McCully Murray: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
McCully Murray: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7065] 
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 He wants us to vote for this measure on the basis that these are now redundant provisions that should be repealed.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?