Shearer David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shearer David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8279. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. This bill has been discussed in Parliament at length and a number of good points have been raised. My colleague Su’a William Sio for example mentioned in his address some weeks ago the importance of making sure that the various ethnic groups coming into our airports are aware of not only the risks and the regime that New Zealand has for biosecurity but also the penalties that will result from bringing in anything illegal. I think that is one area we could further strengthen. Although it is not strictly part of this bill I believe that it is necessary. 
The bill itself raises the fine for convictions from $400 to $800. The fine is supposed to be a deterrent. As we have said before we have to balance the deterrent nature of the fine with the transaction costs when people do not pay the fine and we therefore have to chase them to bring them to court. It would cost the Crown money to do that. I think that the balance that has been struck is a good one. As I say $800 is an increase on what we have had up until now but it is not a massive increase and it is unlikely to create major problems. 
As we have said before biosecurity is essential to New Zealand’s economic future. We mentioned for example that the cost of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak is estimated by Treasury as being something in the order of $10 billion. For that reason we have to be extremely cognisant of our borders and of what laxness at our borders might entail in terms of cost to New Zealand. We can be reminded as well of those times when we have had invasions of various mites and animals. I mentioned the damage and the cost of trying to bring the painted apple moth in west Auckland into line. We are reminded also of the large number of containers that are brought into our country and are actually not checked. It has been said that about 93 percent of our sea containers are never inspected. That explains in part why we have the number of invasions we do and it perhaps explains why we ended up with a cane toad coming into New Zealand in the last few days. 
It is for that reason that I touch on the fact that unfortunately despite all the best efforts and the understanding that we have of the problems the effects and the risks in terms of biosecurity breaches the Government is knocking back and cutting the number of staff at the ports particularly the ports of Nelson and Timaru. It means that these particular ports will be less protected than they were before and I believe that is a step backwards rather than a step forward. As the president of Federated Farmers said just the other day biosecurity is something we should be increasing expenditure on not trying to cut back on. We do not want to run that risk. 
I touch on the professionalism of our biosecurity staff and also the vigilance of New Zealand as a whole in understanding the risks of allowing pests and diseases into New Zealand. I am humbled in a way by the statistics that have been quoted in the latest MAF Biosecurity New Zealand document that documents the number of times that people call to the attention of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry possible risks coming into the country. In the year ended 30 June this year 13840 notifications were received via its hotline. That is an extraordinary number of people calling in to report pests. Following some screening of those calls about 4000 of these incidents were assessed to determine whether the reported pests posed a threat. So New Zealanders are very aware of and understand the implications and the risks that may come with biosecurity breaches. 
I therefore come back to the point that it is a disappointment—and it must be a disappointment for New Zealand as a whole particularly for those people who have contributed by contacting the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry—that this Government is not in fact backing up that awareness with the actions that New Zealanders would expect from the Government. It was helpful that Maurice Williamson the Minister of Customs confirmed tonight during the debate on the Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill that the Government had cut the biosecurity budget and left New Zealand more open to those sorts of incursions. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That was Maurice being bored. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: That was Maurice Williamson today. It is an extraordinary coincidence that on the same day that we are standing in the House to reclaim the importance of biosecurity to our economic future a Government Minister is pushing through legislation that will cut the biosecurity budget. It is a testament to what this Government believes in terms of biosecurity. This Government is supposed to be a friend of the farmers and the Federated Farmers president has come out and said that biosecurity is in fact something we should be increasing expenditure on not decreasing. 
This Biosecurity Amendment Bill as I mentioned before has wide support from the various parties in the House. It is a reasonably narrow bill that focuses on lifting the fines for people coming into the country and for that reason Labour supports it. We believe in that particular area of biosecurity; we do not believe for example in Timaru and Nelson being left wide open. We do not believe in cutting staff from biosecurity and we do not believe in cutting the budget of biosecurity. But we support this bill because it improves the biosecurity of New Zealand’s borders.