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 second time. It is with some expression of delight that, first, I have the opportunity to speak in the House, which does not occur very often, and, second, something that had its genesis almost two decades ago is coming to fruition finally. So although the gestation period was a long one, the bill actually came to the House and was tabled in the House on 13 October 2010. The Southland District Council first started to move on this in the previous year, in September 2009, and on the fair island of Stewart Island in that time strangers have become friends, friends have consummated their friendship, and babies have been born. In this widest perspective Governments have been re-elected, and Australian Prime Ministers have become persona non grata and stayed persona non grata, and on Stewart Island in the year of our Lord 2012, 19 cruise ships and the first two tranches of some 40,000 visitors have arrived. So the 200-odd ratepayers are creaking at the seams—

💬 Hon Member: 400.

No, ratepayers. Please listen. The population is approximately 429, but the ratepayers are about half that amount. They have to provide the facilities for the increasing—but desired—visitor numbers attending Stewart Island.

Can I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee members for the work they have done. During the period that this was in the select committee, with three extensions of time, some 18 different members attended select committee sessions on the bill.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: Only one chairman.

Yes, only one chairman, and can I acknowledge his diligent work in actually seeing this coming to fruition, as well. Because there has been some change in personnel in the period, it probably does befit the occasion that I just remind the House why the bill is here. We have a situation that is particularly unique. Stewart Island—predominantly Rakiura National Park, a settlement in the northern bay of Paterson’s Inlet, Oban, and a few sundry others—is required to host visitors. Very much of its business is around an increasing number of visitors, and it is straining at the seams to provide the facilities that are required. So this bill provides an opportunity for the Southland District Council to manage a levy-collecting system where visitors will contribute to ongoing maintenance, upkeep, creation, and mitigation of the effects of visitors on Stewart Island.

I would have to say that all members of the select committee engaged in this in a very serious way. There was a degree of cordiality and an ongoing desire to find solutions. So why was the bill so long in the select committee? Well, there were a couple of issues that did present themselves and gave some concern not only to members of the select committee but, I guess, to wider communities as well. One could see a certain degree of eagerness in the wider local government communities that this might be a mechanism by which they could get themselves out of trouble where situations of less than better management might have created some financial pressures. I need to just emphasise right at the start—and if members want to look on the second page of the commentary—that this in effect says quite clearly that this bill does not create a precedent for other local governments to follow. The situation on Stewart Island is sufficiently unique, and I mentioned the 19 cruise ships that have been there thus far this year, up from 13 in total last year. So it is a place of increasing desirability to visit, and there is a need to accommodate these increasing numbers. It is a blemish against New Zealand as a whole if we have less than adequate facilities in this very special part of New Zealand.

Although this is something of a unique situation, it is not an exclusively isolated situation. The Chatham Islands has legislation that ensures the collection of a levy on freight that goes across the wharf, that they might use that in a way to develop facilities on the island. In talking earlier to the Hon Annette King, she said would it be possible to have a Supplementary Order Paper included into the bill in the Committee stage to include the Chatham Islands. Well, in essence, the answer is no. It is totally outside the scope of the bill. Can I just say to Mr Twyford, who is looking somewhat disturbed about that notion, that not only is it outside the scope but there was a significant amount of consultation with all parties, and we have not had time to do that for the Chatham Islands.

Can I just say that 15 submissions were presented when this bill was in the select committee. Fourteen were in favour; one was opposed and the rationale for their opposition was that the Government should just provide some more money to put in the facilities. That of itself would create something of an unusual precedent. There is a wide degree of acceptability in this. The legislation itself does provide some real robustness and transparency about how this would work, in much the same way as legislation around road tolls in Tauranga provides a very clear and transparent system about how that money is collected and what the toll is set on.

So the first instance that the select committee had some difficulty over was what it might mean in terms of a precedent. Can I also say that, in that regard, it is not unique to New Zealand. There are a number of countries around the world—Australia, UK, US, Ireland, quite a bit of Europe, Switzerland—where various mechanisms to cope with visitors are in place. So we are not setting ourselves up as somewhat unique, or in some way creating some international first that might cause some repercussions. I just need to assure the House that this is quite an elegant solution in terms of accommodating the pressures of visitors in that area.

I have not at any stage stated what I think the visitor levy should be, because there is going to have to be some work done on how the Southland District Council, which is charged with the responsibility, might want to deal with a cruise ship that might have 2,000 visitors on board, but only 300 get off. So there are some areas where that will need to be dealt with.

One of the other areas that challenged the select committee was precisely what a visitor is, and I think other members who have been on the select committee might want to expand a bit on that. What I was quite happy to do, or had in the first draft of the bill—which perhaps might be called a Henry VIII clause—actually empowered the Southland District Council to make those sorts of rules. But quite clearly that was not acceptable, so we spent some time looking at precisely who is a visitor and who might be excluded, the issue of Māori land on Stewart Island, and what happens to people who actually fly by helicopter or fixed-wing plane or use a boat to enjoy the wider national park without using the facilities that are in the Oban township itself. All of those things are dealt with under the interpretation of precisely who is a visitor.

Can I again just say that I am really happy that after such a long gestation and birthing process this bill is now in its second reading. I thank the House, thank members of the select committee, the officials, and those people who put in submissions, and I look forward to this bill being passed in short order through its Committee stage. I look forward to any issues that people might want to raise at that time, and I think that will be an appropriate time to answer any questions. Thank you.

Labour supports the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. We voted for it at the first reading, we took part in the discussions at the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we are happy to support it at this second reading.

I want to acknowledge the bill’s sponsor, Eric Roy, the member for Invercargill. It is really an essential part of the great New Zealand democratic tradition that, despite the modern reforms of MMP, the great New Zealand democratic tradition is about local MPs and local electorates. Not everyone might agree with me, but actually that is a very important part of our history, and this bill reflects the real desires and aspirations of the people of Stewart Island—

💬 Eric Roy: Kia ora.

—Rakiura to you, sir—and they have been served well by their MP patiently shepherding this bill through the House. Eric Roy deserves, I think, congratulations on that. I also want to acknowledge my old select committee, chaired by the able Chris Auchinvole, the Local Government and Environment Committee—the very collegial and productive committee that saw this bill through the necessary scrutiny.

I do note that there has been a bit of disgruntlement about how long it has taken to get this bill back to the House, and I read in the Southland Times that a number of local politicians have been somewhat critical of the delays. Stewart Island ward councillor Bruce Ford, Mayor Frana Cardno, and the Chief Executive of the Southland District Council, David Adamson, are all on the record as criticising the delays. In fact, one of them said: “[I’ve spent] 30 years on the damn thing,”. Well, Eric Roy brought it to the House only a couple of years ago. I did note that in the Southland Times it records one Eric Roy also criticising the lengthy delays facing this report.

