Shearer David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shearer David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 17 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7748. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I also rise to speak in support of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. New Zealand’s future—the future of its economy and the future of its agricultural products which make up two-thirds of our economy—depends on a secure and pest-free environment. I recall not so long ago being in Auckland and facing the threat of the painted apple moth and the enormous amount of aerial spraying that was required to eradicate that pest. It had the ability to threaten—and was doing so in Australia—not only our horticulture but also our farming and more important our forestry assets. It took an enormous effort and an extraordinary amount of money to bring that pest under control. It was a lesson I think in seeing what happens when our border security is not able to prevent those sorts of pests from entering New Zealand. The Reserve Bank recently provided some estimates of what it would cost New Zealand should foot-and-mouth disease break out and it came up with a figure of $10 billion. That would be an extraordinary cost to the New Zealand economy should something like that be able to sneak in across our borders. It has not but the threat is always there. The varroa bee mite another imported parasite caused extraordinary damage to bees— 
Shane Ardern 
: Who was in Government when that came in? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: The important thing is that when the Labour Government was in power it increased the funding to biosecurity efforts because it recognised the need to make sure that the borders of New Zealand were secure. That varroa bee mite is a hugely important pest and as one-third of all our plants are pollinated by bees just that one pest presented an enormous risk. We currently have a risk in the form of the imports that we are undertaking of palm kernel which is being brought in for animal feed when there are existing forms of animal feed available. We do not need to do this. Palm kernel comes in with at least 50 potential pests associated with it. All we are doing is increasing our risk for very little in the way of advantage. What is the point of bringing in a product that could carry 50 potential pests when they can do that sort of damage? 
My colleague Damien O’Connor mentioned the need to make the biosecurity regulations simple and straightforward and Ashraf Choudhary talked about his experience when coming into Auckland International Airport. We live in a hugely multicultural and diverse society; Auckland has 182 different ethnic groups many with their own language. Many of those regulations or instructions need to be very clearly communicated to those people—perhaps in their own language. I fear that although this legislation quite rightly raises the amount of money in terms of fines as a deterrent to people bringing illegal goods into New Zealand it may hit those people who do not understand our biosecurity regulations very well. There is a real need to increase the understanding of biosecurity regulations in the areas in which we source both migrants and our visitors and to make sure that those people are given every opportunity to be able to understand and to comprehend just exactly how New Zealand feels about people who bring in illegal products that could cause enormous damage.