Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14326] 
Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee and that the committee present its final report on or before 17 March. 
This bill will resolve issues arising from a Court of Appeal judgment. The effect of it was to create an unworkable legal framework for the management of biosecurity risks at the border. If the law is not amended we will have an unworkable situation at the border. We will impede imports and we will potentially be at risk of inconsistency with our World Trade Organization obligations. 
To understand what this bill is about we need to look at the risk caused by organisms coming into New Zealand. There are two main ways that an organism can arrive here. It can be deliberately imported usually with the intention of putting it to some specified beneficial use. Alternatively it can arrive incidentally coming in with a legitimate import. For a very long time the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and its predecessor ministries managed the risk from organisms coming in with traded goods. The statutory basis for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s role is the Biosecurity Act which was passed in 1993. It works like this. If so-called risk goods might bring harmful organisms into New Zealand they have to comply with risk management conditions before they are cleared for entry. The conditions are set out in an import health standard and ensure that any risks are safely managed. That is the process for organisms that may come into New Zealand incidentally. 
At one time the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was also responsible for managing the risk of deliberately imported new organisms. That changed however when the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act was passed in 1996. The Act set up the Environmental Risk Management Authority to make decisions about deliberate imports of new organisms. The intention when the legislation was going through the House was that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry would continue to be responsible for managing risks from incidentally imported organisms. That is apparent from the report of the Committee on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Bill. Unfortunately the drafting of the legislation did not reflect that intention and the Act does not make any distinction between deliberate importation and incidental importation. Instead the Act simply states that no new organism shall be imported without approval from the Environmental Risk Management Authority. That very general wording in section 25 of the Act led to a Court of Appeal judgment that in turn has led to this bill. 
The Court of Appeal judgment was issued in a case brought by the National Beekeepers’ Association of New Zealand. It challenged a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry import health standard for the importation of honey from Australia. The grounds for the National Beekeepers’ Association’s challenge related to a micro-organism referred to as  
P 
aenibacillus alvei. 
 This organism is present in Australia but is classed as a new organism in New Zealand under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Both parties agreed that the importation of Australian bee products will inevitably at some point in time lead to the introduction into New Zealand of  
Paenibacillus alvei. 
 The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry thoroughly researched  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 and concluded that it does not pose a risk to New Zealand. 
The National Beekeepers’ Association’s case did not in fact challenge that conclusion. The association’s legal challenge was a jurisdictional one. It asked the court to decide whether the correct decision maker was the Environmental Risk Management Authority under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act or the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry under the Biosecurity Act. In February last year the High Court found in favour of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry but the National Beekeepers’ Association of New Zealand appealed. In December the Court of Appeal decided that honey or other bee products from Australia containing  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 may not be imported without biosecurity clearance under the Biosecurity Act and approval granted for new organisms under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The court also said “if there were other known new organisms which might incidentally be imported in other products then as we interpret the legislation approval for them would be required from ERMA.” 
The conclusion of the Court of Appeal judgment is that all new organisms imported into New Zealand must have prior approval under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. This will occur regardless of whether they are being imported deliberately or incidentally. The result creates an unworkable legal framework for the management of biosecurity risks at the New Zealand border. It is unworkable because of the fundamental difference between setting risk management conditions for goods that may incidentally have new organisms on or in them versus approving the deliberate importation of a new organism. The risks posed by an organism being imported incidentally are very different from the risks posed by that same organism if it is imported deliberately in large quantities in order to establish it in our environment. 
There are various processes in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Officials have thoroughly investigated it to see whether they could be used to manage incidentally imported organisms. They unanimously concluded that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act cannot be used in that way. Someone would need to meet the application costs; someone would need to prepare all the necessary information for an approval to import a new organism. Who is going to do that when no one has any desire to actually import that organism? Even if someone was prepared to fill out the paperwork do the research and bear the costs the information needed to approve the organism may not exist. Anyway any organism has to reach a required standard such that the benefits must exceed its negative effects. Since no one wants it here it is highly unlikely that the organism could meet that standard; there would be no benefits. In addition an enormous number of invisible micro-organisms enter the country on goods and even passengers and tourists every day. They do not pose a risk to New Zealand; however many would be regarded as new organisms under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Requiring prior approval to import them would be completely impractical. 
The court’s conclusion has implications for other Biosecurity Act import health standards. Most if not all risk goods imported into New Zealand in compliance with an import health standard have the potential to bring with them new organisms. As a result other import health standards may be vulnerable to legal challenge. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has suspended issuing new import health standards or amending existing ones until the law can be changed. This suspension is preventing new lines of trade. It is causing frustration for trading partners and importers who were expecting to receive approval to commence imports. Countries affected include those in the EU and the United States Australia and Japan. This cannot go on. Parliament needs to respond. The only solution to the unworkable legal framework created by the decision of the Court of Appeal is to amend the legislation. The court itself anticipated that outcome when it stated “If … administrative or practical difficulties are likely to rise from our decision then it is within the hands of Parliament to cure any such difficulties by statutory amendment.” 
The key change that is made by the bill before the House today is to confirm that the Biosecurity Act rather than the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is the correct statute for making decisions on incidentally imported new organisms. In making this change however the bill will retain the status quo for all genetically modified organisms or GMOs. There will still be an absolute prohibition on importing GMOs without a Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act approval. The current strict border controls that prevent the importation of unapproved GMOs will remain. The bill also includes provisions to ensure that the Biosecurity Act import health standard process is not used as a back door for deliberately introducing new organisms. Any incidentally imported new organism will remain a new organism under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The definition of “develop” in the Act will be expanded to prohibit incidentally imported new organisms from being isolated and used without an  
Environmental Risk Management Authority approval.  
