Biosecurity Amendment Bill

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) Link to this

I rise in support of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. This bill has been discussed in Parliament at length and a number of good points have been raised. My colleague Su’a William Sio, for example, mentioned in his address some weeks ago the importance of making sure that the various ethnic groups coming into our airports are aware of not only the risks and the regime that New Zealand has for biosecurity but also the penalties that will result from bringing in anything illegal. I think that is one area we could further strengthen. Although it is not strictly part of this bill, I believe that it is necessary.

The bill itself raises the fine for convictions from $400 to $800. The fine is supposed to be a deterrent. As we have said before, we have to balance the deterrent nature of the fine with the transaction costs when people do not pay the fine and we therefore have to chase them to bring them to court. It would cost the Crown money to do that. I think that the balance that has been struck is a good one. As I say, $800 is an increase on what we have had up until now, but it is not a massive increase, and it is unlikely to create major problems.

As we have said before, biosecurity is essential to New Zealand’s economic future. We mentioned, for example, that the cost of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak is estimated by Treasury as being something in the order of $10 billion. For that reason we have to be extremely cognisant of our borders and of what laxness at our borders might entail in terms of cost to New Zealand. We can be reminded, as well, of those times when we have had invasions of various mites and animals. I mentioned the damage and the cost of trying to bring the painted apple moth in west Auckland into line. We are reminded also of the large number of containers that are brought into our country and are actually not checked. It has been said that about 93 percent of our sea containers are never inspected. That explains in part why we have the number of invasions we do, and it perhaps explains why we ended up with a cane toad coming into New Zealand in the last few days.

It is for that reason that I touch on the fact that, unfortunately, despite all the best efforts and the understanding that we have of the problems, the effects, and the risks in terms of biosecurity breaches, the Government is knocking back and cutting the number of staff at the ports, particularly the ports of Nelson and Timaru. It means that these particular ports will be less protected than they were before, and I believe that is a step backwards rather than a step forward. As the president of Federated Farmers said just the other day, biosecurity is something we should be increasing expenditure on, not trying to cut back on. We do not want to run that risk.

I touch on the professionalism of our biosecurity staff and also the vigilance of New Zealand as a whole in understanding the risks of allowing pests and diseases into New Zealand. I am humbled, in a way, by the statistics that have been quoted in the latest MAF Biosecurity New Zealand document that documents the number of times that people call to the attention of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry possible risks coming into the country. In the year ended 30 June this year, 13,840 notifications were received via its hotline. That is an extraordinary number of people calling in to report pests. Following some screening of those calls, about 4,000 of these incidents were assessed to determine whether the reported pests posed a threat. So New Zealanders are very aware of, and understand the implications and the risks that may come with, biosecurity breaches.

I therefore come back to the point that it is a disappointment—and it must be a disappointment for New Zealand as a whole, particularly for those people who have contributed by contacting the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry—that this Government is not, in fact, backing up that awareness with the actions that New Zealanders would expect from the Government. It was helpful that Maurice Williamson, the Minister of Customs, confirmed tonight during the debate on the Border (Customs, Excise, and Tariff) Processing Bill that the Government had cut the biosecurity budget and left New Zealand more open to those sorts of incursions.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) Link to this

It is a pleasure to speak during the third reading of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. In doing so, it would be appropriate to bring to the House’s attention that the bill was sent to the Primary Production Committee on 8 September, and here we are, it is only 26 November, and the bill is being read a third time. That illustrates the urgency with which the Government is implementing appropriate biosecurity deterrents for people who arrive here by ship or by plane. Essentially, that is what the bill is dealing with.

The bill amends the present Biosecurity Act, and it does so because, as was mentioned in the first reading debate, a tension now exists between the importance of agriculture and the importance of tourism. We have some 3 million - odd visitors a year coming to New Zealand, and we have to have appropriate border controls so that we also protect our agricultural sector. In the first instance, we have raised the instant fine to $400, and, in a case where court action is necessary, we have raised the fine to $1,000. The bill also implements a single infringement regime, and the Act itself then empowers the fines and appropriate infringement regime into regulation. It is also important to realise that MAF Biosecurity is doing a lot to improve the declaration that people will be given.

