Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4077. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Biosecurity Law Reform Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 19 July. 
Part 2 Amendments relating to ballast water ( 
continued 
)  
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Chairperson. I am pleased to continue my contribution at this Committee stage on Part 2 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. Just to recap: Part 2 deals with amendments relating to ballast water in particular with managing the risk of marine pest organisms being introduced to New Zealand in ships’ ballast water. The discharge of ballast water is one of the main ways marine pests can be introduced to New Zealand. Each year almost 3 million metric tonnes of ballast water sourced from outside our exclusive economic zone are discharged into New Zealand ports. If unmanaged this water is more likely to contain eggs and larvae of harmful marine organisms which may be able to be established here. So it is vitally important that we beef up our defences in the marine area. 
Labour supports the provisions in Part 2 of this bill in particular the alignment with the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments. The definitions in the bill align with that international convention. That brings our line of defence in line with best international practice and international control regimes. We also commend the provisions relating to the imposition of a ballast water management levy that can be imposed by Order in Council because that will help fund the administration inspection and enforcement of our biosecurity workers controlling and keeping an eye on ballast water discharge. Likewise we support the offence provisions. It is important that we do actually create very strong deterrents to ships’ owners and masters in terms of discharge so that if they do discharge there will be stiff penalties. We support those offence provisions. They are very strong. We also commend the wide powers that the director-general will have to investigate cases where there has been a discharge of ballast water. 
As I have mentioned we want to protect our pa; we want to make sure that our biosecurity laws do protect our industries and our livelihoods. If we look at the marine environment we mention names like  
Undaria 
 and didymo. We know what harm they have caused to our waterways and potentially to our marine industries. Just in terms of Maori we are significant stakeholders in our fisheries industries and our marine-farm aquaculture industries so any introductions of unwanted harmful and invasive organisms that could potentially impact on the property rights and the industries could have a huge economic impact on those industries and on our country. So it is vitally important that we do protect the pa as I said and that we do manage the risk of these marine pest organisms.  
We commend the measures that are contained in this Part 2 that relate to the discharge of ballast water. Thank you. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. I have got a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair the Minister for Primary Industries in relation to the way in which Part 2 around ballast water relates to New Zealand’s activity in the exclusive economic zone and in particular in terms of— 
Shane Ardern 
: There’s a big area of that around Wellington. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well it is. Mr Ardern is right to say that it is a big area. That is a good clear way of describing it Mr Ardern: big. That is correct. The exclusive economic zone is a very very large area and it is currently the subject of a piece of legislation that is before the House the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill.  
My question for the Minister is around the relationship of this Biosecurity Law Reform Bill to that other piece of legislation the exclusive economic zone bill because there are a number of areas reading through the bill—particularly new Part 19A in clause 76 which has been included here—that I think have some issues sitting alongside that exclusive economic zone bill. It actually starts with the title of new Part 19A “Protection of marine environment from ballast water”. One of the issues with the exclusive economic zone bill is the absence of language around protection and preservation of the marine environment in that bill. 
In fact the Minister for the Environment Amy Adams in the second reading debate spent a significant amount of time telling the House that that kind of language which comes from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was not going to be necessary in any legislation around the exclusive economic zone bill. So I am somewhat confused to find here in this new Part 19A a whole new provision entitled “Protection of marine environment from ballast water”. I am confused because that language is now not going to appear in the exclusive economic zone legislation and that specific area is mentioned as part of new section 246B(2) which tells us that “Subsection (1) applies to … (i) the territorial sea of New Zealand; or (ii) the internal waters of New Zealand; or (iii) the exclusive economic zone of New Zealand;”. 
New Zealand’s ability to make law in the exclusive economic zone actually arises from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The fact that we are signatories too and have ratified that convention is the very thing that allows us to make law on that. What we on this side of the House are looking for here is consistency in the way that the law treats the exclusive economic zone. There are a number of pieces of legislation that will affect New Zealand or any economic activity in our exclusive economic zone. One of them is this piece of law another is the exclusive economic zone bill itself and thirdly there are other pieces of legislation like the Crown Minerals Act for instance. So I think the Minister in the chair could easily take a call here and let us know what work he has done or perhaps even the Minister responsible for the exclusive economic zone bill Amy Adams could take a call and let us know what work has been done to make these two pieces of legislation consistent. 
As we go down the further measures here in clause 76 to new section 246C around offences I notice in there a set of fines that have been listed for the discharge of ballast water. In this case it could be in the exclusive economic zone. These fines are quite different from the set of fines that are now in the exclusive economic zone bill. In fact on this side of the House we have concerns about whether or not the fines regime and the penalties regime within the exclusive economic zone bill are sufficient and whether it is what we need for the protection and preservation of our marine environment. Again there is a question of consistency here between the exclusive economic zone bill and this bill in terms of the penalties for offences as listed in new section 246C. So the Minister might like to take a call and advise whether or not we are going to have to come back again to the House to reform the biosecurity legislation one more time because of the exclusive economic zone bill which is currently before the House. 
