Border Security Bill

I want to reiterate the points I made yesterday concerning the Border Security Bill and the nonsense that this Government is leading our export sector into with an imposed tax of $20 million. It has generously said that it will give a 20 percent discount, so that tax will come down to $16 million. That cost will be imposed on our importers and exporters, yet there is clear evidence that this bill benefits all New Zealanders, not just the export sector. All of New Zealand benefits, so it is a public good, not a private good. During the earlier Committee stage I made it very plain that this is the position National has adopted, and that is why we are not supporting this legislation.

I guess the question has to be asked of what is driving that response. What is driving the international response to make changes to our security arrangements? After 11 September 2001 there was strong international support for comprehensive collective action against terrorism. We know what happened during that period. On 28 September 2001 the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1373, which binds all member States and provides a framework for international response to the terrorist attacks. That is what is driving this legislation.

We have sympathy for what it is trying to achieve. We would have supported this bill, and we voted in support of Part 2, but we were not prepared—and the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, might like to take a call on this—to support Part 1, which imposes costs on the wealth creators of New Zealand. That is what it does. This bill provides for a public good, not a private good. The Minister has not taken a call, so here is an opportunity for him to respond to that.

The other point I made last night was very clear. In the bill as originally tabled, there was absolutely no mechanism for cost recovery. Those submitters came to the Government Administration Committee in good faith. This Government talks about good faith. Those people came along in good faith and made their submissions without knowing about those clauses.

Last night I tabled an amendment to have clauses 7B and 8C deleted. Had this Government accepted that, it would have had universal support for the bill. Every party in this Parliament would have supported it, but no, the Government voted down my amendments.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: Those members should take a call.

Why has that member not taken a call? Why does he not defend the legislation? He cannot speak. The bill would have had unanimous support from all parties had those two clauses been deleted, but this Government voted that down.

That is one of the reasons why the wealth creators of New Zealand are so upset and uptight with the Government. It has sneakily moved in this tax. It is another tax in the back door, like all the other taxes we have. That is why there has not been support for this legislation.

I have never heard so much drivel from that member. [Interruption] Other members say that is not true and that he has spoken more drivel before, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Mr Tisch is wrong on a number of fundamental facts. Firstly, he said that the $20 million we are looking to recover in this area is to be paid by exporters. That is wrong.

💬 Hon David Carter: And importers.

No, he did not make that qualification.

💬 Hon David Carter: Yes, he did. Tell the truth.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson The member said I should tell the truth. I did. I object to that. I want the member to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member should not have said that. Who was the person? The member knows he must not insinuate that another member is not telling the truth. The member will stand and withdraw.

💬 Hon David Carter: I withdraw.

The simple fact is that three groups are affected by this legislation—exporters, importers, and trans-shippers. Mr Tisch is saying that the New Zealand taxpayer should pay for the security clearance costs of trans-shippers. That is what the National Party is saying. For the life of me I cannot see an argument that justifies an apple picker in Hawke’s Bay having to pay the security cost for someone who ships out of some other country and into New Zealand, hubs out of here, and goes somewhere else. That is of no benefit to taxpayers in New Zealand, at all.

Those members argue that this is a public good, but for whom? It is not a public good for the New Zealand public, that is for sure. If the National Party wanted to give New Zealand taxpayers’ money to other people overseas, then it should be done through the overseas development aid programme. It should be done by other ways, not this way. There is no sustainable argument for it, whatsoever.

When we get down to it, even Federated Farmers does not support this. Although all their rhetoric says they do, they cannot present a sustainable argument as to why New Zealand taxpayers should pay security clearance costs for people importing and exporting in New Zealand.

Shane Ardern said that this is a public good. What is the argument for it being a public good? I say to Shane Ardern that he should look at the Treasury papers. Treasury went through this, and said that the processes and the services were not a public good, but a private good.

I will explain to the member again why it is a private good. As other countries up their security arrangements, they will identify goods as one of two classifications—those they consider secure, and those they consider unsecured. Unsecured goods will go through the red lane. That does not mean to say those goods will not be able to get into a country, but they will go through extra checks and there will be extra costs—US$350 for the X-ray of a container, delays, etc. If the goods can go through a green lane, as we hope New Zealand goods can, they will go through quickly and incur fewer costs.

The point is that if, in fact, an exporter into another country can get the goods quickly and expeditiously across the border and not incur costs, who benefits? It is the exporter. The exporter benefits directly.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.