Carter David: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
Carter David: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:13837] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 The contribution by Lianne Dalziel was interesting in that she spoke of the Border Security Bill. Having been involved in the debate throughout the earlier stages of the legislative process I can say that the legislation was until very very recently the Border Security Bill. But we notice that at the eleventh hour the Minister has split that bill into the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3). The Minister has not bothered to inform the House himself as to why that was done but it was clearly because of the flakiness of the Greens. 
John Carter 
: Are they flaky? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: They are very flaky as I will prove shortly. First of all I want to talk about the amendments to the Immigration Act because my reading of them is that they are a very sensible initiative. I think that putting some onus back on the carriers to provide information to the immigration authorities so that decisions can be made before people get on an aircraft at the point of embarkation or certainly during the trip and before they arrive in New Zealand are eminently sensible suggestions. I do note that they were actually raised by customs officials back in late 1999 to Ministers of the then National Government so it would be interesting for the Minister sitting over there on the Government side of the House Rick Barker to answer the question of why it has taken 4 long years to progress this legislation. I congratulate the Minister on those amendments to the Act. 
But the interesting thing to note is that the Green Party will not vote for this legislation. The Minister’s knowledge that the Greens have decided not to give their support to the Border Security Bill in its entirety is probably the very reason why the Minister at the eleventh hour had to split the Border Security Bill into the two separate bills that will be passed tonight. That in itself is very very surprising. I remember when the Border Security Bill was first put out by the Government. Amongst the many many press releases that went out from various parties and various members of Parliament was one by the Green member Ian Ewen-Street. He was absolutely opposed to the Border Security Bill as being yet another unnecessary tax that would be placed on the importers and exporters of this nation. So there we have the original position taken by the Greens which was that they would oppose the Border Security Bill because border security should be a public good and not yet another tax on the wealth creators of New Zealand. More recently Mr Keith Locke said tonight that the Greens will support the Customs and Excise Bill which has arisen from the Border Security Bill. Mr Keith Locke nods his head agreeing that that is his position. I accept that that is the position but I take the opportunity of pointing out to the House that it was certainly not the original position of the flaky Greens. 
 In talking more specifically about the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill I want also to agree with the comments made by the United Future member Paul Adams. It is almost 3 years since the dreadful events of September 11 and my memory of those events and the pictures and images I saw on television will never fade. I suspect that members of the public who also saw those images time and time again will never forget them either. On that very day whether or not the Greens are prepared to accept it the world fundamentally changed with that event. Clearly border security was going to be something that all responsible nations had to address and be prepared to greatly strengthen. I think that not to do so would be an irresponsible action on the part of any sovereignty. The sad thing we face is that despite countries around the world—and including New Zealand—significantly upping the ante in border control I suspect the world still faces further risks from international terrorist events. I think that when our children and our grandchildren travel around the world for their overseas experience from now on that will be acknowledged as a realistic fact and risk associated with their travel. 
The second aspect of this bill I want to comment on—and I am referring of course to what is now the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill—is that any country with which we want to trade has the right to set the rules by which it will accept goods at its borders. If the United States of America has upped the ante and now made it tougher for any person or any country anywhere in the world to export to that nation then I accept the sovereignty of the United States of America. It has every right to do that and I think it is naive at best for the Green Party to argue for anything else. Put simply if we as an export nation want to export to countries—particularly to the United States of America—then we must abide by the rules a particular country sets. No amount of comment and criticism down here in New Zealand by the Green Party will cause any change to that country’s position but it certainly will not do us any good either. 
The final issue I want to speak to is the issue of whether border security is a further tax or whether it should be a public good. That has been the major argument expounded time and time again by Opposition members and particularly by those from the National Party throughout this debate. This is the terrorist tax. It is taxation increase No. 23 from a Government that on coming into power promised only one taxation increase. The National Party is firmly of the view that border security is a public good. It is a core function of this Government to fund border security to the extent that it protects our citizens in the best way possible from any adverse importation and certainly from any importation of a terrorist event. That good should be paid for by general taxation. But this Government because it wants to crow—as Mr Rick Barker the Minister has throughout this debate—about the huge Budget surpluses it has been able to achieve has levelled back on to importers exporters and trans-shippers a further taxation bill tonight of $16 million. Or it will be a further taxation bill with the passing of this legislation. 
Now that figure is somewhat better than it might have been because when we were debating this legislation in its earlier stages through the House the figure at that stage was $19.753 million. Subsequently the Labour Party started to decline dramatically in the polls. It knew it was in trouble over this issue— 
Shane Ardern 
: And many others. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: —and many many others as my colleague and friend Shane Ardern mentions. So it took the step of reducing that $20 million liability to $16 million expecting that to curry favour with the importers and exporters of this nation. Well it has not done so. Importers and exporters have clearly demonstrated to me and to many members of Parliament that this issue is about the public good. It is about a core responsibility and duty of central government and therefore there should be no attempt to pass on to the users of the service the costs that are now being imposed because of the passing of the border security legislation—the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill as it is now known. It is a public good. 
My closing remarks are to remind New Zealand that we are now hugely overtaxed and that that taxation burden is being added to tonight with taxation increase No. 23 which is about to be levied by the Labour Government.