Hague Kevin: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hague Kevin: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8281. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. I think we have heard from all members of the House throughout every stage of the bill about our collective commitment to the importance of biosecurity and our collective support for the provisions of the bill which increases the fines available at the border and also in the courts. These are all sensible measures and it is a no-brainer that we would support them. But I have been repeatedly raising a number of issues around biosecurity and although I do not want to go into detail on those issues again tonight I will flag them. 
The first of those issues is part of the quid pro quo that the Government was proposing for those measures. The Government said that it would increase the fines which would provide a greater disincentive for people to bring biosecurity risks into New Zealand and that it would therefore allow a risk profiling approach to be adopted in respect of people whom we do screen for biosecurity risks at the border. I have spoken on several occasions about the inherent and unavoidable risks that that approach would create. I am heartened by the fact that the Primary Production Committee indicated that it was not convinced by that approach and I give my commitment to the House that the Green Party will fight that approach at every stage if it raises its head. 
The second point I will raise is in relation to what we might call the thin green line which is the force of dedicated professionals in MAF Biosecurity New Zealand on whom we depend for precisely that reputation and those industries that Colin King just spoke about. A couple of points concern me in relation to that. The first point is the matter that we have heard about tonight—initially from the Hon Maurice Williamson and David Shearer has just reminded us about it—and that is that the budget for biosecurity has in fact been decreased. The second point that I want to make in relation to that thin green line is the response of the Government in terms of biosecurity to the recession. The Government said that fewer goods are coming into the country in fewer containers and therefore it will cut biosecurity staff. The Greens are profoundly disturbed by that approach because it fails to apprehend that the thin green line is pretty thin and pretty threadbare as it is and the risks from which it protects us are massive. So if one had the opportunity to extend the work that that workforce carried out then one would surely take it because the more protection that New Zealand has and that our vital industries have surely the better it would be. 
The third point I will raise is the Government’s further agenda in relation to biosecurity. I note the comments of the Minister for Biosecurity in the House today in question time and I applaud the Government’s allocating a further $4.7 million to research into and further control of kauri dieback disease. It took a while but I am pleased that it got there because that is another biosecurity threat we face. It is a threat not only to our industries but also to our natural heritage a heritage that if we do not protect it will not exist anywhere in the world. 
At several points in the debates on the bill the Government has said that this bill is just the first of its biosecurity measures that it is starting off with increased fines and that there will be plenty more where those come from. I indicate to the House that the Greens are waiting and waiting and we are looking forward to seeing what those additional biosecurity measures are. Every party in the House as I have said has expressed support for strengthening our biosecurity response. I guess the Government’s actions to date cause us to question its commitment to that standard but we offer our support for the stiffening of fines and for some urgency in improving our collective response.