Customs and Excise Amendment Bill, Biosecurity Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Customs: I move, That the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be now read a third time. These bills were introduced to Parliament in September 2010 as the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, which was an omnibus bill. This bill had its first reading on 15 September 2010. The bill has been reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee, and the Committee of the whole House stage was completed on 6 March this year, at which point the bill was divided.

These bills amend the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and the Biosecurity Act 1993. The amendments in these bills are important improvements that are required to support the sharing of information across border sector agencies. These amendments will ensure the Customs Service and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry meet the Government’s priorities in relation to the delivery of the Joint Border Management System, and support effective collaboration at the border. The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill also provides for improvements in the effectiveness of customs law enforcement. These amendments will restore the level of effectiveness to the administrative penalty and petty offence schemes that was intended when the Customs and Excise Act was passed in 1996. Finally, the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill addresses emerging customs and border management issues, and provides clarity to existing legislative provisions to improve administration of the Customs and Excise Act.

In terms of the purpose of the amendment bills, they contain three categories. The first one is amendments to provide for planned information-sharing by the Customs Service with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and across a range of other agencies with interests at the border. There are amendments to enhance the effectiveness of the customs law enforcement mechanisms, and, finally, nine smaller amendments to clarify provisions within the Customs and Excise Act.

I wish to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee members, who provided a number of amendments, including the insertion of definitions of “biofuel” and “biofuel blend” into the bill, and clarification of when blending of biofuel for home consumption occurs. These amendments have been incorporated into the legislation.

The amendments in the bills enhance customs law enforcement, which is essential to ensure that the Government can prevent the importing of drugs and precursors and other illegal activity at the border, and contribute to the prosperity of New Zealand as a whole. I commend the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill to the House.

I rise with some concern and certainly with a lot of commitment to speak on this legislation. The legislation is basically the mechanism by which the Joint Border Management System can be implemented. On the face of it, it is a very sensible piece of work—that is, that the Customs Service, MAF Biosecurity, and the Immigration Service can share information on people or on goods coming into this country. That is a very worthwhile move, we would think. Given the computer technology and the sharing of information on everything else around the world, that is the first thing we should be able to do. That is great, except that what we have got is a National Government that has cut funding in core parts of border safety and security to pay for this computer system.

💬 Hon Member: Really?

Absolutely. So what they are going to do is have this wonderful Rolls-Royce information-sharing process, and people will be there plugging in the information. Meanwhile goods will be slipping past their very noses and coming into this country, with the potential to cause billions—yes, literally billions—of dollars of harm to our economy.

I have to go back to the 2009 Budget, when the National Government came into office. One of the many things it did in its first Budget was cut 54 front-line staff from biosecurity. It cut $2 million from the biosecurity budget, and then it proceeded to announce that there would be this wonderful new system. Well, to be fair, it had been talked about while Labour was in Government; it has been around as a concept for a while. The National Government proceeded down this path, assisted, of course, by the Minister of Tourism, the Rt Hon John Key. He was very keen to sit down with his Aussie mates and say “You can come to our country”—as quick as a flash—“and we’ll cut 8 minutes off the processing time from when you get off the plane until when you get out with your bags—8 minutes. That’s why you should come to New Zealand.”

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I am sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. You are in New Zealand; it is not why you should come. I apologise for that. For the saving of 8 minutes, we introduced SmartGate.

💬 Simon Bridges: A lot can be done in 8 minutes, Damien.

It can be—probably two or three times for the member over there.

💬 Simon Bridges: Shame on you!

Can I say to the young member over there, I am sure it would be two or three times. That 8 minutes is a very expensive 8 minutes.

The new Joint Border Management System, where the sharing of information, along with SmartGate, will allow the Australians to waltz into New Zealand without any checks or balances, is a very high-risk situation. We have many, many visitors from around the world coming through Australia, coming across the Tasman, and coming through the system. Many, to be fair, will not be able to use SmartGate, but this system and the change that we are addressing here is to allow the implementation of swift, efficient border processing of both people and goods. I say that that is really dumb. This is one country that, more than anywhere else in the world, relies on biosecurity. We have biological systems in this country that produce the vast majority of our export wealth, and will do for some time in spite of our attempts to move into other areas of exporting.

Biosecurity is a thin line, and it is even thinner now that the National Government has been in power for 3 and a bit years. It has cut funding, and what funding has been there between biosecurity, the Customs Service, and immigration has been put into this new Joint Border Management System. I have a letter, forwarded to the Minister for Biosecurity, from an ex-employee. He has moved on to another job because he lost faith in what he was trying to do. This is not a fly-by-nighter; this is someone who worked for MAF Biosecurity New Zealand for years, and sent a letter in despair to the then Minister for Biosecurity, the Hon David Carter. He said in his letter that there has been one dog in use in Auckland for quite some time, shared between the airport and the ports, to sniff out possible biosecurity breaches or Customs Service breaches, because they have not trained enough dogs.

Well, I have asked questions of the Minister, and he has not been able to give me answers on that. How many dogs are actually available? Do they provide 24/7 cover? Planes come into this country on a 24/7 basis, and so do ships. Are we checking the border as we should, as a country entirely dependent on the biosecurity systems that we have around this country? It is a sham. The effort has gone into, firstly, the SmartGate system, which is distracting front-line biosecurity people from their work. They are trying to help the Customs Service and the immigration people to make sure that SmartGate works, because they want to please the Prime Minister. Well, that is all well and good, but they should not forget their front-line objectives.

The Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, as it was when introduced and referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee—it was divided into the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill, the ones we are debating here tonight—had as an objective from the National Government that it was keen that retailers at Auckland International Airport could get access to border information, so they could customise their business decisions based on the nationality of passengers on specific flights. Well, did that mean that if there were a number of Japanese on the flight, they would get out their sheepskins? Or did it mean, if there were a whole lot of people from the US, that they would open up McDonald’s? And if they were from the UK, did it mean they would open up Kitty O’Shea’s and they could all have a Guinness or a warm beer? The point is that this was the kind of dumb objective from the National Government to assist their mates at the key airports to make more money from visitors who were flying in and out.

That kind of shallow objective identifies the risks that we are dealing with here. If a Government can put those objectives into a bill, then what about biosecurity? What about the compromises that have been made in both resources and front-line efforts to ensure that we keep out fruit fly or foot-and-mouth, or the whole range of organisms, unwanted pests, and diseases that can be brought into this country by people who fly around the world in 24 hours? They could, within 36 hours, have been on any farm or in any park anywhere in the world, and they could turn up on our border here, and be assisted through, to keep the Prime Minister—the Minister of Tourism—happy that no one has been offended at the front line. That is shallow. It is dangerous, and it is not something that we should tolerate. I am sure that the select committee has given fair consideration to the bill, but I am concerned that what we have here is a shallow objective around computerisation and resource efficiency—which in themselves are not bad objectives—at the expense of front-line biosecurity in this country.

The Minister cannot answer, and has not answered, the claims made in the letter to me from a front-line biosecurity officer, and which have been identified in the papers today. There has been no clear explanation, and I will certainly call for a thorough investigation and inquiry into whether those allegations are true, because if they are, we are at serious risk and this economy is at serious risk. The bill we are passing now will only exacerbate the risks that we are facing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, because the resources that we need are not in the biosecurity systems. The Labour Party has concerns about what is happening here. I challenge the Minister to get up and address all the claims made in the letter—claims that are now in the public arena—and reassure us, if he can, that we are not dumbing down front-line biosecurity systems just to appease the people who want to come into this country for a holiday, or the people who want to import goods from anywhere in the world. We have open borders. We have said that you are welcome to sell anything into our country, but we cannot afford to do that at the expense of some major incursion. Biosecurity is paramount, and this Government has compromised that biosecurity protection.

It is a great pleasure to rise and make a brief contribution to the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. This Government has over the last couple of years made no secret—no secret at all—of the fact that we are rebalancing our economy away from the debt-fuelled consumption of the previous 9 years, when the other Government was in power, to an export-led growth.

We have had some very, very good news. We have had some very good news. Exports are up by almost 10 percent—almost 10 percent. Exports to Australia, our No. 1 market, are now $11 billion a year and exports to China, our No. 2 market, are up by 22 percent—22 percent. Our total exports from New Zealand are $47.3 billion. It is an extremely important linchpin, foundation stone, for our health and prosperity. It is underpinned by our rural economy. This Government does not take biosecurity lightly. The rural economy has had an excellent year—an excellent year. Milk production is up by 7 percent, and that is twice the average growth of the last 10 years. The meat and fibre sector has had a record financial year. Our national well-being is underpinned by our rural economy, and it is vitally important that we have a high level of security at our borders. We earn our keep not just from goods—or, as it is often called, merchandise trade—but also from services. Total services in exports to June 2011 were $13.5 billion. This is dominated by tourism, travel, and education.

The thrust of these bills, as we have heard, is to encourage and enhance effective collaboration at our borders—effective information-sharing. The Government has put its money where its mouth is. It has made a $75 million investment in new systems to make that information sharing more effective and more able to underpin the security of our borders. The new Joint Border Management System will bring the Customs Service and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry biosecurity processes together under the same system so people do not fall through the cracks. So, as the previous speaker alluded to, we can trace somebody and alert the relevant authorities if a person has declared that they have been a visitor to a farm in an area of concern, or indeed any farm at all, which we can then take appropriate steps to address.

In summary, the Joint Border Management System will enable importers, exporters, and other supply-chain parts of it to electronically submit clearance documents, declarations, and supporting documents to the border agencies through one channel using standardised information. What is the advantage to the Government here? It will safeguard border services, enhance the management of border risks, and enable this information sharing. What is the advantage to industry, I hear you ask. Industry will benefit under the Joint Border Management System, particularly through the Trade Single Window. It will enable industry to enable access and electronically submit all the border clearance documents once, and once only. It will provide more certainty about the clearance status of those documents and result in the faster, more transparent, and efficient movement of goods through the supply chain. I commend this legislation to the House.

I rise to take a call in respect of the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the related customs legislation, the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. We have another occasion when the Government, which is already overseeing a current account deficit, seems to be focusing its effort on making it easier for importers to import more goods at low cost, when we already have a current account deficit, which is because the cost of our imports and interest bill exceeds the value of our exports. So although this legislation is not bad legislation, it really does not cure the underlying problem of the New Zealand economy, which is that we get poorer every year because the difference between the exports that we sell as a nation and the cost of our imports and interest bill is met every year by the sale of New Zealand assets and the borrowing of more money from overseas sources. They are the only two ways that you can meet a current account deficit. You either sell some of the assets that you owned at the start of the year to an overseas owner or you borrow money from overseas lenders.

