Biosecurity Amendment Bill

I move, That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee, that the committee present its final report on or before 12 October 2009, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

In late August the Prime Minister announced an agreement with the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, to a joint action plan for streamlining trans-Tasman travel. The new approach will allow low-risk visitors who are travelling across the Tasman to New Zealand to move through processing more quickly, but those who do not abide by the rules and who breach biosecurity requirements will face stiffer penalties. These proposals are consistent with the changes that the National Party signalled in its pre-election biosecurity policy. They included improving cooperation at the border between staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the New Zealand Customs Service, ensuring passenger processing times are acceptable, and increasing the instant fine for incorrect biosecurity declarations at the border.

Many people will be aware that they risk an instant fine at the border if they break the law by failing to declare or dispose of goods such as fruit or meat products before entering the country. This bill raises the instant fine from $200 to $400. My fellow Ministers with responsibilities at the border will be making progress on other issues. Many of those will be behind the scenes and not visible to international travellers. These improvements are a key part of the joint agreement between the Governments of New Zealand and Australia to make it easier for citizens of both countries to cross the Tasman. We will be making these changes as visible as possible to everyone, with conspicuous warnings at international airports.

New Zealand is free of many of the serious pests and diseases that affect livestock and crops around the world. This is due to our relative isolation from the rest of the world and our strict biosecurity measures, but now we are more connected to the rest of the world than ever before. Travel has never been quicker or easier. Each year we can expect the arrival of about 4 million passengers and over 20,000 international flights. Every arrival brings with it the risk of an exotic disease. High-risk items brought into the country have the potential to severely harm our economy, environment, and social well-being.

I want to say very clearly that we must do everything we can to keep that risk as low as we can. Despite our very best efforts, some international travellers still do not declare that they are carrying risky items such as fruit or meat products when they enter the country. Over the last few years Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry border staff have found that roughly three out of every 1,000 passengers have carried products such as those and have had to hand them in. The instant fine system was put in place to change people’s behaviour and encourage them to respect the very serious consequences that can follow if contaminated products are brought into New Zealand. By raising the fine to $400 we want to create a wider understanding of New Zealand’s need for strict biosecurity measures, and we want to see a drop in the amount of risky goods that are brought in and have to be seized to prevent possible harm.

This is a very short bill, but I want to outline some further measures it contains. The instant fine will be raised, but an alternative to the instant fine is processing through the court system. The bill also raises the maximum penalty for conviction in the courts for the same offence from $400 to $800. We think this more accurately underlines the importance of biosecurity. The bill also introduces some minor changes to make the instant fine system easier to administer and to allow more flexibility for the future. Besides the instant fine for failing to declare risky goods, there is also an instant fine for not truthfully answering an inspector’s questions while in a biosecurity-control area such as an international airport. At the moment, each instant fine has its own separate system and penalty. The bill sets out a standard format for instant fines and moves them out of the Act and into regulations. Should another instant fine be considered in the future, it will be much easier to include it in the regulations rather than again change the Biosecurity Act.

The bill covers offences that are suitable for an instant fine as a deterrent. It makes a distinction between offences committed at the border and those that happen elsewhere. The reason for that is to cater for international travellers who may be here for only a short stay. People issued with an instant fine have the option of paying it on the spot. Most instant fines give people 28 days to pay before a reminder notice is issued. If the fine remains unpaid after another 28 days, court action can begin in order to recover the fine. But, unlike the average parking fine, the Biosecurity Act allows the fine to be entered into the court system for recovery after only 14 days in the case of an incorrect biosecurity declaration. The bill ensures that the special arrangement for a quick follow-up continues to apply only to border offences. In all other processing for instant fines, the standard 28-day notice will apply. Because penalties are being moved out of the Act and into regulations, it is vital for the Biosecurity Amendment Bill and its regulations to come into force together. So the bill provides for an Order in Council to make sure that the changes can take place at the same time.

This bill marks an important step in improving biosecurity processing for international travellers into New Zealand. Trans-Tasman travel will be made faster and easier while improving our already world-leading biosecurity system. I commend the bill to the House.

I have much pleasure in speaking on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill on behalf of Labour. Labour will be supporting the bill, because it is sensible that we do what we can to increase the protection of our borders from biosecurity incursions, but we do have some issues with the bill, as members can imagine. One is the basic concern of where the Government might be heading with biosecurity.

