Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill

I move, That the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill be now read a second time. I commend the Primary Production Committee and the submitters for their valuable contribution to this bill. I felt that it was important that industry be engaged on this bill, and as such, I wrote to affected airport companies in August encouraging their engagement.

I will briefly reiterate why the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill is needed, before moving on to outline the issues raised at the select committee and the Government’s response. This bill is needed to ensure that border agencies have the necessary resources to provide aviation security, biosecurity, and customs services for new and restarting international airports, and for requesters of non-routine processing. The main objectives of this bill are to ensure that international airports or requesters of non-routine services factor the border agency costs into their business decisions, to manage the Crown’s exposure to an unpredictable fiscal liability, and, finally, to ensure that agencies can maintain high standards of border protection without needing to reprioritise resources from other front-line operations to service new and restart international airports.

The main issues raised at the Primary Production Committee were the types of costs that should be recovered, whether the bill should cover the Aviation Security Service at all, what length the cost recovery period should be, whether use of a nationally average charge should be included as one of the options for cost recovery, and when traveller processing is treated as non-routine.

The first issue is the types of costs that can be recovered at new and restart airports. This bill enables border agencies to recover their establishment costs and their operating costs. Some submissions suggested that the bill should allow agencies to recover only their establishment costs and not their operating costs. The Government agrees with the committee’s recommendation that the operating costs should be recovered, albeit for a limited period. Operating costs make up a large component of the agencies’ costs at these airports. Their exclusion would undermine the very policy objective of providing an incentive for airport companies to factor all of the costs for providing traveller processing into their decision making.

The second issue is the Aviation Security Service’s coverage in the bill. Some submissions proposed removing the Aviation Security Service, given that it is already funded via a nationally averaged charge on airlines. The Government supports the committee’s decision for the Aviation Security Service to remain under the bill. The nationally averaged charge does not cover the Aviation Security Service’s establishment and operating costs at new or restart airports; nor does it cover the costs associated with providing non-routine services required by airlines. The Aviation Security Service’s exclusion would expose the Crown to a fiscal risk and prevent airport companies from factoring all of the Crown’s costs into their decisions.

The third issue is the length of the cost recovery period. I asked the committee to consider the industry’s views on my proposal that the cost recovery period be prescribed by regulation at 2 years. I am glad that the issue was submitted on, and I thank the committee for accommodating my request. I note that the committee has recommended a cost recovery period of 2 years, after hearing the views of submitters on this issue. A final decision on the cost recovery period will be taken later this year, and will be set out in the regulations to be made after the Act is passed.

The fourth issue relates to the differing charging methods that can be used. The bill provides that cost recovery at new and restarting international airports must be done by way of regulations, and prescribes the methods that can be used. Examples of this include charges based on a scale or formula, charges based on the actual and reasonable costs, or fixed charges.

Some submitters requested that the bill be amended to ensure that the method of a charge, based on nationally averaged costs, is available. The Government supports the committee’s recommendation that the bill enable this type of charging method as one of the cost recovery options. Ultimately, the charging methods employed in any cost recovery regulations need to be appropriate for the airport and the agency concerned. I am confident that consultation with airport companies on the regulations will identify the most appropriate charging methods for all parties concerned.

The last issue relates to clarifying what non-routine traveller processing is. The bill enables agencies to recover their actual and reasonable costs incurred in providing non-routine traveller processing at all international airports. The Government supports the amendment recommended by the committee. It clarifies the meaning of non-routine processing by linking it to those situations where agencies incur additional costs. These are the sorts of situations where staff are required to provide passenger processing in a different place or to a different standard from what is provided for the majority of travellers. I thank and I congratulate the Primary Production Committee on its diligence, and the Government supports its conclusions and proposed amendments. I commend the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill to the House.

I rise to provide input into the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill in its second reading.

I say firstly that Labour supports the bill. We believe that we must invest in services that will protect our country from invasive foreign pests. We believe that new international airports that place an added burden upon our investment in biosecurity and customs services should realise some of the costs. However, cost recovery must be balanced against the economic development interests of the regions that new international airports service and it should not impair such development. We support the bill, as biosecurity and customs services come at a huge cost to the Crown, and any new international airport should realise part of those costs. New Zealand already has a very high number of international airports per capita, and the development of new airports creates replication of biosecurity and customs services and creates additional costs for the Government.

