Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Customs: I move, That the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. This is an omnibus bill, and it amends the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and the Biosecurity Act 1993. This bill makes important amendments to existing legislation, to underpin the implementation of the Trade Single Window component of the new $89 million Joint Border Management System.

The Trade Single Window component of the system provides a single electronic gateway for industry to interact with Government agencies for its customs and biosecurity requirements. The Trade Single Window will promote more effective protection of New Zealand’s border, facilitate a smoother flow of legitimate trade, and is consistent with the Government’s priorities relating to the provision of more joined-up, online services.

Regarding the purpose of the bill, the bill contains three main categories of amendments that underpin the implementation of the Trade Single Window: registering users of the Joint Border Management System; providing information to, and receiving information from, the Trade Single Window; and consequential changes to offences. The bill also makes minor technical changes to the Customs and Excise Act 1996 to provide more clarity and to improve the effectiveness of the Act to meet Government policy goals for border management.

Regarding registering users of the border management system, the Customs and Excise Act 1996 requires that all goods imported or exported must be entered into the Customs Service computer system by individuals, being importers, exporters, or their agents who are registered users of the system. The Trade Single Window will provide for a wider range of border requirements. For example, registered users will be able to provide and receive information on the movement of their goods, streamlining supply chains.

The bill amends several aspects of the Customs and Excise Act to ensure there is an appropriate registration mechanism for access to and use of the Joint Border Management System. The areas covered by the amendments include allowing companies to be registered users instead of individuals only. Specific grounds on which the Chief Executive of the Customs Service can refuse an application are included, allowing the chief executive to issue unique user identifiers for the Joint Border Management System that can be used by both the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries for border-related purposes.

The provision of information to the Trade Single Window will be through the use of the World Customs Organization’s new international data model for lodgment messages, supporting access for our exporters, and reducing compliance costs for industry. The new lodgment messages will include customs, biosecurity, and food safety - related information, enabling the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries to receive more accurate and current information to better identify and target potential risks to New Zealand.

Several amendments will assist in supporting how information is provided to the Trade Single Window. These amendments cover advance notices of arrival and departure for all goods and craft crossing our border, and inward and outward cargo reports, and establish a more effective and transparent transhipment process for the national movement of imported goods. Additionally, the bill amends the Customs and Excise Act to provide the Chief Executive of the Customs Service with the ability to prescribe customs rules that reflect other border-related requirements such as health, biosecurity, and marine safety. This will be done using a process agreed by the chief executives of those agencies. This process will promote clarity and consistency to industry and reduce the administrative burden of maintaining multiple, often disparate, requirements via agencies at the border.

There are consequential changes to offences in the bill. To enforce the amendments contained in the bill, some consequential changes to offence provisions are necessary. These amendments relate to the advance notice of the arrival of goods and craft, and the departure of goods and craft. The amendments are to cover such aspects as failing to comply with the new requirements and failing to update the Customs Service with the correct information.

There are other minor technical amendments in the bill. The bill includes some minor technical changes to provide more clarity and improve the effectiveness of the Customs and Excise Act to meet Government policy goals. These amendments include updating the definition of motor spirits to reflect the 2012 changes to the excise and excise-equivalent duties table in the Act, but the amendment does not alter the type of fuel on which excise duty is collected; replacing the term “rate of duty” with “amount of duty” where goods are re-imported into New Zealand and a refund of duty has been claimed on the previous export; delegating the power from the Minister of Customs to the Chief Executive of the Customs Service to approved certain international organisations exempt from excise duty on alcohol and tobacco; and enabling regulations to be made that may prescribe the valuation method and value for an import consignment below which duty need not be collected by the Customs Service, known as de minimis.

