Ardern Shane: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:13748] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I acknowledge the speech of the previous speaker the leader of United Future. Yes United Future has voted against the Border Security Bill all the way and has opposed it all the way and I congratulate it on that. The question is whether United Future would have been so unequivocal in doing that if the Green Party which also spoke against it and voted against it on a couple of occasions had not buckled. That is the question. I wonder whether it would have been; I am not sure whether it would. I shall come back to the bill for a few moments and remind the Labour Party of a couple of documents it put out. I think the Prime Minister is on the front of one of those documents. I am not sure whether it is her. If paintings are signed by Helen Clark does that mean they are hers? I am not sure about that. 
For the benefit of Labour Party members who want to forget these little documents I remind them that the 1999 document states: “Create jobs through promoting New Zealand industry and better support for exporters and small business.” That is pledge No. 1. “My commitments are”—how unequivocal is that? That is absolutely what that document states. The first four words of bullet point No. 7 read “No rise in income tax”. If members look at the 2002 document and I am pretty sure that is the Prime Minister on the front of it but as I said a painting signed by Helen Clark may not be hers although this looks as though it could be— 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s not my mother. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is certainly not my mother; that is for sure. The document reads: “Work with all sectors to create an innovative growing economy with more jobs.” Pledge No. 7 on the backof the leaflet reads “No rise in rates of income tax” again. If dumping $16 million worth of new taxation on exporters importers and the shipping companies in between them is not a step away from those two absolute golden commitments that were supposed to be unbreakable—“My commitment to you.”; Labour’s commitments to voters—what is it? The Minister may want to take a brief call to answer that question. Certainly members on the Opposition side of the House are curious about how commitments like that are made and then absolutely ignored in the way the Government has in clauses 7B and 8C of this bill. 
I would also like to know what the Hon Michael Cullen is going to do with the extra $16 million of taxation he will collect from our exporters importers and shipping companies. As the member Peter Brown mentioned before that figure is made up of $4 million from exported goods another $4 million from transhipped goods and $8 million from imported goods. Of course the figure was $8 million from both sides until the Governmentbacked down on the export side by 50 percent and brought the figure back to $4 million. What will Michael Cullen do with that extra $16 million of taxation once he has received it? The Treasury papers that were presented to the Government Administration Committee stated that charges for services provided by Crown agencies that are in excess of the cost of the provisions could be interpreted as a tax. That is where we come to the conclusion from that this must be yet another tax. In fact it is tax No. 23—23 new taxes. 
Given that the Committee gave me the indulgence of making a speech because my mother is present I will not linger on that argument any further other than to say that this is a back-door tax. We oppose it and it should never have been introduced. Other than that the bill is a reasonable piece of work that needs to be passed and I am very pleased that the United Future members have stood up and been unequivocal in the Committee for the first time in the whole time that they have supported this Government. We have had a win there on this back-door tax.