Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) Link to this
I move, That the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) 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.
The bill deals with three aspects of customs work. It will enhance the current statutory appeal and review rights in relation to the forfeiture and seizure regime, provide greater flexibility for the New Zealand Customs Service to deal with ad hoc arrivals and departures from our shores, and strengthen the service’s ability to deal with the illegal manufacture of tobacco. It also makes minor technical amendments to clarify certain provisions in the Act.
The first major change relates to the appeal process about forfeiture of goods. The forfeiture regime is a whole-of-Government mechanism that the Customs Service enforces in its own right and also on behalf of approximately 15 other Government agencies with border-related interests. The regime is a strong one, and it needs to be, in order to encourage people to comply with New Zealand’s laws and to deter people from attempting to evade New Zealand’s legitimate revenue-gathering activities or to breach its borders by importing or exporting restricted goods.
A recent Law Commission report reviewed the forfeiture appeals regime, and suggested it could be reformed to be simpler and to provide greater transparency and better access to justice. It also recognises that where people want to claim back an interest in forfeited goods, the process should be low-cost and speedy, and should be able to be dealt with by the Customs Service in the first instance.
To simplify the process, the bill proposes replacing the existing system with an internal review process with the right to appeal to the independent Customs Appeal Authority. There will be a single point of entry to the appeal process, via the Customs Service chief executive, which will cost the applicant nothing and will enable matters to be dealt with speedily. The amendments will streamline customs processes and provide a greater level of transparency and protection for innocent third parties. We thank the Law Commission for the work that it has done in reviewing the current customs forfeiture legislation.
The second major change relates to the arrival and departure of craft at places outside the main entry points to New Zealand. Currently, the Customs and Excise Act requires that craft arrive and depart within a designated customs-place, except for where emergencies or weather conditions dictate otherwise. This could be unnecessarily restricting in some circumstances. The proposal seeks to allow the chief executive to grant reasonable, one-off requests to land outside official customs points of entry, on a case by case basis, where that is considered appropriate. The proposed amendment responds to a public need and supports both regional and economic development and a thriving tourism industry—for example, by allowing charter flights to land at smaller airports without compromising border security.
The third major proposal in the bill relates to the management of domestic tobacco production. The current regime for controlling the manufacture of tobacco products makes it illegal to manufacture tobacco products outside a licensed Customs Service - controlled area. There is an exemption that allows the manufacture of tobacco products for personal use without a customs licence. It is proposed to add conditions to this exemption to provide more flexibility and clarity about the regulations.
We are also proposing to increase the penalties associated with dealing in illegally manufactured tobacco products. The bill is particularly concerned about the undesirable health and social consequences that stem from the illegal manufacture of tobacco products. These include making tobacco products available at low cost, which encourages higher consumption levels with the associated health impacts. The illegal manufacture of tobacco products also reduces the amount of excise duty the Government collects. Increased penalties will provide a greater disincentive for people to abuse the personal use exemption, and will signal how seriously the Government regards the illegal supply of tobacco products.
Finally, there are some minor technical amendments to the Act contained in the bill. A change to section 209(1A), under clause 9, clarifies that this offence provision involves an element of knowledge. A change to section 148B, under clause 7, corrects a drafting error, and a change to section 288(1)(a), under clause 15, includes “outward reports” that were omitted when the Act was last amended.
In conclusion, I tell the House that the bill has been carefully drafted to strike a balance between the need to protect our communities and the rights of individuals. It will allow greater flexibility of customs processes, and facilitate smoother interactions between the Government and the New Zealand public. Thank you very much.
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) Link to this
I rise tonight on behalf of the National Party in support of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) going to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.
As the Minister of Education has just stated, the bill does three things. Each one of those needs to be thoroughly investigated in the select committee, and I am sure that the National members on the committee will do just that. The issues raised in the bill for further discussion are the enhancement of the statutory appeal and review rights in relation to forfeiture and seizure regulations and legislation, the provision of greater flexibility for the Customs Service to deal with ad hoc arrivals and departures, and the remedying of legislative inconsistencies relating to the illegal manufacture of tobacco and other products. On the basis of that, it seems to me that it would be sensible for this bill to be given a thorough investigation in the select committee.
