Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3783. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Biosecurity Law Reform Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 18 July. 
Part 1Amendments to Biosecurity Act 1993  ( 
continued 
)  
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I will take an opportunity to lead in again on Part 1 which is basically the big part of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill—the significant part of it. It sets up requirements around pest-management strategies which are the plans I guess to get rid of or manage diseases that are already here such as tuberculosis. Strategies for others will be developed. Ones around rabbit calicivirus disease or the rabbit as a pest hopefully will be developed further down the track.  
Can I say on behalf of my electorate in particular that one of the obligations in this bill that I have to endorse and applaud the Government for is the good neighbour obligation in here. It does place upon the Crown as the neighbour of many farmers and private property owners an obligation to engage with them through these pest-management strategies and to be a participant just like every other private farmer and landowner. I applaud that initiative.  
At the same time I have to go back and alert anyone who might be listening to this debate to the fact that although Labour supports this bill we have some serious questions. In regard to the Government-industry agreements what I must point to—and there will be a lot of people out there who have not read the report—is the review of the import requirements and the border process in light of the entry of  
Pseudomonas syringae 
 pv.  
Actinidiae 
 into New Zealand. One of the recommendations in that—and I hope it is not taken up—is that the Ministry for Primary Industries needs to look at the relative cost-benefit ratios of reprioritising its resources towards managing risks for economically significant industries. One of the concerns of the small sector groups—the likes of hothouse growers; pipfruit is not a small one but summer fruit is and avocados—is that they do not think that under the Government-industry agreements they will get a fair go and an opportunity for them to negotiate an affordable deal to manage any risk incursion or in fact to have input into the preventive measures at the border. The point being that here is a recommendation that points to the insufficient resourcing in biosecurity and says: “Well if you do not have money reprioritise and forget about the small sectors.” That is effectively what it says.  
There may well be net benefits in reprioritising the Ministry for Primary Industries’ resources away from smaller less strategic industries in order to ensure the risks to high-value sectors are appropriately managed. What that says is that we will put the resources into dairy kiwifruit pipfruit and meat and we will forget about the rest. Well those sectors need to be well aware of the dangers. Under the current Government’s management of biosecurity there is insufficient resource to have a proper system and the shifting around of those resources may very well mean that they miss out.  
The recent incursion of fruit fly is a classic example. I guess it would have been the whole fruit sector engaged under an MIA—a GIA sorry; I am getting my MIAs and GIAs confused here as it is not the Meat Industry Association but a Government-industry agreement—then I am not sure how we would engage. Thankfully there was quick action on that—the one fly—at a cost of $1.4 million. That issue was addressed. We did not have a wider spread of the Queensland fruit fly thankfully. But you have got sectors here like summer fruit that are crying out for the ministry to X-ray all incoming baggage into the country because somehow that larva got into this country and we did not pick it up at the border.  
There are hundreds of thousands of containers coming into this country every year and they are not checked. There are hundreds of thousands of visitors coming into this country each year and they are not checked. Direct exit means that those people go out without any physical check whatsoever. The vague hope the vain hope that the dogs are around to check it out in fact does not apply to Wellington—has not applied since October last year—and there have been serious shortages of dogs around the ports and airports of this country for some time. I understand that the ministry might be upping it by four in Auckland but we have a serious— 
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the New Zealand First Party. We are opposed to the passage of this bill the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill in its present form. New Zealand First is strongly committed to the promotion and preservation of New Zealand’s biosecurity. We understand that the intention of this bill is to enhance and improve the level of that biosecurity and we support the amendments that it will bring to several other pieces of legislation namely the Maritime Transport Act 1994 the Ombudsmen Act 1975 the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 and the Wildlife Act 1953. We see the bringing together of relevant legislation under a single umbrella as being a positive move in terms of the imposition and enforcement of measures intended to safeguard the biosecurity of New Zealand which is undeniably of crucial importance to our agriculture and to tourism and thereby to our economy and way of life.  