So what does the bill do? It creates a mechanism for the Southland District Council to levy visitors to the island of Stewart Island, for the purposes of building up a fund that can be used to support the construction of necessary infrastructure: public toilets, wharves, and other infrastructure that is necessary for visitors to the island. We have all heard that Stewart Island has, I think, a resident population of between 300 and 400 people. It is a tiny little community in one of our most pristine and most precious parts of New Zealand, which is visited by in excess of 35,000, maybe 36,000, visitors a year. As Mr Roy pointed out, there is a growing cruise ship trade. I think all members of the select committee agreed that this was a reasonable and practical request, which was worthy of our support.

I read that ships carrying up to 1,400 passengers are now visiting Stewart Island, and that is great for the local economy, which is very reliant on the tourism trade. The owner of the Kiwi-French crêperie, Britt Moore, told the Southland Times that one day last summer she served 400 cups of coffee in 4 hours to cruise ship visitors. Well, after all that coffee being drunk, it is very obvious to me that good public toilets are going to be needed around Halfmoon Bay for the visiting tourists.

I want to touch on some of the issues that we dealt with at the select committee. One of them was the purpose clause. We had the officials redraft the purpose clause to make it absolutely clear that the purpose of this ability to levy a tax on visitors to the island was for the support of necessary tourism infrastructure on the island, so that makes it crystal clear that that is what the money has to be spent on. We spent a lot of time on the definition of “visitor”, and I think we came up with a pretty good solution, which excludes people who live on the island, excludes Māori with an interest in Māori land on the island, excludes people who are working on the vessels that are taking people to the island, and excludes dependants of ratepayers on the island. I am sure we will go through this in more detail in the Committee stage, but I believe we came up with a pretty good solution for the definitional issues of the “visitor”.

Included amongst the amendments was the definition of an “approved operator”, which is the people who are bringing these cruise ships into Stewart Island. It allows the flexibility for the council to negotiate with approved operators of these cruise ships, so that they can levy the fee through the operator, and not have to have a financial transaction with every one of those cruise ship passengers.

Probably one of the most interesting debates—and to be frank, it was never really resolved—was around the issue of whether this law had any kind of precedent value. That was the main objection that we raised at the first reading. It was whether or not what Eric Roy came to this House and asked us to consider would in fact complicate the law regarding the funding of tourism infrastructure around our country, and whether or not it would have unintended consequences that we needed to think about. We pondered it long and hard; I am not sure that we came up with any definitive answers.

I know there were some concerns from officials that there was, in fact, a precedent being set here, and Mr Roy has pointed out that although this is the first arrangement of its kind in New Zealand, there are plenty of other such arrangements overseas. I know a number of people have raised the fact that tourism operators in Milford Sound have a kind of levy arrangement, but, as we were advised, it is a voluntary arrangement that they have. Others raised the idea of people having to pay a departure tax at the local airport, and it is clearly to be distinguished from that kind of arrangement, because departure tax is really a tax for the use of a certain piece of infrastructure, whereas what this bill does is give a local authority the power to levy a tax on any visitor to a certain defined territory, and as far as I am aware that is not found anywhere else in the law.

So it is a precedent, but what I would say is that it is our duty as lawmakers to address the needs and concerns of the communities that we represent up and down this country, and we have to find solutions that are practical, effective, proportionate, and affordable. I think those are the tests, and in my view, having listened to the submissions, and having listened to the advice of the officials at the select committee, this bill passes all those tests, and I hope that it will satisfy the people of Stewart Island in their desire to have access to a fund that will deliver the kind of infrastructure that they want to provide, and that we all want to see provided.

A number of people have used the idea that $5 per visitor might be the kind of levy that would end up being imposed. I heard the member say that he has not said that, and he does not know what it would be. It would need to be properly worked out—

💬 Eric Roy: It won’t be more than that.

The member says it will not be more than that, but for argument’s sake, if it was $5, then we are looking at an income stream of about $150,000 a year. I think that $150,000 a year would provide the basis for a pretty reasonable programme of investment in local infrastructure on the island.

Back to the question about whether or not this is a precedent, I would say that it is a precedent. There is no doubt about that. The real issue is whether it is a good precedent or a bad precedent, and only time will tell. But I, for one, am satisfied, and my Labour colleagues are satisfied, that this is a good bill. It is worth supporting, and we hope that it meets the needs of the people of Rakiura.

It is a pleasure to rise. I acknowledge the contribution from a fellow member of the Local Government and Environment Committee from last year, Phil Twyford. I must acknowledge also the excellent chairmanship of the then chairman, Chris Auchinvole. It was a very collegial committee, and this bill, the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill, was given significant consideration and debate, for reasons that many speakers have brought out.

I have to confess a family link with the small Stewart Island community. An aunt of mine, Esther Paton, I am led to believe did actually run the small hotel in Oban many, many years ago.

💬 Todd McClay: Have you visited?

I have visited Stewart Island. There are a couple of small churches, some excellent shops, some tourist organisations, and a visitor centre, and I think the community centre, which contains the library, was actually developed by the hard work of the local community, which we have heard is only around about 400 people. Opinions differ as to exactly how many ratepayers there are, because, of course, there are people who have holiday homes there, but there is a small—very, very small—number of ratepayers in the rating base.

It is tiny compared with, say, North Shore City. I see the ex-Mayor of North Shore City sitting over there.

💬 Andrew Williams: 250,000 people.

Thank you very much—250,000 people—but I think on Stewart Island it is a mere 400 or less, according to the information I have.

💬 Simon Bridges: There’d be more visitors than that.

And how many people visit Stewart Island? Well, we heard from Eric Roy—and I must take this opportunity to compliment Mr Roy. He is a bit of a Renaissance man, and I have had the pleasure of going fishing with him. I caught my first wild trout in the Joes River with Eric Roy some years ago.

He is also Deputy Speaker in the House, as we know, and of course for many years—since 1994—as the excellent MP he is, he has pushed away on behalf of his local community, on behalf of the people of Stewart Island, and on behalf of those small number of people who live in a small paradise, it has to be said. They do not live in “Taradise”—Taranaki—they live in Stewart Island, in Rakiura, which is another paradise.

We are blessed in this country with many, many beautiful parts of the world.

💬 Simon Bridges: Tauranga.

I hear Tauranga has been put forward by my colleague on my left. Stewart Island, however, we know is special. It is special—very special.

As a student at Otago University, one of the joys I had was at Easter when we would go regularly on an Easter tramp, so to speak, and one year it was to Stewart Island. We got off the ferry after a reasonably smooth crossing, much to our delight, at Halfmoon Bay, and we tramped through to North Arm Hut. I am not sure whether North Arm Hut is still there. I am hoping to go down with the member for Invercargill at some time in the future and ascertain that for myself. It was set about 10 feet above a beautiful little estuary.

Above the fireplace on the lintel were written the words “Peace and tranquillity are here.”—“Peace and tranquillity are here.”—and that, in fact—

💬 Simon Bridges: That’s a bit new-age.

