Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill

I move, That the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I shall move that this bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee.

It is something of a rare pleasure for me to be able to speak in the House today on this bill. Firstly, I do not have many opportunities to actually participate—

💬 Grant Robertson: Very sad!

—yes, it is indeed sad, I tell Mr Robertson—so this is something that I am quite looking forward to, for many reasons. I would like to refer particularly to Stewart Island not just as a jewel in the crown of my electorate but as a jewel in the crown of New Zealand. It is a special and unique place. Stewart Island has a lot of unique and very energetic people, who have a vision and energy about the place. It is a unique place for its people as well as for its environment.

It is also a place where I have spent quite a considerable amount of my time, on and off. If I can reflect for a moment, I can tell the House that my earliest associations with Stewart Island were shooting deer and harvesting pāua—so this bill really indicates the old phrase “a poacher turned gamekeeper”—although I assure the House that all of the pāua I harvested were oversize and within limits. But one other illustration I would like to give is that in the winter of 1968, when I was a mere slip of a lad, at a place called Moonlight Point on the Freshwater River I heard an odd thumping sound during the night. I took what some people would call a spotlight, and what I would call a strong torch, to investigate where the sound was coming from. I discovered a most unusual parrot-like bird puffing himself up and booming. Outside of Department of Conservation staff there would be very, very few people who could claim they have seen a kākāpō booming. That was in the winter of 1968.

I raise that point because it is my expectation that another project that I am involved in, which is removing all predators from Stewart Island, will be an opportunity for many people to enjoy—not just New Zealanders but international visitors, as well. So the very reason for us to consider this bill before the House is to enable the Stewart Island community to be able to provide infrastructure for the island, which is under stress because of the number of visitors it receives—and that stress will greatly increase—and to relieve that stress and that pressure. The vision I have for Stewart Island’s tourism includes a predator-free island.

However, let us go to the bill and ask what it does. The bill sets a platform and process whereby levies can be charged to visitors in order that infrastructural needs can be met. How would that happen? It is envisaged that transport operators travelling to and from Stewart Island would charge a levy of, at this stage, not more than $5 per person—probably a little bit less—in order to provide those needs that the community is now struggling to provide. The needs I am talking about are facilities like toilets and tracks—the sorts of infrastructural needs that tourism brings.

Why is that necessary on Stewart Island? The population of Stewart Island is just a little under 400—there are 451 ratepayers, including people with cribs or baches, plus some businesses as well—so it is totally impractical to expect the ratepayer base to provide those facilities. The island, as I say, has a population of fewer than 400 people. Visitor numbers are about 36,000, without children, but that was before the cruise ships discovered Stewart Island. Last year, I understand, five cruise ships arrived.

The question could be asked as to why these good people do not just get on and do something. Well, I have to say that I first suggested this process some 15 years ago, and at that stage three providers were supplying transport to and from the island and we were never able to get the three of them in one paddock. Currently, there are two providers, but if we do not legislate for this levy it makes it possible for a new transport provider to say that its point of difference will be having no levy for those who travel with it. That is one reason why we need to do it. The other reason is that there needs to be some consideration of the pressures placed on the island by cruise ships, so I deem it necessary to have something robust placed on the statute book.

The bill will also provide some transparency, in that a process will be laid down. The Southland District Council will administer this legislation, so there will be transparency about how much money is collected and how it is spent. There is a process by which priorities for spending can be determined, and all of those sorts of things will be visible. We are not putting in place just an ad hoc arrangement but something that will have durability, robustness, and transparency, which will make it all work.

I agonised for some time, when I was talking with the Southland District Council, about how this levy might be future-proofed, because I did not want to have to come back to the House in 10 years’ time to amend the legislation if costs increased or if the levy needed to be adjusted. After thinking about “Henry VIII” clauses and seeing them get the thumbs down, I can report that there is now a provision in the bill that allows the district council to strike what the levy will be. I understand that for some members this might be a somewhat new provision. Rather than vote against the bill on a technicality like that, I certainly want those members to participate in the select committee process in order that we might work through any issues of concern. I ask members, then, to consider firstly the principle, and I would like their support for the bill on that basis.

