Connell Brian: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Connell Brian: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4523] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you for the call on the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). The overarching purpose of this legislation is to enhance border security. That is a noble purpose. The National Party being of noble purpose and noble mind will support this legislation going through to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee but—as foreshadowed by my colleague Mr Ardern—with some severe reservations. We have learnt that in dealing with this Government the devil is in the detail. We will not be satisfied that the bill will do what it purports to do until the select committee has gone through it clause by clause in such a way as to satisfy us that it will do what the Government reports it will do. 
We in the National Party will look to Mr Ardern to give us advice on these matters because he is generally acknowledged as the best advocate in New Zealand for tougher biosecurity measures. So we will be taking our lead from him. National will need to be convinced that the cost of what the Government is proposing to do has gone through a very rigorous cost-benefit analysis because this Government has a very worthy reputation for passing legislation at any cost then asking taxpayers to pay for it despite the fact that it has already overtaxed them to the tune of about $9 billion. 
The Minister Nanaia Mahuta in her introductory remarks went through and made some summary points of what the bill will do. I will go through some of those points in a little more detail. The first point she touched on was that the bill gives the Customs Service better ability to deal with false and forged travel and identity documents. I will come back to that point if time permits. It prohibits the use of communications or computing equipment in suitably signposted customs areas. My colleague Mr Ardern has already touched on that point but I want to flesh out an example or two. It prohibits the export of goods or publications relating to terrorist acts or to strategic uses that are contrary to New Zealand’s strategic interests; so it goes on. 
Most people will be forgiven for thinking that these authorities already exist in other statutes because heaven forbid it has already been 5 years since September 11. Most countries already embraced these security of border controls 4 years ago. This Government is now standing up and saying: “Aren’t we beauties because now we’re doing it too?”. Well I say to the Government that it is too little too late. 
I turn my attention specifically to new section 32A inserted by clause 6 which states that the use of electronic communication devices is prohibited in “any Customs place or Customs controlled area …” if there is a sign prohibiting the use of such devices or if a customs officer requires a person not to use or to stop using such devices. The question I posed when I read this new section was why. Some examples have been offered. The most convincing answer I heard came from Mr Ardern and there is no surprise in that. He has pointed out to us that the custom of using decoys is now starting to be employed in this country. By way of explanation it means that a flight coming in from Sydney for example at 4 o’clock may have a decoy person on board who is running reconnaissance—casing the joint if you like—for the person who is coming in on the flight that is due at 4.30. He or she will look at the customs officers in action and determine whether on that day they are being vigilant and looking at the X-ray machines or whether they are more engaged with texting their mates using their mobile phones or whether there are sniffer dogs in action—essentially whether it is a big risk to take. He or she will send a text or some form of communication to the next person saying: “Harry dump the goods. It’s not worth taking the risk today.” 
 So we agree with getting on top of that but it also begs the question that I certainly could not find the answer to in the body of the bill. That is what is the penalty for not obeying the instructions of the customs officer? I ask Mr Barker what happens if people turn their cellphones on when they are not meant to. I ask members to keep in mind that if there is a penalty the reward for running drugs into this country is very high so risk versus reward is such that we would have to make sure there were very stiff penalties indeed. Of course the question about the cost of implementation which I have already touched on is not looked at by this bill at all and the select committee will have a job to do there. The question also needs to be answered about who pays. 
I move now to new section 32C inserted by clause 6 which “authorises a Customs officer to direct a person who arrives in or departs”—and that is the point I want to make in a moment—“from New Zealand to stay for up to 4 hours in a border processing area if the officer reasonably suspects that the person …” and there follows a list of reasons why an officer may do that. 
John Carter 
: The Minister’s here now. We’ll get a real answer. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The Minister is here so I am sure when he takes a call he can answer some of these questions. In fact he is the same Minister who on 30 March when I was mounting an argument in the debate on the courts and criminal procedures legislation said it was impossible to collect all fines at the border because that would unnecessarily delay the travelling public. But here—3 months later—because it is now convenient and maybe the Government’s voting base is not being attacked the Government is saying that people can be held up for 4 hours and that is OK. I think it is OK if the travelling public is at risk but I think it is also OK to detain people if they owe fines or reparations to fellow New Zealanders. So I see some hypocrisy in the argument that is being put forward by the Government on this bill. 
Clause 8 amends section 56 and essentially deals with the prevention of terrorism. Of course we agree with the prevention of terrorism including bioterrorism. But the only way to get on top of this issue is by building relationships so that information can be shared and access gained to it. Most of the information we want in advance surveillance comes from what the National Party calls “our good friends in America” whom the Labour Party and its cohorts do not respect at all. This is an issue that is deeply concerning. In building those relationships I ask whether anyone in this House can really argue that when Winston Peters the Minister of Foreign Affairs attacked a senior US senator—and potentially the next President of the United States—he was really trying to develop relationships that would enable New Zealand to have access to information that may protect fellow citizens. Clause 8 bans the export of dangerous goods and I reckon that Winston Peters—under this legislation—is going nowhere soon. That is the best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario of course is that he will be detained at the airport for up to 4 hours every time he tries to leave the country. 
Finally I touch on the issue of travel documents. Clause 15 inserts a new section 175B and “provides Customs officers with express authority to retain or seize unlawful travel documents.” Under this legislation officers will now have that authority. I have to say I thought they did and the travelling public and the rest of New Zealand probably also thought they did. If it is so important why the heck was it not done 4½ years ago when September 11 happened? We now have a laggard Government trying to come through the back door to mop up things it should have addressed a long long time ago. 
As I have said already the National Party—being of noble purpose—will support this legislation going through to the select committee but I forewarn the House that we will put it under very serious scrutiny.