It is worth noting that when Labour proposed a similar cost recovery plan in 2004, it took a very comprehensive effort to consult the public, as the cost recovery plan was part of a discussion document. We can compare that with the legislation-by-stealth approach taken by this Government, with a very short time frame for submissions. The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee on 16 September 2010. The closing date for submissions from the public was 7 October 2010. Some people say that the Government collapsed that part of the process, and therefore the Primary Production Committee received only eight submissions from interested groups and individuals and heard only three submissions.

When the Government approaches legislation in that manner, either using a stealth approach or collapsing the consultation process, the public sees it as indicative of behaviour by a National Government that has no plan to get our economy going. Although the bill is right to make new international airports pay their fair share of the cost of customs and biosecurity services, we say that it is about time the Government started paying its fair share of biosecurity costs.

The cutting of 54 staff from MAF Biosecurity New Zealand in 2009 must be reversed, and my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor has spoken out in support of that. Those front-line positions are vital to protecting our country against foreign pests and organisms that could wreak economic and environmental havoc. The Hon David Carter claimed the cuts were due to a downturn in visitors and car imports, but visitor numbers have bounced back to record levels and car imports are on the increase.

Federated Farmers’ submission on that subject stated: “Federated Farmers views biosecurity as a critical component in protecting land based primary production and submit that we need strong border control systems. Forward focused biosecurity systems that provide confidence to farmers are critical—the risk of an incursion such as Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) is real. The 2008 scare in the United Kingdom with FMD is good in highlighting awareness but as a nation New Zealanders must always be alert to the economic and social devastation that new incursions can cause. Biosecurity agencies must be accountable for balancing the risk of trade facilitation with ensuring pests and diseases are kept out of New Zealand. We have natural borders, and so have a great advantage we must protect. New and re-establishing airports present a considerable risk to New Zealand in that unwanted incursions could arrive via the air traffic pathway.”

Labour calls on the Government to reinvest in securing our borders; otherwise the public will say that under National, New Zealand is going backwards. Biosecurity reports from last year showed that over 400 unwanted organisms entered New Zealand, including such extreme examples as cane toads. Recently it was announced that the weed velvet leaf had been found in New Zealand and could potentially cost farmers who grow crops such as maize millions of dollars. The initial $75 million cost to the Government in trying to contain the Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae disease in kiwifruit should be a lesson to the Government that prevention is better than cure when it comes to biosecurity.

A good first step to prevent further damage to the Bay of Plenty’s agricultural industry would be to reinstate the two biosecurity officers who were cut from MAF Biosecurity’s staff at the Port of Tauranga, which had a staff of just nine. What is the cost of 54 staff, compared with the $10 billion cost that foot-and-mouth disease would incur if it ever took hold in New Zealand? By not heeding Labour’s call on this issue, the National Government will be condemned by the New Zealand public as being out of touch with ordinary Kiwis who are struggling to protect their livelihoods and to get by, supporting their families. When this National Government arrogantly pursues its own personal interests, it is a clear signal to the New Zealand public that the Government is not working for the good of our communities; it is working for its mates and for foreign interests.

Labour will give every Kiwi a fair go and make sure everyone pays his or her fair share. That is why Labour supports the bill. Labour will make the economy work for New Zealanders. Labour will create jobs and opportunities for our children and grandchildren. Labour will work alongside every Kiwi and his or her community to make New Zealand a better place, especially for future generations.

Although Labour supports the bill—and we said that the few people who came forward to the Primary Production Committee supported it because it gives some clarity—as I have outlined tonight, there are some real issues. If the bill is the best that the Government can provide at this time, when the rest of the nation is looking for some plan to get the economy moving, then huge questions can be asked about the ability of the Government to take the nation forward. If the bill is all that the Government is able to come forward with, which is really just minor tinkering, if you like, and does not require us to sit here this late at night discussing it, then there are huge questions to be asked about the credibility of the Government. They are questions of whether it has a plan—we would say no—whether it is prepared to take the nation forward, or whether, under the Government, we are going backwards. I will repeat that. It is the kind of example that indicates to the rest of the public that under a National Government we are going backwards.

I have to say that unless the Government reinstates the 54 jobs that have been lost, unless it is prepared to invest at the front line by providing the kinds of jobs that will provide protection for our biosecurity and our borders, then we can say to Federated Farmers, who are supporters of this Government, that our biosecurity is not protected, that their farms are not protected, and that their livelihoods are not protected. The kind of effort applied by the Government indicates to Federated Farmers that their interests are not the interests of the Government, and that the interests of protecting our biosecurity are not the interests of the Government. Frankly, as I have said, more and more people are saying that if this is the best that the Government can provide at this time, then certainly we are going backwards and the Government certainly does not have a plan for the future of our nation.

