Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Thank you Madam Chair Tolley and can I please start by thanking all members of the committee for their great contribution and scrutiny of a bill that is very very important. Can I also make amends in that I mistakenly acknowledged the wrong Minister who did begin this bill. So can I please correct the records and say the Hon Nicky Wagner started this bill and then it went to the Hon Tim Macindoe.There's a suite of questions that have been asked particularly on theme two that I'm going to address in my contribution. The first one dates back to questions raised when this bill was debated on 14 February. There was a question asked by the member Virginia Andersen in relation to the retention of personal information clause 51. Her question pertained to how long information that was gathered—i.e. biometrics faces irises—would stay on the record. So in response to that question raised by Virginia Andersen clause 51 requires passenger name record data to be deleted or have its identifying particulars removed after three years unless it is required for investigation prosecution or for border security. We also acknowledge that the Privacy Act 1993 applies under which information must be deleted when the purpose for which it was obtained no longer applies and it's customs' policy to ensure compliance with the Privacy Act that all biometric information collected from passengers at e-gates—the automatic passenger processing system—is deleted after three months so hopefully that addresses that question.Then we moved on to Dr Duncan Webb whose question related to condemnation of goods new clause 166A proposed through Supplementary Order Paper 12. Dr Webb raised the issue around the ability of customs to seize goods and whether there ought to be some very careful discretion not to exercise it in all circumstances. For Dr Webb the power to seize goods is discretionary. Customs officers have clear procedures to follow to guide them in using this power. The chief executive of customs also has the power to restore seized goods if she or he considers it equitable in the circumstances. A person can make their case as part of a formal review process at no cost. As a result conditions can be set as part of restoring these seized goods to the person.The Act at the moment does not address what happens if a person accepts the conditions but then fails to fulfil them. Instead the Act implies that if this happens the goods will be condemned—that is become owned by the Crown. Clause 166A has been inserted to make it explicit how this works. An example—and this might be of interest to the member who just contributed formerly Rino Tirikatene—of when this clause would engage is in relation to the exportation of pounamu which is prohibited except with the consent of a Minister of Customs on the advice of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu or the Mawhera Incorporation. Customs could restore seized pounamu conditional on the exporter obtaining the consent for the export from the Minister of Customs. This would need to be done within the time frame set out by the chief executive when the pounamu is restored.The third question that was asked by Dr Duncan Webb was in relation to powers in the contiguous zone clause 169 where Dr Webb pointed to the ability to seize illicit imports or exports in the contiguous zone—Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am so sorry to interrupt the Minister but I do believe it is inappropriate for a member to use a mobile phone in the House.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It is and the whips do have their phones so I'd ask the member to put the mobile phone away. But I do suggest to the member that he might want to wait until his Minister has finished speaking in future. It's career-enhancing.Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Thank you Madam Chair. So returning back to the question asked by Dr Duncan Webb in relation to powers in the contiguous zone clause 169 he asked for an explanation as to how this clause is both consistent with good governance and with our international obligations. Both international convention and the current Customs and Excise Act 1996 provide that powers may be exercised in the contiguous zone by customs. This is necessary to prevent or enforce breaches of customs law that occur in our territorial waters. Powers are rarely exercised in this zone. The bill does not give customs additional powers here but modernises the references to ensure clarity as to what powers are available. The power of seizure would not likely be exercised when customs is pursuing a craft from the territorial sea into the contiguous zone where goods are already forfeited.Now I return to the contribution by members tonight. I want to start with the member for Te Tai Tonga Rino Tirikatene who asked why we're using the word comptroller" and whether we are being bold enough to modernise that to "the chief executive" or asked questions why we don't just call the head of customs the chief executive. "The comptroller" is the title given to the Chief Executive of the Customs Service the title is historic and has been in use since at least the early 20th century if not earlier. The title of "comptroller" is generally used in relation to senior public sector or corporate officers who have financial oversight responsibilities. Its use by customs is historic and reflects the revenue collection responsibilities of the chief executive. It is part of the organisation's tradition and identity. The term of "comptroller" is also used by customs' administrations globally. Also in response to the honourable member's question there are no extra powers in having the term "comptroller". Clause 248 states "The chief executive of the New Zealand Customs Service continues to be known as the Comptroller of Customs." This clause is part of the debate for theme four mechanics and miscellaneous. The comptroller has the same responsibility functions and obligations as any other chief executive under the State Sector Act 1988.Then I want to move on to the Hon Peeni Henare who made a contribution around clause 205 and marae. In response can I just say to that member that by naming marae in clause 205 we are giving marae the same protection as private dwellings but greater than other public or communal spaces. The definition of "marae" is in clause 5—page 30 if the member wants to refer to it—"the area of land on which all buildings such as … wharenui … wharekai … ablution blocks and any other associated buildings are situated".In terms of dogs on marae customs would be sensitive to concerns about dogs coming on to the marae. Customs would consider using an alternative aid to dogs. But I think the big question the member thankfully asked is the identification of marae owners. Noting that we all come from marae—many of us in this House—there is no single owner. Like you rightly said we have multiple owners—some that live around the marae some that live far from the marae and some owners that live overseas—and you asked what would customs do. I am assured on asking officials to the Minister that before we move into getting a warrant to get to a warrant application the person issuing the warrant—for example a judge—must be satisfied that he or she reasonably believes that at the place there is evidence of the commission of an offence or evidence of the unlawful importation or exportation of goods—for example drugs—or anything that is intended to be used to commit such an offence. So there is a threshold there I say to Minister Peeni Henare before we issue a warrant to go into our marae.Lastly I believe that there were three contributions in relation to clause 207 and that is around—losing all these papers—clause 207 in terms of the question that Minister Willie Jackson asked around whether we have got the balance right around electronic devices. Can I reassure him and also Mark Patterson and I think the Hon Nicky Wagner that there is a two-threshold test that is in train. One is around ensuring that the two-step train—I knew I would do this: I would lose my notes amongst this sea of notes. But I want to assure the Minister that there is a two-threshold test before we actually enter. One is an initial search on the belief that there is an offence and then a more forensic test on ensuring that there is actually an offence that requires a search.So hopefully—and it's also important to note to that member that the Privacy Commissioner also submitted at select committee that they were pleased to see that the provisions outlined in clause 207 reflect that advice that they gave to officials during the policy development process. Kia ora."