Hutchison Paul: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7036] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important Biosecurity Amendment Bill. The National Party will be supporting this bill because we recognise just how important biosecurity is to New Zealand. It is important in many ways. It is important to our economy to our environment and to both human and animal health. 
 I have huge reservations about the priority and degree of importance this minority Labour Government attaches to biosecurity. I note that this bill was referred to the select committee on 16 August 2001. There were seven submissions a 75-minute hearing of evidence and then consideration for 4 hours and 10 minutes. But here we are under urgency almost 2 years later and this Labour Government which has so little interest in progressing such an important bill as this has just sat back. 
I think it is hugely important to focus on this Government’s appalling biosecurity record. Just since October last year there have been 11 biosecurity incursions. 
Judith Collins 
: How many? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: There have been 11 since October last year. This bill came to the select committee 2 years ago and it should have been passed a long time ago. The Government should have shown its interest in the hugely important area of biosecurity but it has failed to do so. 
Let us look at those 11 incursions since October last year. They include the Asian gypsy moth crazy ants fire ants mosquito larvae Asian tiger mosquito larvae a Sydney Huntsman spider Australian redback spiders and eggs a North American southern ring-necked snake a cane toad and a scorpion. It is interesting to note that the general public have been responsible for discovering more than half of those incursions over that period. Clearly the Government and its biosecurity surveillance systems are just not working. 
It is important to point out just how significant this issue is to this Parliament. Treasury has estimated that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in New Zealand would result in a cumulative loss of the order of $10 billion in 2 years and 15000 jobs. That is how important the impact would be on the New Zealand economy yet here we have a Government that is just dawdling along in respect of one of the things that is most important to the well-being of New Zealand. It might make a priority of deciding whether the lesbian parent of a child who happens to be born by reproductive technology should be called a father but here is something that is hugely important to all New Zealanders. This Government’s priorities are just way way out of proportion and that is greatly worrying. To further point that fact out we had the Associate Minister of Biosecurity the Hon Marian Hobbs telling this House on 26 March 2003 that finding only six incursions in the previous fortnight showed that we were really very good at surveillance. That is what she said. That is an indictment on this Labour Government and its Associate Minister of Biosecurity. Certainly it is a huge worry when we have the sort of Government that just does not give priority to the things that are hugely important to New Zealand. 
If the Government had really been concerned about this issue it would have made sure that the surveillance and education of passengers coming into New Zealand were far greater. It is worthwhile to just go over some of the things that are picked up at the border. At New Zealand’s international airports last year quarantine officers removed the following from incoming passengers: 8 tonnes of meat products 15.9 tonnes of fruit 3.6 tonnes of seeds 3.2 tonnes of dairy products 3.2 tonnes of fish products and 5800 plant items. That is astounding yet here is a bill that was referred to the select committee on 16 August 2001 and here we are under urgency almost 2 years later finally getting round to progressing this non-contentious bill. The National Party certainly realises how important this bill is. The minority Labour Government just has not prioritised some of New Zealand’s most important issues in the way that it should have. 
There have been some very important submissions including one from Federated Farmers of New Zealand. I want to pay tribute to Federated Farmers for the vigilance it has consistently shown over many years in recognising how important an issue biosecurity is for New Zealand. After all Federated Farmers has been the group representing those New Zealanders who are responsible for such a huge proportion of our exports. It points out in its submission that New Zealand pastoral exports are valued at $13.2 billion and in 2000-01 pastoral exports comprised 42.7 percent of all exports. It goes on to say that New Zealand is heavily reliant on passive surveillance to detect new and unwanted pests and disease risks to nearly half its export earnings. What a hugely worrying concern it is when we have a Government such as this minority Labour Government that dawdles on such a hugely important issue as biosecurity. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: It’s so popular. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: We have the “Minister of the Painted Apple Moth” over there saying “it’s so popular”. That Minister’s organisation of the control of the painted apple moth has been a shambles. It has been a disgrace in every sense. He talks about popularity but it is certainly not deserved when it comes to the issue of biosecurity. 
There are some very important issues within this bill that we support. Firstly we support the duty of people to inform of the presence of organisms not usually seen in New Zealand. As the Minister pointed out clause 6 reintroduces a previously repealed section that imposed a non-enforceable duty on all persons to inform of the presence of an organism not usually seen in New Zealand. Once again the amendments address the question of reducing the amount of time relating to notice of aerial spraying. There was another excellent submission from that wonderful organisation the National Council of Women which pointed out that the time limits are vital and the select committee has indeed recommended that time limits are absolutely imperative. 
I will end by saying this is a hugely important bill and National supports it. The Government has dawdled over implementing it.