Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) Link to this
I move, That the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. I would like to thank the members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for their thorough and thoughtful consideration of the bill. The fact that there continues to be cross-party support for the bill further highlights the recognition given to the New Zealand Customs Service and the high regard that is held for the way its important work is carried out, as it continues to protect our country and facilitate the safe transition of goods, craft, and people across our borders. I would also like to thank the clerk of the committee, staff, and officials for providing the support and advice necessary to progress the bill.
This bill strengthens New Zealand’s border security measures, and it provides for more effective and integrated border management. I made the point during the second reading of this bill that it recognises the fact that New Zealand’s trade and travel landscape is continuing to change, and that we must change in order to keep pace with it. Increasing threats to our communities through terrorism, international organised crime, drugs, identity fraud, and other issues mean our legislation must provide clarity, and it must be effective and flexible enough to respond to increased demand and ensure that our activities at the border can be conducted effectively in a rapidly changing environment. That also includes continuing to meet our international obligations as part of the wider border control community, in order to improve safety and security for travellers, goods, and craft when crossing our borders.
The bill has been drafted to take account of both Government and community interests in effective border management, and of the right of people to travel and conduct legitimate trade across our border. The fact that the select committee generally agreed with the provisions in the bill as drafted, and that only amendments of a technical nature were made, is a positive indication, albeit a rare one, that the right balance was struck in its drafting. It is important that I also acknowledge the support of all parties in backing this bill. It is worth noting—to use the words of my colleague Dianne Yates—that this bill is not about party politics but about “New Zealand Ltd” and about keeping our borders secure. The support of all political parties in being able to look at the bigger picture is welcomed in that regard.
To reiterate, the key principles of the bill are to contribute to the Government’s commitment to protecting our communities and our country from threats such as drugs and transnational crime; to recognise that the Customs Service is the first point of contact at the border for people, goods, and craft, and that it needs to have the legislative ability to refer to other agencies, such as the police and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, people and goods that are of interest to them; and to address current limitations in border powers, to provide more effective integration and stronger links between the agencies that work at the border to ensure that people or goods that pose a threat do not slip through the gaps. This bill also consolidates border security - related amendments made to the Customs and Excise Act 1996 in 2004 through the Border Security Bill, which was designed to help counter continuing and increasing border-related threats.
The particular aspects of this bill will allow the Customs Service to strengthen its activities across three key areas, which I would like to highlight. The first of those relates to the limitations on the use of electronic communications devices—for example, cellphones, palm pilots, and other handheld electronic devices—in designated border control areas, such as the primary processing area at the airport. Many people will be aware that the use of cellphones and other modern technology devices can thwart law enforcement activity at the border. For example, drug couriers who are stopped for questioning, or people who are engaged in smuggling activity, may attempt to use their phone to alert associates at or beyond the arrival gates. The potential to do that has now been removed by the bill.
Secondly, there is also a provision to detain persons arriving at or departing from New Zealand for up to 4 hours, in cases requiring investigation for public health or law enforcement purposes. That addresses the practical reality that the Customs Service, on occasion, needs to refer a person to another agency or for further processing. The provision clarifies the law in that regard, while allowing for the more effective assessment and management of potential risks.
Finally, the bill contains a section relating to prohibited exports and the ability to impose export controls in respect of catch-all goods. That provision keeps us apace with the relevant international obligations that New Zealand has signed up to. It also reinforces best-practice standards, which continue to build confidence in New Zealand as a trading partner, as we move to implement those controls. The provision in the bill provides the ability to impose controls on the export of catch-all goods that could be used in an everyday context for civilian purposes but that, when combined with other products or compounds, could be used for an undesirable, strategic purpose—for example, in the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction or in a chemical weapons programme.