The issues that need to be properly looked at are the reasons why the Law Commission recommended the changes to the forfeiture and seizure regime. Based on what the Minister said, I understand that the current way people can appeal—the multi-appeal system, as it were, or the two-pronged appeal system—could be costly. It could also cause problems for those who subsequently find that the reasons the Customs Service had for taking that product or material—whatever it was that was forfeited or seized—were no longer relevant. The process that people go through is expensive and can sometimes cause unnecessary and damaging delays.
Probably the best anecdote I have heard so far is the case of some night-vision goggles seized from the Taranaki Rescue Helicopter Trust. The Customs Service was notified that these goggles, which had been bought in good faith from US military surplus, might have been acquired in an illegal way or even stolen. While the US investigation was going on, the Customs Service was obliged to take those goggles back, and there was a potential loss to the trust of $34,000. Over time, it was discovered that they had not been stolen, and the trust found itself in a lengthy process to have the equipment returned to it. That is probably as good an example as I have come across of a situation where the chief executive of the Customs Service should have had the ability to look at where the Customs and Excise Act applied and where the Customs Service was involved, and say: “Look, obviously this has now been resolved. We can now tick this off, and that material or equipment can be returned.”
The second area of concern is ad hoc arrivals and departures. Under the proposed legislation, the chief executive will have the ability to decide whether a place not deemed to be a customs place, such as a provincial airport, can be a customs place for the purpose of diverting a medium-sized aircraft coming from an international destination. What needs to be thoroughly investigated in the select committee is whether those airports will be able to cope with things like the biosecurity concerns of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. We could be exposing ourselves to quite a high risk there. Under the bill, the chief executive will have to consult the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on biosecurity. Given that this will be an ad hoc decision—and probably an eleventh hour decision, because the plane may have been waiting for fog to clear, or whatever the reason may be that the international airport that is a certified customs-place is unavailable—what happens if there are not enough staff on the ground to look at what the airplane is carrying, whether it be passengers, luggage, cargo, or whatever else? That issue needs to be thoroughly looked at in the select committee.
The third point is the tighter control of exemptions around the harvesting and domestic cultivation of tobacco, and the potential risks not only to health but also for black market—clandestine, call it what you will—underground activity, with the Customs Service not having the ability to charge a fair tax, which has all sorts of ramifications in terms of developing a market. It also has a negative impact on health in that those who are supposedly cultivating this tobacco for their own domestic use may be selling it, and there is no possibility of the State recovering any costs that may flow from that in terms of health care.
In summary, National is in support of the proposal, but—to use the words of my senior colleague Murray McCully, who is a former Minister of Customs—we need to give the tyres a thoroughly good kicking in the select committee to find out exactly what is hidden in the detail of some of this stuff, particularly in terms of the Law Commission’s recommendations and some of the official advice that has been received over the years, and whether the ability of the Minister to intervene in some cases is still the best approach. The select committee is the right place to look at those issues, and for that reason the select committee will give this bill a thoroughly good going-over.
DIANNE YATES (Labour) Link to this
I rise to speak at the first reading of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3), and I thank the speaker opposite, Shane Ardern, for his support of this bill and for his comments.
As we have seen, the bill does three things. Firstly, on the recommendation of the Law Commission, the bill changes the appeals system for people after their goods are seized, and it makes the appeal process faster and cheaper for the appellant. So it is a matter of streamlining the system and cutting back on cost.
Secondly, it makes a number of technical amendments to ad hoc arrivals and departures. As the member mentioned, it will deal with ad hoc events, tourist events, and will be of great benefit to those places that are running one-off, ad hoc events. As has been mentioned, the select committee will no doubt look very thoroughly into this legislation to make sure that biosecurity measures are complied with and that it is possible for the appropriate mechanisms to go to those particular ports for those biosecurity measures to take place. We must be particularly careful, when these ad hoc events happen, that they comply with all the usual processes of arrivals and departures, both for people and for any goods they are carrying.
Thirdly, because of other changes to our tobacco laws, the bill tightens up on the personal use and growing of tobacco, and I note also that there will be increased penalties for those who are dealing illegally with manufactured tobacco products. So the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) is, in some ways, making things easier and is, in other ways, closing up loopholes. Basically, the bill is about technicalities around customs and excise.
