Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCustoms and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 20 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16934. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment BillBiosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment BillThird ReadingsDebate resumed from 19 March.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa):Last evening there was a lot of hot air coming from that side of the House trying to make trouble out of nothing. It came from one Phil Goff. The sorts of things he was saying were: “The Minister of Customs has yet to explain to the House why his budget has blown out.” “What required a blowout of $13 million extra?” “Is that the last of the blowout?” “This is only the first tranche. Are we going to have the same problems with the second tranche?” “There have been variations that have caused the extra costs.” etc. etc. etc. And he asked that I come back and explain to the House today exactly what has been going on. I have done that work. The Joint Border Management System provides a single channel a single trade window for importers and exporters to comply with New Zealand’s border requirements. We are doing it to make a more efficient system. It is going to save $450 million of exporter and importer funds over the next 10 years. The Joint Border Management System has the full support of industry which is partly paying for it through cost recovery.Two major change requests for tranche one were approved by the Joint Border Management System joint executive board back in 2012. Those change requests which had an impact on timing and budget were supported by industry. They were to first of all switch from a single delivery date to a longer-term phased delivery more in keeping with modern IT practice and secondly to incorporate changes in the World Customs Organization message format—WCO Data Model 3—to ensure that the Joint Border Management System is equipped with world standard work flow into the Trade Single Window. The Joint Border Management System is now a multiyear phased programme of work so there is no single finish date. It is like building a travel website. The first stage might tell you the flights you have got to book and then later modules provide access to hotels rental cars insurance entertainment and the like.Grant Robertson: Tim Groser knows about all of that.JOHN HAYES: So does Shane Jones. The Trade Single Window has been up and running since 1 August 2013 and is working well. There have been 265000 transactions that have been successfully made to date. The feedback from industry about the Trade Single Window has been superb. Last night Mr Goff was trying to compare it with INCIS. I would point out that INCIS was a computer program that was never ever put to work. It was never actually implemented. We are not in that situation because as I have said this system is already working and we have had 265000 transactions so far. In a typical year you can expect about 600000 transactions.The program is contrary to Mr Goff’s assertions within budget. A total of $77.2 million has been spent to date out of $89.7 million. Labour members have repeatedly been informed of this progress through my committee the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and through answers to written questions. Indeed there have been a number of articles in the media back to June last year documenting the increased budget and the changes of timing for implementation. The choice of IBM as a provider was up to the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries and they went through standard Government procedure processes which do not involve Ministers.As I said the Trade Single Window has handled 265000 transactions to date. All outward messages from the Customs Service to traders are going through this process and 24 percent of inward trade lodgments are going through the Trade Single Window. Industry pilot partners are satisfied with the performance. It processes transactions in an average of 28 seconds. Each transaction is processed in 28 seconds saving them time and money. Traders will progressively move on to the Trade Single Window through 2014 and 2015 and ultimately it will deal with approximately half a million export transactions annually 1.4 million import transactions and 124000 cargo reports.Pilot partners which represent 63 percent of total transactions worked with the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries to develop test and launch arrangements for the window. One is CargoWise. It handles I think something like 50 percent of industry transactions. It is very pleased with the system and has said so both to the Minister and publicly in fora like the Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Federation Conference. CargoWise marketing has said to its clients: “We urge you to work with us to move you to the new ediEnterprise web service as quickly as possible and enjoy a considerable cost saving as well as a much more predictable and reliable service.” Fonterra’s direct connect development provider SAP in Europe said that the Customs Service is the best customs administrators it has ever dealt with and I would just add that that has been my experience over the last 9 years in this House. I have always thought that the Customs Service is one of our best Government agencies. SAP goes on to say that it is the best administration it has ever dealt with in terms of support and responsiveness and it deals with many.Let me just go through the budget information that was sought last night which of course Mr Goff has had for some time had he ever bothered to read through answers to parliamentary questions and his written questions. The approved capital budget in 2010 was $75.9 million. Cabinet approved an additional expenditure of $8.9 million from within the existing Customs Service and Ministry for Primary Industries capital expenditure baselines and a $4.9 million fiscally neutral transfer from operating funding to capital funding. That then gives you a total budget of $88.7 million of which $77.2 million has been spent to the end of February this year. I hope that answers the questions that were raised last night. I am in absolute support of this piece of legislation which is outstanding and very well brought to this House and managed by a very competent Minister. Thank you.