Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s good to be here for the second reading of the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. As has been covered by the previous three speakers on this bill, it is very much a technical bill looking to correct the odd spelling mistake, the odd punctuation mistake, and also small changes and evolutions over time in the agricultural sector.

I’d just like to probably speak on three parts of this bill that relate to my work and just thank the Primary Production Committee for some of the amendments and changes they have made. First of all, this bill contains a provision to provide a regulatory mechanism for the recognition of methane inhibitors. Now, this was something that, previously, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act (ACVM) did not recognise. Obviously, when that bill was passed, these were a new thing, not known about, and so we had no place to register these to judge whether they were safe for food.

This is particularly important because these inhibitors are often chemical compounds that are, in effect, changing the biology of animals, adding a compound to animals that naturally may not occur to try and get a lower methane response from the animals, but this poses a risk of contaminants left in products. So it’s very important that we have a framework that we can judge as to whether or not these products are safe.

Now, there had been an Order in Council back in 2022 placing these methane inhibitors within the ACVM. This bill was intended to be the fix-up for that sort of temporary situation. We recently had to extend that Order in Council because it’s taken a little while to get this bill over the line, so it’s good to be here on the second reading, and hopefully we can quickly get this bill finished. So that’s a good aspect of this bill.

The second point I’d like to talk to is that within this bill, we had an introduction for the ability to have a temporary food standard or a New Zealand - only food standard. Now, this is obviously important in terms of the fact that, you know, we’re part of the joint food system with Australia. It has many benefits. It enables our processors and producers of food to be able to export to Australia and vice versa not needing to change labels, not needing to change compositions. If it’s good on one side of the Tasman, it’s good on the other side of the Tasman. This provides a lot of benefit to our food producers and exporters here in New Zealand. However, of course, there may be things that we want to do that are very unique to New Zealand that the Australians may not be up for doing a standard on. So having this ability is important to New Zealand, because since we’ve gone into the joint system, we haven’t had the ability to create our own independent food standard.

Now, obviously, there was some concern that was raised as to whether or not this signalled a lack of interest from us in the joint food system, so there has been a change made to clarify that this is only for the situation where there is not an interest from the Australians in pursuing a joint food standard, that we would first work through the joint system to see whether or not there was that agreement. If we’ve explored that option and the Australians aren’t interested, then we have that ability, just to give confidence to not only the food sector but to our trans-Tasman neighbours that we are committed to the joint system.

Finally, I just want to talk on a change to the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act (NAIT Act). Now, there was going to be initially in this bill an ability for more data sharing from the NAIT system. This would’ve been useful in terms of, for police, being able to find stolen animals. Also, I can think of several situations where heifers escaped, ran up the road for a couple of kilometres, and ended up in someone else’s paddock and they are left not knowing who these animals are. Being able to ring up the database and say, “Who do these belong to?” would’ve been particularly useful. Thankfully, a Facebook community group came to the rescue on that day. So there was a value in having this, but, obviously, there was a concern from some in the sector around privacy matters. I think it’s really important that farmers have confidence in the NAIT system that their data is secure, that it is important, because NAIT is particularly important in terms of that traceability of being able to contain any diseases. So having that strong confidence from people is important. I guess, you know, the Ministry for Primary Industries will work on how we can proceed better in the future with that data-sharing capability and will work with the industry to come up with solutions there.

So I’d just like to commend the Primary Production Committee for their fine work on this bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. We are pleased to support the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. As we’ve heard, it’s a bill that fixes up a number of different Acts, lots of bits and pieces in different Acts. This tidy-up will make some statutes redundant and fix inaccuracies in existing legislation. New Zealand First is focused, and we’re committed to delivering support for our primary industries. These industries are, as we know, the backbone of our economy, and we support, and have always supported, attempts to streamline regulations for sectors like the primary industries. New Zealand First wants sectors like agriculture, forestry, and fisheries to be both competitive and efficient, delivering to the world, as they do for us.

In 2014, the Productivity Commission called for legislative maintenance, and this bill finally addresses that call. Our party is committed to a strong economy that grows from the foundations set by our productive primary industry. The New Zealand First coalition agreement with the National Party and our friends over on our right, in the ACT Party—we wanted to look at the different reviews around regulatory blocks and addressing them. So that goes forward in our coalition agreement, in addressing regulatory blocks. We are also about reducing those regulatory burdens for our primary industries. This bill modernises a series of laws managed by the Ministry for Primary Industries, making them work better and cost less for the taxpayer. The small but key changes the bill makes will help the Government agenda to trigger economic growth, and that is what this side of the House is about—economic growth and fostering more sensible rules to govern regulation.