I hope that the Government has taken some time to look at it. I am sure Mr Ardern has been studying the exclusive economic zone bill clause by clause just before bed. When he has got the cocoa he gets out the exclusive economic zone bill and he says: “Is this consistent with the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill?”. 
Shane Ardern 
: I can see the member has. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Absolutely. That is how good my life is Mr Ardern. That is what we do on this side of the House. We look through the legislation and we ask ourselves whether the Government is being consistent here. When I look at the offence provisions that are in new section 246C I think that if they sit alongside the penalties regime in the exclusive economic zone bill we do have some inconsistency. 
The other point that I wanted to make was around the question of the director’s powers to investigate a discharge or the escape of ballast water. I note that obviously we have brand new sections here and I was not on the Primary Production Committee—something I regret Mr Ardern; the fact that I was not there to go through these matters in depth. But these are quite extensive powers that are being given to the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries. These powers which are now listed out in new section 246E are quite extensive and I would hope that the Minister could inform us as to whether or not these powers are contained in any other part of the director’s responsibilities. It seems to me that obviously it is an important step to take—to have somebody responsible for protecting the marine environment from the discharge of ballast water—and on this side of the House we obviously support the intent of that. But extending the director’s powers in this way is something that we always need to watch in terms of the power of senior public servants if they are given power to effectively put people in a position where they are charged with offences that have fines of up $200000. 
They are the two points that I was keen to make and keen to seek the Minister’s feedback on. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 It is very appropriate to have a biosecurity bill the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill  back in the House this week. The Minister in the chair the Minister for Primary Industries  after his outrageous accusations against the horticultural industry last week will I am sure get up to take a call and justify what was an outrageous rant at a group of people who commit billions of dollars in investment—their heart their soul their energy—to growing products that we sell offshore. And he gets up at a conference out of his limo and has a go at them because they feel threatened by biosecurity! 
They are not threatened by Part 2 of the bill here unless of course on their odd day off they go out fishing—which they do I have to say. This part relates to ballast water and all I can say is that it is about time. I think in our support of the bill we have to acknowledge that maybe we could have pushed this along. However this bill itself was generated by Labour in Government; we saw the need for this for greater alignment of the sectors. 
In the area of ballast water my colleague Rino Tirikatene was very modest and kind to the Government. In fact the risk is not 3 million cubic tonnes of water; it is 6 million cubic tonnes—metric tonnes I should say sorry—of water that comes into this country every year. There are 2500 visits by ships coming into the country and they exchange water under a protocol; there has been a general agreement. This bill will move to regulate ships and bring us under the international protocols that attempt to keep marine pests diseases and organisms out of New Zealand waters. 
We are very proud of our marine environment. We say that we are clean and green we have beautiful mussels we have whales in our water and we have the Maui’s dolphin an endangered species—all in pristine marine environments. Well the truth is that we have actually had 148 exotic marine pests come into this country. My guess is that it probably started when Abel Tasman came to this country. Captain Cook probably helped as well. Since that time we have been bringing unwanted pests and organisms into the marine environment of this country. There are a number now that we do not want to bring in I have to say and the focus on ballast water is quite appropriate. I hope the Minister has got the same focus on terrestrial pests and diseases. He seems to have ignored some of the risk that has been explained to him time and time again. 
I went to the Ministry Agriculture and Forestry website—or the new superministry website; I am not sure whether they are keeping this up to date—and it clearly outlines the risks to our country from some of the pests. I should name the six of them that it says are the most significant: the Mediterranean fanworm the European shore crab or green crab  the northern Pacific seastar the Chinese mitten crab the  
Caulerpa 
 and the Asian clam. I am not familiar with these things other than to guess that they would have a severe impact on our native marine wildlife. We had one bizarre situation where the Pacific oyster—which actually came in on boats established itself in New Zealand waters and has been turned into what was a profitable aquaculture industry—unfortunately has now almost been destroyed certainly in Northland by an algal bloom and perhaps by an unknown pest that could maybe have been brought in through ballast water. So it is appropriate that we move to legislate for stricter controls in this area. 
For another example of the things that we are trying to do perhaps think of the  
Rena 
. Think of what happened out on the reef there. Although the country was focused on oil on the fuel from the boat and on our attempt—successful for the most part—to get all that oil off the boat there was of course ballast water in the hull and in the boat that no doubt escaped from that vessel. 
