SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) : In dealing with Part 3 of this bill, members will see that it refers particularly to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act—legislation that no doubt many members will be very familiar with. They will probably not have to refer to the principal Act at all while making their submissions during this part of the debate.

When this bill first came before the House, we learnt very early on that, essentially, it would disappear and be phased into the three Acts of Parliament that are covered in the remaining three parts to this bill—namely, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, the Medicines Act, and the Biosecurity Act. I know my colleague Shane Ardern will be very keen to make a contribution on the Biosecurity Act.

When one looks at Part 3, in particular, it is tempting to just pass over amendments that appear at the end of a new bill like this, but I decided to have a quiet look at the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act and see exactly what those amendments do. I do not recall going into this level of detail during the select committee process—

Hon David Carter: Perhaps they should have done.

SIMON POWER: To be fair, my colleague is probably right. I say to the chairman of the select committee, the Hon Brian Donnelly, that I do not think we spent much time looking at the amendments to those Acts .

Hon Brian Donnelly: We did give you the opportunity.

SIMON POWER: That is probably true enough.

Clause 52 of the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill, “Director-General to withhold information”, looks vague and innocuous at first glance, but it is worth having a bit of a look at it. Subclause (1) states: “Section 12(2) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘immediately notify’, and substituting the words ‘make all reasonable efforts to contact and notify immediately’.’’

Hon David Carter: It’s a cover-up!

SIMON POWER: It is. He says it mockingly, but there are some real concerns about the way these words have been factored in. Let us go to section 12 of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act—that is, the section dealing with the director-general’s right to withhold information pursuant to an Official Information Act request. Section 12(2) states that where the director-general receives a request to release any information under the Official Information Act, the information to which the request relates may be able to be withheld if that information has been classified as commercially sensitive. I see the Minister frowning, but from my reading that is the general gist of subsection (2)—the information can be withheld if it is commercially sensitive, and that seems to make sense.

But at the point the application reaches the director-general, under the current regime the director-general must immediately notify the person who gave him or her the information—in other words, the holder of the commercially sensitive information—that a request to release the information has been received. Under the current Act, the bar is set quite high, in the sense that the person, the commercial entity, or the applicant, must be immediately notified. There is nothing about reasonable steps, or constructive notice—none of that stuff; they must be notified immediately.

In clause 52(1) the words “immediately notify” have been omitted and the words “make all reasonable efforts to contact and notify immediately” substituted. That is quite different from “immediately notify”. It is a kind of wishy-washy version. Does one sort of pick up the phone, dial the number, and if one cannot get through, think: “Well, I’ve made all reasonable efforts to make contact.”? Or maybe one presses the wrong fax number on the machine, and thinks: “Well, I’ve made all reasonable efforts to make contact.” Maybe if one just drives past the business premises, that is enough.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : I rise to take a very brief call to explain New Zealand First’s position in terms of these next three parts and the schedule. I particularly want to point out to my colleagues in National that we did negotiate with the Chair that the commencement date and Part 2 were the significant parts of this bill; we asked for extensive opportunities to debate the issues in those two areas, and the Chair really did accommodate us. So therefore we believe that it is only right and proper now to reduce the amount of debate around these last three parts, largely because they are consequential parts, and as my colleague Simon Power has said, there were no great cries from submitters that they needed drastic change or anything else. Most people saw them as just consequential, flowing on from the legislation itself. New Zealand First is not going to take multiple calls on these three parts.

SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) : I speak, with particular interest, about the part amending the Biosecurity Act and the director-general’s ability to respond quickly by waiving the normal process of notification and the normal stand-down period with regard to veterinary products and drugs in relation to whatever it is they may be responding to. On the surface, that is a very good provision, but it would be interesting if the Minister would take a call and give us an example. I could run through a range of scenarios where I think that might be useful—such as, there might be a new drug being developed somewhere overseas and there could be a major incursion of some sort, like a foot-and-mouth outbreak, or some other such disease where there is a vaccine, or some kind of medical development that could be useful in response to that, and thereby the director-general would be able to say, yes, we are not going to put this through the process that we normally would, through the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and the like, because there may be some new organism in it, and we are are willing to let it go because there is this major calamity on our hands.

That may be what it is for. I suspect that that is what it is for. I do not actually know whether that is true, and it would be really good if the Minister would take a call and tell us whether that is so. I know that in biosecurity matters over recent times there have been some holes in the policy so big that one could drive a whole truckload of foot-and-mouth contaminated cattle through.

