Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill

I have several questions for the Minister of Local Government on aspects of this bill. I return to the regulatory impact statement (RIS), and I’m on “Section B: Summary Impacts: Benefits and costs”, noting that “No specific decisions have been made on where [the tourist tax revenue] will be spent.” In the RIS, “It is envisaged that $80 million of revenue will be used to support conservation and enhance tourism infrastructure.”

Question number one to the Minister of Local Government is: does she anticipate that half of that $80 million revenue will, in fact, go to the local government agencies responsible for most tourism infrastructure? The question matters because while the $80 million revenue is in the RIS, it’s just a projection. What we do know about the New Zealand economy is that it is slowing, and that it is slowing fairly quickly. Part of that slow-down, of course, is an adjustment in tourism numbers. The Minister of Tourism, at some point, no doubt, will make the point that tourism numbers are still growing, and that is true, but what is also true is that tourism numbers—the growth is slowing.

So for a sustainable funding model—which this purports to be—I’d like the Minister of Local Government to answer the question. Given that the roughly half—but we don’t know, because it doesn’t specify in the legislation. There are after all, only four pages to this bill, and one of them is blank. It is only estimated that $40,000—sorry, $80,000—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: No, million dollars.

Sorry, $80 million. Gosh, it must be 10.35 p.m., right? Apologies to the committee.

So roughly half of $80 million and sinking will go to local government. How will that be distributed?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can I just check with the member—sorry to do this—are you speaking on Part 1 or Part 2?

Yes, yes, very closely. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): OK, thank you. I’m just struggling to—yeah, I just want to bring you back to that.

Thank you. And I will zero in even closer to Part 1, because I think that would be useful.

Perhaps a bit of context for the Chairperson might be useful. I’m referring to Part 1, clause 5(2)(a), around the definition of Minister. And while I was talking about the amount of the tourism fund, it is integral to the discussion. But I’m very interested to know, in the provision (2)(a) “in relation to provision of, or made under this Act (or to such a provision for particular purposes)”, which Minister is being referred to here? Is it none of them? Is it all of them? Is it any portfolio Minister who has an interest, such as the Minister for Local Government? I am interested in her views in the course of this committee of the whole House.

Is it the local government Minister, because she will be concerned and interested to know how much revenue she may get from this tourist tax? Or is it the Minister of Conservation, because the Minister will be very concerned with how she is going to spend a portion of this tourist tax on the crisis in threatened species. Or is it the Minister of Immigration? I don’t know. The bill doesn’t specify, and yet this committee needs an answer in the absence of a select committee process.

So does the Minister of Immigration plan to be one of those Ministers who may have an interest in the tourist tax for the provision of a particular purpose, and what might that be? Well, it could be a lot of things. It could be addressing the issues of exemptions—whether it’s a class exemption or whether it’s an exemption for a particular person. Is some of this projected $80 million going to be used by the immigration Minister in the administration of this tourist levy? Therefore, is the Minister of Local Government and the Minister of Conservation and, of course, the Minister of Tourism—are their allocations going to be impacted by that?

I think we need to know. The visitors need to know, who are coming from South Korea, paying $35 at the border, plus an extra $7 for an electronic travel authority if they organise that from their phone and $9 if they do it from their PC. Those tourists really need to know whether or not this tourist tax is going to be used by the Minister of Immigration to administer aspects of this tourist tax. And if that is so, how is the Minister of Immigration going to account for that? How is the Minister of Immigration going to come before the Estimates examination in the next financial year and account for that amount of funding from the tourism levy, arguably, being diverted into matters such as considering individual exemptions from the tourist levy? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I too want to take a call on Part 1, clause 4, which relates to section 3 of the amended principal Act. As we, on this side of the House, have been debating through the first and second readings, we’ve indicated that we are very unhappy with the lack of focus, the lack of definition, and the lack of substance in terms of what this bill is actually going to do in real terms. If we look at new section 3(2)(h), it says, “enables a levy to be charged to fund, or contribute to the funding of, costs associated with conservation or tourism.” So I’ve got a number of questions that just relate to a few of those words, for the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Immigration.

What does “contribute” mean? How will a contribution be defined? Does contribution mean “fully fund”? Does contribution mean “partially fund”? Is there a formula? Is there some kind of mechanism? Is there an algebraic formula or algorithm to try and figure out what the size and the quantum of that contribution will be? Who is it that will make the decision about what that contribution that’s referred to in new section 4(2)(h) will be?

Then it goes on to say, “enables a levy to be charged to fund, or contribute to the funding of, costs associated with conservation or tourism.” Then we need to, I think, address the definition of the word “funding”. Again, is this going to be the funding of a complete business entity? Is it going to be funding fully and completely, or just partially, of a project that’s being developed or run by a local government agency—a council or a regional council? Will that funding be, actually, all dollars and cents? Could it be funding that is made up proportionally of advice by consultants or by advisers, maybe Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials or tourism ministry officials? We don’t have any sense of what the definition of funding will be, in terms of that clause.

