Ardern Shane: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
Ardern Shane: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:13826] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to the Minister of Customs give his third reading speech on the various issues that were discussed particularly the bit about now reassessing the costs doing a survey on that and coming back in 2006 with a recommendation. Obviously we will look with great interest to see what comes out of that. 
The National Party will be supporting the immigration part of this legislation. We voted for it in the Committee and there were some very good reasons for that. The Minister outlined some of them. I note that in the Committee the Minister put in a Supplementary Order Paper to separate the immigration part from the customs and excise part. I presume that was so that the Government could secure the numbers without having to do too much of a deal with the Green Party and giving too much away over the immigration part of it. 
As the Minister said the legislation amends a number of things. One thing it does is it gives carriers the ability to turn somebody back at his or her point of entry into the plane ship or craft. That is a good thing. The New Zealand Customs Service otherwise has to detain those people go through a lengthy process at a huge cost—I believe that it is about $20000 per person; the Minister may be able to confirm that—then send them back. So that amendment is an excellent thing. We support it. The legislation also gives the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour which includes the New Zealand Immigration Service authority to make a decision based on the information it has been able to collect through the new system to be introduced after this legislation is passed and to say: “No I don’t think this person is suitable to come to New Zealand for a range of reasons based on this information and therefore you”—the carrier whatever it might be—“should not carry this person to New Zealand.” That is a very very good move and we support it. 
There are a number of others. It is good to see the extra $5 million in the Budget for this area. That was overwhelmingly necessary. One has to wonder given the massive surplus that this Government has why it would not invest in this area because clearly it is a very important area for New Zealand trade and trade access of course is very important. 
But that is where our support for this Government’s approach in this legislation ends. In the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill the Government is still proceeding with the notion that somehow or other a security cost should be paid by exporters importers and the shipping companies in-between. The cost is now down to $4 million for exporters $8 million for the shipping companies and $4 million for the importers. Quite frankly that is totally unacceptable. The Minister has been told that. The coalition of trading exporters and importers has told the Minister that in no uncertain terms and so far we have seen no explanation that justifies the move that the Government is taking. 
Maybe the Minister will take another call and tell me why he thinks that at this point in time it is credible to introduce a backdoor tax—and that is all it can be described as. Treasury papers themselves state that we cannot establish the actual cost and will not know it—and the Minister has admitted it tonight—until a survey is conducted and a proper thorough review of the cost of these procedures is done yet the Government is still proceeding with this $16 million tax which will be dumped on the growth industry of this economy. So I ask the Minister to take another call and tell me why I am wrong. The export coalition represents 80 percent of New Zealand’s $40 billion in trade and it says the Minister is wrong. What does the Minister say to that? Does he say the export coalition must be wrong—that the Government is right and it is wrong? No the Minister is definitely wrong. There is no doubt about that. 
Let us look at what the Prime Minister has said throughout this process: “We’re going to have a look at it. We’ll consult you. We hear your concerns. We’ll listen and we’ll make a decision.” Well the Government has consulted and it has listened but has it made a decision? No it has not. It has continued with this back-door tax which is right where it was at the start with the exception of the $4 million back-down. The Government intends to continue with this tax despite it being the 23rd tax imposed on New Zealanders in the time this Government has been in office. I say to the Minister that is totally unacceptable. 
The Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) does one or two other things that are worth mentioning. It requires—as legislation has always required—a carrier to obtain from people their date of birth nationality sex passport or certificate of identity and the like. That is a good thing. We need to know those details. In recent times there have been many debates in the House about people who have come into this country without having been thoroughly vetted. Once they are here it is hugely difficult for us to track them down. Indeed recently we saw the Minister of Immigration appealing on national television to such a person to come forward to give himself up. So it is important that we have good rules and good regulations with regard to those aspects of the legislation. 
The officials who advised the select committee and have advised the Minister are to be congratulated on their thorough work. At this point the Opposition cannot see any gaps but time will tell. I note the officials are present and I acknowledge them. In time we will know whether there are gaps but for now the bill looks thorough and as though it will work. We think it will manage at least to ensure that New Zealand’s borders are secure against terrorist-type people who may want to come here for reasons we would not like. The Government also has said it is prepared to fix any mistakes the new regime may have by 1 July 2006. I am pleased the Minister has acknowledged that fact again tonight. I look forward to what happens there. 
But I cannot understand why the Minister wants to proceed with clauses 7B and 8C in the light of huge opposition. The Government would make huge political gain if it said that it had had a look at the provisions that the officials had had a look at them that the industry had had a bit more time to have a look at them that the international concerns had been taken care of—and that was the Government’s primary objective when it set out on this course—and that the US had said it was happy with what was proposed so the Government now accepted that given its huge huge surplus it should pick up this security cost as it historically always has done. We should not have this mad “tax and snatch” approach and we should not penalise our traders again. We should not set off down a track that potentially could have a detrimental effect on our growth—and growth has been a stated objective of this Government right from the time it started talking about this business. The Minister should stand and say that the Government got it wrong and that it will not proceed with this silly tax. The political mileage that the Government would gain from that might even have the effect of turning round Labour’s fortunes in the polls—although I doubt it; I think it has gone beyond that now. Why does the Minister not accept that this measure is no good and just back away from it? 
The industry made a very very credible offer in my view. It came back to the Government and said that it accepted that the Government was pretty dug in on this approach so it was prepared to accept about 50 percent of the cost. But what did the Minister do? He said that was not acceptable. He said that the Government was not prepared to move from its current “dug in the ground” pig-headed approach that industry would pay and that that was how it would be. The National Party will oppose the legislation on that basis. It is wrong it is a back-door tax and we totally disagree with it.