Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill

Sorry, I was expecting that someone else was going to complete their call rather than jumping straight into it.

Look, the biosecurity information bill, it’s been well traversed in a number of ways.

💬 David Seymour: Tell us some more.

Well, we could, but, you know, it could be an element of security.

💬 David Seymour: What does the bill say?

Well, Mr Seymour, it begins with the definite article “the”, so it’s probably useful for you, and we can move on from there. Look, National’s well traversed this bill. Put really simply, it’s about—I suppose part of the reason I’m struggling is it’s a good bill—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: You started.

—in its intention. No, I know I do, but in fact, it’s so exceedingly simple that all it’s really doing is asking that biosecurity information be provided across multiple mediums at the border. That’s a good thing. I really want to say that to the person putting forward the bill and to the House. But as I say, part of the reason I’ve been hesitating tonight is that really there isn’t too much more to it than that.

I suppose it does highlight to us in the House an aspect of why these things were missed, if you will, in the first place. I suppose it’s a humble option for all of us to reflect on the fact that, you know, even with the best of intentions, the work of ourselves and officials and others, things can slip through. So this is, again, a good bill. It’s fixing up a particular aspect that needs tidying. Being able to have information around the biosecurity of New Zealand presented both visually and aurally makes a lot of sense, so that it extends that protocol, that it tidies things up—that’s a really, really positive thing. And hopefully it’s a no-brainer to people in the House that we want to continue to protect our biosecurity. We’ve had issues in the past, we’ll have issues in the future, and to the extent that this bill enables our biosecurity to improve, I’m delighted to therefore commend it to the House. Oh, and if in the spirit of this, it had been in both forms, I’m more than happy to provide a written copy of my speech, as well.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is my first time speaking in the hybrid House, so it’s quite a different feeling, actually. But, actually, it’s a pleasure to take a call on the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill, and there’s far more to it than what the previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, has alluded to.

Can I congratulate my colleague again, Steph Lewis, for having this bill drawn out of the ballot, and I want to acknowledge the work of the committee and the submitters, which has resulted in some changes that the select committee proposes to this bill that I will come to a little bit later on. I’d also really like to acknowledge my colleague Kiritapu Allan. I was in her office having a meeting with Horticulture New Zealand when this issue arose. We heard that it was currently only optional to provide passengers with information about our biosecurity arrangements, and I think we were all actually really, really surprised by that. So from that, the idea for this bill was born, and I know that Horticulture New Zealand was absolutely thrilled when it was pulled out of the ballot.

This bill seeks to amend the Biosecurity Act 1993, and while it’s not a large bill, the importance of it is huge. It will strengthen our biosecurity system and protect our primary industries, our environment, and our way of life. Doing everything to protect our environment—it’s paramount. Our beautiful, natural environment, it’s world renowned. It’s what attracts tourists to our shores. They want to experience and enjoy all that New Zealand has to offer. It’s quite upsetting to know that more than 3,000 of our native species are in serious trouble or at risk of extinction, and these are native to New Zealand, they’re our taonga, and in order to ensure that future generations can also experience and enjoy our native environment, incoming passengers do need to be aware of what their role is to protect our environment. As we open up our borders and welcome friends from overseas back here, it will be particularly important to remind them.

Our primary sector has been at the forefront of our economic recovery from COVID-19, and so it’s got to be protected—tight biosecurity is crucial. Mid-Canterbury farmers in my electorate are now producing nearly half of the world’s carrot, beet, and hybrid radish seed. Close to 90 percent of the $240 million of seed and grain exported by New Zealand growers comes from there, and the impact of an unwanted pest would just be catastrophic to our local economy regionally and nationwide. We’ve seen the devastating impacts of Mycoplasma bovis amongst our cattle and dairy herds in my electorate and in areas such as Ashburton. It’s been a severe impact from that.

It’s not just the toll that it takes on our animals but it’s the toll that it takes on farmers and other people that are involved, and the impact on mental health. Equally, our horticultural sector could be impacted if pests were able to make their way here, and that would also have catastrophic effects on our export and our economy. So again, I say that we must do everything possible to protect our primary industries. It only takes one small pest or disease to enter New Zealand and the result is devastating. So again, a small bill, as Mr Simon O’Connor alluded to, but hugely important.

As I mentioned before, after hearing submissions and receiving advice, the committee has made some proposed changes to the bill just to ensure that the integrity and the purpose of the bill is maintained. The committee proposes a change to the commencement date, which amends clause 2. As introduced, the bill will come into force after the day that it receives Royal assent, but the committee was aware that having a set date for the commencement could be too prescriptive. The ministry and industry representatives probably need to have some flexibility to respond to issues that could arise and interfere with their ability to have everything in place on time—disruptions like COVID, for example. The committee recommended instead that it come into force on a date specified by Order in Council or 12 months after the bill receives Royal assent, whichever comes first.

As the bill was introduced, it was quite prescriptive that the person in charge of the craft had to provide biosecurity information to people on board in written and audiovisual form. The committee heard that that could create some logistical issues for aircraft, where weight and space restrictions are extremely important. Submitters also highlighted that moving away from paper-based information will help aircraft reduce their carbon footprint. So the committee therefore recommended amending clause 4 in proposed new section 17AA, subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) that describes how the biosecurity information is presented, and instead create secondary legislation regulations that stipulate that the person in charge of the aircraft must provide biosecurity information to passengers before arriving in New Zealand. It doesn’t specify exactly how and what format, so it does allow some flexibility for this to happen and also to be able to be changed fairly quickly, which is quite important for the needs around biosecurity when we have threats and incursions that create those changes, or the information needs to be changed fairly quickly. It also gives the Ministry for Primary Industries the time and the ability to consult with airlines and others that will be impacted by this bill.

We had lots of discussion around the different types of craft that enter New Zealand. So, as introduced, in clause 4, the bill required all craft coming to New Zealand to provide biosecurity information. That ended up being more than what we might typically think of when we think about craft entering New Zealand. We tend to think about aeroplanes and cruise ships and the like, but actually, when you get down into the weeds of it, aircraft such as air ambulance and donor organ retrieval flights would be captured within the bill. So, practically, that didn’t make sense because types of craft and fishing vessels and cargo ships, etc., already have a high level of compliance with biosecurity measures. So I think that what the bill was trying to target was those passenger vessels, as mentioned before, and passenger planes and, say, the cruise ships with lots of people and generally associated with bringing tourists into the country.

So we worked through that and made changes to narrow the scope to include commercial passenger craft with 20 or more passengers on board. So we replaced the term “craft” with “large commercial craft”. Now, the committee also heard that the biosecurity risks are lower on craft that carry 20 or fewer passengers because they have more interaction with ministry inspectors on arrival. As introduced, the bill required a person on board to receive biosecurity information, so that also meant that crew would also be captured, meaning that biosecurity information would have to be provided to the crew every time. So we decided that that was pretty unnecessary and decided to agree to change the persons on board to “passengers”. So again, I want to thank those that made submissions. It was evident from those that this bill is very important to them for one reason or another. It is of paramount importance to protect our environment, our primary sector, and our economy. So I am pleased that this bill and the proposed amendments to it were agreed to unanimously by the select committee. Again, I just want to thank and acknowledge Steph Lewis for bringing this bill to the House, and I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.