Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Mr Speaker at the risk of surprising you at 10 o'clock at night I too rise in opposition to this bill the Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill otherwise known as the tourist tax bill. Look I am really quite concerned as to what this Government is signalling to our visitors from overseas but also to our tourism industry. I think some of the things that this Government is trying to moot—or not moot because this bill is such a lazy piece of drafting given that it basically defers everything to regulation—and some of the things that are being signalled are going to be to the detriment of an industry that contributes $16 billion in GDP. Let's just think about that—$16 billion. That is a mammoth source of income and revenue to this country. Tourism contributes $1.7 billion in GST. It is phenomenal what this industry gives to our country and that's before you start talking about the jobs that this industry generates the indirect jobs and servicing that it generates and the way that it places our country on the international stage to attract more visitors to our country and increase that growth. Now given that the second reading is very wide ranging I'm going to address some of the things that were laid at the National Party's feet with respect to tourism and the first is with respect to sustainability. Somehow throughout this argument it was put to us that we don't care about the environment and we are not interested in sustainability. Well look that is absolute rubbish. There are many blue-greens sitting here on this side of the House at the moment and we believe that there is a balance to be had between our economy and our environment.I mentioned before some of the projects that the National Party through our Tourism Infrastructure Fund had contributed to in my first reading speech. Again I mentioned that one of those was Curioscape at the Catlins and that investment was in direct correlation to avoiding and remedying some of the adverse effects that were occurring from visitors to a fledgling tourism site. Now that site at Curio Bay is growing in popularity. There were over 100000 visitors to that site last summer and there were serious concerns about the movements of those visitors not only to a scientific reserve managed by the Department of Conservation (DOC) the petrified forest but in respect of their toileting and their behaviour around wildlife. Now that investment in that interpretive museum was to educate visitors about appropriate movement and behaviour in that environment. That was part of the National Party's mantra and that is why we invested from central government in that process and in that project. It was a coming together of the community of central government and of local government and that partnership is flourishing today. The other thing that I want to address is the Minister of Conservation's noting that there is a Stewart Island levy in my very own electorate of Invercargill. Yes the National Party does support that levy. It was brought in by Eric Roy my predecessor the MP for Invercargill. However there are some very wide-ranging differences with respect to that levy compared to this tourist tax. Now the first that we've got to note is that Stewart Island basically has a resident population of just under 400 people and certainly the GST generated from that community is significantly low. Given that they are a remote island at the bottom of New Zealand they do need investment in infrastructure and this is a levy that is put on to the ticket price of people entering Stewart Island and that is administered by the Southland District Council—Hon Kelvin Davis: What about all the other small communities around New Zealand Sarah?SARAH DOWIE: —and goes directly to infrastructure in that community. Well Minister that brings me back to the next point and that is that this piece of legislation is lazy. We have absolutely no idea as to how you will administer the funds—I'm sorry Mr Speaker—how the Minister will distribute the funds. I have no idea how the Minister is going to prioritise projects how the Minister is going to look at different environmental effects how the Minister is going to apportion the different funds given you said that there's going to be an equal split between conservation and infrastructure. But how is that money in conservation going to be apportioned between the different national parks and reserves? We have absolutely no idea. For some reason over that side of the House they fail to come back to the fiscals. They talk about consultation with the tourism industry but I bet if they were up front with the fiscals the tourism industry's reaction would be very very different. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) their own officials have come back and estimated that the tax will generate $80 million. Yet on the other side they say that that tax—Hon Stuart Nash: It's not a tax; it's a levy.SARAH DOWIE: —will discourage—it's a tax. It's a tax. It's tax and spend tax and spend tax and spend from that Government and ruining our economy with GDP absolutely decreasing and this economy failing with growth moving from 4 percent to 2 percent under that Government a Labour - New Zealand First - Greens Government. Without that growing economy Mr Nash there will be limited jobs and there will be limited opportunities for families to get ahead. This is just another tax that will continue to discourage visitors to our shores. Hon Scott Simpson: Another handbrake on the economy.SARAH DOWIE: It is absolutely another handbrake on our country. MBIE your own officials have said that this tax will discourage approximately 20000 visitors from our shores and that will result in a loss of revenue of $70 million. How is that of any benefit to our tourism sector with respect to building up infrastructure? How is that of any benefit to conservation when there is practically nothing left? If the Government had been more prudent with the finances and less foolhardy on some of these extreme policies where the ramifications weren't thought through—failed policies like fees free—then they could have reprioritised money into the tourism sector rather than cutting $7 million from the Budget last year. They could have reinvested in tourism as a growth industry in a sustainable way and produced jobs—created a framework that would grow job opportunities for our families especially in the regions. Now there are a number of smaller communities that abut the conservation estate and are located in remote areas and they are reliant on tourism activities. You look at some of the initiatives that the Rt Hon John Key brought in like the cycle trails. Look at the Otago Central Rail Trail and some of the businesses that have sprung up in remote areas from that rail trail where mum and dad can get on their e-bike and ride along the trail and stop and have cups of coffee and enjoy the scenery that Otago and other places around New Zealand have to offer. It creates jobs it creates wealth and this tourist tax will simply put a handbrake on our tourism industry. The signal that it's giving to our overseas visitors is absolutely appalling. We want to be opening our shores to visitors so that they come and have a very good experience a valuable experience and they go away—after spending money in our country creating jobs and wealth for our families—back overseas and talk about the wonderful experience that they have had here in New Zealand. But this is a Government that doesn't care about tourism that doesn't care about attracting visitors to our shores and growing it in a sustainable way. It's an appalling tax and appallingly thought-out.