Finally, in one bill, what we are dealing with here actually goes across 17 different Acts and actually repeals five of them. This bill actually does a lot in one go. Plus, one aspect I did just want to talk on quickly is one of my portfolio areas around horticulture. The New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act—there’s a small change here where, in circumstances where you would want to give an exemption or a waiver or a refund, especially for our exporters in times of disasters, and if we just think of Cyclone Gabrielle, people couldn’t export for a year, this actually allows the ability to give that waiver, that exemption, or that refund, where, previously, you couldn’t do that. So I again will commend this bill to the House and fully support it.

Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are also in support of this bill; it’s not a particularly contentious bill. It is something that makes sense. It’s something that is tidying-up, fixing up little bits and pieces, which is all very valuable.

I do note that the member opposite who spoke just prior to myself, Jamie Arbuckle, talked about this as improving economic growth. Of course, economic growth on a finite planet is a nonsense and we do not support that sort of one-eyed focus on economic growth. We particularly prefer the idea of economic resilience and ecological restoration and social justice. These are things that are much more important and shape a whole world view rather than a simple fixation. So just to address my colleague’s point about economic growth and the myth and the magical thinking that we hear from the other side.

But not to rest on that, this bill is a very simple bill that addresses some small things, but we do have a few issues of concern—the Forests Act amendment to allow for the milling of indigenous timber felled before July of 1989, for example. We’ve got a few concerns. I would like to know how we are going to regulate that. What are the difficulties that might be presented in regulating this? What are the impacts of the nutrient decay within the immediate environment? How do we make sure we have a functioning forest with strong biodiversity? So that’s one concern that we have noted.

Another one is the Fisheries Act amendment, the removal of the Māori Land Court hearing requirement to establish taiapure instead of marine reserves. Replacement section 183 inserted by clause 160 allows for the Minister to recommend a declaration of taiapure-local fishery if satisfied that the relevant grounds have been met. We see in this that there are some potential Treaty implications and wonder whether this has been considered or what the Government will be doing to ensure that there’s no breach of Treaty here.

We’ve written to the Minister of Agriculture regarding both of these concerns. So if our concerns are resolved, we certainly will support further readings. But I want to make the point that this is important. We support the bill, but we do not support it wholeheartedly because we have concerns that we have asked to be addressed, and we are hopeful that the Minister will reply and will address our concerns and come back to us. I’ll also note some positives in the legislation that we do particularly approve of. I’m supportive of the provisions to enable service by electronic means to a body corporate, for example, which is just a simple way of ensuring that we don’t have to deliver everything by letter and is aligning things with what other agencies are doing.

So on the whole, this is pretty straightforward, but let’s not run through it without addressing some simple things. I’ll just repeat very simply: the two points of concern we have are the Forests Act amendment to allow for the milling of indigenous timber felled before July 1989, and the Fisheries Act amendment which sees the removal of the Māori Land Court hearing requirement to establish taiapure instead of marine reserves. So those are our two concerns that we have written to the Minister regarding, hoping that the Minister is going to address these concerns. If they are resolved, then we will be supporting this further. So those are the concerns we have. We’re in general support. We would like to be in full support. Kia ora.

It’s a pleasure to stand tonight and talk about the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. Before I start, I’d just like to thank the Primary Production Committee. It was unanimously passed by the select committee, so the previous speaker, Scott Willis, should, I guess, reflect on that. The select committee went through this at the time, so we were in unanimous agreement around this bill.

Look, regulatory systems bills, as we’ve heard endlessly tonight, come around time to time, and they really do just act as a tidy-up for various bits of legislation. Some of these pieces of legislation have been identified, quite some time ago, as troublesome or inconsistent, so we’re clarifying and updating statutory provisions to give effect to the purpose of various Acts and their provisions, and we’re addressing regulatory duplication, gaps, errors, and inconsistencies in drafting, etc., and ensuring that regulatory systems remain up to date and relevant. I’d also like to point out just one—there’s so many of them, but one—example, I guess, which the previous speaker spoke about around horticultural levies and the ability, now, for those that are impacted by weather events or such like to have fees either returned or waived so that they’re not hit with a double whammy, if you like, when they’re in crisis mode. With that, I think it’s a pretty good bill, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Speaker, look, thank you very much. I’m just going through the bill for the second time. I wasn’t on the Primary Production Committee, but I have been familiar with the process, which is generally a tidy-up and a request to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to ask whether there are any pieces of legislation that need an adjustment and an improvement. For the most part, they are non-contentious, and I think the select committee has dealt with this really well. But I do want to go through each of them because it is a core part of our wealth creation—arguably, the most important areas of our economy from a wealth-creation, economic-activity perspective—so it’s important that we get it right. I’ll just work through, as I can, the notes that I’ve made.

