Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2), Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. We have had a very robust debate this afternoon and this evening, and I thank the contribution from the House.

Primary sector leaders, as I have mentioned this afternoon and this evening in the House, are welcoming it, and some are even calling for a higher levy, similar to Australia’s. I know that some tourism commentators are saying it will reduce the actual tourist numbers coming into New Zealand, but I doubt that their concerns will actually materialise into too much, when we look at those forward projections of tourism growing at about 3 to 4 percent a year, potentially more, over the next 4 to 6 years.

These tourists who come to New Zealand come to enjoy, in part, the great outdoors. Our biodiversity relies on a very strong biosecurity system to avoid pests and diseases entering New Zealand. We have had numerous examples where they have entered, and didymo, of course, is one that is pretty topical and that has affected many rivers in New Zealand. Of course, that does not go down well with our clean, green image that we like to promote our country on. The fundamental principle behind the introduction of the border clearance levy is that it is fairer that travellers who generate the need for these border clearance services contribute to the cost of these activities. Over half of the cost of the levy will fall on foreign tourists, which the Government feels is appropriate. The levy will put border services on a sustainable footing by allowing funding to increase as passenger numbers rise. This is fairer. It is more responsive to managing the risk at the border, and our officials at the border will continue to provide quality services.

There is still much to do before we implement this on 1 January 2016: a public consultation period, submissions to be analysed, deciding on how the levy is to be collected, what the final rate will be, then striking a levy order, and beginning to educate travellers before we move into 1 January next year.

In summary, I am very proud of this legislation. I am very proud of the contribution that the National Government has made in Budget 2015 to strengthening biosecurity, and also of the contribution that has been made from customs in Budget 2015. The levy makes sense. It is about fairness and also, importantly, it is about a contribution for everyone who wants to be involved in biosecurity to get on board and engage in the Biosecurity 2025 strategy, which is out there soon and is to be widely consulted on. So there is a lot happening in this space, and that is why it will continue to be my No. 1 priority as Minister. I commend this legislation to the House.

I am pleased to speak in the final readings of this legislation, which has now been divided into two. We are disappointed, on this side of the House, because these bills impose a tax, and that is very clear. It has been established throughout the debate. It has been acknowledged by members on the other side—two members on the other side. This is the imposition of a tax—a new tax—and we are doing it under urgency. We are doing it in a rushed manner with no public consultation, no scrutiny, no engagement with affected parties, and there is no reason for that because the Minister has just acknowledged that he is about to conduct public consultation on what the levy fee should be, and all the conditions that he might impose around it.

Ultimately, it will be his decision as to what he recommends, and what travellers will actually be charged, but why go through this process in such a rushed manner now when he is already intending to go through a consultation process virtually immediately? I think it is just all around the wrong way. It is poor governance from this Government—sorry, it has been a very long day, Mr Deputy Speaker; ha, ha! It is poor from this Government, and yet again it is another broken promise, as we have established. And it has been acknowledged on both sides of this House that this is a tax. The Government promised no new taxes, and it has flip-flopped on that, and here we are.

Here it is imposing a tax that will hurt ordinary travellers. Every Kiwi who wants to travel—who wants to leave our fine shores and go on a holiday and go and visit loved ones—will be struck with this charge. Likewise, our important tourism industry—all our international visitors who bring a huge contribution to our country—will face an additional charge. We do not really know the impacts, but we know that in other jurisdictions there is a reduction in air traffic numbers and the like through the imposition of such levies. That is why our tourism industry has fought it so hard.

On the flip side, of course we want strong biosecurity systems. That is a given, given the nature of our economy and our reliance on the primary sector. It is no surprise, then, that the primary sector industries are all applauding this tax. They are not having to foot the bill; travellers will foot the bill. But it need not be the case, because the services that have been provided, through biosecurity screening and the like, have always been supplied by the Government through the taxpayers as a whole. That should continue to be the case. Unfortunately, what we are seeing is this arrogant Government pushing ahead, imposing a tax, and breaking the promises that it has made to the nation.

