Debate resumed from 15 September.
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this
The Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill is a double bill because last night as we introduced it we also introduced the Customs Amendment Bill. I am disappointed that Damien O’Connor is not going to take his 6½ minutes to speak on it, because last night he got up and got so many things wrong in the first part of the bill, as did “Sio” William Sio, that I want to correct just two of them. I could spend the rest of the speech on them.
First of all, they said that the Government had increased the import transaction fee, but that is not true. It has been $24.75, and it will stay $24.75. Then they said that it would apply to passengers coming in from travelling overseas. Damien O’Connor said that he was now nervous about coming back through customs because he might get socked with it. Well, no, he will not. The import transaction fee will not apply to any passengers coming through. It does not apply, no matter whether they are over the $700 limit. The misinformation we got from Labour members last night, including Su’a William Sio, was that we had increased it. The other one was a cracker! It was that the Government had increased the fee to pay for the joint border management system that is coming. That is not true. It is a straight cost recovery for the transaction fee alone. That is where the expansion to cover a few items was.
I will come to the bill. The bill will allow cost recovery of passenger clearance services at new and restart international airports. Let us get that clear—a new international airport. Let us think of a place that has not got one at present—for example, Taihape. If Taihape wanted to—
Jo GoodhewHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON Link to this
OK. I think our member from Timaru has a very good case for having an international airport. I am not sure it will happen soon, but maybe one day. Timaru wants to get an international airport. We are saying in this bill that it is too easy to put up the case and have somebody else pay for things like the Customs Service, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries service, and the Aviation Security Service. This bill will allow the Government to set a time frame—although in this legislation it is up to 3 years, we have signalled we will go up only to 2 years—for which a new international airport has to charge the airlines and the users for the cost for the provision of that service. That is a sensible thing. After that has settled down and has proved to have some longevity—that it is not going to run for 3 months and then shut down—then that will be the case.
In the case of restart airports, this legislation does something different again. It gives a period of grace of up to 6 months—it will be put into regulation, but the legislation says up to 6 months. Let us say we have an airport operating as an international airport and it decides it will no longer carry on, so it shuts its international services. We have had this in the past, and I can tell members that my Customs Service has faced a huge amount of costs to pay out for redundancies, to close down operations, to move the plant and equipment, and to resettle the whole operation because an airport that was operating is no longer international. We are saying that if an airport is going to close, there will be a grace period of up to 6 months, which will be prescribed in regulation. During that time, the airport might try to find another international operator. If it can find one in that time frame, good stuff; it gets the operator and it carries on with the regime being funded for it. But if it takes 18 months before it decides to start again or if on a whim somebody says they will have a crack at flying some in, there is no way it can expect the Government to pour a fortune of money into the system to get it all back up and running with aviation security, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries inspections, and customs inspections, only to find that it might last 3 months and then close again with all the associated costs.
This bill is a component of the overall funding arrangements for passenger clearance services. It was actually agreed by the previous Labour Government and the aviation sector back in 2005. That is when the agreement for this came in. I think the previous Government got it right, and I gave it praise for that
Hon Ruth DysonHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON Link to this
I will say it again: I give the previous Labour Government praise for getting this agreement through. This legislation will now confirm that. It is a good step in the right direction. I repeat it so that everyone is clear: it simply provides that if any city in New Zealand wants to start a new international air service into that town, as Timaru may want to, then the new airport will have to find the funding through its passenger charges and so on for at least 2 years—maybe a year, but no more than 3 years because the maximum can be defined in the regulations as 3 years. The Government has, as members will see in the cover note to the bill, indicated that we are going to start at 2 years.
Let us take another airport that is currently running. I will not give an example in this case because if I pick one, there would be a kerfuffle with people running around saying that the Minister said in the House that that airport is closing. Let us take airport X, which is operating out there as an international airport. If it decides that it will no longer be an international airport because an international airline is pulling out and will not carry on flying into this airport, so it is not economically viable, then a period of grace of up to 6 months will lie for that airport company to find a new operator to get it in and get it operating. We will give them that period of grace with no extra charge. If the airport does not do that, the clock stops and it will then be treated as a new airport.