Briefly, in response to issues raised by the Opposition spokesperson on customs matters, Shane Ardern, I say that the only change this bill imposes regarding the indexation of the excise duty on alcohol relates to the date on which it occurs. That was done in response to submissions to the select committee from the industries affected, and in fact it will make it easier for them to manage those adjustments, while also reducing compliance costs. The member should note that those minor annual adjustments have been occurring since the 1990s, when a National Government was last in power. So they are by no means a new tax, as was wrongly implied in his speech.
In conclusion, the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) is important legislation that supports a whole-of-Government approach to better border management and affirms this Government’s commitment to a vibrant economy, to strong and safe communities, and to protection of our national identity and way of life. I commend the bill to the House.
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) Link to this
I know that when we are totally in support of a bill—as the National Party is, in this case—and when we have to do the work of the Queen’s honourable Opposition, and we are able to do it to the extent that the Minister Nanaia Mahuta feels the need to respond to it in her address, then clearly we have been successful, particularly when it is damn difficult to find something to pick holes in.
I say at the outset that National does totally support the moves within this bill. I thank the Minister for the explanation she gave earlier on. But I ask the Minister whether, during the process when the bill was brought to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on 1 August last year, and when officials were giving advice to the committee, proper consideration was given to the fact that there has been massive growth in this country not only in trade in the conventional sense but also in tourism, by a whole range of different vehicles.
I can do no better than to hold up an article in the New Zealand Herald on 12 February, headlined “Cruise ships to bring in $9 million in a week”, which stated that the number of cruise ships arriving in New Zealand in one go will put enormous pressure on our customs staff at the borders. I hasten to add that customs staff do a brilliant job. I congratulate all of those who may be listening tonight on the work they do. But this will put enormous pressure on them. One cannot help but wonder whether under this Government customs staff will be adequately resourced to carry out that work. Certainly, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that at both the Auckland port and Auckland airport those resources are severely under pressure. One only needs to look at the statistics to see that 239 new incursions in biosecurity have come into this country over the last 5 years. One can soon understand that those resources are being severely stretched.
So I say to the Minister of Customs: yes, this is a whole of Parliament issue; no, it is not a political football. Certainly it represents “New Zealand Incorporated”, and a whole-of-border approach should be widely supported by the Parliament. But have the Minister and the Labour Government taken full advantage of the opportunity that was presented to them? I suspect not. I say to my colleagues, I am sure that is not the case.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the fact that cellphones and text messages, and such like, will no longer be allowed at the borders—particularly as they have been used in drug trafficking, which we know has been a growth area for our border control in recent years. I also welcome the fact that those who are suspected can be detained for a longer period of time. If it is a potential medical issue, that length of time will hopefully be long enough to establish how big a threat they are to the country. If they are deemed to be a threat, then they can be detained for a longer period of time. I thank the officials for the work they have done on that.
The amendment in clause 8 in regard to prohibited goods is clearly a sound move. There is a lot of activity now in tradable goods that are hard to identify amongst normal trading goods as potential ingredients for weapons of mass destruction or drug manufacture. So that is a good move.
The Queen’s honourable Opposition can find no more to criticise the Government on in this bill, so on that I will finish my speech. I congratulate those involved in the select committee process and welcome the bill to the House.
DIANNE YATES (Labour) Link to this
I rise to speak on the third reading of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). I thank Mr Ardern and the National Party for their support of this bill. I am pleased that over the several readings of the bill the Opposition spokesperson on customs has actually become more informed about the bill and the content of it. Mr Ardern has noted the growth in trade under a Labour Government, and I am pleased he has acknowledged that along with the growth in tourism. As he has discussed the cruise ships coming into Auckland, he will also have noted that the media, particularly, took notice of the way that the Customs Service speedily dealt with people on those ships. He will also have noted that new recruits are channelled towards Auckland as part of their training because of the greater bulk of work that comes through there.
While we are dealing with the third reading of this bill, I praise in particular the Minister of Customs, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for the work that she has done, and also the New Zealand Customs Service. In previous readings both sides of the House have praised the Customs Service for the work it does on our borders protecting us. I said before this is not about party politics; this is about “New Zealand Limited”. The Customs Service has had some very successful hits on drug imports into New Zealand, as well as on an amazing variety of things, such as detecting false qualifications, false stamps, and false passports coming into New Zealand. For a small country, I think the Customs Service staff do an exceedingly good job.
