Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill

Point of order. I seek leave for all clauses of this bill to be taken as one debate.

Leave is sought for that course of action. Are there any objections? The question is that clauses 1 to 8 stand part.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. To the member Steph Lewis, congratulations on having this bill pulled. This is a short and relatively simple bill, but it is certainly an important one, as biosecurity has a huge impact on New Zealand as an island nation. We’ve certainly seen with Indonesia, for example, the impact that foot-and-mouth getting into a country can have on the economy and on animal welfare, and it’s something that we’re acutely aware of in New Zealand, and we need to keep these risk factors out. So well done on bringing this—like I say—relatively simple, short, but valuable bill before the House.

Just expanding on the questions that Nicola Grigg asked around the carve-out for private aircrafts, I note that in new section 17AA(1), inserted by clause 4, “This section applies to a large commercial craft that is on route to New Zealand territory from a point outside New Zealand territory on a flight or voyage that is intended to include arrival in New Zealand.” Has there been any analysis of the number of aircraft that would not be captured by this definition? And if you could, just explain to the committee the reason for having that carve-out provision.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Congratulations to the member Steph Lewis for bringing this, the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill, to the select committee that I sit on, the Primary Production Committee. It’s a great piece of legislation, I think. We ironed out a few kinks. I think we would reconcile that there were a few points of concern earlier on.

To the member, I’d like to bring her attention to clause 4—new section 17AA, I think would be the right determination. If we can take our attention there, it speaks to large craft, and I think it would help to answer some of the questions from the member Joseph Mooney. For my interest, and perhaps the interest of other members in the Chamber, what does the member who brought this piece of legislation to the committee of the whole House today feel about ships, as in vessels, coming into New Zealand? How will the audiovisual and the digital information being shared on vessels accommodate the fact that many of these international vessels—P & O Cruises, etc.—that are coming here have a plethora of languages on board?

Again, as you appreciate, I support the legislation, but I’m just interested to see how you iron out that concern, because, as it’s been well canvassed, our biosecurity is tantamount to a good economic outcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the members for their questions. Please be assured that there are already very robust processes in place, as the committee was advised by the Ministry for Primary Industries—in particular, regarding small craft and yachts. Say you are sailing from Fiji to New Zealand over this summer break that we’re all looking forward to. There’s already a requirement that the masters provide a full declaration for biosecurity clearance before arriving in New Zealand. Small craft are also inspected upon arrival in New Zealand, and so that sets out that process in full.

The members might also be interested to note that one of the other reasons for excluding small craft is because the bulk of the small craft—in particular, aeroplanes—that would have been caught by not having a cap include flights like air ambulance flights. It would have included defence force flights, for example, or search and rescue flights, or even donor organ retrieval flights—all of which were not intended to be captured by this bill. In addition to that, cargo ships also have a robust process in place.

In terms of the member’s question around cruise ships: again, there is already a really robust process in place for our cruise ships that has been occurring for a long time, even prior to COVID. What happens is that the videos and announcements are played over the speaker and on TVs about half an hour, typically, prior to arrival in New Zealand and the disembarking of the vessel.

In terms of how those then become translated, the reason for moving the specifics around what information is required to be provided to passengers and the form in which it’s required to be provided into the regulations is to take account of the fact that technology is rapidly evolving. What we’re seeing is that more and more airlines and cruise ship providers are bringing out their own apps to provide to passengers that will have that ability to provide a greater number of translations to get that information across to incoming passengers arriving in New Zealand.

So I’m wondering, will the New Zealand Traveller Declaration be used as a tool to collect the information that’s proposed by this bill as needed to be collected? We understand—we’ve heard from finance Minister, Grant Robertson, in the past few days—that even though the New Zealand Traveller Declaration’s not required for the purposes of tracking and tracing passengers to control COVID-19, it will become the declaration to replace all other biosecurity and customs declarations. So can the member Steph Lewis confirm whether there is a role for the New Zealand Traveller Declaration to be used as part of the administration of the collection of this information that this bill seeks to collect?

In short, this bill doesn’t propose to collect any information. This bill is about providing information to passengers to educate them about what they can and cannot bring into New Zealand that may or may not provide a potential biosecurity threat to New Zealand biodiversity and our food and fibre sectors. As I mentioned in my previous answer, which the member may have heard, we are seeing technology rapidly evolve at the moment. There has been an indication that we are moving towards a digital border system, and there is absolutely scope to include the provision of information about our biosecurity laws here in Aotearoa New Zealand to passengers potentially through that app. That is a call for the Minister to make.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for clarifying that, Steph Lewis. Will there be a requirement for inbound passengers who have taken part in the PowerPoint, or whatever the digital form is that the information is proposed to be shared in—will they be required to complete an acknowledgment that they’ve completed the training, for example? Will there be a form that they fill out to acknowledge that they’ve read, listened, or viewed, and understood the information they’ve received; if not, how does the member propose to confirm whether the information, in fact, has been received and understood by the people intended to receive it?

Thank you very much. It’s good to see the Simons working in the Chamber here tonight. Hey, look, to acknowledge the member Steph Lewis—obviously, National continues to support the bill. There are questions about the use of the Parliament’s time around this, but overall it’s a good idea.

I suppose I just want to look in your clause 7—this is around penalties—so I have a couple of questions, if I might, to Ms Lewis. Does she feel that the $1,000 fine and $5,000 fine is sufficient? How did she arrive at those numbers?