Then we go on to the next little word that needs addressing, and that is “costs” associated with. Costs? What are the costs going to be? I don’t know what the costs are going to be. Could it be the costs of building or construction? Is it the cost of running a car? Is it the cost of lunch? Is it the cost of afternoon tea? There’s absolutely no clarity around what the funds that will be collected by way of this levy are going to be applied to or for. “Costs” is an incredibly loose word. That is not defined, not set out in any definitive way in this piece of legislation, and it seems, again, to be just a reconfirmation of the concerns that we have on this side of the committee that this is a loose piece of legislation that is not clear in its intention.

One of the things that I learnt over a long number of years in the commercial area before coming to Parliament is that one person’s costs are another person’s expenses, or another person’s slush fund, or could be used for all kinds of different things. It’s a question of how tight—how tight—that is going to be. I can assure the committee of the whole House that, actually, we do need some definition around that.

Then we go on to the last important words in this little section: “conservation or tourism”—so costs associated with conservation or tourism. How are we going to define exactly what conservation and tourism are? Conservation and tourism are a bit like beauty: they’re in the eye of the beholder. Is this the Department of Conservation that is being referred to here? Is this a community conservation group? Is this a beach clean-up group? Is this the provision of public conveniences in a park in a council area? Where do we go in terms of tourism? Does that include somebody that’s going out for a drive in their electric vehicle on a Sunday afternoon? Does that count as tourism? Or is it someone that’s travelled halfway across the world from the Northern Hemisphere to come here? Clearly, they are a tourist, but what is the definition of how this funding is going to be spent?

The regulatory impact statement indicates that, potentially, some $80 million is going to be contributed. I think the committee can legitimately ask questions as to “Where?”, “How?”, “What?” Where is this money going to go, who is going to make the decisions, and how are those decisions going to be implemented in reality?

Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to take a call on Part 1, “Amendments to preliminary provisions”, in this Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill, otherwise known as the “Tourist Tax Bill”.

This is, basically, the clauses that come together that enable a tourism tax to be charged, as part of amending the Immigration Act. I think that this comes back to the ideology and some of the matters that have been raised throughout the first and second readings, in that when we look at section 4 being amended, and the definition of “international visitor conservation and tourism levy”, it means “a levy imposed by regulations under section 400 for the purposes of section 399A”. This comes back to the very fact that this is a process that is being run under urgency, that we are not going through a full process to select committee and hearing from submitters and getting to truly analyse and question the bill. Yet, within this amendment bill there is a deference to regulations, and that is set out, obviously, in Part 2. But this is the problem with the amendment bill, in that Part 1 basically says that this levy is going to be set out as functioning—the way it’s going to be used is going to be defined by the Minister by regulation. This side of the House has a real problem with this, because that is quite arbitrary, and, quite frankly, for a Government that says that it prides itself on fairness, I have a real problem with the fact that these arbitrary decisions are going to be made by a Minister.

I defer again to my colleague the Hon Jacqui Dean, who raised another important point about the definition, under Part 1, of “Minister”. I would add to her questions about which Minister, and how Ministers are going to make decisions, how it would actually work in practice with respect to the number of Ministers that these portfolios transverse. I would like to know how these decisions are going to be made, what priority is going to be given to the distribution of these funds, how these Ministers are going to come to these conclusions to appropriately distribute—well, first of all, to collect; second of all, to prioritise projects, and then to distribute. Because, quite frankly, it comes back to the fact that this tax is going to be governed by a set of regulations that we have no idea as to what they are going to contain. We have no idea as to how they are going to be set, and that is an absolute problem for us on this side of the House.

We just simply have a real problem with the ideology that this Government is bringing another tax into play. It’s a tax and spend Government, and the signals that it is sending to the tourism industry and to our international visitors are appalling.

This side of the House believes that infrastructure is important for tourism and on the conservation estate. We absolutely believe in that and that’s why we had several initiatives, such as the Tourism Infrastructure Fund, where we were investing in this industry. But Part 1 here brings about the power for another tax, but, again, with a process that is flawed. We are not going through an appropriate process to challenge officials and the Minister as to what will be in those regulations. We do not have a line of sight as to how they’re going to work, and, quite frankly, I feel that this tax could be misused, could be ineffective, and, again, if you go back to the RIS, and you look at the finances, it’s hardly worth bringing it in at all.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to follow on from that excellent speech and the points that were raised there around ministerial roles in this regard. When you look at Part 1, clause 5, it amends the principal Act’s definition of “Minister” to enable responsibility for different provisions to be given to different Ministers. I just want to encourage the Labour Party to reflect on what that actually means. Now, I’m no great fan of the Labour Party; you know, we disagree on virtually everything. But I do—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I’m shocked.

