Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I mentioned earlier in the House today that in this place, members often talk about what they know, about what they’ve experienced, and in relation to this bill, I shared and previously spoke about my own experiences of what I know—that is, growing up on a 486-hectare sheep and beef hill country block in the back of Waverley. Waverley is a small rural town in South Taranaki—predominantly a farming town.

Hon Member: It’s got a great racetrack.

STEPH LEWIS: It does have a great racetrack. It’s from having lived and knowing the reality of communities like Waverley that I know the significance of an impact that a biosecurity incursion would have on our food and fibre sector.

As New Zealand recovers from COVID-19, it’s our primary sector that’s been at the forefront of our export-led recovery. At a time when our agriculture exports have hit a record $53 billion and will only continue to grow under this Government’s Fit for a Better World Strategy, we must take very precaution to protect our food and fibre sector from biosecurity threats. A robust biosecurity system will keep out unwanted pests and diseases, protecting our natural environment, delicate ecosystem, and our economy.

During the course of this debate, I’ve spent a bit less time talking about how this bill protects our natural environment, so tonight I’d like to spend a few moments on that. I came into this House wanting to create a better future for the people in the Whanganui electorate, and I’m still 110 percent committed to that goal, but in addition to that, I find myself reflecting more and more on what kind of world I want to leave for my children, Scarlett and Flynn, who is six months old today. Are we going to leave them and their peers a world where they fear winters because they’re so cold that thousands die of hypothermia every year? Are we going to leave them with a world where they fear summers because thousands die of heat stroke every year? Will they inherit a world where there is less space to accommodate people because of rising sea levels?

Now, I acknowledge that this bill does not solve or answer all of those big questions. But by taking small steps to further protect what we have, it does make a small contribution. And it does this by asking that everyone operating a commercial craft—be that ship or plane—provides information about our unique biosecurity arrangements here in Aotearoa New Zealand. And that’s important because here we think about biosecurity a little bit different to those who come from countries with shared land borders. For example, when coming into New Zealand, if we’ve been overseas and been on a hike through a bush or on a farm, we know that before walking through our own native forests or walking on a farm, we need to make sure that we’ve cleaned our shoes and boots. So we also need to make sure that visitors to our shores know to do the same. This bill guarantees that everyone arriving in New Zealand will be given information about how to help us protect our natural environments. This small step adds a layer of protection to our native trees, grasses, lizards, frogs, eels, wētā, birds, and so on.

In today’s global environment, we all know firsthand about the potential of diseases to spread rapidly. Air travel has increased the number of people crossing our borders every day, and that increases the potential risk to our biosecurity. We’ve previously seen how foreign insects, bacteria, viruses, and fungi can sneak in and get a foothold, and the significant physical and economic impacts they have. The last thing any of us wants to see is a virus or a fungus sneak in on someone’s snack or sneakers and decimate our native trees, insects, birds, or aquatic life. As I said, I want to ensure that we take every step possible to protect our unique natural environment, and that includes making sure we do our bit to stop preventable biosecurity threats from entering Aotearoa New Zealand. We want to stop them from hitching a ride in with people visiting who want to come here to share the beauty of our country. We absolutely should share our taonga, but let’s do it safely. Let’s not do it in a way that puts our taonga at risk. Let’s take this small step to protect our natural environment so that it’s there for my children and others like them.

This is the third reading of the bill, so I want to take this last opportunity to acknowledge some of those whose hard work has helped to get the bill to this stage. I will be the first to admit that just after the second anniversary of my election to this House, I didn’t expect to have had a bill pulled from the biscuit tin—let alone be standing here and participating in the third reading. So I am grateful for all of the mahi of the drafters, the officials, and the hard-working members of the Primary Production Committee. They’ve all helped to shape this bill so that it’s even better now than it was at the first reading. Thank you again to the submitters who took the time to give feedback on this bill. I hope that they can see how their contributions have led to improvements in the bill. When enacted, this bill would add another layer of defence to our existing biosecurity system. That’s the system that helps to protect our outdoor environment where we fish, where we farm, where we grow food, and where we hunt and explore our beautiful country. The passing of this bill will contribute to the protection of our food and fibre sectors and to the protection of our natural environments. It is with great pleasure that I stand for one final time to commend the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill to this House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, this piece of legislation, the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill, is ultimately not too bad. We’re going to support it. The intent is good. Like most pieces of legislation, though, that we’re seeing coming though this Government, there’s a bit more to it than intent that really matters. And, in this instance, again there are a number of concerns that we did have with it. Fortunately, we’ve seen a lot of change come through the select committee process, to the point where, as I said, we will support it at this final stage.

Biosecurity, as the sponsor of this bill, Steph Lewis, has stated, is absolutely critical for New Zealand, and, as our spokesperson for horticulture, I know that the industry would be absolutely devastated if we had further incursions. Look, we are constantly facing that battle; we’ll see that start to ramp up again now that the borders are finally reopened and we’re starting to see some more travellers returning to New Zealand. We will see an increased risk of biosecurity incursions as well. We’ve seen that over the last few years with a number of key ones that listeners will be aware of in the media—Mycoplasma bovis, the brown marmorated stink bug, the Queensland fruit fly, and, of course, myrtle rust; just four of the more notable ones that have been in the media over the last few years. So of course we want to do what we can to minimise the risk of those sorts of incursions. So, on the face of it, this bill supports the work in that area.

But there were some concerns, and I do just want to highlight that, because we’ve seen this time and time again coming through from this Government with pieces of legislation. I appreciate this is a member’s bill, but, of course, it is supported by the Government—a Government member putting it forward—and it just has, on the face of it, too many unworkable pieces as it was originally presented. That was around being so prescriptive that it took away flexibility for how some of these commercial operators might need to operate, depending on their particular craft type or their process in managing their passengers and the likes. So we’ve seen the change now that has shifted this away from being any craft entering the country, which would have captured medical flights and defence personnel as well as the commercial operators that we’re looking at here.

So that’s now been tightened up around that commercial aspect, but specifically large commercial vessels, which is defined in this piece of legislation as having 20 or more passengers—not crew—on board. So, on that basis, then, they need to go through this series of processes. And again, fortunately, changes were made through the select committee that have seen it now in the position where those regulations “may require” a raft of aspects rather than “must include”, which allows greater flexibility, depending on the situation on those vessels, in terms of the form or manner in which that information might be presented, such as in different languages to allow full understanding based on where the visitors are from, and the type of medium—whether it’s written correspondence around the biosecurity rules or some audiovisual aspect. So there’s just a bit more flexibility there, which is good to see.