Some of us, as members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, were very impressed when we looked at the work that the Customs Service did at the Auckland airport and the sea port. We were also very impressed that even the poor old dogs work very hard, walking up and down all day trying to detect drugs. We have a very effective Customs Service in New Zealand—perhaps one of the most effective of our services in New Zealand. It does an excellent job. This bill is about making sure that Customs Service staff have the power to do what their job is—that they have the time to apprehend people.
I note that Mr Shane Ardern, who is the National spokesperson on customs, came on board a little more, and that he understands what the excise provision in the bill is about. I am pleased that obviously Mr John Hayes of the National Party explained it to him at the Committee stage of the bill. I thank Mr Hayes for his contribution in the Committee and his contribution to the debate. I also thank Tim Groser for his contribution.
What is really sad is that those two very effective people are on our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and, as people would have noticed in the media, neither is included in John Key’s thinktank on foreign affairs. I think that is rather disappointing. They are very competent and experienced people—as we have seen in the House—who know about these areas, but neither of them is the spokesperson on what they know about, nor are they members of the National Party thinktank. The leader of the National Party is not utilising his own team, and I think that is probably typical of what we have in the National Party at the moment. We noticed that Mr Ardern repeated his error on two readings of the bill, but I am glad that Mr Hayes has actually put him right on those particular issues.
It is no more taxes. What has happened is a rationalising around the date of the collection of the excise tax. [ Interruption] I am sorry that Mr Ardern did not take up his full time in this debate, and is constantly heckling from the other side of the Chamber. I remind Mr Ardern that he did have 10 minutes to make his points, and there is no point in his shouting now about matters he could have spoken about during the debate.
Once again, I thank all those who have been involved in this bill. I also point out, as we have said, the work of the Custom Service staff and its excellent chief executive officer—as Customs Service officers, and on this bill in particular. I thank the submitters on the bill—particularly the New Zealand Law Society, which pointed out some amendments that would make the bill more workable.
As I have said, I thank the select committee members, who worked very well with the officials to work out whether periods of detainment were long enough. It was not just about the amount of time to process; it was also about the geographical distances that staff might have to travel in order to apprehend people. As we in New Zealand know, the coast of New Zealand is around the same size as the eastern seaboard of the United States. It is extremely difficult to protect. We were very concerned when working through this bill whether Customs Service people would have the time in the 4-hour detention period provided for in the bill, to actually travel wherever they needed to go.
As has been noted, there were issues around cellphones and their use at the point of entry. We have had experience of people being able to phone ahead about nefarious acts. That prohibition on the use of cellphones is a very good measure contained within the bill.
Once again, I thank the select committee members. I thank the Minister, the staff, the select committee staff, and everybody who has worked on a bill that is basically a technical bill that keeps New Zealand up to date and our borders and country safe. I am pleased that the bill is going to proceed, and thank the Opposition for its support.
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) Link to this
Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for allowing me to speak in support of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) on behalf of the National Party. The preceding speaker, Dianne Yates, was, until 18 months ago, the electorate member for Hamilton East. I leave the people of New Zealand to judge the quality of her representation for those people—of course, they demonstrated that through the ballot box. That member is soon to be New Zealand’s ambassador to Madrid, if she can pass the Spanish test that she is busy studying for. She will do far better in Spain than she has ever done for the people of New Zealand or for the people of Hamilton East. Really, she does not have a clue as to what this bill is about, beyond covering three minor points that had been previously covered by the “Minister of Dog Chipping”, Nanaia Mahuta. I am not sure what competence she has to discuss the protection of our border, but I suggest to the Minister that her next year’s effort before moving on to the Opposition benches, which is becoming more certain by the hour, might involve coming up with a policy of chipping every New Zealander—in fact, every person in the world—so that when they cross our border they can automatically register with a piece of machinery somewhere, so that—
Darren HughesNo, I am suggesting that this would be something that the “Minister of Dog Chipping” could inflict upon our population, in the same way that Labour is inflicting an excise tax on this country of ours, particularly on the winegrowers. I have just come from the Beehive where a very, very impressive function is being held that was organised by my colleagues from Hawke’s Bay, Chris Tremain and Craig Foss.
