Estimates Debate — External Sector

Members, we come now to the votes in the external sector, B.5, volume 4. The question is that Vote Customs, Vote Defence, Vote Defence Force, Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Vote Official Development Assistance stand part of the schedules.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m very pleased to take a call in this discussion about the external sector as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and can I, in beginning, acknowledge all the members of that committee, but also the Ministers. As the chair of this committee, I will leave aside most of the politics, and just sort of touch on some of the key elements that—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): All of it, preferably.

Oh, you never know, you’ve got to have a flick. Five minutes for five estimates—the first we’ll touch on is Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade, over $549 million. A lot of the discussion that occurred initially was around the spend for new embassies, particularly querying why Stockholm was chosen. I’m sure it is a lovely city; maybe I’m biased, I’d love to go and visit it, but the committee did spend quite a bit of time discussing Stockholm. In the discussion of the Estimates then we moved into questions around, of all things, actually, Israel—in particular, asking why New Zealand did not have representation there in Israel; we’re aware that it’s in Ankara, and the Minister spoke to that, but there were questions around that—and also querying the Minister whether Jerusalem would be a place of choice, seeing it is the capital of that country.

There was also quite a bit of time questioning the Minister because of previous statements he had made around whether he and the new Cabinet would rescind UN Resolution 2334—something I personally have called for. That has been declined. I think sadly, and a number of us on the committee noted that, although not all, and there was some confusion by members as to why the New Zealand Government had also gone on and sponsored another unbalanced resolution in the UN, which I think is disappointing.

Questions were raised of the Minister, more in the written part, around why a pro-Hezbollah protest was allowed to occur in Auckland. This has raised a number of questions for members on the committee, particularly around when the debates on free speech are occurring at the moment.

Finally, one of the elements around Israel—again it became quite a notable part—was recent support, implicit, by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions group, an anti-Israeli group. There were questions of why that was allowed to happen from MFAT. It was both, I suppose, worrying and confusing to the committee, firstly, that the ministry advocates a two-State solution but was implicitly supporting a group that does not—in fact, wants no Israel. The other was really a wider question in the foreign affairs space: would our ministry of foreign affairs be supporting groups that said that we shouldn’t trade with China or India? I suspect the answer is no. So there’s more questions there.

We did raise in foreign affairs the whole question of trade with Russia, and, to round it out as well, how we are placed for APEC in 2021. It was good to hear from the Minister. I think the realistic assessment is that more money will be needed.

We also touched on development assistance. Obviously the Government’s big push has been around more money into the Pacific. The committee was interested, basically, at how the Pacific could absorb that.

Vote Defence and Vote Defence Force, that’s $314 million and $3.4 billion respectively. Look, one of the big issues for the committee in discussing with the Minister was really, in a sense, the gap between what is desired and what can be funded. I think that was actually quite a constructive conversation there.

Look, I’m very happy to say in the Chamber I’m pleased that since the Estimates hearing the Government has found funding for the P-8A Poseidons. I think that’s a really good decision. But the committee was also continuing to question, particularly in the aviation space, the place of the Singaporean F-15s and Singaporean troops to come down to Ōhākea, the context being with the move to ban foreign buyers that’s having some potential influence on our relationship with Singapore. So that was good to raise those. But I think, particularly in defence, the committee’s going to be interested to see with all the desire for spending across naval, air force, and army what will be prioritised first in what’s always a limited budget.

The final but not least area is Vote Customs, $230.63 million, as the Minister in the chair, Meka Whaitiri, will know. I should declare I am the National spokesperson in this area but I don’t intend to politic it, as I said. Look, it was good to see that more money is being spent to disrupt drug smuggling. The committee was interested to see how that exactly is going to fare. There were some questions that with the increase of funding we didn’t at that point see in some of the documents a requisite change in the performance targets. In other words, they were static, but a good conversation was had there. Finally, around the whole border levies, I think there’s about a $13 million surplus at the moment; just keen to understand how that goes in the future.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak on this Estimates hearing. It’s a little disappointing to hear Mr O’Connor talk about the position in respect of UN Resolution 2334, a resolution that was, of course, sponsored by the New Zealand Government whilst the National Government was in power. That resolution, in fact, was very clearly a resolution which pointed out the barriers to peace, and it’s one which the Minister, at the hearing, was very happy to defend, because it’s quite appropriate that New Zealand takes its place on the international stage in pointing out that settlements in the West Bank, in the occupied territories, in breach of international law, are an obstacle to peace in that part of the world and an obstacle to the two-State solution, which this Government supports.

