Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill

I move, That the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill be now read a third time. The Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill amends policy relating to the funding of international traveller processing services at the border. The bill completes the funding arrangements first agreed with the aviation industry right back in 2004, further refined over the years, and finalised by this present Government. I want to start by thanking everyone who has been engaged in the development of this bill over the years, who have worked in a very cooperative manner with the Government to reach this point tonight. This includes the work of the Primary Production Committee, led by its chairman, Shane Ardern, and, of course, I acknowledge the officials and all of those who made submissions on the bill.

The bill provides a clear legal basis for the Ministry for Primary Industries, the New Zealand Customs Service, and the Aviation Security Service to recover the costs associated with providing traveller processing services at new and restarting international airports for a period of either 3 years or any lesser period prescribed in regulations. It also provides that an airport may cease operating international services and then restart them within a 6-month grace period without triggering cost recovery. The bill also provides for cost recovery of non-routine processing at all international airports. The bill’s objective is to reduce the Crown’s exposure to an unpredictable and uncertain fiscal liability for providing aviation security, biosecurity, and customs traveller processing services at international airports. It ensures that border agencies can maintain higher standards of border protection, without needing to reprioritise resources from other front-line operations to service new and restarting international airports.

The previous Minister for Primary Industries asked the Primary Production Committee in its consideration of the bill to consider a proposal that the cost recovery period be set at 2 years and to consider industries’ views on this. After hearing the views of submitters on this issue, the committee also recommended a cost recovery period of 2 years. A 2-year cost recovery period provides a reasonable measure of confidence in the commercial viability and sustainability of international services at a new or restarting airport before it is transitioned into the funding arrangements for established international airports. At the established international airports, biosecurity and customs services are funded by the Crown, while Aviation Security Services are funded by a per-passenger charge on airlines. A final decision on the length of the cost recovery period will be made after the bill is passed and will be set out in regulations.

The bill provides for regulations to be made before charging can begin for any new or restarting international airports and requires border agency chief executives to consult with directly affected parties before regulations are made. I look forward to officials engaging with the aviation industry on the development of these new regulations. These regulations will prescribe the cost recovery period and the actual rates or methods of cost recovery at new or restarting airports.

The bill has received strong support from every political party in the House. I think this fairly reflects the importance that Parliament attaches to aviation security, biosecurity, and customs-related issues. Protecting our border from biosecurity threats is my No. 1 priority as Minister for Primary Industries.

Our primary industries are the backbone of New Zealand’s economy. They include, of course, agriculture, horticulture, fisheries, forestry, and viticulture. The list goes on. They are worth around $32 billion a year in exports and make up about 70 percent of all of our exports. These industries rely on our world-class biosecurity system. It is a system that continues to evolve and improve with technology and new ideas. To give some context, around 175,000 items come across our border each day and we receive around 10 million travellers a year. Biosecurity threats and incursions will happen. We do not live in a risk-free environment. We will never have zero risk, even if we close all of our borders. The challenge is how we continue to facilitate growth and trade yet continue to protect New Zealand from unwanted pests. It cannot be a choice between these two goals. We have to do both—grow and protect.

The Ministry for Primary Industries takes a multilayered approach to biosecurity threats, working on many fronts—overseas to stop travellers and importers from bringing pests here, at the border to identify and eliminate pests that do arrive, and here in New Zealand to find, eliminate, or manage pests. Biosecurity funding is higher now than when we took over from Labour, and has doubled since 2000. In the last year and a half, around 100 new quarantine inspectors and more dog detector teams are working on the front line. We have 12 new X-ray machines installed at our international airports. These new machines will be more reliable than the older X-ray units and will provide better image quality. Baggage is now able to be screened with greater accuracy and image quality. This means border staff will be better equipped to spot biosecurity risk items before they enter New Zealand. We have also brought in Government-industry agreements, which, once signed, will involve industry and the Government working together on preparation and responses to these kinds of threats.

Border protection is a major priority for this Government. This bill reflects that by helping to ensure that border agencies can maintain their high standards of border protection. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to support the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill in its third reading. As the Minister for Primary Industries has said, the aim of the bill is to enable the Crown to recover the costs of aviation security, biosecurity, and customs traveller processing from the operators of new or re-established international airports or international airports that sometimes request that travellers be processed in a non-routine manner. The Minister said in his third reading speech that this bill has had support from parties across the House, and that is true. It is also true to say that Labour was involved in developing a similar cost recovery policy back in 2004. There has been a long process of working through these issues. What I found interesting, though, were the Minister’s comments about how biosecurity is a high priority for this Government, given that this bill was introduced in September 2010, had its first reading on 16 September 2011, was referred to the Primary Production Committee, and people were given just 1 month to make submissions. In fact, in reading the submissions, I saw that that was one of the complaints from submitters—that it was a truncated process. I know that there has been a lot of discussion, but that was one of the complaints that were made.

Again, it gives rise to the question, which we have traversed before, of why this had to happen, given that we are now finally reaching the third reading of this bill something like 4 years later. I do question the Government about that. But, having said that, we all know that biosecurity and customs services come at a huge cost to the Crown, and any new international airport should have to pay some of those costs. We already have a high number of international airports per capita. Every one of those international airports requires a replication of biosecurity and customs services at an additional cost to the Government. Our international airports are in Auckland, Hamilton, Rotorua, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, and Queenstown. That is a large number of international airports for a small country like our own.

