Flavell Te Ururoa: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13999] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. Kia ora tatou i tenei po. Every Tuesday morning and every Thursday night I depart from and arrive at a place that is not “a Customs place” but that may well be in the near future. Rotorua Regional Airport certainly has plans in the pipeline to enter into the running to be an airport that will be designated as a customs place. That is of course dependent on the strength of the consultation with the affected community and in particular in our case with an iwi called Ngati Uenukukopako.  
Ngati Uenukukopako has in fact lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission claiming that the Rotorua District Council has prejudiced the iwi by failing to offer it the same or similar redress that the council has extended to other people situated within the same noise-impacted areas identified by the council. The dispute centres on the way that consultation has occurred on the proposal to extend the runway at Rotorua Regional Airport—a proposal that would place Rotorua firmly in the queue for the establishment of an international airport. So I am interested in the amendments in this Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) in respect of the arrival of aircraft that may land at Rotorua for both commercial and recreational purposes and require customs services.  
This bill will enable a process to occur by which as others have mentioned the chief executive of the Customs Service could designate Rotorua Regional Airport as a customs place with the understanding of course that all of those agencies that have an interest in border control would also enable such a process to occur. It makes it easier for agencies like the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Civil Aviation Authority the Ministry of Health Maritime New Zealand and others with an interest to be involved in the process of assessing an airport or a port’s eligibility to approve ad hoc arrivals and departures.  
From another angle this bill also provides clarification around the personal use exemption for manufacturing tobacco and strengthens the penalty regime in respect of unlawfully manufactured tobacco as has been discussed by other members this evening. As the House will know we in the Maori Party and in particular my fine colleague from the north Hone Harawira have placed priority on our campaign to get tobacco out of Aotearoa. The Tobacco out of Aotearoa or “TOA” campaign encourages tangata whenua to work towards their auahi koretanga—to be smoke-free and proud. Our strategy has included the promotion of marae that seek to make their tribal womb totally smoke-free. We have also spoken out about other initiatives such as the proposal from the Cancer Society and Action on Smoking and Health to ban visible cigarette displays.  
Again in May of this year my fine upstanding colleague and good friend Mr Harawira launched the Black Rock Awards for contributions towards making Aotearoa smoke-free. Recipients this year included Brendon Pongia the Warriors the Motion Picture Association of America and smoke-free workers. It is entirely consistent with our Tobacco out of Aotearoa strategy to support the amendments in this bill that place controls on the manufacture of tobacco.  
I want also to mihi to all of the auahi kore champions across Aotearoa such as Mr Mahara Okeroa who are doing their best to reduce the use of tobacco whether it is manufactured legally or illegally. I refer to things like the smoke-free hikoi that was organised this year around the lakefront at Rotorua by Te Papa Takaro o Te Arawa Te Whare Hauora o Ngongotaha Korowai Aroha and Tipu Ora Maori providers to acknowledge World Smokefree Day.  
This bill builds on all of those efforts to stamp out a product that clearly does much injury to our health our economic stability our social well-being and our future. We hope that the measures mooted in this bill will provide a strong disincentive to the illegal manufacture or use of tobacco. We know too well the toll that tobacco has on our people and we want to be clear that our support for this bill is aligned with our strategy to make Aotearoa tobacco smoke - free. But we are however puzzled that although the bill puts in place mechanisms to address the issue of illegally manufactured tobacco products it still allows individuals who wish to cultivate and manufacture small quantities of tobacco for their own consumption to do so as Mr Hide has alluded to. I cannot quite see the logic of that myself. Surely it is either illegal or it is not. Surely some tests will be carried out to ascertain whether the small quantity of tobacco is actually for personal use.  
Finally I want to touch on the appeal and review rights under the statutory forfeiture and seizure regime. We note that the Law Commission has recommended that the current appeals system should be replaced with another process that provides for a cheap and speedy internal review process. In its report the Law Commission had highlighted concerns about a dual system of appeal to a court and a ministerial review. But there is also another report by the Law Commission that might be relevant to further discussion on the bill. The president of the Law Commission the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer said: “The law on search and surveillance in New Zealand is a mess. The rule of law in our society depends upon having certain and principled law enforcement powers. New Zealand does not currently have that.”  
As I understand it the report of the Law Commission into search and surveillance was a massive report of some 500 pages with 300 recommendations that took the Law Commission 5 years to complete. The Law Commission also found that present-day statutory provisions often contain insufficient safeguards to ensure the rights of innocent citizens are protected. As I understand it section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. But as the Law Commission concludes clear controls on the use of search and surveillance powers by law enforcement officers are necessary.  
So although we support the general intentions of this bill and the general progress it makes in controlling the illegal manufacture of tobacco and in opening up other ports or airports that have not been designated as customs places we leave open the question as to how thoroughly and effectively the forfeiture and seizure regime has dealt with the issues around also protecting the rights of citizens. We look forward to further debate on the bill in the select committee.