Biosecurity Bill First Reading

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Greens will be supporting this bill at the first reading — and we make no guarantees about further support — because we agree the current law needs some clarification, following recent court decisions. It seems clear that the original intention of Parliament was that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Biosecurity Act would cover intentional and unintentional introductions of various organisms, respectively. We have some reservations and concerns about the possible unintended consequences of this amendment; there may be better ways to resolve the ambiguity and the difficulty without reducing the standard of risk assessment. We expect that these issues will be canvassed at the select committee, and because we are so concerned that they are properly canvassed, and that we have good law in this area, we do not support the proposal to shorten the select committee process. So we will oppose that motion.

This bill needs to be understood in light of the recent court judgment in respect of Paenibacillus alvei in honey, where the Court of Appeal said that the unintentionally introduced new organism is a known new organism and therefore requires approval under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, prior to its introduction into New Zealand, even if that introduction is unintentional. The court concluded that the biosecurity import health standard for honey is contrary to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and therefore the honey cannot be legally imported.

Despite some disagreement about the level of pathogenic risk that the bacterium might pose, there was agreement that the risk of introduction of the bacterium itself is inevitable; it will arrive in this country eventually if we continue with the honey imports, and it will have some effect in New Zealand.

The court recognised that the organism is a new organism under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and that its use or development in New Zealand would require approval under that Act, but the risk assessment of an organism that may unintentionally accompany a good such as honey was designed to be dealt with under the Biosecurity Act, not the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. As a result the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Biosecurity New Zealand are in a very difficult, technical position of not being able to exercise fully the requirements under the Biosecurity Act because of the decisions of the court. That is just some of the background.

It is clear therefore that some kind of legislative change is necessary, so we will support the bill to achieve that. But the bill needs some more consideration, and one area is the logic of the stark differentiation between intentional and unintentional introduction of new organisms. It is true there are differences in the potential vectors of intentionally and unintentionally introduced organisms. We have seen some unintentional introductions in this country, maybe on a large scale and released in many areas and in great numbers for a particular purpose, whereas an unintentional introduction may be small in number and very localised, and might have much less chance of surviving in New Zealand's conditions or be better able to be contained and controlled. None the less, a new and damaging organism, whether it is here on purpose or by accident, may have the same effect. We have seen that to be the case with the invasive and highly problematic algae didymo that was accidentally, unintentionally, introduced, and although it might have been only a tiny amount in a particular place at one place, it is now very well established in the South Island rivers.

So the potential impact of a new organism, regardless of how it gets here, is not necessarily greater just because it was brought in on purpose. The risk is no less real simply because of the way it has been introduced into our country. Indeed, the reverse argument may also hold true in some cases; more will be known and assessed about an organism's nature and potential impact if it is assessed for its intentional introduction than if it arrives accidentally. The more we know, the more ability we have to respond quickly and effectively to contain and control that biosecurity breach. Clearly, didymo is a classic example of the sad failure to act swiftly and decisively when that algae arrived and was detected.

There are, potentially, alternatives to dealing with the problems that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Biosecurity New Zealand, and the Government in general have, as a result of the court's decisions. Perhaps the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act could be better amended to allow the Environmental Risk Management Authority to assess unintentional organisms. It is not what it is designed to do but it could potentially be expanded to do that. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act does have a higher test threshold for assessing new organisms than the Biosecurity Act does. Although the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is not currently designed to assess the risks of passenger organisms, none the less it could do that job, but in part only if it is able to be tested against the benefits of its carrier good. For example, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act test for a new organism weighs the positive and adverse effects of the organism, in isolation. It would struggle, for example, to approve the honey bacterium, on which the case was based, because the bacterium has no known benefit to the country. The benefit is solely in being able to bring the good in itself — the honey. That is not part of the consideration that the Environmental Risk Management Authority can undertake. So one option would be to enhance the authority's mandate and process to allow it to deal with risk assessments for new organisms brought in unintentionally.

The alternative is that the precautionary principle inherent or explicitly set out in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act could be introduced into the Biosecurity Act, and that just in and of itself is not a bad idea. The court noted that Parliament's intention when enacting the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Biosecurity Act was that passenger or associated organisms were to be dealt with under the biosecurity legislation, but it noted that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act contains a precautionary principle, albeit a weak one.

So surely it is desirable that the assessment of risks for all organisms, whether intentional or unintentional, are exercised in a way that favours caution where there is uncertainty, and the question is whether the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act requires strengthening in this regard. These are issues that could all be canvassed at the select committee to make sure we have good-quality legislation.

We do not treat amendments to biosecurity and hazardous substances and new organisms legislation lightly. The protection of New Zealand's environment is paramount; and security, particularly of our immense primary production sector, is of great importance. Despite what some may say about the Greens, we do believe that the primary production sector is very important.
Although on the face of it this bill would seem to clarify the issues for Parliament around this legislation, there is always the chance that legislation like this will have unintended consequences. That is what the select committee process is for — to work through those by getting the feedback from the community, those who are engaged with it and deal with these issues all the time to provide that feedback to parliamentarians so we can assess the practical implications, the practical risk, and where the unintended consequences might be.

One example might be in clause 12 where the Act currently prohibits unapproved new organisms, but the amended legislation simply states "restriction", and it would be worth exploring the extent to which the change in just that wording might have unintended consequences.

The Greens have had very little time to examine this bill in detail, so again we will be looking to the submitters to the select committee for their views on this. No doubt the bee-keeper community will have very serious concerns about legislation that overturns a court decision that was held in their favour, and we understand the importance of that but also we recognise that we must make good law, and there is a problem here that does need to be resolved.
We would like to know how this bill might affect New Zealand garlic growers, who are faced with difficulties in getting new seed while the garlic that is imported has the potential to bring in passenger viruses. How will it affect the New Zealand pork industry, with the risk of importing the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus into New Zealand? What will it mean for the honey industry, in practice, and what will be the risk to it from Paenibacillus alvei?

The Greens also want to mention briefly that we are very pleased that the amendment bill differentiates GMOs, and ensures that GMOs will remain completely under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, whether they are brought into New Zealand intentionally or unintentionally. That is a very important security measure for New Zealand, for our environment, and for our primary production areas. It is difficult to think of a GMO coming in as a hitchhiker, but that may be possible as more GMO vaccines are being developed and as technology progresses. So a whole range of issues need to be canvassed.
The Greens will support the bill to go through its first reading because there are good legislative reasons why that has to happen. But we will not support a shortened select committee process, because it is so important that the community must have the right to have a say — not just selected members of the community but the whole community who may be involved. Thank you.