As I said, we went through a process of proposing a similar cost recovery process in 2004. We were concerned about the time period, and there was a big discussion about that. We do approve the move to lower the cost recovery period to just 2 years, as happens under this bill. Although this bill is right to make new international airports pay their fair share of the costs of customs and biosecurity, it is about time that the Government started paying fair attention to the issue of biosecurity. There has been an Auditor-General’s report quite recently, and it had some pretty damning evidence in it that New Zealand is at risk of a major biosecurity threat because of the Government’s obsession with cutting costs and restructuring. We have seen under this Government a merging of departments and a shuffling of agencies. We have got mega-agencies—super-agencies—under the auspices of Steven Joyce and other Ministers who seem to think that shuffling deckchairs is a good way to look like they are doing something—like that old adage, you know, that when you do not know what to do, you restructure, and then it looks like you are actually taking some action.

As part of that too, of course, under this Government there was a restructure in 2010, a restructure in 2011, and a restructure in 2012. I want to just pause here for a minute and pay tribute to the staff on the front line working in biosecurity, the Customs Service, and the Aviation Security Service, who have been trying to do their jobs through all of these restructurings. They are now part of one ministry called the Ministry for Primary Industries. But what we saw during that period between 2008 and 2012 was a cut of 91 biosecurity officers and those dogs—those lovely little dogs that we see when we come through customs—

💬 Carol Beaumont: Beagles.

The beagles—the beagles. They cut the number of beagles. I am sure that the member John Banks would have been unhappy about that, because he talked about beagles too, did he not? He liked beagles.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Was it one of those in the brown bag?

Yes, well, that is true. I know that since then Nathan Guy was kind of forced to increase the number of biosecurity staff and has actually had some nice photo opportunities with little beagle puppies.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Clara. Clara was her name.

Yes, I saw that in the newsletter. But he was kind of forced to do that because of the risks to our biosecurity—the risks that we are seeing. But the truth is that during that period—Budget 2009—the Government cut $3.5 million from biosecurity over 4 years. Again, in 2010, it cut a further $9.5 million over 4 years. So, on average, this is about $3 million a year from a vote that has around $180 million or $190 million to spend. Indeed, the Auditor-General pointed out that there have been cuts in capacity in the appropriations from the years 2007-08 through to 2011-12. So we are looking forward to the forthcoming Budget, Minister, and we hope we will see some remedies around this issue. Of course, in biosecurity almost every week now there is an incursion—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: That was under Labour.

Pardon?

💬 Colin King: That was under Labour.

Almost every week under this Government there has been an incursion in our biosecurity. What the Auditor-General was warning about is that a foot-and-mouth outbreak could cost the country something like $13 billion, but we are not ready for that. We are not prepared for that. So I hope, again, that the Minister took that report seriously and that we can look forward to some money in the Budget being put back into those restructured departments, back into the staff. That would follow the recommendations of the Auditor-General, again, who was saying that there needs to be a lot more work done on supporting those staff, on training, on preparing for a major outbreak that could come any day—we just do not know.

Of course, what we do know is that Psa disease has had a terrible, terrible impact on the kiwifruit industry. The researchers from Lincoln University estimate that by 2015 it will have cost the industry $410 million and approximately 1,400 jobs. So the costs to the country are tremendous.

Going back to what I said at the beginning, we are supporting this bill. There has been a lot of work done on it over many years. We cannot afford to take risks with our biosecurity, with customs, or with aviation security. They are very, very important parts of protecting our border, and the cost recovery proposals in this bill, along with the grace period that is proposed, are supported. I know that the Primary Production Committee did a good job looking at that, and I do want to give respects to the member Shane Ardern, who I know is a very good committee chair, from my experience of working with him.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Not a bad bloke.

Not a bad bloke. In fact, I think that it will be a shame when he leaves Parliament. He is one of the decent blokes around this place, one of the good people around this place. So I know that he led the select committee through this in a very professional way, even though most of the committee members have now left and he will be following them. I am pleased to support this bill.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak in favour of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. This bill has had a reasonably long gestation period, but there are fairly good reasons for that. I should perhaps highlight some of those, but not go over all of the issues that the Minister for Primary Industries has already canvassed, and perhaps give a little bit of background as to why the bill came about.

The airports of both Hamilton, which is in my electorate, and Palmerston North, which is nearby Mr McKelvie’s electorate, my colleague to the left here, were international airports in New Zealand. They had international carriers that were flying in and out of there, and those carriers decided, for commercial reasons, I presume, that they no longer wanted to visit those airports. Of course, to be international airports they had to maintain all of the biosecurity, civil aviation security, and customs services. Of course, that carried with it, I guess, an enormous cost to the State, and obviously it was a waste of money if those airports were not going to become international airports again, or were not going to become international airports for some time into the future.

At the same time that that was happening, because of the very work of the National Government—

💬 Hon Member: Ha!