However, turning to the wider question, what was very clear in this hearing was that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade needs considerably more funds to rebuild the capacity so that New Zealand can take its place on the international stage. In fact, one of the things that the Minister said—and it is in the Estimates book here at page 115—is that we’ve got a whole lot of work to do. In fact, he said, and he’s quoted, “we’ve got to do a whole lot more than another hundred.” There he’s speaking to the 100 staff that we need to recruit to return our Foreign Service, our diplomatic corps, to the kind of status it needs to represent us internationally before it was gutted by the previous Government.

When we look around ourselves on the international stage, it’s very clear that we must take our place in a world of great uncertainty. The National Party has continually taken pot-shots at this Government for putting money into foreign affairs and for opening new embassies, but what has been shown in recent times is that the move to increase our presence in Europe is prescient.

It is absolutely timely that we go to Stockholm, we open an embassy there, and we absolutely put our best foot forward in terms of trade, because we’ve got to negotiate an agreement with the European Union, and also in terms of ensuring that we have a rules-based framework for everything that goes on, because at the moment we stand on the precipice of chaos in terms of international relations, and New Zealand would be worse off for that. So it is absolutely right that we have funding here to recruit 50 new diplomats and over time we need many, many more so that we can go out and make sure that when we are negotiating, when we are taking our place in the world, we do it under international law and not under the law of the jungle that some other nations, perhaps, would have us answer to.

So in terms of this additional spending, it’s entirely appropriate. It is worth stating that we must turn our eyes north to what China is doing in the Pacific. We must recognise that the traditional places of power are shifting and we need to be aware of that. So we do need to absolutely have a strong presence in the Pacific, and that is what we are going to do.

Further, in terms of our trade interests, we’ve got to ensure that we have great negotiators out there, senior negotiators—and there is a gap in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade at the moment there. So we need to recruit those and recruit them well, because we need to negotiate those further trade deals. As we see with the United Kingdom as well, we’ve got to engage with the United Kingdom. That’s something we’ve got to do at the highest level, something that is happening now, and something that we are behind the eight ball on because of the weakening of our diplomats, of our foreign corps, of our diplomatic service.

So what was good to hear was that the Minister is committed to strengthening the Foreign Service so that we can get out there and take our place in the world. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ordinarily, the Minister of Foreign Affair’s appearance at this year’s Estimates hearing before the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Committee would’ve been considered the worst of the season by any Minister, but the tourism Minister managed to take that title from him. Nevertheless the rambling, cantankerous, and unconvincing presentation and answers to questions by Mr Peters when he presented as the Minister of Foreign Affairs was the worst performance I have heard at that sort of event in my 10 years in this House. He appeared unfamiliar with the text of his own introductory remarks, which he delivered in a halting and at times incoherent fashion, and he quickly became abusive when he was asked legitimate questions on important topics for which he should have been better prepared.

Although he has spent 25 years pretending to put New Zealanders first, he took a long time arguing that a New Zealand landlord whose only mistake had been to let her property to a foreign diplomat, could not expect to be paid the considerable sum that she is owed in unpaid rent because the diplomat was protected by immunity. When my colleague the Hon Todd McClay pointed out that there are exceptions to that policy, his response was, effectively, “Too bad, that’s the way it is.” He then told us that “I used to charge $500 an hour for this sort of advice but I’m giving it to you for free.”

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: What—as a conveyancer in Howick and a failed Russell McVeagh lawyer?

Ha, ha! You’re probably quite right, Mr Finlayson—and I’m sure that the landlord was really deeply touched by his humility and understanding.

I wasn’t surprised that he chose to abuse me and my National colleagues, as my line of questioning was asking him to explain his many flip-flops and inconsistent positions on policy matters, but it was notable that he also managed either obliquely or overtly to insult all of our nation’s teachers, Senator Penny Wong of Australia, Fonterra, and, frankly, the intelligence of everyone who was witnessing his performance.

Although in May, following the release of a compelling report, Mr Peters accepted the international condemnation of Russia that surrounded the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July 2014, which saw 298 innocent people killed, he did not resile from his statement during a TV3 interview two months earlier that there was no evidence of Russian involvement in that atrocity. Rather than admit that he had been wrong in March, which caused New Zealand international embarrassment at the time, as Senator Penny Wong had pointed out from the other side of the Tasman, Mr Peters was instead dismissive of Senator Wong’s qualifications and refused to concede that his earlier statement had been so ill-informed.

