Goff Phil: Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 20 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:16214. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The Labour Party supports the second reading of the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. In fact as the Minister of Customs might have noted—but I do not think that he did—this had its origins as a system under the last Labour Government. That is where the concepts and the issues were worked through. Of course the Labour Party will support the bill if it facilitates the movement of goods across the border either as imports or exports and does not diminish the necessary border protection—in particular as we are a trading and agricultural country the biosecurity provisions.What this bill does is reasonably straightforward. It amends the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and also the Biosecurity Act 1993. We need it because it is required in order to implement the Trade Single Window component of the Joint Border Management System. In that one sentence alone anybody listening to this debate would ask “What the hell are they talking about?” so perhaps we should explain what that jargon means—Hon Maurice Williamson: No they talk about it over the breakfast table every day.Hon PHIL GOFF: —although the Minister of Customs is indicating that perhaps it is the Government’s policy to always keep the public in ignorance as a preference. It is not the policy of the Labour Party to do that however.The name `”Joint Border Management System” basically indicates that it is a joint initiative between the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries. It replaces the current system of providing information about movement across the border and it modernises and integrates border clearance processes for both people and goods on aircraft and ships that are arriving in and departing from New Zealand. The first stage of this tranche one has actually been implemented already in the last year.I just want to ask the Minister a question about that and hope that he will come back in the Committee stage or that subsequent National speakers will give the answers to these questions. This is a computer system. It is IT based. We have had a lot of experience of implementing new computer systems in New Zealand. The Minister introducing the bill the Minister of Customs will remember INCIS. Interestingly he says he does not. He has got a very selective memory this Minister. INCIS was a total botch-up introduced under a National Government to try to upgrade the police information technology system. Interestingly INCIS involved the same multinational computer company that is involved in this system IBM.I have heard Minister that there have been some problems with the information technology. The Government has been very quiet about it possibly following the philosophy that the Minister has acknowledged on two occasions—a lack of transparency and not talking about things that might be uncomfortable. But I have heard that there are some difficulties. I would like to know from the Minister or fromsubsequent speakers from the National Government what those difficulties have been in the technology system how big those problems have been how we are seeking to address those problems whether those problems have been resolved and what the additional costs are that might have been incurred. It is really important that we know those things.In fact when this bill was introduced it was introduced not by this Minister Maurice Williamson but by Craig Foss. Craig Foss was at that time of course the Associate Minister of Education who was in charge of Novopay. Well 18 months out Novopay is still causing huge problems for the schools in my electorate. When I saw Craig Foss in the chair introducing this legislation I thought “My God it might have been Labour’s concept but do I really trust the implementation of this system under Craig Foss and the National Government?”. The answer to that question is quite patently no. Why would you?We have had experience of those costly failures and I just think it is incumbent on the next National speaker to address the question of what difficulties have so far been incurred in implementing tranche one which is covered by this legislation. If there are major problems this House and New Zealanders need to know that. We have the right to know and the Government has the obligation to be upfront open and transparent about it. As I say those words I feel a sense of naivety in expecting those things from a National Government but I am asking for that. We are not dividing the House on this bill as we are in support of the concepts but we want to know that the Minister has implemented this properly and that the system is working.I did say before that I would explain the other part of the jargon the phrase “Trade Single Window”. It is a curious phrase “Trade Single Window” but what it essentially means is that there will be a single portal through which business and industry can meet the arrival and departure requirements of the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries. There are three changes needed that this legislation has to deal with in order for this new system to be introduced. One is to register the users of the Joint Border Management System the second is to provide information for the Trade Single Window system and the third is simply the consequential changes to offences that are created.Registration is the most important part of this bill. It is about providing for all individuals and companies that interact with the Joint Border Management System to be registered with the Customs Service. It sets out the grounds on which registration might be refused by the Minister it prescribes the form and the manner of the registration and it allows for chief executives to issue joint unique user identifiers to access approved border information. So those things are necessary. I have got to say from a trade perspective speaking as Labour’s spokesperson on trade that this is a model that is compatible with the World Customs Organization. It means that we are using internationally comparable and compatible data and it includes customs biosecurity and food safety - related information. That is an advantage of what the bill does. The information that has to be provided for the Trade Single Window by the users includes advance notice on the arrival and the departure of the craft that are carrying the goods and people. It also says who must provide cargo reports.I want to come back to the fundamentals of this legislation and why Labour is supporting it. We are supporting it because as a trading nation we have to do everything we can to minimise the costs to those who are exporting from New Zealand. We have to be internationally competitive. Having a border system that is efficient and effective is fundamental to that. From the viewpoint of importing it is about trying to minimise the costs that might be imposed on the consumer in New Zealand. So that is a fairly straightforward argument.The second criterion that we would look at on this because we are an agricultural exporting country—nearly two-thirds of our exports are primary sector based—is the need to have proper biosecurity protection. I do not think this bill does damage to that but I want to see this bill in the context of what has already been done by the Government over recent times. I have got to say that I have concerns about what has been done because in the Budget for 2013-14 there is $6 million cut out of biosecurity. I worry about that. Yes I know the Government wants to make savings but the savings are tiny in comparison with the costs if something goes wrong. And what better evidence of that do we need than the importation of the Psa disease into New Zealand which is affecting horticulture and costing hundreds of millions of dollars? So I am really worried that this Government in cutting back biosecurity is going to incur huge costs for New Zealand. I also remember that back in 2009 when the Government made cuts to biosecurity 54 biosecurity officers were cut at that point.We have been talking about importing biosecurity hazards but what about the question of exporting? Today we almost had an urgent debate on the fact that the Government is deregulating the meat inspector regime which Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson you and I are very familiar with. I worked for 7 years in the freezing works as a slaughterman. You Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson were equally closely involved in that. When you deregulate and you say that the company becomes the manager of the standards you put those standards at risk because the company has a conflict of interest. We have seen that on seven occasions we did not meet the zero-tolerance requirements of the United States market for meat which is worth $6 billion or more.I am really worried that the cost-cutting mentality of this Government will put our exports at risk. We saw the disaster that was incurred in terms of the Chinese market with the botulism scare with the dicyandiamide scare and with other problems all because the Government was penny-pinching. What I do not want to see in this legislation is the Government to be penny-pinching. I want to see proper biosecurity and I also want to be sure that this IT system is working as intended. I want the next speaker from the Government to give an assurance to the House that the IT system is working as intended and there are no significant difficulties with it. With that we support the bill but obviously conditional on the Government giving that assurance.