These are the sorts of reasons why it’s important to go through our robust select committee process, and, unfortunately, we’ve seen time after time the Government have truncated that process for no good reason other than, presumably, because they think they know it all and don’t need to consult the public. Fortunately, this is a great example of where that process has worked reasonably well. We’ve got some good changes in place. We’re comfortable now, on the balance, that it presents more benefits than issues, and so we are supporting it, but, of course, I just want to make the point, actually, as well that these larger commercial vessels are generally the ones that already have reasonable processes in place. Actually, my concern would be with some of the smaller vessels entering New Zealand from other countries, that are personally owned with maybe only a handful of people on them—people sailing around the world, for example—some of these ones who may not be aware of our strict biosecurity rules that are not now part of this legislation because of the large commercial craft definition that has been built into it. Actually, in the situation for those large commercial operators; it’s in their absolute benefit and their own best interest to ensure that they are strictly following our biosecurity practices, because otherwise that impacts on their own commercial operation into the future.

So I do just want to highlight that there’s potentially a missed opportunity there in terms of really helping to minimise some of those other risk avenues for us in the biosecurity space. But, on that basis, we do support it at this final reading, and I commend the member on having a bill passing through within two years—or just over two years—of her time as a member in this House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on members’ day on the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill.

I have to say that this is the first time that I’ve had an opportunity to speak on this bill, and I’m really excited. I think everyone’s excited when it comes to members’ day, because who knows! It’s often luck of the draw where it starts and it’s often luck of the draw where it ends. But I’m excited to be able to make a contribution on this bill in the House this evening.

I want to acknowledge my good colleague, the member for Whanganui, Steph Lewis, who has shepherded this bill through the parliamentary process. I know another colleague that has just had her bill go through, Rachel Boyack, and myself—I’ve had the privilege of being able to shepherd a bill through this House and I know what it’s like to be able to clear all of those hurdles, and so I want to acknowledge the work that Steph Lewis has done in bringing this to the House. I think that Steph Lewis may actually have been on track to have been the first of the class of 2020 Labour but for maternity leave; it meant that we are going to, hopefully, to pass the bill this evening.

I know that she is a hard-working member of Parliament for the mighty Whanganui. And she has seen a gap, she has seen an issue, and she has decided that she is going to do something about it, and that’s what constituents in the fine city and area of Whanganui expect of their hard-working MP. I know this is just the beginning for her, because there will be more bills that the member for Whanganui, Steph Lewis, will bring to this House upon consecutive three-year, consecutive three-year, consecutive-and-then-some—as the wonderful member for Whanganui.

This particular bill is one that will amend the Biosecurity Act of 1993. It’s an Act that has kept this country safe for nearly 30 years in terms of protecting our natural environment and what is so special and particular about Aotearoa New Zealand.

It applies specifically to large commercial craft, as Mr van de Molen has already identified this evening, and it also will ensure that there is a level of information about the, I guess, dynamic nature of New Zealand’s biodiversity needs to the craft’s passengers. I note that the Primary Production Committee throughout this process had looked at the issue of changing the definition. So it wasn’t just everyone who was on-board the craft, but it was actually going to be specified to passengers rather than crew being included in that, but also that the responsibility lies with the person who, effectively, is in charge of the craft. That makes sense; if we think about it, many of us, if not all, who fly around from A to B from time to time all know that it’s the captain who gives instructions about putting on the seatbelts, the captain who gives instructions about the flight about to land, and all of those sorts of things. So it’s appropriate that the responsibility does lie with the person who is in charge of the craft.

I have to say that I think, actually, many people around New Zealand would have thought that this was already a law, that this was something that was expected of all craft that were entering New Zealand. So I certainly was surprised to learn that it wasn’t, that perhaps, actually, the approach up to now has been one that has been optional rather than one that’s required by law. So I do thank the member for bringing this to the Parliament.

There are a number of changes that the select committee did suggest, and it’s pleasing to see that that has come to third reading, having survived the committee of the whole House process. I think I join with others in acknowledging that those suggested changes are obviously designed to make the bill more workable, which is certainly important. But I also note that the recommendations were also recommended by the Primary Production Committee in a unanimous fashion. I think it’s a real credit to the committee and, no doubt, the leadership of our colleague Jo Luxton, but also a credit to the member who is responsible for this bill, that she has been able to work extremely hard to ensure that there is cross-party support for this and to iron out some of those issues that have cropped up along the way. That’s certainly what we all expect of successful approaches to select committees.

One of the changes that is evident in the bill as it stands currently is the change to the date within which the bill would come into force. I understand previously it was suggested that it would be the day after Royal assent, but clearly the bill as it stands currently includes something quite different, and that is that it would be either on the date that’s specified in an Order in Council or 12 months after the bill receives Royal assent, whichever comes first. So the latest that this bill could come into play is, effectively, a 12-month period. That is obviously going to be welcomed. And the rationale, as I understand, for that is it gives officials, it gives the ministry, it gives stakeholders and others that are involved—whether it be airlines, whether it be cruise liners, whether it be other craft operators; but also those that are potentially enforcing this—to have a bit of time to ensure that the issues can be worked through. And the bill and what is expected—or the Act, as it will be—is able to be implemented in a way that is able to ensure that it is successful. So I think members, certainly on this side of the House, would agree, I’m sure, that that’s a sensible suggestion that the select committee have put forward.

The other interesting thing is the way in which this information related to New Zealand’s biodiversity is provided to passengers is going to be left to secondary legislation or to the director-general and others to work through as part of regulations rather than specified in the Act proper. I think, in the current environment and context, it’s really important to ensure that there is some flexibility and agility to provide different opportunities for craft operators to be able to provide that. So the bill itself is able to deliver on that by ensuring that there is some flexibility and that things can change, and it’s much easier, as we know, to be able to do that through regulations than it is to put it in primary legislation, because that would require a further passage through this House to change.

The interesting thing, and Mr van de Molen did touch on this, is the nature of some of the craft that come into New Zealand is quite different. The list that I’ve seen are things like private planes, air ambulances, cargo ships, fishing vessels, defence force aircraft, the list can go on. So the ability to tie, within the definition of the Act, a specific definition so that it captures those that are of a suitable size—so it won’t capture all craft or vessels or aircraft that come into New Zealand, but it will capture a significant number for whom the risk would be, it’s suggested I think, much higher. Where there is a higher volume of passengers, then clearly the risk is much higher to the country; whereas if it’s a smaller number of passengers the level of engagement with border officials is at a level where there is still a risk, but the risk can be mitigated by mere numbers. It is much lower as I understand it.

Just to conclude, I again want to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague Steph Lewis in bringing this bill to the House. I think many of us watch Border Security and “Border Control” and all of those sorts of things—

Steph Lewis: Border Patrol.

TANGI UTIKERE: —Border Patrol, thank you. And we often see the decisions that some people make, and I’m sure many of us think, “Is that really possible? Is it really that you can get to the point at New Zealand’s border and you don’t realise what is in your bag or your luggage?” What this member’s bill does is it provides some certainty that the information, the level of information that will be provided to those who are travelling to New Zealand, before they arrive in New Zealand—so not at the point of arrival, but before they arrive in New Zealand—is at a level that nobody can have excuses as to not knowing what is acceptable and what is not. So I again congratulate the member, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise just to make a few short comments on the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill, and to add further congratulations to the member Steph Lewis for having this drawn and having it passed through into law this evening—well done.

