Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill

Just a moment, members. I’m just checking who wishes to take the call.

Madam Chair, a point of order just to assist. Steph Lewis has asked for the call on the thread—

Well, it’s here now—it’s here now. Can I remind, ask, plead with members Zooming in—not for the first time today—that the only way a Speaker can accept a call is if you seek the call. And when you are joining this debate via Zoom, the only way you can do that is in the chat function. I call Steph Lewis.

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

It is my pleasure to take the first call in the virtual House on the second reading of the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. This bill has been reported back to the House with some amendments.

I want to thank the committee members from the Primary Production Committee for their collegial approach to considering the bill and for their thoughtful and constructive feedback. I also want to thank officials for their advice and guidance throughout the select committee process. Finally, I want to thank and acknowledge all of those who took the time to make a submission on this bill.

As I said in my first reading speech, this is a common-sense bill which will strengthen the layers of defence against biosecurity threats at our border. It will protect our food and fibre sector that’s the livelihoods of our farmers, growers, and their families, but it also protects our environment. 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 significant role in our export-led recovery.

As noted during the first reading, it’s currently optional to provide passengers with information about our biosecurity arrangements. Many conservation advocates and those from our food and fibre sector have raised concerns that only some airlines are providing passengers with such information, and this creates an unnecessary biosecurity risk. A biosecurity incursion that took hold in Aotearoa would have a critical impact on our economy, on our environment, and on those in our food and fibre sector, especially our regional economies.

As indicated, this bill has been reported back to the House with some amendments, and I’d like to take this opportunity to share with the House and those at home what those amendments are. The first amendment I’d like to discuss is the proposal to create secondary legislation or regulations which detail what information and how information is to be provided to passengers. As a committee, we agreed that this allowed for a degree of flexibility that would not be available if we prescribed the format of information in the primary legislation. For example, clause 4 of the bill as introduced suggested that written information also be provided. However, that could propose logistical challenges for some airlines where space and weight restrictions are paramount considerations. It was noted by several submitters that shifting away from providing paper-based information to passengers will help a craft to reduce their carbon footprint.

Moving detail about what information and how information should be provided into specially drafted regulations also allows Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials time to consult with airlines. It also means that the regulations can be drafted and more easily amended in future to account for changes in technology. For example, many airlines and cruise ships have their own apps which allow them to engage with passengers before they board a craft, so it’s possible that, in the future, the provision of biosecurity information could be incorporated into those apps in a way that also makes translation into multiple languages efficient and easy.

It was noted during the select committee that the future of our border is digital. There is a move away from paper-based cards in favour of utilising technology like smartphone apps and websites so that passengers can provide arrival information in a digital format. Again, this shows why it’s appropriate to include detail about what information and how information is to be provided into specially drafted regulations. It ensures sufficient flexibility which will make the uptake of new technology a lot easier than if officials had to amend primary legislation each time technology changes.

Evidence we heard in the select committee also suggests that the advantage of providing information to somebody before they board a craft means that they have the opportunity to dispose of prohibited items before they begin their journey. Again, this could lessen the risk of a biosecurity incursion in Aotearoa. For these reasons, the committee also agreed that clause 4 should be amended to say that before a craft arrives in New Zealand, the person in charge of the craft must provide biosecurity information to passengers as set out in the regulations.

This leads me to the second amendment proposed, which was to the commencement clause. In light of the changes discussed and the need for consultation and to draft bespoke regulations, the committee has proposed a change to the commencement clause. So, rather than coming into effect on the day after the bill receives Royal assent, as proposed in clause 2 when the bill was introduced, the committee has agreed to a recommendation from officials that the bill come into effect by Order in Council, or 12 months after Royal assent.

As introduced, the bill created an obligation to provide biosecurity information to all persons on a craft. However, after hearing submissions and advice from officials, the committee agreed that it was not necessary to provide information to crew on a craft. Therefore, we agreed to amend the bill to refer to “passengers” rather than “persons on board”. This is more in keeping in line with the purpose of the bill, which, as suggested in the name, was about providing biosecurity information to passengers. The intention was not to create a legal obligation to provide crew members with biosecurity information every time they come back into New Zealand.

The committee also agreed to narrow the definition of “craft” as proposed in the bill. As introduced, the bill referred to all craft en route to New Zealand, and that was so broad, it would have included small private yachts and planes, air ambulances, cargo ships, fishing vessels, defence force aircraft and ships, and donor organ retrieval flights. Again, it was not the intention of the bill to cover all of those scenarios. I want to thank MPI officials for their assistance to the committee to help us reach a definition which better reflects the intention of the bill—that is, that the bill should apply to commercial craft with 20 or more passengers.

