Customs and Excise Amendment Bill, Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3)

I move, That the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. As I read and hear the headlines from around the world, I am thankful that New Zealand is far removed from those many terrorist trouble-spots. However, that does not mean that we are immune to the violence and the effects of transnational crime. We are seeing increasing evidence of transnational crimes such as trafficking of drugs and people, smuggling, and the use of false and fraudulently obtained documents. As travel and trade increases, so does the level of risk. These bills we are debating here are part of a comprehensive approach by the New Zealand Government to keep New Zealand secure. The Government is concerned that we do not leave the door open for New Zealand to be used as a safe haven, or a bolt hole for terrorists, or a platform for launching an attack elsewhere.

The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) will put our security on the front foot. The bills complement the Maritime Security Act and the Terrorism Suppression Act in strengthening the legislation, protecting New Zealanders and New Zealand’s interests. The bills introduce a number of measures to provide greater scrutiny of people, goods, and craft arriving in, and leaving from, New Zealand.

In summary, the changes will, firstly, improve the security of global travel and trading environments; secondly, strengthen the gathering and sharing of intelligence; thirdly, ensure better use of information to assess risk; fourthly, enhance customs enforcement powers at the border; and, fifthly, strengthen and enhance immigration processes relating to persons intending to travel to New Zealand.

We have heard a great deal of debate recently about individuals, their presence in New Zealand, and whether they pose a risk. As the Minister of Customs my goal is to ensure that the Customs Service is able to identify, intercept, and deal effectively with those people at the border. To be able to do that, advance information is essential.

There are two elements to the travel information provisions provided in this legislation. For immigration purposes the following will apply. Firstly, airlines and cruise-ship operators will be required to use electronic means to submit passport details for persons boarding craft for the purpose of travelling to New Zealand, in advance of their arrival. The chosen electronic system for Advanced Passenger Processing was launched in August, 2003. Many airlines are already using the system on a voluntary basis, and it is already being used to assist the identification of passengers who do not meet legal requirements to travel to New Zealand. They include such things as a requirement to hold a valid passport, a visa, if required, and a valid outbound ticket, if required. The full implementation of the legislation will mean that the passport and visa details will be checked automatically against electronic records held in New Zealand by the Immigration Service. Any matches will trigger an advisory back to the airline about whether a person should be allowed to embark for New Zealand. That form of screening of data is an important contribution to reducing New Zealand’s exposure to risk from peoples travelling here, while at the same time maintaining the high flows of arrivals into New Zealand.

The Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) makes Advance Passenger Processing boarding directives binding on airlines and creates penalties for airlines that fail to comply with the requirements of Advance Passenger Processing. However, airlines are already obliged to ensure that passengers are properly documented for travel and they may incur penalties if they do not do so. Therefore, the Advance Passenger Processing system backs up the airlines’ existing obligations and ensures that we are better equipped to meet them.

The second, and equally important, aspect of travel information gathering and analysis in the legislation is the provision for the Customs Service to access electronically the computerised passenger-booking systems of travel operators and their agents. This will allow access to certain passenger or ticketing information for up to 14 days before or after travel, and with a warrant the Customs Service will be able to extend that time frame.

In summary, the Advance Passenger Processing system will check the traveller’s immigration status if he or she checked in overseas, to filter out those who do not have permission to arrive in New Zealand. Customs will use the passenger name records analysis to identify travellers who are allowed into New Zealand, but who still pose a risk to this country, such as the risk of drug smuggling or other transnational crime. Overall, these two systems will benefit legitimate travellers by speeding their passage through the border, while border authorities focus on the small number of individuals who are of interest.

In this year’s Budget the Government also provided extra funding of $5 million to Vote: Customs to enable more officers and technology to be deployed to intercept those individuals of interest. The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill also assists the Customs Service to deal with people crossing our borders illegally outside the traditional entry points—the major ports and airports. Right now, a person encountered by a Customs Service officer who is unlawfully arriving or leaving New Zealand from a remote location is able to do so without being subjected to the normal level of scrutiny that a person arriving legitimately at a customs-controlled area is subjected to. It is obvious that this translates into a considerable security risk for our immediate neighbours and us, so we are toughening controls on this, and we are empowering Customs Service officers to deal with those situations.

Then there is dirty money. Right now, our laws have limited provisions to detain cash or tainted property that crosses our border undeclared. That means terrorist-related funds, or funds from the proceeds of crime, or tainted property, can move into New Zealand unimpeded. While funds in the banking system can be monitored and tracked down, that is not the case if those funds are moved in hard cash, so we are plugging that loophole. The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill also requires the advance electronic supply of information about goods and craft arriving in and leaving from New Zealand. I am pleased that legitimate businesses are already cooperating with the New Zealand Customs Service in providing that information. The legislation ensures that there is no doubt about its obligations. The business community has generally been very supportive of the new security measures being put in place by the New Zealand Customs Service.

The legislation provides the legislative framework for the customs supply chain security strategy that is designed to keep New Zealand goods moving across international borders in times of heightened security alerts. For example, the United States is very clear that when it is operating on heightened security alert it will give border clearance priority to those goods from a secure and trusted source such as a port with a container security initiative agreement with the US, or some equivalent to container security initiative, effectively putting those goods in the green lane. This Government wants to ensure that New Zealand exports are seen as secure and trusted at all times. The US Commissioner of Customs, Robert Bonner, said that the initiatives being introduced into New Zealand, when fully implemented, will help to ensure the low-risk nature of New Zealand goods coming from New Zealand to the US and keep New Zealand goods flowing in international commerce in times of heightened security.

