Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Thank you, sir. Look, waste minimisation was one area discussed in select committee; another big one was around GST refunds and whether this was opening a loophole for those that might claim it back on damaged goods but also might import more goods duty-free. I’m satisfied that, from the work in the House, that doesn’t apply, so this bill becomes one more part of our plan for economic growth to deliver better quality of life and more affordable living for every Kiwi. I commend it to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak on the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in its second reading.

I want to be very clear with Labour’s position on this particular matter during the second reading, and it is that we will be supporting the bill through this particular stage but will be interrogating parts of it, in particular, through the committee of the whole House. We want to signal to the Minister and to the Government that we believe, as was prefaced by our colleague on the other side of the House—the Hon Nicole McKee—around the matters pertaining to new section 414A, “Levies for recovering costs relating to goods management”. I thought the honourable member made a very good point that, I think, requires a little bit of interrogation and perhaps some consideration by the Minister, with respect to where it says, in subsection (2), that “Every specified person is liable, while there is a levy order in force under subsection (3), to pay a levy to the chief executive”—it goes on, anyway, to speak about certain matters that relate to that particular part of the bill. It says, in subsection (2)(a), “any of the following activities: (i) the importation or exportation of goods: (ii) the shipment, transhipment, or transport of goods”, and it says, in subsection (2)(b), “any of the following goods: (i) prohibited goods” —which I believe Minister McKee was talking about—and then it says there, “craft” and “other prescribed goods”.

I think that deserves a little bit more interrogation where we can ask ourselves, whenever we look towards making an impost on the public in this sense—it’s either a levy or a tax or a fee—we’ve got to ask some very key questions, and they must be answered in order for the House to make sure that what they’re doing is the right thing for the public. One of those questions that we have to ask ourselves is: what is the level of the charge? What is it, exactly, that we’re charging here? We’ve got to be very clear with the public about what does this mean—what does it mean for those that do import and export goods? What does it mean for the matters that Minister McKee raised about some of the prohibited goods that look to be imported into the country?

The other question that we must always ask ourselves is: is the cost of providing the service relative to the income that comes from the impost of the cost? That’s an important one, because otherwise, we’ve got to ask ourselves, “Well, is this efficient? Are we making it harder for people out there? Are we making it even harder upon those agencies that we asked to recover these fees and costs, when, actually, what they are recovering doesn’t cover that?” That’s, I think, another question that must be asked in this process.

Of course, one of the primary ones is: what is the purpose of the charge? We’ve heard some good examples across the House during this debate about why we think there are good reasons. I thought Kahurangi Carter explained some good ones with respect to the matters that she raised, which I understand were in Part 2, which you elucidated in your kōrero from the Chair, Mr Speaker. But we must always ask ourselves those questions on: what is the purpose of the charge? The next one is: who does it apply to? I thought that was the point that Minister McKee referenced in her contribution—she spoke to a very specific part of the community with respect to the importing of prohibited goods. So we’ve got to be very clear on what we’re asking ourselves there.

The next one is we must ask ourselves: in that process, are we eroding the democratic power of this House? That’s an important question, because I know that there are ways that we can have efficiencies, we can look for expediency in certain matters, but to do things by Order in Council, I think, deserves proper interrogation. To just simply say, “We’ll do it by Order in Council”—having been a Minister for six years, we’ve got to make sure that the House, right across the House and all members and all parties of the House, get an opportunity to interrogate these matters to make sure that it truly does represent the people, so that it answers those questions that I asked of the House a little bit earlier about “What is the purpose of the charge? Is the level set at the right rate?”

All those kinds of questions that, I think, need to be interrogated by the House, and in order for those changes to happen, must continue to be brought back to the House and not simply changed through Order in Council. As I said, I understand why we might do Order in Council; it does provide for an efficient way for the Minister and the Government, the executive, to make some changes there, but for something that’s so important—and we’ve all spoken across the House about the need for economic development and economic growth and making less red tape, and cutting through matters so that they can be far more efficient—we still can’t erode the powers of this House. That’s why we want to interrogate that particular matter and we want to offer to this Government and to the Minister through the committee of the whole House on whether or not we can continue to grow the support, certainly from the Labour Party on this bill, by tightening up or at least interrogating and asking for the Minister to clearly answer and consider the questions that I’ve just raised in our Part 2 speech in the second reading of this bill.