The shame of this particular legislation is that the Government, once again, seems to be unduly focused on the import side of the economy rather than the export side of the economy. Instead, it is concentrating on changing things that would make a difference to our exporters. We heard the last speaker talk of the increase in trade with China, and it is true that there has been an increase in trade with China since the date of the free-trade agreement that was negotiated under the last Labour Government, but it also remains true that we have a trade imbalance with China in that the cost of our imports from China exceed the value of our exports to China. So I would not cry too loudly about that if I was on the National Party side of the benches.

Of course, another difference between us and the National Party on the other side is that we think that in light of some of the substantial trade imbalances in the world we should be moving to protect the sale of some of New Zealand’s most important assets like our land; stopping the land being purchased by overseas interests, including—

💬 Maggie Barry: The ones you didn’t sell off in the 1980s?

Sorry? The ones we did not sell off in the 1980s? I would have thought that Maggie Barry of all people would understand that in a democracy one of the ways that we progress is by learning from our mistakes and changing, otherwise we would be all stuck in time and there would be no point in having a democracy. All of the decisions would have been taken in the 1980s, and there would be no new decisions to be taken today. But we in the Labour Party have a different view. We learn from our mistakes and we learn from the mistakes that—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

We hear from Maurice Williamson whenever he turns up and talks about customs legislation it is more good news for the Government. It is a mantra that he has repeated so often that we have fun on the other side of the House thinking about what more good news for the Government could come from initiatives around customs information-sharing.

I suppose the question I would pose for the Government in respect of this information sharing is whether these improvements to the system would have picked up on the dual passport of David Garrett of ACT, the former member of the coalition partner. It would be interesting to hear from a later call from the National Party whether the information sharing would have been sufficient to pick up the fact that David Garrett had not one passport but two. For those who want a bit of information around that, you might recall that David Garrett, who was a supporter of the National Party, came to this House and railed against short sentences. He said that everyone should have longer sentences and no one should have a discharge without conviction, and he also railed against name suppression, all the while having sought name suppression and a discharge without conviction for his having been caught with two passports. The second passport was from a dead baby’s identity, the idea for which he got from some bizarre story—The Day of the Jackal I think was his excuse at the time. Well, he had two passports, and I would be interested to know whether the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill would have meant that SmartGate, or whatever this improved system in customs is, would have picked up David Garrett earlier than he was picked up when he used one of his multiple passports.

Can I also reinforce the comments made by the Hon Damien O’Connor. He raised a letter that has been received by us and forwarded to the Government that suggests that systems improvements are all very well and good—no one objects to improvements in efficiency in the Government service—but when it comes at the cost of biosecurity front-line services, as this person was suggesting, then there is a concern for us on this side of the House that there is an overall backward movement in the quality of our border security arrangements, particularly when it comes to biosecurity.

Labour does support these changes in process because there are some sensible changes in here, but we do make the point that this is not the big game in town. The big game in town is increasing—

💬 Simon Bridges: Oh, this is the big game.

Yes, the big game in town is to increase our exports. We have for decades now imported more than we have exported, and every year we do that. The cost of the difference between our exports and our imports and interest bill is met by selling our assets overseas—

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

—and borrowing more money from overseas. The National Party does not like to talk about this, because it has been trying to convince New Zealand that the issue for New Zealand is the Government deficit. The Government deficit that the current Government has run up, including through some unaffordable tax cuts, is quite dire and does need to be overcome, and it will be overcome by 2014-15, but the export imbalance will remain because the underlying imbalance in the economy has not been properly addressed by the Government. And this bill does not do it. This bill makes some technical changes to the way in which customs and excise joint border management information-sharing and other matters are dealt with, and that no doubt benefits importers more than it benefits exporters, and the imbalances in the economy remain.

The Green Party is supporting these two bills, these joint bills, the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill.

💬 Simon Bridges: That’s the first time this term.

It happens. But there are a number of things that we are very, very concerned about, and we will be looking to make sure that the bills are implemented in a sensitive and sensible way. The bills, a little bit like the security and surveillance legislation that went through last week, actually impact on personal freedoms in a potentially significant way, depending on how the regulation is managed by the Minister of Customs and the customs and biosecurity services. It may be a fast and efficient system that moves people through airports, and moves trade, more quickly—and we all appreciate it when it affects us individually. We hope the improved profiling system can make that happen. However, moving people through very quickly does not necessarily remove risk.

I can recall coming back from my only trip to Tonga and, while on the plane, finding ants in a book we were reading. My partner and I thought we had better do the right thing and declare that to the customs people. That turned out to be everything except fast and efficient. Not only that; because we had actually declared what we saw as a potential risk to New Zealand horticulture—and I am a horticulturist—the Customs Service decided that it needed to charge us for the time and effort spent in dealing with it. Because of the nature of these bills, with regulation after regulation after regulation, they take everything away from people actually joining in and making a decent decision. I am just wondering where these bills will actually take situations like that. I think there is still a significant risk of people thinking that, OK, they can be fast-tracked as long as they do not declare anything, as long as they just zip on through. This risk profiling is going to let in, as another member of the House just mentioned, fruit fly or some other one.