I commend the members of the Labour caucus who were on the select committee. I appreciate the information that they gave me. I was not able to be there with them. I certainly acknowledge the Hon Damien O’Connor and Ashraf Choudhary, as well as Jim Anderton. I suppose, to be fair to the other side, I had better recognise also the other members of the committee. It seems to me that they do not seem to have a huge agenda on their case, given that they collapsed the time frame for consultation with the public, that the committee had only eight submitters, and that out of those eight, only three were able to be heard in person.

Although Labour is supportive of the bill, it is kind of sad because the bill is indicative of why the public of New Zealand are saying to me and to my colleagues that the Government is taking us backwards. The Government is not interested in the welfare of the wider public. All it is interested in is its own personal interests, plus the interests of its friends from overseas.

It is a great pleasure to rise in the House in support of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. It was interesting to listen to the last speaker, Su’a William Sio, who is a member from South Auckland. Under the previous Labour Government that area was bombarded for 6 months by aerial spraying to control the painted apple moth. Over 9 years of that Government, 8 tonnes of raw meat products were imported each year by people—on their person—mainly into the Māngere Airport in South Auckland where that member comes from, and mainly from Pacific Island nations. That member can stand in the House and say National is doing a poor job in biosecurity, but I would suggest that that is quite an interesting concept.

The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee on 16 September 2010 and submissions closed on 7 October. We listened to three of the submitters who asked to be heard; all of the submitters who asked to be heard were heard. The key points that they raised with us and that the committee took into consideration in its deliberations were described by a couple of airports, Palmerston North Airport and Hamilton International Airport, as having the potential to be a little short-sighted around cost recovery in their re-emerging, if they could find suitable international carriers to come into their airports. The committee considered that issue seriously because it was worthy of consideration, and chose to ensure that the biosecurity of New Zealand was upheld by ensuring that costs were able to be recovered by the three lead agencies involved in carrying out border control. The committee also looked seriously at the recommendations put forward by the ministry officials, and it decided to accept in most cases those recommendations. I will not go over them all, because the Minister for Biosecurity, the Hon David Carter, clearly outlined them in his speech, so that is there for the record if anyone wishes to go back and look at it.

The objective of this bill is to reduce the Government’s exposure to unexpected costs and associated costs to do with airport clearance, or immigration clearance, if you like, through our airports, and goods and services through our main ports. The agencies that are most involved are aviation, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, and our Customs Service. On balance, the select committee has come down in a position that clearly has widespread support in the House. I look forward to the passage of the bill, and I look forward to these actions being put in place. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to speak on the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill, which is in an area of absolute importance for this economy. Biosecurity and border protection is probably the most important area. The amount we spend on military security is huge; the amount we spend on biosecurity is minimal. The last Labour Government doubled the amount of money spent on biosecurity.

💬 Shane Ardern: And it’s gone up since then.

The member who has just resumed his seat, the previous Opposition spokesperson on biosecurity, has to acknowledge that fact alone. He should also acknowledge that the first Budget under the National Government chopped $2 million off the biosecurity budget and chopped 54 front-line jobs. That is an indication of the flippant approach that National has paid to biosecurity.

Labour supports this bill, but there are a number of issues. We supported this proposal to share the costs of biosecurity and border protection at new and emerging airports so that anyone who wanted to develop a new airport could not say that they had their airport and a runway and that they wanted the taxpayer to fund the border security. There was clearly an obligation under this legislation that any new airports, and those that might have been shut and are reopening, will engage in a cost-sharing arrangement with the Crown, and we believe that is fine. The question is why we are doing that. We proposed that when in Government, as a fair way of sharing the increasing costs—the doubling of the biosecurity budget that we had put in place—with the industry. The problem here is that the National Government has chopped $2 million off the biosecurity budget, and the reason it has done that and has brought in cost-sharing arrangements under this bill is so that it can pay $14 billion in tax cuts to its wealthy mates and to the people at the highest end of the salary bracket. Yes, that member over there is one of them, and, yes, so am I, but not quite to the extent of the Prime Minister, who gets $1,000 a week back. The way that the National Government has been able to calculate that it can afford those tax cuts is by chopping the biosecurity budget and by sharing the additional costs of arrangements at new airports.