The member for Tauranga says it is new-age. Well, in fact, this was a few years ago. That word had not been invented at that stage, Simon, but there we are. It was indeed true, however. “Peace and tranquillity are here.”, and that really reflects the “mori”, if I may use that term, the spirit, of Stewart Island.

💬 Hon Members: Mauri.

“Mowri”—is it “mowri”?

💬 Hon Members: “Mau”.

Well, we need to go through this at some stage. Thank you for the contribution from across the House. I should have just used the word “spirit”, obviously.

It does reflect the spirit of the island, and that is why 40,000 visitors—40,000 visitors—are drawn to that particular piece of our New Zealand paradise. They come by ferry, they come by plane, and they come, as we have heard from the member for Invercargill, by cruise liners. I think 19—19—are due in this cruise season, and that will only increase with the attractiveness of New Zealand to tourists from all over the world.

Obviously there is a small rating base of around 400, including those who have holiday homes. It is asking a huge amount of these people, many of whom are permanent residents. Some, of course, have links with the island through long-term family links and maintain a holiday home there. It is only reasonable, we thought as a committee—and it was a collegial discussion on this, and I acknowledge the cooperation from all sides of the House, including the previous speaker, Mr Twyford—to, basically, dramatically reduce that rating burden on those residents there.

Just as a point, it is a beautiful place. We have people who are interested in kayaking, people who are fisherman, and people who come to get the white-tailed deer. Tramping on the way to North Arm Hut we did catch a glimpse of one. This was when I was a student. I did a little bit of work as a student, but at Easter we took off.

I must say, in a rush of enthusiasm we decided to go from North Arm Hut to Mason Bay and back in a day. I have to say, that was a bit of a trek. It was a bit of a trek, but we came back in a day. It was my first experience of “sahib’s knee”, which at a later date I was to find recurring in the Himalayas. But I do digress slightly.

This is a wonderful bill. There is a cost to the community of their providing these essential services. We heard from the previous speaker of the effect of serving 400 cups of coffee to cruise ship visitors. There is a cost to the community for these essentials and the infrastructure. There are not many roads there, and that is a lot of its attraction. There are not a lot of roads, but there are other essential services that need to be maintained, and the cost to the community will be dramatically reduced if this visitor levy goes through, which I am sure it will, with the support that we have seen in the House today.

To administer the levy, the bill provides for the Southland District Council to establish a subcommittee, and this subcommittee will consist of representatives from the tourism industry, the community board, and the district council. At this stage we do not know what the amount of the levy will be, but as we have heard, at this stage $5 is likely to be the figure. The bill also establishes the governance and administrative arrangements for the levy, including the process for setting and regularly reviewing the same.

There will be opportunity to debate this excellent bill in the future. I will commend the bill to the House.

I rise and I am very proud to speak in support of the second reading of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. I am also very proud to stand as the other local member for Rakiura, with Stewart Island / Rakiura coming within the boundary of the massive electorate of Te Tai Tonga. I also acknowledge the member sponsoring this bill, the member for Invercargill, Eric Roy, for his work in leading this bill to this stage. There has been quite a long whakapapa to this bill. As the other speakers have mentioned, it has taken decades. But referring just to the bill itself—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What’s it called again?

RINO TIRIKATENE:—it came through to its first reading. It is the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. The bill itself came through for its introduction on 26 May 2010, and then on 16 June 2010 it had its first reading. It has had some 20 months with the Local Government and Environment Committee and with the drafting with officials, so it definitely has had a lot of attention put to its provisions.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Tēnā koutou e ngā mema o te Whare. Picking up from where we left off, the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill has had a long gestation period. There have been 20 months between its first reading and now coming back for its second reading. I have not been, obviously, a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which was considering the bill, but I understand, having read through the bill as it has been amended, that there has been considerable time and considerable amendments made to the bill. In spite of the length of time it has taken, I do believe that the bill as it now appears has been improved. Definitely there are some very good, elegant solutions put in place in the drafting of the legislation.

To get to the crux of what the bill does, it enables the Southland District Council to set visitor levies for, and collect them from, passengers travelling to Stewart Island / Rakiura. The visitor levy will be used to enhance services, facilities, and amenities provided for such people. Obviously, this is a unique situation that has led to the introduction of this bill, and it is really based around the unique situation of the Stewart Island / Rakiura community. There are only 200 ratepayers in the district and I think the total population is just a little over 420, so it is a very small population and rating base, yet there is a growing demand and a growing tourism industry in such a beautiful place, which has seen an increase of, I believe, over 30,000 visitors annually to Rakiura. Also there has been a substantial increase in cruise ship visitors to the island. So in light of all of that, it is impractical to demand that such a small ratepaying base provide all the amenities with such a high visitor population. So this bill provides a fair mechanism whereby the council can levy a reasonable levy. I understand there has been discussion that it will not be more than $5 or around that vicinity. So it is a small charge, but it will mean the collection of additional funds that can go directly into the community to enhance and look after the amenities, services, and facilities for all of the visitors to the island.

There were concerns raised, I understand, at the first reading around the fact that this could set a precedent for other tourist spots to follow. That has been addressed in this bill through making it a very specific focus that it specifically relates to the Southland District Council and specifically to Stewart Island / Rakiura. It does not have any wider implications and it is in recognition of the unique aspects and the issues that Rakiura faces, as I have just mentioned previously. However, as the local member who shares the Chatham Islands with the Hon Annette King, I am aware that there are similar small communities that do face similar issues. They are not exactly the same as Stewart Island / Rakiura, but the Chatham Islands is a very small community. It only has a very small rating base and it has a growing tourism industry. I know that there is a lot of emphasis being put on the Chatham Islanders to grow their tourism industry. The unique wildlife and birdlife and the beautiful scenery that is on both the Chatham Islands and Rakiura are world renowned. That will be one matter that I will be discussing with my colleague Annette King when we have further conversations with our constituents on the Chatham Islands and the Chatham Islands Council, because in a way this bill is a model for a very unique situation and a unique community such as the Chatham Islands.

This bill is a local solution to meet the growing infrastructure needs of Stewart Island / Rakiura, and I have acknowledged the local member whom I share Rakiura with, Eric Roy, for being in charge of this bill. As I mentioned, the bill has been substantially redrafted. Just looking through the pages, practically the whole bill from its first reading has been overhauled to how it appears now, in its amended form. It has been for the better. If I just go through a few of the clauses, I particularly note clause 3, the purpose clause, which has been very much refined in terms of the purpose of the bill. It says that “The purpose of the Act is to provide a mechanism for the Council to set and collect levies and obtain revenue from passengers travelling to Stewart Island/Rakiura,”. It is fine tuned and very much hones in on the purpose of the bill, when it becomes an Act.

