Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2)

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) Link to this

I move, That the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Post-9/11 means that we live in a very different global environment. We can no longer assume that New Zealand is safe from international criminal activities such as drug trafficking and terrorism, which, as we have all seen, know no boundaries. The face of New Zealand’s travel and trade landscape is also changing. We are experiencing huge growth in the volume of people and goods crossing our border and, with it, increasing threats such as illegal migration, identity fraud, terrorism, drugs, and international organised crime. That makes it even more important that we move to target such risks effectively and with minimal disruption to legitimate trade and travel.

Along with those changes, the volume and sophistication of organised criminal activity is on the increase, which means that our border control activities must evolve to keep pace. Major drug seizures, such as the record $135 million drug bust in Auckland in May, show that our country continues to be a target for such criminal groups, and that we cannot afford to let our guard down. The New Zealand Customs Service represents a first line of defence in helping to keep our borders and our country safe. It is also responsible for helping to ensure the security of our exports and imports, which protects New Zealand’s international trading reputation.

The Government is committed to protecting our communities, our people, and our economy from those risks. This bill recognises areas of border management where strengthened legislation is needed to help achieve that. The reality of operating in a heightened global security environment means we also have greater national and international obligations around border security, and our legislation needs to be strengthened to reflect that. A large number of Government departments have been consulted during the development of this bill, and it has been carefully drafted to strike a balance between the need to protect our communities and the rights of individuals. The bill complies with the rights and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993, as well as relevant international standards and obligations.

The legislation also supports a whole-of-Government approach to better border management. It addresses limitations in current border powers by extending the range of options that customs officers have available to them, in recognition of what is becoming an increasingly complex and changeable border environment. The strengthened legislation will also create better linkages between customs and other border enforcement agencies, to ensure people or goods that pose a threat do not slip through the possible gaps in the system.

That brings me to the content of the bill. This bill strengthens the Customs and Excise Act 1996 to provide for more effective and integrated border management by Government agencies. It also makes minor amendments of a mechanical nature and technical amendments to clarify the Act.

The bill’s key provisions include the ability for the Customs Service to deal with risk goods and evidence of offending. Section 175C, substituted by clause 15, will help to keep New Zealand’s borders safer by enabling customs officers to refer to other border control agencies any potential risk goods or documents that may be of interest to those agencies. Being able legitimately to pass findings to another agency will have significant benefits for risk management and for the detection of offences. For example, currently a customs officer cannot seize any evidence, such as documents, related to people-smuggling, which means that that evidence may not be able to be used in a prosecution. Customs officers already have some powers to hold and refer dangerous goods, and those powers will be extended to allow them to hold and refer risk goods to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

The second provision, in section 175B, substituted by clause 15, provides the ability for the Customs Service to retain or seize unlawful travel documents. It gives a customs officer, during a search or examination, the ability to seize and hold any unlawful travel documents and the equipment used to produce them. The provision recognises the growth of identity fraud and false travel documentation, which is of increasing concern to international border control agencies. New Zealand customs officers regularly detect fraudulent identity documents at the border. The ability to search for and seize those false identity documents and the equipment used to produce them is important, because such documents can be used to facilitate other types of criminal activity. If those items slip through, they can compromise border security and undermine our passport system. Allowing those items to remain in circulation also exposes other countries to the same risks.

Thirdly, there is an obligation on persons to remain at their place of report in New Zealand until border processing is completed, under new sections 32B and 32C, inserted by clause 6. Those provisions require people travelling to or from New Zealand to remain at the relevant border processing area until they have been cleared. They also provide for the Customs Service to enforce that obligation if people do not comply. The bill also provides for the Customs Service to hold a person arriving in or departing from New Zealand for up to 4 hours in certain cases—for example, if there is a threat to the public’s health or safety. Those provisions are important because they enable the Customs Service to refer to other interested agencies anyone who may require further immigration or additional border processing. They also cover cases in which there is reasonable cause to suspect that, for example, a person has an infectious disease, is liable to be arrested, or is wanted by police on suspicion of having committed an imprisonable offence.