💬 Craig Foss: Where did the $1,000 come from?

The chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee should listen a little bit, because he is responsible for overseeing this absolutely immoral policy of giving back to the most wealthy and taking from those people at the bottom. It is immoral, and the problem is that this bill is just one more little step in that unethical direction that National is taking us.

This is important. The previous speaker said that 8 tonnes of raw meat was brought into the country while Labour was in Government. That is a horrific figure; I have to admit that. But I wonder how much is coming now. That member opposite cannot tell us because this Government has chopped the number of people inspecting visitors to this country, so we do not actually know how much raw meat is coming into this country. The 8 tonnes of raw meat was identified and held at the border because we had a supported, well-resourced front-line border system with good people. Those people have been battered around with the uncertainty of whether they or their mates will lose their jobs. I repeat that 54 front-line jobs is quite a number when we consider the people whom we have working at the airports and the ports. But, as I said, the National Government is intent on delivering tax cuts at the expense of core services right through this economy.

I will acknowledge the Primary Production Committee, for the most part chaired by Shane Ardern, who should really be the Minister of Agriculture. He knows agriculture far better than the Minister does. Mr Ardern attempts to do a fair job, but he is under riding instructions. He is told what to do by Mr David Carter. He resists that, but he is told what to do. He has to bite the bullet and toe the line. He knows that the cuts that his National Government colleagues have made to biosecurity put our country at risk every single day. Last year, under the National Government, 400 unwanted organisms came into this country.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: How many?

It was 400, and those were just the ones that were identified. Mr Ardern knows that. He knows the risks that come with those incursions. We have the Asian bee, which is now established in Australia. We have the Prime Minister on his SmartGate, so that in theory each individual visitor can save 8 minutes when coming through the airports. It is 8 minutes saved by an individual visitor.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Do the bees use SmartGate?

I think the bees might avoid SmartGate. I think the bees will be able to whistle in, unhindered. Although we may joke about that, we need to realise that bees are driving our biological economy. Mr Ardern knows that and he is acknowledging it now. If we get the Asian bees in New Zealand, along with varroa, which unfortunately is in the country, we could undermine biological production in this country. People do not appreciate that. But Mr Ardern is nodding his head. He knows that his Prime Minister, John Key, in his determination to be popular has introduced SmartGate. He has taken front-line resources from biosecurity and customs people, and has shifted them across into some photographic, kind of automated system that gets people through the process 8 minutes faster. Never mind the reality that in Christchurch or Wellington people wait about 20 minutes for their bags, but I do not know about Auckland. People can whistle through the biosecurity and customs clearance and then they have to wait longer for their bags because the privatised companies simply do not have enough staff on the ground.

That is the way we are moving and unfortunately it puts our whole primary production economy at risk of things like the Asian bee and the fruit fly in Queensland. We effectively have open borders with Australia now. We will run videos. We will be nice to people and educate them. But in the end, it is the people who understand neither the language well nor the implications of bringing in fruit or meat or an unwanted organism who put our economy at risk every single day.

Labour supports this bill because we proposed it as a fair, cost-saving arrangement. We do not support the ongoing direction of this Government in cutting back on core Government responsibilities and services in order to deliver additional benefits to their rich mates around the place. That is what the Government has done; that is effectively what it has done. I do not know how much my colleague Mr Barker received as a tax cut delivered by the National Government. It was probably reasonably generous, was it?

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Too much.

Exactly. What did the people at the bottom get? A few cents?

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Not enough.

Absolutely. The bottom line is that we have squeezed Government services. People on accident compensation, in the social welfare system, in the health system, and in the education system are seeing programmes chopped to pay for those tax cuts.

This bill is one more step down the slippery slope of reducing Government responsibility and increasing the responsibility on the private sector to fund those things. User-pays is a great theory, but in the end the public good—the greater good—cannot be covered by individuals, individual companies, or individual industries. In the end, we take taxes to fund the things that are for the good of our economy and our future. We cannot allow this National Government to continue to squeeze biosecurity and front-line border services. At the moment the Government has put money into the joint border management system, which involves collaboration, and on the face of it, it sounds good. It is about joining together and sharing information. But if it means that the jobs and resources of front-line border security people are cut, that is a desperate and dangerous situation for this economy.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. In 2009 there were nearly 30,000 flights into New Zealand, bringing, amongst other things, 4.5 million people. As an island nation, our international air links are vitally important to our relations and our economic prosperity. This rather uncontroversial bill enables the Crown to recover the costs of aviation security, biosecurity, and customs from new international airports and non-routine flights.

