Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:10139] 
3.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: Does he stand by his comments on 5 November 2003 regarding the Government’s proposal to have exporters pay for new national security measures that “… those who benefit from New Zealand’s reputation as a safe and secure trading partner should contribute to the cost of meeting these new requirements”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Customs 
: Yes because both the Government and traders benefit from New Zealand being seen as clean green and safe so both the Government and those who trade should contribute towards security costs. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Noting that answer does the Minister agree that all New Zealanders benefit from improved security at our ports not just those who import and export goods; if so why does the Government not pay for these reforms as part of its core obligation to protect its citizens rather than singling out import and export businesses? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A good part of these increased costs are a requirement for United States trade—in particular compliance costs imposed by the United States Government. There is no particular reason why the New Zealand Government should bear all those costs. The argument the member puts forward would of course apply to a very large range of Government services for which the Government charges. Should it choose to do so substantial increases in tax rates would be required which is contrary to the submissions the member has made to me. 
Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Why has the Government chosen this approach? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government pays a good deal already to protect New Zealand’s borders and keep them safe for all New Zealanders—some $35 million a year for customs services. The United States and other nations need to be assured of the safety of all goods on ships and aircraft and it is appropriate that there is a sharing of costs in those respects. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why does the Minister think it is justifiable to place up to $20 million worth of costs on industry and exporters when all other security is paid for by the State? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly a good part of the reason for that is that these costs are being applied from elsewhere. This Government unlike most other Governments in the world is taking on the responsibility of trying to ensure that New Zealand exporters can in effect get into the fast lane in terms of access to the United States. To meet these requirements would cause considerable difficulties on shore in the United States and those costs elsewhere are being met directly out of the private sector. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister confirm that these costs in regard to exporters are being imposed on carriers and does he not recognise that a carrier of a large quantity of cargo will pass on a relatively small cost to an exporter as against the carrier of a small volume of cargo who will be forced to pass on a heavy cost to an exporter; and does he think that is fair and equitable? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that the charge is a per-container charge rather than a per-ship charge. A question about the flat rate issue has been raised by some interested in this matter and obviously we need to make sure that that is the fairest way of approaching it. Most other approaches would have higher compliance costs. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree with the Minister of Finance’s statement in the House yesterday regarding the proposed border security measures that they are “a response to demands from the United States. In other countries around the world it has been basically left to the private sector to meet those conditions.”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I understand the Minister of Finance made those statements on the basis of advice from the Minister of Customs. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the fact that the Canadian Government has recently announced spending of Can$172.5 million for port security therefore treating border security as a national defence issue alter his stated view? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. In the case of Canada of course some 88 percent of its exports go to the United States. They are effectively a one-nation exporting country compared with New Zealand. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the fact that the United States Government has allocated US$2.3 billion in its 2003 Budget for its customs service to carry out its border security role in any way alter his stated view? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. Off the top of my head I am not able to scale the United States versus New Zealand in that regard. I would emphasise that the New Zealand Government already spends a large amount of money on border security and those costs are continuing to rise quite rapidly. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Government planning to rush its port security proposals through before Christmas as an amendment to the Border Security Bill without proper parliamentary or select committee scrutiny? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister of Customs was advised by the Leader of the House that there is no intention to rush this bill through before Christmas. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek leave first to table a document showing that Ottawa is pumping $172.5 million— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Secondly I seek leave to table a document showing the United States of America is putting $2.3 billion towards— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.