In his opening remarks, Mr Peters spoke of the launch of New Zealand’s trade talks with the European Union, the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement upgrade, and the imminent ratification of the PACER-Plus agreement, but he made no mention of his enthusiasm for a trade deal with Russia, so I questioned him about that. And rather than explain why he had been so determined to see New Zealand resume negotiations towards a free-trade agreement with Russia, which only he could have been responsible for negotiating into the current Government’s coalition agreement, he chose to split hairs in that usual fashion that he adopts when he finds questions inconvenient. So I asked him again: what progress have he and the trade Minister made towards the resumption of free-trade negotiations with the Customs Union of which Russia is the dominant economy, and does he believe that our international allies and Five Eyes partners support such a stance at a time when there is so much concern about Russia’s foreign policy and involvement in issues such as the Salisbury Novichok incident, the downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17, the chemical weapons outrages perpetrated by Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, Russia’s suspected interference in the United States 2016 presidential election, and so on?

I asked Mr Peters why the Government had changed its original press release on the Salisbury nerve attack, which he denied had happened, but I’m holding here a copy of the two versions, which quite clearly show that he misled the committee with that answer.

Given the recent publicity about the deluded and obnoxious individuals who were banned recently from using an Auckland Council venue to promote their intentionally offensive attitudes, it’s interesting to note that just a few weeks ago supporters of the Hezbollah terrorist organisation were permitted to hold a rally to promote their anti-Semitic and anti-democratic views at that most public of Auckland Council venues, Aotea Square, and no one in the Government or the council expressed any concern about that at all.

My colleague Chris Penk, the member for Helensville, asked him a sincere and respectful supplementary question to my questions on that, to which Mr Peters replied, “Don’t get into a shit fight you can’t win, son.” Even by Mr Peters’ standards, that was a puerile response, and I wonder what message he intended to send to the many New Zealanders and foreign observers who share the concern that Mr Penk and I, and many others, have on that issue. I never cease to wonder at the fact that Parliament’s oldest current member is also its most childish.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. By my recollection of our Estimates hearing, and having Minister Winston Peters attend, it was one where, actually, he needs huge congratulations. If we look at Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade, he has secured $549.59 million, which is an increase of 15 percent under that portfolio. Now, people may quibble about what he intends to spend it on, but, actually, from my perspective, it’s a very good increase and it should be acknowledged.

In Vote Official Development Assistance, which I am particularly interested in, that total is $768.39 million, and, over the next three years, from Budget 2018 it’s going to see a 28 percent increase in official development assistance. Where will that money be spent? Actually, it will be spent predominantly—60 percent of it—in the Pacific. So for the Minister to be belittled in such a way by the previous speaker, Tim Macindoe, I find incredibly infuriating when the priority and focus of this reinvestment is on the Pacific.

He talked a lot about the Pacific reset—how we’re going to invest this money. And we’re going to invest this money in mutually beneficial and sustainable development in the Pacific region. And why are we going to do that? Because we are changing the relationship that we have as a country with the Pacific. We now know that to be successful we need partnerships, we need collaborations, and we need to support Pacific leadership development. And to what end—to what end? Actually, the focus is going to be on attaining the sustainable development goals.

And two issues that were highlighted at our select committee, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, were, actually, domestic violence and malnutrition. So if people think those are joke areas, I find that incredibly offensive because the levels of domestic violence—not only in the Pacific but, actually, here in our own country—are abhorrent. So the reality of the work of the Minister of Foreign Affairs is to provide the resources so we can address these critical issues.

What is the other critical issue that we will invest in? It’s actually the challenges of climate change. And that is going to be incredibly challenging, especially when we have countries like Nauru that potentially may not exist anymore. So we’re needing to invest in partnerships and collaborations that have the technology to ensure that that country continues to have a land mass. Without a land mass, how can you be a sovereign country? Again, this isn’t an issue that we should quibble at.

The other issue is our support within that climate change challenge for climate change refugees. And I actually think the Pacific reset—the focus of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in working on addressing those types of issues—are things that we should actually celebrate and focus on.

One of the major issues that we talked about was this concept of tied aid, and I do find that incredibly interesting, because there now is an emerging discussion about whether we should have some expected outcomes for the aid that we give to developing countries. Should we, for example, insist that they sign up to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women? Should we insist that they sign up to the different conventions and regulations around civil and political rights and social and cultural rights, and that, actually, issues like homosexual law reform are addressed in these Pacific countries?