In summary, the bill will help underpin the implementation of the Trade Single Window, which will deliver at least $450 million of benefits to our economy over the next 10 years. I commend the bill.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to make a contribution at this first reading of the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. We in the Labour Party are supporting this bill. At one level the bill is very non-controversial; it is actually quite constructive in a lot of ways. The actual genesis of the Joint Border Management System occurred when we were in Government, and I acknowledge a former Minister of Customs here, my colleague Nanaia Mahuta. The joint initiative, the collaborative work between agencies, to modernise and to improve the systems is what agencies should be doing all the time, particularly when we are talking about our borders. Our border management system is critical to our livelihood as a country, as we all know, and it does not take much to remind everybody here that we have challenges every day on our borders. Eighty billion dollars worth of goods are moved backwards and forwards into our country. We have over 10 million travellers who go to and from across our borders. We like to welcome our manuhiri—those travellers—but we also want to put up our pā defences for those things that are unwanted, whether it be persons or cargo or biosecurity incursions and threats.

This is, as I have mentioned, a non-controversial bill in one way. We want to improve our border processes and our border management system, but I think we also need to take a step up and look at the context of these new IT information systems and look at the disasters that have occurred in the past. I need only mention a word like “INCIS” and that sends a shudder through members opposite who may have been connected with the police in the 1990s. Obviously a more recent example is Novopay, which has entered into the lexicon as another absolute disaster in implementing new IT platforms.

When we are looking at the Trade Single Window, this is a positive measure, we do support it, and we want to make sure that the implementation of this new system is a success. Our freight importers and exporters, and our cargo and logistics industries are reliant on being able to submit information and receive information from the relevant Government agencies involved on our border. So it is a welcome change that we have a live system now that they can have a single point of entry whereby they can do all their bits and pieces of messaging with their new systems to be able to actually get the business done. The Trade Single Window as part of this Joint Border Management System is a great improvement for our border management agencies and for managing and promoting the flows of commerce and trade across our borders. So we do support that.

If we look at the different players in the industry, I know that they have been very supportive and have worked closely with the relevant agencies on this. This is, as I have mentioned, a very big project hitting up to in excess of $80 million. That is actually a bit more than was originally budgeted for the project, but I think, given the importance of this new platform and these new tools that our exporters and importers and the whole industry are using, we want to do it right. There have been delays, but it is better that these systems are thoroughly tested and are thoroughly in conjunction with the industry to make sure that they do run smoothly.

I recall from the briefing from the Minister at the estimates hearing before the select committee, which I sat in on, that the Minister mentioned that the two systems—the former system, which I cannot quite remember off the top of my head, another acronym or similar type of name, will be running in parallel with the new—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: CusMod.

CusMod—that is it. The CusMod system will be running in parallel with the new Trade Single Window system for at least the next 18 months. Those users who still want to use the old system and feel safer under that can gradually migrate over or transition into the new Trade Single Window. The Minister has been very careful, I suppose, in the roll-out of this new platform. I suppose he needs only to look to his colleagues in terms of Novopay, and to the past and the huge disasters that have happened in the past, in order to want to make sure that this new technology platform is a success. The Minister acknowledged that if there was a failure in this new system, it would be catastrophic for us as a country, which is why we have to get it right. It would be catastrophic in terms of interruptions to trade, interruptions to imports and exports, but, most fundamentally, the impact that it would have on our international reputation. We have seen in recent days and weeks the impact of certain blunders happening within our relevant agencies. We need only to look at the Ministry for Primary Industries and the loads of containers of our meat that were sitting in China, unable to be processed. That was a huge faux pas on the part of officials, and, as we understand, it came down only to the incorrect filling out of a form—not describing the name change from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to the new superministry, the Ministry for Primary Industries.

Those sorts of blunders can have huge consequences for our exporters, for our primary sector, and for our farmers, and that flows right across our economy. We need to make sure that we have really good systems and that we are always looking to improve, modernise, and promote joint cooperation among the different agencies that are involved, because it is very complex. We also need to make sure that we have resourcing going into those agencies that can support these flash new tools—the new Trade Single Window and joint border management types of systems. This is where I get to the point that you can have the flashest IT systems and technology, but if you do not have front-line investment in people who can fill out forms, or who can be proper lab technicians who can do tests that can identify particular bugs or potential threats, that will have huge consequences in terms of our international reputation and the potential well-being and standard of living of many of us here in Aotearoa.