We acknowledge the work done by the previous Primary Production Committee and appreciate the lengths and detail to which that committee went in order to ensure that what has been presented to the House is a far more workable bill than that which the committee originally found itself tasked with examining. Indeed in reading the  
Hansard 
 from the previous Parliament it is apparent that members from both sides of the House found immediate and obvious faults in the bill as it had been prepared. The committee made nine substantive changes and recommendations to the Government all of which were accepted.  
From this I am given cause not only to be reassured as to the commitment of the committee to achieving workable and practical outcomes but also to wonder why and how such an important piece of legislation could have been so flawed to begin with. It is this inherently flawed nature of the construction and more important the focus of this bill that forms the basis of the New Zealand First Party’s opposition to it rather than the detail of its application which has already been addressed. In addition given the bill’s focus as we see it combined with the concurrent adoption of certain new technologies and existing budget-driven contemporary practices at the border it is our view that these elements will in fact work together in our estimation not to strengthen New Zealand’s biosecurity but indeed to weaken it.  
There are five key areas identified in this bill: border risk management marine biosecurity readiness and response pest management and compliance and enforcement. In terms of marine biosecurity the New Zealand First Party is encouraged by the inclusion of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone within the boundaries of the bill’s jurisdiction. We believe that this will enhance the safety of the existing fishery as well as contributing to the minimisation of other risks associated with sea traffic and further risks with a potential to impact on the New Zealand mainland and major outlying islands from other marine-based activities including those associated with offshore mining and oil exploration.  
We are pleased also that the bill facilitates the implementation of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments 2004. This convention aims to minimise the potentially negative or deleterious effects of ballast water carried by cargo ships generally collected in or near the coastal waters of one port and discharged at the next and often including real and possible contaminants such as biological materials including plants animals viruses and bacteria. These materials can include non-native species which may impact on aquatic and marine ecosystems causing a variety of negative effects ranging from civil nuisance value through to serious ecological and economic damage.  
Likewise New Zealand First welcomes the provisions in this bill that enable a national policy direction to be formulated and imposed with regard to pest management and control. New Zealand First believes that a collective strategy coordinated by Government will enable all individuals and agencies involved in or responsible for the control destruction or other management of existing and potential pests to work to a known standard in the formation of their operational plans and methodologies. We believe that this will greatly assist in the eradication or effective control of pests that may exist or cross between regional and jurisdictional boundaries.  
We are also pleased that the Crown as a landowner will be included in regional pest-management rules under the provisions of the bill correcting what we see as the anomaly of its present exclusion. Land not currently required to meet regional pest-management rules includes not only that managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Information New Zealand but also that controlled by the Defence Force the Department of Corrections the Ministry of Education the Ministry of Justice the Crown Forestry Group and the New Zealand Transport Agency.  
So there are good things in the bill and the stated intent is a good one with which we agree. As I have said we acknowledge the good work that the previous committee has done on a cross-party basis towards bringing the provisions of this bill into line with that stated intention. However where New Zealand First sees the bill as failing is in its approach to the remaining provisions not yet addressed—those of border risk management readiness and response and compliance and enforcement. We appreciate that the aim of the bill’s authors is to include some carrot along with the stick to reward those who have a good track record with regards to upholding and improving biosecurity as well as punishing those whose record of performance is poor.  
But it is in the relaxation of inspection-based activities and the change in focus away from direct and intensive governmental involvement in the process of ascertaining the presence of risk factors and organisms which is an essential element of the reward side of the equation that in our view places the biosecurity of New Zealand at greater rather than lesser risk. I note from the second reading of the bill that the  
Hansard  
contains references of concern from some Opposition MPs that the move towards greater industry self-regulation may be driven by a desire to ease and accelerate the movement of goods in line with the requirements of the World Trade Organization. Be that as it may it is of great concern to the New Zealand First Party that removing the direct involvement of inspection and enforcement of regulations for any industry coupled with an increase in penalties for those subsequently found to be in breach of them is not a formula that has proven to be successful in New Zealand in recent years. It is somewhat akin to putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than a fence at the top.  
I would suggest to members that both leaky homes and Pike River came about under regulatory regimes that had been relaxed in a similar manner. Although a desire to speed the process of importation and international travel for those who have not transgressed against the requirements of the border may be of honourable intent we are acutely aware that our primarily agrarian economy is but one mistake away from disaster. The most careful of frequent travellers could very easily bring in a threat inadvertently and unintentionally the consequences of which have the potential to be dire for the nation as a whole.  