The legislation has penalties in place. It has defence against charges should some contamination or pollution occur and one of those defences of course is if ballast water has escaped as a consequence of damage to a ship—a reasonable position. But I think it does beg the question of what we can do to minimise the chances of boats running aground. If nothing else comes from that disastrous situation it is that we should have a better more highly regulated coastal shipping environment. I was in the House here in 1994— 
Hon Annette King 
: We should have coastal shipping. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: We should have coastal shipping. 
Hon Annette King 
: Yes. It was scrapped by the Tories. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Because the National Government the Tory Government as my colleague said— 
Shane Ardern 
: What’s wrong with the Interislander? 
Hon Annette King 
: Took $51 million out of it. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: That is right. It absolutely decimated coastal shipping here. We were debating that bill. That member Shane Ardern would not know. He was probably on the farm then. He should be still. We were debating that bill until 4 o’clock in the morning if I remember rightly in this very Chamber. 
Hon Annette King 
: That was the Plimsoll line. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: That is right. That was on the Plimsoll line. All I can say in summary is that the Labour Opposition in the 1990s fought tooth and nail to stop the National Government deregulating coastal shipping the consequence of which was the  
Rena  
running aground the huge cost to the Bay of Plenty and the huge cost to the Government. There will be people smiling at that because that is the same Government that deregulated the building industry and of course the mining industry and—I will bring it back to the bill. Talking about ballast water and the regulation that we are bringing into place here the wisdom of good regulation is profound. The stupidity of deregulation in too many cases is also quite stark. I hope that this National Government learns. 
We are supporting this bill. We have pointed out our concerns particularly in Part 1 of the bill. We have major concerns in that area because the Government is not properly resourcing biosecurity. But in terms of Part 2 of the bill dealing specifically with the area of ballast water—dare I tread outside the tight constraints that the Chairman puts on me—can I say that we support wise implementation of regulations around ballast water in New Zealand and we hope that the Ministry for Primary Industries and all its Government agencies have enough resources to properly police this. Of the number of boats be they fishing boats or cargo vessels coming in out of the 2500 I suspect that not all of them are crewed managed and captained to the standards that we would expect. We may very well face the incursions as listed on the Ministry for Primary Industries’ own website that would have a huge impact on what we hope is a growing aquacultural industry—an industry that has huge potential in the pristine waters of this country. 
The Chairman is acknowledging the exit of St Bede’s College—a very good school I have to say. It is a shame it turned out so many National Party members. There are a couple of good Labour Party members from there to uphold the honour of the school. Can I say that in summary we do support the bill. We support the implementation of Part 2 but it is important that the Government gets this right and follows this through with appropriate policing of these regulations. 
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting Part 2 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. We are opposed to the bill in general because of the provisions that are in there over a number of things including the Government-industry agreements but in this particular part to do with ballast water we think that this is a great improvement. We believe that the fines and penalties could be somewhat more severe and we take on our colleague Damien O’Connor’s point that the surveillance and the monitoring of this part of the bill on ballast water will be critical. 
I noted in Part 1 that there was a bit around ballast water and also bio-fouling. There are some issues sometimes where you cannot really tell the difference whether the new organism has come from bio-fouling or through the ballast water. In Tasman Bay we had a major scare when the South African brown mussel was found there; when the oil rig that was parked out there in 2008 I think had actually deposited on the bottom this South African brown mussel. It was so close to New Zealand’s primary aquaculture area that it posed a very very real threat. We are very very fortunate that that threat appears to have been bypassed with good controls following that. But that was very concerning. We have oil rigs come into the Marlborough Sounds and actually park in the Marlborough Sounds in transit sometimes as well and other ships passing through—smaller ones coming through French Pass even. That area in the top of the south which has such an important industry is at real real risk. So this bill is very important. 
An organisation I was involved with in the top of the south before coming into this role Friends of Nelson Haven and Tasman Bay has often advocated for improved controls and monitoring particularly in and around Nelson harbour and through the top of the south around ballast water. We think that there have been a number of organisms brought in in that way. It is very very hard to pinpoint which ship and when. I noticed  
Undaria 
 was mentioned earlier and that has obviously been a major issue in the Marlborough Sounds. It took the industry a lot of work and a lot of cost to get that into a particular management regime. Unfortunately it is never going to go away and the industry has seen that as an opportunity I suppose in making a crop out of it. 