—because of the excellent work of the National Government, substantial investment was going into new technology for both biosecurity and customs—in fact, for the merging of some of that technology. Of course, what that would have meant was that those airports would then need to upgrade to the new systems—new X-ray equipment, new types of surveillance equipment, etc.—and there was a lot of potential expense in that as well.

So the motive, if you like, for a cost recovery programme was that if an airport decided it might like to become an international airport, regardless of where it may be—and there are others that have suggested they might like to become international airports—

💬 Colin King: Invercargill.

—Rotorua, for example, and Invercargill is another one that my colleague mentions—then obviously the airport itself, in the commercial decision as to whether or not to do that, would need to be involved in some of those substantial potential costs to the Crown. Further, every time that does happen, if that investment is not made to a level that it should be, then obviously we expose ourselves to further biosecurity risk and, as the Minister quite rightly pointed out, and other speakers have touched on it, biosecurity risk is a major threat to the New Zealand economy.

I heard the previous speaker, Darien Fenton, say that the Auditor-General identified $30 million. Well, I think it may have been $30 billion. It is more like $30 million a day—the likely cost of a foot-and-mouth outbreak, for example. So it is something that would actually devastate the New Zealand economy. It reinforces, as the Minister for Primary Industries and biosecurity said, the importance of our primary sector to the New Zealand economy, but it also reinforces the vulnerability of the sector to something getting across the border that could have that type of devastating effect.

So the main provisions of the bill, as the Minister pointed out, are to recover costs in the areas of aviation security, biosecurity, and customs. On the basis that these issues have to be addressed, using the best technologies, the best systems, and the best surveillance, I think that this is a very sound measure brought forward, obviously, by a very competent Minister and a very sound Government in this fight against biosecurity and other airport or border-type issues. So I totally support the passage of this bill. Thank you.

I recognise the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.

Thank you, and likewise, Mr Assistant Speaker.

💬 Hon Member: You’ve known each other for a while.

We have indeed. As colleagues on both sides of the House have said, there is quite a bit of unanimity in respect of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. The aim, as we know, is to enable the Crown to recover the costs of aviation security, biosecurity, and customs traveller processing from operators of new or re-established international airports. I would also acknowledge Shane Ardern, having sat on the Primary Production Committee in its more lively days. He is one member who I think should have been put in higher office many years ago. He, more than most, knows the impact, both positive and negative, of biosecurity on his industry.

But I would say this. There has been a trend with this Government—a sort of obsession—of constant restructuring. There has been a Government obsession, of course, with merging. Biosecurity New Zealand has been through two restructurings under this Government and is now part of the Ministry for Primary Industries. I know that my colleague Damien O’Connor has expressed quite a bit of concern around that, where you have a sort of poacher and gamekeeper amalgamated together. We do know—and I am sure Mr Ardern will help me out—that it almost seems like a monthly or weekly occurrence that we have another incursion. I heard on the radio that there is some other fly or flea, or something else, that has got in.

Although I accept that we have a huge border, a massive geographical border, to protect and we are close to our Australian cousins—who have a few more gremlins than we do in New Zealand—the point is this: there has to be an obsession not simply with constant restructuring and saving a few quid here and there but with actually reinforcing the work and the resources of those agencies and people who have the ultimate responsibility to protect the border. We talk about, for instance, physical violence and terrorism in that form. What is of possibly even greater threat, some would say, is, if you like, biosecurity terrorism. Mr Ardern and others have said that if somebody was to implant foot-and-mouth or some other horrible disease here and decimate our dairy, our beef, or our other sectors, it is almost game over, especially in dairying, which is a major part of our economy. So terrorism comes in many forms. Likewise, with no deliberate act, people coming across our borders bring in things they should not and bring in things that they are ignorant of, without any malice intended, but, again, it poses threats.

I do recall sitting on the Primary Production Committee in the first term I was in Parliament. I am sure that Mr Ardern will recall this. As Labour took office we had a great debate over the former National Government shifting resources. I think that at that point it was away from container surveillance. I am sure that Mr Ardern recalls the debate when money was shifted around by the then National Government. It penny-pinched here and penny-pinched there. I think it was away from airport security—no, it was away from container surveillance, into airport biosecurity. I think we did an inquiry on it, as I recall, and massive risks were identified around the random nature—as it was then—of container surveillance.

There are some very good Kiwi companies. The company that I recall in Christchurch—is it Syft Technologies? I think it is. Mr Ardern nods. Syft Technologies, as I understand it, has developed for many years—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Been there.

So have I.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Good company.

It is a good company.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You might’ve taken me.

I possibly did. I may have used its technology to have you checked out biosecurity-wise, Mr Mallard. But it has a—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It was more comfortable than the normal method.

Indeed. That company developed sniff technology, I think it was called. To put it in layman’s terms, because I am not a technical expert, with this technology you can bang this box inside a container and, for instance, it can take a sniff of the air. It can tell you whether any sort of biological organism is alive or dead in there, and it can identify where there is a threat. That may be why the new ACT leader has imported some of the technology for his caucus room.

The interesting thing at that point was that I remember visiting the business, and Biosecurity New Zealand and the Customs Service at the time would not use the technology. In fact, I do not think it is being used today.