As I said, this approach is supported by the industry, but what is in dispute is who should pay for it. The legislation provides for cost recovery from traders to cover the costs of enhancing trade facilitation. Consultation will continue with industry on exactly how the cost will be recovered. To help address exporters’ concerns over these costs, the Government has decided to move in two areas. Firstly, it will review all charges for the Customs Service goods clearance services. This review will examine the quantum and apportionment of charges for imports, exports, and trans-shipments, and the basis on which Customs Service charges should be levied. The results of this review will be implemented no later than the first half of 2006.

Secondly, we will continue to contribute significantly to the total cost of goods clearance services, including a share of the new costs of the trade programme. To help reduce the impact of the new charges on top of the other costs exporters are facing, and while the review is taking place, the Government will provide an additional $8 million over the next 2 years towards the costs of Customs Service export clearance. This means that 50 percent of new costs for export clearance will be met by the Crown and 50 percent will be met by exporters.

While the cost-recovery question has occupied a lot of time in the debate on this legislation, it is just one part of an overall package designed to provide robust mechanisms to keep New Zealand secure. New Zealand is low risk, but that does not mean no risk. We must do whatever is necessary to keep our country secure and contribute to a secure international neighbourhood. The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) are an important contribution to this. I commend these bills to the House.

It was interesting to listen to the Minister of Customs give his third reading speech on the various issues that were discussed, particularly the bit about now reassessing the costs, doing a survey on that, and coming back in 2006 with a recommendation. Obviously, we will look with great interest to see what comes out of that.

The National Party will be supporting the immigration part of this legislation. We voted for it in the Committee, and there were some very good reasons for that. The Minister outlined some of them. I note that in the Committee the Minister put in a Supplementary Order Paper to separate the immigration part from the customs and excise part. I presume that was so that the Government could secure the numbers without having to do too much of a deal with the Green Party and giving too much away over the immigration part of it.

As the Minister said, the legislation amends a number of things. One thing it does is it gives carriers the ability to turn somebody back at his or her point of entry into the plane, ship, or craft. That is a good thing. The New Zealand Customs Service otherwise has to detain those people, go through a lengthy process at a huge cost—I believe that it is about $20,000 per person; the Minister may be able to confirm that—then send them back. So that amendment is an excellent thing. We support it. The legislation also gives the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour, which includes the New Zealand Immigration Service, authority to make a decision based on the information it has been able to collect through the new system to be introduced after this legislation is passed, and to say: “No, I don’t think this person is suitable to come to New Zealand, for a range of reasons based on this information, and therefore you”—the carrier, whatever it might be—“should not carry this person to New Zealand.” That is a very, very good move, and we support it.

There are a number of others. It is good to see the extra $5 million in the Budget for this area. That was overwhelmingly necessary. One has to wonder, given the massive surplus that this Government has, why it would not invest in this area, because, clearly, it is a very important area for New Zealand trade, and trade access, of course, is very important.

But that is where our support for this Government’s approach in this legislation ends. In the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill, the Government is still proceeding with the notion that somehow or other a security cost should be paid by exporters, importers, and the shipping companies in-between. The cost is now down to $4 million for exporters, $8 million for the shipping companies, and $4 million for the importers. Quite frankly, that is totally unacceptable. The Minister has been told that. The coalition of trading exporters and importers has told the Minister that in no uncertain terms, and so far we have seen no explanation that justifies the move that the Government is taking.

Maybe the Minister will take another call and tell me why he thinks that, at this point in time, it is credible to introduce a backdoor tax—and that is all it can be described as. Treasury papers themselves state that we cannot establish the actual cost, and will not know it—and the Minister has admitted it tonight—until a survey is conducted and a proper, thorough review of the cost of these procedures is done, yet the Government is still proceeding with this $16 million tax, which will be dumped on the growth industry of this economy. So I ask the Minister to take another call and tell me why I am wrong. The export coalition represents 80 percent of New Zealand’s $40 billion in trade, and it says the Minister is wrong. What does the Minister say to that? Does he say the export coalition must be wrong—that the Government is right and it is wrong? No, the Minister is definitely wrong. There is no doubt about that.

Let us look at what the Prime Minister has said throughout this process: “We’re going to have a look at it. We’ll consult you. We hear your concerns. We’ll listen, and we’ll make a decision.” Well, the Government has consulted and it has listened, but has it made a decision? No, it has not. It has continued with this back-door tax, which is right where it was at the start with the exception of the $4 million back-down. The Government intends to continue with this tax, despite it being the 23rd tax imposed on New Zealanders in the time this Government has been in office. I say to the Minister that is totally unacceptable.

The Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) does one or two other things that are worth mentioning. It requires—as legislation has always required—a carrier to obtain from people their date of birth, nationality, sex, passport or certificate of identity, and the like. That is a good thing. We need to know those details. In recent times there have been many debates in the House about people who have come into this country without having been thoroughly vetted. Once they are here it is hugely difficult for us to track them down. Indeed, recently we saw the Minister of Immigration appealing on national television to such a person to come forward to give himself up. So it is important that we have good rules and good regulations with regard to those aspects of the legislation.