We are also concerned about the impact and the application of the legislation. It is hastily drafted. We do not really know whether it will do everything that it is intended to do. There could be unintended consequences—it has been rushed through that fast. We do not really want to be back here in a few weeks’ time trying to fix it up by putting through another piece of legislation. But that is what happens when you do things under urgency.

Lastly, I want to take Minister Wagner up on her offer to show me around the Joint Border Management System.

💬 Hon Nicky Wagner: Ah! Good. I’ll take you for a visit. We’ll go and have a look.

Yes, yes indeed. The Joint Border Management System—the $100 million lemon. We are still waiting to see the full functionality of that IT project. We are still waiting to see it. The due dates keep getting pushed out. The price tag keeps going up and up and up, and we do not know the full extent of the functionality.

We do not really know what benefits it is actually providing to the Ministry of Primary Industries. How does it help biosecurity screening for passengers? What happens? Yes, it is great that there are 2 million entries into a Trade Single Window, but what happens beyond that? Where is all the sophisticated risk and intelligence screening? That was the core purpose of the Joint Border Management System. That is what it was intended to do. Then, to also retire the legacy systems—those old, 20-year-plus computer systems, which are still chugging away. Our whole primary industries are resting on these old, 20-year-old IT systems, which are still having to carry the load, because we do not know what the Joint Border Management System has produced.

And why do we not know? Because it is shrouded in secrecy. The Minister will not tell us what is going on. The Minister has been in dispute with IBM. They have had to renegotiate the contract, they have had to reset the milestones, they have had to reprice everything, they have had to go, cap in hand, asking for more money, and we still do not know what they have delivered. So, Minister Wagner, I would really like to take up that opportunity to visit because I want to know what the Joint Border Management System is, what has actually been delivered, what is behind the velvet curtain, and is it actually doing what it was intended to do, when we have paid an investment of over $100 million into it? By all accounts it is just another Novopay that you want to keep under a shroud of secrecy, to hide behind lawyers and the like, and dress it up with a whole bunch of gobbledegook technology language. We want to know exactly what we will get for that $100 million-plus investment, whether it will actually be delivered on the due date or keep getting pushed out, and whether the price tag will keep expanding.

Those are my concluding remarks. We do oppose this bill. We oppose the imposition of this tax. We oppose the fact that this Government has, yet again, misled the country and gone against the undertakings that it has given to the public, and now, travellers from far and wide, and anyone who wants to go on a trip, will soon be facing another hefty increase to their travel costs. That is a very unfortunate circumstance. Thank you.

It is with enormous pleasure that I rise to support these bills that will establish the border processing levy. I want to start by acknowledging the questions from the member Rino Tirikatene and say, yes, I am very happy take you to see the Joint Border Management System to see how successful it is and how well it is working. At the same time I am very happy to offer you a free, complimentary full body search, if you would like to take that up.

New Zealanders have told us that they want a safe border. This levy will cover the costs of managing our border efficiently and well. It will cover the costs, and only the costs, of managing our borders. It is to protect us against illegal travellers and the illegal goods that they carry with them—drugs, firearms, or objectionable material. It is to protect us against biosecurity risks—things like fruit fly and didymo and, of course, the biggest threat of all to our economy, foot-and-mouth disease. I think it is really interesting, and I would like to point out to Mr Prosser, that, yes, good biosecurity will protect our agricultural industries, but it also protects our tourism industry. As we have heard, when they had the foot-and-mouth outbreak in the UK it cost nearly £8 billion—which is about NZ$15 million—in terms of travel and tourism costs.