What we do not want to see, but what we have seen under this Government, is a reduction in the budgets of front-line services for the likes of the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Customs Service, and a really big emphasis and focus on these new IT-type systems. As we have seen, fundamental, basic clerical mistakes—as well as a dirty pipe in Fonterra and a technician who obviously was not thorough in terms of their analysis of the samples that were taken—can have huge impacts across the whole economy. That is why we need to make sure we have a really good balance between the systems and the resourcing on our front line. Apart from that, I commend this bill to the House.

I would like to thank my colleague across the House Rino Tirikatene for supporting the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. I look forward to it coming to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, where submissions will be called for and the bill considered, processed, and returned to the House. There is one small thing I would like to correct in what my predecessor was saying. He said that the bill would facilitate the movement of his manuhiri back to New Zealand. I would just like to point out to him that this bill applies only to goods and will not be applying to his manuhiri. I understand that he was trying to fill his 10-minute allotted gap and that he did not have a lot to say or to offer to the House. That led him into a slightly murky area of—

💬 Hon Member: Be gracious, John.

I will be gracious, yes. I just make the point, and I would just like to let him know that had he read the paperwork, he would realise that from the beginning.

What is seriously important about this bill is that it is another strand of the rope that the Government is building to pull this economy forward, and to catch up with and surpass Australia. It is not just a matter of signing our trade agreements. Before our committee at the moment is the trade agreement with the third element of the Chinese infrastructure, Taiwan. That, as I have mentioned in the House before—provided we can get it through our committee and into law before the end of this year—will generate $45 million of savings to cherry farmers in, for example, Central Otago, and it will help apple growers in the Wairarapa and in the Hawke’s Bay.

But there is no point in making gains in the trade area without at the same time straightening up our administration. This is what the ever hard-working Minister Williamson has been doing. He has a very good understanding of IT issues, and he is applying that in this area of the Government’s administration. This legislation he has brought to the House will save exporters and importers $450 million over 10 years. That is money that is not being taken out of people’s pockets for no particular purpose. That means that money stays in people’s pockets, and it will add to economic activity in our economy. That is good for everybody. The Trade Single Window will lower traders’ compliance costs—admittedly, over time—and it will help us build a much more productive and competitive economy, which is, of course, exactly the Government’s priority over this term of office. It will help supply-chain efficiencies with a joint border management system.

The other point I would like to raise is that this legislation will enable our industry to interface in a far more efficient way—with one electronic gateway—with Government agencies for its customs and biosecurity requirements. It will also plug us into the World Customs Organization, and doing that will give more effective protection of our borders and ensure a smoother flow of legitimate trade. As I said at the outset, there will be no impact on travel coming into or leaving New Zealand because the changes relate only to the importing and exporting of goods.

This is a very good piece of legislation. It has got broad support, I hope, across the House. I support it entirely, and I look forward to it coming to our committee. Thank you.

I appreciate the member over there, John Hayes, and with all due respect to him, if you ever wanted to get a classic Tory speech, then that is it. Obviously, the research unit has once again dragged out the template—dragged out the template—and given it him. I know that the member over there is far better than that speech, but it is a classic Tory speech: the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Here is the point. We support this piece of legislation. In fact, we developed the concept of one hub for information sharing. We did so on the basis of our border systems being more effective, but this National Government has come in and said: “Oh, we want them to be more efficient, so we will focus on the $45 million that’s going to be saved every year.” Well, good luck to it. It has saved $26 million in the cost of the Ministry for Primary Industries too. We are now starting to see the value that is being destroyed from an ideologically driven Government that wants to drive down the investment, drive down the cost, and forget the value of what we are doing here.

We support this bill and the concept of it. It is just about evolving technology. It is about sharing information, but being more effective. Efficiency is a great objective but it should not necessarily be the sole objective, particularly when it comes to the issue of border protection for trade coming in and out of this country, so as to ensure our reputation for outgoing goods or our biosecurity for incoming goods, the value of which we cannot calculate. We cannot calculate the lost value of our reputation through the latest debacle over meat and dairy exports. We will be a long time trying to calculate the cost of that, in the same way that if we let into this country any major biosecurity incursion, we do not know what that will do to this country. The Government might try to establish the cost of it, but the value of having proper border security and proper customs security is something difficult to calculate over the long term. The Government has worked out $45 million a year, in the same way that it could say that it saved $260 million over 10 years from driving efficiency in the Ministry for Primary Industries. Well, we are now starting to see the cost of that. Ask exporters of our food products what is going to be the lost value for them in the marketplace of the massive botch-up that we have seen over dairy and over meat.