The changes to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act: there’s one here that amends the definition of “inhibitor” substances. The definition includes “agricultural compound applied … to plants or animals or [are put in] land”. There has been a proposal from a Dutch company to have a nitrogen inhibitor that has been applied, actually, to animals and it reduces the methane—something that we’re all looking for. They haven’t actually applied, but they’ve been saying, for quite a while, that we should have this in New Zealand. But there has been a problem with the definition of “agricultural compounds”, and so it’s, effectively, a fertiliser put on the land. It might or might not reduce methane, but the inability to run the trials has meant that we’re kind of stuck, and this bill will address that issue. Some might say it’s great, but we have to be somewhat careful, because the company has been very enthusiastic about this. There have been some trials in pastoral systems around the world, but it’s still uncertain outcomes, and whether we end up with a residue in our milk or in our meat products is something that should be looked at. So I hope and I trust—and in the committee stage of the bill, I’ll probably ask some more questions here to get an assurance—that the select committee did look carefully at that issue and that allowing this substance—I think it’s Bovaer—to be used in New Zealand, or trialled at least, won’t actually result in some adverse or unwanted residues in our meat and milk.

Can I move on to amendments in the Animal Products Act. It’s dealing basically with who verifies—as I say, it’s not too contentious there, but it’s really important that we do get these things right. The ability to export products that are not going out for sale but are going out for testing is a sensible adjustment, and, as I say, there are some complex regulatory issues that we have. There’s been much made of growth on the other side of the House. I do want to remind the House—the whole House—that, actually, when it comes to economic growth, as my colleague David Parker reminded me, economic growth under Labour Governments has been far greater than that under National Governments, on average, since World War II. Now, I wasn’t here and neither was Mr Parker, but that is a fact. That is a fact, and we can stand quite proud here and say that, when in Government, we managed higher levels of economic growth than those on the other side of the House. These adjustments are to help drive that growth, and I’m sure, even with these improvements, the National-led Government still won’t catch up to us. But, anyway, we’ll work on that.

Having poked that bear, can I come back to the Animal Products Act. One of the adjustments here—and these might seem like technical issues that are quite boring, but they are actually critical when it comes to selling safe, assured, high-quality products offshore into our markets. One around the Animal Products Act empowers regulations prescribed in relation to verification of animal material. The point is that, sometimes, the market requirements will be greater than the assurance programmes run in this country, and this will enable MPI to put in place and require that the products being exported might not require assurance programmes here, but they certainly require verification, and if we just sent them off without that, we would put our markets at risk. These are, as I say, technical issues. I’ll be asking questions as to whether the parameters of that have been accurately assessed by the select committee.

I’ll go forward on to other areas. There’s one around the draft codes of animal welfare, and they were basically developed by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC), an independent organisation, and generally they have to be notified when they’re in draft form so that people can give feedback on that. It’s a good process. The old regulations said that you had to do it in these certain newspapers, and we’ve moved on from that. These regulations will change the way that NAWAC and MPI notify. Good move forward, I say.

Moving right on to the Biosecurity Act, where changes have been made, and we have import health standards. They are very strict and quite complex processes of enabling products to come into our country that might pose a risk to any of our primary production systems or industries, and so this will enable some flexibility because sometimes it does take years—literally years—to develop an import health standard that is robust. Once it’s locked in place, if there’s a need to change it, it’s quite a complex process. This adjustment will allow some technical changes and then the reinstatement of an import health standard from the right places with the right adjustments, as is appropriate to keep on with our growth perspective.

Can I just come on to another. It’s clause 88. It’s off the back of Mycoplasma bovis, when the suspected pathway for M. bovis coming into the country was being investigated—and it won’t be the only case. Inspectors, or those investigating, were very limited in their ability to seize information that might add to the case to either prove the pathway or take legal action against the person who might have imported or contributed. This adjustment here will make it easier for that information to be gathered.