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert):I think what we have heard there is one part of the story. It is the good part of the story. It is the part that we actually agree with. We agree with the need to streamline our Customs Service. We need to have a better system than we have at the moment. But the part that Mr Hayes left out and that Maurice Williamson went apoplectic on last night in his attempt to try to show how wonderful this is—I think he doth protest a little too much. But it is a good strategy. It is a good strategy to get out there and be on the attack rather than being on the defensive because that is where he should be. But let me start with a little more of this story. Let me flesh this out a little more than what we have at the moment. As I say it depends on how you tell the story about this Trade Single Window.We agree with this legislation arising from the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill because the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries together need to have a better system than they have had. We introduced this concept when Labour was in Government. The current system is 15 years old. It is starting to get out of date. It is not up with the play. Therefore with the immense amount of importing and exporting that we have in this country these bills will minimise the transaction costs—in theory anyway. They will also help us to be in sync with the World Customs Organization and help with some of our biosecurity priorities that we want to have out there as well.What Mr Hayes and Mr Williamson did not talk about was the IT system that is going off the rails. It is going off the rails. We heard Mr Williamson stand up and say: “No it’s nothing like Novopay. No it’s nothing like INCIS. It’s completely different.” Let us have a look at this. First of all the budget itself has gone up 17 percent. It may have been flagged but it started off at $76 million and it has now gone up to nearly $90 million. That is a 17 percent increase. But the devil is in the detail because that is not the big problem with what has been going on here. The big problem is that what was promised has not been delivered. What was promised under that $90 million has not been delivered.What we have now and what Mr Hayes regretfully did not talk about was the fact that we have the old system under the Customs Service CusMod operating in parallel with the new system. He said that that is a good idea and on one level I agree with him. We do not want to have a Novopay. We chucked out Datacom and immediately had Novopay fall over. But what we do not see in the immediate future—and actually not even in the medium-term or in the long-term future—is any confidence that CusMod will be phased out as it is supposed to be. The tranche one of this funding—which we have just talked about $90 million—has not delivered what this Government was promised it would by IBM. So what has happened? I will tell you what has happened. There is a major scrap going on now between the Customs Service and IBM and IBM is not delivering what it said it would deliver on the dates that it said it would do it. This is another IT system that is going right off the rails—right off the rails.Let me tell you what the State Services Commission Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet performance improvement framework review talked about when it talked about this system. “Tranche 1” it says “will provide a Trade Single Window as well as some new Risk and Intelligence tools. The Trade Single Window seems well advanced and in many ways this is the lower risk part of [the Joint Border Management System]”—the lower risk part.What it goes on to say is that actually the big part of what this is has not been delivered. Mr Hayes could be right. Right now there could be some transactions going through but it is not doing what it should be doing which is looking out for some of that risk. It goes on to say: “It was concerning to hear that the scope for the Risk and Intelligence tools had not been finalised at the time we undertook our review …”—this was some time ago but it is still not finalised as of now—“Added to this we were advised that the main contractor was having difficulty in bedding down these new tools and although we were not able to explore this in any detail it is an issue which Customs needs to address.”This has not been addressed. This is going on and on. If you talk to anybody in and around the Customs Service—anybody who is able to talk because there is a major operation in place right now to close down and shut up anybody who wants to talk about this—or you talk among people in the IT industry who know anything about this they will 100 percent confirm that this is severely off the rails and it is not meeting either its scope of work that it promised it would do or the time in which it was supposed to do it. Right now the Customs Service is contemplating taking IBM to court to ensure that it is able to actually deliver what it said it would do in the time that it said it was going to do it. Of course this is election year and who wants another Novopay in election year? So the Customs Service has closed this right down.I do not disagree with John Hayes when he said that the Customs Service is a well-run organisation—it is—but in this case it is out of its depth. It is completely out of its depth and so is the Minister of Customs who grandstands about himself being the