So are we here, dealing with the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill, creating another loophole or another cavity that things could slip through? I am just not sure about that. I know that the director-general himself is a very competent person; we have always had very competent people in that role, and I know that that decision would not be taken lightly, and unless there was a reasonable amount of evidence that the drug, or the compound, or the new organism, or whatever it might be, that they are trying to release, was likely to have a positive outcome. But we just do not know; and, certainly, when we read this and we refer back to the respective sections of the different Acts—like section 49B of the Biosecurity Act—it is still not clear. I know that the Minister will be well informed on this, so I will be interested to hear her response on those issues.

I also know that the Biosecurity Act has had a number of amendments, and I am not sure whether they are relevant to this or whether this supersedes those. Maybe the Minister will be able to answer those questions.

The main guts of this part, as my colleague Simon Power said, is the Agricultural Components and Veterinary Medicines Act. I know there was a lot of debate around live vaccines and dead vaccines—I guess that is the way to describe the alternative to live vaccines—at the time that that was introduced. I know that in the case of leptospirosis, for example, and a number of other bovine diseases, there are dead vaccines. Now, will this apply to live vaccines or will it apply to dead vaccines? I am not sure. It is not clear when we read this. It is certainly not clear how wide the director-general’s ability will be to waive the standard rules, the Environmental Risk Management Authority criteria that one has to go through, for this sort of release. It does not say; it is not clear. I know that the Minister will have the answer to that. I am sure the officials have advised her on it. So maybe the Minister can take a call and advise us on that.

I know that in the case of leptospirosis there is a huge controversy out in rural New Zealand as to why the vaccine has to be confined as tightly as it is, and why it cannot be administered by farmers. I know that in some cases farmers do so, and I know that some stock and station agents and others who handle normal livestock-type vaccines want to trade in that vaccine and be part of it, and at the moment it is tightly regulated and only the vets are allowed to administrate it. Vets are the only ones who are allowed to sell it, trade it, and so on. So is there relevance in that? Will the director-general be able to direct whoever it is in that regard?

JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) : It is my pleasure to engage in the debate on Part 4. This part refers to medicines and to qualifying new medicines that would be available to the public. It is important to understand the process that would take place for approvals under the legislation as it is today. There is two-step approval. Two Acts have to be referred to. The first is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and the second is the Medicines Act. Part 4 allows for what is deemed to be a qualifying medicine, and for the approval process that has to take place for a qualifying medicine. There is a process here whereby assessments of qualifying medicines would be made by the director-general, and, in particular, clause 56 refers to the situations where the director-general may grant a conditional release under section 38H of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. In particular, the director-general has to have the consent of the Minister, and he or she must be acting under a delegation from the Environmental Risk Management Authority given under section 19 of that Act.

It is important to look at what a qualifying medicine could be. I note for the Committee’s attention that these are medicines with likelihood of a low-risk to the environment—that is, the kinds of things that are very likely to get into the environment as we know it. This part also applies to veterinarians, not under the Medicines Act but under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act. For instance, they would be in the sort of situation where organisms are injected into a muscular part of the body—they are very unlikely to get into the environment, and are highly metabolic. Those are the kinds of situations we are talking about in particular.

I want to discuss for a moment within Part 4 the approval of emergency qualifying medicines. I will reflect for just a moment on the kinds of situations that I recently came across in the United Kingdom. Some members may remember that in parts of the United Kingdom various people have been suffering from CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease), which is a derivative of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. In a very interesting case a young man, unfortunately, contracted CJD in the United Kingdom. From memory, he was only 19 or 20 years of age. As members will probably be aware, it is a disease that leads to death.

Interestingly enough, the parents of the child actually petitioned the courts for 19 months to have approval of this medicine. The great tragedy of that was that after the courts allowed the approval of it, the young man has shown great signs of improving. It will not be enough to save his life, but we do have to ask the question whether had that great drug been approved earlier on it could have done more to save that young man’s life.

The area of medicines is very exciting. One of the great advantages of genetic modification as we know it is that it is likely to lead to people living a lot longer. I certainly hope that all members in this Chamber will live to well beyond 100, and I hope that it is as a result of this bill. I would like to know that my contribution in this debate was to encourage just a few more members to vote for it, and on the back of it that humanity lived longer. I know that not only my constituents, but also people up and down the country, would be very, very happy with that.

I do want to point out that situation, although I should also point out that should that provision of Part 4 be adopted, and emergency approval be given, there is a differing form of control over it, and use is dictated. That is covered in section 24D, “Approval of medicines required for use in special emergency”.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave to amend my vote. When the vote was taken on Part 3 I inadvertently said there were nine votes. In fact there were eight votes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. The result is now 92 in favour and 21 against.