Also, regarding the definition of “visitor”, there has been a lot of thought that has gone into the drafting of this definition. It covers only visitors who are those persons who travel to or from the island, whether for a single day or for any continuous period less than 21 days by any transport vessel. But there are a number of exclusions to the definition of “visitor”: ratepayers, residents, dependants of ratepayers, and beneficiaries of the Rakiura Māori Land Trust. I would like to acknowledge the addition of the exclusion of the traditional landowners, the Māori landowners of the Rakiura Māori Land Trust, which is the second-biggest landowner on Rakiura. It is also well drafted to exclude the persons involved in carriage and transportation and long-term visitors, of course. A good addition has been the omission of children, those under 18, from the definition of visitor.

All of those positive changes and really productive and very good drafting that have gone on as a result of all of the select committee’s review and amendments are to be commended, and I look forward to speaking again when it gets to the Committee stage of the bill. Kia ora tātou.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I advise the member that under Speaker’s ruling 25/2 you must call. I cannot anticipate what you are going to say.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. The Green Party supported this bill at its first reading and we will support it at the second reading. As the member for Invercargill and other members have noted, the bill will provide the Southland District Council with the legal basis to both receive and spend the revenue that it gains from a levy on visitors. I understand that the bill has been needed because of case law that the district council’s powers under the Local Government Act are not unfettered and that if the Southland District Council passed a by-law to levy visitors without this bill, such a by-law would risk being ultra vires if the levy was considered to be a tax.

Rakiura / Stewart Island is our southernmost permanent settlement and the land of glowing skies. Those dramatic sunrises and sunsets and the natural wonders of Rakiura, including knee-deep mud on some of its tramping tracks, may attract visitors, but, as we know, the rates revenue generated by its 400-odd residents is very small. The Southland District Council has a population of about 28,000 people, but its annual rates income in its 2010-11 budget was around $34 million. So as the district council, the Stewart Island Community Board, and a number of individual residents have made clear in their submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee, the island community lacks the ability to fund both the infrastructure and the capital development projects that they believe are necessary to service the increasing number of visitors to the island since the national park was established in 2002, and from the increasing number of cruise ships. As both the council and the community board have noted, the roading maintenance and construction costs on the island are significantly higher than on the mainland, because of shipping costs.

When I checked the Department of Conservation’s visitor numbers going through the visitors centre, they had increased from 45,000 to 62,000 immediately after the national park was created, and then settled to around 56,000 in 2005-06. So although these numbers are significantly less than those visiting some of our longer-established national parks, they are significant on the island. The Southland District Council has described the situation as being akin to sharing a house with three people but every weekend having to host 300 visitors with no way of recovering the infrastructure costs associated with their stay. Some of the projects needing investment include maintenance and replacement of the jetty at Ulva Island, potentially replacing the diesel generators that provide power with alternative energy sources such as wind and solar, more toilets at road ends, and maintenance of the walking tracks outside the national park.

Although we are very pleased that a local solution has been developed here, and as the member for Invercargill noted, the bill’s commentary does provide that it should not be taken as a precedent for other local authorities, I can certainly see other councils, such as those on the West Coast—Westland District Council, Buller District Council, and Grey District Council, which also have very high visitor numbers and a low rating base—wanting a similar model there. That is where I think the bill highlights a much wider national issue: the limited ability of councils with a small rating base to fund the infrastructure and amenities that are needed to ensure that visitors enjoy the experience and that we also sustain the qualities of the natural environment and natural assets that attracted people here in the first place.

As other members have noted, these tourism taxes are used quite widely overseas. They take the form of entry fees, hotel bed taxes, or sometimes vehicle charges. Some of the Canadian states have a hotel room tax, and in France visitors have to pay a flat-rate tourism tax. But when councils in New Zealand have attempted it, such as Westland District Council, which from memory experimented with a tourism tax based on the number of toilet pans, there has been strong resistance to that. So I think we need to provide some more thought on some new tools and a consistent approach around New Zealand to how local authorities can ensure that visitors contribute to funding the facilities and infrastructure that they benefit from. One suggestion in the past has been that there be a tourism levy on all visitors, and that that provide a contestable fund that local authorities could apply to.

I would like to acknowledge the work that the Local Government and Environment Committee did in the 49th Parliament and the quite substantial changes that it made to the bill, as the member for Te Tai Tonga has noted. Those included how visitors were defined, and I was very pleased to see that visitors who spend all of their time within Rakiura National Park are defined as excluded visitors so that they are not subject to the levy. This is particularly important because, of course, our conservation legislation safeguards free access to national parks and protected lands.

I think we need to acknowledge the enormous contribution that the Department of Conservation makes to both managing the national parks and providing quite substantial infrastructure for visitors in the form of walking tracks, campsites, roadside picnic areas, short walking tracks, and, of course, tramping tracks and huts. On Stewart Island we have got the 29-kilometre Rakiura tramping track and the 120-kilometre north-west circuit.

The Department of Conservation operates on an annual budget equivalent to the Hamilton City Council, yet it has responsibility for a third of New Zealand and an extensive marine area. The tactics being adopted by this Government, of slashing the department’s budget by $54 million annually and of restructuring so that 104-odd staff positions were lost, are the wrong ones. We need to ensure that the department that manages the infrastructure for tourism in terms of those natural assets is properly funded, because, of course, 86 percent of Rakiura / Stewart Island is conservation land, and the wonders of the Rakiura National Park and the opportunities it provides for tramping, hunting, fishing, and walking along wild coasts are what draw the visitors. Just as this bill is intended to help the Southland District Council adequately fund the jetty at Ulva Island, improved energy generation, and other infrastructure to benefit both international and domestic visitors, we need to adequately invest in funding the Department of Conservation so it can sustain those natural assets. Anyone who has visited Ulva Island and watched kākā tearing the bark off trees knows what a special experience that is. So although we support this bill, we would also like to see increased funding for the department that protects those natural assets. Thank you.

I have listened to the speeches that have been given on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill with considerable interest and I would like to compliment the previous speaker, Eugenie Sage, and the member for Te Tai Tonga on the careful observations they have made without actually going through the select committee process, because you are smack on the button. It was a very prolonged process for this particular bill—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: But very well chaired, I’m told.

Well, I would not know about that. You know, take what you can and when you get it, I guess, Mr Mallard; thank you. I guess I would take a measure of responsibility for the time that has been taken over the bill because I think I was probably one of the most concerned people of all on the Local Government and Environment Committee with regard to setting precedents. I was very, very concerned about that. It is nice to hear that people recognise that Stewart Island is, people have said, unique and a little bit different. I think the important thing that needs to be remembered about this, though, is that this is not a complete answer for what I term the Kaikōura syndrome, of a very small rate base with large demands for infrastructure. This is designed entirely to help them with the infrastructure that services tourism. When I felt this was coming our way, my wife and I went down in the winter and visited Stewart Island. A great little aeroplane took us across, and the pilot said: “If you get scared just be like me. Shut your eyes before you land.” It was a wonderful experience, and I did indeed go to Ulva Island and I saw 11 species of birds that I have not seen in my usual residence at Lake Brunner, so it was good and I enjoyed the whole thing.

