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 third time. Can I say at the outset that I wish to acknowledge my thanks to the House for allowing us to move directly to the third reading. It certainly was a prudent thing to do given the time this bill spent in the Local Government and Environment Committee and the fact that it received unanimous support at its second reading.

But before I speak about the bill, I should acknowledge an event of some tragedy that has overtaken the communities of Bluff, Rakiura / Stewart Island, and Invercargill: the sinking of the Easy Rider. This is the first opportunity I have had, and I inform the House that tomorrow there will be a large funeral for the four people whose bodies have been recovered. It will be held at Rugby Park Stadium in Southland and I will be attending. I am sure the House would wish me to convey to all the friends and families of the people who lost their lives our very best wishes. We understand their grief, we feel some of their pain, and our prayers and thoughts are actually with them. I think we would also want those families who do not have their loved ones back to know that we are thinking of them. I think perhaps at this time we should also acknowledge Dallas Reedy, the survivor. In the annals of human survival, 18 hours in Foveaux Strait is a feat that is rarely matched anywhere in the history of humankind. We just wish Dallas well as he adjusts to actually surviving, and losing his mates, and finding a purpose for his life from this point on. So I think the House should do that, and I will certainly take the good wishes and our thoughts to the families and friends tomorrow.

This bill has certainly had an interesting passage and it is great to get to the third reading. I think at earlier stages in the process of this bill I said that I first became aware of the problem in 1994 when I was the member for Awarua. The pressures that visitors created for the small community of Stewart Island was a significant issue. For a number of years we had tried to put in place a voluntary scheme; for various reasons that was not able to be achieved. A bill was drafted. It was sent back for further consultation, I think twice, before we were able to table it and meet all the expectations and criteria set out in the Standing Orders. The bill then received two extensions in the select committee, as we worked through some issues, which perturbed the then Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide, and probably perturbed his officials even more. But we have come through that, and I feel a little bit like uttering the comment that Edmund Hillary related to John Hunt, after he had achieved a milestone on Everest. However, I do know that that is probably unparliamentary.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I think so!

I think that comment will be used more than once in the South Sea Hotel in Oban after today, when I expect that the House will again generously support this Stewart Island visitor levy bill.

Can I also at this stage thank those members of the select committee. During the course of this process I note that 18 people have been on the select committee and every single one contributed to trying to find solutions to those issues that needed some resolution. I think sometimes members’ bills and local bills are when Parliament is seen at its finest. There are no political divides. People genuinely try to find solutions, and at the end of it there are small communities or individuals, quite frequently, for whom we do make a difference.

Stewart Island is one of those communities that, as I said, has been under a significant amount of pressure. As we have gone through the process here, members have extolled the uniqueness and the beauty of Stewart Island. I think it is appropriate at this third reading that I also amplify a little bit about the pressures of living on Stewart Island, in the way that their cost structure is just so much higher than certainly all mainland communities, and probably higher than many of the island communities around New Zealand, as well. Of course there is the transport component in every single thing that happens across one of the wildest stretches of water in the world, which we have just referenced a little bit earlier. Even things like construction have a very high cost. There is no really good quality aggregate on the island for building roads or making concrete. So every single thing that is used on the island, virtually, has to be transported on to it.

And add to that the difficulties of, for example, power generation where currently the residents and consumers on Stewart Island are paying 58c a unit for power generation. The last time I was on Stewart Island was about 4 weeks ago at a symposium that was looking at the various options from running a cable across to Stewart Island to hydroelectric, to wind, to wave, to current—just about every alternative that one could imagine was analysed, and some direction was able to be found going forward.

On top of that, because of the high costs, the very nature of the community of Stewart Island has changed. I did say at the outset that it is a community that has been under some pressure. We have seen, for example, the fishing industry, which was one of the bigger parts of the island in recent years, shift itself to Bluff for perhaps two reasons. The first is the cost of processing on the island. The second is that for reasons of sustainability some of the quota management areas have been subdivided. For example, in the pāua fishery it was very easy to spend one’s time in and around Stewart Island and deplete the areas immediately adjacent. So that has been separated out, and we have a more spread harvest, which has taken some of the activity away from Stewart Island.

Currently, I guess, the two significant industries on Stewart Island are aquaculture, where there is a large mussel production base, some salmon production, and, more recently, farmed oysters as well. But the big earner and the big change in Stewart Island has been catering to tourists, and, especially since the Rakiura National Park was established, this has gained some momentum. I think in an earlier speech I talked about cruise ships. It was a rare thing a decade ago to see a cruise ship arrive at Stewart Island. Last year in total there were 13 that visited the island. This year, so far, I think the number is 19 different cruise ships that have come.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What do the islanders think of the pink shirt?