The officials who advised the select committee and have advised the Minister are to be congratulated on their thorough work. At this point the Opposition cannot see any gaps, but time will tell. I note the officials are present, and I acknowledge them. In time we will know whether there are gaps, but for now the bill looks thorough and as though it will work. We think it will manage at least to ensure that New Zealand’s borders are secure against terrorist-type people who may want to come here for reasons we would not like. The Government also has said it is prepared to fix any mistakes the new regime may have, by 1 July 2006. I am pleased the Minister has acknowledged that fact again, tonight. I look forward to what happens there.

But I cannot understand why the Minister wants to proceed with clauses 7B and 8C in the light of huge opposition. The Government would make huge political gain if it said that it had had a look at the provisions, that the officials had had a look at them, that the industry had had a bit more time to have a look at them, that the international concerns had been taken care of—and that was the Government’s primary objective when it set out on this course—and that the US had said it was happy with what was proposed, so the Government now accepted that, given its huge, huge surplus, it should pick up this security cost, as it historically always has done. We should not have this mad “tax and snatch” approach, and we should not penalise our traders again. We should not set off down a track that potentially could have a detrimental effect on our growth—and growth has been a stated objective of this Government right from the time it started talking about this business. The Minister should stand and say that the Government got it wrong, and that it will not proceed with this silly tax. The political mileage that the Government would gain from that might even have the effect of turning round Labour’s fortunes in the polls—although I doubt it; I think it has gone beyond that now. Why does the Minister not accept that this measure is no good, and just back away from it?

The industry made a very, very credible offer, in my view. It came back to the Government and said that it accepted that the Government was pretty dug in on this approach, so it was prepared to accept about 50 percent of the cost. But what did the Minister do? He said that was not acceptable. He said that the Government was not prepared to move from its current “dug in the ground”, pig-headed approach, that industry would pay, and that that was how it would be. The National Party will oppose the legislation on that basis. It is wrong, it is a back-door tax, and we totally disagree with it.

This legislation is an important part of the Government’s approach to strengthening both New Zealand’s national security and our international reputation for providing that security. It will provide a legal base for the Customs Service’s innovative Secure Exports Partnership scheme, which sees the Government and industry working together to secure goods from the point of loading to export. It is very important.

The previous speaker did, at least, have the wit and the sense to recognise how important this legislation is for New Zealand and for our international reputation, but he got a few things wrong. The Government is, of course, putting $20 million in to start this process. It is not covering the whole cost. We are not trying to claim that, but we are working in partnership with the industry and providing money to get the process up and started. This legislation facilitates early and timely access to information for the purposes of managing at-risk people, planes, ships, boats, and goods, and the threats they may pose from terrorists.

We all recognise that in today’s extremely insecure global climate we are at risk, and we are a trading nation a long way from those people with whom we do most of our trade. Therefore we need to make sure we secure our borders and that our trading partners feel confident of that security here in New Zealand and when our goods go overseas. So I commend this legislation to the House as being absolutely vital to New Zealand’s international reputation and our trading success.

New Zealand First supports the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3), which came out of the border security legislation. We do so for the obvious reason that our party is very strict on matters of immigration. We have been calling for controls on immigration for quite some time. We have made that clear—certainly since the last election. [Interruption] There is the former Minister of Immigration.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: You got in the country, and you want to close the door on everyone else.

Minister, do not give me credit for that! I reinforce New Zealand First’s view that immigrants should have a job to come to. I came here to take up a job. We say that immigrants should have good health. I say to the former Minister, because she shows an interest in this, that I had good health. In fact, I still do. That will upset members opposite, quite no end.

💬 Hon David Carter: Despite the Government.

Yes, despite the Government. New Zealand First is concerned that immigrants coming here are all living in Auckland. We are concerned about those immigrants with a criminal background or evil intent. We want checks on them, and we make no apology for saying that. We will support the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3). Indeed we would have been pleased to support the entire border security legislation, but as my National colleagues have said earlier, it is not fair or proper to impose the additional costs, $16 million, on exporters, importers, and people who tranship their cargo. The full $20 million was going to be put on to those people but the Government, in its wisdom, has seen the light somewhat and reduced the cost to exporters. But that is not good enough, particularly when in 1999—[Interruption] Now the Minister of Customs is taking an interest. I have the document in front of me. I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with it, but in 1999 the then Leader of the Opposition—the current Prime Minister—gave a speech to the New Zealand Tourism Industry Association conference—

💬 Hon Rick Barker: He’s got that wrong.

I want the Minister to listen The then Leader of the Opposition said: “A coalition of tourism industry interests was instrumental in forcing the Government to postpone its plans to introduce the user-pays regime for border control services, which was announced in the Budget last year.”

She was talking about the National Government.

💬 Hon David Carter: Those were the days!

The member says: “Those were the days.” When the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition she went on to say: “I can announce formally today that that regime will not be established by the incoming Labour Government.”

💬 Hon David Carter: Who said that?

That was said by the Rt Hon Helen Clark when she was Leader of the Opposition.

💬 Hon David Carter: No, that can’t be right.

Yes, I have the letter in front of me. She says: “We will continue to fund those border control activities, which the State presently funds.” That is a categoric statement that the Government will fund border control costs.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: We’ve done that—$5 million more in the Budget.

