Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) : I move, That the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I will start by acknowledging the work that submitters to the Primary Production Committee have put into this bill. For reasons that I will come to shortly, submitters had a period of just over a week to prepare submissions, and the select committee effectively had a period of only 2 weeks in which to consider the bill. Despite these constraints, 53 submissions were received from a range of interested organisations and individuals. Many of the submissions were substantial, and the select committee was, therefore, required to consider a number of significant issues in a short period of time. I thank submitters for their input, and I thank the committee for its hard work and its careful consideration of the issues raised by submitters.

I am also very conscious that the bill has generated substantial concerns, particularly in the bee-keeping and pig farming industries. The Government acknowledges those concerns and is happy to support the mechanisms for independent review that the select committee has recommended in its response to them.

I understand that a number of key concerns were expressed in submissions on the bill, including whether the bill is even necessary or whether it is necessary to pass it urgently. The full implications of the Court of Appeal judgment in the Beekeepers’ Association case last December are captured in the following statement by the court: “… 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.”

Some submitters considered that this statement by the court does not create significant problems and that the facts of the case taken by the Beekeepers’ Association were unique or uncommon. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry sought advice from the Crown Law Office immediately after the court’s judgment was released in December. This advice led to the freeze on issuing any new import health standards under the Biosecurity Act, and on amending any existing standards. This freeze on new or amended import health standards is what makes it necessary for the bill to be passed so urgently.

In considering the implications of the court’s interpretation, it is important to bear in mind that for many different kinds of imported goods there are a large number of known new organisms that might be incidentally imported. I give but one example: there could be hundreds of known new micro-organisms imported in or on horses—in their intestines, on their coats, or in their noses. If the law as stated by the Court of Appeal was left unchanged, then all of those organisms would require an approval under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act before horses could be imported into New Zealand. That is clearly unworkable, to say the least, and impractical, because the approval processes in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act were not designed for assessing the risk posed by passenger new organisms. As a result, they are not suitable for that task.

Given that some submitters had questioned the need for the bill, the Crown Law Office advice was made available to members of the select committee. I have also become aware that other members were interested in the reasons for the bill, and for that reason I sent a copy of the Crown Law Office advice to all members of the House at the end of last week.

A second and related concern has been around why this bill needs to be progressed so urgently, given that there has been awareness of the problems related to the interface between the Biosecurity Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act for some time. Officials had been working on issues relating to the interface between the two Acts before the bee-keepers’ legal challenge was commenced. The High Court judgment in the litigation found in favour of the Crown’s arguments to an extent that no law changes were considered necessary. But the Court of Appeal, however, found almost completely the reverse of that judgment, which has triggered the need for the legislation before the House today.

Another key issue raised by some submitters was their questioning of why the approval processes in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act could not be used to assess the risk posed by passenger new organisms. This has been looked into thoroughly by officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Ministry for the Environment, and the Environmental Risk Management Authority as part of the work that was done before the bee-keepers’ litigation. The conclusion they reached was that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act approval process was not appropriate for this task.

I set out in some detail why the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act approval processes are not suitable for assessing passenger new organisms during the first reading debate. I will not repeat them in detail here, but I will make some more general observations. The first point is that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act has a decision-making process based on the particular new organism that is applied for. The Biosecurity Act has a decision-making process based on the kinds of goods that are proposed for importation. The latter has, therefore, clearly been designed to consider the unwanted pests and diseases that might come in with imported goods, and the measures that should be applied to mitigate those risks.

Secondly, the sheer number of new organisms that are known to be associated with imported goods of various kinds would make it impractical to carry out a Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act assessment for each of them. The biological reality is that many new organisms cross our border as incidental importations on a regular basis without posing any significant risk to New Zealand.

There are various reasons why the incidental importation of a new organism might present very low risks to New Zealand. Some examples are those where the organism may enter New Zealand in low quantities in imported goods, and as a result there is a very low likelihood of it becoming established here; where an organism would not survive or reproduce in New Zealand because, for example, the climate is unsuitable; where the organism is inconsequential and would have negligible adverse effects even if it did become established in New Zealand; and where an organism requires a particular insect in order to spread and that insect is not present in New Zealand. In as much as it is more sensible for these kinds of organisms to be assessed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, in an analysis of the risk posed by a particular kind of imported good, rather than have each and every one of them assessed using the criteria proposals in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, this is what this bill is about.