There is nothing unique about charging a visitor fee for entry to a unique place. It happens now at a variety of places in New Zealand, although very few of those fees are enshrined in legislation. Charging a fee also has quite significant international standards, and there is quite a list of places around the world where that particular facility is enshrined in law, and is a part of the way of having those necessary infrastructural needs provided.

People who live on Stewart Island have a range of pressures placed on them. They are isolated: they are in an isolated community, so all of the costs of living—the necessities—are much more expensive. There is no easy way to generate electricity, so there is a diesel generator on the island. The cost of electricity is 53.5c a unit, so if members want to consider another reason why it would be extremely difficult to have ratepayers fund these particular costs, then they need to consider only the cost of living on Stewart Island. The island has a population that is in decline. Essentially, the community provided and processed job opportunities through fishing, but now there is only one fish processing place left on the island. There are some aquaculture farms, but their produce is now processed on the mainland.

The people of Stewart Island have asked how they can have a future for their community, and they are looking very much at tourism. I am holding up a copy of the Stewart Island Tourism Strategy, which is currently being considered and discussed. If in fact Stewart Island wants to increase its viability it will need to increase its visitor numbers, and that will exacerbate the problem it is currently having difficulty funding. That is why we need to have a robust process that will provide the means for these infrastructural situations.

I commend this bill to the House for consideration. As I have said, a great deal of thought has been put into it. A poll held on Stewart Island has supported it. The bill has the support of the community, it has the support of the current tourism operators, and it also has the support of the Southland District Council. The legislation has been in gestation for some years—more than a decade. We are at the point now when everybody has agreed that it is something we want to have, so I invite members to support the bill and be involved in the select committee process.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank Eric Roy for those comments. I say for a start that the Labour Party will be supporting the referral of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill to a select committee, but we do so with some reservations because there are some hooks in the principles that underlie this bill that we want to work through. It may well be that it is right, but there are some things that we need to check.

I say to the people of Stewart Island that those who have long enough memories will know me as the “tar baby”, because in 1980 I was down there improving their infrastructure by sealing roads when I had a terrible accident. I was covered in—luckily—cold mix tar, otherwise I would not be here talking to members today. I had some other injuries, too, that are memorable for me and perhaps also for some of the other people down there who helped me after that accident.

The issues relating to infrastructure costs being disproportionate to ratepayer base are not issues solely for Stewart Island. I readily acknowledge what Eric Roy has said. He said that there are only around 400 residents and 451 ratepayers—many of whom will not be residents but will be holidaymakers who have holiday homes down there—and 36,000 visitors per annum is the number that Eric Roy has given to the House. I can see that the ratepayer base of Stewart Island alone for funding toilets, sewerage infrastructure, fresh water, and roading improvements is very small. I think that we have to consider these things a little more widely than we have already, though. It is notable—and this is no criticism of Eric Roy or the local proponents of the bill—that because it is a local bill, we do not have a regulatory impact statement. We have not yet had fulsome consideration as to what the macro effects, or the wider effects, of introducing local levies in respect of infrastructure are.

Before Jacqui Dean was the member of Parliament for Otago and then Waitaki, I was the member of Parliament for Otago, and I know from my time in Parliament that similar issues have been periodically raised by Queenstown. Queenstown has a small ratepayer base relative to the huge numbers of tourists who go there. We might think that it is a bit different in Queenstown compared with Stewart Island, and no doubt it is, but in some ways there are also similarities. Queenstown also has enormous infrastructure costs because it has huge numbers of visitors, and that impacts upon the infrastructure that it has to maintain for its peak periods. When the number of tourists in town hits a peak, it has to have the infrastructure that is necessary for that peak number of tourists but not necessary for most of the rest of the time. Queenstown has on occasions said that it needs some special rules to collect a visitor levy, to have a share of GST, or, it has been proposed, to impose a special levy at the airport. All of those things have been suggested to try to raise money in order to build the infrastructure that Queenstown says is beyond the cost of the local ratepayer to fund.

