Shearer David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Shearer David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7618] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 As other speakers have said Labour supports the second reading of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. First of all I will comment on the reference by the previous speaker Colin King to I assume Su’a William Sio. Mr King criticised him for being a backbencher and not a farmer and therefore for supposedly knowing nothing about biosecurity. That is a bit like saying one needs to be a tree in order to understand forests. Su’a William Sio’s point was that he was passionate about biosecurity and that he lived in an electorate that was the gateway to Auckland. As a result of that he said this bill did not go far enough and he wanted it to go further. I totally agree with him on those points. 
This bill as has been mentioned by a number of speakers increases the maximum fine. I think that will serve as a deterrent against people bringing in goods that could risk New Zealand’s biosecurity. But I think there is a point at which a deterrent could actually become a liability in terms of its transaction costs as Shane Ardern mentioned. I agree with him on that. I think to the credit of the Primary Production Committee that it has got the balance pretty much right in this bill. All the changes to the bill make good sense. 
I will reinforce another of the points that Su’a William Sio mentioned as well: the point about language. We have people from about 180 ethnic groups coming into the Auckland region and obviously speaking many many different languages. We need to get across to those people the biosecurity protection rules and deterrents and in order to communicate with them it is very important to write as clearly and as simply as possible and in a language that they can understand. It is all very well fining them and deterring them afterwards but if they did not understand the rules when they first came in then it is somewhat too late to fine them for breaching the rules. 
Labour believes that having an effective biosecurity regime is vital in order to protect New Zealand’s interests. But obviously that is not just about increasing the fines and penalties. As my colleague Damien O’Connor mentioned the Government at the same time as it is trying to increase biosecurity by increasing the penalties for biosecurity breaches is also cutting $2 million from the biosecurity budget and cutting 56 front-line jobs. That seems to me to be a backwards step. I think that the whole point of the discussion about the front line which comes through in our discussions on the police the public health system or on whatever else it may be is an important one. But although the Government says it is supports front-line jobs and is cutting administrative staff the cutting of administrative staff means that front-line staff will have to do administrative work. That defeats the purpose of the goals of biosecurity law and order etc. 
I remember living out in west Auckland so I remind the House of the plague of the painted apple moth when it came into New Zealand probably by means of a container imported from Australia and of the millions of dollars that we had to spend on aerial spraying in order to get rid of that pest. It is much better to have a policy of deterrence as the Green Party was mentioning than to try to pick up the pieces and repair the damage later on. 
I do not want to talk any further on this bill. We have broad agreement on it in the House. I think the bill is incredibly important for the New Zealand economy. The Reserve Bank mentioned for example that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in New Zealand—and Kevin Hague also mentioned this—would be devastating. The bank put the cost of an outbreak at about $10 billion. That would be a devastating loss for New Zealand. Mr Hague also mentioned the palm kernel imports which this Government continues to allow into the country even though at least 50 known pests are associated with that product. It would be a smart idea not to bring palm kernel in as a food for livestock and instead to use the alternative foods that we have here in New Zealand. That would be good for the economy and good for biosecurity as well. I will stop there but once again I commend the select committee for coming to an agreement on this bill and I also commend our front-line biosecurity staff—those who are left—for their efforts to defend New Zealand’s best interests. Thank you.