Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill.

It’s a privilege and honour to be able to bring the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill to the House for its first reading, and I want to begin my kōrero tonight by acknowledging the Hon Kiritapu Allan, who, after meeting and talking with stakeholders across our primary industries, heeded their concerns about what they saw as a gap in the layers of protection at our borders and took the initiative to draft this bill. Thank you, Kiri, for your work to support our growers and food producers and for your efforts to protect our environment. We’re wishing you a speedy recovery.

I was pleased to have the opportunity to put my name to this bill because in the Whanganui electorate, we have a large number of farmers and growers who contribute significantly to our local economy and who, like farmers across the country, have played a big part in our export-led recovery. The farmers and growers in Whanganui, South Taranaki, and Stratford produce a range of foods for both our domestic and international markets, including milk, artisan cheese, berries, meat, and, more recently, quinoa. We also have beautiful forests, rivers, lakes, and national parks, all of which could be put at risk from a biosecurity incursion.

I grew up in the region, on a sheep and beef farm in the back of Waverley. I remember when we first bought that farm, we would sit up at night listening to kiwi call across the valley, but, sadly, those calls have disappeared over the years. So I know how important robust security measures are to protect our native species and to protect our ecosystems and our food and fibre sector. I know that if we faced a significant biosecurity threat in my electorate, it would take a significant toll on local farmers and growers, not just financially but on their wellbeing as well. It would also cause strain on their relationships with w’ānau and friends.

So the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill is a small bill but, I think, a common-sense bill. It will strengthen the layers of defence against biosecurity threats at our border, protect our food and fibre sector—that’s the livelihoods of our farmers and growers, and their families—and also protect our environment. It does this by inserting a new section into the Biosecurity Act 1993 which would require all craft coming into New Zealand to provide passengers with approved written and audiovisual information about our biosecurity. Videos must be approved by the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and be played in a prominent position that can be seen and heard by all passengers on the craft.

Currently, it’s optional to provide passengers with information about our biosecurity, and many conservation advocates and those from our food and fibre sector have raised concerns that only some of the airlines coming here are providing that information and that this creates an unnecessary biosecurity risk. This bill will fill that gap by adding another layer of protection, reducing the likelihood of a preventable biosecurity threat entering New Zealand with an incoming passenger. As well as making the provision of approved information mandatory, the bill will create a new strict liability offence under the Biosecurity Act for failing to provide passengers with approved information. It would also be an offence if approved information was not updated and were to become erroneous or misleading.

Our food and fibre sector contributes significantly to our economy. We are well-known for punching above our weight, and Aotearoa is the country of 5 million that feeds 40 million across the globe. In the last financial year, export revenue from this sector was around $47.5 billion. The tourism sector also contributes significantly to our economy, and the many visitors who, pre-COVID, came here to see our taonga—that’s our national parks, and our native birds, fish, lizards all in their natural habitats. So a biosecurity incursion that takes hold here would have a critical impact on our economy, especially our regional economies.

Requiring those operating a craft to provide approved information means everyone coming to New Zealand will be given common-sense information about what they can do to help us protect our biosecurity—information like “Do not bring fruit or vegetables or animal products into New Zealand.” and “Wash your shoes before you visit a farm or a national park here.” These small steps can prevent a biosecurity incursion here which could have serious consequences for our environment and those in our food and fibre sector.

Take the Queensland fruit fly, for example. The last time we had a small incursion of the Queensland fruit fly, in Northcote and Devonport, it cost us $12 million to eradicate. But if travellers are told on the plane not to bring in the apple that they’ve put in their bag, but to leave it on the plane or put it in an MPI bin at the airport, that reduces the risk of an undetected fruit fly or larva hitching a ride into New Zealand.

MPI estimates that 80 percent of New Zealand’s horticulture crops are susceptible to attack from the Queensland fruit fly. That would devastate our multibillion-dollar horticultural industry as well as our regional economies. Fruits and vegetables attacked by the Queensland fruit fly are inedible, and an infestation would mean we would face trade restrictions on our produce.