That may or may not be true, and I am not sure that we are ready yet to conclude that that is correct. I think that we need to hear from the Ministry of Economic Development, perhaps from Treasury, and certainly from the Ministry of Tourism as to what they think of these issues. It is true that Stewart Island ratepayers have great difficulty in meeting these costs. Stewart Island does not have a district council. It is the Southland District Council that would administer this levy, and I think there is a proper question to be asked as to whether the benefits of tourism without these sorts of levies are greater than they are with these sorts of levies. I do not know the answer to that question, but if the answer is that tourism would be inhibited for the Southland region, then maybe there is a case for the Southland district to be funding these things from all of its ratepayers across the Southland district, to a certain extent, for the benefit of making these infrastructural improvements on Stewart Island, not just to the benefit of Stewart Island but to the benefit of the whole of the economy of the Southland district.

So these issues are not quite as simple as they may appear at first blush. Having said that, I must say that I have great sympathy for the position of the Stewart Island ratepayers, because their position does appear to be untenable as it currently is. I am just not sure that this is the best solution. I am not saying that it is not, and that is why the Labour Party is supporting this bill’s referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee. It may well be the best solution, but I think it is very important to consider these issues because there is an important point of principle here that is of widespread application across the rest of New Zealand, not just Stewart Island. I have mentioned the example of Queenstown. I have also seen many other smaller localities that have similar problems and if this becomes allowed on Stewart Island we will have people saying “me too”, and saying that those same rules should be applied there. I think we have to look very, very carefully at whether the underlying principle of this is right. Let us not forget that tourism is the second-largest generator of foreign exchange in New Zealand after the pastoral sector and we must take care that we do not kill the goose that lays the golden egg through an inappropriate rule that we might inflict upon ourselves from here.

Members opposite might say that these are not real issues, but I know from when I looked at these issues in respect of Queenstown—and I advocated on its behalf when I was the MP for Queenstown—I came upon considerable resistance from various Government ministries, which pointed out some strong countervailing arguments against this. I was not in a position to have enough information to conclude whether the councils were right or whether the countervailing points of view were right, but I was convinced that there were some complex issues that needed to be unpicked. So when this bill goes to the select committee I encourage the Government to make available the relevant ministries that have this expertise, because without that expertise the select committee could make a decision that could adversely affect a very important national interest, which is the viability of our tourism industry.

With those comments I reinforce the point that we do not have the normal protections that we have when the Government introduces legislation that would have already been through all of those ministries before it made it to the floor of Parliament. It would have had a regulatory impact statement as to the effect of those changes, and that would be produced after departmental analysis by the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Tourism, and no doubt other ministries such as the Ministry for the Environment, which might say that we need this bill for the environmental protection of the marine environment because otherwise there could be raw sewage pouring into the sea, and that would be relevant. All of those things would have been consulted on by the Government department that was proposing the legislation before it came to this House, and all of those things would have informed the regulatory impact statement prepared by Treasury I think it is now—it used to be the Ministry of Economic Development, but it is now Treasury—and the regulatory impact statement would be available to members to consider these issues even before the bill’s first reading.

I encourage members opposite to consider these issues. Jacqui Dean is the member for Waitaki and these issues will have import for Queenstown as well as for Stewart Island. For communities like Te Ānau and Milford Sound—

💬 Eric Roy: It already happens in Milford Sound.

In a different sort of way, yes. Mr Roy says that it already happens there, but it is not quite in the way that is proposed here via a council-imposed levy.

