Ardern Shane: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13282] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I also want to take issue with some of the comments the Minister made. The Minister made comments like this: “You’re only protecting your gumboot mates. You’re only protecting the farmers. You’re only protecting those out there who produce the wealth of the country.” I want to remind that Minister of something. I have right here in my pocket a couple of interesting documents. One of them was put together by the Labour Party in 1999 when it was campaigning. The first document states: “Create jobs through promoting New Zealand industries and better support for exporters and small business.” That was a No. 1 pledge on the 1999 pledge card. A bit further down it states that there will be no rise in taxes. 
I then fast forward to 2002 and see the next pledge card headed: “The next steps”. It states: “Work with all sectors to create an innovative growing economy with more jobs.” That was pledge No. 1. At the bottom of the card it states that there will be no more taxes. What are we debating here tonight? Here is a question for the Minister and I hope he takes a call. I do represent the gumboot brigade—those out there wearing leather boots; the working people who make this economy work not these shiny bums down here in Wellington; not this group over here who pander to the unions cannot understand where the wealth of this economy comes from and have no idea what they put on their pledge cards or what it means. 
Here are two questions for that Minister: when is a tax not a tax and when is security not security? Is this a security cost—yes or no? Those questions are simple to answer with either a “Yes” or a “No”. I know that Minister does not understand those answers. 
Hon David Carter 
: Ask the Chairman. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I am sure the Chairman understands but the Minister there has no idea what I am talking about. When is a security cost not a security cost? When in the past have security costs not been paid by the taxpayer of New Zealand? Where is an example of that? In the history of New Zealand when have all security costs relating to customs been paid for 70 percent by the exporters and importers as is proposed in this legislation? When has that ever happened? Can the Minister show me a jurisdiction in the world where that is the case? 
I am sure the Minister will take call. I am sure he has the answers to all of these questions. I know that the Hon Rick Barker has the answers and I am sure he will be here and will take a call. Tonight we are in a vacuum because these are the questions that people out there are asking and these are the questions that exporters and importers—the very people that this Government referred to in its pledge cards—want answered. I am sure there will be a big silence because there are no answers. 
That is why the National Party opposes this ridiculous back-door tax. That is why we are strongly opposing clauses 7B and 8C tonight. That is why we will put forward an amendment to those clauses and that is why we want this Government to stand up and tell us tonight why it is that it felt it was necessary to do that at a time when this Government is going to collect $44.9 billion in the 9 months to March this year from taxes and levies at a time when this Government has got a huge surplus and at a time when in the Budget on Thursday it will be handing out lollies like Father Christmas. Why does the Government feel the need to dump this $16 million—down from $20 million—on our exporters importers and those in between which we have not quite been able to understand? 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Does the member want a subsidy? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The honourable member from the West Coast—the only one in this Chamber who I thought understood exporting importing and the farming sector—asks whether we are asking for a subsidy. Obviously he did not hear what I said earlier on. When is a tax not a tax and when are security costs not paid for by the State? I look forward to the member taking a call to explain that to the good citizens of the West Coast who are totally dependent on exports. I want to know from the member for West Coast - Tasman whether he will stand up and represent those exporters who sent him here. Will he support those farming sectors? Will he support the gumboot sector that his honourable colleague over here hates so much or will he sit over there and carp on not take a call and tell us tonight why it is that he feels the need to dump $16 million on our exporters?