Carter David: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13275] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 That is a speech that I will recall for quite some time. But if the member was serious about opposing this legislation then he should have done a deal more when he and his leader sold out to the Government to support the foreshore and seabed legislation. However the point I want to make is that the important part of this bill is the question of whether border security is fundamentally the responsibility of the taxpayer or whether it is something that can be cost-recovered. I say that border control is a fundamental function of Government that should be paid for by Government by taxes and I am sure Mr Chairman that you would agree with that. 
During the debate this bill will be bogged down by an argument over two clauses—clauses 7B and 8C—that propose to give the Government the right to collect more taxes from the importers and exporters of this country. I say to the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope that the importers and exporters of this country are heartily sick of being passed a raft of tax after tax that seriously threatens the very competitive nature of New Zealand. The Minister can laugh at that but I suggest he gets out there opens his correspondence file and he will find a raft of letters from organisations like Federated Farmers. He shakes his head but I have a copy of a letter that is addressed to him from Federated Farmers which was also copied to me that strongly opposes this legislation for the very reason that I am talking about which is that it imposes more cost on a very valuable sector. 
 Although we are concentrating on those two clauses in amongst this legislation there is quite a lot that is good. I am all for giving more power at the border to our Customs Service officials because with the smart practice of some of those people involved in the illicit trade they need it. I say to the Minister that if he wants wholehearted support for this legislation he should accept Lindsay Tisch’s amendment—which will be moved at the end of the discussion on Part 1—to omit new clauses 7B and 8C. As Mr Peter Brown said without those two clauses in the legislation we can move on in I suspect a unanimous fashion and pass the Border Security Bill to the betterment of the enforcement of our borders. The issue that we have strong objection to tonight is the imposition of yet another tax. There is no other description for it. It is another tax on the— 
Jill Pettis 
: That member’s Government did nothing. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Now Jill Pettis interrupts and says: “That member’s Government did nothing.” “That member’s Government” did a huge amount to ensure the success of our export sector because it recognised the contribution that those people made to the creation of wealth in New Zealand. It gave that member the opportunity to be in Government and pass something like 26 new taxes prior to this one. No. 27 tax is about to be imposed with the passing of this legislation. I say to Jill Pettis that her Government certainly does not have a record she should be proud of. 
The legislation could be moved quickly if the Government were prepared to acknowledge that border control is a public good to be paid for and funded from taxes. That is the issue. The Minister has already done a semi-backdown. We have had all sorts of back-downs over the last few days—one over the sex move by Mr Phil Goff—and the Minister has done a back-down of $4 million. He now acknowledges that $4 million will not be collected from exporters and importers and will be paid out of general taxes. 
I ask the Minister about the other $16 million that he is intent on putting on the exporters and importers of this nation. [ 
Interruption 
] He is mumbling something. If he will take a call I am quite happy for the Minister to answer and justify how first of all he could come up with a cost recovery regime of $20 million and then because he received lots of letters that he seems to have forgotten he received—but I know he received them—suddenly back down and change his mind on $4 million of the $20 million. There is no rationale for that at all apart from as an acknowledgment that he was not right and that he was unprincipled with his first imposition of yet another significant tax on the export sector.