The absence of a regulatory impact statement and those processes before we get to this point makes me nervous that we could make a mistake. That nervousness could well be allayed at the select committee by appropriate advice from Government departments. Accordingly, the Labour Party supports the first reading of this bill and its referral to select committee. We thank the member for Invercargill for bringing this bill to the House on behalf of the Southland District Council.

I support the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill and I acknowledge the contribution of the previous speaker, the Hon David Parker. I also acknowledge with thanks that the Labour Party will agree to this bill being referred to a select committee, because I believe that it is a good bill. I think that the striking of a visitor levy is a method that could provide a very good solution to the infrastructure problems that the ratepayers who reside on Stewart Island face in terms of paying for the visitor industry. I also acknowledge the argument put forward by the Hon David Parker. He is right that a number of small communities all around New Zealand rely on incoming visitors for their economic well-being but their ratepayers bear the cost of providing that infrastructure. But I think there are several differences between them and Stewart Island and I want to point to those.

One of those differences is that Stewart Island is a huge attraction to many New Zealanders and to people from across the world. There are only two ways to get there. One is by air and one is by sea. We can control the borders for those going on to Stewart Island, so it seems to me that the striking of a levy would be equal across all visitors going to Stewart Island. As to whether the passing of this local bill would provide a precedent to other local authorities in New Zealand, maybe it could. The question that I am certain the select committee will grapple with is whether this is necessarily a bad thing. So I raise those two points. I also know that the Chatham Islands are in a unique position in terms of funding for their infrastructure. Members who know more about this can correct me, but I understand that there is empowering legislation that relates to the Chatham Islands for largely the same sort of sustainability reason.

With those few comments I want to again thank the Labour Party for supporting this bill through to a select committee. I believe that it is a well-thought-out, well-considered bill. I congratulate the local member, Eric Roy, on his long involvement with this and his working through the issue with the local communities to find a solution to this problem for Stewart Island. With those words I commend the bill to the House.

As my colleague David Parker said, Labour supports the referral of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, with some reservations. I stand here to speak in my capacity as Labour’s tourism spokesperson. David Parker was correct when he said that we need to look after the tourism industry because it is our second-biggest export earner. One in 10 New Zealanders derives an income from tourism, and $50 million a day is spent on tourism in New Zealand, so it is really important that we look after the tourism industry.

I can see both sides of this argument. It is really important that tourists who go to Stewart Island have access to the facilities, the amenities, and the infrastructure to provide them with a good experience, and also that Stewart Island can cope with the numbers. Every year 30,000 to 40,000 tourists arrive there, and that is a huge burden for the Stewart Island infrastructure to cope with. In particular, I refer to public amenities such as toilets. I come from a part of the country where the local infrastructure facilities, such as the sewerage system, did not cope, and that led to overflow into rivers.

That had a downstream effect on a number of oyster farms. We cannot have that sort of problem happening in Stewart Island, with effluent going into the sea and perhaps damaging the oyster industry around the bottom of the South Island. I see the need to invest in the infrastructure and the amenities of Stewart Island.

I have spoken to a number of people who work in the tourism industry or have accommodation businesses in Stewart Island. They said that they do not believe a levy of $5 will have an impact on the number of tourists going to Stewart Island. On the other hand, my concern is the cumulative effect of other areas of the country that might also want to set levies. We heard about the Chatham Islands, which have some sort of arrangement. But if Waiheke Island, Great Barrier Island, and, say, Queenstown and the Milford Sound also decide to set levies, the cumulative effect may have an impact on people sitting at their computers on the other side of the world who are making decisions about whether to come to New Zealand for a holiday. If those people see there are all those added costs, it may affect their decision to travel to New Zealand. As I have said, we need to make sure we protect the tourism industry in New Zealand in general. I spoke today to members of inbound tour operator groups. Their main concern was that if a precedent with these levies is set, it may increase the cost of holidays to New Zealand.