It does remind me however—you know we get a new pest in and Pacific oyster was mentioned which is quite a luscious oyster to eat. However I will note that the then theoretically honourable Doug Kidd talked to some marine farmers in the Marlborough Sounds who said that maybe they could farm it in Kenepuru Sound. He said no because it was not a natural organism there but should it by chance happen to appear there then maybe they could apply to farm it. What happened the next week? It was in Kenepuru Sound brought over from Manaroa. So ballast water bio-fouling or just general bad biosecurity advocated by former Minister of Fisheries Doug Kidd—we have some major problems. But the Green Party sees the benefit of this part of the bill and we will support this part of the bill. Thank you. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I intend to take only a short call on this part of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill which is around ballast water. I do have a question for the Minister in the chair the Minister for Primary Industries  which is a serious question around the issue of cost recovery. We have seen as the member who has taken just taken his seat Steffan Browning has talked about that some of the penalties and offences that exist in Part 2 of this bill are an improvement but sometimes that means nothing when we are unable to actually get any of the money out of the individuals involved. You often find that the Government will say “Well we have got these significant penalties we are able to recoup some of the cost.” But I would like to know from the Minister where in this piece of legislation—maybe it is in the convention that is referenced here; I do not know—is that ability for New Zealand to enforce cost recovery so that if we do have a biosecurity incursion in our marine environment it is not the taxpayers of New Zealand who end up paying for that and it is not the people working in the aquaculture and fisheries industries who end up paying for that. 
It is the same thing that we have seen as my colleague Grant Robertson said in the exclusive economic zone legislation where we are still trying to discuss with the Government the issue of cost recovery and ensuring that the insurance and bonds that are in place up front do mean that that cost recovery is real. It is all very well saying we are going to go for full cost recovery but if the company then just closes up shop and the ship or vessel is registered in Liberia or somewhere on the other side of the world that has— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Gisborne. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: No Gisborne would have very very stringent rules and regulations around this. Coastal shipping is a very important part of our economy on the East Coast and I know that the Gisborne port was very grateful for the focus that Annette King when she was Minister of Transport  put on coastal shipping. 
It comes back to I think a more general point about ballast water and the treatment of ballast water by the shipping companies which is that the decimation of our domestic coastal shipping fleet has led to far fewer safe practices in our territorial waters and our exclusive economic zone. This is really coming to light only now and even the Government is having to acknowledge it—not just practices around the environment such as the discharge of ballast water but labour practices and the way that employees are treated on these vessels which sometimes is not far short of slave labour as well as the way environmentally they operate in our waters. I know that what is left of our local fishing industry for example is very concerned at the unenvironmental practices carried out by some of these foreign fishing vessels. They come in and trap a number of New Zealand birds in their set-net lines then suddenly the entire fishery is shut down when we know that our local fishing guys really value and respect the environment in which they operate. It is no different when it comes to the discharge of ballast waters. I think that a strong domestic coastal shipping fleet would act far more environmentally responsibly in New Zealand waters than those kinds of rusty tin cans that come from overseas. As we saw in the case of the  
Rena 
 the impacts on the environment can be particularly disastrous. 
That was all I wanted to say on this part but my specific question to the Minister is around cost recovery—and Minister please do not say that that is not your area and that someone else is in charge of that. That is another thing I find frustrating about a lot of this legislation that is protecting the environment particularly in the marine area. Suddenly the biosecurity Minister says “No no no once something bad happens it is the Minister of Fisheries.” or “It is the Minister of Transport if it is an oil spill because that comes under the Maritime Act.” This is one of the big issues that we have: ensuring that when you have so many pieces of legislation all layered on top of each other there are not any gaps that mean that it ends up being the taxpayers of New Zealand who pay for any cost recovery any clean-ups and the biosecurity impact of an incursion. 
We need to ensure it is not those important industries which are the backbone of our economy that end up paying because they have to shut down their practices and lose a lot of their product especially in the case of aquaculture and fisheries. So it would be interesting to hear from the Minister where the cost recovery provisions are in this part of the bill. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill around the amendments relating to ballast water. As my colleagues have articulated Labour supports this bill because it helps our biosecurity systems and staff work more effectively to prevent and control pest and disease incursions. What we have seen over recent years is the absolute danger and threat that biosecurity pests pose to the New Zealand economy. Labour understands the need understands how important biosecurity protections are and that is why under the previous Labour Government investment in biosecurity more than doubled from $94 million in 1999 to $187 million in 2008. It involves an incredibly important part of our economy. 
One of the important things that this piece of legislation does is that it actually brings the legislation up to date with the technology that is available in terms of both detecting and dealing with incursions when they are found. I think that is one of the important things when we are looking at this. My colleague Moana Mackey just spoke about the need to see the biosecurity legislation as an overarching piece of legislation that is central to our economic well-being and I also would like to offer the comment that we need to see how this piece of legislation fits with other areas of investment. Our biosecurity is only ever going to be as strong as two components: one is having the people to monitor and actually having adequate resource in that area; and the second area is ensuring that we invest and continue our investment in the area of science and innovation in the area of biotech. 