The point is that the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill that we are discussing here is a good objective and a good exercise, but if it is driven by just ideology and efficiency and not driven to give us a more effective system of border protection and protection of our country from unwanted goods, then I suggest that the Government has got it wrong. We have seen its consistent approach to that. The first Budget we had, in terms of border security, was a cut to biosecurity of $2 million, the loss of 48 front-line jobs, and a squeeze on a large number of other Government agencies. That is what the Government was doing to give efficiency, but at a big cost to effectiveness. We are starting to see that roll out. We have had Psa, we have had the large white butterfly, and we have had varroa. We have just recently seen that scorpions have been brought into this country. So, clearly, the system is not effective enough.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: It’s just the Prime Minister masquerading as a scorpion.

Well, that is true. The Government has got a few scorpions over there now, and there will be a few more stings coming for the poor average Kiwi worker in the months to come if we allow it to get away with what it wants to.

I will come back to the bill before us and say that, conceptually, this is the right thing to do. The bill, in principle, is the right thing to do. We are just simply aligning the information database and platform so that we can check and investigate. But let us not forget what is actually being done at the moment, which is a systems analysis, and the sharing of this information will allow that to develop further. We are not checking people more closely, we are not checking goods more closely, we are just putting in place better systems, or so we are told—better systems with less money, so we are told; more efficient, we are told. What I want to know is whether they are going to be effective. Are we going to correctly identify, through the new efficient systems, where there is real risk to this country. The performance of border management agencies—I applaud them for identifying and capturing some drugs hauls. This is no reflection on the front-line staff, but I get emails from biosecurity staff who have walked from the job because they cannot ethically remain in place, knowing they are not doing what they should be able to do and what they need to do.

There is a compromise here and my concern is that in the drive for efficiency, which the Government is determined to undertake at every level of Government responsibility, the effectiveness of the systems is being undermined. The Trade Single Window that we are aiming to have there—a bit like the SmartGate system for individual travellers—poses huge risks for us long term if not properly resourced and if we do not have the investment in the best technology. I see what we are exposing now is that in the area of trade certification and clearance, the reality is—in spite of the Ministers over there cutting funding and continuing to get up on their hind legs and say: “We have the world’s best practice. We have the world’s best systems.”—that we do not. We need more investment in the area of border protection. If, as in a couple of other bills being passed through this House under urgency, the objective of the Government is to have them fiscally neutral, then what we are doing here is maybe improving the database, but if we do not have the resources to go with it, we will not have a more effective or better system in place. That is what Labour supports—moving to a more effective system of border processing but keeping in mind our ultimate objective, and that is protecting us from unwanted goods or persons or products or organisms.

We have a huge advantage internationally through our reputation, the value of which is impossible to calculate, and the cost of which this Government drives down every single day. It thinks driving down the costs is going to give us better outcomes. That is a dangerous strategy to undertake, and I say to the members getting up and saying that this is going to save $450 million, etc., etc. and put more money back into the pockets of people—ask the exporters what the cost is of the latest debacle around dairy and ask the exporters what the latest cost is of the debacle around meat, and you very quickly get to tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. The projected savings quickly disappear if we do not end up with a more effective system, not just a more efficient system. I know there are members over there scratching their heads, saying “What’s the difference?”, because they have never heard of that, but hopefully they will take time to reflect. I know maybe the next speaker might explain that. It is time to reflect on the reality that effectiveness is more important than efficiency. When it comes to our reputation, when it comes to our border protection and to this current privileged position we have, where we have relatively low disease rates and a reasonably safe, uncorrupted, healthy environment, we do not want that compromised by an ineffective system.