New section 32A, inserted by clause 6, limits the use of electronic communication devices. That provision provides for limits to be imposed on the use of electronic communications devices in certain border processing areas, which means that people may be asked not to use equipment, such as their mobile phone, while waiting in the primary processing area of an airport. The provision is modelled on Australian legislation that also limits the use of mobile phones in airports for border security reasons. The use of mobile phones or other electronic devices can be used to thwart law enforcement activity at the border. For example, drug smugglers can warn associates of impending detection or arrange the destruction of evidence. Mobile phones with cameras can also be used to record images that can later be used to target or threaten officers. It is crucial that we prevent any attempts to thwart customs officers’ work at borders; otherwise we risk threats getting through. However, travellers will still be able to use their mobile phones in most parts of airports—for example, in those areas used immediately after their arrival and before they reach customs booths.

New section 168A, inserted by clause 14, provides the ability for a customs officer to immediately detain and search a person when executing a search warrant, and to seize any dangerous items. Although the Customs Service already has the authority to search a person at the border or during the execution of a search warrant, people can currently request to appear before a reviewer before a search can proceed. Because customs officers’ work can place them in dangerous situations, the ensuring of their personal safety is crucial. For example, when officers are executing a search warrant of a building as part of a drugs investigation, they may need to search a person immediately for dangerous items such as firearms or knives.

There are catch-all export controls for goods with an inappropriate military end use. The bill provides for the ability to impose controls on the export of catch-all goods. Those are goods that are in everyday use but that may be intended for an undesirable purpose, such as the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction or of chemical weapons. New Zealand has international obligations to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, and many countries already have export controls in place to curb the spread of those devices. It is important for New Zealand’s international reputation, particularly as a trading partner, to implement such controls, yet we are one of a small number of countries that do not impose export controls over catch-all goods.

There is a provision to enable data matching with the Ministry of Social Development. Since 1991 the Customs Service has regularly provided passenger information to the Ministry of Social Development for the detection of people who leave for or return from overseas while receiving a benefit. The information is compared with the ministry’s database of beneficiaries in order to detect those who have received financial assistance to which they are not entitled. The bill extends the existing provision in the principal Act, which authorises the Customs Service to supply data, to now include student allowances.

In conclusion, I say that the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) is important legislation that recognises that New Zealand’s trade and travel landscape has changed and is continuing to change, and that we must move to keep pace with it. Increasing threats to our communities through terrorism, international organised crime, drugs, identity fraud, and other problems mean that we need strong, effective legislation and integrated border management in order to deal with those risks at the front line. These amendments have been carefully drafted to recognise the interests of both the Government and the community in effective border management, and the rights of people to travel and conduct legitimate trade across borders. This legislation affirms this Government’s commitment to a vibrant economy, to strong, safe communities, and to the protection of our national identity and way of life.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) Link to this

I rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). We will be supporting this bill going to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, but with some reservations. As the Minister has stated, the bill gives the Customs Service a better ability to deal with false and fraudulent travel documents, and that has to be a good thing. Its origins are in the response to the 9/11 event in the US and other terrorist activity around the world. Therefore, we would be foolish not to look at what can be done with regard to detecting risks and enforcing our customs law in line with other laws around the Western World. But I cannot help wondering whether this Government has missed an opportunity—a much-stated opportunity—to build better relationships with the US and with other Western nations around the world.

The US has on many occasions offered the hand of friendship to this Government with regard to designing and supplying modern technology in the detection of not only criminal activity with regard to terrorism, but also with regard to biosecurity, and to the best of my knowledge thus far this Government has bitten that kind hand and not accepted it. I ask the Minister and the officials who will be examining this bill in the select committee to look closely at what is on offer internationally and to take full advantage of whatever that technology may be. I understand, through some of my contacts in the US in relation to this matter, that there have been occasions when offers to install some sophisticated equipment, such as X-ray equipment that can detect in a container biomass down to the size of a matchstick, have been turned down on the basis that the equipment would be too sensitive and may, therefore, create too many difficulties for our customs officers and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officers to be able to carry out that work. I ask the Government to, please, take full advantage of the opportunity it has had presented to it. Given its tardy performance the last time it looked at reforms in the principal Act, I ask it to do something sensible in the process of passing this bill.