A review was carried out in 2001 and it found that 88 percent of our biosecurity expenditure was invested in post-border research. When we look at what marine environments were receiving at this time it was very low. We were talking about 5 percent of the money that was spent on biosecurity research going to fresh water and 2 percent to marine environments. But since 2001 there has been an increased emphasis on science in the marine biosecurity area because it is understood what an important part of the New Zealand economy it is and it is in part these advancements that this legislation will enable to be used. 
Marine biosecurity received very little attention until the 1990s and it was really the arrival of various algae in our shellfish beds that brought to our attention what a significant economic threat incursions in the marine environment could play and that is why these Part 2 amendments are so important. We do have increased activity in our coastal shipping. The sea has changed we do have changes happening there and we need to ensure that we are protecting our environments. 
 New threats have emerged and have become apparent since the previous piece of legislation was passed in 1993. This is no more particularly so than in the marine area. The risks offered to marine biosecurity by visiting vessels are significant. The new activity within the 200 miles of the exclusive economic zone opens up some real questions in terms of what organisms may come into play with increased economic activity in our exclusive economic zone. When we have a think about what our future is and where our economic future lies aquaculture and our ability to utilise our marine environments are going to be so important to so many parts of our economy. That is why we believe that it is so important that we do have these regulations around ballast water and that we do have a good regulatory environment that protects the biosecurity of this area. 
If we have a look at what is actually needed in this area in terms of the science and the technology there has been an investment there and it is focused increasingly on increasing our understanding of the pests that are already present in New Zealand. My colleague Damien O’Connor talked about the fact that biosecurity hazards have been brought in to New Zealand waters for a couple of centuries now. This is not something new. We have an existing bank of biosecurity threats. We need to have knowledge of what is already there. We also have to have improved survey and surveillance methods so that we can develop detection of what organisms are present and what ones are going to pose a threat to our marine environments and the economic activities that are happening within those environments. We need to know when a vessel comes in and there is a release of ballast water exactly what it is that we need to be testing for how we are going to test and how the tests actually fit with international testing environments. 
There are various regulatory frameworks that are imposed on our exporters in the shellfish sector in terms of how it is that we test for algal presence within many of our shellfish beds. For example access to European markets is highly dependent on our still being able to afford a mouse biotoxin assay. We need to actually keep this capability somewhere within the New Zealand science ecosystem. That we look at how this is funded is vitally important if we still want to have access to various markets. So the ability to actually know what it is we are looking for and how it is that we are going to test for it is vitally important. 
But as well as knowing what is there and knowing what test to use we also need to develop new detection tools. We need to be thinking about the next generation of work and we need to understand the origin of these incursions if we are going to prevent them. Actually having the ability to regulate ballast water is so important because we need to be able to undertake very careful very considered risk analysis. This brings me to the point that my colleague Grant Robertson posed to the Minister for Primary Industries. He asked how it is that we marry this legislation this bill with the exclusive economic zone legislation that is going through the House. The regulatory impact statement for this piece of legislation talks about its relationship with the exclusive economic zone legislation and how they will fit together and notes that it is not there. A significant question that has been raised throughout the passage of the exclusive economic zone legislation as we have seen it go through the House is around how much risk we really are willing to take in our marine environments. Are we going to take a cautionary approach and invent a whole new way of doing things or are we going to treat with real seriousness the need to protect our marine environments by adopting already existing standards that are used throughout the world in terms of precautionary approaches to these environments? This is a question that really does need to be asked because this bill is all about our understanding our biosecurity in not just a terrestrial way; this bill is really about strengthening up our marine protections. We have seen how important the ability to protect our marine environments from biosecurity incursions is. 
These are important questions that we are looking to be answered: how it is that it fits with this how it fits within the wider plan given that it is so important to our economic future and our economic survival? We need to continue to invest and to innovate in this area of our science given how important it is but we need to have the enabling legislation that will allow the utilisation of these technologies. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 27 in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 76 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Related amendments to other enactments 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We now turn ourselves to Part 3 debate on clauses 79 to 83 and the schedule. I advise members that this is a very narrow debate. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I consider that an insult! I am very aware and I always keep my debates tight. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Of course you do! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Thank you. I would like to take the opportunity to talk on Part 3 clause 80 “Amendments to the Wild Animal Control Act 1977”. It relates to the definition of “wild animal”. It states that it is omitting “thar wallaby or possum” and substituting “tahr”. These are technical details here and I will be able to explain exactly what this means but there will be many hunters out there who are concerned that the Government through this bill the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is making the right call here. 
One of the particular issues has been the management of tahr. This is a wild Himalayan animal that was brought into this country I think well over 100 years ago. They have been liberated and they live in a limited range in the Southern Alps. They are majestic animals to say the least. I have had the pleasure of going out and hunting them or trying to catch up with them—at great distance I have to say—and we have not shot one but we have done our best to chase them round the hills. That in itself requires an amount of fitness. The point is that they are an introduced animal. They have established themselves and live right at the highest parts of our alps. They do graze on some of our native species and I know there are a number of people—conservationists and the Department of Conservation—who are concerned that the numbers will get out of hand. 