We have seen the effects of the  
Pseudomonas syringae  
pv.  
Actinidiae  
disease on our kiwifruit industry and the varroa mite on the bee-keeping and honey industries. And of course we all know that New Zealand lives with the constant spectre of foot-and-mouth disease the repercussions of which have thankfully yet to be visited upon us. I can tell this House that the root virus phylloxera arrived in Central Otago during my time in the wine industry there and that was with all the necessary protocols in place around movement. Without them it would doubtless have made its appearance decades earlier and had it done so it is doubtful the New Zealand’s reputation as the producer of the world’s finest Pinot noir could ever have been established.  
A piece of fruit or a jar of honey accidentally left in the luggage of a business traveller with a hitherto unblemished record could have consequences for this country that no fine or monetary penalty could possibly hope to address. Similarly an insect or animal pest slipping through the net of an importer with previously impeccable systems and credentials could likewise impact on the nation beyond the ability of any punishment to deter particularly when any such transgression is likely to be entirely unintentional. In either event without recourse to complete inspection—certainly by new technological means as far as is possible—the adoption of this bill in its present form will mean that New Zealand has no means at all of intercepting or preventing such threats.  
That is a risk that I would suggest to members is too great to be countenanced. The SmartGate may not seem so smart after all if we allow it to let in a virus that devastates our pork industry or a moth that wipes out our pine forests. For these reasons New Zealand First cannot support this bill. Thank you. 
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is also unable to support this bill the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. The Green Party is very very concerned about biosecurity and we often and for many years have been pushing the issue of inadequate biosecurity by successive Governments. We have seen pest after pest come in affecting different industries and affecting biodiversity in this country.  
I was part of the early consultation on this bill and it is clear that Biosecurity New Zealand as it was then was really looking to see whether it could have some better systems and some better processes to look after biosecurity and in some respects the bill does address that. It is looking at how to do it in maybe a more user-pays way which unfortunately leaves some glaring gaps but not only that it actually impacts on industry in a very—how would you say it—hodgepodge way. It is a mix and match all over the place way of doing it. It is going to be inadequately resourced under the Government-industry agreement system when it is implemented and that is being attempted to be implemented now under duress in most of the industries.  
Most of the changes may seem to be able to enhance biosecurity outcomes in New Zealand but that would be only if biosecurity was significantly better resourced and there is no intention of that. The Government has not done it and it did not do it in the last Budget either.  
The distributed responsibility for biosecurity management is we say a brave new adventure for the Ministry of Primary Industries but it is one that will blur the lines of responsibility for biosecurity breaches. It is a more cooperative approach and you might say that will lead to some better biosecurity outcomes but it is actually blurring the lines of responsibility and we see that as a very big risk. We see that as actually quite sad.  
I want to look at the real problems with biosecurity in New Zealand. The Minister for Primary Industries has said it in this House in recent months a couple of times: do we want the same approach taken by our international markets the importers of our produce into other markets? That was in response to the pig endogenous retrovirus more recently the pig issue—the thing that is in front of the court because it is so contentious. The Minister expects that we will accept greater risk into this country because of some of our purported better exports. He says that we need to prioritise that we will take up the recommendations from the  
Pseudomonas syringae 
 pv.  
Actinidiae 
 investigation and that that will prioritise where biosecurity goes depending on the importance of a particular sector. That is a very narrow way of looking at it. It is a very risky way of looking at it because it puts it down into just a few sectors that are seen as the sectors where our economy is based. But that is our economy at the moment on a really slack commodity level. We have got pines we have got dairy and if that is all we are going to rely on and we look the other way and not at the depth that we need to around biosecurity risk we are not looking to the future for New Zealand.  
I note that John Lancashire the immediate past president of the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science in its recent publication lambasted the Government—and previous Governments as well I must say—for the neo-liberal approach that it has been taking to trade and biosecurity. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: What’s that mean? 
