Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4517] 
Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) 
First Reading 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Post-9/11 means that we live in a very different global environment. We can no longer assume that New Zealand is safe from international criminal activities such as drug trafficking and terrorism which as we have all seen know no boundaries. The face of New Zealand’s travel and trade landscape is also changing. We are experiencing huge growth in the volume of people and goods crossing our border and with it increasing threats such as illegal migration identity fraud terrorism drugs and international organised crime. That makes it even more important that we move to target such risks effectively and with minimal disruption to legitimate trade and travel. 
Along with those changes the volume and sophistication of organised criminal activity is on the increase which means that our border control activities must evolve to keep pace. Major drug seizures such as the record $135 million drug bust in Auckland in May show that our country continues to be a target for such criminal groups and that we cannot afford to let our guard down. The New Zealand Customs Service represents a first line of defence in helping to keep our borders and our country safe. It is also responsible for helping to ensure the security of our exports and imports which protects New Zealand’s international trading reputation. 
The Government is committed to protecting our communities our people and our economy from those risks. This bill recognises areas of border management where strengthened legislation is needed to help achieve that. The reality of operating in a heightened global security environment means we also have greater national and international obligations around border security and our legislation needs to be strengthened to reflect that. A large number of Government departments have been consulted during the development of this bill and it has been carefully drafted to strike a balance between the need to protect our communities and the rights of individuals. The bill complies with the rights and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993 as well as relevant international standards and obligations. 
The legislation also supports a whole-of-Government approach to better border management. It addresses limitations in current border powers by extending the range of options that customs officers have available to them in recognition of what is becoming an increasingly complex and changeable border environment. The strengthened legislation will also create better linkages between customs and other border enforcement agencies to ensure people or goods that pose a threat do not slip through the possible gaps in the system. 
That brings me to the content of the bill. This bill strengthens the Customs and Excise Act 1996 to provide for more effective and integrated border management by Government agencies. It also makes minor amendments of a mechanical nature and technical amendments to clarify the Act. 
 The bill’s key provisions include the ability for the Customs Service to deal with risk goods and evidence of offending. Section 175C substituted by clause 15 will help to keep New Zealand’s borders safer by enabling customs officers to refer to other border control agencies any potential risk goods or documents that may be of interest to those agencies. Being able legitimately to pass findings to another agency will have significant benefits for risk management and for the detection of offences. For example currently a customs officer cannot seize any evidence such as documents related to people-smuggling which means that that evidence may not be able to be used in a prosecution. Customs officers already have some powers to hold and refer dangerous goods and those powers will be extended to allow them to hold and refer risk goods to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 
The second provision in section 175B substituted by clause 15 provides the ability for the Customs Service to retain or seize unlawful travel documents. It gives a customs officer during a search or examination the ability to seize and hold any unlawful travel documents and the equipment used to produce them. The provision recognises the growth of identity fraud and false travel documentation which is of increasing concern to international border control agencies. New Zealand customs officers regularly detect fraudulent identity documents at the border. The ability to search for and seize those false identity documents and the equipment used to produce them is important because such documents can be used to facilitate other types of criminal activity. If those items slip through they can compromise border security and undermine our passport system. Allowing those items to remain in circulation also exposes other countries to the same risks. 
Thirdly there is an obligation on persons to remain at their place of report in New Zealand until border processing is completed under new sections 32B and 32C inserted by clause 6. Those provisions require people travelling to or from New Zealand to remain at the relevant border processing area until they have been cleared. They also provide for the Customs Service to enforce that obligation if people do not comply. The bill also provides for the Customs Service to hold a person arriving in or departing from New Zealand for up to 4 hours in certain cases—for example if there is a threat to the public’s health or safety. Those provisions are important because they enable the Customs Service to refer to other interested agencies anyone who may require further immigration or additional border processing. They also cover cases in which there is reasonable cause to suspect that for example a person has an infectious disease is liable to be arrested or is wanted by police on suspicion of having committed an imprisonable offence. 