Our biosecurity is vital to our economic well-being, and we must be vigilant to protect our primary production base from introduced pests and diseases. This bill is about protecting the Crown’s potential liability from providing this service, and internalises some of the enforcement costs, but, myopically, it ignores the big issues facing us through international air travel.

The bill focuses on the costs and the liabilities, but, in the nature of most of the legislation that goes through this House, it takes a narrow view. The bill focuses solely on the financial costs, ignoring all the other costs relating to the subject we are discussing tonight. The bill ignores the costs of aviation on the climate: the costs paid by people who right now are facing rising sea levels and extreme weather events. It ignores the cost to the environment from pollution as a result of international air travel, and it ignores the social costs that are being paid by people who are living under, next to, or near to airports. Like so much in our society, when we talk about costs we simply ignore the environmental costs—the externalities, which are real but unmeasured and unvalued when we focus exclusively on the financial costs.

The Greens will be voting for this bill, and we welcome the modest intent that international travellers arriving in a new international airport should pay their fair share of the public services that are so essential, such as biosecurity, but we lament the parliamentary time spent focusing on the minutiae while we face the clear and present danger of climate change, and one of its major causes. Climate change is already the greatest threat facing the planet, and it is not just the polar bears and penguins any more—it is the poorest and the most vulnerable who are feeling the brunt of climate change. Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan estimates that right now 300,000 people are dying annually as a result of climate change. Tonight, as we discuss the costs, we ignore the real costs of climate change, and one of its major, growing causes: international air travel. Ironically, those 300,000 people estimated to be dying right now are almost certainly among the poorest 63 percent of the planet, or the 4.2 billion people who will probably never ever travel in an airplane in their lifetimes.

Air travel is the world’s fastest-growing source of greenhouse gases, and globally those 16,000 commercial jet aircraft are emitting more than 600 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. All those planes flying at any one time are not only releasing carbon dioxide but also spewing a whole host of other gases into the troposphere, changing the atmosphere of the planet. Even in clean, green “100% Pure New Zealand” our international aviation emissions have increased by 66 percent between 1990 and 2009.

Tonight, if we are to be honest, we should be discussing all the costs associated with international air travel, and we should be prepared to ask the hard questions. Do we want to grow, maintain, or shrink our emissions from international travel? I love flying, and the Greens are not opposed to flying, but the question is about who pays the true cost of our decisions to fly. It is a genuine challenge to our country. We are a far-flung nation at the bottom of the world that makes its way in the world by exporting globally and having people come to visit us. As 70,000 people prepare to fly to New Zealand for the Rugby World Cup we need to be asking ourselves about the costs of how they will get here. A return trip from the UK to New Zealand emits 7.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide: that is about the same as the per capita emissions of Swedish citizens over the entire year, and in this case it is just on one trip. Many of those travellers will be flying into Auckland from the UK, and they will already be paying a distance-based environmental impact duty of around $240. Landcare Research found that direct carbon dioxide emissions from the tourism sector were massive, with over 4 million tonnes produced from aircraft, which is equivalent to a quarter of our nation’s carbon dioxide emissions across the entire economy, but those costs are just not counted.

As it stands, under the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, and the 4,000 treaties it has been written into since, all international travel is protected from all excise taxes, and global climate negotiations have ignored it in their deals globally, despite the significance of air travel. No matter what people do in their lives, be it recycling, changing the light bulbs, or taking the bus, it all quickly comes to nought if they are still flying round the world for shopping trips to Sydney, quick winter breaks to the Islands, or taking short-term long-haul flights.

If we are serious about protecting the climate, we cannot keep growing air travel. As the UK-based Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research shows, if we want to keep the Government’s—albeit inadequate—target of 450 parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and want to continue flying, we will have to reduce to zero all the other emissions in our economy—that is, our emissions from cars, electricity, and energy—and that is plainly ridiculous. As MPs who have unlimited flying privileges, we must lead the debate on how we reduce our emissions from air miles. Although planes have become more efficient over time, we are still essentially dependent on a 1940s engine design, and we are already reaching close to the limit of efficiency gains. At the same time, we are massively increasing the number and the kilometres of flights. In the UK in 1970 British airports were used by around 32 million people. In 2004 the figure was 216 million people, and by 2030 the Government there is predicting a mind-boggling 500 million trips through its airports.

