Eckhoff Gerrard: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7050] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: I would like to take a relatively short call on the title of the bill. To speak on a relatively short title “Biosecurity Amendment Bill” is not an easy thing to do. The word that is lacking I suspect is “importance” or “important”. Nothing in the title of the bill reflects the concerns expressed by everybody who understands just how important biosecurity is to this country. I have talked as I said before to farmers all over the country and at Mystery Creek just recently. When I asked them what was their most important concern the one overriding concern was biosecurity. Yet when I read the title and I guess that when a farmer or anybody reads in the paper tomorrow morning that the Biosecurity Amendment Bill was debated in Parliament it will reflect nothing. Somebody from the city for example would think: “Well yes I have heard of biosecurity and I guess it is something to do with stopping organisms.” But I really think that in the title of these bills we need to inform the public so much more comprehensively about what we are debating. 
We are debating—in my view certainly from an agrarian’s point of view—probably one of the most important issues that we can possibly debate or talk about in this Parliament. Indeed the pleasing thing as I said earlier is that there is such a large degree of unanimity. But again it is very very difficult for members of the public to understand what goes in this Parliament unless the title of a bill accurately reflects the proceedings of the Parliament. Quite frankly the “Hon Jim Sutton” and “Biosecurity Amendment Bill” does not mean a great deal to most people until they understand the importance and the commitment that it places on members of the public because every one of us has a duty to ensure that our country’s biosecurity is not compromised. 
We have heard so many speeches from so many members on this side of the Chamber detailing this huge list. Is it not extraordinary that this list seems to be rather large during the tenure of this current Government? Should not the title of the bill reflect the inadequate attention that this Government has paid to this problem? If I can answer my own question I think it should. I note Janet Mackey nodding her head in total agreement. She is on the Primary Production Committee and she is a good member I must say. She understands the significance of biosecurity to this country. 
It is regrettable that David Benson Pope the chief Government whip sits there with probably no understanding of the huge importance of this bill to the average member of this Government. The only time he makes a speech is when he stands up to say: “Madam Chair I move that the motion be now put.” That is the extent of the contribution of so many Government members but I must say that on the Primary Production Committee we do get some worthwhile contributions from those who understand the significance of the rural sector. When was the last time the Prime Minister spoke about the rural sector other than to give it a good swift kick and to milk more money from it? So the contribution that I would like to make at this particular point is that the title does not accurately reflect the importance to this country of such an overwhelmingly serious subject as biosecurity.