The last aspect of the bill I want to talk about is the validation clauses. The bill will ensure that existing import health standards and past decisions made by the  
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry based on those standards cannot be challenged on the same grounds that the court accepted in the National Beekeepers’ Association case. Other grounds of challenge will of course remain available. The validation clauses specifically include the import health standard for honey from Australia. The Government is conscious of the general principle that Parliament does not legislate to deprive a successful litigant of the fruits of its judgment. At first glance it may appear to be unfair to use the legislative power of the House to validate this import health standard. We have carefully considered how that principle applies in this case. The Government has decided it should not prevent the honey import health standard from being validated. 
There are two main reasons for that. First the court’s decision did not confer any specific rights on the National Beekeepers’ Association. This is different from cases where for example the court has decided that the successful party should be granted some licence or permit or other special status. Second the National Beekeepers’ Association’s challenge did not call into question the reasonableness of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s risk management decision under the Biosecurity Act. Therefore it is difficult to see what would be gained by repeating the lengthy and costly process required to develop a new import health standard. 
This bill provides a solution to the unworkable legal framework created by the Court of Appeal’s decision. The border system is now exposed to legal vulnerabilities; they threaten disruption to our trade. In order to sort the situation out it is important to pass this bill as quickly as possible. Although we should proceed with haste it is also important that organisations with an interest have an opportunity to have their say. In order to do that I intend to move that the Primary Production Committee consider this bill for a short period and report it back to the House on or before 17 March. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 The National Party will support the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill to the Primary Production Committee. At the outset I thank the Minister for Biosecurity and his officials for involving the National Party at an early stage with briefings as to the complexity of this legislation following a Court of Appeal decision that came out late last year. It is pleasing that an issue as important as a biosecurity issue is on this occasion discussed quite freely particularly between the two major parties because too often over recent years we have seen biosecurity made an issue of politics when in fact all of us here acknowledge the risks to New Zealand of any biosecurity breach. 
When the position was put to the National Party caucus we said we would support it to select committee provided it was legislation that went before the select committee and gave an opportunity for the industry to be heard. At one stage there was a suggestion that because of the urgency of the matter—and I wish to discuss that shortly—maybe there was not time for the select committee to have the luxury of hearing from submitters. That position was unacceptable to the National Party particularly in view of the fact that the National Beekeepers’ Association of New Zealand has incurred considerable costs to have a victory in the Court of Appeal and because of this legislation it will now I think be a hollow victory. 
I accept there is some urgency and I am surprised to hear the Minister today giving us a report-back date of 17 March; that was not what was discussed between myself and the Minister’s office but I am conscious of the need for a tight timeframe and we will certainly do our best within the select committee process to cover that off. 
There are two types of importations into this country. There are the deliberate importations and there are those that are inadvertent or not deliberate. The hazardous substances and new organisms legislation which was of course passed under the previous National Government was groundbreaking legislation. In fact I think I could say it was the first of its type anywhere in the world. That legislation was designed to cover off deliberate importation whereby an importer wanted to bring something into this country that was recognised as a new organism. There have been criticisms around the complexity of that particular piece of legislation. In fact the Primary Production Committee over some months did an investigation into the effect of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation in slowing up some importation particularly in regard to seed varieties coming into this country. 
There are then the other types of importations that come in without us knowing about them—the particular nasties that could put the very economy of this country at risk. They of course are covered by the Biosecurity Act. What we saw through this particular court case brought by the National Beekeepers’ Association of New Zealand was a challenge to a decision of Biosecurity New Zealand regarding the importation of honey from countries outside New Zealand. It took the opportunity of finding what clearly is a technical difficulty between the two pieces of legislation whereby it was able to argue that a particular new organism not previously known in this country could accompany—in fact in the Court of Appeal case it said it will inevitably at some stage accompany—the importation of honey into this country. The beekeepers said that that particular organism had not gone through the hazardous substances and new organisms process and therefore on that basis the association won through the Court of Appeal. 
That was in my mind a very innovative and clever argument advanced by the Beekeepers’ Association but it did not in actual fact take a challenge as the Minister alluded to to the original decision of Biosecurity New Zealand around the import health standard which is perhaps the way one would have expected it to be argued and that is the way many others have argued it in the past. 
We as National Party members were not prepared then to see the industry not have a chance to come and explain its situation and the fact that this legislation in effect overturns its win in the Court of Appeal. I have been speaking to the association today and I know that it intends to come before the select committee when the committee meets in a couple of weeks’ time. 
The development of import health standards has been a real issue that the select committee has brought to the attention of the Minister Biosecurity New Zealand and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry because the progress involved in the development of import health standards has been too slow. A report that the select committee tabled before this House last year pointed out that as of 2006-2007 over 200 import health standards were in the pipeline. As a result of the select committee report to Parliament I note that the Government did advance some additional resources in the last Budget to tackle that backlog in the development of import health standards. 
The select committee also took the opportunity in the examination of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation to ask that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry take stock of the competency of the people employed within the ministry as to whether they had the ability to develop and progress these import health standards. The Government did come back and agree with that comment from the select committee but I am not sure that the recommendations have gone any further than the Government’s telling the select committee that it had it right. 
What we now have and I referred earlier to the urgency around this legislation is a situation where the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has stopped issuing all import health standards or amending those that are in existence. That is a serious issue for those in this country who want to import product into New Zealand. I had one case today of a fisheries factory calling me saying it wanted to bring something in that was essential to its business. It has been held up completely following the court case of 4 December last year so I accept there is an urgency. But to be fair to the Minister he could have worked with his officials and had this into the House prior to Christmas. But be that as it may we now have it before the House tonight and it is our job now to progress it through the select committee process with alacrity and we will do that. 