Russell FairbrotherThe former member for Napier might well say that. I am not sure that he will be doing very much in a few months’ time, either, after the next election. These people have shown initiative, they have shown creativity, and they have brought at least 50 companies from Napier and Hawke’s Bay down to Wellington with a couple of hundred people—an outstanding effort. They have brought in councillors from the various councils, and they are promoting the food and the excellent wine from the Hawke’s Bay area. They have been doing a fantastic job.
Meanwhile, on the Government benches the leeches of Labour are flat out, sucking out a tax that requires winegrowers, through this bill, to front up at the beginning of their financial year and pay tax in advance on their wine production before they get any income from it. This is a huge burden on our economy, and the winegrowers will let the Government know at the next election just what they think of this plan.
It is a wonderful arrangement that people can be detained for 4 hours at the border—coming in or departing—and it is just a pity that Mr Zaoui was not picked up, because that would have saved us a lot of money down the track.
Well, it is my opinion. I am sorry for the member for Otaki. Is he still the member? Yes, he has a very small margin, but he is the member, at the moment.
I am not talking about my problems, sunshine. I saw the member down in Cuba Street the other night with someone on the back of his bike. We know what he is up to. We need an export control on the member.
I do not believe that this Government is treating our winegrowers fairly, and I say, in all seriousness, that we should get rid of this excise tax, because it is penalising productive people in this country, who are already being penalised by an unsatisfactory exchange rate—an outrageous exchange rate.
It is the member’s fault. He is on the Government benches and he is calling the shots. He is making these policies, and my people in my electorate are suffering, and they have suffered enough from the excessive stealing of Labour through its tax system.
The only thing that is making this bill worthy of our support is the department officials, who have done a brilliant job—no thanks to the Labour members on the select committee and the members sitting opposite. Certainly, the chief executive of the Customs Service and his team are doing a really wonderful job, and it is our delight to support this bill and the changes they have been putting in it. It has been a pleasure for us to support this bill.
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this
I intended to take a short call—I do not think that it would have been of any length. But I found the speech of the member who has just resumed his seat, John Hayes, very interesting. I am not sure that he actually touched on the bill, at all. He spoke about the problems in the Hamilton East electorate—I do not doubt there are problems in that electorate, but I cannot find any reference to them in the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). He spoke about the potential for the next ambassador to Spain, who is hopeful of learning Spanish in time for the appointment. He spoke at some length about a function in the Beehive that was put on by National members—one has to conclude that he was at that function for some little while. He spoke briefly about tax on winegrowers, and I thought: “Ah! He is getting to the bill.” So I furiously looked through the bill for information about the excise tax, and there is some reference to it. But there was not even one word of protest about that tax by the National member, who is on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.
He then moved on to the subject of Zaoui. I personally would like to expound my opinion on Zaoui—and it would take quite a long time—but I do not think it would be appropriate to do so in this debate on the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). We then got on to the subject of the member sitting in Cuba Street—and I found this most unusual—spying on bike riders. I have to say that the mind boggles as to what he saw and why he was doing that. Then he moved back on to the subject of tax on winegrowers. Again, I thought he was talking on the bill, because somewhere there is a clause in the bill that deals with the indexation of rates of excise duty on alcohol and tobacco. I thought he was going to get to that clause, but he moved on again. He made the categoric statement that National supported the bill because of the wonderful officials. I have no doubt that the officials are wonderful, but I have to say that I have never heard that as a reason for supporting the bill.