But, more importantly, who, ultimately, is responsible for committing this offence? Because, as the member will know, if we jump back to clause 4 inserting new section 17AA, it’s saying here that the person responsible is in charge of the craft, but I’m not sure it’s very, very clear. Because when I think of a commercial aircraft, it’s the captain, which is perfectly fine—except the captain of, say, Jetstar or Air New Zealand is not the one setting the policies. So is that now, with Air New Zealand, Greg Foran and friends? Or—and I’m not trying to be silly—is it the board? You know, the Air New Zealand board: is it Theresa Gattung and friends? Or is it the purser? Because, often, it’s the air crew, not the captain, who are providing the information. So, for me, it’s just not actually clear who’s in charge of the craft—or, to phrase it perhaps a different way, the captain might be in charge of the aircraft, but she or he is not actually the one responsible. Does the member think that the law as proposed is clear enough?

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the member Steph Lewis: I’m just asking around the new section 17AA provision, inserted by clause 4, and the decision to make this a strict liability offence. I just wonder if the member could just explain to the committee the rationale for deciding to settle on a strict liability offence. And, obviously, this is an offence that can be established without the need for proving the intention of committing the offence, so there is provision here that the captain of the incoming craft is required to provide information to the passengers, and I assume that that means that that is then imputed to the passengers that they then have the knowledge requisite to make the declaration or not. So just given that, I’d be interested in the decision to settle on a strict liability offence which doesn’t require that intention of committing the offence, and also how that’s related to the decision in terms of the penalty regime and the fines that can be imposed and the level that’s been set.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To answer the members’ questions—all very good questions, thank you. In terms of the information that’s required to be provided, that’s going to be set out in the regulations, which will be drafted by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). The reason for the extension in the commencement clause of the bill is to enable MPI to go out and consult with key stakeholders, such as the airlines and cruise ship operators, to make sure that we’re getting the regulations right in terms of what information needs to be provided to passengers and how it’s provided to passengers. Also, putting it in the regulations enables that flexibility to take into account the changes in technology that we’re seeing at the border at the moment. The director-general of MPI will be involved in that process of confirming what information is required to be provided as well, and the form in which it is to be provided.

In terms of the fines and whether that amount is sufficient, the advice from MPI is that the range of fines—$1,000 for an individual or $5,000 for a body corporate—is consistent with similar offences already in the Biosecurity Act. The Primary Production Committee agreed with MPI’s advice and accepted that recommendation. Likewise, it wasn’t appropriate to include an element of mens rea. It was considered very unlikely that anyone would intentionally and deliberately try to obstruct our biosecurity laws. It was deemed appropriate in the context of other offences in the Biosecurity Act to make this a strict liability offence.

Look, thank you to the member Steph Lewis for engaging, clear knowledge of the bill. I’m still not clear—and it’s possibly the way I articulate questions—where the actual authority rests. Again, to draw her attention to new section 17AA(2), inserted by clause 4: “Before the craft arrives in New Zealand, the person in charge of the craft must—”, and then it follows on. Makes perfect sense that this has to be delivered, but does she believe that this is clearly, legally defined, who is in charge of the aircraft? And, again, I use the simple example: the captain of an aircraft is in charge, but she or he is not the one delivering this message; it’s the purser. As we all know, it’s the flight crew who, you know, do all the jazz hands stuff. [Waves hands]

💬 Hon Member: The what stuff?

The jazz hands. Very important. Very important.

💬 Hon Member: Give us a demonstration.

No, but I just did. Just go that way, and maybe to your left or your right—I’d prefer we all go to the right, just want to make that clear.

💬 Hon Member: Where are the nearest exits?

The nearest exit for the Labour Government is the next election. But sorry, apologies—[Laughter]—I know, I thought it was pretty good. But no, quite seriously—[Interruption] We are really going a bit—so, long and short, how do we clearly define who’s in charge of the aircraft? Because, ultimately, the captain is not going to be the one delivering this message. And again, if we take something like Air New Zealand or Jetstar or Qantas, whoever, the person in charge of the aircraft is ultimately following orders from higher up. So does she think this is clear enough?

In answer to your question: yes, I do think this is clear enough. The person in charge of a craft is the person who is flying or sailing it into New Zealand, with passengers on board, who is then required to ensure that the information is provided in the form specified in the regulations.

However, in future, as technology evolves and there is the possibility—we wanted the flexibility for this information to be able to be conveyed through electronic apps on people’s phones, etc.—for this information to be provided at that point, in which case it may be a decision for the particular airline.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll bring the member’s attention, if I can, back to new section 17AA(3)(f), inserted by clause 4, and it speaks to “specify how long before a craft’s arrival in New Zealand the information must be provided.” I’m just trying to ascertain from the member: in that instance, then, it’s purely an operational discretion at the hands of the said captain or, you know, the vessel operator, etc. Is that not potentially problematic, insomuch that those may convey—should they fall into prosecution—that they had inadequate time to actually make sense of the information, because it’s fairly operationalised in terms of discretion, if you can understand what I’m asking?

To answer your question—the reason for the specification of how long before the craft’s arrival in New Zealand the information must be provided—that is because we do not have the ability to enforce laws outside our territory. So in order to be able to enforce this, what we want is for the information—if it’s provided, say, by an airline hostess reading out from a script, or provided on the TVs on an aircraft—to be conveyed to passengers as close to disembarkation as possible, so they’ve got time to remove that apple from their backpack before going through the Ministry for Primary Industries.

Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.