New section 32A inserted by clause 6 limits the use of electronic communication devices. That provision provides for limits to be imposed on the use of electronic communications devices in certain border processing areas which means that people may be asked not to use equipment such as their mobile phone while waiting in the primary processing area of an airport. The provision is modelled on Australian legislation that also limits the use of mobile phones in airports for border security reasons. The use of mobile phones or other electronic devices can be used to thwart law enforcement activity at the border. For example drug smugglers can warn associates of impending detection or arrange the destruction of evidence. Mobile phones with cameras can also be used to record images that can later be used to target or threaten officers. It is crucial that we prevent any attempts to thwart customs officers’ work at borders; otherwise we risk threats getting through. However travellers will still be able to use their mobile phones in most parts of airports—for example in those areas used immediately after their arrival and before they reach customs booths. 
New section 168A inserted by clause 14 provides the ability for a customs officer to immediately detain and search a person when executing a search warrant and to seize any dangerous items. Although the Customs Service already has the authority to search a person at the border or during the execution of a search warrant people can currently request to appear before a reviewer before a search can proceed. Because customs officers’ work can place them in dangerous situations the ensuring of their personal safety is crucial. For example when officers are executing a search warrant of a building as part of a drugs investigation they may need to search a person immediately for dangerous items such as firearms or knives. 
There are catch-all export controls for goods with an inappropriate military end use. The bill provides for the ability to impose controls on the export of catch-all goods. Those are goods that are in everyday use but that may be intended for an undesirable purpose such as the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction or of chemical weapons. New Zealand has international obligations to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems and many countries already have export controls in place to curb the spread of those devices. It is important for New Zealand’s international reputation particularly as a trading partner to implement such controls yet we are one of a small number of countries that do not impose export controls over catch-all goods. 
There is a provision to enable data matching with the Ministry of Social Development. Since 1991 the Customs Service has regularly provided passenger information to the Ministry of Social Development for the detection of people who leave for or return from overseas while receiving a benefit. The information is compared with the ministry’s database of beneficiaries in order to detect those who have received financial assistance to which they are not entitled. The bill extends the existing provision in the principal Act which authorises the Customs Service to supply data to now include student allowances. 
In conclusion I say that the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) is important legislation that recognises that New Zealand’s trade and travel landscape has changed and is continuing to change and that we must move to keep pace with it. Increasing threats to our communities through terrorism international organised crime drugs identity fraud and other problems mean that we need strong effective legislation and integrated border management in order to deal with those risks at the front line. These amendments have been carefully drafted to recognise the interests of both the Government and the community in effective border management and the rights of people to travel and conduct legitimate trade across borders. This legislation affirms this Government’s commitment to a vibrant economy to strong safe communities and to the protection of our national identity and way of life. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). We will be supporting this bill going to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee but with some reservations. As the Minister has stated the bill gives the Customs Service a better ability to deal with false and fraudulent travel documents and that has to be a good thing. Its origins are in the response to the 9/11 event in the US and other terrorist activity around the world. Therefore we would be foolish not to look at what can be done with regard to detecting risks and enforcing our customs law in line with other laws around the Western World. But I cannot help wondering whether this Government has missed an opportunity—a much-stated opportunity—to build better relationships with the US and with other Western nations around the world. 
The US has on many occasions offered the hand of friendship to this Government with regard to designing and supplying modern technology in the detection of not only criminal activity with regard to terrorism but also with regard to biosecurity and to the best of my knowledge thus far this Government has bitten that kind hand and not accepted it. I ask the Minister and the officials who will be examining this bill in the select committee to look closely at what is on offer internationally and to take full advantage of whatever that technology may be. I understand through some of my contacts in the US in relation to this matter that there have been occasions when offers to install some sophisticated equipment such as X-ray equipment that can detect in a container biomass down to the size of a matchstick have been turned down on the basis that the equipment would be too sensitive and may therefore create too many difficulties for our customs officers and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officers to be able to carry out that work. I ask the Government to please take full advantage of the opportunity it has had presented to it. Given its tardy performance the last time it looked at reforms in the principal Act I ask it to do something sensible in the process of passing this bill. 
I have been informed that during the recent Aer Lingus strike New Zealand Customs Service officers at Auckland airport were instructed not to target South American passport holders for immigration purposes or for compliance with immigration laws because of the difficulty and cost of obtaining tickets back to South America. I wonder whether that is true; I do not know. But if it is true it is amazing that we now have before us a further amendment to the Customs and Excise Act tightening up the controls around passports when customs officers themselves are being told that the Customs Service simply does not have the capacity to cope with that situation at the moment and that they are to give it a once-over-lightly and hope that the problem will come right. 