I do want to add to the Hon Nathan Guy’s discussion in terms of the regions. The regions are the places that provide our agricultural exports. The regions are often where the people who operate our tourism industry live. So if we want to look after our regions we need to impose this levy at the border. I just want to say: let us forget about the semantics—tax or levy, levy or tax. Forget about the semantics—this payment is all about cost recovery, and only cost recovery, at the border. And it is about choice, remembering that only 42 percent of the people who go across our borders are New Zealanders. Every traveller will have to pay to go across the border. Everybody will have to pay the levy, but they will pay it only if they choose to use our border services—only if they choose to use the services.

Another question that Mr Prosser was asking me was how we are going to collect this money. The key issue here, and it does reflect on what the member Jacinda Ardern was talking about, is to make the collection of this border clearance levy as simple and as easy as possible. To do that we are proposing to use existing payment systems. The airlines would pay a monthly lump-sum payment to the Civil Aviation Authority, and the cruise ship operators would pay the Customs Service. These funds would then be allocated to the Customs Service and the Ministry of Primary Industries. For other customers, such as the people who travel on private yachts or aircraft, the levy will be collected directly from them as they enter and depart New Zealand. Again, the member Steffan Browning was concerned about the cost of managing the border for these private yachts. We do that now. We make sure that every yacht is processed correctly at the border.

Finally, for Mr Shaw, I do not think he needs to be concerned about how we manage the intelligence at the border. There will be no changes to our normal customs procedures. We have to have a face-to-face check against their documentation, and that also reflects why there is a cost going in and going out, whereas only arrivals have to do biosecurity. Whether people are going in or out, we have to have a face-to-face check at the border.

So, finally, just to recap on why this levy is good for New Zealand and New Zealanders, it is flexible and it is futureproofed. As traveller numbers increase, so will the levy increase and, interestingly enough, that is not just about numbers. As these numbers are increasing, there is a greater diversity of types of travellers who come across our borders; there is greater complexity at the border, and those funds will gather so that we have the resources to manage that.

We certainly want to make sure that our borders are efficient and effective. We do not want to see the sort of congestion that you might see in Los Angeles or Miami. It is fairer. This levy is fairer because it applies to the people who use the services and it applies to the people who provide the risk to us. Just like the system that we have for goods, travellers will pay their way to get through the border.

Finally, it is fit for purpose. It is international best practice to have a levy at the border. The same principle is used right around the world. The only difference is that our levy will be more cost-effective, at about $20, whereas Australia is at least double that, the UK is over five times that, and also Canada and the US. At the moment, New Zealanders are in a lose-lose situation. They pay all the costs at our border for international visitors, and then have to go and pay the costs at other people’s borders—lose-lose. So, basically, I really support this bill. It is good for New Zealand and good for New Zealanders. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the bills divided from the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill because I want to put my point of view to the general public about what this is really about. This is actually really about the Government collecting more tax money because it cannot balance the books. That is what this is really about, and it is my pleasure to tell the public that.

On this side of the House we are very serious about biosecurity and about border security—so much so that through 9 years of our Labour Government, the last Labour Government, not once did we put in an arrival tax or a departure tax. Why was that? We did not need to because we know how to run the economy. We know how to make a surplus. These bills are about collecting more money so that the National Government can scrape and crawl up to a minor surplus next year. It promised it this year and has failed. It has failed seven times to deliver a surplus, and that is what this legislation is really about.

We have heard from the previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, that New Zealanders are in a lose-lose situation. Well, sorry Minister, but you cannot have it both ways. Here are some facts: international visitors spent $10.3 billion last year in the New Zealand economy, including $700 million in GST. Well, when we were the Government we managed the whole economy and paid for border security and biosecurity through the taxes like the $700 million that had been collected through GST. The fact of the matter is that the Government is unable to do that, and it should fess up that the border levy is a tax.

Can I also mention the lack of detail around exactly how much is going to be charged? We are hearing figures like “about $6” and “around $16”. This paper here says it will be around $36 for a return journey, and it says that is lower than Australia’s, but we do not know that for a fact. James Shaw in his contribution criticised the Labour Party for voting for a bill that actually had the formula within it. Well, the formula for this, for the benefit of that member, is not in here, and we do not know it and they are voting for it. How can that be right? We need to have clarity around exactly how much people are going to be charged at the border to come into our country. You know, that is kind of fundamental.

