Cunliffe David: Urgent Debates — Biosecurity Incursions—Report of Auditor-General into Ministry of Primary Industry’s Preparedness and Responsiveness 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Urgent Debates — Biosecurity Incursions—Report of Auditor-General into Ministry of Primary Industry’s Preparedness and Responsiveness 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8409. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in the urgent debate on the Auditor-General’s report on biosecurity. Let us firstly remember that we have interrupted the business of the House to hold an urgent debate on a matter of critical national importance. It is not OK for the sleepy Government members to sit over there on the Treasury benches snoring their way to accepting a report that actually makes fundamental criticisms of the Government in three regards. Firstly it says that this country is highly vulnerable to a major incursion of a critical pest or disease such as foot-and-mouth. It says that we are under-resourced that we are underprepared and that the systems are underdeveloped. That is a toxic cocktail of risk that threatens our major livelihood industries the primary industries of this country. 
It is notable that members all round this House whether on the Government benches the cross benches or the Opposition benches are all agreed on the central importance of biosecurity. That is at least a good starting point for this debate. The Minister Ms Goodhew however said that Labour currently was undermining the work of biosecurity by damaging our reputation by reciting the results of this report of an independent Officer of Parliament. The Auditor-General is an independent non-partisan officer of this whole House. This is not a Labour Party report nor a Government report; this is an independent performance audit by the highest audit authority of the land and it behoves every member to listen to it. It will do the Government no good to accuse Labour of mudraking. 
Secondly the Minister said that the investment in biosecurity is almost double what it was in 2000 and then she claimed the credit for it. I found that fascinating because my advice was that it was the previous Labour Government that had doubled the investment. So I went to check and I can confirm that here are the numbers. I must stress to the House that these numbers are not deflated to constant dollars. These are the actual dollars in years gone by and therefore understate the relative contribution of the previous Government. When Labour took over last time the previous Government was spending only $90 million a year on biosecurity. Under Labour it doubled by 2008 to $181088000—again without allowing for any of the effects of inflation. Then the current National Government cut the spending in its first year to $179 million cut it again in its second year to $168203000 and latterly has increased it back to about where Labour had it of $192190000. So there was a doubling. It just happened under the last Labour Government not under the current National Government. The best that could be said for the current Government is that it is flat-lining and that might be a general statement about this Government. 
The Minister then said that yes a number of criticisms were made in this report—that is an understatement; it is full of criticisms—and that the Ministry for Primary Industries recognises the need for improvement. Well that is good. We commend the ministry for being willing to learn from the report. But what are the improvements that are being made? The Minister said “Well we’re developing a business case for new systems and we are writing a strategy for people development and we are going to put the whole thing under review.” Well that is the old adage of when there is no answer to the problem do another review. But the people of New Zealand deserve better than that—they do—because these are critical issues. 
The report makes a number of very damning conclusions. I can do no better than quote from the overview written by the Auditor-General herself. She says: “it is my view that MPI is under-prepared for potential incursions from some high-risk organisms. Responding to incursions has taken precedence over preparing for the potential arrival of other pests and diseases. Not enough priority has been given to planning. Many response partners who have worked with MPI and its predecessors believe that stronger response capability is also needed.” That is the Ministry for Primary Industries is so busy rearranging the deckchairs in another megamerger like the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—“Mobie” the great white whale of economic development—that it has not got time to plan ahead for the incursion that might come next week next month or next year. The Auditor-General goes on to say that although some “improvements are being made”—credit where credit is due—“… serious weaknesses remain. Plans for responding to potential incursions from some high-risk organisms are not yet complete. … the plan for dealing with a foot and mouth disease outbreak is inadequate.” Strong words from the Auditor-General. She goes on: “Workforce planning and capability development needs to be stronger so that MPI has the appropriate people with the right skills in the right place. Staff are not using the new response system to its full potential … Performance reporting also needs to improve.” and of course it “has an opportunity to achieve lasting improvements” if it follows the plans that are set out. 
What does all this mean in practice? If we turn to figure 3 in the report we see a sorry long list—pardon me—of incursions. I am choking up thinking about biosecurity; what do we know? There are the gum leaf skeletoniser moth didymo—known to any fisherman as a terrible plague on our waterways—the southern saltmarsh mosquito kauri dieback Psa of our kiwifruit industry and juvenile oyster mortality. When I was put down for this debate I was initially wondering why an urban member from Auckland was to speak about biosecurity. [ 
Interruption 
] In fact my electorate—thank you Ms Delahunty—has had firsthand experience of these problems. I want to mention three that are either current or immediately past real issues in the electorate of New Lynn. 
Let me start with what was probably the largest issue which was the painted apple moth and which let me say upfront did occur during the time of the previous Government. In the painted apple moth experience we recognised a very strong need for community involvement and community education. The moth was eradicated with a programme of overflying and applying a bacterial solution to the moths. But the issue was that the community needed to be involved. It was learning by doing on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Biosecurity New Zealand and its agents so that by the end of that programme they had become much more skilled in community involvement than they were at the start. 
The next incursion I want to mention is that of the Queensland fruit fly. [ 
Interruption 
] That means the sound has gone off has it? Is that you Mr Deputy Speaker or is that a word from the Lord perhaps? 
David Bennett 
: David Shearer works in mysterious ways! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Maybe it is a word from the Government benches. I think it is still working—is it? It is not a word from “Cue Ball”. Let us work with that and we hope that the guys behind the dark curtain will keep the machine running. [ 
Interruption 
] “Put another coin in the slot” said the Minister of Commerce showing that his commercial orientation never fails him. 
In regard to the Queensland fruit fly one fly was found in Avondale in the heart of my electorate. That might not sound like a big deal but it required controls being put on moving fruit and vegetables. Thirty biosecurity officers descended on the Avondale market and residents were uninformed about the fruit fly lockdown across west Auckland. That all sounds pretty dramatic but what the Auditor-General found was that in the case of that fruit fly outbreak the ministry’s ability to respond was woefully inadequate and that had there been more than one solitary fly—in fact had there been two live flies a little boy fly and a little girl fly—we might have had lots and lots of flies. Yes the rural members over there understand the story of the birds and the bees—they have got that so far. Yes the birds and the bees would have struck and the ministry would not have struck because the ministry’s response systems according to the Auditor-General were inadequate. 
Finally there is kauri dieback. This is a huge current issue across west Auckland and in the far north. Kauri dieback is a major disease. It is a bacterial infection of the roots. My colleague Phil Twyford has been campaigning on this issue very very ably. The problem is that Biosecurity New Zealand now the Ministry for Primary Industries does not see it as a priority and has cut the funding to control kauri dieback. I say that the Government should be ashamed. It is bad enough to take biosecurity officers and dogs out of airports. We should get the kauri dieback funding.