Barker Rick: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13383] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I have never heard so much drivel from that member. [ 
Interruption 
] Other members say that is not true and that he has spoken more drivel before but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. 
Mr Tisch is wrong on a number of fundamental facts. Firstly he said that the $20 million we are looking to recover in this area is to be paid by exporters. That is wrong. 
Hon David Carter 
: And importers. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: No he did not make that qualification. 
Hon David Carter 
: Yes he did. Tell the truth. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I raise a point of order Madam ChairpersonThe member said I should tell the truth. I did. I object to that. I want the member to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member should not have said that. Who was the person? The member knows he must not insinuate that another member is not telling the truth. The member will stand and withdraw. 
Hon David Carter 
: I withdraw. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The simple fact is that three groups are affected by this legislation—exporters importers and trans-shippers. Mr Tisch is saying that the New Zealand taxpayer should pay for the security clearance costs of trans-shippers. That is what the National Party is saying. For the life of me I cannot see an argument that justifies an apple picker in Hawke’s Bay having to pay the security cost for someone who ships out of some other country and into New Zealand hubs out of here and goes somewhere else. That is of no benefit to taxpayers in New Zealand at all. 
Those members argue that this is a public good but for whom? It is not a public good for the New Zealand public that is for sure. If the National Party wanted to give New Zealand taxpayers’ money to other people overseas then it should be done through the overseas development aid programme. It should be done by other ways not this way. There is no sustainable argument for it whatsoever. 
When we get down to it even Federated Farmers does not support this. Although all their rhetoric says they do they cannot present a sustainable argument as to why New Zealand taxpayers should pay security clearance costs for people importing and exporting in New Zealand. 
Shane Ardern said that this is a public good. What is the argument for it being a public good? I say to Shane Ardern that he should look at the Treasury papers. Treasury went through this and said that the processes and the services were not a public good but a private good. 
I will explain to the member again why it is a private good. As other countries up their security arrangements they will identify goods as one of two classifications—those they consider secure and those they consider unsecured. Unsecured goods will go through the red lane. That does not mean to say those goods will not be able to get into a country but they will go through extra checks and there will be extra costs—US$350 for the X-ray of a container delays etc. If the goods can go through a green lane as we hope New Zealand goods can they will go through quickly and incur fewer costs. 
The point is that if in fact an exporter into another country can get the goods quickly and expeditiously across the border and not incur costs who benefits? It is the exporter. The exporter benefits directly. 
Progress reported.