Carter David: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Carter David: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15144] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 The National Party supports the second reading of the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill. I will start by saying that this would be one of the more interesting pieces of legislation that I have seen and seen pass through the legislative process under a very rapid timetable. I want to acknowledge first of all the cooperation I received from all members of the Primary Production Committee who worked hard in studying a complex issue and constructively coming up with the amendments which I note the Minister has accepted. I want also to express my thanks to the select committee staff who under pressure also managed to help us through this process. Finally I express my thanks to the officials. The officials often do not get recognition for the work they do. We found them to be extremely cooperative. They acknowledged there were some difficulties with the legislation as first presented to the select committee but were prepared to entertain ways to address them and they worked with us to find a solution that I think is most appropriate in the circumstances. 
The first point I want to comment on is the need for urgency around this legislation. It went before the select committee process with us perhaps being unsure of the need for urgency in the first instance. We quickly became aware that as a result of the Court of Appeal decision—which I think was on 4 December last year—and of a subsequent Crown Law opinion the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was inevitably in a difficult position. I want to quote just one paragraph from the Crown Law opinion dated March this year: “The director-general and chief technical officer must therefore hold off issuing further import health standards unless satisfied that the proposed import health standard will not amount to an approval for the introduction of a new organism into New Zealand without ERMA approval.” Clearly with the proviso added to that statement the ministry was in a position whereby it could not continue to issue any further import health standards or amend the existing ones. That meant there was an overriding aspiration from all members of the select committee to work rapidly to address the situation. 
The key aspiration that I had in working through this legislation was to make sure that we still maintained effective biosecurity control in New Zealand. Having said that the second thing we had to balance with that was that we do need to have a biosecurity regime in this country that is fair and reasonable in terms of allowing trade to occur. We are a country that has talked about free trade for a long period of time and it is becoming generally accepted by most political parties here in the House that the balance between fair and free trade and maintaining our biosecurity interests is the very essence of any good biosecurity legislation. I think that with the amendments that have been proposed we get that balance as close to being correct as is indeed humanly possible. At the end of the day the balance in the development of any import health standard must be based on science not on emotion. 
I will also talk later about the two difficult cases that have received a lot of attention through the select committee process: both the bee-keepers concerns around the import standard for honey and the pork industry’s concern. But I want now to express my concern around a comment I made in the first reading debate on this bill. At that stage I felt a lot of the developments in terms of those two import health standards in particular were almost erring towards a gung-ho approach—I think that was the word I used—towards the importation of other products. Having had the opportunity to liaise with the officials I now no longer hold that view. I think the ministry has done a very creditable job in talking to the industries concerned as it has developed the import health standards in those two particular cases. But where I think the difficulty arises is that as the Minister alluded to a minute ago an independent review process is utilised by the ministry in the development of import health standards but it appears to be judge and jury on the issue. Therefore I think the improvement that we came up with—the insertion of the amendment into the bill—now means there is more independence than there was previously. 
I pick up the comment made by the Minister—and this became very evident to the members of the select committee—that hundreds of import health standards have been developed after discussion between the parties involved and generally they have been accepted by industry. We have had two quite high-profile cases where the import health standard has not been accepted. I think we now have a process whereby those industries can achieve some independent review. But at the end of the day as I said earlier the decision must be made. It must be made based on science and not on emotion. How else can we continue to argue our case against the Australians on the issue of New Zealand apples not being allowed access into Australia? 
The groups of submitters we heard fell I think into two or three categories. A relatively small group of submissions argued that there is not a problem and that new organisms that arrive incidentally with intentional imports should go through a Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act process. We spoke with the  
Environmental Risk Management Authority through the select committee process and the authority said itself that that would simply not be practical. I also pick up on the original intention with regard to the legislation both the Biosecurity Act and the  
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act legislation when it went through the House. I do not believe as I read through the  
Hansard 
 of the time that there was ever an intention that if a passenger organism was coming in on an intentional import that process should then go through an  
Environmental Risk Management Authority - type process. It was always intended that that should be addressed by the Biosecurity Act. So we certainly gave consideration to that particular line of submission but at the end of the day the select committee did not agree with it.  
We then got another group of submitters whom I would describe as the importers. They correctly pointed out that they are in a no-win situation because of the Crown Law advice. I think they were probably unaware of the Crown Law advice so I am pleased it has been made publicly available. They simply wanted the trade in and importation and export of products to continue unabated without impediment. They deserve satisfaction.  
We had an interesting group from the equine industry where there is a long-established import health standard that allows the trade of horses into New Zealand particularly from Australia. Australia had an outbreak of equine influenza late last year which meant that the  
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry quite correctly wanted to amend the import health standard. Because of the Crown Law opinion it was unable to amend that standard. The result was that a lot of horses are stranded in Australia and New Zealanders are trying to bring them into New Zealand. That could not occur until this legislation proceeded through the select committee and through the House. I think we have largely addressed their concerns. 
I will move now to the honey situation and to the bee-keepers’ concern around the development of their import health standard. What became evident there is that the bee-keepers had had a win in the court. Our first wish within the select committee—and of all select committee members—was to try to achieve a mechanism to allow them to retain the fruits of their victory. Why could the bee-keepers not go through the  
Environmental Risk Management Authority process? We considered that but as mentioned in the commentary on the bill it was just not practical because of the particular  
Paenibacillus alvei  
organism. We have therefore acknowledged that the bee-keepers need to work quickly with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and we have an assurance from the ministry that it will develop a review process specifically for them. We have delayed the final validation of the import health standard in order to allow that process to occur. It is for the bee-keeping industry to pick up that opportunity. It is certainly for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to provide the opportunity and it must be provided with some urgency.  
Finally there is the pork issue which has caused a lot of concern. The risk of the introduction of another disease would be devastating to the pork industry. It now has the ability through the final stages of the development of its import health standard to go through the review process that has been established.  
The final point I will make is that in hindsight the situation addressed in this legislation was an accident waiting to happen. The Minister had received information on it in the briefing papers he received as a Minister in 2005 but it took a court case that went against the Government at the time brought by the bee-keepers for this bill to be urgently rushed before the House. But I certainly support the legislation as it has arrived back from the select committee.