Ewen-Street Ian: Border Security Bill — Second Reading 
Ewen-Street Ian: Border Security Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13171] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will be supporting this bill though it is a decision we have not taken lightly or quickly. The process of consultation on this legislation has been an object lesson in how not to undertake consultation. The bill first came before the Government Administration Committee without any mention at all of cost recovery. It was only after it had been through the select committee process and people had made their submissions that the Minister introduced a Supplementary Order Paper that did include cost recovery. It was only at that point that he asked the Greens—and I think we were the only party left at that stage to support the Government—for our support to get the legislation through Parliament. We said there was no way we would do that and he should consult with the players. To his credit the Minister did consult with the players. At that point the bill went back to the select committee and at least those people’s voices were heard. Whether the Government has responded in the way that members of the travel and trade industries would have liked is a different issue but at least their voices were heard in the select committee. I commend the Minister for having the gumption to say that he had made a mistake and at least he moved to correct it. 
Essentially the dispute boiled down to the fact that after September 11 in the United States the US Government moved to increase security. Obviously it did not want to have containers on board ships that could result in floating bombs nuclear bombs fertiliser or anything like that arriving in ports in the middle of big cities. The idea of having secure containers was very good. The problems arose with the process of getting to that point and determining who would pay for it. 
The Government was telling exporters from New Zealand that if they undertook to sign up to its plan then they would have a trade advantage. The Government said that if exporters got their product into the United States it would guarantee that the container contained what they said it contained and that a very strict regime was in place to make sure that the contents of containers complied with the manifest. So the Government was saying that that was an advantage to traders because when containers or goods arrived in the United States they go through what the Minister called the “green lane”. In other words they would simply arrive on the wharf and be moved off to their destination because they would be guaranteed to be free of potential bombs or other terrorist threats. The converse of that is that if New Zealand does not go down the “green lane” and have an approved security measure then every container would go through the “red lane” which would include processes like taking containers off ships putting them on wharves and opening them up and looking at the contents each stage of which costs money and time. Every trader and every exporter knows that time is of the essence—that when their goods arrive at their destination they need to get them to the customer. 
The Government argued that the security regime was an industry good because its processes would facilitate trade by getting goods into the US off the wharves and into the hands of importers or clients at their destination as quickly as possible. The converse argument of that came from the industry itself which said that national security for the United States and for New Zealand is a national good—a public good. The industry asked why it should have to front up with money for something that traditionally had been and should continue to be carried out under the auspices of the Government. Both those arguments had merit. I am delighted that the Minister has finally relented and said that the Budget will have a halfway stage. As I understand it the Government will put $4 million a year—certainly $8 million over 2 years—into the Budget which will cover 50 percent of the cost that was to have gone to exporters. At the end of 2 years there is to be a review and we welcome that as well. 
The Greens support taking a principled approach to this legislation. We have been urging the Government to undertake a proper review not only in terms of the export trade but of passengers as well. We are pleased to hear that the Minister has finally announced that a review will happen. On the subject of passengers there is also an element of human rights that we need to consider. We have concerns along with some of the submitters to the select committee about privacy issues—and this applies to passengers—particularly around the collection of personal details from travellers under the advanced passenger identification system. The subsequent use of that information could have an unreasonable downside for passengers particularly if there are inadequate controls on the information that is collected and on how it is used especially by foreign jurisdictions. We say that there needs to be a very tight rein on the information that is gathered on whom it goes to and on what it is used for. That particular point has been and continues to be a controversy that is raging between America and the European Union at the moment. It is an issue that we will deal with in the Committee stage. 
 The bill itself has a rightful place. We do need to improve the security of both inwards goods and inwards passengers into this country and to do the same with regard to our outgoing goods and passengers. The controversy as always comes down to who pays for it. There has been an ongoing argument which became quite heated between the industry and the Government about that. The Government urged people to appreciate that the added security was actually an industry good and therefore industry should pay 100 percent of the cost but conversely the industry said that it was a public good and the taxpayers of New Zealand should pay the entire cost of it. I am really pleased that we have come to what at least appears to be a reasonably rational solution with the Government agreeing to cover 50 percent of the disputed amount over the next 2 years and a review to follow that. As I said the Greens support this bill but not with great alacrity.