That touches on a third general point, which is that the risks posed by an organism when it is imported incidentally are different from the risks posed by an organism if it is deliberately imported. Some submitters questioned this, and pointed out that the effects of an organism are the same if it becomes established in the environment, regardless of whether it was imported deliberately or incidentally. That is correct, of course, but what needs to be remembered is that an organism entering the country as an incidental import may have a very low probability of actually becoming established in New Zealand. Therefore, if overall risks are different, and in many cases significantly different, this is the kind of reason why the job of assessing risks from organisms that might be incidentally present in imported goods is quite different from the job of assessing an organism that is proposed for deliberate release. The likelihood of establishment must be considered in the case of incidental importations, whereas establishment in New Zealand must be assumed in the case of deliberate importations.

A number of submitters accepted that some legislative response to the Court of Appeal decision is necessary, but they considered that the bill should make more substantial amendments to the Biosecurity Act. The common theme behind these submissions was the view that there needs to be a more statutory process and criteria to guide the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in the process of developing import health standards. Some of the suggested amendments to the Biosecurity Act proposed that elements of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act be adopted, such as the precautionary principle and the minimum standards. Other suggestions were for some kind of independent review of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s decision or an appeal right.

I would have been concerned if the select committee had sought to make major amendments of this kind to the Biosecurity Act. Adopting elements of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act into the Biosecurity Act could have significant implications for the way that those decisions are made under the Biosecurity Act. A range of different stakeholders would have an interest in any such amendments, and I note that the select committee heard from submitters concerned about two specific import health standards, when in fact over 400 import health standards are currently in effect.

This bill was introduced as a measure specifically to address the problems resulting from the Court of Appeal’s decision, and it needs to be passed promptly. Therefore, I am pleased that the committee has maintained a focus on those essential elements. However, the select committee has recommended that the Biosecurity Act be amended to make provision for an independent review process that can be used in cases where there are significant or supposedly controversial concerns, and when those have arisen during the consultation over the import health standards.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry already seeks independent peer review of its risk analysis. However, I believe that the new provision recommended by the committee will be of value in helping to move forward in relation to those few import health standards that become contentious. The details of the review process will be developed by 1 July in consultation with affected parties, so I am accepting that recommendation. I also understand that the Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will shortly be offering the bee-keeping industry a targeted review of the ministry’s interpretation of the science in dispute around the Paenibacillus alvei, which was the key organism of concern in the bee-keepers’ legal challenge.

The last topic I will address is the validation of the import health standard for honey from Australia. A number of submitters saw this as the Government legislating to deprive bee-keepers of a court victory. I can certainly understand that perspective and why members of this House would be concerned about that. As I said in the first reading debate, the Government did not take lightly the decision to validate the standard. I will not repeat in detail the reasons for validation that I referred to in the first reading, but I would like to emphasise that the bill is based on the Crown Law Office advice that I have made available to members. The select committee also received advice on this issue from the Legislation Advisory Committee, which concluded that the retrospective validation of the import health standard can be justified.

I also note that the review to be offered by the director-general of the ministry, concerning the science and dispute around Paenibacillus alvei, is in some way a reflection of what the bee-keepers considered they won from the Court of Appeal decision, and that the committee has recommended a solution whereby there will be no imports of Australian honey for 90 days, during which time the independent review can be carried out. I endorse the committee’s proposal to provide a practical way forward, although still being responsive to calls for an independent consideration of the dispute over the effects of Paenibacillus alvei.

In closing may I thank submitters for their input, and the members of the Primary Production Committee for their hard work on the bill and the sound judgment that I think they have brought to bear on some very difficult and complex issues. These are difficult matters to contend with, and we will not always make everyone happy. That is a major understatement! Indeed, biosecurity management at the border is a difficult balancing act with a range of competing interests, and it is essential that we do it as well as we possibly can. The current situation of an unworkable statutory regime for assessing the passage of new organisms and a freeze on the issuing or amending of import health standards is quite simply unsustainable. Therefore, I urge members of this House to pass the bill promptly.

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.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) : Aleikum salaam. After hearing the background to this bill from the Minister for Biosecurity, Jim Anderton, and also from the Hon David Carter, chair of the Primary Production Committee, there is not really a lot one can add to what has been said. So I will take just a brief call on this bill.

The Minister has very clearly highlighted why the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill was necessary. There was clearly the need for clarification between the Biosecurity Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, particularly with the issue of importing honey from Australia in relation to the Paenibacillus alvei organism, which has been mentioned before. The court case has been won by the honey industry, in relation to the process at the time not to the organism itself.

This bill is now fully supported not only by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry but also by the Environmental Risk Management Authority, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Crown Law, and the Legislation Advisory Committee. This clearly shows that there were issues that have now been fixed by this bill. I am delighted that the Opposition, the National Party, supported this bill through the select committee process and will be supporting it going right through.

