Twyford Phil: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Twyford Phil: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:677;Page:706] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 Labour supports the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. We voted for it at the first reading we took part in the discussions at the Local Government and Environment Committee and we are happy to support it at this second reading.  
I want to acknowledge the bill’s sponsor Eric Roy the member for Invercargill. It is really an essential part of the great New Zealand democratic tradition that despite the modern reforms of MMP the great New Zealand democratic tradition is about local MPs and local electorates. Not everyone might agree with me but actually that is a very important part of our history and this bill reflects the real desires and aspirations of the people of Stewart Island—  
Eric Roy 
: Kia ora.  
PHIL TWYFORD 
: —Rakiura to you sir—and they have been served well by their MP patiently shepherding this bill through the House. Eric Roy deserves I think congratulations on that. I also want to acknowledge my old select committee chaired by the able Chris Auchinvole the Local Government and Environment Committee—the very collegial and productive committee that saw this bill through the necessary scrutiny.  
I do note that there has been a bit of disgruntlement about how long it has taken to get this bill back to the House and I read in the  
Southland Times 
 that a number of local politicians have been somewhat critical of the delays. Stewart Island ward councillor Bruce Ford Mayor Frana Cardno and the Chief Executive of the Southland District Council David Adamson are all on the record as criticising the delays. In fact one of them said: “[I’ve spent] 30 years on the damn thing”. Well Eric Roy brought it to the House only a couple of years ago. I did note that in the 
 Southland Times 
 it records one Eric Roy also criticising the lengthy delays facing this report.  
So what does the bill do? It creates a mechanism for the Southland District Council to levy visitors to the island of Stewart Island for the purposes of building up a fund that can be used to support the construction of necessary infrastructure: public toilets wharves and other infrastructure that is necessary for visitors to the island. We have all heard that Stewart Island has I think a resident population of between 300 and 400 people. It is a tiny little community in one of our most pristine and most precious parts of New Zealand which is visited by in excess of 35000 maybe 36000 visitors a year. As Mr Roy pointed out there is a growing cruise ship trade. I think all members of the select committee agreed that this was a reasonable and practical request which was worthy of our support.  
I read that ships carrying up to 1400 passengers are now visiting Stewart Island and that is great for the local economy which is very reliant on the tourism trade. The owner of the Kiwi-French crêperie Britt Moore told the  
Southland Times 
 that one day last summer she served 400 cups of coffee in 4 hours to cruise ship visitors. Well after all that coffee being drunk it is very obvious to me that good public toilets are going to be needed around Halfmoon Bay for the visiting tourists.  
I want to touch on some of the issues that we dealt with at the select committee. One of them was the purpose clause. We had the officials redraft the purpose clause to make it absolutely clear that the purpose of this ability to levy a tax on visitors to the island was for the support of necessary tourism infrastructure on the island so that makes it crystal clear that that is what the money has to be spent on. We spent a lot of time on the definition of “visitor” and I think we came up with a pretty good solution which excludes people who live on the island excludes Maori with an interest in Maori land on the island excludes people who are working on the vessels that are taking people to the island and excludes dependants of ratepayers on the island. I am sure we will go through this in more detail in the Committee stage but I believe we came up with a pretty good solution for the definitional issues of the “visitor”.  
Included amongst the amendments was the definition of an “approved operator” which is the people who are bringing these cruise ships into Stewart Island. It allows the flexibility for the council to negotiate with approved operators of these cruise ships so that they can levy the fee through the operator and not have to have a financial transaction with every one of those cruise ship passengers.  
Probably one of the most interesting debates—and to be frank it was never really resolved—was around the issue of whether this law had any kind of precedent value. That was the main objection that we raised at the first reading. It was whether or not what Eric Roy came to this House and asked us to consider would in fact complicate the law regarding the funding of tourism infrastructure around our country and whether or not it would have unintended consequences that we needed to think about. We pondered it long and hard; I am not sure that we came up with any definitive answers.  
I know there were some concerns from officials that there was in fact a precedent being set here and Mr Roy has pointed out that although this is the first arrangement of its kind in New Zealand there are plenty of other such arrangements overseas. I know a number of people have raised the fact that tourism operators in Milford Sound have a kind of levy arrangement but as we were advised it is a voluntary arrangement that they have. Others raised the idea of people having to pay a departure tax at the local airport and it is clearly to be distinguished from that kind of arrangement because departure tax is really a tax for the use of a certain piece of infrastructure whereas what this bill does is give a local authority the power to levy a tax on any visitor to a certain defined territory and as far as I am aware that is not found anywhere else in the law.  
So it is a precedent but what I would say is that it is our duty as lawmakers to address the needs and concerns of the communities that we represent up and down this country and we have to find solutions that are practical effective proportionate and affordable. I think those are the tests and in my view having listened to the submissions and having listened to the advice of the officials at the select committee this bill passes all those tests and I hope that it will satisfy the people of Stewart Island in their desire to have access to a fund that will deliver the kind of infrastructure that they want to provide and that we all want to see provided.  
A number of people have used the idea that $5 per visitor might be the kind of levy that would end up being imposed. I heard the member say that he has not said that and he does not know what it would be. It would need to be properly worked out— 
Eric Roy 
: It won’t be more than that. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: The member says it will not be more than that but for argument’s sake if it was $5 then we are looking at an income stream of about $150000 a year. I think that $150000 a year would provide the basis for a pretty reasonable programme of investment in local infrastructure on the island.  
Back to the question about whether or not this is a precedent I would say that it is a precedent. There is no doubt about that. The real issue is whether it is a good precedent or a bad precedent and only time will tell. But I for one am satisfied and my Labour colleagues are satisfied that this is a good bill. It is worth supporting and we hope that it meets the needs of the people of Rakiura.