After having the good fortune to have my bill pulled from the ballot, I’ve so far been able to meet with biosecurity advisers from DairyNZ, Horticulture New Zealand, and Zespri, and I especially want to thank DairyNZ for their support, and Horticulture New Zealand, who I know were thrilled when they heard that this bill had been drawn. Each of these organisations, as well as many others who support our food and fibre sector, have a strong focus on biosecurity. They spend millions of dollars each year trying to understand the probability of a potential threat entering New Zealand and the potential for those threats to spread to a large number of farms or growers and the resulting impact that would have. By knowing which of these threats pose the greatest risk to their industry, they can develop targeted surveillance programmes to detect incursions sooner. It also means they can better support our farmers and growers to respond.

We don’t just monitor direct threats to our produce; we also closely monitor potential threats that could impact what we feed our livestock—in other words, pest or diseases that could threaten our pastures and crops. Last year, the fall armyworm, which feeds on crops and pastures, made it into Australia. If an infestation occurred here, it would devastate our pastures and crops, seriously impacting our growers and farmers, their livestock, and our economy.

Now, to those of us here in New Zealand who understand our unique environment, we know how lucky we are to be free of so many pests and threats that other countries battle, and that’s in big part due to our being located at the bottom of the Pacific. Being free from unwanted pests and diseases gives us a competitive advantage. It’s played a role in building our international reputation as a nation that exports high-quality products. The arrival of new diseases and pests puts that at risk. But for those who aren’t coming from an isolated country with few pests or diseases, it seems perfectly normal to pack some fruit for the trip, some honey as a gift, or some dried meat as a snack, and the boots they’ve just worn in a forest or on a farm. In fact, at an international airport overseas once, I watched as someone got a tree wrapped to take on the plane with them—a sight that would cause anxiety for many New Zealanders.

That’s why this bill is necessary. It adds another layer of protection for our industries by providing information to those new to our shores. Now is the time, while our borders are closed, to make sure that we’ve got the safeguards right to ensure that when the time comes to reopen to the world, we have a robust biosecurity system that ensures pests and diseases are kept out of Aotearoa and our environment and the wellbeing and livelihoods of New Zealanders are protected.

I’m looking forward to considering this bill with my colleagues at the Primary Production Committee, and I can’t wait to hear and read submissions from those in our food and fibre sector who want to protect our environment, and interested members of the public. This bill aims to protect our environment and the food and fibre sector through a strong biosecurity system which includes providing information that explains to passengers on their way here about the important role they can play to keep our biosecurity strong. Therefore, it is my privilege to commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is the worst ever Government that farmers have ever had to encounter in the history of New Zealand, and I want to run through some of the things that have caused that to happen.

First of all, the significant natural areas (SNA) land grab—and it’s great that we’ve got James Shaw here today. I wish that he would take a call and explain that land grab and explain how private property rights are being taken away from farmers by this very Government, and how they are using the guise of the SNA process—that is there for exceptional circumstances—to take away the personal property rights of New Zealand farmers. Explain that to the farming communities of New Zealand. We want to see you, James, stand up and explain that. The biodiversity rules that we’re coming to later in the year—we want to see James Shaw explain how they’re going to relate to that land grab we’re seeing through the SNA process.

Then let’s look at the freshwater approach, which is another complete failure—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

—on behalf of the Government.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Thank you. The member needs to speak to the bill. He’s been going for well over—well, that clock’s still ticking. So—

Well over what?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I mean, if you want to waste your time on me standing up and telling you’re not being relevant, that’s fine.

OK. Well, the freshwater reforms. Today, we got David Parker coming out and saying that the wetland reforms are a disaster and won’t work in practice. We’ve been telling the Government that since the election. They will not listen, but farmers understand that those rules will not work. We’re seeing that in Joseph Mooney’s great electorate in the Southland area with the intensive winter grazing rules, which are another complete and utter failure.

Let’s have a look at the—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

—labour supply of New Zealand.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! A second warning; you’re not going to get a third one. Speak to the bill.