As the Government introduces this bill, with, we believe, the intention of enhancing biosecurity protection at the border, it is at the same time cutting 54 front-line jobs from Biosecurity New Zealand. I cannot understand a Government that preaches about the value of extra police so that people will commit less crime but says we can have fewer biosecurity people and we will still have fewer biosecurity incursions. It is illogical that both apply. If we are to believe that additional police lead to lower rates of crime, how can we believe that reducing the number of Biosecurity New Zealand staff will lead to reducing numbers of biosecurity incursions? The Minister of Biosecurity pointed out that last year 17,000 people were identified as bringing dangerous and unwanted organisms into the country. That is a very dangerous situation and one that we have to address. So the move to increase the instant fine from $200 to $400 is logical. If we go through and analyse it, we will see the decreasing value of the fine since its introduction in 1999, yet 20 percent fewer people have been identified as bringing in or trying to bring in dangerous goods, food, or whatever we do not want in this country. So there is an illogical argument there that says it is automatically true that by increasing the penalty, more people will comply.

I go back to one of the major concerns we have, and that is, of course, that this bill brings in regulation-making powers and allows the Government to change regulations without putting forward legislation for the scrutiny of the House. If we had a sensible Government that ran logical, consistent policy, we might trust the Government, but, as I say, the complete hypocrisy of what it says regarding crime and what it says regarding biosecurity really does leave me alarmed at what might happen at some later stage—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member opposite but I take exception to his accusation that members on this side of the House are guilty of hypocrisy.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That word should not be used, and I ask the member to withdraw it.

I withdraw, and I have to say I was not referring to any particular member; it was just—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member does not need to comment on my ruling. I ask the member to continue.

It is the double standards applied by the Government, across the board, that concern us when a bill that allows for open, regulation-making powers is brought into this House.

The second concern we have is also about double standards. On the one hand the Government is increasing penalties and saying it will be tougher and will make it harder for people to bring things into the country or for things to come into the country inadvertently, but, on the other hand, the Government is reducing the effort at the border. That is the reality.

The third concern we have is that in tough economic times people will take short cuts with biosecurity. We are told by the Government that this recession is the most serious since the 1930s Depression. I would have to say that is an insult to all those elderly people who went through the Depression, but we are told that by the Government constantly in order to justify the cuts it is making. The reality is that many people will take short cuts with biosecurity. They may do that for a whole lot of reasons. It may be for commercial reasons or just because they feel desperate, either to bring into the country food for their families because they want to support them, or for some other strange reason. But the reality is that in tough times people take short cuts, and there is a risk that without enhanced levels of biosecurity scrutiny, we may increase the risk at the border. The cuts that this Government made in biosecurity, which were confirmed today, resulted in 54 jobs being lost from front-line biosecurity services in this country, on the very same day that we are debating the first reading of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. That is a double standard, normally called something beginning with “h”.

When this country was facing droughts, we allowed the importation of palm kernel stock food. At the time that was seen as a necessary move. Assurances that were given on the biosecurity protections have proven to be wrong. I put it to this Government that at the same time it has the Biosecurity Amendment Bill before the House it should take up the issue of palm kernel biosecurity and the importation of high-risk products that put our primary industries at risk. That issue could be included in this bill if the Government was genuine in wanting to increase the level of biosecurity protection for New Zealand. This bill does not guarantee those protections. It is simply a stick that raises the amount of instant fines and penalties for those people who make an erroneous declaration.

One of the problems, which is pointed out in the explanatory note of the bill, is that some people will inadvertently, or erroneously, make statements—one might say, if one were being kind. For whatever reason, they might say they do not have unwanted goods, or high-risk goods, and they subsequently are proven to have them. We fine them and that is fine. But every time I come in and out of this country I am aware that there is confusion about the forms we give people to fill out. If we are to develop the tourism industry in New Zealand—and if the Government were to put more money in, it might do that—then more and more people will come into this country. English may not be their first language, and they will have a form placed in front of them that is supposed to explain—

💬 Sandra Goudie: And a video.

—and a video, no doubt, but, again, maybe English is not their first language. The form is supposed to explain to them very clearly that we do not want food or unwanted products brought into the country, because that is a risk to our country. I put to the Minister that the forms, the explanations, and the videos that we put before many of those people are not very helpful. Although the explanatory note mentions that the bill is part of a number of initiatives in this area, I say that the Minister should have included in this bill a guarantee that we would have better information for people coming in, so they do not erroneously make statements that they do not have goods that we might consider a biosecurity risk. There is an issue of communication that must be addressed, particularly for those people who do not have English as their first language.

