Ardern Shane: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Shane: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14332] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 Along with my colleague the Hon David Carter I rise also to support the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill going to the Primary Production Committee which of course David Carter chairs. I ask that select committee because I am not a member of it to please give due consideration to the concerns that I know the submitters will raise. I have some concerns myself and I intend not to run over all of the concerns that were raised by my colleague but to raise a few new ones of my own. The whole process has been a little bit too hasty. I am a little anxious that despite the fact that the committee will advertise to receive submissions as soon as it receives the bill submitters will not be given due time to consider some of the detailed issues that I am sure they will raise. 
There are some bits of information that I think misrepresent the Court of Appeal case. One is that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was required by the court to withdraw its import health standards or to not issue any new import health standards. My understanding is that that was not the case; the case was that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry chose not to issue new import health standards on the basis that of course those import health standards could be challenged and that is quite different. They might or might not have been challenged but they could be challenged. 
So in the process I think it is overwhelmingly agreed that the Court of Appeal case identified a couple of areas within the two bits of legislation—the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the Hazardous Organisms and New Substances Act 1996—where there was an overlap. But we need to go back in time and look at the history of why those two particular Acts were set up in the way they were. The Hazardous Organisms and New Substances Act was set up primarily to investigate known new organisms that were going to be deliberately imported into this country—deliberately or as is stated in this case as a passenger. The Act was set up with that purpose. The reason for that is that at any one time the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry cannot and never will have the competency level on every single potential new organism that someone may wish or may not even wish to import into this country. So therefore the original purpose of those Acts is as sound today as it was when it was originally set up. 
In this case the  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 was well known I would have to say by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry when it put together the import health standard for the importation of honey—primarily from Australia but not just from Australia; from around the world—that potentially could carry European foulbrood. Despite the fact that the ministry said that its import health standard was robust the Auditor-General on a number of occasions has had a different view and there have been breaches of import health standards in recent times. We all remember the case of a whole pallet-load of raw pork meat arriving on supermarket shelves in Tauranga from Korea which potentially could have been devastating to the New Zealand economy. So import health standards can and have been breached. 
So really what the National Beekeepers’ Association was saying when it disputed the science around the importation of honey from Australia was that it did not have faith in the system that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had said would be foolproof and the association has a reasonable point. The association also highlighted in that process the fact that some honey carries this new organism known as  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 and it could have some devastating effect. In fact there has been research internationally which the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has been aware of to see whether  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 could be used as a biological control against some insects. Clearly that research would not have started or would not have taken place had it not been for the fact that there was some knowledge about this new organism or its potential effects. 
So the question at this time is why the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry given the high profile of this case—a very high political profile—the protesting to Parliament and all the rest of it did not just subject this particular case to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act because at any time it can decide what should or should not be subjected to the Act. Why in this case was a decision taken just to ignore this  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 and allow it in as an inconsequential passenger—call it what one will—of the importation of honey from this destination? There is further evidence to suggest that that is the wrong decision. 
I guess the whole crux of this debate has been around the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry sailed ahead despite the overwhelming concerns and in this case they related to two industries because the pork industry was extremely concerned about a potential import health standard that is about to be developed in regard to importing unprocessed pork meat. One has to ask these questions given the known effects of a devastating bacteria or disease in our bee colony. 
However it is not just about the honey industry—because this debate particularly in the commentary floating around has been honed down to the honey industry—but also about the potential effects for all of our primary industries for all of our land-based industries. What seems to be missing in this discussion particularly around the import health standard is that bees do not just produce honey but also pollinate our agricultural land-based pastoral industries. The side effects of having a collapse of our bee colony as is being experienced in other jurisdictions around the world would be huge. Bees also pollinate our kiwifruit industry and our horticulture industries. Goodness knows what other effect this kind of disease importation could have on those industries or on the other industries we have spoken of. 
So I say to the Minister that yes the bill should go to the select committee but please give the select committee the time it needs to consider some of the unknown ramifications of what the experts in this field might bring forward. Please give the scientists a chance to express their concerns about what may or may not come about as a result of importing honey from Australia in particular and the potential importation of European foulbrood disease. Please give the committee the time to have a look at what could happen if we had a collapse of our bee colony in this country as has been experienced in other countries. 
Furthermore why would one would take the risk when we have in this country what one could call an organic brand—that seems to be very popular terminology these days—with the honey that we export? Surely we must be able to make exemptions when the science itself and clearly the science in this case is debatable regardless of the ministry’s findings around the import health standard. Surely we must be able to make a case on an international stage because clearly our international competitors do. We only have to look across the Tasman at the apple debate that is now before the World Trade Organization to know that other jurisdictions do that. 
We have in this country a clean green image that we must protect. It is a market advantage. Our export honey is organic. If European foulbrood disease were to take hold in New Zealand then our honey would be treated with antibiotics the same as is done by other exporting nations. This is a niche opportunity for us that we should not damage. 
We have listened for months and years to stories about the risks to this country of genetic engineering and there is hysteria when one talks about that yet we can import known hazards into this country in the form of various organisms and at this time that does not seem to constitute the same threat in the eyes of those who create such a noise around these other things. 
I ask the Government to please consider those submissions—particularly the technical ones that I am sure will come from the various industries. Please give them due consideration in that select committee process. It is not too late to turn around this import health standard. It is not too late to allow one small industry in this country to have a little bit of a win. It will not reflect badly on the Government—quite the opposite. The industry has had its day in court and won.