Cunliffe David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 4) Hazardous Substances and New Organisms  Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Cunliffe David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 4) Hazardous Substances and New Organisms  Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:646;Page:15356] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: I move  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. The Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill was introduced in response to a December 2007 Court of Appeal judgment concerning an import health standard under the Biosecurity Act that had been issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The court’s judgment was confined to the particular import health standard before it which was for Australian honey but the court’s reasoning applied very broadly to most kinds of imported goods. In short the court stated that all new organisms that might be imported incidentally with imported goods require approval under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. That created an unworkable legal framework for the management of biosecurity risks at the border. The court’s judgment resulted in legal vulnerability for most if not all existing health standards and it made it necessary to suspend issuing any new import health standards or amending any existing ones. This was clearly an untenable state of affairs and made it necessary to respond rapidly with amending legislation. I am pleased that most of the parties represented in this House and those on the Primary Production Committee which considered the bill have recognised the need for prompt legislative amendment and support this legislation. 
The key change the legislation makes is to confirm that the Biosecurity Act rather than the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is the correct statute for making decisions on incidentally imported new organisms. This is the way we understand Parliament intended the two Acts would operate and this is how we had been operating until the Court of Appeal decision. It is also the way that officials from the relevant agencies agree that the Acts should work. Suggestions have been made from some quarters that this legislation is the result of some kind of turf war between agencies. I can assure members that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Ministry for the Environment and the Environmental Risk Management Authority have worked closely in developing the legislation and are in full support of it. 
Some concerns have also been expressed about the involvement of the Department of Conservation in the development of the legislation. Following the Committee stage of the legislation earlier this week it should now be clear to all members that the department was closely consulted on the development of the legislation and on the key Cabinet paper. The Biosecurity Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act were designed to work in partnership to protect New Zealand from the risks associated with the importation of organisms with risk goods with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act covering the deliberate importation of new organisms. The amendments will ensure that the Acts can work in partnership more effectively without compromising the level of protection needed for New Zealand. 
The legislation was introduced into the House on 12 February this year. It was read for the first time on 19 February and was referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration. The committee heard 15 of a total of 53 submissions that were received on the legislation. On behalf of the Minister for Biosecurity I would like to again thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for their valuable work on the bill. They had to tackle an issue arising from the interface between two quite complex Acts in a very tight time frame. The committee worked hard to quickly gain an understanding of the problems created by the Court of Appeal judgment while reviewing the concerns raised by a number of submitters. The select committee did not agree with the proposals from some submitters that substantial amendments should be made to the importation provisions of the Biosecurity Act. This I believe was the correct approach to take with legislation that had been developed to do no more and no less than to resolve the problems created by the Court of Appeal judgment and that was being progressed quickly for that purpose. 
However the select committee did amend the legislation to provide for an independent review process that can be used in cases where significant concerns have arisen during consideration or consultation over an import health standard. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry develops its import health standards by following a process that includes peer review and consultation. The ministry engages with its various stakeholders in developing import health standards and most import health standards are developed without substantial disagreements. On some occasions however the process for developing an import health standard becomes affected by a protracted dispute over some aspect of the ministry’s risk management decisions. I would like to see the new provision for independent review used as a means of moving forward in those few cases where the import health standard development process has become contentious. 
The select committee also grappled with how best to deal with the import health standard for Australian honey. On the one hand the National Beekeepers’ Association had obtained a court declaration that no honey containing  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 a micro-organism could be imported without an approval under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. On the other hand the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act was not suited to assessing the risks from passenger new organisms and the select committee had legal advice confirming that there are no constitutional reasons not to validate the import health standard for Australian honey. I understand that a number of members considered it was essential that there should be no imports of Australian honey until an independent review is completed. The Supplementary Order Paper to make sure that the legislation has this effect has been tabled by the Minister for Biosecurity during the Committee stage and it has been agreed to by the Committee of the whole House. 
I endorse the common-sense approach of ensuring that no imports of Australian honey should be permitted until the review is completed. Notwithstanding this it is important that the review is completed in a timely manner and that it focuses on only the key issues that have previously been disputed by the National Beekeepers’ Association. The process for developing the import health standard for Australian honey goes back a period of some years and has already included extensive consultation and peer review. I would hope that the review can be completed within a period that is close to the 90-day period initially recommended by the select committee so that final decisions can be made and all parties to the issue can then move on. 
In closing I thank the members of the Primary Production Committee again for their work on the legislation and I commend the legislation to the House.