Tisch Lindsay: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13287] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 This bill is a consequence of world events that have been outside our control. It acknowledges the need to counteract transnational criminals—not those involved in the commercial sector. It is also in our national interest that our citizens are protected and I mentioned that before in a previous speech. The bill also acknowledges New Zealand’s obligation to play a part in the international community and it also acknowledges there are benefits for New Zealand from international trade. The point I want to make is that we on this side have argued that the measures in clauses 7 and 8 are a public good not a private good. The whole country will benefit from the Border Security Bill and in that context it is important that the whole country plays its part. 
In fact if we were to look at the report made by the Controller and Auditor-General under the heading “Managing threats to domestic security” we would find a very important statement and maybe the Minister would like to comment on it. I think it is important that we understand what this report notes: “It is important for the country’s own protection and well-being and to meet international obligations that New Zealand adapts to meet the new security environment in the most effective way possible. Unless security measures keep pace with those being adopted elsewhere New Zealand risks attracting terrorist attention and could unwittingly provide a safe haven for terrorists and terrorist activities.” So what the report says is very very succinct. There is an obligation on New Zealand to provide for its own security arrangements. The report further states: “On 28 September 2001 the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1373 which binds all member States and provides a framework for the international response to terrorist attacks.” Here we have a document that is regarded around the world as being important. New Zealand is a signatory to it. 
I am saying quite clearly that our security arrangement is a whole-of-Government domestic security strategy. With that in mind although National members support this bill in its context we cannot support those provisions that add huge costs on to our export sector—and I mentioned those earlier. 
The point I come back to is that there was no mention in the original bill that there would be a cost recovery mechanism. As there was no mention of it in the original bill someone making a submission would have thought that any provision for security would be paid for out of general taxation. That is the reason why our export sector became so annoyed with this Government. It had not had an opportunity to make submissions on that provision because it had not been part of the original bill. So we had to provide for that at a later date with the select committee reconvening to hear those major wealth creators of New Zealand who had to be crammed into a 2-hour session to have their say. 
The Government has talked about there being a direct benefit to traders. Well when I look at the bill I find there is actually no mention of the benefits to exporters. The word “benefit” is not mentioned in the commentary yet over time Ministers have said that it is the traders who will benefit. I say that this bill will allow New Zealand to benefit. New Zealand benefits from this provision not just the traders in that sense.