I think those are all really fair questions that need to be answered by the House. In the previous bill, I heard the Minister of Finance talk about what it is that we must take back to our constituents and the communities that we represent here in this House. I think once we’ve answered those questions, that’s when we’re able to say to those communities, “This is the reason why this is happening. This is why the level of the cost is set at this much, and this is why this is good for either our community or our economy.” I’m sure, for the most part, they’ll agree with those things, but they will have questions—questions like, “OK, is that a set rate? Will that rate change in the future? Does it mean that we’re going to be back here in a month’s time, in a year’s time or some time in the future, or whether or not that change will impact on me and my services or my goods, or me and my community?”

I think those are fundamental questions, and if there’s one thing that I can say and continue to remind the House of, it’s the erosion of those democratic powers. I’ve been here, certainly not as long as other members that are sitting in the House here this evening, but long enough to know that once that starts, it turns into an open gate whereby, as any farmer will tell you, trying to stop a sheep running through a gate—especially one that’s open—is very difficult. The point there is that we must make sure that there is a hand on that gate, so that people understand that when we do these things, those democratic powers and expectations that our people have of this House aren’t eroded. Like I said, we support this particular bill, but we want to make sure that, in the next stage of this bill, we’ll continue to interrogate that matter.

When we speak of taxes and levies and other matters, we also want to make sure that it is fair and that it’s not charged twice on returned or replaced goods. A fair system, as Kahurangi Carter mentioned in her contribution here, is going to be something that will need to be looked at and interrogated properly, and must answer that question that I asked earlier about, is the administration of this particular levy—or GST, in this particular matter—far outweighing the income that is derived from it, or is it simply more bloating of a bureaucracy that means that, while well intended, it actually doesn’t hit the mark?

Those matters being said, we look forward to the next part of this bill, where we will be looking to propose a number of Amendment Papers for the Minister’s consideration in the hope that we can strengthen this bill. If there’s one thing we know about when levies or taxes are imposed by this House, it’s that it’s best that actual support is broad right across the House and that consensus of this House is something that represents the people; if it isn’t, well, then we’ve got some challenges, and I suspect that those challenges fall directly on the shoulders of the Minister and the Government. We’ll be looking towards making some very—what I think are—fair and reasonable recommendations to this bill to make sure that it does continue to strengthen the democratic processes of this House while also being very clear about what it is doing, what it intends to do, and answers those questions that I’ve asked of the House a little bit earlier. We look forward to that part of the House.

I want to support the words of the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation (EDSI) Committee and say, too, that in the short time that I was off that committee—found myself off the committee of EDSI—we did cover the bill of the Hon Marama Davidson around second-hand goods and the longevity of goods, which I think is a good part that’s covered here in this bill that Kahurangi Carter spoke to.

All in all, once again, to spell out our position, we are continuing to support this bill, but I look forward to the committee of the whole House, where we can interrogate it just a little bit further and offer, if I can, an olive branch to the Minister to seek broad consensus across the House, so that the House can speak with one voice. Mr Speaker, thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This legislation modernises our border cost recovery by introducing targeted levies that reflect the actual services provided by the Customs Service. It ensures fairness, and that those who benefit or create risk at the border will contribute appropriately. The bill amends three Acts, introduces safeguards, and prevents double-charging. In our view, it’s a practical, future-focused reform that strengthens our border systems while supporting trade and economic resilience. We commend the bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

This bill—as my colleague Peeni Henare has outlined today, and previously my colleague Jenny Salesa discussed when this bill was first brought to the House—has a number of elements to it. The second two parts of the bill—Part 2, which looks at waste minimisation, which I think is something that is a very good step and builds on a lot of work done over many years, and, I think, is probably an area that we need to do more on. I’m aware of the work that the Green Party has done in relation to a member’s bill on this, as well, so I’m definitely supportive of further efforts in that regard.

The third part, which is around the recovery of GST, seems to be quite sensible; you don’t want GST charged twice on returned or replaced goods. There is, as many enthusiastic online shoppers will know, a $1,000 limit before you are charged GST on your overseas goods, and when people return those goods, obviously that GST shouldn’t be charged, because they no longer have those goods. I think that sounds like a sensible change that aligns with common sense.