The issue I will be teasing out in the select committee is around the decisions made by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in the development of import health standards. It does seem to me—perhaps not so much in the bee case but particularly in the pork case which I am aware of and I suspect we will have the Pork Industry Board making a submission to the select committee—that in some of the development of these import health standards the decision by the ministry to allow importation of more and more product into New Zealand tends to be coming more and more risky. That may well be a perception and I am prepared to accept that at this stage until we have a chance to talk more to the officials. They have the full scientific information before them and these decisions should not be made on a motion should not be made on perception and certainly should not be made on the basis of one industry trying to protect itself from fair and reasonable competition from other imports and exports and I acknowledge that the full scientific information is sometimes not available to me as a member of Parliament when it is available to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 
But having said that from watching the issue over a number of years I do not think we want to become so pure around the issue of free trade that we actually risk bringing into this country diseases and organisms that are not here now and that will have a financial implication on the producers of this country. That will be something I will certainly be wanting to tease out through the select committee process. 
I acknowledge the report-back date of 17 March put on the select committee tonight by the Minister. It is our intention therefore to work on this both with officials and with industry on one day and one day only but it will of course depend on how many submissions we actually get. There is no point in the Government holding a gun to the head of the select committee allowing us to call for submissions from industry and then not giving us the chance to adequately hear the concerns of industry if we get a number of submissions. We will then of course try to meet the deadline that has been imposed on us but I say to the Labour Government and particularly to the Minister that having got it back before the House from the select committee we do not want to see what has happened in the past with other legislation whereby the select committee has been asked to rush its job and then we find that the legislation sits on the Order Paper and does not progress through the further stages that must be completed in this House. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: You can always go for urgency now and then. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well the Minister is now saying we are going into urgency—that is one he did not mention earlier. But no I tell the Minister that the legislation can be done quite logically and quite level-headedly and there is no need for reaction around urgency. But once the legislation gets back from the select committee it must not then sit on an Order Paper and there obviously must be far more cooperation between the Minister of Agriculture Mr Anderton and the Leader of the House Mr Cullen than has perhaps occurred in the past. I wish him well in those negotiations. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to briefly speak on this bill which has been put together by the Minister. I think it is very important that this matter be clarified because clearly there is an issue in this case with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Biosecurity Act. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act clearly relates to the deliberate introduction of new organisms and the Biosecurity Act relates to the incidental release of any new organisms in the country. 
This bill is to go to the Primary Production Committee and after listening to Mr Carter I have to say that that committee has worked very well during this term. It has worked very constructively and cooperatively on many of these issues. I am sure we will endeavour to come to some conclusion on this bill by the date of 17 March which the Minister has suggested. But clearly we will have to hear from the key players in the industry and I think it is important and fair that we do hear from those in the industry who have something to say about this bill. 
This legislation will be very important as this country becomes more global in its trade and people travel widely and it will be particularly important in relation to climate change. As a scientist myself I see that the international climate change situation could bring a whole lot of new issues to the forefront in this nation as we deal with new organisms and also possibly with any incidental release or introduction into this country of new organisms. We have to respond to any emergencies or difficulties that may come our way. Clearly this country has been dependent for a long long time on the release of new organisms particularly in the area of pasture over the years. As a scientist I know that we have dealt with many new species of grass clover and other plants—flora—for our animals in this country. There is always a need to look at new organisms that are more suitable for extra pasture production and animal production. 
So clearly biosecurity is a very important issue for this country. New Zealand is more reliant on primary production than any other developed country that I am aware of because our exports come primarily from agriculture horticulture and of course forestry in recent times. Our indigenous flora and fauna are very precious to New Zealanders and tourists alike. A number of tourists come to this country to see the variety of flora and fauna and native species that we have and they are core areas of our natural heritage and culture in this country. 
The biosecurity strategy that we have had in place since 2003 has widened the mandate of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in biosecurity to give it clear accountability for the management of the whole biosecurity system. That covers not only primary production but also the marine environment human health and indigenous flora and fauna. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has the capability to assess and manage the risks from passenger organisms. The ministry also has lengthy experience in this role as I said earlier as we have been dealing with these issues for many many years. The ministry employs a lot of staff who are highly qualified in various fields and in the biological sciences to look into these issues. It is also worth noting that the legal challenge—in this case the court case—did not call into question the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s risk management decision but rather focused on interpreting the scope of the two Acts that are in place: the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Biosecurity Act. 
Clearly this bill is designed to clarify a number of those areas. This Government has a record of providing leadership and a vision for the future in terms of our agriculture and biosecurity particularly in respect of the environment. The Acts we have in place now ensure that the environment of this country is protected that the marine forestry and pasture areas are maintained and that the water bodies and lakes of this country will be in a more pristine condition. There is a very clear role here for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry people and the Environmental Risk Management Authority people to ensure that no organisms are introduced into this country by incidental means and the Biosecurity Act and the clarification of the legislation contained in this bill provides for that. 
I congratulate the Minister on taking an initiative on a matter that is very important for our bee industry particularly through this bill which provides further security for our nation. Thank you very much. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 Along with my colleague the Hon David Carter I rise also to support the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill going to the Primary Production Committee which of course David Carter chairs. I ask that select committee because I am not a member of it to please give due consideration to the concerns that I know the submitters will raise. I have some concerns myself and I intend not to run over all of the concerns that were raised by my colleague but to raise a few new ones of my own. The whole process has been a little bit too hasty. I am a little anxious that despite the fact that the committee will advertise to receive submissions as soon as it receives the bill submitters will not be given due time to consider some of the detailed issues that I am sure they will raise. 
There are some bits of information that I think misrepresent the Court of Appeal case. One is that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was required by the court to withdraw its import health standards or to not issue any new import health standards. My understanding is that that was not the case; the case was that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry chose not to issue new import health standards on the basis that of course those import health standards could be challenged and that is quite different. They might or might not have been challenged but they could be challenged. 
So in the process I think it is overwhelmingly agreed that the Court of Appeal case identified a couple of areas within the two bits of legislation—the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the Hazardous Organisms and New Substances Act 1996—where there was an overlap. But we need to go back in time and look at the history of why those two particular Acts were set up in the way they were. The Hazardous Organisms and New Substances Act was set up primarily to investigate known new organisms that were going to be deliberately imported into this country—deliberately or as is stated in this case as a passenger. The Act was set up with that purpose. The reason for that is that at any one time the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry cannot and never will have the competency level on every single potential new organism that someone may wish or may not even wish to import into this country. So therefore the original purpose of those Acts is as sound today as it was when it was originally set up. 