I go back to the number of tourists going to Stewart Island. Eric Roy said there are 36,000. Of those, about 60 percent are international tourists. We cannot have international tourists turning up to substandard facilities. They come here with an expectation of nice public facilities, good accommodation, and nice walking tracks. We need to make sure that the reality matches the expectations of those international tourists. It is appropriate that this bill goes to select committee so we can discuss all the issues around it. It is really important, as we do not have the regulatory impact statement that we would normally have, and we do not have input from the various ministries that David Parker talked about, such as the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Economic Development. It is important that we have all that information and that we have a big discussion. It is important that Stewart Island has the amenities it needs to cater for its tourists. It is important that we cater for the wider New Zealand tourism scene, so it is important that we have those conversations at the select committee. We support this bill being referred to the select committee and the committee having those discussions. Thank you.

The Green Party is very, very happy to support the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. We recognise that Stewart Island / Rakiura is obviously one of the jewels, the treasures, in New Zealand’s landscape. Regrettably, I have not been to Stewart Island myself but I am looking forward to doing so. It is one of the great tourism gems of New Zealand, and it is little wonder that it attracts 36,000 or more visitors. I ask why on earth should all these visitors who come to Stewart Island not contribute in some way to the upkeep of that magnificent part of New Zealand and why it should be left to 300 or 400 local Stewart Islanders to bear the burden of trying to keep up the tourism infrastructure for 36,000 or more tourists.

We can see no reason why we should not be charging tourists a very small levy of $5. Some of the previous Labour speakers talked about how a $5 levy, which the member Eric Roy has said would be the maximum that would be envisaged, could detract or divert tourists from going to Stewart Island. I think that is totally untrue for a $5 levy. I think tourists would be surprised that they are able to enjoy such magnificent treasures in our world without contributing in some small way to the upkeep of that tourism treasure. It is absurd to suggest that that levy will somehow keep visitors away.

As I said, the principle that tourists should contribute to the upkeep of a great tourism attraction is one we strongly support. It is interesting to note that there are precedents. For example, Bhutan used to—and I think it still does—look at the debt it has for the year, then divide up that debt according to how many tourists it wanted to allow into the country. Every tourist had to pay quite a substantial fee to go to Bhutan, and that contributed to Bhutan’s national debt. That certainly has not detracted tourists from going to Bhutan, as they are clamouring to go there. I am sure there will always be tourists clamouring to go to Stewart Island, whether or not there is a $5 levy to pay when they fly in or catch the boat. It is a very sensible provision.

I notice that the people on the Southland District Council are fortunate. Before they would introduce such a levy, under this bill they will be able to have a special consultative procedure. There will be a special consultation in the area to discuss whether there should be a by-law and this levy should be introduced. I say that this is interesting and that they are fortunate indeed because for most of the rest of New Zealand, under some legislation that Rodney Hide and the National Government have just introduced into this Parliament, the ability to have a special consultative procedure, even for something like privatising our water supplies for 35 years, is being removed. They are not allowing even that basic consultation, so it is very fortunate that this bill allows for that.

One last point I would like to make is we have a real worry that Stewart Island could still be on the Government’s hit list for mining. The island was on one of the original lists for mining. Obviously it is not on schedule 4, but in our view it is still under threat because the Government is now taking a stocktake of the entire conservation estate, which includes Stewart Island. We sincerely hope that Stewart Island’s magnificence will be protected from mining, and we welcome this bill as a way—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but her time has expired.

In the words of the people of Stewart Island, the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill has been a long time coming. Indeed, it would be rare to find anyone on the island who has voiced any opposition to the bill. That in itself makes a pretty good argument to support it.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but maybe she should move to another microphone as there is some feedback. Is that OK?

How is this?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will try that. I have stopped the clock, so you are all right.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the local residents, Ngāti Kahungunu woman Gwen Neave, remembers debates around the proposal to initiate a levy for visitors to Rakiura when she was a member of the Southland District Council back in 1978. It was a debate that reared up again in the 1980s.