But I rise to support the bill, and enthusiastically so, and we did have a large throughput of people on this committee who have all had experience with this particular bill. I think we had 18, which is exceptional. But we did have a pretty good collegiate structure, and I would particularly like to thank the people who led for Labour and for the Greens—in fact, every party made a good contribution. I would like to thank too my deputy chair for that period, Nicky Wagner. We all got really involved in this. We felt it was a deserving bill, and we wanted to do it properly. It stretches back to 1994.

A speech would not be complete without recognising the efforts of the local member, Eric Roy. Goodness me, he really has worked on this—

💬 Hon Annette King: A very good member.

A very good member. I would agree with you there, from the other side of the House. Exceptionally good. There you are, Mr Roy, I have said it three times, so you need not expect it to be said much more in the speech. But I would like to acknowledge also the work of the Department of Internal Affairs and the Southland District Council, because we largely identified potential problems and referred them to the department and referred them to the council, and on some occasions we asked that they work together without it being through the committee so that they could get their definitions right, and definitions were one of the major concerns that we had. You would wonder, looking at it—16 submissions; only one against—why did it take so long? But it was this matter of defining exactly what was required.

The purpose of the bill, just to go through it—it has actually been well gone into already—I think it is a noble purpose. Once passed, the bill will be of great benefit to the people of Stewart Island, or to the council, as long, again, as people do not think: “Oh, well, that is that—fixed.” It ain’t going to be a lot of money for an infrastructure of that sort. Let us remember, if you want to go out at night, you take a torch, because the street lights are not there. You are stepping back in history. I was reminded very much of my time in Hokianga, when I went down to Stewart Island.

So there are things, I think, that need to be carefully considered before people think it is a catch-all, but it will improve both the opportunities for tourism on the island and reduce the pressure that tourism currently places on the island’s infrastructure. I have heard an awful lot of figures for the number of people who actually live there. I refer again to the member for the district. Is it 429?

💬 Eric Roy: Roughly.

How can it be “roughly”? OK—429, approximately. [Interruption] OK, thank you. Nineteen cruise ships go there over an annual basis, and that is an awful lot of people. When it came to the committee, as I say, this was a bill with a good purpose, and I think we have significantly improved the wording of the bill and the way the visitor levy will be administered. Again, I would like to acknowledge the work of the officials, because they came up with some excellent reasoning, some really good consideration, and some good solutions. We have, in fact, been quite ruthless with the original text. I am not sure that we have had another bill go through the committee that has been quite so exercised in surgery. But we have now a bill that better reflects the original intent.

I would like to just touch on some of the changes that we made and describe why we thought they were necessary. One of the most significant changes to the purpose clause was to change from a charge being levied on travellers “to, or from,” Stewart Island, which was a fairly simplistic approach initially, to a charge levied only on those travelling “to” the island. We believe that this better reflects the intent of the bill—that the levy be charged only on visitors to the island, rather than on any person travelling between Stewart Island and the South Island. In addition, we expanded the purpose to set out exactly why the bill is required, by adding the phrase “in order to better provide services, facilities, and amenities for those persons while they are on the Island.” In other words, they should be able to see what they get. It is a bit like paying your parking fee for your boat trailer at Lake Brunner—try parking somewhere else where you do not have to pay; it is going to be very awkward. So there are benefits attached to it, and we hope that benefits will pertain to this, as well, and that people will see the benefits.

The changes to interpretations of various terms are fairly standard, in line with other changes to the bill. I would like to point out, though, that we have much more clearly defined what a “visitor” is for the purposes of this bill. I would commend anyone to have a look at the empowering bill papers just to see how carefully crafted the “visitor” definition is. Rather than including every traveller to and from the island and leaving it to the council to define exceptions—which was, I think, one of the council’s initial requests—we thought that was heading for trouble, so the bill now clearly defines a “visitor” as someone who is not a ratepayer, not a resident, and not staying for longer than 21 days, amongst other provisions. We felt it was important to make these definitions clear in the bill to ensure the intentions of Parliament in passing this bill will be clearly reflected in its outcomes.

As with other changes, clause 5 brings the wording of the bill more clearly into line with its overall purpose and clarifies the rights and responsibilities of the Southland District Council. A notable change is the obligation on the council to erect and maintain signs advising visitors of their obligations, the rate of the levy, how it is to be paid, and the offence for a breach of a by-law.

A number of speakers have commented on the careful drafting of this bill, and I too would like to commend those who drafted it, because it is not one that leaves too many loopholes or misunderstandings. I think it is about as thoroughly done as it could be done, and that is why I have confidence that it will apply to Stewart Island quite adequately and quite appropriately, and I am not sure I agree with those who say that this could be transferred to other islands or to other communities, because—

💬 Hon Annette King: Well, what about the Chathams?

Well, I would not deny the Chathams, but I think they have a different problem.

💬 Hon David Carter: Yeah, they’re represented by the member.

I am sure their representation is not a problem, Mr Carter. Indeed, we heard my colleague Mr Finlayson just saying how good the representation is.

💬 Hon Annette King: That’s right.

He did. He did, and I would not argue with him.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Kissing cousins.

Yes, that is right. I would not argue with him, but, no, I am afraid I do not see a direct analogy between Stewart Island and other islands or the West Coast, which I am very, very dearly married to. But this is purely for Stewart Island and it will work. Stewart Island is a beautiful place and well worth visiting. For the fewer than 430 people who live there, however, it is their home. For too long those ratepayers have been effectively subsidising the services enjoyed by those of us who visit, and we owe it to them to support this bill. Thank you.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill, and I am very proud to be doing so, particularly as the name Stewart is part of my family’s heritage. As some of you who were here in the Chamber and heard my maiden speech 2 weeks ago will recall, my mother’s maiden name is Stewart. The Stewarts were from Wyndham in Southland, so in a sense this is almost like bringing the money home to the family. I am sure part of the Scottish heritage would love to be getting part of the levy that is being paid.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Might be related.

I am sure I am related. I am sure there is a plot of land somewhere there on Stewart Island that our family has, and I will certainly be going there one day to look up that plot of land.

However, I would like to congratulate the member of Parliament from Invercargill, Eric Roy, on bringing this bill through the House and through the select committee process. He is to be congratulated. This has been a long time in the coming. And before the honourable member Chris Auchinvole leaves, I say also to you, Chris, as chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, well done on following this through, and it is a great achievement.

Can I also particularly congratulate parties on the cross-party agreement on this. I think all of the parties have worked very well to bring this through, and it has been very much a non-political, cross-party agreement. New Zealand First, as most of you know, was not in Parliament in the last 3 years, in case you had not noticed. We are back and I am one of the members who can safely say that we would have certainly been supporting this bill had we been on the select committee at the time.

Can I also congratulate the Stewart Island Community Board and also the Southland District Council. This is a great achievement on their part, and it is a milestone in local government. We have heard recently from the Government benches how the Government would like to see reviews in local government. It says that local government is charging too much for rates and charging too much for its services.

