King Colin: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
King Colin: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7617] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be speaking in the second reading debate on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. I would like to start by saying that it is a bit rich when the Opposition talks about the Government sitting on its hands and cutting the budget when over the 9 years that members opposite were in Government there were 333 incursions. We had the painted apple moth didymo the varroa bee mite and  
Didendum 
 to name a few. To be honest if we were going to get foot-and-mouth disease we would have got it under that Labour Government. If we were going to get bovine spongiform encephalopathy we would have got it under that Government. It is a bit rich and probably an indication that Labour members are out of touch with the farming community when the backbenchers parrot away about things they do not know much about. They just read off a sheet of paper with no real passion or anything like that. 
I tell the shadow spokesperson for agriculture and biosecurity that it was very interesting to research the reduction in the biosecurity budget. It actually related to two particular programmes of eradication. One programme which related to the red fire ant from the Whirinaki area has come to an end. It has been declared successful as of 4 p.m. on Wednesday 22 April 2009. The second programme is close to eradicating the southern salt marsh mosquito which was found in a number of salt marshes around New Zealand but is holding on in one area down in Marlborough at the mouth of the Wairau. The outcome is looking very good but the programme will carry on for another 12 months when traps will be checked to make sure that that mosquito is eradicated. 
I congratulate MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. Those two eradication programmes and costs within the budget are no longer required. I put that on the record so that the erroneous comments on the other side of the House are put into context. They were two individual programmes that have been successful unlike a lot of the failures made by members opposite when in Government. 
We stop and think about the varroa bee mite when we look at the second reading of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. Procrastination by the previous Labour Government allowed the varroa bee mite to get down in the South Island and there was no coordination whatever under that Government. We can see why those members are in Opposition which is where they should be. 
But back to the bill. It is always good to see the Primary Production Committee working collegially. There are a couple of things that the two main parties in this country do agree on; one is trade and the other is biosecurity. It is on record now that we want to see a lot more rigour in resolving the tension that exists between tourism and our primary sector export industries. 
When we look at the issue in context we see that New Zealanders and Australians do very well. They are the lowest offenders. But 4700 infringement notices were handed out which makes this bill very very relevant. Of those notices 1361 were given to New Zealanders. It is important that we toughen up the procedures. Giving people 14 days’ leeway to pay their $400 instant fine is very reasonable. The select committee was informed that setting a fine at $200 led to a compliance percent rate in the high 90s. However if memory serves me correctly a person who featured on  
Border Patrol 
 the other night held out for the maximum number of days before paying the fine. That is why the select committee was of the view that a $1000 fine was quite reasonable and appropriate. That is not the whole cost—there are court and conviction costs—so the $1000 figure needs to be seen in that light. 
Let us look at the cost of some of the incursions that have happened. Didymo is projected to cost this country $285 million and the varroa bee mite which has decimated clover legumes in the South Island is projected to cost $300 million. In the long term those costs affect our pastoral industries. 
This bill is particularly tight and is targeted at ports and points of first arrival—ports being both airports and seaports such as those in Auckland where international cruise liners come in. We can never understate the importance of this issue. Although I become agitated at some of the piousness and self-righteousness that emanates from the other side of the House we cannot let our guard down. Thousands upon thousands of farmers risk incredible amounts of investment. To ensure that the Government does its bit we must reinforce our biosecurity laws. I have great pleasure in recommending this bill to the House.