I know, and this will come as a shock. I do respect the Labour Party because it is one of the major political parties in New Zealand. I don’t believe what they think, but they do genuinely believe what they think, and they have a certain position that they wish to see for the future of New Zealand, and that’s fine. That’s their personal belief. They’re a party that’s been there for many, many decades and have governed this country, sometimes well, sometimes averagely, and sometimes poorly, as in the case we are at the moment. But—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Where are we going with this?

No, it’s a very important point that the Labour Party needs to reflect on. So I’m saying that when you have a combination of Ministers, there can be an issue. You could have a Labour Minister who is relatively sensible and could do the right thing—might be misguided but might do the right thing. Then you could have a coalition partner Minister that doesn’t do the right thing, that is not sensible, and that is not reasonable.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Can you think of an example?

I can think of an example. Well, actually, I can think of a few examples but many of them aren’t to do with this bill.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Can you think of a recent example?

I can think of a recent example that directly impacts on this bill.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Which one?

That is the example where a very reasonable member of the Labour Party, David Parker—puts himself out there as a reasonable member of the Labour Party—listened to what his officials said, and came to a conclusion that was what the official said. This is about ministerial conflict. He did exactly what his department recommended. But then his ministerial approval required another Minister to agree with him, and that other Minister went against her department and went against a reasonable Minister that was upstanding. That is a member that declined an application when she had a 96 percent approval rate of all other applications. She has had over $5.5 billion of land sold under this Government to overseas interests and approved them all, basically, apart from one—apart from one. One time she overrode the other Minister.

This is something I want the Labour Party to reflect on, because this legislation creates exactly the same problem where you could have a reasonable Labour Minister being overridden by an unreasonable Green Minister. Then it happened in the OceanaGold case just recently. That Minister overrode a reasonable Labour Minister—overrode a department, just for her own interests. And we know that—

💬 Hon Member: Say “communists”.

No, no I’m not saying “communists”, because I don’t think the Green Party are communists. I think they’re worse than communists. Communists actually believed in what they were doing. The Green Party don’t believe in what they’re doing. They go out there and fly this green flag every election but they don’t believe in it. Look what they do when they’re in Government: nothing for the environment—nothing. All they do is pounce around this country on planes, using up carbon. I remember the Green Party, when I first came into this Parliament, every Green member used this word all the time, “peak oil”, “Peak oil; it’s coming.” Where did that go? Now it’s “climate change, climate change”. What’s it going to be in 10 years’ time? The Green Party has got no principles. The Labour Party has principles. Even if they’re wrong, they have principles. Eugenie Sage has no principles. She did exactly the opposite of what her department requested.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): A point of order, the Hon Tracey Martin.

New Zealand First Party, well, they’ve got no principles either. But we know that. Their leader has got no principles.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Mr Bennett, I have called a point of order. Will you resume your seat, please.

I thought you were going to give me another five minutes—OK, sorry.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I realise it’s late and that member is tired, [Interruption] but that has absolutely nothing to do with—[Interruption]

Thank you. I thank the member—[Interruption] No—thank you. Everybody just sit down, please. No, no, just sit down. I’m going to rule on that point of order. I’m just going to say I was actually letting the member’s time run out and then just bringing the committee back to order. I think you’re right; it is late and it is also important that we have a little bit of levity. We’ve been at this all day today, so I was allowing for that to happen. Now we’re going to bring the committee back to order. I’m sorry, Mr Bennett, your time has actually expired.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It’s a common theme of the New Zealand First Party that when they feel attacked they breach a speech with a point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Is this a point of order?

Yes, it is a point of order. And they constantly do that when they feel that they’re being attacked. They use the point of order process to break a speech, and especially a fine speech that was going along well. So that member over there needs to withdraw and apologise. Now, I don’t normally ask for that.

Order! Order! Order! Mr Bennett, that is not for you to determine. [Interruption] Please, Mr Bennett, will you resume your seat. I am on my feet. Now, you will stand withdraw and apologise for that gross disrespect of my position in the Chair.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you very much.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No, just a moment. You made a point of order, Mr Bennett, and actually what you ended up doing was creating disorder. You cast aspersions on what is actually a very useful process in this Chamber. Everyone has the opportunity and the right to make a point of order. When you make frivolous points of order, that brings the House into disrepute. Now, I allowed you some levity because it is late and it’s a good way for the committee to express and actually let off a bit of steam, but it will stop.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. In defence of my colleague, it’s not that he did that purposely; it’s just that he’s from Hamilton! But my actual point of order goes to the heart of what just happened there. When we have a committee stage, it is free ranging.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It is not free ranging.

