Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7035] 
Biosecurity Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: I move  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The Biosecurity Amendment Bill consists of two parts in 26 clauses. The first part makes 23 small but important changes to the Biosecurity Act. The second part repeals five redundant sections and part of one other section of the Forests Act. These redundant sections deal with issues of forest border control and pest management that are now dealt with under the Biosecurity Act. The amendments to the Biosecurity Act could be categorised as technical in nature and consequently the main policies of the Act are not changed by the bill. 
The bill as introduced adds a new section that imposes a duty on all people to inform a chief technical officer of the presence of organisms not normally seen in New Zealand. The Primary Production Committee has recognised the need for three changes to the clause dealing with the duty to inform. Firstly the committee has amended clause 6 so that a person’s duty to inform is to inform the ministry rather than the chief technical officer. The second change the committee recommended was to confirm that the duty to inform does not apply to organisms contained or released according to statutory approvals under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The third change is that the reporting duty applies to micro-organisms as well as to those seen with the naked eye. The committee also recommends that the Government provide information about unwanted organisms to assist those who have a duty to report should the bill be enacted. 
The bill as introduced provided a power to reduce the notice period to a minimum of 24 hours in cases where the 2-hour notice period would seriously damage the chance of containing or eradicating an undesirable organism. In such cases notices may be given by way of radio or television announcement or other means appropriate to the circumstances. 
I wish to thank the Primary Production Committee for its work in considering the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. The amendments it has proposed will improve the bill’s provisions. The committee’s recommendations to the Government and to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry are accepted and are being implemented. 
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. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. First in response the speaker before me I want to indicate how pleased we in United Future are to be supporting this urgency week so that bills like this can be passed through this House instead of being left sitting on the Table for so long. This is an important bill that deals with an important subject for our nation. The intent of the bill is to amend the Biosecurity Act of 1993 to reflect experience of its practical application over 10 years as well as make changes to clarify responsibilities for administering pest management. 
In terms of better defining responsibilities the merger of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Forestry has made some provisions of the Forests Act redundant so those will be repealed. The bill ensures that the protective provisions of the Wildlife Act do not conflict with the use of the Biosecurity Act to control a wildlife organism that has since proved to have undesirable effects as it did with the rainbow lorikeet. In the same vein the Supplementary Order Paper in the Minister’s name was developed to ensure that the proposals of the Department of Conservation for regulating ferrets under the Biosecurity Act are not frustrated by wildlife regulations regarding farming of unprotected wildlife. The bill also allows persons not employed under the State Sector Act to be appointed as inspectors which is sensible in emergency situations where additional biosecurity inspectors who might not be Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry staff could be required. They would still be subject to the supervision of ministry staff however. 
As I noted before some provisions in the bill have arisen from the experience of officials and others in applying the legislation in practice. For example the bill extends the ability to inspect and treat unaccompanied imported goods to include transnational facilities such as those areas used to process passengers. Normally goods accompany passengers in those areas but inspectors have found that that is not always the case so the law needs to give them the power to check goods in this instance. The bill also extends the power to search persons and seize goods beyond unauthorised goods to include risk goods—in other words organic matter—and allow for routine audits where uncleared risk goods or unauthorised goods might not necessarily be suspected. In certain circumstances leaving uncleared risk goods or unauthorised goods would create a real risk of further spread of the pest or disease if these goods cannot be removed and placed in a secure facility. 
One of the most important aspects of the bill is perhaps the provision that re-enacts a previously repealed section that imposed a non-enforceable duty on all persons to inform the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of the presence of foreign organisms. The new provision revives that reporting requirement but it is coupled with a new offence provision that applies to persons who would reasonably be expected to recognise an alien organism yet fail to alert authorities. The Primary Production Committee recommended that to make it easier for the public to pass on information the obligation to report should be to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in general rather than the chief technical officer. That seems a sensible move and would make it as easy as ringing the 0800 number listed in the phone book. 
The foot-and-mouth outbreak in the UK emphasised the importance of an early warning system so we support the proposal to create a general duty to inform authorities on becoming aware of the presence of an organism not normally found on these shores. Without that legal obligation commercial interests could conflict with the duty to report. For example a commercial entity might be unwilling to report due to the potential financial impact that it could have on that individual business or because it would be a breach of a contractual arrangement. New Zealand is very reliant on the reporting of incursions by those not employed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The Ministry cannot be everywhere and this bill gives greater legal weight to that role. 
The select committee also suggested that the Government should provide information about unwanted organisms to assist those in a position to report their presence. It would seem unfair to insert a duty-to-report requirement into the legislation without ensuring that the people at whom it is targeted know what they should be reporting. United Future would like the Government to demonstrate a commitment to providing those educational resources. We know that some work has already begun to make farmers more aware of unwelcome pests and diseases. For example leaflets were distributed at the recent national field days illustrating the symptoms of six key ruminant diseases under the slogan “Look check ask a vet”. That is a positive sign and we look to the Government to extend this campaign to other groups such as those involved in the importation of goods that might carry unwanted pests. 
The proposal that pest management strategies must include a general description of the measures to be taken to implement the strategy is worthwhile. Often it is the implementation that causes concerns and people who are being asked to consider a strategy should have reasonable information on how it should be implemented. We hope that this will lead to a better-informed consultation process. 
One of the most important provisions is the one that drastically reduces the notice required for aerial spraying in an effort to ensure that a pest incursion does not spread beyond its early stages. Some speakers have already discussed that measure and I would like to focus on it in more detail to express some of United Future’s concerns so I intend to take a call during the Committee stage. 
Our biosecurity strategy is vitally important to New Zealand’s ongoing economic viability. The Reserve Bank has estimated that a foot-and-mouth outbreak in this country would result in a loss of 20000 jobs and a $10 billion drop in gross domestic product over 2 years. The primacy of the agricultural industry in New Zealand and the fact that we are free from many foreign organisms because we share no land borders makes our economy vulnerable to such incursions. Vegetables and fruit alone generate almost $2 billion worth of exports annually and the majority of domestic market requirements. Exports are forecast to hit $3.8 billion by 2010 so it is a very valuable industry to us. All of it is dependent on keeping New Zealand free from pests and diseases yet over the past 5 years we have had 30 biosecurity incursions requiring eradication or control at an estimated cost of $100 million. 
The select committee recently heard the Acting Minister for Biosecurity admit that the cost of the Government’s war against the painted apple moth in west Auckland is almost as much as if the moth had been left to its own devices and that really is an unthinkable thought. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry budgeted $90 million over 3 years for the all-out aerial attack on the moth but it is also estimated that the pest could cause between $58 million and $356 million in damage over 20 years. 
Strangely the funding provided for biosecurity in this year’s Budget has been reduced. Only $25 million was earmarked this year for incursion surveillance when $90 million was approved in principle by the Government in 2002 for the eradication of the painted apple moth alone. Surely it would be better to put more money into proactive measures such as freight-container monitoring and surveillance rather than spraying the population after the incursion has spread. 
United Future supports this bill but feels very strongly that more needs to be done to beef up our detection of biosecurity incursions before we need to start spraying the poor population again. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill and its intent to rectify some of the difficulties resulting from the discovery of the new and exotic harmful organisms that have arrived in New Zealand since the introduction of the original Biosecurity Act in 1993. This bill goes some of the way towards reducing the possibility of those unwelcome organisms becoming established; it goes some of the way towards reducing the risks. 
Clause 6 inserts new section 44 which requires every person to inform the ministry “of the presence of what appears to be an organism not normally seen or otherwise detected in New Zealand.” The only problem with that is that there is a need for a comprehensive and ongoing education programme to inform the public of the organisms that are normally seen in New Zealand. The lack of informed knowledge in this area may make that clause unworkable. However I understand its intent and it may well provide an early indication of new organisms when they arrive in New Zealand after having already slipped past the border controls that are in place. 
 Many MPs in the House may well have received a letter as I have done from a Bruce Hollamby of Mystic Ferrets which is one of only three private ferret businesses in New Zealand. The business creates close to $1 million in exports of desexed live ferrets to the United States as pets. There is also a small domestic market of similarly desexed animals. Mr Hollenby maintains that he is being unfairly treated under clause 4 of this bill and I understand that he intends to sue the Government for the loss of business. 
In his letter to us Mr Hollamby indicated that he has two main concerns with regard to this bill. Firstly although his business and his company is able to continue as long as he is running the company that effectively makes his business and company valueless. The moment that he tries to sell the company it will no longer exist. Secondly and more important to the New Zealand economy—in particular to New Zealand’s domestic economy—Mr Hollamby maintains that by banning the farming of ferrets amateur breeders will simply go underground and create a huge black market without the safeguards of the animals being desexed. That would certainly be a concern. If amateur breeders start to release pets into the wild that have not been desexed then we will have a major problem. 
I would also like to touch on the issue of aerial spraying. This bill reduces the notification period for that from 2 weeks down to 24 hours. In fact the bill even has a clause in it that reduces the period down to less than 24 hours under certain circumstances. I see that as a very important part of the bill because if an organism is discovered and is one that has the potential to spread rapidly then the minimum period is probably zero hours if we are to make sure it is eradicated immediately. However under the circumstances of the aerial spraying of a large area like west Auckland the concerns there are that a 24-hour minimum period is possibly not even enough for the people who will be affected to become aware of the dangers and the difficulties that they may suffer health-wise. 
Therein lies a problem given that there has not been any extensive research on the people of west Auckland prior to the aerial spraying commencing. When it was discovered that many people were suffering ill effects from the spraying of that area there was no background information on those people that could be used as a basis for identifying or admitting that there was a problem with the spraying. Basically those people were allowed to move out of the area and their expenses were paid but it is not acknowledged that the spraying may well be causing some major health problems for those people. We need to examine that area of this bill in more depth during the Committee stage. We can examine it during the Committee stage and look at some ways of tightening it up to improve that situation. 
Another area that concerns me is to do with the lack of a database of the exotic and unwelcome organisms that are present in our trading partners. If the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the other biosecurity bodies had a comprehensive database of the organisms that are potential dangers to New Zealand and are known to exist in the countries that are our trading partners then we would have a much better idea of the risks and a better chance of identifying those organisms as they arrive on the border. That is one of the difficulties that the authorities ran into when the painted apple moth and some of the other similar organisms were discovered. The organisms did not exist on a database so the authorities had to track them down and find out whether they would be a threat. By the time the painted apple moth was tracked down it had spread beyond an area in which it could be easily contained. Therefore it required a much larger spray programme effectively trying to contain the painted apple moth. In the meantime while a spray programme was going on in the central area the painted apple moth was spreading beyond that area before the authorities had even got to it. It was unfortunately that that organism had already spread outside the initial spray area before spraying began. 
So I think we need to tighten this bill up. The intent of the bill is very good and we will support it. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: It is always a pleasure to speak on issues on which there is a huge degree of unanimity within the House. Unfortunately the Government brings far too many bills before the House that do not have any common sense and do not reflect the wishes of the entire select committee but this surely is one that does. Who amongst us here would deny the value of biosecurity to this country? No other issue is more important to this country. I will not bore the House or the public by going through the figures again. I think it was Dr Paul Hutchison who gave the House a very good indicator of the impact that a major outbreak of a disease such as foot-and-mouth would have on this country. 
