Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to the debate on Part 5, which is on clauses 80 to 123, “Amendments to Biosecurity Act 1993 and regulations”, and Schedule 3 and Part 3 of Schedule 4. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

KPMG NZ put out an agribusiness agenda every year—and have done for getting close to 10 years, it must be. I think for pretty much the vast majority—if not every one—of those years, biosecurity has been acknowledged as the number one concern for agribusiness leaders across our country. So we tread cautiously in this area of biosecurity—both legislation and regulations. I know that there were some, again, amendments that were brought to the Primary Production Committee by the Minister of Agriculture at the last minute. I’m trying to work my way through what they were here. Indeed, it’s probably less significant. I think the select committee’s probably looked at them thoroughly.

Just a question to the Minister as to whether he considered that this change here, this opportunity that we have, indeed is making the adjustments that we need to continue to upgrade our biosecurity systems to meet the ever-increasing threats to our borders. People say, “Well, why is that?” Well, we do have more imports and more exports, so there are more products coming into our country, but indeed, climate change is shifting the risk profiles. Our ability to inspect, our ability to seize—as are some of the provisions in this legislation here—the ability for people to intervene, and the right people, is critical. Firstly, a basic question to the Minister: does he consider he’s had the best advice and that we’re making all the changes given the opportunity in front of us?

Yes, I do believe I have the best advice. Indeed, I think the Ministry for Primary Industries is an exceptional agency that always gives us the very best of advice. But what I would say is the changes here are modest or moderate. They don’t alter the Biosecurity Act significantly. They give more certainty to us in as far as the meaning of law in some cases. For instance, one example is a clause in the Biosecurity Act clarifying the changes to time limits for compensation so that we can see very clearly what needs to happen in the case of there being an adverse effect or around a ship notice of a craft’s intention to arrive in New Zealand. You should really see it as an updating of provisions that actually make it easier for both those that engage with biosecurity from the outside—import or export—or, equally, biosecurity themselves to be able to do their job properly.

I think, though, the point that Damien O’Connor was moving towards is the importance of the security of our border and biosecurity. Ultimately, that comes at a cost both of time and of resource. There are occasions where New Zealand businesses in the primary sector are extremely frustrated by the laws and the rules we have in place around biosecurity. But it is very important, because New Zealand is a country that produces, and the primary sector is of such importance to our economy that we have to ensure that we have very modern systems and up-to-date systems to deal with the potential of an incursion. I think, across Government, our biosecurity officers have done an exceptional job. There are occasions when things happen, and they deal with them very, very quickly. We have largely been exempt from the problems of imported harm, not by luck but because of how professional they are and how closely we work with the primary sector.

But, no, to give him the assurance, the changes here are not to weaken or necessarily to strengthen. They are just to modernise and make it easier for us to do our job and give certainty on the side of those who, from the private sector, engage with biosecurity.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to draw the Minister’s attention to clause 105, “Section 130 amended (Declaration of restricted place)”. Subclause (3A) states, “The notice must be given by serving a copy on the occupier of each place included in the area of the restricted place or by delivering a copy of the notice to the occupier in accordance with section 164A(1) (which includes delivery by … email to the person [or] fax).” I would like to know what happens if there are some emails sent, fax, or post, but the occupier denies ever having received this notice? What is in place to follow up to ensure actions are taken, to make sure that the occupier of each place receives a copy of the notice? Is there a declaration or something that they need to sign or fill out to say that, yes, they have received it, and they adhere to whatever is in place in that notice? That would just be good to know, because, you know, some people get a bit afraid of what notices and things might mean for them, so they may try to avoid them, I guess. I’d be interested to know what the Minister has to say about that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I go through to, again, on the basis of the importance—there are many questions here, and, generally, as uneasy as it is for me, going through this piece of legislation, I actually have to agree with the vast majority of it. It is very, very good, and I can see why some of these adjustments have been made.