Also the staff turnover particularly at Auckland airport is something this Government should be concerned about. The facilities at Auckland airport are and have been for a long time totally inadequate. That is a total indictment on this Government’s policy. The reason of course is that the airport is a commercial activity and it is better to rent the space out to shopkeepers or someone who will provide a higher return than the Government is prepared to pay. So it is all very well for the Government to front up to Parliament talking tough with regard to different changes to legislation— 
Colin King 
: Five years later. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: —as my colleague says 5 years or some time after the problems were known about. It is all very well fronting up here with tough legislation but to not provide the engine room the horsepower and the facilities that are needed to carry it out does ring a little hollow. 
Modern technology can and should help in this regard. The Minister knows that a lot of work needs to be done in relation to the synergy between customs officers and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry biosecurity officers and I ask why that work is not being carried out right now. I see this bill proposes a tightening-up of the powers of customs officers to seize products that may be deemed to be a biosecurity risk in the Customs and Excise Act but why has that not also happened in the Biosecurity Act where the reverse situation is the case? I would say to officials that they have the chance while the bill is going through the select committee to look at some of the work that could be done there and it would be churlish and short-sighted not to do so. 
The bill allows for the collection of duties on the importation of alcohol and I think that is probably a good thing. My understanding about the origins of that provision is that proprietors of liquor outlets in Auckland or wherever they may be have all the members of the whanau coming through the airport and buying up large quantities of duty-free liquor and then presenting it on the proprietor’s shelf in a few days’ time. If that is the case and if that is the purpose of this provision then I say to the Minister that it is a good thing and we should get on with fixing up that situation. 
The bill also prohibits the use of communications computing equipment in suitably signposted customs areas and this relates to an issue of grave concern. We know about the massive growth in the use of the P drug and the agents used in the production of that drug namely the methamphetamine imports that have gone on and the various carriers involved in the transmission of that drug. We also know that the use of modern technology has played a key role in that happening. As the Minister said it is a good thing to be able to stop carriers communicating with others who are coming on a later plane or who are farther down the line of the customs queue to tell them that the dogs are not on that the number of staff is light at the moment that three planes have arrived at once or that now might be a good time to try to sneak though. So the bill addresses that issue. 
I now bring the House’s attention to the work that has been done by the Law Commission which is chaired by Sir Geoffrey Palmer a former Prime Minister of this House. The commission has some major concerns around the legal term “forfeiture”. I share those concerns and when the select committee looks at the detail of that provision it should probably ask members of the Law Commission in so committee members can hear what the commission has to say. This is a very comprehensive report. In essence it states that the legal term may not best fit what the legislation intends and what the Government is trying to achieve by passing it. The report basically states that we need to focus upon developing a framework that best achieves an appropriate balance between the necessary powers of the executive and fairness to the individuals involved in importing or exporting goods. It states that in doing so the concepts of reasonableness and reasonable limits which are the tests to consider under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are encompassed in the considerations but are not explicitly analysed in terms of the rights of jurisprudence. 
To the average lay people out there that may not make a lot of sense but I know from reading the detail of the bill it basically means that by forfeiting something to the Crown the ownership is transferred to the Crown and that that may not be necessary while the investigation is going on. A different wording could provide a better way forward and I ask once again please that that suggestion should be listened to. It is always difficult when we are passing laws like this—with a very sound objective—to get the balance right and this may be one area where we have got it slightly out of line. 
We need to look carefully at the duty of care in relation to goods that have been confiscated. I have received several complaints about goods that have been confiscated—in particular about nursery stock when genuine importers have wanted to bring in something new. The importers are happy to pay and to go through the proper process of biosecurity but they find by the time they have got to the end of that process that because of various aspects of current law the stock they have imported has been destroyed through unnecessary delay or because the customs office itself is constricted by the legal terminology that applies to it. The officials no doubt will have a view on that and during the select committee process I hope that some of those things are given a fair hearing. 