Like many have observed, we do understand that biosecurity information is already provided to inbound passengers that enter New Zealand through those—some might say God-awful—Air New Zealand videos; others may call them communications systems. There are various ways and means to communicate the very important laws that we have to protect our borders, and our biosecurity border more specifically—those are generally run by the Ministry for Primary Industries. But this bill, as we’ve heard, seeks to further strengthen that protection against any threats of incursion by making provision of this information a requirement. So I’m sorry, to read into that, that those Air New Zealand videos look like they are here to stay.

But National does support this bill for many reasons. We do think that biosecurity is of critical importance to this country, primarily due to our really special, really unique island-based ecosystem and, of course, our economic reliance on the primary sectors and the tourism sectors, which we hope very much will be coming back to their former glory sometime soon.

New Zealand has a very unique island ecology, very different to other island ecologies around parts of the world, in that ours is in some parts tropical and other parts alpine. Because of that, we enjoy such an enormous diverse range of flora and fauna. I understand that about 80 percent of the 2,500 species of native conifers, flowering plants, and ferns, of course, aren’t found anywhere else in the world, so that does give us even more reason to protect and preserve, where at all possible.

With climate change, of course, our country is warming, our waters are warming. I understand from listening to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment quite recently that what they’re noticing is foreign pests and diseases in plants are moving from the North further south, and, equally, they’re moving from the flat lands and foothills up higher into the mountain ranges as those climates warm. Of course, we must do our absolute best to protect those that are native to New Zealand by preventing the incursion of those imported species—that is the best way that we can do that.

But, of course, as much as we are pleased to have our borders open and we welcome those tourists coming back into New Zealand, they do bring an increased threat of a biosecurity incursion. It’s those incursions that I think are particularly making our primary industry sector very vulnerable at the moment. We’ve talked a lot, actually, in the Chamber this afternoon and this evening, about the importance of our primary industry sector, and we’ve all talked about the $52 billion that its exports are bringing to our economy. That is 60 percent of this country’s total export earnings, so, to that end, we must protect those export earnings, and that means we must do everything humanely possible to prevent any further diseases coming here. We’ve seen the devastating impact that the Mycoplasma bovis incursions have been causing for at least five, if not six, years now, at a cost of well over a quarter of a billion dollars and to enormous heartbreak for so many farmers and landowners involved. We’ve seen the Psa outbreak cost New Zealand $800 million, and it’s estimated that if we were, God forbid, to have a foot-and-mouth outbreak here, it would cost our economy well over $15 billion.

So, as we all know, biosecurity outbreaks can result in New Zealand losing access to really important markets, and that’s why that foot-and-mouth threat is so, so terrifying, really, and must be dealt with by all means necessary.

So this bill, of course, is a very common-sense way to deal with these things by all means necessary. It just adds a further layer of protection, a further layer of education to those travellers coming into this country; it’s why we support this, really, because it’s just one more measure to cover off all possible avenues. It will pull us in line with Australia, which I understand has a similar law. We like these sorts of solutions; it is a low-cost way to enhance our biosecurity system and reduce the risk of further incursions. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak on this bill. Like those before me, I’d like to congratulate colleague Steph Lewis for bringing the bill to this point and also acknowledge another colleague, the Hon Kiritapu Allan for her role in making this bill happen.

I didn’t sit on the select committee that heard the submissions, but I do understand the real significance of the primary industries to our economy and so making sure that we’ve got effective biosecurity systems in place. I think as a country we’ve got real natural advantages, because we don’t have many of the pests and diseases that other countries have. That puts our growers and our farmers at a distinct advantage, gives it that competitive edge in the international markets because they’re not having to manage a lot of the other conditions and pests that people have to overseas. As a child, I spent a couple of years overseas in a country where they did have significant issues with fruit flies. We’d often go to the markets, and you learnt very, very quickly that you needed to check the fruit, especially if it’s gone a bit brown, for fruit flies before you actually bit into your banana or your apple, otherwise you would regret it.

I think many people coming to New Zealand for the first time may not fully understand our unique situation and the fact that we don’t have many of those pests that there are overseas and so may not actually understand the need for many of those biosecurity measures. I think it’s very easy for somebody just not thinking to have that apple in their bag and then not quite understand why they need to declare it—get it back to the motel or somewhere else, find it’s a bit brown and throw it in the rubbish. Then it ends up in the landfill where potentially the fruit fly larvae emerge.

Looking at 2019, they found 11 Queensland fruit flies in Auckland. What that cost to actually eradicate that outbreak was $12 million. What they needed to do there was they had over 2,000 traps being deployed across Auckland, they had to put out about over 1,000 biosecurity disposable bins around the city, 1.5 tonnes of fruit chopped to look for the larvae, and they basically had to restrict fruit and vegetable movements. The issue was that if that was not successful, the cost would have been so much higher. So every layer of protection that we’ve got—whether that’s pre-border, at the border, after the border—is incredibly important to make sure that our country’s protected from imported pests and diseases.

So what this bill does—it’s a relatively short bill, but it’s relatively important one. Even though the select committee recommended a whole range of very detailed changes, the essential element of the bill remained intact. That was making sure that information is provided to people coming into New Zealand right at the point where they need it the most.

Just going through some of the changes that the select committee made—and many of them really just related to the practicality around the implementation. The first one was the commencement. When the bill was introduced, commencement was from the day after Royal assent. As a select committee, they recommended that that should actually be delayed and the commencement should be made by Order in Council or no later than 12 months after Royal assent. That was to give time for officials to work with the airline industry, with the cruise line industry, and to make sure that they had all the technical aspects in place so all the information required in this bill could be delivered.

Some of the other changes looked at narrowing the scope of the bill a little bit. So, basically, thinking about somebody coming in on an aircraft and the bill as introduced suggested that everybody on that aircraft needed to be provided with information, whereas the select committee recommended that that got narrowed down so that it was only passengers, because the crew would be really, really familiar with the rules of what they could bring in.

Similarly, thinking about the craft coming in, narrowing that down to commercial passenger craft with 20 or more passengers. So what that did is it meant that a range of small crafts could then be excluded from that. Things like air ambulances, fishing vessels, and the defence force aircraft because they’d be very familiar with the biosecurity rules—so making sure that it really was only focusing where that needed to be focused.

One of the other core changes made was the reflection that the financial penalties in the bill as introduced were actually disproportionate to what we were trying to achieve. What the recommendation was was maintaining that strict liability offence but reducing the penalty down to $1,000 for an individual and up to $5,000 for a body corporate to make it more proportional to the fact that somebody hadn’t provided that biosecurity information.

Just coming back, the essence of the bill is to make sure that what we’re getting is the information that people need right in front of them at the very point when they need it. Coming back to why this is important, I think just having a look tonight, I didn’t have the pleasure of listening to the submitters, but I did take some time to go through and read some of the submissions.

