Copeland Gordon: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13284] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 In talking to clause 8C there are just a few other points I would like to make. First of all I would like to make it very clear that United Future believes that the system the Minister has put in place in terms of border security in these matters is a very very good system. I think it is actually a world-class system. I want to make it clear that we have no problem whatever with the actions the Government is taking in that regard. Our sole problem is with the fact that importers and exporters are to be lumbered unfairly in an unprincipled way with the costs arising from that. 
I make the point that the passage of this bill tonight does not in and of itself impose those charges on exporters and importers. What the clause does is give the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister the authority to make regulations in respect of charges fees etc. Therefore the passage of this bill tonight does not necessarily mean that those costs have to be imposed; they are imposed only if the Government decides to do so. At this point in time as far as we know that is what it intends to do—impose another $4 million on exporters and $4 million on importers. That is what we oppose. As far as the $4 million cost on importers is concerned this bill is kind of irrelevant as that is being done under existing regulations. So even at this late time I continue to appeal to the Government to reconsider this matter do the common-sense thing and absorb those costs. 
I want to mention the arguments put forward by Ian Ewen-Street in terms of the rationale for the Greens’ decision to support this $16 million charge on importers exporters and trans-shippers. The argument seems to amount to this: the Government could chose to do nothing about the border security of New Zealand and a consequence of that would be that exporters would have to use the red lane in Los Angeles and pay I think US$350 per container. But I say that that premise is fundamentally flawed because that is simply not an option for any responsible Government. As has been pointed out already by several speakers all of this flows from September 11 when the world changed. We have to have proper border security. We have to have proper supply chain security for our exporters. So really it is a ridiculous non sequitur to argue that we can just do nothing and in that case the exporters will have to pay. That is true in itself but it is an unacceptable position for any Government to say it will abandon its exporters to the mercy of whatever the United States intends to do on this matter. That is simply not good enough. 
The central argument here is whether this Government is prepared to give all assistance possible to the exporters of this nation. That is the real substance of this argument. It is United Future’s view that the Government on this occasion has got it wrong and that this measure can only be interpreted by all the members of the Travel and Trade Industry Coalition which is a who’s who of New Zealand businesses as an anti - defence of the realm measure and an anti-exporting measure. Again I appeal to the Government to think again. It is not too late even at this point for the Government to change its mind and do the common-sense thing.