Cosgrove Clayton: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5188. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 As a former member—an alumnus—of the Primary Production Committee for 6 years but not a current member I was not going to take a call in this debate because this is a very important piece of legislation until I heard the contribution of that well-known diplomat Nick Smith. I can talk about this because I am going to respond to the scurrilous speech that he made in this House. This is a bill about biosecurity. Traditionally the Primary Production Committee chaired formerly by my colleague Damien O’Connor and now by Shane Ardern has always been a committee that has been bipartisan. I remember one colleague—I think it was David Carter; I am sure my colleague Damien O’Connor will recall this—in the select committee saying when they were in Opposition: “We know we’re going to lose on this but we’re going to make our points. We’re going to ensure that the legislation coming out of the Primary Production Committee which is vital to our primary industries comes to this House in as good a shape as it can be because our primary industries are so important to us.” 
So this legislation is generally non-partisan and there have been some non-partisan contributions tonight apart from the scurrilous contribution—the scurrilous low-life contribution—from Nick Smith. What Nick Smith did which had nothing to do with this bill was accuse my colleague Damien O’Connor the member for the West Coast of playing politics with the tragedy that happened at Pike River. That speech by Nick Smith will stand in infamy. I acknowledge my colleague Damien O’Connor and I think it is appropriate to also acknowledge Chris Auchinvole and other politicians who were in and around that tragedy just like the Canterbury earthquakes and other tragedies that we have had. I think beyond politics people responded as best they could in a non-partisan way to assist their communities to put an arm around those who had lost loved ones to express their love and affection for those communities and to support them. And for that scurrilous member Nick Smith— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! I understand what the member is doing but all members are honourable members. The use of that kind of adjective against the member is out of order. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That honourable member—ha ha—Nick Smith showed scurrilous behaviour in this House tonight and this is a serious issue. He brought a member into disrepute and made a scurrilous series of accusations that my colleague played politics with people’s lives and played politics with a tragedy. His electorate borders the West Coast and if anybody in their whole entire career has played politics over and over and over again whether it be ACC whether it be a whole host of issues and wallowed in the gutter—the political gutter—it is the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
I stand here in defence of my colleague and in defence of and alongside Chris Auchinvole and the other colleagues who went down to Pike River along with leaders in the community and who stood by those men and women who lost loved ones. And if they are watching tonight I apologise on behalf of this Parliament for the despicable speech and accusation that that member Nick Smith made—and on the back of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. 
So Nick Smith’s intent was not to get up and talk about a bill that was in any way connected to that series of tragedies; it was to get up on any piece of legislation and put the boot into a colleague but in doing so trample over the memories the tragedy and the emotions of those people who lost loved ones in that tragedy. 
Politicians get accused of a lot. Sometimes yeah we are a bit nasty. Sometimes we do put the slipper into each other and sometimes we do get a bit passionate but by God there was a colleague of mine who talked about the fact that there are written Standing Orders and there are unwritten standing orders. The unwritten standing orders are basically protocols between members of Parliament where there is a line that you do not cross. I am glad the member is here. I am glad he is here with his hair standing on end and his red face. I am glad he is here to listen because that member’s behaviour has been scurrilous. There is a lot said in this Chamber. As I have said the slipper goes in from time to time but it has been— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Attack the issue. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will attack the issue all right. The issue is that of a member of Parliament coming into this Chamber using a basically bipartisan piece of legislation to accuse another member of playing politics with those who died in a tragedy—died in a tragedy. 
| 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was Mr O’Connor who raised the issue of Pike. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: And here we go because Dr Nick Smith—I am glad he is here—shows no remorse in trampling over the spirit and memory of those people who were lost. 
That member is a sort of political version of a limbo dancer. He will go as low as he can in this House and he did tonight—over a biosecurity bill. It would not have mattered whether it was a bill on anything. He got up to talk about biosecurity to put the slipper in. Well I am going to move to the legislation because that member is not worth it. But I do apologise to those watching because that member tonight has brought this Chamber into disrepute lowered the tone and wallowed in the political sewer where he treads very very often—[ 
Interruption 
] Very very often. 
Louise Upston 
: Who’s in the sewer? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh so I am accused of that. No I am accused of standing up and defending a colleague from a vicious and scurrilous attack by that piece of work over there. 
Louise Upston 
: Who started it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well there you go! There is the second one. I could forgive that member because she has not been around here that long and she is not that experienced and these things happen but oh no not that one over there—the member for Nelson. He knew exactly what he was doing exactly what he was saying. It was calculated and it is seen for what it is. 
We move to the legislation. I say this: we will as Damien O’Connor said support this piece of legislation but with some gross reservations. Because of course this legislation has been around for a while dressed up brought into the Chamber and trumpeted in a lofty way that the National Party does. But then we look at the history and the facts. We know that Dr Nick Smith is great at getting up and lecturing us on history and lecturing us on what other Governments have done. But you see on entry into this place in Government what Nick Smith’s Government did was cut—immediately in its first Budget—$2.8 million out of the biosecurity budget. That was its commitment to biosecurity. We know on all sides of this House because we support our primary industries that an incursion of any kind whether it be a minor incursion or God forbid whether it be foot-and-mouth or whatever would be terminal for our primary industries in New Zealand. 
Then it followed of course that in 2009 Dr Smith’s Government slashed 54 front-line biosecurity officers. More redundancies have followed and the latest figures show there are 91 fewer staff on our borders now than in 2008. So such is its commitment to biosecurity. Then we talk about the biosecurity dogs the sniffer dogs. I do not think Wellington Airport has had a sniffer dog I think since October—over a year ago. So such is the Government’s commitment to biosecurity. So yes we will support the bill but we know of course that if New Zealand had an outbreak of foot-and-mouth it would cost us billions and billions of dollars. It would destroy our primary industries and destroy our economic base. 
So I say to Dr Smith and others as they stand here and lecture us on history that they should look at their own recent history in respect of their last few years in office and their commitment to biosecurity. There are many farmers on that side. There are many farmers who are in the industry doing the business who know far more about this sort of thing than many of us in this place who are townies. 
But there is a commitment that is needed a real one not a piece of legislation that is dressed up but some dollars some cents and some staff to protect our border. This is what this is about and this is about “New Zealand Inc.” This is not about politics. This is about a bipartisan approach as we have generally had to primary industries in this country. So I say we should get a bit real about this. We should make a serious attempt to get to grips with this and protect our border. We should not engage in scurrilous and underhanded political sewer tactics which we saw tonight from that member Nick Smith.