STEFFAN BROWNING 
: That means that in recent years both major parties have said they will do a little bit less regulation and they will do freer and freer trade and that means we are taking more risks about growing biosecurity threats. The slight loosening of border controls has led to some very expensive search— 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill a substantial piece of legislation that seeks to amend the Biosecurity Act of 1993. Essentially one of the things that this bill seeks to do is to bring the legislation up to date with the technology that is available in terms of biosecurity in New Zealand.  
As my colleagues have talked about at length Labour does support this bill although we do have a couple of concerns which we have outlined one of which my colleague Damien O’Connor talked about earlier today. It was the Government-industry agreements and this is a concern for us. The other concern for us is that you can have the best legislation in the world but if you do not properly resource it it is not going to work.  
One of the things that my colleagues have talked about while we have been debating this bill is the lack of resourcing that we are seeing in this area of biosecurity. We are seeing that Wellington Airport has not had a sniffer dog working there since October last year. We are seeing that there are cuts and this is of concern to everybody. We support the efforts to increase our biosecurity because like most people or like everybody really in this House and most New Zealanders we know that historically New Zealand’s biosecurity and our protecting of our land-based primary production—our agricultural our forestry and our horticultural industries—is absolutely crucial to our economic survival and indeed our economic development. Not only has it been incredibly important to us historically as a nation but we see in Labour that it is still important to us today. It is very much part of our present.  
This bill does recognise the vital importance of biosecurity to our marine environment to our indigenous flora and fauna and to human health. I think it is interesting that we started debating this bill last night immediately after the reading of the exclusive economic zone legislation where we were seeing the House talking about how it is that we could control our exclusive economic zone. What we have here is a piece of legislation that seeks to extend into that exclusive economic zone. So the purpose of this bill as I said is to bring biosecurity up to date to take into account the technologies that are available and had been there since the passage of the legislation that was passed in the 1990s.  
The present bill that we have before us now really goes back to when Labour was in Government and the scare that the varroa mite posed to an entire industry. And sadly since we have seen the scare that the varroa mite posed to the honey industry we have seen several other scares which members have talked about during this debate. We have seen the  
Pseudomonas syringae 
 pv.  
Actinidiae 
 (Psa) incursion into the kiwifruit industry—a $75 million problem. We have seen the Queensland fruit fly in Auckland. All those actions posed significant threats to New Zealand’s economic well-being.  
The fruit fly alone could destroy a $3 billion a year horticultural industry. So these might be very small organisms or very small insects but they are not very small problems. These are things that we need to protect against. This is why Labour more than doubled the spending on biosecurity between 1999 and 2008. We raised that spending from $94 million to $187 million.  
Then in 2003 Labour initiated the  
New Zealand Biotechnology Strategy 
 and this was a very good piece of work. This strategy emphasised the critical role and this is what is really important for me. This is a strategy that emphasised the critical relationship between science and biosecurity and that science needed to underpin what we were doing in the area of protecting our borders and in terms of our whole biosecurity system.  
This strategy identified four expectations of science in the field of biosecurity. It emphasised that the science should be closely involved in the development of any strategy that the purchase of science should be integrated across providers who are working in this field that the investment in science should be long term to ensure maintenance of key capabilities and that the priority for research to improve biosecurity is understood. As someone who has worked in the research industry before entering this House I have seen very much that biosecurity was at the forefront of thinking in terms of our horticultural and our primary production industries.  
New technologies—many of which have been developed under this increased funding that I have sketched out—are now being used in defending our borders and the legislation that we have before us now actually will enable us to make greater use of these new technologies. It will ensure that a secure biosecurity system from pre-border management to pest management must be underpinned by this science that I was talking about to support the social the cultural the environmental and the economic values that are important to all of us as New Zealanders and that we must ensure that science continues to underpin our approach to this system.  
Our science in this area has a very strong international reputation in fruit fly protection in eradication techniques the use of baggage-securing X-ray technologies in fumigation technologies in pesticide technologies and in molecular diagnostic techniques. These are all things that New Zealand scientists excel at and that we do very good work at. We need to be able to use these technologies in the defence of our borders. We have examples of these technologies being used to protect our borders but we also have examples of these technologies being commercialised and that is a spin-off economic benefit to the New Zealand economy.  