💬 Hon Member: A different type is.

A different type of technology. I know that at the time one of the biggest contracts for Syft was Biosecurity Australia. The Australians used it before us. So maybe there are a few lessons there that technology should be taken on board—and good old Kiwi technology could be taken on board—because the Aussies were a bit smarter than us. They used it, and I recall that our Biosecurity New Zealand guys at the time, in late 1999, when we embarked on this inquiry, were still doing very, very random container surveillance—extremely random. I think we went down and had a look at some of it, and it was almost like trying to profile what may be a risk in a container, and away you go. There was also an issue over the wooden pallets that were being brought in, which were having very little, if any, inspection. So it is not just airports.

I say to the Government that we support the legislation, but I think it has to get serious—very, very serious—about the nature and constant restructuring of our biosecurity agencies. Is it right that the Ministry for Primary Industries and food safety, poacher and gamekeeper, are in one? I do not think it is. I share Damien O’Connor’s view. I think you have got to have some separation. Perhaps the difficulties that Fonterra has been through—a different set of difficulties, but food safety and, to some extent, biosecurity as well—show that there is a deficiency and a weakness in having those organisations married up together. Sure, you want cooperation and you want synergy, but there has to be some sort of tension between those authorities to ensure that our borders are protected and that they are protected rigorously. So I look forward to the debate as we go through this legislation.

Of course, there will have to be infrastructure and dollars put around this. Staff will have to be trained. There has to be a bigger commitment, as my colleague Darien Fenton said, to staff training and skilling. I often wonder, and I recall again that when I was on the select committee there was an issue raised about the old-fashioned Air New Zealand stewards and stewardesses, who in the old days would come through with the aerosol can—remember? They would walk right down the aisle. I remember one submitter saying that the best advertisement or wake-up call for people getting off the plane—those from foreign countries who did not quite get how serious it was—was somebody going down the aisle spraying. Even if they were spraying, I do not know, water—who cares? It was a wake-up call to people.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It was on the flying boats.

Pardon?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The flying boats went from Evans Bay.

Indeed. Thank you, Trevor Mallard. Trevor is approaching his 75th year and recounting history. But this is serious. The point is that that is a wake-up call to people.

I lived in Perth for a time and each state has biosecurity arrangements. I know that in Western Australia you could not bring in honey and other products. It was almost like you lived in another country when you went across those borders, either by air or by rail—very serious. In other countries you go to there are no biosecurity protections. If you go to the States, you are asked “What are you bringing in?”, you say: “X, Y, and Z.”, and there is very little checking, if any, in the States. Certainly, in parts of Europe, like—

💬 Julie Anne Genter: That’s not true

Yes, it is. I have just come through Los Angeles airport in the last couple of weeks and, apart from ticking a box, there were no beagles; nobody was profiling bags. It was not as rigorous—

💬 Darien Fenton: There’s a few guns.

There are a few guns, yes, but it was not nearly as rigorous as in New Zealand. So we want to see those standards maintained and enhanced so that we do not have the problems of other countries.

We are exceptionally vulnerable. We are an island State. We are predominantly dependent on agriculture. As I said, and I endorse the other speakers who have made the point, one major biosecurity threat—even if it does not come off—again, dents our reputation. We have had foot-and-mouth scares that, thankfully, have not come to anything, but even then our reputation and our exports are at risk because people ask questions and people get concerned. The Fonterra experience, though different, should teach us a lot about how our reputation, our New Zealand brand, is at risk through these types of threats. So I support the bill, and I look forward to its further scrutiny as we go forward.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. As the Green Party spokesperson on transport, it is my pleasure to rise to take a call on the third reading of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. This bill has been around for quite some time. In fact, it went through the select committee process before I was elected to Parliament. I think this bill was one of the first ones that I sat down and wrote a speech for after being elected to Parliament. So it was about 2 years ago that I first sat down and looked at it.

This bill has only just made it to the Committee of the whole House and the third reading in the year 2014, which is somewhat astonishing, but I am sure that that is for good reason, other than the Government not being able to manage its legislative programme—that is possibly one of the reasons; I am not sure. We support this bill. The first reading speech was given by my former colleague Sue Kedgley, who is now a regional councillor for Wellington, and my current colleague Gareth Hughes gave the second reading speech. As they made clear, and I would like to reiterate, the Green Party is supporting this bill. It is uncontroversial. It takes some positive steps in the direction of supporting our biosecurity, which many speakers have already talked about this evening. Also, we quite approve of the approach of cost recovery—that is, internalising some of the costs that would otherwise be externalised and pushed on to taxpayers.

New Zealanders value our natural environment. New Zealanders really value our beautiful forests, lakes, rivers, oceans, and beaches, and I think most New Zealanders, if not all of them, do want to protect them. They recognise that there is an intrinsic value, and it is something that hits right here in the gut. It is something that you cannot really summarise or quantify in a complete way. But it is also possible to quantify the benefits, the economic benefits—some of them—of looking after biosecurity. This essential element of our defence against environmental degradation and ensuring that we do not introduce pests and diseases is really important because it is vital not only to preserving the natural environment that we value for intrinsic reasons but also to ensuring the continued strength of our primary production base.