As introduced, the bill proposed pecuniary penalties for failing to provide biosecurity information to passengers. However, after considering evidence and advice from officials, the committee formed the view that a failure to comply with the proposed section 17AA involves a lower level of harm compared to the offences punishable by orders under section 154H of the Act. It would also be inconsistent with the kind of conduct and harm already targeted by pecuniary penalties under the Act. The pecuniary penalties are intended to target the commercial gain that could be made, and there is very little commercial gain to be had by failing to provide information to incoming passengers.

The committee also agreed, for the same reasons, that a penalty of a strict liability offence is too high and not proportionate to the offence of failing to provide information. Members considered that an infringement notice would be a more appropriate punishment for such a breach. However, to enable the creation of an infringement offence in the bill, an offence for a breach of the proposed section 17AA needs to be created. Therefore, the committee recommended retaining the strict liability offence in the bill, but reducing the penalty to the lowest level under the Act. That’s up to $1,000 for an individual and up to $5,000 for a body corporate.

Those are the most notable changes proposed by the committee. Again, I want to thank committee members and officials for their work, and I thank the submitters who took the time to submit on this bill. The changes I’ve outlined this evening received the unanimous support of the Primary Production Committee, and I’m looking forward to that support continuing through the remaining stages of the bill. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to have you on board as one of our Assistant Speakers in Parliament and it’s a pleasure to speak on this bill tonight. I want to congratulate Steph Lewis on bringing it forward, and it’s been good to be part of the Primary Production Committee as we’ve been working it through. And given that we are on biosecurity tonight and incoming aircraft, I’m just going to let you know that I’m going to be winging this speech to some extent.

This morning, I was actually on a 3½ hour extended Zoom call, didn’t get to Parliament by the allotted 10.30 time, haven’t been able to get in to get my notes or my computer, and I have been winging it all day on my phone. So it’s been a rather unusual bill to go with, because we started it in lockdown and I remember sitting in my house when we were locked down during August and September and taking in submissions, which were very good. So I really do thank Steph for her level of detail. The second thing is that I saw the most recent bill on safe zones, actually, tonight and I thought, “Oh, I’ve got plenty of time.”, and, all of a sudden, I had to get my jacket back on and get in front of the screen, so I really am literally winging it.

But what I do want to say is that biosecurity is really, really important to our country. And thank you, Steph, for pointing out the fact that, in terms of agriculture, it really is a saving grace. You know, there’s a whole lot of things that can get into our country right from diseases like, you know, fruit flies and things like stink bugs that sneak in in vehicles and can actually ruin our whole horticulture industry. We’ve got to be careful that we don’t bring in things for our animal industries like foot-and-mouth.

We did have, obviously, a big case of Mycoplasma bovis, which we still don’t actually know how that got in. So it was a biosecurity issue but we still don’t actually know how it got into the country, but it created a lot—a lot—of stress and effort for farmers and actually was probably, in some ways, in terms of tracking and tracing, a precursor for what we’re now facing with our own COVID in human species. And I want to thank the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) for all the work that they’ve done with the Ministry of Health in terms of helping them around tracking and tracing, because we might be different animals, but when we’re tracking and tracing diseases, it works out the same.

I also want to make note during this, while we are talking about biosecurity, that one of the things I think about is that as we closed the border, a lot of people were redeployed into other parts of MPI or redeployed into other jobs. I often think about that, as we are reopening the borders now, it’s going to be ever-important that we make sure that those people are deployed back to the borders, where they need to be, because, as more and more passengers start to come in—and it’s really important they do—we’re going to find ourselves in a space where we’re going to need those people back on the borders again and looking after us.

I want to thank all the submitters for their submissions. In particular, one of the things I did want to mention that we had quite a long discussion about was, yes, it’s great to collect all the information and it’s great to make sure that we know what’s going on, but we did have particular submissions from Air New Zealand and others who looked at the level of paper we might use, not only in terms of it’s a massive weight to carry a lot more paper but also when you start looking at what we’re trying to do in climate change—and we’re trying to reduce our emissions and make things a bit more favourable for the environment—the last thing we want to be doing is taking down more trees and producing more paper so that we can get more incoming passengers filling in paper forms and then, at the end of the day, once those are recorded, then we’re going to have to find some other way of destroying them. So just looking at absolute practical ways to do that. MPI and others were right across that. So it was really as much making what we do as practical as absolutely possible as we could without undermining the importance of what Steph was trying to achieve and make sure that we keep our borders as safe as we possibly can.

So I wish you all well in the House tonight. I’m going to stop there and recommend the bill to the House because I really am winging it. I’m sure there’s people in the House tonight that have got all their notes in front of them and are going to do a much better job than I have but I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker, and thank you to my colleague and neighbour in Taranaki - King Country Barbara Kuriger, and you did a really good job of winging it. I am part-winging it tonight. My computer system actually went down, another whole story I won’t tell you about, but I did get locked out of my house for 20 minutes this evening. But that’s another story. I’m glad to hear that Barbara Kuriger, that people across the floor, are supporting this piece of legislation, because it is, as I said, around protecting Aotearoa New Zealand; it’s protecting our biodiversity, it’s protecting our plant life, and so it’s very much worth protecting.