The islanders are people of impeccable taste and they love their MP. Can I just say to any member who has any doubt whatsoever that if they are on Stewart Island, hospitality will be afforded to any member of this House who goes and says: “I supported Eric’s levy bill.” And treats such as kina roe, blue cod, and all those delicacies, which I have not yet spoken of, will be available to any member who uses that secret password on Stewart Island.

It is just great that we have solved a bit of an issue. One of the last points of concern I would like to make has been that this bill might set some sort of precedent. I guess in answer to that, the House does set precedents in what it is doing, but I have made the point in previous speeches in this House in relation to this bill that the situation on Stewart Island is so unique, with the very small population catering for tens of thousands of people, that it is not likely that the exact circumstances will be replicated. People go to Stewart Island for all sorts of reasons. There are trampers, fishers, birdwatchers, or people who just want to get away and enjoy the serenity while there is some very poor cellphone coverage, and they are able to just chill out. I just again thank the House for its participation in this process. I look forward to the conclusion of this matter with the passing of the third reading. I thank all members for their efforts.

This House does join with Eric Roy in sending our condolences to the families of those who lost their life on the Easy Rider last week. I thank the member for raising that matter today.

I want to start off by congratulating Eric Roy on bringing the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill to the House. I think he shows what a good local representative can do. In fact, I think he probably should be the next Minister that comes into Cabinet, following the resignation of Nick Smith today. Eric Roy has the experience and he has the integrity to make a very good Minister, and perhaps he will get that opportunity. But he is well known for supporting local activities. Some members come into this House wanting the title. Others come in to work hard in their electorate, and I just want to say that Eric Roy is one of those.

But I do take exception to one thing that he said. He said this bill is very unique, for a unique part of New Zealand. I am sure he has not forgotten that I represent a very unique island group in New Zealand—the Chatham Islands. I have been the member there for 16 years. The Chatham Islands are an island group that has fewer people on it than they do down on Stewart Island, and they have very similar issues to the people of Stewart Island. You see, people have discovered the Chathams, and increasingly people are travelling there to visit them. They also have the same problem of a very low rating base and very little ability to raise funds as a local authority. They have a high cost for electricity, very poor roading, a high cost for shipping, and so on.

So when we look at this bill, Mr Roy, I am saying that it is not unique. It is a bill that could be applied to other parts of New Zealand, particularly when they face the issue of raising enough money to invest in infrastructure. I think that is going to become a whole lot harder under the local government reforms that we have just had announced by the Minister a couple of days ago, because with capped rates in areas like the Chathams and small local authority areas like the West Coast and others, the ability to raise additional revenue is going to be very difficult indeed. Therefore such local authorities will be unable to invest into much-needed infrastructure. The idea of a levy is one that has been thought of by Southland District Council—good on them. But I would say to the Government that maybe it is time to listen to the former Minister of Tourism, the member for West Coast - Tasman, Damien O’Connor, who raised in his second reading speech that if we are prepared to put a levy or a tax on for Stewart Island, why do we not consider a levy or a tax on all visitors coming to New Zealand that would then be shared among councils around New Zealand, particularly those with low rating bases that are unable to raise enough revenue to put into the infrastructure that they need?

Having said that, Labour supports this bill. We had some concerns about it when it went to the Local Government and Environment Committee, but most of those concerns were actually ironed out with a very good select committee process. Now, after a lot of frustration, particularly from the Mayor of Southland District, Frana Cardno, who, when I read newspaper reports, got quite irate about the delay in terms of getting this levy through and the long process of it happening, I know that it is going to be welcomed by the people of Southland. I am certainly going to take up the member’s offer, just to mention his name when I go over to visit Stewart Island. You see, Stewart Island, like lots of small places in New Zealand, is a popular tourist destination. I think the member said 19 cruise ships and something like 40,000 visitors arrive down in Stewart Island. I read somewhere that one small outlet on the island served 400 cups of coffee in just 4 hours. Now, that might not sound like much, but when you have a very small rating base and very small-business people, then it is difficult for them to be able to provide everything that might be needed for tourists coming on to the island, without additional help from a levy such as this.

We support this bill. I am pleased it is happening for the member, but let us not forget the other communities around New Zealand that have growing numbers of tourists, low rating bases, and an inability to raise the capital for a lot of infrastructure that would, in fact, bring even more jobs and opportunities to their area. I would hope that Eric Roy will now take up the challenge of talking to his Cabinet colleagues and saying what about a visitor levy from those who come into New Zealand that could be shared across those councils that are providing very good services in their local areas?

I want to congratulate the member of Parliament Eric Roy on shepherding this local bill, the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill, through the House, and add my voice to the view that Stewart Island is indeed unique. I spent a bit of time on Stewart Island a few years ago. It is a pretty special place.