Well, the labour supply in New Zealand is terrible. You look at the Recognised Seasonal Employer workers, you look at the dairy workers. This Government has not listened. It has not delivered the staff that are necessary for New Zealand farmers, and that will show through in animal health and mental health issues over the next few months as calving goes through our dairy sector.

There’s been a failure by this Minister to help out in any water storage issues in New Zealand for horticulture to grow in this country. There’s been a failure with the tax on utes that we’ve seen from this Government as well, directly impacting on farmers—

Order! The member’s call is terminated.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I’m pleased to take a call on the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill, and may I congratulate the sponsor of the bill, the member for Whanganui, Steph Lewis, in getting this bill drawn but also in her acknowledgment of the former author of the bill, our own colleague the Hon Kiritapu Allan.

Farmers and growers around the country will understand the significance of this bill, as we do on this side. This is about protecting the food and fibre sector of this nation, the backbone of this economy, and it’s a no-brainer that we are now seeing a bill come to this House to do the very thing that informs all passengers—all passengers; all visitors to this nation, whether it’s by airplanes or whether it’s by boat—that we have standards here around protecting our biosecurity. So I commend the member for bringing this bill and for us debating it on the floor tonight.

The bill that we are debating tonight amends the Biosecurity Act 1993, and clause 4 inserts a new section 17AA. In that clause, it talks about crafts “en route to New Zealand territory from … outside New Zealand territory on a flight or voyage that is intended to include arrival in New Zealand.”, and on those vessels, there will be played a video and information to inform all visitors of our expectations to not bring any pest or food that can impact on our biosecurity system. That’s why this is a very sound bill, and that’s why this side of the House and, I’m hoping—and I’m yet to hear from the National Opposition, because we didn’t get that from the initial speaker as to where they sit. They purport to be supporters of farmers and growers, and that is what this bill is doing. It is a no-brainer. It is adding another layer of protection to a very, very important part of our economy, and that is why I’m standing in support of this bill.

The videos and the information have to be approved by the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries, and it will need to be gazetted, so this is what this bill is intending to do. It is actually making it mandatory or compulsory for all vessels coming into this country to be informed of our expectations and the importance of our primary - based economy here in New Zealand. I think it is a common-sense bill. It is a common-sense bill that acknowledges the importance of our primary industry sector and the value it has to the economy.

Just by way of example, in the latest Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries (SOPI) report that was just released at Fieldays last week, it says that in June 2021, the value of our food and fibre sector to this nation was $47.5 billion. That’s what is at risk, and this is what this bill is intending to protect. That $47.5 billion, as per the SOPI—it’s called the SOPI—report, will grow to $49.1 billion in 2022.

We are protecting a critical part of our economy, the primary industry—the food and fibres—with this bill. It’s an absolute no-brainer, and I’m hoping that those that take calls—particularly the Opposition—calm down, look at the bill, as I have and as we have, and see how practical it is around ensuring all visitors to this nation adhere to the rules and regulations to protect our biosecurity in this nation and, therefore, our food and fibre sector.

Again, I stand in complete support of this bill. It makes sense, and there won’t be anybody out there—farmers or growers—that will see otherwise. This is a sensible bill, it needs to be supported by all members of the House, and I commend it to the House.

Holy quinoa! I’ve been sitting in the House for a few hours now listening to bills that were solutions looking for problems, and it’s finally good to hear a bill that has found a solution. So I would like to congratulate the member for Whanganui, Stephanie Lewis, who lives right next door to me, actually—I’m in the rural Manawatū—and it’s great to see that you’ve had the opportunity to pull this bill out of the ballot.

Also, I want to acknowledge our mate and my good mate Hon Kiritapu Allan. She might be watching tonight, as well. There’s probably not that much stuff on the telly, and nothing is more riveting than Parliament TV. I wish her a speedy recovery and hope she gets back into the House soon, because I know she’s got heaps of energy for our rural communities and our provinces as well.