I want to turn my attention to the practicalities of biosecurity—that is the way that things work outside this ivory tower out in the real world. I want to give the House a couple of examples. The bill states that there is an obligation on members of the public to inform the authorities if they have cause or reason to suspect that an organism they come across is one that is not wanted. Let me tell members of an instance of that. Some years ago in the Maniototo a well-known farmer discovered what he thought was nassella tussock. He swore his employees to secrecy because if it had been notified to the authorities it would have cost him a lot of money. He did nothing about it in terms of informing the authorities but did a lot of work in terms of trying to grub that particular nasty tussock out of our environment. He did so for about 15 years only to discover by chance that it was not nassella tussock but was in fact a thing called Australian sedge. The guy just about broke down in tears to think of all the work he had done for all those years in grubbing out something that was not really a problem. I tell that story to make the House understand the importance of people in New Zealand failing to recognise and report those sorts of plants or what could be potential incursions to the appropriate authority. It should not be a threat to do so. 
I would also like to talk about one of the more recent and highly publicised biosecurity threats. It even got me on the Mary Lambie show. A man cannot aspire very much higher than that! It was the Mary Lambie show at 10.30 in the morning—about the appropriate time for all good farmers to be in for their lunch or morning tea and not breakfast as is the case with the Green Party farmers. That show was about the introduction of rabbit calicivirus disease as it was then known which is now known as rabbit haemorrhagic disease. What a marvellous result that disease has had for this country and for the environment. We hear so much about this Government being very concerned about the environment but it did nothing about introducing that disease. I will touch on another issue a little later on that the Government is studiously ignoring. But rabbit haemorrhagic disease was only brought into this country—and illegally—because the authorities would not recognise the benefit of myxomatosis before that. 
 The Government had virtually promised for years that it would introduce those organisms to protect our environment. Who amongst us can stand in this House with a hand on his or her heart and say the introduction of rabbit haemorrhagic disease has been a disaster for this country? It has been an absolutely outstanding success and it was brought in illegally. 
Yet there have of course been huge failures. I think back to many many years ago when the early settlers brought things like gorse and broom rabbits stoats weasels and those sorts of organisms that have produced enormous harm to our economy. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Red deer. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Red deer have almost become indigenous. They are just like brown and rainbow trout. Now there is an issue. The Fish and Game Council would say those trout species provide a fantastic recreational opportunity for the people of this country. The rabid “greenies” and there are one or two of them in the Minister’s office would say we should get rid of those unwanted organisms brown and rainbow trout because they are—let us wait for this—introduced species so they are not welcome in this country. Yet each one of us is an introduced species. I include my Maori colleagues in that statement. Each one of us was introduced to this country one way or another. Some of us are more wanted organisms than others and we have to live with that I guess. 
But there have been very very significant biosecurity breaches that have been devastating and I mentioned a few of them before. The most recent devastating one was the varroa bee mite. I suspect that the full impact of the varroa bee mite coming into this country is not understood to this day in terms of the impact it will have on our native flora and fauna. Wild bees pollinate much of our native flora and that could well be lost. The Government sat on its hands for months before it decided to give control of the varroa bee mite a go. 
We have a disease that seems to permeate this Labour Government and it is called procrastination. Labour members thought that was a big decision. That does not surprise me because Government members are so unused to decision making that they struggle to know which side of bed to get out of in the morning. They toss a coin and ask what they should do today and then ask what will happen if they make the wrong choice. That is just a reflection on the Government. It desperately needs the experience of people from the Opposition side of the House who have had experience out in the real world the real environment and who know how to react. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I would like to ask that rather vociferous-sounding individual the chief Government whip why this Government will not make a very simple introduction into this country in order to enhance our biosecurity enormously. I am talking about the gamma radiation of fruit which would have an immediate impact on anybody bringing product into this country—and we have heard that over 8 tonnes of meat product comes into this country illegally. 
Stephen Franks 
: Radiate them with their fruit. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: My colleague is absolutely right. But why do we studiously ignore the huge opportunity that gamma radiation gives to the biosecurity of this island country of ours that is so dependent on ensuring that we do make sure that unwanted organisms do not come into it? 
I along with all members of the Opposition deeply lament the total lack of research and development that has gone into biosecurity in this country. Yet again the Australians have beaten us. I see a blank look on the face of my colleague Ian Ewen-Street who is wondering how they have beaten us again on this issue. Technology developed in Australia just recently has shown that if nitrogen gas is bubbled through the ballast of ships it will kill virtually all the organisms that exist in that ballast. That is a huge problem because ships come into New Zealand constantly for trade. We can even export water out of Deep Cove for example but there is concern about the ballast brought in from the Far East or anywhere else in the world. Ships remove the ballast and introduce the fresh water out of our wonderful pristine environment in its place. 
Technology and science—dare I say those words in this House in the presence of Government members when I know how they hate science and dismiss it? I say that we have huge opportunity to upgrade the security of our borders by just listening to scientists and spending more of our resources on the things that matter like science technology and introducing chemists to study the problems that we do face and must solve. We will not solve the problems just by burying our heads in the sand and pretending that gamma radiation is not really the major advance that it is. We have the opportunity right now to introduce it—in fact it is old technology—and we could move forward quite rapidly to introduce new technology. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: It is a privilege to speak in the second reading of this bill. When reading through the report of the Primary Production Committee which addressed this bill on getting to the committee membership the name of a member of that committee—Gavan Herlihy—leapt out at me. It is a name that this House has not heard for some time. As I recall Gavan Herlihy was a very good member. Unfortunately he is the only member from that committee who is no longer in the Parliament but that matters not. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: The Greens will support this bill. We recognise that biosecurity is enormously important to this country. The greatest danger facing this country is not from invading armies but from invading species. 
I was very interested to hear my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison list some of the species that have invaded this country just recently. He is quite right. But what Dr Hutchison overlooks is that at the same time as he is concerned about biosecurity he is also a very proactive zealot in terms of promoting genetically engineered (GE) organisms. Obviously Dr Hutchison fails to recognise that those organisms are themselves alien species. We know that they are alien species because a natural species cannot be patented whereas a GE species can be. GE organisms are by definition alien species. We do not know what the long-term consequences of releasing them into our environment may be. We do not know whether they will be the gorse possums and rabbits of the future; we simply do not know that. 
We have only to look at the example of what has happened in Canada with GE organisms there. GE canola was supposed to be the saviour of Canadian agriculture but Canada found that GE canola which was designed to be resistant to herbicide—in particular to glyphosate which is the generic name for Roundup—escaped from the paddocks and got into roadside verges and gullies. Because it was resistant to Roundup it could not be killed with that so more toxic and persistent chemicals than Roundup had to be used to get rid of it. That created a major problem in terms of weed control and Canada finished up by declaring GE canola to be a noxious species. 
Phil Heatley 
: They created a monster. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: They did create a monster. 
Phil Heatley 
: Frankenstein. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Frankenstein food. It is very interesting to listen to people in this House talk about biosecurity. The free-trade zealots like my colleague from ACT Mr Eckhoff are very keen on having free trade come into this country. Yet it is free trade and tourism that are creating the major problem for biosecurity in this country. People are tempted to open sea containers or to smuggle goods through on their person when they come in on aeroplanes. That is where the real problems lie in this country. 
In terms of the bill itself I am very pleased to see that people can now report unusual organisms on an 0800 number rather than having to go specifically to chief technical officers. I do have concerns though about the non-requirement to report unusual species that are legitimately in New Zealand under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. My concern is really about what I have just outlined with regard to GE organisms. Those organisms may well be legitimately in this country. They may have been approved by the Environmental Risk Management Authority and approved under the Act but what happens in a situation like the one the Canadians have had with their canola when those organisms start to appear in places where they should not be? It is the people who know their farms the vets and the stock agents who know when those species start to appear so they should be required to report all alien species and particularly GE ones. 
I suspect that if we do buckle under the free-trade pressure of the United States and destroy our own main economic base of providing clean green agricultural products then we will need to further amend this legislation. I can see the day coming when this legislation will come back to the House and we have to amend it to compel people to report alien species particularly GE ones. 
I have some concern about the phrase in clause 24 that refers to a person who knows or could reasonably be expected to know what an alien species is and where it should be. How do we judge whom those people are? Who does the judging? 
Phil Heatley 
: I’ve been “taken”. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Phil Heatley knows; he will be the judge. That only compounds my concerns. 
Phil Heatley 
: I’ve been operated on. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: He has been neutralised! People will say that farmers could reasonably be expected to know whether an alien species has arrived on their property. That is perfectly true. North Island farmers may be able to recognise that the varroa bee mite has infected a beehive because they know how bees normally behave in that situation. But could a South Island farmer reasonably be expected to know what a varroa bee mite infestation looks like? 
Dianne Yates 
: They are very small. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: I am talking about the behaviour of the bees. Farmers vets stock agents and people like that are the front line of our defences. They are the eyes and ears of our defences. They will almost certainly identify things rather than Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials. I believe it is incumbent on the ministry to establish and maintain very good working relationships with those people because they literally are the eyes and ears of our defence. 
I will step to one side for a moment and mention the relationships between the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the people of west Auckland. The handling of the painted apple moth incursion up there was a debacle. Even when I use the most encouraging phraseology possible I cannot think that that was in any way a successful operation. Oh yes the ministry may have spent $90 million on the blanket spraying of west Auckland multiple times and it may have just about eradicated the moth but the public relations war with west Auckland residents has been largely lost. The ministry’s behaviour over that incursion was despicable. 
I turn now to the reduced notice period for aerial spraying. I support the basic rationale for that which is the idea that if something is invading a farm—let us say foot-and-mouth for argument’s sake—it is incumbent on the ministry or whoever is responsible for getting rid of it to do so as soon as possible. If that requires aerial spraying so be it. But to wait for 14 days before that can be done is simply ludicrous. We discussed that at some length in the Primary Production Committee I seem to recall. We talked about whether to have 1 day’s notice. The idea was that if one was spraying in remote areas one needed to give farmers the opportunity to go back to the homestead or to give people the opportunity to pick up their kids from school or to take the domestic pets away—that sort of thing. In the end we decided it was better to leave the provision with no specified notice period and to leave such notice to the discretion of the chief technical officer. 
I do have some doubts about that. I do not doubt the competence of the chief technical officers and I think they would demonstrate a degree of flexibility in introducing aerial spraying very quickly. But they need to be aware of the problems that can be incurred if they immediately spray houses domestic pets children’s schools and so on without any notice at all. I am sure that is not what is intended but I have a sneaky suspicion that maybe we need to do more in terms of specifying that. 
Overall I see the amendments in this bill as being very good but they tend to be like the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The best way to keep New Zealand free of alien species quite apart from not releasing GE species— 
Marc Alexander 
: Ban all trade. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: —is not to ban all trade but to be very careful about how we trade and with whom we trade. We simply cannot afford to have destructive species like foot-and-mouth the Asian gypsy moth the glassy-winged sharpshooter and whatever else cross the border in the first place. It is much easier to keep them out than to eradicate them after they arrive. In recent years biosecurity control at the border and at airports has improved out of sight. There is now something like a 100 percent inspection rate of people coming into the country and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry calculates there is something like a 94 percent interception rate. We inspect 100 percent of all mail coming into this country. I have no problem with either of those two areas. 
I do have concerns about the present scheme of inspecting only 24 percent of the 400000 containers that come into this country though I am very pleased with the recent Government initiative to move towards 100 percent decontamination or inspection at container devanning sites. My concern about that proposal though is that the Government wants the owners of the devanning sites to look after the biosecurity issue. That creates a potential conflict of interest because on the one hand those people make their money by getting the goods out of the containers into warehouses and off to clients and on the other hand the biosecurity aspects will only slow that process down. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: I am very pleased to speak on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill under the name of my esteemed colleague the Hon Jim Sutton who is a hard-working and conscientious member. 
I see in the commentary that the Act is the principal authority for actions to keep harmful organisms out of New Zealand. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Would that apply to ACT? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That would be the only amendment I would be tempted to move—that it apply to the ACT party. There is no doubt that the ACT party is certainly a harmful organism for New Zealand. 
