Roy Eric: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14341] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I would like to make a contribution to the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill. I do not see anybody else positioning himself or herself for a quick call so this may well be a summing-up of the issues. I just acknowledge the comments made by Moana Mackey. Such an erudite and candid response makes me wonder why she was not promoted in the last Cabinet reshuffle. I thought she certainly made a valuable contribution to the debate. It is interesting to note that this bill is being supported by all parties around the House to be referred to the select committee. I think that does indicate to us that there is an issue. Although this is a hazardous substances new organisms and biosecurity bill it is really about trade and trade issues. I think I should set out some principles for a start and indicate where they interface with the legislation and the need for this bill. 
New Zealand’s lifeblood is trade. Clearly our export earnings are very much steered by the performance of our primary industries. We rely on trade much more than the countries that export to us do. This situation has arisen over the importation of honey into New Zealand from Australia. We could be very very tempted to say that because there is an issue around fire blight in apples—we cannot get apples in there; the science on that is not very robust—and the Australians pinched Robbie Deans this would be a chance to give Australia the flick. But there can be only one basis upon which international trade and phytosanitary and sanitary conditions apply and that is the basis of science. We cannot afford to play minor games because New Zealand’s prosperity is at stake in terms of having robust reliable and accepted standards for the phytosanitary and sanitary conditions around trade. That is the first principle. We need to have robust science in terms of protecting not only our borders but consumers with regard to the products that we are keen to trade with. 
The second principle is that we want to prevent any unwanted incursions into this country. Herein is a subject we could launch much debate around. 
Then there is the issue of us needing a very clear road map to help us to bring in the products that we need in order to advance industry in New Zealand. There are a number of issues surrounding that. We require a number of things: new plant material germ plasm and chemicals. We are always looking for those things and they fall into the area of hazardous substances and new organisms. 
So accidental incursion falls into the lap of the biosecurity legislation and the things we need an actual road map for fall into the area of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. We have had a bit of a crossover there. There needs to be a demarcation so we clearly understand where responsibility lies. 
The issue surrounding this particular matter is about the incidental attachments—things coming in that to all evidence are not significant yet are attached to product. We have a situation now where the bee-keepers—as has been mentioned—chose to challenge an incidental attachment in court and say it should have been processed under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The repercussions of that are quite clear and quite scary. Already we have been shown in a briefing a schedule that I think had nine items on it that were held up because of the threat of an incidental attachment and the need for those products to go through the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. 
I have mentioned how significant and important it is that we have a flow of trade. An entity could go to court over an issue relating to tourism and say we are should not have any tourists come in because they may have an incidental attachment of dandruff athlete’s foot or anything else. 
Hon David Carter 
: I don’t think that’s a new organism. 
ERIC ROY 
: No. Well it does not have to be a new organism. If an attachment is incidental people could be held up; that could in fact happen. I think the potential is there for someone to choose a particular ethnic group and choose something that could be attached to people from that group. Quite clearly we have an anomaly and the demarcation needs to take place. 
I will just say something about the Primary Production Committee—I have already acknowledged the comments by Moana Mackey. That committee under the Hon David Carter is continuing its fine tradition of actually resolving issues. 
Nathan Guy 
: That’s right—getting on with it. 
ERIC ROY 
: Getting on with it. We have a pretty tight time frame to deal with this bill. I will say to the House that if the submissions raise issues that need more time— 
Hon David Carter 
: We need an extension. 
ERIC ROY 
: The Hon David Carter says we need an extension. Our intention is to resolve this issue. But if there are issues that need some really serious consideration and cannot be resolved within the time frame then we will seek an extension of time to deal with them. So that is also an important principle with regard to this bill. 
There have been quite a few comments about honey and the—how does one say it? 
Hon David Carter 
:  
P. alvei 
. 
ERIC ROY 
:  
Paenibacillus alvei 
. It is a companion-type disease or bacterium that can be affiliated with foulbrood. The interesting thing for me is that the bee-keepers instead of going to that first principle of science actually chose to do this on a technicality—in my humble view; I have not had a briefing from the bee-keepers. To all intents and purposes they have chosen to take the issue to court on a technicality. Why did they do that? Well they may very well be able to introduce to the select committee some information about the risk that we are not aware of. But I suggest there is possibly another rationale for it: bee-keepers are still pretty stressed about the whole issue of varroa and what has occurred in their industry in relation to it. They have lost an element of trust in the biosecurity process because although a range of activities and a talk-fest took place basically nothing was done in the North Island. Then a protocol was put in place in the South Island yet when varroa showed up there the whole protocol kind of evaporated. So I have some sympathy for the bee-keepers; I have some understanding of why they have chosen to take a very resolute and vigorous approach to stopping the  
P. alvei 
—one can understand that. 
However we clearly have a situation where we have impediments to trade. As I said at the beginning of my speech trade is what we live and breathe on. We need to have integrity in terms of how we deal with trade on the way in and our customers need to have absolute confidence on the way out. If we applied the incidental argument in New Zealand it would not be very long before it applied overseas. I do not know what the value of the honey that could be exported from Australia to New Zealand is—I guess it could be $5 million; it may be more. But under the World Trade Organization’s rules although one might say they are not fair Australia could choose any item—which could for example be worth half a billion dollars—and apply the same sanction to it in a countervailing way. 
We need to get the legislation tidied up and National will support the referral of this bill to the select committee. However our support for its referral to the select committee is not to say that we are happy about the standard of incursion clearance and the protection against the incursions that have occurred. In no way are we signing off on that. We are simply saying this is a trade issue and the demarcation needs to be sorted out. Trade is important to us. We need robustness in our processes and we need to have the confidence of the people we trade with in order to continue that trade and keep New Zealand’s position in international trade. 
Bill read a first time.