In the time that I was spending weeks at a time on the island, there were no cruise ships. There was certainly fishing activity, and it was a very busy place. The pressures that those cruise ships and the visitors have brought to Stewart Island have certainly increased over the years, but the population has not significantly increased. Therein lies the problem of a small community in a highly desirable destination funding the infrastructure for that visitor presence on the island. Yes, of course they get the benefit of those visitors. Tourism is a wonderful source of income, as is fishing, for the locals of Stewart Island, but none the less a very small population and large visitor numbers over the years—which are increasing—have meant pressure on the ratepayers of Stewart Island to fund that necessary infrastructure.

Those of us who represent small communities—I can think of, perhaps, the Mackenzie District Council, for example, which has a small, static rating base and a desirable destination for visitors—come under the same sort of pressures, but I have to acknowledge and agree with my colleague Eric Roy that in the case of Stewart Island, this is acute. It might well be that the Chathams are under the same sorts of conditions, and maybe in time they will also bring a local bill to the House for our consideration. I reckon that that probably would also enjoy support from members who understand the pressures that ratepayers have under these circumstances.

This is a really interesting bill, because it does what we would not consider doing on the mainland, if you like, and that is it imposes a levy on visitors. We would not do that in Ranfurly, because there are many roads into Ranfurly, and the cost of gathering that—

💬 Eric Roy: Hubodometers on your bike trail.

Well, yes—hubodometers. My colleague is being particularly helpful with my speech and he is suggesting that hubodometers on the bike trail are an option—as indeed they are—but the point is there are many roads in and out of Ranfurly. There are many roads in and out of Ōāmaru, of Wānaka, and of any number of small visitor destinations in New Zealand, but there are only a couple of ways to get to Stewart Island. You can either get to Stewart Island by boat, or you can arrive on an aeroplane. I think I prefer the aeroplane. I know it is bumpy, and I know you tend to wave around a bit, but you can get airsick, or you can get boat sick. There are two ways to get to Stewart Island, and so it becomes a little bit easier to collect the levy.

I think the provisions in the bill that describe how that levy is to be utilised are quite useful. What this bill will do is give the Southland District Council—and that is on behalf of the Stewart Island community—the legal mechanisms to receive the levy moneys and also the ability to spend the levy moneys. I think I read something around—did I read $16,000? I beg you pardon; $160,000 per annum is projected to be brought in from that levy. That represents about 40,000 people going to Stewart Island each year.

That $160,000 will enable the local community to upgrade the sewerage system, water supply, and—I do not know, it will be up to them, obviously—maybe some walking tracks and footpaths. That is the stuff of local government, and that is the stuff that this local community will be able to spend the money on. I want acknowledge that Eric Roy has been working on this issue since 1994, and if you do the maths that is quite some considerable time to consider—

💬 Eric Roy: Just after I left school.

Just after he left school, in fact, which has given plenty of time for the consideration of this bill by the wider community and by Parliament. I understand a number of parliamentarians have also considered this bill.

The powers that this bill gives to the Southland District Council are that it can collect and spend the levy by establishing a subcommittee consisting of representatives from the tourism industry, the community board, and the district council. I am assuming that the community board refers to the Stewart Island Community Board, so it will indeed be the locals, together with the tourism industry, who will be the people charged with spending these fees.

It is interesting that through the course of this bill a number of changes were made to it at the select committee, and I am interested that new clause 3 was put into the bill. It clarifies that this levy would not impact on the locals. It would impact on visitors to the island, so it would not impact on those fishermen who came and went from the island, or, indeed, anybody else who had business in Invercargill. They would not be impacted, so this is quite tightly focused on where the levy needs to be collected from.

I am very pleased to stand up to speak in the third reading of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. I want to congratulate, once again, Eric Roy on doing what a good electorate MP should do, and that is looking after the interests of his constituents, and with that I commend the bill to the House.

I too would like to stand up and congratulate Eric Roy, the local member down there, and to tell him that he is very, very lucky that he has got the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill going through now, because I am guessing that under the local government reforms proposed by National none of this would be allowed. I am not quite sure whether tourism infrastructure would be allowed to be a core part of local government services. So good on you, Mr Roy. I think it is great that you have done that.

I guess the question is whether, without the reforms, the member who has just spoken, Jacqui Dean, would be bringing a local bill to the House. I know that her patch, the Mackenzie District—indeed, one of the smallest in this country—is hosting well over a million visitors who pass through that area every year, and is actually paying for toilets, for the provision of water, and for other services for those million-plus people. In fact, I am not sure of the final figure; probably 1.5 million people travel through the Mackenzie Basin. The costs are, as has been acknowledged, a dilemma for many, many small councils throughout the country.

Can I firstly, though, acknowledge the victims of the terrible tragedy in Foveaux Strait with the Easy Rider. I understand that the boat had a chequered career. It spent some time in Westport, which is, indeed, my home town. I think it was a tug or a boat used around the harbour. It had been altered—I am not sure whether “upgraded” is the word. It had been used around the coast of New Zealand for a number of activities. It is a very, very sad and tragic situation that we have down in Southland. We hope that the families and the community can get through their pain and their suffering, and our hearts go out to them.