The main part of this bill that I think is of interest to the Labour Party in terms of improving the bill is really through the quite strong and wide powers that are given to the Minister of Customs in terms of levy-setting powers over quite a wide range of goods. That is really, I think—I’m looking forward to the committee stage where we will be looking to see if the Minister is minded to make some improvements.

I have had a look at the tabled amendments moved in the name of my colleague the Hon Jenny Salesa, and, I think, on our side of the House, we would be very keen for the Minister to have a look at those amendments to see if she is willing to engage with those, because I do think, if she was minded to engage with and accept some of these particular amendments, that would lead to a better piece of legislation. They’re mainly in the areas around—for example, in clause 6, there’s a long list of different areas that the Minister can charge a levy, and the last one is prohibited goods. That is quite a wide area that a Minister could choose to utilise their levy-setting power in, and there’s a proposal from my colleague to look at deleting that particular provision.

There’s also democratic powers, which I think are important. My colleague has suggested, I think wisely, that when we are setting these fees and levies—which do come out of people’s incomes—there is oversight of that, and so wanting those to come back to the House. We have actually discussed a bill under the Defence Act which was looking to take powers away from the House in terms of confirming the actions of the Minister and, while these are not linked—they’re two different matters—there is a pattern here that I don’t agree with, which is taking away the powers of the House and giving more powers to Ministers, which erodes, slowly, the democratic nature of this House.

We do have to be mindful of that. As colleagues have said, we are supportive, generally, of the bill and of the modernisation aspects of the bill, and also in relation to the second two parts of the bill, but I do think scrutinising the first part is particularly sensible. I would draw the House’s attention to the part that discusses “without limitations” in clause 6. This is a very, very wide power, and, obviously, Ministers in the New Zealand legal system have a large degree of power due to the way the executive works. However, when we are putting in place legislation, it is unusual to give such discretion to a Minister without having recourse back to the House.

So we’re really, I think, clearly signalling general support for what is the stated intention, but we have clear concerns around Part 1. We do have a strategy for addressing that, which is that we have, in good faith—and my colleague Jenny Salesa, I’m sure, will speak to this—tabled amendments in relation to the bill. We encourage the Minister to accept those amendments, and, obviously, we will see where the discussion goes in terms of the final bill that is put forward, but, at this stage, I commend this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It sounds like all the parties are all for this moving to the next stage. This Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill obviously has powers that the Opposition has identified. I look forward to the committee of the whole House questioning, and answers from the Minister passing judgment on why it’s been drafted the way it has. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much. This bill might seem like an innocuous one that is just a bit of a tidy-up and the Government’s just moving ahead with making things “more efficient across the economy”, they say; this is always their mantra. So the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill: it actually goes to the heart of who we are as a nation—a trading nation. The Government makes a lot of noise about keeping costs low, but what this bill does is it actually opens the door to any charges for anything in relation to customs, import or export of goods, at the Minister’s behest. That is a dangerous situation for any democratic system.

I think we have, in this House, a great history across Parliament of appropriate oversight of such levy-making processes. We have funds that are set up whereby, you know, there’s an agreement between industry people and Government that says that, “Well, if we’re not quite sure what a charge will be or how much income will be generated, what the cost of that will be, then we’ll set up a fund, we’ll assess the fund, and then we’ll change the levies accordingly at the end of a one- or two-year period.” It’s not in this piece of legislation. One of the things that I would ask is that how can we trust—and then indeed, the Minister of the day might be fine and is trying to make things efficient and transparent, but we don’t know who will be the Minister in the future. With a number of pieces of legislation that we see this Government bringing to this House, “Oh, it’s all very tough and fine, and we’ll manage this and ensure we get the right outcome because we’ll hand it over to the Minister to make the final decisions. We’ll shortcut the process that might require a parliamentary oversight because it’s more efficient.”

When you hand those powers into the hands of a Minister—and you might think, “Oh, Cabinet has oversight”; ultimately, the legislation says “the Minister”. With the wrong advisers or the wrong advice—and those who have been in Cabinet, there are always hierarchies within Cabinet, and systems that are not always perfect. So, in fact, the broader oversight of the levy-making processes and secondary legislation in this House should be protected and insured.

