SpeechSTEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui) (remote): I move That the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. It is my pleasure to take the first call in the virtual House on the second reading of the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. This bill has been reported back to the House with some amendments. I want to thank the committee members from the Primary Production Committee for their collegial approach to considering the bill and for their thoughtful and constructive feedback. I also want to thank officials for their advice and guidance throughout the select committee process. Finally I want to thank and acknowledge all of those who took the time to make a submission on this bill. As I said in my first reading speech this is a common-sense bill which will strengthen the layers of defence against biosecurity threats at our border. It will protect our food and fibre sector that's the livelihoods of our farmers growers and their families but it also protects our environment. I was pleased to have the opportunity to put my name to this bill because in the Whanganui electorate we have a large number of farmers and growers who contribute significantly to our local economy and who like farmers across the country have played a significant role in our export-led recovery. As noted during the first reading it's currently optional to provide passengers with information about our biosecurity arrangements. Many conservation advocates and those from our food and fibre sector have raised concerns that only some airlines are providing passengers with such information and this creates an unnecessary biosecurity risk. A biosecurity incursion that took hold in Aotearoa would have a critical impact on our economy on our environment and on those in our food and fibre sector especially our regional economies. As indicated this bill has been reported back to the House with some amendments and I'd like to take this opportunity to share with the House and those at home what those amendments are. The first amendment I'd like to discuss is the proposal to create secondary legislation or regulations which detail what information and how information is to be provided to passengers. As a committee we agreed that this allowed for a degree of flexibility that would not be available if we prescribed the format of information in the primary legislation. For example clause 4 of the bill as introduced suggested that written information also be provided. However that could propose logistical challenges for some airlines where space and weight restrictions are paramount considerations. It was noted by several submitters that shifting away from providing paper-based information to passengers will help a craft to reduce their carbon footprint. Moving detail about what information and how information should be provided into specially drafted regulations also allows Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials time to consult with airlines. It also means that the regulations can be drafted and more easily amended in future to account for changes in technology. For example many airlines and cruise ships have their own apps which allow them to engage with passengers before they board a craft so it's possible that in the future the provision of biosecurity information could be incorporated into those apps in a way that also makes translation into multiple languages efficient and easy. It was noted during the select committee that the future of our border is digital. There is a move away from paper-based cards in favour of utilising technology like smartphone apps and websites so that passengers can provide arrival information in a digital format. Again this shows why it's appropriate to include detail about what information and how information is to be provided into specially drafted regulations. It ensures sufficient flexibility which will make the uptake of new technology a lot easier than if officials had to amend primary legislation each time technology changes. Evidence we heard in the select committee also suggests that the advantage of providing information to somebody before they board a craft means that they have the opportunity to dispose of prohibited items before they begin their journey. Again this could lessen the risk of a biosecurity incursion in Aotearoa. For these reasons the committee also agreed that clause 4 should be amended to say that before a craft arrives in New Zealand the person in charge of the craft must provide biosecurity information to passengers as set out in the regulations. This leads me to the second amendment proposed which was to the commencement clause. In light of the changes discussed and the need for consultation and to draft bespoke regulations the committee has proposed a change to the commencement clause. So rather than coming into effect on the day after the bill receives Royal assent as proposed in clause 2 when the bill was introduced the committee has agreed to a recommendation from officials that the bill come into effect by Order in Council or 12 months after Royal assent. As introduced the bill created an obligation to provide biosecurity information to all persons on a craft. However after hearing submissions and advice from officials the committee agreed that it was not necessary to provide information to crew on a craft. Therefore we agreed to amend the bill to refer to passengers" rather than "persons on board". This is more in keeping in line with the purpose of the bill which as suggested in the name was about providing biosecurity information to passengers. The intention was not to create a legal obligation to provide crew members with biosecurity information every time they come back into New Zealand. The committee also agreed to narrow the definition of "craft" as proposed in the bill. As introduced the bill referred to all craft en route to New Zealand and that was so broad it would have included small private yachts and planes air ambulances cargo ships fishing vessels defence force aircraft and ships and donor organ retrieval flights. Again it was not the intention of the bill to cover all of those scenarios. I want to thank MPI officials for their assistance to the committee to help us reach a definition which better reflects the intention of the bill—that is that the bill should apply to commercial craft with 20 or more passengers. As introduced the bill proposed pecuniary penalties for failing to provide biosecurity information to passengers. However after considering evidence and advice from officials the committee formed the view that a failure to comply with the proposed section 17AA involves a lower level of harm compared to the offences punishable by orders under section 154H of the Act. It would also be inconsistent with the kind of conduct and harm already targeted by pecuniary penalties under the Act. The pecuniary penalties are intended to target the commercial gain that could be made and there is very little commercial gain to be had by failing to provide information to incoming passengers. The committee also agreed for the same reasons that a penalty of a strict liability offence is too high and not proportionate to the offence of failing to provide information. Members considered that an infringement notice would be a more appropriate punishment for such a breach. However to enable the creation of an infringement offence in the bill an offence for a breach of the proposed section 17AA needs to be created. Therefore the committee recommended retaining the strict liability offence in the bill but reducing the penalty to the lowest level under the Act. That's up to $1000 for an individual and up to $5000 for a body corporate. Those are the most notable changes proposed by the committee. Again I want to thank committee members and officials for their work and I thank the submitters who took the time to submit on this bill. The changes I've outlined this evening received the unanimous support of the Primary Production Committee and I'm looking forward to that support continuing through the remaining stages of the bill. I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the motion be agreed to."