Can I come back to this bill, though—and I will not take too long—just to say that it is a good bill, because it does in fact levy the people who use the services of Stewart Island, of the national park there, and the wonderful facilities down there at Rakiura. But the same situation applies, as my colleague Annette King said, to New Zealand across the board. We have a number of councils—not just the Chatham Islands Council, not just the Westland District Council, not just the Mackenzie District Council or the Kaikōura District Council, but a number of councils—that are burdened. In fact, the previous Minister of Local Government said they were unreasonably spending money on providing promotion and services to tourists, people who probably would be quite happy to pay for the right services and to support environmental safeguards.

In Government I have always been an advocate of an environmental levy. It is not a tax, as such, and it should not be paid when people leave the country; it should be paid when they come in. They should know they are paying it as part of their airfare, and that it goes towards environmental infrastructure: to toilets, to signage, and to good, smart investment in infrastructure, such as will happen on Stewart Island under the committee, I am sure. But that wisdom and that management should be allowed to prevail right through New Zealand, and there should be a fund generated from people coming into this country, so that we can help and assist the councils to provide infrastructure that supports our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. It is an aspirational brand. We are not perfect, but for most people in the world we match up to it pretty well. But locals and people who travel around the country more often than the casual visitor might start to notice things that we are not doing quite right.

We would like the councils to spend a bit more money. Depending on the outcome of the proposed local government reforms, I guess they might or might not be allowed to do that. We hope they will, because it is a core part of supporting the community, supporting infrastructure, and generating income from tourism and domestic visitors who come in and out of their districts.

We support the bill. I support the bill. I think it is a good move. The alternatives, unless we have a universal levy across the country on people coming in and out of our country, are bed taxes, airport taxes, voluntary levies, targeted rates, and any other sort of imaginative idea that councillors and people up and down this country have to pay for the essential things that this levy will pay for on Stewart Island but also need to be paid for around the rest of this country. Congratulations, Eric Roy. You have got it through just in time, and I hope the people down there appreciate that. Kia ora.

On behalf of the Green Party we extend our condolences to the families and friends of people on the Easy Rider for their tragic loss. Co-leader Metiria Turei is attending the tangi of some of the victims of that accident in Foveaux Strait, and our good wishes go to those families in working through all of the grief that they are feeling.

The Green Party supports the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill, and I congratulate Eric Roy on his leadership in expanding the revenue sources for the local council to include this levy. I think what we are seeing with the Government’s proposed local government reforms and the Government’s concern about the rise in rates spending is that instead of looking constructively with local councils for other potential revenue streams, the Government is focusing very much on rates. This bill is very wise because it is diversifying that revenue stream.

As other members have pointed out, there is an advantage in having a consistent nationwide levy similar to the one that is proposed here, so that we do not get a succession of local bills proposing ad hoc measures by which councils can endeavour to provide the infrastructure that our tourists need. We have had issues in areas like Damien O’Connor’s electorate, where councils have been unable to fund dump stations and the range of public toilets that are needed for visitors. What this bill does is provide some funding for that for a small community that has got limited rates funding.

Rather than have an ad hoc series of local bills, I support, as I said in my second reading speech, a much more nationwide contestable fund to which local authorities could apply to get funding for local government infrastructure in order to service visitors. It is ironic, I think, that this bill is going forward at the same time that the Government is looking to constrain the core services of local authorities. I notice in the bill that some of the funding that the levy will generate is to go to the provision of walking tracks and amenity areas close to the national park, and I wonder whether that sort of function will be considered part of the core functions of local government under the changes to the competencies that are being proposed to the Local Government Act. It is that breadth of function that is really important for local authorities.

The Southland District Council has recognised the vital role that tourists play in Southland and the national economy, and through the bill it is seeking to ensure that it maintains the areas that tourists come to to visit; that it provides the services that tourists expect, such as a solid jetty, good walking tracks, and good toilet facilities; and that it has the ability to fund this. If we have local councils having their competencies restricted, it does not encourage them to take a wide look at the economic activities that can occur in their areas. If they are to be restricted in providing good quality local infrastructure, does that mean that some of those community development functions that the Southland District Council is seeking to help fund through this bill will not be able to be progressed?

We also note that 86 percent of Rakiura / Stewart Island is conservation land. If we are going to maintain good infrastructure, we need to maintain the natural infrastructure as well, because of the ecosystem services that those wild lands on Rakiura provide. That means undertaking good pest control so that visitors, when they come here, can enjoy the full diversity of the birdlife, the other wildlife, and the plant communities that have not been devastated by possums and deer. So instead of cutting the Department of Conservation’s funding, actually increasing it so that it can do adequate pest control is equally important in maintaining the infrastructure on Stewart Island, because those forested and natural areas are part of that natural infrastructure.