New Zealand First supports this bill. We were not on the select committee. We are happy with the purpose of the bill, and we are happy with the bill as it is written. We note that there were four submissions, only one of which came before the select committee. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee received advice from the New Zealand Customs Service and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I can tell members that a Minister like the Rt Hon Winston Peters would have given the committee very, very good advice, so it is no wonder that the select committee got this legislation correct. It also received advice from the Regulations Review Committee and the Parliamentary Counsel Office.
We need to support the customs people in this country. I note that the select committee did not get the bill quite correct. The Minister had to bring in a Supplementary Order Paper to tighten it up in terms of the Customs Service people having the authority to hold people a bit longer than the bill provided for. I think this bill should go through the House speedily and with the support of every political party. New Zealand First is most definitely in support of this legislation.
KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
The Green Party also supports the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). In particular, we like the way that it firms up the ban on strategic exports—that is, exports that can assist repressive forces in other countries. We think that New Zealand should be a beacon of peace in the world, and it is inconsistent with that aim for us to be exporting military equipment that can be used against innocent people.
There is a clear ban in the bill on the export of components for nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and there is a ban on the export of many other military items. With many of the military goods and their export, it is a question of which countries they are to be sent to. This can be a little loose in terms of definitions. The bill states that exports can be banned where it is “… contrary to New Zealand’s interests,” and of course that can sometimes be a matter of debate. This definition is filled out somewhat in the criteria of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the assessment of export applications, which says that exports should not contribute to a regional conflict and should take account of the recipient’s record on international humanitarian law.
On that second ground we should be careful, perhaps, of exporting to the United States military, which clearly violates international humanitarian law in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and at its detention centre in Guantanamo Bay. However, our Government would probably think that that would be a step too far. Winston Peters would probably define that as anti-Americanism, even though that would only get us offside with the Bush administration, not with the American people who are quite critical of that administration on issues of war and peace.
It is certainly good that in 2004 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade turned down an application by a New Zealand firm Oscmar International to export a man-worn laser detection harness to the Israeli defence force, presumably because it would have violated one of the ministry’s criteria—that is, not to contribute to a regional conflict. However, there is subsequent information that Oscmar effectively exported the technology for this device to Israel via the United States by exporting the technology via the Internet. So it is good that a new category relating to the export of electronic goods is now in the legislation.
The harness that Oscmar exported was also exported around that time to other countries. The ministry approved 30 other export applications for the device. We do not know which countries these harnesses went to, and for all we know they may have gone to some countries with a repressive Government or some countries involved in regional conflicts. We do not know this because the information was withheld as it was deemed “commercial in confidence”. In some ways there is even less openness now.
Last October the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee asked: “Which strategic goods have been stopped from being exported from New Zealand in the last financial year? Please list the name of the item and the country it was intended to be exported to and the New Zealand Company involved.” One item had been refused permission to be exported by a company, but the select committee was refused the particular information requested “to protect this information which has been provided in confidence.” This leaves a huge hole in the accountability of the whole system. It means that we are simply supposed to trust the ministry to get it right, which is not the way things are supposed to operate in a democracy. Surely other New Zealand exporters would get a few clues on what to do and what not to do, by being able to find out from the public record which items had been declined for export, and to which countries they were going to be sent.
This is particularly true in that additional category included in the bill—electronic goods. Electronic goods can be even more difficult to define in terms of whether they are strategic or whether they should be exported to this or that country. For example, the crystal oscillators produced in New Zealand by Rakon were ruled out as being strategic goods by the military because they were also used in civilian goods.
There were two problems from the Greens’ point of view, in terms of whether these crystal oscillators would be deemed to be strategic goods. Firstly, it is clear that they were dual-use goods, and dual-use goods are covered by the legislation. There is an argument that their export to the US military should have been prevented because they were to be used in guidance systems for smart bombs and missiles, which clearly are being used today to worsen regional conflicts, particularly in the Middle East. However, it is worse than that, because Rakon clearly received a lot of funding—tens of thousands of dollars—from a major US military contractor, Rockwell Collins, to develop the crystal oscillators to a military specification, not a civilian specification. Rakon’s words were that they had to be developed to be “radiation hardened” and “shock hardened” for use in these missiles.