What the Minister said was that he’s considering it. And so that is an interesting development in terms of the relationship that we see we have with the Pacific, because it is one of tuakana-tēina. I want to use that word, because my colleague Aupito Su’a William Sio uses that all the time. But what it also highlights is that, more and more, the interests of our Pacific brothers and sisters and us as a country have become more intertwined. And it has become more intertwined because many more of us—and I can speak as a resident of South Auckland—are actually marrying and having children together. So there is no separate Māori identity or Pasifika identity; there’s actually a merged identify. And what I see from this reprioritisation of our Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade is a realisation of that and a focus on that, and also a commitment to enhance that relationship going forward. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak about the Estimates hearing that was conducted by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Various other members of the committee have already spoken to that, and it’s with some pleasure that I am allowed now to recount some of the extraordinary moments in that hearing by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

However, just to take a step back, it was an interesting time in international relations. The eyes of the world were on Singapore, where the question of peace on the North Korean peninsula was being contemplated with much interest. We were discussing with the Minister of Foreign Affairs whether he thought that an accord could be reached between President Trump and, of course, the North Korean president, Kim Jong-un. It’s hard to know what to say about a strange little man wearing clothes from another era, who’s difficult for speakers of the English language to understand, and who’s deeply isolationist in outlook. But, anyway, enough about Winston Peters—and, indeed, enough about North Korea as well.

Other aspects of the hearing considered the question of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the context of trade more generally. We didn’t dwell too deeply on the fact that submissions on the Trans-Pacific Partnership had a very general tenor of disappointment with Government parties—with the exception of the Green Party, I have to confess, whose position at least has been consistent on that matter—disappointment with the Labour members and disappointment with the New Zealand First members. The number of times the word “flip-flop” was used made me feel as though their position had gone from economic vandalism to economic jandal-ism, and so it was that we had interesting times in the committee with that, but we also had some uninteresting times.

We had some very uninteresting times when the Minister’s comments were somewhat banal in nature. I quote, for example, from the transcript of that exchange, when Mr Peters started by telling us that “we are living in times that are witnessing serious global challenges and global opportunities.”, as though at any time in history that has not been the case. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has seen a lot more of history than most of us, and for him not to have realised that that is always the case—that there are serious opportunities and serious challenges—seemed to me, as I say, banal at the absolute best.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: What time of the day was this meeting?

The time of the meeting, Mr Finlayson, was rather too early for the Minister—I think that’s perhaps as much as I should say—or perhaps it was too late for him. It was difficult to ascertain his condition, but—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Move on.

—suffice it to say—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order!

—that in relation to his comments at the hearing, comments were made along the lines that “New Zealand needs highly competent and capable people on and offshore”, and of course he is right to acknowledge the competence of his ministry, but a bit of capability and a bit of competence in the ministerial chair would also be rather welcome.

We heard from the Minister, similarly, that the upcoming APEC conference would represent a great opportunity for the country. Mr Peters noted that there would be some “18,000 to 20,000 visitors to these shores”, many from Asia, representing 18,000 to 20,000 new opportunities for him to insult visitors to this country.

I was particularly interested in the Minister’s comments that the ministry has worked to negotiate free-trade agreements, and, of course, he is right in that respect. It would have been easier for them to conduct such work, I suppose, if he had not been actively working against them—and, indeed, the sensible people of New Zealand who support such agreements—while he was in Opposition before conducting those flip-flops that I mentioned earlier.

Finally, I just can’t resist adding a note about Mr Peters’ criticism that there is, effectively, not enough spending on foreign affairs matters. He noted, presumably in relation to GDP figures, that we spend at the level of 0.28 percent, as opposed to 0.4 percent, as many other countries do. If there is a person who has had more opportunity than most—and, indeed, more opportunity than all—in the last quarter of a century to do something about that, it would be Mr Peters himself. I encourage him to do so.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s indeed a privilege and a pleasure to be able to rise on behalf of New Zealand First, and, in particular, to speak on Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade, in this debate, on behalf of the Acting Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I have to say, given the rather churlish nature of some of the speeches that I’ve just heard across the floor, that if I was to ever dare to offer any defence for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, it would probably be something along the lines of this: one tends to rise to the level of one’s opposition. I guess on the rugby field, we’ve all played the odd game like that, where we’ve played to the level of our opposition, and I guess that’s true of politics right now.