We support the bill, and we encourage Mr Roy to show the leadership he has provided here to encourage his colleagues to look at diversifying the revenue streams for local councils elsewhere in New Zealand to include a return of the regional fuel tax, and to recognise the value in councils engaging in all of the competencies that they are currently able to under the Local Government Act 2002. I commend the bill to the House, and I am pleased to support it. Thank you.

I am delighted to take a call on this local bill, the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. I want to start by acknowledging Eric Roy. I think what we are seeing in the House this evening is a fantastic example of a local member of Parliament working over a long period of time for his constituents. I understand that he has been working since 1994 to try to get what is, I think, access to better services for the people of Stewart Island and better infrastructure.

Can I also, as has already been acknowledged this evening, send out my thoughts and prayers to the people of Southland. Obviously we know that they have been mourning with the Easy Rider tragedy, and I think all members of this House would be thinking of the people of Southland at this time.

Can I also acknowledge some comments that Annette King made earlier in the House this evening. I am fortunate to represent not just the people of central Auckland but also many islands in the Hauraki Gulf. I represent Waiheke Island, Great Barrier Island, and a number of other islands, and some of the issues that have been raised in this debate, and also through the passage of this legislation, are applicable to other islands. But what I would say is that what Mr Roy has done is win the argument through the select committee process to get good support for this bill, to say that there are some unique things about Stewart Island—and I want to touch briefly on some of the unique things about this particular island. He is an example of an MP who has really fought for his local community in delivering this bill to the House.

Some of the unique things about Stewart Island that I think we should all acknowledge this evening are that 85 percent of the island is in a national park. I think that Rakiura National Park is 10 years old now. As has also been mentioned by the Green Party, we have a number of special New Zealand species on the island, from the kakapo to the kiwi, so it is a very important part of the conservation estate for New Zealand, and I think we can acknowledge that many people want to visit the island. In fact, my understanding is that there are around 40,000 non-residents who visit the island a year. We estimate that the levy should raise about $160,000. I think that is very, very significant for a small community like the community on Stewart Island.

The other core point that I want to make today is that the Local Government and Environment Committee did make a number of changes. We did have that discussion as to whether this was setting a precedent for other islands within New Zealand and whether this was a unique situation. I think the select committee process was very valuable because we did make a number of changes. For instance, the new clause 3 to clarify that a levy could only be applied to visitors travelling to the island and not to all people travelling to the island was, I think, very significant. We also added a new clause 5—because we obviously heard about implementation issues—to allow the council to make bylaws to prescribe the rates of levies and the means of collecting them. We thought that was very important from an operational perspective. Then we deleted clauses 6 and 7 and inserted a new clause 6, which I think really was about consistency.

The point that I would make, and it has already been made by Annette King this evening, is that by passing this legislation I think we are really helping the people of Stewart Island to be able to deliver the visitor infrastructure that it is very difficult for them to be able to pay for. The second thing we are doing is improving the viability of the island as a tourism destination. The third thing that I think we are all acknowledging here this evening is that this is a very good example of a local member doing a very good job over a significant period of time, advocating for his community, to deliver some legislation that will make a real difference to a small, isolated community in New Zealand, and there are many members in this House who represent communities like that. I commend this bill to the House and I commend Eric Roy for his long advocacy for the people of Stewart Island. Thank you.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill; New Zealand First is certainly in support of this bill. Firstly, I also endorse the comments of other members in terms of the condolences to the family, whānau, and friends of those lost in the Easy Rider tragedy. Foveaux Strait, as we all know, is a very unforgiving piece of water and has had many tragedies in the past also, and this latest tragedy is a great shame and a great loss to many in Bluff and Stewart Island.

I also would like to comment and applaud the local MP, Eric Roy, for carrying this through over many years. Apparently this issue goes right back to the 1970s originally, and the islanders have been asking for the last three or four decades for assistance. So it is good to see that this is finally coming to be. I also acknowledge the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Chris Auchinvole, for helping to move this through. I notice that the chairman just arrived in the Chamber a short while ago, obviously in time to hear the adulations that were going to be bestowed on him. I say well done to him also for pushing this through.

Stewart Island is only a 1-hour ferry ride from the mainland, from the South Island, and 15 minutes by air, but it is a community that is very unique in New Zealand in terms of being the third-largest island in the New Zealand nation. As a result, with fewer than 500 people living on the island it has some unique demands and requirements that many other communities in New Zealand who are not out on an island limb, out in isolation, in a sense, do not have to put up with.

You can imagine what the impact must be when a large cruise ship arrives in port there and several thousand tourists invade what is a small community with fewer than 500 people, where there are only 12.8 kilometres of sealed roads and 8.3 kilometres of gravel roads, where many of the people literally have to walk down the middle of the road because there are no footpaths, and where the infrastructure is not able to cope with the tourist numbers that arrive. Over the summer the New Zealand tourists and international tourists that arrive on ferries too put a huge amount of pressure on the likes of the public toilets, on their infrastructure, on their water—they have no reticulated water—and on the basic utilities on the island.

