Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7073] 
Tuesday 1 July 2003 
( 
continued on Friday 4 July 2003 
) 
Biosecurity Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to bring to the House’s attention a matter that was not discussed in the Committee stage or during the first and second reading debates and that is the issue of inspectors and their requirement to inspect and withhold risk goods or what are perceived to be risk goods for a period of time. At the Primary Production Committee some of the submitters requested that we put a time limit on that. Members can appreciate that those people import goods that are useful to them as they go about their tasks. It was vets who had the greatest concerns. They import goods from overseas and have in storage things like animal vaccines and other veterinary products which of course have only a limited lifespan. 
Members will recall that in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act there are time limits whereby officials or customs officials at the gate can hold back goods before they are passed on. We had two options here which we looked at intensely. One option was to amend the Biosecurity Act so as to have time frames specific to the goods involved. The problem there is that on reading through the bill we can see it is a particularly generic bill. That option does not fit when we have specific clauses relating to specific products that relate to specific sector groups. So we set aside that option. 
Option 2 was to amend the bill so as to have time frames encompassing all goods right across the board in a generic manner. The problem there is that there is a large number of products all with specific requirements storage times and so on so making generic changes would be far-reaching all-encompassing and of course very very costly. Too many stakeholders would have been involved at the late stage of hearing the submissions on the bill and they would have needed to be consulted so we could not use that option. Therefore we have taken the middle ground which members will see whereby there will be consultation throughout the country and when we review the way that the legislation is working perhaps we can take that matter into account. 
I commend the bill to the House. The National Party will vote for it and I thank members for the opportunity to contribute this morning. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to support this bill. It is a good bill. Let us complete its third reading as quickly as possible. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 During the Committee stage of this bill there appeared to be considerable debate as to what Part 2 was all about. A lot of questions were asked of the Minister in the chair Mr David Cunliffe. He was asked whether he would take a call and explain what Part 2 was all about but that did not eventuate. So I am happy to tell the House that Part 2 is about the removal of compensation for the destruction of trees in a forest or indeed in a private setting. It is not a huge issue but it does show that some members of this Government have not even bothered to read the bill and understand what it is all about. 
This bill by and large is a sensible bill. It does ensure that the issues of biosecurity are once again placed at the forefront of public attention. It has been with some regret as has been mentioned numerous times in this House by the Opposition that the bill has languished for 2 years waiting for the light of day. At this very late stage we are at last under urgency debating this bill in its final stage—the third reading. 
One would assume that New Zealand and the Government would understand that every measure that is possible reasonable and logical for the Government to take it should indeed take. I want to hark back to my earlier comments about gamma irradiation. That technology has been around for a long long time. The question that must be asked again of the Minister and of the Government is why they studiously ignore that marvellous advance that relatively new technology when so many other countries use it. It is interesting to note that the United States of America uses gamma irradiation to destroy the anthrax bacteria in mail. I think everybody in this country and throughout the world is well aware of the anthrax scares. They have been a huge biosecurity risk to the public throughout the world and indeed a number of people have died from inhaling that product sent by terrorists. 
Here was an opportunity for the Government to recognise that those exceptional circumstances provide a great opportunity to scan all incoming mail and to use gamma irradiation to sterilise and kill the bacteria. The real question for me is this: why has the Government not accepted that gamma irradiation is such an important part of biosecurity in many parts of the world and that we could use it in New Zealand as well? 
The other aspect I would like to touch on again in this third reading debate is the fact that the rest of the world seems to be a step ahead of New Zealand on the question of biosecurity. I refer again to the Australians’ desire to achieve the maximum benefits they can and to ensure their own country remains free of unwanted organisms. I refer of course to the technique of bubbling nitrogen through ships’ ballast. We have been told in New Zealand that we cannot export water. We have major problems with the introduction of starfish and so on by means of the discharge of waters originating from exotic climes and that is the reason given that we cannot export a product that is in huge demand throughout the world—fresh water. If ballast was unloaded in Fiordland those organisms would get into the rather exotic and beautiful area on that part of our coastline and cause some real problems. 