Sorry, it is free ranging in as far as seeking information from the Government, firstly. Secondly, in this committee stage it is the only opportunity we have to question the Minister, and indeed we can’t question officials because it is not the full parliamentary process; we’re in urgency. The point that David Bennett was making was absolutely correct. He had posed questions and was still giving examples as to why they were important and was about to bring it back to that question. We do need an answer to that. The point of order is that when a member comes into the Chamber towards the end of an intervention like that and takes a point of order and accuses the member of being tired because it’s late—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Now, I’ve already ruled on all of these matters, Mr McClay.

Well, that is correct; you have on that one. But the point that I’m making is we may well be here seeking questions and answers from these Ministers for an extended period of time this evening, because this is our only opportunity. I would ask you to perhaps tell the committee if it is appropriate for a member to come to disrupt the flow of another member, particularly so late at night when one’s breath smells of mouthwash.

Thank you, Mr McClay. Thank you, Mr McClay. Now, I’ll make myself very clear. I am the arbiter of these decisions. What you have done is you’ve also called into order my ability to manage the committee. Now, what I’m saying very clearly, what I said very clearly to the Hon Tracey Martin was that I was allowing that member’s time to run out, so I did not continue to rule on that point of order. So we are now going to get back to the matter at hand and I’m going to call the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve been listening closely to the debate and the questions raised by members opposite, which I will attempt to address.

The Hon Jacqui Dean asked—the only question I think she asked of me as the Minister in the chair is how well the various responsibilities of different Ministers would be allocated. There is a small number of Acts where there is responsibility held by more than one Minister, and the allocation of that ministerial responsibility is carried out in the usual way. The Prime Minister allocates that responsibility, and the register of assigned legislation appears on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website, so it’ll be clear which Minister is responsible for which parts of the Act.

The Hon Scott Simpson asked for definitions of various words: “contribute”, “funding”, “costs”, and “conservation”. I discovered that there’s a dictionary up here. I was tempted to reach for it, but the member is a capable fellow and I’m sure he’ll be able to look those words up himself. But “conservation” is defined. He just needs to look down at clause 5(1), immediately below the clause he was referring to, and “conservation has the meaning given to it in section 2(1) of the Conservation Act 1987”.

I listened closely to the contributions from Sarah Dowie and the Hon David Bennett, and I did not detect any questions.

Madam Chair, thank you, and I thank the Minister in the chair, Iain Lees-Galloway, for that clarification. So if I understand correctly what he’s just said, in Part 1, clause 5(2), the reason they’re inserting the word “Minister” there is so that it is clear, should the Prime Minister decide it is the Minister of Tourism or any other Minister that would be responsible for this new part of the Act, not automatically the Minister of Immigration. If that’s the case, that is important. Of course, it is up to the Government to make these decisions. But as this is immigration legislation that is being amended to deliver tourism policy and tax policy, it’s extremely important that the Minister is absolutely sure.

I suppose the reason I would ask him to be absolutely sure is because if it isn’t correct, we will have problems in the future when it comes to these definitions. So perhaps with officials here, he could seek an absolute assurance that that is correct, and the reason I ask him to do that is not to question what he said, but, again, we don’t have the ability to ask those officials ourselves, and no one else in New Zealand has the ability to come before the committee and ask the committee to seek an absolute assurance that what the Minister has just said is correct.

If it is correct, there is yet another problem, because in the principal Act, it actually talks about the department that is responsible for the implementation of the Act, and in that case, it must be the ministry of immigration. So it is necessary in the final part of Part 1 to change the definition to allow for the Minister of Tourism or the Minister of Conservation to be responsible for this part of the Act if it enters into force. Therefore, I ask the question of whether or not it is also necessary to have a similar clause so that it’s not the ministry of immigration that will be responsible.

Now, the reason that’s important—and we’ll come to it in Part 2, but in Part 2 it says that at least every five years, the parts of this provision of the Act must be reviewed and they can be reset. Therefore, as this is tourism policy and implements a new tax and, therefore, it’s also tax legislation, it’s also important in this case that it wouldn’t be the ministry of immigration that would be responsible for that review. It would be the department of the Minister who is responsible for this part of what will become the new Act.

The reason we need that decision now is because this is a rushed process, and we’ve canvassed that in the first and the second readings. It is a rushed process. We would have time to make sure we’ve got it right at a full select committee stage if it was a normal process, even if there was only one day where we could have a committee outside of the House so we could have the opportunity to talk to the actual experts—the people that I suppose gave advice and drafted that. So we do need to know whether or not that is the case, and it will be important that it’s not the ministry of immigration. They have many other things to do.