This is a very good bill. It is heading in the right direction about putting some real responsibility on people as to how they behave and about how costs fall best where they lie. I commend the bill to the House.
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this
I also rise to speak in support of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. Before the Hon Maurice Williamson does not get a chance to hear more of my speech, I will give him a wee correction: my colleague is Su’a William Sio. I draw that to his attention in a constructive manner.
As I said, this is a bill that Labour supports. It was introduced by David Carter in his biosecurity portfolio. As the previous speaker, the Hon Maurice Williamson, outlined, it is a sensible provision. It looks at the cost of providing customs and biosecurity services to new international airports and also to international airports that close down and then start up again—and I will come back to that in a minute. Those services are significant, they are required to be provided at international airports, and there is significant cost associated with them. As I have said, from our position we support the bill. We have to seriously invest in services that protect our country from invasive foreign pests. That is very important given the nature of our economy, and I will talk a little more on that shortly.
New international airports clearly place a significant added burden and require additional investment in biosecurity and customs services. They should bear a part of the cost of that significant investment. From our perspective, the requirement to provide some sort of cost recovery needs to be balanced against the economic development interests of regions that new international airports may service. The example given previously was the potential for an international airport in Timaru. I personally cannot see that happening anytime soon, but should that be the case then the economic development interest would clearly be there.
In looking at this bill in a little more detail, I note that it essentially provides for cost recovery of aviation security, biosecurity, and customs traveller processing in relation to scheduled international flights that arrive or depart from new or re-established international airports, and international flights where, on request, travellers are processed in a non-routine manner at any international airport. That could be at an existing international airport that is outside of the normal schedule.
The objective of the bill is to reduce the Government’s exposure to an unpredictable or unlimited liability in relation to the processing of travellers. The previous Labour Government looked at that issue in 2004, as has been mentioned. It consulted on and discussed this matter widely with regional councils and businesses. It chose at that time to reduce the cost recovery period for providing customs and biosecurity services to just 1 year. Its members were concerned that a longer period would have issues around economic development for regions. Since that time both Rotorua and Invercargill have established international airports and they have removed two of the primary objectives of the policy.
We think that the bill probably goes too far in proposing a 3-year cost recovery period; 2 years might perhaps be a fairer balance. We are keen to discuss that balance in a select committee. As members can see, I am sure that this will be a very constructive discussion. We are basically on the same page here. The discussion will be on the detail.
As I said, the previous Labour Government put considerable effort into consulting the public when it looked at the prior legislation. There was a discussion document, and a number of objections were raised, which the Government listened and responded to. The difference between that legislation and this legislation is that this legislation has not been well signalled. There has been no consultation—not even a press release heralding the arrival of this bill.
However, it is fair that new international airports should pay their fair share of the cost of customs and biosecurity arrangements. As I said earlier, the issue of biosecurity is one of the most significant economic issues for this country. Given our dependence on our primary industries, getting it right in terms of biosecurity is absolutely fundamental. We could devastate entire industries and huge earnings for our country by making mistakes in this space.
Prior to coming to Parliament I was a member of the previous Government’s Food and Beverage Sector Taskforce. The task force looked very closely at a number of areas related to this bill, because the food and beverage sector is a significant part of our economy. It always will be, in my opinion, because it is something that we have a natural advantage at. Despite our distance from many of our markets, we do it remarkably well. But we must have really strong regulation and support in areas like biosecurity. It is interesting that biosecurity is one of the few areas of regulation we can talk about that everyone agrees on. Even those people who say that we should not have too much regulation and that we should get rid of all the red tape know that in terms of biosecurity that is not the case.
I also note that I did my Business and Parliament Trust placement with AsureQuality. I was very impressed by the work that it and others do in the biosecurity area. They are dedicated to this cause and dedicated to securing the place of our primary industries in our economy. So I would just like to acknowledge their work.
We were very concerned last year when the jobs of 54 staff from MAF Biosecurity New Zealand were cut. We think that was very, very foolish and that those cuts should be reversed. Those were front-line positions—and this Government talks a lot about back-office and front-line positions—that were vital to protect our country against foreign pests and organisms that could wreak economic and environmental havoc.