The new technology that I have just come across is not even being discussed in New Zealand. I ask the Government why that is not the case. Why are all options not being put on the table so that the public can look at them and say that that particular technology is a perfectly reasonable way to go? If that technology was trialled in New Zealand and shown to work why should we not utilise it? Why do we not offer the country the very best opportunities in terms of biosecurity techniques? Sadly that will not happen—certainly not in the short term—under this bill. 
The bill of course also ensures that the public of New Zealand are made responsible for reporting to the appropriate authorities any incursions of unwanted organisms that they come across. The question of genetically modified (GM) organisms coming into this country illegally is one that does concern legitimately I guess a number of people not the least of whom are the Green Party members. It is quite interesting to note that just in recent days the European Union has opened up its doors to GM products as long as they are appropriately labelled so that consumers can have a choice. That seems to me to be a perfectly sensible even though quite costly alternative. It is also interesting to note that the introduction of GM products into the United States has lowered the necessity for pesticides to be used in that country by 20000 tonnes. 
 When we think about the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill that we also passed recently in this House we know that here we have a marvellous opportunity to embrace new technologies and in so doing to do away with those extraordinarily hazardous substances. When we think about the reduction of 20000 tonnes in pesticide use in one country alone because of new technologies and new techniques then I think we have real cause for celebration that in this country and throughout the world we have a bright future thanks to science and the new technologies. 
I mentioned earlier that it is incumbent upon the people of this country to report any new outbreaks of unwanted organisms and I commend to the House again the television programme  
Border Patrol 
 which has highlighted the significance to New Zealand of people bringing in fruit—some inadvertently but others quite stupidly and without forethought. About 13 tonnes of fruit product have been detected. So the real question is how much comes into the country undetected. That is a major concern and I think that the producers of that programme  
Border Patrol 
 should be commended for introducing it in prime time. It is a hugely educational programme as well as being slightly entertaining at the same time. I would like to see opportunities being used to educate the public constantly—through advertisements for example—about organisms like moths for instance so that people can identify them and ring the authorities about an outbreak. Who knows? People may be able to win a trip to Fiji as a result of their stewardship of this country. We need to be innovative and creative about those sorts of things. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Not all parties support their bills but this is our bill it is a good bill and I am really pleased to support its third reading. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill because it hits right at the very heart of one of the most important parts of our economy. Biosecurity problems can have a devastating effect on our economy particularly on our farming economy and our forestry. We agree that this bill has gone a long way towards closing some of the loopholes in the original bill. We also accept that it does not go quite far enough but we are happy that the bill will solve many of the problems. 
I bring to the notice of the Government that the bill was first introduced in August 2001. That is an awfully long time to have it sitting on the Table waiting to be processed through this House. The Government has finally brought the bill in urgency to this House to try to rush it through. Why was it not brought to the House a lot earlier? Why was the process not completed? The select committee completed its tasks well over 12 months ago and the bill could have come to the House immediately after that. But no it sat there waiting in much the same way that the Government waited for reports on various aspects of biosecurity management. Those reports told us exactly what we already knew—that the management of biosecurity in this country had failed miserably. We have seen a whole swag of incursions over the last 2 or 3 years and last night examples of a number of them were read out: cane toads huntsman spiders fire ants and crazy ants. The spread of all of those organisms could have been prevented had we had better checks in place earlier. [ 
Interruption 
] Government members are now trying to interrupt me but last night we tried to get the Minister to explain some of the issues in this bill and he would not take a call. He was told not to stand up and take a call. The bill sat on the Table for 2 years without anything happening to it and it has now come to the House. We are pleased that it is here because we are concerned about biosecurity issues as they affect our economy. 