I rise to take a call on the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. The Green Party is supporting it at this stage. We are looking forward to the select committee stage to hear some details and examples of how the benefits of this bill will be actualised. We are very optimistic about this bill in terms of its efficiency, and, following on from the other speaker, we will also be looking to see, particularly on biosecurity, its effectiveness. Certainly, we appreciate the intended and expected benefits to border processing.

There are a couple of points in particular that I will be interested to hear about from officials. One is the exemptions for the re-importing of goods exported. There is a whole wide range of scenarios that could be imagined around that. It is clear that they are meant to be in the same, or substantially the same, condition as when exported from New Zealand. I am keen to hear about that. It is in section 109, inserted by clause 14. I am keen to hear what the examples of those are and what those situations are. I can imagine that a fair bit of that will be about shipping and stuff—just having some sort of efficiencies of transport but still coming back past and not wanting to be open for tariffs or other conditions. So we can expect from that, I assume, that off-shore value adding of product from New Zealand will not be exempt on re-entry. But I look forward to getting some clarification around that.

Another part is the de minimis part in section 118. I will be looking forward to hearing about what the regulations may allow around that. That is looking at the value of goods below which duty need not be collected, so the officials, again, at the select committee consideration, will be able to run some scenarios for us. Clearly, in the regulatory impact statement, it is pointed out that there are issues around the internet—purchasing around the internet. That balance between the cost of, say, enforcement or the bureaucracy around collecting appropriate revenue from that importation relative to the value of it is clearly the issue. It has certainly come up in other situations where the big loss of GST because of overseas internet purchases becomes relevant, and it becomes relevant through this bill.

I would also like to speak on biosecurity for a bit. I do see that this bill allows for a much better flow of information and a very tidy and efficient way of getting information about shipping, about goods coming and going. There are some reasonable expectations and some penalties for those who do not play ball with the appropriate information-sharing. But, as our friend over in Labour just said, the important part, of course, is effectiveness. So we do need to ensure that whatever system we have in place is absolutely effective. We are still having failure around biosecurity. It is still costing us millions upon millions of dollars, and, unfortunately, these things are often in perpetuity because they are not able to be resolved, as my friend who was speaking directly before will know because in his region we have got the great white butterfly as one of those examples. So no matter how efficient our information system is in coming in, ultimately it does come back to the effectiveness, the inspections, and the ability for biosecurity to jump on top of these situations. I am watching that one very, very closely because I am really concerned that that pest is likely to get away. I am not sure that New Zealanders understand the seriousness of that. If it becomes a mainstream pest throughout New Zealand, it would have a huge impact and there would be lots of ramifications.

The Green Party is supporting this bill. We will be looking at what some of those examples are, so that we know we have got an absolute full understanding of the ramifications of the different parts of it. We are looking forward to that and to seeing this bill no doubt progress reasonably speedily right through the process. Thank you.

It is a great pleasure to speak on this Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill, and it is also a great pleasure to hear that Her Majesty’s most loyal Opposition, the Labour Party and also the Greens, are going to be supporting this forward-looking, progressive bill, which, of course, is sponsored by the Hon Maurice Williamson, a very enthusiastic Minister of Customs and a Minister who is very, very well acquainted with information and communications technology and, of course, is wanting to progress things. Of course, this absolutely typifies the work of the National Government towards economic development, towards efficiency and effectiveness, towards reducing compliance costs, and towards modernity. We are the Government that has been well-known for championing the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband, and that is entirely relevant to this particular bill. I was quite surprised to hear Mr Tirikatene going into the past on various concerns, which the Labour Party is inclined to do.

One of the things that we did hear from the Hon Maurice Williamson at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was the huge lengths that the Customs Service went to to test in parallel the new system with the old system over a significant period of time, to get the bugs out of it, and also that this particular system will come out in two tranches—again, over a period of time. Although we all know that various computer systems all over the world do have difficulties, a great deal of thought and effort to detail have been put into this particular one.