We have SniffertechTM which was developed by the Crown research institute AgResearch and it went on to be a very useful technology. Biosecurity is a really salient example of the importance of investing in science to our economy right across the broad spectrum of how it is that we look at our economy. Our economic future is dependent on this and we must continue to innovate in this area. As I said the purpose of this bill is to enable us to use these innovations these new technologies and these new bits of science.  
The Biosecurity Act as it stands now does not reflect these significant advances in technologies that have taken place over the past decade and that we anticipate we will continue to make greater advances in. The present legislation requires that some of the acts be carried out in a manual way when time has moved on and we actually have technology that could do a better job at this and actually do more to protect our borders.  
For other functions there is uncertainty about whether the available or future electronic technologies and systems can be used to support the prevention of biosecurity risk. We must tidy that up and one of the reasons that Labour is supporting this bill is that it does precisely that. We need that legal certainty over the use of technology and over the use of electronic devices in defending our borders. The Ministry for Primary Industries needs to have that certainty to improve target and manage the risks at our borders. Visual inspection as required in many ways now will not pick up the organisms that pose the threat whether they are bacterial or viral such as Psa. We must have a way to detect these. We have the technologies and we must be able to use them. That is why Labour is supporting this bill at this reading. Thank you. 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to make a contribution to this Committee stage of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. Before I go into talking around Part 1 I will say that biosecurity is critical to our prosperity as a nation. This bill is all about protecting our pa protecting our industries and our livelihoods protecting our brand protecting our resources and protecting our mana. So Labour does support this bill. We have supported it right since its introduction but we do have some reservations over a couple of aspects to the bill particularly around the Government-industry agreements which my colleague Mr O’Connor has touched on. 
I want to just take this opportunity to talk on Supplementary Order Paper 88 which Te Ururoa Flavell has tabled. The proposed amendment is to insert new clause 8A which inserts new section 5A “Principles of Treaty of Waitangi” into the Biosecurity Act. Labour supports this Supplementary Order Paper and the inclusion of this new clause. As we all know the genesis for the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi came out of the Treaty of Waitangi Act its architect Matiu Rata and the Labour Government of those days and it has been central to the whole modern-day era of the past 30 years of Treaty settlements. There is a long line of Treaty jurisprudence around the principles of the Treaty but in terms of its inclusion in this bill it is very important in recognition of Maori iwi and Maori as the tangata whenua and as kaitiaki for our natural resources and the partnership between Maori and the Crown. So we do support the inclusion of this clause. 
It is unequivocal in terms of the wording that “This Act must be interpreted and administered so as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” I know Mr Flavell has tabled another Supplementary Order Paper but I believe that it might come under a different part. We will discuss that at a later time. But in terms of Part 1 and new clause 8A we support this Supplementary Order Paper. 
Returning back to the thrust of this bill we do support the measures—for instance the new tools for more effective and efficient border biosecurity placing more duties on importers to take more reasonable steps in terms of their importation and compliance with health standards the modern-day framework for the use of information on risk profiling; and one that was endorsed by my colleague Ms Mackey which she spoke to last evening and that is the expansion of the Biosecurity Act and its application to the exclusive economic zone. So those are commendable measures in the bill. 
I said that it is all about protecting our pa. Having worked with Maori economic interests I know that Maori are significant stakeholders in our primary industries whether it is our agricultural industries our farms our orchards our marine farms fisheries or forestry. In fact the bulk of Maori assets are in the primary sector and therefore our trade and our ongoing viability in those industries are really critical in terms of our biosecurity. We are in terms of the Maori sector very very keen to see boosted protection of our pa. 