Further and finally I say that the bill does not go far enough in regard to synergising those known areas of comparison we have between Biosecurity New Zealand—the No. 1 agency in respect of protecting New Zealand’s shores and more so in view of a potential terrorism strike—and the Customs Service. Both services have duplication that needs to be addressed and here is an opportunity to do that. National supports this bill going to the select committee. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill and I recognise the support of National members conveyed by the previous speaker. I have just a couple of points. Clearly the September 11 event has provoked new requirements in the modern world—new requirements around travel security and protection. To traverse some of those things would be hackneyed and is unnecessary in this House but I do say we have discovered that smarter technology tends to produce smarter crimes which in turn require smarter legislation. I think that this bill is a measured and constructive response to border control issues for New Zealand. We have recently seen improvements in passports for example and a large part of those improvements has been occasioned by those smarter crimes in the forging of fraudulent identities and by people trying to enter this country in other guises. 
I also mention the fact that with the increased protections necessary for the New Zealand community—which is what border protection is all about—comes the need to balance human rights and the right of people to move in a way that is free and without hindrance but is without threat to people in the New Zealand community. So constant vigilance is required as the world situation changes and has changed because this debate is always about balancing provisions for human rights with provisions required for the protection of communities and inhabitants in New Zealand. In fact it is about balancing two sets of human rights. 
I think that this bill has the balance right. There are increased powers—and I will talk about those briefly in a moment. But I think the balance is right and certainly it will be up to the select committee to look at this bill and ensure that the kind of balance in it is a modern balance. We should ensure that we are not simply harking back to one extreme or another that might have characterised the debate in the past where there would have been an excess of emphasis either on individual human rights or on police authority—or in this case on border control authority. 
Because some of the provisions in this bill are modelled on Australian legislation I would just like to give as a bit of an illustration an example of my own experience last weekend on returning from a conference in Malaysia via Australia where I saw provisions that are very similar to those in the bill being applied. I was impressed. Certainly the control over mobile phone usage before getting through border control was enforced. A passenger getting off the flight I was on proceeded to use his mobile phone—I am sure for quite innocent purposes—but he was told quite quickly that he had to cease doing so. 
 The other thing I found of great interest—it was kind of like a field trip I suppose—was that I was randomly selected to be searched for explosives on the way through. I thought I was not somebody who might normally fit the profile; however it was a random test to make sure the process was working. I found the test neither invasive nor very inconvenient and I was interested to see what happened and how the border control personnel in Australia conducted that exercise. At no point did I ever feel that my human rights were being infringed. I thought it was a good process and at the end of it I said to the border control personnel that I had been interested to see how the process worked and how it was conducted. 
The kinds of things provided for in this bill—as the Minister said in her introductory speech—go to the questions of national security national identity the protection of the New Zealand community and the maintenance of New Zealand’s international obligations in line with other countries’ measures. I imagine that a number of submissions will come to the select committee on this bill. I hope that the balance of the bill is maintained in the discussions during the course of the select committee process and I look forward to this measure becoming legislation in due course. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you for the call on the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). The overarching purpose of this legislation is to enhance border security. That is a noble purpose. The National Party being of noble purpose and noble mind will support this legislation going through to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee but—as foreshadowed by my colleague Mr Ardern—with some severe reservations. We have learnt that in dealing with this Government the devil is in the detail. We will not be satisfied that the bill will do what it purports to do until the select committee has gone through it clause by clause in such a way as to satisfy us that it will do what the Government reports it will do. 
We in the National Party will look to Mr Ardern to give us advice on these matters because he is generally acknowledged as the best advocate in New Zealand for tougher biosecurity measures. So we will be taking our lead from him. National will need to be convinced that the cost of what the Government is proposing to do has gone through a very rigorous cost-benefit analysis because this Government has a very worthy reputation for passing legislation at any cost then asking taxpayers to pay for it despite the fact that it has already overtaxed them to the tune of about $9 billion. 
The Minister Nanaia Mahuta in her introductory remarks went through and made some summary points of what the bill will do. I will go through some of those points in a little more detail. The first point she touched on was that the bill gives the Customs Service better ability to deal with false and forged travel and identity documents. I will come back to that point if time permits. It prohibits the use of communications or computing equipment in suitably signposted customs areas. My colleague Mr Ardern has already touched on that point but I want to flesh out an example or two. It prohibits the export of goods or publications relating to terrorist acts or to strategic uses that are contrary to New Zealand’s strategic interests; so it goes on. 
