Eckhoff Gerrard: Border Security Bill — Second Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Border Security Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13173] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 The word “principle” is occasionally mentioned in this House but not very often and even less is it followed through on. Members of Parliament and indeed members of the public who are listening to this debate will understand the concept of a public good. They understand that when the health life well-being or safety of a New Zealander is at threat there is no demand for cost recovery. When individuals are trapped on the face of Mount Cook or Mount Aspiring or when they are out in the ocean the search and rescue people are called in and they do their damnedest to ensure a successful outcome. Yet no cost recovery is imposed on those people. All of us know that in some circumstance at some time of our life we may need the benefit of search and rescue or the Government services to help us. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: The ACT party is now arguing over subsidies is it? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: The ACT party has always been in favour of user-pays but I say to the Minister of Transport that the next time he sends out search and rescue to pluck a person from the ocean or off Mount Aspiring he should tell that person that there will be a 50 percent cost recovery. That is all I am asking for. That is the principle that is involved here. I say that there is as every other speaker has alluded to in this House a fundamental principle that when there is a public good then the public should pay. 
It is quite fascinating to note that the socialists here in the House who have a philosophy of all sharing in the wealth created in this country do not seem to accept that philosophy when the costs of creating that wealth occur. So I ask that Minister what the principle is behind this legislation. That is all that New Zealanders are asking and that is all that the tourism industry and trade industries are asking. They are asking to be given the principle behind this bill. They want to beable to see that what the Government is doing is fair and reasonable. They say that if they can see how they as individuals are to benefit from the whole process they may well accept it. But there has been nothing in response to that. This Government has yet again seen the cash cow of industry—the wealth producers of this country—and it keeps on milking it. We could argue that a few million dollars here or there will not make a huge difference but again I come back to the principle of continually imposing costs on industry. I wonder where John Tamihere the Minister for Small Business is. Why is he not speaking on this bill on behalf of small business—for example on behalf of the fellow I spoke to who exports high-quality fish to France? He told me that he now has to turn that fish into fish fingers because he cannot afford to go through the process of guaranteeing security. The costs are just too great for him to do that so we will lose out on that export. That is absolutely wrong. 
The next time we have members of the New Zealand public in need of the police why should we not then impose a cost recovery regime on them too? When there is a fire or when some resource is needed why should we not impose cost recovery on the people involved as well? Those are huge costs to this country. What about our armed services? Surely they are the ultimate in a public good. Many of those men and women go overseas to protect New Zealanders our nation and our resources for goodness’ sake as they did in the two world wars. Why should we not impose the cost of wars on everyone and tax the people who own those resources? The argument is a nonsense one from this Government. That is why industry has stood up and said it has had enough. In some respects I am actually quite pleased that the Government is imposing yet another whack on industry because it is just another nail in this Government’s coffin. Come election time—whenever it may be; hopefully it will be sooner rather than later—it will be very easy to stand up and speak to the people of this nation and to tell them what the Government has done in terms of imposing continuing costs on this country. 
It is no wonder that people like the McLachlan family referred to in a  
Sunday Star-Times 
 article cannot make ends meet. It is tougher to survive in this world than this Government understands—just competing against the world without compliance costs being imposed almost weekly by a Government that has no understanding of business. How many members of this Government have actually been in business and paid compliance costs? I do not think there are any. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Me! 
David Parker 
: Me! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well to be charitable maybe one or two have. That is the real problem. The meat industry and the farming industry— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I guess the Government can laugh at those sorts of things but the farming industry is not laughing. I can tell Mr Parker that the people of Central Otago will not be laughing when I tell them that Mr Parker thinks this legislation is fine and that it is wonderful to impose costs on farmers. He may just have a bit of a struggle on his hands at the next election when I inform them that he thinks it is perfectly fine to constantly impose such costs on them. 
I say again that the ultimate responsibility of a Government is to provide security for its people. That is why we pay 39c in the dollar in income tax—not for the Government to turn round and say we are paying $7 billion more in tax than we need to but it has a $20 million cost here that it is going to grab off us again so it can fire all that surplus into the welfare Budget next week. That is the real issue and the people of this country understand that. That is why they have reacted strongly against this bill. They have bent over backwards to accommodate the Government and the Government has constantly moved away from them. The terrible events of 9/11 have imposed the requirement for additional security and every country recognises the need to up its security—absolutely; there is no question about that. But the real issue is that if there is a public good involved here then the taxpayer of this country who benefits every time resources pass over a wharf or into an aeroplane will benefit. We will all benefit from that. It is not just the meat industry or the farmer who will benefit; it is also the freezing workers and the people who have good jobs that have been created by industry. They will benefit from this measure. Every person who pays tax will benefit—indeed every New Zealander who receives benefit from the Government will receive benefit from this country having first-rate security. That is all we are asking for. 
I say as an ACT party MP who absolutely has a philosophy of user-pays that I have no problem with regard to paying my fair share. But I do not expect nor does industry—especially industries like the meat and wool industries—to have to pay twice and maybe even three times. That is all that the farming community and the export industries are asking for: for the Government to be fair about this issue. But the Government has thumbed its nose at them walked away and said they have to pay the costs because it has the power to impose them. Well if that is consultation I think it is a really good indication yet again that this Government’s days are numbered.