Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Chair. Part 2, which contains the main amendments of this three-page bill, is like—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Spaghetti.

Yes—it’s very vague. It’s hard to get; it’s like a jellyfish, I guess—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Blancmange.

Or blancmange, more like a blancmange, you’re right, because it’s very hard to get a grip on what it may or may not apply to. So there’s just a couple of points I want to make. I know I’ve got colleagues with many, many questions, but, for a start, I am interested to know from the Minister—I have a question around the processing of requests by the Minister.

The first one I want to know is: what might the nature of those requests be? Would they be requests for an exemption on behalf of a family? Would they be requests for inclusion by someone from Australia, for example? I’d like clarification from the Minister around the provision which says that a request “may be processed, accepted, or refused by an automated electronic system”. I’d also like clarification around the system’s decisions. So what is the system—I think it’s pretty critical that the committee, in the absence of a select committee examination where this kind of question exactly would have been asked, knows—what is the system that makes the decisions? Is it an existing system? Is there extra software that needs to be installed? What is the cost of that? Because it could be considerable, given that there are a number of exemptions, depending on whether or not people have a temporary entry class visa or need to apply for a waiver. I think it’s important for the understanding of the committee, given that it is not at all clear in this bill.

I think it’s very important that those questions are addressed by the Minister. Which Minister—which Minister? Is it the Minister of Immigration or is it the Minister of Tourism? Could it be the Minister of Conservation, or could it be the Minister of Local Government? Could it be the Minister of Internal Affairs? I think we need to know. So if the Minister could address those questions, I think we would all be very grateful.

What assurance have the Ministers or Cabinet sought that the automated electronic system will be adequate and will be, let’s say, not subject to somebody going into a search bar and pressing on “Search” and entering a certain selection of words—for example, such as “Budget 2019-20”—and then getting a lot of information? So what assurances has the Minister—whichever Minister—or Cabinet sought about the level of security in the system, which, after all, deals with some pretty personal details and confidential information?

Goodness knows, I know this is a Government which sets great store in protecting confidential information. It’s well known for it, in fact. So I think it’s important that the committee really does have an understanding and can assure the Parliament, in fact, because I know that the Green Party will be very concerned about breaches of security in the New Zealand whole-of-Government systems. Of course, the shining light is Treasury! They, of course, protect information very, very—OK, no, sorry, I’ll start that again.

So I do think we need to know that, if my relation from the United Kingdom wishes to come into New Zealand—their application or their transit—how will that work? I think it’s important that the Minister of Tourism gets to his feet and explains just how the process will work, because I know he knows it, because it will have been part of the consideration of this bill. We haven’t had a chance to know it through the select committee process, but we know that the Minister of Tourism knows exactly how the process of transitioning—[Time expired]

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to the Standing Orders, which say that when the Minister responsible for the bill is in the Chamber during the committee of the whole House stage, either he must be in the chair or he must, I suppose, in this case, leave. I don’t mind if he goes in the chair, because we’ll get sensible answers.

I thank the member for bringing that to my attention.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I need a bit more time now—

💬 Hon Todd McClay: And there lies the confusion we’re talking about.

Well, that’s right. I need a bit more time now, because I just spent five minutes asking for clarification from the Minister in the chair, who was the Minister of Tourism, and now where does that leave the committee? Because I just asked a number of questions, maybe a dozen questions, of the Minister in the chair, being the Minister of Tourism, and now I find that my questions, sadly, are—well, I hope they won’t go unanswered, because the questions maybe I’d like to move over to the Minister of Immigration. I do think I’d like a fairly full exposition of how someone coming to New Zealand, what the mechanism is to calculate the tourist tax that they’re going to pay.

So, for example, it’s a family from the UK, and it’s a multigenerational family—and we see this all the time. All the time we see whole families coming to New Zealand, and it’ll be for something like a family wedding. Gosh, you see it all the time—a fabulous family wedding in Queenstown and, of course—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Or Coromandel.

—the whole family—mostly Queenstown, maybe Wānaka—comes along. So there’s three or even four generations of family coming through Queenstown Airport on their way to Wānaka, and there’ll be the grandparents, and there’ll be the parents, and there’ll be children, of course, and then there’ll be aunties, because, after all, this is a family wedding we’re talking about. They may all have the same surname but, equally, they may not. So how does immigration deal with a joint application or their application? How does that work? How does that family—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: What if they are Chinese-sounding names?

Well, indeed, and I think that is a very important question. What if it’s a family from China and—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: —with names that all sound the same?

Well, I know my colleague the Hon Scott Simpson is very keen to traverse that question. I will leave that up to him because I do want quite a lengthy exposition on how that is going to occur and how it can be that that family can come into New Zealand secure in the knowledge that their private personal details are safe, that the correct amount of tourist tax has been levied for them, which, in the case of—somebody else is going to have to do the math, because it’s getting awfully late—10 people; what’s that going to be? Chris Penk will know—10 people at $35?