I would like to touch on a few points in the bill particularly new section 44 inserted by clause 6 which requires people to notify the Ministry of the discovery of new organisms in their environment. We have only one issue with this provision. The general public are not aware of many of the natural organisms in this country so when they discover one that they think from the outside might be an introduced pest but turns out to be one that is natural after a while they will start to wonder whether there is any point in reporting those organisms because they are told every time they report one that it is one of our own natural ones anyway. To make this part of the bill work there needs to be an extensive educational programme that identifies the organisms we have and makes the public aware of them. As Gerry Eckhoff mentioned it could be a television series and we could bring in Dr Bellamy—our “David Attenborough”—to front it. We should be able to have a programme that identifies those organisms so that the general public and children in schools are taught the facts about the insects and spiders we have. We do not have cane toads but we could have another series to show the dangerous organisms from the countries of our trading partners. A database of the dangerous organisms that are likely to come in from our trading partners should also be set up. If that database were clearly identified there would be no delay in putting those organisms on a list so that something could be done. 
The management strategies in the bill are ones that regions are expected to put in place. We would like to make sure that regions work together so that there are not differing regional plans and strategies. If those plans and strategies are not coordinated we will have one organism skipping into the next region and nothing will happen. 
Another issue I would like to touch on is the aerial spraying mentioned in clause18 of the bill which updates section 114A of the principal Act. The notification requirement for aerial spraying has been 14 days and there is now provision to reduce that to 24 hours in certain circumstances which are invoked after a report has been done on the incursion. In very rare circumstances where the population is minimal there is even provision for zero notification before a spray takes place. I think that provision should be tightened up. It certainly needs to specify a period of at least 14 days before spraying takes place with additional medical checks to assess which people are likely to be affected by that spraying. That is particularly so out in west Auckland where people have suffered the spraying time and time again without the full medical help they deserve. 
As I mentioned earlier the power to examine organisms in this bill requires a database to ensure that right from the start we understand the organisms involved. An education programme for children and right throughout the population is a definite way to help that identification. With the examination process those checks would be linked with the database and the organism identified very quickly. 
 New Zealand First supports this bill because it is very important to our economy to make sure that the likes of the varroa bee mite do not come in and spread rapidly before this Government will do anything about it. Sitting on its hands doing nothing—as the Government has done with this bill—is a shame but now that the bill is back in the House for its final reading let us get on with it and make sure that it is put in place properly so that we can stop these organisms coming in right from the start. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 This is a bill that is supported by all parties in the House yet Opposition members insist on complaining about how long it has taken and then take long calls like that one which do not add to the value of the debate. It is time that the acting leader of New Zealand First Mr Catchpole let this bill progress through the House. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 It did not seem to make much impact on members of this House but this week has been a very significant week for biosecurity in New Zealand. The incident I am referring to occurred on Wednesday when it was announced that Dr John Clearwater had found a pheromone for the painted apple moth. For members who are not into pheromones they are the sexual attractants exuded by insects. Dr Clearwater has been working on pheromone analysis for 22 months and has finally got to the point where he has a synthetic pheromone that can be used to attract male— 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Artificial. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: No it is not genetically engineered. It can be used to attract male moths away from the females. They get attracted to the pheromone and get trapped and the females do not get fertilised. It is a very good way of cleaning up the hot spots we have with the painted apple moth spraying in Auckland. I applaud Dr Clearwater. It is a very complex issue he has worked diligently at it and perhaps most significantly of all he has paid his own way. Dr Clearwater has taken 22 months to do it and it is an outstanding success but the absolute tragedy of what has happened this week is that it should have happened 2 years ago. 
In May 1999 when the painted apple moth was first discovered Dr Clearwater and his team who found the pheromone for the white spotted tussock moth in east Auckland were denied access to viable painted apple moth females. The work went to Forest Research Institute and HortResearch who were the people who failed to find the pheromone for the white spotted tussock moth. They similarly failed to find a pheromone for the painted apple moth. Dr Clearwater then offered his services for free in the hope that we would be able to eradicate the painted apple moth. Had he been able to get access to the painted apple moth females when he first asked for them—and when I was calling for it in this House—22 months would have elapsed and we would not have had the widespread incursion of the painted apple moth into west Auckland. We would not have needed to have blanket aerial spraying with all its concomitant health impacts on the residents of west Auckland. 
