Carter David: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Carter David: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20636] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill be now read a second time 
. I am pleased to see that this important bill is back with the House because it will help to strengthen the biosecurity system in New Zealand. I start by thanking the Primary Production Committee for its work. The committee received over 40 submissions on the bill and I thank submitters for taking the time to provide their input. 
One of the key areas for submitters was new Part 5A of the Biosecurity Act. This part contains the enabling provisions for the development of the Government-industry agreement for readiness and response. This is an agreement under which the Government and primary industries will make joint decisions about harmful organisms that are of concern to an industry. The decisions can cover how best to prepare for the possible arrival of a harmful organism and how best to respond if the organism does appear in New Zealand. The parties will also agree on how to share the costs of their jointly agreed activities. 
I acknowledge that a number of submitters expressed concern with the overall proposal to develop the Government-industry agreement. It is important to understand what the benefits of the Government-industry agreement are. Introducing joint decision-making and combining it with cost-sharing will ensure that the resources that are available for biosecurity readiness and response are used to address the highest priorities. It will also improve the level of preparedness for a biosecurity incursion and increase the capacity to deal with such incursions. 
I am pleased to see that the committee has recommended a new purpose statement for Part 5A. The new purpose statement is contained in new section 100S and it captures a key point: that the Government-industry agreement is all about working together to achieve the best possible outcomes from readiness and response activities. The agreement is also about sharing the costs of agreed activities. This is important because meeting some part of the costs ensures that decisions reflect the true priorities of the decision makers. Although this principle is important the Government is aware of industry concerns about the affordability of some activities if the cost-shares are based strictly on the breakdown between public benefits and industry benefits. 
The Government does not want cost-sharing to lead to a decline in this country’s state of readiness or capacity to respond. For this reason we have agreed that the Government will pay at least half of the costs regardless of the exact split between public benefits and industry benefits. If analysis shows that public benefits are significantly greater than industry benefits then the Government share would obviously be more than 50 percent. This approach will greatly simplify how costs are shared as for many pests and diseases the cost-share will simply default to a fifty-fifty split between Government and industry. 
I turn now to another area where the bill deals with important relationships between different players in the biosecurity system. This is the area of pest management. The pest management amendments in the bill emerged from a significant project that involved the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and other interested parties including the Department of Conservation regional councils industry groups and Maori. The project produced a national plan of action for improvements to the pest management system and these improvements include amendments to the Biosecurity Act. One of the most important amendments is the new requirement for the Crown as a landowner to meet its obligations as a good neighbour. The Government has carefully considered the position of the Crown and accepts that pest management programmes should not be undermined by the Crown being exempt from them. 
“Good neighbour rules” are defined in the bill and one part of the definition is that the rules must comply with the national policy direction. The national policy direction is a new measure that the bill provides for. It will set out some key requirements that will help to ensure that pest management is carried out effectively and efficiently and that the “good neighbour rules” do not impose unreasonable costs on the Crown or on any other landowner for that matter. 
The bill also introduces a number of new tools that will help to provide for more effective and efficient border biosecurity. One example is the new duty for importers to take reasonable steps to ensure that risk goods comply with the requirements set out in import health standards. This will help to promote the idea that biosecurity risk should be managed by those best placed to manage it. Another example is the clear legal framework for the use of information for risk profiling purposes. This will help to ensure that resources are used to best effect in dealing with the most significant biosecurity risks. 
Some of the new provisions relating to the border when seen in isolation caused nervousness to some submitters and the select committee has responded to these concerns. I am happy to see the changes that the committee has recommended in relation to outcome statements in import health standards and post-clearance requirements. In both cases the recommended changes provide more clarity about when it is appropriate to use these tools. 
The bill makes many other important improvements that I can note only briefly. These changes relate to areas such as marine biosecurity the new FarmsOnLine database and the options for dealing with non-compliance. I commend this bill to the House.