That leads me on to the Government-industry agreements. This is an area I know where Labour does have reservations. It is a classic example I guess in terms of the inequity between big industries and very small industries and the resourcing that is required but also the fact that these agreements are between two parties. We are seeing it with the New Zealand pork industry at the moment. It is taking litigation against the Government over the non-recognition of the scientific evidence that the industry is putting forward in opposition to the lowering of the import standards for the some 800 tonnes of pork that comes into our country every week. That is a critical issue for the pork industry and in terms of these Government-industry agreements I think that it is a classic example whereby the industry itself cannot even get the Government to pay recognition to its own scientific work. This is a Kiwi New Zealand industry our pork industry. I think we need to give a lot more consideration to the Government-industry agreement provisions to make sure that there is a greater equity and not too much cost borne. There is a disproportionate cost when the industries are so small when it is a small fledgling emerging export industry. We all know that we want to broaden the base of our exports sector of our tradable sector so I think it would be good to just focus on the Government-industry agreement area and make sure that that is tightly drafted and meets the interests of the industry itself. That really concludes my contribution at this time. Kia ora.  
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
: 
 As I was pointing out with the neo-liberal approach which is saying more and more free trade and sell out biosecurity for free trade John Lancashire was absolutely correct in pointing out that that is actually the critical thing the philosophical thing that is allowing biosecurity risks to be increased. As I have said the Minister has repeatedly said that we need to be open we need to be accepting more and more stuff coming in and more and more risk if we want to be trading freely. But just today the World Trade Organization (WTO) came out and has pointed out that for just that material that is coming in there are actually gaps around it in terms of how it is being managed. The WTO is saying that that needs to be looked at. The different agencies internationally the WTO and the other agencies need to be working better to make sure that biosecurity works and that it is not seen as that trade barrier. Instead of taking the approach that it is always a trade barrier we actually need to look at biosecurity almost first. We definitely do need to look at it first but this Government has been saying: “No no. We want to open up let more in and take more risks.” So it is very interesting that that came out today while we have got this bill the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill in front of us that is quite shaky in terms of looking after biosecurity here.  
The other thing that has just happened of course—and a colleague mentioned this before—is the four new dogs which is very very good because he and the Green Party had been repeatedly saying that there are not enough decent inspections at our ports so it is good to see that there has been a media advisory out to say that there are four new dogs out and the breeding programme is expecting to see 11 new Labradors graduate from training this year as part of a move to bolster biosecurity in this country. That is absolutely fantastic. There is no doubt about it. There are some major gaps and they are being filled. But I would ask how many more staff are going to be coming back into MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. How many more dollars and how many more resources are going to go into making sure we can do an adequate job? Will the increased staffing assuming there is a handler for each of those dogs because there needs to be exceed the successive losses from successive Governments in successive years of backtracking around biosecurity investment in this country?  
I will just point out some of the losses that we can expect to get if we carry on down this track of liberalising and loosening biosecurity by not resourcing it properly. Horticulture New Zealand a couple of years back did a look at what would happen if fruit fly got into various regions and pointed out that in the Bay of Plenty the loss would be $820 million and 3430 jobs lost Hawke’s Bay $390 million and just over 3000 jobs lost and in Nelson $265 million and 1945 jobs lost. Yes the Government did jump when a male fruit fly sprung up in Auckland. We also know what the cost was of that. That would not have happened if we had better port controls. Pysllids are another one affecting the spud industry tomatoes capsicums and tamarillos—the  
Solanum  
family industry. It has cost the industry already something like $250 million in lost production markets and production costs yet there is no more money and there is nothing happening really in terms of reducing those risks. Yes there are some dogs—that is a little bit of catch-up—but there is no more loot going in there to make this better.  
I come back to the aspect that I touched on earlier in terms of the prioritisation of biosecurity in New Zealand. Instead of a serious blanket approach of dealing with biosecurity fully from a Government approach we have got a bundle of industries that will all suffer significantly. We have got the forestry industry which is incredibly vulnerable particularly with its monoculture. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 88 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new clause 8A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 37 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 27 in the name of the Hon David Carter to Part 1 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 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments relating to ballast water 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I have to acknowledge my good colleague Rino Tirikatene there. I slightly misled him on a debate. I am sure he will have the chance to put his views to the Committee on this part. 
Hon Craig Foss 
: Do you wear that tie on the West Coast Damien? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Absolutely. It takes more than clothes to maketh a man down there.  