There are times when you see an Opposition that demonstrates such a puerile, disingenuous, and churlish attitude to such a serious portfolio—foreign affairs—to deliver this barrage of speeches that we’ve just been subjected to, and I really am disappointed by Mr Penk’s speech, because—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Come to the Estimates, please.

—I expected more of him. I am just answering those particular points, Madam Chair. I think what stands out in this Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade is that this Government, under the leadership of the Rt Hon Winston Peters in foreign affairs, is attempting to address the failings of the last nine years in nine flat months, and we over on this side of the House think that we have more than done that with more than $714 million extra that has been allocated, over and above, over the next four years, into particularly Official Development Assistance, $150 million put into operating funding over four years, and $40 million put into capital. It’s been quite interesting to hear the counterarguments coming from the Opposition, who once championed the need for free-trade agreements, better international relationships, striking quality deals with trading partners, and breaking into new grounds where there are no trade agreements right now, and yet in one fell swoop, in less than nine months, this Government is addressing that by opening new embassies.

The astonishing thing is that rather than hearing the proponents of free trade, prosperity, and international relations applauding this budgetary allocation and applauding the decision of our Minister of Foreign Affairs to break new ground and to reopen embassies to reconnect with Europe in search of, of all things, a free-trade agreement with the EU. Now, we would have thought that a mature Opposition who was pro-business, pro-prosperity, pro - economic development, and pro - free trade would have lauded and applauded everything that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is doing in that very space. To hear from the Opposition that the serious global challenges that we face in strategic defence policy are no different today than what they were 10, 20 years ago is astonishing—astonishingly ignorant—because we only have to look at what is happening in the Pacific and we can see the reality as to why we needed a reset policy.

We cannot sit here and complain and moan and wonder and worry about non-traditional actors and what they may or may not be doing in the Pacific Island States and about the parlous state of some of our Pacific Island communities and still sit here and do nothing. Well, this Government’s not about doing nothing; this Government’s about doing something, and a Pacific reset is about doing something for our Pacific Island community of nations that we support—many of whom have citizens living in our country—and ensuring that we enhance the security of those nations, both in terms of physical security and in terms of social security and in terms of their ability to service and support their own communities.

This is a Budget in foreign affairs that we are enormously proud of and that we are very, very keen and happy to debate anywhere on the hustings come 2020; let me assure you of that.

I notice with deep sadness that there are no more speeches coming from that side, particularly on defence. I want to, as the Minister of Defence—because the Opposition, for some reason, seems to have gone very quiet on that area—just recap on some of the points of concern raised by the Opposition, on which I attempted to placate them in my presentation at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on Vote Defence Force.

So let’s talk about Vote Defence Force—and, maybe, the things that they don’t want to talk about—now. The first thing that stood out was a big question about what are we doing, and what we heard repeatedly from the Opposition was about what was not going to be in the Estimates. In fact, we had the Hon Mark Mitchell telling everybody and suggesting—no, saying—at the select committee that this Government, being a Labour - New Zealand First coalition Government with the Greens in support, was going to cut defence spending. Well, that didn’t happen, did it?

In fact, we increased defence expenditure to Vote Defence Force by $324.1 million. There were questions around capability and serious—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s a lot.

It’s a lot of money, actually, for a Government that, apparently, was going to cut defence expenditure. Then there were serious questions about whether or not we would make a decision around the P3 Orion replacement.

I did say, in that select committee, “Put your cell phones on flight mode, buckle up, put your tray up, sit back, hold on; it’s coming.” Well, we have announced what I knew we would be announcing, and that is that this Government has made the decision to purchase four P-8 Poseidons, and it’s interesting that I have heard not a mutter, not a murmur, not a sound, nor a syllable from the other side, as they, obviously, had to swallow everything that they had said up until this point in time.

We have not been slow or tardy. In the eight short months, we have made massive progress in defence. The Strategic Defence Policy Statement 2018 is out there. The P-8 decision—the replacement for the P3s—has been announced. We are buying four, plus all of the support gear, plus a simulator. We have even gone so far as to announce that we are going to bring forward the complementary capability that that Government talked about but did nothing about. Now, that’s about the usage of satellites, the use of small manned aircraft, and the use of—what’s the third aspect? Satellites, small aircraft, and I’ll come to the other bit. We’re bringing that forward, and you will see more progress on that very, very soon.