In this case the  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 was well known I would have to say by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry when it put together the import health standard for the importation of honey—primarily from Australia but not just from Australia; from around the world—that potentially could carry European foulbrood. Despite the fact that the ministry said that its import health standard was robust the Auditor-General on a number of occasions has had a different view and there have been breaches of import health standards in recent times. We all remember the case of a whole pallet-load of raw pork meat arriving on supermarket shelves in Tauranga from Korea which potentially could have been devastating to the New Zealand economy. So import health standards can and have been breached. 
So really what the National Beekeepers’ Association was saying when it disputed the science around the importation of honey from Australia was that it did not have faith in the system that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had said would be foolproof and the association has a reasonable point. The association also highlighted in that process the fact that some honey carries this new organism known as  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 and it could have some devastating effect. In fact there has been research internationally which the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has been aware of to see whether  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 could be used as a biological control against some insects. Clearly that research would not have started or would not have taken place had it not been for the fact that there was some knowledge about this new organism or its potential effects. 
So the question at this time is why the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry given the high profile of this case—a very high political profile—the protesting to Parliament and all the rest of it did not just subject this particular case to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act because at any time it can decide what should or should not be subjected to the Act. Why in this case was a decision taken just to ignore this  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 and allow it in as an inconsequential passenger—call it what one will—of the importation of honey from this destination? There is further evidence to suggest that that is the wrong decision. 
I guess the whole crux of this debate has been around the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry sailed ahead despite the overwhelming concerns and in this case they related to two industries because the pork industry was extremely concerned about a potential import health standard that is about to be developed in regard to importing unprocessed pork meat. One has to ask these questions given the known effects of a devastating bacteria or disease in our bee colony. 
However it is not just about the honey industry—because this debate particularly in the commentary floating around has been honed down to the honey industry—but also about the potential effects for all of our primary industries for all of our land-based industries. What seems to be missing in this discussion particularly around the import health standard is that bees do not just produce honey but also pollinate our agricultural land-based pastoral industries. The side effects of having a collapse of our bee colony as is being experienced in other jurisdictions around the world would be huge. Bees also pollinate our kiwifruit industry and our horticulture industries. Goodness knows what other effect this kind of disease importation could have on those industries or on the other industries we have spoken of. 
So I say to the Minister that yes the bill should go to the select committee but please give the select committee the time it needs to consider some of the unknown ramifications of what the experts in this field might bring forward. Please give the scientists a chance to express their concerns about what may or may not come about as a result of importing honey from Australia in particular and the potential importation of European foulbrood disease. Please give the committee the time to have a look at what could happen if we had a collapse of our bee colony in this country as has been experienced in other countries. 
Furthermore why would one would take the risk when we have in this country what one could call an organic brand—that seems to be very popular terminology these days—with the honey that we export? Surely we must be able to make exemptions when the science itself and clearly the science in this case is debatable regardless of the ministry’s findings around the import health standard. Surely we must be able to make a case on an international stage because clearly our international competitors do. We only have to look across the Tasman at the apple debate that is now before the World Trade Organization to know that other jurisdictions do that. 
We have in this country a clean green image that we must protect. It is a market advantage. Our export honey is organic. If European foulbrood disease were to take hold in New Zealand then our honey would be treated with antibiotics the same as is done by other exporting nations. This is a niche opportunity for us that we should not damage. 
We have listened for months and years to stories about the risks to this country of genetic engineering and there is hysteria when one talks about that yet we can import known hazards into this country in the form of various organisms and at this time that does not seem to constitute the same threat in the eyes of those who create such a noise around these other things. 
I ask the Government to please consider those submissions—particularly the technical ones that I am sure will come from the various industries. Please give them due consideration in that select committee process. It is not too late to turn around this import health standard. It is not too late to allow one small industry in this country to have a little bit of a win. It will not reflect badly on the Government—quite the opposite. The industry has had its day in court and won. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 It is as usual a pleasure to follow Mr Ardern because he is a practical and sensible man. He talked sense in that last speech and that is what we expect of him. We in New Zealand First will of course be supporting the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill because we cannot have the untenable situation where our imports and exports are impeded in any way at all. Quite frankly the sooner the bill is passed the better it will be. I am very pleased there is to be a submission process albeit a short one. It is important that people can come here have their say and be listened to. One of the strengths of our Parliament is that it has input from citizens and I think that process should be upheld whenever it can be—even in a crisis situation. 
I know and the National Party knows even if it does not admit this that this administration has hugely increased the spend on biosecurity—not only the spend on biosecurity but also the effectiveness manpower and the position it holds in the ranking importance of ministries in New Zealand. In the area of biosecurity one would be hard-pressed to moan that it has not had every reasonable resource it has asked for. However such is the increase in travel—in tourism and in people and goods over our borders—that it is never enough and there is always some problem that we have to deal with. 
The point I want to make follows on from Mr Ardern’s—that is the bee-keepers took a case in order to make a point. They took a case made their point and won their case but the reason they took it stemmed from their immense frustration with successive regimes because they believed they were not being treated well in this country. They have a great product and they are afraid that more organisms will come in that may damage their industry. I know that Mr Ardern has mentioned that concern and I share it. 
I make the plea—and I choose my words carefully—that it would be nice if the Government of the day could consider that the court has seen the worthiness of the bee-keepers’ case. As Mr Shane Ardern said—I will use slightly different words—if the Government could put away for a moment the ideology of the pure free market and just look at this case it would see we have a niche market in the world for our honey. Even in New Zealand it is understood and is used as a trade argument that our honey—particularly our tea tree honey—is so pure that in many cases it is used as an antiseptic as it has healing properties. It would be nice if the Government could put aside its ideology for a while and perhaps look on this case as being not so much a technical case which is what we have been hearing today but a message from the bee-keepers of this country to please do something to support them and to help them to keep their industry profitable. They are doing a good job and they should be recognised for that. 
