Ardern Shane: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15147] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 National supports this bill and by and large we support the comments of the Minister in his opening remarks relating to the history of this issue and what needs to be done going forward. In this case there has been an indecent rush to bring the bill before the House. Submitters had only 10 days to put in their submissions. Despite this lack of time there were 53 submissions representing most of the large industries in this country. That is because there is widespread concern in this country in relation to biosecurity matters and I want to highlight some of those concerns. 
The need for this legislation came about as a result of the National Beekeepers’ Association winning a Court of Appeal case and we have already heard a lot about that so I will not canvass it any further other than to say that the particular organism  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 which was highlighted in the Court of Appeal case is a new organism. The Court of Appeal rightly highlighted that it does not matter how any new organism arrives in this country—whether it is an intentional import or an accidental import or an unintended consequence of an import—the effect on the environment is likely to be the same. Therefore the overlap in the legislation makes no sense and something needed to done about that. 
On the other hand the import health standards that were in the pipeline which the Crown Law Office advised the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry could not proceed without potential further litigation were then held up. So there was a stand-off on one side where major industries had import health standards that they had worked on and agreed with that needed to be amended were being amended or were new that were held up and on the other side there were a couple of industries that were very concerned around the process by which their import health standards had been developed. That is the background. 
My concerns are that if industries had more confidence in import health standards not being breached like they have been in recent times then they would not potentially have raised these concerns. If someone used incidentally as a main scientist for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry such as was the case with Dr Mark Goodwin in the bee industry does not have the scientific background to justify the position then who does? We can understand the industry being somewhat concerned about the import health standard going ahead in light of his evidence. In the last few days a nurseryman in the Waikato came to me with coconut ground-up potting mix that has been imported from Sri Lanka that has thus far imported 34 weeds. That is 34 new plant species imported into this country and we have no knowledge of their potential damage or consequence to the economy. As recently as today I have received an email from a concerned person who is anxious about the importation of brush fence a type of plant that comes out of China and claims that the import health standards set by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry are being breached in this regard. We can understand that there is some great concern out there amongst the importing and exporting industries of our country. 
If we take that into account this legislation gives the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry more potential to ignore some of those concerns so that is an issue of grave concern to me. I want the Minister in the House today to give a reassurance that concerned stakeholders can get an independent review. The legislative process we have implemented in the select committee outlines that but the Minister needs to state that those in the bee and pork industries in particular which have been the two industries that have brought this to a head can get a fair review. I also need a clear statement from the Minister or from Government that Biosecurity New Zealand officials will not rush through the import health standard for the pork industry before this legislation comes into effect. That is still unclear and I think we need some further assurance in that regard. 
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials advised the select committee that about 400 import health standards have been implemented or put in place in the last 5 years and there have been only two contentious ones. So members can see by that—those figures bring it into context—that this is not as big an issue as some would have us believe. Having said that I also say that those who are directly affected want to be sure that they have an independent review. I think it is in the best interests of Biosecurity New Zealand and the officials who—I mention at this point in time—were very helpful and very obliging to the select committee. This process has not been about beating up the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry; I think the ministry has an international reputation. It has been about bringing an element of independence that people like those in the bee industry and in the pork industry can have confidence in. 
Our import health standards such as the ones being developed to import pork into New Zealand were also discussed in the select committee. The industry has reason to have concerns and again I am seeking the Minister’s reassurance that members of the industry will get their chance before this independent panel. I understand that officials have already—in the last few days—been talking to the pork industry about restarting discussions with that industry as a result of this bill coming to the House. This has raised a number of fears in the industry and they are understandable. I cannot emphasise enough how important this issue is not just to importers not just for trade but for the future of New Zealand. Yes we are a trading nation and yes we will import goods that can as the Minister pointed out carry with them massive amounts of new organisms. The Minister used the example of horses. Of course we trade in tourism which is another major industry in this country. Every time another planeload of tourists from some exotic destination arrives the potential for a biosecurity breach is there. 
I understand the difficulty that Biosecurity New Zealand has. We must continue to increase our trade and we must continue to promote the industries that support our economy. But at the same time we are an island nation at the bottom of the South Pacific with a unique habitat that is unknown in terms of the way that certain organisms plant species animal species insect species or other such will develop and prosper in this environment. We have to be absolutely vigilant at our borders. 
I understand the problems that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has with people who are currently involved in negotiations around the world to assist New Zealand exporters in breaking through some of the old trade barriers—tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers. I can understand their anxiety when various members of Parliament are talking about further restrictions on biosecurity or other such. But I also want to say to them that under our World Trade Organization obligations under our phytosanitary obligations we do have the right to reject things that can be harmful to New Zealand as long as it is based on good science. The reality is that in both these cases there seems to be a high degree of science to substantiate the arguments put forward. 
New Zealand has an enviable reputation internationally for being transparent and robust in our biosecurity approach. Our procedures sell and are accepted overseas because they help to maintain our clean green image which is one of our major trading advantages. It is ironic that honey is in dispute here. In New Zealand we have one of the purest forms of honey. In respect of the whole debate about organic exports we have in this country organic honey and we can export it to the world. Why would we risk that for the sake of a debatable scientific position? I understand the concerns that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has but equally I say to the ministry: “Toughen up. We are in world negotiations. The Australians have been able to ban imports of apples from New Zealand on grounds that could never be scientifically substantiated and we need to make sure that there is an even playing field there.” 
If this legislation does proceed and has the outcome that Parliament clearly desires then I can assure members that this debate will be back in the Parliament before very long.