While we are impinging on these freedoms, we have got the accessing agency being any class of agency. The customs bill allows huge freedom for various organisations being the ones privy to the information. The information is without limitation—information about goods and persons. So a wide range of information can go to whomever. I note that in previous speeches there was mention of Auckland Airport’s getting commercial information for customer profiling and that sort of thing. If that sort of thing carries on, as this bill allows for, although the Greens support it at the moment, we will be looking at that again when it comes back before the House. We hope it is not just some sort of revenue-making exercise on the part of the Government.

In terms of biosecurity—and I have mentioned the ants and I have mentioned fruit fly—we even have issues now where the Government has decided this week it is not going to worry about the Schmallenberg virus. There are no plans to test imported animal semen and embryos for it. It can create fever, reduce milk production, and produce birth abnormalities and abortions in our primary production, but the Government says, no, it is not a problem, because a certain sort of midge is needed to be the vector for it.

As for speeding things up, although we might get some better information in terms of risk profiling and the like, if we are not really going to apply biosecurity services in an absolutely thorough way, these bills are going to be just a veneer for a sped-up tourism industry and, obviously, for importers. I am very concerned, as is the Green Party, that although we can see the benefits of better risk profiling, we might actually end up letting some new biosecurity risks into this country. So support the legislation we will, but with a lot of trepidation about how it will be managed by the Minister and the services. Thank you.

I wonder whether members of the public who may have been listening over the last 20 minutes to some of the Opposition speakers have been left wondering what on earth it is that we are actually debating tonight. Thank goodness for the typically erudite and learned contribution of my good friend Dr Calder a short time ago, which brought some focus and clarity back to the discussion, because those who listened to Mr Parker would have heard him roaming far and wide. We had a little discourse on The Day of the Jackal, and I think he spent a little bit of time back in Epsom. He certainly left me thinking that I am not sure where he stands, but right at the end he confirmed that Labour is supporting this legislation.

Prior to that, we listened to Damien O’Connor, who began reasonably well. He was right to emphasise the importance of biosecurity—no question about that; that is a major focus of this legislation—but he was absolutely wrong to attack the Government’s record in this area, or our commitment to improving our biosecurity arrangements, because we stand on our record and it is a very good one. Mr O’Connor lost his way during his preoccupation with his rather infamous 8 minutes of mystery and intrigue. I have to say that he completely lost sight of the purpose of the bills, he certainly lost his audience, and I think he even lost the thrill of his 8 minutes. Those who were listening when he started speaking, I very much doubt were still listening at the end. The mystical 8 minutes was not as magical as he had led us all to expect it was going to be.

But for those with real stamina and perseverance, I would like to remind them that the purpose of these two bills, the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill, which are being read together, is to make improvements that are required to support the sharing of information across border sector agencies, and that has got to be a really positive step. I am pleased, after cutting through all the fluff that we have had to listen to in the last 20 minutes, that most parties in this House seem to accept that point.

The Joint Border Management System that the Government agreed to fund is dependent on effective sharing of information. In fact, it is quite a theme at the moment in Government across a whole range of different aspects of legislation. It reflects the far more technologically advanced age that we live in, I guess. We are looking to ensure the effective sharing of information among agencies operating at the border. These bills provide for important information-sharing between the Customs Service and what is currently the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and will be the primary industries area, and in particular will ensure that the Government’s $75.9 million investment in new systems can deliver a real change in border management, because obviously we are looking for a good return on that investment—and we did not hear anything from Mr O’Connor on any of that.

I want to congratulate those who have worked on these bills. It is appropriate that we do that as we move towards the final stages of their passage through the House. There has been very good work done by the previous Justice and Electoral Committee and by the officials, and I congratulate them. I know that my very good friend Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi was fully involved in that, and I commend him for his real commitment to that exercise.

I just want to reiterate the purpose of the bills and why they are broadly supported. These bills will ensure that the Government’s investment can deliver a real change in border management. The Joint Border Management System that we have introduced will safeguard our border services, it will enhance the management of border risks, and it will enable the Customs Service and those working in what will be the primary industries area, which is currently the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, to give trading partners fast and accurate assurance about the safety of goods leaving New Zealand. As an export-dependent country, we cannot overstate just how important that is. Our partners depend on that assurance from us, we depend on our ability to give it to them, and therefore we need the most accurate information and the most rigorous, robust systems to ensure that we can put our hands on our hearts and give those assurances. That is why this Government in recent Budgets has provided significant extra sums to the Customs Service.

I just want to finish by focusing in particular on the illicit drugs trade. Through enhanced tracking and surveillance we have seen some real successes in a really insidious aspect of modern culture, I guess. It is something that we have to be constantly wary of. We hear some horrific reports quite regularly about attempts to move drugs through the country. We need to ensure that we can fight that. I will close by pointing out that the amount of precursors to P, that awful methamphetamine, that the Customs Service intercepted last year was enough to manufacture at least 169 kilograms of methamphetamine. That saved us over $68 million of potential harm to the community, and that cannot be measured in just an economic cost; it has to be measured in a human cost. I say well done to everybody who did that, who has achieved it, and I commend these bills to the House.