If Parliament passes this legislation—which does need to be passed—and then does not treat bee-keepers with respect they will see that as a slap in the face and we will be doing ourselves a disservice. Certainly we will be harming an industry that I believe is after all one that does only good. If Mr Shane Ardern or any other member can think of one harmful aspect of the bee-keeping industry I would like to hear about it. I cannot think of one apart from a child perhaps stepping on a bee in a field of clover. Otherwise I cannot think of one negative aspect of the industry. Surely if any industry deserves sympathy this industry does. If we pass this legislation—and we will—and if the Government makes an accommodating factor for bee-keepers we will have a win-win situation. Thank you very much. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The Greens will be supporting this bill at the first reading—and we make no guarantees about further support—because we agree the current law needs some clarification following recent court decisions. It seems clear that the original intention of Parliament was that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Biosecurity Act would cover intentional and unintentional introductions of various organisms respectively. We have some reservations and concerns about the possible unintended consequences of this amendment; there may be better ways to resolve the ambiguity and the difficulty without reducing the standard of risk assessment. We expect that these issues will be canvassed at the select committee and because we are so concerned that they are properly canvassed and that we have good law in this area we do not support the proposal to shorten the select committee process. So we will oppose that motion. 
This bill needs to be understood in light of the recent court judgment in respect of  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 in honey where the Court of Appeal said that the unintentionally introduced new organism is a known new organism and therefore requires approval under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act prior to its introduction into New Zealand even if that introduction is unintentional. The court concluded that the biosecurity import health standard for honey is contrary to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and therefore the honey cannot be legally imported. 
Despite some disagreement about the level of pathogenic risk that the bacterium might pose there was agreement that the risk of introduction of the bacterium itself is inevitable; it will arrive in this country eventually if we continue with the honey imports and it will have some effect in New Zealand. 
The court recognised that the organism is a new organism under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and that its use or development in New Zealand would require approval under that Act but the risk assessment of an organism that may unintentionally accompany a good such as honey was designed to be dealt with under the Biosecurity Act not the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. As a result the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Biosecurity New Zealand are in a very difficult technical position of not being able to exercise fully the requirements under the Biosecurity Act because of the decisions of the court. That is just some of the background. 
It is clear therefore that some kind of legislative change is necessary so we will support the bill to achieve that. But the bill needs some more consideration and one area is the logic of the stark differentiation between intentional and unintentional introduction of new organisms. It is true there are differences in the potential vectors of intentionally and unintentionally introduced organisms. We have seen some unintentional introductions in this country maybe on a large scale and released in many areas and in great numbers for a particular purpose whereas an unintentional introduction may be small in number and very localised and might have much less chance of surviving in New Zealand’s conditions or be better able to be contained and controlled. None the less a new and damaging organism whether it is here on purpose or by accident may have the same effect. We have seen that to be the case with the invasive and highly problematic algae didymo that was accidentally unintentionally introduced and although it might have been only a tiny amount in a particular place at one place it is now very well established in the South Island rivers. 
So the potential impact of a new organism regardless of how it gets here is not necessarily greater just because it was brought in on purpose. The risk is no less real simply because of the way it has been introduced into our country. Indeed the reverse argument may also hold true in some cases; more will be known and assessed about an organism’s nature and potential impact if it is assessed for its intentional introduction than if it arrives accidentally. The more we know the more ability we have to respond quickly and effectively to contain and control that biosecurity breach. Clearly didymo is a classic example of the sad failure to act swiftly and decisively when that algae arrived and was detected. 
There are potentially alternatives to dealing with the problems that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Biosecurity New Zealand and the Government in general have as a result of the court’s decisions. Perhaps the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act could be better amended to allow the Environmental Risk Management Authority to assess unintentional organisms. It is not what it is designed to do but it could potentially be expanded to do that. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act does have a higher test threshold for assessing new organisms than the Biosecurity Act does. Although the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is not currently designed to assess the risks of passenger organisms none the less it could do that job but in part only if it is able to be tested against the benefits of its carrier good. For example the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act test for a new organism weighs the positive and adverse effects of the organism in isolation. It would struggle for example to approve the honey bacterium on which the case was based because the bacterium has no known benefit to the country. The benefit is solely in being able to bring the good in itself—the honey. That is not part of the consideration that the Environmental Risk Management Authority can undertake. So one option would be to enhance the authority’s mandate and process to allow it to deal with risk assessments for new organisms brought in unintentionally. 
The alternative is that the precautionary principle inherent or explicitly set out in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act could be introduced into the Biosecurity Act and that just in and of itself is not a bad idea. The court noted that Parliament’s intention when enacting the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Biosecurity Act was that passenger or associated organisms were to be dealt with under the biosecurity legislation but it noted that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act contains a precautionary principle albeit a weak one. 
So surely it is desirable that the assessment of risks for all organisms whether intentional or unintentional are exercised in a way that favours caution where there is uncertainty and the question is whether the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act requires strengthening in this regard. These are issues that could all be canvassed at the select committee to make sure we have good-quality legislation. 
We do not treat amendments to biosecurity and hazardous substances and new organisms legislation lightly. The protection of New Zealand’s environment is paramount; and security particularly of our immense primary production sector is of great importance. Despite what some may say about the Greens we do believe that the primary production sector is very important. 
Although on the face of it this bill would seem to clarify the issues for Parliament around this legislation there is always the chance that legislation like this will have unintended consequences. That is what the select committee process is for—to work through those by getting the feedback from the community those who are engaged with it and deal with these issues all the time to provide that feedback to parliamentarians so we can assess the practical implications the practical risk and where the unintended consequences might be. 
