Tuiono TeanauTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak on this Increased Penalties for Breach of Biosecurity Bill the second reading and congratulations to the last speaker Steph Lewis for taking longer than the last three speakers in the House. It moved so quickly that I was wondering whether I was going to have to jump up but the former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern walked in to stop me from doing that so ka pai.I want to acknowledge the intention behind this bill and I want to acknowledge the intention behind the member's reasons for wanting this bill. I think we all want that around the House. We want to protect our wild spaces. We want to protect our ecosystems. And for those of us that live out in the regions we want to be able to protect our food and fibre sector the engine room of our economy and our country out there out there in the regions. At the first reading we didn't support this bill and the main reason for that is that if you're going to increase the penalties for something you need to have a good reason. You need to have a good reason why you're going to do that so I want to thank the Primary Production Committee for actually taking that on board. And I do note within the select committee report you measured it against inflation and I saw the differences between different numbers and so on and so forth. What I was expecting possibly was—if you're going to like increase the fees increase the penalties—to have actually had a bit more of a rationale for why you would do that and whether that would actually moderate behaviour whether that will actually have an impact in protecting biosecurity. I didn't see that in the select committee report. But I do agree with the sentiments around education. Education is fundamental to making sure that when people come here we make it available in the best way possible so that people understand what it means to actually come to Aotearoa. And so we also supported the bill that the previous member who spoke as well—because education is actually key to that. The new element for me in terms of the work that the select committee did was around the immigration officer part as well. Biosecurity officers have a very specific type of role that they have. And during the deliberations of the select committee it was found that actually biosecurity officers have a completely different mandate and they don't have the right to detain and so on and so forth Minister if I'm reading this right under a different Act. So that was a new element for me as well. But I just wanted to add in terms of my kind of insight in terms of a conversation that I had actually with the biosecurity officer—I was interested to know how complex the job is what they actually did in terms of their day to day. This biosecurity officer that I talked to had a science background as well. So I was interested in all of the different things around different species that may come in and be harmful to the environment and harmful to the economy. And it seems to me that if all of a sudden we start plonking on top of them an extra workload what would be the flow-on impacts of that? You're going to be talking about extra training you're going to be talking about compatibility for the new roles and all of these other sorts of things. It compounds the work. So I totally support the intention behind the bill. We need to do these things. We need to stop fruit fly and stop foot-and-mouth. And what would probably be useful for politicians in the House would be if someone came up with a way to stop foot in mouth because that happens a bit around the House—probably have done it myself a few times! So I just want to once again acknowledge the intention of the member wanting to have stronger biosecurity measures to protect Papatūānuku to protect our environment to protect our food and fibre sector but unfortunately this bill does not do that.