Of course, they will be the ones that are responsible for the mechanism that collects this, but that’s just the mechanism. You actually wouldn’t want the Minister of Tourism or the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, or the Department of Conservation being involved in setting the rules or the regulations, or assessing whether or not that mechanism is working properly, because they actually have nothing to do with immigration, and in this case, because this is enacting tourism policy and it’s a new tax and, therefore, it is tax policy also, it is important that that’s cleared up.

I’m assuming that, actually, it does need to be clarified, because I’ve spent some time looking through this today. The original Act is quite extensive, but this bill is very, very short. I assume the regulations will be many, but we can’t wait for the regulations because we don’t have an opportunity to see them before Cabinet will decide upon them, and we do need to deal with that now.

Indeed, in the case that this is an omission because it is rushed, I have an amendment here which I will now table that would follow the language in as far as making sure the Prime Minister can decide which other Minister is responsible for this part of the Act. Also, it would denote that that would mean that another department other than immigration would also be responsible for this part of the Act. I haven’t said which one it is, although we could have put quite an extensive list in there—more extensive than we’re going to hear about in Part 2 about what the Minister might consult on, because it’s entirely up to him—but, ultimately, it’s the same department. It’s mirroring the language, and the reason I believe that is important is that we won’t have an opportunity to come and fix this at all. So I will table that in a second.

The second part here is—the Minister was right—there is a definition of “conservation” in this, as he said to my colleague. There is, and it’s good. But there is no definition of “tourism”, and I wonder whether that’s an error or it’s an omission or whether, actually, there doesn’t need to be one, and if there doesn’t need to be one for “tourism”, why is there the necessity for there to be a listing or a definition for “conservation”?

I am assuming the reason there is one for “conservation” is because the drafters of the bill—or, in this case, Cabinet—wanted to ensure that the funds that will be collected from international tourists through this new tax will go to conservation. In the same way that it is left very broad for the Minister to decide what the funds will be spent on, in as far as tourism is concerned, if there is a reason to narrow the scope of what the funding can be spent on when it comes to conservation, then I feel that we must also do the same for tourism.

It’s not that you would say, “Well, it’s not clear what tourism is.”—of course it is—but this is a legal document. It is legislation. We haven’t got the opportunity to have a full select committee stage and to have people submit on what they think the money should be spent on. We don’t get to bring the experts in and to ask them about what this definition is, and indeed, the Minister may already know. He may have made up his mind, but he has not shared that, and in Part 2 we’re going to see that, actually, it’s him that gets to make these decisions, and these decisions alone, with his Cabinet colleagues. So therefore, we need to know what the definition of “tourism” is.

Now, maybe it’s not needed, but I ask the Minister why, if it’s not needed, do we have one specifically for “conservation”? I just think that since the fund is going to be split and the Minister—or Ministers—have said that it’ll be a fifty-fifty split, but, actually, this bill doesn’t say that. It doesn’t dictate that. It will be up to Cabinet to make the decision some time in the future. It is very important, therefore, that if the Government is going to define “conservation”, we also do so for “tourism”.

It’s not actually that we necessarily would disagree, but when it comes to what these funds will be spent on, that’s where the problem will be, because there will be councils up and down New Zealand who say “There’s no point bidding for this money, because it’s going to be spread too thinly. We’re not going to get any.”, but some may want to, and they need to have a clear idea of what it can be spent on and what it can’t be spent on. A Government has an obligation, not to the taxpayer in this case, but to those they are collecting the money from to make sure it is being used for what they have said the intention is. The intention is to spend around tourism, but without that definition of “tourism” in legislation, it will be up to the Minister, I suppose, to define it in regulation. I don’t think that’s good enough for this House, because, ultimately, we are talking about what the Minister says is going to be a large amount of money—let’s wait and see. But, actually, we should have that definition in here, and then councils and others will be able to plan. They’ll know what it could be used for and what it might not be used for.

Ultimately, I suppose the Minister is going to do one or two things when it comes to how the money is spent. He’s either going to be very open and transparent, there’ll be clear rules around this, and the wider tourism sector will have an understanding, or he could adopt Shane Jones’ approach, and if he likes a policy, he’ll do the proposal. If he doesn’t like it, he won’t—because that’s happening everywhere. That’s why this is so very, very important, because the Government have said that they are going to give a significant amount of funding—the big commitments they’ve made to the tourism sector. This is not going to come close, but unless we have a clear definition of the view of what tourism is, then there will be many who are unhappy, who don’t get the funds, who may just not bother to apply, and that would be a travesty. In that mind, it may be that there is very good reason for there not to be a definition of “tourism” in this bill, which is amending the Immigration Act, but I would imagine nowhere else in the Immigration Act is there a definition of “tourism”, just as I’m sure there’s no other definition of “conservation” in the Immigration Act that this is amending. Therefore, I would ask that the Minister would look at that.

