Ardern Shane: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20640] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. The Primary Production Committee as has been mentioned by the Minister and the Opposition spokesman Damien O’Connor received 41 submissions and heard from 27 submitters. A lot of the concerns that the previous speaker has alluded to were addressed. In fact the select committee made nine substantive alterations or recommendations to the Government which have been accepted. So I am interested in where that member is heading with his comments about what may still be out there that is unattended to. We will watch with some interest as to which way the Labour whips intend to go in regard to which bills they will support and which ones they will not. We will watch that space with interest. 
The substantive change that is worth mentioning is the fact that for the first time the concept of a Government-industry agreement between the stakeholders and the State in regard to how to best address biosecurity incursions was introduced into this legislation and the select committee had some reservations about that and considered that fully. The committee discussed widely with those who submitted. It was an interesting concept that on one side were the small industry players such as the kiwifruit industry which recently had a major incursion with  
Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae 
 (Psa). They had experience. They were actually more receptive to the notion of having a predetermined agreement with the State about who pays and what happens who holds the intellectual property as it were in regard to addressing a particular issue and who is likely to have the biggest stake in the debate. The small industry players were more receptive to it than perhaps some of the older more traditional industries such as dairy meat and wool. 
I guess we can understand the concern that exists out there among the stakeholders in this debate. On one side one could argue that the Government was backing away from its traditional position that the State should fund. On the other side one could argue that those who know how to respond best and have the ability to advise need to be at the table and be there not only in terms of discussion but also in terms of funding. So there is an element of a debate still going on there. I am very pleased to hear that the Minister for Biosecurity came out and said that the bottom seal if you like of who pays what would be 50 percent. Negotiations go from 50 percent up as far as the State is involved in the incursion whatever it might be. 
The second issue which I am very pleased to see is introduced in this bill for the first time is the ability for a neighbour to be a neighbour regardless of whether that neighbour is the State or anyone else and clarity around who that is. The term “adjacent or nearby” is significant along with the case law that goes with that term. It is a major step forward. Up until now there has been one set of rules for the State—the State being whatever piece of Crown land it might be whether it is Department of Conservation land school land railways reserves whatever—and another set of rules for the private landowner. The private landowner had to meet a far higher standard than the State in regard to pest management and weed control and any other biosecurity potential breach. That was unfair. It always has been unfair. Obviously we did not want to reach a position where we put undue cost or unnecessary cost on the taxpayer but we wanted fairness and I think the position that the committee reached—and the recommendation that has been accepted—was fair and just. I think that is a step forward for us. 
So I will be interested to listen to the debate as it goes through the House. We will find out what it is that is concerning the Opposition—what new material may have come to light since the select committee finally reached a position and deliberated on this bill and reported back to the House. I look forward to the passage of this bill through the House.