Clearly, this bill is designed to highlight the fact that any passenger—what I would call stowaway—organisms that come to the country unintentionally should be dealt with through the Biosecurity Act rather than through the Environmental Risk Management Authority. This bill also validates any of the import health standards in relation to honey imported from Australia. I am delighted.

The Primary Production Committee heard 15 submitters out of the 53 who sent submissions, some of whom were quite emotional at times. There were very strong views held, particularly by the bee industry. We also heard from importers who had quite a different view.

I think that through this bill we have clearly set up a mechanism, if you like, for the bee-keepers through the independent scientific panel. Being a scientist myself, I was very pleased that this issue was dealt with in a scientific manner rather than emotionally. I am pleased that the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry will set up the scientific panel to look at this issue within 90 days of the enactment of this bill to give peace of mind to, in particular, the bee-keepers in this country.

The Government takes particular pride in dealing with biosecurity issues in this country. I am delighted that these issues come up for us so that we can make sure that our border control people are doing their job in terms of preventing any of the organisms coming to this country. These organisms could be damaging to our agriculture because we depend on agricultural exports and commodities. Clearly, we have to be on the lookout for any dangerous organisms that could come into this country.

I think setting up this review panel is a great improvement to the original bill. There are not too many bee scientists and honey scientists in the country, and it appears that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will probably have to get someone from overseas on to this panel to make sure that the process takes place—if the bee industry wants it. Obviously, it is up to the bee industry, if it wants some kind of review of this honey import, to seek it. In the meantime, the committee has recommended that the import of honey be banned for 90 days so that this process can take place if the industry wants it.

Overall, I think the bill is much-improved from that which came to us in the Primary Production Committee. It was a process that we had to do in a bit of a hurry, but I am delighted that the select committee members on both sides of the House supported this bill. As usual, we worked very closely, as in any issue relating to primary production and the farming community. I thank the Opposition members and the committee for their cooperation on this bill. With those few words, I commend this bill to the House.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : National supports this bill, and by and large we support the comments of the Minister in his opening remarks relating to the history of this issue and what needs to be done going forward. In this case there has been an indecent rush to bring the bill before the House. Submitters had only 10 days to put in their submissions. Despite this lack of time, there were 53 submissions representing most of the large industries in this country. That is because there is widespread concern in this country in relation to biosecurity matters, and I want to highlight some of those concerns.

The need for this legislation came about as a result of the National Beekeepers’ Association winning a Court of Appeal case, and we have already heard a lot about that so I will not canvass it any further, other than to say that the particular organism Paenibacillus alvei, which was highlighted in the Court of Appeal case, is a new organism. The Court of Appeal rightly highlighted that it does not matter how any new organism arrives in this country—whether it is an intentional import or an accidental import, or an unintended consequence of an import—the effect on the environment is likely to be the same. Therefore, the overlap in the legislation makes no sense, and something needed to done about that.

On the other hand, the import health standards that were in the pipeline, which the Crown Law Office advised the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry could not proceed without potential further litigation, were then held up. So there was a stand-off on one side, where major industries had import health standards that they had worked on and agreed with that needed to be amended, were being amended, or were new that were held up, and on the other side there were a couple of industries that were very concerned around the process by which their import health standards had been developed. That is the background.

My concerns are that if industries had more confidence in import health standards not being breached like they have been in recent times, then they would not potentially have raised these concerns. If someone used, incidentally, as a main scientist for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, such as was the case with Dr Mark Goodwin in the bee industry, does not have the scientific background to justify the position, then who does? We can understand the industry being somewhat concerned about the import health standard going ahead, in light of his evidence. In the last few days a nurseryman in the Waikato came to me with coconut ground-up potting mix that has been imported from Sri Lanka that has thus far imported 34 weeds. That is 34 new plant species imported into this country, and we have no knowledge of their potential damage or consequence to the economy. As recently as today I have received an email from a concerned person who is anxious about the importation of brush fence, a type of plant that comes out of China, and claims that the import health standards set by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry are being breached in this regard. We can understand that there is some great concern out there amongst the importing and exporting industries of our country.