I think the one from Horticulture New Zealand highlights what’s at stake here. In their submission they said, basically, “The horticulture industry is valued at $6.73 billion” and that’s “$4.55 billion in exports annually.”—so a huge contribution to our economy. “Employs over 60,000 people, occupies 80,000 ha of land”, and thinking about the crucial impact it has in terms of regional development. They also highlighted in their submission that, “New Zealand growers supply the majority of fresh and processed fruit and vegetables to the domestic [market] as well as exporting … overseas.” So this is basically about food security and making sure that our producers and growers can produce high-quality food without additional cost. In their submission they said, “Biosecurity is essential to support production, secure market access, and provide confidence for investment—all critical to ensure the horticulture industry continues to prosper.” So incredibly important for many, many regions around the country.

Similarly, Federated Farmers, in their submission, actually noted how easy it was for somebody to find themselves in breach of the biosecurity measures inadvertently. Basically, they said they’d received anecdotes from another members finding themselves in that situation. Just reading one of their quotes from the submission, “Our members are fully alive to the importance of biosecurity and the impact this could have on their growing and farming operations. Our members note that it is all too easy for passengers to forget the piece of fruit they were given on the aircraft and only be reminded once they were in front of New Zealand border staff.”

What we’re doing here is we’re protecting our farming communities, we’re protecting our horticulture industry from the incursions from pests and disease. Certainly, thinking through, while this is only a small aspect that we’re strengthening here, what we learnt in the health system and when we’re thinking about how we protect from risks with accidents potentially occurring, it’s about a multi-layer approach, where you put one barrier and prevention followed by another followed by another so that, as a system, you’ve got multiple barriers for protection in terms of something getting through.

I think what this does is it means that if you’re there, in the plane, and you’re basically thinking about “have I got something that I need to declare?”, having a video, having it clearly explained what our biosecurity rules are, and making sure that’s consistent in every aircraft and cruise liner that meets this criteria will mean that we’ve got that added level of protection. What we’re protecting here, as my colleague Steph Lewis was talking about, is our biodiversity as well as our industries, and our huge primary industries’ export value to our country.

I think other things you often forget until you’re in the plane thinking “have I been out on farm in another country?”, “What are the state of my boots?”, “What have I got that I’ve picked up and might be in the bottom of my bag?”—so making sure that that information is there and that people are reminded. This is an important bill, adds an extra layer of protection, and I’m very happy to commend it to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Fakaalofa lahi atu ki a mutolu oti. It’s Niuean Language Week, so I just wanted to greet the House in that good way. I rise on behalf of the Greens to take a call on the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. I would like to, like everyone else around the House, congratulate the member Steph Lewis, the member for Whanganui, for shepherding this through the House.

As I was sitting here, I was thinking about a really well-known whakataukī from the Whanganui region, from our relatives Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi whānau and the people of the river, where they say, “Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au.”—I am the river, and the river is me. It’s such a wonderful way to think about that connection between people and the environment, between community and the climate. A few of us have actually touched on that tonight as well—the need to be able to protect things for the future, for our tamariki, for our mokopuna, for our children, and for those to come after us. That’s so important—that’s so important—because there is nothing but wins, that I can see, with this bill. It provides those extra layers of protection. It builds on all those biosecurity measures that are there already, acknowledging what that will mean for our children, for our children’s children, and making sure that, for the things that are there, we are protecting nature—that we’re protecting those species in the best way possible. And having this on top of all the other biosecurity measures is so, so important, and it’s awesome to see that being reflected in the House tonight.

The purpose of this bill—it’s a simple bill—is to amend the Biosecurity Act 1993 to require that all craft coming to Aotearoa are required to provide biosecurity information. So those Air New Zealand ads—yeah, they’re always a bit hit and miss! Maybe more miss than hit, but good on them for trying and letting people know. Actually, when we first started debating this bill, some time ago now, I just honestly thought it was actually part of the infrastructure, and so knowing that it wasn’t and knowing that we needed to actually embed this stuff in is really important. This bill will require all craft coming to New Zealand to provide biosecurity information to the persons on board by means of an audiovisual recording and writing. The main provisions of the bill are to insert a new section into the Biosecurity Act that applies to craft that are en route to Aotearoa and require the person in charge of the craft to provide approved audiovisual and written information about New Zealand’s biosecurity requirements. So important, so basic, but so necessary.

I don’t sit on the Primary Production Committee, but I did read through some of the notes and through some of the submissions, and there were some real common-sense changes made. That has been reflected tonight as well—so, for example, craft that are of a hospital nature, or those sorts of craft with small numbers of people, where they’re going back and forth anyway. They’ll be well versed with the requirements, so making sure they’re not included in this is, I think, a good way to make sure we don’t waste resources.

The other part of this as well—and a very, very important part of this—is the protection of nature in and of its own self: protection of indigenous species, native species, our flora, our fauna, and the connections we have with that. But, then, also, the other part as well about protecting our food and fibre sector—protecting our food and fibre sector is so important, as many people around the House have said tonight. Our regions feed the country. Our regions—the provinces—feed the country. They feed the cities, and so it is so important to make sure that we put stuff in place, and this builds on that. Thinking about all those biosecurity threats that have come into the country, and people have talked about the impact of Psa on kiwifruit, Mycoplasma bovis as well, the impact that that has had on farmers, making sure we have what we can to put in place, to make sure that those are protected, is so important as well. And also mentioning foot and mouth disease as well—we don’t want that here in Aotearoa New Zealand, even though this is politics and a lot of politicians have been putting their foot in their mouth this week, I’ve noticed! I’m not sure if you’ve noticed that, Madam Speaker, but I have. It’s not a biosecurity threat, but it’s something to think about. So it’s so important that we build up on the layers of biosecurity regulations and protections that are there as well.

I noticed—and I think maybe everyone noticed as well—there is support around the House for this very common-sense law. So, again, I would like to acknowledge the member from the mighty Whanganui for shepherding this very common-sense bill through this House—this very common-sense bill through the House—adding that protection for our tamariki and our mokopuna, to enjoy nature, to enjoy the environment, making sure that nature itself is protected, and also making sure that we protect the food and fibre sector that feeds the cities, and rejuvenate and revitalise the regions as well, and making sure that we put that stuff in place. So, on that, the Greens are happy to support this bill.

Fakaaue lahi.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to take a call on the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. And, like everybody else, I think, who’s spoken so far, I congratulate Steph Lewis for getting her bill to this third reading. In her two years of being a parliamentarian, she has also had that baby, so two major achievements.

What this bill does is it amends the Biosecurity Act 1993. That Act is under review and has been for some time. It’s very important legislation, and it’s important because it does two things to protect us here in Aotearoa. It’s interested in both biosecurity and pests, and that is to protect both our biodiversity and our food production—so our environment and also what we eat. We’ve heard a number of speakers talk about that already this evening, and I’m delighted to say I agree with so much of what Nicola Grigg said earlier—she’s looking slightly surprised. I also reflect that just recently, on another members’ day, we were talking about the Hon Jacqui Dean’s bill, also related to biosecurity. In that set of speeches, as well as tonight, there were quite a few references to Border Patrol, and I did say last time I was speaking on biosecurity that I would have to start watching it. I still have not done that, but I do intend to.