New Zealand First supports all parts of these bills, the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. We believe, as does the Government and other parties on behalf of which recent parties have spoken, in the efficient sharing of information at the border and in the effective use of modern technologies that these bills promote. The devil, of course, as is so often the case, is in the detail, and New Zealand First still has some concerns and reservations, especially in relation to the privacy of personal information. One reservation relates to section 282 of the Customs and Excise Act, which empowers, as we know, the sharing of border information between accessing agencies and holder agencies. The definition of those, as set out in the regulations, relates to regulations to be brought down under the Act. The new section 286A in clause 25 of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill allows regulations to specify “any agency or any class of agencies as an accessing agency:”. That is very wide—very wide indeed. In fact, it could not possibly really be any wider. We wonder eventually just how wide that will be in practice, just what sorts of agencies will be included, and we think that it will give scope for the commercial use of private information, which may not necessarily be what is intended under this bill. We do, of course, accept that the Privacy Commissioner will be involved, and that there are other safeguards such as the chief executive officer of accessing agencies being required to assess and report on impacts on the privacy of individuals. Very good stuff, but will it be effective enough?

Nevertheless, New Zealand First does support the new provisions, as they do allow appropriate agencies, we hope, to share the border information better and more efficiently, and effectively allow those agencies to carry out their duties, and it is sensible to share information at the border and make good use of new technologies. It is a shame that there are not really sufficiently clear limitations on the types of agencies that can access that information, and we think there is insufficient control on what the information may ultimately be used for. It ultimately relies on ministerial discretion as to which agencies will get the information. So a particular concern is that the information may reach the wrong hands and be misused. It may be passed on to others, perhaps unofficially, who should not have that information, and it may not be shared for genuine border security or related reasons.

We note that the Board of Airline Representatives suggested that the agencies should be required to have a border security function, and of course the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill, as it is, is much, much wider than that. But of particular concern to me is that the agency may access and use personal information for private commercial reasons, and there really needed to be more limitation and attention paid to the legislation in that. This is not such that New Zealand First believes we need to oppose the bill, but it is something we would have liked to see improved. I note in particular that new section 286A, relating to matters to be considered by the Minister, could have had something in it such as, for example, whether the personal information accessed might be commercially sensitive or might confer a commercial advantage on the accessing agency. We think it is a shame, really, that provisions of that kind were not included.

Another concern in new section 286A is that it refers to regulations that may prescribe the conditions under which an accessing agency may access border information held by a holding agency, but this does not provide a means for a holding agency to place controls on the way information provided to commercial interests could be used. It does not provide a means for the holder agencies to place controls on the use for commercial purposes; it allows regulations only to prescribe conditions under which accessing agencies can gain access. Again, there could have been a little bit of a narrowing down of the bill’s provisions in those ways, and the lack of specific controls on the use of the information for commercial purposes is the real core of the concern that New Zealand First has in relation to this legislation.

But other than that, we think they are both good bills, and that they will promote efficiency and effectiveness in the way that information is used and shared at the border in New Zealand, and, as I said before, will promote the use of modern technology in an effective way.

I would just like to finalise by saying something about biofuels. New Zealand First supports the provisions of the bills in relation to that. We note with pleasure that the home production of biofuels is exempt, and biofuel blends as well, from licensing requirements if for personal use and not for sale. We also note with satisfaction that there is a similar exemption for home-produced biofuels from excise duty, which is appropriate and consistent with exemptions in other legislation for home-produced tobacco and alcohol.

I have considered the amendments to section 2, however, in the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill, relating to the definition of “biofuel”, and congratulate the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee on those definitions, but I still do not think they are satisfactory. The definition of “biofuel” refers to biomass, and of course there is no definition of biomass, raising the risk that fossil fuels could still be included in the definition, thus defeating various provisions in the Act. However, I do not think it is fatal and I note, for example, that Wikipedia says of the term—

💬 Simon Bridges: That’s where I got my speech from.

—“Biofuel is a type of fuel whose energy is derived from biological carbon fixation. … Although fossil fuels have their origin in ancient carbon fixation,”—and I wish the member opposite would listen, because he might actually learn something if he does—“they are not considered biofuels by the generally accepted definition because they contain carbon that has been ‘out’ of the carbon cycle for a very long time.” So if you accept the definition in Wikipedia, the definition of “biofuel” will be sufficient in the Act, but it would have been preferable for a better definition to be included. Notwithstanding all of those reservations, however, New Zealand First is happy to support both of these bills.

I want to congratulate the member Denis O’Rourke on having the honesty that I have never heard in this House before to make clear that he has done what I suspect others have done, and that is to get their speech notes from Wikipedia. So well done to the member.

But I also want, in relation to his speech, to have a mea culpa of sorts, because it was about this time last week, after Denis O’Rourke had spoken—I think on the Search and Surveillance Bill—that I was critical that New Zealand First might be taking the same line that the Greens often do of being holier-than-thou and opposing bills simply for the sake of it. But the member for New Zealand First and, actually, the member for the Greens, come to think of it, have both proved me wrong by supporting the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill, albeit with their reservations.