While we kind of thought it’s good to modernise the system of levies, there are a couple of things in the legislation, as my colleagues have pointed to, that raised some flags with us, and a reminder to the Government that what goes around comes around. While being assertive and confident and, I guess, dominant in the Parliament of the day and getting what you want—which is, I guess, the right of democracy—and handing things over to a Minister, that situation will change, I can promise you.

We will be—that is, the parties in the Opposition—in Government at the end of next year, and I have confidence that our Ministers will address this in an ethical and appropriate way. I, too, even when we’re in Government, want to have some checks and balances on the independence of Ministers, particularly here, when, as I say, it goes to the heart of imports and exports—the way this country operates. Let’s not dismiss this as some small, little insignificant piece of legislation. I mean, we talk about the Waste Minimisation Act and there are some sensible changes there, but, again, looking at the significance of this, it is important that we have proper scrutiny.

Perhaps the Government members can get up and explain exactly what they’re doing and why they’re doing that. I think that would offer the wider public some confidence that, indeed, in urgency, that the Parliament is scrutinising legislation appropriately. If we are looking at costs—and let’s not pretend that this Government has come in and cut costs for business. They say that, but, actually, you can look at many, many levies—because if you go back 18 months or you go back to the first Budget, of course, the Government gave tax cuts to a whole lot of people, most of whom didn’t need it. Those who did need it didn’t get much. So how would you pay for that? They have looked at every part of Government operation and squeezed fees and levies wherever they can: civil aviation, registration of a car—all of those things that affect people; people who have no ability to offset or remove themselves from that charge. So the Big Brother, “Big Government” operation has been brought to play and is extracting every single thing it can from people through levies, including customs. We say that we need to look at this more carefully.

I think that my colleagues will go through and, as I say, probably table some amendments, I understand, but there are areas of particular concern that I should go to here. We have under clause 6, levy orders, of course—and people should read this, because they might think this is just some kind of political speech to oppose legislation for the sake of it. Clause 6: I’ll read through it here. I won’t read the whole lot; I’m trying to shorten it up so that Ministers, and also members over there can—“performing a function under this Act, or any other legislation, relating to goods management, including (without limitation)”. Two words there: “without limitation”; normally we would have in a piece of legislation some principles of what costs should be set and why, and how they’re processed. This says, “(without limitation) costs incurred relating to—(a) any of the following activities: (i) the importation or exportation of goods”—pretty much anything that we rely on—“the shipment, transhipment, or transport of goods”.

Those levies and fees can be imposed upon the transportation and movement of those goods—not just the goods themselves, “any of the following” goods. And I can’t quite understand this one: prohibited goods. So how would we levy prohibited goods when they shouldn’t be here in the first place? What’s the kind of logic of that? Maybe the members on the other side there, part of Government, can get up and explain how you would levy prohibited goods. Craft; other prescribed goods—I can understand that. These are all things that are of genuine concern to the Opposition who wants to move ahead, grow this country in a sustainable way, not just make a lot of noise about growth and then squeeze the people who have driven that growth and invested in that through backdoor levies and charges.

I’ll just go on, and I’m very aware we’re kind of running out of time here, but “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, made on the recommendation of the Minister”—so the Minister will come up with a bright idea, talk to a few people in his or her office, and then go along to the Governor-General, and, you know, there’s a few processes there, this is not just “Wander up and knock on the Governor-General’s door.” but it is on the basis of the Minister, not a process of consulting with stakeholders, consulting with affected parties and ensuring that the bright idea doesn’t—which is what the regulatory impact statement says here—“impact adversely, unfairly on small business”.

I’ll finish off saying that, when we look through here, we are not opposed to change and modernisation of regulations and charges where needed, but we do need to have some limitations. We do need to have some rationale for the change in those charges, and this piece of legislation says, “without limitation”. It is really important that the Government explains how they’re going to do this into the future, and, in particular, the many, many thousands of small-medium enterprises that make up our economy. The companies like Fonterra and the meat companies, they’ll get through this, they’ll shift that, either give less to the farmers or more to the customers, but the small-medium enterprises across New Zealand are going to be hit by this piece of legislation. They need to know how much it will be, they need to know why, and whether they’ll be able to trade through this.

It’s a pleasure to rise in the second reading of the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This is quite clear: it introduces new rules to help Customs recover costs and improve certain fees and levies and how they’re managed. I haven’t heard any dissent across the House during this reading. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

This bill is set down for committee stage immediately.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Customs and Excise Act 2018