I say again that this bill is about the viability of our country. Our economy is very, very dependent on our primary industries, so I urge the Government to look at that issue and reconsider the loss of 54 staff and the relative cost of that compared with things like the $10 billion cost that foot-and-mouth would cause if it ever took hold in New Zealand. I hope we can get some agreement on that across the House, in the spirit of cooperation, on the important issue of biosecurity.
The main provisions of the bill are cost recovery at new and re-established international airports. Charges for processing travellers will be specified in regulations. The bill will specify the costs that may be recovered and the methods of charging, as well as the limit of the time period for cost recovery. At the moment the bill talks about a maximum of 3 years with a lesser period able to be prescribed by regulation. I think there will be quite a lively discussion about that at a select committee. We should take account of the submissions that will be made on the issue of the appropriate period of time for cost recovery to apply.
At the expiry of the cost-recovery period, the cost of aviation security services will continue to be recovered. However, the charges will then fall directly on the airline, but biosecurity and customs services will be funded by the Government after that cost-recovery time period. I think that is recognition of the private and public good aspects that are in place with things like aviation security, biosecurity, and customs.
There is a grace period for international airports that are being re-established. The grace period allows an airport company to find a replacement airline within a reasonable time. During that time the processing services could remain in place, which is important. So we may have an international airport, Rotorua, for example, where, for some reason, the carrier decided to vacate that spot. That scenario is unlikely—I am not sure, but I assume that the international service from Rotorua is Air New Zealand—but let us, for argument’s sake say that a carrier decided to vacate that spot. Clearly, there would be a strong desire to get another airline in place. The grace period would mean the airport company could do that before the cost-recovery period would take place.
Those are main points I want to draw to the attention of the House. Although this bill may not feature as one of the sexiest bills to hit the House, it is fundamentally important. I can see that the member across the House Shane Ardern, who is very concerned about primary production—as I am—can see the importance of this. I commend this bill to the House.
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this
The Green Party is very happy to support the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. This uncontroversial and very reasonable bill will internalise some of the enforcement costs associated with international travel, particularly in terms of biosecurity.
Last year there were almost 30,000 flights into New Zealand, and they brought in, amongst other things, 4.5 million people. Obviously, as an island nation our air links are incredibly important to our relations with the world and our economic prosperity. But equally, as the previous speaker, Carol Beaumont, pointed out, biosecurity is one of the most significant economic issues in New Zealand. We need to be vigilant about biosecurity in order to protect our primary production base from introduced pests and species. One of the great advantages our primary production sector has over the rest of the world is its relative freedom from numerous pests and diseases. So, obviously, the Greens strongly support the notion of taking stronger measures to maintain that status by having strict border security quarantine and internal biosecurity capacity.
As the previous speaker mentioned, it is ironic that, on one hand, we are taking all these extremely vigilant and very worthwhile steps at airports to protect our biosecurity but, on the other hand, the Government is eliminating 54 staff from MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. Equally, because of our obsession with free trade, and despite our vigilance about airports, we are extremely lax in other areas.
For example, we are considering bringing in Australian honey, even though it is completely unnecessary. We have a wonderful honey industry in New Zealand and we have no need for imported Australian honey. We know that imported Australian honey may harbour new and quite devastating diseases that could be a precursor to colony collapse disorder, which we know is killing bees on a massive scale all around the world. We are prepared to bring in a completely unnecessary product, like Australian honey, even though we know that Australia imports honey from China and other places and mixes it with Australian honey. We know that Australia has diseases that we do no have here. I think one is called Israeli acute paralysis virus, or something or other—a very strange name. Australia has these diseases, yet we are prepared to bring in this unnecessary product—God knows why—that could result in the wiping out of bees in New Zealand. How absurd is that!
We are also allowing frozen pork carcasses to come into New Zealand even though we know they may bring in new diseases. Indeed, we think a disease has come into the country via imported frozen carcasses. Australia will not allow them into the country, but we let them into New Zealand because, I presume, we have an obsession with free trade and are not prepared to stand up and oppose it.
