Lees-Galloway Iain: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16215] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition is in full support of sending the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill to a select committee where submitters can have their say on what is quite a substantial bill. This is one of those cases that quite often come up in the Chamber of an Act that in its day was perfectly adequate. Certainly the Biosecurity Act in 1993 was more than adequate in the environment in which it was enacted and it responded well to New Zealand’s biosecurity needs at the time. But that was 17 years ago and things have moved on. In fact Grant Robertson used the word “evolved” which I suppose is another word that gets thrown around this place quite a bit. But in terms of biosecurity evolution is exactly what we are dealing with. Many of these organisms evolve very quickly. They evolve into new organisms and pose new threats to New Zealand’s primary sector.  
Over a period of 17 years it is quite easy for legislation like the Biosecurity Act 1993 to become outdated. But this Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is different from a lot of technical updating bills. First of all it is entitled the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill and it is a comprehensive reform of our biosecurity laws. It is not merely a technical amendment; it is quite literally a very significant and substantial bill. Just physically looking at the bill we see it is close to an inch in depth. It has close to 211 pages and many many parts.  
Phil Twyford 
: How much does it weigh? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It would be interesting to know how much it weighs and maybe we can find that out at the select committee. But the point I am getting at is just how insignificant the Government’s contributions on this bill have been today. For such a major piece of law reform it has been up to the Opposition to delve into what is contained in the bill. Grant Robertson uncovered a few interesting facts and Damien O’Connor went into the real guts of the bill. The Minister for Biosecurity managed only a couple of minutes and the other Government members’ contributions have been pathetic given the importance of this bill.  
Biosecurity very much underpins New Zealand’s economy as we have discussed several times in this debate. Our primary production sector accounts for a huge part of our economy and New Zealand relies on primary production in a way that almost no other developed country does. We export about 80 percent of our primary produce each year and thus it is hugely important that we have the right mechanisms in place to protect our primary industries. It is true that over the last 17 years since the previous bill was enacted protecting our borders has become a much more complex issue. The tendency towards greater global trade the fact that products are coming into New Zealand from all parts of the world where different diseases and pests might reside and might find their way to our borders and the fact that international travel is so much more accessible these days means that it is a far more complex environment.  
We need a more flexible approach to biosecurity in New Zealand but one thing that the Labour Opposition will be watching out for as this bill progresses through the select committee is that a more flexible approach is not used as an excuse for cuts or used as an excuse for the Government to shirk its responsibilities in biosecurity and to merely pass those on to industry or to other players. The Government needs to have responsibility it needs to have oversight and ultimately it will be held responsible by the voters out there in New Zealand if this bill should actually reduce our ability to protect our borders. We will be keeping an eye out for that. But for the time being it looks like good legislation and we look forward to hearing what the submissions are.  
It is interesting to note that we have recently seen cuts to the number of front-line staff in the biosecurity arena—and nothing gets more front-line than our borders and protecting our borders and protecting our industries. There are no staff more front-line than our customs officials and our biosecurity staff. The Minister used as one of his excuses for those cuts the fact that the global economy was down and international travel was down as a result but the numbers do not actually bear that out at all. From 2009 to 2010 total arrivals and departures numbered 8.2 million and from 2010 to 2011 they numbered 8.3 million. The figure is projected to grow to 8.7 million in 2011 to 2012 to just over 9 million in 2012 and 2013 and to 9.3 million in 2013 to 2014.  
That is an increase over 5 years of 13.7 percent in the total number of people travelling across our borders yet the Minister used a downturn in those numbers as an excuse to cut front-line staffing numbers. Although we have now seen a recovery we have not seen the same re-establishment of the number of front-line staff. I think that is dangerous. That is dangerous for our primary industries.  
We have seen the introduction of SmartGate which looks like a very sensible way of increasing efficiency. 
Grant Robertson 
: It keeps Paul Quinn out doesn’t it? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I could not possibly comment. But we think it is dangerous to have these sorts of cuts to front-line services when clearly there is an increase in the amount of traffic across our borders.  
The current value of protecting New Zealand from potential biosecurity incursions depends significantly on two factors: the size of the impacts and the probability of those impacts occurring. The magnitude of the potential economic cost means that reducing the probability of incursions can lead to significant economic benefits so there is money to be saved by being well prepared. There have been a number of significant incursions in recent years. For example there was the painted apple moth the Asian gypsy moth and didymo. There has been the varroa mite which has had a significant impact on our bee-keeping industry. Most recently there has been  
Pseudomonas syringae 
 pv.  
Actinidiae 
 (Psa)— 
Hon Member 
: Say that again. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —I might just have another crack at that— 
Pseudomonas syringae 
 pv.  
Actinidiae 
 which is better known as the Psa disease.  
Grant Robertson 
: They did Latin at King’s College didn’t they? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: You know I did do Latin in third form as it happens. The Psa disease all joking aside has been having a terrible effect on our kiwifruit vines. It has the potential to cost the country $75 million. It is a good example of why we need strong and secure biosecurity defences in place. Those are just a few examples but by being well prepared we can save ourselves a lot of money further down the track. Indeed the cost of cleaning up the mess caused by an incursion of a disease or a pest can be quite substantial and often outweighs the cost of maintaining a decent level of staffing and having a decent biosecurity protection system in place.  
Just to finish up the Labour Opposition supports this bill. We support having strong biosecurity defences for our nation. We look forward to the submissions at the select committee and we look forward to the steady progress of this bill.