New Zealand’s competitive advantage in the world is really its “clean, green” brand, and much of our success overseas, selling our dairy products to China or promoting tourism around the globe, is because we are perceived to have a pristine natural environment. So it is in our economic interest to genuinely look after that environment, to invest money, if need be, in protecting the environment, and to ensure that things like biosecurity are at the forefront.

But I think that this bill probably does not go as far as it could in looking after all of the potential ways that we could be protecting our environment, responding to the challenge of climate change, and internalising external costs. The bill obviously has a very narrow focus. It is looking at the processing of international travellers and how we are going to fund that and ensure that we have the means for funding the processing of international travellers. But there are other considerations that arise when we are thinking about how we can look after our “clean, green” brand, protect our environment, and internalise some of those external costs.

Unfortunately, even though aviation has enormous benefits for humanity—and I personally have benefited greatly from the ability to travel easily and quickly between continents; it is something that is a unique privilege, really, that not many human beings have gotten to experience in the history of humanity—it also has some costs, and particularly in terms of carbon emissions. It is something that may not be able to grow indefinitely. We are going to have to find alternative means of travelling, and it may take a little bit more time. We may be able to create alternative fuels that are not going to have such a negative impact on the climate, but we are not going to be able to do that unless we put a proper price on carbon.

It is absolutely essential that we start to put a price on the harmful emissions that are changing our climate, because until we do that the market is not going to respond. People are not going to come up with the alternatives. Humans are incredibly innovative and able to adapt, and that is why it is so important for Government policy to take the step of putting an appropriate price on carbon emissions. That is what is going to incentivise solutions. It is going to create a market for coming up with alternative fuels that do not have such a harmful impact on the climate.

Unfortunately, this Government has not really taken steps that would ensure there is a price on carbon. It says that it is going to respond to climate change. I have yet to see any evidence of any real national coordinated approach even to adaptation to a changing climate, which is something that could potentially cost us. If we are going to have increased flooding and increased droughts, we need to be preparing for that now. We need to be ensuring that the infrastructure we are putting in place is going to protect our communities in the future, given that we know that the climate will be changing.

But in addition to that we need to do our fair share in the world of reducing carbon emissions. The best way to do that is to give people alternatives and invest in alternatives. For New Zealanders, many of the trips that we make around New Zealand and internationally obviously cannot be easily replaced with another form of transport other than aviation. But most of our carbon emissions from transport are generated in travel in and around our towns and cities. That is where we have the real opportunity. The Government could be investing in alternatives, such as safe walking and cycling and public transport—all things that not only reduce carbon emissions but create a more liveable city for people and reduce the money that people have to spend just to travel. Most trips at peak time are quite short distances—less than 5 kilometres—and it is entirely possible to replace those with walking, cycling, or public transport if the infrastructure is there. It is much more affordable, obviously.

So on the one hand we have got to invest in alternatives, where those are available, and on the other hand we also need to internalise the costs. This bill, for example, internalises the costs of international processing and puts it back on to the people who are travelling. They are the ones who have to pay for the processing—it is not the taxpayers—and so should those who are generating carbon emissions and contributing to harmful climate change have to pay the price of that.

If people are facing the true cost of their choices, they are able to weigh up the costs and make the decision that makes the most sense to them. For example, for me to do my job, unfortunately at the moment I have to fly between Auckland and Wellington because there is no alternative, really, particularly because the passenger train has now been reduced to 3 days a week. There is no overnight train, and there is no high-speed train like we might have in another country.

I would happily pay that price. If paying that additional cost of the carbon emissions was going to provide the Government with more money to potentially invest in alternatives, that would make it easier, potentially, to travel without generating carbon emissions, or to invest in research into biodiesel alternatives. The Green Party supports this bill. We understand that it is incredibly important to look after our biosecurity. It is something that the Green Party has long championed, and it is wonderful to see the bill passed in the House this evening.

I can just remember that I am supposed to be speaking, but it is very hard to remember what I should be speaking about, because 8½ of the last 10 minutes covered nothing remotely related to the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill.

This bill came about primarily because of the closure of Iain Lees-Galloway’s Palmerston North Airport to international flights. People were very concerned at the ramifications of that and lobbied the Government. Actually, there is a clause in the bill that specifically deals with the ability of those airports to renew those international flights within 6 months without losing their services. However, all that I could add to this debate has already been so eloquently said by Minister Guy and Shane Ardern, the very competent chairman of the Primary Production Committee. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this bill, the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill—which, admittedly, is in its dying stages—even though it is not a piece of legislation that New Zealand First has had the opportunity to make input into. This is a shame because if we had, we could perhaps have brought some common sense and a degree of sanity to what is yet another example of poorly thought-through lawmaking on the part of this Government.

This is short-sighted legislation. It is misguided in its intentions and driven by a grasping mentality. Like much of this Government’s biosecurity agenda, it places too much reliance on unproven technology and questionable techniques, at the expense of front-line officers with years of experience and actual boots on the ground. This bill has obviously not been regarded as a crucial piece of this Government’s agenda, coming through, as it has, from the 49th Parliament, rising and falling on the Order Paper for most of the 50th Parliament, and limping through finally to the stage where we are about to sign it off.