We thank the Minister for bringing these measures before the House, and we trust that once submissions are in, the select committee will make sure there are no inadvertent loopholes and that the new procedures will mean that the Customs Service will be able to get on with its duty. I just want to thank the Customs Service for the work it does. I have just read its latest magazine, and it has been doing an excellent job, particularly around drugs and illegal imports to New Zealand. I take this opportunity to thank the Customs Service staff on behalf of New Zealanders for the work they do in protecting not only our biosecurity but our shores.
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this
The ACT party rises to support this bill’s referral to the select committee, and we will be most interested in it. I will take what the last speaker, Dianne Yates, said and just focus briefly on one point. It is something for this House to consider.
We have had an exemption in the past for the growing of tobacco for one’s own use. It is something of an anomaly, I guess, because we have the view that it is something that is bad and should be subject to a sin tax, essentially, to drive down the use of tobacco. But we have figured that it is pretty hard to police people who grow a few tobacco plants out the back.
No, but this is the nature of the policy—it is too hard to police people growing a few plants out the back for their own use, and rather than making that a criminal offence, making it illegal, and having the police arrest people who have a few tobacco plants out the back, we will give an exemption for personal use. Now there has been the discovery that people have been growing several tonnes of tobacco ostensibly for their personal use. The Government, understandably, is moving to clamp down and make it clear that the law around tobacco for personal use does not mean one can have tonnes and tonnes, because, with the best will in the world, it is hard to smoke a tonne of tobacco in a year. It is very, very hard to do. So that is quite smart. But I want to explore this idea.
The bill goes on to state that it will not just clamp down on the growing of multiple tonnes—which, clearly, are for sale, or reward, or quid pro quo—but will also eliminate the personal use exemption for tobacco. I am not sure that is smart. The bill states that we need to do that because the personal exemption is ultra vires. They are a couple of big words, which, I understand, after I checked with people smarter than me, mean that something is outside the law. I have been thinking about this. Is it not this Parliament that makes the law? How can it be that we are passing a law because what Parliament intends is outside it? If it is the will of this Parliament that it is OK for people to grow a bit of tobacco and sit down on their porches and smoke it in their pipes without having to fear the police descending on them, and without having to fear customs and excise legislation penalising them, criminalising them, and taxing them, then surely we can do that, because there cannot be any law more superior than this Parliament’s.
This Parliament has to give some thought to whether it is OK to grow tobacco for one’s own personal use. It cannot be the case that the reasoning for doing it is that to allow it is ultra vires. That cannot be right, and I look forward to that explanation in the select committee, though, sadly, I will not be there. But in the Committee of the whole House, I will make that point.
Second, I am worried about the Government’s comment that the illegal manufacture of tobacco products also reduces the amount of excise duty the Government collects. Now, that has to be a worry in the context of this bill, because, presumably, the Government is not taxing tobacco to raise money but because of the health concerns we have. In fact, people who smoke complain bitterly that taxing tobacco is just a revenue generating device. In fact, my friend from the Māori Party made the point that if the Government was serious about dealing to tobacco, then it would prohibit its sale. I ask the member whether it would be manufacture or just sale.
The whole lot in New Zealand. But, Hone Harawira tells me, the Government will not do it because it loves the revenue. I thought that cannot be true, but then I read that we have to clamp down on the private growing of tobacco in someone’s backyard because of the revenue implications. I could understand that if we were talking about tonnes and tonnes, but if we think about this, we realise there cannot be that much money if grandad, living as he does in the Marlborough Sounds, grows a bit of tobacco.
John HayesNo—tobacco. Is the member casting aspersions on my grandfather? It would be tobacco. He sits on the porch in his 89th year, puffing on his pipe, free of Government interference and happy with the world. I think it is probably a health plus, because such people are out there, hoeing in the sun. They are enjoying themselves, they are getting their benefits, and they are puffing on their pipes once in a blue moon. Are we in this Parliament serious when we say: “No, no, the police will turn up.”? Are we serious when we say that people cannot have as few as 10 tobacco plants, which, on their birthdays, they roll into a bit of tobacco to smoke in their pipe? Are we seriously saying in this Parliament that doing that should be illegal? I do not think it should be.