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) : Part 5 makes up the third part of the amalgamating triumvirate of the three pieces of legislation that will be amended as a result of this legislation. People who have been keen to make a contribution on Parts 3, 4, 5, and, no doubt, the schedule, will be pleased to know that I have undertaken some research on the Biosecurity Act, although Part 5, which relates to amendments to the Biosecurity Act, looks harmless enough. To be fair, I have to add that it is pretty lightweight research, because Part 5 does not actually give rise to a whole lot of debate, which is unusual. Often when we glance at these types of parts or clauses, we are inclined to think at first glance that that is the case, but once a member bores down into the detail of those parts and clauses he or she often finds that they are far more complex and, in fact, may pose some drafting difficulties at a later date.

I am pleased to advise the Committee that this has not been the case with Part 5. It seems to be a sensible and straightforward amendment to the Biosecurity Act. I do not pretend, nor will I ever, that I am expert on matters relating to science or biosecurity, but it seems to me that the officials have guided us reasonably well through Part 5. During the Education and Science Committee process, of course, as the Hon Brian Donnelly pointed out to me during the extensive debate on Part 3, members of the select committee were given an opportunity to comment on these three parts.

I have to say as a passing remark that the schedule is more interesting than Part 5. I am pretty much looking forward at this moment to the schedule being debated next. I have been building up because the schedule, in fact, provides members looking to make a contribution with a lot more material than Part 5 does. If members want to turn to the schedule, we could finish the day’s debate on a reasonably high note. There is plenty of material in the schedule for a robust debate about the various vermin, reptiles, and other species contained in that schedule. I just want to assure members that I am advised by officials that none of those particular entries in Schedule 2 are biographical, and members can be assured that they are, in fact, scientific terms, which relate to those matters outlined.

Perhaps the Minister would be interested, when we get to the schedule, in walking us through some of those scientific terms that those of us who are graduates with just law and arts degrees have struggled through. I challenge the Minister to take us through the American grey squirrel’s scientific name, and I am sure she could.

Returning as I must to the narrow Part 5, I want to assure the Committee that it seems—with the work that Brian Donnelly and other members of the select committee have done to split this bill into four pieces of legislation—that it has been done in a way that will be consistent with the general purposes of the bill, and with the operational requirements set out in Part 2. I am confident that matters contained in Part 5 accurately reflect the legislation currently before the Committee. I am sure the legislation will be expedited in a way that will pass it into law within the time frames contained in Part 1, which was debated at so much length earlier in a way that surprisingly divided the House along lines that one would not think were historically reflective of the traditional positions that various parties in the House have taken on other issues.

That has shown that, despite the New Zealand public being of the view that politicians are constantly at each others throats, the two major political parties in this Parliament have managed to agree, in a substantive way, on this legislation. Often that type of cooperation does not make the news, and it is worth making the point at the late stages of this debate that the debate around Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and now the significant debate around Part 5, have been handled in a way that I think is probably pretty constructive. I congratulate the Minister on taking some calls during the course of the debate—something we do not see a lot of from various Ministers of this Government on the legislation that I have been involved with during my 4 short years in this House. But I do know that this particular Minister does—

Sue Kedgley: Is this a valedictory?

SIMON POWER: I tell Ms Kedgley that this is not a valedictory speech, although we might have to get to that if this bell does not go shortly! So there I leave my comments on Part 5, and I look forward to making a contribution on the schedule.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. My colleague is on a roll, and he has already mentioned the schedule. I would like to hear a little bit about the giant African snail, and seek leave that he continue with the roll he is on, and then we vote at the end on Part 5 and the schedule at that time.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Well, I know that the member would like that, but we need to put Part 5 first.

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) : I am happy to yield my call to the Minister, on the understanding that I am able to perhaps seek your indulgence to have the next call in order to respond to the Minister.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sure that will be possible.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) : For the benefit of the Committee and of the listeners to this debate—because this is a delicious schedule—I say this schedule has nothing to do with genetically modified organisms. It is about the Ministry for the Environment tidying up its list of prohibited new organisms arriving in the country. We are not allowed to have any Arctic foxes, any mongooses, any skeleton weed—I miss the fact that we cannot have skeleton weed—or any hairy thorn apples. That is not to do with genetic modification. It is a good reminder that the Act we are amending is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The genetically modified organisms are only one part of that Act. There are many new organisms that could give this country a lot of problems, and we are trying to keep them out.