The Government has got the process in the wrong order. It is in the wrong order. You do the legislation after the consultation, not before. You know, give the public the opportunity to be consulted on all parts of these bills, not just a little bit; not just a bit here and agree that we are going to pass this bill and we will let you know the detail later—trust us, we know what we are doing. Well, if the public were to trust you, then you would not have cut KiwiSaver eight times—and we have been through that legislation today.

I suspect that there is probably going to be a statutory amendment bill coming up because that is what happens when you rush legislation through. People are not consulted, especially when they are told—as we see in the sign my colleague held up—there are no new taxes. Well, you know, when it looks like a tax, sounds like a tax, guess what? It is a tax. It is a tax, and so much so that members opposite got a little bit confused and started referring to it as a tax. And they are right. That is exactly what it is. I take this call to speak out against it and I disagree with—

💬 Alastair Scott: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I anticipate the point of order. Yes, the sign should be removed.

💬 Alastair Scott: I am sorry to interrupt, but my understanding is that the member can use—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have dealt with the point of order. I anticipated your point of order.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So, finally, I would just like to say we oppose this bill for all of those reasons, and I think that once again the Government has got it wrong. Thank you.

The Hurricanes are dominant, the New Zealand cricketers are dominant, and the National Party and its allies have been dominant for the last 3 days. I have much pleasure in commending this very pragmatic piece of legislation to the House.

I am not going to be that fast. I am pleased to be speaking to this legislation arising from the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill. It is very good to see tourists paying their way towards biosecurity. I am disappointed that we are not having $100 million in new money on top of old spending—very disappointed with that.

There has been a considerable number of incursions. There are continuous incursions—30 to 40 a year, we hear—and each one of them could cost our primary industries, which are the backbone of this economy, and which will remain the backbone of this economy for a very long time, probably for ever. We need to be putting this extra money in. It needs to be extra money. However, getting a move on, and getting further contribution, is excellent.

What we really need, though, is the Government, that front bench, not holding back a real increase in spending on biosecurity. We need that. We need it very, very urgently so that we can speed up incursion fix-ups and repairs when things do get in, but, better still, to increase those inspections to six-sided on the containers, and to get business paying its fair share by increasing the levy on business as well, not just on tourists coming in and out.

I think the noise on that side suggests that there was an imminent increase in their excise tax, but there is no imminent increase in the excise tax. The people barracking from the left-hand side of the House will get their drink in due course and very soon. So we will support this bill. We would love to see a lot more money going into biosecurity. Thank you.

I am disappointed. I am disappointed because at the outset of this process, I really wanted to be able to support this legislation arising from the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill. I really did. I genuinely did. We have got to the end of it, and I cannot.

My colleague Mr Browning put his finger on the reason, and put it quite succinctly as to why. It comes down to whether or not this is actually additional money. It turns out that it is not. If it was, if we were talking another $100 million of extra money on top of what we currently spend on border protection, we would be all in favour of it. I asked several times through the course of the stages of this debate for a straight-out confirmation, or otherwise, from the Ministers involved as to whether or not this was additional funding. I did not get a yes. We got some fudging and some smoke and some mirrors and a lot of indication that, actually, all we are doing is shifting the funding stream from one place to another.

On the face of it, yes, it is about fairness. We agree that it is all about fairness. It is fair that those who pose the risk should pay for the risk. We do not actually have an issue with incoming passengers paying a biosecurity levy, if that was what it was, or a tax—call it what you want. And do you know what? I do not believe that “Joe Public” the international traveller would care all that much about paying $16 to come here, either. I do not think they would notice, frankly, on top of several thousand money units from wherever you are coming from in the world to buy a ticket to come to New Zealand, which is as far away from anywhere as you can get; another 16 bucks is neither here nor there. It is embedded in the ticket and they will not notice. That itself is not the issue. The issue is whether that $16, which was going to conglomerate and become 100 million bucks, is going to be extra money for biosecurity or not.