Here is a classic example of a local authority—the Southland District Council and its local community board, the Stewart Island Community Board—standing up for themselves and saying: “We cannot put this all on the ratepayers. We cannot charge this all to the ratepayers.” The ratepayers, when there are only something like 400 residents, cannot afford to provide all this infrastructure. And well done to them for standing up on behalf of local government and saying: “We need to find some other means of charging for this infrastructure growth.”

In 2007-08 there were something like 32,000 visitors to Stewart Island and by 2010 that had risen to 40,000 people per year, including those 19 cruise ships this season. That is quite a large growth when you have only 400 local residents. This is a huge drain on them.

I am informed that, for instance, at least half of the people on a daily basis who are in Oban and around that area are simply pedestrians and tourists walking around the area. In many respects they have very limited footpaths, and most of the people end up walking on the roads themselves because of the lack of footpaths. They have a lack of public toilets, the sewerage system is inadequate, the walking tracks and the jetties need upgrades to sustain the number of people visiting the island, and, quite frankly, it is a difficult situation when you are in that predicament of so few people trying to cover such a great cost.

And this is very important for New Zealand’s tourism. Stewart Island is one of the jewels in the crown of this great country, New Zealand Aotearoa, and it is wonderful that we are looking to Stewart Island as one of our future significant tourist places. The national park there, which was founded in 2000 and opened in 2002 with 157,000 hectares, the Rakiura National Park, covers about 85 percent of Stewart Island / Rakiura. Again, that is an amazing place when such a large percentage of the landmass of Stewart Island is covered by national park. Having a national park like that, of course, brings added pressures to a small community the likes of Oban and the likes of Stewart Island.

It is only an hour by ferry and 15 minutes by air to get to Stewart Island. It is so close and yet it is really one of our remote jewels of the New Zealand tourist trail. They have only 12.8 kilometres of sealed roads on Stewart Island and 8.3 kilometres of narrow gravel roads, so there is not a lot of roading infrastructure, and there is no reticulated public water supply. Again, these funds will assist them in the future to provide for some of those infrastructure assets.

There are only 250 occupied dwellings on Stewart Island, and, as a result, the people there—I think for many, many years, quite rightly, and this goes right back to the 1970s—have been asking for this support. I think it is incredible that it has taken this long. We have heard that it has gone through many, many members of Parliament over the years, it has gone through a number of councils, and it has gone through many, many processes.

It is a little bit of a tragedy and perhaps something we need to reflect on that here there has been a community, a very small community in New Zealand, that has been struggling and has put out its hand for assistance, and, quite frankly, we the lawmakers and we the Parliament perhaps have ignored this for too long. I hope this is not mirrored in other communities in New Zealand. I certainly would like to think that other communities who are under stress, who are having difficulties with providing for their communities, having seen this example might look to the same situation to get relief in their situation.

This does get back to the comment I made at the beginning of my speech about local government. I honestly do believe, as a former mayor of the fourth-biggest city in this country, that this National Government, and, indeed, other Governments in the past, have often underestimated what local government does provide in the way of infrastructure in this country. They underestimate what the local councils, the district councils, and the regional councils do provide in this country, and it is very, very important.

It reflects on the likes of our tourism. You have to remember that our tourists do not come just to Auckland. They do not come just to Wellington. They do not come just to Christchurch. They go all over New Zealand, and many, many, many hundreds of thousands of our tourists go to very, very small communities in our country, and they require public toilets, they require walking tracks, they require parks, and they require the infrastructure that is needed for them to have an enjoyable stay in this country. I certainly hope that this is respected by this Government, to reflect on the fact that local government provides much of this infrastructure, and much of that does fall back on the individual ratepayers and the ratepayers who are funding those councils to provide that infrastructure.

Can I also say in closing that I am very pleased that this was the result of very good community consultation. I note that in 2009 there were something like 129 respondents to the 485 flyers that were distributed on Stewart Island, and of the 129 who replied, 119 were in support of this levy. So it has very strong local support. It also means, as a result of this levy, that instead of the ratepayers having an increase in their rates of something like $353 per year to try to cover the $160,000 that they estimate would be generated on an annual basis from this levy, the levy will assist them by providing that $160,000-plus towards those necessary footpaths, tracks, public toilets, water infrastructure, and other things.

So in closing, New Zealand First is very supportive of this. This is an initiative of the local community, and New Zealand First always favours local initiatives. If a local community deems something to be appropriate and fit, and when you have resounding support from the local community, we certainly believe it is very, very appropriate. We very, very strongly support this and we commend this to the House.

I rise to support, as does virtually everybody else in this House, the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. Of course, it is a local bill, brought to us by my colleague the very honourable MP for Invercargill, Eric Roy. The bill is designed to address an issue specific to Stewart Island / Rakiura. It is the problem of how 400 permanent residents can provide the infrastructure needed to welcome and to look after about 40,000 visitors per year to the island.

Of course, Stewart Island is very famous for its tourism. It has beautiful bush, fabulous beaches, fishing, and a unique natural environment. It is particularly well known for its iconic birds such as the kiwi and the kākāpō. I believe that, in fact, Stewart Island is the place you are most likely to see a kiwi in the wild. Eighty-five percent of the island is the magnificent Rakiura National Park. But to attract and entertain the tourists who visit the island, the community needs to create and maintain visitor walking tracks and tourist roads, and, most important, to provide public toilets for their guests. All these projects are capital-intensive and have ongoing maintenance costs. All these projects are difficult to fund from a small number of ratepayers. The member Eric Roy and the island community have been working on these issues and looking for solutions for many years, and have finally decided that a levy is the best way to fund these costs. This bill provides the mechanism to do just that.

Because the island can be accessed only by air or by sea, the bill allows the Southland District Council on behalf of the Stewart Island / Rakiura community to collect levies from visitors directly via an approved operator. Approved operators are the people who operate the airline or the ferry companies, or maybe cruise liner operators. The bill also provides mechanisms to set and review the amount of the levy, and to establish a subcommittee of stakeholders to administer that levy. Their first job will be to establish the price of the levy, and then to make sure that that money is spent wisely for visitors.

Eric Roy’s consultation with the community and with the Southland District Council was extensive. So this bill was well-thought-out before it came to the House. However, the Local Government and Environment Committee spent some time considering a series of issues. The first was the definitions of “visitor” and “excluded visitor”, because who should pay the levy is fundamental to the success of the bill. The final definition of a visitor agreed by the committee, after we had taken considerable advice, was that a visitor was one who travels to the island but is not a resident or a ratepayer, or a dependant of a resident or a ratepayer, or anyone who has an ownership interest in the island. An excluded visitor includes those who are under 18 or those who travel to the island as part of their job; also, anyone who stayed any longer than 21 days or remained entirely within the boundaries of the Rakiura National Park. We also introduced a clause that ensures that the levy money is only used for funding activities that benefit visitors, or to mitigate the effects of visitors on the island environment. That seemed pretty fair to us. Finally, we recommended that any offences—in other words, people who did not pay their levy—were infringement offences. We wanted to do that in order to streamline the process and to make it more cost-effective for the council. New clause 25 requires that the infringement fee be no less than $150 and cannot exceed $500.