One example might be in clause 12 where the Act currently prohibits unapproved new organisms but the amended legislation simply states “restriction” and it would be worth exploring the extent to which the change in just that wording might have unintended consequences. 
The Greens have had very little time to examine this bill in detail so again we will be looking to the submitters to the select committee for their views on this. No doubt the bee-keeper community will have very serious concerns about legislation that overturns a court decision that was held in their favour and we understand the importance of that but also we recognise that we must make good law and there is a problem here that does need to be resolved. 
We would like to know how this bill might affect New Zealand garlic growers who are faced with difficulties in getting new seed while the garlic that is imported has the potential to bring in passenger viruses. How will it affect the New Zealand pork industry with the risk of importing the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus into New Zealand? What will it mean for the honey industry in practice and what will be the risk to it from  
Paenibacillus alvei 
? 
The Greens also want to mention briefly that we are very pleased that the amendment bill differentiates GMOs and ensures that GMOs will remain completely under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act whether they are brought into New Zealand intentionally or unintentionally. That is a very important security measure for New Zealand for our environment and for our primary production areas. It is difficult to think of a GMO coming in as a hitchhiker but that may be possible as more GMO vaccines are being developed and as technology progresses. So a whole range of issues need to be canvassed. 
The Greens will support the bill to go through its first reading because there are good legislative reasons why that has to happen. But we will not support a shortened select committee process because it is so important that the community must have the right to have a say—not just selected members of the community but the whole community who may be involved. Thank you. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker; tena tatou katoa. It is somewhat ironic that the issue at the top of the Order Paper today in the Beehive features what has become known as the New Zealand icon the bee. We know that every gift shop hosts the legendary Buzzy Bee or Te Pingipingi Pi as our kohanga reo know it and Diabetes New Zealand’s mascot is the soft toy Barnaby Bee. So it is probably little wonder that it has become an issue of national significance to put in place measures to manage the risks posed to the bee-keeping industry. It is an industry that has been established in New Zealand for well over a century even if it was originally resisted as yet another fad for the new colony. And it is an industry in which tangata whenua are playing an increasingly significant role with new directions and trends establishing our unique role in international markets. 
A classic example is Whakaari Beekeepers Ltd established in late 2002 and based in the isolated coastal community of Whangaparaoa. Up until that point although bee-keepers had routinely placed their hives on tribal lands tangata whenua had not exactly been amassing untold fortunes from the industry. It was common for bee-keepers to leave pots of honey as a rental payment for using the land which was not exactly making anyone a millionaire. So in 2000 Eddie Matchitt figured that local landowners should be able to benefit from the bees. Matchitt and his mates were also keen to support a district that suffered from high unemployment where most of the income was from benefit payments. 
I want to share the experience of Whakaari Beekeepers as it is a good example of a new enterprise that can create wealth and employment develop self-reliance amongst the people support the Maori bee-keeping sector and maximise returns from a local abundantly available resource. In short the enterprise was all looking good until  
Varroa jacobsoni 
 came along. The risk of the varroa mite to bee-keepers and the industries they provide pollination services to has been a prominent issue in the agricultural sector for close on a decade. 
But as this bill demonstrates there was to be another obstacle fly in the path of the bee—the bacterium  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 which is often found in association with the virus European foulbrood a known and dangerous pest to bee larvae. The National Beekeepers’ Association believed that given that risk Environmental Risk Management Authority approval under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act was needed prior to honey and bee products being imported from Australia under the import health standard issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry back in 2006. As is now well established the Court of Appeal decision in the  
National Beekeepers’ Association of New Zealand v the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 
 upheld this point and as such the ban on the import of honey and bee products from Australia has remained. 
This bill is being debated today to respond to the unique set of issues that came out of that case about the way in which such risks are managed and about the protections in place to care responsibly for our flora and fauna. As the last 200 years have demonstrated hordes of seemingly innocuous organisms have been introduced only for us to find dangers at a latter stage. We can think about possums gorse rabbits ferrets the household cat and so on. In fact in the last 5 years around 230 new pests have infiltrated our borders. 
The current regulatory system is not working well. The legislation will bring together the current mechanisms under the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation and the processes in the Biosecurity Act. In doing so it responds to the risks that emerge when organisms are deliberately imported as well as those that may arise incidentally in association with traded goods. 
I posed the question earlier as to this discussion being one on the national agenda and I consider it so for two key reasons. The first is the economic and commercial imperative not only for the honey industry but for continued crop pollination and more broadly across other sectors of the agricultural and horticultural industries. The National Beekeepers’ Association has contended that in the face of insufficient information on the risk of any organism importation should be denied until such information is obtained. In assessing the level of risk posed by Australian honey the association relied on research suggesting that  
Paenibacillus alvei 
 can be linked to human respiratory disorders and that it has also been suggested as a biological control of insects indicating its impacts on the wider environment. 
The common association with European foulbrood also cannot be discounted. European foulbrood causes bee larvae to rot and die or results in the birth of a weakened bee that weakens the hive as a whole. Treatment for European foulbrood is with antibiotics which would have a huge impact on the antibacterial properties of honey and particularly of manuka honey. We have specialist international markets for our manuka honey specifically because it is free of European foulbrood and has not been compromised by antibiotics. 
The second reason why the management of biosecurity risks at our border should be an issue of national importance is the importance of active environmental protection to keep our natural resources and environment healthy safe and intact for everybody. This bill will have the effect of setting in place import health standards to ensure that any risky goods are cleared before entering Aotearoa effectively overturning the Court of Appeal decision that is currently keeping Australian honey and bee products out of this country. 
Risks from all organisms imported incidentally in association with imported goods will be managed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry under the Biosecurity Act. Any organisms introduced through the approval process of the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be dealt with through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. But there remains a significant gap in the current statutory scheme that needs to be addressed and that is not raised in the current version of this bill—that is there needs to be a clear process that will allow the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to refer risk issues from known incidental new organisms to the Environmental Risk Management Authority for investigation and approval. If the authority does not have enough information to make that call such information should be sought or research should be commissioned instead of dealing with a gap via a bill to push concerns under the table. 