We have heard that Kiwifruit Vine Health, Horticulture New Zealand, the dairy companies—all these companies are fully in favour of it. And I do not blame them. I do not blame them. I think they are supporting this because they believe they are getting another $100 million of extra funding and, actually, they are not. Actually, all they are getting is some travellers paying what they used to pay out of tax. That in itself may be enough of an enticement for them to support this. They might think “Well, OK, here’s 100 million bucks or whatever it is that the country spends on biosecurity coming out of the travellers’ pockets, not out of my pocket as a primary sector business person.” That might be enough to make them happy, but, actually, I think they are excited about this because they think “Wow! All of a sudden we are going to get the extra funding for biosecurity that we have needed and wanted for a long time.” And I think they are going to be sorely disappointed when they find out that, actually, it is the same amount of money; it is just coming from a different source.

I could be wrong. I will say this now. If we arrive at this point in the cycle next year when we have the Budget, and we look at the figures as they have been allocated and as they have been spent, and we look at the spend on biosecurity, and we look at this levy and the money that has come in from it since then, or the year after—however long it takes, however long it takes to get there—and we discover that here is the amount of money that we were spending and here is the amount of money that we have spent, and all of a sudden there is this massive increase, I will eat a big slice of humble pie. But I do not think I am going to be eating that slice of humble pie, because I do not think we are going to find—

💬 David Bennett: You might as well have the whole pie!

Oh, here we go—Mr Bennett. It must be getting late. It is approaching the witching hour and the bats are out in the belfry.

I am not going to be eating that slice of humble pie, because that extra money is not going to be spent. The Minister talked about New Zealand First getting in behind the regions. Well, we are in behind the regions, and part of us being in behind the regions is me standing here explaining to the regions that, actually, this thing that you are being sold as a big increase, as a big, massive new pot of money, is not that at all. All it is is that it is being taken from here instead of being taken from there. It is the same amount of money. We are not going to get the 100 percent inspection of all passengers, all luggage, all mail, and all freight. We are not going to get the inspection—

💬 Hon Nicky Wagner: Dogs sniffing away.

Oh, we are getting some more sniffer dogs, but we lost a whole bunch of sniffer dogs in just the last couple of years, so perhaps we are getting back up to where we were when we had just an insufficient number of sniffer dogs instead of a massively insufficient number of sniffer dogs.

We are not going to get all our shipping containers inspected. Arguably, you could say that the number of shipping containers and freight coming into the country provides a far greater biosecurity risk than passengers coming in on cruise ships and aeroplanes. But, as it stands, about one in four shipping containers gets inspected, and after this levy is imposed, about one in four shipping containers will get inspected. So those risks will carry on coming in. They will carry on coming in.

There is the issue of urgency, which has meant that we have not been able to delve into this matter as closely as we have needed to. There will be a process of consultation from here on in, and we will design this levy, and that will be all well and good. But, actually, it should have happened beforehand. We have been through that. That is another aside. The outgoing levy—again, this comes back to the issue as to whether this is new money or whether it is just a different source.

When the Minister of Customs says that it is going to support customs activities for people leaving the country, well, that is fine, but she also talks about cost recovery. So there is some money that has been coming out of general taxation to run the Customs Service so that you can walk out through the border and get your passport stamped or have the machine read it, and now you are going to be paying $6 for that. That dosh that was being spent by the Government on that is not coming from that any more; it is going to come from the levy but, actually, nothing changes. There is no additional funding going into it.

💬 Stuart Smith: Would you say that again.

There is no additional funding going into it.

💬 Stuart Smith: No, the whole thing.

