Carter David: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13283] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for acknowledging that National Party members are here representing the gumboot-wearing farmers of this country. I also think that the Committee should note the interjection made by Damien O’Connor tonight who I think is still the Associate Minister of Agriculture and who claims that this argument being advanced by National is effectively a subsidy to be paid to farmers. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: The member has never worn gumboots in his life. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: If the Minister wants to take a call he can take one. He claims that if this cost recovery measure—this extra tax that he is now going to label as a subsidy to farmers— 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: No. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: He is now backing down from that. He is the Minister who only 12 months ago was so keen to impose more taxes on the farming community but he was cowering in his office when 2000 farmers stood on the steps of Parliament arguing against a tax the Government was going to impose on flatulence. Only 12 months ago Damien O’Connor the farmers’ representative here in Parliament was trying to justify the flatulence tax. He now does about as good a job as that in defending the Government’s new move to impose further taxes on the farmers of New Zealand in this bill. 
I want to make two points. The first point relates to the contribution of the Greens. I well remember when cost recovery was first advised by the Government. The Green member Ian Ewen-Street put out a press release opposing the imposition of cost recovery on the import and export sector of this country. Therefore I found it incredibly strange to listen to his contribution about 15 minutes ago and find that he is now actually supportive of the imposition of this tax on the farmers of New Zealand. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: He is not. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: He now says that he is not so we are not sure just where the position is with the Greens. If he were now not supportive of an additional tax being imposed on the farmers of New Zealand then it would seem that suddenly the Government does not have the numbers to pass the Border Security Bill. It is very important that the Green member be allowed to stand to clarify his position because he has had three positions in the time he has walked the length of the Chamber and I am no longer sure whether he supports the legislation. I suspect that at the end of the day he will roll with the Government as the Greens are inclined to do. 
The second thing I want to do is to talk about an amendment being moved by Peter Brown of New Zealand First. He has asked whether we would be prepared to support his amendment. I would have huge difficulty supporting it. Mr Brown stood and opposed this legislation because it imposed taxes on the import and export sectors. Yet he is moving a very verbose amendment—it is four pages—that talks about clarifying the principles for cost recovery. I say to the member Mr Peter Brown that rather than passing that amendment which seems to me to be a very halfway-house measure he would do far better to support the excellent amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch which simply states in a fraction of a page that clause 7B and clause 8C be deleted. 
Peter Brown 
: We’ll support that. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The member is saying he will support that. I am sure that if Mr Ian Ewen-Street were to clarify his position—he is on the phone just checking what his position is so when he gets off the phone he might be able to clarify his position—we may well be in a situation where the debate can be curtailed. I think we might be in a position where everybody is prepared to move this legislation the good parts of which assist the Customs Service at the border—we are all for that—and the bad part of which removes the cost recovery levy which is nothing more than a further tax. It is No. 27 of the new taxes that have been imposed. Ian Ewen-Street is now off the phone so I am sure he has clarified his position. We hope he will take the next call and confirm now that he has clarified with his whips and that they are opposed to tax No. 27. No I am not sure that he has worked it out yet but he will take a call and let us know. 
Let us hope we are in a position of support for the excellent amendment put forward by Lindsay Tisch to advance the legislation and to complete the debate on the Border Security Bill without cost recovery for the benefit of all importers and exporters of this nation.