self-appointed expert on IT situations. I can tell you that this is well and truly out of the scope of the brand new iPad that he happened to buy the other day. This is in the big territory not the little territory.What does the State Services Commission go on to say? “There are many examples of information technology programmes having struggled or failed due to poor scope control and scope control for JBMS should be addressed as quickly as possible. The scope should be locked down and any further changes should only be agreed at the most senior level and only for absolutely essential changes.” In other words it is disagreeing with Mr Williamson’s adding on and adding on. This is what sank the INCIS 15 years ago: it kept being added on and added on.This report was from 2012 and it has not been fixed. It has not been fixed. It has not been fixed and we are now looking at a total bill for this programme of $204 million of which just $90 million is the capital expenditure. The rest of it is the operational expenditure and it is supposed to finish in 2021 except it will not. It will not be able to achieve what it said it was going to achieve at the end of tranche one. We are left in the dark about what is going to be in tranche one because the papers cannot be released but tranche two is not even ready to be implemented because it is not in any way ready to go. This is a debacle. It is something that is unfolding as we speak and the Minister is desperately trying to cover it up and keep it out of the public eye.At the centre of the problem is the core of the system around the technologies for smarter targeting of people and craft crossing our borders and that part—that most sophisticated part the part we were going to get most benefit from in this system—is nowhere near in place. You can stand up and talk about how many people and how many seconds have gone through the system—and it is only a fraction of what it should be—but right now the proper technologies that we were promised would be delivered have not been delivered the budget is out of place the old system is running alongside a new system with all the costs that are included in ensuring that the old system and new system are running side by side and there is now no date for closing down the old system. The old system is continuing on because the new system has fallen over. All of the technologies around the new system are not in place. This is a debacle that will be on the scale of Novopay and it could not happen at a better time in the middle of an election year.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green):I rise to speak on the third readings of the Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill.Just following what has been said by Labour we have done a fair bit of research on this because we were alerted to the problems with IBM and the Customs Service in this new process. If you go back to 2010 when it was first mooted and when I have the first information from the Customs Service’s answers to the select committee were that prime vendors may not provide the entire solution as requested in the Joint Border Management System request for proposal and/or the price may not fall within budget expectations. Very early on they were seeing that there were some problems. It did say that full implementation of the system was expected to take 4 years with the first parts of the system becoming operational in 2012. So full implementation should be here with us right now and it clearly is not.The Customs Service moved on to say on another date 14 June 2011 that its resources are under pressure as it delivers the Joint Border Management System digitally enhanced systems and SmartGate technologies. It just kept going on with one thing after another. One was that industry stakeholders may not contribute to the development costs to the level expected. Of course they could not. They would not and should not be expected to pay for a muck up by the Customs Service agency itself. It says IBM has borne the costs of remedying defects but it has nothing definitive on the cost of changes and the modified functionality. So it was a little bit at sea on where it was headed to.Then I note the public relations part comes in—“How are we going to manage? How are we going to do damage control over this?”. So it contracted a senior communications adviser to manage communications for the development and implementation of the Joint Border Management System. That happened it said around June last year. It had always had five staff before then and now has seven. The new adviser’s role is one of the seven. So was that to manage communications to the customers to the people who need an efficient service or was it part of the smoothing over of a problem like the one the Government effectively had with Novopay—although maybe it did not understand that then—a Novopay in the waiting?There was certainly stuff that it wanted to smooth over as this ongoing process was completed. “Tranche 1 of the JBMS capital project will be completed during 2013/14. The ongoing annual operating expenditure requirements to maintain and support the JBMS are still to be finalised.” That—I am just going slowly towards the present—has faced delays delays delays and we still have them. February 2013—it announced a delay until July. Early June—the release was delayed further until August. Existing systems were to be kept functional until 2015. Then of course we heard that that was a useful means to make sure that all of the system was working and it was all intentional and the like but it is clear there has been some major problem with it.We come into more recent times. Further the Auditor-General’s office says CusMod is ageing and becoming more difficult to maintain. So it is costing more because it is ageing and it is not working like it was originally intended to. The Customs Service assesses the risk of a 48-hour failure of CusMod at 15 