In conclusion, Labour will support this bill going to the select committee. I am sure that the committee, under the stewardship of Shane Ardern, who shows more intelligence on these issues than many of his colleagues do, will guide this bill through and ask the right questions. I remind the Minister of a statement made not by me or anyone on this side of the House but by someone who traditionally probably aligns with the National Party, and that is the chairman of Federated Farmers. He said: “The threat”—the biosecurity threat—“won’t necessarily come in the few thousand containers inspected, but in the hundreds of thousands of containers not inspected.” John Key announced that he was opening up our borders to visitors from Australia. We still have 600,000 sea containers not inspected, and today we have had confirmed that 54 front-line jobs have been cut from biosecurity. That is on the same day that the Government brings this Biosecurity Amendment Bill into the House for its first reading and tries to claim that the bill will enhance biosecurity in this country.

It is always a pleasure to follow the Hon Damien O’Connor—the former member for West Coast - Tasman—particularly on an issue that he clearly knows very little about. He will learn more during the select committee process, and, at the end of that process—which will, of course, be thorough and relevant to the bill before the committee—he will know a lot more about biosecurity. That will be useful.

During the last 5 years of the previous Labour Government, New Zealand had 333 new incursions that are now permanent residents in New Zealand. That issue is what this Government is trying to address. Most of that material came through in people’s baggage and on their person after they had falsely declared they were not carrying some kind of foreign body or good that was likely to be harmful to the New Zealand environment. We need to spend a couple of moments thinking about that situation.

The New Zealand environment is unique. No other environment in the world is the same, and there is a very good reason for that. We are and always have been an island nation, isolated from the original Western World and from many old Eastern societies, as well—the Old World, I guess we could say. We are a relatively young country with regard to things travelling to and from the rest of the world. We have a unique environment that encourages certain types of plants, insects, and animal species to flourish—species that did not flourish to the same extent in their own nation. We are vulnerable. Therefore, our biosecurity has to be more vigilant, better, and world-leading, which is what the bill is trying to address.

When I had the privilege of having the biosecurity portfolio I received reports that as many as 8 tonnes of meat were entering our borders in a year on people’s person. Members should think about that for a moment. Eight tonnes of meat on people’s person is a big truckload. We might ask why anyone would want to bring in unprocessed, uncooked, or unpackaged meat, but people do. The meat was intercepted at our borders. We know that because we intercepted it. One could argue: “Well, what’s the risk?”. The risk is in the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s own audit at the time suggested that as much as 10 percent gets through. So we can see that the signal sent by the $200 instant fine was not being taken seriously.

Let us compare that fine of $200 with the fines for dropping litter in the jurisdiction of a district council. I understand that South Auckland has instant fines for those types of activities and for graffiti. If we look at a schedule of what those instant fines are, not only here in New Zealand but also around the world, we see that they can be as high as $500, and we then realise that the $200 instant fine is clearly not sufficient for the potential seriousness of the crime that is being committed.

I commend and thank the Minister for Biosecurity for the work that is being done. It is great to see. It is good policy and a good step forward. Many people will be pleased that the bill is being promulgated through Parliament and the Primary Production Committee at the moment. I know that in a survey I carried out during the last Parliament, the highest area of concern for rural New Zealand was biosecurity. So I say “Well done!” to the Minister. This bill is a great step forward. I look forward to the select committee process. I can assure the House that the select committee process will be thorough and relevant to the bill. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It is a great honour to speak after the chairperson of the Primary Production Committee, Shane Ardern, who really should be the Minister for Biosecurity because he knows something about agriculture. I can tell members that I have had the opportunity to work with David Carter, the Minister for Biosecurity, over the last 6 years in that committee, and I thought quite highly of him at the time, but since he has become the Minister I have been really disappointed, for two reasons. The more recent reason is to do with the cutting of 54 jobs in biosecurity. That is totally outrageous. This Biosecurity Amendment Bill is basically a technical bill, and not a very big thing; it raises infringement fees. But the issue really is about cutting the people at the border, as 54 jobs are to go. Those people are the guardians of our borders and our ports.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: The front line.