In fact, I can go further. Hone Harawira told me that he would not make it illegal for people to grow their own tobacco for their own use. So even the man who raised the issue—and I think it is an important issue to raise—of banning tobacco totally would still allow us to grow a bit for our own use. Yet here we are in Parliament saying that people cannot. What will we do? Will we have the police running around checking on tobacco?
I look across at the Greens. I do not know what their policy is on marijuana, but I do remember the discussion that people should be able to grow marijuana for their own use. Well, why not tobacco? Why not let people grow tobacco? I am looking forward very much to the discussion in the select committee about what the policy towards the growing and use of tobacco for one’s own use should be, because I do like the idea of living in a society where one can do that. I would extend it to other medicinal products as well. People could grow herbs in their backyard.
Sue BradfordA few poppies—whoa! Sue Bradford is putting words in my mouth.
But why not? This issue about the use of tobacco—growing it in the backyard for one’s own use—is actually a serious issue. I know that Mr Charles Chauvel, being a liberal, being of a legal mind, and being open-minded about these things, will want to know a good reason why New Zealanders living in a free society like this cannot have a few tobacco plants in their backyards to puff in their pipes on their 85th birthdays.
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this
I rise to take just a short call in respect of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No. 3) and to make a number of small points. The first one is, of course, that what this bill does, and the reason the National Party is going to support it, is that it clarifies law that at the moment is unclear, and it sets about two different courses of action for what is pretty much the same objective. The Law Commission has made a recommendation that the law be clear and concise—and so it should be. People have to live within the law; they need to be able to know where the lines are drawn. This bill aims at simplification in respect of appeal processes for those people who have had items taken from them at the borders and seek to regain control of them. At the moment, they head along a track where they need the Minister’s authority to have those released or need to appeal to the Minister.
This bill seeks to allow an appeal to go through the chief executive officer of the Customs Service, and then to the appeal authority. Eventually, the second leg of appeal is through the High Court—a court that is used to dealing with those matters and is obviously the final court of appeal for a number of other pieces of legislation that we have to work under.
The next thing the bill seeks to do is to establish the authority of the chief executive officer to be able to designate, on a case by case basis, landing places for the entry and exit of people entering and leaving our borders, if they are not traditionally supervised by customs and excise staff. Of course we have to remember that in today’s world we are under greater threat from the incursion of criminal products and processes. Also, as regards border control, there are threats to our biodiversity. So there is a need to guard those very carefully. We have seen incursions from other countries, in recent times, of pests we do not want to have here—both criminal and “biodiversical”, if there is such a word. Authorisation can be made in consultation with the police and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Customs Service, the Ministry of Transport, and the Department of Labour, and so it should be. It should be a much simpler and fairer process and it makes good common sense.
The third point, which our friend from the ACT party has recently outlined and debated from a constitutional point of view, is the limitations around the growth and manufacture of tobacco products supposedly for personal use. It may be surprising to people to learn that there is a trade in illicitly grown and manufactured tobacco products. People are taking the opportunity to grow tobacco products on a commercial scale. As an ex-smoker, I wonder why the hell people would even bother, but they do.
It will be interesting to see just where the various parties line up in respect of this, because we do have a bill before the House at the moment for the growth of cannabis for personal use in respect of medicinal cannabis. My view is that it would be incredibly hard to control; it would lead to the commercialisation of that little industry.
I thought that my friend Mr Hide was going to start making a play about how we can move for the growth for personal use of tobacco and then leave off cannabis, but surprisingly he did not head down that track. My response to that is that having worked in some small towns with an absolute plague of cannabis, I am sure we do not want to go there. The ramifications of allowing the growing of cannabis for personal use would be much worse than for tobacco. Also, trying to restrict tobacco use any further than this legislation does is something for which we could never put the lid back on the bottle.
National will support this bill because in a timely way it makes three significant amendments towards the simplification and the control of parts of New Zealand ways of life and protection that need to happen.
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this
My call will not take very long. I thought Rodney Hide raised an interesting point. Let me suggest that New Zealand First would not for one moment be against Rodney’s 85-year-old father growing the odd tobacco plant so he could put it in his pipe and smoke it on his porch. I would agree with Rodney’s father making his own home brew—
Yes. I say, in fairness to Rodney, that he raised an interesting point. That is not what the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) is about, and that is not, as I see it, what the customs and excise people are about. I think he raised an interesting point. Should there be an allowance for elderly people to grow tobacco for their own pipes? Maybe Rodney will agree that if they have the golden age card and they are unemployed, they should be able to grow a bit of tobacco in their backyards. Is that a reasonable way of putting it?
