Biosecurity Amendment Bill
Te Ururoa Flavell, MP for Waiariki
Thursday 26 November 2009; 930pm

This Bill makes a number of amendments to the Bio-security Act 1993 to increase penalties for passengers who fail to comply with bio-security measures.

Bio-security is an important issue in Aotearoa.

The Maori Party is keen to bring to this debate the recognition that Māori have unique and diverse interests in biodiversity in terms of the management of taonga as both kaitiaki and developer.

Taonga such as indigenous flora, fauna and resources are greatly valued by Maori; and as Treaty partner, tangata whenua seek to be involved in any decisions that may impact on taonga.

The Maori Party is committed to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy, safe and intact for everyone and for future generations.

We seek to promote freedom from ecological destruction; and we consider it important to ensure that appropriate investment is made in engaging with Maori in modern biosecurity management.

The Bill also enables infringement offences, infringement fees, and infringement notices to be prescribed by regulations rather than in the Act

At a very basic level, the Bill increases the fine for passengers arriving in New Zealand who fail to declare that they are in possession of risk goods - goods such as fruit and meat products. The fine increases one hundred percent, from $400 to $800.

In the Regulatory Impact Statement in the bill it suggests that increasing the fine will further improve compliance. In 2008, 17000 seizures were made, so we are talking about a considerable level of offending.

And so Sir I am really interested that there is such a big group of offenders implicated in this Bill.

I would be fascinated to know more about this – is it about smuggling in of mango; a frangipani flower; some exotic spices, nuts and dried fruit?

Or is it that is failing to declare the goods which fall into the category of dangerous or at risk? Are these people New Zealand citizens?

As far as we are aware, there is no register of ethnicity information compiled and so we are at somewhat of a loss to understand particular strategies that might be helpful in addressing the problem.

What we know though, is that in the analysis of New Zealand bio-security convictions that occurred in the decade between 1999 and 2009, 200 convictions were of New Zealanders; 73 were of Chinese citizens; and the remaining 138 convictions are spread across 29 countries.

So we were wondering for instance, whether passengers are properly informed and advised of their legal obligations, and sufficiently assisted.

It would be useful to know exactly what role language and literacy issues play in the offending, particularly for people who are from non-English speaking countries.

Mr Speaker, I want to talk further about this aspect of understanding the rights and responsibilities emerging from the Biosecurity Act.

This was one of those Bills, in which the Primary Production Select Committee I am told received no public submissions at all.

So I have to wonder is that because there is absolutely no interest in the possession of risk goods across the border, or is it because there was insufficient attention paid to communications?

That aside, I was really pleased that the Biosecurity Science Strategy for New Zealand which was launched in late 2007, made an explicit commitment to engaging more positively with Maori on biosecurity issues.

The Strategy recognises the importance of mātauranga Māori and its relevance in modern biosecurity management.

As inkeeping with this Strategy, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand has given a public acknowledgment to develop strong working relationships and networks with key Māori groups in the planning, the prioritisation and delivery of biosecurity science.

This, we say, is a very positive initiative; and one which we hope will be able to assist in the delivery and integration of mātauranga Māori me ōna tikanga into biosecurity science.

Mr Speaker, an important aspect of this will be the impact of the Wai 262 claim: namely the Mātauranga Māori and Taonga – The Nature and Extent of Treaty Rights held by Iwi and Hapu in Indigenous Flora and Fauna, Cultural Heritage Objects, and Valued Traditional Knowledge.

Sir, this claim was lodged by six iwi in 1991, by the kuia and kaumatua of Te Rarawa, Ngati Kuri, Ngati Porou, Ngati Kahungunu, Ngati Wai and my colleague Rahui Katene’s father, John Hippolite of Ngati Koata.

The fundamental core of the claim is the view that Maori knowledge of taonga includes intimate understanding and respect for nga mokopuna a Ranginui raua ko Papatuanuku – flora and fauna. It specifies a key principle of the protection of knowledge, and investment in the preservation of these taonga

As of this time, we have no indication as to when the report from the Waitangi Tribunal will be released. Closing submissions were heard from third parties, researchers, Crown Research Institutes, bioprospectors and the Crown in June 2007, and so there is an expectation that the claim will soon be reported back.

The significance of this, of course, is that the cultural integrity of these knowledge systems and cultural practices, as articulated in WAI 262, will be useful in further expansion of biosecurity policies and plans.

I want to really place on the record, the recognition that Māori are very well positioned to identify biosecurity issues and research needs. This is an area where tangata whenua have developed key expertise and capacity and capability in this field.

As such, we would hope that in the implementation of biosecurity procedures and protocols we would expect full engagement from Māori who will be aware of the potential impacts from incursions of pests and diseases associated with taonga and resources in their rohe.

Constant communication with MAF Biosecurity New Zealand will allow Māori to build confidence that they will be involved in decisions that may impact on taonga.

Finally, I am aware that Landcare Research has reported this year that New Zealand has been described as one of the 'weediest' countries in the world with all of these plants introduced either deliberately or accidentally over many years Apparently there are over two thousand non-native plants growing in the wild, many of them considered invasive.

We must take every step to value and protect biodiversity; to uphold our responsibilities for kaitiakitanga or guardianship of the environment, and to invest in a future where our unique flora and fauna is no longer at threat of extinction.

We support this Bill at its third reading.

ENDS

© Scoop Media