When we look over the report of the Primary Production Committee we see it is a very good one. It states: “Surveillance forms an important part of New Zealand’s biosecurity system. We are aware of New Zealand’s heavy reliance on passive surveillance and agree more needs to be done to assist those who are in a position to provide early detection of an organism not normally seen in New Zealand.” Of course the good thing about the ACT party is that at 3.2 percent in the polls it is now starting to become a very endangered species and more surveillance is needed because it is an organism that might no longer normally be seen in New Zealand. So we need to keep up the surveillance. Of course as the report states surveillance is important for “our front line defence against unwanted incursions”. Certainly the ACT party has been an unwanted incursion. The report also states there needs to be more support for people who are carrying out surveillance and: “The duty to inform must be backed up by a comprehensive education campaign.” I am certain that the Government will be continuing our high-profile education campaign on how we might keep biosecurity incursions like the ACT party out of New Zealand. 
This is very good legislation from a very good Minister in an extremely hard-working and progressive Government. I am very proud to support the bill. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: It was interesting to hear the Minister of Transport. It would have been good if the Minister had got up to speed with the bill because I know that many members are interested in the actual contents both technical and factual. 
I was on the Primary Production Committee and members will be well aware of that. We took on board this bill way back on 16 August 2001 when it was referred to the committee. The House is reading it now for the second time. My maths tells me that that is 2 years on. There has been no sense of urgency from the Government and that is quite disheartening for us because we did sweat hard over this bill. We know the significance and the importance of biosecurity to this nation. It is unfortunate that it has taken 2 years. 
We can—and members know this—list a number of breaches of biosecurity since the Act was passed particularly in the last 4 years. The painted apple moth has come up time and time again but there has been a whole lot of other incursions. I would like to thank Marian Hobbs for the painted apple moth and various other pests! The 11 biosecurity incursions into this country include the Asian gypsy moth which is not a Green Party member but a bug that could hurt many of our crops. The fall web worm and crazy ants—[ 
Interruption 
] No I tell Minister Dalziel that is not a Green Party member. Other incursions are fire ants mosquito larvae Asian tiger mosquito larvae the Sydney huntsman spider and the Australian redback spider and eggs. It sounds like a tour of the world does it not? When this Labour Government is in power who needs to travel? We have had the North American southern ring-necked snake. Cane toads are coming as well. When we drive home tonight we will hear all sorts of popping as we speed along the road because cane toads from Australia are here. And we have had a solitary scorpion. 
So we have had visitors from Asia in the form of the Asian gypsy moth and Asian tiger mosquito larvae. From Sydney we have had the Sydney huntsman spider the Australian redback spider and the North American southern ring-necked snake. Who needs to travel the world? Who needs air points? Not one member in this Parliament does because the world is coming to see us. Thank you Marian Hobbs! The world of animals the world of the invertebrate are coming to visit us here in New Zealand. Eleven of them have come in the last 4 years. It is a hugely disappointing record from the Minister. 
On 16 August 2001 the closing date for submissions was 24 September 2001 so members can appreciate how quickly we called for submissions. We closed them off and spent a lot of time speaking with the submitters listening to them and putting our thoughts into the bill as reported back with its changes. I emphasise once again our frustration—knowing how important biosecurity is for New Zealand—that it has taken 2 years for the bill to come back to the House. 
I would like to go through various issues that we discussed during the select committee process. First of all clause 9—[ 
Interruption 
] I can tell David Benson-Pope that compared with those 11 visitors to this country from Australia from Asia from North America and from around the globe he is the most harmless incursion that Parliament has had in the last 4 years or however long he has been sleeping here. Does anyone know how long David Benson-Pope has been sleeping here? He is the most harmless incursion that this country and this Parliament have had. I ask him to wake up and take a call later. 
Clause 9 gives the principal Act a slightly more punitive air. It targets pest management levies at those who either actively or through their inactivity cause a problem. I assume we will be talking more about clause 9 later on tonight. It is headed “Restrictions on levies” and is a very punitive user-pays or polluter-pays type of measure. It states that the persons who will undergo the punitive measure of levies are those who are likely to benefit from the implementation of the strategy—that is growers and those who raise animals. Anyone who is likely to benefit directly from the strategy will incur the levies. That is something we should consider during the Committee stage. But the levies also affect those who either actively or inactively create or exacerbate the problem of an incursion. Marian Hobbs who has invited 11 different species from around the world into this country could be defined as someone who has exacerbated the problem here in this country. That is the Government’s immigration policy; it welcomes from around the world— 
Ron Mark 
: All sorts of vermin. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: —visiting invertebrates snakes and vermin. People like Marian Hobbs will incur a punitive measure under that user-pays or polluter-pays philosophy. 
So we addressed that issue. The next major issue that we addressed is in clause 18 which is about spraying programmes. Ian Ewen-Street I think talked a little about Auckland. He visited Auckland when the spraying programme was going on up there and I know he is quite concerned about it. Most of us here in the House tonight can see the results of his visit. While many who have visited Auckland are reporting scratches and itches in all sorts of private places Ian Ewen-Street has created a snow of his own with falling hair! That illustrates that there is a genuine concern in Auckland. 
Clause 18—and obviously we will deal with this clause in the Committee stage—is about the degree of notice that needs to be given to people living in a spray area. One can appreciate that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and those responsible for curbing the biosecurity risk—curbing the incursion invited into this country by Marian Hobbs—might want to act very very quickly. One can appreciate how much the population of an incursion might explode in 2 weeks. Not all invertebrates snakes or vermin that enter the country will breed quickly. Some are quite slothful. It is as though they are asleep. I talked about David Benson-Pope who is a harmless incursion; these incursions will move a lot faster than he does. For a start they will be awake. We may need to act quickly so we may have to reduce the time available to inform local residents that there is to be a spray programme. 
If there is that urgency we can assume—and the bill actually outlines this—that although people will get a warning period that is shorter than 2 weeks that warning will be as thorough as possible. We would not expect to see a small inch-by-inch advertisement at the back of the local weekly community paper; we would hope instead that the warning would be advertised in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on television and so on. So in putting in that amendment—narrowing down the time from 2 weeks to 24 hours in some cases—we do say clearly that the notice must be advertised as thoroughly as possible and I am sure the officials involved at the time will apply that rule. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: Although I recognise the humour that is passing backwards and forwards tonight on this bill it is a very serious and very important biosecurity bill. I wish to support it and also acknowledge the support of all members of the House. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: The member who has just resumed her seat is quite correct; this is a very very important amendment bill. I would like to start by paying tribute to some of the members on the Primary Production Committee for the work they did. First of all I pay tribute to the work done by Gavan Herlihy Shane Ardern and of course my colleague Phil Heatley who has just resumed his seat having given a rather humorous if not novel but also very full and practical speech about the implications of this bill. 
 Biosecurity is one of the key problems facing this economy because frankly if we get an incursion we do not want the economy could more or less come to a halt within a very short space of time. I used to work within the agricultural industry so things like foot-and-mouth disease scrapie mad cow disease— 
Phil Heatley 
: Marian has all of those! 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I am not sure about that but if any of the problems that are faced around the world were to come here we would certainly have problems. One commentator from the agricultural industry said that if foot-and-mouth disease were to come to this country the economy could potentially shut down within 3 months’ time such is our dependence on agriculture. Such is the concern about an incursion of that nature. 
It is interesting to go over a bit of the history of this portfolio because it is a very very important one and when things go wrong in this area the impact can be huge. What did this Government do? It gave the portfolio to Marian Hobbs. She was the previous Minister for Biosecurity and during her time as Minister we saw a number of incursions a number of uninvited guests that the rest of the country was not very keen on—for example the yellow flower wasp the kentia palm seed borer the southern saltmarsh mosquito the avian pox virus the lettuce aphid the eastern flower thrip and the Asian kelp not to mention the varroa bee mite which many bee-keepers got for Christmas from that particular Minister. Because of her inaction and inability to act in a timely manner the whole problem became very out of control and now is threatening the entire honey industry. 
But let us also mention the painted apple moth. So far the cost has been about $90 million to try to deal with that particular problem. If money had been spent on biosecurity in the first place the country would not have to fork out such a large amount of money now. That moth should not have got here in the first place. It was interesting listening to Mr Ian Ewen-Street talk about the spraying in Auckland. Initially I was very supportive of that spraying as I understand the importance of the agricultural industry to this country. But as a parent I am concerned about the continual spraying of children the elderly and others who do not know what is being sprayed on them. I am beginning to accept that people up there have some real concerns. I too would be livid if my family was being continually sprayed with something and I did not have a clue what it was. Certainly we are seeing some unwanted outcomes within the community. 
This bill has some technical amendments but also some quite important ones. It reduces the time frame required before the ministry can act in relation to newly discovered pests. It also tidies up what the public need to do to inform the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of any biosecurity incursions that they become aware of. Not to do so would be an offence and the guilty person could be fined up to $5000. I think it is quite important that we understand the impact of that. It sends a quite clear message that biosecurity is important to this country and that if people do not play their part by telling the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry when they come into contact with incursions a penalty may apply. 
It is important also to look once again at what the potential impact could be if we have problems in this area. Let us look at the value of some of the industries that are very much dependent on our keeping a lot of bugs and pests out of New Zealand. Horticulture and fruitgrowing for example are worth $847 million to the national economy. Livestock and cropping are worth $1757 billion. Dairy cattle farming is worth $1832 billion and other farming is worth $332 million. Unwanted pests and diseases coming into this country could potentially have an impact on such major industries. One sees why biosecurity is something that this side of the House takes extremely seriously. 
I was concerned when I read a recent story about the way the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry goes about reviewing containers as they come into the country. Last year the ministry inspected about 24 percent of high-risk containers and randomly selected another 5 to 10 percent for internal inspection which means an officer basically just shoves his head inside the container and has a wee look. I had expected that inspections would be far more thorough than that but I was wrong. The ministry did a survey. For the first time the ministry did a thorough check and containers that had already been “door inspected” were inspected once again. The results of that particular investigation were very worrying. The officers found five live alien spiders and three insects in 1517 containers. That goes to show that once-over-lightly—a head poked into the odd container—does not pick up all the pests bugs and incursions that potentially can come into this country. Obviously a far more thorough investigation needs to be made of containers when they come into this country. 
As we know that will have a cost but what we are facing now in dealing with one particular incursion the painted apple moth shows that if incursions are not dealt with before they are established here we face the cost of eradicating these pests and diseases. So in a way a biosecurity policy is very much an insurance policy. It is an insurance policy for the agricultural and horticultural industries—an insurance policy against potential economic disaster should scrapie mad cow disease or a number of other real problems around the world threaten our country. 
So I am a great supporter of quarantining. I am a great supporter of ensuring that there are more stringent requirements both at the borders and in terms of the importation of goods. At the moment trying to track down incursions is very much hit-and-miss. It does rely very much on the general public. I think the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry sometimes hopes that it has a bit of luck and that somebody will discover something before it goes too far. But it relies very heavily also on having a Minister who will act in a timely manner and make decisions when those decisions are needed. The previous Minister—thank goodness there has been a change—did not really inspire great confidence in the hearts of the New Zealand public particularly amongst those in the rural community. 
