Ardern Shane: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7613] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 The Government enthusiastically supports the passage of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. There was a lot of discussion about it in the Primary Production Committee as the previous two speakers have alluded to. The issue that was of concern to the select committee was that in the interests of streamlining our borders with Australia in particular but also of streamlining our borders full stop there is an element of risk. It is always a debating point about how much risk is too much and how much is not enough. The debate on that point took place with some enthusiasm and the issues that concerned the committee that are still unresolved are those regarding the digital transfer of images from Australia to New Zealand. 
The proposal under this bill is that in streamlining the processing of a business person who flies from Australia say from Sydney to Auckland in the morning and then flies back in the afternoon carrying nothing more than a briefcase that traveller should be exposed to exactly the same X-ray scrutiny as someone who is travelling from further afield or who had been away from home for longer. The rationale is that that person could have an apple in his or her briefcase that carries fruit fly or the like which could have a devastating effect on New Zealand. The proposal is of course that his or her briefcase will be X-rayed in Australia and the image will be transferred to New Zealand for investigation for inspection prior to the traveller arriving in New Zealand. That sounds as though it is perfectly rational with modern technology. But there are some property rights issues about who owns that image and whether our biosecurity personnel and customs personnel will have access to it. Those issues have to be resolved. 
The moving of the regulatory powers with regard to penalties from the legislation to regulations seems very sensible in the sense that we do not know until we have tried using a penalty whether it has the desired effect. Our instant fine until now has been $200. Most people will acknowledge the comments made by the previous speaker Damien O’Connor that the potential risk to our biodiversity and our economy through something like fruit fly or foot-and-mouth disease are not worth contemplating in the sense that it would bring New Zealand’s economy back to Third World status in a very short time. So at one level we have to be very vigilant about how we handle these things and at another level we have to be practical about ensuring the free flow of people in and out of our country. Clearly a $200 fine has not been a strong-enough deterrent. When we look at the extent of biosecurity incursions over the last few years we see that in fact in a year 8 tonnes of meat—a big truckload—was intercepted at our borders either in people’s personal hand luggage or on their person. That was 8 tonnes of meat! 
We have to ask these questions: how would foot-and-mouth get into New Zealand and how much risk should we take? We know that people tried to import that meat into New Zealand illegally because we intercepted it. That means that our biosecurity staff are doing a superb job and they deserve a bouquet for that. But we also know because of their own research that as much as 10 percent of illegal imports get through. Allowing that level of risk can only be described as creating the potential for there to be a devastating effect on our economy. We are looking very closely at what can be done to enhance our surveillance—at the amount that gets through and the amount that does not get through—and at the penalties that we should put in place to prevent illegal imports from happening or to deter people from trying to make them. 
The issues around the $200 instant fine have been well debated. There was some argument—and probably with some credibility; it is very hard to say but we will know over time—about whether if the fine is increased to $400 or to a higher amount people would then make the call to pay the instant fine on the spot or would decide to take it to the next level. People are allowed 14 days in which to pay the instant fine and if they do not they go though a court process. The argument put up against imposing too high an instant fine is that too many people will take matters to the next level and at that point it would become a huge cost not only to the State but also to the court system—that it would become a fairly complicated process. It was argued that despite the fact that people could potentially end up with a criminal record they would still argue the toss particularly over what could be described as a minor offence like having an apple in a briefcase which could bring in fruit fly and take it to the next level. So the committee looked at whether the earliest penalty or the minimum penalty that could be imposed at the border was high enough. At $800 it decided no and that the amount should be lifted to $1000 in order to act as a greater deterrent. 
I am pleased to say that the Government has accepted those recommendations. There was a unanimous vote in the select committee and that was almost the case in the House I hasten to add which is an unusual set of circumstances in the parliamentary process. Clearly the bill has the will of the majority and I look forward to its passage.