I think the member will get my vote on that.
New Zealand First is on record as wanting tighter and firmer border controls. By that I mean tighter controls on people, goods, and everything that comes and goes across our borders. We have pushed for the Immigration Bill, which is going in the right direction, and when that comes back to the House some time in the new year we hope we will have tighter controls on the people who come here, in terms of the reasons they can come here, how they get visas, and what have you. We support the Customs Service having tougher controls on its responsibilities. Those guys do a great job on behalf of this country—often in the middle of the night, often dealing with very awkward customers—and we need to give them all the legislative support we can.
I will not go into the details of this bill, because it has been well canvassed by the Minister and various other members in this House. New Zealand First will support this bill going to a select committee.
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this
It is a huge pleasure for me to speak to the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3). I note that this Government wants to ensure that the processes surrounding forfeiture and seizure are as streamlined and practical as possible. I also note that in 2006 the Law Commission recommended that the current system, which allows people to appeal after their goods are seized, be changed to make the appeal process faster and cheaper for appellants.
I also note that the New Zealand Customs Service has the very difficult job of balancing the needs of trade and tourism with the need to ensure that our borders are secure and our people are protected from harm. Managing that balance, which is sometimes tricky, sees the service working both to facilitate the movement of people, craft, and goods across the border, and to enforce the laws that ensure that illicit goods or people do not enter or leave New Zealand.
I take the opportunity in this first reading to pay a great compliment to the Minister of Customs, my Hamilton colleague Nanaia Mahuta. I want to say what a very hard-working, good Hamilton member the MP for Tainui is, and what really good work she has done since she assumed this portfolio. This bill is just another example of Nanaia Mahuta’s very hard work. I know that all Hamilton and Waikato members of Parliament, irrespective of their political affiliation, support me in that. I have heard great praise from across the political spectrum for her excellent work.
The other thing I want to acknowledge, in the context of border security, is the wonderful men and women of the New Zealand Customs Service and our border control agencies. I note particularly the very, very good work done by the Customs Service in the Hamilton-Waikato area. The Waikato is emerging as a major inland port in the context of the Fonterra operation at the Te Rapa rail marshalling yard. That is a huge boost to rail. The number of containers that go out of there to the ports of Tauranga and Auckland means that many, many trucks are now coming off the road. That yard is a jewel in Hamilton’s crown, and I acknowledge the role of the Customs Service in terms of some of the processing that it does there.
Also, just the other day it was my pleasure to be present, along with my good colleague Sue Moroney, at the opening of the new Hamilton International Airport terminal, which has customs clearance facilities. It was wonderful that that terminal was opened by the Prime Minister.
Nathan Guy
Sue MoroneyThe member for Piako was there. I know that David Bennett wanted to be there, but I suspect that, ten to one, the whips on his side of the House did not have the vision and the wit to give him leave to attend that very, very important occasion. Our whips had huge vision; the Government whips allowed two members of Parliament leave to be there with the Prime Minister. Those whips showed some strategic thinking and recognition of the importance of the opening of that major airport terminal and customs facility.
I want to focus, in the context of this first reading speech on this bill, on how important an airport such as the Hamilton International Airport is in terms of the customs process and clearance. I want to observe and acknowledge that it is a very good example of local authorities working together. The five key local authorities in the central Waikato area are shareholders in the airport. It is a case of collaboration, of their working together with agencies such as the Customs Service, which does a very important job. Balancing the needs of trade and tourism with the need to ensure that our borders are secure and our people are protected from harm is a matter of facilitation of both the people and the goods that come through an airport such as the Hamilton International Airport. Obviously, we are very encouraging of further international flights there.
We should bear in mind that this wonderful development happened under this Government and in the economic climate that this Government has created. I certainly acknowledge the member opposite Richard Worth for his huge support of it. I suspect he feels a degree of envy for the development that has taken place in Hamilton. He will know the huge pleasure I have, along with Sue Moroney and others, in representing this area.
Finally, I also compliment previous speakers on their very interesting contributions.