💬 Chris Penk: $350.

Thank you—$350. That’s exactly what I was going to say, which is quite fortunate. So once that family of 10 comes through immigration and has the tourist tax taken off them, I am interested in the process. But I’m also interested in that family being lightened by the amount of $350, and, in fact, if it’s a family from South Korea, on top of that would be an extra fee—and I have got it written down on the page—

💬 Melissa Lee: 9 and 12.

Yes, 9 and 12, but what’s it called? It’s the electronic transfer—

💬 Hon Todd McClay: ETA.

That’s right. So there’s that on top. So this is a considerable amount of money just crossing the border. Now, when does that get paid? Does it get paid at the border? Does it get paid when the person purchases the ticket? I know that my colleague the Hon Todd McClay is interested in knowing that, and he will be following on from my contribution.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in regards to clause 6, I’d just like to ask the Minister a few questions as well. Can he tell us whether there is an app that’s been developed that’s going to be put out there to 60 countries? Can he confirm that all the languages of those countries will be part of this app? Can he confirm that the use of the app is as simple as opening it, taking a photo of a passport, then somebody taking a selfie, then using the app to load their credit card payment details in, then answering a few questions that the app asks them, and, basically, submitting it? Can he also confirm that the use of this app can be done, basically, anywhere—anywhere at all—and that even if the person who was travelling to New Zealand had forgotten to do all of that, had turned up to the counter and the person at the airline had said, “You haven’t yet filled in your ETA for New Zealand.”, the person could do all that and fill out that electronic travel authority using that app right there and then, and everything could be done and paid for at that time? Just wondering if the Minister of Immigration is aware of what a fantastic app has been developed by his ministry.

Mr Chair, thank you very much. I have some specific questions for the Minister in a moment, but I want to make an observation because, in the first part, in this part, we have been talking about the confusion that exists over which Minister is responsible. I’ve got to tell you that if anybody in the tourism sector in New Zealand had a small amount—even a small amount of confidence—in the Minister of Tourism, it’s now walked out the door because the Minister of Tourism didn’t even bother to ask those questions of the Minister of Immigration in Cabinet when they decided to put this through. That’s just crazy, by golly.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Doesn’t quite recognise sarcasm—having a joke at your expense.

To Ms Dyson, on the other side of the Chamber, she wouldn’t know because, sadly, she doesn’t get to go to Cabinet, but I guess we know why that is.

In particular I want to ask the question of the Minister of Immigration, but herein lies the problem, because I assume, based on the explanation he gave in Part 1, that it will be the Minister of Tourism that actually is responsible for implementing the policy under Part 2. It says in here the Minister of Tourism will specify categories or classes of people that will be liable to pay this tax. It also says the regulations will provide exemptions from the tax, or refunds of part of the tax. Then, finally, it gives the Minister the ability to exempt by special direction—not by regulation; special direction—any person or persons from their obligation to pay. We need to know much more about how that will work, because one is going to set a regulation about who will be included and who won’t.

It doesn’t matter about this special app that he’s talking about, which he seems to have designed himself. It doesn’t matter how many languages it’s in or how they’ll be able to put their own credit card in—gee, there’s a lot of confidence going on there! Actually, what we need to know is what the detail of the regulation will be, because, fundamentally, as we’ve said before, this is tax policy in the area of tourism that is being enacted at some stage in the future by regulation. All this does is it gives the Minister the ability to set lots and lots and lots of regulations, and there’s just not enough detail in it.

So we need actual answers from the Minister who will be responsible for this. I guess it’s the Minister of Tourism, so maybe his colleague responsible for the bill—because it’s an immigration bill—might have to leave the Chamber so that he doesn’t have to get up and ask questions of him, the Minister of Tourism. But specifically, what categories or classes of people is he going to include in the regulation? Since he’s the one setting the regulation to give himself the ability to exempt, who is he going to exempt?

Then, finally, this legislation will give the Minister of Tourism the ability, through special direction, to exempt people. Actually, we need to know that he is going to take this seriously—seriously—and not just exempt people because he feels like it, because it doesn’t have any scope, any definition, any control, or even any advice in this legislation about how he would exempt people—none at all. All it says is that by special direction he can. Now, when it comes to the Immigration Act, the Minister has the ability in immigration issues. He has special direction powers as well, but there is a lot of definition and there is a lot of case history and a lot of precedent.

This is something—this immigration bill will allow the Minister of Tourism to do virtually whatever he wants as long as he passes a regulation, and if Cabinet doesn’t agree with the regulation of who should be exempt, he can just do it by special direction, and there is no limitation on that in this at all. It’s very, very concerning.

