O'Connor Damien: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — First Reading 
O'Connor Damien: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6256] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I have much pleasure in speaking on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill on behalf of Labour. Labour will be supporting the bill because it is sensible that we do what we can to increase the protection of our borders from biosecurity incursions but we do have some issues with the bill as members can imagine. One is the basic concern of where the Government might be heading with biosecurity. 
As the Government introduces this bill with we believe the intention of enhancing biosecurity protection at the border it is at the same time cutting 54 front-line jobs from Biosecurity New Zealand. I cannot understand a Government that preaches about the value of extra police so that people will commit less crime but says we can have fewer biosecurity people and we will still have fewer biosecurity incursions. It is illogical that both apply. If we are to believe that additional police lead to lower rates of crime how can we believe that reducing the number of Biosecurity New Zealand staff will lead to reducing numbers of biosecurity incursions? The Minister of Biosecurity pointed out that last year 17000 people were identified as bringing dangerous and unwanted organisms into the country. That is a very dangerous situation and one that we have to address. So the move to increase the instant fine from $200 to $400 is logical. If we go through and analyse it we will see the decreasing value of the fine since its introduction in 1999 yet 20 percent fewer people have been identified as bringing in or trying to bring in dangerous goods food or whatever we do not want in this country. So there is an illogical argument there that says it is automatically true that by increasing the penalty more people will comply. 
I go back to one of the major concerns we have and that is of course that this bill brings in regulation-making powers and allows the Government to change regulations without putting forward legislation for the scrutiny of the House. If we had a sensible Government that ran logical consistent policy we might trust the Government but as I say the complete hypocrisy of what it says regarding crime and what it says regarding biosecurity really does leave me alarmed at what might happen at some later stage— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member opposite but I take exception to his accusation that members on this side of the House are guilty of hypocrisy. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That word should not be used and I ask the member to withdraw it. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I withdraw and I have to say I was not referring to any particular member; it was just— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member does not need to comment on my ruling. I ask the member to continue. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: It is the double standards applied by the Government across the board that concern us when a bill that allows for open regulation-making powers is brought into this House. 
The second concern we have is also about double standards. On the one hand the Government is increasing penalties and saying it will be tougher and will make it harder for people to bring things into the country or for things to come into the country inadvertently but on the other hand the Government is reducing the effort at the border. That is the reality. 
The third concern we have is that in tough economic times people will take short cuts with biosecurity. We are told by the Government that this recession is the most serious since the 1930s Depression. I would have to say that is an insult to all those elderly people who went through the Depression but we are told that by the Government constantly in order to justify the cuts it is making. The reality is that many people will take short cuts with biosecurity. They may do that for a whole lot of reasons. It may be for commercial reasons or just because they feel desperate either to bring into the country food for their families because they want to support them or for some other strange reason. But the reality is that in tough times people take short cuts and there is a risk that without enhanced levels of biosecurity scrutiny we may increase the risk at the border. The cuts that this Government made in biosecurity which were confirmed today resulted in 54 jobs being lost from front-line biosecurity services in this country on the very same day that we are debating the first reading of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. That is a double standard normally called something beginning with “h”. 
When this country was facing droughts we allowed the importation of palm kernel stock food. At the time that was seen as a necessary move. Assurances that were given on the biosecurity protections have proven to be wrong. I put it to this Government that at the same time it has the Biosecurity Amendment Bill before the House it should take up the issue of palm kernel biosecurity and the importation of high-risk products that put our primary industries at risk. That issue could be included in this bill if the Government was genuine in wanting to increase the level of biosecurity protection for New Zealand. This bill does not guarantee those protections. It is simply a stick that raises the amount of instant fines and penalties for those people who make an erroneous declaration. 
One of the problems which is pointed out in the explanatory note of the bill is that some people will inadvertently or erroneously make statements—one might say if one were being kind. For whatever reason they might say they do not have unwanted goods or high-risk goods and they subsequently are proven to have them. We fine them and that is fine. But every time I come in and out of this country I am aware that there is confusion about the forms we give people to fill out. If we are to develop the tourism industry in New Zealand—and if the Government were to put more money in it might do that—then more and more people will come into this country. English may not be their first language and they will have a form placed in front of them that is supposed to explain— 
Sandra Goudie 
: And a video. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: —and a video no doubt but again maybe English is not their first language. The form is supposed to explain to them very clearly that we do not want food or unwanted products brought into the country because that is a risk to our country. I put to the Minister that the forms the explanations and the videos that we put before many of those people are not very helpful. Although the explanatory note mentions that the bill is part of a number of initiatives in this area I say that the Minister should have included in this bill a guarantee that we would have better information for people coming in so they do not erroneously make statements that they do not have goods that we might consider a biosecurity risk. There is an issue of communication that must be addressed particularly for those people who do not have English as their first language. 
In conclusion Labour will support this bill going to the select committee. I am sure that the committee under the stewardship of Shane Ardern who shows more intelligence on these issues than many of his colleagues do will guide this bill through and ask the right questions. I remind the Minister of a statement made not by me or anyone on this side of the House but by someone who traditionally probably aligns with the National Party and that is the chairman of Federated Farmers. He said: “The threat”—the biosecurity threat—“won’t necessarily come in the few thousand containers inspected but in the hundreds of thousands of containers not inspected.” John Key announced that he was opening up our borders to visitors from Australia. We still have 600000 sea containers not inspected and today we have had confirmed that 54 front-line jobs have been cut from biosecurity. That is on the same day that the Government brings this Biosecurity Amendment Bill into the House for its first reading and tries to claim that the bill will enhance biosecurity in this country.