Stewart Island, or Rakiura if you prefer, is a beautiful place, and it is a wonderful place to visit. I have visited Oban and further afield, and I thoroughly recommend it to anybody who enjoys a natural environment, a unique place and a very special place to visit. I support this bill as an intelligent solution to a problem of a very small population struggling to provide the infrastructure for over 400,000 tourists, and the funds to mitigate the wear and tear of those visitors on their island environment. I commend the bill to the House.

I would just like to acknowledge a couple of people. One is my colleague Annette King, who passed over her opportunity to speak on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. As a former Minister of Tourism I have some views on this, and I would like to express them. I would like to acknowledge also, actually, the similarities, despite what we have heard from some of the speakers, of places like the Chatham Islands, places like the West Coast, places like Kaikōura, and places like Westland itself. In fact, of the whole region of the West Coast, 85 percent of that area is in conservation land—exactly the same percentage as that on Stewart Island. So the dilemma for the people of Stewart Island—and I acknowledge my colleague Eric Roy, what he is doing for them—is something that I think the country as a whole is facing. The Chatham Islands certainly do, Westland, the West Coast, Akaroa—there are a number of places around the country wanting to be destinations for tourists, and wanting to show off with pride what they have to people who have come from around the world, but struggling to literally pay for that.

I thought we could call the bill the “National Party (Wake Up) Bill”, because what is happening here is that a tax is being brought in and put in place—or, the ability to do that. For a party that has always maintained that less tax is good, less tax is better for everyone, and if we pay too much tax we will be ruined, it may have learnt something from Greece, perhaps, because if you do not pay any tax, that is where you end up. This bill brings in one more levy—or a tax, or call it what you like—a charge on visitors to Rakiura, which is necessary to protect the environment and enhance the visitor experience. Well, the dilemma of how you pay for adequate facilities, as I say, is faced by many councils up and down the country. In fact, I am not sure what the Minister of Local Government, Nick Smith, will say about this—a council imposing a greater rate or tax. I imagine he might be jumping up and down in his usual manic state trying to say that rates are all bad and we have got to get them down.

The reality is that we need taxes and we need rates spent wisely to maintain infrastructure, to maintain the communities, and to provide opportunities for industry and tourism. This is one such levy, and Labour supports it. But we have got some fairly ad hoc arrangements. This adds to the smorgasbord of opportunities around the country. There are a couple of airports—I dare not name them, because if the tourism industry was to be true to its word, because it campaigned against a proposal that I myself put up, if it is true that any additional charge will keep people away from our country, then there is a risk that this might stop people going to Rakiura. I doubt it. I confess, I have not gone to Stewart Island. I would love to go. This is not going to reduce my desire to go to that wonderful place. Neither will a charge imposed on visitors to this country reduce their desire to come here. The important thing is that any levy, or any rate, or any tax we gather is spent wisely for the purposes for which it was laid down.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: The tourism spokesperson and he’s never been to Stewart Island!

I have to say that I think the Local Government and Environment Committee has done a good job to tidy that up and make sure that it is spent for the right reasons. The member over there should listen, he would learn a lot more. It is never too late to learn. Can I ask the Government whether it will consider a visitor levy on everyone coming in to provide a fund so that all the other councils in the country that are strapped for cash can apply for a fund that provides toilets and basic signage.

I would just like to take the opportunity now to offer my condolences and apologies to the tourist who came to this country and, unfortunately, turned the wrong way on to a roundabout and lost his wife as a result. That was a tragic accident, but our police, for whatever idiotic reason, decided to prosecute that poor guy. Anyway, he was let off. The point being that I am guessing the signage that we have around this country was not adequate enough to show that person where he should and should not turn. The point being that we need proper infrastructure to properly protect and look after the tourists that come to this country. That was a tragic accident. We need to make sure there are proper safety requirements, that there are proper infrastructure requirements and environmental protection on Rakiura, the West Coast, Northland, Akaroa, Banks Peninsula, and right around this country if we are to uphold the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. It is a valuable brand. This levy will assist in upholding that brand down in that wonderful Stewart Island / Rakiura.

But the question for the Government is: is it going to do anything else to try to protect the rest of the conservation estate, because what it has done is chop the Department of Conservation budget? It has chopped the budget and it has allowed the Southland District Council to bring in a levy that will effectively do the same or replace the money that they will not have on the island to manage the environment. It is a bit of a merry-go-round, really, and I have to say that the Government has got to be a bit more consistent.

I appreciate that Eric Roy has brought the bill to the House. We support it. We support it because it is a smart and a very good bill, but the principles behind this apply to the whole country. So what are we going to say to the Chatham Islands residents—the few over there who are trying to generate a bit more tourism, who have incredible natural resources but have huge costs? What are we going to say to them when they ask us “Can you place a levy on either the goods or the services or the visitors coming to our island so we can better protect what we have?” Well, I suggest that we would have to say yes, too. I personally do not have a problem with that. Or what about those on the West Coast who say: “Eighty-five percent of our land is locked up in the conservation estate, there is a small amount of rateable land, we have to maintain the roads and all the infrastructure. Can we have a levy?” And the Government and its agencies have said no. They have said that of all the $500 million worth of coal coming from one mine above Westport—$500 million in export earnings—not a cent goes, as of right, back to the councils on the West Coast.

So we have got some inconsistency right through New Zealand, and all I ask, in Labour supporting the bill, is that we get from the National Government a bit more consistency around protection of the environment, funding for conservation, support for infrastructure, and the key issue of taxation. We do not believe, and most of New Zealand does not believe, the blind rhetoric that comes from the National members that reducing your taxes will make us all better off. Well, they chopped $14 billion worth of taxes for the wealthy, and then told us we could not afford a whole lot of stuff in health and education. And we are supposed to feel better off? Wake up, National—wake up. We support this bill, but let us have some more consistency from the National Government—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Well, sit down and let’s get on with it.

—particularly from that member, who has been in so many different places philosophically and physically that he does not quite know where he is at the moment. In supporting this bill, can I just say that Labour would like to see more consistency, and I am sure my colleague the Hon Annette King would like to see some consideration for the Chatham Islands, which they rightfully deserve.

It is difficult, is it not, when a member gets up and contends that the principles that we are discussing in this bill, the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill, should apply to the whole country? It makes me think about the communities in my electorate.

I can think immediately of the constraints that the local authorities have in the Mackenzie Country. It would love to be a major tourism destination—and, in fact, is—but the authorities would like to provide more services. So there is the Mackenzie District Council and then there is the Waimate District Council, which also would like to provide amenities for visitors. Again, it is a small local authority with a small rating base and a large number of visitors. Then there is the Waitaki District Council, which also has a small rating base. It has a large amount of coastline, it goes up the Waitaki Valley, and there are all the attractions up there. It too is struggling to provide facilities.