They are the front line. This Government is always talking about having people on the front line, but here we are cutting 54 jobs. I do not think that the Minister understands.

I am particularly disappointed that the Minister has cut the Fast Forward fund. That Minister has been talking about agriculture and about protecting it in New Zealand for the last 6 years in our committee, but when he got the job as Minister he cut the Fast Forward fund, which was designed to protect New Zealand through research and development. A lot of that fund was supposed to go to research and development, and its funds were partly going to be used by research in the biosecurity area. In my view as a scientist in agriculture, I can say that biosecurity is the greatest potential threat to New Zealand.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Why are you voting for it?

I am voting for the bill because its intent is good, but I am trying to say to the Minister that his actions in other areas are not very good. Cutting the funds for research and development, and for biosecurity, is totally illogical, as my colleague Damien O’Connor has already said. It does not concur with what the Minister has been saying over the last 6 years, as far as I know.

Our agriculture and horticulture are worth billions of dollars. We are very proud that when we go overseas we always talk about the “clean, green” image of New Zealand; it has been built up over many years. I think we want to keep it that way, and in particular to protect our environment and our animals in this country. As I said, there is no more serious threat to this country than in the biosecurity area; our livelihood and our countryside depend on agriculture. Over the years I have personally done a lot of research in this area, and I think it is important for all of us that we protect our borders—not only our borders but also our marine environment. We had an opportunity recently to go to Australia and look at its aquaculture. That is an area that is potentially becoming a big industry in New Zealand for the future, and we need to make sure that our marine areas are protected by biosecurity. But I am really disappointed that the cutting of those 54 jobs is designed to balance the budget. That is really ridiculous.

💬 Hon Member: $2 billion cut.

A $2 billion cut, and 54 people will lose their jobs. That is not easy. Those job losses will not be concentrated only in the three main areas of Auckland, Christchurch, and Wellington. I am really fearful that other small ports and airports might be at risk, because people will be brought into the small centres to do that job at airports.

Overall, we support this bill and I am looking forward to discussions in the select committee. I hope that we will have good submissions from all sectors of society, and that we will have an opportunity with Shane Ardern to look at the bill and have a detailed discussion. With those few words, I support this bill to go to the select committee.

The Biosecurity Amendment Bill has presented the Green Party caucus with quite a problem. How should we vote on a bill that has an intent we support, but where the process applied has been poor? This bill has been introduced under urgency when no good reason for urgency exists. Neither the Leader of the House in introducing his urgency motion nor the Minister for Biosecurity in introducing this second reading debate has given a good reason for urgency.

What is more, the wording of the “Alternative options” section of the regulatory impact statement makes it clear that this legislation was prepared in June at the very latest. In other words, this bill has been written for months, at least, and there is no conceivable reason why it is now necessary to deal with it as urgent. One is reminded of the management or parenting rule that says “Lack of organisation on your part does not constitute a reason for urgency on mine.” None the less, the Green Party will support the bill at least being referred to the Primary Production Committee, because we cannot bring ourselves to vote against legislation that has an intention we support.

What makes urgency for this bill all the more extraordinary is that although its content essentially reflects relatively minor administrative and technical changes, the catalogue of missteps and disasters that the Government has been visiting on the crucial area of biosecurity has been largely shielded from scrutiny by this House.

I expect that all members of this House would subscribe to the view that biosecurity is important, and, indeed, every speaker so far has subscribed to that view. Typically, we hear about the threats of incursions to our primary industries of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and aquaculture. I will speak tonight about some of those risks, but I will also draw the attention of the House to the threats posed to our natural environment and to biodiversity. It is worth pointing out, too, that there is also an indirect effect of incursions on our food export industries and on tourism, because of our trading on that clean, green, “100% Pure New Zealand” image. For example, we are about to start international flights into Rotorua. The cost of a fruit fly outbreak from just a single piece of undeclared fruit in a passenger’s hand luggage has been estimated at $800 million in the first year, and 5,000 jobs in the Bay of Plenty alone. The current size of the horticulture industry is $5 billion and it is rapidly increasing. A foot-and-mouth incursion could cost 20,000 jobs, and reduce GDP by $10 billion over 2 years. The stakes are high.

The Greens think the system of airport-based instant fines for passengers coming through with undeclared biosecurity risks has generally been working well. In general, we believe that the penalties in the Biosecurity Act have been set too low, and that is why we welcome the increase proposed in this bill.

