Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10709] 
4.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: Does he stand by his comment of 2 July 2003 that “the [Border Security] bill will sit alongside the Counter-Terrorism Bill in strengthening the legislation protecting New Zealanders and New Zealand’s interests” and the reported statement that the Border Security Bill would enhance New Zealand’s overall security for the benefit of everyone; if so why? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Yes because it is true. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister therefore prepared to acknowledge again in the House today that the fundamental principle behind the Border Security Bill is one of national security; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The bill covers four aspects: travel security supply-chain security and law enforcement and immigration matters. Three of those are direct costs to the State and will be met by the State. 
Tim Barnett 
: Are there provisions in the Border Security Bill that will be of direct commercial benefit to New Zealand’s exporters? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes there are. The bill contains provisions for the introduction of a completely new supply-chain security regime that will ensure the quick passage of our exports across international borders—thus avoiding delays extra handling and extra storage costs—which will be of direct benefit to exporters. 
Shane Ardern 
: In the light of that answer if the Minister thinks he is so right why was he not upfront with this charge from the start instead of waiting until the bill had gone through the select committee process and submissions had been heard; or did he think that it would go through and nobody would notice it? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I intended it to go through with everybody noticing it. The matter has been referred to all exporters. Exporters and others interested are invited to make their submissions to the select committee. After the submissions have been heard the select committee will report. It is a very open process. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Why does the Government—unlike the United States Government which on 10 December released a further $179 million following earlier grants of $245 million in federal funds for port security grants—refuse to fund the implementation of the much-required port security measures here and instead plans to levy the cost on to exporters? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That matter is before the select committee for consideration. The Government has put its view out the select committee is hearing submissions from exporters on it and I will wait for the select committee’s report. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Whilst acknowledging the need to react to the US container security initiative does the Minister concede that an underlying rationale behind the proposed port security measures as outlined in the Border Security Bill is the protection of New Zealanders against terrorists using the supply chain to import terrorism into our country; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I do not entirely accept that tenet. Yes there is an element of that in order to protect New Zealand and the New Zealand taxpayers will pick up the cost of it. There is an element that is of direct benefit to others and they should accept that cost as well. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek leave to table a document from the Department of Homeland Security in the USA that announces a further $179 million in grants to secure America’s ports. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.