Bio-security and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill

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 was really just wanting to know the name of his birthplace rather than the details of his creation.

This Bill reminds me of that ad.

And unfortunately the affected industries may well be as stunned as that young boy.

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.

Because on the other hand, beekeepers and other concerned parties are telling us that this Bill could easily cause a massive increase in unwanted organisms being imported into Aotearoa.

The Maori Party has been searching through the myths to find the meaning of this new raft of bio-security legislation.

One of the strange quirks of bill-making in this House is when, as in this case, the majority of the 53 submissions opposed the Bill, and yet the conclusion of the Primary Production Select 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 were unanimous in their opposition and yet, well the rest is a legacy 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 MAF the only word in town?

Why make out that the experience of beekeepers, 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 one week deadline placed enormous pressure on the industry, the agricultural producers, the environmental and conservation NGOs, to be able to deliver the substantive analysis required.

What the Sustainability Council emphasized was that this Bill establishes a fundamental change of bio-security law that will undermine border protection.

It was their 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 MAF set border standards to maintain our human, plant and animal status.

The Waikato branch of the National Beekeeper’s Association spoke of the need for the beekeeping industry to be protected against the importation of new diseases and organisms - diseases and organisms which could also detrimentally affect the flora and fauna of this land.

I could go on, but the point it, 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 bio-security breaches.

The beekeepers forewarned the Parliament of a crisis state called Colony Collapse Disorder where literally most of the bees disappear from the beehive.

It’s a bit like this place on the Thursday session before the Easter break.

The United States Government is facing a cost of over one hundred millions dollars over the next five years in researching Colony Collapse Disorder.

The threat must not be under-estimated – at this stage CCD is killing approximately thirty percent of beehives in the 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 HSNO 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, which would basically ensure that the Amendment will be repealed within twelve to eighteen 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 MAF to continue to work on the import health standards without ensuring the additional risk of jeopardising our environmental protection.

In essence, the Maori Party’s approach to environmental policy focuses on problems arising from human impact on the environment, which retroacts onto human society.

This effect is felt in understanding the way in which the intervention threatens good health or wellbeing and the clean and green environment.

We consider that the provisions of this Bill give priority to World Trade Organisations obligations ahead of the protection of our native flora and. Such a decision places a wide range of animal and plant industries at considerable risk of contamination.

And we have heard from Shane Arden of two products from China and Sri Lanka, and the organisms that come with them.

This issue is much more than the birds and bees, it is also about the value and necessity of pollination which is critical for grass, for crops, for trees, and for 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 what the Bill does is to revalidate the health importation standard that was issued allowing Australian honey into Aotearoa.

Another amendment that we believe could be helpful would be in relation to the ninety-day exemption period that is proposed for the Australian honey standards.

The Bill seeks to suspend imports from Australia for ninety dates from which the date that this Bill receives royal assent. The ninety-day exemption is designed to enable beekeepers the opportunity to invoke the independent review procedure.

Yet the classic joke of this Bill is that if we assume the Bill receives royal assent by say 1 April 2008, as all indications lead us to believe, then the ninety 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, at the whole of committee stage, which seeks a change to this ninety-day exemption period.

The proposal is that ninety days moves from 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 from Russell Berry representing the National Beekeepers Association. Despite the fact his advice and that of his peers seemed to be resisted – or perhaps because of this fact – I want to leave the last word to him, as to why we the Maori Party are voting against this Bill. He said, and I quote:

“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. We could very well be called on in the future to supply bees to countries such as USA, when all of their own honeybees die from such disasters as CCD.

So from one beehive to another, we must do all that we can to ensure the legislation will protect us, our flora and fauna, our environment against known new organisms.

This legislation does not meet the grade, and we will, therefore, not be supporting it at this the second reading.