Tisch Lindsay: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13297] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Part 2 is a contradiction when we consider that all the clauses in Part 2 which National supports deal with protecting New Zealand. The Government has a responsibility to protect our shores and our citizens and that is exactly what is dealt with in Part 2 “Amendments to Immigration Act 1987”. 
The contradiction is that when we debated Part 1 National said that the Government has a responsibility to protect New Zealand—all indicators show that; even the Auditor-General’s remarks on managing threats to domestic security highlight those points—but the Government does not see that it has the responsibility to protect New Zealand shores. Rather it will impose a tax on our exporters and importers to cover those security costs. National argued—in fact I had two amendments that would have clarified the point very succinctly—that this bill should be about public good. There is no private good—it is about public good and Part 2 states that in detail. Although it is unfortunate that National could not support Part 1 we do support Part 2. 
I also want to acknowledge the work that the advisers did for the Government Administration Committee on the whole bill. Much in-depth research has gone into this bill. I pass on my thanks as Shane Ardern did to the advisers for the work they did. I appreciate it. 
I want to pick up on what is significant about Part 2. It requires people in charge of commercial craft to come up with a system that does checks and balances with immigration documentation and to look at alerts before passengers board a craft travelling to New Zealand. That is significant. If we are to protect our borders there should be a requirement to vet people before they come here. Once they are here it is very difficult to take action. Part 2 gives our Immigration Service the opportunity to vet those people before they come through. The cooperation of the airlines in doing so is certainly something that National encourages. 
I want to look specifically at clause 28 “Residence permit holders temporarily absent from New Zealand”. Although clause 28 does not seem to contain much I think it is significant and we should highlight what clause 28 actually does. I will quote from the officials’ paper to the select committee on their clause by clause analysis because I think it succinctly covers a very important point. The clause will repeal section 18(b) of the Immigration Act. This “will require all refugees recognised by New Zealand who have been granted residence and who are travelling on New Zealand - issued refugee travel documents to hold a current returning resident’s visa when returning to New Zealand.” That is very very significant because the current provision states that passengers returning to New Zealand can hold an expired residence permit in their refugee travel documents. This clause is saying that they are required to hold a returning residents visa. Of course that provision is the same for us if we travel out of the country as well. So this is a significant tightening of the borders and National members support clause 28. Surveillance will be available through the Immigration Service with its Advance Passenger Screening office particularly the one at Auckland airport on a 24-hour basis. 
Clause 29 is a significant clause as well. A number of submissions queried its import. There were a couple from the Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand there was one from Business New Zealand and another one which was significant was from the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council. It wanted to know whether “craft” in new section 125AA(1) inserted by clause 29 included seafaring craft. It was concerned about the definition of “commercial craft” and whether that included commercial fishing vessels which do not primarily carry passengers. The result was that they are included in the provision. That was one of the major areas of concern in that industry. 
Overall National is happy to support the clauses in Part 2 and we think it is the right move. It is just unfortunate as I said earlier that we could not support Part 1 which deals with private good versus public good. Our position is very clear: it should have been about public good as Part 2 is which deals with and supports public good. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 220 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to clause 29 and the following amendment in his name to clause 29 
 
 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 125AA(4) and substitute the following paragraphs: 
(a)in the case of a carrier to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $20000 or to both; or 
(b)in the case of a person in charge to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $10000 or to both. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to.