percent with a 5 percent risk of a failure for up to 10 working days.By the way we just heard that it takes only a few seconds to get this process the information that a customer might want done. And hey the intention of this legislation is very very good and thus taking those few seconds once you have loaded up everything is fantastic apart from waiting days and more sometimes to get things approved and through. So that is all very good but this system is clearly not working. When it is working it is working for those big companies that it has been trialled on. The trials have worked and it seems to be fine but the rest of the players have not caught up with it.So those are parts of the problem with the system. Novopay has been mentioned and I think when we see the case that no doubt will come up against IBM maybe some more truths will come out as to how much of a muck-up this really has been. Then we may also find out when this system will actually be implemented at its fullest.So as I have said before the Green Party is supporting this legislation because we know that the intent is very very good. It would be remiss of me not to mention the biosecurity aspects of it. That is what we are really hoping will get some marked improvements because even in the last 2 or 3 weeks we have had more incursions noted that are breaking through into different parts of the country because something has got through our border. The Green Party is looking to improvements in this system and through the Ministry for Primary Industries and biosecurity and we note that there are some. There are some more staff being brought back on and some more dogs being trained.We need massive improvements to biosecurity. We hope this system can be implemented in a way that is totally effective and will make sure there is a significant reduction in incursions through good information smart systems a smart approach at the border and biosecurity. They are costing this country millions and millions. I see even today in Fairfax another story about theileria and the cost to a farmer in conversion. It is a huge cost even to individual farmers let alone the economy of this country.This system needs to be very functional very soon and we need to have very effective results from it. The Green Party will be supporting this legislation. Thank you.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua):It is a great pleasure to speak on the legislation arising from the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill because it is another example of the National Government putting in legislation that is good for business good for exporters and good for biosecurity.Last night this House was subjected to a very bizarre tirade that demonstrated Labour’s chaos and laziness. Believe it or not it came from David Shearer and Phil Goff who were claiming that the Minister of Customs had deceived Parliament and the system was a dog. In actual fact neither of them had read the answers to their own questions let alone the answers to the questions of Damien O’Connor from March 2013 which precisely detailed the budget for this excellent system.The other point I want to make is this: that in actual fact the whole Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee went over to the Customs Service to have a look at how this system was being developed and it was being developed in an ideal way in tandem. There were no plugs that were going to be pulled suddenly; it was done methodically so indeed glitches would be taken out of the system before any problems occurred. It is working very very very well. In fact I will end by just saying that one of the major customers cargo-wise says this to its customers: “We urge you to work with us to move you to the new enterprise New Zealand Trade Single Window web service as quickly as possible and enjoy a considerable cost saving as well as a much more predictable and reliable service.”This legislation is another example of an excellent National Government providing much much better public services.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):I am pleased to rise and take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the third reading of the two bills we currently have before us the Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill. These two bills have been divided from the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill which we have been debating.New Zealand First has supported these bills—the singular bill as it was—through all stages of the parliamentary processes thus far albeit we have had reservations in so far as this Government’s biosecurity agenda is concerned. We have raised these concerns as I alluded to in the previous debate during the Committee of the whole House. We were encouraged by the Government’s signalling that it intended to split the bill into two bills which we are now addressing. The greater part of the Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill deals of course with the Joint Border Management System which is being developed by the New Zealand Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries.The Customs Service’s website says of the Joint Border Management System: “JBMS will enable smarter swifter border processing for goods passing in and out of New Zealand. The first stage of JBMS includes Trade Single Window (TSW) which will ultimately let exporters importers and others in the cargo industry send all shipment details electronically to one place rather than separately to several government agencies. This involves replacing the current cargo and craft reporting messages such as import and export entries with new messages that contain the information each of the agencies need. These new messages are based on version 3 of the World Customs Organization’s international trade data model so are called WCO3.” This we believe is a good thing.The part of the bill that deals with the Joint Border