Of course, we have there the Rakiura National Park, which was opened in 2002, covering some 157,000 hectares of land. Eighty-five percent of Stewart Island is taken up by that wonderful national park, and having such a wonderful national park brings with it its own pressures and brings with it tourists and all sorts of visitors who wish to see that wonderful piece of native and natural New Zealand bush. Therefore, this is a good step forward to provide a levy so that visiting tourists and visitors to the island can help contribute in a relatively small but significant way to some of the costs to assist the locals.

I applaud the Stewart Island Community Board and also the Southland District Council for pushing this through and being behind this scheme. The local community board has played a pivotal role in bringing this forward, and it is to be congratulated as well on the consultation that it undertook. The board put out something like 485 fliers a few years ago, received 129 responses, and of those 129 who responded, 119 were in support of this levy being implemented. That is a very good result and it shows that there is strong support for this.

New Zealand First does support local initiatives and local choice by local communities. We feel that it is up to a local community to determine how they can assist themselves with funding of this nature, and we certainly feel this is very appropriate for an island in a situation like this, where they have very limited ways of otherwise securing revenue and income to try to cover the costs of the necessary infrastructure. This is a wise move, with cross-party support, and it is very good that we all in this House are supporting this initiative; it will greatly assist. The $160,000 on the face of it does not seem a lot of money, but if you multiply that over a number of years and you expand that out, it will incrementally provide a good amount of basic infrastructure that they do require.

It is ironic that this bill is being put through this week, in terms of what has happened in local government this week. There have been so many things happening in local government in New Zealand this week, both good and bad, and it is perhaps time that the members in this House reflect on what local government means to New Zealand. We are central government here, but we must remember that much of the services and much of the infrastructure around New Zealand, and much of the community facilities and the community amenity values that are provided, are provided at local government level. Certainly, it is often with support from Government and funding support from Government, but at the end of the day it is our 70 or 80 local authorities around New Zealand that provide much of the local community infrastructure, and we must be mindful of that.

I am very concerned as a former mayor, as a former councillor, and as a former community board member about some aspects of the moves by the Government this week, in terms of cutting into local government. Certainly there are savings to be made, certainly there are savings to be had, and certainly we can be more frugal, as we can in all areas of life, and I certainly support measures to save money, but I certainly do not support measures that will affect local communities and where local communities could actually be very adversely affected as a result of some of the proposed cuts by Government in local government. Therefore, this perhaps is a very timely reminder of local government being called on to try to put through something that will support their local communities, and this has been done in this case on Stewart Island by the locals supporting themselves, standing up for themselves, and putting their best foot forward to try to improve their local amenities and their local community services.

We strongly support the bill. In terms of New Zealand First, we think this is a great initiative on behalf of the community—the community doing something for itself—and also the central government people working with local government to ensure there is a better outcome for all. It is a great shame if, in this country, we are going to start seeing increased conflict between local government and central government, because at the end of the day we are only 4.5 million New Zealanders. We rely on working together to make this country a better place, and I certainly would not like us to start moving down the track of central government becoming very adversarial towards local government, because that will not see this country going forward in the future. Thank you.

It is a great pleasure that I also get to speak to the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. Like everyone else I would like to pay tribute to my colleague Eric Roy. As a new member of the House I can say he has certainly demonstrated to me that determination and perseverance can definitely achieve results in this House.

I am embarrassed to say that I have not actually visited Stewart Island myself, but, of course, I have heard many, many stories of the whitetail, the pāua, and the seafood that come from Stewart Island. Another thing that I can really identify with is the fact that many of the residents there are direct descendants of the whalers and early Rakiura Māori, with combined family histories reaching back almost 200 years. Some of the houses built by the early Norwegian whalers are still lived in today, and their distinctive alpine architecture somehow is no longer out of place in the roaring forties of the Southern Ocean. The reason why I can identify with this is that I have a community in my own electorate, at Pūhoi, which was first settled by the Bohemians, and we still have some of the original families there. The culture and the spirit of the place can really be captured only when you have original settlers in a town like that. So I really can identify with the spirit that is being captured on Stewart Island.

The other thing I would like to mention is the fact that there is consensus in the House and support in the House for this bill. But there is one member, whom I would like to mention, who has really put himself on the line in terms of support for Stewart Island, and that is the Hon David Parker. While down on Stewart Island—and I note that my colleague Eric Roy was talking about the challenges associated with roading, aggregate, getting metals to the island, and, obviously, having to pass over one of our most difficult stretches of water in the country—Mr Parker was helping with some roading and some infrastructure. Unfortunately, he got caught on the wrong end of a tar truck and was covered in tar, but, luckily, it was cold mix tar and not hot mix tar.

