Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. Fletcher Tabuteau this evening and Minister Davis both have told us about this extensive consultation that went on. So I imagined some sort of nationwide roadshow where Mr Davis got out of his electorate got out of his Crown car and pitched this tax this tourist tax and apparently was welcomed with open arms and everyone was pleased with it. But we have our doubts about that. I'll tell you what's probably more likely. It's a tourist sector that is deeply unhappy with the Minister—deeply unhappy because of his lack of performance and the fact that he's done absolutely nothing in 18 months. He's been asleep at the wheel and done nothing for tourism. In fact he cut it last year by $7 million dollars I apologise. So unhappy are they with him for being asleep at the wheel for 18 months and for all of these cuts and for giving nothing to tourism they write a letter to the Prime Minister. They write a letter—[Interruption] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Settle members.ERICA STANFORD: —saying Please"—begging the Prime Minister—"can we have an associate?" because they're so deeply unhappy with his performance. What does that say about his performance? Well I guess we'll have to read between the lines. So yes maybe they said "Perhaps we'd like this tax." but it's probably more likely if they did say that that they said it because they knew they weren't going to get anything else from this inept Minister. Even Iain Lees-Galloway couldn't even manage barely five minutes in the first reading of his bill and he's advancing for the first time in history as far as I can tell an immigration bill that is going to be charging a tax for tourism and conservation and not for immigration. There's actually a lot to say and he barely got to five minutes. Maybe he didn't read his notes—that's entirely possible. This Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill as Sarah Dowie so—Hon Tracey Martin: Eloquently. ERICA STANFORD: Eloquently; that's a good word. She did say it quite eloquently. She eloquently called it the tourist tax. We are here tonight to introduce another tax—in fact the second tax in three pieces of legislation. What a surprise! What a surprise from the Government of no new taxes. Earlier today we had the petrol tax on hard-working Kiwis pushing up the cost of living so that more of these Budget day models will move to Australia across the Ditch and now the tourist tax. We always said that Kiwis cannot trust this Government on tax so now I suppose nobody can trust this Government on tax. As Scott Simpson said there isn't a problem that this Government can't solve with a tax. Basically a quick rundown of what this bill does: to introduce this new tourist tax it collects a tax when visitors apply for visitor visas and those people who come from visitor waiver countries will pay it through the electronic travel authority. Now I want to make this first point very very clearly. On this side of the House we understand that a lot more investment is required in tourism and conservation infrastructure. That's not the question and we've understood this for some time. It's important to say at this point that it's worth noting National's spend in tourism over the last nine years—and it's relevant to this bill Mr Speaker. We funded the Tourism Infrastructure Fund with $100 million over four years. These guys couldn't even spend all of it. We funded the Tourism Growth Partnership with $26 million the Great Walks with $96 million and the national cycleway. Labour have failed in tourism. We have this new tax as I mentioned earlier because unlike the previous National Government frankly this Government when it comes to tourism have been asleep at the wheel. Kelvin Davis has been miserable in his portfolio. In their term so far they haven't put a single cent into tourism. They've shaved money off and they haven't spent what is available for all their grand promises and Clayton Mitchell will remember. He will remember New Zealand First's grand promises of giving the regions back their GST spent by the tourists. Not happening—crickets; nothing at all. Remember Labour's great promises to fund tourism? Well in 18 months they've done absolutely nothing and so now Mr Davis has to put in place a tax to make it look like he's actually doing something. The reality is they collect $1.7 billion every year from tourists in GST. They collected it last year they'll collect it this year and they will collect it next year and rather than responsibly directing some of this massive tax take into tourism the Government are frittering it away as they always do on wasteful spending on failed fees-free policies KiwiBuild—which they don't like to talk about any more—and the Provincial Growth Fund. SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now this is the second warning—the last warning—for the member. ERICA STANFORD: So although they already get billions in tax from international visitors what do we get? We get this bill—a tourist tax grabbing more money from international visitors so that Kelvin Davis can look like he's doing something. There are many problems with the bill that I will traverse but the most important problem with this bill—SPEAKER: Good. ERICA STANFORD: —is quite simply math and it's not Mr Davis' strong subject quite clearly. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) have said in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that $70 million less will be spent in the economy because around about 200000 tourists will pick to go somewhere else and while Kelvin Davis says that $450 million will be taken in tax over the next four years well that's $280 million in lost revenue. So basically that's $70 million in lost revenue to gain $80 million in tax and don't be fooled because the knock-on effect of this tax will be that tourism businesses will take a huge hit—$70 million less in their pockets in their businesses every day by international visitors. That's what MBIE's officials say in the RIS. That's what they're telling us. So it's a reduction in spend of $70 million to collect $40 million that Minister Davis is going to put back into tourism. It is nothing—it's a drop in the bucket—for all of that lost revenue. By the time we take out the administration costs we're essentially raiding money from tourism businesses and tourism operators to turn around so that Mr Davis can hand it back to those who he decides are worthy and I'll go into that in more depth shortly. By the way $40 million doesn't even come close to what the tourism sector actually needs because in the tourism sector they do want more money but overall they don't want this bad legislation because a tourism Minister gets to pick his pet projects. That brings me to my second problem that I have with this bill. It's bad legislation. It's a dog of a bill—it's a flea-ridden mangy dog of a bill—from an incapable and inept Minister who has hurriedly put through this bill. It's an ill-conceived bill that will not achieve the aims that he wants it to. Hon Kris Faafoi: Read it with more passion! ERICA STANFORD: Don't be fooled—I have got lots of passion. Let's hear you get up and give your passion. This legislation isn't legislation to collect tax. It's legislation to give a whole lot of regulations to an incapable Minister that the sector has no confidence in. It's got no checks and balances it's got no scrutiny and it's putting huge power in the Minister and his officials. The legislation describes what the Minister can and can't do by regulation. Basically it's a "do whatever you want" clause. The Minister gets to decide the following and there's a whole list: who pays the tax who's exempt from the tax how much the tax will be how the tax is calculated if different amounts should be paid by different people how the tax will be collected and finally how the money is spent. I read new section 399B(1) in clause 7 of the bill—Hon Tracey Martin: Oh great! ERICA STANFORD: —I know; I read the bill—and I have to say that I felt a little bit relieved when it said that the Minister before making regulations "must consult any persons and organisations that [he] considers appropriate." and I thought "Thank goodness—phew!" But then unfortunately I looked at the next bit—new section 399B(2)—which says that consultation is not required when setting the regulations for the first time. So in making what is effectively tax legislation this Minister can do whatever he likes. If it was a more competent Minister if it was someone like—oh actually if it was just a more competent Minister I'd be feeling a little bit more comfortable but this is a Minister who has a woeful track record. Like I said earlier even the industry had to write to his boss because they want an associate because they're not happy. It's very embarrassing. Here we are putting all of our trust into Minister Davis to decide how much tax will be paid who pays it and how it will be spent with no checks with no balances and with no consultation and it's highly unusual for tax legislation not to be put in primary legislation. This is as loose as a goose. I've got quite a bit more to say but I will put that aside for my speech in the second reading of this bill—Hon Member: I'm looking forward to it. ERICA STANFORD: —which I'm sure everyone is looking forward to which I will read with great passion and I will stick to the bill of course Mr Speaker. Thank you. SPEAKER: Before I call Kiritapu Allan there are two things I want to say. First of all—right at the end—the member won't read her speech in the second reading. The second point is that I have noted that members have been taking photos in here. They've been doing it often this week and other than during maiden speeches. [Interruption] Mr Greg O'Connor I'm talking to you. Members are not to take photos from within the Chamber while the House is sitting."