The Minister is shouting out. I am not exactly sure of the detail he is shouting out, but he knows that border control is exceptionally important to this country. He knows that. He more or less alluded to that—that it was important to this country—in his own contribution in the House. [Interruption] I say to the Minister that if it is important to the country it is important to all the people of the country, not just the exporters and the importers—the people who earn our wealth; the productive sector. We all should pay for border security. We all have an interest in having our shores made very, very safe. The Minister knows that, and to pass those additional costs, $16 million of them, on to exporters, importers, and trans-shippers, whoever they are—who are they? They are not readily identifiable.

I listened to the Minister in the House when he tried to explain what a trans-shipper was. He did not have a clue. If this bill had been addressed properly—and I do not want to say that the content of what will happen in this bill is not correct—from the point of view of cost, I think every member in this House would have supported it willingly. Every member and every party would have supported this bill had the costs fallen where they should, and that is on the country as a whole under general taxation. [Interruption] Let me tell that member over there that he is only going to get this bill through with the Greens. I do not think United Future will vote for it. Is United Future going to vote for it?

💬 Paul Adams: No.

They are not. Yesterday in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—I was staggered and I know that Maurice Williamson was staggered—the Greens actually said how delighted they were that the price of petrol and the price of oil was going up and that it could not go up high enough.

💬 Hon David Carter: Is that right?

That is absolutely right. Maurice Williamson fell off the chair. He was sitting on the chair next to me and I had to pick him up. I have to say that I was staggered. The former Minister over there knew. She heard them say that.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: It was not yesterday. What are you talking about?

What I am pointing out to the House, and to that member, is that those people do not understand the importance of travel, roading, shipping, and border control to this country. If the Government wants to go along with people who have such a frivolous idea of the importance of transport, border control, and all that, then the Government will pay the price. Everybody in this country knows that border control is important to us. It is very, very important. Anybody with one iota of sense, brain, or whatever one wants to say, would recognise it as a responsibility we should all front up to. The taxpayers should pay for border control.

💬 Jill Pettis: What do you call $20 million—chicken feed?

I am not sure what $20 million the member is alluding to, but I can tell her that there is a $16 shortfall. If the member calls $20 million chicken feed, then the Government should be paying the extra $16 million. That is what the Government should be paying. That is why we are paying our taxes. It is a disgrace that the Government sits on such a surplus and lets—

💬 Hon Rick Barker: So the surplus is a disgrace now?

No, no. The member is very confused. It is a disgrace that the Government is not funding this out of taxpayers’ money. This should have been funded from the general account, the Government account, the Crown account—whatever one likes to call it. That is the promise that the Labour Party made when it was in Opposition. Further to that, when Helen Clark was Prime Minister elect she endorsed a letter to an aviation industry executive, and she stated in own handwriting: “PS. Yes, there is a Minister of Civil Aviation”—they obviously asked for that—“and we will be honouring the commitment we gave re border control.” That referred to the cost, and that is all it refers to, and the letter is signed “HC”.

Earlier on in the imprest supply debate member after member stood up and said that when they make a promise they keep it. In a question from us about education and the policy statement, and how long it lasted for, I think it was Lynne Pillay who said—

💬 Hon David Carter: Who?

That little lady over there. She said that when they make a statement it is forever.

💬 Hon David Carter: There are not many little ladies over there!

Well, there are a few! This is a serious issue, and it should have been funded from taxation. If it had been funded correctly, then everybody in the House would have supported this, and it is a sad day that we cannot support it unanimously.

The Green Party has been supporting the border security legislation, and that legislation has now been divided into two bills. However, we do have some serious concerns about the implications for civil liberties, particularly in respect of some powers granted to the Customs Service and the Immigration Service.

The positive aspect of the border security legislation is contained in Part 1, which is now a separate bill called the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill. It will enable tighter monitoring of containers, and that could help improve biosecurity. The Greens are very keen about that, because already too many unwanted and dangerous bugs and plants are coming into New Zealand. There has been some debate about which extra costs should be borne by exporters and which costs should be borne by the State, because there is private and public benefit from having improved security monitoring of containers. We are glad there will be some transitional State subsidies to enable the new arrangement to carry us through to the review of what the cost sharing should be between exporters and the State.

I will spend most of this speech discussing the serious privacy problems associated with the Advance Passenger Processing system, which the bill introduces. A form of this system, as implemented by the United States, has already caused a conflict with European countries. Section 38E(3)(d) in new Part 3A, inserted by clause 8, will give the Customs Service extensive powers to require airlines to hand over personal information on passengers. The information required is open-ended, not limited to any particular list, although there is a list that includes, for example, such things as place of birth—something the airlines were a bit upset about—that could lead to the targeting of people, not just on grounds of their present nationality, which may be a New Zealander, but also the nationality of their parents.

Given that the whole idea of this system is to exchange personal passenger information, particularly with the US, we could see some New Zealanders, if born, say, in an Islamic country, having trouble at the US border, or not even being able to get on a plane from New Zealand to go to the US. The whole idea of this system is to stop people—that the Americans are suspicious of—from even getting on a plane, in the first place. One of the passenger details listed in new Part 3A is “special conditions regarding travel”. The Americans have sometimes interpreted that as including special diets, such as might count against passengers going to the US if they order a Muslim halal menu, given the paranoia in the US towards migrants or visitors of Islamic origin.

The Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) provides that airlines are required not just to give out details of people’s impending trips but to give details of other trips around that time, over a 28-day period, including trips without a New Zealand origin or destination, and all without a warrant being necessary.

