Heatley Phil: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7061] 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I would like to focus on a couple of the clauses that we focused on during the select committee deliberations the first of which is clause 9 “Restriction on levies”. Clause 9 gives section 92(1) a slightly more punitive air and I talked a little bit about that earlier. Pest management levies are actually targeted at those who have contributed to the pest’s incursion or spread. They might have contributed actively by doing something stupid or sinister—that is a deliberate act—or otherwise. They might have been inactive and overlooked an obvious situation where they could have prevented an incursion or they might have overlooked an opportunity to report the incursion or otherwise. So there is the issue of active contribution to the spread of the incursion and the inactive or passive spread. 
Rodney Hide 
: The working Minister Mr Cunliffe is in the chair now. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Yes so one could argue that the punitive measures are user-pays or polluter-pays. Paragraph (d)(i) inserted by clause 9 states that the levy means to target “persons likely to benefit from the implementation of the strategy;’’. In the case of moths and all those invertebrates and visitors from overseas that have come into the country since Marian Hobbs has been at the helm or in the case of dry stock farmers sheep farmers and dairy farmers throughout the country who have viruses diseases bacteria and so on one could argue that they are likely to benefit from the implementation of the strategy. So one would hope although clearly they have not seen that in the last 4 years with at least 11 incursions from around the globe into our country—that being Labour Party immigration policy. As stated in paragraph (d)(ii) the levy also targets “persons who by their activities or inaction contribute to the creation continuance or exacerbation of the problems proposed to be resolved by the strategy;”. So that means those who were active or inactive and created the problem and might have continued or exacerbated the problem. 
Members will see that clause 24 relates to penalties for people involved in the problem. Clause 25 talks about those persons who do not notify appropriate authorities where it is reasonably expected that they should know that an incursion has occurred and that such an incursion could wreak havoc in our horticulture forestry and agricultural industries. One would expect that to be the case in the agricultural industry. One would expect veterinarians farmers and those who have contact with animals to recognise diseases. In the horticultural industry one would expect farm advisors horticulturalists themselves fruit packers and people in charge of cool-stores should recognise any incursion. So if we can reasonably expect those people to recognise an incursion and if they do not report that incursion they will incur a hefty fine of up to $5000. We can see that from clauses 24 and 25. So clause 9 “Restrictions on levies” actually relates to those types of people. Through their activity or inactivity they can incur levies or due to a serious recognisable fault they can incur penalties. That is the association between clauses 9 24 and 25. 
Clause 18 deals with spraying programmes. Usually and up to this date there is a 2-week opportunity for officials in the ministry to let a community know that they might have to put up with aerial spraying. One can appreciate that if there is an incursion and officials have to act quickly they might have to so in a shorter time.