Rather than an either/or system there need to be workable connections between the Biosecurity Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Given the issues we have seen recently with asbestos painted apple moth spray dioxin poisoning and other intrusions in the environment we need to ensure we are putting in place proactive measures to prevent such risks from impacting on the sector before any other problematic organisms arrive. The 4-year investigation by the Ombudsmen into the impact and effects of aerial spraying of pesticide should have given sufficient warning to the Government of the need for ensuring future protection of crops people and land and for investing in the safety of affected populations. 
We in the Maori Party will support this bill to go to the select committee in order for a wider resolution to border security to be discussed and found but we cannot complete our analysis without reminding the House of our desire that the biosecurity statutory framework should include a total prohibition on genetically modified organisms in the interests of a GE-free New Zealand. Only then can we be really proud of our environmental clean green image. Kia ora. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand to take a quick call on the first reading of the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill. Quite a long path has led to this legislation being here in this House. Again it reminds us that a careful balance is required when we are dealing with biosecurity. 
Although on the one hand I think everyone in this House has acknowledged the importance of bee-keepers and the role they play in the New Zealand economy they are not often the first people we think of when we think of the primary production sector. Certainly without bees to pollinate the clover which carries out the important environmental act of fixing nitrogen in the soil we would be in a very dire situation indeed. With the varroa bee mite wiping out the feral bee population our bee-keepers have felt under some pressure as have bee-keepers around the world. 
It is important to acknowledge that this situation is not unique to New Zealand. We have seen particularly in countries like the United States that bee-keepers now charge for their services as do bee-keepers here. I believe that kiwifruit pollination is often paid for. A lot of bee-keepers in America have moved to doing that; they have not been able to make a lot of money from selling the honey itself so they have moved to making money from the pollination service that the bees provide. I join everyone here in acknowledging the very important role that bee-keepers play. 
But at the same time I also know as a former member of the Primary Production Committee that we need to be equally careful on the other side of the coin. That very important balance needs to be protected and preserved in whatever work goes on at the select committee. I was very pleased to hear the Minister for Biosecurity acknowledge that the bee-keepers had taken a judicial review and had achieved a result that meant that the import health standard that had been introduced that would have allowed Australian honey into New Zealand was put on hold for the time being. That is not to say it would have stayed that way had the Environmental Risk Management Authority gone through the process; the authority may well have gone through the process and the import health standard would have taken effect. 
Effectively the stay that was put on that import health standard will not be there when this legislation is passed. I was pleased to hear the Minister acknowledge that it is rare that we pass legislation in this House that does that but unfortunately that Court of Appeal decision has thrown up some very difficult circumstances with far-reaching implications for import health standards. I know again as a former member of the Primary Production Committee that one of the biggest criticisms we always had of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry whenever it came before us for a financial review was the length of time taken to process import health standards. The threat of judicial review hanging over every single import health standard that came before the ministry could only lengthen the time it took because the ministry would want to make sure that it was going through the proper process. It also would mean that everything would be held up in the courts for a lot longer—every import health standard could possibly be judicially reviewed. I agree with the Minister that it is only right that this Parliament confirms what we always believed to be the case under the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation: that organisms unintentionally brought into the country were not meant to be covered by that legislation. 
I remember when we first went through the import health standard process with the bee-keepers. It was a process that I was quite involved in; local bee-keepers had come to me for assistance. As the Minister will well remember we had a number of meetings in his office where we challenged ministry officials on the questions that bee-keepers were asking about the efficacy of heat treatment of honey to remove European foulbrood which is the disease that was worrying the bee-keepers. As members have rightly pointed out we have a thriving manuka honey industry and if we have to start dosing our hives with antibiotics that will damage it. The ministry officials had really done their homework. As we have seen the science was backing up and backing up meaning that the Australians were saying to us that they can now prove that heat treatment kills foulbrood and that Western Australia does not have it. Just as we have found with our case to export apples to Australia where our scientific evidence has been showing time and time again that adult apples cannot carry fire blight it became very very difficult for us as a matter of trade to continue to keep a product out when the science was telling us overwhelmingly that there was no risk there that heat treatment would kill foulbrood. 
I find it interesting that the judicial review was not taken on European foulbrood; it was taken on a companion bacterium. Initially I understood that it would be European foulbrood that would be challenged. I do not know whether that is telling. I know that the bee-keepers were worried that one of their expert witnesses had not been taken enough account of and I can only assume that they felt that that challenge would not have held up in a court of law because it was not the step that was taken here. 
I would like some clarification from the next National Party member as to whether we have seen quite a significant shift in National’s trade policy and it is now saying that we should have exceptions in certain areas to not allow certain products in—for example Australian honey. The feeling I was getting from the National Party was that its members were saying that actually we do not need to be so pure on this. The line that we have always taken has been that we do actually need to be pure. We are a very small country. We have a very open market. 
Hon David Carter 
: A matter of balance. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well it is a matter of balance absolutely. But the fact is that we cannot stand up in the World Trade Organization and criticise a country for ignoring our scientific evidence if we are doing exactly the same thing in the other direction. It has always been the understanding that we have to make sure the science could back up whatever position we took on trade. The process of bringing that science forward was not challenged in the judicial review and I can only assume that that is the reason—[ 
Interruption 
] Eric Roy is primed ready to leap to his feet. I assume that that is the only reason that that case was not taken. 