I think Tim Macindoe said it well when he said that there has been a lot of bunkum spoken in the speeches made in the first, the second, and the third readings of this legislation—a lot of twaddle, to put it frankly—and probably I have been guilty of some of that in the first and second readings as well.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: No!

Well, probably not, but you never know. But the reason for that, I think, is this: this is bland legislation. It is not going to be one of the more exciting pieces of legislation that this House ever debates, and it is actually not very controversial or in any way controversial. But that does not mean that it is not important.

Actually, to the extent that David Parker in his earlier intervention was saying that this is a bit of a poor cousin of a piece of legislation and that we are really fiddling while Rome burns—we should be dealing with economic questions, and so on, and so forth—I disagree with him, because our border security is really fundamental to nearly everything we do economically in this country. Earlier today I had a very graphic illustration of that. I think Labour members and New Zealand First members also met with members of the kiwifruit industry, and if ever there was an example of an industry that relies on the Government to take biosecurity at our borders exceptionally seriously, that is one. It will get through the Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae bacteria that has blighted particularly the golden kiwifruit crops, but it will not be easy. I come back to the fundamental importance of security at our borders for our No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 industries in this country and also, as Tim Macindoe said, in relation to other very significant issues like drug control, ensuring that those precursor substances, pseudoephedrine and the like, do not get through our borders.

To repeat my point, this may be bland legislation, it may be legislation that is not going to have people rushing back to the readings to see what was said about it, but nevertheless it is important on a very significant subject. Really, the key phrase here is “information sharing”. What we have done through this legislation is allow the various agencies to link up with each other so that there is not a silo mentality. Again, as Tim Macindoe said, that is really a cross-Government theme at the moment. That does not mean, though, that it is not important. It is fundamentally important when we talk about border control.

In this, the final reading, I say that I wholeheartedly support this legislation on a very important subject, and I commend it to the House.

I find myself agreeing with the previous speaker, Simon Bridges. That is a rare moment in the House and I will savour it for as long as it lasts; I completely agree with him. The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill are a technical pair of bills. He used the word “bland”. He may impugn the legislation, I think, with that word, but he is absolutely right. These are a technical couple of bills, but nevertheless, because they deal with issues of customs and of biosecurity, they are absolutely fundamental to New Zealand’s security and to New Zealand’s economy.

We are a small country with big borders and we rely heavily on our primary industries, and for those reasons biosecurity needs to be paramount in our thoughts. We need to make sure our biosecurity systems and our biosecurity personnel are resourced to the maximum that they can be, so that they can carry out the work that is required to keep our borders safe and to keep our economy moving. Although it is absolutely true that what these bills really deal with is goods and people coming into the country, biosecurity and that ability to secure our good name internationally are very important for our exports. Of course, trade is absolutely fundamental to our place in the world and what we do. So these are technical bills and reasonably bland, as Mr Bridges said, but they are extremely important.

Again drawing on what Mr Bridges said, what is central to these bills is that they are about information sharing and improving processes. It is important, I think, and some of my colleagues have mentioned this, that we do not put such an over-reliance on process and on technology that we ignore the role of people like biosecurity officers. It was their role that was ignored by the Government in the last term, and I think what Damien O’Connor was alluding to is that you need a system and people—a total system—that is robust and reliable and you cannot reduce the focus on personnel and shift all the responsibility on to technology in some misguided attempt to save costs at our borders. As much as we support this legislation, we recognise that you need total systems to be able to ensure that our borders are safe and robust.

I think there have been some aspects of these bills, particularly the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill, that have been overlooked in this third reading. I am quite happy to admit that I was not on the Justice and Electoral Committee and I am reasonably new—

💬 Simon Bridges: Missed out.

I did miss out. I am sure it was a very pleasurable experience. I found a couple of things in the legislation that I thought were particularly interesting. The issue of biofuels has been mentioned by some other members. Duty will not be applied to biofuels that are manufactured for personal use, which is an interesting phrase, given that we are talking about customs and some of the other substances that we are trying to keep out of the country, maybe, that people want to have for personal use. But it is good to see that a sensible amendment was made by the select committee there.

I am interested to see that customs officers are now able to use reasonable force to remove people from a customs area, and that it is now going to be an offence to harm a customs dog. I am surprised that those two provisions had to be introduced. The poor beagles have apparently been able to be harmed in some way by some upset traveller as they are arriving at Auckland Airport in the wee small hours of the morning, and the dogs now have some method of defence available to them, which is good news; I am surprised to hear that it is being introduced in this legislation.

What has been completely overlooked is the increase in fines that can be applied to travellers coming into the country—petty offence provisions. It will now be easier for the Customs Service, apparently, to extract a fine from people who commit minor offences, but those fines are being dramatically increased. Minimum fines increase from $50 to $200 and maximum fines increase from $10,000 to $50,000. So whilst we are smoothing the passage through the customs area at the airport, we are dramatically increasing those fines.

This is one bit I am really interested in, and this shows my sort of lack of experience of the passage of the bill through the House. The Customs Service will no longer be required to give any infringer the opportunity to say why they should be exempt from a penalty, which seems to me to be contrary to the laws of natural justice. I am sure this was addressed at the select committee, and if any member who was on the select committee can address that issue and say why that is not contrary to the laws of natural justice, I would be interested to hear what they have to say. Counter to that, interestingly, the infringer will now have to pay the fine up front, and if their case is either reviewed or appealed, the fine will be refunded. The bill introduces a system of bargaining where the infringer can admit an offence in writing and pay a fine of about a third of what a court might order. So it facilitates someone who is accused of a customs offence to admit their offence, but it actually takes away their ability to offer some defence up front for their infringing, which is an interesting development in the bill. As someone who is new to it, I found that particularly strange.