We cannot keep growing like this on a finite planet. Alternative fuels such as biofuels may play a role, but all of them, so far, have environmental and social costs. Biofuels contribute to rising food prices, which gives us the stark choice between the stomachs of the poor or the pleasures of the rich. As George Monbiot says, there is no techno-fix for the disastrous impact of air travel on the environment. Tonight, as we discuss the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill, we ignore the real costs of international air travel. We should be asking whether air travel is too cheap. Should there be a tax on fuel? Should it be included in global climate treaties? Should we limit growth? Should we stay where we are or even try to reduce the number of flights? We should be focusing on sustainable alternatives to air travel. We should be preparing alternative strategies, as our economy is just so dependent on our international air links.

Although I have talked tonight about climate change, which is impacting on us in our own time, and gives us reason to act alone, reducing the amount of international air travel may be forced on us. Already the price of oil has topped US$120 a barrel, and recently the International Air Transport Association warned that airline industry profits will be reduced by half this year, because globally the industry is facing a $166 billion fuel bill. In 2008, when the price of oil skyrocketed similar to its rise now, nearly 25 airlines, globally, hit the dust. Kiwi motorists are already feeling the pinch at the pump, as is the international air industry. As insecurity spreads in the Middle East—thanks to people’s revolutions against dictators propped up by Western nations to ensure their access to cheap fuels—as we near the natural reality of peak oil, and as we enter a series of oil price-shock recessions followed by price crunches, causing further recessions, that pinch will hit further.

In summary, we need to look at the cost that the end of cheap oil will impose on us, the cost of climate change, and the cost of pollution—not just the financial cost. In conclusion, as we focus on these issues, we have to ask ourselves whether this Parliament is like a traveller sitting in an airplane and looking over a beautiful view out the window, but instead focusing just on that dirty dot on the window. Kia ora.

This is the second reading of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. The Primary Production Committee worked very collegially on this legislation. It was quite interesting. The comment was made that we did not receive a large number of submissions. I think we received eight, and we heard three. It was quite interesting that when as a select committee we heard those three submissions, one part of the hearing was by teleconference. Quite a number of the airports were meeting together at that very same time, and those submitters gave us the value of their knowledge.

We must consider that we are a nation surrounded by water and that tourism is vitally important to this nation’s economy. On that basis, it is important that we get the balance right between biodiversity, preserving our natural state, and encouraging visitors to come to this country. We believe that this bill is very sensible in that aspect, because it will encourage airports that are designing a business case with regard to whether to engage with a contractor to bring international tourists to their airport to factor in the cost of providing those biosecurity and customs services.

At the moment we have seven international airports. Part of the discussion we had in the select committee was the point that we did not want to stymie tourism. That point was brought out, and we debated it at length. It was quite interesting that while we were debating that point, we found out that Australia has eight international airports. We have to get the balance right. There have been airports that started off services with good intent. I believe that Hamilton Airport had an international service for some time, as did Palmerston North Airport, although now its services have mostly discontinued, mainly because it has lost its contractor to provide international services; it is not because the airport has backed away. The seven airports where we have international services are in Dunedin, Rotorua, Christchurch, Auckland, Queenstown, Wellington, and Hamilton. Tim Shadbolt, the Mayor of Invercargill, is still waiting for—

💬 Aaron Gilmore: Aspirational.

It is aspirational down in Invercargill. We will just have to wait and see.

The point of the bill is just to make it mindful to those people who want to have international services at their airport that they will have to provide for the fair and reasonable costs of providing those services. When we stop and think about it, it is quite sensible, because relocating families today into a particular area and training up staff is very important. It means, for one, that businesses have to take somebody and set up a business unit. One cannot have just half a staff number; it has to be fully staffed. The number of staff coming in may not be adequate to do that job, so there is a lot to be considered.

In respect of the bill, we gave a lot of consideration to clause 6, which talks about the distinction between what is an established service and a re-established service. As a committee we were particularly conscious that there could be a bit of price gouging going on, and we did not want to see the system open to a rort. We wanted to see some very clear constraints and definitions, so that if it ever became an issue, those who were adjudicating on it would have some clear guidance. Clause 6 adds that provision to the bill.