It is important for New Zealand to maintain its “100% Pure New Zealand” image and its clean, green perception throughout the world, because we have a platinum level of food safety. When we look back over the last 9 years of the previous Labour Government, we see 340 biosecurity incursions. It is very, very important that we do better than that. This Government is determined that its performance around that will be measured in a far brighter light, because we realise that the economy of New Zealand today has two very strong twins. One is tourism and one is agriculture. As long as we have people coming through our ports, we will find that we need to be very vigilant. This is the first time in 10 years that those fines have been raised. Where the level of the fines sits at the moment has got to the stage where people are tempted to not declare or dispose of things that they should not have in their possession.

I speak in support of this bill, and it is a pleasure to do so during its third reading. The amendments this bill brings to the Biosecurity Act are very, very appropriate. On that basis, I support this bill and recommend it to the House.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) Link to this

I will take a brief call on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. I think we have heard from all members of the House throughout every stage of the bill about our collective commitment to the importance of biosecurity and our collective support for the provisions of the bill, which increases the fines available at the border and also in the courts. These are all sensible measures, and it is a no-brainer that we would support them. But I have been repeatedly raising a number of issues around biosecurity, and although I do not want to go into detail on those issues again tonight, I will flag them.

The first of those issues is part of the quid pro quo that the Government was proposing for those measures. The Government said that it would increase the fines, which would provide a greater disincentive for people to bring biosecurity risks into New Zealand, and that it would therefore allow a risk profiling approach to be adopted in respect of people whom we do screen for biosecurity risks at the border. I have spoken on several occasions about the inherent and unavoidable risks that that approach would create. I am heartened by the fact that the Primary Production Committee indicated that it was not convinced by that approach, and I give my commitment to the House that the Green Party will fight that approach at every stage, if it raises its head.

The second point I will raise is in relation to what we might call the thin green line, which is the force of dedicated professionals in MAF Biosecurity New Zealand on whom we depend for precisely that reputation and those industries that Colin King just spoke about. A couple of points concern me in relation to that. The first point is the matter that we have heard about tonight—initially from the Hon Maurice Williamson, and David Shearer has just reminded us about it—and that is that the budget for biosecurity has, in fact, been decreased. The second point that I want to make in relation to that thin green line is the response of the Government, in terms of biosecurity, to the recession. The Government said that fewer goods are coming into the country in fewer containers, and therefore it will cut biosecurity staff. The Greens are profoundly disturbed by that approach, because it fails to apprehend that the thin green line is pretty thin and pretty threadbare as it is, and the risks from which it protects us are massive. So if one had the opportunity to extend the work that that workforce carried out, then one would surely take it, because the more protection that New Zealand has, and that our vital industries have, surely the better it would be.

The third point I will raise is the Government’s further agenda in relation to biosecurity. I note the comments of the Minister for Biosecurity in the House today in question time, and I applaud the Government’s allocating a further $4.7 million to research into, and further control of, kauri dieback disease. It took a while, but I am pleased that it got there, because that is another biosecurity threat we face. It is a threat not only to our industries but also to our natural heritage, a heritage that, if we do not protect it, will not exist anywhere in the world.

At several points in the debates on the bill the Government has said that this bill is just the first of its biosecurity measures, that it is starting off with increased fines, and that there will be plenty more where those come from. I indicate to the House that the Greens are waiting and waiting, and we are looking forward to seeing what those additional biosecurity measures are. Every party in the House, as I have said, has expressed support for strengthening our biosecurity response. I guess the Government’s actions to date cause us to question its commitment to that standard, but we offer our support for the stiffening of fines and for some urgency in improving our collective response.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. I will add to some of the debate this evening and to some of the comments made already.

The Biosecurity Amendment Bill makes a number of amendments to the Biosecurity Act 1993, to increase penalties for passengers who fail to comply with biosecurity measures. As we know, biosecurity is an important issue in Aotearoa. The Māori Party is keen to bring to this debate the recognition that Māori have a unique and diverse interest in biodiversity in terms of the management of taonga, as both kaitiaki and developer. Taonga such as indigenous flora, fauna, and resources are greatly valued by Māori. As a Treaty partner, tangata whenua seek to be involved in any decisions that may impact on those taonga. The Māori Party is committed to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy, safe, and intact for everyone and for future generations. We seek to promote freedom from ecological destruction, and we consider it important to ensure that appropriate investment is made in engaging with Māori in modern biosecurity management.