This Government needs to hold an inquiry into the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s behaviour and its handling of the painted apple moth incursion. It has been absolutely outrageous. When we think back to what the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry did and did not do in those early days it beggars belief. It took the ministry 2½ years—not months not weeks not days but years—from the first discovery of the painted apple moth until it did some basic things like trapping to find out the extent of the infestation and feeding trials to see what the painted apple moth would eat. It took the ministry 2½ years to put photos in the paper so that the residents of west Auckland knew what they were being sprayed for. It took 2½ years to put limitations on the removal of garden rubbish around west Auckland so that people would not unwittingly spread it from place to place. 
That is absolutely outrageous. It is one of the least competent exhibitions of containment by a Government department that I am aware of. It is just scandalous but have heads rolled in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry? No they have not. The ministry failed to contain the painted apple moth. In the early days the then Minister for Biosecurity said in this House: “Don’t worry about the painted apple moth. The female can’t fly therefore it can only spread 500 metres a year. Trust us we know what we’re doing.” She did not actually say “trust us”—that is my embellishment but what the Minister overlooked did not know or did not take the time to find out was that in the pupal phase the painted apple moth can fly. The pupae do not have wings but they balloon and fly in the wind. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have given the member a pretty wide range. He will now come to the bill and whether he is in favour of the third reading. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: You have been very generous Mr Speaker and I will do exactly that. 
This bill fills some important holes in our Biosecurity Act. I suppose one of the more important things is the notice that chief technical officers have to give before they can spray for incursions. As it stands at the moment if there is an infestation of say foot-and-mouth disease in a remote rural area the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has to give 14 days’ notice before it can try to eradicate the infestation. In a situation like foot-and-mouth disease 2 weeks could be the difference between containment and eradication and an economic disaster for this country so it is very sensible to reduce that limit. However I do have concerns about completely taking away any limit at all. I can accept that if there is a foot-and-mouth disease infestation in a remote rural area the ministry should get in there and spray. It should do whatever has to be done to contain and eradicate but what happens if the infestation is found in a farm homestead? We cannot just go in there without any notice at all and spray children domestic pets and animals such as horses. We simply do need to give people notice. 
With the passage of this bill I hope that the power we are giving the chief technical officers will not be abused. They need to be flexible and they need to learn lessons from the way the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry behaved in west Auckland. There it was simply “We have $90 million; we’re going to get rid of the painted apple moth come what may.” The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has a duty to be responsive to the community. It has a duty to communicate and consult with the community. I think the lessons of the painted apple moth are actually being learned. The way the ministry behaved with the Asian gypsy moth outbreak when a single male was discovered in the Waikato was very good. 
I am pleased this bill is going through. It fills some holes in our biosecurity but many things still have to be done. The most important thing we have to do now is address the sea container problem. As I have said in this House many times before over 400000 sea containers come into this country every year and only 24 percent of them are inspected and decontaminated. It is incumbent on the Government to raise that to 100 percent so that we are putting a fence around the top of the cliff and not an ambulance at the bottom. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill and to thank the last member for his considered clearly expressed opinions which I found helpful and valuable. I am not going to add to them. I recommend the legislation to the House. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 It must be pretty frustrating for members on that side to have to stand up and give such short speeches. Some members may leave the House having said only things like “I support the bill.” and “I move that the question be now put.” When they have gone down in history and people in the future look up their contributions they will see that they were quite limited indeed. 
In terms of making contributions today the Opposition does not apologise for taking some time in debating this issue even though there is unanimous support for the bill. This is a very important issue. If something goes wrong with biosecurity this economy could be shut down virtually overnight. The cost to the economy of a foot-and-mouth outbreak could potentially be $10 billion so members on this side have taken the issue seriously. That is why we have debated this bill aggressively and enthusiastically. 