If we take that into account, this legislation gives the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry more potential to ignore some of those concerns, so that is an issue of grave concern to me. I want the Minister in the House today to give a reassurance that concerned stakeholders can get an independent review. The legislative process we have implemented in the select committee outlines that, but the Minister needs to state that those in the bee and pork industries in particular, which have been the two industries that have brought this to a head, can get a fair review. I also need a clear statement from the Minister or from Government that Biosecurity New Zealand officials will not rush through the import health standard for the pork industry before this legislation comes into effect. That is still unclear, and I think we need some further assurance in that regard.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials advised the select committee that about 400 import health standards have been implemented or put in place in the last 5 years and there have been only two contentious ones. So members can see by that—those figures bring it into context—that this is not as big an issue as some would have us believe. Having said that, I also say that those who are directly affected want to be sure that they have an independent review. I think it is in the best interests of Biosecurity New Zealand and the officials, who—I mention at this point in time—were very helpful and very obliging to the select committee. This process has not been about beating up the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry; I think the ministry has an international reputation. It has been about bringing an element of independence that people like those in the bee industry and in the pork industry can have confidence in.

Our import health standards, such as the ones being developed to import pork into New Zealand, were also discussed in the select committee. The industry has reason to have concerns, and again I am seeking the Minister’s reassurance that members of the industry will get their chance before this independent panel. I understand that officials have already—in the last few days—been talking to the pork industry about restarting discussions with that industry as a result of this bill coming to the House. This has raised a number of fears in the industry, and they are understandable. I cannot emphasise enough how important this issue is, not just to importers, not just for trade, but for the future of New Zealand. Yes, we are a trading nation and, yes, we will import goods that can, as the Minister pointed out, carry with them massive amounts of new organisms. The Minister used the example of horses. Of course we trade in tourism, which is another major industry in this country. Every time another planeload of tourists from some exotic destination arrives, the potential for a biosecurity breach is there.

I understand the difficulty that Biosecurity New Zealand has. We must continue to increase our trade and we must continue to promote the industries that support our economy. But at the same time we are an island nation at the bottom of the South Pacific with a unique habitat that is unknown in terms of the way that certain organisms, plant species, animal species, insect species, or other such will develop and prosper in this environment. We have to be absolutely vigilant at our borders.

I understand the problems that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has with people who are currently involved in negotiations around the world to assist New Zealand exporters in breaking through some of the old trade barriers—tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers. I can understand their anxiety when various members of Parliament are talking about further restrictions on biosecurity, or other such. But I also want to say to them that under our World Trade Organization obligations, under our phytosanitary obligations, we do have the right to reject things that can be harmful to New Zealand as long as it is based on good science. The reality is that in both these cases there seems to be a high degree of science to substantiate the arguments put forward.

New Zealand has an enviable reputation internationally for being transparent and robust in our biosecurity approach. Our procedures sell and are accepted overseas because they help to maintain our clean, green image, which is one of our major trading advantages. It is ironic that honey is in dispute here. In New Zealand we have one of the purest forms of honey. In respect of the whole debate about organic exports, we have in this country organic honey and we can export it to the world. Why would we risk that for the sake of a debatable scientific position? I understand the concerns that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has, but equally I say to the ministry: “Toughen up. We are in world negotiations. The Australians have been able to ban imports of apples from New Zealand, on grounds that could never be scientifically substantiated, and we need to make sure that there is an even playing field there.”

If this legislation does proceed and has the outcome that Parliament clearly desires, then I can assure members that this debate will be back in the Parliament before very long.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : The Green Party voted for the introduction of the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill on the basis of a briefing from the Minister’s officials, because we thought it needed some debate. We did, however, very strongly oppose the truncated select committee process that followed, because we believed the bill needed proper consultation. However, even that very truncated select committee process has been enough to convince us that we should oppose this bill vigorously at its remaining readings, and we do so today at its second reading.

I am amazed that the National Party, which puts itself forward as the protector and promoter of our primary industry, is prepared to put it all at risk for some free-trade ideology promoted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and for some fear of international obligations under the World Trade Organization. Mr Ardern actually put his finger on it. I could not even contain myself; I asked audibly: “Then why are you voting for it?”. The arguments he put forward are quite correct. But once again this shows that there is little, if any, difference between National and Labour when it comes to selling out our biosecurity for the sake of free trade.

This bill amounts to a serious weakening of our biosecurity controls at the border. The import health standards were described by one submitter as being a fig leaf of protection, and that is true.

Shane Ardern: I think that might have been a select committee member.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: That is possibly so. The process under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is at least rigorous, evidence-based, and open to public scrutiny. The process under the Biosecurity Act is much more sloppy and slapdash.

We now have the very inconsistent position being put forward that the deliberate introduction of a new organism requires an approval under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, but the known hitchhiker of that same organism attached to another organism gets through with only the scrutiny of the Biosecurity Act.

It has already been stated that however an organism comes in, it does the same damage to the environment and to the economy. Why would we have two different standards for assessing it, depending on whether the virus is brought in deliberately or comes in as a known hitchhiker on some other organism?