Most people will be forgiven for thinking that these authorities already exist in other statutes because heaven forbid it has already been 5 years since September 11. Most countries already embraced these security of border controls 4 years ago. This Government is now standing up and saying: “Aren’t we beauties because now we’re doing it too?”. Well I say to the Government that it is too little too late. 
I turn my attention specifically to new section 32A inserted by clause 6 which states that the use of electronic communication devices is prohibited in “any Customs place or Customs controlled area …” if there is a sign prohibiting the use of such devices or if a customs officer requires a person not to use or to stop using such devices. The question I posed when I read this new section was why. Some examples have been offered. The most convincing answer I heard came from Mr Ardern and there is no surprise in that. He has pointed out to us that the custom of using decoys is now starting to be employed in this country. By way of explanation it means that a flight coming in from Sydney for example at 4 o’clock may have a decoy person on board who is running reconnaissance—casing the joint if you like—for the person who is coming in on the flight that is due at 4.30. He or she will look at the customs officers in action and determine whether on that day they are being vigilant and looking at the X-ray machines or whether they are more engaged with texting their mates using their mobile phones or whether there are sniffer dogs in action—essentially whether it is a big risk to take. He or she will send a text or some form of communication to the next person saying: “Harry dump the goods. It’s not worth taking the risk today.” 
 So we agree with getting on top of that but it also begs the question that I certainly could not find the answer to in the body of the bill. That is what is the penalty for not obeying the instructions of the customs officer? I ask Mr Barker what happens if people turn their cellphones on when they are not meant to. I ask members to keep in mind that if there is a penalty the reward for running drugs into this country is very high so risk versus reward is such that we would have to make sure there were very stiff penalties indeed. Of course the question about the cost of implementation which I have already touched on is not looked at by this bill at all and the select committee will have a job to do there. The question also needs to be answered about who pays. 
I move now to new section 32C inserted by clause 6 which “authorises a Customs officer to direct a person who arrives in or departs”—and that is the point I want to make in a moment—“from New Zealand to stay for up to 4 hours in a border processing area if the officer reasonably suspects that the person …” and there follows a list of reasons why an officer may do that. 
John Carter 
: The Minister’s here now. We’ll get a real answer. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The Minister is here so I am sure when he takes a call he can answer some of these questions. In fact he is the same Minister who on 30 March when I was mounting an argument in the debate on the courts and criminal procedures legislation said it was impossible to collect all fines at the border because that would unnecessarily delay the travelling public. But here—3 months later—because it is now convenient and maybe the Government’s voting base is not being attacked the Government is saying that people can be held up for 4 hours and that is OK. I think it is OK if the travelling public is at risk but I think it is also OK to detain people if they owe fines or reparations to fellow New Zealanders. So I see some hypocrisy in the argument that is being put forward by the Government on this bill. 
Clause 8 amends section 56 and essentially deals with the prevention of terrorism. Of course we agree with the prevention of terrorism including bioterrorism. But the only way to get on top of this issue is by building relationships so that information can be shared and access gained to it. Most of the information we want in advance surveillance comes from what the National Party calls “our good friends in America” whom the Labour Party and its cohorts do not respect at all. This is an issue that is deeply concerning. In building those relationships I ask whether anyone in this House can really argue that when Winston Peters the Minister of Foreign Affairs attacked a senior US senator—and potentially the next President of the United States—he was really trying to develop relationships that would enable New Zealand to have access to information that may protect fellow citizens. Clause 8 bans the export of dangerous goods and I reckon that Winston Peters—under this legislation—is going nowhere soon. That is the best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario of course is that he will be detained at the airport for up to 4 hours every time he tries to leave the country. 
Finally I touch on the issue of travel documents. Clause 15 inserts a new section 175B and “provides Customs officers with express authority to retain or seize unlawful travel documents.” Under this legislation officers will now have that authority. I have to say I thought they did and the travelling public and the rest of New Zealand probably also thought they did. If it is so important why the heck was it not done 4½ years ago when September 11 happened? We now have a laggard Government trying to come through the back door to mop up things it should have addressed a long long time ago. 