There is another tricky area with strategic goods. One successful software exporter in New Zealand is Right Hemisphere, which produces 3-D display software, working up displays for both civilian purposes and military purposes. What do we do in that situation? Are they covered by this bill? It is not an easy situation. What we find in business and in Government is that military uses are often overlooked, if companies are big enough and exporting enough.
We can all recall how the US and British Governments were quite happy to export military equipment to Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the 1980s when they were getting a lot of money out of it. They are a bit embarrassed now about how they exported bits for Saddam’s chemical weapons to gas the Kurds. At the time those same Western Governments tried to cover up the fact that Saddam had gassed the Kurds because Britain and America, under their presidents, thought that Iraq, under Saddam, was an ally against their main antagonist, as they saw it at the time, Iran.
We can also look at the problem of export of strategic goods from the other end—perhaps in the light of a recent Green effort, headed by our co-leader Russel Norman, to stop the Superannuation Fund investing in companies that produce nuclear weapons and cluster bombs. One of the arguments used by the Government to counter our concern was that when we are dealing with big firms like Boeing, they are so big that they are in all kinds of ventures, both civilian and military, and it is wrong to stop investing in them purely because they have some military products, even if, as in the case of Boeing, these products are powerful enough to blow up the world.
I think our Government has a duty, in things like the Superannuation Fund or what we export, to provide an example to the world. It does not mean to say we abandon all military exports, but it does mean that we should not really see our future as a major arms exporter. We do not want our economy geared to any significant extent around the business of war.
One of the problems we see in the United States is that so much of its economy is devoted to producing the machinery of killing, that even many Congress people owe their elections to donations from big arms producers. Over $400 billion of the American Budget is devoted to military expenditure—and much of that to producing arms. Companies in New Zealand that produce military weapons for export should not be the favoured recipient of grants from public agencies, the way that Oscmar has been in recent times.
Hopefully the bill, which I reiterate we support, will be a step towards a more moral and more pro-peace export policy. Thank you.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Kia ora tātou katoa, itēneipō. I do not know whether members know, but this morning the Race Relations Commissioner announced a range of initiatives that are supposedly making a positive contribution to race relations in Aotearoa. One of these initiatives is a peace treaty, created by a person by the name of Jason Kerehi. It was launched on Waitangi Day in Masterton, and the people of the Wairarapa were given the opportunity to sign a treaty that calls for a peaceful, tolerant, and inclusive community. The peace treaty provides an opportunity for people of all cultures to sign up to its intentions. All ages are embraced, and the peace treaty is now touring Wairarapa schools and libraries to gather more signatures before it is placed in the Wairarapa Archive.
I wanted to refer to this initiative in speaking to the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2), because so often in the House we tend to focus on system failures, policy glitches, and the regulatory weaknesses that require legislative tweaking. Meanwhile we overlook the impressive contributions that are made every day by New Zealanders in their commitment to this issue of harmony and peace in the world. This bill is on a much bigger scale, obviously, but it is driven by the same goals that inspire Jason Kerehi—that is, the quest to promote peace and safety.
This bill aims to protect the well-being of New Zealanders by restricting possibilities for terrorist intrusion or safety threats. We welcome the broad definition of “safety threat” as encompassing suspicion related to infectious diseases, and including biological or chemical weapons.
Hon Tau HenareTE URUROA FLAVELL Link to this
So this legislation, against the question that was asked by Mr Henare, would probably have been very useful, in fact, 167 years ago, when tangata whenua were introduced to a host of infectious diseases that accompanied the arrival of the settlers. The onslaught of infectious diseases was rampant, as we know, and impacted negatively on the Māori population to a level where it was thought the extinction of tangata whenua was a real possibility. At that time our people lacked the immunity required to fight even common bacterial and viral infections. The population suffered from a disastrous decline from the introduction of infectious diseases, alongside the impact of weaponry, drugs, and foodstuffs to which Māori people were unaccustomed.