The changes that we are making here in my view should enable firstly the control of the numbers of tahr. I think the Minister might take a call on this and explain it to the hunting fraternity because I know they are concerned. So we need control. But we have also fostered a very valuable commercial hunting as well as recreational hunting activity in the country. There are literally tens of thousands of dollars spent on helicopter time on guides on accommodation and on the very best I have to say of hospitality for people who fly around the world to come to New Zealand to go out and hunt Himalayan tahr. That is a valuable part of the tourism sector at an otherwise very quiet time for them. 
I just want to ensure that we are making the changes that allow the tahr management plan to be a sensible plan not to have extermination or elimination of the animals as some would desire but to have management of a population that does ensure their viability and does not allow them to get out of control and hammer some of the plants. The Mount Cook lily for example I know is a threatened species up in the high country. We appreciate the need to protect those species but anyone who has seen a tahr out in the wild and seen them run up vertical rock faces and down and around has to admire the nimbleness the tenacity and the sheer skill of these animals in surviving. So that is one of the amendments that are made under clause 80 of the bill. I just need to ask the Minister and I hope he will take a call to reassure us that changes to definitions in the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 are not going to put the skids under all those tahr hunters. 
We have got other changes here under Part 3 and they relate to possums and wallabies. Again they are species that have been introduced to this country. The possum of course is a serious pest both for the decimation of native flora and fauna and for the fact that they spread bovine tuberculosis and that without control would undermine our ability to export meat and animal products around the world. So both of these—wallabies and possums—need to be controlled. Wallabies have hopped over the Tasman. They are not much good for anything other than the odd hunting activity. They are down in South Canterbury and North Otago. I almost ran into one about midnight one night heading up the Waitaki Valley. They are a pest but they are not a nasty animal I suppose. But again they do need to be controlled under appropriate regulations and appropriate legislation under the Wild Animal Control Act which is going to be amended by the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. 
The Director-General of Conservation generally does oversee these processes to make sure that they do not get out of control in the conservation estate. Other obligations that we have now placed on the Department of Conservation to be a good neighbour in the development of pest-management strategies should mean that it does its bit to keep numbers of wallabies and possums down at the lowest possible level. Those animals do not as I say benefit farmers. There are some people in the fur industry who would like to see possums managed in a more sustainable way so that they can get the fur. They have still got a long way to come down to get the figures where New Zealand is not under threat of tuberculosis or seeing its native species decimated out in the wild. 
I am not going to take too much longer but I will just say that we support the changes in the bill. The Minister might like to get up and take a call and explain exactly what will happen by redefining “wild animal” and making adjustments to the Wildlife Act so that “possum” and “wallaby” are indeed deemed something we do not really want. With that I will ask the Minister to maybe take up a call and answer my queries. Thank you. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I hope the Minister for Primary Industries is not going to just sit there like a dried arrangement for the entire Committee stage and not answer these very pertinent questions that have been put to him by members of the Opposition on what is undoubtedly one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have in New Zealand—our biosecurity law which underpins the very basis of our economy. I certainly hope that the Minister in the chair is scribbling away some notes there so that he can get on his pins and answer some of these questions. 
I want to pick up the amendments to the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 and come back to a theme that I think has been running throughout this Committee stage debate which is the danger where you have overlying pieces of legislation all with different intents all with different purposes but essentially governing the same thing. Perhaps nowhere is that more stark than in the area of wild animal control because there is a natural tension between seeing a particular species as a resource in terms of hunting the recreational and tourism value that adds and the downstream benefits of that in terms of using the fur etc. etc. and seeing that same species as a pest under Department of Conservation legislation or under wild animal control legislation. It is not a tension that is particularly easy to manage as we are finding out at the Local Government and Environment Committee at the moment where we are passing another piece of legislation to overlay all of this which is the Game Animal Council Bill which was something that the Government agreed to do to get Peter Dunne’s support for asset sales and other such things that the Government is trying to push through with its one-vote majority. 
So we have this Game Animal Council Bill which is currently at the Local Government and Environment Committee. We see the submissions and see that tension between the conservationists who are very concerned that some species will no longer be governed under the Wild Animal Control Act as pests but will now be seen as a resource that those species like tahr as my colleague Damien O’Connor mentioned and some species like wild pigs will not be as properly managed as they should be because of these conflicting pieces of legislation and that perhaps pest control strategies are going to be undermined. For example if you look at wallabies and possums which are mentioned in clause 80(2) they are not under the Game Animal Council Bill that is currently going through the select committee but in respect of the pest management strategy that controls a lot of those—in particular possums and 1080—there are already concerns coming through from people who are in support of the Game Animal Council  saying: “Well you know 1080 can also be life-threatening to some of the very species that we now want to use as a resource then there are natural concerns.” The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was one who said she wanted to see something there that specifically stated that pest management strategies were not going to be undermined because of the secondary impact they might have on a species that is now going from being considered purely as a pest to being considered as a resource and as something that should be managed rather than eradicated. 