This bill, the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill, would amend the Biosecurity Act 1993 to require that passengers on craft arriving in Aotearoa are provided with biosecurity information via writing and audiovisual recording. This would, essentially, mean airlines and ship operators would need to show a video and hand out a form advising passengers of their obligations before landing. To be honest, I actually thought we were already doing this, but I think I’m like a lot of the members in the House who actually haven’t gone anywhere for a very, very long time and don’t really remember what the little messages are on the plane as well. So it’s good to see some common sense and some practical solutions being advocated for in the House.

We like to take a precautionary approach in the Greens, particularly when we think about our farming and fibre sector as well. I’m also mindful of the environmental sector as well in making sure that people, when they land here, scrub their shoes before they get anywhere near our forests. I’m very mindful of issues like kauri dieback disease and the sorts of things that the member was describing earlier around fruit flies, and so on and so forth, so making sure that we stop those things at the border is incredibly, incredibly important. We think that providing passengers with biosecurity information before arrival would increase awareness of biosecurity risks, which is consistent with a precautionary approach, and that’s a great thing to see.

Something that I hope the select committee could focus on is around the issue around accessibility—so when the videos are playing on the screens, and so on and so forth, what sorts of languages that will need to be had while that’s playing as well. I’m also mindful of the need for having it in Braille and making sure that our whānau turi are able to understand those things as well, so maybe this could be handled in terms of the legislation, or possibly something in the regulations. So when this bill does come before the Primary Production Committee, that is, hopefully, something that they can pick up as well, to make sure that when folks get here, they can all understand—regardless of their situation—about the biosecurity information that we need for them to take.

So this is a very short call for me. I’m really pleased to support this bill, and the Greens commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on this Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. Can I acknowledge the member of Parliament for Whanganui, Steph Lewis, for having this bill drawn from the ballot. It would be very remiss of me not to acknowledge my friend and colleague the Hon Kiritapu Allan, who first brought this bill to the ballot. I can recall being in Kiritapu’s office having a meeting with Mike Chapman from Horticulture New Zealand and a kiwifruit-growing group when this issue was raised, and Kiritapu’s ears pricked up. She’s been such a strong advocate, in particular, for the horticultural sector, and she went straight to work on putting this bill together.

I have to say it is shameful and disappointing, to say the least, that we saw the agriculture spokesperson for the National Party stand up and bag this Government when he’s supposed to be standing up for the farmers and being the champion for the farmers. Around this bill that will protect our primary sector, all he can do is bag this side of the House and not even discuss the benefits that this will bring to our primary sector.

This bill amends the Biosecurity Act from 1993, and it is going to require all incoming aircraft, ships, etc. that are bringing passengers and tourists to New Zealand to display an audiovisual video for them to watch, explaining the things that they cannot do or that they must get rid of when they land upon our shores. There’ll also be written material, and we actually owe it to these people who are coming into our country as tourists, who are going to spend their money on our shores, keeping our economy going, to ensure that they have the best information available at hand so that they don’t create biosecurity incursions into this country.

I’ve seen, particularly in my area—in my electorate of Rangitata—the devastation that can be caused by things such as the M. bovis outbreak that we have seen there. There is the huge extent of financial aid that has to go into trying to rid our country of these incursions, the cost to the primary producers—and, actually, our agricultural sector, our primary producers, bring in over $49 billion worth of money into our economy every year. That is the backbone of our economy, and so we owe it to them. We owe it to our country and our economy and our environment to ensure that we keep it as safe as we possibly can, because we know people want to come to our country and visit our shores and participate in our amazing tourist activities that we have, and that will be happening, I’m sure, when our borders open.

But coming back to the M. bovis incursion that we have had in my electorate, it has had a devastating impact, where more than 130,000 animals have had to be culled across the country. It has cost the dairy and cattle industries $222 million, and the Government has paid out $198 million in support and claims to our farmers. So this is just one example of what we see happening when we have a biosecurity incursion.