Food production is very important. Obviously, it’s for our own food security—we want to be able to eat the food that we grow in New Zealand, as well as feeding the extra 40 million or so people that we do. Of course, that relates to our export earnings of, as Nicola Grigg was just saying, $52 billion. So this is very important for our wellbeing and for our economy.

But so too is biodiversity, and you heard the last speaker talk about the importance of nature. We’ve had a huge focus in recent years on pest control with Jobs for Nature and Predator Free 2050. Why we’re doing that is because—again, I keep referring to Nicola Grigg. She was making the good point about our precious ecosystems and our indigenous biodiversity. This provides help with our water catchments—obviously there is some food in that habitat, as well, for other things that we might eat. There are many things that we probably don’t know about yet that our biodiversity can provide for us, and, of course, there is all the knowledge in mātauranga Māori as well.

Then we have the other benefits of our beautiful biodiversity and environment, including the wellbeing that we get from being outside in it; the international visitors that we have to places like Piopiotahi; and, of course, we have tourism well and truly back on. So that is why both food production and biodiversity are important, and our biosecurity regime is to keep away those pests and biosecurity risks.

This bill is focused on people. It’s not focused on containers; it’s focused on people visiting New Zealand. It’s not quite everyone that it applies to; you have to be on a craft. This is defined in the Biosecurity Act and includes both boats and planes. As Tim van de Molen mentioned, the craft has to be a large commercial craft—that’s defined in the Immigration Act 2009—and means a craft that travels for a commercial purpose or as part of a commercial operation. The bill, in addition to that, requires at least 20 passengers. I understand that there was some discussion at select committee about that, and I commend the select committee on working constructively to make this bill work. But what those definitions mean is that the jets that we might fly to New Zealand—and if we’re lucky enough to go overseas—and cruise liners definitely apply.

What happens is that the person in charge of the craft must provide information, as required by regulation, and new section 17AA in clause 4 says what those regulations may do. We’ve heard from other speakers about how they can include specified content and the form or manner that they can be in, including with translations—and I understand there are a number of submissions about accessibility of this information, criteria, and some other issues in the regulations as well.

Like the other speakers, I do really want to commend this bill to the House. It’s very important that we don’t get those nasties like stink bugs and various different ants that we don’t want in New Zealand. We remember, of course, outbreaks around the Queensland fruit fly, and many other issues that have been mentioned in various readings of this bill in this House. It’s easy to forget if you’ve got fruit with you, particularly if you have small children and you’ve been an ambitious mother and decided that it’d be good for your children to eat fruit—and, of course, they don’t eat it. You don’t want to be landed with that when you arrive in front of the biosecurity officers. So I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party supports this bill and we like the idea of providing more information to people so that they can do the right thing. When they’re arriving in New Zealand—many, many of them—they will be able to get the information they need about the things that are important to New Zealand as a primary producer of great food and great products grown from the soil.

I’ll just give you a few stats. In the year to March 2020, the last year that we felt normal, there were 169 ship visits to New Zealand, carrying between, say, 1,500, some as many as 5,000, passengers each. Now, if you took the bottom end of the range, say it was 1,500 passengers per ship, that would be around 250,000 people arriving by ship in New Zealand every year—we’re talking cruise liners primarily—making 901 port calls. A very large number of opportunities for people to make a mistake and potentially bring something into New Zealand like a banana in the bottom of the backpack that they’d forgotten to remove.

In terms of air travel, I’m just going to pick one month. December 2019: 528,000 people arrived by aircraft in New Zealand. In fact, Statistics New Zealand—the most recent data available for 2018—indicates that there were 77,000 international flights arriving in New Zealand.

So if this bill leads to more people arriving in New Zealand having a better understanding about how important biosecurity is to New Zealand, what are the rules, and what they must know in order to make good decisions when they arrive in our country, then that’s a good thing.

But there’s a few problems that this bill doesn’t address. I had a recent experience coming back across the border as an international arrival, and I was shocked because I hadn’t been through this experience for some years. I was given a small blue trifold form with a number of questions on it—in the early hours of the morning—and asked to fill it out and make an accurate declaration about a whole lot of information that if I got wrong, I was going to be subject to many, many fines. Potentially imprisonment; I don’t know. Loss of things.

When I arrived in New Zealand and picked up my bag, I queued for about half an hour in a queue with five flights’ worth of people, all holding their blue forms to hand them over to a long-suffering Ministry for Primary Industries officer who had been there for many hours in the night, receiving these forms from passengers. I asked him, “How come we have to wait so long to hand you this form?” And he said, “Oh, it’s just because we don’t want everybody queueing for the X-ray machines all at once, so we make you queue here to hand the form over.” I thought to myself, “I’m not entirely sure if this is helping biosecurity. I don’t know if this is making New Zealand’s primary producers safer.”, that, in order to control the number of people going to the X-ray machine, they have to run a filter.

Then there was a 20-minute queue for the X-ray machine, where every passenger arriving in New Zealand—some with three or four pieces of luggage—had to queue to put their baggage through an X-ray machine, no doubt looking for the apple or the banana or, I don’t know, some packet of hipster barbecue products that someone had forgotten they needed to declare. But what was really shocking was that none of the flights arriving at that time came from a destination that you’d say is high-risk. And, yet, every single passenger was subject to the same, essentially, risk treatment as if they’d arrived from the highest-risk origin.

When you think about how many people are arriving in New Zealand—528,000, say, on flights in the month of December 2019—to create a system that subjects people arriving in New Zealand to that kind of intervention without actually having any due regard for the risk, then you think about the actual risk to New Zealand of a disease like foot-and-mouth arriving, and yet it doesn’t seem to be any extra special treatment, any extra special risk assessment or risk mitigation, for those arriving from high-risk destinations, places where diseases like foot-and-mouth are always present in the soils.

So while ACT supports this bill, it certainly does point to, potentially, a lack of focus in the way that biosecurity is managed in New Zealand, and that’s just for international arrivals; that’s just for passengers, let alone all of those vessels that arrive in New Zealand from destinations where they might have marine pests on them—for example, organisms which are really damaging to our natural environment, to our fisheries. So while ACT will support this bill, because we believe it’s important that people arriving in New Zealand have access to better information, there is much, much more work this Government should do and could do to streamline the biosecurity risk assessment process and the movement of passengers through our international waters.

Fakaalofa lahi atu, Madam Speaker. I rise to make a contribution to the third reading of this bill, and I would like to congratulate my colleague Stephanie Lewis for bringing this and shepherding it into the House. I’m really pleased to be able to do so, because I was not a member of the select committee or involved in the previous readings. But I would like to acknowledge the members of the Primary Production Committee, specifically for their collegiality and the constructive feedback that has been provided by the process, but also to the officials for their guidance to the select committee process, and those who took the time to submit to the bill because of its importance.