I think one of the dilemmas that confront a community is how to express manaakitanga without exploiting or damaging the quality of their home around them. We are aware of the increasing number of visitors who are making their way to the island. When I was talking to my stepmother just a few minutes ago, she said that it was at Rakiura where she first tasted blue cod. She talked about putting the line over the side and getting three blue cod at the same time. It is just as well she learnt to like it, because it was their staple diet once she married dad. She also spoke about being able to bring back kina from Rakiura that was the biggest my father had ever seen, which must be a record because he had seen a few. She said they only had to walk out knee-deep to get it. She just loves Rakiura. She says it is the island of the gleaming sun, and that it is pristine and beautiful there. We hope that it remains that way, and we hope that this levy will be one way that it can remain like that.

On one hand we have busloads of manuhiri exploring Rakiura, which is great for the local economy and, in particular, the tourism industry. But the damage that day trippers can cause must also be taken into account. The toll that fluctuating populations make on the local infrastructure, the roading, sewerage, health services, volunteer services, and the footpaths has to be taken into account. If we take just the area of roading, the unique island life brings with it a host of other implications. Local roading is a lot more difficult to maintain when all of the heavy machinery that is required needs to be transported from the mainland by barge. We are talking about a village that is hit by power prices that are four times higher than across the strait.

But I have to say again that it is disappointing to read the bill and to see no reference at all to mana whenua and their views on the levy. Under section 313 of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu articulates a special cultural, spiritual, historic, and traditional association with Rakiura and to Te Ara-a-Kiwa, otherwise known as the Pathway of Kiwa or Foveaux Strait. In fact Rakiura has an association with all tangata whenua in relationship to the succession of explorers and iwi who travelled around the coastline at various times. It is said that Māui, in order to keep his waka from drifting away, reached into the sea and pulled up a stone to be used as an anchor, which he named Te Puka o Te Waka-a-Māui, which was the original name for Rakiura or Stewart Island. For Ngāi Tahu, traditions and histories such as these reinforce tribal identity and solidarity, and continuity between generations. So we would be very interested to know the views of the local families still on the island or, indeed, of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu on the significance of this levy.

Another key source of knowledge about the value of this levy would come from Te Ao Mārama. This is authorised to represent Te Rūnaka o Awarua, Hokonui Rūnanga, Ōraka Aparima Rūnaka, and Waihopai Rūnaka, who hold mana whenua over all ancestral lands in Murihiku. It has a formal memorandum of understanding with Environment Southland, the Invercargill City Council, the Gore District Council, and the Southland District Council, so one would assume they would have a particular interest in how this levy will be administered, how the funds gathered from the levy will be distributed, and for what purposes.

We know that mana whenua on Rakiura are consulted about matters to do with conservation, fishing, and Māori land, and we hope that this consultation continues with the levy. We cannot forget that the history of Ngāi Tahu as laid out at the Waitangi Tribunal was very drastic but we can create a better future for them, and a Treaty-based partnership would be a good step forward. Thank you.

I am delighted to rise in support of my colleague and friend the very hard-working MP for Invercargill—the electorate that includes Stewart Island—and in support of this bill. In fact Ms Katene stole my thunder a little bit by her description of the original name of Stewart Island, which translated means the anchor stone of Māui’s canoe. It is a lovely metaphor for the three islands in New Zealand with Te Wai Pounamu, the South Island, being the canoe; the North Island being the fish that Māui pulled in; and Stewart Island being the anchor.

At the outset I have to confess that I have never—despite having lived most of my life just 200 kilometres north of Stewart Island—been over to it. I have viewed its magnificence from Bluff Hill and from some of the beaches around Invercargill, but I am embarrassed to say that I have not actually made the journey—yet. I say “yet”; I promise to remedy that. Perhaps the member for Invercargill could consider leading a fact-finding delegation over to the island where such a visit might include sampling some of the many activities the island has to offer—purely for parliamentary purposes mind you; I am sure it would not be fun at all. But I certainly would not have any qualms about paying $5 extra for that privilege.

