Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3)

As I said earlier on, the amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 241 is one that really draws a contrast between the legislation that we are discussing here today, which has pretty much widespread support in the Committee—we thought unanimous at one stage, but we have since discovered that that is not the case—and the excellent work done in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee reporting back on time, and this Supplementary Order Paper before us, which changes the date simply because this Government could not do the important business of the day. In other words, it is a Government that was too preoccupied with all sorts of social interference instead of getting on with the core business of government, which is customs and excise.

I tell the Minister that the Customs Service is the oldest Government department there is. He has probably not heard of it—although he probably has, because I am sure it will have detained him at the border on one or two occasions, so I am sure he has run across customs before today.

Here we are in the Chamber today, still locked into Tuesday, which is an interesting concept is it not? This is the third 2nd of September that I have debated in the Chamber this week, even though everybody else has caught up to Friday, debating a Supplementary Order Paper that would not have been necessary, of course, if the Government had actually got on with the business of the House at the time it should have, instead of wasting so much time on things such as trying to enforce on local bodies social interference like “you must”, “you must not”, “could”, “could not”, “will” or “if you wish” provide social housing. So it is, I guess, somewhat ironic that we are now debating a Supplementary Order Paper that omits the word “August” in clause 2 and substitutes the word “October”, and in clause 18A omits the word “August” and substitutes the word “October”. It is quite ironic; it does demonstrate that this Government is tired, and I think we should go to the polls and have an election to see what the folk of New Zealand think about that.

I tell Mr Ardern that I am into that; let us bring it on! I do not think the date can be very long away. I say to him that comment was probably not appropriate, given that we are speaking in sweet harmony on the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3), but it is nevertheless a sentiment I strongly share.

When we look at this bill we see it does a number of things that are of central importance to New Zealanders. We all understand that sometimes our geographic isolation is a fundamental problem and at other times it is a huge advantage to us. We do have certain advantages in our isolation. We rely on the front-line officers of our Customs Service to secure our borders, and they do a fantastic job. There is widespread recognition of that.

I talked earlier about one of the many policy objectives related to this bill. Behind this bill is health policy. The need to move comprehensively against smoking is absolutely understood, and there is huge, positive evidence that the higher the price is, the lower the consumption is. But as the evidence indicates, as soon as one moves in that direction there is a serious danger of creating an incentive for organised crime. As I indicated in speeches during earlier stages of the bill, cigarette smuggling is a massive problem internationally. I recall that in the United Kingdom it was estimated to be a larger source of criminal funding than narcotics, believe it or not, and there are massive issues of law and order enforcement in many countries around this issue. Of course, ultimately, the point about terrorism is not some academic point. We recall that the bombers of the World Trade Center had counterfeit cigarette excise stamps in their apartment when the federal authorities broke into them.

There are big issues here. We have cleaned up our act here. I think we had a pretty reasonable regime, but there were certain things that the Customs Service and our authorities wanted to move on, and they persuaded the Government and then the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to move on them. We have expedited procedures that allow the chief executive of the Customs Service, acting on behalf of a wide range of Government agencies, to take very swift action. But of course, since the powers that customs officers have are Draconian, involving the seizure of people and property, there have to be civil liberties checks in place. I think there is an excellent new regime for the forfeiture of goods. It is very simple, and operates at zero cost—just the cost of a stamp to send the request for a review to the chief executive. I think we have a very nice example—and I just wish that we could see more examples of this type—of the simplification of procedure being introduced into legislation. I think this country would be a better place for it.

There is wide-ranging support for this bill. It achieves a number of objectives, and I think it will facilitate the work of our front-line staff. It has very strong support in this Parliament.

Just reflecting on the vote that was recorded for Part 1, I wonder whether I could seek clarification that the vote cast for United Future was 2 votes in favour.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): The vote cast was 1 in favour, and therefore the member is seeking leave to amend it?

I seek leave to amend the United Future vote on Part 1, to 2 votes in favour.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Is that agreed? It has been agreed. It has also been confirmed that it was a mishearing. Let me just say that sometimes there is so much noise quite close to the Chair that we do not hear the votes if they are not called out. This vote was misheard and recorded as 1 vote in favour, but it has now been corrected and is recorded as 2 votes in favour. The vote on Part 1 is Ayes 113, Noes 6. Thank you very much for the clarification.

The question is that clause 1—

💬 John Hayes: Madam Chairperson—

💬 Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I had started to take the question. John, you are a bit slow but I will be very kind, and so will New Zealand.

I was polite, and held back because of the seeking of leave caused by the noise of some members on the floor, which did not enable the three people at the top table to hear the vote that was cast.

I rise again in support of this legislation, and I would just like to draw the Committee’s attention to a headline in this morning’s Dominion Post: “Kiwis get half the pay of Aussies in same jobs”. Madam Chairperson, you might ask: what is the relevance of this to the legislation before us today? It comes back to a point that I made when I spoke previously. This is common-sense legislation, and therefore National is supporting it. If we run this country in a common-sense way, with a light bureaucratic touch, we will create conditions that will enable us to keep Kiwis in New Zealand and will enable us to help increase people’s pay by cutting their taxes.

As we think about making this country a better-run place, we want to have pragmatism. We want pragmatic Government policies in this country because we want our communities to be well governed. The first part of this legislation helps us to adopt a more pragmatic regime in respect of the forfeiture and seizure regime contained in the Act.

The second area where we need to cut down bureaucratic overhead costs is underlined in this legislation by allowing the Customs Service management to be flexible about where it locates its staff. Clearly, it will keep most of its staff in the bigger centres where there are a lot of craft—both air and sea—coming and going, but it also enables the Government to operate good, friendly policies by sending staff, where it makes sense, to small locations, as I have said, like Houhora or Milford.

The third element of this legislation is that the Government has to be funded—there is no question about that. Taxes have to be charged. But as a Government we must make the smallest possible impact on our communities—often, as in my case in the Wairarapa, where people earn quite low incomes. When we take money from their pockets, we have an absolute obligation to make sure that that money is well spent. I am comfortable with this legislation because it will help us to do that. I hope we can do that across the whole gamut of legislation in this Parliament, not as we have seen in this last period under urgency with the emissions trading scheme, the affordable homes legislation, which will not make homes any more affordable, and the real estate agents’ legislation. Those are bills about theatre, not substance. In contrast, this bill is about substance, not theatre. I absolutely think that it is important that all parties in the Chamber embrace this legislation, because it is an example of good legislation. It will help us to run this country better. It will have a smaller impact on the pockets of individuals, and provide a far more flexible way of imposing bureaucracy on our communities. I absolutely support this legislation, and again commend the Customs Service officials who have helped to prepare it. Thank you.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 241 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to clause 2 be agreed to.