The whole thing from the start? You will be able to watch it later on, on In The House, Mr Smith.

I am going to wrap up by saying that I am genuinely disappointed because, as I say, we went into this process really with the hope that we were going to be able to support this legislation, really hoping that we were going to discover that we are getting an extra $100 million for biosecurity—Callooh! Callay! It is Christmas. But, actually, we are not getting an extra $100 million for biosecurity. All we are doing is changing where it is coming from, from one place to another place. Biosecurity is going to be the same. We are not going to get extra boots on the ground. We are not going to get the 100 percent inspection that we need. We are still going to be at risk. The incursions are still going to be coming in. We are still going to be faced with things like fruit fly. Foot-and-mouth ain’t going to go away.

💬 Ron Mark: Border Patrol.

Yes, as Mr Mark says, you just need to watch Border Patrol and see where the risks are.

This legislation is not the silver bullet. I would go so far as to say that it is disingenuous. If the Minister had come out, if any of the Ministers had come out, and said: “Yes, we absolutely guarantee that this is $100 million of extra money, not just money coming from one place instead of another place.”, we would have been able to support it. But it is not. It is smoke and mirrors. We cannot support this legislation.

With great pleasure I commend this legislation to the House.

I am pleased to be able to stand and deliver my 23rd and final speech of this urgency session. I would like to start by saying to the Government that if you want to introduce urgency on matters that are, frankly, not urgent, then you can sit here and listen to it. You can sit here and we will spin this out. This is punishment for introducing all of those bills, none of which were urgent, none of which had to be introduced under urgency. So you can just sit here and listen. It is regrettable that this legislation has been brought in under urgency with no ability to invite submissions. I completely agree with the Labour Party on that point, and the Green Party has consistently fought against the use of urgency for things that are not urgent.

We have heard comments both for and against the legislation from various businesses and industry associations but not within the normal boundaries of the proper legislative process, and that is unfortunate. I have been in business for quite a long time and, frankly, I never met a business that did not like the Government paying for its costs. I do not want to be flippant with people’s concerns, but when you look at the international comparisons and you consider that the level of this new passenger tax will be under 1 percent of the cost of travel, on balance those concerns seem to be unfounded. This is a good way to raise revenue to cover this cost. It is transparent, it increases accountability for the use of that money, and it directly ties revenue and costs to each other. It internalises a cost of the industry that had previously been externalised to the New Zealand taxpayer. Part of the good news about this is that somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of the revenue here will be paid for by foreign visitors. So you can actually see this as a new form of foreign exchange earnings.

The level of the new passenger tax is well below the international average. It creates a mechanism that we can use in the future for funding the Department of Conservation estate or to help out local authorities that currently carry a lot of the cost of infrastructure or marketing for tourism. The Greens have consistently been calling for more money for better biosecurity for many, many years, and we have been calling for new revenue streams to pay for it. So the Greens are very happy that National has listened to us, after all of this time, and we are very happy to support National’s new passenger tax. Thank you.

I was expecting another National Party MP to get up and tell us why this was such a wonderful bill, but those members have given up. They have completely given up. We have exhausted them, and they have realised that they have got nothing positive left to add to the debate tonight, because they know that they are on the wrong side of this debate and they know that the public have found them out.

This bill, the “Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Tax Bill”, is a metaphor for this Budget and this Government. First of all, it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The Government has been telling us all night that this is somehow going to raise more money for biosecurity—the money raised is going to be applied to biosecurity, and we are going to have a wonderful, new, more robust biosecurity system because of the money raised from this. But that is not true at all. This money is not all going to go towards biosecurity or, at least, the money raised here is simply going to replace money that has been spent on biosecurity before. Parties on both sides of the House have made a priority of biosecurity for years. There is nothing new about this Government talking about biosecurity being a priority. It is a priority for the Government and it is a priority for us, because we know that biosecurity is so fundamentally important to our economy. It is pure smoke and mirrors. There is nothing in the way of additional funding for biosecurity as a result of this. Just like the rest of the Budget, this bill is smoke and mirrors.