The other thing is that everyone in New Zealand is concerned about biosecurity, and again we have heard the Customs Service time and time again say what a difficult task it has, where every day there are thousands upon thousands of shipments coming into and out of New Zealand, and that customs officers have to do everything they can to avoid biosecurity risks. It is a bit rich when we have Damien O’Connor, the member for West Coast - Tasman, shroud waving and mastering the art of misinformation, when it was under his regime that didymo came in and under his regime that, of course, the very devastating varroa bee mite came in. Some of these things are inevitable, but what we do want, and what is encapsulated in this new system, is a modern system that is well tested and that is highly necessary for New Zealand.

I think it is worthwhile spending just 1 second on what the regulatory impact statement says regarding the reasons for bringing this legislation in. It says: “The opportunity for improved efficiencies in border management and lower compliance costs for industry is potentially impeded by existing legislation.” But, moreover: “The flows of people, goods and craft arriving in New Zealand create significant risks. New Zealand needs a border system capable of facilitating trade and travel, while managing risk and collecting Government revenue of over $10.5 billion a year. Management of the border is undertaken by a number of agencies, including Customs …”. The statement goes on to say: “The management of the border for customs and biosecurity purposes relies on computer systems that are over 15 years old and lack the flexibility to respond to the increasing needs of border management.” This is the reason why it is so important to progress this very necessary legislation.

It is great that all parties are supporting it. I look forward to it coming to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which is so ably chaired by my colleague John Hayes. Thank you.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a relatively brief call in this first reading of the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee, and probably beyond. I say that, though, with some trepidation because this bill appears, on first examination, to have a great deal recommending it. It appears to simplify. It appears to streamline. It appears to make swifter, easier, and more efficient. It appears to promise to make the establishment of a single window through which importers and exporters both may conduct their requisite transactions with Her Majesty’s New Zealand customs and excise and meet their biosecurity obligations a less cumbersome and more user-friendly experience. Therein hangs the conundrum.

This bill promises a great deal. It promises to be the best thing since sliced bread, and if it works it will be a very good thing indeed. The Joint Border Management System itself, if it works as intended and as advertised, will be a good thing. It is clearly a well-intended initiative, and as long as it proves to be true to label it will be of great benefit to the Government, traders, and travellers alike. For anyone who has cause to cross the border, who has goods that must cross the border, inwards or outwards, and for Government departments that have responsibility for or interest in those people, a good well-designed and well-functioning one-stop shop, as the explanatory note describes it, offers a tantalising promise. So we hope that it will. We hope that it will perform as desired and as intended, and we are certainly supportive of the concept behind it.

The potential pitfall, of course, is the possibility that it might not work, or it might not work properly, or it might have teething issues that expose this country to biosecurity risks. The Ministry for Primary Industries is still a relatively new organisation. The melding together of what were three separate Government departments is no casual undertaking, and there are still hiccups coming through the system as people and methodologies, which used to operate independently, learn to work together in an environment where the greater part of the new organisation is unfamiliar territory for all of them.

Taking on this partnership with yet another department, that being the New Zealand Customs Service, will bring its own challenges and requirements for learning, and we sincerely hope that the new system will be able to be brought to full operational functionality with as few problems as is humanly possible.

We are pleased that it is not all new ground that is to be covered—that established international models, such as the World Customs Organization, will be adopted and that the lodging and formatted data with regard to customs, biosecurity, and food-related information will be compatible with international standards and with the systems used by our trading partners, so that is very encouraging. But we will need to be vigilant. New Zealand needs to pay very close attention indeed to the potential for biosecurity risks being allowed to slip between the cracks as we transition to this new regime. I am sure that everyone involved with the management and security at the border will have this as a primary concern. As New Zealand First and others have said repeatedly in recent months in this House and in relation to various Government bills and policy actions, it is absolutely essential that our biosecurity operations and personnel are resourced adequately and focused appropriately in order to ensure that this potential for incursion is met and minimised.

Online portals for processing forms and information are all well and good but they are of little value in identifying shipping containers full of cocaine or muddy boots bearing the foot-and-mouth virus. It is our sincerest hope that the Government will not use this new system as an excuse for making yet further cuts to biosecurity resourcing, resulting in even fewer X-rays being taken, fewer dog teams working our ports and airports, and fewer boots on the ground.