The Customs Service will have the right to search airline records some time after travel takes place. The Immigration Service will be able to check who someone’s companions were during the travel. The Passenger Name Records system that the Minister referred to in his speech will enable the Customs Service and the Immigration Service to search frequent-flyer records, which detail journeys over a long period of time—years, in fact—and maybe even credit card details will be required later. This has been a major bone of contention between Europe and America. The US wanted the details and numbers of credit cards used to purchase tickets, and the Europeans could not receive any guarantees that that information would not be spread through different American agencies and misused.

The European Parliament has been quite upset about the passenger data exchange deal signed between the European Commission and the US Government. On 31 March this year the European Parliament passed a motion criticising the agreement, and the issue may soon go to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. There is a whole set of data privacy issues involved. How much personal information is collected and is it excessive? It seems excessive in this bill. What purpose is the information used for, which relates to what agencies and countries, such as the United States, it is passed on to and how they use it or misuse it? There is no control over this in the bill. If it is misused, how can we find out about this misuse and have some right of appeal and redress? That is not contained in the bill.

The next question is what right passengers have to see what is transmitted and to correct any errors. In the bill there are four sections of our Privacy Act that are explicitly overridden to prevent someone from finding out such information.

There are not adequate rights of appeal, if someone has been stopped from getting on a plane because of certain information about that person provided by airlines to the Government. The Law Society expressed concern about this in its submission to the Government Administration Committee. The matters relating to appeal rights, or lack of them, are contained in the last part of the border security legislation, now called the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3). We know from our Immigration Service that over the last little while 34 people have been stopped from getting on planes to New Zealand because of the Advance Passenger Processing system. If they were not New Zealand citizens or permanent residents, under this legislation they would not have had any right to find out why. They have only the right to challenge the decision of the Immigration Service if they can prove they were confused with someone else who had an identical or similar name, although I do not know how one will actually figure out that it was a name mix-up that was the cause of the problem if one is sitting at, say, Los Angeles airport.

Under the bill immigration officers do not have to give any reasons for their decision and one cannot find out through the Official Information Act, which is specifically excluded from operation by one clause in the bill. If people are prevented from travelling to the United States, for example, they will not necessarily get much joy from the Customs Service, which may have stopped them from getting on the plane because of information coming through from the United States. The key information could be withheld from them if it would “prejudice the entrusting of information to the Government of New Zealand on the basis of confidence by the Government of another country”—that is, the other country, say, the United States, can say that it is a confidential matter, and that in itself determines the result in the fact that one cannot have access to that information. But, on the other hand, ordinary people have to be very open and honest with Customs Service officers because under this bill they can be detained for 12 hours, and sometimes more, if the officer “is not satisfied that the person has correctly answered the question asked” by the officer.

The airlines are not too happy about this bill and they are in a difficult situation, with different countries bringing in different privacy guidelines. The guidelines at take-off might be different from the guidelines in the country the plane lands in. The new processes are making a lot of extra work for them and potentially getting them in trouble with some passengers—for example, they do not like the question whereby they have to provide the information on the country of birth of the passengers.

There were also problems that were brought out in the submissions made by the Law Society in relation to the increased detention powers of the Customs Service under this bill. Detention does involve the use of force and the Law Society wanted more accountability and reporting mechanisms for the use of such force than are contained in this bill.

As I said at the beginning, the Green Party was voting for the original Border Security Bill, but with its division into two bills we will be voting differently on each one. We will vote for the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill, to please Peter Brown, and I am sure that that will enable it to get through. That bill does have some useful security measures that will help with biosecurity—namely, to help overcome the greatest danger to our security from unwanted animals and plants that are brought into New Zealand and badly affect our ecosystem. We will be voting in favour of that bill with some serious regrets because of, as I have explained, provisions that are detrimental to our privacy and that can lead to injustice.

We will be voting, contrary to the vote of New Zealand First, against the smaller second bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3). This is because of all the information on people that is required from airlines, and the provisions specifically stopping people affected from finding out why they were excluded, under the Official Information Act, and having some right of appeal of that decision.

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in the third reading debate on this legislation. I pick up on what Peter Brown was saying about the Greens and their rejoicing in the increase in the price of petrol. I am absolutely amazed at that party, which wants to take us back 100 years. Despite the Greens, I am glad that we can still progress, but maybe we will soon get a time capsule that we will be able to put the Greens in and send them back 100 years so they can see what the country was like then, which they are trying to take us back to, and move on.

Coming back to the legislation, I point out that there is no doubt about the effect of the events of 11 September 2001. I clearly remember that morning. I was rung at about 6 or 6.30 in the morning by my young son, who said: “Turn on the television because America is blowing up.” We sat before those screens, and many members will have seen the replays. I do not think there is any doubt that we did not fully appreciate the horrific event happening on that day. It was a day when New Zealand went to war. We are probably only now beginning to really appreciate that we are part of that war on terrorism. It is a worldwide terrorism. Therefore, we agree that there is no doubt about the need for this border security legislation.

Whenever a country goes to war it is the responsibility of the Government of the day. I do not know of any countries at war that do not stand and pick up the cost of fighting that war. I do not believe that New Zealanders would object to the cost of our border security and paying for it. It was the amendment to the Customs and Excise Act in relation to contentious cost recovery, which was included at the select committee, that has forced United Future to vote against that aspect of the legislation. With regard to the amendment to the Immigration Act, it is really just a correction of a technical omission that is not controversial and, as such, United Future will be supporting it.