As I have said already the National Party—being of noble purpose—will support this legislation going through to the select committee but I forewarn the House that we will put it under very serious scrutiny. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the referral of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) to a select committee. The bill has some good things in it and some other things that the select committee will have to scrutinise a bit more fully—for example the extra powers that are being granted to customs officers to detain people and also the exchange of information between the Customs Service database and the Ministry of Social Development’s database. 
I want to talk particularly about a good extension of powers here: the ones that the Minister mentioned to control the export of strategic goods or goods for strategic uses. As the Minister said we have been a little behind some other countries in controlling the export of strategic goods and it is good that the bill contains a definition of “strategic use”. It goes from the lowest level of goods that may be civilian in their use but have military applications up a step to those that have an intended military use and up to a higher—and more dangerous—level of goods being used in the development production or deployment of biological chemical or nuclear weapons. Of course the legislation ties in with our New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act 1987 in prohibiting the export of strategic goods related to nuclear weapons. 
I want to particularly talk about the debate that has happened this year over Rakon’s export of crystal oscillators that have military uses. Those crystal oscillators are in shells and missiles and are tied in with Global Positioning System (GPS) guidance devices; they are part of those guidance devices. Under the definition of “strategic use” in this bill we could control and prevent the export of some of those crystal oscillators which are not going to be used for civilian purposes but for military purposes. It means that we would not have another situation like the one we had before where the Government apologised for Rakon’s export of those goods. 
On 15 June Phil Goff issued a press statement that the Government was “satisfied that based on information Rakon has provided the crystal oscillators Rakon exports are not covered by the Strategic Goods List. They therefore do not require an export permit.” He said: “For electronic components of guidance and navigation equipment such as crystal oscillators to be covered by the Strategic Goods List they must be ‘specially designed’ for military use. This means that they have unique properties distinguishing them for a predetermined military use.” Well under the definition of “strategic use” in new section 56(2A) in clause 8 that is no longer the case because paragraph (d) includes the words: “may have military applications”. As Minister Goff admitted at the time the crystal oscillators are used for military as well as civilian purposes. 
If we then go up a level of seriousness in terms of strategic use we find that is what is defined in paragraph (d) of that clause as something “intended for military use” I think it is true that Rakon developed certain of its crystal oscillators to a military standard. As Rakon admitted in its own documents—emails that were reproduced in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 a month or two ago—Rockwell Collins a military subcontractor to the US Air Force gave Rakon hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop G-shock hardened crystal oscillators. Clearly they were for specific military use. The documents describe them as being guidance systems for smart shells for the United States military. 
Then if we go up the scale of strategic use we see items that may be used in the development production or deployment of nuclear weapons. In Rakon’s internal documents it admitted that under United States contracts it was developing nuclear-hardened crystal oscillators that had to have a specification to operate at a depth of 135 metres. The House may exercise its mind as to what sort of weaponry may have to operate at a depth of 135 metres and the two things I can come up with are probably nuclear missiles in silos or nuclear missiles in a US nuclear submarine. If Rakon is developing crystal oscillators to those military specifications for use in actually launching a nuclear weapon or even a weapon that is not nuclear-tipped—a weapon that is used in a nuclear exchange perhaps to knock out nuclear weapons or missiles on the other side—then it would be contrary to this legislation that we are discussing today. So this is good legislation in that respect. 
New section 56(2B) in clause 8 allows the Government to move against people who export strategic goods where that is contrary to New Zealand’s interests. That is a very good bit to put in the legislation too. Clearly if Rakon is exporting crystal oscillators produced to a specific military standard under US military contract to be placed in US Air Force missiles or shells and if those are then used—as they are likely to be—in bombing places like Fallujah or Ramadi in Iraq given that our Government was against going into the Iraq war then clearly the oscillators are being used in ways contrary to New Zealand’s interests. So the law we are talking about today is good in that respect. We can even update that problem. We read in the papers over the last day or so that the United States is resupplying Israel with more missiles and weaponry. It may be that some of Rakon’s crystal oscillators will soon rain down upon the people of Lebanon via our export to the United States. 