I too have an amendment that I’d like to introduce, that brings a definition. Now, the problem we have is that I don’t think this is a perfect definition, because we’ve only just found this, and we’ve had to rush; we haven’t had 18 months to think about this. We’ve only seen the legislation today, and it may be the officials would say “Actually, yes, a definition is needed, but this isn’t the best one.” Well, actually the Opposition is saying that we don’t want to risk this, so I too will be tabling an amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister: I’ve got a few questions, some of which are embellishments on questions that I heard in earlier parts of the debate. I just wonder if the Minister could help us out with the answers to some of these questions.

I heard, before, some concerns that the entire economy was going to collapse and that the whole tourism sector was going to be destroyed by the introduction of this levy. I just wanted the Minister to confirm for me if it is correct that the United Kingdom has a NZ$127 visitor levy, and just to check to see whether the UK economy has collapsed as a result of that levy—

💬 Hon Member: Heard of Brexit?

—and whether it’s due to the levy—and if the Minister could confirm if it is correct that Australia has a levy between NZ$58 and NZ$85, and just to check if the Australian economy has collapsed due to the introduction of that levy, because I’m not aware that it has.

Also, just in relation to clause 7, new section 399A(3)(b), in terms of prescribing the amount of the levy, I just wanted to check whether the implication that was being raised before is about the collapse of those two large trading partners of ours? Under 399A(3)(d) there was a question raised about exemptions as well, and I know that there’s been some discussion around why it is that Australians are exempt from paying this. I just wanted the Minister to confirm whether we have an arrangement with Australia known as Closer Economic Relations, and that what that means is that if we don’t charge New Zealanders then, also, we can’t charge Australians. In fact, if you reversed it, the reason why Australians charge New Zealanders is because they also charge themselves, and I just wanted the Minister to confirm whether, in fact, Closer Economic Relations exists as well.

Further, I just wanted to check in relation to 399A(2)(c), where it’s talking about other initiatives related to tourism, there were some concerns raised about the fact that people weren’t going to be able to get into our national parks and so on, and just to confirm that, in fact, entry to our national parks will continue to remain free because we have this tourism levy coming in. I also just wanted to check—further down on that page under “consultation and review”—whether the Minister can confirm that when the Green Party launched this policy in 2016 there was a tourism conference and that 76 percent of operators at that conference said that they wanted a tourism levy to help pay for conservation and tourism infrastructure, and whether the views of those people will be taken into account as part of consultation. Further, I just wanted to also ask if the Minister could confirm that when the Green Party launched this policy in 2016, whether it’s correct that the then Prime Minister, Sir John Key, said that the idea had merit and should be explored and whether his views will be taken into account under the consultation section of this bill.

I also just wanted the Minister to confirm—flipping back to Part 1, under the amended purpose—whether it’s correct that 80 percent of people who come to this country visit our natural heritage, and 50 percent of them visit the Department of Conservation estate, and whether there are costs associated with that, and whether the Minister considers that, given those numbers, it would be fair to say that when it comes to tourism the environment is infrastructure. If you don’t have a natural environment there’s not a lot of reason for people to come here, given those sorts of numbers.

So I just wanted the Minister to confirm some of those things for me and maybe allay some of the concerns about the impending wave of destruction that appears to be bearing down upon us from the introduction of this $35 levy.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am very excited because I do have a really special interest in this bill, even though I’ve only just seen it tonight. The topic is of high interest to me—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How’s the Punakaiki toilets?

—and I can assure you that this topic is of huge interest to the—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Shit.

—people of the West Coast. The reason that is of high interest—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Order! The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: I withdraw and apologise.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for maintaining some standards in this place. The people of the West Coast have a huge interest in this bill and this topic because, of course, the conservation estate is 85 percent to 87 percent of the land mass of the West Coast. Of course, we have the most conscientious guardians living in that area of the Department of Conservation (DOC) estate. So, with this particular bill that we’re talking about, I have a special interest in clause 4, after section 3(2)(g), the new paragraph (h) that is going to be inserted, which says, “enables a levy to be charged to fund, or contribute to the funding of, costs associated with conservation or tourism.”

Now, my interest in this is around thresholds. I would like to know from the Minister how they are going to set about establishing thresholds for the funding and how they are going to set those standards that will enable applications to be considered fairly. The reason I’m asking that is because of the 1 million tourists that travel through the West Coast every year. This season, in particular, has been a particularly hard one for the tourist sector. So I’m wondering whether or not these events that have happened will actually trigger those thresholds. For instance, we have had three highway closures—one of those included the washout of a major link, the Waiho River bridge. Will the Minister consider the impact of some of those events on the tourism industry, considering also that they happen within the DOC estate?