I have been informed that during the recent Aer Lingus strike, New Zealand Customs Service officers at Auckland airport were instructed not to target South American passport holders for immigration purposes or for compliance with immigration laws, because of the difficulty and cost of obtaining tickets back to South America. I wonder whether that is true; I do not know. But if it is true, it is amazing that we now have before us a further amendment to the Customs and Excise Act tightening up the controls around passports, when customs officers themselves are being told that the Customs Service simply does not have the capacity to cope with that situation at the moment, and that they are to give it a once-over-lightly and hope that the problem will come right.

Also, the staff turnover, particularly at Auckland airport, is something this Government should be concerned about. The facilities at Auckland airport are, and have been for a long time, totally inadequate. That is a total indictment on this Government’s policy. The reason, of course, is that the airport is a commercial activity and it is better to rent the space out to shopkeepers or someone who will provide a higher return than the Government is prepared to pay. So it is all very well for the Government to front up to Parliament, talking tough with regard to different changes to legislation—

MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this

I am pleased to rise in support of this bill, and I recognise the support of National members conveyed by the previous speaker. I have just a couple of points. Clearly the September 11 event has provoked new requirements in the modern world—new requirements around travel, security, and protection. To traverse some of those things would be hackneyed, and is unnecessary, in this House, but I do say we have discovered that smarter technology tends to produce smarter crimes, which in turn require smarter legislation. I think that this bill is a measured and constructive response to border control issues for New Zealand. We have recently seen improvements in passports, for example, and a large part of those improvements has been occasioned by those smarter crimes in the forging of fraudulent identities and by people trying to enter this country in other guises.

I also mention the fact that with the increased protections necessary for the New Zealand community—which is what border protection is all about—comes the need to balance human rights and the right of people to move in a way that is free and without hindrance, but is without threat to people in the New Zealand community. So constant vigilance is required as the world situation changes, and has changed, because this debate is always about balancing provisions for human rights with provisions required for the protection of communities and inhabitants in New Zealand. In fact, it is about balancing two sets of human rights.

I think that this bill has the balance right. There are increased powers—and I will talk about those briefly in a moment. But I think the balance is right, and certainly it will be up to the select committee to look at this bill and ensure that the kind of balance in it is a modern balance. We should ensure that we are not simply harking back to one extreme or another that might have characterised the debate in the past, where there would have been an excess of emphasis either on individual human rights or on police authority—or, in this case, on border control authority.

Because some of the provisions in this bill are modelled on Australian legislation, I would just like to give, as a bit of an illustration, an example of my own experience last weekend on returning from a conference in Malaysia, via Australia, where I saw provisions that are very similar to those in the bill being applied. I was impressed. Certainly the control over mobile phone usage before getting through border control was enforced. A passenger getting off the flight I was on proceeded to use his mobile phone—I am sure for quite innocent purposes—but he was told quite quickly that he had to cease doing so.

The other thing I found of great interest—it was kind of like a field trip, I suppose—was that I was randomly selected to be searched for explosives on the way through. I thought I was not somebody who might normally fit the profile; however, it was a random test to make sure the process was working. I found the test neither invasive nor very inconvenient, and I was interested to see what happened and how the border control personnel in Australia conducted that exercise. At no point did I ever feel that my human rights were being infringed. I thought it was a good process and, at the end of it, I said to the border control personnel that I had been interested to see how the process worked and how it was conducted.

The kinds of things provided for in this bill—as the Minister said in her introductory speech—go to the questions of national security, national identity, the protection of the New Zealand community, and the maintenance of New Zealand’s international obligations in line with other countries’ measures. I imagine that a number of submissions will come to the select committee on this bill. I hope that the balance of the bill is maintained in the discussions during the course of the select committee process, and I look forward to this measure becoming legislation in due course.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) Link to this

Thank you for the call on the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). The overarching purpose of this legislation is to enhance border security. That is a noble purpose. The National Party, being of noble purpose and noble mind, will support this legislation going through to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, but—as foreshadowed by my colleague Mr Ardern—with some severe reservations. We have learnt that in dealing with this Government, the devil is in the detail. We will not be satisfied that the bill will do what it purports to do until the select committee has gone through it clause by clause, in such a way as to satisfy us that it will do what the Government reports it will do.