Increased biosecurity does mean increased costs to the public but as I have said it is an insurance policy and something that very much protects our economic prosperity and our ability to pay for the things we hold dear like health services education etc. If we were to have a major incursion such as foot-and-mouth disease potentially our economy could shut down within 3 months and certainly we would go from being a First World country to being a Third World country in a very short amount of time. So I look forward to the Committee stage of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill so that I can look at some of the individual clauses that members on this side still have some concerns about. We will be putting some amendments to make some improvements to what we think are holes in this legislation. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Biosecurity 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: Members will recall that I informed the Parliament that I was on the select committee with various members who are sprinkled around the Chamber tonight that considered this bill 2 years ago. At that time the title “Biosecurity Amendment Bill” appeared to be a fair enough title. Of course we have the original legislation the Biosecurity Act and this bill makes amendments to it. They are smart amendments—I might add having had the fortune of meeting people across the table who were interested in and saw the significance of biosecurity in New Zealand. However a lot has happened since then. We have had a large number of incursions in New Zealand. I listed those earlier and in order for the title to recognise the seriousness of these incursions which it does not do at present I suggest that instead—and I might put an amendment forward later; I am not sure what other members might do—the title should be the “Biosecurity (Stamping Out Recent Incursions) Bill”. 
I say that only because in recent years we have seen cane toads coming into this country as well as the fall webworm crazy ants the Asian gypsy moth the huntsman spider from Australia the redback spider the mosquito larvae the North American ring-necked snake the glassy-winged sharpshooter the Argentine ant—a visitor from Argentina I assume—and the varroa bee mite. 
That is why I talk about recent incursions because in recent years we have had all these visitors from Australia North America and now Argentina. Why should not the title be the “Biosecurity (Stamping Out Recent Incursions) Amendment Bill”? I would be interested in other members commenting on that. This solution should have come before the Parliament a long time before now. As I have said I was on the select committee over 2 years ago. I recall the urgency at the time. We have not seen any since. What we have seen is New Zealanders all around this country trying to stamp out and not with bare feet all these incursions into this country—insects and vertebrates snakes glassy-winged sharpshooters and on the list goes. I would be interested to see whether any other amendments in relation to the title come forward. I would be happy to support any sensible suggestions but I certainly put my suggestion forward and ask that members look at it very very seriously indeed. 
I would be very hesitant to list in the title the names of all these visitors. Imagine doing that! It would be easy though for New Zealanders if they could look up the bill and find out when the Argentine ant or the glassy-winged sharpshooter came to New Zealand. I cannot remember when the cane toads arrived. All I know is that when I go down the driveway they pop. I cannot remember when they came but I would like to look it up in the bill and find out when they visited New Zealand. It would be good if we had them listed in the title. The problem is that the title would be as long as the bill. Imagine that! Imagine having a title as long as the bill and it would be as long as the bill because of all the visitors we have had to this country. I hesitate to go through them again— 
Sandra Goudie 
: But you will. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The member should not encourage me. I hesitate to go through them all again. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: I would like to take a relatively short call on the title of the bill. To speak on a relatively short title “Biosecurity Amendment Bill” is not an easy thing to do. The word that is lacking I suspect is “importance” or “important”. Nothing in the title of the bill reflects the concerns expressed by everybody who understands just how important biosecurity is to this country. I have talked as I said before to farmers all over the country and at Mystery Creek just recently. When I asked them what was their most important concern the one overriding concern was biosecurity. Yet when I read the title and I guess that when a farmer or anybody reads in the paper tomorrow morning that the Biosecurity Amendment Bill was debated in Parliament it will reflect nothing. Somebody from the city for example would think: “Well yes I have heard of biosecurity and I guess it is something to do with stopping organisms.” But I really think that in the title of these bills we need to inform the public so much more comprehensively about what we are debating. 
We are debating—in my view certainly from an agrarian’s point of view—probably one of the most important issues that we can possibly debate or talk about in this Parliament. Indeed the pleasing thing as I said earlier is that there is such a large degree of unanimity. But again it is very very difficult for members of the public to understand what goes in this Parliament unless the title of a bill accurately reflects the proceedings of the Parliament. Quite frankly the “Hon Jim Sutton” and “Biosecurity Amendment Bill” does not mean a great deal to most people until they understand the importance and the commitment that it places on members of the public because every one of us has a duty to ensure that our country’s biosecurity is not compromised. 
We have heard so many speeches from so many members on this side of the Chamber detailing this huge list. Is it not extraordinary that this list seems to be rather large during the tenure of this current Government? Should not the title of the bill reflect the inadequate attention that this Government has paid to this problem? If I can answer my own question I think it should. I note Janet Mackey nodding her head in total agreement. She is on the Primary Production Committee and she is a good member I must say. She understands the significance of biosecurity to this country. 
It is regrettable that David Benson Pope the chief Government whip sits there with probably no understanding of the huge importance of this bill to the average member of this Government. The only time he makes a speech is when he stands up to say: “Madam Chair I move that the motion be now put.” That is the extent of the contribution of so many Government members but I must say that on the Primary Production Committee we do get some worthwhile contributions from those who understand the significance of the rural sector. When was the last time the Prime Minister spoke about the rural sector other than to give it a good swift kick and to milk more money from it? So the contribution that I would like to make at this particular point is that the title does not accurately reflect the importance to this country of such an overwhelmingly serious subject as biosecurity. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: I would like to agree with Gerry Eckhoff who made some very valid points in his speech. He mentioned that biosecurity is vitally important. This actually has to do with the Biosecurity Amendment Act 2001. Does that ring some bells? This bill has been sitting here while the Government wonders whether problems will spread as the painted apple moth has spread. The Government has left the bill on the Table since 2001. In fact it goes back to August 2001 when it was introduced. The title clause 1(1) says it all: “… the Biosecurity Amendment Act 2001.” This Government has sat on this bill when biosecurity is one of the most important aspects of our economy and when there are dangers to our economy from incursions of organisms that will damage our livestock and particularly our bees. When the varroa bee mite came into this country the Government once more sat on that incursion. It did not know what to do with that problem in the same way that it did not know what to do with this bill that has been sitting there since 2001. 
The Government has allowed all of those other incursions to occur because it was too slow in getting this bill into the House and to the Table for proper debate. The Government has waited all of that time and now under urgency we are trying to get the bill through quickly. 
I ask why the bill was not brought in under urgency a long time ago. Why has it sat there for 2 years while other incursions have occurred? We have a list of those incursions and I will not attempt to repeat the long list of them given by a previous speaker because it would probably take us all night to get through them all. It would probably take us to 2005 while we waited for this bill to come through the House again. But biosecurity is one of the most important aspects of our economy and to leave this bill sitting there since 2001 to be enacted as the Biosecurity Amendment Act 2001 is a disgrace. This Government really needs to get off its backside and sort out our biosecurity. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: I rise to take a very brief call but after listening to the last two speakers who said that they were struggling with the title it suddenly came to me what we should have. They did not offer us an alternative but it suddenly came to me in a flash that the correct title for this bill should be the “Thank God for United Future Who Have Given Support This Week for Urgency so This Biosecurity Amendment Bill Could Go Through Bill”. That could be a useful amendment and I hope we will move on to other more substantive parts of the bill very soon. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: That is not a very novel title for the bill. I do not know whether God will be very interested in this bill once He reads it. I think that He will be a bit concerned rather about it being about biosecurity when really what is contained in this bill is more about bio-risk. I think that the name of the bill should be the “Bio-risk Amendment Bill” because if we look at the long list of incursions we have had since the 1930s such as the Avondale spider—and we have listed a number of others—there have been about 10 just before— 
Brent Catchpole 
: They are from my home town. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: That is the home town of the member from New Zealand First. Before about 1999 there were only 10 incursions but what is really upsetting is that there have been seven during the term of this Government. So getting back to the title if we are looking at being secure or incorporating some sort of feeling of security into the name of the bill I think that is quite misleading. Certainly during the time of the previous Minister it was a case of “Let’s all head for the New Zealand borders.” with the yellow flower wasp and the kentia palm seed borer not to mention the southern saltmarsh mosquito and once again the avian pox virus—my personal favourite—the lettuce aphid and the eastern flower thrips. Now rather than having a secure border it has been very insecure because a lot of things have come in and threatened the agricultural and horticultural industries. 
If we are looking in particular at the incursion of the varroa bee mite which was one of the first issues the Minister had to deal with I think we could incorporate some reference to that in the title and one of my suggestions is that we call the bill the “Christmas Came Early and Marian Gave Us Varroa Bee Mite Bill”. I can see a lot of nodding heads from around the Chamber of people thinking that that is quite an improvement to the name of the bill. Another option is that we could call this bill the “Spray People with Chemicals Because I Couldn’t be Bothered Spending It at the Border Bill” because that is certainly the way a lot of people from west Auckland whom I have spoken to feel. They were quite happy to play along with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry first of all but after successive sprays I think that their tolerance has worn thin. 
I also think that it has become quite an important issue for this country because if we look at the number of incursions just in the last few years we see that they are coming thick and fast. Rather than getting better at managing biosecurity I think that things are not very secure and the present title we have has become somewhat misleading. This bill really should be more aptly titled the “Luck of the Draw and Catch a Few Greeblies if You Are Lucky Bill” because at the moment we have seen the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry rely very heavily on the general public to do its job for it. We have already heard in previous speeches that very few of the containers at ports actually get checked—somewhere between 5 and 10 percent. So it is very much the luck of the draw in terms of getting a number of these incursions when they should be discovered—that is when they first come in. A pest or insect would probably have to be very unlucky to be caught by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry because if we look at those other invaders I think all of them have been identified by the general public. 
It is important that we have a bill that is correctly titled and that reflects the important nature of the legislation so I have put forward some suggestions and look forward to hearing others from my colleagues on this side of the Chamber about how the bill could be more appropriately titled. It is important that we have a bill with a name that people can identify with and look at and immediately know what it is about. Quite simply to imply that this bill is about security after such a staggeringly poor track record of letting so many pests and greeblies into New Zealand we say that the bill has nothing about security at all. It has everything to do with bio-risk so that is why I have made some suggestions for the title. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to and clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: It is good to be able to speak to clause 2. I would like to talk about the commencement date. It is an absolute tragedy that this bill has a commencement date of maybe tomorrow or maybe 2 weeks from now. This should have been— 
Brent Catchpole 
: It should have been 2 years ago. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Absolutely. It should have been 2 years ago in 2001. It is an absolute tragedy that it has had to wait as long as this. We fully understand the importance of biosecurity on this side of the Chamber—that is my colleagues over here excluding the ones over there and we all know to whom I am referring. This commencement date is a tragedy. Only 7 months ago we had several reports on biosecurity—I have a pile of press releases here about incursions. Here is one from 9 January which talks about New Zealand being ill-prepared to meet any looming biosecurity threat. Here is another one from January: “Eye out for agriterror” stating that how New Zealand reacts is a key to dealing with agricultural contamination. It is a huge issue for New Zealand. The consequences are absolutely enormous and I will elucidate on that later in my presentation. I am sure I will probably far exceed the 5 minutes allotted to me. 
Here is another one on 17 January: “Search intensifies for foreign mozzie”. Of course members have heard my learned colleague speak about the range of pests. I am sure I will be forced at some stage to go through that list again but for the moment we are talking about the headline “Search intensifies for foreign mozzie” on 17 January. So far I have hit only January and that is three press releases already. There are still a lot more. Here is another one for January so this is the fourth one: “Man admits importing tussock moth eggs”. Here is a gentleman actually importing them so that is another one that was missed. This is the absolute— 
David Parker 
: No we caught it. How else was it reported? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I beg the member’s pardon? “Man admits importing tussock moth eggs”—this is one that was caught. How many more are actually getting through? So far we have four press releases for January alone. I cannot remember any other time in the history of my time in agriculture that we have ever had incursions to this degree and the Government has allowed this Biosecurity Amendment Bill to languish on the shelves for 2 whole years while this has been going on. We had four activities in January alone. Now I will move on to February: “Auckland to battle the eucalypt leaf moth”. Then here we go on 27 February in the  
Dominion Post 
: “Another moth gets out”.  
