Catchpole Brent: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7075] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill because it hits right at the very heart of one of the most important parts of our economy. Biosecurity problems can have a devastating effect on our economy particularly on our farming economy and our forestry. We agree that this bill has gone a long way towards closing some of the loopholes in the original bill. We also accept that it does not go quite far enough but we are happy that the bill will solve many of the problems. 
I bring to the notice of the Government that the bill was first introduced in August 2001. That is an awfully long time to have it sitting on the Table waiting to be processed through this House. The Government has finally brought the bill in urgency to this House to try to rush it through. Why was it not brought to the House a lot earlier? Why was the process not completed? The select committee completed its tasks well over 12 months ago and the bill could have come to the House immediately after that. But no it sat there waiting in much the same way that the Government waited for reports on various aspects of biosecurity management. Those reports told us exactly what we already knew—that the management of biosecurity in this country had failed miserably. We have seen a whole swag of incursions over the last 2 or 3 years and last night examples of a number of them were read out: cane toads huntsman spiders fire ants and crazy ants. The spread of all of those organisms could have been prevented had we had better checks in place earlier. [ 
Interruption 
] Government members are now trying to interrupt me but last night we tried to get the Minister to explain some of the issues in this bill and he would not take a call. He was told not to stand up and take a call. The bill sat on the Table for 2 years without anything happening to it and it has now come to the House. We are pleased that it is here because we are concerned about biosecurity issues as they affect our economy. 
I would like to touch on a few points in the bill particularly new section 44 inserted by clause 6 which requires people to notify the Ministry of the discovery of new organisms in their environment. We have only one issue with this provision. The general public are not aware of many of the natural organisms in this country so when they discover one that they think from the outside might be an introduced pest but turns out to be one that is natural after a while they will start to wonder whether there is any point in reporting those organisms because they are told every time they report one that it is one of our own natural ones anyway. To make this part of the bill work there needs to be an extensive educational programme that identifies the organisms we have and makes the public aware of them. As Gerry Eckhoff mentioned it could be a television series and we could bring in Dr Bellamy—our “David Attenborough”—to front it. We should be able to have a programme that identifies those organisms so that the general public and children in schools are taught the facts about the insects and spiders we have. We do not have cane toads but we could have another series to show the dangerous organisms from the countries of our trading partners. A database of the dangerous organisms that are likely to come in from our trading partners should also be set up. If that database were clearly identified there would be no delay in putting those organisms on a list so that something could be done. 
The management strategies in the bill are ones that regions are expected to put in place. We would like to make sure that regions work together so that there are not differing regional plans and strategies. If those plans and strategies are not coordinated we will have one organism skipping into the next region and nothing will happen. 
Another issue I would like to touch on is the aerial spraying mentioned in clause18 of the bill which updates section 114A of the principal Act. The notification requirement for aerial spraying has been 14 days and there is now provision to reduce that to 24 hours in certain circumstances which are invoked after a report has been done on the incursion. In very rare circumstances where the population is minimal there is even provision for zero notification before a spray takes place. I think that provision should be tightened up. It certainly needs to specify a period of at least 14 days before spraying takes place with additional medical checks to assess which people are likely to be affected by that spraying. That is particularly so out in west Auckland where people have suffered the spraying time and time again without the full medical help they deserve. 
As I mentioned earlier the power to examine organisms in this bill requires a database to ensure that right from the start we understand the organisms involved. An education programme for children and right throughout the population is a definite way to help that identification. With the examination process those checks would be linked with the database and the organism identified very quickly. 
 New Zealand First supports this bill because it is very important to our economy to make sure that the likes of the varroa bee mite do not come in and spread rapidly before this Government will do anything about it. Sitting on its hands doing nothing—as the Government has done with this bill—is a shame but now that the bill is back in the House for its final reading let us get on with it and make sure that it is put in place properly so that we can stop these organisms coming in right from the start.