Cosgrove Clayton: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 12 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15901. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Thank you and likewise Mr Assistant Speaker.Hon Member: You’ve known each other for a while.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: We have indeed. As colleagues on both sides of the House have said there is quite a bit of unanimity in respect of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. The aim as we know is to enable the Crown to recover the costs of aviation security biosecurity and customs traveller processing from operators of new or re-established international airports. I would also acknowledge Shane Ardern having sat on the Primary Production Committee in its more lively days. He is one member who I think should have been put in higher office many years ago. He more than most knows the impact both positive and negative of biosecurity on his industry.But I would say this. There has been a trend with this Government—a sort of obsession—of constant restructuring. There has been a Government obsession of course with merging. Biosecurity New Zealand has been through two restructurings under this Government and is now part of the Ministry for Primary Industries. I know that my colleague Damien O’Connor has expressed quite a bit of concern around that where you have a sort of poacher and gamekeeper amalgamated together. We do know—and I am sure Mr Ardern will help me out—that it almost seems like a monthly or weekly occurrence that we have another incursion. I heard on the radio that there is some other fly or flea or something else that has got in.Although I accept that we have a huge border a massive geographical border to protect and we are close to our Australian cousins—who have a few more gremlins than we do in New Zealand—the point is this: there has to be an obsession not simply with constant restructuring and saving a few quid here and there but with actually reinforcing the work and the resources of those agencies and people who have the ultimate responsibility to protect the border. We talk about for instance physical violence and terrorism in that form. What is of possibly even greater threat some would say is if you like biosecurity terrorism. Mr Ardern and others have said that if somebody was to implant foot-and-mouth or some other horrible disease here and decimate our dairy our beef or our other sectors it is almost game over especially in dairying which is a major part of our economy. So terrorism comes in many forms. Likewise with no deliberate act people coming across our borders bring in things they should not and bring in things that they are ignorant of without any malice intended but again it poses threats.I do recall sitting on the Primary Production Committee in the first term I was in Parliament. I am sure that Mr Ardern will recall this. As Labour took office we had a great debate over the former National Government shifting resources. I think that at that point it was away from container surveillance. I am sure that Mr Ardern recalls the debate when money was shifted around by the then National Government. It penny-pinched here and penny-pinched there. I think it was away from airport security—no it was away from container surveillance into airport biosecurity. I think we did an inquiry on it as I recall and massive risks were identified around the random nature—as it was then—of container surveillance.There are some very good Kiwi companies. The company that I recall in Christchurch—is it Syft Technologies? I think it is. Mr Ardern nods. Syft Technologies as I understand it has developed for many years—Hon Trevor Mallard: Been there.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: So have I.Hon Trevor Mallard: Good company.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: It is a good company.Hon Trevor Mallard: You might’ve taken me.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I possibly did. I may have used its technology to have you checked out biosecurity-wise Mr Mallard. But it has a—Hon Trevor Mallard: It was more comfortable than the normal method.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Indeed. That company developed sniff technology I think it was called. To put it in layman’s terms because I am not a technical expert with this technology you can bang this box inside a container and for instance it can take a sniff of the air. It can tell you whether any sort of biological organism is alive or dead in there and it can identify where there is a threat. That may be why the new ACT leader has imported some of the technology for his caucus room.The interesting thing at that point was that I remember visiting the business and Biosecurity New Zealand and the Customs Service at the time would not use the technology. In fact I do not think it is being used today.Hon Member: A different type is.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: A different type of technology. I know that at the time one of the biggest contracts for Syft was Biosecurity Australia. The Australians used it before us. So maybe there are a few lessons there that technology should be taken on board—and good old Kiwi technology could be taken on board—because the Aussies were a bit smarter than us. They used it and I recall that our Biosecurity New Zealand guys at the time in late 1999 when we embarked on this inquiry were still doing very very random container surveillance—extremely random. I think we went down and had a look at some of it and it was almost like trying to profile what may be a risk in a container and away you go. There was also an issue over the wooden pallets that were being brought in which were having very little if any inspection. So it is not just airports.I say to the Government that we support the legislation but I think it has to get serious—very very serious—about the nature and constant restructuring of our biosecurity agencies. Is it right that the Ministry for Primary Industries and food safety poacher and gamekeeper are in one? I do not think it is. I share Damien O’Connor’s view. I think you have got to have some separation. Perhaps the difficulties that Fonterra has been through—a different set of difficulties but food safety and to some extent biosecurity as well—show that there is a deficiency and a weakness in having those organisations married up together. Sure you want cooperation and you want synergy but there has to be some sort of tension between those authorities to ensure that our borders are protected and that they are protected rigorously. So I look forward to the debate as we go through this legislation.Of course there will have to be infrastructure and dollars put around this. Staff will have to be trained. There has to be a bigger commitment as my colleague Darien Fenton said to staff training and skilling. I often wonder and I recall again that when I was on the select committee there was an issue raised about the old-fashioned Air New Zealand stewards and stewardesses who in the old days would come through with the aerosol can—remember? They would walk right down the aisle. I remember one submitter saying that the best advertisement or wake-up call for people getting off the plane—those from foreign countries who did not quite get how serious it was—was somebody going down the aisle spraying. Even if they were spraying I do not know water—who cares? It was a wake-up call to people.Hon Trevor Mallard: It was on the flying boats.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Pardon?Hon Trevor Mallard: The flying boats went from Evans Bay.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Indeed. Thank you Trevor Mallard. Trevor is approaching his 75th year and recounting history. But this is serious. The point is that that is a wake-up call to people.I lived in Perth for a time and each state has biosecurity arrangements. I know that in Western Australia you could not bring in honey and other products. It was almost like you lived in another country when you went across those borders either by air or by rail—very serious. In other countries you go to there are no biosecurity protections. If you go to the States you are asked “What are you bringing in?” you say: “X Y and Z.” and there is very little checking if any in the States. Certainly in parts of Europe like—Julie Anne Genter: That’s not trueHon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes it is. I have just come through Los Angeles airport in the last couple of weeks and apart from ticking a box there were no beagles; nobody was profiling bags. It was not as rigorous—Darien Fenton: There’s a few guns.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: There are a few guns yes but it was not nearly as rigorous as in New Zealand. So we want to see those standards maintained and enhanced so that we do not have the problems of other countries.We are exceptionally vulnerable. We are an island State. We are predominantly dependent on agriculture. As I said and I endorse the other speakers who have made the point one major biosecurity threat—even if it does not come off—again dents our reputation. We have had foot-and-mouth scares that thankfully have not come to anything but even then our reputation and our exports are at risk because people ask questions and people get concerned. The Fonterra experience though different should teach us a lot about how our reputation our New Zealand brand is at risk through these types of threats. So I support the bill and I look forward to its further scrutiny as we go forward.