van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look this piece of legislation the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill is ultimately not too bad. We're going to support it. The intent is good. Like most pieces of legislation though that we're seeing coming though this Government there's a bit more to it than intent that really matters. And in this instance again there are a number of concerns that we did have with it. Fortunately we've seen a lot of change come through the select committee process to the point where as I said we will support it at this final stage.Biosecurity as the sponsor of this bill Steph Lewis has stated is absolutely critical for New Zealand and as our spokesperson for horticulture I know that the industry would be absolutely devastated if we had further incursions. Look we are constantly facing that battle; we'll see that start to ramp up again now that the borders are finally reopened and we're starting to see some more travellers returning to New Zealand. We will see an increased risk of biosecurity incursions as well. We've seen that over the last few years with a number of key ones that listeners will be aware of in the media—Mycoplasma bovis the brown marmorated stink bug the Queensland fruit fly and of course myrtle rust; just four of the more notable ones that have been in the media over the last few years. So of course we want to do what we can to minimise the risk of those sorts of incursions. So on the face of it this bill supports the work in that area.But there were some concerns and I do just want to highlight that because we've seen this time and time again coming through from this Government with pieces of legislation. I appreciate this is a member's bill but of course it is supported by the Government—a Government member putting it forward—and it just has on the face of it too many unworkable pieces as it was originally presented. That was around being so prescriptive that it took away flexibility for how some of these commercial operators might need to operate depending on their particular craft type or their process in managing their passengers and the likes. So we've seen the change now that has shifted this away from being any craft entering the country which would have captured medical flights and defence personnel as well as the commercial operators that we're looking at here.So that's now been tightened up around that commercial aspect but specifically large commercial vessels which is defined in this piece of legislation as having 20 or more passengers—not crew—on board. So on that basis then they need to go through this series of processes. And again fortunately changes were made through the select committee that have seen it now in the position where those regulations may require" a raft of aspects rather than "must include" which allows greater flexibility depending on the situation on those vessels in terms of the form or manner in which that information might be presented such as in different languages to allow full understanding based on where the visitors are from and the type of medium—whether it's written correspondence around the biosecurity rules or some audiovisual aspect. So there's just a bit more flexibility there which is good to see.These are the sorts of reasons why it's important to go through our robust select committee process and unfortunately we've seen time after time the Government have truncated that process for no good reason other than presumably because they think they know it all and don't need to consult the public. Fortunately this is a great example of where that process has worked reasonably well. We've got some good changes in place. We're comfortable now on the balance that it presents more benefits than issues and so we are supporting it but of course I just want to make the point actually as well that these larger commercial vessels are generally the ones that already have reasonable processes in place. Actually my concern would be with some of the smaller vessels entering New Zealand from other countries that are personally owned with maybe only a handful of people on them—people sailing around the world for example—some of these ones who may not be aware of our strict biosecurity rules that are not now part of this legislation because of the large commercial craft definition that has been built into it. Actually in the situation for those large commercial operators; it's in their absolute benefit and their own best interest to ensure that they are strictly following our biosecurity practices because otherwise that impacts on their own commercial operation into the future.So I do just want to highlight that there's potentially a missed opportunity there in terms of really helping to minimise some of those other risk avenues for us in the biosecurity space. But on that basis we do support it at this final reading and I commend the member on having a bill passing through within two years—or just over two years—of her time as a member in this House. Thank you."