I’m not going into every other area—Mr Speaker, I know you’ll be very pleased to know that—but can I just move on to one area, which is the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act (NAIT Act) area. There are adjustments to the NAIT Act. This is the Act that requires farmers to track and trace or to identify and then to notify all animal movements. And this was a nightmare, a particular nightmare, when it came to eradication of Mycoplasma bovis. Federated Farmers, in their wisdom or otherwise, had campaigned against NAIT when it was proposed in 2007, or thereabouts, and pushed back on it to the point where it wasn’t implemented. The incoming National Government did implement NAIT, somewhat reluctantly, in the knowledge that, actually, the world was moving in that direction. But that reluctant implementation meant that farmers didn’t really understand the why and hadn’t put NAIT in place as it should have been.

So when it came to MPI trying to track and trace animals for Mycoplasma bovis, it was a nightmare. The system has been improved. Farmers understand now why they need to do that, but there was a clause in this piece of legislation making technical adjustments that would have allowed the transfer or the sharing of some of the information gathered in the NAIT system to other Government agencies—a sensible proposition, I would have thought. But there’s always been paranoia, unreasonable paranoia, by those in the farming sectors, led by Federated Farmers in the past—I’m not sure about now—saying, “Well, if you give that information to the Government, they’re going to use it and abuse it.” This is information about the number of animals they have and where they shift them.

In my view—and there will be future incursions—the ability to share that information is critical. The select committee has obviously heard from submitters—I’m not quite sure who—that this is unreasonable and it impacts on our privacy, our ability to keep that information to ourselves. This Government will rue the day that it has changed this provision. With the proper protections, that information must be available across Government agencies when it comes to a foot-and-mouth or another Mycoplasma bovis incursion. So I’ll be asking, in the committee stage of the bill, why the select committee, as a whole, decided to pull that out.

There are many other issues, and most of them made very good progress in this bill. But there are some questions that need to be answered, and I’ll be asking them in the committee stage. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This omnibus bill aims to make our regulations more efficient and more effective, benefiting our primary sector—so what it’s about. As we’ve heard, there are about 250 changes to 17 different Acts. Those changes might be small, they might be technical, or some of them, in some cases, straightforward, but they actually do make a big difference. We’re talking about fixing drafting errors, clarifying procedures, and making various tweaks—big and small—that the industry has been waiting for. It’s a bit of a spring clean and a bit of a tidy-up, as we’ve heard. Like a small boat in the ocean setting big waves in motion, those big waves—that’s our primary sector, who are leading the charge for our economy.

The Primary Production Committee have had a key role in examining this bill thoroughly, going through every detail and unanimously recommending all the amendments, and that’s a big deal, showing that there’s a willingness and broad agreement to make those changes. So I commend and thank the select committee for all their efforts.

A few highlights from the bill: the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 has a clause inserted to allow for applications to register a trade name product if there’s an end date for its exemption from registration. Another one, the Biosecurity Act 1993: this Act now allows for oral declarations at the border and gives authorised persons the power to seize unauthorised goods, containers, or packages. The Food Act 2014: new amendments require the Minister to check that certain conditions in New Zealand justify issuing domestic food standards before doing so, and definitions are aligned across various Acts.

Those are just some of the changes, but, in essence, this bill represents our commitment to maintaining a modern, efficient, and effective regulatory system. It shows our dedication to supporting our primary sector and fostering economic growth without imposing unnecessary burdens. I commend this bill.

Look, can I say what a treat it is to stand up and talk about our primary sector. As the MP for Christchurch Central, their largest open space is Hagley Park, and there are not a lot of sheep there. I was at Kirwee the other day, at the South Island Agricultural Field Days, and had a good walk around and a good old yarn. I saw the National Party tent miserably poked in the corner there with no one talking to them, but that was all right. I was having a good chat to everyone, and they were very happy to talk to me.

But, look, can I just say that this is actually what regulatory stewardship looks like. It is the function of Government to go through and make sure that all of that legislation—technical legislation listed here in this bill—is up to date, fit for purpose, and future-focused. Going after Damien O’Connor, who has a prodigious knowledge of this area, I’d never be able to match it, but if this Government could focus on this kind of regulatory stewardship instead of worrying about road cones and red tape hot lines, we’d get a lot further.

The Ministry for Regulation does do some good work, but it’s been hived off on a little project of David Seymour’s when what it should be doing is scanning the statute book for the best and quickest wins we can get in terms of tidying up things like the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act. If we can make our agricultural industry more effective by those small tweaks in an omnibus bill like this, where everyone wants to get together and say, “Yes, look, that’s a good idea.”, and, of course, officials—this is the stuff that officials love. There’s someone at a desk deep in the Ministry for Primary Industries who is overjoyed that finally, after years and years, we’re solving the problem that’s been causing them the headache for all that time.