I must say that the bill is being passed unanimously today only because of the enthusiastic work of the Opposition members on the Primary Production Committee. I think it is important to pay tribute to some of the members of that committee. Mr Gavan Herlihy made a huge contribution to the Primary Production Committee as did Philip Heatley who has been one of the more aggressive debaters on this issue in this House and Shane Ardern who is our spokesman for biosecurity. He has very much held— 
David Benson-Pope 
: That speaks volumes about the National Party doesn’t it? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It is interesting that Mr Benson-Pope the country’s most noxious incursion makes that comment because one of the things that members thought was most unusual was the fact that his Government had put this portfolio in the hands of Minister Marian Hobbs. This is one of the more important portfolios one that rural communities very much depend on. How did the Government signal that importance? How did it show the community how important biosecurity was? The Government gave the portfolio to Minister Marian Hobbs who is also known as Minister “Boo Boo”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no in this House all members are honourable members or Ministers. Please carry on. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I think it is important to go back to one of the main comments which I thought was very telling about that Minister’s handle on this portfolio. After a terrible track record with the portfolio she came out and said: “I think that finding only six incursions in the last fortnight shows that we’re really very good at surveillance.” That did not make many members on this side of the Chamber feel very confident that she was in control of the portfolio. 
It is worthwhile at this stage to go through the biosecurity report card of this Government. Even though there were only about 10 incursions prior to 1999 there has been a huge influx of unwanted pests and biosecurity risks since that time. In April 2003 we had the cane toad and in March 2003 we had the fall web worm the crazy ant and the Asian gypsy moth. I feel like David Attenborough when discussing some of these problems which the Government simply has not been able to— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: They let them in? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Yes it welcomed them in in fact. Some people think that immigration policies are confined to the immigration portfolio but the biosecurity portfolio has a very active immigration policy under this Government. 
Looking at this particular bill I think that although there is unanimous support for it it is important to take the time to debate the issues fully. Biosecurity is very much an issue where the portfolio is more or less an insurance policy of sorts. If we do not get right the investment in biosecurity then there will be significant costs further down the track. I think we have seen that with the painted apple moth. So far the cost of dealing with that particular incursion has totalled $90 million. Imagine if that money had been spent on a more thorough investigation of sea containers when they came to New Zealand! 
I have to say I was quite shocked to hear that fewer than 25 percent of sea containers are actually checked when they come into this country. The checks are not very thorough. The check entails the container being opened and an official popping his or her head in to see if anything jumps out. That is not the sort of investigation we expect. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry certainly has a lot of work to do to try and— 
Darren Hughes 
: Give it away. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that that member is very new and has aspirations of being on the front bench but he should know that he is not allowed to make silly comments when he is not in his own seat. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I shall put it this way: I am not going to adjudicate on whether the member’s comments were silly; I can say that if he wants to interject and if he is not acting as a whip he should go back to his seat. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: We have a very fragile economy which can be put at risk and certainly has been put at risk in the last few years. The biosecurity report card is nothing less than appalling. We have more problems and more incursions than we have ever had before. I think the Government needs to stop thinking in a short-term way about biosecurity investment and to put a greater amount of investment into particularly the investigation of sea containers as they come into this country. If it does not we are going to continue to have a number of very expensive problems down the track. As I mentioned earlier had the $90 million that has been spent on getting rid of the painted apple moth been spent on doing thorough investigations in the first place the chances are that we would not have that particular problem. 
This is an important bill that introduces some quite significant powers for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The bill gives the ministry the ability to act more quickly which I think is important. It is important that it be able to act in a timely manner if there are problems to do with scrapie mad cow disease or foot-and-mouth disease. It is good that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will have the ability to act more quickly than it has done in the past. The ministry will also have greater powers to audit which I think is important. Greater penalties also are introduced in this bill and that will quite clearly send a message to members of the public that if they do not act in a timely fashion and alert the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to incursions they have discovered there is a penalty involved. 
This legislation is just an amendment bill. It augments the Biosecurity Act 1993 which as we know aims to exclude eradicate and effectively manage pests and unwanted organisms. The Opposition will support anything that will strengthen biosecurity. We understand the importance of the portfolio and its impact on the economy. It is a shame that members on the other side of the House do not. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I support the bill. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this hugely important Biosecurity Amendment Bill which National will support because National realises the great importance of biosecurity to New Zealand from many points of view: from an economic point of view from an environmental point of view and undoubtedly from an animal and human point of view. 