Similar to my Green colleague who spoke earlier, Julie Anne Genter, I confess I wrote the nuts and bolts of this speech about 2 years ago. I had to go back through it again to find out why we were opposed to the bill. I am happy to report that our reasons are still sound. In essence, New Zealand First does not really object to the Government attempting to recover costs associated with screening passengers who are entering New Zealand through new and reopened airports and through new and low-volume ports of entry for biosecurity and other risks, if these costs are materially over and above that which could normally be expected.

We have some misgivings that this approach picks on the little guy and that the provinces are marginalised by it, the smaller airports, the regional airports, such as Palmerston North Airport, in the same way that this Government appears to regard much of the heartland as an irritant and an encumbrance rather than as the vitally important—indeed, the essential—core of New Zealand’s agriculture and tourism-based economy that it actually is. Perhaps the National Party has forgotten its roots as part of the process of selling its soul to the free-market economics of neo-liberal ideology.

But I digress—I digress just a little. We do not really object, as I say, to the Government attempting to recover costs where they have been incurred unreasonably or outside the scope of expected norms. We would question, however, how far the concept of user-pays is destined to proceed while general taxation continues. Will there come a time when every last dollar of Government expenditure is matched by a direct recovery of costs in some form or another? And yet general taxation continues unabated alongside it. We would question also the Government’s rationale in claiming that it must recover costs from new airports, restarted airports, and low-volume airports because operators of those airports are able to commence operations, bring passengers into New Zealand, and expose New Zealand to potential biosecurity risks without regard to the cost that such operations will necessarily impose on the nation’s border agencies, the Customs Service, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and the Aviation Security Service. Mentioning the ministry dates this speech. It no longer exists; it is now the Ministry for Primary Industries.

New Zealand First asks why, when it is the Government itself that should be licensing and approving the activation and operation of these newer and smaller airports, the Government does not take these costs into consideration when it is making the decision to allow any such new airport or point of entry to commence operations. Is this yet another case of deregulation and self-regulation of industry along the lines that we have seen with the likes of leaky buildings and Pike River?

Even under these circumstances, New Zealand First is not expecting the passage of this bill through the House to be arrested by our protests regarding it. It is a fait accompli that this bill will pass into law, because the Government that is sponsoring it has the necessary numbers in order to make it happen. This we accept, and this is why we regret that we were not able to make input into its early stages. We are voting against it because in action it will serve to reinforce bad practices at the border. It will make the Government’s current faulty direction in terms of biosecurity even worse. If the Government was intending in any way to focus its efforts on a regime of proper and effective biosecurity measures at the border, we would have less opposition to it. But it is becoming apparent that this Government has no such intention. New Zealand’s biosecurity is becoming less robust and more threatened at every turn.

Officers at the border are demoralised and disenchanted by the direction in which the Government is heading with regard to the treatment of biosecurity risks. They are struggling to understand why the ultimate responsibility for New Zealand’s safety and security should rest with them, when at every level of authority and management above them such responsibility is being abdicated. There are insufficient dog teams available to service our ports of entry, and officers complain frequently and with genuine concern about chronic and unaddressed understaffing. These shortcomings are being made in favour of scanners, profiling, and, most disturbingly, SmartGate—which, as any frequent traveller will attest, should be more accurately described as “DumbGate”, given that it allows for the potential to admit all and any biosecurity risks without any recourse to interception or redress at all.

💬 Ian McKelvie: You’re rabbiting on a bit.

If this Government’s desire to recover the cost of biosecurity—I am just looking after your patch, Mr McKelvie—screening at the previously described ports of entry was to be used to provide for adequate screening methods and effective interception of unidentified risk factors, New Zealand First would be less opposed to the bill. But while this cynical money-grubbing exercise disadvantages provincial areas in the way that it does and does not address New Zealand’s actual and real biosecurity needs as it should, New Zealand First remains opposed to the bill. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to be part of the third reading of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. I would like the House to appreciate that my short contribution is no reflection on the importance of biosecurity and the customs and excise side of things.

One thing that has not yet been mentioned is the cost. In each of those cases where there are efforts to start up an international airport, it costs about $2 million. As we look at the high-tech situation that is employed and involved today around airport technology, whether it is sniffer dogs or X-ray, it is highly costly to resettle and train staff and to move families.

I believe that this bill is just a good business function and that those people who are going to set up such a business of international arrivals in airports, at their terminals, will put this in their business case and adjust it accordingly. I have great pleasure in supporting this bill.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Kei te pai.

I am very pleased to add my contribution to the third reading of this bill, the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. We on this side of the House support this bill. We have supported this bill throughout. Like my colleagues, I believe I spoke at the Committee stage of this bill, which must have been over 2 years ago now. So I had to really reach back and think about what this bill was all about. But, here we are, nearly 4 years after it was introduced, and we are on the home stretch. We are actually going to get it passed. It is a very reasonable piece of legislation and we do support it.