I note Mr Parker’s caveat around the lack of a regulatory impact statement, the care around the potential creep of levies, and I acknowledge those concerns. They are concerns that I do not actually share. I have no problem with the application of a small levy; more important, I do not think the tourists—domestic or international—have a problem with paying a small amount to visit these very special places in our country. But I accept that Mr Parker has a point around the issue of perhaps having a more coherent and consistent framework within which to apply these sorts of levies.

He talked a little bit about whether this bill is the appropriate way to deal with the cost of infrastructure development that is needed to deal with rapid rises in tourism. For me, the wonder of it all is not that the south has enjoyed such a huge growth in tourism, but that it has taken 150 years for the rest of the world to cotton on to what we have always known: that the south of the South Island is one of the most beautiful parts of the world. I do not share those concerns but I agree that we may need to take a more holistic look at this issue from a regulatory perspective.

The issue of the tourism revenue is also an interesting one because in fact the Crown enjoys the benefit of the tourism revenue through GST that is paid by international tourists and through the income tax that tourism operators pay on their taxable income. So local authorities do not have that benefit so much and I think this is a very pragmatic solution to that. With those words, I congratulate Mr Roy and I commend the bill to the House.

I start with a brief commercial for the joys and delights of Rakiura, because I do not think any of the speakers so far have quite done justice to that remarkable place—and not just so that I can share with the House what I did in my holidays. I think that the fantastic qualities of Stewart Island are worth recounting simply because they explain why so many people go to this very remote part of New Zealand and create demand on the infrastructure and a burden on what is a very small population to fund that infrastructure.

My wife and I and friends rented a crib in Oban last summer and had a fantastic couple of weeks. We fished for blue cod and in fact we had the experience, which Rahui Katene described, of chucking a line with three hooks on it over the edge of the boat and seconds later—seconds later—pulling up three large blue cod. We did this time and time again for a whole morning and ended up with more blue cod than we knew what to do with.

The air in Oban and around Half Moon Bay is thick with kākā and kererū. It is unbelievable. Walking around and seeing a flock of a dozen kākā wheeling around the little township is like walking around a primeval Aotearoa. In fact, every day, a couple of times a day, a flock of kākā would land on the deck of our little crib and spend time playing there, and it was really quite extraordinary. Not only, as Rahui Katene says, can one pick beautiful fat kina by wading out in knee-deep water but in Paterson Inlet one can actually pick pāua knee-deep in the water and cook oneself a feed of fresh blue cod, fresh pāua, and kina, and that is an extraordinary experience—and one that people cannot have almost anywhere else in New Zealand, actually. Enjoying the hospitality at the Oban pub or fish and chips at the pie-cart in Oban just adds to the whole experience.

So it is no surprise to me that 36,000 visitors go to this remarkable corner of New Zealand every year. But I have to say that I thought the quality of the infrastructure was pretty good. The wharf, the roads, all the public infrastructure, I thought, were pretty good. Nevertheless, I think that it is right that Eric Roy should be congratulated as the local member on sponsoring this local bill. The numbers, I think, say it all. There are 36,000-odd visitors every year to a tiny community of, I think, 361 ratepayers who are trying to fund infrastructure for the island.

The points have been well traversed already. From our side there is a concern. It is not that a small levy would kill the goose that lays the golden egg on Rakiura but that this could have some precedent value that might not be helpful, and it needs to be considered in the wider context of how we fund infrastructure in the areas of New Zealand that attract large numbers of tourists.

It is also worth mentioning that in isolated communities like Stewart Island there are extra expenses. Rahui Katene pointed out that electricity is expensive on the island—that is true. The cost of freighting in all the goods that people need to run their businesses and to go about their daily lives also adds to the difficulties of living in such a remote location.

