SpeechDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to talk about this particular piece of legislation member's bill in the name of the Hon Jacqui Dean and I acknowledge her for getting it to this stage in the House. It's pretty rare for an Opposition bill to go through and for good intentions behind the bill because those as other people have spoken about tonight are very important to protect New Zealand's biosecurity. I thank the officials and the Primary Production Committee for the work that they did; it ended up being pretty valuable.As others have stated this bill amends the Biosecurity Act and the Immigration Act the latter of those two being in my particular wheelhouse. It increases the fine from $400 to $1000—and I'll touch on that in a moment—and it also grants Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officers the ability to refuse entry or revoke a visa which is a fairly significant change from the present. Nevertheless as a sign of good faith ACT will be supporting this bill at second reading with the idea that with the committee of the whole House stage the issues that we do have with the bill could be addressed at that point with Supplementary Order Papers.A couple of points around the fine increase: as others have said as a mechanism of deterrence as officials presented it hasn't actually had a particularly great effect. The last time this happened I think it was a 0.01 percent decrease in offending which is an interesting point because it makes you wonder if we should just actually go back to the old fine and lower it; it really had no effect at all and if it added costs in enforcing the regime. But nevertheless that's not what this bill's about. The fee increase will affect people. It's not always like Border Security which is a great show—it's not always like that. You know these are mostly accidental cases where people are bringing things in and you know this penalty would apply predominantly to them. So we'd need to address some issues there. The obvious reputational issues—so if this regime kicked in then we would need to have a think about how we how we enforce discretion how we apply that so that it wasn't too heavy-handed so that we could somehow look at deterrence but not to the point of making no one actually want to come to New Zealand.The immigration changes were quite significant and this is probably the issue that—well an area that I've got more of an issue with with the MPI officials. The point with this particular consequence is that if a visa is revoked and entry refused then you know that leads to a turn-around or deportation which could actually lead to an exclusion period from New Zealand. That is a fairly significant issue that we've got with the bill but again it's one that we could address in the next stage.I also wonder about—I talked about discretion before and perhaps an unintended consequence there where if a fine is so high and we're talking about visa consequences where a visa could be revoked you might have a situation where officials are actually giving too much discretion because the consequences are so high and they let more things slide. So it could actually have the opposite effect.Nevertheless there's a lot of good intentions with this bill. As I said before biosecurity—incredibly important that we look after our primary industries and our horticulture and agriculture. A few issues with this; we could've ironed it out but with that in good faith we'll commend it to the House. Thank you.