I’m really proud to make a contribution to this bill in the third reading and to highlight as to, in my view, the purpose, the why, and the amendments of the bill that focuses on, and the Government’s support and focus for biosecurity and biodiversity. In the bill, it does talk specifically about crafts coming to New Zealand, bringing travellers, and that the borders have opened up to allow Kiwis, New Zealanders, to travel back and forth. So, whilst there is some information, what the bill does do is it provides a very clear framework of what to do for individuals, for people travelling to the border and utilising new technologies such as apps, and not just focusing on written information. Because the borders are now open, the risk is increased in terms of protecting biosecurity and biodiversity within Aotearoa. Because whilst we do want people to travel back and forth to Aotearoa, we’re not so sure about the understanding and the clarity—and listening to the bill previously, it is important that the language that is used is actually understood by those coming in and out, whatever their background, age, and ethnicity.

What the bill does is it provides the stricter clarity of the liability of operators, and more certainty around the information. The current biosecurity information that is already provided to passengers—you come through the system that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has, and I do want to acknowledge the officials, but the bill does seek to further strengthen our protection from any threats that we could be open to. I do want to remind the House that just recently we did have the fruit fly that really threatened produce in New Zealand, and mainly in Auckland, in particular parts of, I think it was, Devonport and the CBD, but the funding that was provided to strengthen and take immediate action for those communities was well over $10 million.

The proposed amendments that are recommended and introduced in this bill do require commercial craft en route to New Zealand. I actually want to talk about the risks or the uncertainty. I actually was involved in two live cases, as a staffer in Auckland, where there were two grandmothers that travelled to two different countries and didn’t fully understand (a) because of their age; (b) because of their Pacific background; and (c) because they were travelling with a family member. What they had forgotten to declare was one piece of fruit each, and because one in particular had dementia they got stung quite badly. The scenario that was described was coming through MPI officials through Auckland International Airport at 4 a.m. from Qatar, which was really challenging for the caregiver. I talk about that scenario because sometimes we assume that when people read important information about our laws, don’t fully understand, and there was quite a breakdown of communication between the traveller and the family member. Then getting to our borders, whilst they were empathetic, the officials had a job to do. So I describe that scenario because it’s quite easy to assume, post-COVID, that people coming into New Zealand understand our laws when, actually, plain, clear language and even visual aids will help provide that information to travellers.

In the bill, as it is introduced, it talks about the commencement date and we are aware that the ministry and industry representatives are really serious, particularly because our primary sector is really helping with exports as we, in a post-COVID environment, continue to support that. And the Government is really serious, and, in this bill, provides the contribution in asking, in putting the onus back on not just people coming on those crafts, but the travellers need to understand the biosecurity and the threats to our biodiversity.

Just in terms of the protection of the strengthening through this bill for Aotearoa at our borders and travel gates, it’s a common-sense bill. We want to take the guesswork for officials because, further to the scenario described earlier, just very quickly, there was quite a breakdown of communication, even with the officials at MPI at the border, where one was quite lenient to the two travellers and the family members and one actually wanted to operate the law. We need that certainty. We need to take the guesswork and the risks so that our people at the borders don’t just assume, that they fully understand the compliance that must protect at the borders.

So the bill guarantees the protection of our natural environment for those that are travelling, and it also will ensure what travellers must do—not should do but must do—in strengthening the amendment in this bill and for the protection at the border. I do want to go back and congratulate Stephanie and the Primary Production Committee and congratulate everyone that’s been involved. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the third reading of the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill, and I commend the member Stephanie Lewis, who is about to see this passed into law. Well done.

This is a relatively simple bill. The purpose of it is to amend the Biosecurity Act 1993 to require that all craft coming into New Zealand are required to provide biosecurity information to the person on board by means of an audiovisual recording and writing. The main provisions are to insert a new section into the Biosecurity Act that applies to craft that are en route to New Zealand and requires the person in charge of the craft to provide approved audiovisual and written information about New Zealand’s biosecurity requirements. It also requires the director-general of the Ministry for Primary Industries to approve the material to be provided on board. So it’s a simple bill, but it is an important one because biosecurity is an issue of critical importance to New Zealand due to our unique ecosystems and our economic reliance, in particular, on the primary sectors. The primary sector is worth—on our most recent accounts—$52 billion to the New Zealand economy. That’s $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. It’s a lot of money, and our economy cannot operate without that, so this is critical to that.

Not only that, though. We also have 38 percent of New Zealand covered in forestry. That’s eight million hectares of native forest, and 2.1 million hectares of plantation forests—1.7 million of that is in production forests, ranges, and reserves, etc. So there’s also a very significant ecosystem that we need to protect in our country. We also have a really important fishing sector in New Zealand, which is worth about $2 billion to the New Zealand economy, and we need to protect that as well.

Certainly, if I think of my electorate, I have the great Fiordland National Park, which covers two of these things. It covers one of the World Heritage Forest areas, which is one of the great treasures of the world and of New Zealand, and we also have the crayfishing sector, which operates off the Fiordland coast and is one of the biggest contributors, certainly, in the Te Ānau region to the local economy but is also significant in New Zealand. Then across the rest of my electorate through various parts of Central Otago, West Otago, South Otago, and Southland, which are all parts of my electorate as well as parts of the Queenstown Lakes District, there’s also a big reliance on the primary sector. So it’s very important for part of my region as well as, obviously, for New Zealand more generally.

As well as that, there is the value of the biosecurity in terms of the native forestry, which I was speaking about and which is also a really important part of my region. I spoke briefly about Fiordland, where I have Milford Sound and Dusky Sound as part of my region, which attracts people from all over the world and is one of the iconic features of this country, which I’m lucky enough to be the representative for in this House. I also have Queenstown Lakes, where we have Queenstown, we have Kingston, and we have Glenorchy—all iconic features of the tourism industry, which draws people to this country. We need to protect that unique ecosystem, which is an integral part of this region and attracts people to this country.

Then, if I think about wineries, we have some exceptional wines in my region, in both the Queenstown Lakes region, right through into Central Otago, from Clyde, Alexandra, down through Roxburgh, etc. We have some exceptional wineries in that area. It’s critically important we protect those, which the biosecurity is particularly important for as well. So this is incredibly important for them.

Then I also have, in the Central Otago part of my region, the horticultural industry, which is apples, pears, peaches, cherries, etc. Well, this is the fruit-growing bowl of the South Island, which I share with my colleague next door in the Waitaki electorate in Cromwell, but that Central Otago region is critically important for fruit production. Again, biosecurity is of enormous importance for that region and, of course, more generally across the country. So this is a simple bill. It is a good bill. I commend Stephanie Lewis for bringing it to the House. I congratulate her on this shortly being passed into law. And, with that, I’ll commend the bill to the House.