In the Mōhaka ki Ahuriri Report 2004 of the Waitangi Tribunal, Professor Ian Pool is cited as attributing the 19th century Māori population decline as being largely due to infectious diseases brought by Europeans. He and other scholars, such as Professor Mason Durie do, however, also acknowledge the connection between infectious diseases such as dysentery, influenza, and tuberculosis, and the socio-economic conditions including land alienation. These so-called diseases of poverty served to decimate the Māori population right until the mid-20th century. So the increased capacity of the customs officers under this bill to detain a person under a suspicion of a perceived threat to endanger the lives of others, is welcome. We can never overlook the impact of our shared history on our future.
The Māori Party is also pleased to endorse the fact that the bill ties in with the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 in prohibiting the import and export of strategic goods relating to nuclear weapons. Strategic use, as interpreted in the strategic goods list currently kept by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, is defined to include the development, production, or deployment of nuclear explosive devices, biological weapons, chemical weapons, or military goods.
In an interesting twist of fate it should be noted by this House that some 49 years ago today—28 February 1958—the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was founded in London by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, amongst others. It is our hope that by the time we commemorate 50 years of that campaign, this bill will well and truly be established among our statutes, and our borders will be benefiting from tighter scrutiny of areas of concern, with a particular relationship to nuclear threats.
Of course, we cannot address this third reading of the bill without pointing out again the very real danger of racist ideologies that threaten the security of Aotearoa for tangata whenua. I want to acknowledge at this point the recommendations of the National Council of Women of New Zealand, which, like the Māori Party, was concerned at what could be seen as an unchecked licence of new powers for customs officers. I am advised that the National Council of Women suggested in its submission to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that there should be a requirement to document, and report annually, on the frequency and circumstances of incidents that necessitated the use of new powers.
The Peace Foundation, likewise, was concerned at the suggestion of the unbridled powers of seizure and detainment. In fact, it was at the foundation’s suggestion that the select committee, I am told, introduced new section 175B to insert the word “reasonable” before the words “cause to suspect”. At the second reading of this bill we focused extensively on the subjective interpretation of the concept of “reasonable”. My colleague Mr Hone Harawira explained that on at least 16 different occasions in the bill the test of reasonableness is proposed as a basis of judgment. Interpretations of reasonableness are required in order to understand the nature of “reasonable force” to detain someone, the seizure of anything that officers consider they have “reasonable cause” to suspect as evidence, or the capacity to detain a person if officers consider they have “reasonable grounds” to believe that the person poses a threat.
So I return again to the concept of racist ideologies and the ability of officers to be able to identify accurately and, indeed, to understand whether the ideologies are reasonable, and whether the ideologies are racist. We register here our concern that those officers responsible for border security, and the measures around that, are equipped to be able to understand the impact of racism.
TE URUROA FLAVELL Link to this
I am talking here about institutional racism, which the Te Pūao-o-Te-Atatū report described as “… a bias in our social and administrative institutions that automatically benefits the dominant race or culture, while penalising minority or subordinate groups.” The Māori Party wishes to remind this House that the New Zealand Customs Service has in the past fallen into the context of exercising such bias, through the actions of its officers.
In 1981 the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service was criticised for drawing up a list of twenty “subversives” who participated in protests against the 1981 Springbok Tour. That singled out certain individuals as being subversives, and it was deemed by many to be a violation of the right to protest Government decisions. It was also deemed to be an act of racism against those who were determined to speak out about the adverse effects and the impact of the apartheid policy.
I am not suggesting by any means that the practice we saw in 1981 would be replicated in 2007, but one would hope that in the implementation of this new Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2), the agency and the officials involved will pay particular caution towards preventing such targeted surveillance from occurring again.