In terms of some of the detail of the bill, I note that, currently, when there is a dispute the appellants can appeal to the District Court or to the Minister of Customs. The bill replaces that dual system with an internal review process, with a right of appeal to the customs appeal authority. That creates a cheaper and more expeditious review process. Again, some processes are being streamlined.
I also want to say that, as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I am really looking forward to doing a lot of good, hard work on this bill, as is my good colleague Dianne Yates, who is a very, very good chair of that committee. [Interruption] I think Palmerston North has a very good operation, but I know that Simon Power, in his heart of hearts, will share a degree of envy of the wonderful Hamilton International Airport terminal in the Waikato, which our good Prime Minister opened recently.
Without further ado, I commend the first reading of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) to the House.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Kia ora tātou i tēnei pō. Every Tuesday morning and every Thursday night I depart from and arrive at a place that is not “a Customs place”, but that may well be in the near future. Rotorua Regional Airport certainly has plans in the pipeline to enter into the running to be an airport that will be designated as a customs place. That is, of course, dependent on the strength of the consultation with the affected community, and in particular in our case with an iwi called Ngāti Uenukukōpako.
Ngāti Uenukukōpako has in fact lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, claiming that the Rotorua District Council has prejudiced the iwi by failing to offer it the same or similar redress that the council has extended to other people situated within the same noise-impacted areas identified by the council. The dispute centres on the way that consultation has occurred on the proposal to extend the runway at Rotorua Regional Airport—a proposal that would place Rotorua firmly in the queue for the establishment of an international airport. So I am interested in the amendments in this Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) in respect of the arrival of aircraft that may land at Rotorua for both commercial and recreational purposes and require customs services.
This bill will enable a process to occur by which, as others have mentioned, the chief executive of the Customs Service could designate Rotorua Regional Airport as a customs place, with the understanding, of course, that all of those agencies that have an interest in border control would also enable such a process to occur. It makes it easier for agencies like the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Ministry of Health, Maritime New Zealand, and others with an interest to be involved in the process of assessing an airport or a port’s eligibility to approve ad hoc arrivals and departures.
From another angle, this bill also provides clarification around the personal use exemption for manufacturing tobacco and strengthens the penalty regime in respect of unlawfully manufactured tobacco, as has been discussed by other members this evening. As the House will know, we in the Māori Party, and in particular my fine colleague from the north, Hone Harawira, have placed priority on our campaign to get tobacco out of Aotearoa. The Tobacco out of Aotearoa, or “TOA”, campaign encourages tangata whenua to work towards their auahi koretanga—to be smoke-free and proud. Our strategy has included the promotion of marae that seek to make their tribal womb totally smoke-free. We have also spoken out about other initiatives, such as the proposal from the Cancer Society and Action on Smoking and Health to ban visible cigarette displays.
Again, in May of this year my fine upstanding colleague and good friend Mr Harawira launched the Black Rock Awards for contributions towards making Aotearoa smoke-free. Recipients this year included Brendon Pōngia, the Warriors, the Motion Picture Association of America, and smoke-free workers. It is entirely consistent with our Tobacco out of Aotearoa strategy to support the amendments in this bill that place controls on the manufacture of tobacco.
I want also to mihi to all of the auahi kore champions across Aotearoa, such as Mr Mahara Okeroa, who are doing their best to reduce the use of tobacco, whether it is manufactured legally or illegally. I refer to things like the smoke-free hīkoi that was organised this year around the lakefront at Rotorua by Te Papa Tākaro o Te Arawa, Te Whare Hauora o Ngongotahā, Korowai Aroha, and Tipu Ora Māori providers to acknowledge World Smokefree Day.
This bill builds on all of those efforts to stamp out a product that clearly does much injury to our health, our economic stability, our social well-being, and our future. We hope that the measures mooted in this bill will provide a strong disincentive to the illegal manufacture or use of tobacco. We know too well the toll that tobacco has on our people, and we want to be clear that our support for this bill is aligned with our strategy to make Aotearoa tobacco smoke - free. But we are, however, puzzled that although the bill puts in place mechanisms to address the issue of illegally manufactured tobacco products, it still allows individuals who wish to cultivate and manufacture small quantities of tobacco for their own consumption to do so, as Mr Hide has alluded to. I cannot quite see the logic of that, myself. Surely it is either illegal or it is not. Surely some tests will be carried out to ascertain whether the small quantity of tobacco is actually for personal use.