This reminds me of one of the problems they have with the painted apple moth in Auckland. I remember when they first wanted to do something about the painted apple moth. There was a whole heap of resistance to the initial spraying round. Where did that resistance come from? It came from the Green Party if I recall. Oh it came from the Greens certainly the real fundamentalist greenies who did not understand the importance of immediate eradication and did not want to understand the huge impact not only on the rural sector but on the nation’s economy affecting all the people of the nation. I have the substantial figures here. The net present value of the estimated impact of this painted apple moth is $58 million to $364 million. That is the impact and what did the Greens want to do? They wanted to gather the painted apple moths together. They wanted to burn them and sprinkle their ashes in the neighbourhood in the hope that the rest of the painted apple moths would go away. But where would they go? They would just go away into another neighbourhood. This is the type of suggestion the Greens are making. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: Sandra Goudie had some very good points there particularly with regard to the time delay. Clause 2 states that the bill will come in immediately but that should have been 2 years ago as Sandra Goudie said. This Government sat on its hands for 2 years and waited. It—wait for it—commissioned a report to see how well biosecurity was doing. That report told us what we already knew from the experience of departments sitting on their hands and doing nothing about all the other incursions. This report told us that biosecurity management was a disaster. In the meantime the Government waited for that report before this bill came back to the Chamber. The bill came back and now is coming into force immediately after it receives the royal assent. That royal assent should have been given to the bill 2 years ago. The Government should not wait for these reports. They should bring the bill to the House not wait for these reports. The Government waited as it did with the painted apple moth because it did not know whether it should eradicate it or just contain it. 
In the meantime the painted apple moth spread rapidly. Then when the Government finally decided it was going to eradicate it the moth had gone way beyond the area the Government had decided to eradicate it from. So by sitting and waiting by sitting on this bill and not allowing it to come back to the House the Government has left the door open for other incursions to spread. 
We have heard here tonight of numerous incursions. The varroa bee mite has spread throughout the country because the Government was not sure whether it should be eradicating it or just containing it. In the meantime it got into the feral bee population and spread throughout that population which meant it was no longer possible to eradicate it from the natural hives because they are too numerous. So by waiting 2 years to bring this bill back to the House the Government has wasted a lot of time and allowed a lot more incursions to spread. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: One of the great things about being in a debating chamber—well it is one of the things I would have thought was great about being here—is that we enter into a debate. Surprise surprise! What do we hear from the Government on these issues? We hear the immortal words uttered by Mr David Parker: “Madam Speaker I move that the motion be now put.” That is not debating this bill. It is not debating the commencement clause. Mr Mark Peck—that well-known cold-climate sex symbol from Invercargill—sits there doing absolutely nothing not being prepared to debate this bill and not being prepared to debate the commencement date. 
We have heard very good speeches from Mr Brent Catchpole and Sandra Goudie telling the Committee and New Zealand that this Government is now saying under urgency that this bill is important. Yet the bill sat there for 2 years. What are we supposed to consider when we talk about the commencement date of this bill? Every one of us on this side of the Chamber I am sure would have said that the commencement date should have been 2 years ago when the public of this country demanded it. 
I find it quite extraordinary—and I think it is important to recognise it—that not that long ago we sat in the House until 5 in the morning under extraordinary urgency debating a hugely important issue! Here we are discussing biosecurity which is obviously hugely important but what issue did we debate until 5 o’clock in the morning a month or so ago—Mississippi moonshine! 
Brent Catchpole 
: And the sherries and the ports. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: That is the stuff! Those are the sorts of priorities we are getting from this Government. It has failed totally to understand that the commencement date of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill should have been 2 years ago. What is it going to be into the future once this bill is passed? 
Despite criticism of the Government’s handling of the bill there is a consensus that we need to proceed with real haste on its commencement. However if the Government is true to form the commencement will be what—2 years’ time 3 years’ time? Members on the Government side shrug their shoulders so we have no idea when the bill might commence. The people of this country are calling constantly for action from the Government on this issue yet Government members sit on their hands passing bills like the “Mississippi Moonshine (Let’s Tax ’Em) Bill” which increased the tax on 23 percent-proof alcohol. 
Of course that sort of legislation is of some importance but I would have thought that any Government worth its salt would have recognised the importance of the commencement date of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill instead of allowing it to languish as it did for 2 years on the Order Paper. The commencement date of the bill should have been at least 2 years ago when the opportunities were there. However the Government pushed in other bits of legislation that it considered more important. 
I have some advice for the Government: do a poll. This is a poll-driven Government so it should go out and poll the people of this country on when the Biosecurity Amendment Bill should have been enacted. The Government would be berated for its inaction and procrastination on this bill—that is the only way to describe it—and for its inability to recognise that a Government must set priorities and recognise what is important to the people of the country. 
The Government must recognise that the incursion rate under its stewardship has been appalling. Marian Hobbs can stand up in the House and say: “Well we’ve had a good week haven’t we? We’ve only had three incursions.” If the issues were not so terribly serious that statement would be laughable. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This debate is probably the most important we will be having. It affects New Zealand’s viability its position in the world and its security. In the last part you called one member from National and one from the other three parties in 15 minutes of debate. Two other National Party members were seeking the call and I would have thought that on such important legislation you would have accepted those calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes the next section—clauses 3 to 25 in Part 1—is certainly the main part of the bill. 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: I was very disappointed not to take a call on clause 2 “Commencement”. It was an important clause and it was very disappointing that the National Party had only one speech. Part 1 is also very important because basically it sets out the guts of the changes. It sets out the importance of the processing of unaccompanied goods the duty of the general public to let the ministry know if they see an incursion of some sort and the importance of penalties which are to be expected if members of the public do not do their duty and let the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry know when there are pests or incursions that put our economy at risk. 
I confirm my colleague Lindsay Tisch’s comment that this bill will greatly affect the whole health of the economy. If we get it wrong and something comes in—as we have seen under the management of Marian Hobbs the first Minister for Biosecurity—the effect on the economy could be dire. Members should look at what the painted apple moth has done to Auckland. Ninety million dollars is being spent there to get rid of that moth. Had changes been made at the border and the painted apple moth been caught that money could have gone into health and education. The bill is short but we will take our time debating it as we need to do justice to quite an important subject. 
If we look again at the Government’s track record on biosecurity we have deep deep concerns. Since the 1930s there have been only about 10 major incursions but since this Government took over and handed the reins to Marian Hobbs—it obviously thought this was a very important portfolio—we have seen floods of incursions into this country. As I mentioned earlier there were the yellow flower wasp the kentia palm seed borer two lesser-known but very damaging incursions such as the saltmarsh mosquito—[Interruption] Ian Ewen-Street is giving me the benefit of his knowledge in this area by listing a few others. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: And Clayton Cosgrove 
KATHERINE RICH 
: 
 And Clayton Cosgrove. I have just seen two members from the Opposition parties walk in—two most damaging incursions—one being Murray McCully and the other Rodney Hide. They have seen how important this debate is so have graced the Committee with their presence. I do hope those members take a call. 
Rodney Hide 
: Parekura Horomia. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: 
 Parekura Horomia is mentioned here as coming in in 1999—no that is the banjo frog. He is mentioned as one of the more harmless incursions to be inflicted upon the New Zealand economy but is certainly costing this country a lot of money as we speak. 
In terms of the amendments to Part 1 it is important to talk about some of the changes we are expecting in this bill. I think it is worthwhile talking about changes to the regional pest management strategy—such as how the Government will try to deal with things like the ever-extending varroa bee mite which is causing a shudder in beekeeping circles around the world. We also need to look at the contents of the levy provisions. It is called a levy but it is nothing more than another tax. A Government that said it would not introduce any new taxes has introduced at least 15 in the past 3 years and others are included in this amendment bill. 
 As I have said this bill has nothing to do with biosecurity. It is more to do with bio-risk because we have seen incursion after incursion. Going through the vast number of invaders that have been inflicted on the New Zealand population has certainly been a science lesson for me. It is not surprising given that 5 to 10 percent only of the containers that come into the country are looked at. It is a very unlucky pest that is caught by our Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry that is for sure. It really has to be an unlucky incursion to be caught at all. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: I want to take a call on Part 1 because there are a number of areas that concern us and I think the provisions should be a little tighter. First of all under clause 6 which inserts new section 44 we find the general duty of people to report the discovery of new organisms. It is great that people are required to report those discoveries but there should be some additional support for those people because I would hate to see someone fail to report an organism or resist reporting it out of the fear that it would cost them money to have it eradicated. As Gerry Eckhoff mentioned earlier on there was an incident where a farmer failed to report what he thought was an incursion of a weed that was listed as noxious and dangerous. He kept that quiet for 15 years and attempted to eradicate it himself but it turned out to be nothing more than an Australian cousin of a noxious weed and it was quite welcome here. The failure to report an incident is something that this bill tries to overcome but the mechanism to support people so they do not fear that they will have to bear the full costs of the eradication is absent. 
Another clause is to do with the regional pest management strategies. Pest management is something that needs to have an overall strategy. I would hate to see one region come up with a strategy to develop its programmes and another neighbouring region come up with a strategy that conflicts with or is not compatible with it. Ultimately an incursion in one area could slip across to a neighbouring region and there could be a conflict regarding whose responsibility it is to deal with it. That is another area that we feel should be examined. 
We are also concerned about the levy. This Government is basically setting up another tax. It calls it a levy but this Government will call a tax by any name other than a tax. It calls a tax everything but a tax. So here is another tax coming in to make sure that this Government continues. It calls the tax a levy so that it can say it has not introduced any more taxes but this is another tax. 
Clause 19 provides for the power to examine an organism when that organism is assumed to be an incursion. Without a database to match that power against and without the knowledge and the background that a database would provide in support of those examinations some of those organisms have spread very quickly—and have done so for a long time. When an organism was found not to be on the list of dangerous organisms for this country it had to be put on that list before we could do anything about it. That mechanism just does not work because inspectors do not have the time to mess around waiting for an organism to appear on a list before they can go and examine it and decide that it is dangerous and should be eradicated. That list needs to be updated regularly and a database needs to be put together of the organisms present in our overseas trading partners that are a potential danger to us. If we do not have knowledge about an organism before it arrives how are we to handle it quickly? Without that knowledge we will hang around and leave the organism to spread before we do something about it. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: This is a very important debate and I am privileged to be able to take part in it. There is nothing more important to New Zealand than our biosecurity but I want to mention one particular clause in particular clause 4. Clause 4 states: “(3) Section 7 of the principal Act is amended by adding the following subsection:” which relates to the provisions of the Wildlife Act. Mr Catchpole spoke earlier about the fact that ferret farmers could be put out of business by that particular clause. 
I want to make it very clear that under section 7 of the Wildlife Act— 
Darren Hughes 
: Brent Catchpole now writes Lindsay Tisch’s speeches. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Clause 4 is amended by Supplementary Order Paper 96 in the name of the Hon Jim Sutton. Section 7C of the Wildlife Act “Farming certain unprotected animals” states: “(1) No person shall farm breed or sell or capture or convey or keep in captivity for the purposes of farming breeding or selling any wildlife specified in the Eighth Schedule to this Act unless any such activity is authorised by the Minister pursuant to section 41 …”. The Eighth Schedule “Wildlife not protected but may be kept bred or farmed in captivity pursuant to regulations made under principal Act or by Minister’s direction” includes ferrets. 
