Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:471] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I am just flabbergasted by the lack of cooperation from the Government which is looking for cooperation from the Opposition. I would like to ask the Minister of Customs a few questions around the regulation-making powers that sit within the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Bill. I ask him whether he makes them himself whether there is a requirement to take them to Cabinet and whether he had any discretion in this matter. Are they the sorts of regulations where he just rubber-stamps the recommendations of the department? If that is the point then there is no point in having the Minister involved in making the regulations because we know with this Minister—in recent years at least—that there has been no sign of a mind of his own. There is no sign of his being able to make an independent decision to take the interests of the country to heart and to do what is important for the country. I just want the Minister to get on his hind feet at some stage and indicate to the House whether in fact these powers give him any discretion or not or whether he is just a lapdog and a puppet of the department that is concerned. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member in question raised a point of order when I referred to Geppetto some years ago. I do not think it is appropriate to call anyone a lapdog or a puppet in the Chamber. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order I think that in that particular case we were talking more about the family of Pinocchio and calling someone a liar. I am certainly not calling the Minister a liar. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member is just sort of inside the scope of what is acceptable—just. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As my kind colleague the Attorney-General’s cousin has pointed out there is a question about whether he could make independent decisions or whether he has to have the intellectual giant Jonathan Coleman assist him in making this sort of decision as to whether to make recommendations for this sort of regulation. Between them frankly I have more faith in Maurice Williamson. If he was going it alone I think—[ 
Interruption 
]—no I should not have more faith! He has no faith in himself. He agrees with the High Court. He agrees with the High Court. It has no faith in him either to make any sort of recommendation or any sort of decision according to the law.  
There are a couple of other points. I do want to acknowledge in this question of information sharing and computing generally that this Minister at least in the past—and I think Peter Dunne will remember; my colleague Annette King will probably remember; probably no one else in the Chamber will remember—was the Minister who stood up against Jim Bolger in opposing the INCIS. I want to ask whether the courage and style that he had then is something he is prepared to carry through and to tell John Key now. He was very good at that time at saying what could be done and what could not be done and I would be very interested to hear whether the courage that the member has shown in the past is continuing through to his contributions as part—[ 
Interruption 
]—no it is not. No it is not. He has been beaten up by the High Court. He shakes his head and he says: “I had a chance of convincing Jim Bolger—I failed—but I have no chance of convincing John Key what is the right thing to do as far as information and communications technology is concerned.”  
Turning to the more specific parts of the bill now I would like to ask the Minister what the difference is between a dog used for customs purposes and a customs dog. What is the difference between a dog used for customs purposes and a customs dog? 
Chris Hipkins 
: Poodle. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No it is nothing to do with the pedigree. There is no doubt that if this Minister is involved it is a mongrel. We are being asked to change the law to change the term from a dog used by customs to a “Customs dog” and I want to know what the difference is. Why are we doing this? Why is it so important?  
I would also like to ask him to help explain to the Committee the interplay in clause 13 of the bill between new sections 128 and 128B when it goes to definitions of “materially incorrect” and the calculation of amount of penalty. I note that it appears that it refers to any error—any error or omission—in relation to the following matters. So if for example a full stop is left out of the overseas supplier’s identity if a tariff item number is one digit out if the zero or the decimal point is in the wrong place or if there is a currency conversion error that section catches it as being materially incorrect. As a result that means that there is an obligation under new section 128B around the calculation of the penalty. I accept that for the vast majority of these goods of course there are no tariffs and therefore there are unlikely to be any penalties under section 128B(3)(b) where there is a dollar amount. But notwithstanding that under section 128B(3)(a) there is a $200 penalty for any material error. Unfortunately “material error” is defined so widely that the misapplication of a full stop— 
Kris Faafoi 
: Really? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well it actually says: “materially incorrect means—(a) for an entry under section 39 that the entry contains an error or omission in relation to any of the following matters:”. It does not mean that you got it completely wrong. It does not mean that you put something down that is false. That is where the error or omission is made knowingly—not that anyone would knowingly leave out a full stop; clearly that is caught under section 128B(3)(b)(iii). I do not think there is any suggestion of that but under paragraph (b)(ii) or (iii) or under “materially incorrect” paragraph (a) it appears that “material” in the normal sense of actually making a difference and in particular where something is deliberate—although in this case of course there are errors that are “grossly careless” or “did not take reasonable care”. I think it is fair to say that missing out a full stop or a dot in an email address probably could come into the category of not taking reasonable care. I am not sure and I want to make sure that we are not catching here more than it is the intention of the Government and the Committee to catch.  
I think in summary I am seeking some assurances from the Minister around the width of the definition of “materially incorrect” and how that interplays with the penalty clauses. I would like him to make some comments about dogs and the effect of the change in the law here. Also I would like some sort of assurance from him that his previous good work in ensuring the integrity of the Government’s information and communications technology system will continue.