Worth Richard: Border Security Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Border Security Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6834] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: On behalf of the National Party I would like to join previous members in congratulating the Minister of Customs on the work he has done to see this bill introduced to Parliament. It is no mean feat for a Minister without any legal training at all to put together a bill of this complexity and to do such a good job. I do not doubt that along the way it will be discovered that the Minister has made a number of major blunders but certainly in the superficial examination that we give to bills at the time of their first reading I have only praise for the work he has done. I believe that much of that work has been done on an unaided basis to the extent that if the Minister has made slips then he alone will be accountable for the errors that have occurred. 
There are three areas that I would like to cover in the short time that is available to me in this second reading. First I will talk very generally about the bill. Second I will offer some reservations in respect of a particular aspect and I am glad the Attorney-General is here to perhaps contemplate the issues that I will seek to raise. Third I will make some comments in conclusion. 
First of all the bill forms part of a Government package strengthening New Zealand’s anti-terrorist legal framework in the wake of September 11. It accompanies the Counter-Terrorism Bill and the Maritime Security Bill which is yet to be introduced. The bill has three key features. They are first that airlines are required to send to customs electronic information on arriving and departing passengers craft and crew; second that exporters are encouraged to enter voluntary arrangements with customs whereby their goods are made secure and are subject to customs control from the time of packing to the point of loading on to a ship; and third there are a number of other amendments increasing customs’ search and seizure powers. 
I will start by speaking about supply chain security because the Government is currently negotiating a nation-to-nation security deal with the US for container freight. The Americans now apparently want containers to be sealed at their point of origin and the contents detailed in order for the containers to be passed speedily across US ports. That is clearly an advantage in a setting where an alternative possibility might be port-to-port deals between New Zealand ports and US ports. So this bill establishes a voluntary system whereby customs or Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials check containers as they are packed and seal them with tamper-proof markers. Customs obviously hope that system will satisfy the US so that it allows a nation-to-nation security deal. The US has many individual port agreements and New Zealand clearly felt that because many of our ports are small it would be better to have one agreement for the whole country. If exporters choose not to participate in the system then their goods will be subject to much more stringent inspection on arrival in the US and will thus take longer to clear the wharf. 
The second aspect which members and the Minister have spoken about is in connection with the travel security provisions and the fact that international carriers will now be required to electronically lodge advance information on passengers and crew with customs which in turn will link electronically with travel operators’ and cargo managers’ databases. 
I would now like just to talk about some of the implications of this legislation which I believe will need to be carefully considered by the select committee. What I am talking about is the oblique or indirect use of administrative power which may well be misused. It is the sort of situation that currently confronts immigration officials at the border. A person boards a flight to come to New Zealand. He or she produces appropriate travel documentation that satisfies the authorities of the sending State. In the course of carriage to New Zealand the person destroys his or her passport and other relevant travel materials. The person arrives at the New Zealand border and announces that he or she is seeking refugee status. That then becomes a problem for the refugee status branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service and the case may well end up before the Refugee Status Appeals Authority for determination as to whether the claimant is properly making a claim for asylum. As I see it the legislation which does not really have this intended purpose can be misused in the sense that data can be accessed on the true nature of the claimant’s origin and identity. One may say that that is a good thing but it potentially represents an abuse of administrative power. The committee should closely look at that issue. 
The second issue that I seek to deal with relates to concerns that have been expressed by the outgoing Privacy Commissioner to a number of select committees of Parliament as we have looked at a number of pieces of legislation that are security related. Whether they are bills such as the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) which deals with computer crime or bills that relate to the setting up of the Government Communications Security Bureau and the vesting of powers in that entity or bills that are concerned with terrorism in its asymmetric aspects there is little doubt that Parliament is hugely ready to give to the security forces in this country significantly increased powers. The Privacy Commissioner makes the point quite justifiably I would assert that some of these powers may not truly be required. The officials asked for them and Parliament generally grants those wishes. But we in this Parliament should be constant in our vigilance that more is not given than is sought—proposition one—and proposition two that where something is sought it is not automatically given. I have some reservations as to whether in respect of this legislation the powers need to be as broad as Parliament is currently minded to confer. 
I spoke about the travel security provisions and of course they are more complex than I have indicated. It is clear that the amendments proposed for example will allow customs officers to carry out automated pre-boarding checks of passengers and crew intending to travel to New Zealand. The plan is for electronic alerts to be recorded against a passenger or a crew member in the event that either a discrepancy or a security concern arises. Customs officials will be able to prevent passengers from boarding a plane or ship for intended passage to New Zealand. 
There are significant costs associated with this process. The Government estimates the cost of installing such an electronic system would be $21 million over 5 years. The airlines have indicated that they will incur additional costs of between $50000 and $100000 to implement this system for New Zealand. That said of course a number of countries have these same systems and Australia is one illustration of that. 
Let me conclude on the issue of increased customs search and seizure powers. I do so in the context of the comments I have made that it may be the case that we are giving too much power to the bureaucracy and to the administration. Under this legislation customs will be able to detain for investigation suspicious cash and what is called tainted property. Those issues all require the close consideration of the select committee to which this bill is referred.