The point is that by inserting clause 4 in the bill it simply means there is no security for the people who were involved in the breeding of ferrets in the long term. There are three licensed breeders in New Zealand and the breeder who is a constituent of mine has 2000 breeding ferrets this year— 
Darren Hughes 
: Ha ha! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member should not laugh about it; I am talking about a million-dollar business. That enterprise will export 7500 ferrets this year worth $1 million. He also employs five people full-time in his business. Any ferrets that are sold domestically are desexed. Ferrets are not an issue out in people’s homes. In fact if they were to get loose they would not survive. 
Janet Mackey 
: Says who? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: They would not survive because they are domestic ferrets. 
Darren Hughes 
: What are their names? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member makes a joke of such an important industry. I am sure that if that breeder is listening tonight he will not be impressed by the nature of what this Government has in mind for his industry. 
The question I want to ask the Minister is whether that breeder will be able to sell his million-dollar enterprise. Will his family be able to take over that enterprise? We are seeing under this legislation that that person will be down and out. He has nowhere to go. This Government says that it wants consultation and the opportunity to grow the economy. Here we have a million-dollar business that will be left on the scrap heap and Government members are laughing about it. 
I want the Minister to take a call and answer four simple questions for me. Firstly does clause 4 affect the viability and future security of my constituent in the Piako electorate? Secondly will that person be able to continue his farming operation and to export ferrets? Thirdly will he be able to sell his business to somebody else or will his family be able to take it over? The fourth question relates to the domestic market. Will he be able to sell ferrets on the domestic market? There is a huge domestic market. Those are simple questions and I ask the Minister to answer them. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: I am delighted to take a call on Part 1 of this bill. I draw it to the Committee’s attention again that among the opportunities this Committee would normally expect would be the opportunity to debate the bill. Although I certainly appreciate hearing the contributions of my colleagues I would deem it to be a small favour if a Government member would condescend to stand and give us his or her offering on this very important subject. I do not even mind if Government members get Brian Edwards down to Parliament to coach them on this subject and to tell them what to say. I see one or two members on the Government side of the Chamber have had a new haircut—it is all starting to show already. I think the public demands that Government members should stand and contribute to this debate rather than just using that old sentence “Mr Speaker I move that the question be now put.” which we constantly hear. A debate is not a debate unless there are two opposing sides contributing to a subject—and this particular subject is very very important. Regrettably the Government is steadfastly refusing to contribute. Well I will just carry on. 
I would like to draw to the Committee’s attention that clause 6 inserts a new section 44 “General duty to inform” which states: “Every person is under a duty to inform the Ministry as soon as practicable in the circumstances of the presence of what appears to be an organism not normally seen or otherwise detected in New Zealand.” Does this Committee really expect Joe Bloggs an ordinary member of the public to know the difference between nassella tussock and Australian sedge? I would suspect that most farmers do not know the difference between them. But there is a way that we can help people to do so and that is through education. 
I have already mentioned in this Committee a very very good programme called  
Border Patrol 
 which I believe screens on a Monday evening. The public really warmed to that form of important information—it is not just entertainment. It is put forward in a very constructive and an informative manner and in such a way that the public understands and absorbs the lessons that that particular programme puts across. In other words we should be having more of those sorts of informative programmes like  
Border Patrol 
 for the public. 
I hesitate to say this but it would seem quite logical to follow the Australian example of screening programmes during the intermission at major sporting events that inform the public of Australia about the importance of issues such as biosecurity. The programmes ask whether people have seen any examples of a particular product or organism and then advise the public to call the local equivalent of our Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officers if they have seen anything. Those programmes go nationwide at a time when a very very large portion of the public is watching the television screen. 
Why can we not learn from that and do something very similar to it perhaps during a half-hour programme shown once or twice a year at the prime time of 7.30? Why can we not have more of those sorts of initiatives? Why can we not have some more really informative programmes that show the people of this country just how important it is that if they do come across something they are not very sure of they then inform the appropriate authorities? 
I listened with some interest to my colleague from the Green Party who was talking about genetic modification and about how important it is that the public are informed about that. I thought that was rather strange. I can just imagine people going to a restaurant and saying to the waiter that there is a genetically modified organism in their soup. That would be a very difficult thing to prove unless they happened to have an electron microscope with them at their table. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: We are discussing a very important bill on a very important subject. I just want to make a few comments about a couple of the clauses in Part 1 and specifically about clause 18 which reduces the notice period for aerial spraying from 2 weeks to 24 hours where a longer notice period would seriously damage the chance of containing or eradicating an undesirable organism. 
The Primary Production Committee considered that even 24 hours may be too long a period in some cases and recommended instead that the chief technical officer could reduce the current 2-week notice period to the extent necessary in order to avoid prejudice to the eradication of an organism. The committee drew on the experience of the discovery of the southern saltmarsh mosquito infestation near Napier in 1999 which required immediate spraying before the larvae matured and were allowed to fly and spread over a larger area. The organisms in respect of which a shorter notification may be given are organisms that are not already established in New Zealand or are restricted to certain areas and that have the potential to cause significant negative economic health or environmental problems. 
Of course we did not have a member on the select committee in the previous Parliament when the report was completed but after looking at this bill and being asked whether we would support it there were only a couple of things that we were concerned about. One of those was that the reduced notice period for spraying potentially gives the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry an arbitrary power without regard to the social costs. Accordingly we asked the Government to look at including a provision for ministerial sign-off to ensure that a degree of political accountability would be there with that decision. I express our thanks to the Minister and the officials who have taken that concern seriously and included it in Supplementary Order Paper 96 in the name of the Hon Jim Sutton which we will be voting on in a short while. 
Our concern is that in cases where the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry may have messed up by not acting quickly enough to control an outbreak—which occurred with the painted apple moth in west Auckland—people have to suffer the consequences by being sprayed on. The amendment we have obtained requires that the chief technical officer has to notify the Minister if he or she considers that the 2-week notice requirement for aerial spraying would significantly prejudice the chances of eradicating or containing the organism and if practicable acquire the Minister’s approval. Some will say that that constitutes a very minor change but it ensures a modicum of political accountability for the decision. 
We think that that new provision is of significance because it will mean that the decision is not made just by a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry official but also by the Minister who is an elected representative of the people and who will therefore be prepared to take into account the social and political consequences of spraying people in their homes and communities. The Minister will also be accountable because he will have a greater awareness of the social cost of the action to be taken— 
Rodney Hide 
: Or she. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: —or she will; I ask members to forgive me for showing any kind of gender bias there. So we ask the other parties in this House to vote for that amendment. 
I also want to comment on clause 19(2) which probably requires some explanation. It amends section 121 of the principal Act by extending the power to recover costs when a person fails to comply with a direction. In other words if a farmer with a suspected case of TB amongst his cattle is asked to muster them for inspection and does not then the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry can recover the costs of doing so. Supplementary Order Paper 96 contains an amendment that relates to that clause. It provides the power to examine organisms and it also does other things to establish the presence of a pest. It extends those provisions to pest agents as well. 
We in United Future believe that those additions to the bill are sensible amendments. We will be giving them our support and we urge other members of the Committee to do so also. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I would like to focus on a couple of the clauses that we focused on during the select committee deliberations the first of which is clause 9 “Restriction on levies”. Clause 9 gives section 92(1) a slightly more punitive air and I talked a little bit about that earlier. Pest management levies are actually targeted at those who have contributed to the pest’s incursion or spread. They might have contributed actively by doing something stupid or sinister—that is a deliberate act—or otherwise. They might have been inactive and overlooked an obvious situation where they could have prevented an incursion or they might have overlooked an opportunity to report the incursion or otherwise. So there is the issue of active contribution to the spread of the incursion and the inactive or passive spread. 
Rodney Hide 
: The working Minister Mr Cunliffe is in the chair now. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Yes so one could argue that the punitive measures are user-pays or polluter-pays. Paragraph (d)(i) inserted by clause 9 states that the levy means to target “persons likely to benefit from the implementation of the strategy;’’. In the case of moths and all those invertebrates and visitors from overseas that have come into the country since Marian Hobbs has been at the helm or in the case of dry stock farmers sheep farmers and dairy farmers throughout the country who have viruses diseases bacteria and so on one could argue that they are likely to benefit from the implementation of the strategy. So one would hope although clearly they have not seen that in the last 4 years with at least 11 incursions from around the globe into our country—that being Labour Party immigration policy. As stated in paragraph (d)(ii) the levy also targets “persons who by their activities or inaction contribute to the creation continuance or exacerbation of the problems proposed to be resolved by the strategy;”. So that means those who were active or inactive and created the problem and might have continued or exacerbated the problem. 
Members will see that clause 24 relates to penalties for people involved in the problem. Clause 25 talks about those persons who do not notify appropriate authorities where it is reasonably expected that they should know that an incursion has occurred and that such an incursion could wreak havoc in our horticulture forestry and agricultural industries. One would expect that to be the case in the agricultural industry. One would expect veterinarians farmers and those who have contact with animals to recognise diseases. In the horticultural industry one would expect farm advisors horticulturalists themselves fruit packers and people in charge of cool-stores should recognise any incursion. So if we can reasonably expect those people to recognise an incursion and if they do not report that incursion they will incur a hefty fine of up to $5000. We can see that from clauses 24 and 25. So clause 9 “Restrictions on levies” actually relates to those types of people. Through their activity or inactivity they can incur levies or due to a serious recognisable fault they can incur penalties. That is the association between clauses 9 24 and 25. 
Clause 18 deals with spraying programmes. Usually and up to this date there is a 2-week opportunity for officials in the ministry to let a community know that they might have to put up with aerial spraying. One can appreciate that if there is an incursion and officials have to act quickly they might have to so in a shorter time. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: This is a very important bill and we now have the shiny new Minister the Hon David Cunliffe in the chair. Members of the Opposition have some questions for this Minister. With his Harvard education we know that he will be able to answer them. I refer him to clause 9 and I wonder whether he could explain to the Committee the nature of these levies and whether the Government is envisaging those levies to be a pigovian tax or a user-pays charge. Just what does the Government have in mind? I know that this shiny sharp new Minister will be more than anxious to take a call and answer that question. The Minister is on the big salary now; he has the big car and the big office up in the Beehive. It is time he started to do some work and stand up as a Minister and explain to this Parliament and to the people of New Zealand quite what these levies are. If he does not I am afraid that the public of New Zealand can conclude only one thing—that the bright shiny new Minister does not know. Of course we have had that experience before with this Minister’s member’s bill about triple-bottom-line accounting. It was talked about but it was all mouth and no trousers. That bill did not see the light of day either. 
I also refer members to clause 23 which to me is extraordinary. I draw it to the attention of our colleagues in the National Party New Zealand First and the Green Party. I have never seen this before. Clause 23 “Levies” states: “Section 137(1) of the principal Act is amended by inserting before the word ‘Minister’ the word ‘responsible’.” I ask members to have a think about that for a minute. I used to believe—and I am sure that members in the National Party used to believe—that Ministers were responsible automatically. But this Government brings in a bill under urgency amends it and says: “In this particular case we’re going to make the Minister responsible.” 
It would be the first time would it not that Helen Clark or Michael Cullen has ever said that a Minister should be responsible for anything? Time after time in this House they get up and say: “I’m not responsible for that. That is an operational issue.” or they say—[ 
Interruption 
] David Benson-Pope wants to pinch some Opposition time rather than take a call himself. I hope you are watching this Mr Chairman because it is very clear that the Committee does want to debate Part 1. It is just that the members of the Government are not allowed to. Even the Minister in the chair is under riding instructions not to take a call. How come? 
