Copeland Gordon: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13278] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I want to speak mainly on clause 8C in Part 1. I begin by saying simply that the consultation process legislated for in that clause is very very deeply flawed. We could debate what the word “consultation” means for a long time. I put it to the Government that it is about to enact legislation to do with industrial relations in this country that insists on good faith from both parties: both employers and employees. The truth is that on this occasion having decided to charge $20 million to importers exporters and trans-shippers the Government simply went and told them that was what it was going to do. That does not constitute consultation. The fact is that the sector that the Government is obliged according to this legislation to consult has told the Government very very clearly that it does not appreciate simply being told that was what the Government would be doing and those guys would be picking up the tab. It is really a double standard for the Government to insist that fair and even consultation processes occur in one part of the law but not in another part. The only difference here I guess is that it is the Government itself that seems to have broken its own rules. I also say that the so-called concession of the Minister that the consultation should be ongoing until 1 July 2006 is fundamentally unacceptable. The truth is the Government does not even have the assurance that it will be the Government on 1 July 2006 so how can it possibly commit itself to ongoing consultation beyond the term of the next election? That does not make sense and smacks of a degree of arrogance. 
The second thing I want to speak about is the charges on exporters importers and trans-shippers. The initial charge proposed for exporters which was $8 million has now been reduced to $4 million. I want to add United Future’s voice to those of the other speakers by saying that the Government should be picking up the whole of the $8 million cost involved here. There should be no fifty-fifty deal because quite clearly all the people of New Zealand benefit from our exports and the revenue generated from them. We are faced with a balance of payments deficit of record proportions which is steadily growing worse. Just as a household cannot buy goods unless it has an income so we as a country cannot import goods unless we first export goods and services. At the moment that imbalance is well astray. It is quite inconsistent for the Government to tell us that there will be some good things for exporters in the Budget on Thursday but to tell the people of New Zealand tonight that we cannot come up with another $4 million even though we have had overwhelming evidence from external independent highly respected consultants that there is no private good element in this area and that it is for the benefit of New Zealand and our exporters. It is so that we can continue to import the goods we need and all appreciate as consumers. It is simply unprincipled and mean-spirited of the Government to deny picking up that charge. 
A similar but somewhat different argument applies with regard to the $4 million to be levelled on importers. The first and core requirement of any Government is the protection of the realm. Why are we putting in place this regime for imports? The Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope himself just conceded that it flows from September 11. We are doing this to protect the citizens of New Zealand against the possibility that in one of our import containers at some stage there will be weapons chemicals and so on that could be of harm to the citizens of this country. The defence of the realm principle is almost as old as our democracy. It would be as old as democracy in New Zealand—150 years. We have always said that one of the first responsibilities of a Government is to protect the citizens of its country. That is all that we are doing here and quite clearly the Government should pick up that cost not lumber importers with it. That is simply a dereliction of duty and a breach of that fundamental principle. 
United Future could possibly have lived with the $8 million levy on trans-shippers because to be consistent neither my defence of the realm nor my trade assistance argument really apply to that.