Brownlee Gerry: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7611] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister for Biosecurity) 
: I move  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee in early September and although no public submissions were received by the closing date of 22 September the committee has done a thorough job in examining whether the bill will achieve its purpose and has recommended it should be passed with some amendments. 
Before I outline those amendments to the House the Hon David Carter the Minister for Biosecurity wished to thank the committee for its work. The committee’s meetings have been notable for the sense of common purpose with which members from both sides of the House have come together to review this bill. The Minister appreciates their involvement including that of the Green Party which attended the committee meetings in a non-voting capacity. Every member of the committee shared the main aim of ensuring that our biosecurity systems are soundly based and deliver a high level of protection to this country. That protection goes beyond recognising the importance of agriculture to our economy. Improving biosecurity protection also safeguards our health—the health of human beings and the unique plants and animals that feature in New Zealand’s environment. 
In fact the committee’s concern about ensuring high levels of biosecurity protection extended beyond the measures outlined in this bill. In its commentary as reported to the House the committee has noted that more needs to be done to manage biosecurity at international airports. I agree. The scope of this bill affects only a small and very specific part of biosecurity law. Let me make it clear that this short bill is about increasing the penalties for international passengers who offend against the law either by mistake or by carelessness when they are asked to declare whether they are carrying any risky items such as food. As the Minister for Biosecurity stated to the House during the first reading of this bill it is only one part of a package of measures to improve biosecurity at the border. Many of the changes under way are operational issues so they do not need any law change to make them happen. 
It might be helpful for the House if I briefly go over that ground again. The Government has consistently stressed a need for the Public Service to constantly re-evaluate the way it does things and to be innovative in improving the quality of its services. In biosecurity as in so many other areas it makes sense to focus effort in the areas where risk is higher. This bill will support moves to improve our handling of the risks posed by international travellers coming to this country. 
In the future arriving passengers will be profiled and our efforts will be directed primarily at those who are considered to be high risk. Low-risk passengers will be allowed to pass through with less scrutiny but they will still receive attention and will be subject to the higher penalties that this bill enables. The better targeting of biosecurity risk at the borders is not just about risk-profiling work; it includes a whole package of measures including better targeting of and translated publicity material and closer cooperation between border agencies both in New Zealand and Australia including information sharing between our two countries. 
There is no doubt that the great majority of international travellers are happy to comply with the law once they are properly informed. Targeting communications to specific groups of people will help that message get through in the most effective way. We will make travel much less restrictive for low-risk trans-Tasman passengers who comply but those people who fail to comply with the requirements will be hit with the stick of higher penalties. 
The committee has been rigorous in examining this bill and the range of improvements to biosecurity risk targeting that lie behind it. I am pleased to note that there was no objection to increasing the penalties for travellers who carelessly make an incorrect declaration about some of the goods that they are carrying. In fact the committee felt that the bill did not go far enough. In its original form the bill would have increased the maximum penalty on court conviction for this offence from $400 to $800 but the committee felt that a higher penalty was called for and recommended that the upper limit be raised to $1000 to more accurately reflect the serious harm that could be done to our economy environment or human health as a result of biosecurity breaches. I am sure that figure will ratchet up over the years as there is a need to ensure that court fines keep pace with rising costs and therefore the pernicious aspect of the penalty on those who choose to offend will also rise. 
The committee also carefully examined a number of other points in the bill. As originally drafted the bill was to take effect through a separate Order in Council. It was drafted in that way because the bill moves the existing infringement offence out of the Biosecurity Act into regulations. That means supporting regulations must come into force at the same time as the amendments are made to the Act otherwise there would be a gap after the infringement scheme had been removed and before it was re-enacted by the new regulations. 
When the bill was passed by the Regulations Review Committee the committee recommended fixed commencement dates. As a result the bill has been reported back to the House with amendments so that it will come into force no later than 12 months after the Royal assent. It can still be brought into force earlier through an Order in Council if all operational details such as printing and distributing the new infringement forms and pre-printed publicity material are ready to go before the 12 months are up. 
The committee has also recommended a change to the wording of one clause in the bill for the sake of clarity. Clause 8 is about setting the regulations I have already referred to. At present two offences under the Act may be dealt with by issuing an infringement fee or instant fine. When passed the bill will make it possible to extend the scope of the infringement scheme to apply to other offences. The committee has recommended a change to the wording to clarify that the infringement scheme can be applied only to offences already set out in the Act just in case someone was under the impression that entirely new offences could be created arbitrarily without the scrutiny of Parliament. I think that is a sensible move although I would say that quite without the scrutiny of Parliament there are any number of people who wish ill in this regard who are quite capable of devising new offences themselves. 
In any event I thank the Primary Production Committee on behalf of the Minister for Biosecurity and I thank the Regulations Review Committee for its work. I am confident that the bill being reported back to the House is stronger for the committees’ considerations.