I think that one of the big issues for Stewart Island and its future survival is going to be based around tourism, because, unfortunately, some of its business has declined over the years. As Mr Roy mentioned, 17 cruise ships arrived last year and this business is going to continue to grow, hopefully, in the future. But I think that in relation to tourism the fact is that we are competing globally. There is definitely competition out there. When tourists are coming down to our beautiful part of the world, they are looking for a good experience—and they get a good experience. However, part of that is being able to provide world-class infrastructure and facilities for them. I think it is very clear that, because of the small population on Stewart Island, it was too big a burden for a small population like that to be able to keep investing in infrastructure that was experiencing such a large amount of tourist traffic that is growing on the island. I think that it is not only important to preserve our environment, which obviously is critical, but it is also very, very important to be able to continue to invest in our infrastructure and to provide world-class facilities.

Like Mr Williams mentioned, on the face of it $160,000 annually may not appear much on the surface, but, in actual fact, to a small population, a small island like Stewart Island, that is actually a significant amount of investment going into their infrastructure each year and will allow them to maintain that infrastructure for future growth, and future growth in their tourist industry. Finally, I just want to say that again I commend Mr Roy for shepherding this bill through the House. I want to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I am not going to praise Eric Roy. I am sick and tired of hearing people in this House praise Eric Roy. For goodness’ sake! The member for Invercargill is simply doing the job that he is paid to do for the good people of Southland, and he is doing it very well, and I do not intend to go along with all this mushy, cross-party praise of Eric Roy. We have had quite enough of that—we have had quite enough of that.

I believe that $5, if that is indeed what visitors to Stewart Island are going to be required to pay under the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill, is a small price to pay. I think that $5 is a small price to pay for what is a fantastic experience, visiting Stewart Island. I have enjoyed the amber delights that are served at the South Sea Hotel. I have sampled the fish and chips at the fish and chip cart in Oban, and many other delights in Stewart Island. The place is one of the jewels of our country, and I think that this bill offers an excellent solution to the challenge faced by the community in Stewart Island of providing infrastructure like public loos that are of an acceptable standard for the 30,000-odd people who visit the island every year.

I am sorry only that Eric Roy did not take up my offer at the Local Government and Environment Committee to bring along samples of the Bluff oysters and the venison, which would have perhaps speeded the bill’s progress through the select committee even more. Labour supports this bill.

I rise to speak in favour of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. I am bound to say that I have not had the opportunity yet to visit Stewart Island, and more is the pity; I would love to get down there. I have—

💬 Hon Annette King: What about the Chathams?

The closest I have been is Bluff, and I have seen it. I have not been to the Chatham Islands either. There is a long way I have got to go.

I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee last year either, but instinctively I am not generally in favour of new taxes and levies. I think we pay enough taxes and levies as it is, and I do not share great enthusiasm for giving local government power—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Miserable.

—hang on, I have not finished yet—and giving local government the opportunity to raise new taxes, but in this situation the logic does seem to be reasonably compelling. We have here a situation where there is a very small, remote community, where a large number of visitors come, up to 40,000 a year, and we do need to get some basic infrastructure in place there and find a better way of paying for it.

I salute Eric Roy for his efforts here. The widespread support that this bill has had in the House is surely testament to the efforts of Eric Roy and the widespread enthusiasm that people in the House have for him and his efforts. I remember playing in the Parliamentary Rugby Team with him in the 1990s, and he—[Interruption] Well, that is right. He was galloping around the place, and we played in Southland. He is a very well-regarded local MP, and this bill, I think, is just a small way in which he can improve the life and economy of part of his electorate in Stewart Island.

I would like to just draw attention to some of the details that were handled by the select committee—amendments to clause 4, for example, on definitions. The provision of a definition of “approved operator” is intended to assist the council to enter into contracts for transport operators, such as cruise ship operators. The council, then, would be able to gather revenue from operators on behalf of passengers rather than separately from each visitor. I think that is a better way of handling the situation.

The committee also recommended replacing clause 18 to make offences infringement offences. The cost to the council of prosecuting offences by a visitor as a summary offence would be substantial, whereas an infringement offences regime would be more appropriate for the kind of thing that we are dealing with. Unfortunately, if you introduce a levy, you do have to have some sort of arrangements for dealing with people who will not pay, and I think that is a simple way of doing it in a relatively cost-effective way.

It is my expectation that with this bill and with this levy Stewart Island will be in a much better place in the next few years to create a warm and inviting environment for visitors, whose numbers will surely only grow over the next decade, as more and more people realise what a wonderful part of the world this is, and what a wonderful place it is to visit. Now I think we are in a better place because of this bill, so I commend this bill to the House.

I support the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill and congratulate the member Eric Roy.