We in the National Party will look to Mr Ardern to give us advice on these matters, because he is generally acknowledged as the best advocate in New Zealand for tougher biosecurity measures. So we will be taking our lead from him. National will need to be convinced that the cost of what the Government is proposing to do has gone through a very rigorous cost-benefit analysis, because this Government has a very worthy reputation for passing legislation at any cost, then asking taxpayers to pay for it, despite the fact that it has already overtaxed them to the tune of about $9 billion.

The Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, in her introductory remarks, went through and made some summary points of what the bill will do. I will go through some of those points in a little more detail. The first point she touched on was that the bill gives the Customs Service better ability to deal with false and forged travel and identity documents. I will come back to that point, if time permits. It prohibits the use of communications or computing equipment in suitably signposted customs areas. My colleague Mr Ardern has already touched on that point, but I want to flesh out an example or two. It prohibits the export of goods or publications relating to terrorist acts or to strategic uses that are contrary to New Zealand’s strategic interests; so it goes on.

Most people will be forgiven for thinking that these authorities already exist in other statutes, because, heaven forbid, it has already been 5 years since September 11. Most countries already embraced these security of border controls 4 years ago. This Government is now standing up and saying: “Aren’t we beauties, because now we’re doing it too?”. Well, I say to the Government that it is too little, too late.

I turn my attention specifically to new section 32A, inserted by clause 6, which states that the use of electronic communication devices is prohibited in “any Customs place or Customs controlled area …”, if there is a sign prohibiting the use of such devices or if a customs officer requires a person not to use or to stop using such devices. The question I posed when I read this new section was, why. Some examples have been offered. The most convincing answer I heard came from Mr Ardern, and there is no surprise in that. He has pointed out to us that the custom of using decoys is now starting to be employed in this country. By way of explanation, it means that a flight coming in from Sydney, for example, at 4 o’clock may have a decoy person on board who is running reconnaissance—casing the joint, if you like—for the person who is coming in on the flight that is due at 4.30. He or she will look at the customs officers in action and determine whether on that day they are being vigilant and looking at the X-ray machines, or whether they are more engaged with texting their mates, using their mobile phones, or whether there are sniffer dogs in action—essentially, whether it is a big risk to take. He or she will send a text or some form of communication to the next person, saying: “Harry, dump the goods. It’s not worth taking the risk today.”

So we agree with getting on top of that, but it also begs the question that I certainly could not find the answer to in the body of the bill. That is, what is the penalty for not obeying the instructions of the customs officer? I ask Mr Barker what happens if people turn their cellphones on when they are not meant to. I ask members to keep in mind that if there is a penalty, the reward for running drugs into this country is very high, so risk versus reward is such that we would have to make sure there were very stiff penalties indeed. Of course, the question about the cost of implementation, which I have already touched on, is not looked at by this bill at all and the select committee will have a job to do there. The question also needs to be answered about who pays.

I move now to new section 32C, inserted by clause 6, which “authorises a Customs officer to direct a person who arrives in, or departs”—and that is the point I want to make in a moment—“from, New Zealand to stay for up to 4 hours in a border processing area if the officer reasonably suspects that the person …” and there follows a list of reasons why an officer may do that.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

The Green Party will be supporting the referral of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) to a select committee. The bill has some good things in it, and some other things that the select committee will have to scrutinise a bit more fully—for example, the extra powers that are being granted to customs officers to detain people, and also the exchange of information between the Customs Service database and the Ministry of Social Development’s database.