It is a pity that the bill did not extend this to other penalties. The recent case of a man who deliberately imported tarantula spiders from the Philippines, and was caught and fined a pathetic $5,000, illustrates the fact that the penalties are clearly insufficient to deter behaviour that creates risks, and are inadequate to communicate the seriousness of those risks. A better bill would also tackle the time limits on prosecutions that, for example, have seen a company recently escape scot-free after introducing South African mussels into Tasman Bay from its oil rig, because of a 6-month limitation on prosecutions.

New Zealanders need to know that this increase in fines comes at the same time that this Government is taking the axe to biosecurity services, which sustained an 11 percent reduction in funding in this year’s Budget. Then the Prime Minister announced last month that trans-Tasman travel was to be 8 minutes faster on average for most travellers, because the border control processes were being streamlined. In biosecurity terms, the cost of those 8 minutes is that only incoming passengers who meet a particular risk profile will now go through biosecurity screening. That will inevitably increase risk, because some people posing risk will not fit the profile. Fewer staff to perform the screening, fewer people screened, and just one fruit fly in a forgotten piece of fruit is all it could take to decimate a multibillion-dollar industry. The increase in fines is the Government’s half-pie approach to creating something to part-balance this increased risk, and it is totally inadequate.

But this focus on individuals is also misplaced. The biggest risks are posed by the biggest importers, and 90 percent of incoming freight arrives in shipping containers. Our processes for assessing and dealing with the risks from these sources are plainly failing. How about the importation of poorly sterilised coconut kernel compost from Sri Lanka a couple of years ago for use in garden centre potting mix that introduced more than 30 new species of weeds? How about the 17 out of 200 shipments of palm kernel imported in the 2008-09 year for New Zealand dairy farms that also failed biosecurity standards? Federated Farmers knows about many other hazards. How about the 77 percent of imported shoes containing fungi, bacteria, and plant material? How about the imported cars infested with tropical spiders and disease-bearing mosquitoes? How about the shipments of imported roses from India, only 10 percent of which are inspected and virtually all of which prove able to be propagated, despite supposedly having been treated to absolutely prevent that from happening? Currently about 104 incoming loaded containers are checked for biosecurity risks each day. That is about 9 percent of the incoming loaded containers and leaves approximately 386,850 loaded containers unchecked each year. The high rates of biosecurity hazards detected in the sample of incoming containers that are inspected make it certain that significant biosecurity risks are undetected.

These risks are compounded further as a result of the free-trade agreements to which New Zealand has committed itself over the past several years bringing about a flood of imported goods that New Zealand might very well otherwise grow or make itself, with no risk to biosecurity. Examples include the shoes I have already mentioned, or Chinese garlic infested with fungi. Our biosecurity measures need to be tougher. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Biosecurity New Zealand need more power and more resource.

The most recent outrage in biosecurity is the Government’s intention—having hacked into its own biosecurity budget—of now sharing the cost of inspection and managing incursions with the industries being protected from threats. The Government intends that the costs will now be shared with those industries according to who principally benefits. This barmy proposal was apparently developed in consultation with an industry working group, but I note that it has been roundly and rightly condemned, at least by Federated Farmers and Horticulture New Zealand.

What is more, this attempt to cost-shift to industry is certain to bias biosecurity vigilance still further away from protecting conservation and biodiversity values. We have already seen a glacial response to the fire ants incursion in Nelson, with nobody taking responsibility for managing a relatively small incursion, and the complete failure to deal with Undaria when it first arrived in New Zealand. Those are just two examples. This will become worse. Will there be any hope at all of rescuing our rivers from didymo, or our kauri heritage from Phytophora taxon Agathis, or kauri dieback disease?

To recap, the Government has cut its investment in biosecurity, is not adequately inspecting imported goods, and is proposing to screen even fewer incoming travellers. It now intends to shift the cost on to the very industries we are trying to protect in our national interest. Would it not be interesting if countries adopted the same approach to defence? Frankly, the minor adjustments we are considering in this bill, under urgency, seem pathetic in the face of the disaster unfolding before us in this portfolio area.