So when we talk about amendments to the Wild Animal Control Act we also see the amendment in clause 79 to the Ombudsmen Act 1975 which inserts: “Management agencies under Biosecurity Act 1993 if they are corporate bodies in their role under pest management plans or pathway management plans”. My concern would be that we do not want to see a lot of farming out away from the Government away from the Department of Conservation away from the Director-General of Conservation who has the responsibility of protecting this valuable conservation land on behalf of all New Zealanders. We do not want to see a lot of that being contracted out being privatised and not having the same levels of transparency in terms of the ability of parliamentarians or members of the public to find out what is being spent on those strategies who is carrying them out how effective they are being when they are happening which is always a big issue in local communities that want to know when a 1080 drop is going to happen and what protections are being put in place for other wildlife that might be affected by it. 
When we look at that clause 79 where it is talking about other corporate bodies who may have a role in pest management strategies I just want to make sure that the very same stringent controls are in place—the very same stringent standards and expectations that are put on Government agencies. Certainly the Department of Conservation comes under fire a lot when people are not happy with its performance in this area where people feel that perhaps the department has been remiss has not been transparent enough has not consulted enough with the local community or has not taken on board the concerns of key stakeholders including recreational hunters and iwi. All of those things come on to the Department of Conservation because of its role as a public body whereas I worry that talking about putting these out to corporate bodies—and maybe the Minister might want to just clarify what that means and allay concerns—means that we are not going to see exactly those same levels of transparency those same standards and in particular the ability for the public to get this information around how this is being carried out through the Official Information Act and the ability for MPs to be able to get it through parliamentary select committee hearings through written questions and that none of that is going to be blocked because now it is with an outside body arm’s length from the Government. It can be done well. The Animal Health Board is an example of where possum control has been very very well managed but the Animal Health Board comes before the select committee and it answers to a lot of those questions. So that is one of my first questions. 
The next one again going back to what I said is around that layering around how you manage that tension between what is a pest and what is a resource and in particular in terms of the Biosecurity Act that is protected because under the Biosecurity Act we need to make sure that that pest element or whatever species it is that we are talking about needs to be taken seriously and is not going to be undermined. I would like the Minister to make a personal undertaking that he will not allow legislation such as the Game Animal Council Bill which is currently at the select committee to undermine the pest management strategies and the pest control strategies that the Department of Conservation carries out or undermine its ability to do that without being constantly questioned because of the impact it might have on other species that are now being seen as manageable and as a resource rather than a pest. 
 Now I want to raise one more issue which is in the schedules. I am sure this is just a technical thing but I am really struck by this constant changing of words to put in the word “plan”. So we have all these laws and regulations that are being amended here and in every single one—and there are hundreds here—it says to omit “strategy” and substitute the word “plan”. I am wondering whether the National Government has become so sensitive about accusations from the public from commentators and from the Opposition that it does not have a plan on anything that its answer is to now just go through all the legislation it can and get rid of any word that is a vague synonym for the word “plan” and put in the word “plan” so that when the Opposition members say “Where is your plan?” it can say: “Well we just changed that word 400 times in the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. So do not tell us we do not have a plan because we just added another 400 of them here in this one piece of legislation.” So maybe that is what it is for; I do not know. Maybe it is technical in nature but if you have learnt anything it is to always be wary of those “minor technical amendments” because they are always the ones that come back to bite you. I would like to know why it is that the word “strategy” was not reasonable and why it is that 400 times in this piece of legislation we need to change it to the word “plan”. Please allay my perhaps cynical but I think somewhat well-founded concerns that this is in response to claims and accusations—quite rightly—that the Government has no plan. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on Part 3 of this bill the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill to talk about how it is that we are going to manage many of the pests that pose a significant threat to New Zealand’s biosecurity. This is quite a different threat to our biosecurity from that we have been discussing under the previous part of this bill when we were talking about micro-organisms that can affect our marine biosecurity. This is very much about safeguarding our terrestrial environments. This is very much about protecting our high country. This is very much about dealing with many of the legacy issues we have from 19th century colonisation and many of the non-indigenous species that we now have in our country and what the impact of the presence of these species are on our environment. That is why we are having to go through some very specific changes to the existing legislation in terms of managing wild animals. My colleagues Damien O’Connor and Moana Mackey have very ably articulated many of the issues that we have with this part of the bill so I think I will just be taking a very short call on this part of the bill. 