Management System is Part 11 inserted by clause 16. It establishes amongst under things how the Joint Border Management System is to be accessed and utilised what information will be required by it and how the form of that information will be standardised how regulations pertaining to the operation of it will be set and what enforcement and penalty provisions will apply to its misuse. The lesser part of that bill the first part deals with several other concerns including—strangely enough—the provisions around regulation making with regard to excise duties on motor spirits. I say “strangely” because it is unusual to say the least for any Government much less this one to devote the smallest part of any bill to the matter of how much coin the Crown can give itself reason to extract from the already desperately squeezed citizens of this fair country—in this case the ever-downtrodden and hopelessly overtaxed motorist.But that said it is not this first bill that concerns New Zealand First the most. We are largely in agreement with the provisions of the bill and we regard the Joint Border Management System and indeed the Trade Single Window as being good things. If they work as advertised they will simplify procedures speed processes and reduce costs associated with the importation and exportation of goods into and out of New Zealand and that can be no bad thing. Less bureaucracy is usually better bureaucracy in our view. Rather it is the second of the two divided bills that is of greater interest to New Zealand First and I would posit to the nation as a whole.This second bill the Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill is of greatest importance because it deals with biosecurity as the title of course suggests. Biosecurity is a drum that New Zealand First will keep on banging as will colleagues on this side of the House. And it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the typically fine contribution from the Hon Damien O’Connor who as all members will know has both great knowledge and deep concern about this matter. He and other colleagues on this side will also continue to bang that same drum. We do this because it is accepted by New Zealand First and other parties on this side that biosecurity is perhaps the single most important issue faced by this country. It is an issue that the National Government does not always appear to appreciate in terms of significance or treat with appropriate priority.Three-quarters of New Zealand’s economy depends on agriculture and a goodly chunk of the rest relies on tourism. Both those industries depend entirely on the protection of plant and animal species from introduced pests and diseases: bacteria viruses bugs insects pathogens contaminants and other nasties that have the potential to take our primary industries out at the knees quicker than you can say “foot-and-mouth”.This National Government on occasion—more often than not in fact—appears to approach the issue of biosecurity in a rather cavalier fashion. At times it is blasé and at times fatalistic and always it seems to us on this side there is consideration given to the dollar outlay ahead of the importance afforded to the utterly imperative requirement to keep the threats out at all costs. So we are tentatively encouraged—as I said during the Committee stage—that this bill has been divided and that biosecurity has been given some separate regard in a manner that appears to be beyond lip-service. We intend to watch developments in this area very closely.It is not yet time to remove the biosecurity boot from the Government’s throat. Fruit flies and mosquitoes and viruses and bacteria do not exist solely in departmental reports and computer models. They exist in shipping containers in second-hand tyres and in used construction machinery imported still dirty from other parts of the world with less stringent procedures than our own. They exist and they can exist in the luggage and hand luggage of visitors from overseas who are allowed to waltz across our borders without so much as a by your leave let alone an X-ray or a sniff from a detector dog simply because they belong to the frequent flyer programme of a foreign airline. It is all well and good having a shiny new whiz-bang Joint Border Management System with lots of flashy acronyms and trendy buzzwords and pretty PowerPoint presentations but the real dangers to this country and our economy exist on the ground in real life where adequate staffing and proper inspections and unrelenting vigilance are still required.So we greet the new regime that these two bills will bring with a measure of guarded optimism. We are as I say tentatively encouraged and we will be watching this space very closely indeed. So in that light and in closing New Zealand First will support these bills and we hope and trust that our cautious endorsement of them will not come back to bite the entire nation. Thank you.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore):I rise to speak at the third reading of the Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill. These are bills that make important amendments to existing legislation. They are about underpinning the implementation of the Trade Single Window component of the new $89 million Joint Border Management System—nothing wrong with that. I commend them to the House.