There were 51 submissions on this bill, and most were opposing it or raising serious concerns. The bill was opposed or seriously questioned by Meat and Wool New Zealand; the deer industry; the pork industry; the Abattoirs Association of New Zealand; the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand; Fonterra; the National Beekeepers’ Association of New Zealand, particularly; the Pig Veterinary Society; Retail Meat New Zealand; and even our friends Federated Farmers, generally for not providing adequate standards of protection for new organisms under the Biosecurity Act compared with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

It is bizarre that both the Government and the National Party are completely ignoring those concerns and are rushing this bill through. The bill makes it easier to import new organisms, and this creates a greater risk for the biosecurity of our export industries and for our native flora and fauna. In particular, I have to refer to the honey industry. The honey industry is very vulnerable to imported organisms. I know—I lost my bees to the varroa mite. In the North Island, honey cannot now be produced to organic standards because people have to use chemicals to control the varroa mite that are banned by those standards. That was a serious fault and failing of MAF Biosecurity and it knows it. Is it any better now? I have yet to see the evidence.

There is a news report that the honey producers won a concession. Well, if granting a man on death row a haircut before he goes to the gallows is a concession, then maybe we can call this a concession, too. The review process that is being proposed here means that honey producers have to take on trust that such a process will exist before the 90 days expires. It will not. There will not be a review process for them to use before that time expires.

There was no public consultation on this bill before the truncated select committee process. We know that the Department of Conservation, although its view was well known, was deliberately not consulted. The Department of Conservation was sent a draft early on, and its response was a resounding “No, don’t go there.” Department representatives said in January 2007 that the Department of Conservation does not support the proposal, that it believes there are significant gaps in the analysis, and that the document fails to meet the criteria identified by the working group. Department representatives said in December 2006 that the bill is likely to reduce the quality of risk assessments and would therefore expose New Zealand to greater risks from new organisms, that it would create an inconsistent system, and that it is unwarranted relative to the scale of the problem.

It is very disturbing that after those damning comments from the Department of Conservation had been made known, Cabinet was advised in a Cabinet paper in December last year that: “Attempts were made to brief the Department of Conservation but it was not possible to properly consult it.” I will be tabling the email that states that at the end of this speech.

The department has a statutory responsibility for involvement in biosecurity issues as part of protecting New Zealand’s natural heritage and our precious indigenous flora and fauna. It should be noted that the Department of Conservation did not make a submission to the select committee. This is not the first time I have become aware of the department holding strong views on Government policy and not being allowed to state them publicly. The department is not represented in papers to Cabinet, and it is not allowed to make submissions to select committees. So, once again, we are not simply playing Russian roulette with our primary industries but also with our natural heritage, which we rely on so much to sell our trade and tourism image of being clean and green and 100 percent pure.

Finally, the bill currently makes an exemption for genetically engineered organisms, which, incidentally or intentionally, all have to go through a Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act approval process. Although we are glad that genetically engineered organisms are not to have the bar lowered disastrously by this legislation, we know that that will not last very long. One of the arguments for the necessity of the bill is that the Act does not have the processes to evaluate passenger organisms; therefore, it must be done by biosecurity. Well, if that is true of ordinary organisms, then it is true of GE organisms.

So why would the Government make an exemption for GE organisms? I will tell members why the Government is making an exemption for them. It is making an exemption because it knows that 70 percent of New Zealand, as expressed many times in polls, will be up in arms if they know that this is an attempt to get genetically engineered organisms into the country without any proper assessment by the Environmental Risk Management Authority.

We know there is an agenda here. The draft discussion documents in February and November 2006 were entitled Fixing Problems in New Organisms, Including Genetically Modified Organisms, Unintentionally Introduced into New Zealand. It is quite clear from the papers that the intention was always that GE organisms should be included, but they have been excluded now because it is election year and the Government does not want to upset the voters. Once the election is over, the intention is that they will be put back in with the rest of the organisms.

That would be reason enough for the Green Party to oppose this bill, but it is certainly not the only reason. In fact, the Government’s intention was inadvertently clarified by the Minister this afternoon when he used the example of horses with equine flu, and mentioned that they cannot be brought into this country because they have an organism that might hitchhike in with them. Was he talking about the flu organism? I do not think he was, because one would not allow a horse into the country if it was infectious. That would be controlled by normal health standards, anyway. He meant that some of those horses will have been vaccinated in Australia by a living genetically modified virus, which is not permitted to enter this country. To bring it into the country and use it to vaccinate horses here, one would have to go through an Environmental Risk Management Authority process. It will be the first release of a living genetically modified organism at large into the New Zealand environment. It will attract considerable submissions. It will involve long hearings. But if we can sneak it in on the horses with only an import health standard and no proper examination under the Environmental Risk Management Authority, then we have got it here, it has been released, and one does not even have to apply. The Green Party strongly opposes this bill.