The need to increase trade security in New Zealand cannot be disputed. United Future acknowledges this and supports the practical proposals as contained in this bill. We have no arguments against those at all. But the Government, swimming against the tides both of industry outrage and common sense, has decreed that the private sector should bear a great part of these costs. That to us is really the major challenge with this bill.

New Zealanders pay taxes. I do not say that they pay them happily, but they do pay their taxes. There are many uses of taxes that New Zealanders object strongly to. Many New Zealanders have spoken to me very strongly about having to pay for legal aid to criminals—hundreds of thousands of dollars. But I do not know any New Zealander who would object to the Government picking up the full tab and the full responsibility for paying for the border security of our great nation. They understand that this is a type of war we have never had to fight before. They understand that it is the Government’s responsibility to protect the borders of the nation, and United Future agrees with that thinking. We do not agree that the Government should look around and, like in a Robin Hood situation, rob from the rich and give to the poor by picking up half the tab and then ask who it can get to pick up the rest.

Exporters labour long and hard and have to face many battles to export their products from our borders for the betterment of our nation. We do not agree they are the ones who should pay for the cost of border security. We believe the Government has an irrational and short-sighted claim that the protection of the New Zealand trading supply chain will benefit only exporters and importers. The protection of these chains of supply is vital to the maintenance of the national economy—there is absolutely no doubt about that. This relationship is particularly important in this country with our heavy reliance on the export economy. We are a nation that must export to progress. We should in every way possible be supporting the export sector, which is definitely a public good whose success or otherwise of it impacts on all New Zealanders.

I believe that the Government has missed a golden opportunity to say to the exporters of this nation: “We recognise that the security of New Zealand’s borders is our responsibility.” I believe that the Government could have won many brownie points telling exporters that it appreciates the hard work they do to build the economy of New Zealand; that it recognises, because of the situation since September 11, that it has a right and a responsibility to protect these borders; and that as a Government it will pick up responsibility for what is its responsibility and pay the costs for it. So United Future will not be supporting the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill but will be supporting the second bill that the original bill has been split into, which is the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3).

I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT party in these third readings of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3). This debate is actually about the proper role of Government: what sorts of things Governments should do and what they should not do. I think every member, certainly of the Opposition, would see that a core role of Government is its responsibility in national and international security—that New Zealanders have a right to feel safe in their homes and on their streets, and that they have a right to feel safe from any form of international threat. So when we have legislation such as these bills before us, common sense tells us that it is yet another strategy of a Government trying to keep New Zealanders safe.

As we have heard in this debate, people saw the events of September 11 and were very worried about them. They have seen the developments in international terrorism since then. Here in New Zealand we have seen the increase in illegal drugs coming across our borders. We have seen the problems we have with people-smuggling and so on, so we are aware of the fact that we need to have good border security. But what we do not expect is for this Government to try to pretend that border security is not its responsibility.

That is the outrageous thing about the way this Labour Government is governing New Zealand. It seems to think that national and international security is not its responsibility as a public good. Well, I have to say to the members sitting opposite that in fact it is their core responsibility, and that it should be paid for out of the taxes they take from hard-working New Zealanders. The reality is that right now we all know that Labour has taken way too much tax from those hard-working New Zealanders, because the Government is sitting on a surplus of some $6 billion—one of the largest surpluses that we have seen. Yet here is the Government, quibbling over whether or not it expects exporters, importers, and other people associated with trade and travel to pick up the cost of improved border security. I think it is an absolute outrage that we have to be worrying about that particular issue as we talk about this legislation.

Labour has managed to alienate so many parties in the Opposition that parties believing in good border security and the need to increase and ramp up the security we offer—parties like ours—have to vote against this bill, because it is such poor legislation and reflects such an ill-advised way that the Government is trying to run this country.

If we think about it, national security is all about our police, our defence forces, and our border security. I suppose that in the next minute we will have the Minister of Police putting in legislation so that if the police come to help or rescue us, we will get a bill. Is that what Labour is planning? What about the defence forces? Will we have to pay more taxes on top of our normal taxes for anything to do with what our defence forces do? We all know that that is absolutely ridiculous. I am not so sure with this Government, but we do give it the benefit of the doubt. We do not think it is plotting or planning anything like that at all, so why on earth is it trying to do that with this border security issue? Why on earth is it even thinking about trying to tax people more, to pay for border security that is in the best interest of every single New Zealander? It simply does not make sense.

The problems are clauses 7B and 8C, the cost recovery clauses in the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill. Because it is a cost recovery issue, I would like to ask the Government, and the Minister in particular, the total cost of all those border security measures. I understand that the Government Administration Committee asked that question, and the Minister could not answer. Here we have an even more stupid situation where a Government is passing laws when it does not even know how much the legislation will cost. One has to ask: how dumb is that? Normally if we are going to do something we know how much it will cost, so that we know if it is affordable and whether we put the Rolls Royce version in or something a little more modest. But here we have a Government charging on, and it does not care. No. 1: it is taxpayers’ money. OK, but No. 2 is that the Government is going to try to put another tax on a whole bunch of New Zealanders in order to pay that cost, which is apparently unlimited because the Government does not even know how much it is.

The measure has been labelled a “terrorist tax” by some of the sectors that will be involved. I understand that exporters are expected to pay some $4 million, importers some $4 million, and those involved in trans-shipping of goods will have to pay some $8 million. That is all very well, but we all know that it is not just those people who have to pay; it is every New Zealander. It is consumers who will have to pay, because some of those industries are so stretched right now by all the other regulations and taxes this Government has imposed on the small business sector, that they will have no other way of dealing with the cost except to pass it on.