We have two very significant questions that we would like the Minister for Primary Industries to answer in the Committee stage of this legislation. How do we balance this view of the resource-versus-the-pest nature of some of these species that we now have in our high country and in other parts of New Zealand? I do not think there are many New Zealanders who have not observed some of the damage to our environment that has been caused by some of these species. I do not think there are many New Zealanders be they young or old who do not recognise the damage that a possum can do and what a significant threat to our native forests these creatures are. Some very important questions are there. 
We also need some assurances about how this piece of legislation fits with yet another piece of legislation that is currently going through this House. We have posed questions in terms of how it gels with the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill but also how it is going to fit with the Game Animal Council Bill which is currently before the Local Government and Environment Committee and on which submissions are being heard. Moana Mackey asked some very pertinent questions there. We have to grapple with some very interesting questions. 
Under the current systems under the current legislation we have pests are not always managed in the best way and the regulatory impact statement for this bill sets this out very clearly. We have some pest management that is not happening where it should be thus putting at risk more of our environment and many of our flora and fauna species which are put at risk by the fact that we are not managing significant pest incursions in these areas. Then we have some pest management that is happening when it is not needed. On the one hand we have whole gaps and then we do have other areas where we actually have pest management that is happening when it is not necessarily needed. This is all about finding this balance and my colleague Damien O’Connor touched very pertinently on an issue there about the need to get this balance right in relation to some of the commercial hunting enterprises that we have—how we protect these very precious environments but not completely kill off this industry and manage the tahr in these areas in the high country. 
Importantly what this bill is doing overall—and we are seeing it in every part of this legislation—is addressing the fact that some pest management is not as effective as it could be. This bill again is about making available to us the new technologies and the changes that have happened in the world since 1993. When we look at the age of some of the legislation that comes before this House legislation that was passed in 1993 does not seem particularly old but in this area of biosecurity this actually is a very aged piece of legislation because this is a very fast-moving area where we do have a lot of technological advance. We must have the ability for the Department of Conservation and for everyone who is involved in biosecurity in this country to be able to use the best technology that is available to them. 
What we are also seeing under this part is the very clear definition of these wild animals that are going to pose a threat to our environment. Thank you. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to make a contribution to Part 3 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. I would like to just focus in on clause 79 which is an amendment to the Ombudsmen Act. In particular the clause states that “Management agencies under Biosecurity Act 1993 if they are corporate bodies in their role under pest management plans or pathway management plans” will be included within the ambit of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act. I just refer back to new section 96 in clause 37 of the bill which I believe defines management agencies. It states that management agencies are specified in a plan—be they the pest-management plans or the pathway plans—as “(a) a department: (b) a council: (c) a territorial authority: (d) a body corporate.” I would just like to invite the Minister for Primary Industries in addition to responding to the requests for a contribution or a clarification on the points raised by my colleagues to tell us whether a body corporate that is a management agency would be a private company and tell us what level of Crown control or Crown involvement there will be over such a body corporate. 
I think it is commendable that the body corporate actually does fall within the gaze of the Ombudsman that august officer of this Parliament. But I would just seek clarification on that body corporate point in terms of whether that extends the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to for instance a private company or an industry body—whether that is an incorporated society or any other body type corporate. So I think that is worthy of a clarification from the Minister. But other than that it is commendable that the Ombudsman does have jurisdiction to inquire into the operations of the management agencies that will be involved in these pest-management plans because there will be a great deal of public funding going into the programmes that they will be running under their activities. 
In terms of the other provisions in Part 3 it is good to see that possums and wallabies are included as unwanted organisms. They indeed are pests. I know that in relation to my own experience we have got whanau land down there in the Rowallan basin—right down there which is actually South Island Landless Natives Act land which is— 
Hon David Parker 
: 1916. 
RINO TIRIKATENE 
: 1916—that is correct. So those lands were set aside for us landless natives in the South Island. We have not really been able to do much in terms of working those lands because they are so remote. They are basically at the bottom end of the country where none of us were in very far remote corners. But on the issue of the Rowallan basin the Rowallan Alton Incorporation entered into a joint venture close to 12 to 13 years ago with a Chinese organisation that wanted to eradicate the possums but also actually start a trade with China in possums. They called it Kiwi Bear. It had a lot of promise. Unfortunately the venture did not actually eventuate but it would be good to see some other activities coming to light. I know there are possum industry participants who are making use of their pelts. But it would be good to look at in addition to eradication what economic development opportunities there are around the eradication of those unwanted pests. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 27 in the name of the Hon David Carter to Part 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 23 
Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Look if members want to call a party vote they must call it. So the motion is agreed to. Part 3 as amended will stand part. 
Schedule 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 27 in the name of the Hon David Carter to the schedule be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 23 
Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2  
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 23 
Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.