SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Like my colleague Rachel Brooking I'll begin my contribution by recognising the extraordinary contribution of our former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern her extraordinary speech but also the extraordinary legacy she leaves. I wasn't part of the Primary Production Committee who considered this bill but I would like to thank them for their work. In my eyes again this is a demonstration of a bill where the select committee went in genuinely looking at the issues in front of them. So our thanks to Steph Lewis the select committee chair and also to the members. I want to also recognise Jacqui Dean the member who brought this bill to the House and who I had the pleasure of getting to know on an Inter-Parliamentary Union trip. I do think that the values that sit behind the reasons why she brought this bill are very very important. And so I hope that she doesn't consider me a pest for speaking against it in this instance.So to cover some of the points within the bill the proposal within the bill is that the biosecurity officers are granted power or discretion to refuse entry on a breach of biosecurity rules. But as members have pointed out immigration officers already have this power. And in fact my view is that it wouldn't be appropriate for a biosecurity officer to hold these powers. If you will there's a legitimate boundary or border if you like between the powers of a biosecurity officer and an immigration officer. The other issue that the committee legitimately identified is that putting biosecurity in primary legislation and not putting other factors that immigration officers must consider when they're exercising their powers appears to elevate biosecurity above the other issues that immigration officers need to consider—things like declaring goods or smuggling as well. I just turn briefly to the proposed increase of financial penalties. And my sense in terms of the member's intention is that this isn't about laying a trap if you like for individuals who are entering the country. The intent is to draw people's attention to the scale of the cost to them. Now unfortunately the select committee did find that there was no evidence to suggest that the increase would change behaviour of erroneous breaches. I understand that in terms of the analysis of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) penalties were ranked the seventh most effective tool for declaring or disposing of risk goods. According to research conducted by MPI the three most effective motivators were an understanding of why items are considered a biosecurity risk a greater understanding of what must be declared on arrival and an understanding of how to pass through New Zealand's borders more quickly. So ours is a system that isn't intended to be a snake in the grass if you like. It is not about surprising people with unfair penalties; the penalties must be reasonable. If we are truly intending on growing compliance it really is about information provision but also creating opportunities for people to dispose of those goods when they realise that they are carrying them with them—so the signage the bins that we all see so frequently at the airport. There might be a case to increase those because that's the practical way; if you like providing a moth to the flame kind of solution that creates practical ways that people will be drawn to in terms of disposing those goods. Now I'm not a member of the select committee. However I did read the select committee report and I read the National Party minority view. I agree that we must put in place the measures that we can so that we don't get an incidence of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). And while I've possibly played lightly in some of my contributions earlier today I do think that is a serious issue that will impact New Zealand severely should we get it. However I then went from the National Party minority view to the MPI website where I looked at the measures they're currently putting in place to respond to the FMD outbreak in Indonesia. What they're doing at the moment is they've changed some of their measures to ensure that we've got a more robust biosecurity response to people coming through Indonesia. So passengers arriving on direct flights from Bali for example use a dedicated biosecurity lane. This is all fairly new; I understand this only happened since March this year. They also face additional risk assessment questioning from officers and may be directed to undergo baggage searches; it's required for their footwear to be disinfected. The measures have been really built on the enhanced measures that were put in place in July last year so there are practical things that biosecurity are doing to respond to the increased risk. Advice is also provided to those who are heading to Indonesia. They're advised to wear close-toed shoes for their arrival back to New Zealand rather than open-toed. That's really aimed to speed the process of disinfecting their footwear coming back into the country. That advice and communication is absolutely happening by the New Zealand Government. There are other pieces of information provided to people travelling. I'm speaking specifically to Indonesia but there's no reason that this sort of system can't be replicated to other countries where there are FMD outbreaks. They're told to avoid wildlife and livestock such as cattle pigs or goats. They're told to avoid visiting farmland or rice fields and again to make sure that their footwear and clothing is free from dirt on their return. They're specifically told to avoid bringing back risk items including animal-based food products and skulls or untanned leather souvenirs and they're also told to stay away from New Zealand farms or livestock for at least a week after arrival. These are practical things that will really make a difference. I understand also that there are specific questions asked of passengers when they're coming through biosecurity if they're coming via Bali or Indonesia. They include: Have you been in contact with any wildlife or livestock such as cattle pigs or goats? Have you visited any farmland? Do you have any shoes or equipment contaminated with soil? Do you have any animal products such as food items?" Some things are best done by law. I'm a lawyer and now a politician so I do agree with that. Some things are best done by policy or if you like our "Customs"—the things we put in place to ensure that there are practical steps that we can take to truly in an evidence-based way ensure that we're protecting New Zealand's borders. I'll finish just by mentioning that not only are we taking those proactive measures but there's also an FMD task force which I'm sure that members opposite will be aware of set up in 2022. It's not an ideal but it's a task force based on providing solutions should we ever have a case. It's nothing we want; it's nothing we want across this House. But what we do want across this House is evidence-based solutions to ensure that we protect our border. I cannot unfortunately commend this bill to the House this evening. But I do commend again the member who has brought the bill to the House. I do think her intentions were entirely in the right place and I do think that this is one of those issues where we should be working cross-party to ensure we protect New Zealand borders. Thank you Mr Speaker."