It’s good that the Primary Production Committee—I hear it’s a fun committee. It’s great that they’ve done their work as well, because there is real value to be added on this kind of legislation, which is making sure the legislation is up to date and actually does its work. What we’ve got is the Labour Party, true to form, saying we’re the party of workers, we’re the party of industry, we’re the party of agriculture, and we’re the party of primary industry, and saying—[Interruption]

Hon Member: Comedy hour.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, there’s a wry chuckle in the corner—in the far-right corner—but the fact of the matter is: look at the record. Look at what we did in Government. Look at what we did with free-trade agreements. Look at what we did with Mycoplasma bovis. The primary sector did really well under the Labour Government and the Labour-led Government.

So, look, we’re very happy to see this bill passed through the House to tidy up these regulatory standards to make sure we have legislation and a regulatory framework that works for everyone. It makes New Zealand better, richer, safer, and more competitive.

Gosh, it is wonderful to have so many people just throwing all of their love for the primary sector out tonight. Look, as the MP for Napier, which is a large rural seat, just shy of 10,000 square kilometres—Wairoa district, Gisborne district, Hastings district—

Hon Member: Where is it?

Hon James Meager: It’s in the Hawke’s Bay.

KATIE NIMON: Not the Hawke’s Bay, James Meager; Hawke’s Bay.

Anyway, look, I think, as my colleagues have rightly mentioned, 250 amendments to 19 pieces of legislation just goes to show just how much impact there is across our legislation on the primary sector. This is the latest in a long line of regulatory systems amendment bills that we have brought through this House this term that tidy up a whole lot of things that, as you will notice in some of the points that have been made, really just delegate authority and change names. It’s all futureproofing. It’s futureproofing so we don’t have to come through with every single piece of legislation here and write a new law and make a new amendment.

So with that, I say this is a very, very practical bill that’s going to back our farmers. It is going to get New Zealand back on track. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. Now, it’s very good saying that if there is a problem, fix it. This is a good regulatory process where problems are being identified and they’re being fixed. So well done for everybody who’s involved in that fine, fine work that we should be doing in this place. I want to talk about two different aspects of this bill—[Interruption]—if anyone can hear me, Mr Speaker. The first is a little bit of history around walking and the second is some changes to the Food Act.

We see in the Primary Production Committee report that the Walking Access Act 2008 is going to change what is the Walking Access Commission to the Outdoor Access Commission. It’s not all about walking, it appears, and I just want to note some whakapapa that I have to this agency. In the olden days, there was the New Zealand Walkways Act 1975, and there have been great discussions about access to private land in the Queen’s Chain.

There was a press release on 4 August 2005 announcing a group chaired by John Ackland—members here might know his daughter-in-law Kate. It was an eight-member panel and, talking of daughters, my father was a member of this panel as a rural historian, and that—

Miles Anderson: Kate’s not his daughter-in-law.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I said daughter-in-law—oh, not daughter-in-law?

Miles Anderson: No.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, I’m being—I apologise for that. I thought she was. Is Miles Anderson going to correct me?

Miles Anderson: Niece-in-law.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Niece-in-law? Niece-in-law. Thank you for that—good Canterbury farmers there.

This group of individuals were sought to seek to clearly establish concerns of interest groups and the extent to which agreement can be reached on measures such as clarifying existing public access rights along water margins, establishing the location of gaps in the Queen’s Chain and how they might be remedied, the establishment of a code of conduct, and protecting the security of landowners. The work was reported back in February 2000, and then from that we have the Walking Access Act 2008 and the commission that was established. So that is some involvement of my family in that particular issue.

I want to move now to the Food Act. Part 9 amends the Food Act, and specifically clause 234 says that the Minister may issue domestic food standards. This is something that I’m sure we will traverse in the next stage of this bill, in the committee of the whole House stage. But I do note this clause allows for a food standard where it’s not part of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand for either of two reasons—being both new section 404(1)(a) and (b) of the Food Act. And (a) is the standards “have been or are being developed under the Australia - New Zealand Joint Food Standards Agreement for inclusion in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, but New Zealand has chosen, under an annex of the Agreement, to opt out of the standards;”. And then, or (b) is that there’s no such standard.

