Woods Megan: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woods Megan: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4083. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill around the amendments relating to ballast water. As my colleagues have articulated Labour supports this bill because it helps our biosecurity systems and staff work more effectively to prevent and control pest and disease incursions. What we have seen over recent years is the absolute danger and threat that biosecurity pests pose to the New Zealand economy. Labour understands the need understands how important biosecurity protections are and that is why under the previous Labour Government investment in biosecurity more than doubled from $94 million in 1999 to $187 million in 2008. It involves an incredibly important part of our economy. 
One of the important things that this piece of legislation does is that it actually brings the legislation up to date with the technology that is available in terms of both detecting and dealing with incursions when they are found. I think that is one of the important things when we are looking at this. My colleague Moana Mackey just spoke about the need to see the biosecurity legislation as an overarching piece of legislation that is central to our economic well-being and I also would like to offer the comment that we need to see how this piece of legislation fits with other areas of investment. Our biosecurity is only ever going to be as strong as two components: one is having the people to monitor and actually having adequate resource in that area; and the second area is ensuring that we invest and continue our investment in the area of science and innovation in the area of biotech. 
A review was carried out in 2001 and it found that 88 percent of our biosecurity expenditure was invested in post-border research. When we look at what marine environments were receiving at this time it was very low. We were talking about 5 percent of the money that was spent on biosecurity research going to fresh water and 2 percent to marine environments. But since 2001 there has been an increased emphasis on science in the marine biosecurity area because it is understood what an important part of the New Zealand economy it is and it is in part these advancements that this legislation will enable to be used. 
Marine biosecurity received very little attention until the 1990s and it was really the arrival of various algae in our shellfish beds that brought to our attention what a significant economic threat incursions in the marine environment could play and that is why these Part 2 amendments are so important. We do have increased activity in our coastal shipping. The sea has changed we do have changes happening there and we need to ensure that we are protecting our environments. 
 New threats have emerged and have become apparent since the previous piece of legislation was passed in 1993. This is no more particularly so than in the marine area. The risks offered to marine biosecurity by visiting vessels are significant. The new activity within the 200 miles of the exclusive economic zone opens up some real questions in terms of what organisms may come into play with increased economic activity in our exclusive economic zone. When we have a think about what our future is and where our economic future lies aquaculture and our ability to utilise our marine environments are going to be so important to so many parts of our economy. That is why we believe that it is so important that we do have these regulations around ballast water and that we do have a good regulatory environment that protects the biosecurity of this area. 
If we have a look at what is actually needed in this area in terms of the science and the technology there has been an investment there and it is focused increasingly on increasing our understanding of the pests that are already present in New Zealand. My colleague Damien O’Connor talked about the fact that biosecurity hazards have been brought in to New Zealand waters for a couple of centuries now. This is not something new. We have an existing bank of biosecurity threats. We need to have knowledge of what is already there. We also have to have improved survey and surveillance methods so that we can develop detection of what organisms are present and what ones are going to pose a threat to our marine environments and the economic activities that are happening within those environments. We need to know when a vessel comes in and there is a release of ballast water exactly what it is that we need to be testing for how we are going to test and how the tests actually fit with international testing environments. 
There are various regulatory frameworks that are imposed on our exporters in the shellfish sector in terms of how it is that we test for algal presence within many of our shellfish beds. For example access to European markets is highly dependent on our still being able to afford a mouse biotoxin assay. We need to actually keep this capability somewhere within the New Zealand science ecosystem. That we look at how this is funded is vitally important if we still want to have access to various markets. So the ability to actually know what it is we are looking for and how it is that we are going to test for it is vitally important. 
But as well as knowing what is there and knowing what test to use we also need to develop new detection tools. We need to be thinking about the next generation of work and we need to understand the origin of these incursions if we are going to prevent them. Actually having the ability to regulate ballast water is so important because we need to be able to undertake very careful very considered risk analysis. This brings me to the point that my colleague Grant Robertson posed to the Minister for Primary Industries. He asked how it is that we marry this legislation this bill with the exclusive economic zone legislation that is going through the House. The regulatory impact statement for this piece of legislation talks about its relationship with the exclusive economic zone legislation and how they will fit together and notes that it is not there. A significant question that has been raised throughout the passage of the exclusive economic zone legislation as we have seen it go through the House is around how much risk we really are willing to take in our marine environments. Are we going to take a cautionary approach and invent a whole new way of doing things or are we going to treat with real seriousness the need to protect our marine environments by adopting already existing standards that are used throughout the world in terms of precautionary approaches to these environments? This is a question that really does need to be asked because this bill is all about our understanding our biosecurity in not just a terrestrial way; this bill is really about strengthening up our marine protections. We have seen how important the ability to protect our marine environments from biosecurity incursions is. 
These are important questions that we are looking to be answered: how it is that it fits with this how it fits within the wider plan given that it is so important to our economic future and our economic survival? We need to continue to invest and to innovate in this area of our science given how important it is but we need to have the enabling legislation that will allow the utilisation of these technologies. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 27 in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 76 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.