The bill also enables infringement offences, infringement fees, and infringement notices to be prescribed by regulations rather than by the Act. At a very basic level, the bill increases the fine for passengers arriving in New Zealand who fail to declare that they are in possession of risk goods—goods such as fruit and meat products. The fine increases 100 percent, from $400 to $800. The regulatory impact statement in the explanatory note of the bill as introduced suggests that increasing the fine will further improve compliance. In 2008, 17,000 seizures were made, so we are talking about a considerable level of offending.

I am really interested that such a big group of offenders is implicated in the bill. I would be fascinated to know, for example, whether it is all about the smuggling of, maybe, mango, frangipani flowers, or some exotic spices or nuts. Or is it failure to declare goods that fall into the category of dangerous or risk goods? Are these people New Zealand citizens? As far as we are aware, there is no register of ethnicity information compiled, so we are at somewhat of a loss to understand particular strategies that might be helpful in addressing the problem. What we know, though, from an analysis of New Zealand biosecurity convictions that occurred in the decade between 1999 and 2009, is that 200 convictions were of New Zealanders, 73 were of Chinese citizens, and the remaining 138 convictions were spread across citizens of 29 countries. So we were wondering, for instance, whether passengers are properly informed and advised of their legal obligations, and sufficiently assisted. It would be useful to know exactly what role language and literacy issues play in the offending, particularly for people who are from non - English-speaking countries.

I want to talk further about this aspect of understanding the rights and responsibilities emerging from the Biosecurity Act. This is one of those bills on which the Primary Production Committee, I am told, received no public submissions at all. I have to wonder whether that is because there is absolutely no interest in the passage of risk goods across the border, or is it because there is insufficient attention paid to communications? That aside, I was really pleased that the Biosecurity Science Strategy for New Zealand, which was launched in late 2007, made an explicit commitment to engaging more positively with Māori on biosecurity issues. The strategy recognises the important of mātauranga Māori and its relevance in modern biosecurity management. In keeping with this strategy, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand has given a public acknowledgment to develop strong working relationships and networks with key Māori groups, and in the planning, the prioritisation, and the delivery of biosecurity science. This, we say, is a very positive initiative, and one that we hope will be able to assist with the delivery and integration of mātauranga Māori me ōna tikanga into biosecurity science.

An important aspect of this will be the impact of the Wai 262 claim, namely Matauranga Maori and Taonga: The Nature and Extent of Treaty Rights Held by Iwi and Hapu in Indigenous Flora and Fauna, Cultural Heritage Objects, and Valued Traditional Knowledge. This claim was lodged by six iwi in 1991, by the kuia and kaumātua of Te Rarawa, Ngāti Kurī, Ngāti Porou, Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Wai, and by the father of my colleague Rahui Katene, John Hippolite of Ngāti Kōata. The fundamental core of the claim is the view that Māori knowledge of taonga includes intimate understanding of, and respect for, ngā mokopuna a Ranginui rāua ko Papatūānuku—flora and fauna. It specifies a key principle of the protection of knowledge, and investment in the preservation of these taonga. As of this time, we have no indication as to when the report from the Waitangi Tribunal will be released. Closing submissions were heard from third parties, researchers, Crown research units, bioprospectors, and the Crown in June 2007, so there is an expectation that the claim will be soon reported back—we hope. The significant of this is that the cultural integrity of these knowledge systems and cultural practices as articulated in Wai 262 will be useful in further expansion of biosecurity policies and plans.

I want to really place on the record the recognition that Māori are very well positioned to identify biosecurity issues and research needs. This is an area where tangata whenua have developed key expertise, capacity, and capability in the field. As such, in the implementation of biosecurity procedures and protocols we would expect full engagement from Māori, who will be aware of the potential impacts from incursions of pests and diseases associated with taonga and resources in their particular rohe. Constant communication with MAF Biosecurity New Zealand will allow Māori to build confidence that they will be involved in the decisions that may impact on their taonga.

Finally, I am aware that Landcare Research has reported this year that New Zealand has been described as one of the weediest countries in the world, with all of these plants introduced either deliberately or accidentally over many years. Apparently, there are over 2,000 non-native plants growing in the wild, many of them considered invasive. We need to take every step that we can to value and protect biodiversity in order to uphold our responsibility for kaitiakitanga, or guardianship, of the environment, and to invest in a future when our unique flora and fauna are no longer at threat of extinction. To that extent, we will support this bill in its third reading.