Ardern Shane: Border Security Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Border Security Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13168] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak in opposition to the Border Security Bill. It is with a great degree of sadness that I have to do this. I acknowledge the work of the officials for the Government Administration Committee—of which I was a member for part of the time—because they did a thorough job and came back with some very solid recommendations as to how we should enhance and improve security at our borders. Unfortunately this Government is once again trying to sneak in a sneaky back-door tax—like another sneaky back-door tax I can think of that was introduced in Parliament recently. Here we are again with another sneaky back-door tax. 
I acknowledge that the Minister has backed down a little bit and is now prepared to wipe $4 million off the proposed $8 million per annum that the Government was going to charge exporters. The Government made that announcement today on  
Intranews 
 at 4.18 to coincide of course with the second reading of this bill. But it is a long way from where the Minister needs to go. 
The National Party said at the select committee—it is what we have thoroughly investigated and still believe and what we have put in our minority report—that the $19.753 million in extra tax is an arbitrary figure based on nothing that we could find. The Treasury papers we saw certainly demonstrated that there was no thorough investigation into what these border investigations would cost. 
Further this bill once again shows the grey area this Government is trying to introduce in terms of part user-pay charges. In New Zealand security costs have historically always been a public good met by the State. As the Minister said in his opening comments these changes came about primarily as a result of the 9/11 attack in the US and our need to be able to get through the extra security measures that the US has put in place. These are absolutely a security cost and should fall on the taxpayer as a public-good cost. They should not be shoved on to industry as this Minister is trying to do. 
If this bill proceeds as proposed something like 70 percent of the Customs Service’s costs will be now met by users. That percentage is higher than it has ever been in New Zealand and higher than I can find anywhere internationally as well. Seventy percent of all security-related costs for the Customs Service will now be met by users. That is a very high percentage. The Minister is not sure whether to nod in acknowledgment of that or to shake his head but that is what this shows me. 
Treasury guidelines stated—and this was presented to the select committee—that a very high threshold is being set in terms of what is a public good and what is not. I ask the Minister—and perhaps he is prepared to take another call to answer some of these questions—whether this is a public good. Yes or no? Is it a security cost? Yes or no? The Minister will say that exporters would not be able to get through the fast lane without the Government’s intervention. Yes I accept that that is true. The Government is supposed to intervene when a foreign nation starts to dictate what must happen at our borders. That is what the Government’s role is. What is the role of Government if not to provide security to industry and exporters? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: This is the member who voted for the privatisation of prisons! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The Minister needs to get clear what is in the public interest and what is not and explain to people how he can draw on private prisons when we are talking about a security cost imposed on a nation by foreign nations in relation to trade—when to comes to getting products in and out of our country. I am sure he will take a call later on to explain that to us. 
National strongly opposes new clauses 7B and 8C which permit the introduction of this underhand back-door tax. It can be described only in that way; there is no other way to describe it. Industry accepted that the Government would not back down 100 percent and came back and offered the Government a 50/50 cost split. I thought industry was generous in coming back—it showed a sign of weakness and it should have stuck to its guns—but that is what it did. That is what the collective exporters importers and shippers of New Zealand decided they would do. 
 They came back to the Government and said: “Look clearly you’re going well beyond where Governments have ever gone before but we can see that you are not going to back down 100 percent so we are prepared to meet 50 percent of the cost.” What did the Government do? It slammed the door in their faces and said: “No way. At best we will come up with a reduction of about $4 million per annum on this $20 million tax on the exporters.” 
The Minister says that is 50 percent. It is 50 percent of the exporters’ costs—I accept that—but it is not 50 percent of the total cost. I have not worked out the percentage in total—I am sure someone here who is pretty quick with maths can work that out and make a contribution in a following speech—but the reality is that the Government has introduced a cost that has normally been met by the State. It can only be described as an extra tax. There is no other way of describing it. 
The Government which is enjoying the best economic times in the recent history of New Zealand and which has massive surpluses has seen fit once again to introduce another form of tax on our exporters who are the very heart and soul of our economy. They are the engine room that drives our economy and they have allowed the Government to come up with the best returns a Government has had in a long time. In talks with the Government they have decided that they will find a way to fast-track our exports with foreign nations which is something they should be commended for. I thank the Minister for his efforts there and the officials who advised him on that. So why can the Minister see the advantage of it at that level but not see that this cost is a public good that should be met by the State—as it has always been? 
In closing I say to the Minister that he should go back and listen to the concerns of industry leaders. The Prime Minister has indicated that she is willing to listen to some of those concerns so he should reassess his stance on it. He could do himself a lot more good politically by going back and saying: “Yes we concede now that this was an arbitrary figure plucked out of the sky and there is no basis for this charge.” He should accept that it is a tax and back down 100 percent on it which would be the honourable thing to do.