Brent Catchpole 
: Is he responsible? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No he is not responsible because there is no section 137(1) that inserts the word “responsible” before the word “Minister”. Would we not be so much better off in New Zealand if we had a Government that took it as read that the Minister was responsible? Annette King is not responsible for anything. Michael Cullen is not responsible for anything. Mark Burton is not conscious of anything let alone responsible for anything. Parekura Horomia cannot read cannot see cannot know and is constantly confused. He is not responsible. The Minister in the chair cannot even get his own bills up and running. What is it called that mad thing that the left is on about? [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it is triple-bottom-line accounting. That is all gone; it is all words. [ 
Interruption 
] David Benson-Pope is not even allowed to take a call in any debate I have been in in this House. All he is is noise. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: I have listened very carefully to the debate on this part. I know that under urgency Governments sometimes feel moved to put the pressure on for time and take a parsimonious view of the contribution that should be made by the Minister in the chair and other Government members. However I remind the Minister who now sits in the chair that in the course of debating this part one of my colleagues raised some very important questions on behalf of a constituent. He has not yet had the courtesy of a response and I say to the Minister that he will not get off the hook quite that easily. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Oh dear! 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The Deputy Prime Minister might not think it is important but he was not here. He should know that one of Mr Tisch’s constituents in the Piako electorate is a ferret farmer. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will be able to anticipate this point of order. It is not fair to refer to the presence or absence of Ministers in this Chamber. It is outside the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is absolutely right. It is a convention in this House that people do not refer to the absence of members. I did not hear a comment because I was otherwise engaged with the Clerk. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I plead guilty to a technical infraction which I was goaded into by the intemperate behaviour of the Deputy Prime Minister but I concede that I was in error and will try not to repeat the offence. I am indebted to my friend Mr Hide for pointing out my deplorable conduct on this occasion. 
I say to the Minister in the chair that he had better get up and take a call because I will go for another call after this one unless he does. Mr Tisch has a constituent who has a $1 million export business which the Minister of Finance should be interested in. Mr Tisch thinks that as a consequence of clause 4(6) of this bill that particular constituent will be put out of business. He is entitled to an answer. The Minister who is warming the chair better get used to the fact that he cannot go driving people out of business with a bill like this which is being pushed through under urgency and not take a call. Mr Cunliffe who is very fine at lauding his credentials around this place had better use those credentials and stand up and tell the Committee the answer to Mr Tisch’s perfectly reasonable questions. Is Mr Tisch’s constituent going to have his business taken away from him by this part? Yes or no? I will go for another call. I know that Mr Hide will and I can see that Mr Tisch will also go for another call. His constituent deserves to know whether clause 4(6) will put this ferret-farming export business of $1 million a year out of business. The Minister is pretending to read a comic or a women’s magazine or something while I am asking these questions. I want him to stand to take a call. 
I have been reading the briefing notes and it is quite clear what the reason for this measure is. I have just looked at the list of invaders that have got in as a consequence of the loopholes in the legislation and I see that the Minister is the Minister who in 2002 brought the avian poxvirus to New Zealand. I want to know what that Minister will do to make amends for the invasion of the avian poxvirus in 2002. Clearly that is an important reason that this measure has been brought to the Committee. I want to know what this Minister can tell the Committee tonight will be the case in relation to that very serious threat to biosecurity—the avian poxvirus—as a consequence of the Committee being troubled to pass this bill under urgency tonight. I conclude by saying that Mr Tisch’s constituent’s business is in need of those answers. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: I will talk about clause 5 but first I want to comment about the reaction when my honourable colleague Lindsay Tisch made a great speech in the Committee a short while ago with regard to clause 4. The Labour members opposite actually laughed and thought it was a bit of a joke yet it concerned a very serious matter. Their behaviour underscored their lack of understanding of the implications of a great many of the issues and matters arising out of biosecurity. 
I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to clause 5 which talks about biosecurity control areas. I would like to mention a further instance of a lack of understanding about biosecurity and biosecurity control areas. One of the things we have at Auckland airport is a significant furnace which offers one of the few opportunities we have to eradicate some bio-incursions into New Zealand. Some bio-organisms have to be incinerated to eradicate completely their existence. Some ignorant people in our communities people with a green bent people with a fundamentalist type of green view of the world are trying to have this furnace—the only one of its kind in New Zealand—removed. That is a very ignorant approach to dealing with some of the bio-incursions we might have. That furnace may be the only way in which we can completely eradicate them and stop them from spreading any further and here we have Greenpeace doing its best to prevent it from being used in this way. That is a fact. 
The other matter that I want to bring to the attention of the Committee is the contents of national pest management strategies which are a principal mechanism under the Biosecurity Act for the effective management or eradication of pests and unwanted organisms. That furnace could be a significant part of our getting rid of unwanted organisms that have become established in New Zealand. Pest management strategies provide a commitment as to how an organism is to be managed or eradicated and who is responsible for the various activities and for funding and compensation arrangements. It is to be hoped that some of the things that currently need fixing will be addressed as part of the national pest management strategies which are identified in clause 7. 
There is no clear accountability for the biosecurity programme as a whole and there is a lack of clear and agreed goals and outcomes for biosecurity activities. There is little systematic analysis of the relative benefits and costs of the different components of a biosecurity programme. All these sorts of matters should be addressed as part of the national pest management strategies and hopefully some of these problems will be fixed. 
Deciding the allocation of resources to deal with specific threats is highly complex. Of course we are experiencing some significant costs through the woeful lack of action by this Government. I did refer members to a number of news releases about the woeful inaction of the Government—the delay in responding to some of the incursions we have had and the delay of the bill which has sat on the shelf for 2 years. There has been a number of press releases in that regard on 11 16 18 and 27 March two in April and a number in May. The importance of the bill cannot be understated in any way whatsoever. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a very important bill and before you put the motion I would like you to consider giving one of our very few agrarian members of this Parliament Gerard Eckhoff another call. I am sure that he has plenty more to say about the bill and it is a very important bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot ask that on behalf of another member. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 96 in the name of the Hon Jim Sutton to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Forests Act 1949 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I am happy to support Part 2 “Amendments to Forests Act 1949”. This is the most significant part of the bill. Clause 26 repeals the redundant provisions. They are redundant not only because of this bill but because the Biosecurity Act in combination with this amendment bill effectively nullifies the need for those particular provisions. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Why? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Because sections 69 70 70A 71 and 71C of the Forests Act are repealed. Members might like to know that section 70 provides very broad regulation-making powers which are not required any more. The section states that regulations may be made “for the purpose of eradicating or preventing the spread of any disease which may affect areas trees tree seed timber forest or forest products.” Members who had paid attention to this bill and who had been at the Primary Production Committee as I was—diligently as is my habit—would know that the bill covers those issues with regard to forestry; they would know that it covers not only agriculture and horticulture but forestry as well. That purpose ”eradicating or preventing the spread of any disease which may affect areas trees tree seed timber forest or forest products.” becomes irrelevant with the passage of this bill. 
I am glad of that. The biosecurity provisions of the Forests Act operate as a parallel system to those in the Biosecurity Act so why have them? On top of that with the amendments we have pile upon pile of regulation-making powers that we do not require. The National Party is a party of small government of less regulation and bureaucracy and of less compliance cost. We believe that we do not need those sections any more and we are happy to repeal them. The Labour Government which believes in big government high compliance cost and lots of regulation and bureaucracy of course brought us all the way on this matter in the select committee. [ 
Interruption 
] That will come as no surprise to Murray McCully the member of Parliament for East Coast Bays. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not know why the most harmless incursion to this Parliament being David Benson-Pope—the sleepiest incursion to this Parliament—has woken up and started heckling me. He should read the bill and take a call. 
All I want to say in closing is that sections 69 70 70A 71 and 71C of the Act are being repealed and the Crown has available alternative instruments to use in relation to the biosecurity of trees. This amendment deals with that. Why pile regulation upon regulation? Why pile bureaucracy upon bureaucracy? Why pile legislation upon legislation? Why pile David Benson-Pope upon anyone? The National Party will be voting for Part 2. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the Minister in the chair has not taken a call on this part and did not take a call on Part 1. That leaves the Committee in a difficult position. I am bound to say that this debate will go on for some time if the Government continues to take that sort of cavalier approach. It was bad enough that in respect of Part 1 Mr Tisch’s ferret farmer was denied an answer as to whether he would have a business tomorrow. 
Part 2 has provisions that on the face of them look innocuous. I am indebted to my colleague Mr Heatley the honourable member for Whangarei for his explanation but I am bound to say that it was the Minister whom I was looking to for some guidance on this matter. Although it may sound trivial I want the Minister to demonstrate to the Committee that he has full command not only of his own faculties but also of the provisions contained in Part 2. When a measure such as this is being passed under urgency it is important that the tyres are kicked by members on the way through. This bill will go through its third reading after the Committee is finished with it. I want the Minister to take a call and tell us that he has had a good look at the provisions in the Forests Act 1949 that are referred to in clause 26(1) and (2). Can he tell us whether he has satisfied himself that the powers contained in this Biosecurity Amendment Bill exactly replicate the provisions of sections 69 70 70A 71 and 71C of the Forests Act? Can he confirm that? Mr Chairperson I appeal to your good nature and excellent judgment in this matter but I have asked a perfectly reasonable question. Can the Minister tell us whether the provisions of the Forests Act that are referred to in clause 26(1) which repeals sections 69 70 70A 71 and 71C of the Forests Act are exactly replicated by the Biosecurity Amendment Bill which the Committee is about to pass? 
Can the Minister not hear me? He wants us to vote for this measure on the basis that these are now redundant provisions that should be repealed. I simply ask him the question: has he satisfied himself that these provisions are indeed redundant and can he certify to the committee that sections 69 70 70A 71 and 71C are exactly replicated by this bill? If he cannot tell us that we should be voting against it. The Minister cannot just roll up to Parliament with a bill—and I am bound to say and I am not being critical of the draftsman the explanatory note is distinctly unhelpful on this matter. There is no explanation about Part 2 in the explanatory note. Members like Mr Heatley who had the advantage of being on the select committee know from their own understanding of the bill in the select committee process that Part 2 is OK. Mr Heatley thinks that Part 2 is OK. I think Mr Heatley’s judgment is generally quite sound although I have seen the odd lapse from time to time. 
I just want to be quite sure so I want the Minister to tell me. The Minister is pretending to be in some other place. I will give up on clause 26(1) and move on to clause 26(2) and ask him whether section 71B(2) of the Forests Act is replicated by the provisions of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill which has already been ticked off by the committee. Can I sleep easy tonight knowing that Parliament has not made a huge mistake by repealing section 71B(2) of the Forests Act? 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: We now have a Government that we can confirm has no respect for this House the institution of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Oh! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: David Benson-Pope thinks it is funny. Government members think that Parliament is funny and they think that a business going under is funny. They put a Minister—a boy Minister with his training wheels still on—in the chair who does not know what the bill is about. He has not taken one call. Why have Parliament if this Government is just going to come down to this Chamber and pass legislation irrespective of the questions that the public asks and irrespective of the Opposition’s concerns? I tell the Minister that I have some questions for him about Part 2. It is now 25 minutes to midnight on a Thursday night under urgency. I tell the Minister to take his training wheels off and have a go at this question. Why is section 70A of the Forests Act 1949 being repealed? I have read this bill in conjunction with the Act and I can understand why we have to get rid of section 69. I can understand why we have to get rid of sections 70 71 and 71C but why do we have to repeal— 
Gordon Copeland 
: It’s progress. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am pleased. United Future members who go along like the doormats that they are will vote for it because the Minister with the training wheels on has told them to. I hope he takes a call and explains why section 70A of the Forests Act—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is saying that he was alive when that Act was passed. [ 
Interruption 
] He is saying that he does not understand it but he will vote for it anyway. God knows how United Future members are getting on! If members do not understand the bill the purpose is to come to the Chamber and the Minister would explain it—except we have a Minister in the chair who still has training wheels. 