But we are not the Government that gives out willy-nilly, because we understand on this side of the House that we actually have a few economic constraints that we need to take account of. The big difference with Rakiura is the fact that you have to get there by water or air, depending on the day, and that there is a population of something like 460. It swells over the tourism season, thank goodness for them, because they do get a benefit from that. But this is a special case. They have argued that it is a special case. Parliament agrees that it is a special case, and that is why Parliament is now considering the implications of a visitor levy.

I have to congratulate the former select committee on the care that it has taken over this issue in defining what a “visitor” is: it is somebody who goes to the island and not from the island, it is not to be somebody who works on the island, and it is not to be people who live on the island. That is all very carefully crafted. So I think the detail in the bill is good and the principle is good. Stewart Island, since—what—1994, has been looking for this solution to fund its infrastructure, and it is quite good that its member, Eric Roy, is here in the House to champion its cause, as he has done the whole time.

But I just want to come back to the point that the previous member, the Hon Damien O’Connor, made. He never actually has been to Stewart Island, so it is interesting that he can speak so strongly, never actually having been there. He said that those principles should apply to the whole country, but actually, no, they should not. We need to have a look at Stewart Island on its own, and have a look at this case on its merits by way of a local bill. That is what we do in this Parliament, and I am very pleased that we have the ability to do that in this Parliament.

If other communities wish to do that they also can explore the vehicle of using a local bill to promote their own causes, but I do not agree with—and I do not think we should go down this road—having a look at the principle of this applying to other communities. Simply, where do you draw the line? I do not believe you can, whereas with Rakiura I think in this instance they have argued their case, it has been considered by Parliament, and this will go through the Committee process. I congratulate the Local Government and Environment Committee on a job well done, and I commend the bill to the House.

I want to make just a very brief speech on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill to congratulate the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee and say that, unlike our former Minister of Tourism, I have been lucky enough to go to Stewart Island, I think three or four times. The second time was a rather unfortunate visit, before the 1999 election, with a meeting at the school during the morning tea break, which got slightly extended. I made myself very helpful. There it costs $100 to get the photocopier over to Invercargill to get it repaired. I agreed to take it as part of my baggage, but just as we were putting it together, a kid fell off the jungle gym—compound fracture of the arm, awful stuff sticking out. When you are over there, there is no doctor, of course; they have got to ring over and get the local nurse to do the morphine injection. So I took both a kid and a photocopier back to Invercargill on the plane with me. So not all my memories of Stewart Island are good. The two subsequent—

💬 Jacqui Dean: What a guy!

Actually, I felt somewhat guilty.

💬 Jacqui Dean: What a guy!

Well, no. The play break had been extended, and the kid fell off the jungle gym during the extension, so I felt guilty—that might be the right way of putting it. But it is a—[Interruption] Hallelujah to you too, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just narrow the debate.

You look more like Graeme Lee every day.

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

💬 Hon David Carter: Apologise.

I do apologise; that is a most inappropriate thing to say to you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I did not take any offence.

It is a well-drafted bill. It is clearly a useful precedent, at least for the Chatham Islands, and I think we should get on with it.

I am pleased to take a short call on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. I also have had one trip to Rakiura, which, of course, was once called the South Island; the larger land mass to the north was the Middle Island. It was a memorable visit. The arrival was memorable. It was a very lumpy journey on Foveaux Strait, and I arrived there feeling quite green—but not in a political sense—to the extent that I chose to fly back to the South Island after the journey. It is a remarkable place—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You felt like we feel sometimes—green.

Indeed, yes. You are getting there, Trev.

As Stewart Island / Rakiura is unique, this bill is unique. It is interesting, of course, that it takes an Act of Parliament in order to impose a quite modest levy. Of course, the structure of the bill allows for that levy to be amended appropriately over time, and that is as it should be. A number of speakers have identified the fact that the situation is not unique, however. There are other remote parts of this country that are equally underfunded in terms of requiring significant visitor loads, but there is not a great deal of money there to create infrastructure to support them. That is a point I would like to return to briefly.

I am pleased that this bill is well endowed with caveats to make it very clear that this is not to be deemed a precedent, because I think we do have to acknowledge that levies are problematic and that we need to be fairly light-handed in the way in which we use them. I think that this bill achieves that fairly well. The language of the bill, as other speakers have commented also, is clearly well-thought-out.

The Local Government and Environment Committee has done its job. The definitions around visitors make sure that you do not get regular commuters or locals into the net; it would be entirely counter-productive to start clipping the ticket of people who live on, and commute routinely and often to, the island. Again, it is clearly a job well done by the select committee, and again we are very happy to support the bill’s progress through this House.

As I said, levies, however, are problematic. I would just like to reflect momentarily, if I may. All of us, I dare say, have had the experience, for example, of flying out of some of our provincial airports here in New Zealand. Typically one is welcomed with open arms into the airport, then you discover you must pay a fee to leave, and that has annoyed people on occasion. But again, it is an apparently legitimate means of funding infrastructure that otherwise local provinces would struggle to fund.

In a sense, Rakiura is New Zealand in microcosm. We consider Rakiura a remote place. The Hokianga, parts of the West Coast—these, to us, are remote. To the rest of the world, actually, New Zealand is quite remote. And I know, for example, the Tourism Industry Association is concerned, as it rightfully should be, about the likelihood of parts of Europe and the UK, for example, imposing levies, effectively, on people departing for long-haul flights to destinations like New Zealand. That is a problem for us, and clearly it is one that we have to think seriously about and do wonder at the appropriateness of levies.

Having said that, I think we do need to look at the funding of our extraordinarily valuable conservation estate, of our environment generally. Again, like most of us, we will have travelled internationally. I think my first experience in fact was in Tasmania when I entered a national park, and in order to do that I had to pay a fee as we entered the park. That was a surprise to me, but I felt no resentment; it was a stunningly beautiful place. Again, it was quite remote, and I think that is something that we do need to give some thought to in New Zealand. This is not Green Party policy; I am simply reflecting here about the appropriateness of levies to fund the Department of Conservation and environmental protection in New Zealand.

Clearly, the issue is simple enough to conceptualise. We know from some economic research that there is a willingness amongst people to pay to enter some of our conservation estate. But how does one collect? Where does one clip the ticket? There are practical transactional issues, to generalise, if you like, around the practice of this bill of applying levies in order to protect the qualities that people are going to a place to enjoy.

So with those few thoughts—and, as I say, it is not Green policy—I do think there is a conversation to be had about applying levies more generally. Thank you.

I am pleased to speak as the final speaker on this second reading. I was a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill brought before us by Eric Roy. It was interesting that on first look it looked relatively simple, but there were some issues that did require further examination, so I acknowledge the very patient and persistent Eric Roy for bringing this back on several occasions to make sure that we were all happy with the end result. I am pleased to commend this bill in the second reading.

Bill read a second time.