Malo ‘aupito, and Fakaalofa lahi atu, Madam Speaker. It’s always an honour and a privilege to take a call in this House of change, not only as the member of Parliament for the beautiful Ōtaki electorate but also on this the members’ day, and, of course, to speak on the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. This member’s bill that was introduced in the name of my friend and my colleague Steph Lewis, the member of Parliament for the Whanganui electorate, and amazing mama of Flynn and Miss Scarlett. So congratulations, e hoa, on your bill, the third reading.

As we’ve already heard tonight, the bill amends the Biosecurity Act 1993, which requires that aircrafts coming to Aotearoa, before they land and before the passengers disembark, are very clear about their responsibilities to help us protect our natural environment and our biosecurity by reading and understanding and signing up to the information provided, and knowing that, though they’re visitors, it is also their responsibility to help us to maintain our tight biosecurity measures. So we know that this bill strengthens those biosecurity systems and protects our primary industries and environments.

In the Ōtaki electorate, we have businesses and industries that rely on Aotearoa having those tight and secure processes around our biosecurity and making sure that we are protecting Aotearoa and keeping those pests out. In the Ōtaki electorate, we have Woodhaven just down the road. Woodhaven and the Clarke whānau—Madam Speaker, I believe you visited there with me as well—supply Aotearoa with about 15 to 20 percent of our leafy greens, so, chances are, when you pick up spring onions or lettuce, that comes from the mighty and beautiful Ōtaki electorate and from Woodhaven.

But, Madam Speaker, when we did visit, you saw that Woodhaven aren’t just a horticulture business; they’re more than that. In the Ōtaki electorate, the Clarke whānau are really supportive of single parent whānau, so they have created single parent hours for a lot of their staff, which means, you know, 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. so that people can drop off and pick up their children. The Clarke’s, or Woodhaven, also support a lot of our community with fresh fruit and vegetables—another example, during the COVID lockdown, they had their staff and used their vans and their trucks to go to some of the more vulnerable areas in Levin and Ōhau and delivered to the letterboxes fresh fruit and vegetables, including amazing big green watermelons. So, yes, chances are, if you have a good green watermelon, that’s probably from my area, too. And they filled up our pātaka and so much more. They’re also massive supporters of the Pasifika community, and have been long-time, great employers of Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers from both Tonga and Samoa, and now also Kiribati.

If pests got into their crops, the ramifications of that are so much more far-reaching than not only our biosecurity; it also affects their business, their livelihood, and then, of course, their staff’s livelihood, and then the work they’re able to do and support in our communities. So that’s the crux of it, right. So it’s about our biosecurity, but it also is about protecting our people as well.

We have many more amazing businesses—I don’t like to name them all because I’m scared I’m going to miss some out, but they do rely on places like Shirley’s Strawberries, Lewis Farms, Manakau Market, Waikawa Blueberries, Te Horo Gardens, Ōhau Wines, and so much more.

Iwi also rely on us making sure that we get it right so they can continue to be good kaitiaki for their whenua. Actually, we should all be good kaitiaki for our whenua. Places like Lake Horowhenua, Punahau; Waikawa Beach; Lake Papaitonga; Te Horo Beach; Waikanae Estuary; Kāpiti Island, which has some of our indigenous plants; Ngā Manu is another place in Waikanae who has some of our indigenous plants—we want to make sure that our tamariki and our mokopuna to come can still enjoy those things. So this is such an important bill; ka pai, you, Steph Lewis, for bringing it through, for protecting not only our biosecurity but our livelihoods for many of our people, and somewhere our mokopuna and tamariki get to enjoy. Kia ora.

Fakaaue lahi.

Fakaalofa lahi atu, and a big hello particularly to my former intern, Salote, who taught me much about Niue, including that I need to get to Matapa. I’m told it’s one of the most amazing places indeed.

Harking back to a previous bill, I am still as excited as a thaumaturgist in an apothecary. It is really quite a night like that, and I’m now doing that, sorry, for the benefit of Dr Emily Henderson. I know she loves the intensity and breadth of the English language. I’m also still mildly esurient, but that’s all right as well.

Also, I am slightly the richer tonight. I had offered in a previous speech that I would pay for a beer for any Labour member who could have told me my quote, “Prithee, nuncle, be contented. ‘Tis a naughty night to be swimming.” Unfortunately, no one on the Labour side has said that. It’s King Lear, Act 3, Scene 4. Well known, of course. I have saved myself a lot of money: it’s about $24 for a beer in Auckland, and by the time I’ve said this it’s now $26 due to inflation.

I am delighted to support Steph Lewis’ bill; she was probably wondering what’s going on at this point. But, no, I am pleased, our side’s pleased, to support it, the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. Look, it’s a good bill. It’s a classic member’s bill and I think it’s rightly being discussed in the House tonight.

What I love about it, harking back to the previous bill, is, of course, it is relatively plain language. It’s a wonderful example of a bill in this Parliament that actually articulates what it does—that it’s biosecurity-focused and it’s information for incoming passengers. As many have touched on, it’s been a little gap in the law. What this bill is simply and easily doing is inserting a new section, as the member knows. So, at one level, why am I telling the member this? But, anyway, welcome to Parliament.

Yeah, a new element to the Biosecurity Act to make sure that craft coming into New Zealand—so we’re primarily talking aircraft; not exclusively, but aircraft—use audiovisual and written information that is presented to those people entering the country.

Look, conceptually it makes perfect sense. The more information, the better. I would make the distinction—just because I have to—there is always a difference between information and knowledge, and something we’re going to have to, as a country, deal with. What I mean by that is we can obviously furnish all the information in the world to people, but unless they—if you will—acknowledge it and process it, they could still ignore it. But that’s not the concern, per se, of the member. She’s doing the right thing through this bill to make it a legal requirement.

Look, we’re in the third reading, but I will just echo a couple of things that I mentioned in the committee stage. I am still a little bit concerned about the clarity of the Act around who is specifically responsible; I think the wording’s just a little loose for me. But, granted, I am no lawyer and, again, I have absolute confidence the member—in replying to my questions at the time, through her officials—will be clear on that.

But, long and short, it says in the moment in the bill—and knowing my luck, I can’t find it as I am about to try and speak here. But who is the person who is responsible to provide this information? Is it the likes of the company itself? Is it the captain? Is it the purser? Who is meant to be responsible?

The other side of it is I’m a little—again, concerned is probably too strong a word. Is ultimately whether or not we’ve got enough penalties—or, sorry, let’s be more specific, clear, and plain: we do have two penalties in this bill. We’re saying that an individual person can be fined no more than $1,000, and, my understanding from the member, the corporation or company is $5,000. I think, for me personally, that’s still a little bit low, particularly that a conviction’s required. Again, that’s where the bill has gone. Perhaps it’s for a future Parliament to re-look at.

