O'Connor Simon; Salesa JennySIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Fakaalofa lahi atu and a big hello particularly to my former intern Salote who taught me much about Niue including that I need to get to Matapa. I'm told it's one of the most amazing places indeed.Harking back to a previous bill I am still as excited as a thaumaturgist in an apothecary. It is really quite a night like that and I'm now doing that sorry for the benefit of Dr Emily Henderson. I know she loves the intensity and breadth of the English language. I'm also still mildly esurient but that's all right as well.Also I am slightly the richer tonight. I had offered in a previous speech that I would pay for a beer for any Labour member who could have told me my quote Prithee nuncle be contented. 'Tis a naughty night to be swimming." Unfortunately no one on the Labour side has said that. It's King Lear Act 3 Scene 4. Well known of course. I have saved myself a lot of money: it's about $24 for a beer in Auckland and by the time I've said this it's now $26 due to inflation.I am delighted to support Steph Lewis' bill; she was probably wondering what's going on at this point. But no I am pleased our side's pleased to support it the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. Look it's a good bill. It's a classic member's bill and I think it's rightly being discussed in the House tonight.What I love about it harking back to the previous bill is of course it is relatively plain language. It's a wonderful example of a bill in this Parliament that actually articulates what it does—that it's biosecurity-focused and it's information for incoming passengers. As many have touched on it's been a little gap in the law. What this bill is simply and easily doing is inserting a new section as the member knows. So at one level why am I telling the member this? But anyway welcome to Parliament.Yeah a new element to the Biosecurity Act to make sure that craft coming into New Zealand—so we're primarily talking aircraft; not exclusively but aircraft—use audiovisual and written information that is presented to those people entering the country. Look conceptually it makes perfect sense. The more information the better. I would make the distinction—just because I have to—there is always a difference between information and knowledge and something we're going to have to as a country deal with. What I mean by that is we can obviously furnish all the information in the world to people but unless they—if you will—acknowledge it and process it they could still ignore it. But that's not the concern per se of the member. She's doing the right thing through this bill to make it a legal requirement.Look we're in the third reading but I will just echo a couple of things that I mentioned in the committee stage. I am still a little bit concerned about the clarity of the Act around who is specifically responsible; I think the wording's just a little loose for me. But granted I am no lawyer and again I have absolute confidence the member—in replying to my questions at the time through her officials—will be clear on that.But long and short it says in the moment in the bill—and knowing my luck I can't find it as I am about to try and speak here. But who is the person who is responsible to provide this information? Is it the likes of the company itself? Is it the captain? Is it the purser? Who is meant to be responsible?The other side of it is I'm a little—again concerned is probably too strong a word. Is ultimately whether or not we've got enough penalties—or sorry let's be more specific clear and plain: we do have two penalties in this bill. We're saying that an individual person can be fined no more than $1000 and my understanding from the member the corporation or company is $5000. I think for me personally that's still a little bit low particularly that a conviction's required. Again that's where the bill has gone. Perhaps it's for a future Parliament to re-look at.Again I really want to stress to the member: concept's great. We'll obviously see how this embeds how this works. But there is a question to me of—well I suppose I'm OK with $1000; I'd personally like to see it as an instant fine. But that's one thing. But for a company $5000 is nothing. But again really want to stress that's a moot and a debating point.So look a good bill. It'll be good to see this come into play relatively quickly. I think the member's—I think it's Order in Council but then there's—Steph Lewis: 12 months.SIMON O'CONNOR: In 12 months excellent. So the member's confirming that in 12 months it comes into being which probably gives enough time for the Ministry for Primary Industries primarily but also the various craft holders—aircraft or otherwise—to get some new forms.Actually speaking of that can I put my customs hat on briefly? Absolutely marvellous that the New Zealand Traveller Declaration has gone.Simeon Brown: "Gone-burger".SIMON O'CONNOR: "Gone-burger"—didn't need it; never needed it. The information's not being used. Better be clear: Customs were amazing; they were just following what they had to do. But absolutely completely unnecessary.I have now recognised the irony that as one set of paper goes out the door we are bringing a new set in but it is for a good cause and it is to protect our environment. Actually the former speaker—the member for Ōtaki I think—articulated very well listing through the amazing places and flora and fauna that need to be protected in this country that we love.So to somewhat bookend this and to finish. Seeing that we have—well it's 9.30 at night. I will end for the benefit of my Shakespearean friend once again Paul Goldsmith: "Prithee nuncle be contented. 'Tis a naughty night to be swimming."ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Fakaalofa lahi atu ki a mutolu oti."