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga):Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to speak at the final reading of these two bills in relation to the Joint Border Management System: the Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill.We have heard the Government assert that the Trade Single Window of the Joint Border Management System is running to plan. “Everything is hunky-dory; nothing to see here.” it asserts just like it did with Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust: “Nothing to see; everything is going to be functioning properly.” That is the thing with information technology or computer terms. They are very sort of harmless and benign—you know “Trade Single Window”. No one really knows what that means. We know we have seen a working demonstration but when you actually get to IT systems unless you are an IT whiz no one really knows what a Trade Single Window is and what is actually behind the system what is driving it and what its functionality is. So we have got the Government here saying that yes we have this Trade Single Window system. We have paid $90 million for it—it was originally a $76 million system that we wanted to build. We engaged IBM a major multinational corporate to deliver this. And then it gets a bit hazy because the time frames changed the budget changed. They had to seek Cabinet approval again for an increase so the budget has grown to some $90 million for delivery of this system but we do not really know what the system is. Really only those technically minded people will know.What we have gleaned from the Government members is that all is not well with the Trade Single Window system. We have heard from the Minister of Customs during the Committee stage that there were issues around the system and the testing and modules were still to be finalised. There was more testing that needed to take place and extra functionality. There were issues around the scope of changes. So there is all this language around how we are not quite sure and how we have not really delivered what we thought was going to be delivered but all the while the money is being used up. You can guarantee that that $90 million has been all spent—all spent—as we see from the Customs Services responses to the financial review to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. It was a $90 million project. Tens of millions of dollars have gone into it—$40 million to IBM and a host of nearly 100 consultants contractors and IT firms have all been nibbling away at this $90 million. And we still do not know whether the Trade Single Window is fully functional and whether those contractors have actually delivered on what they were contractually obliged to deliver.We here on this side of the House have not had the comfort from the Minister that they actually have delivered on the job. In fact I actually sense that when you are in these contractual arrangements with IT firms they can get very sticky. We are talking big bickies and we are talking about big powerful companies. I wonder whether the tail is wagging the dog on this. I wonder whether IBM actually is playing hardball with the Customs Service and actually saying it has delivered what it believes the Customs Services wanted it to deliver or if there have been problems and it is saying “Let us change the wording let us change the language around this module or the functionality—technical terms—that we are delivering on.” So it will be interesting because this tranche 1 of the Joint Border Management System was according to the Customs Service’s responses to the select committee to be complete—its estimated completion date—in June this year. So that is the end point.Now we hear that that is not so much—it is a fluid project. There is no end point. There is still some functionality that we are still testing which still needs to come through. So as Mr Hayes said it is a work in progress. Well he did not actually say that but words to that effect came from the Government. It has not got an end point even though the actual budget has been approved for this project and the stated delivery time is in June this year. I mention that because we really are in the dark in terms of how this system is delivering and whether all of the contracted functionalities in the build of this system have actually been delivered. Certainly we know that if there is a dispute IBM is a company that will definitely want to make sure that it is not going to be doing any more work than it has—it will definitely demand that it is paid for it. Therefore we have seen the budget blow up to $90 million.We have not seen anything around tranche 2. What we really would like to see is the formal evaluation of this system the evaluation of tranche 1. That we understand is due to Cabinet in June this year. But it will be interesting because no proposals no costings no scope of work have been provided for tranche 2 because they have not been able to really adequately deliver on tranche 1. We definitely need to see that evaluation. I know that there have been multiple layers of project teams and governance boards. From a project management point of view I guess the Customs Service has done its best to put great systems and checks and balances in place. But ultimately the rubber meets the road when it comes to whether the Trade Single Window has delivered on all the functionality within time and within budget as the Government had contracted to deliver.We are very sceptical on this side because based on the language from the Minister and also on the information that has come to hand through my colleague Mr Shearer it seems that there are problems with this system. What we do not want to see is another Novopay another INCIS-type scenario where we get a huge waste or get into a huge fight with a multinational company to try to seek some accountability for the failure of that company to deliver on what it has been contracted to deliver. We know that the Joint Border Management System is a great concept. It came out of the last Labour Government and we have supported it all the way through. It is the implementation that we have had real concerns about because trade is the lifeblood as we all know for our country and our economy. So we need efficient streamlining of our border processes and Customs Services does play a very key and a very creditable role. I must commend the Comptroller of Customs—I had not known what the word “Comptroller” meant but I understand it is a term that comes from way back in time—Carolyn Tremain and her team because they do a great job on that front.I do recall these words from the Minister of Customs at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee: If there was a major problem with the Joint Border Management System with the Trade Single Window that was impacting on our trade across our borders he would take the first flight to the Bahamas. Well we will have to wait and see whether that does transpire because if there are problems with this system we on this side of the House would all too happily and gladly see that Minister take a trip to the Bahamas. Aside from that and aside from those concerns we do commend this overall system and we commend this legislation to the House.