Last year a disease came into New Zealand and devastated tomato production. There are suspicions as to how it got into the country. It may very well have got in through some of the imported produce we allow into New Zealand. It is interesting that we import $3.5 billion worth, I think, of food into New Zealand every year. We import vast quantities of fruit and vegetables, and there are concerns that the disease that affected potatoes and tomatoes—
—in such a devastating way last year came in with some of the imported produce that we allow so freely into New Zealand, without adequate controls. The relevance of my speech to this bill, which some National members are agitating about, is that on one hand we are very stringent and rigid at our airports—which the Greens think is a fantastic thing and strongly support—and on the other hand we are so lax in relation to produce coming into New Zealand that can bring in devastating diseases. I refer to diseases that can devastate whole sectors of our primary produce industries, as they already have done—for example, the diseases affecting tomatoes and potatoes, which came into the country during the last few years. Now we have the prospect of a disease coming in that might devastate our honey industry. The most likely cause of the pork disease that has come into the country is frozen pork. In the meantime, we are busily cutting 54 staff from Biosecurity New Zealand at the same time. So this bill does not make a lot of sense.
Nevertheless, the Greens are pleased that at least we are allowed to have strict aviation security at our airports, where we do not have to worry about free trade with other countries. This bill will allow that same strict biosecurity at new international airports, it will internalise some of those enforcement costs, and it will also reduce the Government’s exposure to liability in relation to the processing of travellers. We think that is fair.
In conclusion, the Greens hope that the very strict rules around biosecurity that are envisaged in this bill will actually pertain to other areas in New Zealand, and, in particular, that New Zealand will be more vigilant about the vast amount of produce coming into this country and its ability to bring in diseases that will devastate our primary production sector.
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) Link to this
I rise in support of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill 2010. This bill enables the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Aviation Security Service, and the New Zealand Customs Service to recover costs associated with providing passenger processing services at new and restarting airports. Members on this side of the House think that is a wonderful thing. It is good to see that the House is pretty much in unanimous support of the bill. It is a wonderful bill and I look forward to its passage through the House.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this
Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I stand to say that the Māori Party will be supporting the first reading of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. Thank you very much.
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this
The Labour Party supports the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. It recognises the cost of providing customs and biosecurity services to new international airports, and that those costs are significant. The Government is replicating services already present in international airports, and the cost of replicating them in new, smaller airports is significant. So the Government is basically saying that it wants to recoup its costs in relation to smaller international airports.
Labour supports this bill. We recognise that we must invest in services that protect our country from invasive species and foreign pests at new international airports. It does place an added burden on our investment in biosecurity and customs services and, therefore, new international airports should realise some of those costs. The activities carried out in international airports basically revolve around processing travellers and visitors. Some of the activities carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry under the Biosecurity Act are to ascertain whether goods in possession or control of the traveller may be cleared for entry into New Zealand under section 26 of that Act.
Some of the goods we are talking about are animals and animal products, such as live animals, pets, birds, and meat products, whether fresh or cooked; dairy products, including cheese, milk, milk powder, and eggs; fish, honey, feathers, and all those sorts of things. It is really important that biosecurity staff are in place to check that these things are not entering the country, because they jeopardise our primary products and our agriculture and horticulture industries. We cannot afford to have that happen.
Another set of activities carried out at international airports by the Aviation Security Service under the Civil Aviation Act is screening travellers and travellers’ baggage and ensuring the safety and security of the civil aviation system. Basically, that means checking that people are not taking weapons and other illicit objects on to planes, and also ensuring the safety of flights. Of course, those of us who travel appreciate the fact that we need to have a safe air system.
The last set of activities carried out at international airports by customs under the Customs and Excise Act 1996 is determining a traveller’s eligibility to enter or leave New Zealand, establishing whether goods in the traveller’s possession need to be charged for duty, and determining whether a traveller has prohibited goods or exports or otherwise. Some of the restricted items that customs checks for are weapons, firearms, flick knives, objectionable articles and images, illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia, and also endangered species of flora and fauna.
We need to recognise the costs that will be imposed on the Government from replicating those sorts of services in new international airports, which will be smaller. The Government is saying, I think quite rightly so, that there should be some recouping of those costs. If we take Rotorua International Airport as an example, we see that it has only a couple of flights a week. However, it has to replicate the staff and services that are provided in an international airport the size of Auckland’s airport. Auckland International Airport is the second-busiest airport in Australasia, so what is happening there every minute of every day would occur for only a couple of hours per week in Rotorua. Replication of the environment and the services would incur significant costs, and it is only fair that the costs are recouped.
