Sio Su'a William: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — Second Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17728] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I rise to provide input into the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill in its second reading. 
I say firstly that Labour supports the bill. We believe that we must invest in services that will protect our country from invasive foreign pests. We believe that new international airports that place an added burden upon our investment in biosecurity and customs services should realise some of the costs. However cost recovery must be balanced against the economic development interests of the regions that new international airports service and it should not impair such development. We support the bill as biosecurity and customs services come at a huge cost to the Crown and any new international airport should realise part of those costs. New Zealand already has a very high number of international airports per capita and the development of new airports creates replication of biosecurity and customs services and creates additional costs for the Government. 
It is worth noting that when Labour proposed a similar cost recovery plan in 2004 it took a very comprehensive effort to consult the public as the cost recovery plan was part of a discussion document. We can compare that with the legislation-by-stealth approach taken by this Government with a very short time frame for submissions. The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee on 16 September 2010. The closing date for submissions from the public was 7 October 2010. Some people say that the Government collapsed that part of the process and therefore the Primary Production Committee received only eight submissions from interested groups and individuals and heard only three submissions. 
When the Government approaches legislation in that manner either using a stealth approach or collapsing the consultation process the public sees it as indicative of behaviour by a National Government that has no plan to get our economy going. Although the bill is right to make new international airports pay their fair share of the cost of customs and biosecurity services we say that it is about time the Government started paying its fair share of biosecurity costs. 
The cutting of 54 staff from MAF Biosecurity New Zealand in 2009 must be reversed and my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor has spoken out in support of that. Those front-line positions are vital to protecting our country against foreign pests and organisms that could wreak economic and environmental havoc. The Hon David Carter claimed the cuts were due to a downturn in visitors and car imports but visitor numbers have bounced back to record levels and car imports are on the increase. 
Federated Farmers’ submission on that subject stated: “Federated Farmers views biosecurity as a critical component in protecting land based primary production and submit that we need strong border control systems. Forward focused biosecurity systems that provide confidence to farmers are critical—the risk of an incursion such as Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) is real. The 2008 scare in the United Kingdom with FMD is good in highlighting awareness but as a nation New Zealanders must always be alert to the economic and social devastation that new incursions can cause. Biosecurity agencies must be accountable for balancing the risk of trade facilitation with ensuring pests and diseases are kept out of New Zealand. We have natural borders and so have a great advantage we must protect. New and re-establishing airports present a considerable risk to New Zealand in that unwanted incursions could arrive via the air traffic pathway.” 
Labour calls on the Government to reinvest in securing our borders; otherwise the public will say that under National New Zealand is going backwards. Biosecurity reports from last year showed that over 400 unwanted organisms entered New Zealand including such extreme examples as cane toads. Recently it was announced that the weed velvet leaf had been found in New Zealand and could potentially cost farmers who grow crops such as maize millions of dollars. The initial $75 million cost to the Government in trying to contain the  
Pseudomonas syringae  
pv 
. Actinidiae 
 disease in kiwifruit should be a lesson to the Government that prevention is better than cure when it comes to biosecurity. 
A good first step to prevent further damage to the Bay of Plenty’s agricultural industry would be to reinstate the two biosecurity officers who were cut from MAF Biosecurity’s staff at the Port of Tauranga which had a staff of just nine. What is the cost of 54 staff compared with the $10 billion cost that foot-and-mouth disease would incur if it ever took hold in New Zealand? By not heeding Labour’s call on this issue the National Government will be condemned by the New Zealand public as being out of touch with ordinary Kiwis who are struggling to protect their livelihoods and to get by supporting their families. When this National Government arrogantly pursues its own personal interests it is a clear signal to the New Zealand public that the Government is not working for the good of our communities; it is working for its mates and for foreign interests. 
Labour will give every Kiwi a fair go and make sure everyone pays his or her fair share. That is why Labour supports the bill. Labour will make the economy work for New Zealanders. Labour will create jobs and opportunities for our children and grandchildren. Labour will work alongside every Kiwi and his or her community to make New Zealand a better place especially for future generations. 
Although Labour supports the bill—and we said that the few people who came forward to the Primary Production Committee supported it because it gives some clarity—as I have outlined tonight there are some real issues. If the bill is the best that the Government can provide at this time when the rest of the nation is looking for some plan to get the economy moving then huge questions can be asked about the ability of the Government to take the nation forward. If the bill is all that the Government is able to come forward with which is really just minor tinkering if you like and does not require us to sit here this late at night discussing it then there are huge questions to be asked about the credibility of the Government. They are questions of whether it has a plan—we would say no—whether it is prepared to take the nation forward or whether under the Government we are going backwards. I will repeat that. It is the kind of example that indicates to the rest of the public that under a National Government we are going backwards. 
I have to say that unless the Government reinstates the 54 jobs that have been lost unless it is prepared to invest at the front line by providing the kinds of jobs that will provide protection for our biosecurity and our borders then we can say to Federated Farmers who are supporters of this Government that our biosecurity is not protected that their farms are not protected and that their livelihoods are not protected. The kind of effort applied by the Government indicates to Federated Farmers that their interests are not the interests of the Government and that the interests of protecting our biosecurity are not the interests of the Government. Frankly as I have said more and more people are saying that if this is the best that the Government can provide at this time then certainly we are going backwards and the Government certainly does not have a plan for the future of our nation. 
I commend the members of the Labour caucus who were on the select committee. I appreciate the information that they gave me. I was not able to be there with them. I certainly acknowledge the Hon Damien O’Connor and Ashraf Choudhary as well as Jim Anderton. I suppose to be fair to the other side I had better recognise also the other members of the committee. It seems to me that they do not seem to have a huge agenda on their case given that they collapsed the time frame for consultation with the public that the committee had only eight submitters and that out of those eight only three were able to be heard in person. 
Although Labour is supportive of the bill it is kind of sad because the bill is indicative of why the public of New Zealand are saying to me and to my colleagues that the Government is taking us backwards. The Government is not interested in the welfare of the wider public. All it is interested in is its own personal interests plus the interests of its friends from overseas.