Somehow it seems appropriate to debate this bill today—a day that has been dominated not by simplification and streamlining but by the evisceration of New Zealand’s environmental protection laws. I am surprised that we are not also seeing today the bill to enable low-value coal mining in national parks; that would somehow have been appropriate. This bill does not make matters worse, but the Minister can rightly be charged with fiddling while Rome burns. Our economy, our environment, and future generations deserve better, and the Green Party would be relieved to help achieve this. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. As I do so it is significant and appropriate to mention that the National Party is anchored in the principles and importance of sound biosecurity. It is also appropriate to make the comment that the Primary Production Committee will tomorrow visit the Wairākei land of Landcorp. We will be quite grounded in the importance of sound biosecurity. In saying that, we must contrast that grounding with the realities of how we live today. This evening we had an enjoyable event that celebrated 2 years to the day until the Rugby World Cup 2011 begins. That is quite relevant because we will have an enormous number of tourists coming here. It illustrates the tension that exists between our very important tourist industry, which sees somewhere in the region of 3 million passengers coming to New Zealand, and the importance of our primary production industry.

It is quite important to inform the House that in implementing the Biosecurity Amendment Bill there will be a considerable need for education. It is relevant that when people come into New Zealand they all receive an arrival card. It is important that the educational process about our biosecurity is clear and understandable, because when people come here—those 3 million people—they need to be well informed. It is appropriate, without a doubt, that the education process will be undertaken, first and foremost, by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Its campaign will run under the title “Declare or Dispose. It is New Zealand law.” It is also important to realise that as we get the balance right with our tourist industry, the experience in the primary production industry is that there needs to be training of staff. Ninety-two percent of people pay fines within 14 days. However, with the raising of those fines to $400 and $800, there will be the need for District Court administration and fine recovery. There have to be inspectors, who need to be trained. Those things are all being taken into consideration.

As this bill is receiving wide support in the House, I think the Minister has clearly articulated his vision going forward with regard to biosecurity and the benefit for New Zealand. We realise under the Labour administration that we had 330 biosecurity incursions. We had the painted apple moth, we had didymo, we had varroa, and we had didendum. It is very much in the vision of this National Government that we effectively do 10 times better. It is a pleasure to speak on the bill at 10 past 11 tonight, and I commend the bill to the House.

So many of our industries are dependent on New Zealand having rigorous biosecurity systems. Members can take the tourism industry as an example. Tourism thrives under our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. The “100% Pure New Zealand” brand is successful because we have such fantastic landscapes, culture, and people. The New Zealand reality at present matches the traveller’s expectation. Tourists come to New Zealand to visit and enjoy our lakes, rivers, mountains, and bush. There are no other countries that boast rainforests that tourists can tramp through with absolutely no risk to them from wild animals such as bears, snakes, or poisonous insects. The only threat to tourists in our native bush is from the elements.

However, although humans are not at risk from our bush, our native bush is at risk because of biosecurity incursions introduced by humans. These incursions are from possums, rats, stoats, ferrets, and other species introduced by humans for whatever misguided reasons. Possums alone consume over 21,000 tonnes of native foliage in a single night. In the bush where I come from, one can see whole stands of giant native trees denuded of foliage and dying because of those types of biosecurity risks. Possums, rats, stoats, and ferrets eat the eggs and chicks of native birds—in particular, our native kūkupa, or kererū as it is known in other areas. It is a bird vital in the distribution of native seeds, and therefore the rejuvenation of our bush. These birds have been decimated by those pests.

Our native bush is at risk, and when our native bush is at risk, so too is a major part of our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. If our brand is at risk, so too is our tourism industry. If our tourism industry is at risk, so too is our economy, because tourism provides one in 10 New Zealanders with a job, makes up 20 percent of our foreign exchange, and is our biggest export earner. We cannot afford any further biosecurity incursions that jeopardise a single element of our tourism industry.

However, tourism is more than just sightseeing and tramping in the bush. Another key element of tourism is the dining experience. New Zealand seafood is renowned the world over. Our aquaculture industry is vital to the supply of high-quality seafood. I might add that Māori have a huge stake in the seafood industry. So if we want Māori, along with the tourism industry, to be successful, protecting the aquaculture industry from biosecurity incursions is vital.