The other thing I want to point out is in response to what Mr David Bennett, one of the previous speakers, mentioned, which was that this side of the House—the Labour Party—does not support farmers. Well, the question I would have is: who cut funding to biosecurity when they were in Government, and what happened during that time? What happened during that time? What did we see? The incursion of Psa on our kiwifruit industry. Our kiwifruit industry was devastated by that.

So, in closing, I want to acknowledge, again, Steph Lewis and the Hon Kiritapu Allan—and I know she’ll be watching and smiling, as she does, watching this debate continue through the House. I look forward to having this come to our select committee and to continuing the good work on something that is going to protect our country, our shores, and our primary producers.

Oh well, I want to actually commend the member Steph Lewis for her bill, the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill, but in the ACT Party, we just can’t see this as being a big win. Now, I know everyone in this House will articulate a message in the public sphere that farmers are the leading part of the economy, and I am one of those. We’ve seen our National member go off on a tirade of why the Labour Government has failed miserably at assuring rural New Zealand, and I would probably agree with some of the things that he said, notwithstanding I also see the endeavour in this bill. But, that being said, I also see the huge bureaucratic layers of compliance it may add.

There’s a couple of things that I think we need to address, notwithstanding that the biosecurity in New Zealand through Air New Zealand and for marine activity is rigorous. It spends hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Yes, I think we would all agree that we have a $47 billion export industry to protect, but there’s a couple of things that I want to speak to, if I can.

You know, this is a prime example in the marine industry. There have to be such things as, if I can quote, a Master’s Declaration for meat provisions and animals. Bio-fouling and ballast water reports have to be given routinely, a list of fresh produce and documentation of quality system to store the produce on incoming marine vessels, a voyage memo for the last two years has to be kept—I mean, these are the kinds of mitigations that I think this bill, potentially, has overlooked.

This is notwithstanding that on aircraft, there is CRMS, which stands for craft risk management standard, and this has already been adopted by the Biosecurity Act. We know there are many threats to New Zealand, and I think and the ACT Party would certainly support the narrative that we have spent millions and millions of dollars on that sort of biosecurity mitigation to do with marine life, terrestrial arthropods—and the member made iterations about mosquito incursions and marmorated stink bug and others. I think, notwithstanding the Ministry for Primary Industries is doing a marvellously good job, and I and the ACT Party just see this as a further layer of bureaucracy and compliance. Notwithstanding it will add additional cost to operators. So the ACT Party, I have to make the acknowledgment, cannot support this bill.

I rise tonight to speak in favour of this bill. Labour is the Government for protecting our borders. We have protected our borders through COVID-19 and we will protect our borders from biosecurity risks. As we know, biosecurity is one of the greatest risks to our country.

Before I go and talk more about this bill, I want to reflect on the cuts that the National Government made in 2009—2009—to the biosecurity funding, and in 2010—in 2010—we saw Psa arrive in this country, with an estimated loss of $900 million under the National Government. That is what happened under the National Government. In a damning report in 2012, they said that the failure of this National Government—the party that claims to be backing farmers—to invest had shortcomings in biosecurity. When it comes to a Government that absolutely protects our borders, Labour is the Government that does this.

Now, when I was thinking of standing and talking on this bill, it gave me time to reflect back on some of the work that I’ve done at a grassroots level. In 2001, I was able to travel with a UK farmer across New Zealand when we ran a campaign around foot-and-mouth disease. We went and we toured the country and we talked to farmers about the devastation that happens with biosecurity risks, and as we did that, we learnt through farmers how public awareness is one of the greatest tools. Good communication is one of the greatest tools to absolutely educate the public. What we’re going to see is we’re going to have biosecurity videos under this bill that we are supporting being compulsorily played on every craft that enters this country.

Public awareness is by far our greatest way to save us from the devastation that comes from biosecurity risks like the brown marmorated stink bug. Now, that brown marmorated stink bug—I wonder whether Mr David Bennett, the so-called spokesperson for the “Agriculture Party”, or the National Party, even could say the word. He wouldn’t know what goes on in a farmer’s paddock, or, for the growers, what they want. They want strong biosecurity, and that’s what the National Government failed at.