One of the things that you may not know about this particular area that I’m talking about is that it is one of three World Heritage sites that New Zealand has. We have the Subantarctic Islands; we have the Tongariro National Park; and we have Te Wāhipounamu, which is the south-west of New Zealand. So they are particularly precious sites. At the moment, we have an old landfill that has been exposed. We have waste from that landfill spilling into a national park—a World Heritage site—washing up on the coastline, depositing on beaches, and finding its way into the Ōkārito marine reserve. Now, this is probably the most pristine of environments, it reaches Unesco standards, and yet even today, we have had only a pittance of contribution from the conservation Minister, and we have had no support from tourism.

So, in terms of thresholds, I’m really concerned about the standards that are going to be set in this legislation. How important does it have to be before you actually trigger some support out of this fund? It seems to me that this is a very loose piece of legislation. I have heard the call for standards and I’ve heard the call for criteria. At the moment, all I can see is poacher being gamekeeper. We cannot have a Minister who will not say to us, “This is the standard we are going to set.” And if we cannot, at this point, trust the ministries for conservation and tourism to support such a huge environmental disaster down on the West Coast in a World Heritage site—in a marine reserve—that has now been left to volunteers, how on earth can we ask, or expect, really decent support for the maintenance and the clean-up of such an environmental disaster?

I think there is a huge amount of work to be done on this bill. I believe, because of the impact that this is going to have, that it deserved the input from those in the sector that are most impacted by it, and it deserved the scrutiny of the community. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to respond to some of the points raised by members since I last made a contribution. The Hon Todd McClay asked some very sensible questions, actually, around which departments would be responsible for various parts of the Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill. The good news, of course, is that Immigration New Zealand and Tourism are both parts of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). So the bill is correct in the way that it is drafted, and it ultimately, then, will be a decision for Ministers and MBIE as to which parts of that organisation carry out the review, which I think was the part that the member was most interested in.

The other question that he asked was around the definition of tourism. There is a fair question to ask as to why tourism is not included when conservation is. The answer is that “conservation” is already defined in legislation, and that definition is required because the law needs to use consistent meanings. “Tourism” is not defined elsewhere in legislation, and, therefore, it carries its ordinary meaning.

The Hon James Shaw asked me to confirm a variety of things, and I can confirm all of the things that he asked. There is no impending wave of destruction coming. Just like in other jurisdictions that have a similar levy, we can expect our tourism industry to continue to thrive. Maureen Pugh asked about how criteria and thresholds will be set for those seeking funding available from the levy. That will be set out in the investment plan that will be written up by the Minister’s advisory group. So I thank members for their questions and I hope that that information is helpful.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on this, the Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill. I’d like to address some comments that were made by the leader of the Green Party the Hon James Shaw, and also the Minister in the chair, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway. I thought that the comments were a little bit alarmist when the Hon James Shaw got up and said that the implementation of this levy was going to create a collapse of the economy. I don’t think anyone on this side of the House, in the Opposition, has mentioned anything about a collapse of the economy.

But one thing that we are very worried about—one thing that we are very worried about—is the fact that we’re in this House in urgency debating bills where the Government is taxing Kiwis. If they’re not taxing Kiwis, they’re going to be taxing visitors to New Zealand. The point is quite simply this. I think most Kiwis—most people in New Zealand—accept that in our political cycle, there’s something that happens. You get a Labour Government that comes into Government and they borrow more and they tax more and they spend more—and it’s normally untargeted spending—and, actually, then the economy starts to slow down, as well. That does have an impact on the welfare and the wellbeing of Kiwis. When you keep implementing tax—and that’s all we’re doing, really, in urgency over these couple of days, is implementing more tax—we feel that that can start to have a detrimental impact and effect on the economy. I think that is the point that the speakers have been making on this side of the Chamber when they’ve been taking calls.

I’m going to speak to Part 1. I do have some questions around this, and I think fundamentally it is very important in terms of where the funding is going. I’m still recovering, actually, from the speech that my good friend and colleague the Hon David Bennett delivered. He made some very nice comments, I thought, in relation to the Labour Party. I thought that in that spirit of bipartisanship around our Department of Conservation estate, and, certainly, our tracks and our huts, which do need ongoing investment and maintenance, without a doubt, to make sure that our visitors do have a great experience—I remember in this House, a few years ago, in the spirit of that bipartisanship, the Hon David Parker making a very nice offer to the Hon Gerry Brownlee to accompany him on a trekking weekend into the mountains. The Hon Gerry Brownlee came back, and he thanked him for that offer, and he said, “What do I need to bring? What clothing do I need?” The Hon David Parker came back and he clarified. He said, “All you need is tramping boots.” So you can understand why the Hon Gerry Brownlee came back and politely declined a weekend in the mountains trekking with David Parker only wearing tramping boots.