I am greatly sorry to report to the House that the Labour Party does not appreciate how important biosecurity is. To hear a little while ago the remark of Darren Hughes that this bill should progress more rapidly through the House is absolutely ironic. Darren Hughes is a member of the Labour Government which has allowed this bill to wallow on the Order Paper since 16 August 2001. It has not been progressed by Labour. He had the extraordinary cheek to suggest that it should now— 
Darren Hughes 
: Audacity. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: No no there is no audacity on his part; “cheek” is the more appropriate word. The important thing is that here is a bill that is hugely important yet Labour has not shown any concern about it. It has dawdled on it for the last 2 years and now under urgency it wants to progress it. Labour members certainly have not made this bill a priority. This minority Labour Government has given priority to things such as the Care of Children Bill; it wants to consider whether the lesbian partner of the mother of a baby conceived using assisted human reproduction techniques should be called the father. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Can we come back to this bill please? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I am really pointing out how hugely important this bill is. As Federated Farmers pointed out in its very apt submission the importance of biosecurity to New Zealand is absolutely vital. After all pastoral exports are valued at $13 billion and comprised 42.7 percent of all exports in 2001. We learn that if there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in New Zealand it would result in a cumulative loss of $10 billion over 2 years and the loss of 15000 jobs. Yet Labour put this bill to one side and gave preference to other far less important legislation. 
The Government’s record is absolutely appalling when it comes to biosecurity. As my colleagues have pointed out since October last year there have been 11 incursions of a whole variety of organisms from the Asian gypsy moth to the North American southern ring-necked snake the cane toad and the scorpion and this Government has done little about it. It is important to reiterate what the Associate Minister for Biosecurity told the House on 26 March 2003. She said: “… I think that finding only six [incursions] in the last fortnight shows that we really are very good at surveillance.” That is a shocking indictment on the Labour Government and on that Associate Minister for Biosecurity. It is appalling how lackadaisical she has been about this very very important issue of biosecurity. 
One of the other points that has been made is that sea containers continue to be a source of biosecurity incursions because only 25 percent of those that arrive here are checked properly. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: What was the percentage under National? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The point is that this Labour Government has been in power for almost 4 long unfortunate years and only 25 percent of containers are checked. The Government is worried that it might cost $90 million to carry out proper surveillance. The Government has already spent $90 million on the painted apple moth campaign in west Auckland which has been very badly mishandled yet it is holding back on ensuring that there is proper inspection of sea containers which are one of the first areas where inspection should be done properly. As well as that the Government is commissioning very little new research into technologies to reduce the cost of inspecting containers. That again is very very serious. The Government is basically taking a passive attitude towards this very important area of biosecurity. 
One example and I do not know whether it has been brought up previously is the elimination of the white spotted tussock moth in 1997-98 under National. National demonstrated how to run a successful eradication campaign but what has happened with the painted apple moth? It arrived in late 1999. Labour did not learn the lessons of the white spotted tussock moth campaign and the painted apple moth was allowed to spread for more than 2 years before aerial spraying began. The Auditor-General released an absolutely damning report last year on the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s slow and uncoordinated response to the painted apple moth. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: What about the varroa bee mite? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The member raises a very important point. Under this Government the management of that mite has been shocking. 
I want to point out one other slight irony which involves the Greens. On the one hand we hear the Greens say in very shrill tones that they want zero tolerance regarding genetic modification (GM) although there have not been any reports anywhere in the world of adverse effects from GM food. On the other hand today we hear that Nandor Tanczos and his colleagues are incredibly upset with the Customs Service which has instituted a zero tolerance policy in terms of the importation of hemp products. Tetrahydrocannabinols undoubtedly have been proved to be harmful. The Greens want zero tolerance for something that has been proved to do no harm but they want laxity for something that is harmful. 
Stephen Franks 
: It’s called the precautionary principle. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It is the precautionary principle in reverse. I end by saying that the Biosecurity Amendment Bill is a very important bill. National supports it and we are deeply concerned that the Government has not paid biosecurity the attention that this very important area deserves. Federated Farmers in their very good submission put it all into perspective when they said that it is vital that the Government got on and started putting proactive efforts into making a realistic biosecurity strategy for New Zealand. 
Bill read a third time.