Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's an honour as always to rise to speak in this House and this bill is no exception: the Increased Penalties for Breach of Biosecurity Bill. As members would have heard from contributions from other members of my party it's not a bill that we will be supporting at this stage. I do acknowledge the member the Hon Jacqui Dean for bringing this bill and I join with other members of the House in acknowledging the good reasons I'm sure why she put this bill in front of the House. We did support it at first reading.The Primary Production Committee did examine this bill and I'm not a member of that committee but I do want to acknowledge the chair Steph Lewis who spoke earlier on the bill and the other members of the Primary Production Committee who did look very seriously at this bill and whether it should proceed. I've had a look at the report of the select committee and I can see that there is genuine consideration of whether this bill would meet the objectives that it has in protecting our unique biodiversity in New Zealand and I think other members of the House have mentioned that this is something that every member of the House would agree is very important and indeed one of our members—Steph Lewis who I mentioned earlier—had a bill that was supported by this House the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Act now as it was. And that showed I think the strength of feeling around the House on how important it is for us to protect our unique environment because we do face serious threats due to the relative isolation of our biodiversity and the different aspects of our biodiverse environment.I've travelled quite a bit in my younger days and I have to say that one of the unique things about New Zealand that you first notice when you arrive is how seriously we take Customs and protection of our biodiversity. I think that that's not something that anyone who has travelled here will probably quickly forget and it's often a surprise I think to people when they first arrive. Having travelled often back to New Zealand from shorthaul trips and then travelling through Europe I myself was very surprised at the lack of checks in most other countries when you first arrive—kind of walking off the plane and thinking Oh which line do I go into?" and just realising that you can just enter without having anything scanned or any declarations or anything. So I think sometimes it can be easy for us to forget how unique that is and how perhaps the stringent requirements that we have do genuinely come as a surprise to visitors to our country.That's not to say that we shouldn't have those important checks. Those checks are very very important for protecting our environment. I support the systems that we currently have and I know it can be a very difficult job for the public servants who work in Customs and on the border and the immigration officials to make sure that all of those stringent checks that we do have in New Zealand are complied with.So in terms of this bill the main aspects of it that we'd seek to introduce are obviously increasing the fees. I note in the select committee report that this was focused on in some detail. There is a significant rise in the amount of money that would be required for those people bringing in items which are not allowed to be brought into New Zealand. The fee that they would pay would be significantly higher. That seemed to the select committee incongruous with a lot of other fees that we have and so it was noted in the report at that time.Hon Michael Woodhouse: The majority.CAMILLA BELICH: For the majority of the select committee. I'm sure that there are members opposite who will speak to the minority view of the select committee in due course.However that was one aspect that was due to change had this bill been successful through the House; another aspect of it was visa denial. It was proposed as I understand in this bill that a refusal of a temporary visa would be done by biosecurity officers which is not currently as I understand it how it works at the moment. Obviously the Immigration Act allows immigration officials quite wide-ranging powers in terms of visa refusal. So one of the aspects of the bill that was examined by the committee and found to be wanting was that change in who would be enforcing the denial of a visa and perhaps an acknowledgment that that was quite a significant power that would be given to a biosecurity officer.Another aspect that I just wanted to touch on is the existing powers that we do have in New Zealand which are quite stringent. So if you knowingly bring in a prohibited item there are as I understand it existing provisions in the Biosecurity Act which would give it harsher penalty than if you did so in an accidental manner. So there are also for people who are well versed in our immigration laws quite clear penalties for knowingly bringing in something. So what we're really talking about here and I'm sure members who are in the Primary Production Committee will correct me if I'm wrong is the unknowing mainly bringing in of an item as some other members have said a lunchbox or an apple at the bottom of the bag that people haven't remembered about and bringing in quite high—and I think the majority of the committee found that they were disproportionately high—fees for that type of penalty. I think most members of the House would have seen when celebrities have done this. In New Zealand there's often been stories about so-and-so celebrity came in and received a penalty; they forgot that they had a piece of fruit in their bag. We would have probably heard stories of other people that we might know or friends of friends who have maybe done the same thing. This is not necessarily behaviour which is intentional. We know that when you come to New Zealand you have to come on a very long flight before you arrive most of the time unless you're coming from—well even Australia is relatively long in terms of the flights that people take and other countries or people that live in Europe take between countries. So we do know that often people will be tired they will be fatigued they may have had to take extra food on the plane due to people in their family having different dietary requirements. I know that my children refuse to eat food on the plane so I often have to bring food for them to eat on the plane to prevent them from not eating for a very long flight. So it's a situation that I think we can all understand. These are not necessarily people who want to do ill to New Zealand and that's why we have such stringent biosecurity laws in place already.I think that the fact this was supported at first reading and the thoughtful considered report of the select committee unfortunately for the member determining that this would not be something that the majority would support—but I do want to commend again the member for bringing an important issue to the House. We've seen that sometimes bills do not succeed but that does not necessarily mean that the work and consideration that was done on them was in vain. I'm sure that when or if biosecurity laws or legislation relating to that or members' bills relating to biosecurity laws are again examined—as I'm sure they will be at some point by either this House or by the Government—the thoughtful consideration of what was proposed in this will be of extreme value in whatever law or legislation or changes to the rules will come next.So I do again want to commend the member for bringing this important issue to the House but unfortunately it's not one that we can support."