Sio Su'a William: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20647] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 After listening to the member speaking before me Colin King I want to assure members that we on this side of the House the Labour Opposition take seriously the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. When one takes these things seriously one has to acknowledge the fact that we rely on our farming industry. We rely on our horticulture our viticulture our orchards our pork industry and our honey industry. I think that needs to be taken into consideration. I have to disagree with the previous speaker who said that the importers should be our concern and our priority. Well it is really our farming industry that we need to be looking to secure and protect. That is the reason why we have biosecurity legislation. We need to recognise that we rely on our farming on our green and clean image and we have to protect it. I think it is foolhardy simply to say that this piece of legislation will protect everything. 
Let me read part of the report: “The bill seeks to amend this Part to allow the biosecurity system to respond to an increasingly challenging environment by providing for more effective and efficient risk management and for clearer roles and responsibilities and better collaboration and partnerships.” That says there is a lot of work we have to do in order to protect our borders and protect our environment. It also says we need to rely on exchanges of information within the various Government departments that service and protect our borders. But it also means we have to work in partnership with the industry itself. I have to say that it is still very much in the memories of many farmers that not too long ago we had a problem with the  
Pseudomonas syringae 
 pv.  
Actinidiae 
 (Psa) leaf blight outbreak in kiwifruit. The potential $75 million cost of Psa to our kiwifruit industry should be a reminder to us of how important it is that our biosecurity services are well resourced and operating effectively. 
So it is no credit whatsoever to this Government when it cuts the budget by $2 million as my colleague pointed out and when it gets rid of 55 jobs as my colleague pointed out then expects us to still be able to protect our borders. I think what Sue Kedgley from the Green Party said earlier makes sense. There is no politics in this. Nobody wins. I think we have to take seriously the fact that we have an economic advantage in terms of our farming industry and our clean and green image. We will lose that all of that is at risk if we attempt to bully our way through by passing legislation and saying that that will fix the problem. I reiterate what Damien O’Connor our spokesperson on biosecurity said. Although Labour will allow the passage of this legislation in its second reading we will continue to engage with and talk to the industry out there and will decide from there whether we will support the legislation in the Committee of the whole House and the third reading. We do need to take seriously that we depend very much on protecting our borders and protecting our biosecurity. We hope the more-targeted approach to border checks will make the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s operation more efficient. 
When we look at sharing information and sharing intelligence between Government agencies we see that they can only do so much with the resources given to them. If the Government continues to cut funding from important areas and cut jobs from significant areas then who is to blame if our biosecurity is put at risk? Labour members would like to acknowledge the good work that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Horticulture New Zealand and all the New Zealand kiwifruit growers have done in handling the Psa outbreak. 
I think we have to feel quite nervous when we look at what happened there because we certainly do not want a repeat of that occurrence. We do not want mad cow disease here. We do not want a tax on our bee or honey industry. We certainly do not want to put our wildlife at risk or our flowers our fruit and our wine industry. Not only will the industry be at risk; there is much much more. It has a ripple effect. There are jobs. There are livelihoods. It has an impact on the prices of some of these products and that is one of the reasons why we are quite keen on ensuring there is a robust inquiry into milk prices. If that sort of thing is happening in terms of what is being sold overseas and the price of what is being sold here we have to ask those particular questions. 
The Minister for Biosecurity claimed that the job cuts were needed as the recession had resulted in a fall in car imports and international arrivals and thus the Government was left carrying the cost of staff that levies no longer covered. Well that is an extremely short-sighted approach to biosecurity management. Key imports such as used cars have already rebounded to near-2008 levels and international arrivals have been at a record high this year. So why will the Minister not reinstate the 55 jobs that he cut and does he expect MAF Biosecurity New Zealand to provide the same effective services and nationwide coverage with fewer staff on hand? 
I was not present in the Primary Production Committee when submissions were heard but I have heard from colleagues from the Greens and the Maori Party that the public made serious submissions which this Government will hopefully take into consideration. As I said it is a serious issue and we do need to take care. We need to protect our clean and green image. Labour members will continue to talk to the industry individuals and constituents involved before determining our final decision on the bill in the Committee of the whole House and in the third reading. Although I am not presently a farmer I grew up around farms. I know what farming is like. I know how hard people work to try to protect their livelihood. I think the Government owes it to this country to ensure that we are doing all we can not only to protect the livelihoods that this economy depends on but also to protect future generations. 
In closing I take the liberty to endorse the statements that were made earlier the condolences and the commendations towards Sir Paul Reeves and Lady Beverley. I count myself as a close friend of Sir Paul and he will be terribly missed by the Pacific communities and by people in Manukau. Sir Paul was a good friend of ours. He was a steadfast champion of the young people in Manukau. He was somebody we looked upon with deep respect who attempted to connect people irrespective of their background. In the role that Sir Paul had with the Auckland University of Technology he made sure that many of our young people from the schools in Manukau were able to perform in front of audiences that they would not normally perform in front of. That was a manifestation of Sir Paul Reeves’ attempting to connect the people of Manukau with the people of Remuera the rich with the poor the old with the young Pakeha with Polynesian. I add my respects to Sir Paul Reeves’ family. It is my prayer that they will be comforted and that the dark clouds that hover over them will dissipate. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.