Adams Paul: Border Security Bill — Second Reading 
Adams Paul: Border Security Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13174] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to oppose the second reading of this bill. I find it interesting that all the Opposition parties opposing this bill are not opposing the need for it; rather they all speak against the cost recovery in it. 
There is no doubt that the terrorist strike of 11 September 2001 aroused the United States from a strategic slumber and spurred Washington to act to protect its borders. On that day the United States experienced a terrible new reality: the importation of external terrorism. This reality served to galvanise the US Government—and indeed all Governments—to put in place new standards of border security. The Bush administration eventually moved to overhaul completely its border control security measures against terrorism and other suspicious activities related to cross-border crime. That resulted in the US Container Security Initiative. The bill before us today is driven principally by the need to respond to the US Container Security Initiative although New Zealand’s overall supply chain security is designed to cover all our exports. 
It should be noted that the principal driver of security over imports is the protection of New Zealand’s domestic interests. The need to increase trade security cannot be disputed. United Future acknowledges this and supports the practical proposals contained in this bill. However despite our acknowledging the necessity for action and approving the measures proposed we cannot lend our support to the Border Security Bill in its current form. This is because we fundamentally disagree with the Government on the question of who should fund these important security initiatives. The Government swimming against the tide of both industry outrage and common sense has decreed that the private sector should bear a large amount of the cost. 
Certain guiding principles form the basis of United Future’s rationale for not supporting the bill. We fully recognise that it is for the Government to determine which border and supply chain protection measures are needed to ensure the protection of New Zealand and our critical trade links. The Government would be remiss if on the back of the measures required by the United States of America it did not move to protect New Zealand’s trade with the US and other trade links where necessary yet it should be noted that the Government would also be remiss in its duties if it did not move expeditiously to ensure the security of its citizens from threat of acts of terror—whether passing through or brought into New Zealand. The defence of the realm is at the very core of any Government’s responsibility. We are engaged in a war of terror that will likely last for decades—a war against all New Zealanders. 
We do not support the Government’s irrational and shortsighted claim that the protection of New Zealand’s trading supply chain will benefit only exporters and importers. The protection of these chains of supply is vital to the maintenance of the national economy. This relationship is particularly important in New Zealand with our heavy reliance on the export economy. We should be supporting the export sector in every way possible. It is definitely a public good the success or otherwise of which impacts on all New Zealanders. United Future contends that the foundations of this bill are rooted in the overarching principle of national security. It is this particular principle that the Crown and the Crown alone has a duty to uphold. Simply stated it is an extraordinary and untenable position to propose that private exporters and importers should be encumbered with a large percentage of the cost involved. 
Added to the weight of the argument against the Government’s proposed levy are reports from independent research-based organisations. Two reports in particular one from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and another from Capital Economics both strongly and unequivocally refute the Government’s argument for private good. Instead they passionately affirm the obvious public-good characteristics of the initiatives. Even Treasury in its  
Guidelines for Setting Charges in the Public Sector 
 which sets out very clearly for agencies such as the Customs Service which services are appropriate the level of any charges and which parties should pay is somewhat reluctant to wholeheartedly box in the Government’s corner. This speaks volumes as to the error the Government has made. 
 The overall conclusion of all of this is that the Government not only has fumbled the ball with regard to listening to the concerns of industry but also has used false logic to justify its decision. Let me restate that these proposed initiatives though needed will be there to protect the economic and physical security of the nation as a whole and the Government should therefore fund their ongoing implementation in line with its core responsibility of protecting the national interest from the threat of terror which is really what this bill is all about. United Future is opposed to it because we believe that the public safety is a Crown responsibility. United Future is opposed because as has been pointed out ad nauseam to the Government by the trade and travel representatives of this country it is wrong to send our importers and exporters the $20 million bill involved. We are opposed because two independent research reports one from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and the other from Capital Economics have both unequivocally refuted the Government’s private-good arguments. We are opposed because they breach Treasury’s own  
Guidelines for Setting Charges in the Public Sector 
. 
Simply stated the Government has got this one wrong. It appears that it decided to lumber a large cost on our trading sector almost by way of knee-jerk. The subsequent process that it has followed in post factum entering into discussions with representatives of that sector has been deeply flawed from day one. We are disappointed therefore that even when those realities became obvious the Government rigidly adhered to its original position. That position is unreasonable and unprincipled and United Future will be voting against this bill.