But there is one here around “Notice of craft’s intended arrival in New Zealand”, and it kind of improves, I guess, the requirement for—and it will be a lot of yacht owners. It probably won’t be the big cargo and container vessels, I’m guessing, but people who are coming to this country in yachts—and there may be more of them, as we see disruption around the rest of the world, wanting to come down here. There are requirements there that a change of port—you know, they say they’re coming into Whangārei, and then they have to go down to Gisborne or something. But what I can’t read in there: there are obligations clearly to notify the director-general—it doesn’t necessarily say how. Is that able to be done electronically, or are there other systems? Because if any Kiwi tries to ring a Government agency, you get an 0800 number, and if you’re out on a yacht and you’ve got limited communication—given that this is a bill dealing with technical issues, the question of the Minister is: how do people on yachts notify the director-general of a change of port when they come in?

People might think it’s a kind of frivolous thing. Actually, the potential risk with these yachts is huge to our biological agricultural systems. It is important we get it right, and when we’ve placed these obligations on the master of the craft, making sure it is possible to ensure biosecurity officers are in the right location to meet that vessel is absolutely critical. I still find it somewhat astounding that we can have vessels come in and park up and wait for a day or two until a biosecurity officer might clear them, given the risks they might be in the sails, in the cargo that might be on deck, or whatever. So perhaps the Minister can answer—you know, just the process. Thank you.

I’ll deal with Damien O’Connor first and then with Jo Luxton. Indeed, the director-general will be able to decide themselves how best that should take place—the notification. So we leave that to the director-general to make sure that this is practical, rather than having it in legislation. In this case, though, it only applies where a ship or a vessel—a yacht, as an example—has already entered New Zealand’s territory but it is impractical or impossible to then go to the port that they have notified. Therefore, the director-general will be able to set out how, under that limited circumstance, they should inform him—although it’s the agency rather than the director-general sitting there waiting for the notification—so that we can ensure that, one, there is not undue risk to perhaps a yacht coming to New Zealand, but there is not undue risk or greater risk to biosecurity in the country.

In as far as Jo Luxton’s questions around clause 105, amended section 130—again, this is a clarification in law. It merely says that every practical step should be taken to inform somebody. It can be in person, it can be by facsimile again, it can be by email, but in the case that that has not worked, it is also reasonable that where a letter is sent and that the authorities deem the letter has been delivered or has the likelihood of being delivered, they can then take action. The reason for this would be if there is concern about biosecurity and we are not sure that we have been able to provide the advice notice to the person we need to because we want to put a restriction in place, then what action should be taken. It is in the case that one example is the letter has been sent and it is reasonable to believe that that has been delivered—whether it is opened or not is secondary, but this would be only used in the case where other, more traditional means to ensure somebody’s notified have not proven to be successful.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested, and want to note how great it is, that we are all in agreement about how important biosecurity is. But just noting at clause 119 there’s a new section 166B inserted, which is “Making instruments that make minor amendments or correct minor or technical errors”. I was hoping the Minister for Agriculture could comment on the need for this new section, if it does seem to be an insertion, if it’s a change from—if there’s a need for new instruments or if it is a rewording.

Then, also, when I first glanced at it, I was thinking of biosecurity, and the word “instrument”—I was imagining something that would be in the water, sampling for some biosecurity risk. So my question is whether or not, in the Biosecurity Act itself or somewhere else, that “instrument” is defined so people will know that in fact we are talking about a legislative instrument rather than a scientific instrument.

No, it’s certainly not a scientific instrument. This should just be viewed as a cost-cutting amendment to allow delegated legislation to be amended without triggering a full statutory process of consultation and decision making if the amendment would be no more than minor or to correct a minor error or technical error. It means that we don’t have to go to full consultation to change something that is very easy to do. But, for anything of significance, of course, this would be applicable.

Sorry if there’s another question. I have to report progress now. It is time to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.