Harawira Hone: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Harawira Hone: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7654] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker kia ora tatou te Whare. I will start by referring to the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on this bill and in particular to the bit where it recommends that the word “reasonable” be inserted before the words “cause to suspect.” “Reasonable” is a word I have come across a lot in my many court cases over the years—reasonable use of force reasonable expectation what a reasonable person would do reasonable grounds to believe; the list goes on and on. So I have had a decent look at the word “reasonable” over the years. I was keen to see how the word was used in terms of border security. 
I note also that the bill gets right into defining what a “dangerous item” is such as ammunition a firearm an offensive weapon an explosive device and an injurious substance or device. The last item also adds the phrase “of any kind whatsoever”. That includes of course cigarettes and tobacco and a whole host of other things not listed in the bill. 
I note that when it comes to defining something as subjective as the word “reasonable” the gates are equally wide open. Indeed on at least 16 different occasions the test of reasonableness is proposed as the basis of judgment in this bill—such as: reasonable force may be used to detain someone officers may seize anything they have reasonable cause to suspect may be evidence or officers may detain a person if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person poses a threat. Given that the bill does not define “reasonable” I looked up the word and found a whole host of different definitions. I am hugely concerned that if the purpose of this bill is to provide more effective border management then the definitions and instructions need to be clear and definite and not left to the interpretation of individual staff and different agencies. 
When this bill came before the House last year I spoke about how Maori understood the issue of managing our borders to preserve and protect our world and about the notion of kaitiakitanga—the preservation of our natural environment. I said it was our responsibility as Maori and as a nation to maintain a clean safe and healthy environment for ourselves and for future generations by promoting the protection restoration and enhancement of mauri within our natural world. So I cannot stress enough the importance of protecting our lands and our people from infectious diseases and biological or chemical threats. But that question of interpretation still remains. Who defines what is dangerous? Who determines what search criteria should be? What constitutes suspicious grounds? Those decisions can be very subjective very prejudiced and often racist. 
I would like the House to consider the role that racism plays in how we deal with immigrants. I will mention four New Zealand citizens who have complained of racial discrimination by Auckland airport customs staff. The first African-born New Zealand citizen BoubacarCoulibaly treasurer of the African Community of Auckland Region has been questioned and searched three times by customs staff despite having no criminal history. The second Auckland area manager for Housing New Zealand Margritt de Man who has dark skin despite her European origins has also been questioned four times and has had her luggage searched despite having had no goods to declare. Jamaican-born Auckland lawyer Colin Henry complained to the Race Relations Office that he was deeply offended by being singled out for attention while a crowd of mainly European passengers went past unquestioned. When he expressed his annoyance a police officer threatened to arrest him. Finally to add insult to injury South African - born former New Zealand Race Relations Conciliator Gregory Fortuin has himself been detained by customs officials. 
Auckland airport customs staff confirm that ethnicity is a basis for profiling. Ethnic profiling if it is not managed effectively and intelligently is a major concern because it becomes the basis of stereotyping and racial discrimination. 
Last month in the UK a Home Office report exploring the decision making of immigration officers confirmed what most darkies have long known to be true—that the practice of profiling on the basis of race ethnicity and religion is a fact. According to the report British immigration officers say they base decisions on “intuition” about people who “look the part”. But who looks the part and who does not as a result of society’s prejudices? So it comes as no surprise whatsoever that way more blacks and Asians get stopped for questioning than white folks. Coloured South Africans get stopped 10 times more often than their white counterparts. Coloured Canadians get stopped nine times more often than their white countrymen. 
The report’s authors say that this has nothing to do with racism though. They say that their decisions are based on socio-economic factors. Excuse me for sounding flippant but yeah right! Where have we heard that one before? That is the line this Government used for cancelling the closing the gaps policy. It is the line the Yanks used for overzealous policing of black districts and—to no one’s surprise—the New Zealand Government also used that line in justifying using Tasers in Polynesian communities here. Socio-economic factors be damned; it is out and out bloody racism. We need to see it and condemn it for what it is whether it is in London New York Paris or Auckland. 
In his article in the  
Guardian 
 in January 2007 entitled “The west persists in using race to decide who can cross its borders” Gary Younge wrote: “So long as there are nation states there will be borders and immigration laws to regulate them. The least we can do is drop the pretence that these laws are fair. They are not designed to discriminate between people but against them.” 
The Maori Party supports this bill at its second reading because we support the need for tightening security and protecting our environment. But we take issue with assumptions of what qualifies as “reasonable”—the adoption of racial profiling and border management practices here in Aotearoa; the behind-closed-doors decision-making processes regarding the bringing in of genetically modified organisms; the demand that we accept World Trade Organization decisions even when they work against our best interests; and free-trade agreements made without proper reference to Maori Treaty interests. We too want to keep Aotearoa free from threats but we also want a proper say in exactly what constitutes a threat. Kia ora tatou.