﻿Mr SPEAKER: Question No 9, Richard Prosser.
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister for Primary Industries:
Does he stand by all his statements?
Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries) on behalf
of the Minister for Primary Industries: Yes. In particular, he stands by
his statement that the Ministry for Primary Industries is doing
a fantastic job on the ground in responding to the localised incursion
of Queensland fruit fly. This morning there were around 180 field staff
working on location in Auckland, with more staff coordinating aspects
of the response from the Wellington head office. I also want to take
this opportunity to thank members of the public for their patience and cooperation.
Richard Prosser: Does he stand by his statement that
“We have stepped up a very quick response to this detection
"of one Queensland fruit fly in Auckland at the moment.”;
if so, was he expecting that more fruit flies would be detected?
Hon JO GOODHEW: Yes, it is expected that there will often be,
in the localised area—and that is why I referred to this
as a localised incursion— further fruit flies detected.
That is why we are looking to determine that they are within that area,
otherwise the area that has been covered with this incursion response
will be changed, should there be any elsewhere. But this is
entirely what we would expect.
Richard Prosser: Does the Minister believe that the continued use
of the green lane, direct fast exit pathway is wise,
given his own department’s assessment that “Fruit fly is most likely to arrive
"with plane passengers bringing in infested fruit in luggage.”?
Hon JO GOODHEW: Analysis shows us that the direct exit lane,
or the green lane as it is known by passengers coming through,
in fact has a much higher level of compliance—sticking to the rules,
in other words—than the other tracks through the airport.
We know that having Ministry of Primary Industries officers
who are in touch with every passenger coming through,
the use of dogs, and the use of high-risk application of X-rays
are all part of the way in which we put the taxpayers’ money
to good effect to detect, and have the highest possibility of detecting,
any incursions. No biosecurity system is ever 100%,
but we are focused very much on where the highest risk is.
Richard Prosser: Can the Minister confirm
that the Ministry of Primary Industries’ pest and diseases hotline
is operational during business hours only, so that if someone
finds a Queensland fruit fly they are encouraged to leave a message
or call back on the next business day;
if so, given that the number of fruit flies detected is now five and increasing,
does he agree that the hotline should be operated 24/7; if not, why not?
Hon JO GOODHEW: I have heard some claims to that effect.
I can assure the member that the hotline, the pest line,
that we have at the Ministry of Primary Industries operates 24/7,
and then we have a further triage off to the Queensland fruit fly line,
which is operated from early in the morning right into the evening.
But what we are doing, again, in a thoughtful and measured response,
is that every single call that comes in is triaged and the calls
that represent the highest risk of new information are treated first.
I am sure the member might not be surprised to hear
that if somebody rings us from the West Coast of the South Island,
a place too cold for fruit flies, thinking they may have seen a fruit fly,
their call will be a little lower priority than one from someone
in the next street over to where we have found other flies.
[MEMBERS INTERJECT]
Richard Prosser: Does the Minister believe that biosecurity risks
are active only during business hours; and, further to that,
what can he tell the House regarding the potential activity
of biosecurity risks on public holidays?
Hon JO GOODHEW: This—from the member who thinks we should fumigate
everything and everyone at the airport— in fact, is a ridiculous question.
I have already answered the member, had he but listened.
The pest line is 24/7, there is careful triage of every call that comes in,
and prioritisation for those who represent the information
we need to deal with swiftly.
Richard Prosser: Can the Minister tell the House which would be
the greater amount: the cost of instituting 100% biosecurity inspection
of all incoming passengers, luggage, mail, and freight, or the cost of losing
the three-quarters of NZ’s economy that depends on primary production
through not instituting such essential biosecurity measures?
Hon JO GOODHEW: The member seems to have missed the point.
There are a number of ways in which we can have the biosecurity system
that this country depends upon. X-rays are but one of those measures.
X-raying high-risk entry through the border is the way
we are operating at the moment. In addition, there is 100% screening
of international arrivals using dogs, currently.
But the member must also remember that there are signs everywhere,
that there is education,
that we have a Ministry of Primary Industries officer
speak to every passenger.
He must realise that 100% X-ray screening is a not a silver bullet.
Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answer.
The question was very straightforward.
It was whether the Minister could tell the House
which would be the greater amount. That matter was not addressed.
Mr SPEAKER: Could the Minister just address that part of the question.
Hon JO GOODHEW: Any biosecurity incursion represents a very great
and many millions of dollars’ worth, or more, threat to this country.
I believe that the money that is spent on biosecurity is well spent.
I would add for the member that we had 100% X-ray screening from 2000 to 2008.
We also had varroa, painted apple moth, didymo, and Asian gypsy moth,
so maybe the member is mixing up what he is comparing.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
I would like to ask you to consider something that has come up
a number of times today during question time and in a number
of previous question times, and that is that increasingly
we are seeing Ministers at the beginning of their answer
or during their answer attacking personally the person asking the question.
I accept that there is going to be an element of political exchange
in question time, and a very political question will draw
a very political answer, but where a member is asking
relatively straight questions that do not attack the Minister
and do not actually have that political element in them,
it is not inappropriate for the Speaker to perhaps rule
out of order an answer that begins with an attack on the questioner.
Otherwise, it is going to become a very one-sided question time
if this practice is allowed to continue.
Mr SPEAKER: Allow me to have a look at the point the member is making.
If it is a blatant attack, I normally do rise to my feet
and tell the Minister answering the question that it is not appropriate.
Today there has been, as the member refers to in his point of order,
the normal political exchange. I will go back and review Hansard.
I do not think there is anything that has been out of order
warranting my early intervention, but it is something that I appreciate
the member raising, because the political barb at the start
tends to then create more disorder to this House.
Question No 10.
Subtitles by the Amara.org community