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) : The schedule is the last part of this legislation. I thank the Minister for taking enough interest to make an initial call. I am delighted to see that Ms Kedgley will also seek a call on the schedule, and that my colleague the Hon Ken Shirley is indicating that he would like a call on the schedule, too. That will be a nice way to round things off.

The Minister has outlined that schedule 2 of the Act lists prohibited new organisms. I have to say at this point that the Minister skirted her responsibility when I asked her during my contribution on Part 5 to run us through the scientific name for the American grey squirrel. Perhaps I could suggest that one of the speakers following me may like to have a crack at that, because it is beyond me.

What caught my eye about the schedule of prohibited new organisms were the references to venomous reptiles, venomous amphibians, and other things, including the prairie dog. I thought that was interesting. The schedule also includes any gerbil, which probably is not very interesting, and any pocket gopher. I would be interested to know from the Minister what the difference is between a gopher and a pocket gopher. [Interruption] “Smaller”, says the Attorney-General from across the House. One assumes that the giant gopher is fine, and that we are quite happy for that particular beast to roam our lands. But the pocket gopher, a creature more difficult to track down, is now prohibited, and that is interesting. I would be interested to know whether there is another breed of gopher that is not a pocket gopher, but that—

Russell Fairbrother: “Gopher” home!

SIMON POWER: Does Mr Fairbrother want to “gopher” home?

I see that the mongoose is prohibited, and any mole is prohibited, which I thought was interesting. Also prohibited are any members of the—and I shall have a crack at this one—Phalangeridae family. How have I done, officials? I do not know what that family is, but, other than the Australian bushtail possum, it is prohibited.

Hon Ken Shirley: Marsupials.

SIMON POWER: I thank the member. The list includes any stickleback and the giant African snail. We have an inconsistency there. On the one hand we are concerned only about pocket gophers—not big gophers—and on the other hand we are concerned only about the giant African snail. Smaller snails that are not from Africa are, presumably, off the hook. I did not see “Any predatory snail”; that must have snuck in there. One has to ask oneself how a snail can be predatory.

The list goes on to include any cane toad, Negro root, skeleton weed, hairy thorn apple, leafy spurge, Star of Bethlehem, and poverty weed. I am no expert on those sorts of things or on witchweed, snakeweed, and butterbur. No doubt Ken Shirley and Sue Kedgley may be able to throw a bit more light on some of those things than I can. Again, the list seems inconsistent. It includes the American grey squirrel and any red squirrel. A squirrel that does not fall into either of those categories—in other words, one that is not an American grey squirrel or a red squirrel—and that is not easily mistaken for a pocket gopher is in. The odds are good, as my colleague Mr Tisch points out.

I shall finish here by saying that this debate has been a lengthy and an emotional one, on an issue that has raised the interest of the New Zealand public in a way that I have not seen before in my time in this Parliament. This legislation has been contentious, and it has not been an easy process for many members of this Parliament. I look forward to participating in the third reading of this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I call Sue Kedgley.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Perhaps you have got the parties out of order with regard to the call. As you know, Madam Chair, the ACT party has consistently received the call in advance of the Green Party.

Sue Kedgley: I would be very happy to have the member of the party of eight take the call.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) : Thank you, Madam Chair. I have been looking at the schedule as listed, and my question to the Minister in the chair is why schedule 2 of the Act lists only macrofauna. It seems that microfauna are not listed. I am thinking particularly of the Asian gypsy moth, the painted apple moth, or the tussock moth—the organisms we are spending vast sums of money on trying to eliminate in the Auckland and Hamilton regions at this time. There is a wide range of other micro-organisms. Perhaps an explanation of that is provided elsewhere, but one issue that immediately leaps out at me is that the organisms listed are just the macrofauna—things like the pocket gophers, beavers, foxes, mustelids, mongooses, and all the ones Mr Power read out for us. That is one question I would like the Minister to respond to.

The other one that leaps out is item 20 in schedule 2 of the Act, which is “Any predatory snail”. The list includes “Any giant African snail”, which is very specific, and then “Any predatory snail”. A lot of New Zealanders perhaps do not realise that we have native predatory snails. They are carnivores, and they are big characters. The Powelliphanta snail and the snail are very prolific in the north-west Nelson region. One can go out at night and the bush tracks are just carpeted with those great big snails as big as one’s fist, and they are carnivores—they are predators. I would like to know how they fit into the schedule. I would hate to think that we are banning our own predatory snail that is already here. Perhaps the Minister could explain that one to me.