Secondly, it demonstrates a Government in absolute disarray. Government members have not been able to tell us tonight whom this new tax is going to apply to and who is going to pay this new tax. They have not been able to tell us what it is going to be spent on, and they have absolutely no idea how much this tax is going to be. They are passing a new tax under urgency at quarter to 10 at night and they have got absolutely no idea how much it is going to be. On Thursday it was going to be $16; then by the first reading speech tonight it was going to be $20; by the second reading speech tonight it was going to be $22—they have no idea. This Government is in absolute disarray because it cannot honestly come to this House. It has come to this House and it is implementing a new tax without knowing who is going to pay it, what it is going to be spent on, or how much it is going to be—a Government in disarray.

What this is, of course, is a new tax. Remember the promise—remember the promise: “No new taxes”. Look at that lovely picture of John and Bill there, smiling lovingly into one another’s eyes and promising the country no new taxes. Well, right through this Budget we have had three new taxes. It is the Government’s first Budget after the election—the election where it promised no new taxes—and this Budget has introduced no less than three new taxes. Why has the Government introduced three new taxes? Because it is failing to get the books back into surplus. This is not new money for biosecurity; this is freeing up other money so that the Government can desperately clutch at any straw available to try to get the books back into surplus. That is the truth of this. That is what is going on.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Let’s get a clutch of that hair.

Hey, Simon Bridges can talk about hair as much as he likes. Half of the country’s oil production resides in the hair of that man. No wonder he is the Minister for it—he is its primary consumer. This is a new tax, and the reason we have got this bevy of new taxes from—oh, he does not like it!

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take personal offense at those comments. I have been getting a lot of good comments about this new hairdo.

Oh, dear. Government members do not like it all, do they? They have got to find any way to try to interrupt a speech that actually points out the truth of this Budget, the Budget that introduced three new taxes after they promised no new taxes. Any little way that they can to squeak the numbers back into surplus—the surplus that we have got to wait until next year for, just like we had to wait until last year. This bill is a broken promise, just like the rest of this Budget. This bill is a broken promise and it is a sneaky new tax, which is what this Budget is all about. New Zealanders have seen through it. New Zealanders have absolutely seen through this Government. It promised no new taxes. It promised to get the books back into surplus. Promises, promises—always around the corner, always next year. You have got to wait, wait, wait under this Government, because this has been the Budget of broken promises and sneaky new taxes. This bill is an absolute metaphor for that.

This Government is in absolute disarray. It has had 7 long years to get the books back into surplus. It was nine surpluses on this side of the House and none—not one—on that side of the House. 9 nil—9 nil. That is the truth of it. That is the truth of it. The people of New Zealand are coming to understand that when it comes to economic management you cannot trust the National Party to run the Government books back into surplus. You cannot trust the National Party on its election promises, because it will promise one thing—it will promise no new taxes and then it will introduce three, just like it promised not to put GST up and then put GST up. No one can trust that Government any more—no one can trust that Government, and this bill is just a metaphor for the whole thing. Of course we are opposing this bill. We are opposing the whole Budget, because it is a broken promise to the people of New Zealand. They can see through it. This is step one towards the end of this Government and a Labour-led Government after 2017.

My heart goes out to the previous member who spoke, Iain Lees-Galloway, given that he cannot hold up a picture of his leader, Andrew Little. He is having to hold up a picture of John Key and Bill English—your political heroes. That is why I support this bill.

Tonight we have seen the Labour Party, which has been so full of dictionaries and rhetoric that it has forgotten the purpose of what these bills are all about. We have also seen Mr Prosser over there, who knows exactly what is good for him and biosecurity in the regions, but he cannot get his party to stomach it. And we have had an absolutely commendable presentation from the Greens, who know exactly what is good for them. I commend these bills to the House.