I saw the Minister of Tourism come out on Monday with some half-baked press release, based on how he was accusing restaurants and other industries that had tried to open on Easter Sunday of putting a 15 percent surcharge on their prices. He said that that was outrageous. Well, how—gosh, words almost fail me—irresponsible is it for a Minister to say: “It’s their fault.”, when it was his Government that imposed those extra costs on small businesses in the first place? The whole point about Governments imposing costs on small businesses is that they will try to absorb certain of those costs, because obviously it is not good for their businesses if they have to put costs up. If they cannot afford extra charges, then they simply have to put up costs and pass those charges on.

So while the Minister of Customs, responsible for border security, may think it is simply exporters, importers, and trans-shippers who will pay the bulk of the extra charges, it is not. It will be the people shopping at The Warehouse. It will be the Labour Party’s own voters who will say: “Goodness me! These prices have gone up. We’re finding it even harder to struggle by on our limited incomes.” And they can blame this Labour Government, because it has imposed yet another tax on top of the 23 taxes it has already imposed since it has been in Government—stealth taxes that are being passed on to consumers. Petrol taxes, sherry taxes, and cigarette taxes—we can name them. Labour has put those taxes on to consumers since it has been in power.

What is even worse is the $16 million, which this Government claims is a lot of money it has to get from somewhere, because it cannot fund it out of its Budget surplus. Well, I can tell the Government where it can be funded from. All the Government has to do is take the $21 million the Government intends to spend on its propaganda campaign to try to sell its Budget. That campaign is all wrapped up with Labour Party logos and advertising, which I believe the Auditor-General will find is illegal. I believe that that issue is being brought back in front of him, and if he does not find illegal aspects, he should do. No Government in our history, as I understand it, has spent so much money. It is an absolute disgrace, and the Labour Government should be ashamed of itself.

I want to take a brief call in this debate simply to endorse the Border Security Bill. I was heartened to hear the ACT party confirm that the free market does not always provide answers to the questions we often have to confront as a nation, especially when we have more international ports of entry and departure in this country per head of population than any other country in the world. Imagine Sydney having as many ports of entry and departure as New Zealand has, in terms of its international airports and ports. It is absolutely outrageous for the ACT party to make a speech like that, but then not have the same view on health, education, and all those other fundamental things in this country that we hold dear to our hearts.

I want to talk about the Immigration Amendment Bill, because I noticed that that member did not even mention it. I fully support the Advance Passenger Screening system, and the Advance Passenger Processing programme that has been put in place in order to implement the system. Concern has been expressed in this House about the loss of privacy with those very large airline databases, and I want to make a comment about this.

I spoke at a privacy conference last year. Justice Michael Kirby from the High Court of Australia, whom many members of this House will be familiar with, was on the panel and he made a very good point. In our countries we have the right to walk down the street—any street—without having to produce an identity card to a police officer or a security officer. That is an important freedom that we in New Zealand share with Australia, and it is a freedom that is well worth holding on to. I do not know that anyone wants this country to become a police State.

This legislation justifies measures that exclude certain people from entering our countries, and I thought that Justice Michael Kirby put it very well when he said that we do have the right to look at who is coming into our country, and the right to make those decisions. As I have said on more than one occasion, we have a right to know who is here, where those people have come from, and why they are here. This bill should go a long way to ensuring that those who wish to enter our country under false identities, to seek residence in this country by back-door entry, will be stopped before they board the plane.

The contribution by Lianne Dalziel was interesting, in that she spoke of the Border Security Bill. Having been involved in the debate throughout the earlier stages of the legislative process, I can say that the legislation was, until very, very recently, the Border Security Bill. But we notice that at the eleventh hour, the Minister has split that bill into the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3). The Minister has not bothered to inform the House himself as to why that was done, but it was clearly because of the flakiness of the Greens.

Are they flaky?

They are very flaky, as I will prove shortly. First of all, I want to talk about the amendments to the Immigration Act, because my reading of them is that they are a very sensible initiative. I think that putting some onus back on the carriers to provide information to the immigration authorities, so that decisions can be made before people get on an aircraft at the point of embarkation or, certainly, during the trip and before they arrive in New Zealand, are eminently sensible suggestions. I do note that they were actually raised by customs officials back in late 1999 to Ministers of the then National Government, so it would be interesting for the Minister sitting over there on the Government side of the House, Rick Barker, to answer the question of why it has taken 4 long years to progress this legislation. I congratulate the Minister on those amendments to the Act.

But the interesting thing to note is that the Green Party will not vote for this legislation. The Minister’s knowledge that the Greens have decided not to give their support to the Border Security Bill in its entirety is probably the very reason why the Minister, at the eleventh hour, had to split the Border Security Bill into the two separate bills that will be passed tonight. That in itself is very, very surprising. I remember when the Border Security Bill was first put out by the Government. Amongst the many, many press releases that went out from various parties and various members of Parliament was one by the Green member Ian Ewen-Street. He was absolutely opposed to the Border Security Bill as being yet another unnecessary tax that would be placed on the importers and exporters of this nation. So there we have the original position taken by the Greens, which was that they would oppose the Border Security Bill because border security should be a public good, and not yet another tax on the wealth creators of New Zealand. More recently, Mr Keith Locke said tonight that the Greens will support the Customs and Excise Bill, which has arisen from the Border Security Bill. Mr Keith Locke nods his head, agreeing that that is his position. I accept that that is the position, but I take the opportunity of pointing out to the House that it was certainly not the original position of the flaky Greens.