Hon Annette King 
: That’s why he never made it. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: That is right. As I said Labour is supporting the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill but we do have some major problems with it and with the resourcing of biosecurity across this country. In speaking to the next part of the bill and particularly in regard to the formation of pest-management strategies— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Clause 76? Sorry Mr Chairman I am— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Ballast water and the marine environment. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Ah yes. Going back to the marine environment clauses— 
Hon Craig Foss 
: Loosen the tie. Come on—loosen the tie. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: That is what a pink tie does to you. 
Can I say we actually welcome having provisions in the Biosecurity Act finally around ballast water. It is a situation that I am familiar with because going back some 20 years in fact there was an application in South Westland to export fresh water. That was out of Jacksons Bay. Anyone who has been down there knows that it is a pristine environment. I know that the Chairman Mr Roy has been down there many times. One of the issues that arose then—and it has not come up that often—was ballast water and what the potential impact could be of ballast water being tipped into Jacksons Bay by boats that had set out from Singapore or some Middle Eastern port gone down there and put that water out there bringing with it all the pests and diseases. At that time no one had really identified the risk. It was put up as an argument primarily by the green movement at that time—way before the Green Party. But there were environmental groups that were concerned legitimately about what might happen down there through ballast water being put into that bay. I have to say that was one of a number of arguments and issues that actually put that whole project on hold. I am sure that at some stage we probably will be exporting fresh water from this country as its value increases. 
The issue though is ballast water the management of it and ensuring that we do not bring pests into this country unnecessarily. I do not think we can ever guarantee that we will not bring in something or that we have not brought it in.  
Undaria 
 which is a seaweed that has some commercial uses but has been deemed a weed was mostly brought in through the ballast water of boats. The question I have in this area—again because we have a Government that refuses to properly resource MAF Biosecurity New Zealand—is whether with all these regulations and these improvements that we accept are needed effectively we may not offer any more protection for the New Zealand marine environment with the passage of this bill than there was before and that would be a problem. We have here in clause 76 new Part 19A “Protection of marine environment from ballast water”. Ballast water means as we know anything picked up to stabilise a boat on its way to New Zealand with a cargo. Cargoes change in weight and obviously the ships need to take on board water to make sure they do not tip over. What we have done here is put in place defences for people who think they took all reasonable steps to minimise any potential risk to New Zealand as the other part of the bill is quite prescriptive. 
I have to say that we hope we have got it right because as good as the chair of the Primary Production Committee is I am not sure—maybe he will take a call. I hope he will get up and explain. I know he has been fairly diligent all the way through this process and he probably has read this bill a number of times so he would be able to get up and explain each and every single part of it. 
 Can I say that what we do have in there as well under Part 3—I am sorry we going up to clause 78 only. I apologise for that Mr Chairman. I was just trying to rush the bill through. I do not want to prolong it any longer than necessary. The clauses up to clause 78 deal with marine pollution as well which is another serious issue. It is one that has been overlooked internationally I would suggest. I am not sure whether this provision puts us at the forefront of ballast water management internationally but if we have a stricter regime for boats coming into our territorial waters then so be it. There are we are told ways of flushing ballast water as ships are in transit. As to whether that occurs or not I am guessing there is probably an offset in energy use and maybe the speed of the boat in doing that and we are concerned that in fact it might not occur. Hence the heavy fines of up to $200000 or imprisonment for up to 2 years. That is quite a penalty for someone who discharges ballast water in breach of the regulations that we are allowing to pass here. I think it quite rightfully says to each and every ship owner to the people in charge of those ships: “If you come into New Zealand we want to keep our marine environment free of any unwanted pests and organisms. So we will pass this bill we will allow regulations to be put in place and we are going to hammer you if you don’t do it.” 