TE URUROA FLAVELL Link to this
Finally, in response to that comment, I say that the Māori Party will support the bill at its third reading, and we urge the Minister and the New Zealand Customs Service—Te Mana Arai o Aotearoa—to ensure that the service truly lives up to its name and protects the authority and the rangatiratanga of tangata whenua, alongside all other New Zealanders.
JILL PETTIS (Labour) Link to this
I am pleased to join the debate this evening, and I was privileged to sit on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee when this bill was being considered. I pay tribute to the Customs Service, as have other speakers before me this evening, and I acknowledge the very important role it plays in New Zealand society. Fifteen percent of the revenue this country earns is collected by the Customs Service. We all know that the Customs Service is a very historic service and has played a strategically important role in New Zealand society. In all developed nations, customs services historically have played, and currently play, a very important role. I, with other members of the select committee, have visited the Customs Service and looked at its operations at the Port of Auckland, the Auckland Mail Centre, and Auckland International Airport.
Our Customs Service fulfils a wide variety of roles, and it has many, many responsibilities. We do not always pay tribute to and have cognisance of the role it plays in maintaining strict biosecurity in New Zealand and the very important role it plays in keeping our borders safe. I think it worthy to note also that Customs Service staff are fairly representative of New Zealand society as a whole. The service draws its staff from right across a large majority of the groups that are represented amongst the New Zealand people, and I commend it for that.
The nature of border management has changed considerably in more recent years as we see the continuous increase in the volumes of trade and travel. Many of us in this House travel internationally more often than do some sectors of society, as we go to international fora and meetings. We all know first hand how incredibly busy airports are. I know I often wonder just where all those people are going. So border security has changed and heightened considerably in just the last decade.
There are increasingly varied sources and natures of risks. Terrorism is a word that, unfortunately, we are all too familiar with. The increase in import of drugs and transportation of drugs throughout the world is a problem that has grown over recent years, and, sadly, I have to say, we do not see any end to that at the moment, so vigilance and detection are critically important in that area. Weapon proliferation, unfortunately, has also increased, and identity fraud is growing, as well. As a consequence of those four items I have mentioned, there is increased international emphasis on trade and travel security. So this bill really is an investment in the future security of all New Zealanders, and, in my opinion, it is a very wise investment.
The Customs Service has seen a lot of developments since 2001. The Act was amended in 2004 following the events on 11 September 2001 in America, and there has been increased focus on travel and supply chain security, law enforcement, and immigration matters throughout the world. Since 2004 further areas have been identified to enhance border security and integrated border management practices, which has led to the current bill. The key provisions in the bill refer to the use of electronic devices, to border processing obligations, to an extension of the export control regime, to searching persons for dangerous items, and to the ability to deal with unlawful travel documents. When we visited the Customs Service in Auckland we saw many of the forged documents that had been detected by the very skilled staff. The bill also refers to the detention of risk goods and to information-matching for benefit purposes, as well.
Earlier on tonight members talked about the service’s ability now, through this bill, to require somebody who has been detained not to use an electronic device, such as a mobile phone, when he or she could be in the process of thwarting enforcement activity. That is a very important and essential measure, given the increased technology that is available to very ordinary people—people who may look ordinary but who are up to nefarious and clearly illegal activities.
This bill clarifies the Customs Service’s border management role. Importantly, it also builds more interoperability between agencies that have a very real interest in border-related matters. It builds on the existing powers the Customs Service has and provides a very measured response to border management that quite appropriately balances the State’s border requirements and the protection of the rights of individuals. Importantly, it protects the rights of law-abiding people who are travelling for legal purposes so that they may travel in as unimpeded a way as possible.
This is an important bill, and it is being broadly supported across the House. I think, as responsible members of Parliament, we realise how important this bill is to individuals’ safety and the safety of our borders. I thank other members who were on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for the cooperative way in which the committee worked. I close by reiterating my support, and that of my colleagues on this side of the House, for the Customs Service and all of the staff.