I would like to speak in support of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. The miraculous thing about it really is that it has been such a long time coming. We have heard various members talk about the long journey for this particular bill. I would have thought it was a bit of a no-brainer really that the Stewart Island people should be helped in this way. Four hundred people cannot possible sustain the visitor numbers that come through there.

Unlike my colleague Paul Goldsmith, I have been to Stewart Island. For somebody who has been involved in tourism, gardening, and walking in the New Zealand bush—my “Cathedrals of Green”—Stewart Island certainly has an enormous amount of attractions. I felt as a visitor there that it would be appropriate to contribute in some way—and what better way than a visitor levy? For 40,000 people visiting at the moment it would be $160,000, so about $4 a head, which is about the same price as a cup of coffee. It is not too much to ask, and it would make a huge difference to the ability of those 400 people on Stewart Island to actually put in the sorts of amenities that they need if they want to please the visitors who go there in their droves already.

The cruise ships have been referred to. It is all very well to have international visitors going to a place like Stewart Island and taking advantage of the short walk tracks that can be easily managed in an hour or two, but for the people like me, who like to go for a longer walk, there is a walk that takes 12 days and takes you right around the island. I think it is one of the few places in New Zealand where you can still do it—

💬 Paul Goldsmith: Have you done it?

Not the whole thing, but we can add that to the bucket list for sure.

I think when it comes to unique properties, Stewart Island has much to commend it. So too do the outlying islands. We heard Nikki Kaye talking earlier about the islands of the Hauraki Gulf, and the member for Rongotai talking about the glories of the Chatham Islands. All of these places have things to commend them.

To me, Stewart Island has unique properties in the sense of its vegetation and its wildlife. It is pest-free, apart from the odd marauding visitor, no doubt. It is a place that has the ability to show New Zealand in the way it used to be to people who want to see it and who want to experience a kind of ecotourism that I feel will become more and more popular in years to come. So for the islanders, by virtue of this levy, tourism, which is a very good source of income already, will be able to generate more income for the people of Stewart Island and enable them to live there.

As Eric Roy pointed out very carefully, it is a very expensive place to get to. We saw through the tragedy in Foveaux Strait—an extremely wild stretch of water—that it is difficult and dangerous and that you need to make a conscious decision to go there. When you get there it is very expensive infrastructure-wise to set up businesses and to have cellphones and the other things that we who are living in more built-up areas all take for granted.

To me, the ability for people on Stewart Island to make a couple of hundred thousand dollars—and that would tend to grow as people realise and recognise that there is so much to offer on Stewart Island—would be something that would generate more and more interest the more people go there, and come away from it extolling its virtues. So as a source of income potentially into the future, the levy is perhaps the salvation of Stewart Island.

As with many small islands it is very difficult to keep young people there. It is very difficult for an island to provide employment and to be able to look after itself through fishing quotas, mineral exploration, forestry, or any other things—horticulture is not really a possibility because of the transport and the logistical issues—so to be able to generate income from tourism that does not really impact too hard on the tourist I think is a fantastic idea. Four dollars is not going to put anyone off visiting. It is really a very painless levy. In Palmerston North I think you have to pay more than that to get out of the place, and it is worth every cent. I speak now without any major disloyalty—

💬 Hon David Carter: It’s always a pleasure to leave.

It is always a pleasure to leave, indeed. Gary McCormick used to not think so. I spent a year in Palmerston North—in fact, I lived in Feilding, mostly because Tom Scott called it the “Athens of the South Pacific”, and I felt that that was sufficiently intriguing. For Palmerston North itself the contentious nature of that departure tax has been well versed, and I will not track through it now, but it is nothing like the sort of levy we are talking about here. I think that 245 kilometres of walking tracks—all of which can be accessed from the town of Oban—make Stewart Island potentially a place that can develop very well in ecotourism.

There is talk of the pristine beaches and the sheltered inlets and so forth, so even for the more lazy visitor, shall we say, there is plenty to commend them.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh, leave yourself out of it.

We talk, of course, about the blue cod, the oysters, and the salmon, which are not going to be going anywhere across the House any old time soon, because clearly some of them do not deserve it. It is very much a place where generosity of spirit and some largesse—a quality that appears to be missing from members on the other side of the House, not to mention a sense of humour—are all to be found in the people who live on Stewart Island. Although they deal with their tragedies, they do not have to put up with the sorts of horrors that the Opposition has to from within its own ranks, but that is another story.

I do not want to digress and take up the House’s time with that. But I would commend that Eric’s levy bill be supported. It has been a long time in coming—a very long journey. I am glad it has gone directly to its third reading. How good would it be if Eric is able to go to that funeral tomorrow, to a community in pain and in grief at a funeral, and be able to tell it this good news? I think it is entirely fitting that the House has managed to put this bill through at this time. I commend this bill to the House, and I would hope indeed that we can get it through in a timely fashion with a minimum of fuss.

Bill read a third time.