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koē, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. There is a popular television commercial starring a young boy asking his dad where he comes from. His father launches into a comprehensive and dramatic story of the birds and the bees, to the utter astonishment of his son, who really just wanted to know the name of his birthplace, rather than the details of his creation. The Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill reminds me of that ad, and unfortunately the affected industries may well be stung. On one hand we are told it is an uncontroversial confirmation of the original intentions of Parliament when it passed legislation in 1996—all very innocent, so it seems. On the other hand, bee-keepers and other concerned parties are telling us that this bill could easily cause a massive increase in unwanted organisms being imported into Aotearoa. The Māori Party has been searching through the myths to find the meaning of this new raft of biosecurity legislation.

One of the strange quirks of bill-making in this House is when, as in this case, the majority of the 53 submissions oppose the bill, yet the conclusion of the Primary Production Committee was to unanimously recommend that the bill be passed. It is like when the Foreshore and Seabed Bill came before this House: 2,171 submissions; 186 presentations; 10 consultation hui, which were unanimous in their opposition, yet, well, the rest is a legacy that this Government will have to live with.

Is the opportunity to receive free and frank advice from those most affected in the sector simply a farcical act of pretence? When it comes to the crunch, is the advice of Crown Law or the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the only word in town? Why make out that the experience of bee-keepers, farmers, and horticulturalists is going to be treated with respect when the legislators hold the upper hand?

The other point to stress about the façade of consultation is that, as other speakers have noted, a 1-week deadline placed enormous pressure on the industry, the agricultural producers, and the environmental and conservation non-governmental organisations to be able to deliver the substantive analysis required. What the Sustainability Council emphasised is that this bill establishes a fundamental change of biosecurity law that will undermine border protection. It was its considered view that the removal of standards to assess organisms not present in Aotearoa would weaken not only the economy but also our most treasured native species. The New Zealand Pork Industry Board has long argued that it is critical that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry set border standards to maintain our human, plant, and animal status. The Waikato branch of the National Beekeepers’ Association spoke of the need for the bee-keeping industry to be protected against the importation of new diseases and organisms—diseases and organisms that could also detrimentally affect the flora and fauna of this land.

I could go on, but the point is that there was a remarkable synergy amongst the submissions. They painstakingly detailed the risks that the proposed regime might introduce to the economy. They shared their concerns about the environmental threats that would result from biosecurity breaches. The bee-keepers forewarned Parliament of a crisis state called Colony Collapse Disorder, where literally most of the bees disappear from the beehive. It is a bit like this place on the Thursday session before the Easter break.

The United States Government is facing a cost of over $100 million over the next 5 years in researching Colony Collapse Disorder. The threat must not be underestimated. At this stage Colony Collapse Disorder is killing approximately 30 percent of beehives in the United States, and the future prospects are not good. By far the most consistent message throughout the feedback was the concern about the unseemly haste of rushing this legislation through. Virtually all of the submitters put forward the argument that in light of the complexity of protections available under the Biosecurity Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, careful and considered policy work must be undertaken to ensure the two are in alignment.

We will support the introduction of a sunset clause that would basically ensure that the amendment will be repealed within 12 to 18 months of enactment. We concur with the advice put forward that there is no need for rash urgency concerning the process by which import health standards will be considered. A sunset clause will enable the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to continue to work on the import health standards without ensuring the additional risk of jeopardising our environmental protection.

In essence the Māori Party’s approach to environmental policy focuses on problems arising from human impact on the environment, with retroacts on to human society. This effect is felt in understanding the way in which the intervention threatens good health or well-being in the clean, green environment. We consider that the provisions of this bill give priority to World Trade Organization obligations ahead of the protection of our native flora and fauna. Such a decision places a wide range of animal and plant industries at considerable risk of contamination. We have heard from Shane Ardern this afternoon of two such issues—the brush fences imported from China, and a product that I cannot quite remember from Sri Lanka that brought in quite a number of new plant species—and that is shocking.

This issue is about much more than the birds and the bees. It is also about the value and necessity of pollination, which is critical for grass, crops, trees, and flowers. But instead it appears that the decision to import honey is related to trade agreements with Australia, particularly in exchange for being able to export our apples there.