The regulations in clause 11 also establish aspects relating to the grace period. That is where, in good intent, an airport or a provider has set up a deal, and international travellers are arriving, but, through no fault of its own, that arrangement fails. It would be given 6 months to find another contractor to be able to provide that international service. That was given fair consideration by the select committee, and it was good to see that the select committee acted as a whole and supported that provision.

Subclause (1)(b) of clause 11, “Regulations”, states that regulations may be made “prescribing a cost recovery period shorter than 3 years:”. When we look at the note that came back from the select committee, we see that in the particular area of the cost recovery period, we designated that it should be 2 years. After this bill has progressed through the Committee stage and its third reading and then receives the Royal assent, we will be looking at the regulations that come back within that 2-year period, by which time, if an international service can carry on, that then goes back to the taxpayer-funded biosecurity and customs services. This bill, in itself, progresses things considerably, because this has been a bit of a moot point until this stage. Previous parliaments have grappled with this particular area and have not been able to come to a resolution, so it is heartening to see that there is accord across the House.

There is agreement that where people endeavour to set up an international service at one of our airports, for the first 2 years they shall carry that cost. They shall factor that cost into their business case. In the event of their business falling over, there will be a 6-month grace period, so that they can reinstall that international service. That is appropriate, because we take biosecurity and customs services incredibly seriously. But we still want to design a service here that will not deter tourists from coming to New Zealand, because tourism is one of the main planks of our economy. Of course, with the Rugby World Cup coming up in September and October of this year, we want to have things arranged in a way that presents New Zealand in the most attractive light.

It was a pleasure to consider this bill. It was not controversial. However, there was a range of views, as was brought out in the submissions of those who previously had international services that have now stopped. I think, on balance, we can be very confident in this House that the work has been put into this bill, and that the bill will be servicing the needs of the airports adequately, along with the economy of this country. It gives me pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

It is a privilege to speak on the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. As has been said before, this bill is designed to recover costs and share costs between the Government and travellers. The idea is to ensure that our aviation security, biosecurity, and customs costs are shared between the Government and travellers. But, clearly, the issue here is biosecurity. It is not so much the cost, but the biosecurity. That is where I have a problem with this Government. I know that the hearts of the members opposite who sit on the Primary Production Committee are in the right place. But the policies the Government is following in relation to biosecurity are questionable, particularly when it cuts costs in relation to cutting jobs—54 front-line jobs, as my colleague said earlier; they were front-line jobs.

This Government is always saying that it wants to cut down backroom jobs, and bring in more front-line jobs. The 54 jobs that the Government cut were front-line jobs. That does not give a good answer to the question that farmers are asking. This question was often asked by people who were presenting to the Primary Production Committee on various issues. This Government is not serious enough about biosecurity. That has come about because we are quite aware of some of the organisms that are brought into this country. Last year alone 400 organisms came into this country. It is simply not acceptable that we cut corners and we cut the biosecurity staff at our airports and ports, particularly with the trade in cars—the number of cars imported is now going up again—and with the Rugby World Cup, which is coming up. Clearly, thousands of people will be coming here, from Australia, Europe, Asia, and Latin America. I personally worry, as a scientist, because I know that some organisms can get into this country and, unbeknown to people, they can cause a lot of damage. The recent example of Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae (Psa) in kiwifruit has cost us $75 million already and we do not know how much more it could cost us over time to control something like Psa in our orchards.

With hindsight we can be very wise, but when this Government came in, the first thing it did was cut Fast Forward research funding, which the previous Government had allocated. A part of that funding was also designed for research into areas like biosecurity. Research is very important for us to determine which dangerous organisms can affect our agriculture. Be it plants, animals, or our fisheries, we have to guard against all those potentially dangerous organisms coming into this country. Despite the Government’s promises that it is looking after biosecurity, what it is doing is definitely not in keeping with what it said it would do.

Labour supports this bill because its intent is very clear. We want to make sure that any new airports opening up have the ability to recover costs. As has been said before, the Primary Production Committee agreed that there should be a 2-year cost recovery period. But the important point is that thousands of people will be coming into the country for the Rugby World Cup. A lot of those people may come on routine flights and some of them may come on non-routine flights, like charter flights, for example. We now have SmartGate working and the concept is very good, I agree. It allows us to get in and out of airports very quickly. But, as we said at the time, we are really worried about potential organisms coming through SmartGate. As my colleague Damien mentioned earlier, we know—and we had some information provided by the ministry—that given how many fruits, for example, are brought in by some of these passengers, and some of it is probably not by design—

💬 Colin King: I think it was Pakistan or India.