I do not intend to detain the House unnecessarily during this time of urgency, when the most appropriate forum to address any concerns that we have will be the select committee. We look forward to examining the bill in greater detail there and to listening to the submissions of the public, who are wise beyond the recognition afforded to them in too many cases where Government policies are being forged.

In closing then I would reiterate that New Zealand First acknowledges the wisdom behind the concept that is driving this bill, and we are certainly in favour of the benefits that it will bring, so long as it is able to function properly. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating—not that the proof is in the pudding. Why do people say that? Too often we hear people proclaiming that the proof is in the pudding. No, it is not. That does not even make sense. The proof of the pudding is in the eating is the correct quote, and that does make sense. What it means here is that this bill appears to be a very good idea, but the proof of that will be whether it works properly or not. We certainly hope it will, and we are happy to support the bill going to the select committee. Thank you.

The more we let business do business, the more economic growth we get. The more growth we get, the more employment we get. That, in a nutshell, is the main thrust of the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. The main thrust of this Government is to make business able to do business, so that it creates the wealth, so that we can get on with creating the opportunities for employment, better education, and so on and so forth. My colleague Mr Hayes said that this bill is one of the strands of the rope. It is the link in the chain. It is the doughboy in the boil-up. It is essential that we allow business—

💬 Hon Member: It’s the toe in the shoe.

It is the cliché in the cliché. It is essential that we allow business to get on with what it knows best—that is, doing business—and that we get out of the way. But we must also make sure that there are protections there for our consumers and also for our business people.

I am heartened to find that Rino Tirikatene mentioned bugs and grubs. There was one in the House yesterday that we have not really got rid of yet, but, hopefully, there is time to get rid of that grub. I commend this bill to the House, and I also cannot wait—I cannot wait—for the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to do its business.

It is a pity that every one of the National speakers who have got to their feet have talked a little around this bill, the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill, and have then run out of content and substance to actually debate the bill properly. This is an important piece of legislation. I have got to say that when I came into the House to discuss this bill and I saw Craig Foss start the first reading, I thought: “Oh my God. The Minister who brought us Novopay, and all of the botch-ups that were involved in that, is now bringing to the House a piece of legislation that makes fundamental IT changes in our critical border security and biosecurity area.” I thought: “This is doomed. We will go down the same path as Novopay in this term of the National Government.”

I was in the House when the National Party brought in INCIS and spent $100 million on it. National members spent $100 million on a police computer system, and it failed, and they chucked it away—$100 million down the drain. I thought: “I do support the concept of a Trade Single Window, and I do support the joint border management system, but do I have confidence in this National Government, which has a track record of bungling IT every time they put their hands on it?”. There he is—John Hayes is putting both hands up in the air to take responsibility for each of those failures.

I am particularly worried because this bill does deal with our trade. I have seen the bungles that have been made in our trading over the last few months; the bungles in regard to the export of our biggest single export product, which is dairy products; and the bungles in regard to meat processing. When I see how the National Government has mismanaged that, and I see the problems that have arisen because National thought that it can make some quick savings—cut costs, and slash the officials that work hard and conscientiously on this—I think again: “My God, can we trust the National Government to bring in an important system like this?”.

💬 John Hayes: Yes, you can. Yes, you can.

You know, Mr Hayes, if we are looking, as we are, at why we have had this immense, unprecedented problem in trading in our most important products, look no further than the Government’s decision to abolish the Food Safety Authority. Look no further than its decision to restructure the Ministry for Primary Industries. Look no further, Mr Hayes, than its decision—a totally botched decision—to take the best people out of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. More than anybody else, Mr Hayes knows that some of the best people that we had working in that division went down the road, lost their jobs, or left because they were disillusioned. The Prime Minister, having demolished that ministry with his ill-thought-out and botched restructuring—conducted by Murray McCully—is now saying: “Oh, maybe we’d better beef up our trade negotiation sector.”

I support this legislation and I support the intent of it. It began under a Labour Government—

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.