In practical terms the bill revalidates the health importation standard that was issued to allow Australian honey into Aotearoa. Another amendment that we believe could be helpful would be in relation to the 90-day exemption period that is proposed for the Australian honey standards. The bill seeks to suspend imports from Australia for 90 days from the date this bill receives the Royal assent. The 90-day exemption is designed to allow bee-keepers the opportunity to invoke the independent review procedure, yet the classic joke of this bill is that if we assume the bill receives the Royal assent by, say, 1 April 2008, as all indications lead us to believe, then the 90-day exemption will have expired before the criteria for setting up the new panel has even been published.

An amendment will be placed before the House during the Committee stage that seeks a change to this 90-day exemption period. The proposal is that 90 days moves from, as in the current wording, the commencement of this Act, to instead, after the date on which the independent review panel is established.

A particularly compelling case was put to the committee by Russell Berry, representing the National Beekeepers’ Association. Despite the fact that his advice, and that of his peers, seems to be resisted, or perhaps because of this fact, I want to leave the last word to him as to why the Māori Party is voting against this bill. He said: “We reject the notion that free-trade principles can, or should, take precedence over New Zealand’s right to establish and maintain the strongest protection against known risks of exotic pests and diseases. Finally, it is very important to maintain some areas of the world as free as possible of diseases of bees, and we could very well be called on in the future to supply bees to countries such as USA when all their own honey bees die from such disasters as CCD.”

So, from one “Beehive” to another, we must do all we can to ensure the legislation will protect us, our flora and fauna, and our environment also, against known new organisms. This legislation does not meet the grade and we therefore will not be supporting it at the second reading.

I seek leave to table an email from the chief executive of the Department of Conservation to the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) : I wish to take a short call on the importance of the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill for the racing industry.

The racing industry was caught out when the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry suspended all Australian horse imports. This happened on 25 August 2007 following confirmation of the outbreak of equine influenza in Australia. Prior to this, there had been very free trans-Tasman involvement of horses as both countries had been free of all significant equine diseases. Since then the ban has meant that all New Zealand thoroughbred horses that competed in the 2007 Victoria Spring Racing Carnival have been stranded in Australia and have not been able to return to New Zealand to race. More New Zealand horses will be impacted at the upcoming Sydney Autumn Racing Carnival and the Brisbane Winter Carnival unless this bill is passed and the restriction can be lifted.

Many of New Zealand’s high-quality mares are periodically sent to Australia to be served by visiting international stallions. Most of those mares subsequently return to New Zealand so that their progeny can be reared and sold at New Zealand sales, or retained for racing purposes in New Zealand. A large number of New Zealand mares and racehorses have been prevented from returning to New Zealand—approximately 200, plus foals born in 2007. Even when the import health standards are issued, the large backlog of horses awaiting transportation means that many of our high-quality mares will remain in Australia for another year and be served by stallions there.

International trade is significant, and underpins the viability and performance of the New Zealand thoroughbred racing breeding industry. In 2007, 1,900 New Zealand thoroughbred horses with a total value of approximately $145 million were exported from New Zealand, and a total of approximately 1,500 horses of all breeds were imported into New Zealand.

This matter affects not only the thoroughbred industry but also harness racing. All New Zealand harness horses that compete in the Interdominion Championship currently being conducted in Victoria would be unable to return to New Zealand to race until the new import health standards were issued, so that code is similarly affected by these provisions.

The New Zealand racing industry is a major contributor to the New Zealand economy as well as to local communities across New Zealand. Racing generates around $1.4 billion in economic activity each year and creates the equivalent of 18,300 full-time jobs. On top of that, about 40,000 people derive their livelihood from the New Zealand racing industry, not to mention the accommodation, travel, fashion, and entertainment providers who benefit from the industry’s economic wellbeing. This matter is a major issue for the racing industry. National will be supporting this bill because it addresses those major concerns.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : I would like to take a call on the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill as well. I am a member of the Primary Production Committee, and I would like to think that I played my part in some of the solutions that came out of it. In fact, I passed a note to Shane Ardern at the very first meeting and said: “We need to deal with the aspect of retrospectivity and of review.”, and that is exactly what we have ended up doing, so I would like to think that I have certainly contributed to the solution.

I begin by responding to the remarks of Jeanette Fitzsimons. I just need to say we do not live in utopia, and the only basis upon which we can operate trade is on the basis of science. We have a number of known zoonoses in New Zealand for which we would be subject to a similar countervailing activity if we did not do that on the basis of science.