Well, they come from somewhere. But the point is that sometimes very savvy travellers come into the country, and maybe unbeknown to them or unconsciously they bring in some apples or other fruit. That is a worry, particularly for those who are very regular travellers. They come through SmartGate. The worry is that unless we have the biosecurity side of things covered, we could have problems in this country. Pests like fruit flies, Asian bees, or stuff like that could come into this country and create real damage.

The other thing I will say is that the Primary Production Committee heard only three submissions on the bill. I know that my colleague has already said that time was short, it was getting close to Christmas, and people probably did not have enough time to submit. We received eight submissions, and we heard three submissions. I agree with colleagues on the other side of the Chamber that there were submissions from airports, there were combined submissions, and most of them agreed that there was a concern about food coming into the country and bringing organisms with it.

Clearly there were other issues, such as what costs should be covered, what should be the aviation security cost, and how long it should take to recover those costs. As has been said, we agreed on a 2-year cost recovery period. We think it is appropriate in the circumstances.

Although this Government promises that it will look after farmers and look after agriculture, its deeds clearly show that it is not really interested. It is not interested, whether it is agricultural science or biosecurity. This is really a worry when all this freight is coming in and cars are being imported. We have a potential problem with ballast. Those are issues of concern, and the fact that 54 jobs were cut in MAF Biosecurity will not be helpful. I just hope that this Government will take note that in a few months’ time thousands of travellers will be coming here, and it is about time the Government planned for that. I know that it has no real plans, but for the sake of biosecurity it should at least make some plans ahead of time. Maybe it should have more staff trained and ready to be at our airports and ports so they can ensure that we do not have any of those organisms, particularly unwanted organisms, coming into the country. If that happened, it could create a lot of real biosecurity problems.

As I said, this Government is not serious about some of these agricultural issues. I know we will be discussing a number of issues in relation to agriculture bills that are coming forward—

💬 Colin King: And biosecurity.

—and a biosecurity bill—but it is piecemeal work. This Government never does anything in a considered way. It is always in a piecemeal way. This is a biosecurity bill, there will be another biosecurity bill, there will be one agriculture bill, and then another agriculture bill coming up. The Government is never serious about it. There is no long-term planning or long-term thinking about this. In relation to the economy, for example, where is the plan? Where are the opportunities for jobs? The Government is looking at now—

💬 Shane Ardern: Watch this space, Ashraf.

I say to Mr Ardern that he knows very well that the number of agricultural students in our agricultural universities is going down.

A previous Labour speaker said Labour was going backwards under this National Government. He was right; Labour is definitely going backwards under this National Government. Incidentally, its first speaker up in this debate had a lot to say about the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill, but I cannot see his name mentioned as having been one of the members who sat on the Primary Production Committee as we heard submissions on the bill. Just for the record, I say yes, we did hear submissions. Every submitter who wanted to be heard was heard. An earlier speaker said there were only eight submitters, but he failed to mention the fact that the first submitter was the Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand and the second was the New Zealand Airports Association. So, in fact, all airlines and all airports that operate in New Zealand were represented and gave submissions on this particular bill, and that was on top of the ongoing consultations that had gone on for quite some time. Maybe Labour cannot count correctly or something, which is perhaps why the Labour Opposition is going backwards under this National Government.

This bill gives clarity to airports and fairness and certainty to those who may want to re-enter or start up as international airports. On that note, I note the concerns I raised about Hawke’s Bay Airport—or Napier airport as some may call it—which is currently undergoing an extension, thanks to the hard work of the local hard-working MPs, Mr Tremain and another humble MP from Tukituki. One day that airport may become international, but at the very least right now it will soon become jet capable. Interestingly, the debate moved on to the scenario that if New Zealand and Australia perhaps become one domestic air market, then discussions about international flights potentially going into, or out of, Hawke’s Bay Airport would become irrelevant, because it would be a domestic airport and other legislation and regulation would deal with such matters. But I congratulate Mr Tremain and his hard-working colleague on their successes so far in the Hawke’s Bay. The northern extension of the airport has now been built, and the southern extension should also be open some time in June.

On that note, I say it will be very interesting to see the first carton of Hawke’s Bay apples go fresh on a flight from Wellington or Auckland to Australia. All of that is again due to the hard work of many people in Hawke’s Bay, as well as of the two somewhat humble MPs there, who have been working on the issue of access to the Australian market for apples for quite some time. I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.