Auchinvole Chris: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:677;Page:713] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I have listened to the speeches that have been given on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill with considerable interest and I would like to compliment the previous speaker Eugenie Sage and the member for Te Tai Tonga on the careful observations they have made without actually going through the select committee process because you are smack on the button. It was a very prolonged process for this particular bill— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: But very well chaired I’m told. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well I would not know about that. You know take what you can and when you get it I guess Mr Mallard; thank you. I guess I would take a measure of responsibility for the time that has been taken over the bill because I think I was probably one of the most concerned people of all on the Local Government and Environment Committee with regard to setting precedents. I was very very concerned about that. It is nice to hear that people recognise that Stewart Island is people have said unique and a little bit different. I think the important thing that needs to be remembered about this though is that this is not a complete answer for what I term the Kaikoura syndrome of a very small rate base with large demands for infrastructure. This is designed entirely to help them with the infrastructure that services tourism. When I felt this was coming our way my wife and I went down in the winter and visited Stewart Island. A great little aeroplane took us across and the pilot said: “If you get scared just be like me. Shut your eyes before you land.” It was a wonderful experience and I did indeed go to Ulva Island and I saw 11 species of birds that I have not seen in my usual residence at Lake Brunner so it was good and I enjoyed the whole thing.  
But I rise to support the bill and enthusiastically so and we did have a large throughput of people on this committee who have all had experience with this particular bill. I think we had 18 which is exceptional. But we did have a pretty good collegiate structure and I would particularly like to thank the people who led for Labour and for the Greens—in fact every party made a good contribution. I would like to thank too my deputy chair for that period Nicky Wagner. We all got really involved in this. We felt it was a deserving bill and we wanted to do it properly. It stretches back to 1994.  
A speech would not be complete without recognising the efforts of the local member Eric Roy. Goodness me he really has worked on this— 
Hon Annette King 
: A very good member. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: A very good member. I would agree with you there from the other side of the House. Exceptionally good. There you are Mr Roy I have said it three times so you need not expect it to be said much more in the speech. But I would like to acknowledge also the work of the Department of Internal Affairs and the Southland District Council because we largely identified potential problems and referred them to the department and referred them to the council and on some occasions we asked that they work together without it being through the committee so that they could get their definitions right and definitions were one of the major concerns that we had. You would wonder looking at it—16 submissions; only one against—why did it take so long? But it was this matter of defining exactly what was required.  
The purpose of the bill just to go through it—it has actually been well gone into already—I think it is a noble purpose. Once passed the bill will be of great benefit to the people of Stewart Island or to the council as long again as people do not think: “Oh well that is that—fixed.” It ain’t going to be a lot of money for an infrastructure of that sort. Let us remember if you want to go out at night you take a torch because the street lights are not there. You are stepping back in history. I was reminded very much of my time in Hokianga when I went down to Stewart Island.  
So there are things I think that need to be carefully considered before people think it is a catch-all but it will improve both the opportunities for tourism on the island and reduce the pressure that tourism currently places on the island’s infrastructure. I have heard an awful lot of figures for the number of people who actually live there. I refer again to the member for the district. Is it 429? 
Eric Roy 
: Roughly. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: How can it be “roughly”? OK—429 approximately. [ 
Interruption 
] OK thank you. Nineteen cruise ships go there over an annual basis and that is an awful lot of people. When it came to the committee as I say this was a bill with a good purpose and I think we have significantly improved the wording of the bill and the way the visitor levy will be administered. Again I would like to acknowledge the work of the officials because they came up with some excellent reasoning some really good consideration and some good solutions. We have in fact been quite ruthless with the original text. I am not sure that we have had another bill go through the committee that has been quite so exercised in surgery. But we have now a bill that better reflects the original intent.  
I would like to just touch on some of the changes that we made and describe why we thought they were necessary. One of the most significant changes to the purpose clause was to change from a charge being levied on travellers “to or from” Stewart Island which was a fairly simplistic approach initially to a charge levied only on those travelling “to” the island. We believe that this better reflects the intent of the bill—that the levy be charged only on visitors to the island rather than on any person travelling between Stewart Island and the South Island. In addition we expanded the purpose to set out exactly why the bill is required by adding the phrase “in order to better provide services facilities and amenities for those persons while they are on the Island.” In other words they should be able to see what they get. It is a bit like paying your parking fee for your boat trailer at Lake Brunner—try parking somewhere else where you do not have to pay; it is going to be very awkward. So there are benefits attached to it and we hope that benefits will pertain to this as well and that people will see the benefits.  
The changes to interpretations of various terms are fairly standard in line with other changes to the bill. I would like to point out though that we have much more clearly defined what a “visitor” is for the purposes of this bill. I would commend anyone to have a look at the empowering bill papers just to see how carefully crafted the “visitor” definition is. Rather than including every traveller to and from the island and leaving it to the council to define exceptions—which was I think one of the council’s initial requests—we thought that was heading for trouble so the bill now clearly defines a “visitor” as someone who is not a ratepayer not a resident and not staying for longer than 21 days amongst other provisions. We felt it was important to make these definitions clear in the bill to ensure the intentions of Parliament in passing this bill will be clearly reflected in its outcomes.  
As with other changes clause 5 brings the wording of the bill more clearly into line with its overall purpose and clarifies the rights and responsibilities of the Southland District Council. A notable change is the obligation on the council to erect and maintain signs advising visitors of their obligations the rate of the levy how it is to be paid and the offence for a breach of a by-law.  
A number of speakers have commented on the careful drafting of this bill and I too would like to commend those who drafted it because it is not one that leaves too many loopholes or misunderstandings. I think it is about as thoroughly done as it could be done and that is why I have confidence that it will apply to Stewart Island quite adequately and quite appropriately and I am not sure I agree with those who say that this could be transferred to other islands or to other communities because— 
Hon Annette King 
: Well what about the Chathams? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well I would not deny the Chathams but I think they have a different problem. 
Hon David Carter 
: Yeah they’re represented by the member. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I am sure their representation is not a problem Mr Carter. Indeed we heard my colleague Mr Finlayson just saying how good the representation is. 
Hon Annette King 
: That’s right. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: He did. He did and I would not argue with him. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Kissing cousins. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Yes that is right. I would not argue with him but no I am afraid I do not see a direct analogy between Stewart Island and other islands or the West Coast which I am very very dearly married to. But this is purely for Stewart Island and it will work. Stewart Island is a beautiful place and well worth visiting. For the fewer than 430 people who live there however it is their home. For too long those ratepayers have been effectively subsidising the services enjoyed by those of us who visit and we owe it to them to support this bill. Thank you.