There are some costs associated with this bill, as well. Although everybody has been talking about how this will improve processes, how this is going to be good for travellers, and how this is going to make our borders safer and more robust, there are some costs associated with it. Industry sources have estimated that the cost of new information-sharing systems could be around $200 million. The Government has conceded that it expects to recover at least some of those development costs from the expanded import transaction fees. So people who are bringing goods into the country are going to face higher costs as a result of this legislation. As David Parker said, we should be focusing on trying to drive our exports, not our imports, so perhaps increased fees for people importing goods is not such a bad thing. But a country that is reliant on trade wants to be careful not to apply too many, I suppose, hidden tariffs to people who are trying to import goods into the country, lest we be faced with a similar approach to additional costs and tariffs from the countries that we are trying to send our goods into.

As I said, these bills are an important part of ensuring that we have strong borders. Biosecurity is such an important part of ensuring that the New Zealand economy is resilient. The examples of Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae, the varroa mite, and the concerns that the pork industry has over the possible introduction of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in the future with the loosening of pork importation rules are all part of this total system, of which these bills are a small part. We need to be constantly vigilant and aware of what is going on across the whole system. The relaxing of rules that allow less stringent treatment of pork before it comes into the country, the laying off of biosecurity officers—those things actually undermine what these bills are trying to do. So let us be honest: it is not all roses. These bills are good, but there are other things going on as well that we need to be vigilant about. On these bills, we do support them.

I stand in support of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill in their third reading. I really do want to commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for the commendable work it has done to get this legislation to this stage. This is especially shown by the fact that there is widespread support right across the whole of Government here and inside the House tonight. It is great to hear that support. These bills make improvements that are required to support the sharing of information, and key to that is that border management is dependent on the effective sharing of information amongst agencies.

One issue in which I am particularly interested is that National has focused on preventing the importing of drugs and precursors and other illegal activity at the border. P is destroying families and communities in all areas of New Zealand, and the people who import it must be stopped. Budget 2010 shows that $5.9 million was invested into the Customs Service over the next 2 years to fight the illicit drugs trade through enhanced tracking and surveillance. Tools of this kind are vital to clamp down on criminal gangs and the methamphetamine trade. The Customs Service is already doing a great job, but this continues to help give the Customs Service the conditions it needs to keep busting drug importers. The amount of precursors to P that customs officers intercepted in 2011 was enough to manufacture at least 169 kilograms of methamphetamine, saving an estimated $68.3 million of potential harm to our communities.

There is enough that has been said tonight about the legislation. It is in its third reading. We do support the legislation. The great thing about this is that the Government has made a $75.9 million investment in new systems that can deliver a real change in border management. The member across the House talked about the importance of not being too reliant upon information technology systems, but the issue around information technology failure is often to do with human behaviour rather than the information technology itself. I think a combination of a good information technology system with good training makes a real difference to these bills and also to the industry, as well. So I stand in support of these bills tonight. Thank you.

I stand to support the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill. Labour supports this bill. The bill stands in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson, although it is rapidly becoming known as the “Bland Bridges Bill”, it seems, perhaps unfairly because this is a worthy bill—a very worthy bill. That is why we support it. We support the principle of ensuring that we have a strong Customs Service and that our biosecurity is strong in New Zealand to protect our industries here and to ensure that things function as they ought.

The sharing of information about goods and people as they arrive in and depart from New Zealand is important to this, and it is pleasing to see that the Justice and Electoral Committee substantially redrafted the Government’s regulation-making framework, requiring the Minister to consult widely on information sharing including with the Privacy Commissioner, affected agencies, and the public. The bill, it should be noted as well, provides the Privacy Commissioner with an obligation to review the department’s data-sharing capabilities after 5 years. That seems a sensible provision, and it alludes to the good work that can happen in select committees to make sure that sensible precautions are taken to ensure that the bill does what it says it should do. So I congratulate those people who worked in the select committee on this matter. As Mr Bridges pointed out earlier, it is sometimes these more bland bills that achieve useful things and without controversy, and we should celebrate the unity across the House on these matters.

💬 Simon Bridges: The aroha.

The aroha.

The bill makes a number of amendments and it is interesting to consider what would have happened if these did not happen. Householders who produce their own biofuels will be exempt from the duty, and that is good to see. I imagine that the intention here is that those who make biofuels at home will be encouraged to do that. The incentive is set up so that we have a more sustainable New Zealand over the longer term, bit by bit, through these small measures.

It is also interesting to note there is an amendment that customs officers will be able to use reasonable force to remove people from the customs area. Presumably, that amendment was as opposed to the other option that might have been considered—that customs officers were able to use unreasonable force—and, surely, that is not a good idea.