Now, I often think that people from overseas don’t quite understand the uniqueness of New Zealand and, as the world has shrunk in the last 70 or 80 years with the means of being able to fly and not just being on a ship for six to eight weeks, I often think that people don’t understand the uniqueness of New Zealand, the uniqueness of our position in the world, the uniqueness also of our indigenous biodiversity, our indigenous pieces of plant life that are here in our beautiful nation. We need to protect that, and, I think, for too long we haven’t, and so this is another piece of work, another piece of legislation that will ensure that.

I’ve had many friends come to New Zealand who, of course, as many of us are, are blown away by the beauty, by the scenery of our natural environment here, and we must do all we can to protect it. As was mentioned, we’ve had things come through such as Mycoplasma—and as he’s winging it, his notes have just gone off his screen. We’ve had things come through around our kiwifruit industry. We’ve had issues come through in many spaces, and we need to ensure that we protect everything here, and that’s why a piece of legislation like this, as simple as it is, is required to ensure that we look after and keep our space safe.

Now, when I talk about friends from overseas, they arrive in New Zealand and they just don’t realise quite how far away we are and how, for many of my friends in parts of Europe and Asia, of course, to go to another country is a day trip, or to go to another country is where you go shopping, or you go to the mall. But, of course, in New Zealand, that’s not really something we do, and haven’t done for a long time. So I support my colleague and another neighbour Steph Lewis on this piece of legislation.

Obviously, as she spoke about, this bill amends the Biosecurity Act of 1993, to require large commercial aircraft that are en route to New Zealand to, before the craft arrives in New Zealand, provide information to the craft’s passengers about the biosecurity law relevant to arrival in New Zealand. This is required by regulation made under this Act. And, like I said, how many times have you been with an international traveller who has had a banana or an apple or things in their bag which, to them, seem very insignificant but, to us as a nation, are very, very significant? Like I say, I’m just trying to get my device working, which is just wonderful how technology works so well, and it doesn’t like me at all.

People who come into New Zealand, they come here for the experience, but also people come here to New Zealand for the natural beauty and, of course, also people from within New Zealand have lives to live and businesses to run, whether it be in our agriculture sector, our farming sector, and in many other parts, where, like, for example, with our kiwifruit industry and the Psa it was a massive challenge for us here in New Zealand. As Barbara Kuriger alluded to, and I said before, around the Mycoplasma, and the challenges that we faced—but the fact that we’re now working really hard to eradicate that. But we don’t want to have to eradicate; we want to make sure that we stop it at the border. And because we are a nation that has a border of water, we are really, really well set up.

Now, when my friends and visitors come here, they often think of things like The Lord of the Rings, Middle Earth, and they think of the experiences of Boy or Whale Rider, and the beauty of our nature and our scenery, and we need to ensure that we do all we can to protect that, and this piece of legislation is a part of doing that, a part of ensuring that we keep and protect what is here. And, again, as I said earlier, it is very much around the indigenous biodiversity that is unique only to New Zealand, is unique only to us, and we must do all we can. We must do everything we can to ensure that we protect that.

I’m grateful, again, that Steph Lewis has brought this. I was unable to be part of the select committee, to listen to and hear submissions. I’m glad and thank Steph Lewis for your explanation in first speech, letting us know some of the changes that were made to this legislation, to make it more robust and more fit for purpose for going forward. Steph Lewis is someone who I respect, who I know comes out of Whanganui, which is right next to me and, as she said, this is for the sake of her own constituents, as Barbara Kuriger then also spoke about—for the sake of the work she does and her constituents, and, for myself, here in Taranaki and as the MP for New Plymouth, which stretches around part of Taranaki here, it is around ensuring the safety of our people here.

Now, we in Taranaki don’t have an international airport just yet—you know, it’s always on the cards, why not, let’s think big, right—but, again, it’s that transition. When the world is so small, when there’s so much connection going on around the world, we know that a flight from Asia or South America or North America or Eastern or Western Europe, or wherever it is around the world, can so quickly come into Auckland or Wellington or Christchurch, and then divert straight away to a flight to the beautiful Taranaki. Can I also add just a little wee plug that New Plymouth, I think for the second year running, has the most sunshine hours in all of the country. Yes. No, Nelson, sorry, you’re not in the mix there, but anyway, this is just a side note.

So we need to ensure that (1) we protect our sunniness but (2) we protect our biodiversity. I’m grateful to speak on this bill. I’m thankful to Steph Lewis for bringing it to the House, and for being so thoughtful around it, for the work that the select committee has done, and to the submitters. This is the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.