Groser Tim: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Groser Tim: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18512. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 I will focus on just a couple of aspects of Part 1 again to make a broader point. I am looking at the serious penalties provisions and the appeal procedures around those provisions. We are dealing with something that members of the Committee now understand is related to some core policy objectives—that we must have at our borders a very high level of discretion about what is imported into the country and what is not for all manner of good reasons. 
There is a general feeling out there in our community and amongst the political parties that the New Zealand Customs Service does a particularly good job for New Zealand. That is a sentiment we often hear and for very good reason. But it does have Draconian powers. Those powers must be exercised by often very junior officers and they have to be exercised right there on the spot without senior personnel necessarily there to guide the individual judgment of the young customs officer concerned. We want the Customs Service to move swiftly expeditiously and in some ways almost brutally when it has reason to be concerned that something being brought into our country will endanger the interests of our citizenry. The other side of this is that when we give people—particularly at times younger people—Draconian powers of the State we have to be very careful about the appeal process. This bill is extremely sound in terms of getting the balance right. 
We have a situation where a whole-of-Government approach which is exercised by as many as 15 different Government agencies is exercised by one agency the chief executive of the Customs Service and his or her officers and quite deliberately written into Part 1 of the bill are procedures that do not require a consultation process. That is quite deliberate. It is not normal that we get up as politicians and praise the lack of consultation. We are trying to get very swift and expeditious action on something that really matters. 
Equally because of the danger of decisions being made that when we have the fullness of time to look over the facts were perhaps marginal line calls there is a very simple appeal process. It does not cost anybody any money to ask for a review of forfeited goods. That is made very clear. I do not have the exact clause in front of me but I remember extremely precisely the provision dealing with it even if I cannot find the number. The chief executive has wide discretion to make a quick decision and this flows out of the Law Commission’s report suggesting we need streamlined procedure. In respect of new section 231 “Applications to review seizure of goods” inserted by clause 13 a New Zealander can apply to a single agency. There is no cost. It is a very simple process and the chief executive has a wide discretionary power to review the circumstances. For example the applicant must state the grounds on which the review appeal is being made and so on and so forth and there is an appellant process above that if things go wrong. 
I do not want to introduce a discordant note into this debate but I cannot recall many other instances in the life of this Government of people simplifying the bureaucracy and the administration. If the Minister wants to take a call on this part we should give credit where credit is due but ask at the same time why the Minister was unable to persuade colleagues that a whole host of other important matters should not go down the same track of streamlining the bureaucracy lowering compliance costs for citizens who have to deal with the armed and other powers of the State and giving a better result all told. 
I think there is a very good new process involved in something that is quite important and can give rise to a lot of upset on the part of citizens stopped at airports and ports. I imagine many people feel nothing short of outrage when they are asked to justify why they are bringing this or that into the country so it is a delicate matter and always no doubt very difficult for our front-line customs officers to deal with on a personal level. We all know that they need strong backing from members of this House for the work that they do.