We want to make sure that the Crown does not have to foot the bill for the processing costs of all international travellers and for all of the interactions that take place at our borders. It is fair for our airport operators to. Our main international airports are substantial operations. They are multinational listed companies. Some have substantial public ownership or local authority ownership. They are effectively public companies, and I think it is fair that—given the investment that is required in terms of aviation security, the New Zealand Customs Service, and, most important, biosecurity—those big airport operators do contribute to non-routine processing, in this case. We know that they are well-established operators and have been since they have been in operation, so it is fair that they contribute their fair share towards those processing costs.

I am very proud. I have heard contributions from around the House this evening about international airports in certain electorates, and I am pleased to say that my electorate has the most international airports here in New Zealand. We have got Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, and Queenstown, so there are plenty there. Unfortunately, I do not get Palmerston North, which is Mr Lees-Galloway’s. I understand that it cut out a few years ago, but hopefully it will come back.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: They’ll be back.

It will be back. It will be back. There are plenty of international airports in my rohe. I am very proud of that. I have been around most of them. I have not actually done international travel through them, but I know that it is very important, especially to the South Island economy, that we get our international travellers travelling to and from those international airports.

I would also say that this legislation also encompasses new or re-established international airports. We have mentioned Palmerston North, which will hopefully come back online very soon, but we could also, arguably—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: It still works; it just hasn’t got international flights.

It does work, and I understand that it does take the overflow and that when flights are diverted it still takes those international flights. So in a way you could say that it is still a type of international airport. It helps Wellington out every now and then.

We could say that we are looking at the future and hopefully at the growth of our passenger numbers in our regions especially. But, arguably, there is another international airport, depending on whom you talk to. I am talking about another amazing place in my great electorate, and that is the Chatham Islands. The Chatham Islands is a very small community, but they do regard the mainland as New Zealand and they are very much staunchly proud of the fact that they are Chatham Islanders. I thought that I would give that great community a little shout-out this evening. They do have big aspirations over there, and hopefully—you never know—one day they might have an international airport there themselves.

Getting back to this bill, we do support it. We have seen a lot of innovations, I guess, in recent years in terms of processing. SmartGate is one of them, as well as the advanced profiling of passengers who are coming through our borders. But we must not overlook the fact that you cannot beat having people on our borders, having well-resourced border security, especially our biosecurity system.

💬 Darien Fenton: Beagles too.

Yes, absolutely. I do not see many of them these days, but we need to have those cute, little, but very, very highly trained, beagles that do the sniff test for illicit drugs or whatever other illegal items that certain passengers may be carrying.

I do want to give a special acknowledgment to those fine men and women in our New Zealand Customs Service and the biosecurity service for the work they do. I say this in many of my speeches, but they do defend our pā. They defend Aotearoa. They defend it from biosecurity incursions and those nasty bugs, or whatever nasties they might be, that might come in that could potentially decimate—decimate—our primary sector, especially our export sector, which we are so highly reliant on.

So it is important that we do make sure that there is a well-resourced biosecurity service. We can benefit from technology, but you cannot lose sight of the fact that we also do need well-trained and well-resourced people on the front line who do their job to protect our borders.

I would also just like to pick up on Mr Prosser’s comment, because I know he was talking about how my colleagues over here in New Zealand First are opposing the bill. That is regrettable, but I do acknowledge Mr Prosser’s entertaining speech.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It was another incursion.

Indeed, it was another incursion. I think Mr Prosser maybe needs to look back in history to the time when Auckland International Airport was sold, and to the Minister—or one of the Ministers—at the time who actually signed off on that prospectus. That Minister was the Rt Hon Winston Peters. So that party has played a key part in terms of the privatisation of our international airports.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: That’s nonsense.

It is a fact. I will table the prospectus of that international airport, of which Mr Peters was the Treasurer at the time, if I can get my hands on it. I recall these things because I was part of an army of lawyers at the time that was doing a lot of the legal work behind the scenes in that initial public offering.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: You need to give that a bit more thought. You need to research just a little bit more so you get your facts right.

I am just saying that the Auckland International Airport float was actually during the time when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was the Minister who signed the prospectus.

He was one of two Ministers who actually did that.

But I digress—I digress. I want to get back to this bill. This is a very reasonable bill. It is a reasonable bill because we do not want these largely overseas-owned, floated, international airport operators to be getting a free ride off the taxpayer. I think it is fair—and I think that every Kiwi has a sense of fairness—that the operators should pay their fair share. We know that a lot of the operators are very profitable, and a lot of those profits are going straight back to wherever their institutional shareholders come from, whether it is the US, whether it is Australia, or whether it is anywhere around the world. So with the fact that they can generate their profits through the benefit of having to operate their airport and process all the travellers, it is certainly fair that those airport operators have to pay their fair share.

I would just like to make a final comment. I think that what could actually benefit our processing of international travellers would be to have a 10-year passport. I know that that was raised in front of a select committee today. I think Kiwis do deserve it. We need to revert back to the 10-year passport. It is a lot fairer on everybody. If you take 5 years, really that 5 years is condensed to only 4½ years of actual use of that passport. It is an ever-increasing cost. I think that our good, hard-working citizens out there who do want to travel should get a fair go and revert to the good old 10-year passport, whereby they can get good passage around the world under our highly respected passports. That would be a great gesture. I know that it is something that this side of the House will definitely be looking into. That concludes my speech. Kia ora tātou.