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):The last member to talk Rino Tirikatene was saying that he was a bit in the dark or that the Labour Party is a bit in the dark about what is happening. So I am here to say “Come to the light.” This legislation the Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill is good legislation and it is a good opportunity in their third readings to say that the National Government is clearly clearly convinced of the importance of trade. I know that some of the Opposition parties are not. This legislation is one small part in promoting that trade.We have heard a lot about this Trade Single Window. This is a way to speed up how we do our trading between our country and others strangely enough. But speaking of speeding things up I would just like to commend the bills to the House.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Su’a William Sio—5 minutes.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere):I am really excited—thrilled in fact—to be speaking on this legislation. This is perhaps the sexiest and most exciting legislation to come before the House this week—the Customs and Excise (Border Processing—Trade Single Window and Duties) Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity (Border Processing—Trade Single Window) Amendment Bill. I think every MP in this House should be given an opportunity to speak on legislation such as this. The Joint Border Management System is an idea conceived when Labour was in Government. Joint border management will bring about more efficient transactions enhancing tourism and facilitating overseas trade. The sophisticated computer software will enable our border agencies to identify and link people and goods moving between our borders. A Trade Single Window will be a hub for exchanging information electronically about importers exporters and travellers between all border agencies.Facilitating better coordination of people—importers exporters and travellers—or goods that leave or arrive at our borders is an important element in creating a more productive economy. This facilitation process for border transactions is a crucial element in Labour’s vision to give New Zealand an economic upgrade. The Joint Border Management System and the Trade Single Window are important ingredients as Labour works to give New Zealand an economic upgrade to a high-value economy that will support better jobs and higher incomes. New Zealand needs an economic upgrade because our economy has been running on old software. Labour wants better jobs and higher wages for all New Zealanders and the Joint Border Management System and the Trade Single Window are two important ingredients that can help us achieve that.But we have got to make the point that the Government must give us assurances and confidence and must give the public of New Zealand assurances and confidence that the continued underfunding of our biosecurity—the monitoring and clearance—must not put our borders at risk. We need to ensure that our borders have the appropriate funding to keep them secure. National needs to make sure that the Customs Service’s IT systems do not result in ridiculous debacles on the front line of our border similar to the debacles we have seen under this Government with ACC and Novopay. National also needs to ensure that New Zealanders’ information is protected when these information technology systems are sharing data between agencies and between other businesses.It all seems really easy and uncomplicated but where there has generally been a let-down when we see new IT systems being put in place is the incompetence—and I am reluctant to say this—but so far the experience that we have seen and the experience that New Zealanders have seen is the incompetence of Ministers and again it is the examples of Novopay and ACC. Labour substantially boosted New Zealand’s border security capacity. Scientific and operational systems were changed to more effectively investigate eradicate or manage biological threats. Labour set up Biosecurity New Zealand to coordinate the agencies that manage and protect our country against these threats. We developed a comprehensive biosecurity strategy applied to all of New Zealand’s environments—land fresh water and marine—and to both indigenous and introduced flora and fauna.I want to then conclude with the two main concerns and again I want to say that it is the Government’s challenge and we put that challenge on the table. It needs to be giving confidence to this House and to all New Zealanders that it is working to ensure that there is no stuff-up with the information and communications technology—with the Joint Border Management System as well as the Trade Single Window. It is disturbing to hear previous speakers on this legislation say that there is a scrap between the Customs Service and the information and communications technology provider. Another point I want to raise is that my colleague Damien O’Connor found that although funding for border systems—and that no doubt includes the Joint Border Management System—has increased Budget documents also show that funding for border biosecurity has been cut by $6 million.Bills read a third time.