But in the spirit of that offer—

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Why did you leave that picture with us?

Yeah, that’s very true. I apologise for that. But in the spirit of that offer, I’d like to extend an offer to the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway and the Hon Eugenie Sage—I see that she’s in the Chamber—and the Hon Kelvin Davis: come and join me. Come and walk some of the great tracks that we’ve got in Warkworth. But I just want to make clear: yes, you need sturdy footwear, but please bring some shorts and a Swanndri as well. The Minister doesn’t seem that interested now—ha, ha!

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Why didn’t anybody invite Kelvin?

No, I invited Kelvin. The invitation’s extended to Kelvin, as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can we come back to the bill, please? Thank you.

So—Part 1 of the bill. The reality of this is we don’t know where the money is going. Actually, is that a serious issue to raise? Absolutely it is—absolutely it is. We need to know where the money’s going. I’d like the Ministers to stand and take a call and tell us how it’s going to be treated, because otherwise we’re going to believe that it could just disappear into a consolidated fund. It could be reprioritised. It could end up anywhere. It could end up funding a working group. I actually want to know. I want to have clear advice from the Minister in the chair that this money, this levy that’s being collected, is actually going to be used to develop the facilities, to develop the tracks, and to look after the outstanding infrastructure that we already have in place, and, actually, that the previous National Government made a huge commitment to and a huge investment in.

So I’d just like the Minister to stand and take a call and clearly outline—actually, I’d like to know how the levy’s going to be collected, too, because I believe there’s going to be a big compliance cost attached to that, but we’ll talk about that in the next part. Just get up and explain to us exactly how this money is going to be treated and that we can be confident that it is actually going to be spent in the right places, supporting our tourism industry with infrastructure.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re having a good debate here at 11.27 p.m. on 31 May on a bill that I don’t think needs to be going through urgency. I’m not sure what the panic is. Reading this bill, I’m just not sure whether Cabinet was awake to allow this bill to come into the House in its present form or not, because—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Deep contemplation.

Yes, there could have been one member in deep contemplation in Cabinet. But the reality is that this is a bill that just allows the Minister to have carte blanche responsibility for all of the regulations. There’s nothing in the primary legislation that gives tourism operators any comfort in the fact that Cabinet can just go out and strike any levy it wants. If I was a tourism operator—Mr Davis has talked earlier on this evening, saying there’s already been widespread consultation. Well, I wonder: why does it need to go through urgency? I want to hear from the Minister in the chair this evening, Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, what consultation there will be about striking the levy. How did he or his officials—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Thank you. Part 1 is actually a very narrow part of this bill. The question that the member has just asked is actually relevant to Part 2. So we’re going to tighten up on relevancy. There are only two clauses in Part 1; the first one simply enables the levy to be struck. The question that you are asking, Hon Nathan Guy, is in Part 2.

Thank you for clarifying that, Mr Chair. I do want to make some introductory remarks, but I want to keep them quite specific to the principal Act and the purpose which is covered in Part 1. We need to have questions answered this evening about what the purpose is? What is, indeed, the intent of this bill? Why has it been decided that it’s going to cover conservation and immigration? I’m aware that the potential revenue that they may generate is around $80 million. I also have questions on the purpose, about exemptions, because if the Government is going to strike, indeed, a levy of this magnitude—

💬 Hon Member: Tax.

Well, it will. Yeah, there’s going to be quite a debate on the tax as well—whether, indeed, a levy is a tax. But I want to hear from the Minister this evening about the principal Act, the purpose, and the definition of “the Minister”, because, in effect, this inserts the Minister right into the decision-making powers. In my mind, the Minister has—through the purpose of this Part 1—wide-ranging powers. What I also want to have clarified is, what about the exemptions that are going to be covered at some point? We need to have a good wide—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That’s in Part 2.

I know it is. I’m just foreshadowing—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m just giving the member a second warning on relevancy.

Keeping it relevant. We need to be aware on Part 1 about the definition of the “Minister” and the definition of “conservation” and the international visitor levy—why, indeed, is it called a levy and not a tax? because it will be seen as a tax. It is a very blunt instrument. When I was in the House, here in 2015, I brought in a border clearance levy, and I heard from the Opposition at the time when Labour and New Zealand First voted against it. They screamed from the backbenches, over there, that it was going to be a tax. Of course, what happened at the time was the Opposition—Labour and New Zealand First—voted against that and they cried from the backbench about it being a tax. The reality is, they voted against that levy—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And the reality is that’s irrelevant to this bill.

And the reality is its context to the purpose of Part 1, because this gives the Minister wide-ranging powers.

I move, That the question be now put.