Flavell Te Ururoa: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8282. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. I will add to some of the debate this evening and to some of the comments made already. 
The Biosecurity Amendment Bill makes a number of amendments to the Biosecurity Act 1993 to increase penalties for passengers who fail to comply with biosecurity measures. As we know biosecurity is an important issue in Aotearoa. The Maori Party is keen to bring to this debate the recognition that Maori have a unique and diverse interest in biodiversity in terms of the management of taonga as both kaitiaki and developer. Taonga such as indigenous flora fauna and resources are greatly valued by Maori. As a Treaty partner tangata whenua seek to be involved in any decisions that may impact on those taonga. The Maori Party is committed to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy safe and intact for everyone and for future generations. We seek to promote freedom from ecological destruction and we consider it important to ensure that appropriate investment is made in engaging with Maori in modern biosecurity management. 
The bill also enables infringement offences infringement fees and infringement notices to be prescribed by regulations rather than by the Act. At a very basic level the bill increases the fine for passengers arriving in New Zealand who fail to declare that they are in possession of risk goods—goods such as fruit and meat products. The fine increases 100 percent from $400 to $800. The regulatory impact statement in the explanatory note of the bill as introduced suggests that increasing the fine will further improve compliance. In 2008 17000 seizures were made so we are talking about a considerable level of offending. 
I am really interested that such a big group of offenders is implicated in the bill. I would be fascinated to know for example whether it is all about the smuggling of maybe mango frangipani flowers or some exotic spices or nuts. Or is it failure to declare goods that fall into the category of dangerous or risk goods? Are these people New Zealand citizens? As far as we are aware there is no register of ethnicity information compiled so we are at somewhat of a loss to understand particular strategies that might be helpful in addressing the problem. What we know though from an analysis of New Zealand biosecurity convictions that occurred in the decade between 1999 and 2009 is that 200 convictions were of New Zealanders 73 were of Chinese citizens and the remaining 138 convictions were spread across citizens of 29 countries. So we were wondering for instance whether passengers are properly informed and advised of their legal obligations and sufficiently assisted. It would be useful to know exactly what role language and literacy issues play in the offending particularly for people who are from non - English-speaking countries. 
I want to talk further about this aspect of understanding the rights and responsibilities emerging from the Biosecurity Act. This is one of those bills on which the Primary Production Committee I am told received no public submissions at all. I have to wonder whether that is because there is absolutely no interest in the passage of risk goods across the border or is it because there is insufficient attention paid to communications? That aside I was really pleased that the Biosecurity Science Strategy for New Zealand which was launched in late 2007 made an explicit commitment to engaging more positively with Maori on biosecurity issues. The strategy recognises the important of matauranga Maori and its relevance in modern biosecurity management. In keeping with this strategy MAF Biosecurity New Zealand has given a public acknowledgment to develop strong working relationships and networks with key Maori groups and in the planning the prioritisation and the delivery of biosecurity science. This we say is a very positive initiative and one that we hope will be able to assist with the delivery and integration of matauranga Maori me ona tikanga into biosecurity science. 
An important aspect of this will be the impact of the Wai 262 claim namely  
Matauranga Maori and Taonga: The Nature and Extent of Treaty Rights Held by Iwi and Hapu in Indigenous Flora and Fauna Cultural Heritage Objects and Valued Traditional Knowledge 
. This claim was lodged by six iwi in 1991 by the kuia and kaumatua of Te Rarawa Ngati Kuri Ngati Porou Ngati Kahungunu Ngati Wai and by the father of my colleague Rahui Katene John Hippolite of Ngati Koata. The fundamental core of the claim is the view that Maori knowledge of taonga includes intimate understanding of and respect for nga mokopuna a Ranginui raua ko Papatuanuku—flora and fauna. It specifies a key principle of the protection of knowledge and investment in the preservation of these taonga. As of this time we have no indication as to when the report from the Waitangi Tribunal will be released. Closing submissions were heard from third parties researchers Crown research units bioprospectors and the Crown in June 2007 so there is an expectation that the claim will be soon reported back—we hope. The significant of this is that the cultural integrity of these knowledge systems and cultural practices as articulated in Wai 262 will be useful in further expansion of biosecurity policies and plans. 
I want to really place on the record the recognition that Maori are very well positioned to identify biosecurity issues and research needs. This is an area where tangata whenua have developed key expertise capacity and capability in the field. As such in the implementation of biosecurity procedures and protocols we would expect full engagement from Maori who will be aware of the potential impacts from incursions of pests and diseases associated with taonga and resources in their particular rohe. Constant communication with MAF Biosecurity New Zealand will allow Maori to build confidence that they will be involved in the decisions that may impact on their taonga. 
Finally I am aware that Landcare Research has reported this year that New Zealand has been described as one of the weediest countries in the world with all of these plants introduced either deliberately or accidentally over many years. Apparently there are over 2000 non-native plants growing in the wild many of them considered invasive. We need to take every step that we can to value and protect biodiversity in order to uphold our responsibility for kaitiakitanga or guardianship of the environment and to invest in a future when our unique flora and fauna are no longer at threat of extinction. To that extent we will support this bill in its third reading. 
Bill read a third time.