O'Rourke Denis: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
O'Rourke Denis: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:678;Page:1353] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports all parts of these bills the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. We believe as does the Government and other parties on behalf of which recent parties have spoken in the efficient sharing of information at the border and in the effective use of modern technologies that these bills promote. The devil of course as is so often the case is in the detail and New Zealand First still has some concerns and reservations especially in relation to the privacy of personal information. One reservation relates to section 282 of the Customs and Excise Act which empowers as we know the sharing of border information between accessing agencies and holder agencies. The definition of those as set out in the regulations relates to regulations to be brought down under the Act. The new section 286A in clause 25 of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill allows regulations to specify “any agency or any class of agencies as an accessing agency:”. That is very wide—very wide indeed. In fact it could not possibly really be any wider. We wonder eventually just how wide that will be in practice just what sorts of agencies will be included and we think that it will give scope for the commercial use of private information which may not necessarily be what is intended under this bill. We do of course accept that the Privacy Commissioner will be involved and that there are other safeguards such as the chief executive officer of accessing agencies being required to assess and report on impacts on the privacy of individuals. Very good stuff but will it be effective enough? 
Nevertheless New Zealand First does support the new provisions as they do allow appropriate agencies we hope to share the border information better and more efficiently and effectively allow those agencies to carry out their duties and it is sensible to share information at the border and make good use of new technologies. It is a shame that there are not really sufficiently clear limitations on the types of agencies that can access that information and we think there is insufficient control on what the information may ultimately be used for. It ultimately relies on ministerial discretion as to which agencies will get the information. So a particular concern is that the information may reach the wrong hands and be misused. It may be passed on to others perhaps unofficially who should not have that information and it may not be shared for genuine border security or related reasons.  
We note that the Board of Airline Representatives suggested that the agencies should be required to have a border security function and of course the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill as it is is much much wider than that. But of particular concern to me is that the agency may access and use personal information for private commercial reasons and there really needed to be more limitation and attention paid to the legislation in that. This is not such that New Zealand First believes we need to oppose the bill but it is something we would have liked to see improved. I note in particular that new section 286A relating to matters to be considered by the Minister could have had something in it such as for example whether the personal information accessed might be commercially sensitive or might confer a commercial advantage on the accessing agency. We think it is a shame really that provisions of that kind were not included.  
Another concern in new section 286A is that it refers to regulations that may prescribe the conditions under which an accessing agency may access border information held by a holding agency but this does not provide a means for a holding agency to place controls on the way information provided to commercial interests could be used. It does not provide a means for the holder agencies to place controls on the use for commercial purposes; it allows regulations only to prescribe conditions under which accessing agencies can gain access. Again there could have been a little bit of a narrowing down of the bill’s provisions in those ways and the lack of specific controls on the use of the information for commercial purposes is the real core of the concern that New Zealand First has in relation to this legislation.  
But other than that we think they are both good bills and that they will promote efficiency and effectiveness in the way that information is used and shared at the border in New Zealand and as I said before will promote the use of modern technology in an effective way.  
I would just like to finalise by saying something about biofuels. New Zealand First supports the provisions of the bills in relation to that. We note with pleasure that the home production of biofuels is exempt and biofuel blends as well from licensing requirements if for personal use and not for sale. We also note with satisfaction that there is a similar exemption for home-produced biofuels from excise duty which is appropriate and consistent with exemptions in other legislation for home-produced tobacco and alcohol.  
I have considered the amendments to section 2 however in the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill relating to the definition of “biofuel” and congratulate the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee on those definitions but I still do not think they are satisfactory. The definition of “biofuel” refers to biomass and of course there is no definition of biomass raising the risk that fossil fuels could still be included in the definition thus defeating various provisions in the Act. However I do not think it is fatal and I note for example that Wikipedia says of the term— 
Simon Bridges 
: That’s where I got my speech from. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: —“Biofuel is a type of fuel whose energy is derived from biological carbon fixation. … Although fossil fuels have their origin in ancient carbon fixation”—and I wish the member opposite would listen because he might actually learn something if he does—“they are not considered biofuels by the generally accepted definition because they contain carbon that has been ‘out’ of the carbon cycle for a very long time.” So if you accept the definition in Wikipedia the definition of “biofuel” will be sufficient in the Act but it would have been preferable for a better definition to be included. Notwithstanding all of those reservations however New Zealand First is happy to support both of these bills.