Ni hao. I support the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. Thank you.

Talofa lava, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am not sure whether I am going to be sharing my 5 minutes with the Green Party, but I will take it anyway and see what happens. I rise to support the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill, as we have agreed. We support it for the reason that this is an appropriate development. International airports are important for our country. We support it for the reason that it is important that if these international airports are going to be established in other regions, we should ensure that they have a resource in terms of protecting our borders with customs officials, etc.

My electorate has the Auckland Airport, which is one of the busiest international airports of New Zealand. I refer to it as the gateway to New Zealand and the gateway to the nation, the land of the young, beautiful, and gifted, which is a reflection of the make-up of that particular community. I know that my colleagues who were in the former Labour Government prided themselves on the fact that we took care of that and ensured that the resources and facilities were available at the airport to ensure that our borders were well protected. That was an important aspect of our vision for the future. You will recall that since this Government came into power we have questioned the way that it has cut funding to resources, particularly at the customs level. We have questioned the way that under its watch we have had the Psa disease, which has hurt our kiwifruit farmers. More recently, there has been a fruit fly found in our regions. That is of significant concern, and I know that my colleague Damien O’Connor raised consistently with the Minister of Customs—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: And agriculture.

—and agriculture—how the cutting of the funding when National came into Government has hurt our borders in that particular regard.

Airports are important, and I know that in the last 5 years we have had significant numbers of New Zealanders use those airports to fly away—to flee from this country.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: A thousand a week, is it?

About a thousand a week—52,000 in the last year or so, all flying to Australia. Although they have been using the new facility SmartGate, they could not wait to get out of this country since this Government came into power. I know that 52,000 Kiwis have fled our shores for a better life out there in Australia. Even though this Government has in the last day or two trumpeted how the economic recovery seems to have improved our employment rate, if those 52,000 New Zealanders were to return to our shores, I think we would be in a much worse state than the Government makes it out to be.

I have a cousin who is leaving our shores for Australia, unfortunately. She is married and has three children. Her oldest son is working. The three of them working have been able to support their family, pay the mortgage, and ensure that the younger kids get supported in their sports activities in their school. Last year my cousin’s husband lost his job out in Howick as, I think, a printer. As a result of losing that job, despite the fact that his wife and their oldest son were working, they could not afford to maintain their mortgage, despite the low interest rates that we are experiencing. As a result, in the last 2 or 3 months the husband has travelled to Melbourne to try to find work there. He has recently come back, has got a job there, and is now ready to move his entire family to live in Melbourne. They will not appreciate my naming them in the House, but I am quite saddened by the fact that despite us trying to convince them to stay, they do not believe any of the rhetoric that this Government has said. They do not believe any of the promises about the brighter future. That is why they are leaving New Zealand to go to Australia.

Can you blame them? Can you blame the 52,000 New Zealanders who have left our shores to try to find a better life in Australia? Despite this Government trumpeting and celebrating the improvement in our economic affairs, I think a large proportion of working class communities—everyday New Zealanders—are not able to celebrate that recovery. Overall, our Government is celebrating the drop in unemployment at 6 percent, but I think if you look, for example, to the Pacific communities, it still remains high at 13.7 percent. It is even worse for our young people. For our young people—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: And this has got what to do with cost recovery at airports?

Absolutely, airports—we are talking about economic development, OK? People getting jobs, people not getting jobs. As the Minister has intervened, I do want to say that since he has been the Minister of Customs there have been regular complaints, which I have referred to the Minister, often from the Muslim communities, who have been accosted at the airport. On one occasion I did ask the Minister whether he could assist in this, because what happens is when somebody dies in the Muslim community, protocols will permit that the dead be allowed to lie only for a certain number of days—

💬 Hon Member: One day.

One day; that is right. So when a parent or somebody dear to them dies, they are off. They are off. They are at the airport buying a ticket, getting on the first plane in, and getting on the first plane to return. Often, our officials looking at that get suspicious, but the reality is that because of cultural customs they must do that, so often these trips are never planned. I know that we raised it with the Minister, asking whether he could do something about certain individuals being blocked off at the airport and being investigated for suspicion, simply because they have not planned those trips. Well, you cannot plan for somebody dying. So, particularly in Muslim culture, that is important. I know that the Minister has struggled with that. He has struggled with understanding that culture, just as this Government has struggled to try to convince the rest of the country that things are better.

Things are not better. Things are not better. All you have to do is look at the card. Look at this card that was released today by the Salvation Army. Look. Air New Zealand also prides itself on saying that it is a No. 1 airline—top of its game—but, sadly, we cannot say that about this Government. It got a D for child poverty, not an A. It got a D. Unlike Air New Zealand, it got a D. Children—it got a C-. Anyway, I am disappointed that I have had to speak to this particular bill. There are so many things that we could have been talking about. We could have been talking about a better vision for this country, where everybody benefits and where everybody is able to get the opportunities to get ahead. Instead, we are talking about a bill that is as narrow as the arrogance of this particular Government. Thank you.

I am enormously proud to support this bill, the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill.

Bill read a third time.