This is not an easy issue. I acknowledge the work that the bee-keepers did in bringing this case forward but unfortunately it has thrown up a number of very difficult issues that we do need to deal with very quickly. The interpretation that the Court of Appeal has taken is not the understanding of this Parliament. I look forward to this bill being passed very quickly so that the Primary Production Committee can get back to challenging the ministry on why its import health standard process is taking so long. I commend this bill to the House. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I would like to make a contribution to the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill. I do not see anybody else positioning himself or herself for a quick call so this may well be a summing-up of the issues. I just acknowledge the comments made by Moana Mackey. Such an erudite and candid response makes me wonder why she was not promoted in the last Cabinet reshuffle. I thought she certainly made a valuable contribution to the debate. It is interesting to note that this bill is being supported by all parties around the House to be referred to the select committee. I think that does indicate to us that there is an issue. Although this is a hazardous substances new organisms and biosecurity bill it is really about trade and trade issues. I think I should set out some principles for a start and indicate where they interface with the legislation and the need for this bill. 
New Zealand’s lifeblood is trade. Clearly our export earnings are very much steered by the performance of our primary industries. We rely on trade much more than the countries that export to us do. This situation has arisen over the importation of honey into New Zealand from Australia. We could be very very tempted to say that because there is an issue around fire blight in apples—we cannot get apples in there; the science on that is not very robust—and the Australians pinched Robbie Deans this would be a chance to give Australia the flick. But there can be only one basis upon which international trade and phytosanitary and sanitary conditions apply and that is the basis of science. We cannot afford to play minor games because New Zealand’s prosperity is at stake in terms of having robust reliable and accepted standards for the phytosanitary and sanitary conditions around trade. That is the first principle. We need to have robust science in terms of protecting not only our borders but consumers with regard to the products that we are keen to trade with. 
The second principle is that we want to prevent any unwanted incursions into this country. Herein is a subject we could launch much debate around. 
Then there is the issue of us needing a very clear road map to help us to bring in the products that we need in order to advance industry in New Zealand. There are a number of issues surrounding that. We require a number of things: new plant material germ plasm and chemicals. We are always looking for those things and they fall into the area of hazardous substances and new organisms. 
So accidental incursion falls into the lap of the biosecurity legislation and the things we need an actual road map for fall into the area of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. We have had a bit of a crossover there. There needs to be a demarcation so we clearly understand where responsibility lies. 
The issue surrounding this particular matter is about the incidental attachments—things coming in that to all evidence are not significant yet are attached to product. We have a situation now where the bee-keepers—as has been mentioned—chose to challenge an incidental attachment in court and say it should have been processed under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The repercussions of that are quite clear and quite scary. Already we have been shown in a briefing a schedule that I think had nine items on it that were held up because of the threat of an incidental attachment and the need for those products to go through the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. 
I have mentioned how significant and important it is that we have a flow of trade. An entity could go to court over an issue relating to tourism and say we are should not have any tourists come in because they may have an incidental attachment of dandruff athlete’s foot or anything else. 
Hon David Carter 
: I don’t think that’s a new organism. 
ERIC ROY 
: No. Well it does not have to be a new organism. If an attachment is incidental people could be held up; that could in fact happen. I think the potential is there for someone to choose a particular ethnic group and choose something that could be attached to people from that group. Quite clearly we have an anomaly and the demarcation needs to take place. 
I will just say something about the Primary Production Committee—I have already acknowledged the comments by Moana Mackey. That committee under the Hon David Carter is continuing its fine tradition of actually resolving issues. 
Nathan Guy 
: That’s right—getting on with it. 
ERIC ROY 
: Getting on with it. We have a pretty tight time frame to deal with this bill. I will say to the House that if the submissions raise issues that need more time— 
Hon David Carter 
: We need an extension. 
ERIC ROY 
: The Hon David Carter says we need an extension. Our intention is to resolve this issue. But if there are issues that need some really serious consideration and cannot be resolved within the time frame then we will seek an extension of time to deal with them. So that is also an important principle with regard to this bill. 
There have been quite a few comments about honey and the—how does one say it? 
Hon David Carter 
:  
P. alvei 
. 
ERIC ROY 
:  
Paenibacillus alvei 
. It is a companion-type disease or bacterium that can be affiliated with foulbrood. The interesting thing for me is that the bee-keepers instead of going to that first principle of science actually chose to do this on a technicality—in my humble view; I have not had a briefing from the bee-keepers. To all intents and purposes they have chosen to take the issue to court on a technicality. Why did they do that? Well they may very well be able to introduce to the select committee some information about the risk that we are not aware of. But I suggest there is possibly another rationale for it: bee-keepers are still pretty stressed about the whole issue of varroa and what has occurred in their industry in relation to it. They have lost an element of trust in the biosecurity process because although a range of activities and a talk-fest took place basically nothing was done in the North Island. Then a protocol was put in place in the South Island yet when varroa showed up there the whole protocol kind of evaporated. So I have some sympathy for the bee-keepers; I have some understanding of why they have chosen to take a very resolute and vigorous approach to stopping the  
P. alvei 
—one can understand that. 
However we clearly have a situation where we have impediments to trade. As I said at the beginning of my speech trade is what we live and breathe on. We need to have integrity in terms of how we deal with trade on the way in and our customers need to have absolute confidence on the way out. If we applied the incidental argument in New Zealand it would not be very long before it applied overseas. I do not know what the value of the honey that could be exported from Australia to New Zealand is—I guess it could be $5 million; it may be more. But under the World Trade Organization’s rules although one might say they are not fair Australia could choose any item—which could for example be worth half a billion dollars—and apply the same sanction to it in a countervailing way. 
We need to get the legislation tidied up and National will support the referral of this bill to the select committee. However our support for its referral to the select committee is not to say that we are happy about the standard of incursion clearance and the protection against the incursions that have occurred. In no way are we signing off on that. We are simply saying this is a trade issue and the demarcation needs to be sorted out. Trade is important to us. We need robustness in our processes and we need to have the confidence of the people we trade with in order to continue that trade and keep New Zealand’s position in international trade. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
 on behalf of the Minister for Biosecurity 
: 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee for consideration and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 17 March 2008. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Motion agreed to.