Power Simon: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13296] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I now believe I have heard everything tonight. Contrary to my colleague Peter Brown’s advice I can vividly recall that Lianne Dalziel was completely untroubled by New Zealand First for most of this Parliament. It had nothing to do with New Zealand First and I think we should set the record straight on that point. 
The other thing I am intrigued about during the debate on Part 2 is Gerry Eckhoff’s declaration on behalf of the ACT party that ACT is actually the “Civil Libertarian Party” in Parliament. That is certainly news to me as well. 
I thought I would do something unique in respect of Part 2 and actually look at it because it strikes me—and it may just be that it is lost on everybody else apart from me—that in the debate on Part 1 the Government was very quick to point out with regard to the levies and costs to be landed on exporters that there was no public good in respect of that side of border control but that Part 2 is all about public good. For the life of me I cannot understand how those two things coexist side by side. I feel no more sure of this legislation and I sleep no easier at night knowing that Rick Barker is in charge of the New Zealand Customs Service and our borders over the course of the next short while. This is a serious issue that requires a serious Minister to be in charge of what the Prime Minister described—I inform Mr Eckhoff—as “an incredibly benign strategic environment” a statement that was backed up on a number of occasions by Mr Goff and Mr Burton in their roles as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Minister of Defence. 
Part 2 is a security issue. There is no other short and succinct way of putting that. It sets out very clearly the provisions of the Advance Passenger Screening system under which those passengers will be removed from the aircraft before they depart from their initial port on the way to New Zealand. The commentary states that the system is already being used by Air New Zealand and on international flights of other airlines on a voluntary basis. We in the National Party say that that part of the legislation is worth supporting. 
Mr Eckhoff does raise an interesting point because with regard to new section 125AB inserted by clause 29 there is a specific clause removing the right of an individual caught under those provisions to seek judicial review. That is quite a serious and onerous clause. One accepts that in the current non-benign strategic environment liberties must be removed by the host nation of New Zealand in order to secure the freedom of those who would otherwise be affected. The right to remove the opportunity for judicial review is a serious issue indeed but in this instance the public good does outweigh the private and that is an important issue to raise at this point. 
It is worth noting too that the restrictions on the need to give reasons for boarding decisions are contained in clause 125AB(8) and (9). The justification for the removal of liberties at that point is that a decision must be made quickly prior to the alleged offender boarding an aircraft so as to avoid the type of situation that Mr Brown outlined. It is essentially the Ahmed Zaoui sort of situation that we want to avoid—from what I can tell from the section having had a quick glance at it. 
 Having said that in the event of an airline being directed to refuse boarding permission it is likely that the reason will be conveyed to the passenger through the airline. Presumably then the airline has the responsibility for turning away the passenger at the point of boarding. We need to ask the serious question in this House tonight whether that is satisfactory in the context of a security environment. Is it satisfactory for us to allow airlines and airline staff to make decisions relating to matters of international security? That is quite a serious issue.