Finally, I want to touch on the appeal and review rights under the statutory forfeiture and seizure regime. We note that the Law Commission has recommended that the current appeals system should be replaced with another process that provides for a cheap and speedy internal review process. In its report the Law Commission had highlighted concerns about a dual system of appeal to a court and a ministerial review. But there is also another report by the Law Commission that might be relevant to further discussion on the bill. The president of the Law Commission, the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer, said: “The law on search and surveillance in New Zealand is a mess. The rule of law in our society depends upon having certain and principled law enforcement powers. New Zealand does not currently have that.”
As I understand it, the report of the Law Commission into search and surveillance was a massive report of some 500 pages, with 300 recommendations, that took the Law Commission 5 years to complete. The Law Commission also found that present-day statutory provisions often contain insufficient safeguards to ensure the rights of innocent citizens are protected. As I understand it, section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. But, as the Law Commission concludes, clear controls on the use of search and surveillance powers by law enforcement officers are necessary.
So although we support the general intentions of this bill and the general progress it makes in controlling the illegal manufacture of tobacco and in opening up other ports or airports that have not been designated as customs places, we leave open the question as to how thoroughly and effectively the forfeiture and seizure regime has dealt with the issues around also protecting the rights of citizens. We look forward to further debate on the bill in the select committee.
NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this
I rise to speak to the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3). National supports this bill. However, as an assistant spokesperson on the environment, I want to focus on some of the concerns I have about the part of the bill that deals with ad hoc arrivals and departures to and from ports and airports, and how this could affect biosecurity risks. Generally speaking, except for exceptional circumstances such as violent weather or navigation-related issues, all craft arriving at and departing from New Zealand have to access designated customs-places. However, in recent years there has been demand for craft, both commercial and recreational, to arrive at non-designated places. This bill makes it easier for the chief executive officer of the Customs Service to improve ports and airports for arrivals at, and departures from, places that are not usual customs-places, on an ad hoc basis.
The chief executive officer may approve these places, subject to any conditions that he or she feels are relevant, and in consultation with border control authorities such as the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Ministry of Health, Maritime New Zealand, and any other department of State whose operations may, in the chief executive officer’s opinion, be affected by the granting of an authorisation.
Although National agrees that this provision makes good sense—particularly if we are hoping to minimise the effects of energy use and emissions for transportation—National wants to be assured that these provisions will in no way increase biosecurity risks. New Zealand’s isolated geological history, our unique flora and fauna, and our economic dependence on primary industries mean that we are particularly vulnerable to pests, weeds, and diseases from overseas. The social and economic consequences of biosecurity breaches are huge. Didymo, which is already destroying our beautiful mountain rivers, is expected to cost $285 million, and the varroa bee mite, which has infested hives throughout the North Island and is beginning to enter the South Island, will cost $661 million. A foot-and-mouth outbreak could be disastrous for our country and could cost up to $10 billion.
Right now, under the designated customs-places policy, with limited entry points, barely a week goes by without a biosecurity breach. There have been 227 incursions in the last 5 years. As I come from the South Island, didymo is one of the ones that upsets me. When we see the streams of toilet paper - like growths in our once pristine southern rivers, it breaks our hearts. It is suspected that didymo was introduced by overseas fishermen who carried the infestation in their waders. Those are the types of people who may like to fly to a non-designated airport for recreational reasons, and unless the chief executive officer of the Customs Service is extremely well organised and diligent, they could well pose an increased biosecurity risk to our country.
Similarly, New Zealand is under threat from marine infestations, with 150 non-indigenous marine species now identified in New Zealand waters. Although they are mostly benign, recent infestations such as seaweed, Undaria, and the sea squirt are a serious threat to our marine environment. I would like to be assured by the chief executive officer of the Customs Service that he is well aware of these dangers of further infestations. New Zealand waters are at present free of many of the world’s most renowned marine pests, and we must ensure that that continues.
In conclusion, I say that National supports the bill’s referral to the select committee, but with a plea that the issues concerning the management of biosecurity and health risks around the use of non - customs-places—ports and airports—can be well canvassed and vigorously debated. Our country and its water are at risk.