving fruit and vegetables. Thirty biosecurity officers descended on the Avondale market and residents were uninformed about the fruit fly lockdown across west Auckland. That all sounds pretty dramatic but what the Auditor-General found was that in the case of that fruit fly outbreak the ministry’s ability to respond was woefully inadequate and that had there been more than one solitary fly—in fact had there been two live flies a little boy fly and a little girl fly—we might have had lots and lots of flies. Yes the rural members over there understand the story of the birds and the bees—they have got that so far. Yes the birds and the bees would have struck and the ministry would not have struck because the ministry’s response systems according to the Auditor-General were inadequate. 
Finally there is kauri dieback. This is a huge current issue across west Auckland and in the far north. Kauri dieback is a major disease. It is a bacterial infection of the roots. My colleague Phil Twyford has been campaigning on this issue very very ably. The problem is that Biosecurity New Zealand now the Ministry for Primary Industries does not see it as a priority and has cut the funding to control kauri dieback. I say that the Government should be ashamed. It is bad enough to take biosecurity officers and dogs out of airports. We should get the kauri dieback funding. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I am sorry that this side of the House could not hear the last couple of minutes from David Cunliffe but judging from the first few minutes we did not feel as though we had missed very much. I did however hear him talk about rearranging the deckchairs. I thought that was quite interesting coming from David Cunliffe. I am sorry that the microphones do not work all the way up the back there but we could still see you Mr Cunliffe. 
I am going to speak just very briefly on this particular topic. The Government does welcome the report that the House has been debating for the last period of time. We will carefully consider any advice and recommendations made that could improve our biosecurity. In fact the Ministry for Primary Industries has already accepted the report and all seven recommendations. Already work has been undertaken on working through those recommendations. Significant changes have already been made and had taken place even before the report was released. Improvement is in progress on updating plans for dealing with specific pests better surveillance targeting and more regular exercises and simulations. 
Overall we believe that New Zealand does have a world-class biosecurity system. As a Government we are extremely conscious of how important it is to protect our borders and continuing to improve the system is a major priority for this Government. I think it is worth pointing out that Government spending on biosecurity according to the information that I have been given is now at almost double what it was in 2000 when the last Labour Government started office. Last year we saw a record number of biosecurity staff recruited—over 40. 
The Government does take this issue very seriously. The Government does take this report very seriously. Work is already under way on it. We will continue to work on improvements to the system for the benefit of all New Zealanders. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.