The possibility for marine biosecurity incursions is huge. In fact, a survey of ports around New Zealand conducted over the last few years—in itself a major biosecurity exercise requiring the participation of a number of highly trained and expert staff—found that many invasive species were already established. Each one of these incursions is a threat to our aquaculture industry, which is bad enough, but the flow-on effects on industries, such as tourism, mean our country’s economy is hugely jeopardised. In fact, the Pacific oyster, itself a delicacy up north, is actually a hitchhiker and a pest. My uncle once told me how as a kid he used to walk along the Kawakawa River for some 3 or 4 miles in the 1930s and 1940s. These days it would be impossible to walk along it, as our feet would be torn to shreds on the oyster shells growing along the same river banks. Those Pacific oysters were transported amongst ballast rocks on the ships that sailed up our river, having come from the Pacific Islands. In order to get as far as possible up the river, as it became more and more shallow, the ships’ crews would dump their ballast rocks, and thus the oyster spat attached to those rocks, on to the river banks along the way. Those piles of ballast rocks can be seen today under layers of oysters.

The modern-day equivalent of ballast holds are the bags, the suitcases, and even the footwear of travellers from every corner of the world. Instead of oyster spat in the hold, we are threatened with food, fruit, plant cuttings, seeds, fungus, barnacles, meat, animal products, smuggled animals, insects, and even viruses. Members will remember the calicivirus outbreak not too many years ago when frustrated farmers smuggled in the virus to control rabbits.

That brings us to the purpose of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. Labour supports this bill going to a select committee. Labour believes that an effective biosecurity regime is vital for protecting our interests. Biosecurity is essential to protect New Zealand from environmental and economic damage.

Raising fines, as suggested by this bill, if someone is convicted of not properly declaring goods that should have been declared is a good idea, but of little point if the biosecurity system as a whole is jeopardised by the axing of 54 jobs and $2 million from the biosecurity budget. This budget cut is a risk to our country’s primary industries, our tourism trade, and our economy in general, and may therefore compound the effects of the recession. Last year 66 known incursions of unwanted pests and organisms were dealt with by New Zealand’s biosecurity staff. Those job cuts mean that less staff will be charged with protecting our borders at a time when the Prime Minister is looking to open our border with Australia. Open borders mean more visitors. More visitors mean more opportunity for biosecurity incursion. Biosecurity risks arrive in New Zealand by many vectors, not just air travellers: the hulls of yachts, inside containers and container ships, amongst cargo, in luggage, and on the bottom of shoes, just to name a few. We need more biosecurity staff to protect us, not less.

On 8 July it was reported in the Bay of Plenty Times that because of a 13 percent drop in cargo volumes and a 4 percent drop in passenger arrivals, Biosecurity New Zealand was reviewing its operations, and those 54 jobs were cut. The reality is that the review of operations is a result of the $2 million budget cut, not a drop in cargo volumes or passenger numbers. We have read recent reports that we may be emerging from the recession. One would assume that this would mean both cargo and passenger numbers would rise as a result. We can add to that the new procedures that will be put in place when our border with Australia is opened up. Common sense would suggest that now is a good time to train staff to be able to deal with the new customs procedures, not lay them off, so that when traveller numbers increase again and the common border is set up we have staff there who are prepared and ready to cope with the changes. It is an opportunity missed.

On the face of it, it seems reasonable for the select committee to have an opportunity to hear submissions on the part of the bill enabling the amount of infringement fees to be increased in regulations, and the detail of the infringement offence regime to be prescribed in regulations rather than in the Act itself.

I ask for the House’s indulgence while I recount a short tale from my time as a school principal at Kāretu, where we studied the effects of the possum on our local bush. I organised a short field trip to my uncle’s place down the road, because this uncle was the head of a possum gang. Each day the gang would go into the bush laying lines of cyanide. Part of the study was learning about possum culling, seeing the effects of the possum on our bush, and looking for alternative uses for possum products such as the pelts. On this particular day one of the form 2 boys brought in a live possum in a trap. I took this creature down to my uncle’s place with the class, and asked him to quickly euthanise the animal around the back of the shed, and to demonstrate to the kids how a possum was skinned. My uncle duly dispatched this possum and showed us how to skin it, which is a bit difficult when it is freshly killed, but the House can be reassured that these kids were all typical country kids who did not need counselling afterwards. After a bit of difficulty, my uncle completed skinning the possum—[Interruption]—hang on, members should wait for the punchline—to a round of applause. All the kids were suitably impressed, except for one. I looked round and saw that the boy who had brought the possum to school was crying. I asked one of the kids what was wrong with Daniel, and he replied: “Sir, that possum was his pet.” I guess the moral of the story might be that biosecurity incursions are bound to cause somebody a bit of pain. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.