Another one is No. 29 on the list—and Mr Power drew attention to it—which is the Star of Bethlehem. I take it the following name, Pua-hoku, is Māori. Perhaps the name is not Māori. However, if that plant does not belong here, why does it have a Māori name? That is a fair question, is it not? How has it got a name in the indigenous language if it is not an indigenous species? We know that Māori made up a name for orange roughy when it was discovered in the 1980s, and perhaps there is a similar explanation in this case. Perhaps the Minister could tell the Committee whether the name comes from elsewhere in Polynesia, because I am not sure whether Pua-hoku is a Māori name or is from another Polynesian language. It is an interesting question. If the star of Bethlehem is not a native plant, how come it is listed with a Māori name? We also have the Latin name Hippobroma longiflora, so that is an interesting one.

The Minister also said she thought we should be able to have skeleton weed. Perhaps the Minister could tell members why she made that comment. She said it is more is the pity it is prohibited, and that she would like to have some skeleton weed. That is a very interesting statement coming from the Minister for the Environment, as the Minister in the chair. Why would she like to see skeleton weed in this country? Perhaps there is a reason for that. I cannot think of one, but I would like to hear from her what that reason may be.

Those are just a few questions, and I would certainly like the Minister to answer them prior to the close of this debate.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : Just before I comment on the schedule, I will respond to a comment that Mr Power made. He made the observation that it was very interesting that the two major political parties—one not so major any longer—agree in a substantive way on this legislation. That is a very, very interesting point, and one that has been noted up and down the land. Why is the Labour Party acting and sounding like the National Party on this bill? Why is it ignoring the majority of the opinion in New Zealand? Why is it ignoring the views of many of its own members? Why is it proceeding with this legislation? Why is it to lift the moratorium and risk contaminating our environment, in order to grow food that there is no market for, that has not yet been safety-tested, and that there are no consumer benefits from, when even the claimed producer benefits have not yet come to pass?

Up and down the land people ask me why the Labour Party is doing this, and why the Labour members are silent on this issue—why they are in a cowed silence. Two days ago in a hall in Wellington, a Māori person stood up and asked why the Māori representatives in Parliament were agreeing to lift the moratorium, why they are silent, and why we never hear them speak out about this issue, when we know Māori have very real concerns about it. It may be a cosy little club in here in Parliament, and, as Simon Power said, the major parties may agree in a substantive way on this legislation. But I can tell that member he is completely out of touch with political opinion and with public opinion in this land—as we will see on Saturday, when people up and down this land will be marching. This cosy little club, where members are all giggling and chatting and patting each other on the back, is completely out of touch. Frankly, most New Zealanders would be appalled to hear this jolly little debate about a bill that will have such serious consequences for the future of New Zealand.

This schedule prohibits the beaver, the prairie dog, and so on. We are worried about introducing a new species like the hairy thorn apple, when this bill will allow what are basically alien species—because that is what genetically engineered species are—into New Zealand. They are novel species. In order to get patents, it has to be proved that genetically engineered species are completely new, novel, and alien organisms. These new organisms are unpredictable in their consequences. We are worried about the red or silver fox, but at the same time we are to allow these inherently unpredictable and untested organisms into our environment, so that we can grow food that there is no market for, and that consumers are rejecting. The only reason any consumers around the world are eating GE food is that they are forced to eat it because there is no proper labelling regime. That, of course, is the case in New Zealand. We are being forced to eat genetically engineered food. Our labelling system is so pathetic that we cannot avoid GE ingredients, because so many of them are unlabelled in New Zealand, and that is the only reason that consumers are eating such ingredients in New Zealand.

So why are we risking our status as a clean, green producer of pure food? Why are we lifting the moratorium, against the overwhelming public opinion of this land? Why is the Labour Party sounding like the National Party? Why is it in substantive agreement, as Simon Power said, with ACT and National on this bill? People are asking whether the Labour Party is returning to the 1990s. Why is it listening to a handful of multinational corporations, and no doubt to George Bush, and ignoring the people of New Zealand? Why are the ordinary Labour Party members so silent on this issue? I challenge the Māori members—there are three Māori members, each of whom I deeply respect, sitting in this Chamber now—to explain why they are so silent on this issue. Why are they not speaking, as the person asked in the hall last night, on behalf of Māori on this matter?

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I specifically asked the Minister to respond to my questions. I have not heard an answer.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. That is not a point of order. It is entirely over to the Minister whether she takes a call.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) : I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2), the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2), pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 144.