Under new section 56(2E) in clause 8 people are liable if they are reasonably aware of the uses of their exports. Rakon unfortunately engaged in a cover-up when the debate first started around its crystal oscillators last year. It did not tell the truth in relation to what was happening. When asked by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 Rakon said it “has not developed any technology specifically for the US military.” and “No technology has been specifically developed by Rakon for use in smart bombs or missiles”. When asked whether the crystal oscillators could be used as such the sales manager Justin Maloney said: “We don’t know for certain one way or the other.” That was a lie as was exposed in the documents the  
New Zealand Herald  
put out earlier this year with all the internal emails from Rakon in them. I think that under this legislation certainly the Government could move more strongly against Rakon in a way that it has not moved previously. 
I will finish off by talking about the additional powers of the Customs Service to detain people for up to 24 hours. That provision should be scrutinised in the select committee. When detention concerns infectious diseases or breaches of the Biosecurity Act it may be best not to let people just wander through the green exit and to have some powers there. But the extent of those powers is a matter we will discuss in the committee. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I held back on taking the call hoping the Greens would take a call and add to the debate. But if there is anybody listening who took note of Keith Locke’s contribution I am not sure he or she would understand what we are actually debating. I say to those people who may still be listening that we are actually discussing the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). 
I do not intend to take a long call but there are a couple of points I want to make. First of all I am pleased the National Party is supporting this bill because New Zealand First most certainly is. I listened with interest when National Party members said they were going to scrutinise it thoroughly in the select committee after only a minute or so earlier stating they could not find any penalties in the bill for using a mobile phone. Well the penalties are outlined clearly in the bill under clause 18(2) which states: “Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1000.” So I urge the National Party members that if they are going to scrutinise this bill thoroughly at the select committee they should at least read it first. 
The second point I want to make is around the flippant remarks by Brian Connell about the Rt Hon Winston Peters which caused me some concern. Let me say to those members over there that I will take a wager with any one of them that by the end of this term of Parliament the relationship between the USA and New Zealand will be far better than it has been for many a year. That will be totally as a result of Winston Peters’ efforts as Minister of Foreign Affairs. If any of them are prepared to take a wager I am up for it. I and my colleagues know firsthand that Winston’s dealings with American officials and politicians and what have you are top-notch. He is highly regarded. He has effectively been in the job for only 10 minutes and he is already getting the degree of respect for his efforts that we should be showing him here. When I say “we” I mean Parliament here. He is travelling the world representing this country and doing a damn good job. 
Anybody who has any doubts about this bill being required and about our border controls being upgraded should only have to watch the television programme  
Borderline 
 which is on television on a Monday evening I think and he or she will know that we are way behind the eight ball and that much in this bill has to be implemented and implemented pretty promptly. 
I conclude by mentioning Maryan Street’s reference to a clash of human rights. This type of legislation puts human rights on the back burner. There are three main objectives that we must have and that this legislation must target: first safe travel for the public; second properly authorised and administered entry and exit for the public; and third a safe working environment for the officials—the customs officers who do the job. From time to time that will conflict with innocent people and with the human rights of innocent members of the public. It will inconvenience them. I say to this House that that has to take second priority to getting this environment and these conditions correct. It is absolutely important that we control our borders that we know who is coming and who is going and that those people follow the rules of this land. 
New Zealand First will support this bill going to a select committee. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 National supports the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) going forward. The needs that this bill deals with have been well spoken about. It deals with the way we find New Zealand today. I take on board not only the comments made in the House this afternoon but also those comments that highlight the risks we face today in a modern New Zealand in a modern world with its idiosyncrasies and variations from yesteryear when we were living a long long way away from our markets and from other nations by virtue of distance. With distance now being so easy to cover in a short time we are confronted with such things as terrorism biosecurity incursions by all manner of means people-smuggling and of course ever-increasing amounts of drug trafficking. So it is very very important that we have the appropriate balance in regard to our customs and excise legislation to empower those people at the coalface to be able to deliver what we expect of them what New Zealanders expect of them and what our trading partners throughout the world expect of a first-class economy. 