The National Opposition seem to think that biosecurity and protecting our borders isn’t important. In fact, we don’t even know from the other side of the House if they are ever going to even support this bill, a bill that will protect our country from the greatest of enemies that we have for our growers and our horticulturists. Have you ever seen what the brown marmorated stink bug does? Well, they are pretty stink over there. In fact, I think that they should infiltrate the National Party, because maybe if those members actually got together and thought about protecting our borders, they might actually have something good to say, because there’s nothing coming from that side of House. You know, let’s say the brown marmorated stink bug, because we know how much that little enemy, that teeny little bug—that teeny, tiny little bug—can do to our country. It is vital—it is vital—that we protect our borders.

Let me say it again: under National, they cut budget to the biosecurity. Under National, in 2010, that’s when we had a $900 billion loss to this country because a National Government does not protect farmers. They talk the talk of farming, but when it comes to doing the walk, when it comes to actually getting down there in the grassroots, who’s backing the farmers? Labour backs the farmers. We protect New Zealand’s borders—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Well—

Tim van de Molen: Are we going to hear some more alternate facts now?

Or the truth—more truth. You know, the interesting thing about the borders is it’s become a water-cooler conversation since COVID-19 and in places like Wellington, but it has long been an intense conversation at dinner tables and at the pub in my community. It is something really, really important. It is something that worries our farmers, and they are really, really happy when they know that we have got their backs. It’s really disappointing to hear a farmer on the other side of the House say it’s a little bit too inconvenient, a little bit too much compliance, to be asking a visitor to this country to take heed of what is important to us. It is really, really important to our farmers.

So when we look at our borders, we know we need to protect them. It’s a really complex border. We’ve got planes and ships, we’ve got freight, and we’ve got passengers. There was that small piece of fruit in the hand luggage that we heard about that brought the fruit fly to Auckland a few years ago, and the catastrophic impact it could have had, but, luckily, in that case we could focus on eradication, just like we are with M. bovis. We heard from Jo Luxton about the huge cost in herd replacement and in loss of income, but the biggest cost that I’ve heard about from my students and their parents on-farm is the cost to their wellbeing. Losing your herd isn’t about losing some milk; it is about something that’s really important. The cost that has been borne by our farmers is significant, and we acknowledge that by doing the work and bringing useful legislation to this House to help to protect them.

The best-case scenario is eradication, which is what we are trying to do. We have seen parts of the primary industry where management has had to be the strategy. Our apiculturists: when we talk about the mitigation costs and lost income because of the varroa mite, it is huge. It is ongoing. More than $11 million per annum of income has been lost to mitigate the hive collapses for our bee-keepers and our honey producers, and then the pollination that is provided across food and fibre. So this is why we need to take every step—every step—to protect food and fibre.

We are not all doing it compulsorily—OK—and the great thing is we’ve got fantastic technology. We’ve got scanners, we’ve got that wonderful old-fashioned technology called the beagle, and, of course, we’ve got our mighty inspectorate. But we do need to make sure we support our visitors and people returning home to do the right thing. Declaration: declaration is critical, and we need to make sure we support them to do that. The opportunity with written material and with audiovisual obligations means that we will be able to produce information in appropriate languages, as was, quite rightly, brought up by the Green Party. They will be culturally appropriate.

This is so important to us. It is part of our DNA. I remember coming home on a plane once, sitting next to a young backpacker. She was travelling from the Northern Hemisphere and she’d just come through a part of the world that has snakes. She was really excited about showing me the dead snake she had in her hand luggage. It never occurred to her that that might be a bit of a problem at our border.

It is about educating our visitors, who come here because they respect and value the things that we respect and value. As tourists, and as people who will buy our products overseas, we need to support our visitors to declare. We need them to understand what is so important to us, we need to make sure that we provide culturally responsive materials, and we need to make sure that we build a real awareness amongst our arriving passengers, because our beagles and our amazing inspectors and our scanners can’t pick up everything.

