Eckhoff Gerrard: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7073] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 During the Committee stage of this bill there appeared to be considerable debate as to what Part 2 was all about. A lot of questions were asked of the Minister in the chair Mr David Cunliffe. He was asked whether he would take a call and explain what Part 2 was all about but that did not eventuate. So I am happy to tell the House that Part 2 is about the removal of compensation for the destruction of trees in a forest or indeed in a private setting. It is not a huge issue but it does show that some members of this Government have not even bothered to read the bill and understand what it is all about. 
This bill by and large is a sensible bill. It does ensure that the issues of biosecurity are once again placed at the forefront of public attention. It has been with some regret as has been mentioned numerous times in this House by the Opposition that the bill has languished for 2 years waiting for the light of day. At this very late stage we are at last under urgency debating this bill in its final stage—the third reading. 
One would assume that New Zealand and the Government would understand that every measure that is possible reasonable and logical for the Government to take it should indeed take. I want to hark back to my earlier comments about gamma irradiation. That technology has been around for a long long time. The question that must be asked again of the Minister and of the Government is why they studiously ignore that marvellous advance that relatively new technology when so many other countries use it. It is interesting to note that the United States of America uses gamma irradiation to destroy the anthrax bacteria in mail. I think everybody in this country and throughout the world is well aware of the anthrax scares. They have been a huge biosecurity risk to the public throughout the world and indeed a number of people have died from inhaling that product sent by terrorists. 
Here was an opportunity for the Government to recognise that those exceptional circumstances provide a great opportunity to scan all incoming mail and to use gamma irradiation to sterilise and kill the bacteria. The real question for me is this: why has the Government not accepted that gamma irradiation is such an important part of biosecurity in many parts of the world and that we could use it in New Zealand as well? 
The other aspect I would like to touch on again in this third reading debate is the fact that the rest of the world seems to be a step ahead of New Zealand on the question of biosecurity. I refer again to the Australians’ desire to achieve the maximum benefits they can and to ensure their own country remains free of unwanted organisms. I refer of course to the technique of bubbling nitrogen through ships’ ballast. We have been told in New Zealand that we cannot export water. We have major problems with the introduction of starfish and so on by means of the discharge of waters originating from exotic climes and that is the reason given that we cannot export a product that is in huge demand throughout the world—fresh water. If ballast was unloaded in Fiordland those organisms would get into the rather exotic and beautiful area on that part of our coastline and cause some real problems. 
The new technology that I have just come across is not even being discussed in New Zealand. I ask the Government why that is not the case. Why are all options not being put on the table so that the public can look at them and say that that particular technology is a perfectly reasonable way to go? If that technology was trialled in New Zealand and shown to work why should we not utilise it? Why do we not offer the country the very best opportunities in terms of biosecurity techniques? Sadly that will not happen—certainly not in the short term—under this bill. 
The bill of course also ensures that the public of New Zealand are made responsible for reporting to the appropriate authorities any incursions of unwanted organisms that they come across. The question of genetically modified (GM) organisms coming into this country illegally is one that does concern legitimately I guess a number of people not the least of whom are the Green Party members. It is quite interesting to note that just in recent days the European Union has opened up its doors to GM products as long as they are appropriately labelled so that consumers can have a choice. That seems to me to be a perfectly sensible even though quite costly alternative. It is also interesting to note that the introduction of GM products into the United States has lowered the necessity for pesticides to be used in that country by 20000 tonnes. 
 When we think about the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill that we also passed recently in this House we know that here we have a marvellous opportunity to embrace new technologies and in so doing to do away with those extraordinarily hazardous substances. When we think about the reduction of 20000 tonnes in pesticide use in one country alone because of new technologies and new techniques then I think we have real cause for celebration that in this country and throughout the world we have a bright future thanks to science and the new technologies. 
I mentioned earlier that it is incumbent upon the people of this country to report any new outbreaks of unwanted organisms and I commend to the House again the television programme  
Border Patrol 
 which has highlighted the significance to New Zealand of people bringing in fruit—some inadvertently but others quite stupidly and without forethought. About 13 tonnes of fruit product have been detected. So the real question is how much comes into the country undetected. That is a major concern and I think that the producers of that programme  
Border Patrol 
 should be commended for introducing it in prime time. It is a hugely educational programme as well as being slightly entertaining at the same time. I would like to see opportunities being used to educate the public constantly—through advertisements for example—about organisms like moths for instance so that people can identify them and ring the authorities about an outbreak. Who knows? People may be able to win a trip to Fiji as a result of their stewardship of this country. We need to be innovative and creative about those sorts of things.