I just want to pause here because I think I heard Minister Hoggard say before in his second reading speech that this change would only apply where the Minister for Food Safety is satisfied that there is no joint interest for such a standard to be developed, but that only applies to (b), not (a). And (a) is when New Zealand has specifically chosen to step out of those agreed standards. So there’s no requirement there for there to not be a joint interest because obviously there is a joint interest and New Zealand has opted out.

There has been a recent opt out of those standards, and I think it would be useful to traverse that and to inquire with the Minister whether this change is actually quite a substantive change and illustrate some policy direction from this Government that they want to do more opting out of that standard.

Of course, it is possible to opt out already, but that is an important policy discussion to have and it goes beyond simple fix-ups and tidy-ups of the legislation. So that’s an important issue that we should discuss in the committee of the whole House.

But as I said at the start: if there is a problem, we should fix it. There are many problems that this bill addresses and fixes. So I thank you for listening to my speech.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to stand as the 12th call, or the 14th speaker, on the second reading of this bill itself. I wasn’t actually involved with the select committee process, but I do want to talk about that process. I do note that the bill was introduced to the House in the previous term, in June of 2023, with the first reading actually happening this term here, on 27 March last year. I also note that there were two submission periods that were brought forward, and that was as a result of, in the middle of the first submission period, 28 amendments brought forward, and, of course, it was appropriate for that to go back out for submissions on those amendments as well.

The bill is all about making sure that we have an efficient and effective regulatory system. As I said previously, it’s repealing five Acts, but it’s also making 250 amendments on 17 other Acts. Obviously, a lot of work was put into this by the select committee, and it looks like a bit of an A-team when I look at the Primary Production Committee. I thank them for the work that they’ve done on this, and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Labour supports the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. This legislation may seem technical on the surface, and I must admit it actually does seem technical to me, because I do not know that much about primary industries. However, it is an omnibus bill that is really important for the health, wellbeing, and safety of all of our people, our economy, and, of course, our environment too. This legislation is about fairness, it’s about responsibility, and it’s also about protection. All of these values are values that are dear to us on this side of the House.

This bill will ensure that those who operate within New Zealand’s primary industries do so with accountability and with integrity. This law, once passed, will strengthen the safeguards that we rely on to keep our food safe, our animals well-treated, and our borders secure. It is in many ways a testament to the duty that we owe not only to each other but to the future generations of Aotearoa New Zealand.

This bill is also about ensuring fairness and accountability in food and animal product regulation. One of the key amendments that we support in this bill is the provision under the Food Act 2014 and the Animal Products Act 1999, which allows the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to withdraw services from those who fail to pay their debts.

Now, to be clear, this is not about punishing those who struggle; it is about fairness. Regulatory services are really crucial for making sure that the food that we eat and the animal products that we export meet the highest of standards. So when some businesses fail to pay for their services, the burdens then fall on other businesses, and it is fundamentally unfair for responsible, hard-working businesses to subsidise those who do not uphold their end of the bargain.

Now, in terms of strengthening our biosecurity, this is a matter of national interest, because biosecurity is not just about protecting our economy; it is also about safeguarding the very foundation of who we are as a country. This is why the clarification on notices of arrival of a craft or boats that must be given under the Biosecurity Act 1993 is really important—an amendment that this bill makes. We live in a world where biosecurity threats are increasing, whether it’s foot-and-mouth disease, or fruit fly infestations or invasive species—and the Hon Damien O’Connor also covered this earlier on—that threaten our unique biodiversity, and a world where whoever is in Government spends millions and in some cases billions to address those issues. So, therefore, timely and clear reporting on the arrival of a craft is not just a bureaucratic exercise; it is a front-line defence, and Customs, together with MPI, also has a huge role to play in this. It ensures that our border agencies can act swiftly, preventing the threats before they take root in Aotearoa.

We also strongly support the amendment that expands MPI’s powers to seize containers, to seize packages, or anything that has held unauthorised goods. Too often, biosecurity risks do not come in obvious forms. Pests and diseases do not arrive in our country neatly labelled. They hide in the unforeseen corners of containers. They hide in packaging that is discarded carelessly or in residues that are left behind. So giving MPI the power to seize not just the goods themselves but the vessels or the containers that they come in is, indeed, a logical and necessary step.

This bill is about fairness for responsible businesses. It is about protection of our people and our economy. It is also about accountability for those who are operating within our borders. It strengthens the systems that keep New Zealand’s food safe, our farms thriving, and our environment protected. We commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.