The rules of world trade are simply not fair. We might want to stop, let us say, $2 million worth of import honey out of Australia, on the basis of this bill, but the World Trade Organization means they can choose any product as a reciprocal reaction, on a similar basis. So we could lose out to $500 million going the other way. Those are the rules of world trade. The only basis is science, and I will come back to that in a minute. It is important that we get the science right. When we are selling our produce we want absolute assurance that importers will trust our science on various zoonoses from which there could be a significant impact. We know we have them, and under Codex Alimentarius and the various sanitary and phytosanitary regulations, we have that assurance. We support that, and that is the basis we come from. Let us stick precisely to science.

The other thing I could say in response is that the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation are not set up to deal with every single item. What the member is saying is we should put all the responsibilities for importation to the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. That is where the conclusion to those statements comes to. It is not simply set up to do it in that way.

The previous speaker, Lindsay Tisch, gave the example of racing, whereby 3,600 horses a year cross the Tasman. They are sitting there now; they cannot be moved, not because of equine flu, as the member rightly said, but because the import health standard cannot now be issued. That is following on, in a whole lot of ways. So we come to the situation where there is a stalling of activity, and potentially that will mount up as each month goes by. So the select committee said we need to do this, and what we are actually doing with this bill actually locks in what was the practice beforehand. It is only this court case that has sought to change that practice, for however long.

I share the member’s concerns in every respect about keeping our borders clean and stopping unwanted things coming in. I am as passionate about that as anybody else. But we have to trade and we have to trade within World Trade Organization rules, or we are taking ourselves out of the play.

So let me deal now with the two substantive issues that I mentioned right at the beginning. The first is retrospectivity and the second is the review process. We said quite clearly that the bee-keepers have had their day in court and they have won. They won on a matter of process, not on a matter of science. So in order that they might have the opportunity of validating that decision on science, we sought assurances from officials that the honey import standards from Australia would be held up for 90 days, and that process, whereby they can have that scientific review of the import health standard, is under way. It is not a case of happening when the legislation is enacted; it is under way now.

In terms of review for everybody else, yes it will take a while to get those protocols in place, and again I say it is on the basis of science. That is the only way it can be. So we have new section 22A in clause 5A, but members ought to be aware that although we have this new provision—and this needs to be said for further interpretation—it is not a “get out of jail” card to hold up, stop, or prevent trade from occurring, unless there is a bone fide reason.

Members ought to look at the Biosecurity Act 1993 for an interpretation of “standard”, because under section 22(6) of that Act there is a provision that I think needs to be read into the record of the House. It states that the director-general must “consult with those persons considered by the chief technical officer to be representative of the classes of persons having an interest in the standard.” So it does not mean that any individual can enact this review process; it is the umbrella organisation. That is my interpretation. It is quite important that the umbrella organisation of anybody with a concern needs to be able to set up that review process.

So this is a very fine balance. Yes, the science is important. It is the only basis on which this can happen. But we cannot have every single individual triggering or attempting to delay for 90 days every single import health standard that comes in. So I think we got the balance about right on this. It is quite important that we have the mechanism, that it is fair, and that is based on science. Those are the principles this review panel allows.

The Hon Tariana Turia talked about Colony Collapse Disorder, and I saw the DVD that was handed to us. I think we need to say that at this point that disease is not known to be in Australia, and the import health standard that brought about the Court of Appeal decision is about an import health standard to Australia. Bees are important and the bee-keepers have a justifiable gripe about how things are going. They are in the middle of a drought right now, and there is nothing for the bees to make honey or pollen out of, so these people are under more pressure than almost any other sector of the primary industry. As was mentioned, they have had a lapse of varroa, and that is something they have to contend with. Probably the crucial issue is Paenibacillus alvei, and this is why the select committee cannot make this decision on the basis of science, as I understand it on the presentations we had before us. If that comes into the country, what it will actually do is stop the markers of other alvei like American foulbrood disease, which we might want to be able to trace. Is this a justifiable reason? Quite frankly, I am not equipped to make that decision. That is why we set up an august, robust scientific process to assess whether that is a justifiable reason for that import health standard not to be enacted.

There are a lot of delicate issues here in the balance of this legislation. In reality, it puts us back to the practice that was occurring before but beefs up the ability to have a process to look at those import health standards. I have received a lot of communication from a number of those people who put in submissions and who have an interest, saying that we have actually done the job pretty well in terms of getting the balance right on all of those delicate issues. So I recommend that the House supports this bill, as National does. I think the select committee works well together. There are some issues that, by and large, the Parliament—certainly the two main parties—has in common, and both parties have a desire to make our biosecurity as robust as possible. The other issue is trade—there is a linkage between those two things. I support the bill.