I want to talk particularly about a good extension of powers here: the ones that the Minister mentioned to control the export of strategic goods, or goods for strategic uses. As the Minister said, we have been a little behind some other countries in controlling the export of strategic goods, and it is good that the bill contains a definition of “strategic use”. It goes from the lowest level of goods that may be civilian in their use but have military applications, up a step to those that have an intended military use, and up to a higher—and more dangerous—level of goods being used in the development, production, or deployment of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. Of course, the legislation ties in with our New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 in prohibiting the export of strategic goods related to nuclear weapons.

I want to particularly talk about the debate that has happened this year over Rakon’s export of crystal oscillators that have military uses. Those crystal oscillators are in shells and missiles and are tied in with Global Positioning System (GPS) guidance devices; they are part of those guidance devices. Under the definition of “strategic use” in this bill, we could control and prevent the export of some of those crystal oscillators, which are not going to be used for civilian purposes but for military purposes. It means that we would not have another situation like the one we had before, where the Government apologised for Rakon’s export of those goods.

On 15 June Phil Goff issued a press statement that the Government was “satisfied that based on information Rakon has provided, the crystal oscillators Rakon exports are not covered by the Strategic Goods List. They therefore do not require an export permit.” He said: “For electronic components of guidance and navigation equipment, such as crystal oscillators, to be covered by the Strategic Goods List, they must be ‘specially designed’ for military use. This means that they have unique properties distinguishing them for a predetermined military use.” Well, under the definition of “strategic use” in new section 56(2A) in clause 8 that is no longer the case, because paragraph (d) includes the words: “may have military applications”. As Minister Goff admitted at the time, the crystal oscillators are used for military as well as civilian purposes.

If we then go up a level of seriousness, in terms of strategic use, we find that is what is defined in paragraph (d) of that clause as something “intended for military use”, I think it is true that Rakon developed certain of its crystal oscillators to a military standard. As Rakon admitted in its own documents—emails that were reproduced in the New Zealand Herald a month or two ago—Rockwell Collins, a military subcontractor to the US Air Force, gave Rakon hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop G-shock hardened crystal oscillators. Clearly, they were for specific military use. The documents describe them as being guidance systems for smart shells for the United States military.

Then, if we go up the scale of strategic use, we see items that may be used in the development, production, or deployment of nuclear weapons. In Rakon’s internal documents, it admitted that under United States contracts it was developing nuclear-hardened crystal oscillators that had to have a specification to operate at a depth of 135 metres. The House may exercise its mind as to what sort of weaponry may have to operate at a depth of 135 metres, and the two things I can come up with are probably nuclear missiles in silos or nuclear missiles in a US nuclear submarine. If Rakon is developing crystal oscillators to those military specifications for use in actually launching a nuclear weapon, or even a weapon that is not nuclear-tipped—a weapon that is used in a nuclear exchange, perhaps to knock out nuclear weapons or missiles on the other side—then it would be contrary to this legislation that we are discussing today. So this is good legislation in that respect.

New section 56(2B) in clause 8 allows the Government to move against people who export strategic goods where that is contrary to New Zealand’s interests. That is a very good bit to put in the legislation, too. Clearly, if Rakon is exporting crystal oscillators produced to a specific military standard under US military contract, to be placed in US Air Force missiles or shells, and if those are then used—as they are likely to be—in bombing places like Fallujah or Ramadi in Iraq, given that our Government was against going into the Iraq war, then clearly the oscillators are being used in ways contrary to New Zealand’s interests. So the law we are talking about today is good in that respect. We can even update that problem. We read in the papers over the last day or so that the United States is resupplying Israel with more missiles and weaponry. It may be that some of Rakon’s crystal oscillators will soon rain down upon the people of Lebanon, via our export to the United States.

Under new section 56(2E) in clause 8, people are liable if they are reasonably aware of the uses of their exports. Rakon, unfortunately, engaged in a cover-up when the debate first started around its crystal oscillators last year. It did not tell the truth in relation to what was happening. When asked by the New Zealand Herald, Rakon said it “has not developed any technology specifically for the US military.”, and “No technology has been specifically developed by Rakon for use in smart bombs or missiles”. When asked whether the crystal oscillators could be used as such, the sales manager, Justin Maloney, said: “We don’t know for certain one way or the other.” That was a lie, as was exposed in the documents the put out earlier this year, with all the internal emails from Rakon in them. I think that under this legislation, certainly the Government could move more strongly against Rakon, in a way that it has not moved previously.