I ask the Hon David Cunliffe the member for Herne Bay to take the call and explain why section 70A is being repealed. He gives a look of complete emptiness. [ 
Interruption 
] David Benson-Pope said that it has something to do with his electorate in Dunedin. Why does he not stand up and take a call and rescue the Minister? [ 
Interruption 
] Now he is saying that the Minister is rorting the system. I think it is true that David Cunliffe is rorting the system because he is taking a Minister’s salary but not doing a Minister’s job. I say to the Minister that he should take a call and explain why section 70A of the Forests Act is being repealed. It seems to me that it should not be repealed. 
Mr Copeland says that he is confused now. He is like members on this side thinking that he will not vote for it. Mr Phil Heatley of the National Party is having second thoughts. Harry Duynhoven has already called out across the Chamber: “Don’t trust David Cunliffe because you can’t trust him on this.” I think his vote now is up for grabs. I tell the Minister that all the members are laughing at him even his United Future doormats are laughing at his expense. This Minister will not come to this Chamber and convince Parliament why we should vote for the bill. 
How hard can it be to explain why section 70A of the Forests Act 1949 has to be repealed at this time of the night under urgency? That is not a big ask. One section of a very old Act is being repealed. I ask the Minister to please explain the reason to the Committee because Mr Copeland needs to know. He has to go back and talk to God and his voters and say that he did this in good conscience. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
:  
That premature closure would have been most unfortunate. It is difficult to follow such a powerful speech as the one delivered by my colleague Mr Rodney Hide from the ACT party but I have to say that as a result of that speech I am deeply concerned about aspects of this bill. I am deeply concerned about the Minister’s inability to answer what I thought were some quite basic questions about the bill. In fact in just making a general comment about the way the Minister has conducted himself through this entire debate I say he has not taken one call. 
Rodney Hide 
: He’s scared of Parekura. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Has he been taking lessons from Parekura Horomia? That is a very good question. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member at the back that when he refers to people he must use their full name not just their first name. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Some of the questions asked by members on this side have been very reasonable. Some of the questions raised by my colleague Lindsay Tisch about a very distressed businessman from his electorate who is now worried about whether his business might go under— 
Rodney Hide 
: How do the ferrets feel? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: That is quite right. How do the ferrets feel about the Biosecurity Amendment Bill? Their entire ability to survive is being put severely at risk. 
 The Minister has not answered some very very basic questions. One was whether the redundant provisions that are repealed the amendments to the Forests Act would be replicated in the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. How can we sleep at night when worrying about the repeal of these provisions if nothing is to be put in their place? Who knows—because of the large number of incursions we have seen in just a short number of years I suspect that maybe the Minister who has been looking after this particular portfolio Marian Hobbs invited termites to come here. Basically there has been a rush at the border and a large number of incursions have occurred in a short space of time. 
Section 70 of the Forests Act provides very broad regulation-making powers for the purpose of “eradicating or preventing the spread of any disease which may affect areas trees tree seed timber forests or forest products.” I do not recall any discussion about those particular aspects earlier in the debate on the bill. How can members on this side of the Chamber be confident that these particular provisions are redundant as the bill describes them when we have heard nothing from the Minister about what provisions in this bill replace them? I can see why a number of people involved in the forest industry a billion-dollar industry in this country are concerned—and rightly so because this provision removes some security aspects from an Act that is nearly 54 years old which is nearly as old as the Minister in the chair David Cunliffe. Obviously they have not been looked at. Some real concerns have been raised yet the Minister remains silent. For a member who is getting a salary of over six figures and a Crown car plus a number of other perks the least he could do as part of his duty is to answer some very simple questions. This Part 2 is probably one of the shortest parts I have debated in this House. It is quite simple yet the Minister in the chair has been absolutely silent. 
Section 71B(2) of the Forests Act is amended by repealing a quite important paragraph. [ 
Interruption 
] I would like to ask for quiet from some of my colleagues because this is a very important part. In fact I think that Part 2 is so substantial that members on this side of the Chamber will probably take more than one call and hopefully provoke the Minister into saying something—anything. Any sort of reply or attempt to answer some pretty simple questions would be quite encouraging. 
Opposition Member 
: What about a smile? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Even a smile would do. That Minister should put down his crossword. From here it looks as though he is doing the crossword out of the  
Woman’s Day. 
 He should stand up and answer some of these very basic questions. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: I have been listening to the member who has just resumed her seat talking about the amendments to the Forests Act. She requested the Minister in the chair David Cunliffe to stand up and indicate whether the sections being repealed under this part are covered and if so how they are being covered in this bill. I cannot see where there is any replication of those provisions and I cannot see any cause to remove them. Sections 69 70 70A 71 and 71C of the Forests Act are supposedly being repealed but where in this bill are they covered? 
The Minister in the chair David Cunliffe has failed to convince the Committee and almost every speaker so far has requested him to stand up and explain to us where those sections are genuinely covered in the bill. I cannot see where they are covered and neither can other members on this side of the Committee. I ask the Minister to stand up and give us an explanation. Clause 26(2) states: “Section 71B(2) of the Forests Act is amended by repealing paragraph (b)(i) and paragraph (c). Where in the bill are they replaced? This side of the Committee has requested the Minister to stand up and explain. He should take a call now and give us an explanation. 
The Minister is shaking his head. He has no intention of standing up and taking a call. He has probably been told by his whip not to take a call because he knows nothing about the bill and therefore should stay seated and keep quiet. That way members of the Opposition will not be able to rubbish him. He should stand up and show that he actually understands this bill by telling us where those sections have been replicated in this bill. So far nobody has been convinced that he has understood the bill. He has not taken a call throughout the whole debate. He should stand up and take a call to show us that he understands the bill. I say again to him to take a call. Why will he not take a call? The Minister will not take a call. That shows he has not been in his job long enough. He has all the trappings but he has not been in the job long enough to take a call and give us a real reason. The bill has been around since 2001. He must have had a chance to read it; he should take a call and let us see how he understands it. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I’ll take a call. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Mr Benson-Pope over there is squawking away. He is saying that he will take a call. That will be good! I hope he will take a call and explain why his Minister will not stand up and give us some answers. I say to him that he should stand up and take a call telling us why the Minister in the chair is not allowed to stand up to explain Part 2. This part which repeals sections of the Forests Act is not understood. Mr Benson-Pope should stand up and explain why he will not allow his Minister to take a call. The Minister should take a call and explain this part to us. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
Labour 52; Green Party 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Biosecurity 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill was introduced to the House on 7 August 2001 was referred to the Primary Production Committee on 16 August 2001 and was reported back in November 2001. It amends the Biosecurity Act which provides a framework to enable the exclusion of pests and unwanted organisms from entering into and establishing in New Zealand and to provide for the eradication or management of pests and unwanted organisms that are already present in New Zealand. The Act also provides for the ongoing monitoring of New Zealand’s pests and unwanted organisms status in order to facilitate the provision of official assurances in relation to exports of organisms and their products as well as to meet our international reporting obligations and trading requirements. The amendments to the Act made by the bill and Supplementary Order Paper 96 are technical in nature; consequently the bill does not substantially change the main policies in the Act. The amendments have arisen as a result of experience in applying the Act to new situations as a result of responding to organisational changes in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and as a result of the need to resolve inconsistencies and provide greater clarity in the Act. 
This bill has provided some fine-tuning to what is now an effective and efficient Act. The Government has put in more than $50 million in baseline funding for biosecurity every year and New Zealand now has one of the most effective systems in the world for providing protection in this area. However we will continue to get incursions of organisms across the border that must be dealt with. The Government is making a major contribution but every citizen must do that as well and this bill makes provision for that by requiring them to watch out for unusual or new diseases insects or animals and to report them to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 
This bill recognises the role of individual citizens as well as that of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and it makes small but important changes to the Act. I believe that this bill deserves the support of the House because it will improve the protection for New Zealand from organisms that may harm our farms orchards forests conservation areas marine environment and human health. The continued protection of those national assets is vital to all New Zealanders and I commend this bill to the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: What the Minister from the Labour Party did not tell members was that the Primary Production Committee that I worked on nearly 2 years ago worked pretty hard to get this bill through. We took submissions listened to submitters and this bill was prepared to come back to the House. Two years have passed. What the Minister did not tell members was that in the last 4 years—and for 2 of those years this bill has been languishing—we have had visits to this country. We have had visits of the cane toad from Australia. We have had visits from the Asian gypsy moth. We have had visits from the Australian huntsman spider. We have had visits from the North American ring-necked snake. We have had visits from the Argentine ant. We have had visits from the Australian redback spider and we have had a visit from the North American southern ring-necked snake. We have had visits from all over the world. 
I know why this Government bought shares in Air New Zealand—so that it would have an opportunity to transport all these visitors from overseas into this country in a speedy manner because that is its lax attitude towards biosecurity in this country. So it is with some disappointment—although obviously we are happy to support this bill—that we are speaking about it tonight under urgency. Because the reality is that it has languished for 2 years and I would like to make that point. 
Some of the key recommendations in this bill that the select committee assiduously worked on at that time—a long 2 years ago—were issues particularly around those who seek to benefit from the passage of this bill. We talked about those who are likely to benefit from the implementation of a biosecurity strategy based on a particular incursion. Of course we have had 10 11 or 12 of those in the last 4 years. We talked about those who are affected by this bill who actively or passively actually encourage create continue or exacerbate incursions into this country. We talked about those people and those of course who should be fined under that clause that we raised earlier clause 24 “Offences” where through this legislation we have introduced an opportunity for a $5000 fine for not only those who deliberately allow or promote or in some way help the passage of an organism into this country—and I am not talking about Marian Hobbs here although she has been responsible for 10 11 or 12 incursions—but also for those who do not notify the appropriate authorities about an incursion. 
When we talk about those who do not notify we are not talking about those who are ignorant in the sense of a particular incursion or an event—one would not expect them to be aware—but those whom we would reasonably expect to know; those who have an education and work in the field. I am talking about the area of agriculture: vets clearly farmers themselves perhaps meat inspectors perhaps stock agents those who buy and sell cattle and all those types of people who consistently come in contact with animals throughout the country in the agricultural industry. We would reasonably expect them to recognise an incursion. If they do recognise an incursion and do not act they can now be penalised up to $5000 and that is a good thing. 
We also have those in the horticultural industry such as growers whom one would expect to recognise an incursion while working with their product every day; perhaps those who are packers those who transport fruit others who are consultants in the horticultural industry and those of course in the forestry industry. Any of those people whom one would reasonably expect to know about an incursion must report under that bill. We in the National Party support provisions that will punish them if they do not act. So it is not only those who will be punished under this bill who actively bring insects or vermin or snakes as we have seen into this country but those who are passive about it and do not act when they recognise it. 
There are also of course the important provisions about warning when there will be aerial spraying in the area. We have seen the issue in Auckland elevate to a point where our local constituents in Auckland are up in arms because they feel that there is a real problem there with spray drift hurting them in a health sense but we can have that argument another day. But this bill actually allows Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials to have a period where they warn the public of aerial spraying within less than the 2 weeks previously imposed. It is all the way down to 24 hours. 
I remember that one submitter argued that the minimum should be 48 hours. But we believe having consulted widely with scientists and other people experienced in the biosecurity sphere that 24 hours is a good minimum. Sometimes officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry or whichever is the lead agency have to act quickly. We would expect that if they gave only 24 hours notice they would advertise thoroughly. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from midnight to 9 a.m. (Friday)