If we could get every visitor to declare everything they brought through, that would make a significant impact, and I’m really proud to be standing here and bothering to do something that will have an impact and will help to add to the huge raft of tools that we already have in our rebuilt biosecurity system. I am proud to stand here as a member of a rural community, knowing that our farmers—our food and fibre sector—are better protected because we can be bothered to do the work in this House. I commend this bill to the House.

I have to say it’s been an entertaining evening. Actually, firstly, I should acknowledge Steph Lewis, who’s put it forward. It’s not to take away from her work, but the irony has to be noted, and it’s not that the members responsible—this is a members’ day. The Government could pass this in five seconds flat through a statutory amendment bill, but, instead, they’ve decided to filibuster for an enormous amount of time, including bringing “Berocca” back into the debate, which is quite fascinating.

So we’ve ended up with a situation where they’ve been filibustering over, basically, telling people that they’re going to be given a piece of paper and verbally told not to bring certain fruits into the country. Now, that’s on top of us discussing the nature of urea, and the fact that comity between the courts and the Parliament has somewhat broken down tonight with Louise Upton’s bill. So, personally, I think it’s been a pretty weak evening of discussion, and in order to symbolise that, I’m not going to contribute anything further.

Doesn’t that sum it up—doesn’t that sum it up? The National Party had two calls on this bill. In the first one, their agriculture spokesperson—the person that industry bodies are pleading to the leadership to change—got sat down after three minutes. Their second call—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! This is not a general debate. Come back to the bill.

That’s right. The Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill is a very important piece of legislation, and their agriculture spokesperson couldn’t even speak to it—couldn’t even speak to it. The second person that the National Party stood up, that well-known advocate for farmers from the depths of inner-city Auckland—all he could say was to accuse us of filibustering, and he then sat down. We don’t even know what their position is, and that’s how little they think of biosecurity.

But they have a record. They have history on this. I googled a very simple thing: “Government cuts biosecurity NZ”. The first thing: “Govt ignored biosecurity warning”, 2012—that’s them. Biosecurity cuts are “irresponsible”, 2013. “Scientist says NZ has gone soft on biosecurity”, 2013. The only thing here that came up from that search—and we know the most recent comes up first—was from 2021: “Federated Farmers welcomes biosecurity funding”. There it is.

Here we have a piece of legislation that will alert visitors to this country of the grave threat that bringing in matters like fruit and not-clean sports gear or boots or anything like that poses. All it is imposing is the requirement for airlines to put on a video to make sure that there is absolutely no excuse and that everyone is fully informed of the threat that they pose.

That side doesn’t care, and I encourage every farmer and every person that lives in every rural area, if they really want to see what the National Party thinks of them and thinks of their industry and thinks of our economy, to watch tonight—watch the pathetic, disgraceful, offensive display from David Bennett and the pathetic contribution from Simon O’Connor. I ask them to consider this: this Government and its friends in the Green Party are actually supporting what is a good idea. The National Party had an opportunity to join us and actually show the primary industries—those seats, every single one of them voted for the Labour Party at the last election. Every single rural seat voted for us, and now, tonight, it shows why, because we actually give a hoot. We actually care. That’s the thing.

They can say all they like. They can stand there and criticise this party of never supporting the farmers, but when the rubber hits the road, they actually get a chance to back it up, and they’ve failed. I pick that David Bennett’s days are numbered as the agricultural spokesperson, because when you’ve got outfits like DairyNZ overlooking their agricultural spokesperson and picking people that they’d rather listen to, I’d say that his days are numbered in that role, and I’d say that the primary industries in those areas that voted for us at the last election will actually welcome that.

Here on this side of the House, we care about rural areas. We care about regional economies, and that is why we’re planning ahead. We are the party that has a plan to increase agricultural exports by $40 billion.

They just laugh. They are complacent and they haven’t realised that there is a reason why they’ve only got 33 seats in this House, and that’s because they’ve been found wanting. I note that the likes of Tim van de Molen, who’s sitting there—an actual rural MP—are disagreeing with our statements about them cutting biosecurity when they were in Government. He had an opportunity to speak. Did he take it? Did he, my foot—of course he didn’t.