I will finish off by talking about the additional powers of the Customs Service to detain people for up to 24 hours. That provision should be scrutinised in the select committee. When detention concerns infectious diseases or breaches of the Biosecurity Act, it may be best not to let people just wander through the green exit, and to have some powers there. But the extent of those powers is a matter we will discuss in the committee.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this

I held back on taking the call, hoping the Greens would take a call and add to the debate. But if there is anybody listening who took note of Keith Locke’s contribution, I am not sure he or she would understand what we are actually debating. I say to those people who may still be listening that we are actually discussing the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2).

I do not intend to take a long call, but there are a couple of points I want to make. First of all, I am pleased the National Party is supporting this bill, because New Zealand First most certainly is. I listened with interest when National Party members said they were going to scrutinise it thoroughly in the select committee, after only a minute or so earlier stating they could not find any penalties in the bill for using a mobile phone. Well, the penalties are outlined clearly in the bill under clause 18(2), which states: “Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.” So I urge the National Party members that if they are going to scrutinise this bill thoroughly at the select committee, they should at least read it first.

The second point I want to make is around the flippant remarks by Brian Connell about the Rt Hon Winston Peters, which caused me some concern. Let me say to those members over there that I will take a wager with any one of them that by the end of this term of Parliament, the relationship between the USA and New Zealand will be far better than it has been for many a year. That will be totally as a result of Winston Peters’ efforts as Minister of Foreign Affairs. If any of them are prepared to take a wager, I am up for it. I and my colleagues know firsthand that Winston’s dealings with American officials and politicians and what have you are top-notch. He is highly regarded. He has effectively been in the job for only 10 minutes and he is already getting the degree of respect for his efforts that we should be showing him here. When I say “we”, I mean Parliament here. He is travelling the world representing this country and doing a damn good job.

Anybody who has any doubts about this bill being required and about our border controls being upgraded should only have to watch the television programme Borderline, which is on television on a Monday evening, I think, and he or she will know that we are way behind the eight ball, and that much in this bill has to be implemented, and implemented pretty promptly.

I conclude by mentioning Maryan Street’s reference to a clash of human rights. This type of legislation puts human rights on the back burner. There are three main objectives that we must have and that this legislation must target: first, safe travel for the public; second, properly authorised and administered entry and exit for the public; and, third, a safe working environment for the officials—the customs officers who do the job. From time to time that will conflict with innocent people and with the human rights of innocent members of the public. It will inconvenience them. I say to this House that that has to take second priority to getting this environment and these conditions correct. It is absolutely important that we control our borders, that we know who is coming and who is going, and that those people follow the rules of this land.

New Zealand First will support this bill going to a select committee.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) Link to this

National supports the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) going forward. The needs that this bill deals with have been well spoken about. It deals with the way we find New Zealand today. I take on board not only the comments made in the House this afternoon but also those comments that highlight the risks we face today in a modern New Zealand in a modern world, with its idiosyncrasies and variations from yesteryear, when we were living a long, long way away from our markets and from other nations by virtue of distance. With distance now being so easy to cover in a short time, we are confronted with such things as terrorism, biosecurity incursions by all manner of means, people-smuggling, and, of course, ever-increasing amounts of drug trafficking. So it is very, very important that we have the appropriate balance in regard to our customs and excise legislation to empower those people at the coalface to be able to deliver what we expect of them, what New Zealanders expect of them, and what our trading partners throughout the world expect of a first-class economy.

It has been reported on previous occasions that New Zealand is a soft touch and a launching post for drug operations and, possibly, for people-smuggling. I do not know of any reported cases to make me confident that is true, but the occurrence of such reports is so regular that we would be naive to take them for granted. This bill is certainly long overdue, when we consider what prompted and pre-empted it. Given the events in New York on September 11, it is very much a concern that we have taken as long as this to do something.