As I have said, Labour supports the bill. We recognise that replicating those services comes at a huge cost to the Crown, and that any international airport should have to realise part of those costs. We have a high number of international airports per capita—we have seven. Auckland is New Zealand’s busiest airport and the second-busiest in Australasia. There are international airports in Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, Rotorua, and Hamilton, and there is one other that I cannot recall. There is a huge cost in making sure that when travellers come into New Zealand, everybody is screened.
By 2016 there will be 3 million international visitors a year coming into New Zealand. Of course, most of them leave, so that is 6 million movements through customs and through international airports. That is a lot of people. There will also be 2.5 million New Zealanders leaving the country—we would like to think that they all come back, too—so that is another 5 million movements. That is 11 million movements of people throughout our international airports. The majority of them will go through Auckland, Wellington, or Christchurch, but some will go through Rotorua and Hamilton. We need to have our biosecurity, our customs, and our aviation security people in those small airports, and that is a cost that the Government would like to recoup.
It is suggested that the period of time in which the Government will recoup those losses will be 3 years. We believe that the bill goes too far in proposing a 3-year cost recovery. The Labour Government in 2004, with similar legislation, proposed a 1-year cost recovery period. We are thinking that we should split the difference between a 3-year cost recovery period and a 1-year cost recovery period, and maybe make it 2 years. However, that is something that can be discussed at the Primary Production Committee and nutted out to decide exactly what will be the best time period for the cost recovery.
I also agree with what our colleague from the Green Party, Sue Kedgley, said about biosecurity staff numbers. We have a big emphasis on biosecurity and making sure that we have the staff there to protect our primary products: agriculture and horticulture. However, in the last year the Government has cut 54 staff from MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. Those cost cuts must be reversed. It is essential that we have the staff and the services to protect our economy, because agriculture and horticulture are important to our nation. These are front-line positions that have been taken. They are vital for protecting us from foreign pests.
We need only to look at today’s New Zealand Herald to see an instance of a pest getting into New Zealand. OK, it was not at an airport. The pest was a boa constrictor that came across in a container, I think, in a consignment of palm trees from Guatemala, of all places. A boa constrictor is fairly easy to see in a container, but we are talking about the smaller pests and organisms that may arrive in people’s luggage or baggage, or on the bottoms of rugby boots. I recall when I went to a rugby tour in Australia that we had to produce our rugby boots and they had to be cleaned and sprayed. It was the first time that they had ever been cleaned or sprayed in about 5 years of playing rugby. But the boa constrictor incident is a case in point of where we have to be really careful about protecting our borders from these unwanted pests. That boa constrictor was found by biosecurity staff, so the cuts to that department must be reversed. With that, I reiterate that Labour supports this bill’s referral to the Primary Production Committee. Kia ora.
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) Link to this
I commend the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill for consideration at the Primary Production Committee. Thank you.
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this
That was a very, very short speech from Mr Allan Peachey; I will take a full 10 minutes. Anyway, it looks as if he is going from the Chamber. I am delighted to speak on this Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill, and at very short notice, actually. I did not know I was supposed to be speaking. But as always—
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY Link to this
Mr Hone Harawira should not worry about it. He should keep up the good work he is doing out there, in the Māori Party.
But I will go back a step in terms of the biosecurity needs of this country. This country is an agricultural country, and we are dependent on—our income comes from—agriculture. We are dependent on the export of our agricultural products; whether meat, milk products, fruit, or vegetables, we are dependent for our income on exports. So we have to make sure, as have successive Governments over many, many years, that we increasingly safeguard our borders. Whether stuff is coming through an airport or by ship, we have to ensure that these islands of ours are protected from all the nasties, the pests, and the insects that might come into this country. Once those pests and insects get established in New Zealand, then we have a real problem. As we know, pests have become established here in the past, so we have to make sure that does not happen again. This bill is another effort in promoting biosecurity in some of the new airports, particularly in relation to cost recovery. I agree with the Minister that we have to make sure that the cost is recovered, and that there has to be a sharing of the cost between the Government and the new airports, because that is important.