There was one experience that I did not mention before that I think is a classic Stewart Island experience and explains why so many people go there. We walked across to Mason Bay, which is one of the premier activities that visitors to the island do, and spent an hour with wild kiwi in the middle of the day on the walk to Mason Bay. If any members have not had that experience I recommend it. I think it encapsulates why that part of the country is so magical.

I rise to support the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill, and I congratulate our colleague Eric Roy, who I understand has been working on it since 2004. That just goes to show again that good things take time. In terms of looking at how there will be provision for even more visitors on Stewart Island / Rakiura, this is, in fact, truly empowering and a way forward. The member speaking previous to this speech, Phil Twyford, mentioned 36,000 visitors—that being an average, I understand, from about 2005 through to 2009. Of course it does not actually state the real case, because it does not count the under-15-year-olds. They are such an important part of the visitor numbers to this island; those very important young people who get an understanding of the flora and fauna of this very special place. I say “special”, but I say so without knowing so. More than 5 years ago I bid on a few nights on Stewart Island / Rakiura at a lodge. I still have the voucher sitting in the desk. I have been told that it will not expire. But in fact I will take my family there sometime soon. This bill seeks to move forward the provision of visitor services and to fund it in a truly appropriate manner. I commend it to the House.

In reply I firstly thank members for their generous comments and also for the points they have raised, and for their indication of support of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. I have to say that the points raised that asked questions are important and we need to consider them as we go forward.

I will respond just to the issue of the lack of a regulatory impact statement and what it might mean. I accept all of those points, and, yes, a select committee should discuss them. But if we were to rule out this bill on that basis, it brings on to the table a much wider debate in terms of how we do a lot of things. Members might need to consider next time they pay a departure tax at an airport what such a debate might actually mean in the wider context. It has become intrinsically part of cause and effect and how we fund things in New Zealand. I say not just in New Zealand, because it is also very much a part of how international tourism works. Just for members’ interest I say that the United States has a provision that allows states and tourist operators federally to charge. In the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Germany, and Switzerland, and—closer to home—Norfolk Island and Rottnest Island out of Perth, this is a way in which the international community has also dealt with the issue. That does not mean to say that I am against our having a look at a regulatory impact statement to just assess any nuances, or the way in which the legislation actually works. So I certainly welcome some consideration of that, although I say that if we are going to apply it only to this legislation then we are falling short of what the wider debate on that matter might be.

In that respect Kelvin Davis raised the point of whether there is a disincentive when levies are charged. That I guess is a discipline in itself. Those who set the levies will not want to have any impacts that discourage people from participating in Stewart Island. David Parker raised the issue of the Queenstowns and the Milford Sounds. I have to say that I am familiar with both places, particularly with Milford Sound. If one needs a reason to apply a levy, one needs to go to Milford Sound, where there is a voluntary levy applied by all of the boats operating tourists out of Milford Sound. It is a voluntary levy that everyone has bought into by necessity. If one looks at the facilities that have been developed in terms of car parks, the visitor terminal, and the wharves, which are very much a feature of Milford Sound, one will see that it is a stunning example of where a reasonable but regular small levy has achieved such a significant outcome. That is particularly important.

To Rahui Katene, who talked of Te Ao Mārama, I say that we certainly canvassed this issue with Michael Skerrett and we have his support for that. So I acknowledge the point that the member has made. It is also a very valid point. Mr Speaker, members, I again commend this bill to the House and I thank members for their support.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Keep going. Keep going.

I am looking at the clock, I say to Mr Hipkins, realising that this is significant legislation that should conclude so that another significant event, the dinner hour, can commence without members being concerned about this legislation.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Since the House has made excellent progress this afternoon, I seek the leave of the House for us to rise for the dinner break now and resume again at 7.30.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: As this is a members’ day, leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.