Tirikatene Rino: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tirikatene Rino: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4089. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to make a contribution to Part 3 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. I would like to just focus in on clause 79 which is an amendment to the Ombudsmen Act. In particular the clause states that “Management agencies under Biosecurity Act 1993 if they are corporate bodies in their role under pest management plans or pathway management plans” will be included within the ambit of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act. I just refer back to new section 96 in clause 37 of the bill which I believe defines management agencies. It states that management agencies are specified in a plan—be they the pest-management plans or the pathway plans—as “(a) a department: (b) a council: (c) a territorial authority: (d) a body corporate.” I would just like to invite the Minister for Primary Industries in addition to responding to the requests for a contribution or a clarification on the points raised by my colleagues to tell us whether a body corporate that is a management agency would be a private company and tell us what level of Crown control or Crown involvement there will be over such a body corporate. 
I think it is commendable that the body corporate actually does fall within the gaze of the Ombudsman that august officer of this Parliament. But I would just seek clarification on that body corporate point in terms of whether that extends the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to for instance a private company or an industry body—whether that is an incorporated society or any other body type corporate. So I think that is worthy of a clarification from the Minister. But other than that it is commendable that the Ombudsman does have jurisdiction to inquire into the operations of the management agencies that will be involved in these pest-management plans because there will be a great deal of public funding going into the programmes that they will be running under their activities. 
In terms of the other provisions in Part 3 it is good to see that possums and wallabies are included as unwanted organisms. They indeed are pests. I know that in relation to my own experience we have got whanau land down there in the Rowallan basin—right down there which is actually South Island Landless Natives Act land which is— 
Hon David Parker 
: 1916. 
RINO TIRIKATENE 
: 1916—that is correct. So those lands were set aside for us landless natives in the South Island. We have not really been able to do much in terms of working those lands because they are so remote. They are basically at the bottom end of the country where none of us were in very far remote corners. But on the issue of the Rowallan basin the Rowallan Alton Incorporation entered into a joint venture close to 12 to 13 years ago with a Chinese organisation that wanted to eradicate the possums but also actually start a trade with China in possums. They called it Kiwi Bear. It had a lot of promise. Unfortunately the venture did not actually eventuate but it would be good to see some other activities coming to light. I know there are possum industry participants who are making use of their pelts. But it would be good to look at in addition to eradication what economic development opportunities there are around the eradication of those unwanted pests. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 27 in the name of the Hon David Carter to Part 3 be agreed to.