I want to table an amendment on this which says “Any exemption by special direction under this Act must be reported to Parliament by the Minister with the reasons for the exemption or exemptions and the impact of any exemptions.” Now, this isn’t to say that he shouldn’t have the ability to—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The proper process for tabling—I’m on my feet. The member well knows what that is. Until it is tabled and processed, he cannot speak to that amendment.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I’m not speaking to this amendment; I’m speaking to—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Oh yes, you were. Do not do that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): A point of order, the Hon Todd McClay, and it better not be questioning my ruling—

No, it’s not questioning your ruling—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —in any way.

—but it’s helping with your definition of what I was doing, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. Sit down. No, I made a ruling, and the member must follow the correct process. He must not, as I said before—and if he questions my ruling again, there will be a consequence.

Thank you, Mr Chair. If some member, at some time shortly, in the very near future, should table an amendment in this committee and that amendment should look to have some transparency over the ability that the Minister has—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! No, no, no. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. What am I withdrawing and apologising for? You weren’t clear.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The member fully knows well, and if he takes another such point of order, questioning my ruling, he will be leaving the Chamber.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The problem we have with this vague legislation is we have a Minister of Tourism who didn’t ask the Minister of Immigration the appropriate questions in Cabinet, obviously, because he’s come down to the Chamber to do it, and he’s not allowed in the chair because the Government couldn’t even work out which Minister should be sitting there and what the Standing Orders are. There lies the problem with rushed legislation.

So, specifically, my questions to the Minister are: when it comes to the ability that this bill will give him under the Act, to exempt any person or persons from the obligation to pay all or part of that levy, why is there no definition or narrowness of that; will there be a regulation he’ll set; will there be any guidance at all, or can the Minister just do what he wants? Ultimately, it’s my view that what is necessary is changes to this bill. There needs to be some scope put into this, or restriction, that at the very least allows for transparency, and that transparency should mean that the Minister, by special direction, would have to report to Parliament over the reasons for any exemptions.

So I ask the Minister: will he commit to do that? Will he commit to making sure that he informs Parliament every time he uses a special direction to exempt people or persons from this tax; and if not, why not? If he will, why isn’t it written in here so that it’s clear for all future Ministers; and, if he won’t, how does that speak to transparency? Based on his answer, I’ll then have to contemplate very carefully what it is this side of the committee should do, because I believe this is far, far too broad.

Coming back to my earlier questions, I want to be very specific here so that we don’t have to get into whether or not amendments or changes would be needed. Specifically, which categories or classes of person will be liable? We’ve heard outside of this House that he’s received information, and the Government has published press releases that have said this, but there is nothing in here. He’s going to set a regulation—he could change his mind; he could have got it wrong. We need to know. It should be much clearer. There shouldn’t just be a clause that gives him the ability to set this by regulation; it should be set in here. Perhaps he should have the ability by regulation to change that, but, ultimately, anybody that picks this up would be extremely worried that the cowboys are now in charge, because that Minister gets to do whatever he wants.

The final part of this—I have been asking—is it “provides exemptions from”. This isn’t by special direction; the Minister just has that power automatically. It’s about the regulation. The Minister can write and pass a regulation on who is exempt and any refunds, and it says he has to consult, but not the first time. He has to consult any changes, but it says specifically in Part 2: consult with whomsoever he deems fit. That isn’t responsible and it’s not good lawmaking. Yes, there should be flexibility to make changes if they’re needed, but I guarantee changes will have to be made, because there will be mistakes along the way, because this is rushed. But, ultimately, if the Minister is saying he has to consult because this is so rushed that the public haven’t had the opportunity to come here and follow a proper democratic parliamentary process of a full committee outside of this Chamber, then, ultimately, there should be much more scope and guidance as to whom he has to consult with. He might decide to get up and consult with his Cabinet colleague, but, as we’ve just seen, he won’t do it in Cabinet; he’ll come down here and do it in the House by way of a question, and that’s not how this should be run.

We have two Ministers who are responsible for this legislation in as far as policy is concerned. It’s been brought to this House by the Minister of Immigration. You have the Minister of Tourism that wants to answer questions, but they don’t understand the Standing Orders, and he’s doing it by way of questions. That’s really not good enough. This bill is rushed, and there will be mistakes.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It would be helpful for me and other members if you could tell us the Standing Order that doesn’t allow members to speak to an amendment that is yet to be tabled.

No. I made the ruling at the time, and if the member had a point of order, he should’ve taken it at that time, OK?

I would like to take a call tonight mostly around Australians. I’m speaking specifically to new section 399A(3)(c). In my earlier speech—and, in fact, in a number of speeches—we noted the point that Australians are exempt from this levy. A lot of us have made the point that that’s a considerable number of people—that’s 40 percent of our tourist market.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Saturday)