The review of defence procurement policy? Done, dusted. Baseline funding? Increased. Limited service volunteer screening? Budgets increased, project doubled. Veterans Affairs? An extra $1.1 million into grants over the next four years for the Royal New Zealand Returned Services Association and No Duff Charitable Trust. We have completed the report on the warrant of fitness check on the 2014 Act. We’ve completed the rehabilitation strategy. We have reviewed the procurement processes, and we are moving fast on some other capabilities, which you will hear more about very soon. In terms of the capability plan review, that’s been kicked off this month, and we hope to complete that before the end of this year.

I have actually had returned servicemen and uniformed members of the Defence Force say this to me, and I’m immensely proud that this Government is able to claim it: they have seen more action from this Government in defence policy in the last eight months than they saw out of the previous Government in nine long years. And I didn’t even mention the frigate systems upgrade project; the King Air replacement project—the $150 million over ten years. Done and dusted, signed off, completed by this Government. And, in fact, there is not an area of the defence forces that we have not touched. All of these areas, by contrast, were too hard, too big, and too difficult for the last Government, and that’s why they kicked the can all the way down the road, made not one decision and left it to us. Well, the good news is that we’re up to it. We’re up for it, and we will continue to look after the men and women in our Defence Force in a way that the previous Government never ever dreamt of.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am pleased to report to the committee, through the Appropriation (2018/19 Estimates) Bill the fine work that Te Mana Ārai o Aoteroa, the New Zealand Customs Service does in terms of both protecting and promoting New Zealand through world-class border management.

I want, first of all, to acknowledge the mammoth effort that the select committee went through—five votes in one day. Some might say it was a calculated option that I got there as the No. 5 vote, because there was a bit of tiredness in the select committee. But I do want to acknowledge that they gave the Customs vote a very, very thorough examination. So I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee.

Getting the balance right over our border, in terms of ensuring that we are keeping out illicit drugs from the harm that it causes in our society, we’re, at the same time, ensuring that both people and goods—legitimate people and goods—transfer across our borders in a seamless way. And that’s why I’m really proud to say that this coalition Government, in their grand wisdom, decided to allocate another $58.5 million to the New Zealand Customs Service. And I just want to acknowledge and share with the committee what we can expect with this extra investment from an organisation whose four strategic intentions are: protecting our borders by eliminating risk, ensuring that New Zealand trade flows efficiently across our borders, streamlining experiences for travellers across our borders, and, of course, that we collect all due revenues on behalf of the Crown.

So what is this $58.1 million going to get this country, in terms of investment into the Customs Service? Well, over four years, $54.2 million is going to go on enhancing customs’ capability to protect our communities by disrupting the international drug-smuggling networks as early as possible in the supply chain. Customs will add an additional 127 staff over the next four years, both here and overseas. The funding will build onshore capability through increased border operations staff numbers across the country while also increasing maritime, detector dog, intelligence, and investigation teams.

Dedicated intelligence and investigation positions in New Zealand will contribute to our international engagement and operations both directly and through generating leads and information to provide to overseas partners—permanent customs funding for customs’ offshore posts in Hong Kong and the international targeting centre in Washington DC, plus new posts for the Americas and South-east Asia. So investing in staff as well as ensuring that we have got the tools and equipment through front-line work on additional equipment such as mobile X-ray vans, vehicles, and kennels for our additional dogs. We’re also ensuring, by running a full trial on the secure trade lane between New Zealand and Australia, that our export and trade facility is also enhanced so that we’re making sure that our neighbouring partner—and we are working quite closely with them to ensure that that happens.

I also just want to briefly touch on the Maritime Powers Extension Bill. Cabinet agreed, in February 2018, to give customs the extra power to stop, board, and search ships involved in any drug-smuggling. The Maritime Powers Extension Bill will give effect to these decisions by extending customs’ existing maritime powers and subsequent amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act. I am proud to be the Minister of Customs that continuously improves our border management in terms of illicit drugs coming into this country, by eliminating harm, but we also want to ensure that travellers who see New Zealand as a destination of visit can come and go from our country in a seamless manner. I want to acknowledge the hard work and effort of all customs officers throughout Aotearoa New Zealand, but also to acknowledge our international post people who are also working with our Five Eyes nation countries to ensure that our borders are maintained, the safety of our borders is uppermost in the way that we portray ourselves—as a country that we want people to come and do business in and visit—but we also want to make sure that we are protecting ourselves at our border. Kia ora tātou.