Tim van de Molen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I made no such claim. The member is inaccurately quoting what I said. I did not make any reference at all to us not having made cuts; I referred to this Government having made significant cuts over each of the last years.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That’s not a point of order. That’s a debating point.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. If he’d bothered to take a spot, he could have made that point himself, but he didn’t, did he? No, because they gave it to Simon O’Connor. What a waste—what a waste. That sums it up.

This bill here will help us protect our borders from biosecurity threats. Those members might be satisfied with their record. They might be satisfied, under their watch, of letting in Psa. They might be satisfied, under their watch, of letting in Mycoplasma bovis. We are the Government that’s sorted that out—$350 million to sort that out. We are the only country—the only country—in history that is on track to actually eliminating that.

Now, it is very clear to the people of New Zealand that this is a very simple, non-contentious bill that will make a huge impact on the security of our primary industries. We’re taking it seriously; they are treating it like a joke.

Steph Lewis—five minutes in reply.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to thank all of those who have made contributions to tonight’s bill—actually, most of those who have made contributions to tonight’s bill, because, unfortunately, it seems that the agricultural spokesperson for the National Party either didn’t have the time to read a three-page bill, or just didn’t understand what it was we were here to debate tonight. Such a disappointing and disrespectful effort from the National Party spokesperson.

It was also disappointing to hear, Mark Cameron from the ACT Party, that you’ve changed your tune from calling this a common-sense, pragmatic bill to, now, the ACT Party not supporting it. It’s—

💬 Mark Cameron: I never said that. What I said was it had merit.

And you have said tonight about—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Don’t bring me into it.

Sorry. The member said tonight that he was concerned about the additional layers of bureaucracy that this bill would bring in. Well, let me tell you, I worked at the New Zealand Customs Service and with the other border agencies like the Ministry for Primary Industries, and I can tell you that those agencies, our airlines, and all of the other incoming craft are well versed in how to provide information to passengers efficiently and cost-effectively, and they’re well-oiled machines. So I say to you, Mr Cameron, what price do you put on protecting our rural communities, protecting our primary industries, protecting our environment, and protecting our border and economy, because I can tell you that providing this information is going to be much cheaper than the $900 million that’s already gone into responding to Psa.

In the last 12 to 18 months, it has been a tough year for everyone, including our farmers, who face border closures. Even though they kept working right through lockdown, they haven’t been unaffected. They face disruption due to supply lines that have been delayed due to COVID, and this bill will add further protection to them. We owe it to them to provide them with this protection, as we’ve heard tonight from my colleague Jo Luxton.

Horticulture New Zealand and our primary industry bodies have asked for this bill. They want this bill. Horticulture New Zealand said they were thrilled when this bill was drawn from the ballot because they can see that it will protect our multibillion-dollar primary industries, our food and fibre sectors, our farmers, and our rural and regional economies.

This bill is going to add protection by requiring the provision of approved information to all incoming passengers to New Zealand, which will protect those food and fibre industries. It will protect our environment as well, and, as we’ve heard tonight, it is crucial to have this awareness campaign. That is what makes the biggest difference in terms of protecting our environment. Not everybody coming here to New Zealand grows up understanding the same environmental concerns that we do have, or the same issues around having delicate ecosystems and vulnerable natural species. So it’s vital to protect those species and our ecosystems that we run this awareness campaign and that we provide that information to everyone coming into New Zealand.

I also want to acknowledge the contribution tonight of the Green member Teanau Tuiono. I really thank him for his suggestion to consider how we make this information more accessible to all incoming passengers, and I have given some consideration around how we provide this information to passengers in multiple different languages.

I really look forward to being able to discuss this further in select committee with my colleagues from the Primary Production Committee, and I really encourage members of our farming communities, our rural communities, the food and fibre sector, and those concerned about protecting our border and our environment to submit to the select committee and tell Mr Cameron and Mr David Bennett what they think and why they want this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

The question is, That the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.