It has been reported on previous occasions that New Zealand is a soft touch and a launching post for drug operations and possibly for people-smuggling. I do not know of any reported cases to make me confident that is true but the occurrence of such reports is so regular that we would be naive to take them for granted. This bill is certainly long overdue when we consider what prompted and pre-empted it. Given the events in New York on September 11 it is very much a concern that we have taken as long as this to do something. 
I come from a rural background. I sensed that those people who spoke in the House this afternoon were conscious of the individual traveller. No doubt when we think about customs and excise we think of those sorts of people because they are the people we encounter when we come and go from this country but it is significant that those people also have responsibilities under the Biosecurity Act. That part of the functions of customs and excise is an important aspect of future-proofing our economy. When we consider the trade and tourism now coming out of Asia—and that will only increase—we realise it is significant that some of the concerns for our economy come from that area. This nation is dependent on its land-based industries. If we ever have the problem of foot-and-mouth disease in this country under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry model it would cost our economy something in the region of $10 billion which would substantially affect the living standards of this nation. We are also very concerned about the issues in relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy which could also affect our economy. There is an ongoing conflict between on the one hand the need of our country to attract tourists and give them a first-class time and on the other hand the need to maintain our platinum level of food safety for the agricultural exports that we distribute throughout the world. There are obvious conflicts there and we hope the bill addresses those. We are putting a tremendous amount of faith in this legislation. 
The bill is highly technical and it will require keen eyes and full attention from whichever select committee it goes to. We do not want to miss this opportunity to do something that brings us up to speed if not to take the opportunity to move us forward and be a leader when it comes to the issues that this bill endeavours to deal with. A point I take from the member across the House there is that with smarter technology comes smarter crooks. It is something we have to be mindful of. Again we have to do our utmost to guard against that. 
Among the issues around this bill is that it is deemed to cut down on the need to present documentation on inward journeys. That is something that really does interest me—that whilst we are continually reinforcing ourselves with a view to protecting ourselves against false documentation and suchlike we also trying to find that balance whereby we can fast-track things and make sure that people do not have to comply with an overload of documentation. 
The issue around the 4 hours I am perfectly comfortable with. I think National would be very very supportive that whatever was done was done with a view to ensuring that we do not allow ourselves to be boxed into a corner by laws such that we cannot expedite whatever necessary actions are required in the event of frontline customs staff being aware that there is a major issue but not being able to do anything about it. There are feelings and fears around the pandemics that will eventually strike us. It is very appropriate that with the powers we have at our disposal through this bill we will do our utmost to retain and isolate those infected people in what is deemed to be the best interests not only of ourselves but also of the infected people whom we consider ourselves to be responsible for. 
The bill goes through a number of things. As a wee nation of 4 million people we have to be quite aware that our responsibilities far outweigh our size. We have equal responsibility for ensuring that we carry out our responsibilities for global security in a very sensible way that we do our utmost to detect terrorist and criminal activity and that we do so in a very very professional manner. 
One point that I feel needs to be fleshed out considerably—and I would encourage the select committee to do so as well—is the way in which customs officials are able under the Biosecurity Act to control and confiscate any goods that are deemed to be a risk. From that point of view it would be very appropriate for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officers also to be able to operate under the Customs and Excise Act. That has not been put forward in the bill in its present state and I would recommend quite strongly that when this bill comes before the select committee it gives due consideration to that. 
When we stop to think about it we realise there is a lot of work to be done. It is a very technical bill and on that basis it is very important that we do not allow this opportunity to slip away. Unauthorised goods would be a far more appropriate title than undeclared biosecurity risk goods because that would cover up the situation whereby the comment is made that something is undeclared or inappropriately documented. There will be opportunities to do that when this bill goes before the select committee. 
Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I look forward to it progressing and to it coming back to the House to be debated in a far more robust manner. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) is a very important bill and National has pleasure in supporting it. We should never compromise on our safety or security. Our borders must be secure in terms of biosecurity—as we have heard from previous speakers. We should never compromise on the importance of biosecurity nor on the safety of our travellers or ourselves as we travel and of our visitors who come to New Zealand. It was interesting when I spent some time at Auckland International Airport in 2000—and I know that the senior whip did also—then in 2003 to see the changes that had occurred in the security arrangements of that company and what was required. So with that in mind National has great pleasure in supporting this bill.