Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11379] 
10.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: Has he received any reports that discuss the merits of his proposed border security levy; if so have any of the report’s findings given him cause to reconsider whether or not to go ahead with the proposed levy? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Yes I have received a number of reports on the merits of the proposed levy. I am pleased to confirm that none of those reports so far have led me to conclude that the levy should be dropped. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree with the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report dated December 2003 where it states that on the basis of the Treasury’s own guidelines a policy of full or even significant cost recovery of the additional $20 million expenditure on supply of security from importers and export transport operators is unjustifiable; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I suggest that the member look at the beginning of the—sorry the NZEI. Yes I have read that report. I had the wrong one. I would just say to the member: one of the things that is said in the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report is that the second objective of the Customs Service is to provide an increased level of security over New Zealand’s trade so trading partners are assured that this trade poses little or no threat to them. Then the report goes on to conclude that there is no mention in this paragraph about trade access. That is a ridiculous statement to make. The logic in that report is flawed in almost every respect. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was some confusion there. I wonder whether the Minister could confirm for us that he was reading the right answer to that supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member is just trying to be silly. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What are the benefits for exporters from the proposed new border security arrangements? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There are many benefits but most important the proposed arrangements will ensure that exporters are able to comply with the security requirements of importing countries before their goods arrive at their border ensuring a rapid and certain clearance of their goods rather than uncertainties that may arise in costly delays. Second and more important exporters will be able to choose the port they wish to export from—all 13 New Zealand seaports or every airport—with unrestricted choice. This is a different model from what is being proposed by overseas countries where some ports are secure cleared and others are not. 
Shane Ardern 
: Is the Minister aware that all New Zealand’s export industries which represent 70 percent of the country’s income all of our shipping companies all of our airline companies and anybody else who is involved in exporting or importing are 100 percent opposed to the $20 million extra tax this Minister will impose on them; if he is will he do a U-turn on this stupid socialist tax? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Mr Ardern as usual has things back to front. First exporters are being requested to consider paying for $8 million importers $4 million and trans-shippers $8 million. 
Shane Ardern 
: Add them up. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: In fact trans-shippers are not New Zealand exporters. They are trans-shippers they are foreign nationals they are not New Zealanders so it is not New Zealand business. I also want to say that I have spoken to many many exporters who agree with the model being proposed by the New Zealand Customs Service and support it. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister ever recall stating that increased border security was in the interests of everyone? If he does recall that why is he imposing the charges only against cargo interests and carriers and not funding it from Government coffers? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Currently the Government meets over 50 percent of the costs of border security. This proposal is not entirely about New Zealand’s border security it is about getting security clearance for New Zealand goods to enter overseas countries. If we do not have this prior clearance then those goods will be held up on foreign borders and will incur extra costs. This is about getting access to our foreign markets for those exporters and it is therefore in the exporters’ interests to have this clearance. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister in agreement with the report from Capital Economics dated January 2004 which states that in regard to the proposed levy on importers there exists a “strong and incontrovertible public-good argument for general taxpayer funding and very little case if any for taxing imports”; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I have read the document by Capital Economics and I would refer the member to the first part of it which says that those who act on the basis of its recommendations do so at their own risk. It seems to me to be a disclaimer and the member should take that into account before making any reliable statements on it. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table a press release by the Minister where he states that border security is in the interests of everyone. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document is there any objection? There is. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament on 10 February: “The security of New Zealanders is also a core responsibility of government” applies to border security; if so why? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That statement is absolutely true but this proposal is not about meeting New Zealand’s border security it is about meeting the security requirements of those countries that import our goods. If we do not have this prior security clearance for them then our goods could suffer significant delays and extra cost. This is absolutely in the interests of exporters. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister not agree that a key service outcome for the proposed border security initiatives will be enhanced security for New Zealanders from the possible actions of terrorists who could for example bring in a bomb in an import container that could kill scores of innocent people in one of our major cities such as Auckland and does he continue to say that the Crown has no responsibility for such a thing? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Of course the Crown has absolute responsibility for that and that is why we currently fund the New Zealand Customs Service and will continue to do so. Those elements are the responsibility of the New Zealand taxpayer and we meet them. What the member confuses is that we are making a proposal to meet the security clearance issues for people who are importing our goods. Prior security clearance means our goods will get through their borders quickly and efficiently. Without it they will not. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek leave to table the document from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research which states that this step is unjustifiable. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek leave to table the report from Capital Economics Ltd which states that there is an incontrovertible public-good argument. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.