In talking more specifically about the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill, I want also to agree with the comments made by the United Future member Paul Adams. It is almost 3 years since the dreadful events of September 11, and my memory of those events and the pictures and images I saw on television will never fade. I suspect that members of the public who also saw those images time and time again will never forget them, either. On that very day, whether or not the Greens are prepared to accept it, the world fundamentally changed with that event. Clearly, border security was going to be something that all responsible nations had to address and be prepared to greatly strengthen. I think that not to do so would be an irresponsible action on the part of any sovereignty. The sad thing we face is that, despite countries around the world—and including New Zealand—significantly upping the ante in border control, I suspect the world still faces further risks from international terrorist events. I think that when our children and our grandchildren travel around the world for their overseas experience from now on, that will be acknowledged as a realistic fact and risk associated with their travel.

The second aspect of this bill I want to comment on—and I am referring of course to what is now the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill—is that any country with which we want to trade has the right to set the rules by which it will accept goods at its borders. If the United States of America has upped the ante and now made it tougher for any person or any country anywhere in the world to export to that nation, then I accept the sovereignty of the United States of America. It has every right to do that, and I think it is naive at best for the Green Party to argue for anything else. Put simply, if we as an export nation want to export to countries—particularly to the United States of America—then we must abide by the rules a particular country sets. No amount of comment and criticism down here in New Zealand by the Green Party will cause any change to that country’s position, but it certainly will not do us any good, either.

The final issue I want to speak to is the issue of whether border security is a further tax or whether it should be a public good. That has been the major argument expounded time and time again by Opposition members, and particularly by those from the National Party, throughout this debate. This is the terrorist tax. It is taxation increase No. 23 from a Government that, on coming into power, promised only one taxation increase. The National Party is firmly of the view that border security is a public good. It is a core function of this Government to fund border security to the extent that it protects our citizens in the best way possible from any adverse importation, and certainly from any importation of a terrorist event. That good should be paid for by general taxation. But this Government, because it wants to crow—as Mr Rick Barker, the Minister, has throughout this debate—about the huge Budget surpluses it has been able to achieve, has levelled back on to importers, exporters, and trans-shippers a further taxation bill tonight of $16 million. Or it will be a further taxation bill, with the passing of this legislation.

Now, that figure is somewhat better than it might have been, because when we were debating this legislation in its earlier stages through the House, the figure at that stage was $19.753 million. Subsequently, the Labour Party started to decline dramatically in the polls. It knew it was in trouble over this issue—

💬 Shane Ardern: And many others.

—and many, many others, as my colleague and friend Shane Ardern mentions. So it took the step of reducing that $20 million liability to $16 million, expecting that to curry favour with the importers and exporters of this nation. Well, it has not done so. Importers and exporters have clearly demonstrated to me and to many members of Parliament that this issue is about the public good. It is about a core responsibility and duty of central government, and therefore there should be no attempt to pass on to the users of the service the costs that are now being imposed because of the passing of the border security legislation—the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill, as it is now known. It is a public good.

My closing remarks are to remind New Zealand that we are now hugely overtaxed, and that that taxation burden is being added to tonight with taxation increase No. 23, which is about to be levied by the Labour Government.

I rise to take a very brief call in the third readings of these two bills, the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3). Throughout the debate members have talked about the importance of border security, so we should get on and pass legislation to do something about it.

This is an important issue. It is yet another example of how this minority Labour Government is trying to get yet another tax passed through this House as late in the day as it possibly can. New Zealand First will not allow that to happen. The whole country should be made aware that most of the Opposition parties in this House are fighting as hard as they can to prevent this minority Labour Government—on this occasion supported by the Greens, or should I say yet again supported by the Greens—from imposing a tax on the people of New Zealand to do something that in the past Governments have always done in any event, and that is, ensure the safety of our borders from people coming in and the safety of the products we export.

This Labour Government is again breaching these well-established principles of the New Zealand way of life, all to eke out another $18 million or so from the workers of New Zealand. This tax bill will fall inevitably on the workers of New Zealand as the tax is passed on to the various people who have to bear the cost of it. The exporters will pass it on to the carriers and, ultimately, the carriers will pass it on to the housewife. All these costs will inevitably be met by the housewife as she shops in Foodtown, Countdown, or wherever, for the goods that are exported or imported. Another little tab will go on to them, but this minority Labour Government does not really care at all about those people.

There are two bills here. New Zealand First will support the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3), which has nothing to do with taxation. It tightens up aspects of immigration to New Zealand, and that is to be commended. I just had one thought about the bill when I looked at section 125AA in clause 29. I am sure that this matter has been covered, but there is a constant reference in section 125AB as well to a chief executive. I suppose the chief executive must be covered in the definitions in the principal Act, because there is no definition of chief executive in this bill—the chief executive of whom or what? Is it the chief executive of the plane itself, or the chief executive of the Immigration Service?

💬 Shane Ardern: Immigration.

Well, if the person coming on to the plane has to be dealt with and the chief executive is in Wellington, that will not help someone getting on a plane in Hong Kong very much. I guess that some sort of delegated authority will have to be taken into account. I just raise that issue, but it is excellent to see that the type of policy that New Zealand First—

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.