Ardern Shane: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9069] 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I speak with particular interest about the part amending the Biosecurity Act and the director-general’s ability to respond quickly by waiving the normal process of notification and the normal stand-down period with regard to veterinary products and drugs in relation to whatever it is they may be responding to. On the surface that is a very good provision but it would be interesting if the Minister would take a call and give us an example. I could run through a range of scenarios where I think that might be useful—such as there might be a new drug being developed somewhere overseas and there could be a major incursion of some sort like a foot-and-mouth outbreak or some other such disease where there is a vaccine or some kind of medical development that could be useful in response to that and thereby the director-general would be able to say yes we are not going to put this through the process that we normally would through the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the like because there may be some new organism in it and we are are willing to let it go because there is this major calamity on our hands. 
That may be what it is for. I suspect that that is what it is for. I do not actually know whether that is true and it would be really good if the Minister would take a call and tell us whether that is so. I know that in biosecurity matters over recent times there have been some holes in the policy so big that one could drive a whole truckload of foot-and-mouth contaminated cattle through. 
 So are we here dealing with the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill creating another loophole or another cavity that things could slip through? I am just not sure about that. I know that the director-general himself is a very competent person; we have always had very competent people in that role and I know that that decision would not be taken lightly and unless there was a reasonable amount of evidence that the drug or the compound or the new organism or whatever it might be that they are trying to release was likely to have a positive outcome. But we just do not know; and certainly when we read this and we refer back to the respective sections of the different Acts—like section 49B of the Biosecurity Act—it is still not clear. I know that the Minister will be well informed on this so I will be interested to hear her response on those issues. 
I also know that the Biosecurity Act has had a number of amendments and I am not sure whether they are relevant to this or whether this supersedes those. Maybe the Minister will be able to answer those questions. 
The main guts of this part as my colleague Simon Power said is the Agricultural Components and Veterinary Medicines Act. I know there was a lot of debate around live vaccines and dead vaccines—I guess that is the way to describe the alternative to live vaccines—at the time that that was introduced. I know that in the case of leptospirosis for example and a number of other bovine diseases there are dead vaccines. Now will this apply to live vaccines or will it apply to dead vaccines? I am not sure. It is not clear when we read this. It is certainly not clear how wide the director-general’s ability will be to waive the standard rules the Environmental Risk Management Authority criteria that one has to go through for this sort of release. It does not say; it is not clear. I know that the Minister will have the answer to that. I am sure the officials have advised her on it. So maybe the Minister can take a call and advise us on that. 
I know that in the case of leptospirosis there is a huge controversy out in rural New Zealand as to why the vaccine has to be confined as tightly as it is and why it cannot be administered by farmers. I know that in some cases farmers do so and I know that some stock and station agents and others who handle normal livestock-type vaccines want to trade in that vaccine and be part of it and at the moment it is tightly regulated and only the vets are allowed to administrate it. Vets are the only ones who are allowed to sell it trade it and so on. So is there relevance in that? Will the director-general be able to direct whoever it is in that regard?