Again, I really want to stress to the member: concept’s great. We’ll obviously see how this embeds, how this works. But there is a question to me of—well, I suppose I’m OK with $1,000; I’d personally like to see it as an instant fine. But that’s one thing. But for a company, $5,000 is nothing. But, again, really want to stress, that’s a moot and a debating point.

So, look, a good bill. It’ll be good to see this come into play relatively quickly. I think the member’s—I think it’s Order in Council but then there’s—

Steph Lewis: 12 months.

SIMON O’CONNOR: In 12 months, excellent. So the member’s confirming that in 12 months, it comes into being, which probably gives enough time for the Ministry for Primary Industries primarily but also the various craft holders—aircraft or otherwise—to get some new forms.

Actually, speaking of that, can I put my customs hat on briefly? Absolutely marvellous that the New Zealand Traveller Declaration has gone.

Simeon Brown: “Gone-burger”.

SIMON O’CONNOR: “Gone-burger”—didn’t need it; never needed it. The information’s not being used. Better be clear: Customs were amazing; they were just following what they had to do. But absolutely, completely unnecessary.

I have now recognised the irony that as one set of paper goes out the door, we are bringing a new set in, but it is for a good cause and it is to protect our environment. Actually, the former speaker—the member for Ōtaki, I think—articulated very well, listing through the amazing places and flora and fauna that need to be protected in this country that we love.

So to somewhat bookend this and to finish. Seeing that we have—well, it’s 9.30 at night. I will end for the benefit of my Shakespearean friend once again, Paul Goldsmith: “Prithee, nuncle, be contented. ‘Tis a naughty night to be swimming.”

Fakaalofa lahi atu ki a mutolu oti.

Fakaalofa lahi atu, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to rise as the MP for the beautiful Takanini, and speak as the last caller for the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill third reading. I haven’t had the pleasure of speaking in the first two readings of the bill, nor sitting in the select committee that worked on this, but I would like to thank again, like my colleagues, the member Steph Lewis for bringing this bill to the House, and also the Primary Production Committee for working on this important bill.

Being the last speaker and wrapping up, I just want to look back at what the bill does and definitely how it strengthens New Zealand’s biodiversity system—

Glen Bennett: I’d love to know.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: —thank you, sir—and also protects the primary industries, environment, and also our way of life. It amends the Biosecurity Act 1993, requiring the large commercial craft en route to New Zealand that arrive, and provide information to craft passengers about the law relevant to arrival in New Zealand.

Just looking at how this will provide a robust biosecurity system, we speak about the pests and diseases and keeping them out, protecting our environment as well as the livelihoods and wellbeing of New Zealanders. Madam Speaker, I just want to look at my beautiful electorate of Takanini—I know that’s adjacent to yours as well, Panmure-Ōtāhuhu, and it’s also beautiful.

I look at Barry Curtis Park in the northern end and the Botanic Gardens and Totara Park centrally. I know Manukau Sports Bowl is in my electorate now, being one of the newest. We have Puhinui Stream running in the middle of the electorate, and that’s one of the areas where our streams are trying to provide more life in protecting that stream, because it goes through many of the other electorates. I know that mana whenua and Auckland Council have made a commitment to make sure that we clean up that stream, because I know that back in the day, tamariki used to swim in there, and that’s part of our health and wellbeing. Hopefully soon we can get back to that, with our whānau using that stream once again.

I always try to connect things back to health. I look at the different models of care, and the Whare Tapawhā, or the Fonofale model of health looks at the whare, when we look at the pillars, but also where the whare sits, and environment is a huge thing that impacts on our health and wellbeing. So we need to protect and strengthen our environment, which will also strengthen the health and wellbeing of our whānau, and, as mentioned before, our tamariki and future generations to enjoy the green spaces, the waterways, and for our animals to enjoy and thrive in those ecosystems.

New Zealand has a good brand globally—clean and green; it’s one of our foundations in the global market place. It draws a lot of visitors and also adds to our exports and shapes how the world sees us. The biosecurity system will make this more resilient, and I know it is our taonga; it’s our treasure. Just reading some of the documents and seeing when this Government came into place in 2017 and seeing what they came into, and seeing where the biodiversity was at at that point, and reading that New Zealand was one of the countries with the highest proportion of threatened species in the world, with declining biodiversity at the point. More than 3,000 of the native species were in serious trouble—142 species were more at risk in 2008; three quarters of the native fish and a third of both invertebrates and plants were threatened with extinction. So, again, having to strengthen our biodiversity will definitely help in that space, and also trying not to endanger our native species and upset ecosystems.

I recently arrived back from Latin America, going on a Speaker’s delegation. We travelled to four countries—yes, we had Ian McKelvie from our National counterpart, we had Ricardo Menéndez March, we had Naisi Chen join us, and, obviously, with the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe on that trip. We travelled to Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, and Mexico, and we met with our counterparts in Parliaments on that end.

There were three things that I picked out to the things that they were discussing. Number one was the All Blacks; number two was our COVID response; and number three was how beautiful Aotearoa New Zealand is. In Argentina we met a person who’s been here—one of our parliamentarians’ counterparts—seven times. They’ve been to Aotearoa seven times because of how beautiful our country is. I think that’s, you know, when we’re discussing exports and trading, why one of those big things of our brand “clean and green” is kept up there.

I want to acknowledge the biosecurity officers on our return back. We had been on a farm in Uruguay—and I just want to say Uruguay is beautiful, almost on par with some of our green spaces here. We went to a dairy farm just to see how things are managed there. In the back of our minds, we were always thinking “Got to have clean shoes; make sure that we’re cleaning everything that we’ve been to.”, in terms of the farm. When we got here, we had cleaned everything, but our biosecurity officers made sure, they double-checked, and they actually double-cleaned some of our shoes as well. So, again, I want to acknowledge the important work that they do protecting our border.

The select committee have done many amendments to the bill. Again, like my colleagues have said, unanimously across the House have agreed to it. Commencement date, general duty of providing biosecurity information, moving detailed duties from primary to secondary legislation, looking at the powers of the director-general, also changing the duty to providing information to passengers rather than all the people on the board—those are just some of the clauses that were looked at and changed during that select committee process.

It’s all about trying to manage risk. It’s about trying to protect our environment—again, tying that to the health and wellbeing of our whānau, our tamariki, and our communities. We don’t want unwanted pests and disease to change things. I think some may take our freedoms for granted. We don’t want those pest diseases causing travel restrictions of people moving across Aotearoa; destroying some of our wilderness areas; spoiling our waterways—again I mention Puhinui Stream; we don’t want that to further degrade—reducing our animal, plant, and fishing stocks; trying to make sure that our exports are pretty good across the globe as well and benefiting our economy. We definitely don’t want pests attacking many of our community members, and diseases carrying and transferring to people, as well.

As the last speaker on this bill, again I want to acknowledge Steph Lewis—well done for her bill to go through the House tonight. I don’t want to take up too much time, but wrapping I commend this bill to the House. Fa’afetai lava.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.