I come from a rural background. I sensed that those people who spoke in the House this afternoon were conscious of the individual traveller. No doubt, when we think about customs and excise we think of those sorts of people, because they are the people we encounter when we come and go from this country, but it is significant that those people also have responsibilities under the Biosecurity Act. That part of the functions of customs and excise is an important aspect of future-proofing our economy. When we consider the trade and tourism now coming out of Asia—and that will only increase—we realise it is significant that some of the concerns for our economy come from that area. This nation is dependent on its land-based industries. If we ever have the problem of foot-and-mouth disease in this country, under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry model it would cost our economy something in the region of $10 billion, which would substantially affect the living standards of this nation. We are also very concerned about the issues in relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which could also affect our economy. There is an ongoing conflict between, on the one hand, the need of our country to attract tourists and give them a first-class time, and, on the other hand, the need to maintain our platinum level of food safety for the agricultural exports that we distribute throughout the world. There are obvious conflicts there, and we hope the bill addresses those. We are putting a tremendous amount of faith in this legislation.

The bill is highly technical, and it will require keen eyes and full attention from whichever select committee it goes to. We do not want to miss this opportunity to do something that brings us up to speed, if not to take the opportunity to move us forward and be a leader when it comes to the issues that this bill endeavours to deal with. A point I take from the member across the House there is that with smarter technology comes smarter crooks. It is something we have to be mindful of. Again, we have to do our utmost to guard against that.

Among the issues around this bill is that it is deemed to cut down on the need to present documentation on inward journeys. That is something that really does interest me—that whilst we are continually reinforcing ourselves with a view to protecting ourselves against false documentation and suchlike, we also trying to find that balance whereby we can fast-track things and make sure that people do not have to comply with an overload of documentation.

The issue around the 4 hours I am perfectly comfortable with. I think National would be very, very supportive that whatever was done was done with a view to ensuring that we do not allow ourselves to be boxed into a corner by laws such that we cannot expedite whatever necessary actions are required in the event of frontline customs staff being aware that there is a major issue but not being able to do anything about it. There are feelings and fears around the pandemics that will eventually strike us. It is very appropriate that, with the powers we have at our disposal through this bill, we will do our utmost to retain and isolate those infected people, in what is deemed to be the best interests not only of ourselves but also of the infected people, whom we consider ourselves to be responsible for.

The bill goes through a number of things. As a wee nation of 4 million people, we have to be quite aware that our responsibilities far outweigh our size. We have equal responsibility for ensuring that we carry out our responsibilities for global security in a very sensible way, that we do our utmost to detect terrorist and criminal activity, and that we do so in a very, very professional manner.

One point that I feel needs to be fleshed out considerably—and I would encourage the select committee to do so, as well—is the way in which customs officials are able under the Biosecurity Act to control and confiscate any goods that are deemed to be a risk. From that point of view, it would be very appropriate for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officers also to be able to operate under the Customs and Excise Act. That has not been put forward in the bill in its present state, and I would recommend quite strongly that when this bill comes before the select committee, it gives due consideration to that.

When we stop to think about it, we realise there is a lot of work to be done. It is a very technical bill, and on that basis it is very important that we do not allow this opportunity to slip away. Unauthorised goods would be a far more appropriate title than undeclared biosecurity risk goods, because that would cover up the situation whereby the comment is made that something is undeclared or inappropriately documented. There will be opportunities to do that when this bill goes before the select committee.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I look forward to it progressing and to it coming back to the House to be debated in a far more robust manner.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) Link to this

The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) is a very important bill, and National has pleasure in supporting it. We should never compromise on our safety or security. Our borders must be secure in terms of biosecurity—as we have heard from previous speakers. We should never compromise on the importance of biosecurity, nor on the safety of our travellers or ourselves as we travel, and of our visitors who come to New Zealand. It was interesting when I spent some time at Auckland International Airport in 2000—and I know that the senior whip did also—then in 2003, to see the changes that had occurred in the security arrangements of that company, and what was required. So with that in mind, National has great pleasure in supporting this bill.