Heatley Phil: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7070] 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: What the Minister from the Labour Party did not tell members was that the Primary Production Committee that I worked on nearly 2 years ago worked pretty hard to get this bill through. We took submissions listened to submitters and this bill was prepared to come back to the House. Two years have passed. What the Minister did not tell members was that in the last 4 years—and for 2 of those years this bill has been languishing—we have had visits to this country. We have had visits of the cane toad from Australia. We have had visits from the Asian gypsy moth. We have had visits from the Australian huntsman spider. We have had visits from the North American ring-necked snake. We have had visits from the Argentine ant. We have had visits from the Australian redback spider and we have had a visit from the North American southern ring-necked snake. We have had visits from all over the world. 
I know why this Government bought shares in Air New Zealand—so that it would have an opportunity to transport all these visitors from overseas into this country in a speedy manner because that is its lax attitude towards biosecurity in this country. So it is with some disappointment—although obviously we are happy to support this bill—that we are speaking about it tonight under urgency. Because the reality is that it has languished for 2 years and I would like to make that point. 
Some of the key recommendations in this bill that the select committee assiduously worked on at that time—a long 2 years ago—were issues particularly around those who seek to benefit from the passage of this bill. We talked about those who are likely to benefit from the implementation of a biosecurity strategy based on a particular incursion. Of course we have had 10 11 or 12 of those in the last 4 years. We talked about those who are affected by this bill who actively or passively actually encourage create continue or exacerbate incursions into this country. We talked about those people and those of course who should be fined under that clause that we raised earlier clause 24 “Offences” where through this legislation we have introduced an opportunity for a $5000 fine for not only those who deliberately allow or promote or in some way help the passage of an organism into this country—and I am not talking about Marian Hobbs here although she has been responsible for 10 11 or 12 incursions—but also for those who do not notify the appropriate authorities about an incursion. 
When we talk about those who do not notify we are not talking about those who are ignorant in the sense of a particular incursion or an event—one would not expect them to be aware—but those whom we would reasonably expect to know; those who have an education and work in the field. I am talking about the area of agriculture: vets clearly farmers themselves perhaps meat inspectors perhaps stock agents those who buy and sell cattle and all those types of people who consistently come in contact with animals throughout the country in the agricultural industry. We would reasonably expect them to recognise an incursion. If they do recognise an incursion and do not act they can now be penalised up to $5000 and that is a good thing. 
We also have those in the horticultural industry such as growers whom one would expect to recognise an incursion while working with their product every day; perhaps those who are packers those who transport fruit others who are consultants in the horticultural industry and those of course in the forestry industry. Any of those people whom one would reasonably expect to know about an incursion must report under that bill. We in the National Party support provisions that will punish them if they do not act. So it is not only those who will be punished under this bill who actively bring insects or vermin or snakes as we have seen into this country but those who are passive about it and do not act when they recognise it. 
There are also of course the important provisions about warning when there will be aerial spraying in the area. We have seen the issue in Auckland elevate to a point where our local constituents in Auckland are up in arms because they feel that there is a real problem there with spray drift hurting them in a health sense but we can have that argument another day. But this bill actually allows Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials to have a period where they warn the public of aerial spraying within less than the 2 weeks previously imposed. It is all the way down to 24 hours. 
I remember that one submitter argued that the minimum should be 48 hours. But we believe having consulted widely with scientists and other people experienced in the biosecurity sphere that 24 hours is a good minimum. Sometimes officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry or whichever is the lead agency have to act quickly. We would expect that if they gave only 24 hours notice they would advertise thoroughly. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from midnight to 9 a.m. (Friday)