Over the last 2 weeks the Primary Production Committee has been hearing submissions on the Food Bill, which has taken many years to come to fruition and to Parliament. We have been hearing from a range of submitters: from importers, exporters, city councils, and district councils, to food manufacturers. One of the issues that I have been asking submitters about is imported foods. We have very high standards of food in this country, but I have been really worried about some of the food that is being imported. As members can appreciate I buy food and spices that come in from overseas, and a couple of weeks ago one of the sachets that I opened had some insects inside it. It was awful! That is what I have been talking about in the select committee, too. We have to be very, very careful with all this food coming in, particularly from some of the developing countries, unfortunately, that do not have the high standards that we have in this country. We have to ensure that all the imports, whether vehicles or food, or people coming into this country, do not have the nasties, all the pests and insects, coming in with them.
This bill is another effort to ensure that we have good biosecurity controls at the airport. We have the trained dogs for this purpose and we have the trained staff. It was very sad that, although the Government is promoting these bills, as my colleague from the Green Party said earlier, last year the Government pretty much let around 55 people go from MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. That is not really acceptable; that is very short-term thinking. If we cannot ensure our borders are secure from the potential invasion of insects and pests in this country, then we will be very sad and sorry in the long term. This bill ensures that in new airports, such as Rotorua or anywhere else, appropriate measures are taken in terms of having trained security staff and dogs.
In the meantime staff have to make sure that all the travellers and visitors to this country do not bring any unacceptable stuff here, but it keeps happening, unfortunately. I often watch the programme Border Patrol on television. It is fascinating to see some of these people bringing in stuff that is really unacceptable. These people say they did not know. They brought in some apples and some other foodstuffs and maybe sometimes they genuinely did not know the requirements of this country. But members can just imagine some of those foodstuffs that are coming here, such as seeds or even spices. As I said, I personally saw these insects in that sachet of food, which had been brought here, and I was horrified. I had to personally burn the damn thing to ensure that they did not breed here. At the same time some of these foods that come here are outdated, and on the way—God knows how long they take to get here—the pests develop inside the food material and end up in the shops, particularly some of the dairies and small ethnic shops, unfortunately. Those businesses tend to bring in food that is often not really acceptable. To that extent, the biosecurity people need to be more vigilant. They have to have more monitoring.
I know that in the end it is an issue of resources. I understand that, but at the same time some of the food that gets in here is not really acceptable from a biosecurity, as well as a food safety, point of view. This is a major issue of food safety for a lot of our people who consume food that comes from overseas. It is not so much about what we are sending out, but what is coming into the country, which really concerns me. Over the years my scientist colleagues at Massey University and I have done a lot of work ensuring that the biosecurity steps in terms of laws and policies are backed by proper science. Over the years I know that AgResearch has done a lot of good work in promoting the weed scientists and the pest and control people. It has done a lot of work ensuring that they have good border security and also ensuring that we do not get any diseases and pests coming into New Zealand.
Some of these issues have been brought up—
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY Link to this
No. This speech is coming off the top of my head. All my work and research that I have done over the years is still up there. I have not forgotten. Even after 8 years, I have not forgotten all the agriculture work that I have done. Members do not need to worry, because all the information is there. I am personally aware of this work in agriculture, pasture land, crops, and animals. Some of these chaps from towns have no idea—like my children, frankly—what we are talking about. But I, like you yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker, come from a farm. We have worked all our lives on a farm; we know what is required in this country.
Agriculture is the basis of this country. All our income, all the living standards that we have today have come from the farmers of this country. I have said many times, and I know some of the farmers from rural areas will appreciate the fact, that this country is dependent on agriculture. We have to protect our people from the diseases and insects that come into this country. There are simply no two ways about it. We have to ensure that we do not get any insects and pests coming into this country. I know that Mr Assistant Speaker wants me to hurry up, but this is a subject that I am delighted to talk about. I am pleased to support this bill. Although it came from the Government, Labour started this bill. Members have to remember that we have done a lot of work in this area to promote this legislation.
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this
The Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill is a great bill, and it took a National Government to move it forward. We are delighted to see that happening and we look forward to its successful progress through the select committee.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
I move, That the Primary Production Committee consider the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 15 November 2010, and have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).