Another of the other smaller amendments here that I note is that goods designed to facilitate a crime of dishonesty like card skimmers are banned, and, as my colleague noted just a short time ago, it will be an offence to harm a customs dog. This is something that we worry a little bit less about in Dunedin, as it happens. At Dunedin International Airport, I have yet to see a beagle, but I am comforted to know that those customs dogs will be protected when they visit.

💬 Simon Bridges: They’re undercover.

They are very secretive customs dogs doing their duty alongside those others who are doing their duties to protect our borders.

It is interesting here also that goods in multiple shipments can be classified as if they were in a single shipment. Again, this appears to be an efficiency measure—another sensible step taken in this bill. Likewise, in respect of the ability to define when an item of post has been delivered to a customs officer, not having this definition might have been problematic.

Likewise, finally, on the other amendments, providing a method of calculating duty on imported goods that are soon to be used and exported is also a helpful provision to have in the bill. Not providing a method of calculating duty on imported goods that are soon to be used and exported would have meant the bill was a disaster.

The increasing of fines is something that has also been commented on, and it seems a sensible measure.

It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and Biosecurity Amendment Bill. As returning members to this House are aware, biosecurity is a bit of a passion of mine. We are an island nation; our biodiversity in this nation is entirely unique in the world. If we lose it here, we lose it everywhere in the world, and thus we have a duty as custodians—not only for that magnificent natural heritage for our own sakes, and for its own sake, but also on behalf of the world—to look after that heritage. But that unique biodiversity that New Zealanders love, and want to protect, is also crucially important to our economy. Tourism is our No. 1 industry, and the tourists come here because of that natural biodiversity. So the stakes around biodiversity and protecting it are extraordinarily high. Likewise, our other major industries tend to be trading industries, and, in particular, trading of primary products. Those industries, too, are extraordinarily vulnerable to imported threats. So getting biosecurity right is fundamentally important to our nation and to our economy.

In the debates on a succession of biosecurity bills that the Government progressed through the last term of Parliament, I spoke about a couple of major things. One was the level of risk that was posed by getting biosecurity wrong, and the other was around the changes that were being made, particularly at the border—as we are addressing in this bill—that we were also getting wrong as a nation. The risks are extraordinary. If we think about a single piece of fruit infected with fruit fly coming into this country, the cost of that single piece of fruit is estimated to be $800 million in the first year alone, and to cost 5,000 jobs in the Bay of Plenty alone. We are talking very high stakes—foot-and-mouth higher still—and yet our border measures are not keeping pace with those threats. They are not proportional to those threats. The latest number I have is from 2009.

Approaching 400,000 loaded containers coming into New Zealand each year are not inspected at the border—400,000. That is an extraordinarily cavalier approach to something that potentially has such major impacts on our country and on our economy, yet the Government’s direction around that interface between customs and biosecurity has been going in the wrong direction. Biosecurity is inevitably a process. It starts in the country of origin, it comes through border control measures, and it progresses into post-border mechanisms in the event of incursions. All of that is important, but what the Government has been doing has been weakening the bit that goes around the border, which is entirely the wrong thing to do. We have seen the budget cuts, we have seen the reduction in staff numbers in biosecurity, and we have seen the adoption of an approach in biosecurity based on risk profiling, which means fewer people actually being checked. When that was trialled, in fact, those who were not profiled for inspection were found to be bringing in significant threats. So the direction of travel is wrong.

Thankfully, this bill is not fundamentally enacting that machinery, and we are happy to support it—for the dogs alone; that is enough for me. One last caution: the main thing that this bill does is facilitate information sharing. In the last 2 weeks we have seen a State agency that is fundamentally concerned with the confidentiality of information getting it entirely wrong. These two agencies need to really step up their game to get it right.

It is my privilege to participate in the third reading of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill, otherwise known as the “JBMS” legislation. This omnibus legislation expands the range of requirements to maintain the sharing of information across the border security agencies. To this end, the Government is investing $75 million in a new system to administer border management.

There are three categories of amendment in this legislation, which is amending the Customs and Excise Act and the Biosecurity Act. Information sharing between the New Zealand Customs Service and other agencies that are involved in border security is vital for them to ensure that our borders are protected effectively. An example of the good use of technology is the use of SmartGate, which uses a computer electronic system to process arrivals and departures. The Joint Border Management System, together with the Customs Service, has developed this new system.

There are enormous risks to New Zealand associated with harmful pests and diseases. We need to have a system that is more responsive to the changes, is cost-effective for the users, and involves everybody doing their bit to manage the risk. Our aim is to get the balance right between managing biosecurity risks and minimising any unnecessary impact on trade and travel. We need to protect our borders. The new Joint Border Management System will bring the Customs Service and the MAF Biosecurity processes together under the same system, providing improved security at New Zealand’s border.

Another major problem affecting our country is the illegal importation of prohibited drugs, especially for the trade in methamphetamine. The tracking of illegal drugs through the new Joint Border Management System is essential, to prevent these drugs from making it on to our streets and thereby giving criminal gangs the ability to distribute these drugs into the neighbourhoods of our country. The Government is providing $5.9 million to the Customs Service over the next 2 years to fight the illicit drugs trade by intercepting these drugs before they reach our borders.

In conclusion, the National Government intends to do all in its power to throttle the illegal trade in drugs to New Zealand by using the effective sharing of information among the agencies operating at the border. I commend this bill to the House.

Bills read a third time.