Roy Eric: Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 4) Hazardous Substances and New Organisms  Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Roy Eric: Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 4) Hazardous Substances and New Organisms  Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:646;Page:15360] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 A lot has been said about this legislation. We dealt with most of its stages in the House this week so I do not intend to take a very long call. National is happy to support the decisions we have got to through the process thus far. I am quite happy about the discussion the other night in the Committee of the whole House when we went through the legislation. The Minister tabled a further amendment on a Supplementary Order Paper that gave greater clarity around a couple of issues and I am quite happy with the Minister’s response in relation to the process on the import health standard for honey coming from Australia. That process had already commenced in terms of the review even though technically the review panel will not be set up until after the legislation is enacted. But the day in the sun—the 90 days that was requested—is already under way. I am very comfortable about this process. 
This legislation essentially clarifies a demarcation issue as to how the process with regard to passenger organisms is handled at the border. This legislation not only puts us back to the process that has been followed since the enactment of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act in 1996 but also puts in a layer of protection which is the review panel. I know that we absolutely do not want to have any passenger organisms that propose any kind of risk to New Zealand coming here at all. I think that that is the desire the expectation and the wish of every single person I know. Nevertheless we live in a world where we import and we trade so there are risks. It is a matter of minimising those risks to the extent that we have little or no risk. 
The only basis upon which we can make decisions about risk is science because as an exporting nation we expect other countries purchasing our goods to be able to believe in a robust system that ensures the security of the product we are selling. Science can be the only basis for that. Therefore in terms of the review panel a few elements need to be considered. First the umbrella organisation of any group makes the application to have the review panel do its work. Secondly the basis is science. Thirdly the expectation is that the best possible people who can be sought or gained for that work—and that includes people with international experience—can peer review it. I think that makes the whole process as robust as it can be made. 
This legislation which is now in two bills does three things. It clears up that demarcation issue and it puts in place the review panel—the process—for where there are concerns now. Import health standards for honey coming out of Australia are one example. For people in the pig industry with regard to the porcine endogenous retrovirus issue we have acknowledged that they have made presentations to the Primary Production Committee and we say that their issue can be handled. There will be further issues down the line. We can expect that to happen so we have the process in place to deal with them. The other element is retrospectivity. The bee-keeping industry having won the Court of Appeal situation deserves to undergo that process of having the review. 
All in all I think this is as fair just and robust a resolution to an issue that we could manage in the time frame. As my colleague Shane Ardern said there will be times in the future when we need to deal to biosecurity issues. It is a matter of utmost importance to New Zealand. We must continue to address and refine rules around anything at all that impacts the security of New Zealand. 
I have some sympathy for the bee-keepers. They are pretty bruised at the moment and are suffering probably more under the drought than any other industry in the agricultural sector. They are still getting used to living with varroa mite and just at this time the issue of tutin poisoning has come up. Even though it is in a very small part of the industry it has cast something of a slur over it so bee-keepers are very bruised. I say to them again that we listened to what they had to say to the select committee and we have ensured that they will be the first case—the test case—in terms of the review process. So with those few words I say that I am happy to support the legislation.