I think this part is a good part of the bill—we acknowledge the Government for it—and that is why we will support it. But again if we do not have the resources to properly police and implement these regulations then they effectively mean nothing. In this area it is not going to be easy. In spite of I guess the ship companies’ determination to reduce the number of ports their ships come into there will be ships in our territorial waters over our fisheries areas that may not abide by these regulations. So we welcome this part of the bill. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I am so excited to talk about this bill the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. I am going to confine my comments to new Part 19A in clause 76. But before I do so I want to tell you why I am excited about Part 2 of this particular bill with reference to ballast water. The other day my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor took us to a dairy farm and he had us stand in front of this big huge open septic tank. There were two or three of them and he said to us: “Now boys have a sniff of that.” So we took deep breaths and then before we knew it the Hon Damien O’Connor said to us: “That’s the smell of money.” I could not believe it at first because I just thought it was the smell of cow poop but I now recognise that the point he was making was the value of our agricultural industry. What I noticed was that they had the cow waste go from one septic tank to the next—there are three or four of them—and at the bottom they then recycle the clean water. What they would normally do is disperse that throughout the farm.  
In terms of this particular bill in regard to ballast water “Ballast water means water with its suspended matter taken on board a ship to control the ship’s trim list draught stability or stresses.” The big question is where that water comes from because if it is water that comes off the final open septic tank then there is going to be concern particularly if it is coming from another country and we may have to ask questions about who owns the water who has the rights to the water that goes on these particular ships. We may even have to have a secret meeting to decide who has the rights to the water that comes from that ship.  
I am particularly pleased because in new section 246B it states: “(1) ballast water may be discharged from a ship only in accordance with the applicable marine protection rules.” I believe that the farmers our aquaculture sector our forest sector and our wine industry are going to be quite excited about this particular bill—all 264 pages of it—because they are going to have to hire employees consultants and other people to try to make sense of what is in this bill. 
 Do not get me wrong. At the end of the day as the Hon Damien O’Connor says we support the bill. But in terms of having the measures that will enable us to hopefully protect and continue to safeguard our borders for the sake of our valuable industry we really cannot have the Government shirk its responsibilities. So I suppose with the farmers who would be listening in to this debate the responsibility still falls on them to hold this Government to account. At the end of the day when Mr Damien O’Connor says with reference to our agricultural sector that that is the smell of money it underlines the fact that we have got a very valuable industry that we have to be protective of. [ 
Interruption 
] At the end of the day I agree that the penalties that have been imposed of $200000—“a fine not exceeding $200000; and … if the offence is a continuing one a further fine not exceeding $10000 …”—send a clear signal. It imposes responsibility on the importers but it still should not allow this Government to shirk its responsibility because ultimately the Government is our representative and has the duty to protect and safeguard our borders. If that does not happen—and we have already seen examples of what has occurred. I will give you just some examples in terms of what has happened. The latest independent report on the  
Pseudomonas syringae 
 pv.  
Actinidiae 
 disease shows it will cost our border— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! I am having difficulty following the member’s logic but this is quite specific. So I ask the member to contain himself to clauses 76 to 78. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: The point that I am making in terms of the ballast water clauses is that there are serious concerns about ensuring that the ballast water is not released in our shores. I will give you another example. In 1990 a ship by the name of the  
Naomi 
 travelled between the islands of Samoa and American Samoa. Because they did not ensure that there were safeguards and protection on what was carried on that cargo ship— 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 We have now moved on to Part 2 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill and we are dealing with the marine environment and biosecurity. As my colleagues have mentioned we support this part and the provisions that are contained in it—in particular the fact that there are stern penalties imposed for breaches of conditions in terms of discharge of ballast water. 
 Having worked at one stage in the fishing industry I know that there is a lot of activity that goes on with those vessels and the vessels are not contained purely in the New Zealand 12-mile or exclusive economic zone. We do have a lot of ships that go up to the Pacific out of zone and that does not even mention the amount of merchant trade ships that go into our ports each and every day—the lifeblood of our main port towns—and the emerging and burgeoning tourism cruise ship industry. It is very positive actually that we do see so many more cruise ships coming in during the peak summer periods.  
It is commendable now that we have some biosecurity provisions in relation to ballast water and I would just like to say that perhaps Te Ururoa Flavell could have put in some conditions around consultation with tangata whenua given that we have large investments in the marine industry and there is a lot of the Maori asset base that is dependent on the marine environment. Perhaps he could have extended those consultation provisions he had in his Supplementary Order Paper which we did support but obviously it was not agreed to. But we do support that idea that there be greater consultation with tangata whenua particularly around things like the national pest management strategy regional strategies and the like. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.